CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabic):Venezuela has submitted a text on AT 2000, to be included in the record.
H. S. BAR SHAI (Israel):First of all I would like to thank very much those who prepared the AT 2000 survey. From this broad scoped preview very much can be learned about the many diversified aspects involved in the development of agriculture necessary for the next 20 years. On the other hand, I am sorry in a way that we have not got a forecast proper, which would have summed up the scientific, physical and social and other developments in the foreseeable future. Such a forecast, which need not prove right, of course, can serve as a useful tool in the planning of the agricultural set-up of every country of the world.
Anyhow, I would like to support the proposition of several delegates to add more scenarios which will give us a wider range of possibilities in preparing ourselves to any future developments.
Doubling agricultural production within 20 years is not an unattainable target, especially where developing countries are concerned and AT 2000 indeed indicates this in its elaborate way.
Israel has increased her agricultural production nearly ten-fold within such a period.
But such development demands several prerequisites, among them Suitable Social Structure. Our agriculture has been based mainly on selt-supporting cooperative units on personal settlement and regional levels and for activities such as production, distribution and input acquiring.
There are in Israel several regional cooperative organizations that incorporate up to 50 or more rural settlements, which supply themselves with purchasing, processing and distribution facilities, utilizing the advantages and efficiency of big organizations, thus reducing expenses, losses and increasing the incomes of their member-farmers.
National ownership of land and water resources enables a rational and just allocation of these limited resources.
Advanced technologies and research facilities are employed in Israel and should also be in the whole world to get the best possible crop and reduced waste in a state of limited resources.
Water, in a relatively dry country such as Israel is very important. Israel has been increasing productivity of water by an annual rate of 8 to 9 percent per annum. This was done by utilizing waste water, water with high chlorine content which is suitable for certain crops and advanced drip irrigation systems.
Our aim has always been that top yields of today should be average yields of tomorrow. I believe that further development in the agricultural sector will depend, to a large extent, on whether we find and apply new modes and systems for better utilization of land, water, energy, high-yielding seed varieties.
We must find better and more economical modes for water supply through desalinization new systems of multi-cropping and poly-culturing for better utilization of limited resources.
We should enhance the utilization of other energy resources-and in many water-scarce countries solar energy is quite abundant. We must also learn much more about our world's climate so as to reduce our overwhelming dependence on unforeseeable climatic changes, especially in a period when ecological problems may have great influence on world climate.
A way of reducing our dependence on the vagaries of climate is to set up crop insurance funds on a national, regional and even global level. We have proposed this in the past and we propose it again.
Such a fund has been successfully operating in Israel, as well as in many other countries, and international financial bodies should be called upon to operate such funds.
Above all we should encourage farmers to produce more and be willingly involved in the process of ensuring food security. So much depends on them.
We expect FAO to play, as always, a leading role both as initiators and agents for such activities.
Israel, who has been much assisted by the FAO, and through her wide know-how and research facilities in this field, will gladly cooperate with nations in her area, and all over the world and the relevant international bodies, to contribute to a better world, free from hunger, so we hope in the year 2000.
G. DOCÖMMQN (Suisse): C'est avec une grande curiosité que nous avons attendu la parution des résultats provisoires de lfétude "Agriculture: Horizon 2000". Incontestablement, le Secrétariat de la FAO a fait un travail consciencieux et remarquable, l'investissement intellectuel et en travail n'a pas été épargné. Il en est résulté un exposé tris intéressant, riche, autant dans ses aspects quantitatifs que dans la qualité des idées présentées.
L’avant-propos de l'étude, l'introduction et le survol des problèmes fondamentaux qui nous sont présentés au début de l'étude sont très bien équilibrés. L'effort intérieur des pays en développement a sa juste place à côté de l'aide publique au développement et du commerce international; la modernisation et la technologie n'écrasent pas les considérations socio-politiques.
Nous remercions les nombreuses personnes concernées pour le travail accompli. Il faut du courage pour empoigner un problème d'une pareille envergure et nous félicitons notre Directeur général pour cette initiative. Quels que soient les ccommentaires que suscite cette étude, nous pensons qu'elle sera toujours une base tris valable pour la réflexion sur les stratégies du développement.
Lorsque les planificateurs et les politiciens pensent au développement, ils pensent en général en termes de produit intérieur brut, de croissance économique. L'étude "Agriculture: Horizon 2000" mentionne en divers endroits que le facteur humain, son potentiel, sont souvent oubliés par les planificateurs. Aprls lecture, force nous est de constater que même si l'étude n'oublie pas ce potentiel travail, elle ne l'en néglige pas moins.
La réflexion sur le développement des sociétés devrait commencer par un examen des besoins fondamentaux des êtres humains, besoins tant matériels qu'immatériels; quel que soit le type de société envisagé, leur satisfaction exige que chaque cellule sociale de base puisse effectuer un travail dont le revenu en espèces ou en nature soit suffisant.
Il nous semble que l'étude "Agriculture: Horizon 2000" aurait donc dû. commencer sa réflexion par un examen approfondi du travail, du problème de l'emploi. Si le problème de l'emploi n'est pas résolu, celui de la pauvreté et donc celui de la faim ne le seront pas non plus.
Nous encourageons la FAO à examiner les stratégies et les mesures qui permettent d'utiliser pleinement le potentiel humain considérable qui est immobilisé dans la situation. actuelle.
Le chapitre de l'étude sur l'emploi comporte deux pages; ma délégation vous demande de l'étoffer par un travail interdisciplinaire et global dans lequel l'agriculture trouve sa. juste place. Pour les pays connaissant un chômage considérable, ouvert ou caché, il s'agirait d'examiner par exemple, quelles sont les techniques de production qui permettent à la fois d'augmenter le nombre d'emplois, la productivité du sol et autant que possible, la productivité du travail; d'examiner aussi si beaucoup d'investissements productifs ne pourraient pas être réalisés essentiellement avec l'investissement travail.
Nous pensons que les solutions ne peuvent vraiment pas être les mêmes pour des pays aux conditions totalement différentes. Il ne peut pas s'agir de reproduire dans les pays en voie de développement des techniques développées pour épargner du travail dans les pays européens où la croissance démographique était au plus de 1 pour cent dans les deux siècles passés, alors qu'elle est de 3 pour cent dans les pays en voie de développement.
Il est tout aussi risqué de propager des modes de production qui conscomment beaucoup de pétrole alors que son prix est condamné à s’accroître rapidement du fait de sa raréfaction.
Dans la suite logique de notre préoccupation pour l'utilisation de tous les potentiels travail humain, s'inscrit notre souhait de voir l'étude "Agriculture: Horizon 2000" se pencher plus sur l'artisanat et l'industrialisation rurale. Il est hautement prioritaire de développer en milieu rural des activités industrielles qui forment avec l'agriculture ou la sylviculture des circuits commerciaux solides.
La concentration de l'investissement de l'industrie et des infrastructures sociales dans quelques grands centres urbains a des conséquences que l'on peut qualifier de catastrophiques sur le plan humain. Peut-on vivre heureux dans les quartiers populeux de villes énormes qui comprendront bientôt 5, 10 to 30 millions d'habitants? Ne vaut-il pas mieux développer un tissu urbain décentralisé composé de villes petites et moyennes?
L'exode vers les grands centres peut être largement réduit si les campagnes deviennent ussi attrayantes que les villes, si les prix payés aux agriculteurs sont équitables, si les ouvriers agricoles reçoivent des salaires et des conditions suffisants, si les petits paysans disposent eux aussi des bonnes terres au lieu de montagnes et de sols fragiles qu'ils sont obligés de déboiser et de surexploiter pour survivre.
La question de la réforme agraire est très souvent centrale si la misère et la faim doivent être surmontées. La concentration de la propriété du sol a un grand nombre de conséquences qui empêchent un développement harmonieux au bénéfice de tous, elle rend probablement impossible une stratégie efficace en faveur des petits agriculteurs et empêche une réelle participation populaire à l'effort national de développement. La participation des communautés de base au pouvoir et à la gestion de leur développement nous paraît cruciale.
Souvent l'étude "Agriculture: Horizon 2000" semble faire plus confiance à la technologie sophistiquée qu'aux hommes, nous semble-t-il. C'est dommage. Les analphabètes ne sont pas ignorants et ne manquent pas d'intelligence. Cette intelligence peut être mise en action si on lui en donne la possibilité. Il faut donner aux communautés de base la possibilité de s'organiser et de défendre leurs intérêts et de s'éduquer.
Pour résumer, voici en quelques mots quelques aspects que nous souhaiterions voir renforcer dans la version définitive de "Agriculture Horizon 2000".
La recherche de la mobilisation de tout le potentiel humain avec un chapitre élaboré et interdisciplinaire sur le problème Ce l'emploi et la répartition des revenus.
Des stratégies et scénarios plus variés selon les disponibilités en ressources naturelles et humaines des pays.
Des propositions plus diversifiées quant aux technologies à appliquer en tenant compte en particulier des ressources renouvelables et de l'écologie.
Une considération encore plus poussée des obstacles socio-politiques du développement en conformité avec le Programme d'action adopté à la Conférence mondiale sur la réforme agraire et le développement rural du mois de juillet.
Une beaucoup plus grande confiance dans la capacité des populations des pays en développement à contribuer par leurs propres efforts au développement qu'elles se souhaitent. C'est sur la base d'une saine confiance en leurs capacités, en leur créativité et en leur culture que les pays en développement pourront le mieux bénéficier de l'aide que nous sommes à même de leur apporter. Cette base nous poussera aussi à poursuivre avec plus de vigueur la reflexión et la remise en question de notre propre société.
Ms. P. ROBERTS-PICHETTE (Canada): Agriculture: Toward 2000 is a most useful study for goyernments and international organizations, setting out as it does some of the possible trends affecting food production for the next twenty years. As Dr. Islam said in his comprehensive introductions, however, we should not regard it as a plan or a blueprint for the future but rather as an analysis. My delegation is pleased to have this opportunity to ccomment on the document and is happy to note that opportunity is being provided for discussion and explanation before it is submitted to the United Nations Preparatory Committee on IDS.
The next twenty years are certain to contain many surprises and the document provides a warning of what could befall us if we do not meet the challenge of ensuring adequate food for the world's people, essentially from their own backyards.
The Secretariat is to be congratulated on preparing such a stimulating document. Nevertheless my Government has some concerns with the document, which I would like to ccomment upon briefly.
We think that projections based on the lumping together of ninety developing countries at different stages of development and having very different resource bases are likely to be very unreliable. We think that the exclusion of China is inappropriate. We think that there is too great an emphasis on external investment in comparison with the major role that internal investment must play. The suggested growth rates would appear to be too high to be realistic if they are based primarily on additional external investments which do not appear to be attainable in any foreseeable circumstances. We do not think adequate recognition has been given to the role of energy, in all its forms, in modern farming and especially its future availability and price. Finally, we find that only peripheral notice has been taken of the real resources-people, land, water, air-and the biological and environmental limitations which must be recognized if such massive projected increases in food production are to be realized. Those ccomments are brief, so we shall endeavour to provide the Secretariat with a more detailed and constructive critique in due course.
I would like now to turn to some aspects of the results or implications of the analysis.
We find most worriesome the continuing large food deficit forecast for developing countries, particularly in grains and dairy products. It is true that certain countries with growing industrial bases can pay for these imports, and indeed this may well be the best use of their resources. For others, however, imports will represent a continuing drain on limited foreign exchange resources or a need for continuing food aid. This underlines the urgent need to provide national food strategies and to build up national agricultural capacity to increase the output of local staple foods.
Meeting the projected increase in fish production of 20 million to 30 million tons of fish by the year 2000 is an immense task but one which we believe is achieveable. The document identifies two aspects of fisheries, fish-meal production and shrimping operations, as possible sources that could be improved to meet food-fish demands by the end of the century. My delegation supports policies that are geared towards the exploitation of marine and inland water resources for human consumption.
