N.V.K. WERAGODA (Sri Lanka): The Sri Lanka delegation takes this opportunity to thank the Secretariat for the documents provided for discussion under agenda item 7.1 and 7.2. We also thank Professor Islam for his interesting introduction on this subject. As stated in the opening paragraphs of this document, these guidelines provide a unique international policy framework for adjusting and evaluating agricultural programmes. It is in the best interests of the world community to adhere to these guidelines in adjusting individual national policies as well.
Under Guidelines 1, the increase in food production in the developing countries has been less than the expected target of 4 percent. In order to correct the situation and even to catch up on lost time, serious consideration has to be given to Guideline 2, that is, the adoption of policies to attract investments in agriculture. These policies are many and varied. We, in Sri Lanka, have adopted a policy package to attract investments for agriculture, fiscal and monetary incentives like tax relief and duty rebates, are provided to investors in agriculture. Thereby, resources that were hitherto directed to other areas of investments are now drawn into agriculture.
Action has also been taken to provide a wider frame of price support policies. Support in the form of food subsidized inputs guaranteed prices for farm produce. A very large share of the budgeted capital expenditure has also gone into agriculture in, fact, Sri Lanka had undertaken the biggest multi-purpose development project ever undertaken, which they conclude, will help to settle 1.5 million farmers on extent of 625,000 acres of irrigated land.
In respect of research, it is true to say that, as stated in this document, several Asian countries have well-organized national agricultural research systems, but it is pertinent to note that there should be a mechanism at least on a regional basis, where duplication in research efforts could be avoided and more attention could be devoted to basic research programmes.
In talking of integrated nutrition policies, Sri Lanka has taken positive steps to ensure food is not beyond the reach of the ordinary consumer when guaranteed prices are provided to farm produce. Sri Lanka, as you may be aware, has nearly 45 percent of our population below the poverty line. Calorie intake and the nutritional content of the food requirement of this poorer group of the country has been ensured by the Food Stamp Scheme which has been in operation for the last six years.
I do not wish to go through each Guideline, but I wish to say that the Sri Lanka delegation fullv endorses the revised Guidelines as given in document C 83/22. W. not only endorse them but, as stated earlier, we have been taking all possible steps to implement them and will do so in the years to come.
Similarly, I hope the gravity of the problems that are attempted to be tackled in these Guidelines would be realized in its correct perspective both in the developed and developing countries and adequate measures taken to realize the objectives. To some, the problems to be tackled by these Guidelines may be regional, national or of a parochial nature. However, the ill-effects in the instability to resolve these problems can be contagious. It may not be possible to confine the ill-effects to a narrow area. The world community at large could be affected.
It is in this light that these Guidelines have to be considered and adopted by this forum.
I. MADESANDY (Indonesia): First, let me congratulate the Secretariat for this valuable document and in particular Dr Islam for his concise, clear and comprehensive presentation of this most important subject.
At this stage the Indonesia delegation wishes to submit comments on certain important Guidelines as well as our general views on the proposed revision and updating.
With regard to Guideline 1, we agree with Dr Islam's view that the target of 4 percent per annum increase of food production has proven to be illusive. Overall, developing countries as a whole have only achieved an annual growth rate of food production of 3.2 percent, significantly below the target. What is more disturbing, perhaps, is the fact that progress achieved has been very uneven implying that several developing countries have made much less progress, and production per capita in many countries has even stagnated, if not declined.
This far from encouraging achievement cannot but be seen a part from the adverse impact on the economic and financial capacity of these developing countries, of the severe economic recession, of protectionistic measures and practices adopted particularly by developed countries and of the continuous worsening of their terms of trade.
The adoption of more appropriate and integrated food strategies, supported by increased developmental expenditures, has materially helped several developing countries to exceed growth rates exceeding the targets. In the case of Indonesia, for instance, the growth rate of cereal production during the period 1973-4 to 1982 has been more than 5 percent per annum, thanks to the adoption of intensification programmes for food crops, livestock production and fisheries, supported by a rehabilitated and continously expanding irrigation network, the increased capacity of village cooperatives and other related institutions in the distribution of inputs and marketing of the products, a strengthened agricultural network and sufficiently high level of floor prices set by the government each year.
The assurance of increased food production of developing countries at a sustained and sufficiently high level is vital to the solution of the world food problem and to the assurance of world food security. As stated by the Indonesian Minister of Agriculture in his statement in Plenary, the achievement of world food security is not only essential to the achievement of peace, within as well as among nations, but will also promote and facilitate North/South dialogue leading towards the establishment of a better economic and social order for mankind as a whole.
The Indonesia delegation therefore very much supports the proposed Revision of Guideline 1 and suggests it should include the phrase "to promote the establishment of a New International Economic Order".
G. SOTO CARRERO (Cuba): Quisiéramos, en primer lugar, agradecer en especial al Profesor Islam por la presentación de este tema, así como a toda la Secretaría por habernos preparado un documento tan completo sobre la actualización de las orientaciones y objetivos del Reajuste Agrícola Internacional, documento que contiene sin duda el esfuerzo realizado por el grupo de contacto creado para su compa-tibilización.
El apoyo al trabajo de este grupo fue expresado también por la delegación de Cuba en su calidad de Miembro del Consejo de la FAO. La delegación de Cuba ha apoyado las orientaciones referentes a los objetivos del Reajuste Agrícola Internacional, y ha seguido muy de cerca los trabajos realizados en torno a la misma. Desafortunadamente, los progresos han sido ínfimos. Una vez más, la falta de voluntad política de determinados países desarrollados, de países de economía de mercado, ha dado lugar a que tengamos que lamentarnos de lentos y desiguales progresos en los aspectos más importantes referentes a la economía internacional.
El objetivo del reajuste agrícola internacional y las orientaciones hacia el mismo por justo y por adecuado debería ser aprobado plenamente en esta Comisión y en la Conferencia.
Mi delegación se congratula con la delegación de Argentina por haber retirado sus reservas a determinadas orientaciones. Esa magnífica actitud facilitará sin duda la adopción de todas las orientaciones. La delegación de Cuba ha expresado su total aprecio por estas orientaciones, exhortando a que se lleven a cabo de una vez y que cada grupo de países cumpla su rol en este sentido. Repetimos que la actitud negativa de algunos países desarrollados y el desinterés total que algunos de ellos han mostrado en el contenido de algunas orientaciones agrava la situación.
Por ultimo, quisiéramos referirnos a la sugerencia hecha con la relación a la orientación 1 y a la orientación 7, referente a la inclusión de la frase "relacionada con el Nuevo Orden Economico Internacional" lo apoyamos plenamente ya que consideramos que el contenido de la totalidad de las orientaciones forma parte del establecimiento del Nuevo Orden Económico Internacional. Si bien pudiera éste no ser su objetivo principal complementa los esfuerzos que ha venido llevando a cabo la FAO en relación a este nuevo orden. Con respecto a la orientación 7, teniendo en cuenta los escasos resultados en determinados foros que se ocupan del tema del comercio y en especial de la sexta UNCTAD, preferimos que la orientación se mantenga tal y como se presenta en la actualidad.
Concluyendo, la delegación de Cuba apoya la adopción de las orientaciones y espera un real y positivo cumplimiento posterior de las mismas, puesto que si bien, como se ha expresado en esta sala, tal vez no todos los ministros de agricultura y de otros sectores como el comercio interior y exterior, tengan delante estas orientaciones al momento de elaborar sus planes, si hacen los mismos con la voluntad necesaria para resolver los problemas más acuciantes, tanto en el plano interno como en el externo, llevaría necesariamente a la adopción y cumplimiento de las mismas.
M. AHMAD (Pakistan): First of all, on behalf of the Pakistan delegation, I commend the Secretariat for producing an excellent Report, the Fourth Progress Report for the implementation of the strategy for International Agricultural Adjustment. Equally commendable was the presentation of Professor Islam. Not only was it lucid and precise, but also comprehensive.
The concept of International Agricultural Adjustment is based on the interdependence of the developed and developing countries in the field of world agriculture. Therefore, it is necessary that constant review should be carried out so that necessary adjustments can be made to reflect the latest changes in the situation.
I shall take up a paper dealing with the progress report first. Guideline 1: 4 percent appears to us to be a very modest target based on our own experience. Pakistan is one of those fortunate countries which has registered a growth rate in excess of this, 4.4 percent to be precise. But this is an all-round growth rate. There would be a growth rate higher than this in crops which have had the benefit of research, and here I would like to emphasize the need for research. Those crops on which inadequate research has been carried out nationally or internationally have not registered that high a growth rate. I mention in particular pulses and grain, which are a very important element of the diet, and yet they have suffered because international research has not been carried out on that intensive a scale as was necessary.
The importance of research to the achievement of this target cannot be over-emphasized. There needs to be a research system nationally with proper linkages with international agricultural research systems. The most important thing would be to see that there are adequate linkages established between research and extension.
In the achievement of this target on water resources, there should be development and water management all the way from the source of the water right down to the farmers' fields, and in fact on the fields themselves. The massive problem which may be shared by many countries - and Pakistan, is one of them -is one of salinity in water-logging,-which has to be controlled. With these things in view, 4 percent appears to be quite a modest target and I am glad to see that it is being retained in the revised Guidelines with the qualifying phrase that it should be at least 4 percent.
As regarding Guideline 2, agriculture does need a high priority. The Government of Pakistan has been giving it a very high priority, but agricultural production has to be seen in its entire context. There has to be an integrated approach. Not only agriculture but also water resources development, rural development, the development of rural infrastructure, are all very important.
I am very happy to report that in Pakistan the contribution of agriculture has steadily declined and í is now about 30 percent of the GDP. But our total investment allocation in the Fifth 5-Year Plan, taking agriculture in its entire context, is as high as 33 percent.
Mention has been made in this progress report of the important role played by fertilisers in agricultural development. In fact, we have found that the increase in agricultural consumption is directly responsible for the increase in agricultural production, but here the governments of developing countries like ours are faced with a dilemma. We want resources to be put into development which will boost agricultural development, and for these resources, particularly for rural development, it is necessary that the subsidy should be continuously phased out, but that then has an important and very serious effect on agricultural development. In 1980/81 and 1981/82, as a result of the increase in prices of fertiliser because we wanted to phase out subsidy and wanted to find money for other resources, fertiliser consumption was more or less stagnant. It did pick up to the level of 15 percent in 1982/83. Fortunately, there was a price decrease internationally. We are dependent for some of the fertilisers on international imports, but again we see this thing coming up. In the last two or three months prices have gone up from $165 per ton of DAP fertiliser to $210 per ton. This will cause another constraint on agricultural development.
As regards Guideline 3, producer prices have to be continuously corrected, but for this the apparatus has to be a scientific one. It should not be an ad hoc increase. In Pakistan we have set up an Agricultural Prices Commission which looks at prices in their proper context. This has a whole multidimensional aspect. It does not merely determine the producer prices which will give an incentive to produce more. We have to reconcile this with the fact that they should still remain within the paying capacity of the consumers, otherwise heavy subsidies would be involved. Price policy has to extend further to ensure that whatever is considered to be a reasonable price for the farmer is capable of being obtained by him when he has to sell in the market, so marketing is also very important.
