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

7. Plan of Action to Strengthen World Food Security (continued)
7. Plan d'action visant à renforcer la sécurité alimentaire mondiale (suite)
7. Plan de Acción para reforzar la Seguridad Alimentaria Mundial (continuación)

CHAIRMAN: (interpretation from Arabic): Before calling on the next speaker, I would like so say that India has given in a written statement to be included in the minutes of this Commission. I think this is a very wise decision that we would like to encourage because, as I said this morning, we only have one session to cover item 8. 1. I am sorry. This statement of the Indian Delegation does not concern this item but World Food Security. I apologize to India.

R. C. SOOD (India) :With regard to national stock targets, the Indian Delegation urges the twenty-six countries which have not already done so, to adopt national targets It would further be necessary for the Committee on World Food Security to undertake a comprehensive review of legislative and other actions taken by all Governments, particularly of developed countries to adopt national targets for cereal stocks and to follow criteria for their management and releases which are consistent with the plan of action.

We would also stress the need for provision of financial aid to developing countries for construction of adequate storage capacity of the requisite standard to enable adoption of national stock policies and then assist in making World Food Security a reality.

India has already built a national stock of 20 million tons of foodgrains to deal with its internal demands. These stocks are managed and released on the basis of national policy. India is also willing to participate fully in the scheme for international coordination of national stocks as recommended in the Undertaking on Food Security. When a suitable arrangement is worked out, India will be in a position to indicate the size of stock it would hold under the international scheme. In the context of the urgent need to adopt national stock policies, the Indian Delegation would like to renew its offer to share our experience and knowledge in the building up and management of buffer stocks with other countries, especially developing countries.

In view of the possibility of world food grain stocks being reduced in the course of 1979-1980, and being insufficient for 1980-1981 if world crops should again be below average, we feel that the Conference should consider requesting the Committee on World Food Security to carry out a special assessment of the levels, distribution and accessibility of world cereal stocks and of their adequacy to meet the likely needs in 1980-1981, bearing in mind the secretariats' estimate of 17-18% of annual consumption of cereals as a desirable minimum safe level of stocks to meet the objectives of world food security.

The Indian Delegation is further of the view that in the context of high world market prices, measures to assist low income, food deficit-countries to meet current import requirements and emergency needs acquire importance. We therefore urge food aid donors to maintain continuity of food aid in real terms in accordance with Point III of the Plan and expect that donor countries will increase their food aid commitments to the levels envisaged in the draft Food Aid Convention. We are concerned over the non-attainment of the annual food aid target of 10 million tons and hope that non-traditional donors will join the Food Aid Convention. In addition, we strongly support the suggestion for additional food aid of 3 million tons to offset the effect of higher prices on the import bill of MSAC's and LDC's if grain prices continue to rule at mid-July 1979 levels.

In so far as the Food Security Assistance Scheme is concerned, though India is not a recipient, it supports the proposal put forward in the Secretariat papers.

India endorses the proposal on collective self-reliance and hopes that the Conference will recommend that member countries in sub-regions vulnerable to food shortages should take all possible initiatives to organize arrangements for assistance iti times of crop shortfalls drawing on the technical reports of FAO and other appropriate international organizations, in which India would be willing to participate and contribute to the success of any regional or sub-regional food security programme. We feel that such programmes, to be viable, would be dependant primarily on the provision of adequate resources.

The establishment of viable regional stock is dependant primarily on the provision of adequate resources. The FAO might take the initiative in fostering such schemes and securing the requisite financial assistance for the participating countries. For most developing countries, participation in a Coordinated System of Reserve Stocks would entail diversion of resources from more urgent development programmes including the programmes for increasing food production. Very few developing countries can afford to do so. Since the constraints of resources in the developing countries are by no means temporary or short-lived, the success of a Coordinated Reserve Scheme would depend on the provision of adequate technical, financial and food resources to the developing countries. Technical know-how is available in many countries and can be provided to others through the FAO's Food Security Assistance Scheme. Additional food reserves, over and above those pledged under the Food Aid Convention need to be provided for building up of stocks in developing countries. Financial resources are needed for construction of storage facilities as well as acquisition of stocks. This can be best arranged through the creation of a Special Fund.

Finally, we suggest that in order to pursue a coordinated approach, the Conference may wish to request the Committee on World Food Security to monitor measures taken at national, regional and international levels under the Plan of Action to evaluate their overall impact on World Food Security and to advise the Council on further action that may be requested ^1/.

^1/ Statement inserted in the verbatim records on request.

8. Preparations for the Special Session of the General Assembly in 1980 and the New International Development Strategy.
8. Preparation de la Session extraordinaire de l'Assemblée generale des Nations Unies en 1980 et Nouvelle strategie internationale du développement.
8. Preparativos para el período extraordinario sesiones de la Asamblea General en 1980 y la Nueva Estrategia Internacional para el Desarrollo.

8. 1 Assessment of Progress Towards the New International Economic Order, including Progress in International Agricultural Adjustment
8. 1 Evaluation des progrès accomplis en ce qui concerne le Nouvel ordre économique international et notamment l'Ajustement agricole
8. 1 Evaluación del progreso alcanzado respecto al Nuevo Orden Economico Internacional, incluidoslos progresos realizados en el reajuste agrícola internacional.

CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabic): I would now like to begin discussion of item 8 of the agenda, concerning preparations for the Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly and the New International Development Strategy. It will be seen that there are two sub-items under this item, 8. 1 and 8. 2. 8. 1 concerns the assessment of progress towards the New International Economic Order, including the progress in International Agricultural Adjustment, As I have just said, we envisage discussing the two points on a separate basis. We shall begin with item 8. 1 and I would like to remind the delegates that there are three documents: C 79/33 concerning the FAO role in the New International Economic Order, C 79/20, International Agricultural Adjustment: Second Progress Report, and the third document is C 79/20-Sup. l.

Before giving the floor to Dr. Nurul Islam for the introduction of this item, I should like to say once again that we have three sessions for item 8, two today and one tomorrow morning. Therefore I propose that the discussion on item 8, 1 should be concluded by the end of this morning's session, thus leaving this afternoon's session and tomorrow morning's for the discussion of item 8. 2.

I think that the Commission will agree on this procedure and also that a number of points concerning agricultural adjustment have already arisen in previous sessions, but of course there are other important points in this item, especially concerning a revision of the guidelines for International Agrucultural Adjustment. I think this is a very important point. I would like to draw attention to this item and also to ask delegates to make very clear comments on it.

There is also another document concerning the difficulties of the Organization in this specific field but I do not think that this will take too much time. These are the points to be discussed this morning and before calling on Dr. Nurul Islam, I would like to remind the members of the Contact Group that they are going to meet now in the Sudan Room.

N. ISLAM (Assistant Director-General, Economic and Social Policy Department): As you have decided I will confine my introduction to agenda item 8, 1. There are two papers on this sub-item one is the "International Adjustment: Second Progress Report", the other is "FAOin the New International Economic Order". This item provides for consideration of activities leading up to the formulation of a new International Development Strategy for which the Conference as the Governing Body of this Organization has been invited to present its views to the General Assembly, The documents which I have cited are therefore intended to provide delegates with an analysis of major developments bearing on food and agriculture in the new International Development Strategy. The Conference in also asked to give its views on proposals by the Director-General for the up-dating and revision of policy guidelines for the international agricultural adjustment which were endorsed by the Conference two Sessions ago in 1975. The existing eleven policy guidelines for international agrucultural adjustment perform a dual role. The first is to provide guidelines, both national and international, which reflect the concensus of the Member Governments on the issues covered by the guidelines. The second is to provide a conceptually comprehensive framework for monitoring and assessing policies and progress in the implementation of policies in the field of food and agriculture on which consensus has already been reached.

With respect to the first set of guidelines relating to production and investment, the report has the following to say:"Even though an increase in food production in developing countries in recent years has shown a distinct improvement over the first few years of the decade, the rate of growth during the last two years, that is 1976/78, was about 2. 7 percent per annum which represents a decline on the corresponding rates in the previous two years which are about 4 percent. This falls far short of the goal of 4 percent annual rate as adopted in DD2".

Insofar as investment in agriculture is concerned there is some evidence that agricultural investment as a proportion of public investment has in many cases been higher in recent years. Evidence on investment in agriculture is too fragmentary and I have already referred to this in my remarks on the State of Food and Agriculture and mentioned our ongoing efforts to collect more information on public Expenditure in agriculture in particular. Undoubtedly past performance in respect of investment in agriculture has to be considerably improved upon. Agricultural productivity and output growth depends not only on capital investment but also on expenditure in current inputs. Available data on these as well are severely restricted. However, whatever evidence is available indicates that there is a rising trend in current expenditures on inputs and this trend must be sustained.

International expenditures on research in agriculture have been on the increase but this needs to be paralleled by an increase in national expenditures in agricultural research. In respect of national policies of developing countries to provide appropriate incentives for farmers, data to monitor and analyse this subject is very limited. Limited or fragmentary evidence indicates that price incentives may have improved a little in the second half of the decade. Insofar as national policies of developed countries are concerned we continue our effort following the matter initiated in our tirst progress report at quantification of the effects of policy interventions on production, consumption and hence trade of a limited number of commodities. The results of these policies have had some destabilizing effect on international trade and in some cases possible adverse effect on the export trade of developing countries.

In respect of progress in the implementation of integrated nutrition policies many governments have been adopting an integrated nutrition programme. The number of countries requesting such assistance from the United Nations Organizations and Agencies continues to increase and the efforts of concerned UN Agencies are being expanded in this area. Insofar as efforts to improve nutritional status of the poor and the vulnerable groups are concerned, there are an increasing number of requests to FAO for support of special programmes. This is an indication of a greater awareness of the problem.

Assistance to member countries involves strengthening the capabilities of national institutions in this programme. In respect of guideline 6 which stresses the importance of promotion of locally produced, originally produced food, the present state of availability of data on the absence of a further refinement of the guideline itself does not allow a clear answer. However, imports of food of the type which seem capable of being produced economically within a number of countries continue to mount. Insofar as trends in the volume of agricultural exports is concerned, the volume of exports of developing countries has increased at a rate lower than that of developed countries since 1975, while the import volume of the developing countries has risen rapidly.

The balance of trade in terms of volume of trade for developing countries has been changing steadily in the direction of smaller surpluses and larger deficits. Insofar as export value of export earnings are concerned, the developing countries have very nearly recovered their share in the value of total world exports in agricultural products to the 1969/71 level. This improvement is mainly due to an improvement in prices rather than volume and for that reason may be very vulnerable to short-term changes. Progress in world food security has already been a subject of extensive discussion in this Commission in the last two days, therefore I will not speak on this subject at all.

