Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page

II - ACTIVITIES AND PROGRAMMES OF THE ORGANIZATION (continued)
II - ACTIVITES ET PROGRAMMES DE L’ORGANISATION (suite)
II - ACTIVIDADES Y PROGRAMAS DE LA ORGANIZACION (continuación)

Items 9 and 10

Programme of Work and Budget, 1982-83, and Medium-term Objectives including Agricultural Research in Developing Countries (continued)

Points 9 et 10

Programme de travail et budget 1982-83 et Objectifs à moyen terme, y compris la recherche agricol·e dans les pays en développement (suite)

Tema 9 y 10

Programa de Labores y Presupuesto para 1982-83 y objetivos a medio plazo, incluida la investigación agrícola en los países en desarrollo (continuación)

C.O. KELLER SARMIENTO (Argentina): De acuerdo a su sugerencia de considerar el eapítulo II, Programas Técnicos y económicos, limitaré mis observaciones a estos dos aspectoз. Este punto sin embargo merece destacarse, es la espina dorsal de las actividades de la FAO. Al considerar este eapítulo, es importante destacar la necesidad de tener en cuenta que hay que lograr los objetivos previstos en la Estrategia Internacional para el Desarrollo de un aumento del 4 por ciento en la producción agrícola para la década del ochenta. Esto es particularmente válido para orientar esfuerzos que se concentren. en los países en desarrollo, donde las tierras cultivables tendrían que aumentar en una proporción alrededor de 41 millones de hectáreas hasta 1985.

Esto implica efectuar obras de estudio, evaluación, infraestructura, regadío, incremento de fertilidad del suelo, utilización racional de abonos minerales y una especial atención a los problèmas de la energía y de la protección del suelo.

Dentro de este marco de referencia en que nos movemos a considerar el Capítulo II del Programa de Labores y Presupuesto para 1982-83, nos parece interesante destacar el Programa 2.1.2 relativo a la ganadería y, en particular, queremos destacar la acción de la FAO en el Programa 2.1,2.: Prevención de las enfermedades de los animales y lucha contra ellas. Esto está especificado en el Subprograma 2.3.2.: Sanidad Animal y en este preciso punto celebramos que haya habido un incremento en los recursos disponibles para la lucha contra las enfermedades animales tal como se manifiesta en el párrafo 13 de la página 98 del texto en español.

Otro punto de particular interés, a juicio de nuestra delegación, es el Programa 2.1.4.: Apoyo a la Investigación. La investigación es un elemento esencial para el progreso de los países en desarrollo que esperan una asistencia sustancial por parte de la FAO. Particularmente importante nos parece la mención en el documento del intercambio de información. tecnológica como parte integrada de la Cooperación Técnica eventualmente la capacidad de orientar esfuerzos hacia otros sectores de la producción agropecuaria.

En este sentido, es importante un esfuerzo adicional por parte de la Secretaría para asegurar la rápida difusión adecuada y oportuna de esta informacíón.

En el piano de la política alimentaria y agrícola estimamos que debe destacarse la actividad de la FAO en el acápite 2.1.8.3.: Política y comercio de productos básicos; estimamos que ese rubro debería incrementarse en el future por ser una actividad de extraordinaria importancia para los países en desarrollo, especialmente para aquellos productores.

En cuanto a las actividades de la FAO en el sector de la pesca y forєstal, éstas responden a una orientación precisa de los Estados Miembros formulada a través de los organismos rectores que orientan su política. Por lo tanto, las propuestas formuladas en los programas 2.2.1. a 2.2.3. y 2.3.1. a 2.3.4. nos parecen adecuadas, sobre todo teniendo en cuenta la experiencia y capacidad demostradas por los Departamentos de Pesca y Montes, inteligentemente dirigidos por los Sres. Lucas y Flores Rodas.

Por último Sr. Presidente, quisiera enfatizar la necesidad de que América Latina cuente en el futuro con una asignación mayor de recursos en cada uno de los programas que pueda efectivamente ser utilizada para afrontar los graves problemas de los Países en Desarrollo, tal como se expresa en los objetivos de la investigación citados en el párrafo 2.1.6 del documento a nuestro análisis.


La Republica de Argentina cuenta desde años con el Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agrícola, Institución importante de nuestro país que se dedica a la investigación. El INTA coopera ya con otras organizaciones científicas de América Latina y del mundo en general, y sería importante que la FAO tratara de sostener una comunicación con esas instituciones y procurar hacer uso de las mismas, ya sea para diversificar las posibilidades de cooperación con los países de la Región, como al mismo tiempo para ser receptáculo y pun-to focal de tecnología por la FAO.

De todas maneras, quisiéramos que se refleje en el informe de esta Comisión el apoyo de actividades a cooperación técnica entre países en desarrollo en este Capítulo.

Otro asunto importante tratado en el Programa es el que concierne a la Información y Análisis en Materia de la Alimentación y Agricultura. Este es un acápite de particular relevancia especialmente para aquellos paises cuyas economías dependen sustancialmente del sector agrícola. En este campo, la información oportuna sobre tendencias y alternativas de la producción y comercialización de productos básicos es esencial para que los Gobiernos puedan planificar convenientemente las posibilidades de expansión económica y la aceptación o no de un producto, así como también Región, aunque puedan en algunas ocasiones no tener la urgencia que se asigna a otras regiones.

M. TRKULJA (Yugoslavia): I am not going to try to elaborate our views but only to indicate some points concerning Chapters 1 and 2. Indeed, I do not think I need say anything on Chapter 1, except perhaps just to reiterate our support for the proposals. We feel that it really demonstrates the Director-General’s restraint as far as administration and general affairs are concerned. We feel that small, almost negligible increases here and there are fully justified.

Turning now to Chapter 2, I shall start with natural resources which are, of course, the very foundation of FAO’s programmes because in one way or another all of the programmes of the Organization are based on land and water. Here again we agree with the proposed increase as well as the allocations among the various sub-programmes. May I only observe that by far the largest increase is justly placed on sub-programme 1.1.5, Conservation and Reclamation. Shifting cultivation of course has a very high priority in the Organization and we fully support it, but at the same time it is a common element in most of the sub-programmes between natural resources as well as crops. We are aware of the difficulties and we only wish to advise FAO to continue its close cooperation with other international and bilateral organizations and agencies working in this field. We fully support and we clearly see the need for expert consultations in that regard.

On fertilizers, I only wish to stress one point, and that is the proper balance between fertilizer use and other activities within the Programme. We fully share the view expressed by the Director-General on a number of occasions, including in his opening address to the Conference when he specially emphasised that in the foreseeable future, food production increase would unavoidably be based first on fertilizer consumption increase, though we see the full merit of adequate attention being attached also to organic recycling and nitrogen fixation.

With regard to nitrogen fixation I am also aware of fairly sizable projects between the OECD and my delegation would certainly wish to see proper cooperation between FAO and OECD in that respect. Of course, as I said, the overall stress within the natural resources is on land deprivation and we fully support such priority. We even feel that serious consideration could be given to the possibility of establishing a special action programme in the next biennium, of course provided that adequate extra-budgetary support is in sight.

With regard to energy, I would only say that of course we agree with increased priority in the energy field but within the light of what I said already on fertilizers.

In regard to crops, we again support the increase proposed. We feel genetic resources are of considerable importance. We continue to support and to encourage a very close cooperation between FAO and the International Board for Plant and Genetic Resources. We are aware of an initiative of the Mexican delegation which deals with certain substantive issues in this area and we want only to indicate our general support to this initiative.

We share the views of the Director-General that concentration should be on basic cereals, basic crops, first of all cereals and then of course including tubers, roots and with special emphasis on Africa.

We continue to support wholeheartedly the seed programme especially as we are aware of its full efficiency in the light of the last performance report evaluation. I want only to indicate that we also feel that plant protection is of overriding importance.


I would also refer very briefly again to the fact that we support the Programme. We see full import in the continued high priority to animal health. We also want to stress the importance of 2,1.3.3, that is genetic resources, and of course we are all aware of the fact that trypanosomiasis special action programme has already reached an operational level and the basic problem now is how to mobilize budgetary support to it.

On research, since a separate document is prepared for the Conference we will not go into substance, I would confine my remarks to the form basically. This project I think, and it is quite well recognized by the Secretariat, this project structure and the place of 2.1.1 in it has been perhaps not fully adequate for years now. The basic problem here as we see it is that it reveals only the tip of an iceberg with regard to FAO’s overall support to research and perhaps leaves an unjustified impression that FAO perhaps has not been doing enough in that area. Of course, the whole of the Research Support Project Programme is composed of two things¿ one is a small unit that we perhaps too pretentiously call the Research Development Centre. It is only composed of a handful of people. The second very important component is the Joint International FAO Atomic Energy Agency programme which could be then I think more adequately covered in various parts where some components ofthe programme actually belong. So our suggestion is still only the possibility of reviewing the programme structure In this respect might be given some thought in the course of the biennium.

I could not go into any detail with regard to 1.2.5, Rural Development; it is a very very complex programme indeed. We support, the overall thrust and the composition of the programme. We are a bit constrained, not very much because we know in a sense there is no disagreement with regard to the training activities, how they should be phased and shaped but we see still a small gap between the concept as agreed and as implemented by FAO actually and the phraseology used here and there. We still see such phraseology speaking in terms of “grass-root level”, “direct action”,but I think that thanks to the work of the inter-departmental working party on training, conceptually the issue is now soundly resolved.

On nutrition I want only to indicate our support to the Programme which is now we feel adequately shaped and better geared to FAO field activities.

On information analysis 2.7, I want only to reiterate the long-standing view of my delegation that adequate support should be maintained to this programme which is composed basically of information and statistics, including, of course, work on the information outlook. We want to encourage FAO to do what is possible though we are aware of the constraints with regard to the domestic flow of investment to agriculture.

Food and agricultural policy, 2.2.1.8, here again as is quite well known my delegation has always supported the concept that FAO’s programme should be given adequate prominance in FAO. The Issue on “Agriculture: Toward 2000”, we have heard repeatedly that it was not approved by the Conference. That has never been an ambition, as far as I know. A preliminary version was submitted to the last Conference but just to exchange in a broad term views with the governments of the member countries, but the final version, if I am correct, will appear under the Director-Generals authority and will not be a draft or adopted by Conference; it is technically even impossible. No one could expect more than 150 countries could agree on a future study which stretches to the turn of the century.

On planning assistance, I would say that we fully support the principle agreed a number of years ago that support should be given provided that the maximum possible mobilization of internal capabilities is assured. We do not believe and we will never believe in excessive so-called technical assistance in this area.

We are aware that some provisions are made within the Programme for 1990 on agriculture and we agree that such preparatory work should start in the next biennium so as to make possible submission of the Programme to the Conference in 1985.

On fisheries, I have nothing to say. We fully agree with what the United States delegation stated this morning. We too feel strongly that fisheries is perhaps one of the best well-shaped programmes, very efficient. It has demonstrated enormous capacity to adjust to the very changing fisheries environment. We too support the Conference in 1983 and we especially appreciate the fairly good balance between the regular programme and the extra-budgetary activities.

On forestry, again we want to support the programme. We are aware that the programme has been substantially streamlined in the present biennium especially to reflect socio-economic factors. We see that the same process perhaps to be continued in the next biennium and we fully support the proposed programme.


I failed to mention one thing in my first intervention, the medium-term objectives. We share the view expressed by a number of delegations, as we did last time during the last Conference, but in its present form it does not seem to serve its purpose. We simply want to join those who felt that it should be incorporated into the Programme of Work and Budget for the next biennium.

M.M. MUKOLWE (Kenya): After supporting the Director-General’s Programme of Work and Budget as well as the level of budget, which we wish could be a little bit more, we now turn to look at the areas of sub-programmes and as contained in this very important document C 81/3 and we thank the Director-General for this particular performance.