We agree with and compliment FAO upon shifting its operational policies in the fisheries sector towards small-scale rural activities and acquaculture. Fisheries can yield from 3 to 30 times as much animal protein as can their competitors for the same energy consumption. The sector offers an attractive means of increasing food in developing countries already burdened with heavy bills for oil. We also support policies that are aimed at helping management experts in the scientific assessment of existing resources in the economic zones of developing countries. Likewise, my delegation is happy wiüi the response of other delegations to the Jakarta Declaration. The impact of the Declaration' and the FAO policies of Forests for People should have a major impact on this sector of primary production.
We are also concerned about the projection which indicates that food aid will be a permanent feature of international relations. My Government had hoped that food aid could be considered a passing phase during the present difficult food situation, and for the future, that it would be limited to intermittent crop reverses, emergencies and for nutritional programmes. My Government still hopes that our collective efforts to build up the agricultural capacity of developing countries will reverse the projected trends. While my Government has the physical capacity to provide food aid, this represents
aid money and we doubt that a growing proportion of funds devoted to food aid at the expense of agriculture development is in the best interests of developing countries. Therefore we must all ensure that this forecast does not come to pass.
The Study recognizes many of the factors entering into agricultural policy formulation in the developed countries and notes its minor statistical importance in many overall economies, but agriculture is particularly important in certain regions and the revenue it generates has a high impact. The Study appears to neglect the importance of agricultural exports to the overall balance of payments of many developed countries and the importance of agriculture in providing employment opportunities.
While my Government accepts the role of shared responsibility for World Food Security and the need to help meet important demands, both commercial and concessional, from developing countries, there is an inherent contradiction in the Agriculture: Toward 2000 thesis aimed at import substitution. The agricultural sector must be fully productive and farmers assured of a fair return for their labours if emergency needs are to be met. Production cannot be turned on and off at short notice and countries are bound to consider their own needs before considering those of others. It is Canadian Government policy to get the best possible market intelligence to farmers while the annual production plans are being prepared.
Generally, the developed and developing countries complement one another in their productive bases and therefore increased trade potential exists. Where both sides produce competing products for export, such as beef or sugar, my Government supports the negotiation process between parties to consider possibilities and avoid conflict of interest. This is being done already in the FAO intergovernmental groups and in the commodity councils. There is a continual adjustment to changing circumstances, so reliable information is vital to make valid decisions.
We are encouraged by the regular trade liberalization and successive tariff reductions within the GATT over the past twenty-five years. The Generalized System of Preferences and special action on tropical products in advance of the MTN conclusion are important. My Government believes the MTN represents a major improvement in world trading conditions.
As a final point, it is of utmost importance that increased agricultural production (including fisheries and forestry) and more intensive management of resources is ecologically sustainable. Any proposed production framework must acknowledge the resource and environmental limitations of the particular area where it will be used. To stimulate an artificial and unsustainable short-term increase in production could have disastrous effects not only by raising long-term expectations far too high, but also of exhausting the inherent biological capacity, leading to losses in productivity in long term. The major thrust of our efforts over the next twenty years could perhaps be best planned around the theme "Meeting world food needs on an ecologically sustainable and economically viable basis. 11
M. R. LEAR (New Zealand): New Zealand wishes to join with other delegations in commending the Secretariat for its ambitious and far-reaching Study, Agriculture: Toward 2000. The document concludes that there will need to be a massive increase in food production by the year 2000 if the world is to be adequately fed and employed given its rapidly increasing population. The magnitude of this task, both for individual countries and for the international community, is daunting, especially since, as the analysis shows, a continuation of past rates of growth is not adequate and an accelerated rate of growth is essential, and since there are no easy short cuts. A great deal more effort and goodwill will be required on all sides than has been shown in the past, if we are to reach the objective of a world free from hunger and malnutrition.
Bearing in mind the shortage of time available to us and the usefulness of many of the suggestions already made for further improvements of the Study, we will confine our specific remarks to three observations.
The first is that the Study makes a sound analysis of the current international trading system for agriculture, noting that its restrictions and disruptions suppress growth and lead to misallocation of resources. The Study goes on to conclude-correctly in our view-that this system must be reformed if we are to achieve the desired rates of global economic growth. We would, however, like to have seen a stronger and more unequivocal call for greater reliance on market mechanisms for the solution of these problems.
It is our view that a relatively free international trading system will allocate resources most efficiently, and will ensure the most rational production and trading patterns to the benefit of the global economy. We have more faith in market mechanisms than in the organized trading arrangements and the production and export and import management schemes which the Study seems to advocate in places.
While speaking of trade, we would note in passing that paragraph 39 of Chapter 13 provides some conservative figures on the magnitude of the loss of earnings presently suffered by the developing countries as a result of agricultural protectionism. These figures, we believe, put into perspective the claim made by one delegation yesterday, and in the state of food and agriculture debate, that it is r really only the developed countries which would benefit from liberalized agricultural trade.
We would also note in passing that the last section of Chapter 15 summarizes the type of measures which developed countries can take to safeguard the welfare of their farmers and to meet their food requirements, without resorting to the high levels of protection currently practised.
The second point we would like to make is that we note the analysis demonstrates that the developing countries will continue to depend on a high and increasing level of cereal imports, mainly from developed countries.
We heard some delegates from developed countries argue yesterday that this fact justifies their high price support systems, since those systems already encourage high production. We would observe, however, that a significant proportion of the world’s demands for cereals comes from some industralized countries for use as animal feedstuffs. As we all know, animals are relatively inefficient converters of the food energy in cereals and other feedstuffs into animal protein for human consumption. In our view, therefore, it makes better sense for those industrialized countries, rather than importing massive quantities of cereals for animal feedstuffs, to import smaller quantities of food-equivalent livestock end-products from the areas of the world which can raise livestock cheaply and efficiently, primarily on grass. That would release more cereals in the future for human consumption in the developing countries. We hope that this point might find mention in the revised Study.
Thirdly, we would simply like to highlight the sound economic sense made by the report when it dicusses the issues of Self-Sufficiency, Self-reliance and Comparative Advantage in Chapter 17. The analysis notes that both developed and developing countries should be aware of "the implications of undue insulation from international supplies and competition, 11 and they should also be aware of the mutual benefits to be obtained from a greater reliance on trade as opposed to striving at high cost for complete self-sufficiency.
A. I. MENENDEZ (Mexico): Nuestra delegación desea felicitar a la Secretaría por la elaboración del documento: "La agricultura hacia el año 2000", base de nuestras deliberaciones y que permite hacer observaciones de interpretación sobre su contenido, contribuyendo así al análisis de la agricultura, no solo globalmente, sino en los países en desarrollo en los cuales el documento nos parece limitado.
Principiaremos por decir que en aquellos países donde existe una fuerte presión demográfica, desempleo masivo, desnutrición, analfabetismo y otros factores inherentes al subdesarrollo, no es posible pensar exclusivamente en soluciones por la vía del minifundio o los pequeños productores, ya que sistemáticamente se mantendrían alejadas las masas, rurales de la compleja problemática del desarrollo en general y del desarrollo agrícola en particular.
La experiencia de nuestro país y de otros países con problemas semejantes en intentar resolver los problemas del desempleo, el éxodo masivo del campo a la ciudad o al extranjero, la dependencia enologica, la producción alimentaria para una población creciente, y de productos básicos ligados con la-lustria por la vía de las agroindustrias de propiedad social con apoyo del Estado. Esto mediante la coordinación con otros sectores productivos en los que intervienen los pequeños productores sin duda alguna.
Discrepamos del documento al asignar la importante área de la investigación básica a los países industrializados, tradicionalmente potencias agrícolas, lo que sugiere una continuación lineal de la industrialización internacional del trabajo que pretendemos transformar los países en desarrollo a través del establecimiento del Nuevo Orden Económico Internacional.
De implementarse permanentemente la propuesta del documento, equivaldría a condenarnos a depender sistemáticamente de las fundaciones y universidades extranjeras y de la ciencia y la tecnología que importamos "para resolver nuestro problema".
La investigación básica y aplicada provenientes del exterior es bienvenida; pero sólo en función de los intereses nacionales y de las necesidades productivas de los países en desarrollo.
Mediante un plano rector diseñado por el Estado apoyamos decididamente la investigación de nuestros propios campesinos y productores, los cuales con inversiones escasas obtienen resultados tangibles a corto plazo que resuelven problemas concretos y son portadores de sus propias soluciones.
Desarrollar tecnología nativa, que es una tecnología adecuada para resolver problemas concretos, es una contribución importante a la autosuficiencia alimentaria que tiene como meta todos los países.
Generalmente la tecnología que se importa de los países altamente industrializados elimina empleo indiscriminadamente, ignora la problemática social de la producción, fomenta la dependencia tecnologica y la fuga de divisas porque proviene de países que cuentan con abundantes recursos de capital y poca mano de obra; situación inversa a lo que ocurre en el Tercer Mundo.
En México establecemos una diferencia sustancial entre el simple incremento de las tasas de producción y productividad con respecto al desarrollo general, toda vez que este último contempla la coordinación armónica de la agricultura con la industria y los factores sociales que en ella intervienen.
Cuando hablamos de agroindustria de propiedad social, nos referimos al fortalecimiento del sector social en los países con la llamada economía mixta. Diferenciamos esta forma de propiedad de la privada y de la estatal, y nos apoyamos en los 24 000 ejidos y comunidades fruto de la reforma agraria mexicana que cubren el territorio nacional y todas las ramas de la producción para la generación de empleos productivos en la agricultura. Fomentar la capitalización local y regional con tecnología adecuada, con crecientes inversiones prioritariamente estatales y complementariamente privadas y extranjeras fomentan la inversión de los trabajadores rurales en la gestión de sus unidades productivas. Mediante esta red productiva nacional de propiedad social y de forma asociativa-y aquí me refiero a las cooperativas pesqueras-se pueden satisfacer las necesidades alimentarias de la población con bajo poder adquisitivo, ya que tradicionalmente las corporaciones transnacionales cubren las necesidades de consumo de las capas sociales con elevados ingresos, generalmente consumistas y derrochadoras.
Estos cambios en la agricultura exigen transformaciones en el aparato institucional de los países en desarrollo capaces de resistir presiones de los interesesafectados que dejarán de acumular con los reajustes; para ello, sin duda, la reforma agraria es un prerrequisito para la conformación de nuevas fuerzas económicas y sociales. Aquí valdría la pena recalcar las conclusiones de la Conferencia Mundial de Reforma Agraria y Desarrollo Rural e incluirlas en el estudio que ahora comentamos. Es así como vislumbramos algunos aspectos de la agricultura en los próximos 20 años.
Para concluir, Señor Presidente, la agricultura como factor sustantivo del desarrollo y de la supervivencia de la creciente población mundial, no puede ser dejada al arbitrio de las fuerzas del mercado, sino que debe ser preservada como un patrimonio ambiental de la humanidad mediante su adecuada planificación.
México quiere solicitar a la Secretaría que incluya los conceptos centrales de nuestra propuesta en los ajustes que se hagan a este documento, y apoya que sean remitidos con el documento en su conjunto a la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas.
Igualmente, la meta del crecimiento del 4 por ciento de la agricultura en la siguiente década del desarrollo para lo que será necesario aumentos crecientes de investigación en el sector agrícola y seguramente apoyo externo en las economías en desarrollo.
CHAIRMAN: (interpretation from Arabic): Before calling on the next speaker, it might perhaps be useful to remind delegates that the draft resolution on the Programme of Assistance in the Development and Management of Fisheries in Exclusive Economic Zones has already been distributed in document C 79/LIM/41. Similarly, another draft resolution on the World Food Day is already available in document C 79/LIM/37.
I. OZORAI (Hungary): My delegation would like to be as cooperative as possible. Therefore I am going to speak for a very short time indeed, at the same time requesting the Secretariat to include the full text of my prepared statement in the Minutes of the meeting.
