P. M. AMUKOA (Kenya): I can be very brief on this matter because I shall be raising some of the issues here at a later stage during our debate on the other agenda. My delegation wishes to express concern that the total growth in world food production has been slow. We are even more concerned that food production in developing countries stagnated from 1978-79 and instead of increasing it fell. Many factors account for this fall in production and I cannot go into them now as many have been mentioned by various speakers in what has so far been discussed in this Commission. I will however mention that investment and investment opportunities in developing countries have not been adequate. There has not been enough effort from the affluent nations and where some efforts have been made they have been frustrated by inter alia high prices of important inputs such as fertilizer in farm production, high prices caused by many external and not internal factors. There needs to be rapid progress in achieving international agricultural adjustment, as stated in Guidelines 1 -- 3, and here we call for an increased flow of resources to developing countries. On Guidelines 4 and 5 which we very much support, we wish also to emphasize the need for nutritional considerations in development projects and I am happy to note FAO is making penetrating efforts in this area.
It is important also to note here that within our rural communities there are foods which are nutrition-ally reliable and cheap and the major problem may be that the rural poor lack the necessary nutritional education to incorporate these foods, many of which they easily produce or could easily produce, into their diets.
On Guidelines 7,8 and 9, my delegation would like to express serious concern that many commodities which we in the developing countries export face depressed market conditions. As a result, the foreign exchange earnings from these exports are too meagre, very low, and our agricultural investment programmes are therefore seriously affected. This situation then becomes aggravated by increased food and oil import bills.
The serious decline and high volatility of prices of agricultural products, together with low export earnings which in turn erode trade surpluses in developing countries, should not be a situation allowed to continue, otherwise we cannot expect rapid growth and even development in our countries; we cannot expect progress in agricultural adjustment.
On Guideline 10, we wish to call for increased transfer of technology into research especially in the food sector. We wish also to call for increased technical and economic cooperation among developing countries.
As regards food aid, we commend efforts of donors in this area and call upon them to go beyond their contributions and give us even more. New donors should also come forward, and we thank those who have already done so. We hope that our food aid targets will be achieved in the near future, as agreed by the international community.
We wish to end by calling upon FAO to continue monitoring these guidelines and also upon both developed and developing countries to cooperate with FAO and others in ensuring more rapid progress in international agricultural adjustment.
S. SABER (Iraq) (original language-Arabie): We have read with interest the various paragraphs relating to food and agriculture and the International Development Strategy for the Third Development Decade, which started in January 1981, for this is the subject of our discussion. It gives us great pleasure that among the overall projects of the Strategy, emphasis is placed on developing agriculture and the rural areas. Developing countries are called upon to increase their agricultural and food production in order to achieve self-sufficiency within the framework of national plans that give priority to the improvement of natural resources and the use of modern technology, including the use of water and the development of forestry, natural pastures and fisheries. This is in addition to the provision of economic and social aid to rural areas.
Our delegation considers it considerably important that we should cooperate towards the achievement of an international food security through adequate food stocks and that we should unite all our efforts towards a new wheat agreement that guarantees the interests of all parties.
We also consider that the target figure of half a million tons of food cereals for the International Emergency Food Reserve should receive a greater share of our interest, because of its benefits and direct effects in order to alleviate consequences of natural disasters.
Speaking of rural development, our delegation calls upon the Organization to give this full attention. Iraq is continuing to concentrate its efforts on the improvement of the rural areas through better housing conditions in order to limit migration. We have started housing projects where all facilities, such as electricity, schools and health centres are provided, in addition to road networks connecting the urban and rural areas. Likewise, we are encouraging artisanal work to use whatever manpower we have in the rural areas and thus benefit from any spare time at our disposal.
The implementation of the law on agricultural reform has put an end to feudalism and exploitation no longer exists, for the farmers can now operate their own land and form part of cooperatives. This has been given all assistance, by loans or inputs and other means.
Our country has given full importance to the development of agriculture because it is closely related to the welfare of the people and their health, and we are going ahead with agricultural development in rapid steps in order to achieve self-sufficiency. We firmly believe that development assistance is necessary so that the production of food and agriculture may prosper in developing countries. The World Bank and regional banks should adopt all ways and means to increase their possibilities of financing loans connected with the production of food and agriculture.
We also believe that the recommendations of the Tenth Special Session of the General Assembly on Disarmament should be implemented, because much could be saved from armaments and given to some developing countries to help them towards honourable living.
The use of technology should also be borne in mind and we believe that advanced countries should pro vide developing countries with the possibility of obtaining skills and technology, particularly high skills, so that they can rely more and more on themselves in moving towards development.
We particularly support any methods to protect the environment because the factors of health and general welfare depend, in our view, on the preservation of the rural environment and natural resources.
My country has attached considerable importance to health, as exemplified by hospitals, clinics, the provision of medicine to the people, as well as mother and child care. Treatments, X-rays and medical analysis are free of charge in our hospitals. This is because of our confidence that health is necessary for development. We also firmly believe that efforts should be undertaken to develop all resources that are likely to advance agriculture and services.
We have been very active in this area and we are now implementing our Five Year Plan which started in 1981 and will continue until 1985. Other projects for dams and irrigation networks are being carried out in order to exploit more land. Agricultural cooperatives are undertaking their productive tasks and agricultural universities are preparing technical personnel for the implementation of the various projects. We hope that we can make considerable progress in the near future.
J. MCQUEEN (Canada): The third monitoring report on agricultural adjustment provides us with useful background to consider recent developments. However, we would prefer that the Secretariat in future reports should concentrate more on the longer term. We live in a changing world and need to take stock from time to time. A biennial report covers too brief a time span in our view and in our remarks we have chosen to consider developments since the guidelines were developed in 1975.
We do not take as pessimistic a view as this report presents. While the supply balance of essential foods has remained narrow and alerts have been sounded several times, world food production has certainly recovered from the crisis of the early 70s. This year, fortunately, we have good food grain crops, so the problem is not one of supply but rather the chronic one of distribution.
The world has become more than ever dependent on the main foodgrain exporters, who met this challenge in a responsible manner. The developing countries now account for a major share of world imports, and this will be reversed only when we achieve a marked improvement in agricultural production and productivity in many of the developing countries.
We in Canada have been reviewing our agricultural prospects over the next decade and beyond. We have also been reviewing our policies. We base our expectations on a tight market situation over the next decade with a narrower margin of safety and more volatile prices. We recognize our continuing responsibility to ensure food supplies for the developing countries, especially to the low-income, food-deficit countries. Our Minister of Agriculture, in presenting his proposed new strategy for the agri-food industry for the current decade, stated "Canada could increase its food production by two-thirds before the year 2000". Rising world population and rising income in many developing countries will ensure there is a strong demand for that higher level of production. For the shorter term, our target is to increase grain exports by 50 percent to 30 mil lion tons by 1985 and to 36 million by 1990.
Canada is now in the process of developing a new Government Agency called CANAGREX, which will be able to engage in State to State trading for most Agricultural Products. This will make it easier for those countries which prefer to deal on a government-to-government basis to sell into, and purchase from, the Canadian market.
The crucial issue as emphasized in the Third Monitoring Report is the lack of progress in agricultural production in the food-deficit developing countries. Only Latin America appears to have met this 4 percent target on average over the past decade, but there have been success stories elsewhere which are not immediately evident in this report. The larger Asian countries have made good progress, and I refer to India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. This is indeed encouraging. On the other hand, parts of Africa have suffered an unusual combination of war, civil unrest and drought which have worked against efforts by their governments and the international community to develop their agriculture and the economy generally.