I still hope I will be free but I may have to look at sub-programmes as contained in this document and those which are, of course, of interest to us and looking at Chapter 2 mainly, on Natural Resources, paragraph 2.1.1, talking on all the sub-programmes 1 to 6, I would like to mention here that the heads of delegation, that is the Minister of Agriculture himself d‡d mention in the Plenary that the Kenya government is in full support of the global concern for increased food production and has drawn up a national food policy which touches on most points included in various sub-programmes as it is in the document. FAO country offices also did contribute to this national food policy and it is something that we are really grateful for.

Our aim is to be self-sufficient and if I may borrow from the member of the United States, I would say self-reliant as well and this will be our ultimate aim.

Emphasis on food production now is fully supported by our own people, including the politicians and this means that the over-utilization of the available high potential lands can easily bring in a lot of erosion and cause damage to land and of course with this the country or the government has thought it fit to form a National Commission of Soil and Water Conservation and Afforestation and emphasis is on better land use and soil and water management. This is a programme that we feel we have to give support to fully and also to mention here in passing, and to be very grateful to the FAO. At the moment a programme or a training course for the nationals is being arranged jointly by the Kenya Government as well as FAO and should be starting any time next week.

On crops, Programme 2.1.2, I am very grateful indeed particularly to the emphasis that has been given to various headings, including the Genetic Resource Conservation which we are all concerned with here and which has been mentioned by various delegates. We in Kenya also feel the same.

We have at least put efforts in pasture seeds, fodder shrubs, maize and wheat and we are now turning to indigenous crops like sorghums and millets to diversify our collection. However, the need for quick multiplication using latest methods like tissue culture are areas that will need assistance for some of the economic crops as quickly as possible. Although vegetative bulking is done it can be rather a slow process.

Crop protection is another area that is very important but markets in developing countries being what they are we find chemicals coming into the country. So this has necessitated the formulation of harmonious legislation that will control such irregularities.

We have mentioned something about mechanization and I wish to commend the delegate of Austria for offering some facilities for training, particularly of, say, farmers or the staff from the developing countries in mechanization. In Kenya we have embarked upon a programme that will help the small-scale farmer in the use of improved hand tools as well as structurisation where possible, with particular emphasis on small-farm mechanization. These areas will be emphasised and we feel that with increased production it will mean the farmer has also to look at his rural farm structures and this is in conjunction with the crop storage. We feel that the farmers should have an on-farm storage which will ensure family food security in addition to the national food strategy.

On livestock, the forage area is very important and I am glad that this is already emphasized in our document. We have gone a little further with the help of the World Food Programme to bring in other projects together with resource conservation to draw up programmes that will support the increased dairy development as well as meat production, but giving the necessary calories to areas that lack them or areas in which the climatic conditions are very drastic and can reduce production. But in these areas we can support them that way, to be able to go over but with better management to the production and conservation of food and we should be able to come up with an improved livestock programme. We also emphasize training, animal health, breeding and marketing.


Rural development and nutritional programmes are in our hearts and where possible we are planning to carry our smallest planning unit to village level, or catchment area units, whereby we shall have the village people participating so that they can shape their own destiny, but gradually transferring the improved technology to them. This is the beginning of how we want to handle our planning for the rural population.

On research, which is lifelong, and training, which is endless, in our view the training of nationals in these areas is very important. The delegate of Austria mentioned the use of isotopes in the areas of agricultural production. We feel that our young, energetic and aspiring students can undertake the programmes in these areas. Their training is just as important as the farmers’ participation, which we are also emphasizing. Therefore we ought to enlighten the people who will give the lead and continue the national programmes.

Finally, we come to fisheries and forestry resources. On forestry, the problem is the production of firewood for the rural poor. This can be very critical and the rural poor may find it very difficult to obtain energy to prepare food. Therefore we believe that emphasis should be laid on community forests or woodlots on farms. Here we have the International Centre for Research in Agro-Forestry with headquarters in Nairobi. They have already consented to undertake research in certain areas particularly in arid areas, to find out what sort of agro-forestry can be carried out. The results from these Centres should be of interest to other developing countries.

Finally, fisheries. We have the inland lakes with fish as well as the oceans. Here we have the small fishermen who are undertaking fishing. But we still lack the organization and the use of improved vessels or equipment using appropriate technology so that they can also utilize such available natural resources. We are ready to cooperate. Therefore I wish to thank you.

A.Y. BUKHARI (Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of) (original language Arabic): I would like to make a few comments on document C 81/3, the Programme of Work and Budget for 1982-83, as introduced by the Director-General.

We listened with great interest and attention to the various points of view which were expressed here in this Commission, points of view and attitudes which generally speaking were all along the same lines - that is to say, giving support to the proposals contained in these documents put forward by the Director-General.

We do not wish to go into the details of the contents of the Programme of Work and Budget here, since we had the honour and opportunity to speak on this in detail in the Finance Committee, as my country is a member of that committee. But we would like to add our voice to the voices of other developing countries to launch an appeal to the international community to express its solidarity, and expecially to those countries which have promised to aid developing countries. They should continue to grant this aid to developing countries,victims of natural catastrophes of varying types.

We also wish to express our serious concern about what could become international solidarity and cooperation, especially when we hear what is being said about international food security in various conferences. This is a subject which has obtained the approval of all countries during the World Food Conference in 1974. But seven years after that Conference, during which we have seen an increase in the population of Third World Countries of about 10 percent, even 15 percent - seven years later we can see that the commitments which were entered into at that time have not been kept, without mentioning aid increases which should take account of the population increases in the recipient countries.

It was seen very clearly, at least as far as we are concerned, having studied this Programme of Work and Budget, that the objectives which are set in this Programme are objectives which we might call universal objectives, concerning, for example, the increased amount of arable cultivated land throughout the world and the extension of irrigation and the rational use of water resources. These objectives are also intended to modernize agriculture and to encourage farmers, especially the least favoured, to improve their yields. We know that for some countries and for some financial institutions priorities are given to what we call agricultural extension given the socio-economic aspects of this expansion, whereby the fruits of expansion could be distributed throughout the various sectors but our experience in the past has already shown that unit productivity may fall if water resources for that unit are insufficient and if the modern technology is not used in a properly adapted way. This is why We would like to have a survey made of all available land so that we may know what the requirements are for better land use.


If we take into account the objectives which are sought by our Organization, then we can see that our immediate objective is to increase food production. We have proof, very precise statistics concerning population increases throughout the world. There will be more than 6 000 million of us at the end of the century. Therefore there will be an increased demand for food products, a 50 percent increase in demand. This therefore means that we have to extend present cultivated areas in order to increase the 764 million acres which are cultivated at the moment up to 800 million by the end of 1985, which means we have to increase about 41 million hectares, seven million of which would have to be irrigated and the rest would be cultivated by natural precipitation. We believe that to realize this objective we have to fix the following priorities: to insist on a more rational use of water resources, a more rational use of fertilizers, the use of organic and nitrogenous fertilizer, the promotion and encouragement of small farms, encouraging irrigation and training projects and also the protection of the environment.

Concerning the sub-programme of fishing and development of fisheries in developing countries, my delegation supports the programme put forward by the Director-General in this field, and believes it is necessary to develop fishing whether it be in fresh water or in the sea. But we know that the majority of developing countries do not have coastal waters or large stretches of coastal waters, and in spite of what was said during the Conference on the Law of the Sea, we know that the technological capacities of developing countries do not enable them to increase their fishing production. Given the needs for animal proteins in these countries, means that we believe that expansion of fishing and fish farming is something which is vital for developing countries, most especially for the rural populations of those countries.

We have on other occasions given our support to the Programme of Work and Budget of this Organization, and we have also supported the Programme of Work and Budget for earlier financial years, and we would like to say this: we clearly support the Programme of Work and Budget for the 1982/83 period as put forward by the Director-General, since it is our firm conviction that the notion of zero growth is a concept which in fact can only serve to freeze the activities of this Organization, to put limits on its possibilities, to limit its possibilities for realizing the objectives which have been set for this Organization, which can in fact only be beneficial to developing countries. That is why we believe that the increase proposed which is based on very complete and exhaustive studies is far from representing or covering the rate of inflation or the fluctuations in the exchange rate. My delegation bases this on the principle of international solidarity and,basing itself on the conclusions of the Third Development Decade and the strategies for the Third Development Decade, reaffirms here its support for the Programme of Work and Budget for 1982/83 and calls on all delegations for their reactions to’ this Programme of Work and Budget to be a positive one.

A. KADIRI (Maroc): Ma délégation a déjà exprime son point de vue general sur le projet de Programme de travail et de budget en ce qui concerne en particulier le taux de croissance et le niveau du budget. Elle a donné son appui à ce projet.

Je voudrais ajouter que ma délégation est d’accord pour améliorer l’efficacité de l’activité de la FAO et pour fournir à cet organisme les agents nécessaires et les crédits en vue d’une décentralisation des services, tel que cela est présenté dans le document.

Plus particulièrement, je voudrais insister sur deux questions particulières, le problème forestier et le problème des pêches.

En matière de forêt, nous nous félicitons du Programme, Ъien que le niveau nous semble peut-être insuffisant. Tout le monde reconnaît l’importance des forêts et la dégradation qu’elles subissent amenant pratiquement une perte de 7 millions dfhectares portant à la desertification.

Certes, de nouveaux chapitres ont été ouverts pour s’occuper spécialement des populations forestières, qui sont des populations sous-développées des pays en voie de développement et qui méritent un effort spécial; étant donné que nous cherchons une certaine équité dans la distribution des revenus.

Le Programme présenté concernant la foresterie communautaire et le développement agro-silvo-pastoral a notre appui, bien que nous considêrions qu’il faudrait faire un petit effort étant donné que sur le plan forestier en général il y a eu non pas l’ouverture de nouveaux crédits, mais transfert de crédits d’une ligne à l’autre. D’autres postes ont supporté le prix de cette innovation.


Par ailleurs, nous voudrions que le problème de la lutte contre l’érosion reçoive un peu plus de considération, étant donné que dans le Programme de la Conférence mondiale de réforme agraire et de développement rural l’une des priorités était le problème de la terre. Nous savons que dans les zones forestières en particulier le problème de l’érosion des terres est assez important. Il mériterait certainement un effort.

En matière de pêche, nous nous félicitons de la manière dont le problème a été étudié car il concerne spécialement la question des zones économiques exclusives qui intéressent en premier lieu les pays en voie de développement et confère à certains pays en développement une responsabilité énorme. Nous remercions le Directeur général d’avoir insisté sur cette question.

Mon pays est particulièrement intéressé à trois chapitres. Tout d’abord, les problèmes de recherche, d’évaluation des ressources halieutiques, et nous demandons qu’un effort soit fait en matière de formation des chercheurs sur ce problème.

La deuxième question qui intéresse ma délégation est le problème de la surveillance des cotes côntre l’incursion de bâtiments étrangers qui influe sur une mauvaise gestion de nos ressources halieutiques.

En troisième lieu, nous félicitons le Directeur général pour avoir déjà envisagé le problème de la nutrition. La nutrition protéique est importante dans les pays en développement et nous voudrions qu’un effort supplémentaire soit fait dans ce domaine.

A. ACUÑA (Panamá): Por ser nuestra primera intervención, aprovechamos la oportunidad para felicitarlo a usted, Sѓ. Presidente, por su elección así como augurarle éxito en sus funciones, las cuales se extenderán de acuerdo con el calendario de reuniones hasta el lunes 23 de noviembre.

La delegación de Panamá desea que le sea permitido a esta altura del debate, hacer algunas consideraciones sobre los temas 9 y 10 que se discuten. El tema del Programa de Labores y Presupuesto para 1982-83 así como los Objetivos a Plazo medio de esta Organización, le han merecido especial atención a esta delegación; y esto se ha debído en parte a nuestra participación, tanto en el Çomité de Fínanzas como en el Consejo y en los Comités más importantes en donde se han analizado estos temas.

Es por lo que, sobre el particular, esta delegación tiene una clara y firme posición sobre el controvertido aspecto delenivel presupuestario. Nuestra delegación expresó claramente en el 79º y 80º perío-do de sesiones del Consejo su aprobación a este nivel presupuestario por considerarlo el mínimo aceptable para el funcionamiento de esta Organización durante el bienio 1982-83.