Another fact which developing countries share is that not all the farmers are big. In fact, the majority of them are not big, as in the case of Pakistan, where 78 percent of them own and operate less than 5 hectares of land. A price which is good enough for a large and more efficient farmer will not be good enough for a less efficient farmer, so that this factor also has to be reconciled in order that there should be equity in price fixing so that this can act as an incentive even for the small and less privileged farmers. Local production has to be encouraged because there is a certain amount of stability in the prices, but, for example, we are producing wheat, and the prices have been going up at the rate of 2 percent or 3 percent, whereas in the case of edible oil, which we have been importing, the prices have registered an increase in one year - in fact in a few months - by as much as 70 percent. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that greater stress should be placed on indigenous production of food and, incidentally, encouraging those items of food which can be produced locally.
As regards Guidelines 4 and 5 on nutrition, here again the growth must be with equity not only in production but also in consumption. There should be a way of identifying the poor people. As I mentioned last time at the Council, we in Pakistan have decided to Islamise, to bring in more and more Islamisation, as a result of which we have instituted the Zakat and Ushr which is a religious tax on property and on agricultural produce. Just as it is a religious duty to collect this tax, it is the same religious duty of the State to see that the benefits of that tax are passed on to the poor and the destitute.
Nutritional planning has to be seen, and is being seen, by Pakistan in the context of normal development plans of the country.
As regards Guideline numbers 6 and 7, the only point I have to emphasize is the savings in food losses. It has been mentioned in the paper that a 5 percent saving can bring about an increase of 80 million tons, which is nearly four fifths of what is traded round the world in terms of wheat. Therefore, saving of food losses is very important. Storage, post-harvest handling, distribution systems and pest management are all very essential. We are alive to the need for them and we have therefore drawn up a programme of storage construction. We are trying to develop the necessary technology for it with the help of FAO, for which we are grateful.
As I mentioned in regard to Guideline 6, the consumption of locally produced food is to be preferred. This is not only in order to see that there is a saving of foreign exchange and that the foreign exchange drain is eliminated, but also, if the food is locally produced, to that extent the logistics and distribution problems do not arise. For this, proper pricing policies, proper merketing policies and even fiscal policies will have to be remodelled to see that people are encouraged to buy locally-produced food.
As regards Guidelines 7 to 9, we notice with great concern that although agricultural trade has registered an increase of 5 percent, the share of agricultural trade has fallen as a result of the decline in prices. We are ourselves a victim of this. Our rice prices have fallen by as much as 40 percent. Some lower figure was quoted earlier, but in the case of rice it is as much as 40 percent. Of course, we have insulated the farmers from these cataclysmic changes in the international market, but for poor countries it. is very difficult, therefore, to continue to isolate. But, if we do not isolate the farmers from these fluctuations they will not have any incentive to produce, and I think this is a matter which should be viewed with some concern by the international community.
With regard to exports,it has been stated here that the exports of developing countries grew at the rate of 2.6 percent while the imports have gone up by 10.3 percent over 8 years, indicating inadequacies of measures adopted by the international organisations, GATT and UNCTAD. We do hope that necessary measures will be taken to correct this tendency, because agricultural exports play an important role in the economy of developing countries, who have to be assured through efforts that incomes should increase rather than suffer a decline.
On Guideline 10, we share the concern about the inadequacy of aid compared to the targets that have been laid down, but there are two areas to which I would like to draw attention. It has to be seen whether the flow of aid has something to do with the lack of projects, or the necessary institutions for executing such projects, and therefore developing countries should also see to it that they have an adequate portfolio of properly engineered projects and the necessary institutions to execute them, because aid has to be properly utilised, and this can be done if properly prepared, soundly conceived projects, backed up by the necessary institutions to execute them, are undertaken.
As regards Guideline 11, again we share the concern that aid has declined.
Coming to item 7.2, the revised Guidelines, we wholeheartedly endorse these. In fact, they need to be vigorously pursued. In this case, we welcome the statement made by the distinguished delegation from Argentina that they have withdrawn the reservations which they had on two of the Guidelines. We have only two comments to make. One is in regard to Guideline. 1, that emphasis should be particularly placed on those countries around the world which have much greater potential and which can be more easily harnessed for increasing the food production in order to correct this uneven distribution with which the present production has been plagued.
As regards Guideline 12, special mention has been made only of the low income countries. I think the same concessional assistance should also be given to MSA countries because their plight is equally bad.
T. KITLELI (Lesotho): This being the first time we have spoken, my delegation echoes the compliments which have been given to you, Mr Chairman, on your election to the chairmanship of such an important Commission. Secondly, my delegation wishes to congratulate the Secretariat for having compiled such an enlightening and balanced document.
My delegation appreciates the achievement in increasing food production, as reflected in paragraph 10 of document C 83/21. It is concerned about the 53 countries which registered a decline in per capita food production, as reported in paragraph 11. My delegation supports the definition of world food security there expounded and further urges that emphasis should be placed on strengthening national programmes. Without food security at national level, it is doubtful whether food security on a global level can ever be achieved.
Guideline 3 emphasizes the role of incentives for producers to produce food, which I maintain is the first priority in the definition of world food security. There can be no stability of supply nor access to adequate food supplies without both of those having been produced. A remunerative price for the producer has been identified as one of the main incentives for farmers.
The views of the nations of the world are still divided on the question of trade in food. Considering the efforts and the time devoted to this subject, one questions the extent of the commitment of nations to eradicate hunger and malnutrition from the face of the earth. However, it is gratifying to see the steps being taken by the agencies of the United Nations system, as reported in paragraph 69 of document C 83/21. It is my view that joint action, in particular by FAO, GATT and UNCTAD, will accelerate action towards an acceptable solution, one which would be acceptable to all.
My delegation supports the revision and updating of the Guidelines as reflected in document C 83/22. These revisions not only clarify the Guidelines, but incorporate new concepts which bring the targets within the reach even of the smallest nations.
D. MOUTSATSOS (Greece) (speaking on behalf of the EEC): As the representative of the EEC is absent and my country has the presidency of the EEC, we will express the views of the 10 Member States of the Community. The European Economic Community and its Member States have participated actively in the revised and updated Guidelines. This is true so far as the Government Consultations in 1981 are concerned, as well as the Contact Group which took place during the 82nd FAO Council last November. The EEC is convinced that the wording which was decided on was the result of long and difficult sessions. In order not to endanger the compromise arrived at, the EEC is prepared to accept the wording of the guidelines, as contained in document C 83/22. This acceptance is based on the condition that in Guideline 10 the sentence referring to the financing facility of the International Monetary Fund is adjusted to the wording of the decision of the International Monetary Fund, which means that the words "financing facilities" are replaced by "compensatory financial facility". With this clarification in Guideline 10, the EEC can accept the revised Guidelines.
However, the Community wishes to state once again its position on Guideline 10 concerning the International Emergency Food Reserve (IEFR), namely, that all possible steps should be taken to reach the present target of 500 000 tonnes rather than considering an increase in the Reserve and legal provisions in the form of a convention to make the Reserve binding. To comply with the suggestion made on Guideline 7, the Community proposes that we make reference to Resolution 159 of UNCTAD VI. As the deliberations in GATT are still underway at this stage, we cannot mention any achievements so far.
Concerning Guideline 1, the European Economic Community and its Member States would prefer not to insert the phrase "to promote the establishment of a new international economic order", since this is not the main goal of the international agricultural adjustment.
B. FURNESS (United States of America): I would like to begin by addressing some remarks to the Progress Report, and then I would like to conclude with some observations on the revision of Guidelines we have been asked to consider.
The Fourth Progress Report on International Agricultural Adjustment Guidelines is generally well-balanced and thought-provoking. The quality of the analysis, comprehensiveness and breadth of coverage is certainly superior to previous efforts. The documentation suggests that progress has been made on devising quantitative indicators for certain policy objectives and obtaining hard data from the developing countries. While we do not agree with everything in the report, it is clear that the conclusions and analysis have benefitted from the continuity provided by having one set of Guidelines. This should not be surprising as the guidelines were intended to address longer-term developments, not short-range goals and objectives.
Guideline 1: Increasing Food Production in LDCs (paras 10-14): Although the developing countries as a whole have not met the target of four percent annual growth in food production, Guideline 1 shows that some have made substantial progress. We should keep in mind large geographical differences especially in per capita food production. The substantial 1982 recovery in Africa's growth rate in food production is encouraging, but results under this Guideline clearly justify the need to focus on increasing food production in developing countries, essential to overcoming the long-term problems of hunger and malnutrition.
Guideline 2: Financial and Other Inputs to Production (paras 15-26): The documented lack of adequate financial flows from developing country governments into their own agricultural sectors is cause for alarm. It is also discouraging in view of contribution of agriculture to gross domestic product in most of these countries and the numerous international meetings that have agreed on the need for investment. We believe this question is worthy of further study to explain the reason for the deficiency and possible solutions.
Quantity of investment is not the only important factor. As paragraph 18 of the report notes, the centrally-planned economies continue to devote a substantial share of total investment to agriculture relative to its weight in the economy. However, with few exceptions, their performance has been poor. On the other hand, the developed market economies have generally done much better in this regard. One of the important reasons is their reliance on the private sector and a market-oriented economy. Such a comparison has important implications for developing countries to improve their food and agricultural sectors.
Guideline 3: Incentives, Social Equity, and Developing Country Rational Use of Resources (paras 27-38): A comparison of the trend of the period before 1975 with the period after that time does not indicate a general increase in price incentives in developing countries in recent years. However, as many delegates have observed, without a substantial increase in production incentives, real progress on increasing food production in the developing countries is highly unlikely. The Secretariat's study of domestic pricing policies should shed important light on this issue.
Guideline 4: Overall Food Consumption Patterns and Integrated Nutritional Policies (paras 40-47): The report clearly shows that developing countries as a whole have made substantial progress in improving per capita food consumption of their populations, despite regional and individual country deficiencies. The linkage with Guideline 1 - increasing per capita food production - demonstrates the need to focus on production.
Guideline 5: Improving Nutritional Level for Undernourished Segments of the Population (paras 48-53): The US agrees with the document's observations on the usefulness of properly designed and implemented food-for-work programs, especially because of their potential impact on rural populations.
Guideline 6: Balance-of-Payments Problems and Consumption of Locally and Regionally Produced Food (paras 54-60): This part we found somewhat disappointing. The data presented in the report was too aggregated to allow for adequate analysis of progress under this guideline. For example, the data in tables 6.1 and 6.2 on production and use of imports, would have been more useful if broken down by regions and oil producing and non-oil producing countries.
We also agree that using domestic cereals production as a proxy figure for basic food production is not fully adequate.
Guideline 7: Access to Markets and Assurance of Supplies (paras 61-69): Trends in world trade do not fully explain whether access to markets and assurance of supplies have become easier. For example, the recent economic recession had a significant effect on the growth of trade, including agricultural trade, and the drop in agriculture's share in total value of world exports is due in part to the decrease in the prices for many agricultural commodities.
We agree that progress on liberalization of agricultural trade has been inadequate. We believe that the development process is best served by a more liberalized trade system generally and that all countries should move progressively towards reduction of trade barriers, wherever possible. In our view, the GATT is the appropriate forum for negotiating trade liberalization and offers the best means of strengthening and improving the multilateral trading system and for expanding trade opportunities for LDCs.
The US believes that heavily-subsidized exports of agricultural products depress world prices, create market instability, impose serious obstacles in the process of agricultural adjustment, and constitute a major impedement to the liberalization of trade in agricultural commodities. Reduction or elimination of export subsidies could result in maintaining or increasing market shares and exporter earnings for many countries, including LDCs.
