LE PRESIDENT: Chers Collègues, je vous annonce dès à présent que vers quatre heures le Vice-Président Ladan me remplacera car nous allons nous réunir avec quelques collègues amis du Président pour examiner le texte sur l'Afrique. Maintenant je donne la parole à la France .
P. PIOTET (France\): Le document C 85/21, établi par le Secrétariat au titre de ce point 8 de notre ordre du jour, appelle de la part de la délégation française deux séries d'observations. La pre‐mière série concerne les six premières lignes d'orientation de l'ajustement agricole international. Dans cette partie du rapport les grandes lignes de l'évolution de la production agricole et alimen‐taire dans le monde sont clairement mises en évidence. J'y relève en particulier que le taux de progression moyen annuel de la production agricole et alimentaire dans les pays en développement pour la période 1980-84 s'est élevé à 3,9 pour cent, chiffre très proche de l'objectif de quatre pour cent qui avait été retenu pour la période de la troisième décennie des Nations Unies. Ce chiffre moyen de 3,9 pour cent pourrait être considéré comme satisfaisant s'il traduisait un progrès dans tous les pays. Or, nous savons bien, et le rapport le démontre clairement, que ce taux moyen est le résultat d'une très forte croissance en Asie et d'un fléchissement de la production par habitant en Afrique.
Les causes de cette situation sont connues, multiples, souvent interdépendantes. Je n'y reviendrai pas ici. Je retiendrai seulement que nous avons là, s'il en était besoin, une justification incontestable de la priorité accordée à l'Afrique.
La seconde série d'observations de la délégation française concerne le thème du protectionnisme. Ce thème sera certainement abordé très longuement à l'occasion de l'examen d'autres points de l'ordre du jour. Le Président de la République française, Monsieur François Mitterrand,a lui-même développé de façon détaillée la position de la France dans le discours qu'il a prononcé dans cette enceinte même le 14 novembre dernier à l'occasion du quarantième anniversaire de la FAO.
La seconde série d'observations de la délégation française concerne le thème du protectionnisme. Ce thème sera très certainement abordé très longuement à l'occasion d'autres points de l'ordre du jour. M. François Mitterrand, Président de la République française a lui-même développé de façon détaillée la position de la France dans le discours qu'il a prononcé dans cette enceinte même le 14 novembre dernier à l'occasion du 40ème anniversaire de la FAO. Je me contenterai de rappeler que si mon pays est contre le protectionnisme, il est en même temps convaincu qu'une libération totale des échanges, si elle devait voir le jour, tournerait inévitablement au profit des économies et des agricultures les plus puissantes. La voie la plus raisonnable et la plus juste passe dans ce domaine, par l'organisation des marchés. C'est aussi, nous en sommes persuadés, la voie la plus favorable dans l'intérêt des pays en développement.
Pour ne pas allonger les débats, je ne me livrerai pas ici à un examen détaillé du document C 85/21. Je ne puis toutefois passer sous silence le désaccord de ma délégation avec les chiffres qui figurent dans le tableau 1.7 concernant les équivalents de la subvention à la production pour les principaux produits dans quelques pays développés. Il s'agit là d'un sujet difficile qui nécessite des analyses complètes, des politiques de soutien en agriculture dans les pays concernés en tenant compte aussi bien des mesures prises aux frontières que des aides accordées par les gouvernements à leurs producteurs agricoles. Une telle étude est en cours au sein de l'OCDE et mon pays y participe activement. La complexité de ce problème est toutefois telle qu'il n'a pas encore été possible de
tirer de ses travaux des conclusions incontestables. Je ne doute pas que les bonnes relations de travail entre la FAO et l'OCDE, déjà soulignées au sein de notre Commission, aboutissent dans ces domaines à un progrès significatif.
Sur un plan général, il est clair que le travail des agriculteurs s'accomode des variations souvent spéculatives des prix sur les marchés mondiaux qui reflètent non seulement des aléas climatiques mais aussi les fluctuations monétaires et les orientations économiques des différents pays. La Communauté européenne s'attache ainsi à prendre des mesures pour compenser les effets néfastes de telles variations. Elle n'en demeure pas moins le premier importateur mondial de produits agricoles et alimentaires.
En conclusion, tous nos pays ont intérêt au développement harmonieux des échanges internationaux. Ceux qui restent encore largement éloignés du seuil d'autosuffisance sont tributaires pour leur approvisionnement, ceux qui ont re joint ou dépassé ce seuil n'en sont pas pour autant en dehors des circuits d'échanges: ils important certains produits et en exportent d'autres. En définitive, tous ont intérêt à ce que des règles internationales organisent les échanges dans des conditions favo‐rables au développement agricole.