A la delegacién de Panamá no le han llegado a convencer los argumentos ni generales ni específicos esgrimidos contra la aceptación de este nivel presupuestario. Nos resulta, más que difícil, comprender que por una parte haya unanimidad en torno a las estrategias, a los programas y prioridades en que se basa el Programa de Labores y Presupuesto para 1982-83, y por la otra se nieguє el nivel presupuestario que constituye un aumento de unos 22 millones de dólares. Las argumentaciones en contra, son a nuestro juicio, inconsistentes. Por otra parte, Sr. Presidente, las contribuciones tanto de los países en vías de desarrollo como de lòs países desarrollados son particularmente onerosas dє tro de la actual coyuntura económica para ambos grupos de países.

En el debate de ayer, Sr. Presidente, escuchamos planteamientos sumamente significativos en torno a los temas que nos ocupan, e igualmente escuchamos la franca intervención del Sr. West que contribuyó, a nuestro juicio, a arrojar luces sobre este debate del Programa de Labores y Presupuesto para 1982-83. Sinceramente lo exhortamos para que continúe con estas intervenciones en el transcurso de estos debates.

Por otra parte, Señor Presidente, nuestra delegación apoya la existencia de los representantes de la FAO en los países como una respuesta racional y equilibrada a la descentralización de esta Organización. Ni los argumentos relativos a las consideraciones sobre el costo/beneficio, ni las consideraciones tendientesa una prematura evaluación, son argumentos que han sido presentados en contra de forma convincente. Sobre este aspecto, coincidimos con lo que en distintas ocasiones han expresado otras delegaciones, en el sentido de que quien mejor que nadie puede evaluar la existencia de los representantes de la FAO, son los mismos países beneficiarios.


Sobre los objetivos a plazo medio de esta Organización, que esta recogido en el documento C 81/9, esta delegación desea señalar que en el mismo Prefacio de este documento, el Director General precisa señalamientos sumamente significativos, especialmente en los puntos 2, 7 y 8. Consideraciones especiales nos merecen los objetivos referentes, y esto sin disminuir la importancia de los otros temas, del Desarrollo Rural, el Programa de Cooperación Técnica y dentro de los temas especiales, el de la energía, la capacitación, el Programa de Cooperación Técnica entre países en desarrollo, así como las perspectivas y prioridades regionales al igual que los objetivos de monte y pesca.

Y para terminar, señor Presidente, y en correspondencia con la declaración formulada en la última Asamblea General de las Naciones ünidas por el Presidente de Panamá, Dr. Arístides Royo, Panamá rechaza todo intento que tienda a convertir la ayuda bilateral en un arma de domiηación política.

Por último, haremós alusion a la propuesta hecha por la distinguida delegación de España en torno a la creación de un Banco Fitogenético en FAO. Este tema, señor Presidente, ha sido discutido por el Grupo Latinoamericano a propuesta de la distinguida delegación de México, y queremos expresar que se acogió en forma unánime por este Grupo regional.

A. LEWIN (France): J’aimerais pouvoir commencer mon intervention en trouvant un proverbe français, anglais ou africain, qui me permette de vous féliciter avec des fleurs de rhétorique pour votre élection à la présidence de cette Commission. Je le fais de manière simple et classique, étant convaincu que vous conduirez nos travaux avec efficacité sur les problèmes importants du Programme de travail et budget de notre Organisation.

C’est sur ce thème que je voudrais faire quelques commentaires d’ordre général.

Pour commencer, je voudrais vous dire que dans une semaine, sur la base d’instructions venues de Paris, la délégation française sera en mesure de voter en faveur du budget qui nous est aujourd’hui proposé. Si la France se prononce en faveur de ce projet, c’est essentiellement parce que nous considérons que le langage très positif que la France souhaite parler vis-à-vis du tiers monde, l’attention toute particulière qu’elle veut porter à ces problèmes. de développement et tout particulièrement à ceux de l’alimentation, de l’agriculture et des thèmes connexes, tout ceci nous rendait difficile de ne pas nous prononcer en faveur du budget de la plus importante organisation Internationale qui tourne son attention vers la solution de ces problèmes cruciaux.

Cela ne veut pas dire pour autant que nous nous désihtéressions de l’object if poursuivi par le Groupe de Genève, cela ne veut pas dire que nous portions une attention moins critique au Programme de travail et budget de cette Organisation, et là je trouve un proverbe français: “Qui aime bien, châtie bien”.

Vous comprendrez done, Monsieur le Président, qu’après ce préambule positif pour les autorités qui, avec beaucoup de soin, ont préparé ce programme et ce budget, nous ayons quand même un certain nombre d’appréciations critiques à formuler aussi bien sur le programme que sur le budget, un certain nombre de propositions, de suggestions à faire, non seulement à leur propos, mais également pour l’avenir.

Les thèmes exposés dans le document “Objectifs à moyen terme” constituent un catalogue complet des tâches à réaliser en matière de développement de l’agriculture et de l’alimentation, au sens le plus large, dans les pays en voie de développement. Ils sont à relier aux programmes par région, tels qu’ils sont définis dans l’Annexe du document qui nous est proposé et qui fournit une approche par région de ces objectifs généraux.

Bien entendu, la mise en oeuvre complète de l’ensemble de ces objectifs dépasserait les possibilités d’une institution spécialisée, même multilatérale, même à vocation universelle dans son essence.

La stratégie Internationale du développement adoptée par l’Assemblée générale des Nations Unies voici un an accorde une place primordiale à l’alimentation et à l’agriculture, ce qui paraît tout à fait ѓaisonnable dans un monde où ces problèmes joueront un role essentiel dans les 20 années à venir. C’est également une des conclusions auxquelles est arrivée la récente réunion de Cancún, qui a jugé bon de mettre un accent particulier sur le role des organisations internationales en matière d’alimentation et dfagriculture, sans pour autant d’ailleurs donner un blanc-seing à leur fonctionnement actuel. La stratégie internationale du développement souhaite un objectif général de 4 ½ pour cent du produit national brut dans les pays en voie de développement, ainsi qu’un taux annuel de 4 pour cent de croissance de la production agricole de l’ensemble des pays en voie de développement, les pays les moins avancés, “Least developed countries”, dont un grand nombre se trouve en Afrique, qui ont un besoin tout particulier d’assistance dans ce domaine.


Comme le souligne le document qui nous est soumis, pour toutes ces activités la FAO cherche à líer étroitement le Programme ordinaire avec les programmes de terrain, ce qui paraît tout à fait indispensable. Ce document définit de manière judicieuse les concepts et les activités de l’OAA, mais cet énoncé constitue la substance même du développement de la production agricole et alimentaire au sens large des pays concernés.

La définition des objectifs de développement incombe totalement et au premier chef à ces pays euxmêmes. Les recommandations à caractère international sont précieuses en termes de référence mais ne peuvent s’imρoser en dehors du contexte des pays considérês. Par exemple, satisfaire aux recommandations de la Conférence mondiale pour la réforme agraire et le développement rural ne constitue pas une fin en soi; il appartient à chaque pays, sur cette base générale, de définir son propre projet de développement en fonction de ses priorités nationales.

De la même manière, les objectifs très précis fixés pour la production céréalière, objectif central des pays en voie de développement, dépendent de toute une série de facteurs internes et externes. Ces objectifs ne doivent par conséquent être formules qu’avec précaution, et comme des guides pour l’action d’ici 1985. En ce qui concerne l’an 2000, des réajustements plus substantiels encore risquent de s’avèrer nécessaires, avec les moyens dont dispose l’Organisation.

Un certain nombre d'activités apparaissent aux yeux de la délégation française comme les plus réalistes:

1) en matière de stratégie alimentaire, conseils et études souhaités par les pays bénéficiaires;

2) programmes et projets de formation établis de manière à ce que le pays intéressé puisse les réaliser et les poursuivre ultérieurement;

3) renforcement, dans certains cas, de structures et de services nationaux, en évitant la création d’ilôts d’hyperprospérité technique dans un contexte tout à fait différent, ce qui n’encourage pas obligatoirement l’éveil technologique;

4) amélioration des statistiques agricoles, afin de disposer de données réellement fiables pour une meilleure appréciation des déficits alimentaires et pour une planification plus efficace.

Et il ne sert à rien de programmer sur ordinateur, à grands frais, des statistiques qui ne sont pas même de façon approchée rigoureuses.

5.) introduction d’objectifs nutritionnels dans les projets de développement;

6) en matière de production forestière, accent mis sur ces projets, notamment dans le conte:ïte de l’étude des problèmes énergétiques dans les pays en voie de développement;

7) appui de la part de l’Organisation pour favoriser un flux croissant d’investissements de source tant intérieure qu’extérieure;

8) exécution de programmes et de projets de dimension adaptée aux moyens de l’organisation par l’intermédiaire du programme de coopération technique. Par exemple alors que les projets de plus grande dimension devraient être étudiés conjointement avec d’autres sources potentielles de financement: banques de développement mondial, agences internationales pour le développement, Fonds international pour le développement agricole, etc.

En ce qui concerne plus précisément le budget, la délégation française voudrait d’abord mєttre l’accent sur la place de choix qui est faite aux mesures propres à favoriser la production agricole et alimentaire. Elle considère en effet que l’efficacité de ce Programme peut être mesurée en fonction des in-vestissements et financements mis en oeuvre à l’occasion d’opérations precises réalisées par les instances nationales des pays concernés avec le concours éventuel d’institutions financières multilatérales, régionales ou nationales.

Je renouvelle ici le souhait que j’ai exprimé à propos du programme de voir, chaque fois que cela est possible, comme certains délégués lfont déjà mentionné, la possibilité d’introduire une dimension nutritionnelle aux projets de développement.

Le thème des énergies nouvelles et renouvelables mérite également une mention particulière.


La France soutient pour sa part des initiatives dans ce domaine avec l’Organisation latino-américaine pour le développement de l’énergie, l’Asian Institute of Technology of Bangkok, ainsi qu’un Programme étendu de “Recherche, développement et applications” en coopération avec les pays sahéliens et d’autres pays d'Afrique. Elle coopère également avec les Commissions économiques régionales des Nations Unies, CEA (Afrique, CESAP (Asie-Pacifique), CEE (Europe)).

En cssette matière, il convient de s’en tenir, dans un but d’efficacité, aux utilisations propres à satisfaire les besoins du monde rural: énergie solaire, éolienne et biomasse, de nature à faciliter l’irrigation, l’hydraulique, la conservation et la transformation des produits agricoles.

La France, pour sa part, est prête à examiner avec les pays intéressés la mise en application de ces technologies suivant les besoins effectifs, compte tenu de leur impact sur les sociétés concernées. C’est pourquoi l’activité de l’OAA en Europe dans ce domaine a retenu l’attention du Gouvernement français, qui a invité, voici quelques semaines, à Paris, une réunion sur ce thème. Le document C 81/25 mentionne les travaux en cours notamment en vue de la constitution d’un réseau coopératif européen pour le développement des énergies rurales. La reunion constitutive dont il est fait êtat dans ce document est celle qui a eu lieu à la fin du mois d’octobre à Paris à l’invitation du Gouvernement français.

Il nous a semblé en effet que le concept de réseau, outil efficace et relativement peu coûteux pour certaines formes de recherches internationales, pouvait s’appliquer particulièrement bien à la recherche-développement sur les énergies agricoles et rurales.

Les conclusions de la Consultation de Paris ont, semble-t-il, confirmé cette analyse. Les résultats en apparaissent positifs. Nous sommes heureux d’avoir pu ainsi apporter notre contribution à la mise en place d’un programme qui, nous l’espérons, pourra se développer favorablement à l’avenir et nous sommes reconnaissants aux pays membres qui, dans les déclarations jusqu’ici effectuées de leurs ministres, ont bien voulu exprimer la même opinion.