We note that governments of developing countries appear to devote 15 to 20 percent of their development investments to the agricultural sector (as noted in Guideline 2). This is in line with the estimated 17 percent for agriculture in development assistance from outside (Guideline 10). We are encouraged by the commitment by developing countries to agricultural development as a means to improve living conditions in rural areas, to improve nutrition and to underpin general economic progress, because, as we have said before, donors respond to the priorities set by the recipient countries. We would emphasize once again that price incentives to producers are essential to encourage production, The report indicates an inadequate effort in this regard, and we would hope that a significant improvement can be noted in the next report.
Guidelines 7, 8 and 9 deal with the place of trade as a stimulant to production and to cover deficits for consumption. Here again, we must point out that the statistics presented in Guideline 7 or the ratio of agricultural inports and exports are not too meaningful in covering a wide range of countries with quite different economic levels and agricultural potential. As we noted when dis cussing Agenda item 6. 2, it is not particularly useful to look at agricultural trade in isolation. We are all agreed that each country's own domestic food production, is the first defence in global security. For this reason, the main emphasis in international adjustment must be the improvement of the food and agriculture aituation within the developing countries. The international community is committed to this goal, and the successive Summit meetings this year have had this issue high on the agenda.
Looking towards the next decade, we see considerable need for adjustment to changing conditions. As we remarked last week the main growth in food demand will arise in the developing countries as a result of higher population, increasing urbanization and greater purchasing power which evolve from development. Part of this demand for food will be met within the country but imports will have an important role. This is particularly so in the oil exporting and newly industrialized countries. In most cases, we cannot look for a balancing of agricultural imports against agricultural exports because many developing countries are likely to rely not so much on exports of food and other commodities, but more on exports of manufactures and also services such as shipping and tourism. Liberalization of trade will of course have a marked effect on the overall picture, and I am glad to be able to say that the Canadian Minister of Finance when introducing his budget last week in the House of Commons confirmed that tariff changes are being introduced to broaden product coverage under the General Preferential Tariff to reduce rates on a range of products of interest to developing countries. Duties will be entirely eliminated on goods covered by the General Preferential Tariff which are imported from the least developed countries.
The Canadian delegation does not feel it would be advisable to revise the Guidelines for International Agricultural Adjustment. Rather, we would prefer that subsequent reports pre sent a more analytic approach presenting agricultural matter within the total trade framework and that statistical data become specific to avoid the tendency for analysis to become distorted by special situations such as the currently increasing trade activity of the oil rich member states of the developing countries group.
V. STIPETIC (Yugoslavia): I would like to start by complimenting the Secretariat for the excellent job they have done in Paper C 81/24, and also Professor Nural Islam for his illuminating introductory remarks to this Session.
In discussing the Third Progress Report on International Agricultural Adjustment, we are to a certain degree repeating the discussions which we have already had on the State of Food and Agriculture. However, there is a considerable difference in coverage. We are examining the fulfilment of eleven Policy Guidelines as formulated in 1975, up to our time. This larger time span allows us a much more clearly balanced view of the accomplishments and shortcomings in world agriculture, much better than it is possible to gain by covering the events during the Conferences.
What are the main conclusions which my delegation draws from these results?
My delegation would accept the statement made in paragraphs 115 and 116, that the evidence from the monitoring of the Guidelines almost inevitably presents a mixed picture, since International Agricultural Adjustment cannot be divorced from the generally difficult economic conditions caused by the world situation-inflation, greater unemployment, balance of payments difficulties, rising debts of economically developing countries, and rising agricultural protectionism, all of which hampered growth of agriculture in developing nations.
For these general reasons (and many others, which I cannot elaborate here) it seems that the agricultural situation in developing countries remains largelyunresolved, showing many weaknesses in production, exports and nutrition. Stocks remained well below the minimum safety level, and food security is still mainly dependent on weather conditions, as it was before the world food crisis in 1973.
There are however two important considerations which ought to be mentioned more clearly than as stated in the paper before us.
The total food production as presented in Table 1. 1 shows a rather impressive improvement and rate of growth of 3. 2 percent yearly in the 1970's, which brings the rate of food production growth above the level obtained in the late 1960's, which caused the outbreak of the world food crisis. This faster agricultural growth in the 1970's could be seen in the low-income developing countries as well as in the middle-income countries. However, this growth was not related in the paper to population growth: if this were done, the picture is far less satisfactory.
According to the FAO index figures of food production per capita based on the 1969/71 being 100, the food production of the developing world stagnated or even declined in some regions. For example, in the 1975/76 biennium, Africa has an index of production of food per capita based on 94, and in 1979/80 it was only 88. In Latin American countries there was an increase to 105 in that same period, but in the Near East there was a decline of 4 points, representinga stagnation; and in developing market economies as a whole there was a stagnation level of 101. In that respect, it is difficult to
understand why the paper did not mention that after the Guidelines were accepted in developing marketing economies, the goal of increasing food on a per capita basis failed to materialize. In Chart 1. 1 on page. 3 of the. English text, we can. See that the 4 percent constant annual growth which was assumed in the second development decade was not reached and annually we have larger and larger un satisfied demands which accumulated during the 1970's. In that respect, we can see how it is going to be a difficult task to increase food production in the 1980's and towards the year 2000, with the annual rate of growth of 4 percent stated in Agriculture: Toward 2000.
On the same line are my comments on Table 4. 3 (page 17 of the English text of the document). Cereal supplies per person are here calculated on the basis of supplies, not on the basis of domestic production. Therefore, we have here a higher supply per person, especially in low-income food deficit countries; but this is due to a large extent to the larger import which is quoted here, and if this larger import was excluded we would find that there was a stagnation of the total domestic production on a per capita basis. That is probably the explanation for the statement in paragraph 42 (page 19 of the English text) that "the total of 435 million people estimated to have been severely undernourished in 1974-76 is more likely to have increased than diminished. . . . . . ". My delegation would agree with such a statement, and believes that this arises from the unfavourable condition of production in the developing countries.
Finally, an additional remark on the problem of market conditions: we would agree that Guidelines 9 and 10 concerning the problem of world food trade conditions are not fulfilled, and that we do not have the favourable terms of trade which were envisaged in the year 1975.
We would support the statement given in paragraph 81 which says that the balance of trade in agricultural goods is also becoming less favourable to the developing countries. We would accept the statement which says that we do not have the favourable treatment of agricultural goods for the developing countries and that the multilateral trade negotiations would be expected to have far-reaching consequences in the developing country for another few years as stated in paragraph 63. All those things are according to my interpretations showing us where our attention should lie in the development of agricultural production and fulfillment of the guidelines for those international agricultural adjustments for the coming year. We would like to see this document periodically reviewed in longer periods as it was suggested by the Canadian Delegation, and for that reason my delegation supports this statement.
Mrs. S. SJAHRUDDIN (Indonesia): My delegation has carefully studied the documents C 81/21 and C 81/24 and let me express our gratitude and appreciation to the Director-General and his Secretariat for the preparations of these remarkable documents. In addition allow me to congratulate Mr. Nurul Islam for his comprehensive introduction on this matter.
We have always believed that the demand for a new international economic order is indeed a part of a historical process which cannot be forced upon the responsibility of the developing country alone, nor washed away by the indifferent attitude of the industrialized countries. It is also part of a political process for although the subject of our negotiations concerns a range of vital international economic issues including the world food situation, it is also to obtain a better achievement of the goals of the international agricultural adjustments. Both developed and developing countries are essentially engaged in political negotiations aimed at a fundamental reassessment for the viability and efficiency of international structures and modalities for enhancing cooperation among States in the light of new requirements for global prosperity. The United Nations is supporting with a sense of urgency a consensus to launch global negotiations on a basis to be mutually agreed and in circumstances offering the prospect of meaningful progress, especially to the developing countries to enable them to cope with their food problems.