In respect of guidelines 10 and 11, that is international assistance for agricultural development, it is well known that the blow of external resources for agricultural development has fallen short of estimated requirements. Though there has been an increase in food aid in recent years the total level of food aid still falls short of the target and there is a need for increase in food aid to a higher figure in the mid-1980s. The Committee on Food Aid has recently adopted guidelines and criteria for food aid which should help to integrate food aid with other forms of external assistance for food and agricultural development.

To summarize the progress report, I can only quote the Committee on Commodity Problems which had occasion to examine this report and which commented that there has been some progress in the direction envisaged by the guidelines but that on the whole the extent of this progress has been extremely limited and its pace slow.

I would like to say a few words on the subject of revision of the guidelines. The need for revision is felt for several reasons: first, in some cases difficulties are encountered in respect of availability of objective indicators or progress. They are illustrated in the document. Second, there are certain issues on which new consensus has emerged such as criteria guidelines for food aid and on problems of world food security. Again, the World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development's programme of action also includes provisions which are relevant to the guidelines. In fact the 1977 FAO Conference in its report referred to suggestions regarding elaborations or revisions of guidelines 9, 10 and 11.

Thirdly, the guidelines need to incorporate the components of international development strategy for the third development decade relating to food and agriculture. The new development strategy is expected to be completed before the guidelines are revised.

The addendum to this paper sets out in section 3 a possible schedule for revisions of the guidelines. In brief the Secretariat's draft revisions, prepared with the assistance of independent experts, would be circulated to governments around the end of next year. Following the precedent of the original formulation of the guidelines these draft revisions would be examined by an ad hoc working party of government representatives in the Spring of 1981 with the results presented to the Conference at the end of that year. While we would welcome the views of delegates on substantive aspects of revision of the guidelines, at this moment we rather seek your decision on the proposal that they should be revised, and if so, the procedures and the timetable which is envisaged.

As I mentioned earlier there is a second document for this agenda item. This supplements the analysis of substantive progress towards the New International Economic Order given in the Agricultural Adjustment Report with an account of some of the main FAO activities contributing to the New International Economic Order. There is no need for me to summarize these activities since they will already be familiar to the distinguished delegates. The FAO activities in promoting the New International Economic Order cover a wide range following its rew orientation of activities since 1976. Prominent among these is the strengthening of FAO's work in the field of investment through assistance in the identification and preparation of projects as well as its Technical Cooperation Programme designed to meet small-scale requests for assistance with its attendant multiplier effect on investment in food and agricultural development. The recently concluded WCARRD made an important contribution by adopting an action programme to promote inter-linked changes in rural institutions, national development policies and in the international economic system. FAO's Action Programme and Special Purpose Programmes also contribute to the implementation of the NIEO. They cover among others management and development of exclusive economic zones for fisheries, food security assistance programmes, seed development, prevention of post-harvest losses, control of animal disease, support to UNCTAD and work on economic cooperation among developing countries and technical cooperation among developing countries. These activities lie at the heart of the NIEO. As Resolution 33/198 of the United Nations General Assembly invites FAO, the Conference may therefore wish to request the Director-General to transmit its report on this item to the General Assembly for consideration at its Special Session and for possible use in connexion with any other global negotiations on international economic cooperation which the General Assembly may decide to launch.

The Conference may also decide to request FAO to present the two documents C 79/20 and C 79/33 before you.

CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabic): Now, Gentlemen, you have heard Dr. Islam's introduction on item 8. 1. I would like to open the list of speakers and remind you that we can only spend one session on this particular item of the agenda and I would like to draw your attention to the different elements of the Secretariat's paper.

MS. M. LOSEBY-VENZI (Italy) : I am grateful, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity you have given me to express appreciation of the Italian delegation for a well-balanced assessment of progress in international agriculture adjustment contained in document C 79/20. The systematic analysis of recent achievement in the directions indicated by the Guidelines is admirable, especially so when one considers the difficulties inherent in establishing appropriate statistical indicators for the estimation of certain trends, and the necessity at times for judicious and informed qualitative interpretation.

The Italian delegation would welcome specific proposals for reformulation of some of the Guidelines which facilitate objective monitoring, and is particularly concerned that ambiguity in interpretation should be reduced to a minimum.

The problem of increasing food production remains, but although we share the general disappointment that the overall target of 4 percent annual average increase in production has not been met, we are glad to note the accelerated rate of increase in low-income countries from 1974 onwards.

This achievement should and must further the attempts being made to increase standards of nutrition among the poorer sections of the population. In this respect the suggestions put forward in the Appendix to document C 79/20 regarding the revision of Guideline 4 appear interesting. We welcome the suggestions for taking into account a range of deviations from national average per caput consumption. At the same time, however, we should like to learn more from the Secretariat about the feasibility of obtaining data at a level of accuracy sufficient to allow the monitoring of quantities of quantified targets for food intake.

We are also in agreement with the proposal specifically to include children amongst vulnerable groupes in Guideline 5.

The inadequate flow of investment resources to agriculture has been a recurring theme in FAO documents. We appreciate the difficulties in collecting accurate and standardized information about levels of agricultural investment, and we should be interested in seeing the results of the recent initiatives to improve the availability of such data.

We also feel that it is not sufficient simply to measure the overall total of agricultural investment. The effectiveness in terms of greater production or productivity does not necessarily depend on the magnitude of the financial outlay, but rather on the appropriateness of the particular type of investment selected for a different environment.

At the World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development the importance of adapting technology to improve rather than to overthrow traditional forms of cultivation was recognized. Experience in certain sectors of Italian agriculture has shown that minor and relative low-cost innovations applied to traditional methods of farming have greatly improved productivity. We feel that it may be useful to bear in mind this principle in presenting a breakdown of the overall figures for agricultural investment. It may also be informative to examine the correlation between increased productivity and the level of investment in agriculture at different levels of disaggregation-with due regard, of course, for the time lag to be expected in the realization of benefits deriving from major as opposed to marginal investments.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I should like to assure you of the continuing support of the Italian Government for the efforts being made to overcome the problems of poverty and malnutrition.

D. RICHTER (Germany, Fed. Rep. of) (interpretation from German): To begin with I would like to congratulate the Secretariat on the very clear Second Progress Report on the strategy of International Agricultural Adjustment. The Report concentrates on the main developments and problems.

With respect to Guidelines 1 to 6 I can be brief, because we have already discussed under item 6 of the Agenda important subjects which these Guidelines are dealing with. The recommendationsof the World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development as well as of the World Food Council should be an incentive to further efforts to give the necessary priority to agriculture within the framework of the overall planning in developing countries.

With respect to Guidelines 7 to 9 I should like to state the following: the development during this past decade has led to a substantial expansion of trade in agricultural products. Sufficient quantities were available on a world-wide basis. Developing countries have been able to cover their import requirements. They have also been able to increase their export earnings and also to expand substantially the export volume at least for processed products. My country belongs to the greatest importers of agricultural commodities in the world. The imports of the Federal Republic of Germany from developing countries have continuously increased and to an overproportional extent. Developing countries meanwhile supply more than half of our agricultural commodities imported from outside the European Economic Community. An assessment of the situation in the trade sector must also take account of aspects to which other Conference documents refer where it is said that developing countries increasingly need their agricultural production for their own supply or need increasing imports to cover requirements. The importance of trade between developing countries is emphasized as well as the need to expand that trade. My Government fully share this view.

With respect to the multilateral trade negotiations I think that we can assess the results as a matter of principle in a positive way. The measures negotiated to facilitate trade in the tariff and non-

tariff sector will effectively promote trade. Also in the agricultural sector the results cannot be described only as modest as stated in document C 79/33. The interests of developing countries are considered above all by the preferential treatment of tropical products, by exemption provisions in some arrangements as well as by the renouncement to a large extent of reciprocal commitments. The instruments created with the agreements on milk products and beef, improve international cooperation and underline the common responsibility of importing and exporting countries for a better functioning of world markets. Within the framework of the Generalized System of Preferences the European Economic Community is continuously improving the unilateral tariff facilities for processed agricultural products from developing countries. As from 1979 custom duties on these agricultural products have been entirely suspended in favour of the least developed countries. The steady improvement of this system alone has led to the fact that the value of imports to the Federal Republic of Germany from developing countries of agricultural products favoured by this System rose from DM 234 million in 1974 to DM 700 million in 1977 or 300 percent. The decisions taken by UNCTAD 5 on trade and commodities have successfully promoted the negotiations for individual products of the integrated commodity programme. Negotiations concerning details of the common fund will presumably be completed by the end of this year.

With respect to Guidelines 7 to 9 I think that we can say the balance sheet for the past few years is positive as a whole. Not all the developing countries are satisfied with the development. Some wish that industrialized countries would import more of their agricultural commodities. My country, a member of the EEC, is taking active steps within the common agricultural policy that the special interests of developing countries are taken into account and that access to the Community Market is improved for these countries. Quite a lot of progress has already been made and more progress will be made, if all countries are prepared to cooperate and to recognize the special situation of their partners. Therefore, the statement in paragraph 108 of the document, does not seem fair to me that developed countries are unable to react to the needs of food security or the interests of developing countries. I feel that the actual development and what I have just said prove the contrary.

I should also like to add two remarks on Guideline 10. I have already mentioned under agenda item 6 the measures of my Government to increase cooperation with developing countries. Paragraph 88 of the document quite rightly also underlines private investment. The private capital transfer plays an increasingly important role in covering the external financial requirements of developing countries.

As already stated at the 19th Session of the Conference, I feel obliged to draw attention again to an imprecise statement in paragraphs 86 and 87 of document C 79/20. The World Food Council has not agreed to a specific target for external assistance.

With respect to the progress report I should like to support the clear statement in paragraph 109 of the document that agricultural adjustment must not be considered in an isolated way but as an integrated part of political, economic and social development, at the national as well as the international level.

I should like to make a few more comments about possible amendments to the Guidelines. My Government was a little surprised that proposals for amendments had already been submitted to the Committee on Commodity Problems. I think we should not consider amendments until we have looked at the results of the debate on this progress report in this Conference. The existing guidelines reflect a comprehensive consensus of all FAO Member States reached after thorough discussions in various bodies of FAO. They contain statements of principle with respect to the promotion of agriculture and nutrition as well as international cooperation. Any amendments, therefore, should be examined very closely indeed so that the balance in the statements is not shifted. My Government from the very beginning had doubts to burden these guidelines with concrete targets and quantifications changing in the course of development. They should rather provide a permanent and long-term basis for development assessment. That does not at all exclude the possibility of progress reports being oriented by targets and quantifications on which agreement has been reached in FAO or another forum. This is true, for example, for possible new targets in the international strategy for the next development decade.

My delegation feels that it would not be advisable to further differentiate the guidelines, for example, by country groups and certain subject matters or to include further targets and quantifications in the guidelines. I am thinking in particular of the proposals made regarding Guidelines 4 and 7. I think there is no reliable basis for this. The Committee on Agriculture at its last session has thoroughly dealt with nutrition and food consumption and made important recommendations. It did not, however, see any need and possibility to set specific targets.