Guideline 8: Food Security, Market Stability, and the Level of Prices in International Trade (paras 70-79): As the Secretariat's report notes, the conditions existing during so-called "World Food Crisis" of 1972-74 have not recurred and the level of stocks of basic cereals have improved significantly since 1974. This indicates that a new international grains agreement is not necessary for world food security. Thus, we believe that national grain reserves, which are responsive to market factors, are preferable to a system of nationally-held, internationally-coordinated reserves.
We do agree with the Secretariat that over-concentration of cereal stocks in one country does have serious drawbacks. We believe that such a concentration of stocks in one country is neither good nor fair and we encourage other countries to implement national reserve policies.
Guideline 9: Trade-Oriented Policy Measures for Increasing and Diversifying LDC Export Earnings and Agricultural Production (paras 80-87): We would take issue with paragraph 85 of the report, which suggests that the difference in terms of trade of agricultural products between developed and developing countries is the result of the increase in the volume of exports of agricultural products from developed countries, especially North America, especially as the report fails to provide sufficient data to demonstrate this claim. This may not take into account the fact that the EC has become a major exporter of agricultural commodities, primarily because of its excessively high support prices for most commodities, import barriers, and export subsidies through which it exports its excess production into the world market.
Guideline 10: Transfer to LDCs of Resources and Technology (paras 88-94): We were interested and encouraged to note that external assistance to agricultural development has increased 280 percent from $1 830 million annually in 1973-74 to an estimated $7 036 million in 1982-83.
With respect to paragraph 93, which states "... the bilateral donors devote to agriculture a minor proportion of their concessional commitments," more than half of US bilateral development assistance - $707 million in FY-83 - is directed toward programs in agriculture, rural developments and nutrition.
Guideline 11: Food Aid - at Least 10 Million Tons Annually (paras 95-105): Food aid pledges have increased dramatically during the last ten years. The Food Aid Convention (FAO) binding commitments were raised to 7.6 million tons of cereals a year - a substantial improvment over the 4.2 million tons in the previous Convention. The World Food Programme's (WFP) annual resources have increased from $177 million in 1973-74 to about $578 million in 1982-83. The value in constant dollars of annual food aid provided by DAC members has increased by 38 percent from 1974-76 to 1981, while the annual volume of food aid increased by 32 percent between 1975-76 and 1981-82. We are proud that the US has pledged $250 million to the WFP 1983-84 target of $1.2 billion, an increase of $30 million above our $220 million pledge for the previous biennium.
Now let me turn to the revision and updating of Guidelines and Targets for International Agricultural Adjustment as presented in document C 83/22. Let me begin by recalling the three purposes which the Guidelines for International Agricultural Adjustment, as set out by the Conference in 1973 and agreed on in 1975, were designed to promote: firstly, faster and more balanced growth in agricultural production; secondly, improved food distribution, and thirdly a rising share for the developing countries of expanded agricultural trade.
Furthermore, the Guidelines were to be universally applicable to all countries, and to reflect the balance of obligations between developing and developed countries. The Guidelines were to cover the long-term, and while. recognising that national agricultural policy reflects national priorities, it was hoped that the Guidelines would serve as signposts to policymakers and would promote the harmonization of national policies bearing on agricultural adjustment.
The United States joined in the international effort to formulate guidelines for national policy-makers, believing that they could serve important and useful purposes. Thus, we participated fully in the formulation of the existing Guidelines and we continue to believe they serve the purposes for which they were conceived.
We do not believe they are outmoded of obsolete or that they have outlived their purposes. Indeed, we recognize that those purposes remain to be fully achieved, that policy makers throughout the world must strive harder and more consistently to keep these Guidelines in mind as they set the course of national policies. The problem we face, in short, is one of falling short of declared goals and purposes, not faulty goals or purposes. The focus of our attention in these circumstances should not be how to change the goals or objectives. It should be, rather, on finding the reasons why it has proved difficult or impossible to reach the goals and the purposes already agreed upon.
My Government does not believe the existing guidelines are perfect, and we have, in the past, participated in efforts to find ways to improve the guidelines which would be acceptable to a wide spectrum of countries, including ourselves. In our view, those efforts have demonstrated that there remain extensive differences on a number of issues which, precisely because they are important, are also contentious. They have demonstrated that, at least for the present, the time is simply not ripe for the international community to achieve a new consensus on revision of the existing guidelines; that it simply is not within our reach to agree on revisions which would have the same universal acceptance and recognition, and thus the same value, the same weight and the same force, as the Guidelines agreed to in 1975. There is a further thought to which we give great stress: unless revisions are to have the same weight, value and force as the original Guidelines, we do not believe their adoption or endorsement can be looked upon as progress.
In conclusion, let me again repeat the essence of my Government's views. The US believes the existing Guidelines are serving well the purposes for which they were conceived. The results of our previous discussion - that is, on monitoring the performance of the existing Guidelines - indicate that useful analysis and conclusions may be drawn from what we already have. We believe the focus of attention should be on identifying the reasons why it is proving difficult to follow fully the present guidelines, not on their revision.
The effort to agree upon changes in the present guidelines — changes which would carry the same weight, value and force as the Guidelines of 1975 — has not succeeded; on the contrary, it has revealed significant differences on important issues.
Those differences cannot be resolved during this Conference; and, given the history of past efforts to resolve them, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the time is not now ripe for their resolution in any forum.
For these reasons, we believe the Conference should reaffirm the existing guidelines and consider that the mandate given at the Twentieth FAO Conference for reviewing the Guidelines has already been carried out as far as is practical, and that no further efforts should be made to revise the Guidelines at this time.
We believe it would be a serious mistake for this Conference to consider adopting or endorsing Guidelines which, because they will lack universal acceptance, will only serve to dilute the weight, value and force of the existing guidelines.
If the Conference should move in that direction, the United States will have to disassociate itself from the outcome of the Conference's work on this issue.
EL PRESIDENTE: Por la trascendencia que tiene para los efectos de los trabajos de esta Comisión, la declaración que ha hecho los Estados Unidos de América, voy a solicitarle al Sr. West haga uso de la palabra.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: I have followed most of the debate, although I have not been here for much of the time and I was looking forward to the possibility of intervening at the end. However, I have to go to the Plenary shortly so with the kind indulgence of delegates I am taking the floor at this point, frankly stimulated by the intervention just made.
I have listened to it with great attention and appreciate very much what has been said and the way in which it has been said, except in one respect. It has been suggested that firstly the Secretariat has not analysed the reasons for lack of progress or for sufficient progress in implementing the present Guidelines. I am sorry if we have not satisfied the United States on that, but we have done our best in the documents we have issued on the subject.
But more than that, it was suggested that somehow the Secretariat is flying in the face of considerable dissension, disagreement, and difficulty and is trying to impose on a number of strongly divergent views a new set of Guidelines which cannot possibly command acceptance.
I got the message very clearly that we have not convinced the United States and it cannot command their acceptance. That is clear. But on the other hand in defence of what we have placed before you I would like to emphasize that there is, as far as I can see, at least as regards the Council and the debate here, no great divergence, no great dissension, no great area in which there are difficulties either with the Secretariat documents or between ourselves.
The document in fact shows that it is only in three places that the United States alone is the one that has problems. So I did not want to let the debate go further without emphasizing that, strong and important as the views of the United States are, it would be giving completely the wrong impression to suggest that you are being faced with something which is highly controversial and highly difficult among yourselves.
Lastly, there is another point I would emphasize. The United States referred repeatedly to the value of the existing Guidelines, and to their strength, and I am grateful for that. But the delegate also kept saying "force". Unfortunately, from the point of view of some of you, there is no force. There is no force in the existing Guidelines, there will be no force in the new Guidelines.
EL PRESIDENTE: Yo también subrayo, como lo hicimos al principio en la apertura de los trabajos sobre esta agenda, que efectivamente las orientaciones no eran compulsorias y así lo subrayamos en ese momento, sino indicativos de un consenso que se ha venido formando en torno a los problemas y las líneas que se deberían de seguir para el desarrollo agrícola y alimentario de la humanidad.
Esta Comisión ha mostrado un multitudinario interés en las nuevas orientaciones, salvo muy pequeñas posibles correcciones en torno al punto 1, a la orientación 1 y a la orientación 7, hasta donde tengo entendido, de las directrices señaladas.
Por tanto, entendemos y recogemos la posición de los Estados Unidos. Confirmamos, porque así ha sido la expresión en esta Comisión, de que no hay grandes discrepancias con las líneas anteriores, y solicitamos a la Comisión que continúe sus trabajos en el estudio de las orientaciones revisadas y actualizadas, y la Secretaría tomará debida nota de la posición de la delegación de los Estados Unidos.
M. BRZOSKA (Poland): My delegation has analysed thoroughly the document under discussion. It gives us a very clear and proper picture of the main tendencies in the development of world agriculture in the light of the Guidelines. It shows that in the 1970s we had to deal with, firstly, progress in intensification of agricultural production; secondly, a better impact of world trade on the development of agriculture; thirdly, better utilization of international aid to create stable conditions for agricultural development in the developing countries.
The report rightly underlines that many positive phenomena have broken down in the first years of this decade, as a result of the world economic recession, the indebtedness of many countries and the deterioration of their economic effectiveness.
We have to state with regret that changes in Polish agriculture were similar and in our country sharp consequences were caused through the destabilization of the world agricultural market, the spread of the policy of protectionism and restrictions, as well as a lack of the proper value of agriculture in the whole economy of the country.
In our opinion the evaluation of the rate of growth of production does not need any comments. The problem of increasing the flow of financial assistance to agriculture needs some comment. First, despite a considerable increase in the flow of credit means and subsidies it must be underlined that the establishment of various new systems of financing agricultural development through banks and multinational organizations means stability for further development, apart from the present crisis in the credit market.
What is positive is the fact that FAO should cooperate with these organizations, establishing an experimental basis for more effective utilization of these means.
It was also rightly noted that in many countries and regions the ability of agriculture for accumulation and investment was reduced. The negative influences of the disturbances on the world market in the field of financing of agriculture were not noted.
I would like to emphasize that on the basis of the important analyses of changes in prices and price policy, including those for Socialist countries dealt with in paragraph 36, which ocurred in Poland, the economic reform will serve better to solve difficult matters in world agriculture.
At present Poland uses, more than ever before, the universal experience of FAO in the field of defining proper methods and conditions of agricultural development.
We welcome with satisfaction the changes proposed in the revision of the guidelines. They will be helpful in solving the many problems in our agriculture undertaken in the national programme of development of agriculture and food economy, until 1990.
I would like to underline that the Fourth Progress Report on International Agricultural Adjustment corresponds in general with other FAO analyses and.programmes, and gives a convincing basis for the positive programmes undertaken by FAO at the present Session. We are ready to participate actively in all FAO undertakings aiming at agricultural development. In this direction there are growing changes and practices of agricultural and economic policy in my country. In this spirit we are acting on the international fora.
ZENG XIANRONG (China) : Thank you for giving me another opportunity to address the Commission. As we may recall, the Eighty-second Session of the FAO Council made the proposal in its Report that guideline 1 include the phrase "to promote the establishment of a New International Economic Order", as the main purpose of the international agricultural adjustment. We endorse this proposal. Now, please allow me to express our opinions on document C 83/22.