My delegation noted with interest the statement of the Director-General that there is still un satisfactory progress in achieving the objective of the strategy of international agricultural adjustment, particularly production performance in the Sahel region. Although we fully recognize that the attainments of this objective is not an easy task, my delegation does not share the pessimism.
It is becoming increasingly clear, that important as production is, the need to move beyond increasing food production is the new element in the problem of hunger as the world will encounter it, during the 1980s and beyond. As we approach adequacy of food supplies, the problems of distribution, storage, and above all, the requirement for us to learn how to involve the small farmers in the benefits of economic development, will be more and more important within the total pattern of under nutrition in the world. A strong appeal should therefore be addressed to all governments and international institutions to design programmes aimed at improving food infrastructure.
With regard to the technical cooperation among the developing countries my delegation supports the view to strengthen and implementTCDC as a vital component of an effective restructuring of international economic relations. My country has already taken the necessary steps in this regard.
In connection with the world food and agricultural trade, concentrated effort and constructive political will are badly needed if the problem of international trade pertinent to the developing countries has to be resolved.
Therefore, my delegation urges the reducing of non-tariff barriers and the abolishing of the barrier of the export commodities of interest to developing countries. In this connection my delegation would like to reiterate the adoption of the articles of Agreement on the Common Fund in June last year where the International Community have not only achieved a mechanism to effectively buffer the export earnings of the developing countries against excessive fluctuations of commodity prices, but an important psychological breakthrough in the North-South negotiations in the quest of the NIEO. Indonesia has ratified the Agreement on the Common Fund which was optioned for signature as from the first of October 1980. However since the Agreement can only be implemented when some 90 countries have ratified it, my delegation sincerely hopes that every country who has not yet done so, will make every effort to do so at their earliest convenience so as to expedite the process.
The success of the comon Fund also depends on the support and cooperation of the contributing countries and on the successful conclusion of the related Commodity Agreement, of which only three, namely tin, rubber and sugar, out of the 18 originally proposed under the integrated programmes for commodities are eligible to join the Fund.
K. LUMBALA (Zaîe): Ma delegation tient à féliciter le secrétariat pour la qualité de la documentation mise à notre disposition et qui fait l'objet de notre débat. Cependant, en considérant le tableau 4. 2. du document C 81/24>elle estime devoir faire une brève remarque car, à croire ce tableau, la situation nutritionnelle se serait dégradée au Zaîre ces deux dernières années. J'igno re la source de données du secrétariat et souhaiterais recevoir un commentaire de sa part. Il est vrai que la partie Sud-Ouest du pays a connu une sécheresse inhabituelle au début de 1978, ce qui avait affecté en partie la production de cette région du pays. Des moyens importants ont été engagés pour faire face à la situation qui a été redressée en 1979 et en 1980, et au cours de cette année 1981 on ne connaît pas une situation de pénurie, la situation étant normale comme elle l'était dans la période 1975-1977.
Il y a quelque trois ans. les documents diffusés par la FAO donnaient des bilans alimentaires du Zaîre si éloignés de la réalité qu'un expert de la FAO de l'étude des statistiques agricoles que nous réalisons avec la FAO et le PNUD dut intervenir auprès de sa division au Siège pour stigmatiser les chiffres avancés. Ma délégation reconnaît que notre production ne couvre pas encore entièrement la demande de certains produits comme le maïs, le riz, la viande et le sucre mais le Gouvernement zaîrois consent un effort financier important pour importer ces produits afin d'assurer un approvisionnement régulier à la population. Parallèlement à cet effort d'importation l'accent est mis sur l'accroissement de la production alimentaire intérieure ; d'ailleurs, pour beaucoup de nos régions le problème n'est pas de produire mais plutôt de pouvoir évacuer, distribuer dans un pays aussi vaste que le sous-continent et où l'état des routes et l'insuffisance du transport automobile sont une grande contrainte.
Ma délégation a tenu à faire cette remarque car le Gouvernement du Zaîre a engagé en ce moment une action vigoureuse pour supprimer progressivement son déficit alimentaire d'ici à 1985 afin d'assurer son autosuffisance alimentaire.
Y. TUNCEL (Turkey): Developing countries have faced three vital problems which can not be easily overcome; a high population growth rate, low income per caput and ineffective food distribution. The rise in the price of oil at about 80 percent has put serious obstacles in the path of development efforts. Export earnings have been allocated to oil imports, hence this has imperilled the realization of agricultural investments which have been the milestones of the development.
On the one hand, international assistance has been reduced to a lesser degree in financial terms and, on the other hand, protectionism, which is being applied by developing countries, has caused a significant fall in the export earnings of the developing countries.
In spite of these negative effects, it must be strongly stressed that development still has to be based on agriculture. What is meant by development is to increase agricultural production per unit, hence inducing a rise in the incomes of farmers. The aim of development is the progress of mankind.
Although every country is responsible for its own development to a certain extent, hunger due to underdevelopment has to be considered within the context of the world community. For this reason, development efforts in the developing countries should be supported by the developed countries; technical and financial assistance has to be extended to the developing countries.
Agricultural development is related to the use of natural resources and the promotion of foreign trade. Because these three items are results or causes of one another, they also contribute to agricultural development by complementing each other.
Although some of the obstacles such as inadequate resource allocation and limited financial assistance prevail, an increase in production should be maintained by the economic use of resources. Losses and waste in production and consumption should be reduced to a minimum.
Due importance should be given to rural development in a way to increase small farmers' incomes. Rural development should be supported by international funds and organizations and be reinforced with marketing services so as to provide outlets for production surpluses. Food and nutrition programmes should be included in rural development projects as well.
Noting the positive role of IFAD in the development efforts of our countries, this fund should be furnished with a mechanism providing the continuous renewal of its resources.
In general, new land to be brought under cultivation has reached its limits in most parts of the world today. The land which can be brought under cultivation is of lower quality and yield, hence the high cost of production. However, only 25 percent of the water released from dams is being utilized for irrigation, while 75 percent is being wasted. Today 17 percent of the land under cultivation is irrigated, but 34 percent of the total output accrues from this area.
In this case, to get more benefit from the water potential in agriculture, it is necessary to use water appropriately and due consideration should be given to the improvement and management of irrigation systems.
The economic and efficient use of fertilizers and pesticides should also receive more attention. To meet these objectives, greater international efforts should be made to provide developing countries with technical knowledge, enabling them to improve their extension services and farmers' training. Additionally, contributions to the FAO Fertilizer Supply Scheme should be increased in cash and in kind by bilateral and multilateral donor agencies as well as by the fertilizer industry.
The production and improvement of food sources should be accepted as a basis for collective action. This necessitates creation of national and regional Food Security Systems to assure an adequate food supply at all times. Besides regional cooperation, assistance should be extended to developing countries in implementing their food reserve and security programmes and in mobilizing financial aids.
Another vitally important field is to minimize food losses, particularly post-harvest losses. More emphasis should be given to research for the prevention of post-harvest losses and special extension and training programmes should be undertaken.
Agrarian reforms should be accepted as the indispensable part of agricultural development and be supported continuously. Measures are to be taken to encourage animal husbandry, without ignoring soil-plant and livestock interdependency.
Forests should have a multi-purpose use rather than being used as a source of energy. Productive forest areas expansion should also be supported.
It should be remembered that the aim of New Economic Order is for all development efforts to be supported within the frame of international cooperation, mutual assistance and economic aids.