There is, however, one specific point which I would like to raise. This refers to investments. Chapter 5 of the study summarizes the investments needed to achieve proper growth in food and agricultural production in ninety developing countries. We have to voice some doubts on whether all countries concerned will be in a position to manage investments which, as a whole, exceeded US$ 100 billion at 1975 prices. It does not seem to be quite clear to my delegation how the institutional capabilities of those countries are going to be strengthened. Efficient national institutions may rightly be looked upon as key elements to this end. We wonder whether in Chapter 12 on institutionsal changes investments and institutional development should be referred to and
analyzed as the most important prerequisites of any real progress. We have good reason to believe that the liquid finance available for argicultural investments in the last two decades of this century may depend on the receptive possibilities of a good number of the countries concerned. Having said this, I have only two very short remarks to make.
One is that my delegation fully endorses what has been said this morning by the Delegate of Poland arguing for increased universality of the study.
Finally, I would like to thank the Secretariat for having submitted this really unique piece of work and we consider this study as fit for submission to the General Assembly of the United Nations complemented with some improvements to be decided upon by the Conference.
CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabic): The Secretariat will include your written text in the report as you have requested.
M. YOKOYAMA (Japan): First of all, I would like to associate myself with the other delegates in commending the Secretariat for the accomplishment of this comprehensive work. This work provides the long-term forecast of agricultural production and necessary investment in the field of agriculture, forestry and fisheries. In-depth analysis is carried out on various aspects of employment, nutrition, marketing, price policy, institutional framework and so on. My delegation is of the view that this forecast is generally realistic and reasonable although some figures may still remain to be re-examined through future discussions in various fora. My delegation thinks that this study will not only contribute to the drawing up of a New International Development Strategy for the 1980s, but will also be useful, particularly for developing countries, to consider their agricultural policies.
Now let me make a few detailed ccomments on some parts of the document. Firstly, as for Chapter 12 of Part Three, Institutional Changes, my delegation is of the view that the recommendations of the World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development and the Fifth World Food Council need to be reflected more in this chapter.
Secondly, with regard to Chapter 13 of Part Four, International Trade, we are aware that the free trade system contributes to the increase of agricultural production and also to the improvement of food consumption, not only in developing countries but also in the world as a whole. Bearing this point in mind, Japan provides a large agricultural market to the world and now is one of the largest food importing countries. But we must not forget the fact that the specific circumstances of agricultural production are different among countries and therefore it is necessary to deal with the international trade problem from a wider view, taking account of national food security and various roles of agriculture such as maintaining stable employment and conserving a good environment.
Thirdly, turning to Chapter 16 of Part Four, External Assistance, in order to promote normative rural development with the assistance of developed countries, it is particularly necessary to solve the problem of lack of technology for pre-investment assessment in developing countries. We cannot expect good results in spite of the increase in financial assistance without the improvement of such technology. Thus Japan has been emphasizing the necessity of the development of human resources.
Although the Secretariat's document refers to this Programme, I am under the impression that much stronger emphasis is placed on the analysis of the total amount of necessary assistance. Therefore I hope that a more comprehensive analysis on the amount needed for technical assistance will be carried out in future.
Mme. L. DE AZEVEDO (Portugal): Après tout ce qui vient dfêtre exposé au sujet du document C 79/24 "Agriculture:Horizon 2000 ", la délégation du Portugal veut aussi féliciter le secrétariat de la FAO pour l'élaboration d'un travail qui est vraiment un excellent document d'orientation vers le futur en ce qui concerne l'agriculture et la nutrition. Il est évident que le document pourra être amélioré en mettant par exemple un accent spécial sur la régionalisation dans une prochaine révision qui a été déjà annoncée. Cependant, il représente le meilleur outil de travail en matière agricole élaboré jusqu'à présent. Le Portugal, malgré ses modestes possibilités, appuie les efforts que tous les pays devront faire pour améliorer la nutrition de la population mondiale et pour faire que
l'égalité entre femmes et hommes soit une réalité à court terme pour tout ce qui concerne les possibilités d'éducation, de formation professionnelle, d'emploi, de travail au foyer dans les exploitations agricoles, etc. Comme il a été affirmé pendant la Conférence mondiale sur la Réforme agraire et le Développement rural, reconnaître le role primordial des femmes dans la vie socio-économique, qu'il s'agisse d'activités agricoles ou non agricoles, est une des conditions de succès des politiques, des plans et des programmes de développement rural.
Le Portugal croît effectivement que tous les pays s'uniront avec force pour établir dans un délai pas très lointain un nouvel ordre économique international qui puisse procurer de la satisfaction à tous les pays et, finalement, contribuer â voir un sourire heureux sur le visage de tous les enfants du monde.
A. K. OSÜBAN (Uganda): Thank you Mr. Chairman. The Uganda delegation would like to thank the PAD Secretariat for compiling the document c 79/24, "Agriculture: Toward 2000". We find the report informative and full of policy guidelines for future agricultural development. Our ccomments here are intended for emphasis of some of the points covered. We realize that "Agriculture: Towards 2000" will continue to face similar problems then as at present, such as inadequate capital, soarce and expensive inputs, energy problems, adverse terms of trade, technological problems etc. However, the report provides valuable information for a good basis for overcoming these problems.
For most developing countries, "Agriculture: Toward 2000" will have to mean development of the amali and marginal farmers who constitute the vast majority of the farming communities. To us, Mr. Chairman, this development will necessitate not only provision of appropriate technologies, but also preparation and successful implementation of package programmes, in which are included inputs, infrastructures, facilities, logistics and extension services.
The report indicates annual gross investment needs of up to $107 billion by the year 2000. As you realize, Mr. Chairman, and as pointed out so eloquently by Prof. Nurul Islam in his introductory remarks to the agenda item, this level of investment will certainly be much more than the capacities of most developing countries to afford. This is even more so considering that adverse terms of trade are likely to continue to diminish the export earnings of these countries. This was clearly stated by H. E. Dr. Kaunda in his McDougall Memorial Lecture to the Conference. Therefore, unless there are structural changes in terms of trade to improve the earning capacities of developing countries, investments of the magnitude indicated in the report will not be realized, unless with massive external assistance.
Mr. Chairman, the solution to the food and nutrition problem has been elusive for a long time and continues to be a serious issue. My delegation is of the view that much attention, effort and resources, have been put on a few commodities which form part of the international trade. There are many types of localized foods such as millets, yams, sweet potatoes, cassava etc. which could go a long way to alleviating hunger and malnutrition if they received much more attention than, they do now. The Uganda delegation would like to propose that these possibilities receive more international attention.
Mr. Chairman, there have been many good reports in the past which have remained on shelves as material for future academic interest. We therefore welcome the Secretariat's proposal to make the report an agenda item of the FAO Regional Conferences next year where we hope it will inspire local solutions to the food and nutrition problem.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, the findings of the report do not allay our fears of continued hunger and malnutrition. The investments required are too high and several other paramètres of development will remain at their relative positions as they are today.
Even with the assumptions of the most unlikely doubling of both production and incomes, there will still be about 240 million hungry people by year 2000. Mr Chairman, although we realize the difficulty of answering such a question, maybe the Secretariat would like to tell us what it would require to wipe out hunger and malnutrition by the year 2000 or when we should expect hunger to be completely eliminated from the world.
K. A. AL-SAYED AHMAD (Yemen, Arab Republic): (interpretation from Arabic) I would have liked to hand in a text to the Secretariat to save time, but in view of the importance of this document, please allow us to make use of three minutes only to make a few observations on some points we consider very important.
Most delegations have expressed gratitude to the Secretariat for the efforts they have made in preparing the excellent document before us, with important conclusions. We entirely agree with most delegates who have taken the floor here and consider that the observations which have been made here must not prevent the adoption by this Conference of this resolution, nor the need to take this document to the appropriate committee of the Special Session of the UN General Assembly, with whatever amendments are made to this document. We consider that this document can constitute a very useful basis of work for the discussions that will take place in this Preparatory Committee.
My delegation wishes to state once more that the question of investments and of the change in structure is the sine qua non for the developing countries throughout the world, and we feel that the developing countries ought to organize all their resources. But we also think that the developed countries should help the developing countries to achieve the objectives to which this study refers because we consider that there is still an even greater oapacity for production for developing countries, thanks to the use of technology, and thanks also to the expansion of arable lands. This is why we hope that the
Third Development Decade will dearly show that the industrialized countries and oil-producing countries will devote one or two percent of their national product to the development aid of developing countries.
Rev. A. FONSECA (Holy See):Thank you, Mr. Chairman. While congratulating Mr. Nurul Islam on the production of the excellent document "Agriculture: Toward 2000", we would like to make the following brief ccomments:
First, that the end of agricultural development is human development. This final purpose should be brought out much more explicitly as was so strongly emphasized in the conclusions of the recent World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development.
This delegation hopes that this human aspect will be taken into consideration not merely as potential human capital which needs strengthening in order to effectively increase labor productivity and total production. In this context due consideration should be given to the satisfaction of basic human needs as an objective of development so as to guarantee well-being and social progress linked up with economic development, as is clearly envisaged in the preamble of the document on the New International Economic Order.
Again the human dimension should not be too narrowly understood in reference to raising levels of nutrition. The document calculates the figures needed to reach nutritional availability proportionate to growing populations. The other words it is not only economic indicators but social indicators thaty need to be used to measure development and, we presume, that this human dimension should form an important part in the whole perspective of any type of programming for the future.
Nor can only global calculations of world production of available foodstuffs be enough for our purpose. There is also need to give attention to overcome the disequilibrium between availabilities and population in each country and within zones wherever it can be verified.
Since the present study is destined to determine the political decisions of individual Member States for their own programmes and projects, and of Inter-governmental Organizations for their joint action, it is worthwhile presenting the specific problems of agricultural development in the broader horizon of global development.
It is universally known that particular progress in the food and agricultural sector cannot be ensured without foreseeing and achieving world global development. This is the prerequisite for the orderly and ongoing growth of each country. This required that more attention be paid to the eleven guidelines for agricultural adjustment given the primary importance of agriculture in overall development.
The up-dating of the models of development should imply the increase of production above all by means of international cooperation, especially through the transfer of technology. Further, the limitations of imports whether it be technology, capital, chemicals, etc. cannot produce the fundamental change required if the human person is neglected. The rural worker must participate in his own development as was brought out so clearly at the World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development. One would also have to consider the social conditions and the environment in which the rural worker lives and toils.
The new models of the future and the criteria of development require a choice of a new i ernational strategy oriented towards satisfying real human needs and also corresponding to principles of self-reliance for which each country, group of countries or zones must he placed in a condition of using its own energies according to its culture and the values of life lived in a concrete human experience.
Such groupings would also lead to the formation of a better balance in the distribution of power for the realization of the New International Economic Order. One cannot refrain at this point from referring to the relation between the increase of production and the regulation of exchange. The Holy See Delegation shares the concern expressed by several other countries over the growing protectionist policies by certain States or groups of States. It supports the efforts to guarantee a growth of access to world markets particularly by developing countries for agricultural products through a progressive reduction of obstacles to trade.
We favour procedure that does not lean to a completely free market. What is required is an adequate control of trade and aid. Otherwise, the assistance given out of generosity will be reabsorbed through higher prices of both exports and imports.
Social justice requires the adoption of a relative preferential treatment for weaker countries on the world market, and a mechanism to actuate international price stability.
This Delegation willingly accepts this occasion in order to restate its support. Which has been given from the beginning, of the criteria that inspire the New International Economic Order. We consider these as based on the principle of justice for "peaceful reoperation" which will eliminate "the conditions of exploitation, of economic or political dependence which might be only a form of neocolonialism".
The difficulties that prevent the effective realization of these purposes are well known. We encourage every proposal that tends to reduce the distance between rich and poor countries by correcting those trends which would lead to a widening of that gap. Briefly, we favour action that would lead to a renovation of the prevailing economic system in its global relationships.