We also recall that as early as the Eighteenth Session of the FAO Conference held in 1975, it was explicitly spelt out in Paragraph 13 of the document that the proposed strategy for International Agricultural Adjustment by the Director-General "Starts from the general objectives contained in Resolution 2/73 of the Seventeenth Session of the FAO Conference, adapted to reflect generally the goals expressed in the International Development Strategy for the UN Second Development Decade, the UN Declaration and Programme of Action for a New International Economic Order and the targets set forth in the Resolutions adopted by the World Food Conference". It was further emphasized in Paragraph 6 of the Preamble of the "International Development Strategy for the Third Development Decade" adopted at the UN General Assembly in 1980 that "UN International Development Strategy for the Third Development Decade is an integral part in the endeavours by international community to speed up progress of the developing countries and to establish a New International Economic Order and is aimed at realizing the objectives of the NIEO". The revised guidelines for international agricultural adjustment are identical in essence with the Section C. Food and Agriculture of the International Development Strategy. It is in fact a supplementary document to the implementation of the Section— "Food and Agriculture" of the International Development Strategy. Therefore, the proposal made by the Eighty-second Session of the Council in its Report to add the phrase "to promote the establishment of a New International Economic Order" as the main purpose of international agricultural adjustment is a reaffirmation of what has been agreed upon by the international community. We hope that there should not be any problem in accepting our proposal.
In our view, to promote the establishment of a New International Economic Order in the field of food and agriculture, is not only the fundamental need of the overwhelming majority of the people but also the trend of development. The leader of the Chinese delegation elaborated our viewson this in his speech, so I am not going to repeat them here. However, I wish to add that to carry out international agricultural adjustment on the basis of food and agricultural expansion in various countries is a matter of vital importance in the field of food and agriculture. It is by no means a temporary expedient. Hence it is highly necessary to set a long-term objective so that we can combine the immediate needs with long-term interests of the international community. Only in this way the targets for international and agricultural adjustment will stand out clearly and inspire the people to strive harder for their realization.
If we look at the revised Guidelines as a whole concerning the expansion of production, improvement of terms of trade, promotion of agrarian reforms, guarantee for world food security and increased food aid, etc., we find that they are all conducive to promoting food and agricultural production in the developing countries as well as to establishing a New International Economic Order. Besides, as the substance already contains the idea of promoting the setting up of a new order, it is only reasonable and logical to include the basic idea of promoting the establishment of a New International Economic Order in the appropriate section of the revised text.
Meanwhile, I wish to take this opportunity on behalf of the Chinese delegation to express our support in principle to the revised text of the Guidelines for international agricultural adjustment.
M. GIFFORD (Canada): Well, quite frankly, we were happy with the 1975 Guidelines. They are concise and to the point. With due respect to the effort of the Contact Group, the proposed new Guidelines are verbose in the extreme, and put quite simply, it is difficult to distinguish between the trees and the forest. In some cases there is more commentary than guidance. Having said this, there is much in the new Guidelines which we can support, and on balance, and at the end of the day, we can probably accept the new Guidelines with some modifications, particularly relating to Guideline 10.
But, I think more important than the preoccupation of the Canadian delegation with Guideline 10, what is disturbing is, that we find here today that a major delegation is unable to associate themselves with the new Guidelines. If this is the case, we wonder what is the value of the Conference adopting a set of voluntary Guidelines which does not have the full support of all members? It seems to me that it is very easy to be cynical. Some of us can say to ourselves that since the Guidelines are voluntary, they are meaningless and therefore it does not really matter what is said. However, it seems to me that this type of cynicism, if perpetuated, can only make a mockery of this institution. It would therefore, be unfortunate if the Conference adopts a new set of Guidelines which does not have the committed support of all delegations, large and small. If there is no consensus and a new set of Guidelines is adopted by the majority, then this in our view would represent an empty victory, the victory of rhetoric over substance.
N. SRISURAK (Thailand): Mr Chairman, my delegation is pleased to thank Dr Islam for highlighting a comprehensive and effective introduction on the documents C 83/21 and C 83/22. My delegation would like to join the previous speakers before me, to endorse revision and updating of Guidelines and targets for international agricultural adjustments.
My Government has been carrying out various agricultural policies along the lines mentioned in the Guidelines. As regards Guideline 1, our cereal production on annual average for the trienniumending 1971, was 15 571 million metric tons and 21 092 metric tons on annual average for trienniumending 1981. This shows that the compound annual growth rate for 1971 to 1981 was 3.1 percent.At the same time the growth rate of the population was 2.5 percent. In this connection,taking calories per caput per day into account, food supply as a percentage of requirement is about 100 percent in 1969 to 1971, and about 104 percent in 1978 to 1980, which is higher than the requirement.
As regards Guideline 2, my Government realises that the agricultural sector is very important for our economy. Therefore investment sector expectations on agriculture is, on average, 21 percent of the total gross expectations. This share varies widely among activities. In this connection we have focussed on an increase in the agricultural productivity, rather than expansion of the land. To achieve this target various agricultural inputs should be supported at seasonal prices, especially fertilizer, to act as an incentive to producers.
As regards Guidelines 4 and 5, the Thai Government also emphasizes these fields by dividing areas into two aspects: advanced area and underdeveloped areas which are located in the so-called rainfed areas.
The Thai Government pays more and more attention to this area, as we believe that rural people are too poor and find it very difficult to help themselves. Therefore, government service should be given to the poor, taking the needs of the poor and natural resources in these areas into account before planning to help them.
As regards Guideline 7, the head of the Thai delegation has stressed the need of supporting this Guideline because it concerns hunger and malnutrition in the world community. Thailand could produce more food for the poor and others if markets at fair prices were available. But little attention is given to the impact of trade barriers and the protectionism on world hunger and malnutrition. As you are aware, Mr Chairman, the sharp and widespread decline of commodity prices on international markets during 1981 and 1982 below the cost of production has brought about serious repercussions on the economies of both developed and developing countries. When taking Guideline 7 into account and following it at the right time and place, my delegation believes that the serious economic situation in the world economy may have a brighter world economic outlook.
As regards Guideline 11 concerning food aid, in this connection my delegation would like to stress that even though Thailand is one of the exporting producing countries, we are well aware of the needs of the poor. Therefore, we share our food with thousands of refugees and displaced persons who stream across our borders. This sharing is a heavy burden on both food and expenditures. Hence, we do not merely serve as a conduit for food aid, we have first of all to ensure a capacity to feed our people in this aspect.
In conclusion, my delegation supports the Guidelines submitted to us in documents C 83/21 and C 83/22.
G. PEREZ MORENO (Mexico): Mi delegación felicita a la Secretaría por los estupendos documentos que nos sirven de base para esta discusión. Agradecemos al Dr. Islam su exposición clara y concisa a que nos tiene acostumbrados.
Confirmamos con profunda preocupación el progreso lento y desigual de la producción agrícola, de la distribución y acceso a los alimentos en el mundo.
También insistimos en la necesidad de evaluar la eficiencia e indicaciones estructurales del esfuerzo agrícola en muchos países en desarrollo. Los patrones de desarrollo importados, los condicionamientos mercantiles de financiamiento, la inversión y la ayuda y principalmente la estructura oligo-pólica de los mercados de insumos, productos agrícolas y alimentarios, han propiciado la marginación de áreas pobres que representan solamente una fuente de mano de obra barata.
La presencia transaccional, aunque pueda haber otorgado ciertos beneficios tecnológicos y asisten-ciales, por lo general ha organizado la producción, la distribución, la comercialización y el consumo en función de sus intereses monopólicos. No son instituciones humanitarias, sino negocios que atienden a su propia lógica económica. Es una realidad determinante y poderosa, con presencia independiente de toda voluntad política de los Estados, La corporación transaccional debe ser estudiada a fondo para obtener de su participación el máximo provecho y evitar en lo posible daños para la comunidad internacional.
Estamos en general de acuerdo con el análisis sobre la situación del Reajuste Agrícola Internacional y de sus once orientaciones.
Apoyamos sin reservas la nueva versión revisada y actualizada de estas orientaciones, y solicitamos que la Conferencia las apruebe como tales, sin ningún debilitamiento de su texto, incluyendo en su caso la eventual reserva de alguna delegación.
En lo específico, deseamos hacer los siguientes comentarios: apoyamos con entusiasmo que se incluya en la orientación la frase relativa a que el principal objetivo de la RAI es promover el establecimiento de un Nuevo Orden Económico Intėrnacional,
Mexico sostiene que la autosuficiencia y la soberanía alimentaria son metas prioritarias para todos los países y que los gobiernos deberían responder a ellas con una voluntad política materializada en acciones efectivas.
En este sentido, cabe citar el esfuerzo integral y sólido que el Gobierno de México está realizando a través del Programa Nacional de Alimentación. Ahí hemos implícitamente recogido las orientaciones 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 y 6 y la parte correspondiente a la 9.
Sobre la orientación tercera estamos convencidos de que una adecuada política de precios debe servir de apoyo a toda política de estímulo productivo, pero que en tanto no se modifiquen las estructuras y canales de comercialización y sé elimine la participación de intermediarios y agiotistas, la mayor parte de la población rural se verá más efectivamente beneficiada, a través de compensaciones regionales por productos y por insumos.
Sobre la orientación 5, volvemos a llamar la atención a la deformación indeseable de los hábitos de consumo y la influencia transaccional y del gran capital.
Reiteramos que es indispensable reducir pérdidas post-cosechas y desperdicios alimentarios y la necesidad de sistemas de seguimiento sobre avances nutricionales.
Al igual que otras delegaciones nos manifestamos contra todas las formas del proteccionismo y la competencia desleal contra nuestros productos de exportación, así como contra el uso de los alimentos como instrumento de presión política.
Apoyamos la orientación 7 y solicitamos a la FAO que haga saber a otros organismos internacionales como el GATT y la UNCTAD de nuestra decepción por los pocos avances y nuestra exhortación a dar pasos adelante.
Sobre la orientación 9 deseamos se expanda el servicio de financiamiento del FMI y el establecimiento del Fondo Común de Seguridad Alimentaria y, por tanto, que la FAO siga estudiando estas medidas.
Asimismo, deseamos hacer un llamamiento a los principales países donadores para que no dejen al FIDA colapsarse yotorguen su comprometida primera reposición.
Con relación a la orientación 10, debemos darle toda la importancia y fijar metas más realistas de ayuda y elevar a 20 millones de toneladas las reservas deseables, como se estableció en el CPA.
Africa debe seguir siendo el objetivo prioritario de la ayuda y mayor planeación de la ayuda y la asistencia en función de meta de desarrollo agrícola y alimentario.
Señor Presidente, consideramos que lo discutido aquí, así como en los temas 6, 8 y 9 de nuestra Agenda son diversos enfoques y niveles de un mismo problema y que, por tanto, como señalo el Dr. Islam, deberían en conjunto y orgánicamente orientar los trabajos de FAO y de todos nosotros.
Finalmente, queremos expresar nuestro deseo de que esta Comisión aproveche plenamente el contenido de las 11 orientaciones para no reducir nuestra aprobación a una mera formalidad. Muchas gracias.
M. ZJALIC (Yugoslavia): We would like first to congratulate Professor Islam for the presentation of the documents and also to note the excellent service rendered by the Secretariat to the member countries during the expert consultations and in the preparation of revised and updated Guidelines.
We would also like to note the good quality of the analytical document C 83/21, International Agricultural Adjustment, Fourth Progress Report.
Certainly, this analytical informative work can be improved and certainly in some elements, some findings at the next Conference may lead to the improvement of the next presentation of the Report. The Guidelines for International Agricultural Adjustment represent a contribution to the harmonization of agrarian policies at the international level. The basic concept stems from the interdependence in world agriculture among countries. Within countries and at the international level, there is a strong interdependence between agriculture and other economic sectors. Agriculture is highly influenced by monetary policies, balance of payments situations, trade, availability of agricultural inputs and their prices, the financial and economic position of agricultural producers and the purchasing power of consumers and so on.