Au cours des semaines passées, notamment au mois de juin dernier, la délégation française avait présenté quelques suggestions relatives à l’aménagement et au réajustement du Programme et du budget. Il nous apparaît tout à fait fundamental que la plus grande partie des ressources disponibles puisse être consacrée à des interventions à caractère opérationnel, ou permettant de déboucher rapidement et concrètement sur des activités de terrain. A ce propos, si la part attribuée à l’Afrique connaît quelques pro-grès, elle n’apparaît pas encore suffisante pour ce qui concerne les pays les plus défavorisés.

La Conférence de Paris sur les pays les moins avancés, du mois de septembre de cette année, a mis en évidence les besoins de ces pays et la communauté internationale, dans un consensus remarqué, a paru prête à leur accorder une attention particulière. Le Gouvernement français, et notamment le Président de la République, a fait part à cette occasion de son intention de consacrer une part accrue à l’aide publique au développement en faveur d’actions directes sur le terrain.

Sans doute faudrait-il distraire quelques ressources aux dépenses globales envisagées pour en faire bénéficier des pays moins avancés d’Afrique, d’Asie, du Pacifique ou des Caraîbes. Peut-être parmi les dépenses globales de cette nature qui pourraient être réduites pour bénéficier davantage à des programmes sur le terrain dans les pays les moins avancés, pourrait-on songer à celles qui sont consacrées aux activités des bureaux régionaux dont nous avons note et apprécié la diminution du personnel tout en nous étonnant de l’accroissement des depenses de fonctionnement aux etudes économiques sur le protec-tionnisme, à la multiplicité des conferences, groupes ou réunions qui, malgré les coupes déjà réalisées, n’apparaissent pas forcément toutes indispensables.

Il y a lieu de constater qufune part variable, mais faible en général, du budget régulier des organisations Internationales figure dans les statistiques de l’aide publique au développement. Pour aider à les intégrer à ces statistiques internationales, l’un des moyens les plus convaincants serait sans doute que les budgets de ces organisations, et notamment le nôtre, comportent une part plus importante de dépenses opérationnelles, et à l’inverse, une limitation des dépenses de fonctionnement, personnel, locaux, voyages. A ce propos, nous connaissons l’opinion que le personnel dirigeant de cette Organisation nourrit à l’égard de la coordination dont à maintes reprises le coût excessif et l’efficacité contestable a fait l’objet de déclarations publiques devant nous.

Ceci dit, en cherchant avec soin dans le document qui est soumis à notre appreciation, il est pratiquement impossible de découvrir queues sont effectivement les dépenses de l’Organisation encourues pour les activités de coordination, et si ces dépenses sont véritablement aussi importantes qu’il nous a


été dit. Nous aurions aimé qu’elles s’individualisent à un moment ou à un autre dans le projet qui nous est soumis pour que nous puissions faire part de notre appréciation à ce sujet.

J’en viendrai pour terminer à l’avenir des programmes de terrain financés par le PNUD. Il convient là aussi de garder présent à l’esprit que chaque pays bénéficiaire fixe lui-même les priorités sectorielles de son chiffre indicatif de planification. Il détermine lui-même l’ampleur des demandes présentées à l’assistance technique internationale dans le domaine du développement rural et cfest la convergence de ces programmes par pays qui définit la place que le PNUD réserve globalement au developpement rural dans son programme mondial.

D’autre part, 1982 est l’année de lancement du nouveau cycle, alors que 1981 voit le cycle précdent s’achever. Cette période de transition peut présenter quelques anomalies et peut-être en partie expliquer la faiblesse relative du secteur rural dans les actions du PNUD, ceci sans même parler de la réserve obligatoire de 20 pour cent qui est prévue dans les chiffres indicatifs de planification par pays. Aussi n’y a-t-il peut-être pas lieu, au moins l’espérons-nous, de tirer de cet état de choses des conclusions trop pessimistes pour la période actuelle.

Je voudrais pour terminer, et en revenant aux discussions budgétaires, non pas pour le biennium qui nous est soumis, mais pour l’avenir, lancer un appel à la fois aux pays du Groupe de Genève, du Groupe des 77, aux pays qui ne font partie ni de l’un ni de l’autre et єnfin au Secrétariat, et notamment au Directeur général, pour que, dans la période qui s’ouvre, nous essayions tous ensemble, songeant à l’objectif tellement important qui est devant nous, de “désantagoniser” les relations entre le domaine du Programme et du budget qui se sont faits jour au cours des derniers mois, et qui sont peut-être dus en partie non pas tellement à une analyse différente de l’importance du secteur agricole dans le développement du monde, mais à une trop grande raideur de part et d’autre dans les attitudes que nous avons adoptées, et je souhaite que dans les mois qui viennent et notamrnent pour la préparation du budget de la nouvelle période budgétaire 1984-85, nous puissions, plus que par le passé, dès les premieres approches de la procédure budgétaire, savoir quels sont les objectifs qui nous guident et y travailler ensemble la main dans la main.

Le PRESIDENT: Je remercie le délégué de la France pour cet appel qu’il a adressé aux délégues et je le remercie aussi pour cette déclaration intégrale.

E.M. WEST (Assistant Director-General, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): I think it would be appropriate if I intervene at this point on one important issue which has been raised just now, and also by other delegations, and that is the cost of coordination. I have not wanted to heat up the debate on this, so I refrained from replying before; but now I have been asked a direct question.

We made a calculation based on our direct contributions to various bodies, the cost of our staff employed in Rome, New York and Geneva dealing directly with those bodies, and the costs of time, i.e. manhóurs, spent by substantive and support staff on coordination exercises, including participation in the ACC machinery, studies requested by the General Assembly and by various United Nations Conferences. The total in 1980-81, we estimate, was more than $6.5 million. If we add $250 000 for programme increases in 1982-83, plus cost increases, our provisional estimate is that we will be spending over $9 million in all on coordination activities during the next biennium.

Not all of that, of course, is considered by us to be unnecessary or wasteful. On the contrary, a great deal of it is considered to be essential and desirable and we participate freely. Some of it is of doubtful cost-benefit to the Organization.

I shall give one example. We are now involved annually in a tremendous exercise of reporting to the General Assembly on operational activities. The concept behind that, we were told when this was introduced, was that it would lead to increased aid to be provided in an annual pledging conference held in the United Nations. The results of the Conference held in the last few days showed quite clearly that the aid is going down. I think therefore that there is little cost-benefit in this exercise to us, although of course, there is not one simple reason for that.

I am sorry to have interrupted you, Mr. Chairman, but since I have the microphone, may I thank the delegation of France for the most constructive, most interesting, most important statement that they have made, and of course for their statement on the budget level.


- 109

J.P, WARNIMONT (Belgique): Qu’il me soit tout d’abord permis de vous féliciter pour votre élection, Monsieur le Président. Ma délégation est convaincue que, sous votre brillante présidence, nos travaux pourront être menés à bien.

J’adresse également mes félicitations aux vice-présidents.

Je voudrais limiter l’objet de mon intervention aux aspects budgétaires évoqués dans le document dont nous sommes saisis. A cet égard, ma délégation souhaite préciser, pour les besoins du rapport que la Commission adresse à la Conférence, que tant pour les chapitres qui nous occupent en ce moment que pour l’ensemble du document C 81/3, la Belgique n’est pas en mesure, au stade actuel, d’appuyer les propositions budgétaires qui nous sont soumises par le Directeur Général, et à propos desquelles nous regrettons qu’il n’ait pas été davantage tenu compte des appels lancés par certains pays.

Ma délégation définira sa position finale au moment du vote, en séance plénière.

C. MATTHEWS (St. Lucia): With regard to Chapters 1 and 2, I would first like to make a general statement on Annex 1 for Latin America., which I assume is complementary to Chapter 2. Latin America, the group to which St. Lucia belongs is a large area of great variation. It is not unexpected, therefore, that the problems of priority to which I alluded yesterday in my general remarks will arise. The project plans of action are defined in a manner which in some instances may suggest that the recipient countries have already been chosen, in others it is not clear. St. Lucia has identified areas of interest in the Latin American project plans. My question then is how do we know who are to be the beneficiaries of the plan. If the selection process is yet to be finalized what is the procedure for our participation in the plan of action and what time limits are applied to the application in respect to the 1982-1983 action plans? We would appreciate some clarification on this.

More specifically we are interested in, firstly, the development of food production systems for roots and tubers in tropical areas. Reference is made at page 226, paragraph 33. Secondly, inclusion of assistance in the coconut palm alongside the oil palm. Reference to this is made at page 226, paragraph 35. Coconuts are a major income source of our small farmers who together occupy 90 percent of the acreage of coconuts in St. Lucia. In that regard research/new technology in this crop is one of the Cinderellas of the agriculture in my country.

Thirdly, we would like the strengthening of peasants’ organizations, if this bears specific regard to the development of cooperatives and credit unions. This is referred to at page 227, paragraph 44.

Fourthly at page 228, paragraph 61, reference is made to the work of WECAF and the special regional body for the Lesser Antilles. Great hope was generated as a result of decisions taken at Conferences in the Caribbean on fisheries and at the Committee on Fisheries. Our hopes appear to have been dashed on the rocks of our shores by a telegram which we received recently stating that the operations of WECAF are to be terminated by December 31, 1981. This has been a great shock to us who have during this year tried to organize our fishing department and the fishing section in order to make the best of the opportunities presented by the sub-division of WECAF. We would like to request this Conference’s support, and that of FAO, for the continuation of the WECAF project and particularly for the implementation of the plan of this sub-division which is intended to service the Lesser Antilles to which St. Lucia belongs.

Finally, we are of the opinion that a socio-economic survey of the persons employed in the fisheries industry in St. Lucia is necessary. At the present time we are preparing a project outline for this small but immensely significant study in the organization of our fishing efforts. We feel strongly that as in agriculture, the fisheries extension services must be properly understood and knowledge of the people who are to be served, be clearly made aware to the extension officers who assist and who are to serve them.

J. DOORENBOS (Netherlands): Since my delegation makes its first contribution to the discussion in Commission II allow me to present our general observations.

The Programme of Work and Budget for the next biennium is the document in which in a concrete form the policies for the coming two years are laid down. In this document FAO plays its own role in the world food supply. It rightly does so. Reference is being made to the outcome of the study of the document “Agriculture Towards 2000”, while it is being stated that much wider and more determined effort is needed in the field of follow-up to WCARRD in all sub-sectors. It emphasizes FAO’s role in providing technical


advice and assistance and we support the highest priority which has been given to production. It is only a logical consequence of the international consensus which has clearly emerged over the past two years on the absolute necessity to improve food production first.

Many programmes and activities are reported upon. Clearly reflected are the efforts undertaken by the various departments and units within FAO to put forward their active contribution toward programme implementation and the final financial resources required for these separate activities. What is insufficiently clear is the coherence, the mutual interdependence of the separate activities. Allow me to illustrate this point by two examples; one example in the Regular Programme and one on the extra-budgetary activities.

Reviewing the programme on rural development, programme 2.1.5, a score of separate activities is mentioned under the plan of action, each of them having their own merits. What is lacking is, first, of all, the relation with and integration into the overall context of agricultural development programmes and secondly the spin-off of the separate activities into other FAO programmes, be it on crop, land and water use, fertilizers, nutrition, on the one hand and the feedback of the latter regular programme activities on the presented programme under 2.1.5.

My second example is the Food Security Assistance Scheme, a programme to which my country attaches greatest importance. This spearhead programme to be successful must be placed within the context of an overall structural framework and must form part of area and commodity development programmes, We realize that this is partly the result of the way FAO is organizationally put together. inter-action, inter-relation, back-coupling and feedback between the separate organizational units are some of the key words which do apply here.

The budget document before us is a substantial piece of work. It takes a good many hours to digest all the data provided in those 307 pages. Especially, so, when one wants to get a first impression of the changes with respect to the last biennium. It would add to clarity if the presentation of future budget document would include such a general overview.

In the past days we have listened to many delegations commenting on this fact. Some delegations estimate the budget level too low, others think they are too high. In judging on the level of the proposal, my delegation has primarily been guided by the question of how these funds will be used, This has lead us to the conclusion that we agree with the priorities indicated, but at the same time we regret the fact that this has not lead to a notable shift in the overall activities of the FAO.