On the trade side, too, global targets would be of no great help. It is rather more important to analyse the development to find the reasons and causes in order to be able to take subsequent action.

The document suggests that thought should be given to the formulation of further guidelines. The subjects mentioned in this respect are already covered in substance by the existing 11 guidelines so that I see no need for drawing up new guidelines.

My delegation feels that the guidelines that we have before us continue to be a solid basis and should be amended only if, after thorough examination, fundamentally new developments require this. Improvements in the formulations might, however, be appropriate; for example, we could amend the wording in Guideline 3 so as to explain the target set a little more clearly.

H. FARAJ (Maroc): L'analyse des progrès de l'ajustement agricole international a suscité l'intérêt de la délégation de mon pays. Quelques observations semblent cependant devoir être exprimées sur le diagnostic ainsi formulé tant sur le plan de la méthodologie que sur celui du contenu même du diagnostic.

En ce qui concerne le premier point, la méthodologie, de manière générale, il semble qu'il y aurait intérêt chaque fois que c'est possible à caractériser les progrès réalisés dans chaque ligne d'orientation par une évaluation chiffrée. Dans le cas où une ligne d'orientation recouvre des objectifs multiples, des groupes d'indicateurs secondaires pourraient être définis afin de préciser l'évolution de la ligne.

Je prendrais comme exemple la ligne 2 concernant le flux total des ressources financières à la production agricole; s'il paraît difficile actuellement de chiffrer de manière précise et comparable le taux global d'investissements en agriculture, il semble par contre possible d'estimer le flux d'intrants intervenant directement dans les exploitations agricoles: engrais, crédits, semences, matériels agricoles. On disposerait ainsi d'indicateurs qui donneraient de manière précise et fidèle les progrès de l'intensification agricole.

Par ailleurs, il serait peut-être possible de rapporter ces indicateurs à des normes de références, ce qui alors permettrait d'apprécier le niveau des progrès réalisés dans chaque ligne d'orientation. Pour reprendre l'exemple de la ligne 2, il serait bon de rapporter la valeur globale d'input dont bénéficient directement les exploitations agricoles à une valeur de référence qui serait celle que l'on juge nécessaire pour atteindre et pour optimaliser la production agricole.

Le deuxième point qui concerne le contenu du diagnostic: la lecture attentive du document incite à se poser des questions, par exemple celle de savoir s'il n'est pas souhaitable d'apprécier ou d'évaluer d'autres composantes de l'ajustement agricole international, en particulier celle qui permettrait de juger des raisons qui font que l'ajustement international ne progresse pas au rythme voulu.

Afin de tenir compte des recommandations de la Conférence sur la Réforme agraire et le Développement rural, une attention particulière devrait être accordée aux questions relatives aux structures d'exploitations, à leur degré d'organisation, aux infrastructures de type social intéressant la santé et l'éducation, et ce, parce qu'en définitive, le principal moteur du développement agricole est, , comme il est dit dans les documents généraux, les agriculteurs eux-mêmes.

D. R. SHARMA (Nepal): This is not the first time that we have discussed the problems of and the needs for establishing a new international economic order and this is not the only forum where the topic has been discussed. In the United Nations there has been lengthy discussion, as also in the Conference of Non-Aligned Nations and in UNCTAD. Despite these deliberations, the outcome so far remains far from satisfactory. We heard about it the other day from the President of Zambia, H. E. Kenneth Kaunda, who very candidly analyzed the situation of developed and developing countries and the way in which the spirit of a new international economic order could be well established. He even mentioned that instead of an arms limitation treaty there should be a global hunger elimination treaty, thereby fulfilling the aspirations of a new international economic order in a true sense.

We also believe that unless and until serious efforts are made to accept the realities, the vast differences that exist between rich and poor countries will be detrimental for world peace and the concept of "live and let live." The world has witnessed the problems associated with and the need for the judicious use and sharing of natural resources. Nepal has a tremendous amount of water as a natural resource. We are ready to share this major resource for the mutual benefit of the countries around the area.

We have also seen that no country possesses an inviolable right, and the strength, to deny a rightful share of international wealth. The developing countries, which are mainly the producers of raw materials and other primary goods, should not be denied their legitimate share of international trade. Here again we heard the Zambian President, expressing concern about the problems of international trade causing a pitiful situation for the developing countries.

Existing trade barriers and the dominance of multinationals in international trade are in our view some of the major stumbling blocks of achieving the goals of the New International Economic Order.

R. MYNIEC (Poland): Yesterday and the day before we discussed in a very profound way the Plan of Action to strengthen world food security. With deep concern the Director-General made the introductory statement and delegates expressed views on this item of fundamental significance. It was quite clear at the conclusion of the debate that without a higher rate of growth in food production in the world, and in developing countries especially, those countries which suffer the largest deficits of food supplies, there would be no chance of any progress whatsoever. It is therefore very appropriate and fortunate that as the next item on the agenda we are discussing the New International Development Strategy, the New International Economic Order and International Agricultural Adjustment. Without satisfactory progress in the objectives contained within the framework of the documents under consideration during the session, one can hardly think about the strengthening of world food security. There is therefore no doubt at all that all efforts must be concentrated on the elaboration of constructive proposals, which should be implemented in the least possible complicated way and in the shortest possible time.

It must be remembered, however, that FAO, like other international organizations, can only offer advice, cooperation and help. In the end it is up to the government whether it will remain a dead letter. It has to be remembered also that help from outside, both multilateral and bilateral, can only supplement national resources and can never replace them. Such at least is the strong conviction of my delegation.

Permit me to now make reference to some of the guidelines of the analyzed document (C 79/20). I do not intend to repeat the contents of previous statements, including the address of my Minister to the Plenary session. I shall try to introduce as well some aspects, especially those already implemented by my country.

Guideline 7 (tables 14 and 15 on pages 20 and 21) indicates that the share of developing countries in world agricultural exports has continued to decline. On the other hand imports of agricultural prod-ucts show the opposite tendency. Bearing in mind that agricultural products are the main source of foreign exchange for many developing countries, the above-mentioned trend indicates a growing dependence on the part of developing countries on the markets of developed countries. This fact indicates the necessity for determined measures to be taken. Improvement of this situation must be sought, taking into account a wide scale of different factors. One of them, certainly of great importance, is the market access for products originating from developing countries. One must admit that a great obstacle against international trade is the protectionist policy of some of the developed countries. Unfortunately, in spite of widespread criticism of this policy, there are no indications that the existing protectionist barriers will be at least alleviated. Hence the important role played by UNCTAD and GATT in endeavouring to facilitate access to world markets for agricultural products.

My country keeps close contact with international organizations, and actively participates in their work tending to change this abnormal situation from the point of view of the international division of labour. It seems worth mentioning nevertheless that the developing countries themselves should also contribute more by strengthening their endeavours to improve the quality of goods, better phytosanitary conditions and to secure more efficient marketing methods.

In Guideline 8, the figures presented indicate that much is to be done in respect of world food security, stability of markets, and the assuring of prices which are remunerative to producers and fair to consumers. In this respect, multilateral commodity agreements, the progress of negotiations in which is unfortunately very slow, could play a very important role. I can assure you that Poland participates in almost all these negotiations, and intends to join these agreements, subject to just and satisfactory conditions for all partners. Furthermore, Poland is a member of 15 international organizations and associations on agricultural commodities, which contribute to the stabilization and better organization of those markets.

I must also mention here the other forms of cooperation in which my country participates, and which certainly bring the required progress to the markets concerned, contributing to better stability in the agricultural sector. Poland maintains direct official trade relations with over 70 developing countries. With about 20 of these countries we base our cooperation on long term trade agreements. Such agreements specify the lists of commodities to be traded in the determined period of time. In the framework of our trade agreements, we often conclude long-term commercial contracts. We are of the opinion that such a policy of direct trade and long term contracts is the best stabilizing factor on commodity markets, and we would recommend wider popularization of this form of cooperation. It is also a way of eliminating unnecessary intermediaries who often take quite substantial margins of profit, and introduce disorder to markets by speculative manipulation.

My delegation agrees with the conclusions of Guideline 10, dealing with the transfer to developing countries of resources and technology required for the expansion of their production of food and other agricultural commodities. We however emphasize the importance of closer bilateral and intergovernmental cooperation. As I mentioned before, Poland is participating in direct cooperation with many countries, offering and securing the services of experts and technology. This activity is based on the principle of mutual cooperation, benefitting all partners concerned.

A. FERNANDEZ GONZALEZ (España) : Deseo agradecer a la Secretaría, y al Dr. Islam en particular, el esfuerzo de síntesis efectuado en el documento 79/20, que presenta el segundo Informe sobre los progresos en el proceso de reajuste agrícola internacional. No se trata, ciertamente, de un Informe optimista, puesto que hasta la fecha todos los intentos para organizar un nuevo orden economico internacional, como resultado de una insatisfacción general con el orden antiguo, están progresando solo lentamente, y el caso es que mi delegación sigue estando de acuerdo con el espíritu general de las 11 orientaciones para el reajuste agrícola internacional.

Con respecto a las orientaciones primera y segunda, aunque hay indicios de que en determinados países en desarrollo se está dando una mayor importancia a las inversiones agroalimentarias, no parece que ésta haya sido la tónica general de los países del Grupo, como lo prueban sus crecientes dependencias alimentarias. Esta creciente dependencia exterior representa un problema crítico para el equilibrio de las balanzas de pagos de muchos países en desarrollo no exportadores de petróleo, que en conjunto necesitan dos tercios de las importaciones de alimentos del mundo en desarrollo y se están viendo obligados a acumular cifras de endeudamiento sin precedentes.

Con respecto a las orientaciones 8 y 9, el acuerdo sobre los elementos fundamentales del Fondo Común del Programa Integrado de Productos Básicos debería marcar una etapa política en el diálogo Norte-Sur en lo que se refiere a la serie de productos agrarios en él contemplados. Aunque no es una solución en sí mismo, la existencia del Fondo refleja la voluntad internacional de instrumentar políticas y medios para una mayor estabilización de los mercados y precios agrarios internacionales.

Por parte de los países en desarrollo, parece observarse también una tendencia a reorientar sus exportaciones hacia productos que no sean directamente similares a los exportados por los países industrializados, siendo cada vez mayor la proporción de productos agrarios elaborados en la composición de las exportaciones totales, lo cual es, a mi juicio, también una forma de reajuste en los porcesos de intercambio.