The adoption of Guidelines in 1975 has served as a unique international mechanism for evaluating changes in agriculture and for the assessment of the impact of changes on other sectors of the state of food and agriculture. They also serve as the orientation for national agricultural policies and for international cooperation in agriculture.
Changes in demand caused by population growth, import demand or consumption, etc., the establishment of new targets for the development of agriculture in International Development Strategy III as adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, relevant provisions of the Declaration of Principles and Programme of Action of the WCARRD, recent developments in the sector of trade in agricultural commodities and, in particular, the actions undertaken within the framework of the GATT, UNCTAD, International Monetary Fund, the World Food Council - all these as well as other factors have imposed the need for the revision and updating of Guidelines for the International Agricultural Adjustment.
Since the delegations at this Conference are fully aware of the Report of the Eighty-second Session of the FAO Council, I am not going to elaborate on the details of the procedure and of the substance of the revised and updated Guidelines, except only to repeat our support to the proposed text, primarily because the revised text contains already agreed-upon aims and policy targets, especially those on the International Development Strategy; even the language does not differ. We have some problems in understanding the position of some delegations concerning the revised text, because it is quite clear that this text is based upon already agreed-upon policy targets and has been formulated in the same language. I do not think that the FAO Conference is the proper place for the revision of policy targets and aims agreed upon in other international fora.
We endorse the inclusion of the words "to promote the establishment of a New Economic Order " - this is para 45 of the Report of the Eighty-second Session of the Council - for the same reason, not only because we agree with the principle but particularly because this stems from the United Nations Sixth Special Session documents.
Guideline 7, as it stands, in our view fully reflects basic results achieved and action undertaken by UNCTAD and other relevant UN fora, so we do not see the need for. any change in the text adopted by the Council, although we do not see many reasons to oppose the proposal by the EEC to include reference to resolution 159 of UNCTAD VI.
As for Guideline 10, we should like to propose the removal of the brackets, for the following reasons. First, the text as presented implies only early consideration of the proposals, including the possibility of making a legally binding convention, but does not preclude any result of this early consideration, so it does not impose a legally binding convention as such but suggests that the possibility be considered as early as possible. The second reason stems from the actual situation in 22 African countries. Those who participated in a meeting of donors and recipient countries convened by the Director-General in mid-October this year can confirm that it was clearly shown that existing mechanisms and levels of IEFR make it very difficult for the international community to cope with any large-scale emergency. The situation is completely blocked, just because there is no future planning, the level is too low, and certainly the international community cannot respond adequately in the situation of large-scale emergencies. Even internal mechanisms of donor countries do not make it possible to execute their political will. Even if they want to do something, they cannot, because mechanisms are highly inadequate.
We welcome the removal of the reserves of the Republic of Argentina. We were looking forward to cooperating in an honest attempt to overcome the still-existing difficulties. I believe that there is still room for further negotiations and exchange of views during this Conference, and I believe that we can adopt these Guidelines by consensus.
We would like to suggest that this Commission should establish a contact group for the part of the Guidelines on which there are still reservations, with possible participation of the members of the contact group which met during the Eighty-second Session of the Council.
A. NAGA (Japan): Mr Chairman, my delegation would like to comment exclusively on the document C 83/22. The draft Guidelines and Targets for International Agricultural Adjustment which we are now discussing are the result of a long and intensive discussion by the contact group established by the Eighty-second Council consisting of developed and developing countries as well as food exporting and food importing countries, including Japan. Therefore, I should like to stress that any substantial change of the text may undermine the delicately balanced structure of these Guidelines. We propose that the Conference should adopt these Guidelines as they stand now.
With regard to the still remaining brackets in Guideline 10, we support the proposal of the distinguished delegate of France and the distinguished observer of the EEC that the clause in brackets should be deleted.
J. NGOULOU (Congo): Comme suite à l'analyse des documents soumis à notre examen la délégation congolaise formule ses félicitations à l'endroit du Secrétariat pour l'effort consenti à l'élaboration des documents fort intéressants et lucides.
Le document C 83/21 dans ses différents paragraphes n'appelle sincèrement aucune observation majeure de notre part. La Délégation congolaise note tout simplement qu'au point 7, la situation de l'agriculture dans les pays développés accuse une nette amélioration entre 1975 et 1980 et que pendant la même période, ou un peu plus avant cette date, les pays en développement ont été confrontés à de multiples facteurs de récession économique, tel que l'accroissement spectaculaire de leur service de dettes.
Enfin elle note au Point 8, avec regret d'ailleurs, que la négociation d'un nouvel accord de produit n'a pas abouti a un résultat satisfaisant. Elle ose espérer que cela se réalisera dans un avenir proche.
Venons-en au document C 83/22 sur "la Révision des lignes d'orientation et des objectifs de l'ajustement agricole international". La Délégation congolaise appuie sans réserve les lignes d'orientation dans son ensemble. Toutefois elle voudrait apporter certaines réflexions aux lignes d'orientation 2 et 3, relatives aux conditions prédominantes sous lesquelles s'exécute l'agriculture dans la majorité des pays en développement.
S'agissant de la ligne d'orientation 2, l'objectif à atteindre pour les pays en développement pendant la prochaine décennie est fixé à 4 pour cent au moins, pour répondre à l'accroissement de la demande alimentaire dans ces pays. Cet objectif modeste et ambitieux, pour le réussir, les pays en développement Doivent, á mon humble avis, passer d'une agriculture fluviale à une agriculture intensive, utilisant une technologie moderne adaptée aux conditions propres de la région et renforcer l'élaboration et l'exécution des plans agricoles et alimentaires de base.
Pour ce qui est de la ligne d'orientation 2, les investissements agricoles dans les pays en développement sont faibles: 10 pour cent de l'investissement brut en capital fixe sont réservés à l'agriculture.
Je suis d'avis que cela ne représente pas la part légitime du montant global des investissements que se devrait de recevoir l'agriculture; mais au regard des investissements consentis dans le secteur en amont et en aval de l'agriculture, je pense que l'effort peut être appréciable, car il ne peut y avoir de développement agricole si un investissement non moins important n'est pas consenti dans l'amélioration de l'infrastructure routière allant des zones de production aux grands centres urbains de consommation, si le système de commercialisation adéquat n'a pas les moyens d'intervention efficaces et n'est pas organisé, enfin si la construction des entrepôts pour la conservation des produits n'est pas réalisée. En outre on peut citer la formation, la recherche, et la vulgarisation qui nécessitent aussi des moyens financiers importants.
En réalité .sil'on tient compte de ces investissements en amont et en aval du secteur agricole l'on comprendra très vite que les pays en développement dans leur plus grande majorité n'accroîtront pas de manière spectaculaire les ressources proprement dites nécessaires à l'agriculture. Il y aura croissance des ressources en direction de l'agriculture, mais le taux de croissance sera faible, car ils doivent développer l'agriculture en entraînant bien d'autres secteurs économiques et indispensables à sa garantie.
Pour terminer, je souhaiterais que ces orientations soient adoptées car les réserves ici formulées ne présentent pas un handicap majeur.
C. MOURAD (Liban) (langue originale arabe): Etant donné que de nombreux délégués ont pris la parole au sujet des propositions relatives aux lignes d'orientation de l'ajustement agricole international, j'éviterai les répétitions. Il me suffira de dire que la délégation de mon pays appuie entièrement la nouvelle rédaction des lignes d'orientation tracées par le Groupe de contact constitué par le Conseil de la FAO au cours de la Session de novembre 1982, lignes que le Conseil avait décidé de soumettre à cette Conférence pour les étudier et les approuver.
La déclaration de mon Collègue, le Représentant de la Jordanie à ce sujet, reflète le point de vue des pays du Proche-Orient auxquels nous appartenons et nous l'appuyons, surtout en ce qui concerne la nécessité d'adopter ces lignes sous la forme d'une résolution émanant de cette Conférence; résolution que nous ne serions désireux de parrainer.
P.G. SCALIERIS (Grèce): La Grèce, actuellement, exerce la Présidence de la CEE. C'est pourquoi elle est intervenue au nom de la Communauté il y a quelques instants. Toutefois étant donné que tous les sujets qui sont analysés dans les lignes d'orientation sont généralement de compétence communautaire, je vous demande de bien vouloir donner la parole au Représentant de la Communauté économique européenne.
G. DESESQUELLES (CEE): Après la déclaration que la Grèce a bien voulu effectuer au nom de la CEE, mon intervention aura pour but de développer la position de la communauté et de ses dix Etats Membres sur ces lignes d'orientation révisées. La CEE est satisfaite, comme le Conseil lors de sa quatre-vingt-deuxième session, en décembre 1982, que les travaux du groupe de contact aient été constructifs, ce qui a permis d'aboutir à un résultat favorable et satisfaisant. La CEE considère donc que notre commission devrait prendre en considération ces lignes d'orientation telles qu'elles nous sont présentées. Toutefois, la CEE réaffirme sa position en ce qui concerne la ligne d'orientation No 10, à savoir, pour la Réserve alimentaire internationale d'urgence (RAIU) qu'au lieu de vouloir envisager l'accroissement du volume de la réserve et la rendre obligatoire selon une convention juridique, il importe auparavant que toutes les mesures possibles soient appliquées pour que l'objectif actuel de 500 000 tonnes soit atteint.
La communauté rappelle ce qu'elle a déclaré lors de la quatre-vingt-troisième session du Conseil, en juin 1983, au moment de l'examen du huitième rapport annuel du Comité des politiques et programmes d'aide alimentaire. Je cite: "A cet égard, la communauté et ses Etats membres espèrent notamment que le nombre des donateurs à la RAIU, qui est en diminution, augmentera". Pour la CEE, il faut donc supprimer la phrase. entre crochets qui figure aux lignes 19 et 20 dans le texte français.
Par ailleurs, dans un souci de clarification et de conformité avec la décision No 6260 du Fonds monétaire international du 13 mai 1981, la CEE propose une correction du libellé à la onzième ligne du texte français qui devrait se lire comme suit; "Le FMI devrait continuer de fournir dans le cadre de sa facilité compensatoire de financement un soutien supplémentaire ...", le reste inchangé.
Ces deux réserves présentées par la communauté, conformes à la position antérieure et adoptée depuis le début de nos travaux, sont fondamentales pour la communauté,
En ce qui concerne la ligne d'orientation No 7 relative au commerce, pour laquelle le groupe de contact avait admis qu'elle devrait être révisée à la lumière des résultats obtenus dans les enceintes spécialisées telles que le GATT et la CNUCED, la communauté considère que la ligne d'orientation telle qu'elle est présentement rédigée est acceptable.
Pour ce qui est de la ligne d'orientation No 1, la communauté et ses Etats membres sont défavorables à l'insertion du membre de phrase: "promouvoir l'instauration d'un nouvel ordre économique international", considérant que ce que nous voulons doit être suffisamment précis.
Ce qui importe, c'est le contenu et non une discussion sans fin sur la définition d'un nouvel ordre économique international.
Ce que nous proposons donc dans cette ligne d'orientation et ce que nous faisons est déjà, par contributions successives, un changement à l'ordre économique international. C'est pourquoi, dans un souci de compromis et de responsabilité, au lieu de l'expression "promouvoir l'instauration d'un nouvel ordre économique international", nous proposons le libellé: "promouvoir l'ordre économique international" qui a déjà été retenu par d'autres enceintes internationales. La communauté et ses Etats membres se sentent particulièrement concernés pour soutenir les lignes d'orientation ainsi révisées, car ils ne ménagent pas leurs critiques lorsqu'ils considèrent par exemple que les mesures proposées ne sont pas réalistes ou ne relèvent pas de la compétence de cette enceinte.