In many governments and organizations, includiлig my country, the organizational framework and personnel structure were based on a growth model. New activities can be easily added and programmes expanded. It is much more difficult now, in time of austerity, to adjust programmes and to shape new priorities.

A few months ago all departments within our government were forced to review their budgets in the light of a possible 10 percent or even 20 percent cut in their resources. This has proved to be a very difficult and sometimes painful exercise. Nevertheless it has been useful, not only because of the clear need to reduce governments’ spending but also because of the imperative need to really define the priorities.

In many instances it has resulted in new, promising and refreshing approaches. We feel that such an exercise might be useful in the context of the international organizations as well.

In conclusion let me say that we support FAO’s work, not only here for the record but also very extensively through other channels of funding. This shows the importance we attach to the improvement of the world food supply. We have given our support to the re-election of the Director-General because he rightly makes FAO into an increasingly important organization of action.

We do regret however, how little we sometimes find back the suggestions made by governments with respect to FAO’s activity. We realise how hard it is to listen to so many different voices but we do expect that FAO will always lend a ready ear to the Member States which together constitute the domocratic basis of the Organization.

O. VALDES ORNELAS (México); La delegación de México ya ha tenido la oportunidad de expresar en la Plenaria de esta Conferencia, y en el seno del Consejo su apoyo al Programa de Labores y Presupuesto para el bienio 1982-83, y no queremos abundar en las razones que nos motivaron. Comparto la þreocupación del distinguido delegado de Canada de que este debate se pueda convertir en un diálogo de sordos. Por ello, debemos hacer un esfuerzo de acercamiento en el sentido de que el enfrentamiento y el cuestionar las motivaciones de unos y otros, no nos conducírán a una atmósfera propicia para la renegociación.


El constante aumento de las relaciones internacionales, producto de un mundo mas intercomunicado e interrelacionado requiere que los países busquen en el exterior medidas que contribuyan a solucionar problemas internos que, casi siempre, son comunes para muchos de éstos. Esta realidad demanda una mayor dinámica en las acciones multilaterales y la necesidad de cambios constantes en los procedimientos y métodos que permitan poder responder eficientemente al reto en que vivimos.

En materia de seguridad alimentaria mundial, México ha reiterado en diversos foros, la necesidad de promover medidas orientadas a lograr los niveles mínimos aceptables de cooperación internacional que hagan posible este propósito. Nuestro país ha definido los derechos de la alimentación a los que todo ser humano debe tener acceso, negando reiteradamente que se utilicen los alimentos como instrumento de presión política.

En este orden de ideas, el jefe de la delegación de México, en su discurso en la Plenaria,, teniendo en cuenta que los recursos genéticos son recursos naturales limitados y perecederos, que sin estos recursos la mejora de variedades no sería posible, y de que de éstos depende la alimentación mundial en el futuro, propuso un proyecto de resolución para esta Conferencia, donde se crea un Banco Internacional de Fitogermoplasma de interés agrícoia dependiente de la FAO.

Este proyecto que ya había sido presentado por España y apoyado por el grupo Latinoamericano, tiene la idea de establecer este Banco de Fitogermoplasma en la forma en que ha sido expuesto por diversas delegaciones de países miembros durante la pasada Conferencia y durante el 79° período de sesiones del Consejo de FAO. Los países Miembros del Sur-Asiático, Afghanistán, Irán, Iraq, Turquía, Pakistán, Siria y los países latinoamericanos han insistido sobre el particular en diferentes reuniones técnicas. La Constitución de la FAO establece en su Préambulo, entre otras cosas, su propósito de mejorar el rendimiento de la producción y contribuir a liberar del hambre a la humanidad.

La creación de un Banco de Fitogermoplasma en FAO estaría de acuerdo con estos objetivos. Además ese Banco requiere que, duplicados de los recursos fitogenéticos de interés agrícola. sean conservados en terrenos bajo custodia de FAO. Este Banco debe ser complementado pero no sustituido con acuerdos vinculadores internacionales que reconozcan estos recursos como patrimonio de la humanidad, que aseguren legalmente su libre accesibilidad, uso y disfrute indiscriminado, impidiendo la especulación económica, el uso de acciones monopólicas y de presiones políticas con tan preciados recursos.

La FAO, en colaboración con otros organismos internacionales se ha ocupado de estos recursos y ha promovido su recolección. También esta Organización cuenta con unos servicios de intercambio de semillas que se encarga fundamentalmente de variedades mejoradas, y que realiza anualmente un número de transacciones entre los países, por cerca de 7 500 muestras.

Pensamos que el establecimiento del Banco contribuiría a cubrir una laguna importante de nuestra Organización, y sería fundamental para la seguridad alimentaria mundial. La delegación de México enviará el proyecto de resolución, si así lo indica el Sr. Presidente.

H. OGUT (Turkey): As my delegation is taking the floor for the first time, I would like to begin with congratulating you and the two Vice-Chairmen for your well-deserved election.

My delegation is of the opinion that world food and agricultural problems are still disturbing although much greater emphasis and attention has been directed to the solution of these problems since the beginning of the last decade.

However, it is a fact that worldwide agricultural production has been realized in the recent past at much lower levels than foreseen in the targets established by the World Food Conference. Increase in agriculture production showed a higher rate in the developing countries but some countries facing the serious food problems have not produced food at the desired levels. Countries which realized production of primary products at relatively higher level, on the other hand, received inadequate export earnings due to falls in the prices of these products in the international markets. In contrast to the decline in prices of primary products, a considerable increase in the prices of main foodstuffs in the world market has been observed. This recent surge in food prices further added to the difficulties caused by the decline in the export earnings from the primary products. Finally, rapid increases in the population of some developing countries have put those countries into a more serious situation.


We believe that prevalence of the cases described above is closely linked to the under-utilization and under-realization of the ideas, regulations and programmes foreseen at the international level by the previous Conferences, mainly FAO Conferences, and even the World Food Conference and WCARRD. This under-utilization and under-realization is displayed in the resource transfer from developed countries to the developing countries as well as with respect to the promises on provision of favourable conditions to the export of the primary products in the world market.

Recognising the important role and duties assigned to FAO by the previous Conferences in implementing, catalysing, coordinating and guiding the international actions identified, we believe that FAO should maintain its strength in future years. Therefore the proposed increases in its budget parallel to the increased demand for its services is duly supported by the Turkish delegation.

Regarding programmes outlined in the Chapters 1 and 2, my Government would like to make a few remarks with a view to strengthening some of the ideas which have already been laid out in the Programme of Work and Budget document.

Mr. Lester Brown, the winner of the Boerma Award, says in one of his articles that “we produce enough food” and adds “what are the environmental consequences of attempting to do so?” We agree that environmental protective measures should be taken into consideration during planning and implementing the activities aiming to increase agricultural production. Therefore we support the foreseen programmes, including the coordination of the follow-up activities to the United Nations Conference on Desertification.

In addition the difficulties caused by the low level of agricultural production, by rapid increases in population, especially in countries with food deficits, further increased the number of malnourished and under-nourished people in the world. This result forces FAO to emphasize its programmes not only in the field of food production but also in the improvement of the nutritional conditions of this population. Since the bulk of the malnourished population lives in some specific regions of the world FAO’s programmes on nutrition as in the past are obliged to be centred on these regions. It is evident that these ideas are duly considered by FAO when one reviews the 1982-83 Programme of Work and Budget, Under this Programme we would like to emphasize that FAO’s programmes should give higher priority to the most vulnerable groups, mainly children and pregnant women. Also we would like to point out that the activities foreseen under Rural Development should be closely linked to this Programme in such a way as to include nutrition components in the rural development projects.

F.`D’ALMEIDA (Bénin): Comme c’est la première fois que ma délégation s’exprime au sein de la Commission II, je voudrais associer ma voix à celle de mes prédécesseurs qui vous ont adressé des félicitations à l’occasion de votre élection. Ces félicitations s’adressent également aux deux vice-présidents. Au regard de la manière dont vous dirigez les débats, je peux affinner que votre choix a été un choix judicieux.

Mon intervention ne sera pas d’ordre général, étant donné que nous ne sommes pas encore intervenus en séance plénière. J’interviendrai uniquement à propos des termes techniques concernant le chapitre II.

Nous voulons rappeler ici que depuis déjà un certain nombre de Conférences, nous avons vu que l’agriculture et l’alimentation sont liées. Il doit en conséquence être fait une part égale à l’alimentation et à la nutrition, lorsqu’on aborde les questions relatives à l’agriculture, dans la mesure où notre objectif est de satisfaire aux besoins fondamentaux de l’homme, son premier besoin étant par excellence l’alimentation.

Nous précisons bien que nous luttons pour vaincre la faim, la sous-alimentation, la malnutrition. Il faut done associer les populations à l’utilisation correcte et rationnelle des aliments mis à leur disposition à travers les cultures vivrières.

Nous appuyons fortement l’idée de porter le taux de la production agricole à 4 pour cent ou plus, mais nous pensons qu’auparavant il faudrait consolider un certain nombre d’actions dans le cadre de la conservation des produits agricoles, de leur transformation, et aussi dans le cadre de la lutte contre les pertes post-récoltes. Il est reconnu que dans nos pays en développement 40 ou 50 pour cent de notre production est inutilisable ou non consommée a cause des prédateurs. Force nous est de voir maîtrisé ce fléau. Notre but n’est pas de produire des aliments pour mieux nourrir les prédateurs. J’intíiste done pour qu’en même temps que l’on oeuvre à l’augmentation de la production, une action soit menée pour la lutte contre les pertes après récoltes.


Dans le même ordre d’idée, il convient de mettre un accent particulier sur la protection des végétaux. Il faudrait aider les pays en voie de développement à mettre en place les structures adéquates pour la défense des cultures et la protection des végétaux. La création de centres de quarantaine s’avère nécessaire pour juguler la propagation des maladies et contrôler l’importation des matériels végétaux. Ceci est aussi primordial et prioritaire dans notre pays.

Il faudrait par la même occasion lier les problèmes de stockage pour assurer une meilleure politique de sécurité alimentaire. En fait, la modernisation de l’agriculture de nos pays est la véritable solution à nos maux, mais les problèmes sont tellement nombreux et nécessitent des interventions simulta-nées qui ont pour frein les moyens financiers, les moyens matériels et les moyens humains.

Il faudrait mettre l’accent sur la faiblesse de nos terres, faiblesse due à leur pauvreté, faiblesse due au manque d’épaisseur de leur couche fertile. Cela met en cause non pas seulement les éléments de fertilisation, mais aussi les moyens aratoires adéquats pour mieux travailler la terre pour permettre éventuellenient l’enfouissement possible des engrais.

Comme vous voyez, les problèmes de développement de l’agriculture sont nombreux et multiformes. Ce sont done des domaines qu’il ne faut pas négliger, sinon on perdrait tous les efforts que nous faisons pour augmenter la productivité.

L’information et la vulgarisation requièrent aussi notre attention. Cette activité doit être reprise par la FAO. Il faut y ajouter la formation continue des cadres et des paysans dans un temps un peu plus lointain. La Campagne mondiale contre la faim a déjà fait appel à cette mobilisation.

Quant au problème de la femme dans le développement rural, nous en parlerons plus amplement dans le cadre du suivi de la réforme agraire pour le développement rural. A cette occasion aussi, nous aurons l’occasion d’aborder de façon plus précise le problème de l’accès à la terre, de l’accès à l’eau, aux crédits et aux semences.

S’agissant des problèmes de forêt, je voudrais pouvoir dire que ce problème nous tient à coeur à plus d’un titre, parce que nous sommes un pays voisin du Sahel et que nous en ressentons un certains nombre d’effets. Il nous faut faire du reboisement et reconstituer les forêts, d’abord pour maintenir un écosystème, en second lieu pour la protection des sols, puis pour fournir des bois de chauffe, enfin pour la fabrication du charbon qui constitue l’un des seuls moyens d’énergie abordable par la plus gran-de partie de la population.