W. S. NAIMOOL (Trinidad and Tobago): My delegation wishes to express its general satisfaction with document C 81/24 containing 11 guidelines for International Agricultural Adjustment, the implementation of which guidelines unfortunately has progressed only in a limited and patchy way-to use the Secretariat's expression. As is invariably the case, in issues involving the developed and the
developing, we see clearly, among other things, that inter-dependence, that mutuality of interest that should be given the serious and just emphasis in pragmatic ways that they deserve, but the recognition is not followed by that range and quality of action that the reality of inter-dependence and mutuality of interest called for. That inter-dependence, that mutuality of interest, would appear, sadly, to be interpreted by some as the perpetuation of the continuing-even increasing-dependence of the developing.
Because I have made the point in a previous intervention in this Commission, and because my delegation considers that it is of over-riding importance in the efforts of developing countries to self-sufficiency, I wish to emphasize, in my delegation's view, the importance of guideline 6, which states that:
"Developing countries with persistently weak balance of payments should favour wherever possible and appropriate the consumption of food which can be feasibly produced locally or regionally. "
While I confess I am not too sure what is meant by "which can feasibly be produced", there seems to be either redundancy or a contradiction in terms. I strongly support the idea of going local, so to speak, in a massive way and not only in respect of countries with persistently weak balance of payment but in respect of developing countries. We must take pride in and develop that which is our own, yet being aware simultanteously that that development will be greatly facilitated by inputs from the international community, such as the transfer of technology, which is item 10, and which, as we all know, continues to be a thorn in the north-south dialogue.
In a way, guideline 3 is linked to guidelines 7, 8 and 9 in that the question of incentive in guideline 3 is tied to the conditions of world markets and the incomes they dictate for the developing countries. These conditions make up the substance of guidelines 7, 8 and 9 which treat the themes of access to markets, market stability and prices remunerative to producers, to name a few. In a word, we especially need improved terms of trade, a point made most graphically by the delegate of Grenada last week when he spoke of the severe pressures encountered by small island developing countries like his own and, of course, like mine.
The subject of nutrition, guidelines 4 and 5, has been previously discussed here and my delegation would not wish to enter upon discussion of it now except to repeat that nutrition is a matter to which we in Trinidad and Tobago have for quite some time been giving our closest attention and manifesting that attention in pragmatic ways.
On food aid, guideline 11, I think this Commission has had ample exchange. My delegation rests on this item, as well as on guideline 1, food production.
With respect to guideline 2, my delegation was interested to read that nearly one half of the increase in world crop yields since the early 1960s can be attributed to increased fertilizer use. That is an impressive percentage. Perhaps I may be permitted to mention one aspect of Trinidad and Tobago's assistance programme to Caribbean countries, namely its oil and fertilizer facility designed to assist those countries faced with pressuring energy costs. Perhaps we might see more of that kind of facility.
Finally, my delegation was pleased at the prominence given on page 28 of document C 81/24 to the Common Fund for Commodities and understands the Secretariat's concern in the light of the Fund for the absence of progress in the direction of a new Wheat Trade Convention. We are confident of the maintenance of the Secretariat's keen interest in this area of International Agricultural Adjustment.
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Después de que en 1975, Sr. Presidente, se aprobaron las 11 orientaciones para el Reajuste Agrícola Internacional, la opinión de la delegación de Colombia sobre este tercer informe podría sintetizarse en la afirmación que se hace en el resumen del documento C 81/24: durante los dos últimos años los progresos encaminados a alcanzar los objetivos del Reajuste Agrícola Internacional fueron limitados y poco uniformes.
Igualmente, el documento C 81/LIM/20 presenta fraccionariamente la opinión del Comité de Problemas de Productos Básicos en su ultima reunión, opinión apoyada por el Consejo, y según la cual esos progresos habían sido desiguales y en conjunto habían resultado gravemente insuficientes.
Antes de pasar a comentar algunas orientaciones, quisiéramos hacer una primera declaración de orden general.
Parece evidente que las orientaciones no han cumplido las funciones de lograr que la agricultura se transforme, modernice y agilice en forma tal que, al adaptarse a los cambios como era de esperar, atendieran las crecientes necesidades alimentarias y desempeñaran una función más positiva en los problemas del desarrollo.
Creemos que esta Comisión debe apoyar la opinión del CPPB en el sentido de que el medio para lograr de manera más satisfactoria los objetivos del Reajuste Agrícola Internacional reside principalmente en un incremento más rápido de la producción alimentaria en los países en desarrollo.
Sobre la orientación I: la producción alimentaria de los países en desarrollo durante el próximo decenio deberá aumentar en un 4 por ciento, hemos de destacar que ese 4 por ciento es el mismo que fue fijado en la estrategia para el segundo decenio, y que ese mismo 4 por ciento es el mismo que acordamos en 1974 en la Conferencia Mundial de la Alimentación, y es el mismo 4 por ciento que ahora nos encontramos en la estretagia internacional a desarrollar para el tercer decenio. Sobre este punto nos vamos a ocupar más adelante en esta misma Comisión.
En el Cuadro 1. 1 del documento C 81/24 aparece el aumento limitado al 2,4 entre 1978 y 1980 para la producción de alimentos en los países en desarrollo. Es decir, que se ha alcanzado apenas poco más del 4 por ciento previsto.
Las causas de que los países en desarrollo no hayan alcanzado ese mínimo son bien conocidas, y será necesario que los gobiernos interesados den más alta prioridad a la agricultura en sus planes nacionales, y por su parte que los países desarrollados aumenten su asistencia a los países del Tercer Mundo.
Acerca de la orientación II, desafortunadamente como lo demuestra el Cuadro 2. 1, la proporción de las inversiones totales a favor de la agricultura, en muchos países está por debajo del 15 por ciento, y la tendencia no es muy clara sobre mejores posibilidades en lo futuro. Después de haber alcanzado el 36 por ciento en 1978, la participación de la agricultura en las inversiones publicas parece que tiende a disminuir, lo cual es lamentable y no corresponde a la orientación II.
En resumen, no existe una tendencia ascendente en las inversiones agrícolas de los países en desarrollo en relación con las inversiones en otras esferas de la economía.
La orientación III tiene un amplio contenido: pone de manifiesto la necesaria interdependencia en la agricultura mundial. Y desafortunadamente los países desarrollados en muchos casos no han disminuido sino aumentado sus incentivos a los productores, y ello ha creado factores de perturbación e inestabilidad en los mercados. Sin duda, al proceder de esa forma, los Estados industrializados no han tenido en cuenta las funestas consecuencias de esas políticas suyas en contra de los intereses de los países en desarrollo.
En el párrafo 23 del documento C 81/24 se hace referencia a los considerables incentivos que se dan a los agricultores en los países desarrollados y se agrega que el nivel de ese apoyo presenta escasos signos de disminución. Y creemos que esto es necesario consignarlo en los informes.
En ese mismo párrafo 23 del documento C 81/24 se cita el caso de los incentivos al azúcar. Este documento tiene fecha julio 1981. Cinco meses después, pensamos que esa referencia debe actualizarse a la luz de los hechos que tienen lugar en el seno del GATT, en el cual se ha designado un Grupo de Trabajo que está estudiando las incidencias que tienen sobre el mercado del azúcar los nuevos elementos de la política azucarera de la Comunidad Económica Europea.
Antes de conocerse el informe de ese Grupo de Trabajo nos complace reconocer la declaración que hizo la Comunidad Europea en el pasado Consejo de la FAO en el sentido de que están considerando su posible adhesión a un acuerdo internacional sobre el azúcar patrocinado por la FAO.