P. SKALIERIS (Greece): Although agriculture held up remarkably well over the first four years of the 1980s, we are sorry to note, that outside China and, to a lesser extent, India , growth rates in agricultural production were below those of the preceding decade and, indeed, negative in per capita terms. Especially the less Least Developed Countries continued to experience declining per capita production.
The adjustment efforts of many developing countries have undoubtedly had a negative impact on the longer term perspectives of agricultural development, since they seem to have led in many cases to cuts in public expenditure, in education, health and other activities, which support production development.
The figures contained in the Fifth Progress Report on international adjustment reveal the dimensions of the problems, which cannot be obscured by the relative good performance in terms of big aggregates.
Indeed, the number of countries in which food production per capita has declined, increased to sixty-three in 1980-84 compared with forty-seven in 1970-80. Moreover, there is a large hardcore group of countries, thirty-four out of ninety-four, for which the declining per capita food production cannot be considered to be a temporary phenomenon but rather has persisted over time.
In fact, in this dramatic situation, the efforts to renew developmental methods and, especially the means of promoting growth of agricultural production should be continued.
Development strategies seem to put increasing emphasis on agriculture, but more has to be done if the share of agriculture in total investment is to be increased, and if already elaborated reform ideas are to be effectively realized.
More than before are valid today. The guidelines and targets of agricultural adjustment revised in 1983. To refer but to a few of them, it is still necessary to increase the total flow of financial, and other resources to the agriculture and food sector for expansion and diversification of produc‐tion, just as the second guideline states. It is equally necessary to give full expression to the third and sixth guidelines, adapt institutional frameworks and farming structures and combine all these with a fair distribution of income, thus creating the conditions for improved economic perfomance.
M. BRZOSKA (Poland\): The Polish delegation shares the appraisal of progress in international agricultural adjustment. The difficulties in world economy, particularly in developing countries, and the drought in Africa both clearly identify the ever growing significance of agricultural adjustment recommendations.
The countries which took advantage of the recommendations and acted in the spirit of agricultural adjustment, by making changes in their agricultural policy all emphasing the role of agriculture in their national economies, achieved evident advances in production. This is the unquestionable success of FAO's recommendation in this field. Simultaneously, there are two facts which arouse consternation, the under-estimation on the part of countries of the importance of internal changes in their agricultural policy, and slower progress in the implementation of the agricultural adjustment recommendations which concern international agreements, protectionist terms of exchange and prices, international credit and financial help. In the future, our Organization will have to devote more attention to those matters. A more critical analysis of those matters is needed, as well as a bolder presentation of proposals to the international community.
In the years 1981-85, Poland, acting in line with the recommendation for agricultural adjustment, made essential, changes in its economic policy, prices, credit and taxes, and increased the ability of its farmers to finance development.
There has been a change in the law dealing with agricultural self-management and cooperatives which provided considerable rights for agricultural organizations. After the lifting of sanctions, the net output of Polish agriculture exceeded the pre-crisis level, facilitating the marketing of our products once again in Europe.
The Polish delegation believes that growing protectionist policies call for bolder discussions and we, therefore, suggest that FAO organize a socio-political roundtable seminar which would try to analyze the rationale for protectionism and find new ways of counteracting it.
I. KABA (Guinée): Le document soumis à l'examen de notre Commission aborde des questions de fond dont dépendent considérablement le développement économique des pays à faible revenu et une meilleure reprise dans les pays développés. En effet, la juste application de la ligne d'orienta‐tion N° 1 devrait permettre un progrès rapide du développement économique général, car on a beau produire, il faut vendre, et si la vente est défavorable, la production s'en ressent.
Or, les informations détaillées portées à notre connaissance dans cet excellent document nous éclairent de manière irréfutable sur les obstacles édifiés sur la voie de l'accroissement des ré‐sultats économiques des pays en développement. Cependant, l'interdépendance économique qui est une réalité, à maintes reprises clamée dans les instances internationales ne parvient pas à s'im‐poser aux termes de l'échange injuste et au protectionnisme déloyal auxquels sont soumis nos pays. C'est là une constatation amère que la communauté internationale se doit de réajuster.
Ma délégation apprécie hautement les conclusions des analyses faites des différentes situations. Cependant, permettez-moi d'attirer l'attention en insistant particulièrement sur la ligne d'orien‐tation 2 à la page 13 qui stigmatise, je cite: "Un renforcement important de la recherche agricole aux niveaux national, régional et international devrait s'accompagner d'efforts spéciaux pour uti‐liser plus efficacement les ressources et améliorer les technologies existantes".