Au contraire, en ce qui concerne ces lignes d'orientation, ils estiment que ces dernières font le point et analysent la situation alimentaire mondiale et projettent rationnellement ce qu'il faudrait faire pour améliorer la situation.
C'est un code de bonne conduite et nous lançons un appel pour que notre commission et la Conférence ensuite adoptent ces lignes d'orientation.
La participation active de la communauté et de ses Etats membres à la révision de ces lignes d'orientation montre s'il en était besoin l'importance que la communauté attache au développement de politiques internationales visant à accroître la sécurité alimentaire mondiale.
EL PRESIDENTE: Le solicito a la Comunidad Economica Europea que mande por escrito a la Secretaría, las sugerencias de modificación respecto de las nuevas orientaciones.
H. FADHLI NAJEB (Iraq) (original language Arabic): At the outset, I would like to thank the Secretariat for their excellent preparation of the document under consideration. I would also like to thank Professor Nurul Islam for his overall and valuable introduction of this question.
Mr Chairman, the problems facing the developing countries, and particularly the least developed countries, are great and numerous. Therefore it is necessary to exert greater efforts in formulating development plans in order to achieve agricultural development and to increase food production. This necessitates the provision of financial resources necessary to increase the efficient use of natural resources, to improve technology and to utilize production inputs such as improved seeds, fertilizers, pesticides and so on. Access to financial resources has become extremely difficult for many countries, particularly the developing countries at present. This makes us deal with another question which we would like to stress, namely how to facilitate the trade exchange of agricultural products and how to eliminate the obstacles hindering the exports of developing countries so they can acquire the foreign exchange necessary for their development plans.
Mention should be made of the economic cooperation among developing countries as one of the basic foundations in this regard. We should like to stress and affirm the importance we attach to World Food Security, to International Emergency Food Reserve and the protection of agricultural products and crops, and the prevention of post-harvest losses. We do support the trend for stabilizing world markets in agricultural products which should provide remunerative prices for producers. This will help the developing countries to increase and improve their production and to apply advanced technology in proportion to their financial potential and technical capabilities on the one hand, while not adversely affecting the consumer's budget and his purchasing capacity on the other.
Agricultural development is closely linked with the effective participation of farmers. We support the idea calling for the participation of farmers in the laying down of development plans, to encourage the integration of rural women in development, and to benefit from youth capacities in rural areas. My country, which is a developing country, has been giving special attention to rural development. It actually applies these guidelines through the enactment of agrarian reform laws and other laws which secured equity in land distribution, and created stability in social and agricultural relations which consequently will lead to greater development projects in villages as well as production inputs. These measures have also secured justice in income distribution and have curbed the migration of farmers to urban areas.
The Government of Iraq is focussing attention on two significant questions - land reform and water storage. Rural areas at present receive much attention from the State. We have established modern village infrastructures such as electricity, water, schools, hospitals, social centres and road networks.
We believe that agricultural development necessitates financial resources, technical efficiency and capacities which are difficult to find for many developing states. This calls for the cooperation of everybody in order to help such countries to realize such a development. For this purpose, we have allocated funds within the Five-Year Development Plan 1981-1985. The first priority of this plan has been given to agriculture which included inter alia the increase of the capital of the Agricultural Bank. The capital of that bank is now one thousand million dollars. We have been extending such services to the private sector, too.
In conclusion, I would like to express our support for the guidelines in this document in general. We believe that the review and updating of these guidelines are necessary. We call upon this Conference to adopt such guidelines. Agricultural adjustments necessitate international cooperation and greater effort at country level in order to solve the existing problems. We wish this Conference every success in reaching good results in this sphere. Thank you for your attention.
H.M. CARANDANG (Philippines): My delegation has participated in the work of revising and updating the Guidelines for International Agricultural Adjustment. We took part in the Government Consultation held in 1981, and were also members of the Contact Group set up by the Council, whose Report we have before us. Therefore, our views are well known. However, my delegation wishes to reiterate our support, and hopes that all the brackets and reservations will disappear at this point, so that we can possibly adopt the Guidelines and the Resolutions by unanimous consent.
Like many delegations before us, we believe compliance with the Guidelines leaves much to be desired, but this is not an argument for not revising them. If that argument were valid, then we ought to close all the parliaments and all the governments of the world until we had rounded up all the criminals and put them all in prison - and probably we ought to improve the executive arm - the army and the policemen. We believe this is not a reason for not revising the Guidelines. So many things have happened already since 1975, we have had before us the adoption of the new international development strategy, we have had agreements reached in WCARRD, UNCTAD and the World Food Council. We also have before us the decision of the past Conference which is recorded on page 2 of document C 83/22 which says that the Conference has agreed that the Guidelines for an International Agricultural Adjustment should be reviewed and revised in the light of developments since their adoption in 1975.
I am therefore surprised that the appropriateness of the revision of these Guidelines is now being questioned. I think that is out of the question. We took the decision two Conferences ago.
Mr Chairman, I think you have very few options left to you: first, through your good offices you can call a contact group of all interested parties and try to see where the differences are. If you look at paragraph 44 of the Report of the Council, you will see there are very few differences. It says that the contact group had reached consensus except on Guideline 10. But Guideline 10 has a section in brackets referring to the possibility of considering a legally binding convention. It is not recommending a legally binding convention, it recommends only the possible consideration of a legally binding convention. I do not see why that should cause very great difficulty to anybody.
The other alternative is, Mr Chairman, that if you cannot call upon a contact group you should see whether the alternative is a resolution as proposed by the delegate of Yugoslavia, which I fully support. I do not know whether other delegations would agree with me, but I think you have very few options left.
H. ZANNETIS (Cyprus): I need not enter into a detailed analysis of the individual Guidelines as this has already been done by many speakers. I only want to underline the two suggestions made by the Eighty-second Session of the Council with reference to the Guidelines ,and thes e suggestions appear on page 2 of document C 83/22.
The first suggestion refers to the inclusion of the phrase "to promote the establishment of a new international economic order" as the main purpose of international agricultural adjustment, with which my delegation agrees.
The second suggestion refers to the possibility of reviewing Guideline 7 in the light of results which might be achieved with regard to trade in specialized fora of the United Nations system, particularly GATT and UNCTAD. My delegation believes that no revision of the draft Guideline is justified since no significant development has occurred since the Eighty-second Session of the FAO Council.
Finally, I would like to support the proposition which the delegate of Colombia made this morning for unanimous adoption of the Guidelines as revised.
H.CARRION (Nicaragua): Nuestra delegación desea hacer una breve intervención sobre el tema que ahora nos ocupa, es decir, la revisión y actualización de las orientaciones y objetivos del Reajuste Agrícola Internacional, contenidos en el documento C 83/22.
Las orientaciones revisadas y actualizadas en materia de producción, nutrición, comercio y asistencia internacional que integran el concepto de Reajuste Agrícola Internacional son válidas para lograr la concertación de las acciones nacionales con la acción internacional que tienda a aumentar la producción agropecuaria, el ingreso y el consumo de productos alimenticios en los países en vías de desarrollo.
Es también la creencia de nuestra delegación, que las limitaciones existentes para implementar las orientaciones y conseguir los objetivos del Reajuste Agrícola Internacional se derivan de la falta de voluntad política, como lo ha demostrado ya esta tarde la delegación que expresamente ha mencionado que no aceptará la revisión y actualización de las orientaciones y objetivos del RAI.
Por otro lado, hemos escuchado que Argentina levantó las reservas que tenía de las orientaciones 3 y 4 relacionadas con la Reforma Agraria y Desarrollo Cooperativo, pilares del desarrollo agrícola, social y economico de Nicaragua. Felicitamos calurosamente a la delegación argentina por tan noble declaración.
Nuestra delegación apoya la revisión y actualización de las orientaciones y objetivos del RAI puesto que, a nivel nacional, estamos cumpliendo con las mismas; es decir, con aquellas orientaciones cuyo cumplimiento está a nuestro alcance, puesto que tenemos la voluntad política de implementarlas y porque consideramos que sin la asistencia internacional, los objetivos del RAI son difícilmente realizables.
Por último, estamos de acuerdo en que en la orientación 1 se incluye la frase alusiva al Nuevo Orden Económico Internacional, ya que las orientaciones y objetivos del Reajuste Agrícola Internacional concuerdan con el NOEI.
En cuanto a la propuesta del representante de Yugoslavia de que se cree un grupo de contacto para subsanar las diferencias surgidas entre las delegaciones al discutir este tema, nos encontramos de acuerdo con la salvedad de que dicho grupo debe tener la función de llegar a un acuerdo sobre las orientaciones revisadas y actualizadas del RAI.
Por otro lado, dicha revisión y actualización ya ha sido discutida ampliamente en otros órganos de la FAO y en su correspondiente grupo de contacto, como lo ha explicado ampliamente el delegado de Filipinas.
KIM TAE LONG (Democratic People's Republic of Korea): The delegation of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea congratulates Professor Islam and the Secretariat on the comprehensive and excellent document and its lucid introduction.
As many delegates have already said quite a lot on this item, my delegation would like to confine itself to expressing its full support for the revised Guidelines for agricultural adjustment without any reserve as they stand now. In so doing, the delegation of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea supports the proposal to include in Guideline 1 the phrase "to promote the establishment of a new international economic order" as the main purpose of international agricultural adjustment.
My delegation would also like to state that it supports the proposal to adopt the guidelines as a conference resolution. We would be willing to co-sponsor the draft resolution.
Y. HAMDI (Egypt) (original language Arabic): My country's delegation would like to thank the Secretariat for the excellent preparation of the document under consideration. In addition, we would like to thank Dr Nurul Islam for his lucid introduction of the document.
The concept of these Guidelines of agricultural adjustment is based mainly on the mutual correlation between the different fields of agriculture in terms of production, nutrition trade, either at the local level or at the international level. My country's delegation has taken part in the discussion of these Guidelines at the meeting held by the Council at its Eighty-second Session, and we believe that this document has expressed most sincerely the viewpoints and opinions that were expressed during the meeting, in addition to the conclusions of the detailed discussions conducted by the Contact Group set up by the Council. Hence my country's delegation welcomes and supports the 11 Guidelines presented in this document.
We recommend that such Guidelines should be adopted through a resolution to be ratified by this Conference.
We also suggest that these Guidelines should be re-evaluated and reviewed every now and then, as is taking place at present, so that they can take into account the changes that could take place as far as the systems of production and trade are concerned.
C. SANCHEZ CUESTA (España): Gracias señor Presidente, agradecemos la precisión del documento que nos proporciona la Secretaría y la presentación que nos hizo el Dr Islam. Dada la interdependencia de los pueblos en materia agrícola, consideramos necesario disponer de orientaciones que articulen las políticas nacionales e internacionales en el crecimiento y en el apoyo mutuo entre países.
Nuestra delegación aprecia las nuevas orientaciones, al mismo tiempo que considera el avance que supone. Avance necesario para la acomodación del Reajuste Agrícola Internacional a la situación en cada momento de la agricultura, lo que justifica su actualización continua. En consecuencia, apoyamos las nuevas orientaciones tal y como aparecen en el documento C 83/22, mientras instamos a la Comisión para que encuentre formulas que puedan ser aceptadas por todos los países, ya que las diferencias son pequeñas con las anteriores de 1975. En este sentido nos parece que puede aceptarse que con estas orientaciones se contribuye en lo que a agricultura se refiere al objetivo del nuevo orden económico internacional y así, figurar en el documento.