En ce qui concerne les pêches, le problème aussi est important. Nous avons 100 km de côtes sur la mer et avons plusieurs lagunes; cependant, nous manquons de poisson, nous manquons de protéines, et il n’est pas possible pour nous de pratiquer une stratégie alimentaire convenable si nous manquons de protéines.

Il y a done lieu de se pencher sur ces problèmes au niveau de ces pays d’Afrique, notamment par la formation des cadres, de techniciens, la modernisation des moyens de pêche et aussi peut-être dans le cas des lagunes la possibilité d’en tirer un parti plus intéressant.

Nous sommes conscients du fait qu’il est très difficile de mettre en place des structures nationales et nous souhaiterions que l’organisation étudie les possibilités de réunir ou d’associer un groupe de pays pour des recherches communes.

Mme F. LARBI (Tunisie) (langue originale arabe). Je voudrais rappeler ici l’unanimité qui se dégage au sujet de la situation alimentaire mondiale qui se détériore de plus en plus et qui est due à différentes causes. Il serait d’ailleurs vain de passer en revue toutes ces causes, et si tout le monde est d’accord là-dessus, on se demande pourquoi l’ensemble des membres ici présents ne retrouve pas la même unanimité pour appuyer le Programme de travail et budget pour l’exercice 1982-83.

A ce sujet ma délégation pense qu’il est nécessaire de donner à cette Organisation les moyens qui lui permettront de réaliser les objectifs sur lesquels tout le monde s’est mis d`accord. D’ailleurs le Programme de travail et budget ne peut, pour nous, que trouver l’appui total.

Pour ce qui est du document C 81/3, les deux chapitres 1 et 2 appellent quelques remarques, et nous voudrions surtout nous arrêter au chapitre 2.

Nous voudrions à ce sujet rappeler qu’il faudrait améliorer l’exploitation des ressources naturelles, que ce soit le sol ou les ressources en eau, et nous pensons que cette Organisation fournira l’effort nécessaire pour aider les pays qui voudront mieux exploiter leurs ressources.


Pour ce qui est du point 2.1.2.1, à savoir les ressources génétiques, et le point 2.1.2.5, en ce qui concerne les pertes après récolte, ce sont là deux points très importants sur lesquels il convient d’insister.

Par ailleurs, le point 2.1.4, relatif aux recherches devrait trouver plus d’attention, même si les possibilités de recherche au niveau des pays en développement souffrent encore du manque de structures, du manque de techniciens et de cadres, et nous pensons que l’Organisation pourra aider beaucoup dans ce domaine.

Ma délégation voudrait également appuyer ce qui est dit sur le sous-programme 2.1.5 relatif au développement rural et également le sous-programme 2.1.5.1.1 relatif à la vulgarisation et la formation, car il est nécessaire que les habitants des zones rurales soient préparés pour participer à la realisation des objectifs fixés pour leur bien-être.

Par ailleurs, en ce qui concerne les péches, l’orientation du gouvernement de mon pays est parallèle à celle que donne le Directeur général dans le sous-programme 2.2.2. relatif aux pêches, et nous essayerons de tirer le maximum de profit de ce que fait l’Organisation dans ce domaine en matière d’assistance technique.

En ce qui concerne les forêts, programme 2.3.4, nous leur accordons une grande attention, étant donné qu’elles constituent l’une des ressources naturelles les plus importantes qui permettent de sauvegarder le sol par le reboisement et permettent également aux habitants de ces régions de vivre dans un environnement équilibré ce qui permet une meilleure exploitation des ressources naturelles ainsi qu’une protection de l’environnement.

O.A. JUMA (Tanzania): Since this is my first time to take the floor, I would like to associate myself with the previous speakers in congratulating you and your two Vice-Chairmen on your election to lead the affairs of this Commission.

The Tanzanian delegation gives great importance to the subject of our discussion. As a member of FAO’s Finance Committee, my country has been in a fortunate position in the earlier scrutiny of the budget and so had an access to study the Director-General’s Programme of Work and Budget for the biennium 1982-83. In the process, my delegation became and is satisfied that the proposed Programme of Work and Budget meets the objectives of most lower-income and food-deficit developing countries, and so we are in favour of the programme and budget, including the level of the budget suggested in the Council. The Tanzanian delegation feels that much has already been said by previous speakers and there is no point in repeating the importance of supporting and endorsing the development strategies and priorities which have been so clearly articulated and spelled out in the Director-General’s introduction to the programme of Work and Budget in the biennium 1982-83.

We would like briefly to comment on Chapter 2, sub-programme 2.1.3.6 Livestock Production. Tanzania noted with much interest that FAO will involve itself in the development of small animals, sheep and goats and poultry, as opposed to past practice when concentration was on large animals only. We feel that there is a considerable potential in many countries for increasing the contribution of goats and sheep to the livestock economy at smallholders’ level.

So we support fully the proposed resource increase for small animals development. Commercial poultry production using exotic birds has become a very expensive venture because of the competition of human beings for cereals. We feel, therefore, that improvement of indigenous low-production scavenger birds available in Tanzania and many other countries might be the solution if coupled with the introduction of new methods of assistance at small-holders’ level. We suggest, therefore, in sub-programme 2.1.3.3, Lifestock Genetic Resources, where it has been indicated that support to national institutions will be provided on improvement of indigenous ruminants in Africa, improvement of indigenous poultry should also be included.


V. E. DLAMINI (Swaziland): I would like to confine my comments to Chapter 2, commencing especially with sub-programme 2.1.1.2 dealing with Farm Management and Production Economics. This sub-programme will provide valuable basic data on inputs and outputs which are very critical in the production process. Moreover, farm management is very important because it is the management process where farm smallholders are able to indicate where resources are wasted, and it is through the management indicators that resources can be reallocated from marginal enterprises to more productive and profitable concerns from marginal enterprises. I feel, therefore, that managerial skills are very significant to small farmers.

Sub-programme 2.1.1.3 touches the most important aspect of Soil Management and Fertilizers. It is an axiomatic fact that correct fertilizer rates according to research recommendations will yield desirable results when coupled with all other necessary inputs and taking into account.all weather conditions.

It is also encouraging to note that this section also advocates the use of organic fertilizers, which is in line with the recommendations of the Conference on renewable resources. Organic fertilizers, I believe, are less expensive than inorganic ones and could also be obtainable within the reach of the farming communities. Their use would significantly reduce the farmers’ budget.

Sub-paragraph 2.1.1.4 touches another important variable. That is Water Development and Management. Some of us come from countries whose river sources emanate from other countries, and the problem of getting water for irrigation therefore becomes a crucial point, and there is an urgent need for equitable redistribution of water.

It is pleasing that this programme addresses itself to water development and management. Perhaps one could suggest that consultations on international law to ensure sufficient use of water should have been seriously considered.

I also welcome sub-programme 2.1.1.5. dealing with Conservation and Reclamation. It is of vital importance if we want our soil to feed us and the next generation. Conservation and Reclamation should be the name of the game.

Sub-programme 2.1.1.2, Crops. This section has been well documented. Of more interest is the sub-section on crop losses, because in some regions losses ranging from 15 percent to 20 percent have been recorded, and this indicates a huge volume of grains loss which could have saved many lives.

Programme 2.1.4, Research Support - on this aspect I need not go into too much detail, as I indicated in my opening remarks that research is of significant importance. I only wish to reaffirm my stand in supporting this statement.

Sub-programme 2.1.3.1, Grasslands, Forage and Feed Resources - some of our areas are confronted with desertification, erosion, depletion of desirable species and bush encroachment. We highly welcome this plan of action because it is in pursuance of our efforts for increasing the grass productivity so that our farmers will be able to market well-nourished animals and simultaneously maintain a high-quality standard of beef. Grassland and forage productions in concert with animal health will help lift the trade barriers usually placed by developed countries on our beef exports.

I also welcome the sections on livestock productions and I consider these to be in line with efforts made to combat malnutrition through the provision of balanced diets, especially the provision of protein which are of significant necessity to every human being, but particularly important to children.

I wish to suggest that development of poultry products should also be considered seriously, as these have short cycles and yield higher returns, both in the form of eggs and meat.

With regard to forestry, Swaziland attaches a high importance to this as we have the largest man-made forests in Africa. Forestry provides soil conservation measures, fuel in the form of charcoal, employment as well as international trade. Swaziland therefore supports this section strongly.

With respect to Fisheries, I should like to support the comments made earlier by my brother from the Cameroons when he stressed the development of fish ponds. Fish ponds are very important for Swaziland as we are a land-locked country. We do attach significant priority to fisheries development, as this is a source of protein which is cholesterol-free. Thus through a high intake of fish products vascular and cardiac diseases may be minimized.

With these remarks, Mr. Chairman, I thank you and I do reserve my right to speak at a later stage.


A. H. EL SARKI (Egypt): It is evident from the paper on Medium-term Objectives, C 81/9, that it is vitally important to increase food production, and this obviously will have to be done by certain very precise objectives in the agricultural sector and through allocating to certain projects a special priority to certain programs to help the different countries to implement development strategies. That is why my delegation must support the objectives set for the Programme of Work and Budget for 1982-83.

Paper C 81/9 contains a chapter concerning support programmes for Development on Field Programme planning. We support the contents of this paragraph, and also support all the efforts made by the Organization to train the people in developing countries and to provide support for national institutions and bodies whose task it will be to train these youngsters.

In paragraphs 177-180 we have new interesting information on technical collaboration and the role played by the Ordinary Programme in providing financial support. We support all it contains, and we think that missions can go to developing countries in order to assess the problems and find the solutions to them.

My country was one of the first to support the concept of decentralization by the Organization, and we were also amongst the first to request the appointment of an FAO representative for our country.

In paragraph 194 we also speak of the Technical Cooperation Programme, and because of the interest of my country in this programme we would like to see it continue and given more funds.

Paragraphs 181-192 cover all the activities concerning investments, and I would like to say that the Investment Centre and its policy has helped quite a number of countries, including Egypt, and helped them draw up their studies for projects and to implement the projects. That is why my delegation fully approves the Medium-term Objectives set out in document C 81/9, in particular in paragraph 193.

My delegation would also like to thank all those countries that have enabled the Organization to play such a role by different means, in particular taking account of the objectives of developing countries laid down in the Lagos Plan of Action and indicates the role played by FAO to the African continent in general as appears in paragraph 214.

We would like the Director-General to make every effort to implement all those projects of interest to the Near East, which is our region where food deficits prevail. In so doing the Organization should base itself medium term plans on the contents of paragraphs 215 to 220. Thank you.

Mile Z. PAPADOPOULOU (Grèce): Monsieur le Président, c’est la première fois que la délégation hellénique prend la parole dans cette Commission. Nous vous adressons nos félicitations pour l’excellente direction donnée à nos travaux.

Nous reconnaissons que la conjuncture économique internationale a des répercussions sur le devéloppement économique de chacun de nos pays et a comme résultat la restriction des ressources disponibles pour l’amélioration de la contribution financière aux organismes internationaux. Tenant compte toute-fois des besoins urgents et impêratifs des pays en voie de développement, notre delegation juge nécessaire d’aρρrouver le programme de travail et budget proposé par le Directeur général pour 1982-83. Notre Ministre vient d’ailleurs de prononcer son discours en séance plénière et il a donné son appui au budget et au programme de travail.

Nous voudrions exprimer ici nos soucis du fait que l’augmentation du budget que nous considérons nécessaire indique que nos programmes de développement et les efforts qui y sont consacrés ne se sont pas montrés aussi efficaces qu’on l’aurait souhaité, parce qu’ils se sont heurtés aux obstacles d’ordre structurel du sous-développement.

S.P. MUKHERJEE (India): Since I am speaking for the first time as I arrived from India only this morning, may I on behalf of my delegation extend our heartiest congratulations on your well-deserved election to the office of Chairman of this august body.

India has a special relationship with FAO. India has been a member of the FAO Council right from the beginning, continuously, and one of her distinguished sons, Mr. B.R. Sen, has held the office of Director-General of this Organization for a number of years and gave birth to this concept of freedom from hunger. We have therefore an emotional relationship with FAO.