En effet, seuls les progrès réalisés dans la recherche agricole garantissent les meilleurs résultats de production. C'est bien ce qui justifie la création en 1969, par 16 pays de l'Afrique de l'Ouest de l'ADRAO ou WARDA, en anglais l'association pour le développement de la riziculture dans la sous-région. Malheureusement, en raison des difficultés économiques que connaissent depuis un certain temps ses pays membres, cette précieuse institution de recherche en matière de riziculture, (céréale dont l'importance alimentaire se passe de commentaires, dans la sous-région) connaît une sérieuse prise financière qui risque d'arrêter ses activités.
Compte tenu de l'importance de son rôle, et de l'intérêt considérable que lui accordent ses pays membres, je saisis l'occasion qui m'est offerte pour lancer un appel pressant aux donateurs pour soutenir l'ADRAO dont le Conseil d'administration se réunira en décembre prochain à Dakar. Je pense que dans le cadre de l'application d'un des points de la ligne d'orientation 2 une assis‐tance financière serait souhaitable.
M. RYAN (Australia\): I thank the Secretariat for the comprehensive and useful document they have presented to us.
I would like to confine my comments to two of the Guidelines, Guideline 7 and Guideline 8, which are of particular interest to Australia . In relation to restraints and tariff and non-tariff barriers to imports and export subsidies, as well as the level of stability in world agricultural prices, Australia is in complete agreement with the Secretariat's comment that in the area of agricultural trade, protectionism has continued to be persistent, widespread, and strong in recent years. International agricultural commodity markets have been particularly unstable in recent years as a consequence. In this regard I would like to draw to the attention of this Commission some of the comments made by the leader of our delegation in the Plenary session yesterday morning. He referred to the study on the effects of subsidized production and exports by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural Economics. The study has shown that the pursuit of subsidization policies both for production and exports have not only distorted world markets and caused a misallocation of resources, but they have directly affected the economic development of many poor nations where agriculture comprises a large proportion of their GNP.
This brings me to the point so often made by the European Economic Community. That is that the EEC countries are the world's largest importers of agricultural products. This assertion, which, of course, is true, is seemingly continually served up in gatherings such as this as a complete justification for the common agricultural policy. The GATT does not harm, as the EEC implies, because after all, they are the world's biggest importers of agricultural products. Nothing is further from the truth.
Let us analyze the facts. What are these imports? By and large, they are products the EEC cannot physically produce, products such as tropical commodities, cocoa, coffee, tea, bananas, pineapples, manioc, and cassava. This category of products which the EEC cannot produce also includes timber, fibres such as cotton and wool, oilseeds, palm oil, soya beans and the like. But what about those products that the EEC can physically produce? Regardless of comparative advantage, regardless of economics and regardless of market forces, it is in commodities such as sugar, cereals, dairy products, beef that we find a common agricultural policy exists. Here, through pricing policies, subsidies and support practices totally unrelated to world market forces, the EEC has stimulated production well beyond EEC demands and has flooded the world market with subsidized surpluses. This has be done to the detriment of efficient producers of these products, including many developing countries. The Australian delegation considers that self-sufficiency in food is one thing; indeed, a natural right. But the creation of surpluses through artificial levels of price support and their disposal through export subsidies or dumping practices strikes at the very heart of marketing principles and acts to the detriment of all efficient agricultural producers, developed or developing. Concomitantly with the persistence of the subsidization policies for production and exports, other industrialized countries have in recent years introduced policies which have been based on assumptions that world consumption would considerably increase. This has not occurred and these policies have become quickly outmoded. Consumption has become constrained by a number of factors, including the recession and the severe international debt problem. However, these policies which insulate producers from proper price signals have resulted in a continuing significant growth in surplus stocks of foodstruffs which overhang international markets and ensure that there will be continuing instability.
Finally, the document notes that there has been increasing activity in GATT to study ways and means of reducing protectionism. The proposed next MTN round is a chance to prevent the destruction of large sectors of the world's efficient agricultural producers. It is crucial that the next round of MTN squarely face the issue of agricultural trade and bring it fully within the frame-work of the GATT. For our part, we will be doing all in our power to have effective rules introduced for agricultural trade during the forthcoming MTN negotiations. I will also quickly point out that we did, of course, express Australia 's views fully on these matters at the last meeting of the Committee on Commodity Problems, and we fully endorse the report of that meeting.
N.V.K.K. WEREGODA (Sri Lanka): At the very outset, the Sri Lanka delegation wishes to thank the Secretariat for this comprehensive document number C 85/25 and Professor Islam for his very brief but lucid introduction of the document this morning. This is a statement of goals and policy which provides a global view of agricultural development and issues ranging from protectionism to world food security.