Sobre la orientación V, sin duda es otra orientación que tampoco demuestra progresos. En efecto, como ya dijo el distinguido colega de Yugoslavia, es muy probable que haya aumentado y no disminuido el número de personas, 435 millones o más, gravemente desnutridas que existían hasta 1976 y que seguramente sean 600 ó 700 millones. Será, pues, necesario insistir en que se requieren medidas especiales, sobre todo en favor de los grupos más vulnerables de la población y particularmente en los países más grave mente afectados por la permanente crisis alimentaria.
Sobre la orientación VI queremos apoyar los conceptos, muy sólidos y adecuados, expresados recientemente por nuestro colega de Trinidad y Tabago, uno de los oradores anteriores. Se dice en esta orientación que cuando sea posible y conveniente, los países en desarrollo deberían consumir los propios alimentos que producen. Si esto se cumpliera podrían reducirse las importaciones de alimentos hechas por los
países en desarrollo. Todos sabemos en qué condiciones los países en desarrollo han debido aumentar sus importaciones de alimentos de los países desarrollados. El índice de autosuficiencia colectiva entre países en desarrollo también es decreciente. Sólo un 35 por ciento de las importaciones provienen de los países del Tercer Mundo. El otro 75 por ciento debe importarse del mundo industrializado. Los países en desarrollo siguen dependiendo de las importaciones de cereales de los países desarrollados. Estamos muy lejos de la deseada interdependencia. Naturalmente, es evidente el hecho de que no aumenta la producción agropecuaria en los países en desarrollo. Hasta América Latina, región notablemente productora de alimentos, ha visto aumentar su dependencia de las importaciones.
Las orientaciones VII, VIII y IX están muy vinculadas entre sí. Hay graves problemas de acceso a los mercados, precios justos, expansión de exportaciones agrícolas a los países desarrollados y todos los demás factores concurrentes. Es obvio que muy poco se ha logrado en estas materias.
La reciente reunión del Comité sobre Problemas de Productos Básicos de la FAO, consideró que las negociaciones comerciales multilaterales han tenido muy limitadas repercusiones en el mayor ingreso de divisas en los países en desarrollo y en la eliminación de barreras, sobre todo arancelarias, que siguen constituyendo un obstáculo fundamental en la expansión de las exportaciones agrícolas a los Estados del Tercer Mundo. Es necesario que al considerar las orientaciones para el Reajuste Agrícola Internacional se insista en lo indispensable que resulta mejorar el acceso a los mercados de los productos agrícolas, de las exportaciones procedentes de los países en desarrollo. Como lo dice el documento, convendrá expresar que siguen existiendo márgenes para hacer un mayor esfuerzo con vistas a la liberación del acceso a los mercados de los países desarrollados para las exportaciones de los países en desarrollo.
Las orientaciones X y XI siguen estancadas; aun continuamos hablando de cifras correspondientes a 1974. No se han alcanzado las metas fijadas hace tanto años. Se han hecho progresos muy limitados en el aumento de la producción agrícola en el total de los compromisos oficiales exteriores. En términos reales, los compromisos multilaterales de la asistencia a la agricultura aumentaron muy poco en los últimos años. Sólo unos pocos países desarrollados han cumplido con la asistencia oficial al desarrollo en un 0,7 por ciento de sus productos nacionales brutos, objetivo fijado desde hace muchísimos años.
Como conclusión, señor Presidente, distinguidos colegas de esta Comisión, a la luz de las consideraciones anteriores, resulta evidente que después de 6 años de aprobados por la Conferencia de 1975 estas once orientaciones han logrado muy poco, sobre todo en el propósito previsto de fortalecer el sector agro pecuario como factor fundamental del desarrollo.
La delegación de Colombia piensa que las once debatidas orientaciones deberán seguir siendo válidas, no dogmáticas y rígidas, como nos pareció entender un poco de la declaración de la distinguida representante del Canadá, sino sometidas a revisiones flexibles y adaptadas a las nuevas circunstancias que se vayan presentando, sobre todo para establecer las medidas, los cambios necesarios, los medios indispensables para el logro de esas orientaciones y cumplir así los objetivos para las que fueron establecidas. En cambio, sí estamos de acuerdo con la distinguida representante del Canadá y también con nuestro amigo de Yugoslavia sobre la conveniencia de que en informes próximos se consignen detalles claros y precisos sobre las causas que han limitado los progresos y el cumplimiento de esas orientaciones y que incluyan igualmente posibles medidas para avanzar hacia la obtención de esos objetivos, a fin de que esas orientaciones puedan seguir considerándose como válidas en las próximas conferencias.
Finalmente, pienso que el contenido de esta orientación sólo podrá convertirse en acción positiva y eficaz si se dispone de voluntad política en los países desarrollados y del esfuerzo propio, interno, serio, de los gobiernos de los países en desarrollo.
WU TIAN XI (China) (original language-Chinese): The Third Progress Report on International Agriculture Adjustment provides an important clue for our discussions of further implementation of food and agricultural component in the international development strategy. But we deplore the fact that for a long period of time only limited progress has been made in the international agricultural adjustment. The entire international economy is suffering from a recession and many countries are confronted with inflation and unemployment. All this has created some difficulties for the implementation of the international development strategy of the 1980s at the very start, particularly for the development of food and agricultural production. In order to achieve the objectives of the strategy for the development of food and agriculture it is necessary to accelerate the pace of development in the few years to come. We believe that to bring the guidelines of the international agricultural adjustment into practice in an honest way will surely help speed up the development of food and agriculture.
The eleven guidelines indicated in the international agricultural adjustment are inter-related. Among them, two are the most important. The first is to accelerate food production in the developing countries and the second is to improve the terms of trade of agricultural commodities of the developing countries. A better solution of the two problems will undoubtedly enhance development in the other fields.
Now, concerning food production, over the past three years food production in developing countries as a whole has only increased at an annual rate of 2. 4 percent, which is considerably behind the 4 per cent target. There are still many countries whose net increase in cereal production over the past two decades has failed to keep pace with their population growth. Moreover, their situation in food and nutritional supply continues to deteriorate. This, once again, shows eloquently that it is imperative for the international community to implement further the various policy proposals concerning food and agriculture put forward in different international forums in recent years, to speed up the transfer of funds and technology and to make genuine efforts to enhance food production in developing countries.
Another problem that merits our attention is the slow growth registered in the export of agricultural products and processed goods by developing countries, owing to quite a number of restrictions on their entry into the international market. If compared with imports, the export volume has even dropped by a big margin. For a long period of time, prices for many agricultural products exported by developing countries have also been going down as compared with those of their imported manufactured goods. This will definitely exert a great impact on their agricultural production. In this connection we hold that the implementation of the agreed integrated commodity programme should be speeded up and that the common fund should be established as soon as possible. Although commodity trade is a complicated problem that involves many fields, this Organization should put special emphasis on it during its deliberations on agricultural adjustment, so as to facilitate further a rational solution of the problem by the international community.
A. ACUÑA (Panamá):Conforme a la condición de los debates y presentación de los temas, haremos referencia en esta oportunidad al documento C 81/24, coherente y consistente con lo que hemos venido expresando tanto en los dos últimos Consejos de la FAO como en los debates de los Comités más importantes de esta Organización.
Expresamos nuestro desaliento y preocupación general por el hecho de que los progresos sobre el reajuste agrícola internacional hayan sido y son desiguales y globalmente deficientes. Insistimos, señor Presidente, en expresar lo que ya hemos expresado en el sentido de que esta delegación está muy de acuerdo con el razonamiento de que la clave para lograr de manera más satisfactoria los objetivos del reajuste agrícola internacional reside principalmente en un incremento más rápido de la producción alimentaria en los países en desarrollo. Y sobre este particular y de acuerdo fundamentalmente con el contenido de la orientación 3, nuestro Ministro de Desarrollo Agropecuario se pronunció en la sesión Plenaria de esta Conferencia el viernes pasado. En concordancia con esta orientación, permítame expresar, señor Presidente, que Panamá se encuentra empeñada actualmente en una incentivación de la producción, tanto agropecuaria como industrial y forestal mediante el establecimiento de tasas preferenciales de interés, el establecimiento de mecanismos nacionales de producción y canalización de recursos financieros hacia el sector agropecuario. Esto, de acuerdo con las ventajas que nos da nuestro principal recurso natural, que es nuestra posición geográfica.