El propósito, señor Presidente, del marco normativo del reajuste agrícola internacional, que no sería propiamente un programa de acción, debería consistir principalmente en moderar las fuertes oscilaciones en las actitudes y en los programas nacionales de producción e intercambios agrarios, que resultarían de no tener en cuenta el hecho incuestionable de la interdependencia global. Cada vez se abre más camino la idea de que para alcanzar los objetivos del reajuste agrícola, es menester modificar también, como sea preciso, las políticas conexas en otros sectores. Por ejemplo, tanto los países desarrollados, como los países en desarrollo, se verán obligados a crear nuevos empleos en sectores no agrarios si sus propios sectores tienen que plegarse a las exigencias de un reajuste productivo agrícola para permitir que se produzcan mejoras en el comercio agrario y sectores afines como las industrias alimentarias, transportes, industrias de insumos, etc.

Es preciso, por consiguiente, que el reajuste agrícola no se programe aisladamente, sino que debe incluir un consenso sobre la introducción de mejoras en las relaciones económicas y políticas internacionales.

Señor Presidente, en los preparativos para la nueva Estrategia Internacional de Desarrollo no podemos seguir pensando que lo unico oportuno hoy día es hacer frente, con medidas coyunturales de urgencia, a una grave problemática mundial asentada sobre el trípode de la inflación, el desempleo y la carestía energética. Porque creo que sólo mediante unas políticas concertadas de reajustes estructurales, más positivos que hasta ahora, y orientadas a medio y largo plazo, podrá contrarrestarse el efecto nocivo que aquellas cuestiones puedan estar teniendo sobre nuestras posibilidades de desarrollo nacional. Me. parece evidente que tales modificaciones han de comenzar a producirse cuanto antes en las estructuras productivas, económicas, sociales e institucionales del mundo rural, teniendo en cuenta de modo particular los criterios y el programa de acción definidos por la Conferencia Mundial de Reforma Agraria y Desarrollo Rural.

Entiendo que sólo así podremos formular una serie de orientaciones válidas para el próximo decenio, que permitan conseguir ese giro progresivo hacia políticas más eficaces para el fomento del desarrollo rural, generando más ingresos y creando más puestos de trabajo. Porque durante los años ochenta sigue siendo verdad que se precisa un considerable esfuerzo financiero y de cooperación técnica para ampliar y diversificar la producción agraria de los países menos desarrollados, y fomentar también el consumo de las producciones locales que sean aptas para su adecuada nutrición.

La delegación de España, señor Presidente, ha mantenido en la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas, la tesis de que en lugar de un largo texto de nueva Estrategia con objetivos concretos como los que se aprobaron con motivo de la primera y segunda Estrategia, deberá redactarse para esta tercera un texto más conciso, pero con orientaciones generales.

Consideramos que la Asamblea General extraordinaria de 1980 debe lanzar una negociación global sobre puntos concretos en el campo de la agricultura, de la industrialización, de la energía, de la financiación del desarrollo, etc. Y las orientaciones de la Estrategia para el tercer decenio servirían de guía para tales negociaciones concretas. En consecuencia, estimamos, que la FAO debería presentar, en la esfera de su competencia, las correspondientes propuestas y directrices de reajuste agrario internacional, tanto al Comité Preparatorio, como a los Comités que se establezcan para la preparación de las negociaciones globales.

Como ya expresó en la Plenaria el jefe de la delegación española, cabe pensar que una buena aportación de la FAO durante el próximo decenio, sería que ésta efectuara de modo sistemático un ejercicio de seguimiento y de evaluación de los progresos realizados sobre agricultura y alimentación, en relación con los objetivos que defina la nueva Estrategia, elaborando para ello la serie de indicadores cuantitativos y cualitativos más pertinentes.

A. B. CAWTHORN (United Kingdom) : It is the opinion of the United Kingdom Delegation that the exercise of reviewing progress on International Agricultural Adjustment is somewhat inconclusive for two reasons. First, many of the guidelines are too vague and imprecise for any real assessment of progress to be made. In our opinion this is notably so for guidelines 3, 4, 5 and 6. Secondly, the time period examined is too short in most instances to distinguish longer term trends from cyclical fluctuations.

For example, the report notes that food production increases, although they have not reached the 4 percent per annum target, are significantly greater than in the early years of this decade. It cannot be shown by a report of this nature whether this is as a result of improved agricultural policies or whether it is a result of consecutive years of good weather. Similarly, the food aid target of 10 million tons is being approached but it remains to be seen whether it would be maintained at this level in the event of a repeat of the food crisis of 1974.

The report also notes the fairly slow progress in the field of adjustment as, for instance, in the reduction of protectionism in developed countries or greater investment in agriculture in developing countries. There has been only limited progress in the establishment of stocks under the International Undertaking on World Food Security and stabilization measures have been set back by the breakdown of negotiations for a new International Grains Arrangement.

The United Kingdom accepts that a revision of guidelines is an acceptable principle: some of them require to be made less vague in order to become more meaningful without, at the same time, committing to paper too many quantitative targets which might obscure the wood for the trees. At the same time, we have reservations about the need to review, and the value of reviewing, the guidelines at the present time. We recognize that they may contain some weaknesses, but we consider that it would not be profitable to undertake an extensive review so early in their lifetime. We consider it would be advisable to delay any precipitate action until the effects of the present guidelines have been considered in the light of the latest report, and at the same time until we have had an opportunity to give careful consideration to the Secretariat's view on the possible nature of, and proposed schedule for revisions as recorded in Document C 79/20-Sup. l.

As there has already been some discussions on the detail of the individual guidelines in Document C 79/20, I would like to make one or two specific points.

In Guideline 1 in paragraph 19 some disaggregation of this target rate of growth in agricultural production is desirable, bearing in mind the difference between developing countries in general and their agricultural sectors in particular. There could also be some link between the target rate of growth, suitably disaggregated, and nutritional requirements, or perhaps more general determinants of food demand in the groups of countries in question. I appreciate, however, that this might lead to some overlap with guidelines 4 and 5. But on guideline 4 in paragraph 44 we feel that the present guideline is a short, succinct statement, applicable to all countries and comprehensible to politicians and to policy makers. Any attempt to introduce a target figure relating to a rate at which extra dietary energy should be made available per caput is likely to lead to a confusion and resistance to the political commitment implied by such a guideline, and the political consequences of any failure to meet the set target. It is our opinion that as it stands guideline 4 is too important to be made controversial.

Guidelines 7 to 8 in paragraphs 59 to 71 deal with access to imports from developing countries and to the control and the disposal of surplus production. The United Kingdom recognizes the effects on world trade of large-scale exports of surpluses and of excessively protectionist policies, and within the

Community we recognize our commitments to, for example, New Zealand; we are opposed to excessive protectionism against imports of commodities which the Community cannot itself produce or produce in sufficient quantity, such as hard wheat; we are committed to oppose over-production leading to surpluses which can be disposed of only on the world market, but we recognize that such disposal will be necessary while over-production persists. A more explicit description of what "adequate measures" might encompass might be desirable, and clear definitions of "prices remunerative to producers and fair to consumers" in the original guideline would be equally useful.

On Guideline 11 in paragraph 91, if any attempt to revise this guideline is made, we would point out that it is not for the FAO Conference to decide on a target figure. This should be done by the Committee on Food Aid Policies and Programmes.

The table on page 14 of Document C 79/20, showing estimated national effects of policy intervention measures of major developed market economies is an interesting table, but it would be useful to know how it has been constructed. It might also be worthwhile, however, to include in the table some measure of the level of world trade in the commodities in question to gain an idea of the relative importance on world trade of the intervention measures for each commodity.

One final point: in the second sentence of Document C 79/20, paragraph 78, the drafting is a little ambiguous as no agreement exists at present for bananas.

In closing, in spite of my making reference to possible changes to certain guidelines, I would like to reiterate the view which I expressed at the beginning of this intervention. The United Kingdom considers that it would not be advisable for the Secretariat to embark on a revision of the guidelines at this early stage of their life.

CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabic) : It might be appropriate and useful to remind delegates once more that I have asked them that when they come to comment on any item, particularly the item today, to pay attention to giving their views on any amendments to the guidelines for Agricultural Adjustment.

The second point is that they should clarify their views on the measures and on the timing for the reconsideration of the guidelines. Naturally, delegates are not being asked, particularly at this stage, to comment on the quality of the amendment required but they should comment from an objective point of view and mention their views in this regard, as it would help a great deal in identifying different viewpoints when summarizing views on this item.

M VANDEPUTTE (Belgique): Ma delegation a examiné avec attention le rapport sur les progrès de l'ajustement agricole ainsi que les propositions de révision des lignes d'orientation Nous pensons qu'il est prématuré d'entamer une procédure de révision des lignes d'orientation elles-mêmes.

Dans les propositions du document C 79/20, il y a trois choses: il y a d'une part la redéfinition ou la précision de certains critères objectifs; la sélection ou l'amélioration des indicateurs; il y a d'autre part une possibilité d'ajuster l'une ou l'autre des nouvelles lignes d'orientation pour des problèmes ou des domaines non couverts au moment où la Conférence a adopté les lignes actuelles. Il y a enfin la révision éventuelle des lignes d'orientation elles-mêmes

Or, si nous considérons que le présent document C 79/20 est centré sur une courte période et que d'autre part l'objectif de la stratégie du développementetde la sécurité alimentaire est une opération intégrée et à long terme, alors améliorons les indicateurs, précisons entre nous les critères d'appréciation, tout cela nous aidera pour l'avenir. Mais ne commençons pas à modifier les lignes elles-mêmes et, avec elles, les objectifs sur lesquels nous nous étions mis d'accord laborieusement. Ajoutons même une nouvelle ligne sur les relations entre le développement rural, la sécurité alimentaire et les conclusions de la Conférence sur la réforme agraire. Cela complétera notre examen et enrichira notre jugement; mais ne bouleversons pas les données actuelles avant de les avoir réellement utilisées.

MRS. SAODAH SYAHRUDDIN (Indonesia): Mr. Chairman, my delegation observed with appreciation document C 79/20 prepared by the Secretariat, presenting the Second Progress Report on International Agricultural Adjustment.

My delegation is very concerned to learn that evidence from monitoring of the individual guidelines, which define the strategy for international agricultural adjustment suggests, that since the last report there has been some limited progress in the areas of external assistance to agriculture, the level of food security stocks and the flow of food aid which still falls notably short of the target. The rate of growth of agricultural production in developing countries has in the last two years been above the average for the decade as a whole, but has also been insufficient to meet the objectives of the strategy. Little has occurred in the field of trade that has contributed directly to the process of adjustment.

Adjustment in agriculture cannot take place in isolation from other developments. Improvements in economic and political relationships at the international level together with the stimulus of growth and development at the national level are essential for the process to continue. The broader problems of the lack of employment growth and the continuation of high levels of inflation hinder agricultural developments. The perpetuation of poverty and the maldistribution of incomes put limits on the influences of agricultural and nutritional programmes. The failure of countries to define and agree on adequate steps towards a new world order pervades international discourse in agricultural matters In this respect agricultural adjustment is conditioned by progress in other fields; such progress is essential in the future if the agricultural strategy is to be successful.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, my delegation would like to support the thoughts suggested in document C 79/20, to reformulate the guidelines to focus on more clearly defined policy goals or objectives.