N. ISLAM (Assistant Director-General, Economic and Social Policy Department) : My replies will relate to the comments on document C 83/21, the Progress Report on the monitoring of existing guidelines.
We are very grateful to delegates for various suggestions they have made for improvements in subsequent monitoring reports relating to various guidelines. I shall confine my remarks to one or two questions in order to clarify the discussion on the document.
Questions are raised about the conclusions regarding the flow of levėls and the rates of change in public expenditure on agriculture as reported in the document. This issue has come up over and over again in the last few days in discussion on each of the agenda items. I can repeat some of the comments I made earlier, that these data do not include private investment, they include only planned public expenditure. They include both current and capital expenditure. They do not cover all the developing countries, we have been making strenuous attempts over the last several years to collect data and we have only partially succeeded. Often, in countries where we have made special efforts - and we send questionnaires to all countries - where we did not succeed in getting answers we made special attempts to collect data. Then again we were faced with the difficulty of data relating to government expenditure. For example, in some countries we would collect data on central government expenditure, but not on local government expenditure or public sector corporations, etc. Subject to all these limitations we have been able, so far, to collect data from 57 countries, and more detailed data from less than that, about 30-odd countries. So, the results presented to you in the document are, therefore, subject to the limitations just stated.
Secondly, the document does not give you details regarding the differences among regions, in terms of flows of public expenditures. There are significant differences among the various regions in the developing world in terms of rate of growth of public expenditure, and agriculture, in the last 1974 to 1982 period covered in the document. For example, rates of growth in Asia and the lacific Regions both in constant and current prices is much higher in Latin America and Africa and the Near East. Again, as the share of total public expenditure, the share of agriculture is also widely different among different regions of the developing world, being higher in Asia and the Pacific Region, higher than the other three regions.
Questions have been raised as to why do we produce separate figures of expenditure on research on fertilizer consumption once you have expenditure data as well. These are indeed supplementary data. The data on public expenditures on agriculture does include already expenditures on research and fertilizer.
We hope that the member countries will cooperate in the future, even now, in submitting or sending to us additional data which will enable us to refine and expand the work we have already done.
On producer prices the limitations of the data in the document have been very carefully explained in the document itself. This is another area on which we suffer very seriously because of lack of reliable and adequate data. The question was asked, "why did you deflate producer prices by consumer price index, and net by price index of input prices, or price index of any other price ?". The answer is, this is the only one available for a number of developing countries so thar we could make it comparable.
Post-harvest losses. We should make a detailed analysis suggested by many delegates of the implications of reduction of post-harvest losses for food supply, as well as do this analysis in a broader context of such issues as food aid. Certainly, this is an area in which further work can be done, but I would like to remind the distinguished delegates here, again, serious deficiencies in data in terms of estimates',of post-harvest losses which as you realise, vary from country to country, and in terms of different crops.
One distinguished delegate suggested in our analysis of monitoring the nutritional status and policies in developing countries, we should submit a list of projects, nutrition intervention projects, undertaken by FAO and other agencies. We can certainly improve upon the analysis we have made, but it is very difficult in a short document such as the one we have prepared to produce a list of projects in the nutrition field undertaken by FAO, but we will be glad to discuss this subject in greater detail with the distinguished delegates.
On the matter of revision of the guidelines, this is document C 83/22, we have taken note of some of the changes suggested by a number of delegates and we will provide them to the Contact Group as and when you establish it.
A. ACUÑA HUMPHRIES (Panamá) : El primer comentario que le merece a esta delegación el tema en discusión -señor Presidente- es su convencimiento en la utilidad de las orientaciones del Reajuste Agrícola Internacional (RAI) como marco normativo internacional útil para evaluar los cambios producidos en la agricultura a nivel mundial. En tal sentido nos hemos expresado tanto en la Consulta intergubernamental de marzo de 1981 como en el Consejo de esta Organización.
En su apretada presentación el Profesor Islam termino señalando los fracasos y logros que resaltan del cuarto informe sobre la situación del Reajuste Agrícola Internacional (RAI) por sus lentos y desiguales resultados así como por lo expuesto en el párrafo 9 del documento C 83/21.
De la evaluación general del problema que se hace en esta segunda parte del documento, hay que destacar lo señalado en el párrafo 8, en relación al avance demasiado lento de la expansión del comercio, mediante la no reducción de las barreras a las exportaciones de los países en desarrollo.
Con relación a lo que podríamos llamar cumplimiento de la orientación 1 (sobre el aumento de la producción alimentaria en un 4 %) el párrafo 13 resume -a nuestro juicio- los resultados cuando señala que "ha habido de todo" en cuanto a los resultados conseguidos por los países en desarrollo en cuanto a la producción de alimentos. Sobre este particular esta delegación expresa lo que señalamos en la plenaria en el sentido de que pese a las serias dificultades tanto internas como externas, el sector agropecuario panameño registró en 1982 una tasa de crecimiento del 4,4 por ciento.
Sobre la orientación 2 deseamos destacar lo señalado en el párrafo 17, en el sentido de que las inversiones agrícolas vienen a recibir en las economías de mercado desarrolladas -de acuerdo a los datos disponibles- mucha mayor prioridad que en los países en desarrollo. Y aquí conviene hacernos nosotros los de los países en vías de desarrollo más que un llamado de conciencia, una toma de posición política que signifique real y efectiva prioridad a la inversión agrícola para asimismo demandar el debido apoyo a la comunidad internacional. Así tenemos que en 26 países en desarrollo -de los cuales se contó con datos para el informe- le asignaron a la agricultura 3,8 por ciento como promedio en 1978-1979, del gasto total público corriente; esta proporción bajó en 1981-82 a 3,2 por ciento.
Sobre la importante orientación 3 deseamos destacar el hecho de que el RAI debe exigir una reducción en la cuantía de la protección que se da en los productos básicos en algunos países del mundo desarrollado.
El párrafo 38 hace un señalamiento que nos merece reflexión especial y es en relación a que muchas veces, en la fijación de los denominados precios de sostén, benefician relativamente a pocos grupos de agricultores y sirven para atraer recursos o subsectores de la agricultura que tal vez no sean los más apropiados para clima y suelo.
Sobre las orientaciones 4, 5 y 6 sobre nutrición y autosuficiencia alimentaria (párrafos 39 al 60) si bien aceptamos la dificultad existente en la cuantificación de aspectos que tienen que ver con los progresos en materia de "políticas integradas de nutrición" y de "estructuras de consumo de alimento", destacamos la información que suministra el Cuadro 4.1 (pág. 17) que demuestra que 49 países de los 91 que dan información se mantenían a niveles calóricos por debajo del 100 por ciento de las necesidades medias.
Sobre lo relativo a las mejoras de los niveles nutricionales de los sectores desnutridos, destacamos la validez que a nuestro juicio tiene -y la experiencia de numerosos proyectos así lo confirma- la utilización de alimentos por trabajo y su relación con la creación de empleo, la generación de ingresos y la creación de un patrimonio útil para el futuro. Hacemos estos señalamientos porque en no pocas reuniones de esta Organización se han planteado dudas sobre los efectos de la ayuda de alimento y sus repercusiones en la producción nacional especialmente de cereales. En la discusión de los resultados sobre la orientación 11 -en el párrafo 99- se lee sobre este particular que "en relación con la producción cerealera nacional, la ayuda alimentaria representó el 1,3 por ciento para todos los países en desarrollo y el 1,4 por ciento para los países de bajos ingresos y con déficit de alimentos" y se concluye que "hay sobradas razones para seguir prestando constante atención a la conveniencia de maximizar el impacto de la ayuda alimentaria en el desarrollo".
En relación a los resultados del cumplimiento de las orientaciones 7, 8 y 9 que tienen que ver con el comercio de productos agrícolas, un párrafo concluyente del documento sobre este particular -el párrafo 87- es muy claro al señalar que la situación del comercio de productos agrícolas de los países en desarrollo se ha deteriorado catastróficamente en los dos últimos años.
Y es en estos análisis -señor Presidente- en donde la discusión de los resultados del RAI cobra pleno vigor e importancia y le da vigencia a los mismos. Estas son realidades que ni esta Comisión I ni esta Conferencia de la FAO puede ignorar porque sería estar de espaldas a la realidad que viven nuestros pueblos.
Finalmente -señor Presidente- esta delegación ha prestado atención y participado en lo referente a la discusión del documento C 83/22 sobre la revisión y actualización de las orientaciones y objetivos del RAI y considera que las 12 orientaciones, vienen a responder a las realidades a las cuales debemos hacer frente en estos momentos. Hubiéramos preferido que todas las reservas al documento C 83/22 hubieran sido retiradas, pero como ello no ha sido así somos partidarios de que el documento se apruebe con las reservas que ha hecho un país.*
H. LAUBE (Austria): International Development Strategy for the Third UN Development Decade.
Like many delegations before me I, too, on behalf of the Austrian delegation, should like to thank the FAO Secretariat for preparing and submitting the two excellent Conference documents C 83/21, C 83/22. At the same time I should like to congratulate Professor Islam on his constructive analytical introduction.
Mr Chairman, many good and remarkable contributions on this item have already been made yesterday afternoon and this morning. Accordingly I should merely like to make a few basic brief comments:
Austria has repeatedly stressed the absolute need for a new International Economic and Social Order. The great potential and available resources of the industrialized countries must be used to give the developing countries the possibility of fully developing their agricultural and other infrastructures.
We feel that this can only be implemented by an action programme in which all industrialized and developing countries collaborate. In this connection we might mention that, according to the view of the Austrian delegation, the results of the North-South summit of Cancún might act as a basic guideline in finally defining the new required Economic and Social Order. For at Cancún, too, it was clearly and unanimously noted that preference should be given to a programme and measures for food security, in particular the increase of food production.
Austria particularly welcomes the fact that the International Development Strategy of the United Nations for the Third Development Decade gives priority to Agriculture and Food. The corresponding indication is to be found in paras 81-95 of document C 83/21. Furthermore, para. 28 of the document points out quite clearly, that hunger and undernourishment are to be eradicated as soon as possible.
Similarly, my delegation feels that the FAO should play a determining part in the preparation of a New International Economic Order.
With regard to the extensive and interesting document C 83/22 the Austrian delegation wishes to note that it supports and agrees with the statements it contains, as the proposed national and regional measures and strategies will contribute to achieving the desired progress in the developing countries.
In implementing the International Development Strategy for the Third Development Decade we feel that the FAO, with its remarkable teams of experts and the existing worldwide facilities, should be granted a leading role in the areas of agriculture, food, forestry and fisheries. The Austrian Federal Minister for Agriculture and Forestry already clearly pointed out this important task of the FAO when making the basic statement on behalf of Austria at the Plenary meeting of the Conference.**
EL PRESIDENTE: Muchas gracias señores, si no hay ningún comentario u observación me permitiré intentar un resumen de nuestros debates sostenidos en el día de hoy en torno al tema 7 y sus respectivos subtemas en torno al Reajuste Agrícolas Internacional y la revisión y actualización de las orientaciones respectivas.