Estos incentivos a que hacemos referencia cubren aspectos tales como el de la exoneración de gravámenes de importaciones sobre insumos agropecuarios, así como exoneración de rentas gravables generadas por la producción agropecuaria dentro de ciertos parámetros, al igual que tarifas preferenciales en la insta lación y consumo de energía eléctrica, la utilización en actividades productivas agropecuarias, sobre todo dirigidas, en todo lo que tiene que ver con la producción alimentaria, sin que se excluyan en estas medidas asuntos reglamentarios que tienen que ver con la utilización y uso adecuado de tierras.
Esta delegación ya ha expresado en anteriores deliberaciones la aceptación, en términos generales, del contenido y directrices de las once orientaciones del reajuste agrícola internacional. A la luz de los progresos alcanzados, subrayamos e insistimos sobre el insatisfactorio logro obtenido en el mercado internacional, con especial referencia al contenido de las orientaciones 7, 8 y 9. Destacamos una vez más el lento crecimiento de la ayuda a los productos tropicales, así como la competencia de las expor taciones procedentes de los países en desarrollo, a menudo ayudados por subsidios y continuas restricciones a la importación en los principales mercados de los países desarrollados.
Por otra parte y en alusión a la orientación que tiene que ver con la seguridad alimentaria, subrayamos necesariamente el hecho de que al término de los años agrícolas 1980-81 los remanentes de cereales descenderán probablemente en un 14 por ciento del consumo anual mundial, cuando la Secretaría de esta Organización lo estima en un mínimo del 17-18 por ciento.
Para terminar, señor Presidente, como se señala en el informe final de la consulta gubernamental sobre la Revisión y Actualización de las Orientaciones para el Reajuste Agrícola Internacional, esta delega ción realmente cree que estas directrices constituyen un marco normativo de carácter global, que en un mundo obligantemente interdependiente deben tomar en cuenta los países al decidir sus propias políticas.
K. OULAI (Côte-d'Ivoire): Je tiens d'abord à présenter les excuses de ma délégation car elle n'a pas pu participer à toutes les séances. Néanmoins le document qui est présenté me donne l'occasion d'exposer le point de vue de la Côte-d'Ivoire en ce qui concerne le problème étudié.
Comme toutes les délégations qui sont intervenues, nous pensons que l’autosuffisance alimentaire ne peut se réaliser qu'en développant les produits alimentaires dans les pays en voie de développement. En effet, l'expérience montre que ces pays ne peuvent pas compter sur le marché international pour leur alimentation. La révolution verte a permis à certains théoriciens d'affirmer qu'il était plus indiqué de produire les produits alimentaires dans les pays nantis afin que les pays en voie de développement puissent se ravitailler à bas prix. Mais le marché céréalier et en particulier celui du riz demeure un marché instable. L'augmentation de la demande accompagnée de quelques années de sécheresse a rapidemnent engendré une situation de pénurie. Les pays qui subventionnaient le riz à l'exportation sont tous passés à la vérité des prix. C'est ainsi qu'en 1973 le monde a connu une crise qui a durement frappé les pays importateurs de riz et plus particulièrement les moins nantis.
En Côte-d'Ivoire, nous avons pensé qu'il était temps d'accorder une priorité absolue au développement des cultures vivrières. Des dispositions sont prises pour parvenir à une augmentation de la production. La volonté politique a été confirmée au VIIème Congrès du parti qui a donné la priorité aux cultures vivrières dans le développement ivoirien. La formation du dernier gouvernement a vu pour la première fois la création d'un Secrétariat d'Etat à l'Agriculture particulièrement chargé de la promotion des cultures vivrières. Cela montre bien que mon pays porte une attention particulière au problème alimentaire et que des efforts sont faits à l'intérieur de la Côte-d'Ivoire pour parvenir à l'augmentation des produc tions vivrières.
Nous pensons également que l'augmentation des productions vivrières dans nos Etats doit reposer sur l'ensemble des cultures et non pas sur les seules céréales. Celles-ci ont des avantages certains mais elles ne peuvent pas être développées de façon illimitée. Le riz pluvial qui est la forme de riziculture la plus répandue en Afrique n'a pas bénéficie de gros efforts de recherche.
En prenant le cas de la Côte-d'Ivoire, le développement des cultures vivrières portera non seulement sur les céréales mais également sur le manioc, l'igname, la banane plantain pour ne citer que ceux-là. Tous ces produits se conservent mal (25 à 50% de pertes). Nous avons mis au point une technique de production de contre-saison pour la banane plantain afin d'avoir ce produit en toute saison. Les recherches se poursuivent sur l'igname. Des efforts sont faits également pour la transformation de ces produits.
L'augmentation de la production ne peut se faire sans l'utilisation de semences de qualité. Quatre fermes semencières sont en voie d'achèvement pour les semences de céréales et légumineuses.
En ce qui concerne la production animale, nous exploitons toutes les possibilités (volaille, bovins, porcins, etc. ). La Côte-d'Ivoire souhaiterait qu'une action vigoureuse soit engagée dans le cadre régional pour l’eradication de la mouche tsé-tsé. L'aide de la FAO serait très utile dans ce domaine.
En ce qui concerne les autres lignes d'orientation, nous sommes d'accord mais nous pensons que l'augmentation de la production sera limitée par les problèmes de financement des projets. En effet, les pays en voie de développement, comme d'autres orateurs l'ont souligné, auront des difficultés dans la mesure où leurs produits d'exportation sont mal payés. La Côte-d'Ivoire n'aura jamais souligné assez que cela est une injustice internationale. La technicité sera un élément important et il faudra une formation des nationaux. L'exode rural doit également retenir l'attention de tous afin que l'agriculture ne perde pas tous les bras qui doivent contribuer à l'augmentation de la production.
Voilà, Monsieur le Président, quelques observations que je tenais à faire sur ce volet de notre réunion.
En félicitant le Secrétariat pour la qualité du document, je réaffirme que ma délégation est d'accord sur les orientations proposées.
Α. Β, CAWTHORN (United Kingdom): My delegation accepts the Progress Report as on the whole a fair record of the balance of progress made. The format of this report is familiar-as indeed unfortunately in some cases are the conclusions;and while the conclusions are for the most part justified, it has to be recognized that the objectives of many of the Guidelines do seem to conflict. We feel that it would be instructive for this to be brought out in the Report.
For instance, a number of the Guidelines effectively call for free trade, yet this is not necessarily conducive to market stability.
Another general comment is on the use of largely aggregate and, in many cases, superfluous statistics, because this often hides considerable variations. It would be illuminating in our view for such a report to pay some attention to those countries which achieve certain objectives, and to analyze how, or why. The summary on the front of the working document states that "monitoring of the Guidelines by the Director-General should report not only on the extent of progress but also as far as possible the reasons for progress or its lack". We regret that the main body of the Report fails, in our view, to live up to this recommendation, and itthereby appears to avoid all the pertinent issues.
I do not intend to comment in detail on the individual Guidelines, although we have one or two doubts on some of the conclusions drawn. These doubts have been expressed on previous occasions and by other delegates earlier in this debate.