R. IBARGUREN (Argentina): En primer lugar desearla destacar que, si bien debido a la carencia de algunos documentos respectivos al tema 8, no hemos podido proceder al análisis total de los mismos; mi delegación reitera, en lo que se refiere a los preparativos para el período extraordinario de sesiones de la Asamblea General en 1980, y la Nueva Estrategia Internacional para el Desarrollo, lo manifestado por la representación argentina ante las Naciones Unidas en la reunión del Comité Preparatorio de la Estrategia Internacional para el Desarrollo, que se llevó a cabo en el mes de abril del corriente año, y que se puede resumir en los siguientes enunciados: La Estrategia Internacional para el Desarrollo debe contribuir a alcanzar los objetivos de un Nuevo Orden Económico Internacional y, no solamente, a lograr el crecimiento económico. Se realiza al igual que el conjunto de los países latinoamericanos la estrategia y necesidades básicas y el concepto de graduación, debido a que no es aceptable que a los justos reclamos de los países en desarrollo con respecto a lograr cambios estructurales en la economía mundial, se responda con recetas de política interna tendientes a satisfacer las necesidades de nuestros propios pueblos.

Con respecto al subteasa 8. 1, debo analizar el contenido del documento C 79/20 y mi Gobierno felicita a la FAO por la valiosa información que aporta en relación a sus distintas orientaciones, y manifiesto en su nombre nuestra conformidad con el mismo en lo que atañe al informe sobre la situación del reajuste agrícola internacional.

S. A. PARVEZ (Pakistan): First of all, my delegation would like to thank Dr. Nurul Islam for his able introduction. We have read document C 79/33 and C 79/20 with great interest and are appreciative of all that The Director-General and FAO are doing in the effort to make the attainment of the New International Economic Order a reality. We would in this context specially like to mention FAO's Programme of Work and Budget for the next biennium which includes FAO's Action Programmes and Special Action Programmes and the Declaration of Principles, and Programme of Action of the World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development. We look forward to the follow-up action and hope that the envisaged results are achieved. There is no doubt that it will take a concerted and a mutual and joint effort of both the developed and developing, countries to achieve the desired goal. We have also noted the steps taken by FAO to gear itself better to meet the needs of the developing countries and the challenge of the world food crisis. We feel that FAO is today better equipped and well poised to meet the challenges of the future within the frame-work of the New International Economic Order.

We commend and fully support in this regard the Technical Cooperation Programme of FAO. We also have closely studied the new orientations of FAO's work and the changes of emphasis in activities to bring about greater responsiveness to the needs of Member Countries in the context of the concepts underlying the New International Economic Order.

There is no doubt that FAD has a vital role to play in the development strategy of the 1980s and the attainment of the NIEO. The importance of international agricultural adjustment in this contest cannot be overemphasized as the world's food and agriculture system must meet the challenge of providing for the expanding food needs and for the requirements of other sectors in the face of rapidly changing economic conditions.

The delegations which have spoken so far have covered various aspects of these issues and we would not like to repeat them. We would however like to say that the New International Economic Order calls for fundamental changes in the structure of the world economy with a view to removing the imbalance and inequalities in the economic relations between the developed and developing countries. No meaningful international action has unfortunately been taken so far to alleviate the consequences of the international economic crisis for the developing countries, especially the poorest, and most seriously affected amongst them Aid levels have remained stagnant or even declined and nothing has been done to resolve the problem of their massive and growing debt burden. The brunt of the world economic crisis has been borne by the non-oil-producing developing countries especially the poorest amongst them. They face chronic and large balance of payments deficts and increasing debt problems. Ensuring food needs and eradicating all the problems of poverty, hunger and malnutrition are indeed fundamental objectives of the NIEP and need to be examined in this context. Despite the fact that a lot has been done over the past two decades at both the national as well as the international level to improve the food and nutrition situation, yet no real break-through has so far been achieved. While we feel certain that developing countries within their resource constraints are trying to do as best they can at the national level, there is tremendous need and scope for the FAO, donor agencies and the developed countries to angment this effort through assistance to the MSA countries and LDCs. We can suggest the following fields for assistance in this regard! firstly, financing of research programmes aimed at evolving high-yielding varieties and especially the legume crops; secondly, assistance for the provision of food storage, cold storage and fruit and vegetable processing facilities so that food losses can be avoided at thirdly, help in stimulating the fuller utilization of fisheries through the application of modem technology? fourthly, the provision of superior genetic strains of livestock in order to increase the availability of animal protein; fifthly, the extension of technical assistance for training to agriculturalists, nutritionists and scientists so that nutrition-related problems could be solved and sixthly, assistance for conducting detailed surveys based on nutrition and socio-economic aspects to depict household food consumption and budgetary expenditure which will help in overall planning and especially nutrition planning in the countries concerned.

In conclusion, we would like to say that we share the concern at the lack of progress towards the attainment of the NIEO and would like to emphasise that there is immediate need for something tangible and concrete to be done. While FAO is bracing itself to measure up to the task and meet the challenge, it will be called upon to play a leading as well as an increasing role in this regard. Already it is involved in important activity and there is need for it to continously extend and intensify its efforts. It needs also to be stressed that agriculture must receive high priority in the International Development Strategy for the Third Development Decade. In this context also FAO's contribution of the Study of Agriculture Toward 2000 needs to be commended.

M. S. AL-SAYED AHMAD (Yemen Arab Republic) (interpretation from Arabic): To begin with I would like to congratulate Mr. Nurul Islam on his excellent document that he has introduced and for the very considerable efforts which have been made by the people who prepared document C 79/20. I would like to remind the Commission of the number of resolutions which were adopted by the Second Committee of the General Assembly. It was Resolution 33 and 193 in February 1979. In that Resolution they talked about setting up a preparatory committee for the 1980 development strategy. My delegation shares the concern of the Second Committee. I am thinking of Annex B of that Resolution and I shall quote from it, "The Committee notes that the World Food Conference and subsequently the World Food Council estimated that to achieve 4 percent annual increases in agricultural production in developing countries, annual investments in agriculture, both from external and internal sources, would have to be considerably augmented. In order to achieve this target, it has been estimated that the annual level of resource flows needed are about US$ 25 billion, at 1975 prices, two thirds of which would come from internal financing by the concerned countries and one third from external financing. Despite the recent increase in external assistance for food and agricultural production in developing countries, there is a shortfall from the estimated need of US$ 8. 3 billion, at 1975 prices, and in the degree of concessionality, which is a matter of great concern to the international community as a whole. " I was saying the flow of resources necessary for the achievement of this came to over 25 billion American dollars. Two-thirds would come from internal resources contributed by the members concerned and the rest would come from external sources. In spite of what has been happening just lately the increase in resources and aid to agriculture in developing countries, there have been a number of gaps with respect to the objective $180 000 million ever since 1975.

I think that as a result the whole international community has been worried about this, in a later paragraph concern is expressed at the objective set of 1 million tonnes of fertilizers. We have only got about 169 000 tonnes, we have not yet reached the $ 20 million set for the Special Fund in order to fight food losses. We have only received about $ 12 million of it.

Now after this preamble I would like to move straight on to Guideline 10 and paragraph 87, and I would say that the Twentieth Session, the last Session of this decade, is most important. Consequently, our recommendations should be clear. They must be useful for the preparatory committee in the General Assembly for the coming decade. We have seen that we have not been able to reach our target for the last decade. Consequently, our delegation feels that we must amend paragraph 87 and Guideline 10 must be amended too in this document, C 79/20. In this paragraph we shall have to set an amount, or a percentage, of the income of industrialized countries, so that we will be able fully to help developing countries, whether it be 1 or 2 percent. 50 percent of aid should be devoted to agriculture and rural development. Rural development represents 90 percent of the inhabitants of the developing countries and I think that this is of fundamental importance, so the figure of 4 percent should not just remain a dead letter as happened in the last decade. We must take well defined steps in order to set up the new international economic order.

P. A MORALES CARBALLO (Cuba): Quiero, en primer lugar, agradecer la información y el análisis que nos ha hecho el señor Islam, que lo consideramos sumamente positivo y estimamos, además, que nos ayuda mucho a sintetizar nuestro trabajo y nuestra intervención en particular. Tanto en los temas que hemos discutido en esta Comisión como en las exposiciones hecha en el Plenario por muchas delegaciones, se ha llegado a la conclusión de que la actual crisis alimentaria por la que atravesamos no tendría solución si no se acepta que la misma es una consecuencia inherente al modelo actual de desarrollo y de las relaciones económicas internacionales existentes y que la solución de la misma no puede alcanzarse partiendo de elementos aislados, sino sólo puede conseguirse con el reconocimiento y la aceptación de la necesidad de adoptar medidas a largo plazo.

En este sentido, desde la 18° Conferencia General de la FAO en 1975 en que se aprobó la resolución 3/75 sobre la aplicación del nuevo orden económico internacional dentro del ámbito de la FAO, esta Organización ha venido trabajando por esos caminos.

El tema que estamos tratando forma parte de un aspecto muy importante referido a los preparativos para el período extraordinario de sesiones de la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas el próximo año y la nueva estrategia internacional para el desarrollo.

Nuestra delegación considera que el primer aspecto que la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas debería estudiar en su período extraordinario de 1980 es precisamente la puesta en práctica del nuevo orden económico internacional y adoptar medidas para su establecimiento; de manera muy particular deberían concluirse las negociaciones y soluciones a las cuestiones pendientes de la estrategia internacional del desarrollo para el tercer decenio de las Naciones Unidas, de manera que pudiera adoptarse ésta en ese período de sesiones.

Es lamentable tener que reconocer que la mayoría de los objetivos de la segunda estrategia han quedado incumplidos y las medidas de políticas dirigidas a los países subdesarrollados quedarán sin aplicar.

Esta situación tiene su base en la índole de la actual crisis económica mundial y a la persistente negativa de la mayoría de los países desarrollados de aceptar el imperativo de reestructurar el actual orden económico mundial.

Volviendo al papel de la FAO, consideramos que su labor ha sido meritoria desde los pasos dados para el cumplimiento de las once directrices para el Reajuste Agrícola Internacional, hasta programas de acción y programas especiales en los cuales ha puesto tanto entusiasmo y dedicación.

Sin lugar a dudas, el Programa de Cooperación Técnica ha significado una decisión de importancia transcendental en la historia de nuestra Organización, pues por primera vez le brindo la posibilidad de ofrecer ayuda real y concreta a los países en desarrollo. Debemos ser justos en este reconocimiento, pero también seamos objetivos puesto que el Programa de Cooperación Técnica debe considerarse. solamente como una diminuta fuerza financiera que dista mucho de lo que realmente necesitan nuestros países.