Above all, we give the greatest importance in relations among States to the fulfilment of their duty to distribute the goods produced and make all the inputs available which are necessary for the development of the emerging countries.
Finally, this would imply a change in the relations between governments so that they may be able to treat with each other on the same footing of equality, with adequate judical guarantees.
B. SUSSMILCH (European Economic Community):The Commission of the European Economic Community congratulates the FAO Secretariat on the work which has gone into preparing the draft document which we have before us. The final version of this report should play a useful role in focussing attention on the longer-term issues which we will have to face. Moreover, it should provide a constructive contribution to the United Nations. preparation of the "International Development Strategy".
However, in our view, the report should not only cover, and I quote from the Director-General’s foreword"desired rates of growth of overall income and feasible rates of increase in domestic agricultural production"; but should also draw on available analysis of our collective failure on occasion to fully realize earlier development objectives in order to present an alternative less optimistic scenario.
In this way, we believe, attention would be more effectively focussed on the key issues which have to be faced if we are to ensure that the increasing number of poor of this world receive-as a basic minimum-sufficient to eat.
We will make available to the Secretariat our detailed observations on the draft document before us today. However, it seems appropriate to state now a number of general observations.
First, in our view the basic assumptions which underpin the "normative" scenario of the present draft are far too optimistic for us. We are reassured that the Secretariat intends to incorporate in the final report calculations based upon less optimistic assumptions, in so doing we believe there should be a better possibility of focussing attention on the issues which we must face together over the next twenty years.
Secondly, the Secretariat has not had sufficient resources to refine its analysis of the developed countries to the same point as the developing countries. It is our hope that we will be able to contribute positively to an extension of this aspect of the Secretariat's work, by making available in advance work which we have under way within our own organization.
Before closing, I must emphasize one essential point. Many developed countries have already experienced a slowing-down of their economies. In particular since 1973, we have seen our general rate of economic growth slashed to a mere 2 percent on average, in comparison with 4 percent of objective. At the same time our agricultural sector is growing very slowly; it has even contracted slightly-if one takes Gross Value Added as a yardstick.
In consequence it would appear opportune to reconsider the draft conclusion of the report: that developed countries should in the longer term, restrain the growth of their agricultural output: since this could lead to dangerous instabilities in the global food supply situation.
I. M. NUR (Observer for the Organization of African Unity): I should like to join other delegations in congratulating the FAO Secretariat on the preparation of this document.
I should like first to refer to page 61 of the report, the part under the sub-title, "Area expansion versus land use intensification", and to add the following.
Crop intensification, or vertical expansion, is a complicated process as it requires soil survey, extension, research, watering, high-yielding varieties, requires the adoption of dry fanning techniques in rain-fed farming for conservation of moisture. Crop diversification, or horizontal expansion, requires soil, social and economic surveys plus aU that is needed in the case of crop intensification.
My second observation concerns page 85, under the heading "Power inputs". With respect to mechanization, there are four recognized sources of energy supply to agriculture: manual, animal, intermediate mechanization and advanced mechanisation. These sources overlap and are at times mixed. Agriculture in the developing countries is at various stages of the first two sources and cannot meet the demands of the population explosion. To meet this dilemma some developing countries have embarked on the advanced mechanization of their agriculture. On smallholdings the result has been obvious failure. Tractor hiring units generally have also not been successful, for operational reasons.
Farming requires certain factors of production which must be delivered to the right place at the right time in the right quantity and at prices that encourage rather than restrict their use. The farmers of developing countries are so poor that they cannot afford to buy expensive machinery. It is not so easy to bypass intermediate mechanization for the future because farm sises are small, farmers are poor, many farms are inaccessible and modern machines are meant for advanced steps In advanced mechanization. What is required for narrowing the energy gap in the developing countries is for them to obtain machinery for the intermediate mechanization of agriculture.
Unfortunately, manufacturers of agricultural machinery, who are located in the developed countries, manufacture for their own markets machinery which is far too advanced for the developing countries’ agriculture. Agriouiture needs a full line of economical, simplified and compact farm machinery, so articulated that each unit is harmoniously linked to the others, and the machines must be low-cost, multi-purpose and easy to maintain. We have to pass through intermediate mechanization before reaching advanced mechanization.
This situation calls for joint action by the governments of the developing countries for the establishment of factories for the production of appropriate machinery for the intermediate mechanisation of agriculture.
As for research, I believe that national universities are not fully tapped for contributions to development. There should be a new model of national universities, tailored to contribute to development and food production.
We would also like the following points to be endorsed in the report.
First, mention should be made of the untapped resources. For example, the inter-action between climate and soil could be considered as as untapped resource for seed production and seed is an important item for greater agricultural production.
Among the untapped resources is the potential for the productivity of land. The current production is far below the potential. However, in order to approach potential productivity there is need to intensify the use of different inputs of production: development of rain lands, use of solar energy, use of the potential of tides, development of wildlife, creation of a germ plasma bank for livestock improvement, crossing of wild animals with livestock for greater meat production. These could all be considered as untapped resources.
Savings made in the developed countries in the field of arms expenditure would be an untapped resource and could be convertible into funds for development of agricultural assistance.
Secondly, there is the establishment of a commodity bank. Such a bank could be financed by special funds, and would protect the interests of the developing countries in respect of trade in selected commodities and also to support food reserves policies in selected countries.
Thirdly, the report ignores the impact of drought on agriculture. We are all aware of the spread of drought in many of the OAU Member States, especially in the SäheIian Zone. All the indications are that drought, which is an ecological phenomenon appears in cycles. There have been similar droughts in the history of Africa before, and they are likely to occur in the future.
Fourthly, the climatic variability is perhaps the most important factor in production in the Sähelian Zone, as it can cause major fluctuations in agricultural production, exports, industrial growth, balance of trade and payments, and so on. It is clear that the climate must be integrated as an explicit variable in any assessment of the long-term economi o hopes of the Sähe Ii an Zone.
H. CARANDANG (Philippines): First of all I should like to associate myself with the delegates of Ghana and Yugoslavia, and others, who have spoken before me in support of the general conclusions of the study, AT, 2000.
We believe that the study has given a fair analysis of the implications for agriculture if it is to meet the demands arising from the relatively high rate of overall growth, as postulated in the normative scenario. To achieve such growth rates, the study has identified correctly, as far as is possible in a global study like this, the required changes in national policies and international trading patterns and policies. It has also correctly identified and pointed out in quantitative terms the requirements in internal investments and inputs, as well as the requirements of external assistance and food aid, without neglecting the most important input of all, labour, the human factor, as well as the need for research to apply the findings of science to agriculture and the institutional changes to carry these findings to the people.
We can Bay, therefore, that AT 2000, with the exception of some assumptions that have been questioned by a few delegates, expeci ally the delegate of Yugoslavia, has analyzed with great professional competence the relationships between the endogenous and exogenous variables. While it would be possible to refine the study to make it more region-specific and country-specific, and also to include other variables that may seem important to some, there is a limit to what can be included in a world-wide study like this.
We can therefore say that we are in general agreement with the conclusions of the study.
At this point, however, I would like to pose two questions, one relating to the objective and the other to the means.
With regard to the objective, I should like to recall that the international community made a solemn pledge in 1974 during the World Food Congress to eradicate hunger and malnutrition by 1905. Now we are told that such an objective is over ambitious, yet in 1974 the heads and plenipotentiaries of our delegations did not think it was an over ambitious goal. the question I should like to ask is, is this goal really now thought to be over ambitious because we have backed out from applying the means that had been identified at such a conference? Now that we have lowered the objectives in AT 2000, we are alarmed to note that even by that year we shall not have eradicated hunger and malnutrition, because with the high rate of growth in the normative scenario we shall have more than a quarter of a million people hungry by that time. That is indeed too many people, more-fcfcaft the whole population of Europe combined. Is this acceptable?,
President Kaunda said in his McDougall Lecture that if we do not banish poverty and hunger from the face of the earth it will not be from lack of means but from lack of political will.
My second question is with regard to means identified. We are told on page 15, in the second paragraph, that the assessments of potentials and constraints are realistic provided that serious efforts are made. Some people will say that these assessments are probably too rosy in view of present and past performances. Perhaps t. ney have reason to ask the question, in view of the impasse reached in the north/south dialogue referred to by some delegates and also with reference to the OECD projections with respect to ODA. Perhaps there is some reason to question this, because of the deteriorating conditions in many developing countries today and the ever increasing number of hungry and malnourished people. It would be far too easy to paint the future world food situation as one of doom and gloom, of unmitigated blackness without any redeeming feature, forbidding in its lack of hope, but it would be a false picture. Worse, it could lead to despair and a belief on the part of many that no action could suffice. The reality is that the situation is neither black nor white; it is grey. We do have an ominous situation in the world as far as hunger is concerned. At the same time, at no other time in history have we had the resources and the political awareness to banish world hunger in the shortest time, as we now have. A renewed commitment to apply the technology, the knowhow, at the start of the new development decade could still spell the difference.
B. SANCHEZ (Venezuela): La delegación de Venezuela saluda al documento C 79/24 de la forma más amplia y lo ve con el ínteres y la magia que despierta toda acción encaminada a enriquecer la bibliografía contemporanea en materia de economía agraria.
Señores delegados el mundo en que vivimos muchas veces da la impresión de ser un mundo goloso a características delirantes y ambiguas; de ahí que creemos que un análisis marcado por el exceso de parámetros muy generales es un equívoco. Por ende es un desprecio a las verdades históricas.
No creemos que este documento caiga en tales pretensiones, pero tampoco pensamos que los documentos deban tomarse como profecías absolutas que indican un camino sacro e inevitable, o si se quiere un apocalipsis verde o un apocalipsis agrario. Si así lo fuera, corresponderá a las realidades mismas encargarse de denunciar la insuficiencia de la econometria, de la estadística y el mero desarrollismo para aclarar la conciencia histórica, tan ansiosa por el logro de superar los impass en que se debate la evolución humana.
Venezuela piensa que una agricultura propedeutica, una agricultura del año 2000 es un momento más en la lucha por el logro de Nuevo Orden Economico Internacional, ya que entendemos por éste no un vano agregado de ritmos y tasas de crecimiento a las magnitudes sociales ni tampoco la mera adhesion de estructuras a estructuras, sino ante todo entendemos que un nuevo Orden Economico Internacional es un nuevo modo de trabajar.
Un nuevo modo de comer y sentir, sobre todo un nuevo modo de dialogar. Vemos que en el plano de las hipótesis y variables que vehicula el documento se da fundamental atención a acelerar la producción y promover la demanda, sobre todo la demanda efectiva. Estas viejas leyes de la economía clásica re-tomadas después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial por las escuelas Post-Keynesianas y, fundamentalmente, por las doctrinas de la economía marginal, es una proposición que no debe tomarse en forma ligera y textual. Acelerar el proceso productivo sin la producción de una economía de alternativas diversifi-cadas y aumentar la demanda sin una sociología del consumo es meramente trasladar bajo esquemas meca-nicistas la experiencia lograda en los países desarrollados hacia los países en desarrollo.
Pensamos que la modernización es ante todo rescatar y promover los valores económicos y agrarios pro-pios y adaptarlos a una vision más flexible y dinámica del mundo. Esto en vista que el documento nos hace tomar conciencia de que la tendencia en los precios de los insumos es alcista y tiende a dupli-carse para las próximas décadas.
El documento en discusión actualmente coincide con la tesis defendida por mi delegación que cree en la inevitable necesidad de incorporar la investigación científica como instrumento básico de desarrollo. Pero también creemos que la ciencia contemporánea está manipulada por incentivos ajenos a su metodolo-gía e intereses pedagógicos, elementos que plantean interrogantes como el uso de la ciencia de ¿quiénes? y ¿para quiénes?