These Guidelines have been framed for the purpose of giving a direction to overall agricultural development in the developing countries in collaboration with the developed countries. The discussion in this Commission should serve as an opportunity to identify to what extent the
Guidelines have been helpful in achieving the broad objectives of agricultural development in the developing countries, and also to identify those Guidelines that need further elaboration or re-emphasis.
In Guideline 1, the last sentence states, and I quote, "All countries should aim to achieve a rational production pattern in light of their needs and production possibilities". In Sri Lanka the rational production pattern that we have been following has yielded good results with an average annual growth rate of five percent over the last five years. With regard to Guideline 2, Sri Lanka has placed high emphasis on research and also on irrigation and water management. We have undertaken a gigantic river barrier scheme to augment reservoirs for irrigation. This project, which was originally designed to be implemented over a period of 30 years, was telescoped to a shorter period of six years, and is now almost complete. The Sri Lanka delegation wishes to state with great appreciation that we were able to achieve this massive task because of the ready assistance from multilateral and bilateral donors.
Provision of imports and of assistance to small farmers has been given high priority in Sri Lanka . The "most needy target group requiring assistance to supplement nutritional needs is covered under a food stamp scheme that subsidizes certain food commodities necessary for human sustenance.
Another programme that Sri Lanka recently introduced to look after the farmers, especially the small farmers, is the Farmer Pension Scheme. The Sri Lanka Government felt that since employees from all organized sectors of the country, like the government service sector, were covered by some form of retirement benefits, farmers should also be covered. Farmers, an unorganized group of people who work long years in sun and rain feed the nation did not have an assured retirement benefit system to fall back on when they were feeble and unable to earn a living during their old age. it is to fill this gap that we in Sri Lanka introduced a farmer pension scheme to provide a monthly pension to farmers upon reaching the age of 60 years.
Finally, the Sri Lanka delegation wishes to express its concern on dwindling returns on its exports due to the inability to formulate satisfactory commodity agreements to look after Sri Lankan agricultural exports.
J. THINSY (Belgique):' En tant que pays qui représente la présidence du Conseil de la CEE, je vous prie de bien vouloir permettre à l'Observateur de la CEE d'intervenir sur ce point de l'ordre du jour.
G. DESESQUELLES (Communauté économique européenne): Au cours des débats, vous avez pu entendre déjà, certains Etats Membres de la Communauté exprimer leur point de vue national. Mon intervention sera le résumé du point de vue commun de la Communauté et de ses dix Etats Membres portant sur le document relatif à l'ajustement agricole international.
Tout d'abord je voudrais rappeler que la Communauté économique européenne et ses Etats Membres ont participé pleinement à la révision et à l'acceptation des lignes d'orientation lors de la dernière Conférence de la FAO en 1983.
C'est pourquoi nous accueillons favorablement le document qui nous est présenté ainsi que la discussion sur l'examen et les résultats des lignes d'orientation.
Je voudrais limiter mes observations aux analyses et commentaires du Secrétariat qui nous posent quelques difficultés, ce qui signifie que le reste du document nous satisfait, et nous félicitons le Secrétariat pour cette évaluation.
Ces commentaires ont trait au soutien des politiques agricoles, aux évaluations budgétaires, et à la définition du protectionnisme. En premier lieu, il nous paraît que les conclusions en ce qui concerne le soutien se fondent sur des analyses et des méthodes agro-économi ques parfois incertaines qui, de plus, sont également en contradiction avec d'autres analyses. Une appréciation plus équi‐librée s'imposerait donc.
Comme nous l'avons déjà indiqué lors de la session du Comité des Produits, la Communauté ne peut accepter le tableau 1.7 figurant à la page 12, ainsi que les commentaires du paragraphe 26 relatifs à l'interprétation de ce tableau. En effet, d'une part des méthodes de calcul permettant les résultats ne sont pas indiquées; d'autre part, les résultats sont contradictoires avec ceux des travaux actuellement en cours à l'OCDE, basés sur le même principe de l'équivalent subvention à la production. A titre indicatif, je peux vous indiquer que, bien que les travaux ne soient pas terminés et entérinés, le soutien de la Communauté pour certains produits pour l'année 1984-85 est moins important.
En deuxième lieu, comme j'ai eu l'occasion de le préciser lors de l'examen du point 7.1 de notre Commission, ce ne sont pas essentiellement les problèmes budgétaires, comme on le laisse entendre aux paragraphes 28 et 95 du document, qui ont conduit et conduiront aux adaptations des politiques agricoles en général et de la politique agricole commune en particulier.