Extract Β of the revised paper C 81/LIM/20 reflects the conclusions reached in the Council, and these indicate the way forward. The United Kingdom would however lend support to the views expressed by the delegates of Canada and Yugoslavia, that more specific data and analysis would be advisable, and that this would be better coupled with less frequent reviews covering a longer time span.
Sra. G. SOTO (Cuba): A pesar de que mi delegación considera que no podemos analizar los problemas y la situación del Reajuste Agrícola Internacional y especialmente el estado de las orientaciones aprobadas por la Conferencia General en 1975 sin referirnos a la Estrategia Internacional para el Desarrollo en el Tercer Decenio de las Naciones Unidas, mi delegación se referirá brevemente al documento C 81/24, reservándose el derecho a intervenir más adelante sobre el documento C 81/21, que trata específicamente de la Estrategia para el Tercer Decenio.
En realidad, consideramos que efectivamente las orientaciones sobre el Reajuste Agrícola Internacional deben continuar sirviendo de pauta para el examen y formulación de las políticas nacionales e internacionales de desarrollo. Al hacer un análisis de las orientaciones, nos percatamos claramente de que no ha mejorado la situación agrícola y alimentaria. Los progresos encaminados a alcanzar el reajuste agrícola, tal como lo plantea el documento C 81/24, fueron limitados y muy poco uniformes; en especial muy desalentadores, como se expreso también en el tema 1, discutido en esta Comisión, que la producción de alimentos todavía no ha alcanzado las metas de crecimiento propuestas. Asimismo el incremento de la corriente total de recursos financieros y de otro tipo para la producción agropecuaria, especialmente para alimentar y diversificar la producción de los países en desarrollo, tampoco ha sido complementada. Y este aspecto también se ha comentado ya de manera suficiente tanto en esta Conferencia como en Consejos y Conferencias anteriores.
Sobre la orientación número 3, sí consideramos que la mayoría de los países en desarrollo, en la medida de sus posibilidades, han encaminado sus políticas a garantizar la seguridad alimentaria mundial, si bien no ha sido lograda en la mayoría de los casos.
Sobre los aspectos de nutrición, tampoco se han hecho adelantos considerables y, si seguimos analizando cada una de las 11 directrices, podemos apoyar las conclusiones a que llegó el Comité para los productos básicos en su última sesión y que aparecen explicadas muy claramente en el documento LIM 20, especialmente en el párrafo 90, donde plantea de manera concreta que la clave para lograr de forma más satisfactoria los objetivos del Reajuste Agrícola Internacional reside principalmente en un incremento más rápido de la producción alimentaria de los países en desarrollo.
Más adelante plantean las conclusiones del propio Comité que, frente a un crecimiento demasiado lento de la producción alimentaria, la nutrición sólo podría mejorarse aumentando las importaciones, lo que implicaba a su vez la utilización de recursos necesarios para el desarrollo agrícola interno.
En términos generales, señor Presidente, el cumplimiento de las orientaciones está en carácter descendente. Consideramos que urge se apliquen medidas especiales de carácter económico y social para mejorar los niveles de nutrición en los sectores más débiles de la población, especialmente esos grupos llamados más vulnerables; asimismo estabilidad de los mercados y unos precios remunerativos para los productos que consumimos, lo que es fundamental para garantizar la seguridad alimentaria.
La orientación 8 que se refiere claramente a estos aspectos, es desafortunada, pues no hemos avanzado suficientemente en ello.
Asimismo en la orientación 9, vinculada con las anteriores y como han señalado también otros oradores, consideramos necesario tomar muy en cuenta los problemas del comercio internacional, especialmente en lo referido al acceso al mercado de los productos procedentes de los países en desarrollo.
Como bien se expresa en el párrafo 115 del documento analizado, el Reajuste Agrícola Internacional no ha quedado mejor por las difíciles condiciones de la economía internacional, por la inflación, el desempleo, dificultades en las balanzas de pagos, deuda externa y el proteccionismo, entre otras.
Tal y como han expresado otras delegaciones, consideramos válidas las orientaciones sobre el Reajuste Agrícola Internacional, y estimaríamos muy provechoso que en futuras reuniones la Secretaría continúe informando sobre el cumplimiento de las mismas, incluyendo las causas concretas que impidan su adecuado cumplimiento.
D. NOEL, Vice-Chairman of Commission I, took the Chair
D. NOEL, Vice-président de la Commission I, assume la présidence
Ocupa la presidencia D. NOEL, Vicepresidente de la Comisión I
Ms I. L. PERTTUNEN(Finland): Development is always a comprehensive process. It must involve all aspects of relevance to the improvement of the living conditions of man and is thus to be seen in the context of overall global development, bearing in mind the progress of structural change in the world economy and such adjustments that this progress may require. Of all the major problem areas relating to the UN development strategy of this decade the food and agricultural development is one of the very most pressing and should therefore be given due priority. In this connection I refer to document 21.
The problem of hunger and malnutrition can only be solved by joint effort of the international community. While Finland recognizes the need for added external aid it is however, only through the developing countries' own firm commitment to rural development, that progress in the agricultural sector of their countries' economies can be secured. We also believe that increased external aid should always be in line with and related to the overall development efforts of the recipient countries. Experience, however, demonstrates that increase in agricultural output in the developing countries and equitable rural development cannot be achieved without determined effort, which fully involves the small farmers and the landless as participants in the development process. Special attention should also be paid to development programmes relating to women, particularly in rural areas as in the field of agriculture, including credit and marketing. It is also essential that such policies are in harmony with ecological requirements. One of the priorities for developing countries is the increase of productivity through improved human infrastructure. To this end the establishment of vocational training facilities is an important first step. We also underline the importance of the network of international and regional research and the exchange of scientific information between developing and developed countries which will increase agricultural productivity.
Now I would like to say a few words about this decade's policy of my own country. In its policy for this decade my government pays special attention to the development cooperation with the low income food deficit countries. It has directed well over 30 percent of her bilateral assistance to these countries and will continue to do so.
Finland is once again emphasizing the importance of forestry in the role of rural development and rural poverty which would involve local population and secure benefits for them, the provision of wood for energy and fuel wood for rural people.
Finland considers the forest to be very important also for ecological reasons to prevent floods and soil erosion and keep the water balance at a profitable level.
Finland has recently initiated cooperation with the UN Sudan's Sahelian office, the support of which we will continue and increase. The establishment of IFAD was the newest proof of joint effort to canalize capital to the poorest food deficit countries where food problems require priority attention, and Finland intends substantially to increase her assistance to IFAD. We consider that the low income food deficit countries should be able to benefit more from rural investment aid supplied by IFAD. Therefore we hope that replenishment of IFAD will soon be finalized. My government's intention is to reach the 0. 7 percent target during the latter part of the third development decade. This involves a continuing and significant increase of assistance to the agriculture and overall rural development including forests.
M. C. DIALLO (Guinee): Dans l'application de la strategie de l'Ajustement agricole international, une fois de plus nous sommes obligés de constater que, pour chacune des onze lignes d'orientation, les progrès sont dans l'ensemble gravement insuffisants, et nous restons encore largement en deçà des objectifs fixés.
De l'avis de notre délégation, il y a une très forte corrélation entre ces différentes lignes d'orientation et la ligne d'orientation qui, selon nous, joue un rôle fondamental et celle relative au développement de la production agricole en général et de laproduction alimentaire en particulier.
Or, la tendance qui prévaut, si l'on se réfère à l'ensemble des rapports qui nous ont été présentés, est à la stagnation de la production agricole alimentaire, au moins dans les PVD. En effet, d'après le rapport sur la mise en oeuvre du plan d'action pour la sécurité alimentaire dont nous avons débattu précédemment, "Pour l'ensemble des PVD la production vivrière par habitant a en fait fléchi depuis 1978". Cette situation de stagnation de la production agricole à notre avis, si elle n'est pas corrigée, empêchera que les autres objectifs de l'ajustement agricole international soient atteints.