Mi delegación cree que una pura distribución de ingresos no es una garantía de mejora en las condicio-nes nutricionales de aquella porción de la humanidad ya cansada por el cáncer del hambre. Si es auténtico que esto ha de aumentar el poder de compra de los bienes de subsistencia, cabe afirmar que todo lo que se come hoy en el mundo no es nutricional.
Si es cierto que el tercer mundo aumenta su desnutrición, cabe considerar que los regímenes de alimentación del mundo desarrollado aumentan sus tasas de intoxicación. Será también necesario realizar e investigar como complemento de este estudio el esquema de alimentación de las economías desarrolladas y toda la patología gastronomica que se tiende a establecer en la dieta humana con la incorporación de ciertos químicos y fertilizantes que comprometen la salud misma del hombre sobre la tierra.
Por ende, para nuestra delegación la redistribución de los ingresos vinculados a las políticas nutricionales pasa por una redistribución de tierras, políticas de reforma agraria, transformación y mejora en los hábitos de la educación, higiene, salud y mejora de la vida en general, en lo que concierne a los países en desarrollo y por una revision del ecosistema y las formas de ayuda alimentaria y métodos nutricionales que nos aporta el mundo desarrollado. Cabe destacar que con la llegada de muchos enlatados a los países en desarrollo sin existir una pedagogía nutricional previa o anterior, también llego esa enfermedad que en el siglo veinte sicólogos y sicoanalistas han mencionado y han buscado combatir en el mundo desarrollado. Repito, nos llego la angustia, la ansiedad, factores consumistas que, aunque subjetivos, han perjudicado y despersonalizado culturas enteras. Nuestra delegación cree que se debe adecuar más la relación hombre-ayuda alimentaria al porvenir de los recursos propios o autóctonos de los países en desarrollo.
No se trata de comer cualquier cosa para vivir, se trata de saber comer, que en el fondo es homónimo de saber vivir.
Pensamos que las exportaciones agrícolas de los países en desarrollo en el futuro no deberán depender de las meras "oportunidades de mercado de los países desarrollados", sino ante todo de compromisos políticos más solidos y coherentes que las leyes artificiosas del sistema comercial contemporáneo; compromisos articulados al contexto y búsqueda del nuevo orden económico internacional, sobre todo del Nuevo Orden Agrícola Mundial, elementos que solo podrán implementarse bajo una nueva division internacional del trabajo.
Venezuela cree que el proteccionismo a ultranza es una tara al desarrollo común de la humanidad y un instrumento paralizante en relación a todos los resultados que pudiesen derivarse de los foros internacionales. La era del mercantilismo chovinista ya fue derratada y la "autosuficiencia colectiva" es precisamente contar con los productos de los otros y saber analizar y asimilar las diferencias que ofrecen países con problemas idénticos o diversos.
Nuestra delegación comparte la tesis de que la ayuda exterior no es una panacea. Que ha sido un instrumento muchas veces de penetración y que por ende solo es aceptable en función de los intereses nacionales de los países en desarrollo.
Vemos con entusiasmo que el documento propone alternativas energéticas para la agricultura, voy a confesar algo qe a muchos países le va a parecer extraño. Para un exportador de energía, en lo que concierne a los hidrocarburos, cada barril que se vende es una pérdida para los recursos de dicho país, aunque el precio de dicho barril sea alto, ya que el petróleo no es un producto manufacturado, ni un bien reversible. No lo puede reproducir ni siquiera en lapsus de años geológicos a brevedad histórica, la naturaleza misma, como producto entonces que se agota, esta sustancia no puede circular a precio de mercado de pulga, esto sería catastrofico y anarquizante para el esquema goloso en que se debate hoy la economía mundial misma.
Venezuela ha defendido la tesis de sembrar petróleo, esto quiere decir para los países en desarrollo, transformar bajo uso racional sus dinámicas internas de producción. Para el mundo desarrollado quiere decir, así aspiramos que se entienda, quiere decir, generar fuentes energéticas alternas.
Una agricultura moderna o en vías de desarrollo, o incluso la economía mundial misma en general, no puede seguir hipotecada al futuro de una sola energía. Sobre todo una energía que se agota. Esperamos que el documento profundice y abra un debate sobre las fuentes de energía alternantes. Esto en vista de la tendencia de ciertos países a acusar al petróleo como el causante de la inflación de esta última década. Los que se acuerden de la historia económica habían ya reflexionado que antes de la subida de precios de petróleo a partir del año 1973, ya en el año 1972, las crisis del mercado de trigo elevaron el costo de una tonelada de este producto, de 70 dólares que costaba a 270 dólares americanos.
Cuando se sustituyó el uso de la harina de pescado por la harina de soya en los mercado farinageos la tonelada de soya que se cotizaba a 400 dólares subió bruscamente a 900 dólares. He aquí dos ejemplos que demuestran que la crisis de precios fue general y no un mero derivante del alza de los precios en el costo de la energía.
Repito entonces, señores delegados que saludamos al documento y no queremos cansarlos más, sobre todo a usted, señor Presidente, que en esta Comisión ha demostrado poseer un profundo amor por la brevedad, por la exactitud y por carecer de cualquier forma de frenetismo en sus puntos de vista. 1/
I. OZORAI (Hungary): I should like to start by saying the Hungarian delegation is pleased indeed to take note of the excellent document on'Agriculture: Toward 2000' submitted by the Director-General. The Twentieth Session of the Conference is actually discussing a document, the main objective of which is not limited to setting targets for developing countries to be reached while leaving outside consideration the economic environment and special conditions. The paper before us is making a commendable attempt to estimate, determine and analyse the means and investments needed for developing countries for reaching the desirable development, moreover making references to some structural changes needed.
The study has been prepared for the Special Session of the UN General Assembly to be held in 1980 on the IDS. We are pleased to note that the study includes some alternatives and enquires into the food and agricultural sectors of the countries concerned as an integral part of their respective economies as a whole. My delegation appreciate the emphasis laid on the special role agriculture is playing in most developing countries. I should like furthermore to express our agreement with the priority the study is giving to training of national experts as well as to the importance of access to land and water for the small farmers. We would, however, welcome an even greater emphasis on the latter issue.
It is our feeling that the paper AT 2000, complemented with some improvements to be decided upon by the Conference, will be suitable for submission to the Special Session of the General Assembly. As a contribution to these improvements the Hungarian delegation would like to make some comments, one of a broader nature and two more specific ones.
The 1970s the period of the Second Development Decade-occupy an important place in the process which is marked, among other things, by increasingly decisive efforts to end the unequal and outworn pattern of international economic relations, inherited from the past, and to replace it by a new type of relations. As these efforts produced but modest results during the past decade, the next IDS will start mainly from an unchanged (illegible) and will have to carry the process to completion.
The new strategy should promote the earliest possible realization of the restructuring of international economic relations on a democratic and just basis. Its major focus should be on changing the present situation of developing countries. Lasting structural changes or the process of transformation of the existing international economic order, can only be conceived if the decisions to be taken have due regard for the fundamental interests of all countries or groups of countries concerned.
The first specific point I would like to raise refers to investments. Chapter 5 summarizes the investments needed to achieve a proper growth in food and agricultural production in 90 developing countries. We have to voice some doubts whether all countries concerned will be in the position to manage investments as a whole exceeding $100 billion at 1975 prices. It does not seem to be quite clear to my delegation how the institutional capabilities of these countries are going to be strengthened. Efficient national institutions may rightly be looked upon as key elements to this end. We wonder whether in Chapter 12 on Institutional Changes those investments on institutional development should be referred to an analysed, as the most important prerequisites of any real progress. We have good reason to guess that liquid financial means available for agricultural investments in the last two decades of this century may exceed the receptive possibilities of a good number of countries concerned.
The second comment is on the chapters and paragraphs of the study where the need for agrarian reform and for the grouping and cooperation of small farmers and for the respective governments' assistance is touched upon. We would welcome the strengthening of these parts, thus complying also with the decisions of WCARRD. We fully endorse what has been said by the distinguished delegate of Poland on the desirable (illegible) of the study and on some alternative scenarios.
In conclusion, I am going to reiterate our thanks to the Director-General and to the staff involved for the good work done. Mr. Chairman, finally may I ask the Secretariat about any plans it may have to make full use of the wonderful and extensive work they did in collecting data and assessing agricultural output and input. We have in mind the possibilities offered by AT 2000 to be utilized in the training in agricultural planning of national agricultural decision-making officers. 2/
1/ Texto incluido en las actas a petición expresa.
2/ Statement inserted in the verbatim records on request.
CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabic): That concludes our list of speakers and I would now like to call on Dr. Nurul Islam who will take up some of the points raised in the course of this discussion.
N. ISLAM (Assistant Director-General, Economic and Social Policy Department): We are very grateful for the amount of interest which the Study has aroused, and the variety and number of wide ranging comments which it has attracted. We feel that our efforts have been rewarded.
As many delegates have emphasized, and as I pointed out in my introduction, the Study was not designed as a forecast-a point worth emphasizing many times-but as a measure of the knowledge confronting humanity in its task of alleviating hunger and malnutrition.
It is not possible for me to cover all the points made in the debate. We would very much welcome an opportunity of detailed discussions with delegates individually during their stay in Rome. In fact, we have already had the opportunity of such a discussion with some of the delegations on a few points. We certainly need the support of member countries and the expertise at their disposal in our task of revision, in terms not only of expertise but also of coordination with the ongoing work in some of the countries, as mentioned by the delegates from Yugoslavia and United States. We also need access to data and information in particular countries.
A large number of questions have been raised on the methodology of the report. I would only try to comment on the main points raised, if I understood them correctly.
The estimation of commodity prices must be relaxed. Models should be made dynamic and better desegregated in terms of regions and countries. Distribution of income should be explicitly introduced. Multiple scenarios must be tried out. The trends scenario must be elaborated. Inter-sectorial relationships between agricultural and non-agricultural sectors should be elaborated. The aggregate DPP growth rate should not be treated as exigenous. Distinction should be made between urban and rural areas in terms of demand analysis. Greater integration should be made with the recommendations of the World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development. Elements of variability of weather should be introduced into this analysis. Employment should be treated in greater detail-and so on and so forth.
As the delegate from the Philippines has just pointe out, the complete incorporation of all these various elements in a comprehensive dynamic, optimistic model, linking all the 90 developing countries not only among themselves but in relationship to the developed countries, as the delegate from France wanted I thought to imply, is an exercise which would require a very considerable amount of extra work and resources, including a level of expertise which I hope we shall be able to draw upon from member countries.
I seriously wonder whether such a model can be built, primarily in view of availabity of data in the 90 developing countries which we have covered. I would even go one step further: I am not even aware that such a model has been built in the past, which is computable and which can be implemented without drastic simplification of the structural relationships and the assumptions to be made, which would seriously jeopardize the quality of his conclusions. However, in our revised version we intend to do further work and improve it in various ways, not necessarily within the context of the model but also outside the structure of the model, because of the difficulties which I have just pointed out. For example, income distribution. We realize that our treatment of income distribution leaves much to be desired. We have treated income distribution of exports, analysed changes in income distribution, and estimated the effect of changes in income distribution on demand and nutrition studies.
We have also analysed the employment implications of the growth of outputs, but in view of the limited data we have restricted this analysis mainly to employment in crop production, and our analysis shows a growth rate of 2. 6 percent in demand, slightly higher than the rate of growth in the agricultural labour force. We also intend to undertake case studies on relations between agricultural growth and income distribution and poverty in the rural areas, but not within the context of the model, because we do not know how to do it. We also intend to integrate the recommendations of the World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development with the findings and conclusions of our report.