Digamos también, señor Presidente, que la FAO, en la aplicación del modesto nivel de Programa de Cooperación Técnica ha demostrado que es capaz y está preparada para enfrentar empresas mayores con enfoques semejantes. Digamos que la FAO está lista para emprender programas de acción de una dimensión mucho mayor.

Con relación a la prevención de las pérdidas de alimentos, mi delegación considera que es, sin lugar a dudas, otra de las importantes acciones tomadas por la FAO recientemente. El estudio presentado al Comité de Africultura en 1977 demostró de manera clara y convincente la necesidad de evitar las enormes pérdidas de alimentos que sufrimos en todos los países en desarrollo por falta de recursos, conocimientos técnicos, tecnología, etc.

Pero si bien todos los países aceptaron los resultados del informe presentado y comprendieron la necesidad de abordar con toda urgencia un programa para reducir los miles y miles de toneladas de alimentos que cada año se pierden, no es menos cierto que la meta de 20 millones para el programa no se ha cumplido y que tendremos que informar al período de sesiones extraordinario que ni siquiera hemos podido obtener esa cifra irrisoria que dista mucho de ser suficiente para un programa tan importante y necesario.

Semejante destino ha tenido la propuesta de crear un fondo especial de 20 millones de dólares para el programa de Mejoramiento de Desarrollo de Semillas.

A pesar de la apelación del Comité Plenario de las Naciones Unidas al aprobar sus conclusiones sobre algunos aspectos concernientes a la agricultura y alimentación, en que exhortaba al incremento de las aportaciones a este Plan, hasta la fecha, según se plantea en el párrafo 37 del documento C 79/33 que analizamos, cuenta solamente con 3 millones de dólares para capacitación y 3 millones para proyectos de semillas.

Con relación al programa de lucha contra la tripanosomiasis africana de los animales, consideramos que los países afectados y los dispuestos a contribuir deben ponerse de inmediato en contacto con el Director General para ultimar los detalles del programa y participar en él.

Con relación a la cooperación técnica entre países en desarrollo, si bien la misma avanza a pasos lentos consideramos que son dignos de mención los esfuerzos realizados en Africa por el grupo de países de la ASEAN en beneficio de la seguridad alimentaria.

Nuestro país, con la ayuda de la FAO, presta asistencia a los países de nuestra área en la erradicación de la fiebre porcina africana, Como un modesto aporte a la cooperación técnica entre países en desarrollo.

Con relación al segundo informe sobre reajuste agrícola internacional, consideramos que nuevamente la Secretaría ha hecho un gran esfuerzo; y han llegado a la conclusión de que para alcanzar los objetivos de producción propuestos es necesario aumentar considerablemente la corriente de recursos dirigida hacia la agricultura de los países en desarrollo para mejorar la capacidad productiva de la producción rural.

Respecto a las cuestiones relativas al comercio internacional y a la seguridad alimentaria no nos hemos de extender puesto que nuestra delegación ha hecho ya sus comentarios cuando se trataron dichos temas específicos.

Señor Presidente, se nos pregunta si estaríamos de acuerdo en revisar las orientaciones normativas. Mi delegación está de acuerdo en ello, pero también lo vemos como un asunto de contenido y análisis de los hechos y deprofundizar, porque no se han alcanzado y cumplido los objetivos propuestos.

Nosotros estamos de acuerdo igualmente con el calendario que se nos propone para el trabajo respecto a la revisión de las mismas.

Finalmente, queremos expresar que estamos también de acuerdo en que los documentos C 79/33 y C 79/20 se envíen a la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas.

Mlle Mireille MUSSO (France): Nous avons pris connaissance avec un très grand intérêt des documents qui nous ont été présentés par le Secrétariat. Ces documents analysent les résultats de la situation de l'agriculture, particulièrement depuis 1975, date à laquelle, à la dix-huitième session de la Conférence, a été adopté un document intitulé:" Les lignes d'orientation politique concernant l'ajustement agricole international".

En principe, les Etats Membres devaient prendre en considération ces lignes d'orientation lorsqu'ils élaboreraient des politiques agricoles au niveau national, étant entendu que les politiques nationales n'étaient pas obligatoirement subordonnées à un schéma global.

Un premier rapport avait été présenté à la dix-neuvième session de la Conférence qui était chargé de suivre les réalisations obtenues en fonction de ces lignes d'orientation. Le document C 79/20 constitue le second rapport, mais il se situe dans une perspective plus politique puisqu'il intègre les "lignes d'orientation" dans la mise en oeuvre du Nouvel ordre économique international. Ce document passe en revue les résultats obtenus par chacune des lignes d'orientation, La plupart des sujets que couvrent les principales lignes d'orientation ont déjà été longuement discutés sur d'autres points de l'ordre du jour, qu'il s'agisse de la ligne d'orientation Mo 1 sur l'augmentation de la production agricole, de la ligne No. 2 sur le flux des ressources financières dans la production agricole, de la ligne No. 3 sur les modifications des politiques nationales des pays développés, des lignes No. 7 et 9 sur l'accès aux marchés, de la ligne No. 8 sur la sécurité alimentaire et de la ligne No. 11 sur l'aide alimentaire. Aussi ne souhaiterais-je pas m'étendre sur ces points puisque le temps qui nous est imparti est court, comme vous nous l'avez rappelé.

Nous sommes totalement d'accord avec le Secrétariat pour regretter que les résultats n'aient pas été meilleurs, mais il faut reconnaître que certaines améliorations ont cependant été obtenues. Nous regrettons toutefois que pour chaque insuffisance le document du Secrétariat ne porte pas un jugement objectif et équilibré sur ce point, et mette essentiellement en cause la responsabilité des pays développés, en critiquant exclusivement l'insuffisance de leurs efforts. C'est ainsi, d'après le Secrétariat, que si l'objectif de croissance de la production alimentaire fixé à 4 pour cent pour les pays en développement n'a pas été atteint, la responsabilité principale en est due à la stagnation ou à la baisse de volume des échanges de produits alimentaires. A notre avis, il serait plus efficace d'admettre que certains pays en développement ne reconnaissent pas encore à la production vivrière la priorité qu'il serait indispensable d'y consacrer et cela est aussi une des causes fondamentales de l'insuffisance de l'augmentation de la production.

Il nous semble regrettable que le jugement final sur les progrès réalisés dans le cadre de l'ajustement agricole se traduise dans les paragraphes 96 à 109 par un ensemble de critiques formulées à l'égard des pays développés, critiques déjà exposées dans d'autres points de l'ordre du jour. Je n'insisterai pas, mais je pourrais citer par exemple le problème du résultat de l'insuffisance des N. C. M. pour les pays en développement, le renforcement du protectionnisme agricole, les résultats décevants de la cinquième CNUCED, la critique des politiques de soutien et, pour les pays développés, une meilleure remise en forme de leur politique intérieure pour l'harmoniser avec les' exigences de la sécurité alimentaire. Notre délégation est préoccupée par le fait que les critiques nous semblent souvent formulées de façon excessive et que l'appréciation des facteurs économiques et sociaux, qui constituent des impératifs pour les responsables politiques des pays développés, soit parfois théorique et teintée d'irréalisme.

Il me semble que chacun doit reconnaître la situation de l'autre et qu'il ne faut pas ignorer, comme semble le faire le document, la situation économique mondiale, la récession, le taux élevé du chômage dans de nombreux pays développés, les difficultés rencontrées par les pays développés dans le redéploiement de certaines de leurs activités et la nécessité pour les pays développés de maintenir une agriculture efficace et importante.

Il faudrait se rappeler que pour nombre de grands produits agricoles, céréales, produits laitiers, viandes, une libéralisation accrue des échanges et une réduction des politiques de soutien profiteraient moins au commerce des pays en développement qu'à d'autres pays développés.

D'autre part, il semble paradoxal que l'on demande aux pays développés un accroissement substantiel de leur aide alimentaire, ce qui suppose pour le moins le maintien d'un niveau élevé de production, et qu'en même temps on invite ces mêmes pays développés à la réduire.

Enfin, même avec beaucoup de bonne volonté, nous ne pouvons accroître indéfiniment les charges financières directes ou indirectes, surtout dans la période actuelle de ralentissement de l'activité économique et de hausse constante des coûts de l'énergie.

En ce qui concerne la révision des lignes d'orientation, nous ne pensons pas non plus, comme l'ont indiqué les éminents représentants de la R. F. A. , du Royaume-Uni et de la Belgique, qu'il soit opportun de procéder maintenant à cette révision. En effet, ces lignes ont été instituées depuis peu de temps et il nous paraît difficile de tirer dès maintenant des conclusions qui justifient leur modification. Il nous semble plus opportun d'attendre que soit définie la prochaine stratégie pour le développement avant de songer à modifier éventuellement les lignes d'orientation.

D. VUJICIC (Yugoslavia): As many speakers before me have done, I should like to thank Prof. Islam for giving us a very comprehensive and clear picture of the present situation in the food and agriculture field and also of the level of implementation of the guidelines for international agricultural adjustment. This shows, just to mention a few elements, that the rate of increase of agricultural production, instead of reaching 4 percent as agreed for the Second Development Decade, has been only 2. 9 percent, very much lower than was envisaged and recommended; that the number of people suffering from malnutrition, instead of decreasing, has increased substantially during the Decade; that the trade for developing countries and results of international trade has been less favourable than previously; that the gap between the developed and developing countries in general has very much widened, as can be seen especially from the very much increased gap in GNP; that, as our discussion yesterday very clearly concluded, nothing serious has been done in the field of world food security-in theory, yes, but not in practice; and /that the flow of external resources from developed to developing countries has achieved just half of the estimated needs $4. 3 billion instead of $8. 3 billion at 1975 prices.

The only certain practical improvement achieved is in food aid, where this year the target established for 1975 will be reached-four year late.

Although an extremely dark picture, this is also a very clear picture of the present situation in this field.

It is not necessary to go further into a detailed analysis of the implementation of the eleven guidelines accepted four years ago, because it is already very clear that they have not been followed by adequatte policy measures to ensure their implementation. Certain improvements in some of the developing countries were made possible, due mainly to self-reliance efforts of those countries and also owing to the assistance of a very limited number of developed countries which have respected their international obligations. Unfortunately, among those developed countries, the biggest, the richest and the most able are not included, and that is one of the chief reasons why there has been no significant progress so far. Let us express the hope that those countries will follow the example of the few small developed countries which have already proved and unselfish approach towards the developing countries and have in practice accepted the basic policies in the Declaration and Programme of Action for the New International Economic Order.