Notre délégation voudrait insister pour que dans ses recommandations la Conférence insiste sur la nécessité d'apporter une assistance accrue aux programmes des PVD tendant à développer leur propre production vivrière.
Le développement de cette production, comme nous le savons tous, exige:
- une utilisation plus intensive des terres;
- une plus grande maîtrise des eaux pour se mettre à l'abri des aléas climatiques;
- une utilisation plus considérable d'inputs agricoles essentiels tels que les engrais, l'énergie. . .
La mise en oeuvre d'un tel programme exige en plus des efforts nouveaux, un flux de ressources financières et d'assistance technique accrue pour assurer au PVD en quantité suffisante la fourniture d'inputs stratégiques et de technologies appropriées, et, à propos de ces dernières, il faut insister sur la nécessité de concevoir des programmes tendant à intensifier la recherche portant sur les techniques moins tributaires d'intrants onéreux et fondées de plus en plus sur desintrants d'origine locale et renouvelables.
Ma délégation ne perd pas de vue évidemment que pour que ce programme ait des chances de réussite, il faudrait que les PVD envisagent le redéploiement de leur capacité d'encadrement pour faire en sorte qu'une fois les technologies transférées elles ne restent pas confinées dans les services centraux des capitales et des villes.
P. GUERIN (France):Ma délégation n'avait pas prévu de prendre la parole sur ce point parce qu'elle avait déjà exprimé son assentiment sur la plupart des sujets qui sont abordés dans ce document, soit à des points précédentsde l'ordre du jour où elle se propose de le faire et également parce que, lors des débats du Comité des produits et du Conseil qui ont précédé cette Conférence, il semblait que la discussion avait permis de dégager les lignes essentielles qui permettent à la Conférence de convenir de ce qui est effectivement la situation générale telle qu'elle pourrait être mesurée au travers des progrès de chacune de ces 11 orientations étant entendu qu'elles constituent un ensemble cohérent et qu'on ne peut tirer l'une par rapport à l'autre pour mettre en accusation tel ou tel pays au groupe des pays. Je n'avais pas prévu cette intervention mais je vais dire quelques mots à ce sujet à la suite du débat. Je dirai que toutes les données qui nous sont fournies, le Secrétarait le reconnaît lui-même, ne sont pas toujours complètes et je crois qu'il faudrait effectivement pour le prochain rapport de surveillance de cet ajustement que l'on puisse faire des progrès importants dans ce domaine. Je me méfie beaucoup des tableaux et des grandes courbes qui sont fondées sur des chiffres qui peuvent prêter à confusion. Est-il vraiment très sérieux de comparer les prix qui sont indiqués au tableau 3. 1 à propos des prix de soutien des pays en développement et des prix aux USA et de la CEE ? On nous dit que pour les pays en voie de développement c'est une moyenne des prix de soutien communiquée à la FAO, la couverture est similaire mais non identique selon les cultures et les années. Effectivement, les prix des USA et CEE sont connus parfaitement de tout le monde; ils apparaissent dans tous les documents administratifs, ils sont administrés; dans les pays en voie de développement, je ne sais pas. D'autre part, il faut comparer le blé et le maïs; pour les USA et la CEE ils représentent des productions très importantes qui tiennent une grand place agricole dans ces pays. Comparer les prix pour les pays en voie de développement dans la valeur de la production alors que pour certains elle a moins de valeur, je ne sais pas si cela est valable. Regardez pour le riz: je vais faire de la peine à la délégation italienne, mais le riz dans la CEE a moins d'importance que le blé et le maïs, et vous voyez effectivement que la hausse des prix d'intervention
en 1978 et 1980 a été beaucoup plus faible. On peut se demander, quand on voit les hausses concernant les pays en développement pour le blé et le maïs qui sont plus faibles pour les pays comme les USA et la CEE, quelle en est la raison. J'en conclus que le blé et le maïs sont moins importants dans les pays qui ont bien voulu communiquer leurs statistiques à la FAO et c'est la même chose pour la CEE. Je pose donc ces questions pour bien montrer que l'on peut faire dire n'importe quoi à des chiffres. Je crois que le Secrétariat en convient. A plusieurs reprises, il parle du caractère partiel des statistiques limitées faute de données complètes, je cite au hasard des paragraphes. Attention, je crois à ces statistiques, de même et aussi, attention aux conséquences qu'on tire de tels tableaux, parce que si l'on prend le tableau 3. 2 où effectivement à propos des recettes des agriculteurs provenant de la vente du blé, du sucre, du maïs et du riz, on essaye de mesurer l'importance des programmes de soutien à ces productions, on voit effectivement des chiffres différents. Ce n'est pas le niveau absolu des taux de soutien qui m'intéresse, c'est la variation durant l'année et je crois qu'il aurait été intéressant de la vérifier sur une période plus longue. Je crois l'avoir dit, la France tient pour important la stabilité. Il faut que les producteurs aient des perspectives de croissance régulières non seulement des prix mais des revenus, on l'oublie souvent, et quand un délégué disait tout à l'heure que les pays développés, au contraire de ce qui est écrit dans ces orientations, ont développé leurs engagements aux producteurs nationaux créant une instabilité sur les marchés mondiaux, je voudrais répondre que s'ils regardaient les hausses de prix et que s'ils comparaient les hausses des coûts, et regardaient le niveau des revenus, ils s'apercevraient que la réponse est différente et, d'autre part, ils pourraient savoir également, et je cite un autre paragraphe de ce document, que tant que les pays en voie de développement n'auront pas atteint leurs objectifs il leur faudra augmenter leur production alimentaire et les pays développés devront mainte nir des taux de croissance supérieurs.
Si je le dis, ce n'est pas en tant que délégué français car la France est pour le développement de l'autosuffisance. des pays en voie de développement, le Ministre de l'agriculture l'a dit très clairement, je crois qu'il ne peut pas y avoir de confusion: nous sommes pour le développement autocentré. Il ne faut pas non plus dire n'importe quoi à partir de données partielles et non pas toujours cohérentes. Voilà ce que je voulais dire.
J. B. JACKMAN (New Zealand): Mr. Chairman, just a brief comment in response to the previous speaker. Paragraph 23 highlights the high support prices of some developed countries. In our opinion, the price differentials go beyond the levels which might be justifiable on grounds of national food security. The effect of this stimulus to high cost production in the developed countries is simply to reduce the opportunities to the more cost-efficient producers, most of whom are in the developing countries. So far as stability goes, we can accept that price stability is enhanced in the developed countries themselves but not so on the international market.
CHAIRMAN: A special reminder to members of the Drafting Committee for this Commission: the Drafting Committee will meet approximately 15 minutes after we break up here this evening. I will remind members which are the country representatives on this committee. They are Australia, France, India, Lesotho, Malaysia, Morocco, Trinidad and Tobago, the United States of America, Venezuela, the Yemen Arab Republic and Yugoslavia. They will meet in the German Room, building C, rooms 263-269, on the second floor.
I should also like to remind delegates that there will be a demonstration of communication techniques for rural development this afternoon in the Cuban Room, B-224 at 5. 30. It is from 5. 30 to 7. 00 this evening and will be repeated tomorrow evening. This will be a demonstration using video programmes and film strips proposed by FAO for the assistance of countries.
The meeting rose at 17. 00 hours.
La séance est levée à 17 heures.
Se levanta la sesión a las 17. 00 horas.