Questions have been raised about the overall rate of growth: why it is not indiginous, why agriculture and non-agriculture sector relationships are not treated more comprehensively and consistently one with the other. These are the very issues which are part of the consistency and harmonization exercises which the United Nations agencies are now attempting to do in the task force on long-term development objectives. The overall economic growth and various sectors relating to economic growth, savings and investment, and balance of payments, are being worked out by the United Nations itself, and the various meetings which we have with the other agencies and the inter-phasing which continues to take place, hopefully will enable harmonization of various sectorial studies.
Questions have been asked as to whether the rates of growth for the agricultural sector are not over optimistic. Some delegates have in fact pointed out that they are pessimistic. At least two delegates mentioned that it should be possible to increase the rates of growth beyond what is being estimated.
I may here point out that our estimates for the year 2000 for cereal outputs for the 90 developing countries which we have analysed came very close to the analysis of cereal production for the year 2000 in the estimate made by the United States Department of Agriculture. We of course hope to work out the implications of a lower overall rate of growth, and a scenario in accordance with such a lower rate of growth.
We also intend to do a better analysis of the trend. As far as trend is concerned, as the delegate of Yugoslavia has mentioned, our trend rates are not exactly the same as the historic rates of growth. There are reasons why they are not, but at this present late stage perhaps I should not go into this detailed question. We do however intend to make a further elaboration of the trend analysis.
As far as distinction between various countries is concerned, we have given separate sets of figures, estimates, for different regions of the world, and also some specific estimates for low-income countries, especially in Chapters on Trade and Food Aid.
Recently we have submitted a paper on the least developed countries, to serve as a contribution to the UNCTAD High Level Experts Meeting on Less Developed Countries, and a programme of action for them.
We acknowledge that the estimate of prices is far from satisfactory. We are exploring ways in which, within the limitations of our methodology, we can relax this kind of restraint, but we do not think we shall be able to do a great deal more.
Questions have been raised about investment estimates. We intend to do a little more work on the investment estimates.
As far as elimination of hunger is concerned, to which the delegate from the Philippines referred just now, as our analysis indicates, it is possible to eliminate hunger by the end of the century not by just increasing food output, but also, in addition, adopting and undertaking re-distributive measures, and this is clearly pointed out in the analysis on the Chapter.
On environment, we have done some analysis, all of which is not reflected in the report. In the Chapter on Land and Water, Forestry and Fisheries, there are references to the implications for environment and are also our estimates of investment to make allowance for soil and water conservation and for flood control.
We hope to have a new Chapter on Energy. We already have the publication by FAO Energy for World Agriculture, which has just come out. We do recognize that this is an area in which we should do more work in the context of Agriculture: Toward 2000.
Insofar as country coverage is concerned, even though we have not given details for the developed countries, as we have done in developing countries, we have done analysis of the developed countries. This is available, but we intend to do a more systematic analysis in the revised Report-a little further work, but not much more.
As far as China is concerned, we have been handicapped by the lack of data but we have given our estimates of the net trade balance of China on individual commodities by the end of the century.
Mention has been made of the fact that possibly the Report does not pay adequate attention to exports of raw material and over emphasizes the question of self-sufficiency in food production. Our approach really has been to consider self-sufficiency in food production, without neglecting the comparative advantage of various developing countries in raw material exports. Further opportunities for trade exist in the world market.
As far as trade relationships between the developed and developing countries are concerned, the analysis shows that there will be large increases in imports of food from the developed countries by the developing countries, and there will be a large expansion of exports if all the advantages are realized of agricultural raw materials from the developing countries to the developed countries-so there will be an expansion of exports of food from developed countries to developing countries and an expansion of exports of raw materials from developing countries to developed countries.
Perhaps at this stage I should provide a clarification about the timing of the formulation of the International Development Strategy by the United Nations. According to present schedules, they are supposed to finalize the Strategy next year, and the Preparatory Committee is to complete its work in the middle of next year.
Therefore while discussing whether the findings and analysis should be transmited by this Conference to the General Assembly, this timing is very critical because the revision of our reports under no circumstances can be made before the middle of next year.
CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabic): I should like to appeal to you to make brief statements only. But I fear I did not set such a good example myself because very often I have spoken at some length because I attach considerable importance to the subject under discussion.
More than 47 speakers have taken the floor in the course of the discussion on this item. All those who have participated and who have stressed the excellent work that has gone into the preparation of this document have stated that they were fully satisfied with the work carried out. Several have supported the conclusions that the document arrives at and have said too that although this was not the final and definitive document that the conclusions would be greater after the changes. A proportion of the delegates therefore referred to some of the conclusions in which they were particularly interested. I would not like to go into all these comments but I will mention some of the most important ones.
Acoordingly, much has been said about the particular importance to be attributed to agriculture in preparing the new development strategy for the 1980s.
Speakers have also stressed that continuation of the present guidelines would lead to unacceptable results with regard to the level of food production generally. Therefore if adequate measures were not adopted it would not be possible to speed up and improve the production level in the field of agriculture. Of those who spoke on this particular point, some spoke about a dialogue and others drew attention to figures and statistics contained in the document on AT 2000, that the growth rate should be 3. 8 percent for agricultural production.
Others stated that investment in agriculture in the developing countries should be increased considerably. Some of them mentioned figures given in the document; others quoted other figures. But, roughly speaking, it can be said that most delegates referred to the document it self saying that the annual investments should, be $ 87 million per annum for 1980 and $ 57 million for 1990 on the basis of 1975 prices.
Several other aspeóte such as transport and trade have been referred to but most speakers stated that the objective for the year 2000 referred to in this document required an increase of external assistance. Some referred to certain figures. Some agreed to the figures. Some just referred to the figures and said that external investment would have to be inoreased. Others said it would mean $2-$16 billion-12 for 1990 and 16 for the year 2000. Among those who mentioned these figures some said in their statement that equity and justice should lead to the equal distribution of land amongst all and that equity be ensured in the services rendered to the whole strata of the rural population, including women, and in accordance with the resolutions adopted by the World Conference of Agrarian Reform and Rural Development.
Others in particular mentioned the fact that governments should finalise or prepare certain objectives which could be finanoially implemented, bearing in mind the financing problems and the minimum services which would be rendered to the population, and also how this would affect the employment market.
Others said that it was neoessary to give a larger share to the developing countries. The industrial development of the developing countries should be emphasised more and 50 percent of the figure sumgested should be achieved by the year 2000.
Some said that external assistanoe should be inoreased, and most delegates spoke of the 20 million tons referred to for food aid in the document. Others said that this amount should be inoreased.
Then another group of delegates said tribute to the efforts in preparing this document and stated that it was a very good basis for the discussion but, nevertheless, they expressed certain views which differ from those expressed in the document on certain points.
Some delegations said it was neoessary to analyse the present presentation of the scenario more clsely by carrying out an indepth analysis. Others said a new scenario should be set up which would bear in mind three different levels of dialogue or analysis.
Then comment was made to the effect that therate of expansion of the agricultural growth rate is too high, that the document is too optimistic and not realistic
Others men ti on ed weather environment and similar aspects and the fact that the energy factor was not analyzed in the document, that it had not been highlighted enough, and also that the environment had not been highlighted sufficiently.
Several delegates said it stressed the role of foreign investment too much whereas it did not stress sufficiently the role of national governments in developing agriculture.
Some said the document was really an analysis and did not give an action programme. Furthermore that the document did not mention all developing countries, it was said. Some said in fact that there was a considerable gap in the document. Information on China was absent. Others said that therefore one could not have on overall analysis of all countries and as the result of such a gap it would not be rational.
Others said the study of international trade should be given more detailed attention.
Professor Islam has tried to reply to all these points as far as possible. So much for the document itself.
This part of the report will be considered by the Drafting Committee and all the various points which have been expressed here supporting, rejecting or criticising the document will be taken up in the final report so that it reflects all the different opinions expressed.
Now we shall have to decide what we are to do with the document and what we will do about a report on it. We can use the normal procedure-the majority decided that this document. . . -and our report on the discussion should be submitted to the General Assembly because this should be part of the International Development Strategy, And we felt that the strategy only contained a few chapters on agriculture and that by including this document it would highlight the role of agriculture in the new strategy.
The majority said that they agreed with the essential orientations contained in the document and any supplementary analysis would not change their basic view and that an attempt at improving it could take several years.
However, some of the delegates felt that it was not yet advisable to submit this document to the General Assembly of the United Nations because it was not yet the definitive document, as some of its components might be amended as the situation changed, or some of the approaches to certain topics in it might be changed,
I believe I have given a fair picture of our discussions, I have reflected our discussions correctly and we will have tried to find a solution between the two approaches. We must remember that this is not definitive document in any case, the document does not pretend to be a final document. We need not pretend that this is a perfect document. We must of course stress that the effort in the preparation of this document was considerable and the majority of delegates paid tribute to the Secretariat for its preparation. Therefore I feel that as the report of the general Conference will be a full report, including all points of view-supporting the document or not-this general report will reflect the discussions fully, it will reflect the views of the various delegations with regard to this document, and if we add that the document itself is not the final version-it will be amended as the need is felt to do so-I think that the general feeling of the Commission is that it will be very useful to submit this document and above all the report of the general Conference to the General Assembly of the United Nations, so that they can bear this in mind when preparingthe New Strategy of the United Nations. In any case, this will not be the only contribution of the general Conference of FAO to the preparation of a New Strategy. -there will also be other contributions.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I have tried to reflect as faithfully as possible and as best possible the discussions, and if you feel therefore that this summing up is correct, then we should adopt this stand unless anyone objects to this.
G. BIRAUD (France): Vous avez parfaitement resume les débats qui ont eu lieu et ce nfest pas sur ce point que je voudrais intervenir, mais cfest sur le point de la procedure.
Nous avions déjà dans notre intervention souligné qu'il ne s'agissait pour l'instant que d'un projet d'étude et non pas d'une étude, et cfest conforme à ce que l'on peut lire dans le projet lui-méme; par consequent, nous continuons à souhaiter que si ce document doit suivre son cours-et je suis très heureux d'avoir entendu le Dr ISLAM nous dire avec quelsoin ilentendrait tenir compte des observations qui ont été faites pendant ce débat-si ce document doit etre transmis à l'Assemblée generale, cela ne pourrait en tout cas pas etre dès maintenant et sous sa forme actuelle, en tant que document officiel, et cela ne pourrait l'étre en tant que document officiel qu'après l'examen par une nouvelle instance intergouvernementale au sein de la FAO.
Au stade actuel, il ne peut s'agir que d'un document de travail auquel serait annexe le rapport de notre discussion par exemple, et cela ne pourrait etre en tout cas qu'un document purement, je dirais, officieux, et une transmission officieuse pour que d'autres experts des Nations Unies puissent essayer de commencer à agréger les différentes hypotheses qui ont été faites par nous et par d'autres organisations, comme l'ONUDI etc.
Ainsi, je souhaiterais que notre débat ne s'achève en aucun cas par une procedure d'approbation formelle du document comme document officiel de la Conference.
Q. WEST (United States of America):I also think that both Professor Islam and you yourself did an excellent summary of the debate on this document. I think it would be useful if Professor Islam clarified a little bit to us just when such a document needs to be submitted to the General Assembly in order to fit in to the strategy of planning, and just what he would be able to do in the way of modification before that time. I think this timing is a little bit unclear. I think there were many things that were brought out by which the document could be improved, and it is hopeful that those improvements could be incorporated before this becomes an official document of the Conference and also the official submission to the General Assembly.
M. TRKULJA (Yugoslavia): I fully share the feelings that you have really summarized our debate in an excellent way, doing full justice to all views expressed from the floor, but since our colleague from the United States asked Professor Islam to explain procedural things, if you would agree I would prefer to hear Professor Islam first before expressing our views with regard to the issues mentioned in the French intervention.