One of the reasons that we are even now not able to monitor and measure progress in the implementation of the previous development strategy, as well as the implementation of the guidelines for international agricultural adjustment, is the total lack of quantitative, qualitative and time-determined objectives. That was one of the failures of the work of FAO and our failure at that time which we should not repeat.

In the last Development Decade strategy there was practically only one quantitative target concerning food food and agriculture and that was the famous 4 percent average rate of increase in agricultural production, but it was not followed by supporting sector targets or with other elements such as flow of resources, local and international; agricultural inputs; distribution; international trade; nutrition and other elements. My delegation is therefore of the firm opinion that FAO should do its utmost to ensure that the place of food and agriculture in the strategy for the Third Development Decade should be adequately represented, with all the essential elements which I mentioned; and I would also stress that these elements and targets should be in very clear quantitative and qualitative terms and should fall within specific time frames. That could only be in line with the already-agreed decision of the General Assembly of the United. Nations in its resolutions 193-33 on the new International development strategy, approved at its last session. Operative paragraph 10 reads:

[The General Assembly]

"Also decides that, for the purpose of achieving the objectives set out in paragraphs 1 to 9 above, the new international development strategy should, within the framework of viable, consistent, specific, quantitative and qualitative goal s and objectives-both over-all and sectoral-define the role of, and, where appropriate, contain, agreed commitments of all countries, expressed in quantified terms or in a time framework, or in both, for the adoption and implementation of policy measures to achieve the above goals and objectives. "

Further, concerning the question of the need for a revision of the guidelines for international agricultural adjustment, I am very sorry to express my deep disagreement with those delegations which have already opposed, or which may in the future oppose, the need for revision of the guidelines. We are of the opinion that revision is a necessity if we think at all seriously to follow the policy we approved at the World Food Conference, at the last General Conference of FAO, at the World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development, in various decisions of the General Assembly, and so on. The revision of the guidelines should go in two directions. First, the guidelines should be revised in general policy matters so as to bring them more into line with the already-approved policy direction towards the establishment of the New International Economic Order, in so far as internationally approved documents of

the various international forums I mentioned before are concerned.

Secondly, the Guidelines should be realized so that they provide in all essential elements, wherever possible, the quantified targets within a definite time framework. Only this could enable FAO and intergovernmental bodies like this Conference in a few years to really ensure the implementation of the approved policies.

We will not now go into concrete proposals on how to revise these Guidelines, but we will actively participate in the proposed scenario and timetable for the revision of the Guidelines which we support in principle, as well as the time schedule for future work by the next FAO Conference.

M. YOKOYAMA (Japan): My delegation would like to express its appreciation of the comprehensive report of the FAO Secretariat on Progress in International Agricultural Adjustment. On comparing it with the first Report, I recognise progress in objective analysis in the second Report. We have given it careful study and learned much from it. I hope, at the same time, that analysis such as the Report on Guidelines 4 and 5 will be improved in the future. This might be difficult, because of the lack of necessary data in some developing countries. In this connexion too, I hope that FAO will contribute to the improvement in data systems in developing countries.

With regard to International Agricultural Adjustment, the view of my delegation is that agriculture is a vital essential sector of national economy, and that without its healthy development there is no healthy development of the national economy. Japan, as one of the industrialized countries, has always been aware of the importance of agriculture. It plays an important role, not only in the stabilization of food supply, but also in social stability and employment. Furthermore, it is indispensable to the maintenance of environment in a favourable condition. I would also like to draw your attention to the specific nature of agriculture, which varies from country to country, and to the fact that we must take into account the specific situation of each country when we try to carry out international agricultural adjustment. In this connexion, as with the review of the Guidelines, we are of the view that review of the Guidelines should be carried out with careful consideration.

A. RENAUD (Canada): Le Canada souhaite lui aussi les modifications nécessaires pour l'avènement d'un ordre économique équitable pour tous les pays, aussi prend-il part activement aux différentes négociations actuellement en cours sous divers auspices et aux initiatives des nouvelles institutions internationales. Plusieurs de ces négociations et initiatives touchent de plus en plus directement les lignes d'orientation stratégiques de l'ajustement agricole international.

Le Canada reconnaît une valeur constante au travail de surveillance des progrès réalisés dans ce domaine, travail de surveillance accompli avec compétence par l'OAA et nous tenons donc à remercier le Directeur général pour un rapport documenté dans la mesure du possible et succinct.

Le Canada a toujours reconnu l'importance et les difficultés de l'ajustement agricole, tant sur le plan national-puisque nous sommes un Etat fédéral-qu'international. Aussi sommes-nous convaincus que tout en continuant les négociations et initiatives sur le plan international, chaque pays doit accorder la priorité à ces politiques et lignes d'orientation agricole à l'intérieur de ses frontières politiques et programmes nationaux portant sur l'agriculture et la nutrition doivent être développés et renforcés en priorité sur les autres programmes.

C'est dans ce but précis que le Canada a pris l'initiative, à l'occasion de la dernière conférence ministérielle du Conseil mondial sur l'Alimentation, d'allouer pour l'année 1980 la somme de deux millions de dollars canadiens pour aider à l'élaboration de cette stratégie nationale intégrée dans le secteur agro-alimentaire par le truchement d'accords bilatéraux avec les pays en développement intéressés.

Nous sommes également prêts à reprendre, aussitôt que jugé opportun, les négociations en vue d'un nouvel accord international sur le blé.

En terminant, et pour répondre à votre question concernant la révision des lignes d'orientation, nous reconnaissons qu'éventuellement pareille révision devra être faite, mais qu'il est encore trop tôt pour l'entreprendre. La simple lecture du rapport suffit pour constater, à la pauvreté de l'information fournie par les pays membres, que les lignes d'orientation actuelles n'ont pas encore ^ été suffisamment digérées.

Ms, W. BARTH EIDE (Norway): The comments of my delegation are limited to document C 79/33, on FAO and the New International Economic Order. We have read this document with interest, and we would like to commend FAO for having sought to shift the emphasis of its work towards the central issues of the New International Economic Order. The excellent preparation for WCARRD and the subsequent plans for its follow up within the Organization, is a major event in FAO’s re-orient at ion towards the implementation of a New International Economic Order.

My delegation wishes to draw attention to the special responsibilities and opportunities which FAO has within the UN to ensure that the qualitative aspects of the New International Economic Order will be properly reflected in the new International Strategy for the Third Development Decade, as well as in the strategies of individual member countries. We would also like to take this opportunity to highlight two or three araas which we find of particular importance in this regard.

Firstly, the work on the formulation of Social indicators is a prerequisite for decisions on effective strategies for development policies within the New International Economic Order, and indeed for the assessment of their effectiveness. My delegation has noted with satisfaction the effort currently under way in FAO to carry this work forward, both as part of FAO’s regular work and in its cooperation with other agencies.

Secondly, as a logical extension of the international dimensions of a New International economic Order to that of individual countries, we would point out that the situation of women in all societies offers sensitive indicators for changes in economic and social development. Bearing in mind that, according to UN statistics, women in developing countries account for more than 50 percent of food production and provide for 40-80 percent of agricultural labour, women should no longer be considered as just a welfare problem, but as social and economic actors within the development process. Hence, we would draw attention to the Programme of Action of WCARRD which strongly emphasizes the need for women and men to have equal access to agricultural inputs and opportunities, and to participate in the decision making process for food and agricultural policies.

Thirdly, FAO’s role in promoting science and technology for development should be given increased emphaöis, in the efforts to implement the New International Economic Order. In this context, one must be aware of the need to differentiate between various technological alternatives in relation to prevailing social and economic conditions, in order to generate the most harmonized and qualitative development, and to ensure serious reductions in the number of hungry and malnourished. Such differentiation may also be a safety valve to avoid unintended adverse consequences of various choices of technology, as has already been stated in the Programme of Action adopted by the UN Conference on Science and Technology for Development recently held in Vienna.

A. BEN-RAMADAN (Libya): In the Name of Allah: I would like first of all to thank the Secretariat for the report presented to us concerning the International Agricultural Adjustment, and also to thank Dr. Nurul Islam for his very clear and precise introduction of this report.

We feel a little bitter at the fact that the targets for an International Agricultural Adjustment have not been met. Challenges also have Hot been met. We would also like to say that since 1975 guidelines have been defined, but no progress has really been achieved. We can also see that the situation in developed countries is more favourable, and we feel that a change in this evolution must take place.

We also see that increases in investments in the agricultural sectors of developing countries are lower than expected and thus the developing countries do not have the capacity to meet the requirements of the food situation quickly. We also see that slow progress has been achieved in food aid to agriculture at the world level. This food aid is one of the objectives of the developing countries.

We also think that increased agricultural food production in developing countries is a milestone from which to begin to achieve developing goals as a whole and in general. Nevertheless we do understand the problems and obstacles met by developing countries in achieving these goals. Some countries have been able to achieve a development rate higher than the average rate of growth. It is quite clear that many developing countries are still a long way from the required rate of growth. Furthermore, I would like to say that ray country is among the small number of countries which have been able to achieve a five percent rate of growth in food production. We are proud of this achievement but, nevertheless, we would like to add that this has not been an easy thing to achieve in the light of the difficult ecological situation and also because of the very scarce water resources in Libya.

Libya is in a better position as regards other resources but we would like to add that resources by themselves are not a determining factor in achieving economic development because the political will, and the will of the people arc also necessary in order to have real economic development, and to guide financial resources towards the agricultural sector, which must have priority.

There is also an urgent need to establish policies in order to improve the living conditions of farmers, and especially small farmers, in the small and distant areas. This, of course, goes along with the majority of the guidelines which were set up in 1975.

I would now like to speak about the proposal presented to us for the eventual revision of these guidelines and also to say something about the proposed timetable to which reference is made in Document C 79/20-sup. 1.

My delegation finds no difficulty in making some amendments or revisions to the current guidelines in order to improve them so as to make them more clear and precise. But we feel that two conditions should prevail before doing this. The first is that the guidelines must not lose any strength, that is, we do not agree at all on any revision which would reduce the importance, strength and scope of them because we feel that they should be strengthened in order to help in achieving this international strategy for agricultural adjustment and also so as to give practical application to resolutions adopted by various conferences, such as the resolutions of UNCTAD V.

Secondly, this revision should not be an opportunity for anyone to reopen discussion on guidelines as such, on the need to have and on their effectiveness, because we feel that the guidelines should be left to the competence of the State. Concerning the timetable for such revision, even if there is some complexity in this, we can accept them and take into account the discussion taking place at this Conference. We also feel that note should be taken of the discussions in Commission I and concerning the preparation for the Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly.

Finally, I would like to make comments on the report concerning agricultural adjustment. As the Commission knows, the guidelines cover four main points: the increase of food aid and agricultural production, food aid and improvement in international trade. Vie feel that the report should have indicated the progress made in well-defined topics and under well-defined headings to show the improvement that might have been produced in these four specific fields.