During this Conference our Prime Minister delivered the McDougall Lecture, and in that lecture she referred to self-reliance and collective efforts and international cooperation in the matter of meeting the challenge of conservation and food scarcity which is facing mankind in a very alarming fashion.

We feel that FAO is the lone voice of mankind articulated for saving the starving millions from impending death. In this Conference and in this Meeting especially, while we are discussing the FAO Work Programme and Budget by our concerted sympathy we should give strength and tone to this voice of mankind to save millions of its brethren from starvation.

In one of the papers it has been estimated that by the year 2000 A.D. there will be a food deficit of about 130 million tons. It means that about 130 million hectares of additional land will have to be brought under cultivation to give this additional output, which also means that about 130 million farm families will have to be informed, motivated and assisted in producing this additional 130 million tons. But since so much of the land is not available, we will have to make an intensive effort to increase the yield per every hectare of land, per every drop of water that is used for irrigation, per every grain of food that we use for seed, and this means a tremendous effort and tremendous investment through the instrumentality of FAO. I have roughly calculated that this additional 130 million tons of food grains in monetary terms costs about $26 million per year and in that context of an astronomically high figure the proposed budget of FAO for the biennium of $368 million appears to be a very insignificant figure. We should therefore not be very much disturbed by this figure or by the additionality of $22 million that has been indicated as a result of the Programme change and only $66 or $67 million as a result of cost increase. I have also calculated that on a per caput basis the proposed budget of FAO comes to about 10 cents per head in two years, that is 5 cents per head. This is such an insignificant figure that one is rather amused that we should worry about such a small increase when such a large challenge is facing mankind.

I have also calculated in my own way that the $370 million of the FAO budget for two years is comparable to the cost of producing about 37 modern fighter aircraft, and the increase of $22 million will hardly be equivalent to the price of two modern fighter aircraft of a sophisticated type today. So if we do not produce two fighter aircraft and divert the cost of these aircraft for FAO’s food production programme, on agriculture and rural development programme, we will be able to meet this excess or surplus or additionality that we are proposing.

Therefore my feeling is that in the perspective of the universal challenge that mankind faces, and of the expenditures that we are prone to spend on our arsenals, this additional $22 million will be very insignificant and should not disturb us at all. I therefore, on behalf of my country, fully support the budget increase that has been proposed. If I have a grievance, it is that it is not more than what has been proposed because of the vast work that has to be done.

Insofar as the content of the Programme is concerned, I have a feeling that Forestry in the FAO Programme should have received more attention because it is connected with not only soil conservation but water fuel and energy planning also. I would also suggest that in FAO’s programme, agricultural extension be given a pride of place because there are millions of people in Africa and Asia, and even in India, who are thousands of years behind the modern technology so far as agriculture is concerned. Those people will have to be brought up to date and enabled to catch up with modern technology of agriculture and farm management, through an intensive extension programme which is very necessary. Also the programmes of seeds, not only in the matter of having seed banks and a seed security system, but also in the matter of evolution of new varieties of seeds which will be drought resistant in some cases, and flood resistant in others, is very necessary. To that effect intensive research on crops will be required and will need to be promoted. In that regard I would suggest that FAO devote special attention to evolution and improvement of seeds of such crops as millet, lentils, oil seeds which are rainfed, because in most of the Afro-Asian regions about 60 to 70 percent of crops is grown on rainfed areas and not irrigated areas.

In India we have made a breakthrough insofar as cross-breeding is concerned. Nondescript cattle has been improved in regard to milk yield and draught power by cross-breeding programmes and I suggest that this programme should receive attention through FAO.

I fully endorse FAO’s emphasis on Fisheries, especially in the context of the exclusive economic zone because both in respect of the marine fisheries as well as inland fisheries there is much scope for improving the yield and also thereby supplying nutritious food containing protein to the millions of people in these areas. I would like to leave just a thought with all of you: I feel that though FAO is doing a considerable lot in the matter of transfer of technology to the developing countries and backward areas through transfer of staff and experts from one country to another, it will be very necessary in the near future for FAO to develop an international agriculture service whereunder the FAO


will have a cadre of staff who are experts and skilled in the different facets of agriculture and rural development and who will be continuously available to FAO for serving the developing countries. My feeling is that the present system of drawing on such staff from different countries and on temporary basis will not be conducive to a more enduring result insofar as transfer of technology and agricultural improvements in the African and Asian countries are concerned.

CM. LINVAMA (Zambia): I shall try to be brief because most of what we were expecting to say has already been said. We consider the rational use of natural resources of paramount importance, Developing countries, and particularly so in Africa - and we have heard so many people refer to that here - have little else apart from land, water, air and sunshine. Agricultural practices in the rural areas depend on tilling of the land, planting the seed and waiting for nature to do the rest. In the last two seasons up to 1980, Africa and many parts of the world were hit by drought and the production of crops fell to an unprecedented low level. The situation became so critical around the world, and particularly, again, in Africa, to such an extent that the Director-General was forced in September last year to call a meeting of donors to point out the precarious situation many African countries were facing.

With this in view, we would like to support those programmes which have an immediate impact on the food situation in developing countries. The situation is critical in that, as I say, many developing countries depend on their natural resources in their virgin form.

In terms of water management, there is very little irrigation that has developed in many developing countries and therefore, when there is no rain there is no production. It is as straightforward as that, and therefore research and activities of FAO should aim at assisting developing countries to do that which may bring immediate results to increasing food production. But when we say this, it does not mean we close our eyes to long-term activities or research. We think that in terms of research we should aim at putting in the hands of the farmers or fishermen or even foresters, skills which they can put to immediate use. We know that we have projects such as reafforestation; we have projects such as improving the quality of fish, improving the quality of seed. All these are important but some of these programmes and projects take a long time. We are looking more to the future rather than to the present, but while we do that, it is important, as I say, that we look at the immediate effect on food production, since it is on that that we can build the future.

We therefore urge that in arranging the priorities of programmes, while we accept all the programmes - and I say we accept all the programmes because I have not heard any delegation so far here say that a particular programme is undesirable; I see that to varying degrees people are picking on either one or two or several of the sub-programmes and emphasising those, but not one particular sub-programme has been set aside as undesirable - so I say, while we accept the programmes, we think that in the priority order FAO should look at those particular programmes that will have an immediate effect to improve the situation in developing countries.

Now I would like to make a brief comment on what the delegate of France said this afternoon. First I wish to thank him for the statement that he made. We think it was a positive statement but then he suggested that the developed countries and the developing countries, he said in fact that the Geneva Group and the Group of 77 and the others possibly not in those groups should meet to discuss, possibly informally, what we should do in future. He specifically wanted these discussions concentrated around the preparation of the next budget for the next biennium, We appreciate this, we accept this. In fact last summer we tried to do just that. We realize that when we met during Council we came as two opposing teams rather than as people coming to discuss issues that were affecting us all to a greater or a lesser degree. But we were discussing common problems. So we made an effort to meet the representatives of other groups, such as the Europeans, North Americans, Southwest Pacific representatives, so that we tried to come to some understanding. They understand our thinking. We understand their thinking and see where we have common grounds. We wanted them to see why we support the Programme of Work and Budget. I think it would not be proper that I should go through all the arguments where difference occurs. It was in those discussions anyway that we were told because of the serious economic situation the developing countries were facing they were not able to support the programme in its present state as proposed. Some of the things developed countries have cited, they are cutting down on social services in their countries because of this economic situation and I think that even in this Commission some of these things have been repeated, we have heard them. But we also said, “Well, we appreciate that. In developing countries we do not even have a social service to cut down, they do not even exist. We are still struggling just to provide enough food for people to survive.” In developed countries they are looking in terms of social services, that they should maintain these. We have said., “Well, we, understand that according to your levels of development, according to the situation in your countries it is necessary to have these social services but we ourselves are struggling merely to survive,


to exist, to have enough food to live from day to day” and so we support any project, any programme that is going to assist us whether it is going to have a great impact in assistance or is it just going to put us a little further along the road to development, we are going to support that and we have appealed, while we realize you are cutting down on social services, please do come along with us and assist us to have enough food to eat and so, not to bore the Committee with the discussions we have had. I only wish to say our delegation supports the proposed Programme of Work and Budget as put before us, and as I say, we have heard no delegation which has said a particular programme or sub-programme is undesirable. We have merely emphasized as we see fit which particular programmes or sub-programmes should have a priority but we have not said a particular programme was bad and should be scrapped.

So we wish to put on record we support the budget as it stands.

I. MAAZOU (Niger): La délégation du Niger vous félicite, Monsieur le Président, pour votre nomination à la tête de notre Commission, ainsi que vos deux vice-présidents.

La délégation du Niger se joint aux nombreuses délégations qui m’ont précédé pour apporter son soutien au Programme de travail et budget 1982-83 élaboré par le Directeur général et son équipe. Nous les en félicitons.

Pour le Niger, la FAO est un facteur qui contribue efficacement à la lutte contre la faim dans le monde et c’est en consequence un important facteur de paix et d’humanité.

Plus que toute autre organisation, la FAO est aujourd’hui tout à fait opérationnelle. Il est vrai qu’il y a encore des insuffisances, et il y en aura toujours, mais l’essentiel est de progresser et de se perfectionner avec réalisme et conviction. C’est ce que le Directeur général et son équipe nous proposent aujourd’hui.

En effet, les documents qui nous sont soumis ont le mérite d’intégrer des préoccupations aussi diverses d’Etats aussi nombreux, à travers un monde secoué par la crise que nous connaissons.

Ces documents offrent de multiples aspects politiques, mais en vue d’être bref et pour ne pas répéter ce qu’a dit la majorité des délégués qui nous ont précédés nous dirons simplement que face au grave problème de la faim dans le monde, nous avons une Organisation opérationnelle avec une direction clairvoyante, pragmatique et objective, un Programme de travail et un budget 1982-83 cohérent et réaliste.

Dans ces conditions, toute hésitation, toute attitude équivoque quant au soutien qu’il est nécessaire d’apporter à la FAO, à son Directeur général et à son equipe, au Programme de travail et budget 1982-83 est à bannir.

J’en appelle à tous ceux qui ont faim, j’allais dire au ‘‘tam-tam des ventres creux” pour les dénoncer à travers le monde.

H. K. CHHETR (Bhutan): In view of the items before us my delegation wishes to express its views on the Programme of Work and Budget as proposed by the Director-General and in light of the comments of the Chairman of the Programme and Finance Committee. Before proceeding with the day’s debate we wish to dwell briefly, if you permit, on the budget level. Considering the serious world food situation, Bhutan joins the voice of many who supported the biennium budget proposed by the Director-General and feels that the increase is only modest and the minimum required in view of our needy.

We, as a landlocked country, also wish to put on record our firm support for the continuation of the Technical Cooperation Programme of the FAO. We fully support the Director-General’s decentralization programme as this would enable the member countries to obtain quick and cost-effective services.

To end the general remarks we appreciate the precise and clear remark made by Mr. West on the budget level yesterday.

With regard to Chapters 1 and 2, there is not anything which my delegation does not find satisfactory. We are basically an agricultural country where 95 percent of the population depends on agriculture and rearing of livestock. The programmes and priorities proposed in Chapter 2 give adequate attention to insure the increase of agricultural production, including food security and improving animal production and health. The document also duly endorses the importance of agricultural education, extension and


training which are of priority importance to establish a sound base for development. We are already receiving FAO’s assistance in this regard and we desire continuity of the programme through TCP and other institutions of FAO.

We also especially welcome the stress on social forestry which is designed to benefit the rural community. Seventy percent of our country’s area is under forest with great potential for future growth. Scientific exploitation and establishment of forest-based industries are vital to ensure continued contribution from this sector towards future national development. We are pleased to note that this fact has been duly recognized in document C 81/3. It is also our desire to initiate some projects in prevention of post-harvest losses and, therefore, support the Director-General’s initiations under the programme of work.