N. ISLAM (Assistant Director-General, Economic and Social Policy Department): As I have already stated, I explained the timetable of the preparation of the new strategy as far as we know at this stage. The Preparatory Committee for the preparation of the new strategy will have three more meetings-January, March and, I think, May. That is the last meeting and the deadline for the formulation of the strategy is 1980, as you know-it starts from 1980-the last one ends in 1980. Therefore, if the report of the FAO Conference has to submit something to the Preparatory Committee or the UN General Assembly, it has to be done in a matter of months. The revised report, as I stated, cannot be made ready except at the end of next year. We can't see any possibility of doing any revision of the report along the lines we have discussed.
M. TRKULJA (Yugoslavia): Professor Islam explained what I just expected him to tell us again. I think it is now clear that this Conference should present the study itself, AT 2000, including as you suggested, I fully agree, comments including our report, the views expressed by this body, and sent as a very important contribution to the International Strategy for the 1980s. May I mention that it was one of the primary reasons when it was decided to include this valuable study in the Programme of Work of FAO. I fully share your summing up but I would wish to stress, in view of what we ourselves stated and how we understood our debate, there is no doubt in our minds that the vast majority of this body fully shared the basic findings of this study. Of course it would be unreasonable to expect that such a huge family of nations as we are here could agree on all things, but again there is no doubt at all-at least it is our understanding of our debate-that the vast majority of this body fully supported the basic salient findings of this study, and again the vast majority supported these findings as presented by the first speaker in our yesterday's debate, the representative of Ghana, who himself said that he was speaking on behalf of Ghana, but he also conveyed the feeling which certainly prevailed in Plenary. So we feel strongly that this Conference should officially submit the study, together with the report, to the General Assembly and to the Preparatory Committee for the Development Strategy for the 1980s.
H. CARADANG (Philippines): When I asked for the floor, I was going to ask the same question as the previous speaker about the timetable for the submission of this report to the UN. Now that Professor Islam has explained the timetable I would in general agree with what has been said by the previous speaker and, of course, we hope that the Secretariat can meanwhile put all the suggestions in the limited time, and what is possible, according to the suggestions that have been made by this Conference.
P. H. GRUE (Norway): On behalf of the Norwegian delegation, I fully share the view expressed by Professor Islam and by the delegation of Yugoslavia, and I am fully in agreement with the proposal put forward here that this report should be submitted to the General Assembly.
CHAIRMAN: I hope it is worthwhile to emphasize one point which Dr. Islam first made and which is going to be emphasized in the report of the Commission, that the document AT 2000 is provisional, but of course the Report of the FAO Conference itself is going to be an official report, so there should be no doubt about the officiality of the Report-it has to be official-but stating that the document is provisional.
SANG-WOO PARK (Republic of Korea): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I think it is not important whether it is official or provisional. I have been listening carefully to the explanations and points raised by representatives, and if my understanding is correct most of the representatives praised the work done by Dr. Islam and his staff. I think the projection towards 2000 years is a long-term projection. I think the quantitative things are less important than the direction, if we believe the direction is a correct and desirable one. I do not think there is any reason why we should hesitate to submit this document to the General Assembly. Therefore I strongly support the submission of this document to the General Assembly.
CHAIRMAN: We will now study item 9 of our agenda. The documents we are about to study are C 79/21 and C 79/LIM/41, whichcontainthe draft resolution on this subject. I will give the floor to Mr. Lucas, Assistant Director-General, Fisheries Department so that he can introduce this item to us.
K. C. LUCAS (Assistant Director-General, Fisheries Department): What I plan to do is to give you a brief summary of the situation which has made this programme urgently necessary, and then I will describe very quickly the genesis of the programme and mention the discussion which took place recently in the Committee on Fisheries at the 76th Council and, finally, I would like to highlight the two most important issues influencing the successful implementation of the programme for your consideration.
So if I may start on the background. Since the start of the Law of the Seas Conference, over 5 years ago, we have seen, speaking quite literally, a revolution in world fisheries. At the start of the Conference in 1974 only a handful of nations claimed extended fisheries jurisdiction and most of the world's marine fish lived in waters beyond national jurisdiction, subject to uncontrolled and uncontrollable fishing. They were living in a no-man's land.
Today the situation is completely different. At this time 93 nations have already extended jurisdiction over fisheries and the number is steadily growing. Soon 99 percent of ocean areas where fish catches are taken will be under coastal state jurisdiction.
Now this trend constitutes, without any exaggeration, a most important development in the history of world fishing. It is a fundamental change in the situation, one which in a time of increasing pressure on food supplies the world cannot ignore.
In this situation we can see both opportunity and danger. Suddenly many nations have come into possession of immense renewable resources. A group of three or four small nations along the North-west Coast of Atlantic Africa just to give you one example-now control annual fish catches about as large as those of Norway and twice those of Canada-two traditionally very important fishing countries. Beyond the benefit to nations we have a situation where we can, for the first time, talk about managing the world's fisheries and not be simply indulging in wishful thinking. Because now, for the first time, someone is responsible, someone is in charge of the fish. We have a chance to move away from an area of unmeausred assaults on a finite resource toward a situation of stable supply and orderly development, and generation of tangible and lasting benefits from, world fisheries.
On the other hand there is another less hopeful but definitely plausible scenario. The declaration of a 200-mile zone by itself guarantees absolutely nothing. Fisheries do not take care of themselves. They cannot be left to the forces of nature and marketplace. They do not reach their own limits and flourish there, marvelous as that might be. They do not do that, they need systematic management. Without, for example, a careful matching of vessel and processing capacity to the amount of fish available to be caught, which is determined by highly sophisticated scientific study-fishing industries tear the stocks of fish and themselves to pieces.
Now this is not theory, this is recorded history. We will see history repeat itself within these new zones of sovereignty unless coastal states act to prevent it. And coastal nations understand this, they realize that they now have a definite but transient opportunity to avoid this destructive cycle. They know that to fulfil the potential they must begin the basis of sound, rational management. They must increase their knowledge of their stocks of fish. They must improve their fleets and their processing sectors. They must build marketing and distribution systems. They need to work out, at least in the interim, joint venture or licencing agreements which will assure them income from fishing by other nations until they are ready to do it themselves. Above all they must enforce their own jurisdiction.
But in most cases these nations lack the wherewithal to do these things. They lack the knowledge, they lack the technology, the expertise, and above all the money needed to build the foundations for managing their fisheries.
So that, in a nutshell, is what this programme is all about. To nations that request help-and many already have-FAO will provide assistance in key areas of fisheries management and development, which has been described in the supporting documentation to the agenda item. Much of the infusion of expertise and assistance will come from nations already experienced in extended fishing zone management, mainly the developed nations. Much will be exchanged among developing nations in the spirit of technical cooperation among developing countries. And of course, FAO fisheries staff will be fully committed to the programme.
FAO has been active in fisheries assistance work for 30 years. What is new about this programme is extending jurisdiction. Because up to now, regardless of the enterprise of fishery managers, and regardless of the quality of advice from FAO, or anyone else offering it, matters were, to a large extent out of man's control. The fisheries were overwhelmingly out of range of management, out in that no man's land. But. they can now be managed, and they must be if nations are going to reap any lasting benefit from these opportunities.
I should also emphasize in my introductory remarks the importance we attach to small-scale fisheries. If nations so desire, and many are already doing so in the adoption of national policies, the most important beneficiaries of the programme would be the small-scale fishermen who fish over the continental shelves of national waters. There are at least 10 million fishermen in developing countries and a further 40 million people directly engaged in the handling, distribution and marketing of the production of the fishermen. They tend to be at the lowest end of the economic scale in terms of income and they are over-whelmingly rural inhabitants. Both the Committee on Fisheries and the Council welcomed this special attention accorded to small-scale fisheries.
So much for the background. Turning to the genesis of the programme for the moment, it is not new to this forum. The Nineteenth Session of the FAO Conference endorsed the Committee on Fisheries' request emanating from its 13th Session that the Secretariat provide a comprehensive programme to assist developing coastal states in the management and the development of fishery resources in their Economic Zones.
The Director-General's programme, which was brought before the 13th Session of the Committee on Fisheries a little over a month ago, is in direct response to action taken by the Conference at its last session.
Both the Committee on Fisheries and the Seventy-sixth Council at their meetings held during the past five weeks agreed that the proposals presented to them by the Director-General provided an excellent frame-work for the planning and execution of the EEZ Programme and expressed unanimous and enthusiastic support for it. The Council, at its last meeting, also endorsed the three central objectives of the Programme, one of which was to strengthen the capabilities of coastal countries and grouping of countries to manage their fisheries and get the maximum benefits from those resources. Most importantly, the 76th Council endorsed the recommendations of the Committee on Fisheries regarding the Programme and in particular the proposals to decentralize the delivery of the Programme through a network of technical support units associated with a strengthened and reoriented framework of FAO regional fishery bodies. I would like to come back and enlarge on this point in a few moments.
In welcoming the high priority being accorded by the Director-General to the Programme, the Seventy-sixth Council approved the efforts being made by FAO to mobilize financial and other forms of assistance for the Programme and requested potential donors to provide the maximum support possible for fisheries development and management. Again, I would want to refer to this point in a bit more detail in a few moments.
I am not going to discuss the Programme here. It has been discussed thoroughly in the Committee on Fisheries and in the Council.
There are two important issues which I would like to return to now. The first is the question of the decentralized delivery of the Programme. FAO's network of regional fisheries bodies has a vital role to play in the implementation of the EEZ Programme. They will be a major source of advice on the programmed orientation and priorities. It is apparent from recent discussions in the Programme Committee in September, in the Committee on Fisheries and in the Council, that adjustments in the sub-regional structure of our fishery bodies would allow for the requirements of coastal states for fishery management and development to be met on a more appropriate geographical basis than is the case at present. The concept of natural management areas, based on such factors as shared stocks or fisheries, common problems or opportunities and other natural affinities among the coastal states concerned, has received strong support at those meetings and in direct discussions with government officials.
The suggestion has also been made that such management areas should be served by an appropriate subsidiary body of the relevant regional fisheries commission and that each subsidiary body should be provided with a locally based, multi-disciplinary technical support unit financed from extra budgetary sources. This will entail in some cases a readjustment of the existing inter-country technical assistance programmes.
I am convinced that this approach, more closely attuned to the needs of the coastal states under the new ocean regime, will help us to serve them more effectively and to build up their capability as rapidly as possible.
I would like to give you a few examples of such arrangements of regional fishery commissions supported by subsidiary bodies coinciding with natural management areas and having affiliated with them technical support units located in the natural management areas, so that I can clarify these explanations.
These are long phrases and they may be hard to understand.
For example, in the Indian Ocean region there are already two geographic subsidiary bodies, one in the Gulf between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula, the other dealing with tuna management ocean-wide. Two more are proposed; one for the Bay of Bengal and one for the Southwest Indian Ocean. Each of these four groupings would be subsidiary bodies of the Indian Ocean Fisheries Commission and each of these subsidiary bodies would have attached to it, or working for it, a technical support unit located in the area of each of those subsidiary bodies' areas I mentioned.
Another example:in the Southeast Asia region, where you have the overall authority of the Indo-Pacific Fishery Commission at play, there is already a proposal coming before the next meeting of that Commission to establish a South China Sea subsidiary body which already has a technical programme in place, located at Manila, serving the countries of that region.
Similar arrangements exist off West Africa and also in the Caribbean, and this network can be expanded when further needs are identified and agreed upon by coastal countries.
A second, and last, point I want to emphasize is to bring to the Conference's attention the critical need for adequate financial and other support from international, bilateral and other sources if the Programme is to fulfill its mandate to help coastal states take full advantage of the opportunities presented by extended jusrisdiction.
As delegates will have read in the document, approximately US$35 million to $40 million will be required over the next three years alone to plan and execute the programme of assistance. As a result of discussions already held with the UNDP and other organizations and donors, firm agreement has already been reached on the provision of $13 million to finance the Programme during the first two of the three years. Further support, to the extent of another $8 million to $9 million, is under active discussion and negotiation with several donors.