Hago esto con el conocimiento de que los énfasis que ponga y las indicaciones que haga, deberán exclusivamente ser eso: indicaciones, para que el Comité de Redacción se vea facilitado en sus trabajos. Se confirmó por parte de muchas delegaciones que el Reajuste Agrícola Internacional y sus orientaciones daban un marco normativo internacional para evaluar los cambios en la agricultura y la alimentación, y para inducir voluntad política y acciones entre países desarrollados y en desarrollo.
* Texto incluido en las actas a petición expresa.
** Statement inserted in the verbatim records on request.
Se constituyó la interdependencia de la agricultura y la situación económica mundial constató que todo esfuerzo en el sentido de las orientaciones dependía también de las correcciones en el orden Económico Internacional vigente.
Se expresó pesar porque las medidas derivadas de las 11 orientaciones aprobadas en 1975 han tenido un avance lento y desigual entre los países del mundo.
Algunas delegaciones mencionaron que ciertos países desarrollados han adoptado una actitud por lo general negativa para promover estas orientaciones y que directa o indirectamente han influido en el deterioro de las condiciones de los países en desarrollo y han prolongado la crisis y las condiciones de los mercados internacionales.
Se solicitó en consecuencia que se reiterara la buena voluntad y se solicitó a la FAO mantener en alto la conciencia sobre el reto que el reajuste agrícola internacional implica y la necesidad de hacerlo trascender de manera efectiva a todas las conciencias del mundo.
Se destacó que los esfuerzos de seguridad alimentaria y aquellos contenidos en las orientaciones forman parte de la misma realidad y el mismo deber de congruencia.
En relación a la orientación 1, varias delegaciones hicieron referencia a los avances de sus naciones para aumentar la producción. Se ratificó que aunque la producción en general aumentó su distribución empeoró, afectando particularmente a Africa. Las tasas de crecimiento deseables del 4 por ciento no se alcanzaron salvo en pocos países. Se insistió en que la problemática de Africa era crítica porque en muchos casos la situación nacional e internacional no le daba salidas estructurales a sus problemas, sino tan sólo paliativos circunstanciales para evitar el colapso.
Se confirmó que debían hacerse esfuerzos a nivel nacional con la ayuda y cooperación internacional para alcanzar la autosuficiencia y aumentar la producción anual en un 4 por ciento como mínimo. Algunos de los países insistieron en incluir la frase: "promover el establecimiento de un Nuevo Orden Económico Internacional" dentro del texto de esta orientación 1, aunque otros dijeron que ella no era una aportación importante porque el RAI es por sí mismo un elemento de orden económico internacional, y solicitaron que no se agregara o eventualmente se hiciera referencia sólo al orden económico internacional.
Sobre la orientación 2, se expresó preocupación por la reducción del gasto publico, los proyectos y la inversión en general dedicada a la agricultura, así como la reducción de tierras cultivadas y la aplicación de insumos agrícolas, principalmente los fertilizantes que se habían reducido. Se puso énfasis en la necesidad de un compromiso y voluntad política mayor de parte de los gobiernos de todo el mundo, particularmente de los países en desarrollo, para aumentar el flujo de recursos al desarrollo agrícola y alimentario, principalmente en el sur.
Asimismo, que se integraran políticas de investigación, crédito agrícola y extensionismo, y se tratara adecuadamente los problemas ecológicos. Se solicitó a la comunidad internacional hacer mas accesibles los insumos para el desarrollo agrícola y el finaneiamiento agrícola respectivo. En relación a la orientación 3 varios países insistieron en la importancia que tienen los precios y su estabilidad como estímulo para el agricultor y el alza de sus ingresos; mayor asistencia a los pequeños agricultores debe ser un objetivo primordial.
Sin embargo, se solicitó también prudencia y que se recordara que apoyos había pocos, a través de insumos resulta muchas veces más estimulante para el ingreso sobre todo en la población de bajos recursos.
Se mencionó que deberían compatibilizarse precios estimulantes a productores, con la protección adecuada al poder adquisitivo de los consumidores principalmente de bajos ingresos. Se puso énfasis en que la pobreza es causa del hambre y que esfuerzos de equidad, desarrollo rural y reforma agraria, es decir acceso a los recursos económicos, a tierras y a alimentos, deberían ser prioritarios para los gobiernos de países en desarrollo.
Una delegación levantó las reservas que tenía sobre esta orientación.
Sobre la orientación 4, se confirmó que las políticas nacionales debían dirigirse a un desarrollo rural integral y a una mayor participación de la población rural, principalmente de la mujer en términos de igualdad. Se solicitó a la FAO ampliara su asistencia en proyectos de desarrollo rural y agrícola y que la mujer quedara, en todo caso, incorporada en tales proyectos.
La delegación que había mantenido reservas sobre esta orientación, las retiró.
Sobre la orientación 5, la mayoría de los países acordaron que la pobreza es la causa principal del hambre y la importancia de políticas nutricionales integradas a esfuerzos productivos y distributivos que suplementan niveles calóricos adecuados. Se reconoció que hubo avance, pero desigual, y se solicitó que se precisaran metas de avance nut rie ional, así como una mejor evaluación de dicho avance.
Se reiteró que el grupo vulnerable, y por tanto objetivo, eran los niños y madres en período de lactancia y embarazo.
Se llamo la atención sobre la deformación de los hábitos de consumo y la influencia negativa de buena parte de la publicidad, así como de la ingerencia indeseable pero condicionadora de las empresas transnacionales, y se solicito mayor examen sobre las causas estructurales de la malnutrición.
Se solicitó se avanzara sistemáticamente en la reducción de pérdidas poscosecha y de desperdicios alimentarios, y se adecuaran los indicadores al respecto.
Se cuestionó el impacto efectivo de suministros subvencionados y se mencionó la utilidad de programas de alimentos por trabajo.
Se recordó la estrecha interdependencia entre los problemas de balanza de pagos, mayor deuda externa, altas tasas de interés, menores precios relativos de las exportaciones de los países en desarrollo, y el desarrollo agrícola y alimentario deseable.
Se reiteró la inconveniencia de la mayor dependencia de crecientes importaciones de alimentos frente al debilitamiento de las exportaciones.
Sobre la orientación 7, se confirmó que no había avances en la reducción de las barreras arancelarias y no arancelarias y que las exportaciones agrícolas de los países en desarrollo estaban estancadas o habían declinado, comprometiendo así la disponibilidad de divisas. La recesión había exacerbado esta situación.
La ausencia de acuerdos o convenios internacionales sobre cereales, y particularmente el trigo, obstaculizaban los avances hacia una mayor seguridad alimentaria.
Se destacó que no existían importantes avances en los órganos del GATT y la UNCTAD que justificaran revisar la redacción de esta orientación.
Sobre la orientación 8, se indicó que el avance en seguridad alimentaria depende no sólo de esfuerzos productivos y distributivos internos, sino de la disponibilidad y acceso a los alimentos en los mercados mundiales y de la colaboración efectiva y equitativa de las exportaciones de los países en desarrollo.
Dedicar cereales secundarios al ganado y no a la alimentación de la mayoría de los hombres atenta contra la seguridad alimentaria.
Se expresó alarma y rechazo por la concentración peligrosa y costosa de existencias en muy pocos \ países, por lo que se puso énfasis en distribuir la capacidad de almacenamiento en lugares estratégicos y seguros.
Sobre la orientación 9, se subrayó que no puede comprarse sin vender, y que debe superarse el círculo vicioso que se ha establecido en esta crisis en cuanto a menor capacidad de importación, debido a menores divisas, menor posibilidad de endeudamiento, altas tasas de interés, mayor servicio de la deuda y sobre todo, menor valor de las exportaciones y menor volumen de ellas y por tanto mayor posibilidad de aumento a la producción interna.
Se hizo referencia también al preocupante deterioro de los términos de intercambio y, en consecuencia, al todavía más angustioso acceso a las divisas.
La ayuda alimentaria debe ser estímulo al desarrollo y no condición de dependencia. Por eso se expresó que dados los respectivos montos de ayuda son y serían insuficientes si no los ampliamos.
Se puso énfasis en un mayor comercio interregional y en la necesidad de una mayor cooperación internacional técnica y económica.
Varias delegaciones expresaron que los compromisos de ayuda alimentaria han estado por arriba de su cumplimiento efectivo y por debajo de las necesidades reales, y también más en condiciones de favor más de tipo bilateral que multilateral.
Se subrayó que la ayuda internacional no debía considerarse como el factor más relevante de la seguridad alimentaria sino que lo eficaz es el esfuerzo productivo y distributivo de los recursos e ingresos.
Sobre la orientación 10, se advirtió que la RAI no había hecho importantes progresos. Se dijo que la meta de 500 000 toneladas no se había alcanzado, y que por sí misma es insuficiente.
Algunas delegaciones, sin embargo, señalaron que primero debe intentarse el cumplimiento de tal objetivo de las 500 000 toneladas, y posteriormente plantear una ampliación de sus metas.
Se recalcó que frente al estancamiento sufrido estos últimos años debían transferirse recursos adicionales para alcanzar los 10 millones de toneladas de cereales al año, aunque se insistió en que el objetivo debiera ser llegar a 20 millones de toneladas, dadas las reconocidas necesidades que para 1985 había planteado el CPA.
Esto se solicitó que debiera establecerse en el texto de la orientación correspondiente.
Se coincidió en que la ayuda debiera dirigirse a los países de bajos ingresos, particularmente de Africa.
Se confirmo la pertinencia de mayor asistencia a éstos de fuentes de financiación bilateral y multilateral.
Finalmente, Sres. Delegados, la trascendencia de estas deliberaciones deberá ser recogida por la Secretaría de la FAO para su respectiva contribución a la revisión y valoración de la estrategia internacional de desarrollo, que se llevará a cabo en la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas el próximo año.
Y ahora, Sres. Delegados, les informo que el Grupo de Contacto debe constituirse, si así lo tiene a bien, lo más pronto posible, de acuerdo con la sugerencia de la Delegación de Yugoslavia.
El Grupo estará constituido por las Delegaciones de Camerún, Colombia, Francia - que incluye la Comunidad Económica Europea -, Japón, Nueva Zelandia, Noruega, Filipinas y Yugoslavia.
Solicito de los miembros del Grupo que, si lo estiman oportuno, discutan tanto las modificaciones aquí propuestas o planteadas en torno a las orientaciones revisadas y actualizadas, como el texto del proyecto de resolución sobre reajuste agrícola internacional notificado el día de hoy por la mañana, y si lo aprueba así el Comité de Resoluciones.
El Grupo de Contacto podría reunirse el día de mañana por la noche después de la sesión de la Comisión I, y en virtud de lo que resuelva el Comité de Resoluciones.
Por otra parte, Sres. Delegados, el Comité de Redacción se reunirá hoy a las 8.00 horas en el Salón de Alemania.
Tiene la palabra la Delegación de Canadá.
M. GIFFORD (Canada): For an institution that prides itself on geographical representation, as I understand it, I notice that North America was conspicuous by its absence in the enumeration of the Contact Group. I wonder if you could elaborate on what your plans are in that respect.
El PRESIDENTE: Aseguro al Delegado del Canadá que no hubo ninguna complicidad en eso, y por supuesto, el Grupo de Contacto sin duda acogerá a la Delegado de Canadá con mucho gusto.
¿Alguna otra delegación desea hacer comentarios?
Compruebo que no y levanto la sesión número 8 de los Trabajos de esta Comisión I, y les suplico que nos veamos el día de mañana para tratar el tema 8 de nuestra Agenda.
The meeting rose at 17.40 hours
La séance est levée à 17 h 40
Se levanta la sesión a las 17.40 horas