A. TRAORE (Guinée): Mon pays a dejà été entendu hier quant à sa position sur le Programme de travail et budget 1982-83.

Il n’est nullement besoin d’insister sur l’importance de notre Organisme dans la solution des problèmes qui se posent aux pays en voie de développement en matière d’alimentation que nous considérons la prémice de tout développement harmonieux.

C’est pour nous l’occasion d’inviter les partisans de la croissance zéro à revoir leur position à la lumière du noble sens de solidarité Internationale dont la présence ici de délégués aussi divers que nombreux est un témoignage éloquent.

Dans beaucoup de pays comme le nôtre, la croissance démographique et le manque de maîtrise suffisante des sciences et tâches agricoles par la plus grande partie de la population qui se consacre à l’agri-culture extensive, les calamités naturelles conduisent à l’appauvrissement des terres et à leur dégradation.

C’est pourquoi notre approbation va au sous-programme 2.1.1.3. portant sur l’aménagement des sols et engrais. Il en est de même du sous-programme 2.1.1.4., car si notre pays recèle de nombreux cours d’eau la fourniture de moyens simples mais appropriés d’utilisation de cette eau est d’une importance capitale.

La poursuite et l’intensification des programmes d’amélioration des races a également notre faveur. Notre race bovine peut être un moyen sûr de valoriser d’importantes zones couvertes de mouches tsé-tsé dans beaucoup de régions d’Afrique.

Je voudrais faire une remarque cependant au sous-programme 2.1.3.2. qui concerne la santé animale. Nous souhaiterions qu’à la liste des maladies citées et pour lesquelles ce Programme devra concentrer ses efforts, on ajoute les parasitoses gastro-intestinales. En effet, les parasitoses gastro-intestinales sont la plus grande cause de mortalité de nos veaux, ce qui naturellement empêche l’accrois-sement de notre cheptel.

Mon pays apprécie hautement l’amélioration portant sur la traction animale, car dans mon pays les demandes sont de très loin supérieures à l’offre et l’accroissement du nombre de boeufs de labour est d’une grande importance pour la production vivrière.

En matière de pêche, nous voudrions rappeler que le faible niveau de consummation de poisson dans mon pays contraste malheureusement avec la richesse de nos eaux en ressources halieutiques. Cette situation, qui résulte de l’insuffisance des moyens logistiques, de pêche, de cadres formes dans ce sens, provoque par conséquent notre appui au Programme d’activités qui nous est ici proposé.

CHAIRMAN: I will invite Dr Bommer, the Assistant Director-General, Agriculture Department, to comment on a few points.

D.F.R. BOMMER (Assistant Director-General Agriculture Department): I think I can be very brief. First I would like to say that we appreciate very much the comments made on chapter 2. I am partly responsible for chapter 2 together with Dr Islam, who is sitting in Commission I on the other side. So I express appreciation on behalf of both of us.


A number of valuable comments have been made on possible changes in direction in the order of priorities and offering various forms of collaboration from industrialised as well as developing countries in pursuing these programmes. For these we are very grateful and we hope to make use of them.

I would like now briefly to comment on a few specific questions, specifically one which was highlighted here again in the June Council meeting. This is an international convention or agreement on plant genetic resources and allied to it possibly the establishment of an international gene bank under the auspices of FAO. It is certainly a matter which needs close study in its possibilities, close study in its feasibility, and we are looking forward to any further debate in the matter during the course of this Conference. We can only stress that the delegates certainly know and have noted the considerable programme which is being pursued at present in conservation and exchange of genetic resources in collaboration with the International Board of Plant Genetic Resources, which includes more or less all the countries who have spoken and more on their situations on exchange of genetic resource material in organising the collection of exhibitions and in rescuing material and making it available to modern plant breeding. It even includes exchange of material between countries not members of this Organisation, as for example, the USSR, which is a very important holder of genetic resources. But, as I say, this matter hopefully will be further discussed so that we know the final opinion of our member countries on this matter.

The second point, there were specific questions from St. Lucia on how to make use of the regional programme. There was one point specifically on participation in roots and tubers production programmes. This is a specific programme which is being pursued through the Regional Office in collaboration with the Plant Production and Plant Protection Division. Your Government will be approached for your participation in it. As for all other activities which are intended and the ongoing activities, certainly with your announcement of interest and participation I will be only too happy to include your country in other activities, including coconut, which you mentioned.

A question was raised by Trinidad and Tobago in the services we provide to the Caribbean Plant Protection Convention. It is right that our present Secretary is located in our Regional Office. He is Regional Officer for Plant Protection there. We will certainly look into the matter of what are the prospects of stationing him in the Caribbean. But we are in the difficult situation that this Regional Office is not so splendid as to be able to provide an additional staff member in the Caribbean and one in the rest of Latin America. So we must look into this matter to see how we can deal with the problem. This certainly relates to the comments of the delegate of Cameroon. He rightly pointed out that there is no roots and tubers officer in the Plant Division. These officers usually have to deal with many crops and we are trying with the existing staff to deal with the respective problems.

I should refer to the very important question raised by the delegate of the Netherlands on how do we integrate necessary programmes within FAO. He himself has served for a number of years in FAO, so he will probably have some understanding how we do it. But I am very glad to reply here specifically in the field of rural development and the follow-up to WCARRD that we have a house-wide integrating mechanism in which all the respective ADG’s participate and we have related task forces dealing with the development of this programme to see how the various components have to be interlinked. The other level of integration is certainly on the concrete approach level, where task forces for any given project in rural development in the respective operations division are leading and integrating the various technical units in such projects in a given country. These are roughly the main mechanisms and in other areas they are handled in a different set-up. I think he asked too for the relation of the Prevention of Food Loss programmes to the Food Security Assistance Schemes. This is a long standing working group consisting of three or four people meeting weekly and orienting these programmes. These are closely integrated on the other side and show two distinct features, one related to overall food security in the country and the other to the low type on-farm village type of storage in the activities related to various countries.

It was important that the delegate from France mentioned the just recently held meeting on the creation of the European Research Network on Energy and Agriculture. We are very grateful to the Government of France for this initiative and certainly grateful to those nations who have indicated a wish to join this network. It is still open at about the same number of nations to join and certainly to support it and we very much hope that soon it will become a fully fledged European programme, which certainly can be carried on only if the European countries are ready to provide the small but necessary funds to run this programme; otherwise it becomes an empty hole or hand to develop further. It is closely related to the rest of the energy programme which we are pursuing under the new Programme of Work and Budget, and the development of this programme might just be an indication of the example given by the delegate of the Netherlands how shifts and reorientation in programmes are taking place in FAO and, as he has described it, for the department of the Dutch Government it is exactly the same way as we have implemented


it in FAO, which means we are using the current budget and then seeking through shifts and new orders of priority to introduce the necessary reorientation from which the energy programme question has been developed.

I think those are the major questions raised. I will be glad to come back if some delegation feels I have missed some important point.

M. A. FORES RODAS (Director General Adjunto, Departamento de Montes): En primer lugar, Sr. Presidente, quisiera agradecer a los distinguidos delegados por su apoyo al Programa del Director General en lo que respecta al sector forestal, específicamente la variación y la participación del sector forestal en el desarrollo rural con los énfasis apropiados sobre energía rural, energía doméstica y desarrollo rural en general.

Quisiera, Sr. Presidente, hacer un pequeño comentario sobre la pregunta hecha por el señor delegado de Estados Unidos referente a nuestras relaciones industriales con ONUDI.

Desde el principio, en la creación de la FAO y que se incorporó al mismo tiempo el Programa de Montes, se creó la División de Industrias Forestales o el Programa de Industrias Forestales, haciendo especial énfasis en las industrias primarias; es decir, aquellas industrias que afectan directamente el recurso forestal. Después de la creación de ONUDI, alia por 1969, se llegó al primer acuerdo mutuo de coordi-nación de trabajos con tal Organización. Este acuerdo entre FAO y ONUDI reconoce la completa interdependencia de las industrias forestales primarias con la ordenación y el manejo del recurso forestal. Prácticamente, cada una de las decisiones de manejo, tales como qué especies, cómo crecen, dónde cre-cer y plantar especies, de que tamaño, a qué edad cortar, a qué edad aclarear, y cómo tales especies responden a los sistemas silvícolas de ordenación y tienen relación directa en qué van a ser convertidas y para qué van a ser utilizadas desde el punto de vista industrial primario. Es así que la ordenación del recurso es absolutamente inseparable del procesamiento primario del producto primario mismo. Así es que la FAO de acuerdo con ONUDI tiene que ver con todas las industrias forestales primarias, tales como aserrío, pley wood, tablero de partículas, pulpa y papel, mientras que ONUDI maneja las siguientes etapas de la conversión del papel, por ejemplo, la fabricación y manufactura de muebles, la conversión de madera aserrada en componentes de construcción, etc.

Existe ya Sr. Presidente, un mecanismo por medio del cual representantes de nuestras dos organizaciones se reúnen periódica y sistemáticamente a intercambiar información e ideas y a planificar acciones espe-cíficas de cooperación mutua a nivel de proyecto. De tal manera que ambas organizaciones se mantienen operando muy de cerca en muchos proyectos específicos.

Otro de los peligros que se podría correr, Sr. Presidente, en la separación de la ordenación del recurso con la influencia de las industrias primarias forestales, es que las instituciones de finan-ciamiento nacional o internacional no mirarían con buenos ojos el proveer préstamos o financiamientos a inversiones a la industria, salvo que la garantía de la existencia del recurso sea dada. Similarmente los préstamos a plantaciones serían probablemente no aprobados, si no se tiene la garantía también del producto básico que es el recurso en pie.

Un siguiente factor, Sr, Presidente, es que la contribución forestal al empleo rural, al desarrollo rural y a la aplicación verdadera y real que el Director General ha dado a los pasos siguientes posteriores a WCARRD serían puestos en peligro si tal dicotomía dentro de la ordenación total del recurso existiera.

Debido nuevamente a los factores que ya he enumerado, es decir que el principio del desarrollo rural basado en la participación del recurso forestal a tal desarrollo, implica una indivisibilidad entre el recurso, las instituciones rurales y la participación popular y la industria apropiada forestal, en este caso específico la industria primaria.

Por supuesto, estoy a la disposición de los señores representantes para cualquier pregunta posterior.

A. LABON (Officer-in-Charge, Department of Fisheries): I hope I can be very brief and would like to say that we have noted with appreciation the general support the Commission expressed for the Fisheries part of the Director-General’s Programme of Work for the forthcoming biennium. We have also carefully noted all the proposals and suggestions for future inclusion in future programmes of work of the Fisheries Department expressed by various delegations.


I should also say that we have noted the support the Commission has expressed for the World Management Conference on Fisheries to be held in 1983 and have noted suggestions that this Management Conference should be preceded by careful study, consultations and other preparation so as to ensure a comprehensive coverage of problems faced by countries in the management and exploitation of fisheries within, their Exclusive Economic Zones.

As a third point, I should refer to a specific item raised by St. Lucia connected with the determination of fisheries evaluation and development project for the Western Central Atlantic Region. The present phase of this project, as has been pointed out, is coming to an end on 31 December 1981, and despite long-lasting negotiations with UNDP, we are not in a position to secure funds even for a modest operation for the period 1982-83, which seems to be a critical period for UNDP funding. For this reason, in consultation with UNDP, we have notified countries of this situation, and the countries of the region who are members of the project may wish to reiterate their support to UNDP through the regular channels with emphasis on the important role the project plays for that region.

I should also add that very strong support and appreciation for the project activities was expressed at the recent session of the Western Central Atlantic Commission which took place earlier this year in Havana.

In addition to this, I should add that we have in a final stage of preparation another project which is not a substitute for the terminated project for the Lesser Antilles area, of which St. Lucia may become a member if the government expresses that wish. The project is to be funded from OPEC funds, not from direct UNDP sources.

CHAIRMAN: Out of seven chapters we have completed two. We are supposed to have completed seven by now.

The meeting rose at 18.15 hours.
La séance est levée à 18 h 15.
Se levanta la sesión a las 18.15 horas.

Previous Page Top of Page Next Page