This is an encouraging start, but substantial additional funding must be forthcoming if requests for assistance are to be met promptly and efficiently. When the presently envisaged network of twelve to fifteen technical support units is fully in place in about three years time, the estimated cost of the Programme will be US$18 million to $20 million annually, which will need to be supported through extra-budgetary funding. Thus, the cost of the Programme from 1980 through 1984 will be in the order of US$75 million to $80 million.
The financial support of the UNDP through its three inter-country Indicative Planning figures has been a key to getting the Programme started and its continuing support over the longer term will be essential. Even though the work is commencing near the end of UNDP's second programme cycle, it has been able to provide additional financial support because of the high priority accorded to the Programme. The Committee on Fisheries expressed the hope that the UNDP Governing Council would recognize the importance and urgency for continued and accelerated support of the EEZ Programme when considering its third pro-gramme cycle allocations for 1982-86.
I would hope that the Conference would take note of the great improtance of the UNDP Governing Council reflecting the same high priority for FAO's EEZ Programme as has been accorded to it in this forum. If appropriate emphasis is given to this Programme in time to influence UNDP's inter-country programme allocations for the third cycle I believe that the full medium to long term Programme will be a reality rather than simply an aspiration. A combination of strong UNDP core funding for the network of technical units, coupled with expanded multilateral and bilateral assistance in the form presently being pro-vided by only three or four countries, will ensure the Programmed success.
It is very gratifying for me to report that at the recent Session of the Committee on Fisheries, several delegations offered the technical cooperation of their countries in the implementation of the Programme. Indeed, the assistance provided need not necessarily be financial, as there are many opportunities for technical and other help between developing countries in the spirit of TCDC, as well as between developed and developing states. I could mention training facilities, fellowships, research and other vessels, equipment and joint venture collaboration as examples of such non-reciprocal assistance. I am convinced that there is much scope for this type of cooperation, particularly since a number of countries have acquired considerable skills and experience through the development of their fisheries over the past two decades.
In conclusion I would refer to the final paragraph of document C 79/21, in which various actions designedto assist developing coastal states to obtain a more equitable share of world fishery resources are suggested for the Conference's consideration. While noting the many supportive statements made in the Plenary meetings over the past week, we look forward to the Conference's debate on this agenda item and to the advice and guidance which will be offered, to efforts to help the developing states accept this chance to secure a higher and sustained marine harvest, beyond anything achieved in the past.
Could I draw attention to a couple of errors which have crept into document C 79/21, before somebody points them out to us. No corrigendum has been issued. In paragraph 8 there is a typing error on page 5 in the fourth line where it says " US$ 60 billion '', the number should be '' US$ 60 million ". Of course, there is a bit of difference there.
There is an error in paragraph 13 in the very last line. We omitted to express the number in the terms used in FAO. It should say US$ 2, 000 million " rather than '' US$ 2 billion ''.
CHAIRMAN:(interpretation from Arabic)I thank Dr. Lucas on behalf of the members of the Commission for his introduction, which was extremely clear and complete, on item 9 of the agenda, which we are about to discuss. Since he has just explained to us that the Programme will require $60 million and not $60 billion, as we may have believed at the outset, that may make our discussion easier and make it possible for us to come to a conclusion fairly quickly.
Mario RUIVO (Portugal): Ma delegation note avec satisfaction qufà nouveau l'agenda de la Conference inclut un point specifique sur la peche, en particulier sur le développement et la gestión dans la zone économique exclusive. Ceci est déjà en soi-méme indicatif de l’importance croissante de ce secteur pour la développement économique et social et de la contribution des ressources aquatiques corame source de protéines pour l'alimentation.
Le débat très riche qui a eu lieu à la dernière session de la Conference et qui a inspire l'action du Departement des peches au cours de ce biennium, a contribue également à stimuler les débats à la treizième session du Comité des peches sur cette importante question. Nous avons beaucoup apprécié l'excellente introduction qui vient d'etre faite par le Directeur adjoint pour les peches, M. Lucas, et nous profitons de cette occasion pour lui souhaiter le plus grand succès dans ses nouvelles taches, succès garanti d'ailleurs en raison de sa competence et de son dynamisme.
Le nouveau regime des oceans commence à acquérir progressivement sa propre nature qui le demarque du regime traditionnel de la liberté des mers, ceci dü aux progrès accomplis au sein de la Conference des Nations Unies sur le droit de la mer qui, d'ailleurs, est entré dans une phase finale sous de bons auspices et à la pratique des Etats.
C'est précisément pour ce qui est du regime de la zone économique exclusive dans son application aux ressources halieutiques que le consensus est pratiquement acquis. Il est assez encourageant pour la communauté internationale de constater le grand effort en cours accompli par les Etats concernes en vue de profiter pleinement des grandes opportunités créées par le nouveau regime des oceans dans le but de développer leurs pécheries et qui pergoivent la nécessité de maintenir dans cette phase de transition le niveau des captures et d'atténuer les difficultés auxquelles sont confrontes les Etats qui ont perdu l'accès à certaines pécheries ou ont été forces d'en détruire certaines pourtant tra-ditionnelles, ou ceux qui, par leur situation géographique ou pour d'autres raisons, ont été défavorisés par la nouvelle situation. Une reference a d'ailleurs eté faite, au cours de la recente session du Conseil, à la situation speciale de la Mediterranee,
Ceci renforce le besoin de cooperation internationale au niveau global regional et sous-regional, selon les cas, et a mis en mouvement un processus de réajustement des organisations internationales competentes indispensable non seulement à l'utilisation et à la gestión rationnelle des ressources, particulièrement des ressources communes, comme à la protection contre les effets de la pollution, surtout dans les effets transfrontières ainsi qu'au transfert des technologies et à la recherche indispensable comme appui à ces objectifs.
Mais, en dernière analyse, la mise en oeuvre du nouveau regime, les opportunités pour le développement économique et social des Etats et la realisation de cette composante d'un Nouvel ordre économique international avec son objectif de rapports internaiionaux plus justes et équitables et la reduction de l'écart entre le niveau de développement des Etats ne sont pas faites de mots mais d'actions, c'est-à-dire de mesures pratiques qui, à tous les niveaux, puissent favoriser les finalités mentionnées ci-dessus.
Malgré la volonte de nombreux Etats de développer leurs secteurs de la peche, ils sont confrontes à des difficultés objectives-comme d'ailleurs vient de le signaler le Directeur general adjoint-difficultés liées à leurs limitations en matière de financement, de personnel qualifié, d'équipements, parfois méme de caractère institutionnel.
La sensibilité politique et la capacité d'action du Directeur general ont à nouveau été démontrées lorsqu'il a pris l'initiative de promouvoir un programme d'assistance au développement de la péche dans la zone économique, et de réorienter les activités du Departement des peches-dont la competence est une garantie de succès d'une telle initiative-pour qu'il puisse jouer le role nouveau que la Communauté internationale attend de lui.
Ma delegation tient à souligner que ce Programme constitue l’initiative la plus avancée et la plus concrète prise dans le cadre du Systeme des Nations Unies en vue de repondré aux besoins accrus des Etats, surtout ceux en développement, ayant comme objectif de faciliter la mise en oeuvre du nouveau regime des oceans, composante d'un Nouvel ordre économique international.
L'accueil enthousiaste accorda par les Etats Membres du Comité des peches aux propositions du Directeur general, la richesse des débats qui ont eu lieu à la récente reunion de cet organisme, que jfai eu d'ailleurs l'honneur de présider, l'unanimité faite sur les conclusions auxquelles on est arrive offrent maintenant une base solide d' orientation pour les activités futures du Departement des peches, la cooperation entre les agences directement concernées ainsi que la mobilisation des moyens financiers et autres nécessaires à l'execution d'un Programme si vaste et si complexe.
Il est assez encourageant de constater d’ailleurs l'appui general que ees propositions ont regu à la récente reunion du Conseil de la FAO. Nous avons noté avec satisfaction 1 excellent résumé qui figure dans le document C 79/21 et qui couvre tous les elements indispensables pour que les Etats puissent obtenir une part equitable des ressources halieutiques dans le cadre des nouveaux droits et devoirs créés par le nouveau regime et dont la pierre angulaire est en dernière analyse le renforcement de la capacité nationale de chaqué Etat, ce qui à leur tour leur permettra de mettre en oeuvre leurs politiques dans le domaine des peches et de participer effectivement à l’effort de cooperation regionale et globale indispensable.
Dans ce contexte, un groupe d'Etats, dont le Portugal a l'honneur de faire partie, a décide de soumettre à la consideration de la Conference un projet de resolution, maintenant distribué sous le numero C 79/LIM/41, projet de resolution sur le programme d'assistance au développement et gestión des pecheries dans les zones économiques exclusives. Je dois signaler qu'étant donne le nombre de contacts et de consultations qui ont été nécessaires pour mobiliser l'appui des Etats qui ont décide d'etre co-auteurs de ce projet, il se peut que dans certaines phrases il y ait peut-étre quelques erreurs, disons des expressions qui ne correspondent pas exactement à l’intention de certains des co-auteurs. Mais ceci ne touche pas le fond du document et les participants auront l’occasion de faire leurs commentaires et leurs propositions d'amelioration.
Ce projet, après avoir rappelé le changement fondamental que represent ent le nouveau regime et le role special de la FAO, en collaboration avec les autres agences et institutions dans ce domaine, suggère ou recommande un certain nombre de meeures parrai lesquelles je sígnale:
- la formulation et l'application des politiquee par les Ertats cÖtiers où il est fait reference, en les approuvant, aux propositions du Directeur general relatives au programme qui représente un cadre excellent pour planifier et acheminer l'assitance nécessaire. D'autre part, il est dit:
- appuie la realisation en 1982 d'une conference technique de la FAO sur la planification et la gestión des pecheries·
- se felicite de l’intention de décentraliser l'execution du programme en mobilisant le réseau Bxistant d'organismee régionaux de pêches.
- reconnatt que oette decentralisation accelererà I' expansion de la cooperation technique et économique, et je Signale le paragraphe 7 qui, par son caractere opérationnel, touche le fond du problème, c'està-dire le beso in de mobiliser des fonde et des moyens au niveau appropria pour la mise en oeuvre de ces programmes·
Au nom des auteurs de ce projet de resolutionqui, d'ailleurs, a eu un accueil tràs favorable de la part d'autres delegations avec lesquelles nous avons eu des consultations et dont nous verrons avec beaucoup de satisfaction la participation à cette resolution, je sollicite l'attention de la Conference envers cette proposition, en ospérant que les debate qui vont suivre confirmeront le consensus qui s'est degagé au Conité des peches. Les co-auxeurs du projet de resolution seront d'ailleurs très heureux que d'autres Etats puissent avec leur experience et leur connaissance contribuer à ce débat et enrichir cette resolution.
A. TRONCOSO VILAS (Brazil): The Brazilian delegation would like to point out the importance of this programme for many countries, particularly for Brazil in view of its large coastal resources. We stress our congratulations to FAO for its involvement in this area, and especially for proposing a systematic approach when attempting to identify needs and also when analyzing how to develop and rationally exploit fishery resources all over the world.
Brazil has supported this programme for exclusive economic zones for its opportunities because our country has long ago claimed a 200-mile limit. vie emphasise that we support the programme mainly because we believe that a lot can be done. Taking into consideration the technical cooperation that can be achieved among member countries, we do believe that many countries have a lot of expertise that could be used with reasonably reduced investments, helping other countries to develop their fishery resources. Of course a special economic fand mechanism will have to be provided. We hope that the proposal on this programme will take into account the developing additional details on these funding arrangements. But we do believe that special arrangements among member countries should be worked out. This would, of course, reduce the investment estimates that we may have for a programme like this.
We stress that we support this programme, as we did before, and we hope that this is going to help a lot of countries to minimise the food shortages all over the world.
The meeting rose at 18. 10 hours
La seance est levée à 18 h 10
Se levanta la sesión a las 18. 10 horas