Of course we agree that each guideline should be discussed on a separate basis but, nevertheless, we also believe that if the report had been prepared as vre suggest, this would facilitate our task to better assimilate it. From paragraphs 18 to 60 there are no sub-titles to help in reading this report. Nevertheless I would not like my comments to be interpreted as a criticism of this report, which we feel is a perfect one.

M. R. LEAH (New Zealand): This year, 1979 has been a watershed in terms of the international community's efforts to come to grips with the practicalities of global economic decision making. UNCTAD V in Manila and the Tokyo round of multilateral trade negotiations, the major events in the north-south dialogue calendar, have ended inconclusively.

Regrettably the prospects for constructive progress on the range of issues which make up the new international economic order does not appear especially promising. As a consequence of fairly unyielding approaches adopted by both north and south, new international economic order negotiations appear to have reached a virtual impasse. This mood has been reflected most recently in the work of the Preparatory Committees on the New International Development Strategy for the 1980s. Clearly a perpetuation of the present climate is not conducive to the kind of decision making required to provide workable global solution to the pressing economic problems which confront the international community.

One of the main inhibitions to progress, it seems to us, is the rigid bloc approach: the division of the international community into developed and developing countries. New Zealand, like many other countries, does not fit easily or readily into cither of these camps. To us it seems apparent that in order to develop meaningful global economic strategies the international community will have to accept that within the developing and developed country blocst here are countries with differing economic structures and at different stages of development. Current economic prospects are sufficiently gloomy to convince us that the posturing and inflexibility which has so far characterized much of the north-south dialogue, for example, the refusal to discuss and acknowledge the profound and continuing impact of the rising cost of energy and oil in particular, this inflexibility must as a matter of urgency give way to economic pragnatism and political realism. We would note that one practical method of making progress in the northsouth dialogue is to place greater emphasis on regional and sub-regional machinery for dialogue. These

groups such as the Commonwealth Regional meeting and in our area the South Pacific forum and their respective institutions help cut across the usual economic and political lines of the block and group system of the United Kations. Further development of the regional approach is therefore worth fostering.

As a trading nation whose comparative advantage in agriculture has increasingly been denied by the major economies, New Zealand is well placed to appreciate developing countries’ frustrations concerning the existing economic order. We can therefore support to a certain extent the view that solutions to the problems of world trade, whether in agriculture or in industry, require not merely adjustments to import systems but also domestic structural adjustment measures.

However, it does not follow that New Zealand would support the wholesale re-alignment of the existing machinery for world trade. The fact is that the present open multilateral trading system embodied in GATT did not prevent the push of a number of developing countries, particularly the newly industrializing countries towards economic take-off, Change through market forces is growing and should be acknowledged. But what we do believe is essential is the more determined extension of market forces and mechanisms to the agricultural sector.

Furthermore, we would note that changes in attitude are taking place. A number of developed countries, including New Zealand, have expressed the view that the newly industrialising countries and by extension the third world are an engine for international economic growth. If they are to remain promising markets for the products of the developed countries it is essential that they are able to maintain their own export-led economic growth.

The activities being undertaken by FAO which contribute to the establishment of the NIEO are summarised in document C 79/33. Most of these activities are practical and concrete and are making a positive contribution to the NIEO, They are a manifestation of FAO. s welcome and commendable determination to make an impact within the limit of its resources at the field level.

Regarding the International Agricultural Adjustment document we would like to compliment the Secretariat on the preparation of this study. In our view it is a useful and objective study which also has the merit of being reasonably brief, given the scope and magnitude of its coverage. It is disappointing and regrettable that progress towards international Agricultural Adjustment has been slow, although some progress has been achieved and it is recorded in the document. It is a matter of special disappointment that the rate of increase of food production in developing countries has not reached target levels, and we agree with others that the developing countries themselves need to make more strenuous efforts through, for example, giving higher priority in their development plans to investment in agriculture, to increase their food production. It is also disappointing to New Zealand that progress in the trade sector has been inadequate. As paragraph 96 records, "Little has occurred in the field of trade that has contributed to the process of adjustment" and in paragraph 100 that "In developed countries the period since the last Conference has seen no reduction in agricultural protectionism. "

The analysis under Guidelines 7 and 9 provide more detail on the meagreness of progress towards liberalised trade and agriculture. It notes the disappointing outcome of the MTN negotiations as far as agricultural trade was concerned. While some progress was made, the basic problems of agricultural protectionism remain as intractable as ever. This contrasted with the substantial progress made on further liberalizing industrial trade which is already subject to far fewer restrictions than agricultural trade.

When the International Agricultural Adjustment guidelines are revised we would like to urge that these particular guidelines on trade should be tightened up and rationalized to make their thrust and performance clearer and their measurement easier. The suggestions made by the Secretariat on these particular guidelines seem to us to be along the right lines. Also, on guideline 3 we support the Secretariats suggestion to split the guideline into two separate guidelines. It is important in our view to retain a guideline emphasising the need for a more rational use of resources in the agricultural sector, especially in developed industrialised countries. The overview on agricultural adjustment at the end of the document in paragraph 96-109 is of particular interest to us. We welcome the emphasis on the importance of liberalized agricultural trade made in this section. As the overview notes trade is a good mechanism for achieving greater food production and long-term stable world food security. Liberalized trade encourages food production both because the improved opportunities and access that follow trade liberalisation stimulates production and because it enables developing countries and other agricultural producers to earn sufficient foreign exchange to pay for the inputs-fertilizer, machinery, fuel and suchlike necessary to increase food production. Following on from this, given that the stimulation to greater food production is the key requirement for the achievement of soundly based world food security, the importance of liberalized trade is self-evident. As the overview notes, reliance on the production of high-cost food in industrialized countries distributed on surplus disposal terms is a fragile and uncertain underpinning for world food security.

L. COMANESCU (Roumanie): En mfinspirant de ce que son Excellence M. le Directeur général disait avanthier quand il a ouvert les débats sur le Plan d'action pour la sécurité alimentaire, je dirai que le problème que nous sommes en train de discuter, à savoir les progrès, le nouvel ordre économique international et la nouvelle stratégie de développement, constitue aussi, à notre avis, lfun des sujets clé de cette vingtième conférence.

Quand bien même nous aurions préféré que les deux aspects prévus au point 8 de l'ordre du jour soient discutés ensemble, parce qu'il y a en effet une étroite liaison entre les deux points, je me bornerai à faire maintenant quelques commentaires sur le point 8. 1 en me réservant le droit d'intervenir sur l'autre point plus tard.

Comme cela ressort du document en. discussion ainsi que des nombreuses interventions au cours de cette conférence, les progrès du nouvel ordre économique international sont très faibles, bien que nous nous trouvions à plus de cinq années après l'adoption par l'Assemblée générale des Nations Unies du Plan d'action.

La situation de l'alimentation et de l'agriculture est malheureusement très significative à cet égard. En effet, on peut constater également dans le document C 79/20 dont nous remercions sincèrement le Secrétariat ainsi que dans l'intervention de M. ISLAM, que les objectifs fixés entre autres pour l'accroissement de la production agro-alimentaire dans les pays en voie de développement, pour le commerce international des produits agricoles, et pour l'assistance au développement agricole tels qu'ils sont mentionnés dans les lignes d'orientation pour l'. ajustement agricole international adoptées en 1975, n'ont pas été réalisés. Cela nous préoccupe beaucoup, d'autant plus que nous avons vu dans l'adoption de ces lignes et surtout dans leur mise en application, un instrument pour réaliser les objectifs du nouvel ordre économique international dans le domaine agricole.

Comme le distingué délégué de la Yougoslavie le disait, le tableau est très clair et nous montre les directions dans lesquelles nous devrions agir dans l'avenir si nous voulons changer cette situation. Je ne voudrais pas répéter quelles sont, a notre avis, ces directions, le Chef de ma délégation l'a déjà fait en plénière. Mais ce qui me paraît extrêmement important est que dans la révision des lignes d'orientation pour l'ajustement agricole international, révision avec laquelle nous sommes d'accord, on tienne compte d'une part de la nécessité de considérer-et je suis d'accord avec M. Islam l'ajustement agricole international comme partie intégrante de la nouvelle stratégie internationale de développement. C'est pourquoi nous considérons comme pertinentes, les suggestions formulées dans l'Annexe 1, page 5 du document C 79/20, visant à l'introduction de nouvelles lignes d'orientation.

D'autre part, il nous paraît nécessaire d'examiner l'ajustement agricole international dans le contexte des négociations globales qui vont s'ouvrir dans le cadre des Nations Unies.

En nous référant maintenant au document C 79/33, à savoir, la FAO et le nouvel ordre économique international, nous voudrions exprimer notre satisfaction profonde des efforts entrepris par l'Organisation pour répondre le mieux possible aux nécessités du nouvel ordre économique international.

Nous pensons en premier lieu aux programmes d'action qui ont été inities par la FAO tels que les programmes de coopération technique et de coopération pour l'élimination des pertes alimentaires, pour les semences, ainsi que les programmes nouvellement proposés comme celui pour les zones économiques exclusives.

Nous sommes en même temps d'avis que ce début prometteur devrait être poursuivi et renforcé par de nouvelles actions, y compris par l'élargissement de la coopération de la FAO avec les autres organisations internationales, dont les préoccupations relèvent du domaine de l'agriculture et de l'alimentation. L'élargissement de cette coopération visant au développement agricole des pays en voie de développement constitue d'ailleurs l'une des conclusions principales auxquelles le Comité plénier des Nations Unies a abouti au cours de ces débats sur le problème alimentaire.

C'est dans cet esprit que la Roumanie considère qu'il serait souhaitable d'établir dans le cadre d'une nouvelle stratégie de développement une action mieux coordonnée sous l'égide des Nations Unies ou encore, un programme spécial de coopération à long terme entre la FAO et les autres organisations internationales telles que la Banque mondiale, le Fonds international pour le développement agricole et d'autres organisations pour le développement agricole des pays en voie de développement.

Mais sur cet aspect, je reviendrai plus en détail quand nous aborderons le point 8. 2 de l'ordre du jour.

S. HANPONGPANDH (Thailand):The Thai delegation wishes to congratulate the Secretariat for the comprehensive preparation of the Guidelines as appeared in document 79/20 and its supplement.

We feel, however, that additional material resources, technology, as well as incentives are not the only important inputs in the process of increasing agricultural production. In our opinion, the ways which those inputs can be efficiently and effectively transferred to the farmers are of equal importance. We also believe that strengthening of farmers education and the role of extension services could fulfill the missing link in agricultural development.

In this respect we would like to propose that additional guidelines emphasizing the aforementioned measures be included. ^1/

The meeting rose at 13. 00 hours.
La séance est levee a 13 heures.
Se levanta la sesión a las 13. 00 horas.

^I/ Statement inserted in the verbatim records on request.