En effet, ce sont avant tout des excédents structurels de tous les pays concernés qui les obligent ou les obligeront à ajuster leur politique agricole, et ces ajustements devront se faire avec le souci d'un partage équitable des conséquences de tels ajustements.
En troisième lieu, j'aimerais aborder la question du protectionnisme, terme utilisé fréquemment dans le document sans qu'une définition y soit apportée.
Le protectionnisme, est-ce seulement les barrières à l'importation et les subventions à l'exportation? Ou aussi les pratiques similaires comme les crédits à l'exportation, les contingents à l'importation, le troc, les achats en retour, la politique de double prix, les politiques en matière de transport, en matière d'énergie, les aides conditionnelles, le drawback, les barrières sanitaires et toutes autres mesures d'effet équivalant qui sont actuellement examinées au GATT?
En ce qui concerne l'application du protectionnisme, nous considérons que les commentaires de la fin du paragraphe 96 devraient donc être atténués ou différenciés. A cet égard, le Secrétariat pourrait-il nous indiquer les mesures couvertes par la note de bas de page de la page 12 relative au Tableau 1.7?
Je disais que les commentaires devraient être atténués ou différenciés notamment en ce qui concerne la Communauté. En effet, le protectionnisme ne s'est pas renforcé ces dernières années mais au contraire les importations agricoles de la Communauté n'ont cessé de s'accroître, comme le soulignait d'ailleurs le représentant de l'Australie il y a quelques instants.
La Communauté, comme je l'ai déjà souligné à plusieurs reprises dans les enceintes de la FAO, est toujours, et de loin, le premier importateur mondial de produits agricoles (20 pour cent du commcerce mondial) et sa balance commerciale agricole est déficitaire de 27 milliards d'écus, soit environ 25 milliards de dollars. Les pays en développement sont les premiers fournisseurs de la Communauté; leur part a progressé de plus de 5 pour cent au cours de ces dernières années, et la Communauté absorbe près de 30 pour cent de leurs exportations agricoles.
Sans remettre en cause la lutte contre le protectionnisme, et, puisque le représentant de l'Australie a cité une étude, je voudrais en citer une autre. Il s'agit de l'étude de l'Institut international pour l'analyse appliquée des systèmes, organisation à laquelle le Secrétariat a fait référence dans le document relatif aux politiques de prix. C'est un centre de rencontres scientifiques et les conclusions d'un séminaire qui a eu lieu à Vienne du 3 au 5 juin 1985 stipulent qu'au niveau des analyses internationales une conclusion importante est que l'effet bénéfique d'une libéralisation du commerce agricole sur la situation alimentaire des pays en développement est relativement négligeable.
Je voudrais aussi rappeler que les importations agricoles de l'Australie représentent 0,6 pour cent du commerce mondial, tous produits confondus, que ce soit ceux qui sont en concurrence avec les produits en Australie ou ceux qui ne le sont pas. Par ailleurs, si nous importons dans la Communauté notamment des produits tropicaux, c'est bien la preuve que nous sommes ouverts à l'achat des productions en provenance des pays en développement, qui ont vocation à ce type de production. Je ne vois pas comment on peut y voir une marque de protectionnisme.
En conclusion, la Communauté économique européenne s'est toujours efforcée de mener, en matière agricole, une politique équilibrée entre les nécessités internes et externes. Elle restera fidèle
à cette approche, comme le suggère le livre vert de la Commission des Communautés européennes qui contient un certain nombre de réflexions pour les aménagements futurs de la politique agricole commune et je rappelle que la CEE est prête à oeuvrer à l'amélioration des règles et disciplines du GATT concernant tous les aspects du commerce des produits agricoles, en tenant compte des carac‐téristiques et de la spécificité de l'agriculture et des problèmes auxquels les pays en développe‐ment sont confrontés.
H. da SILVEIRA SARDINHA PINTO (Brazil\): I wish to thank the Secretariat for the preparation of this fifth report on International Agricultural Adjustment. The statistical information gives us a clear overview of the developments achieved since the revision of the Guidelines and Targets for Inter‐national Agricultural Adjustment in 1983. The main points we can underline are, in short, as follows.
First, most of the recommendations contained in the International Agricultural Adjustment, such as searching for a balance in world food production, consumption and trade, were not implemented. Second, particular concern is due to the persistence and, in some regions, the increase of hunger and malnutrition.
Third, there has been an overall reduction of public expenditure for health, educational and nutri‐tional programmes due particularly to budgetary constraints resulting from serious problems in balance of payments. Fourth, there has also been a virtual stagnation of initiatives favouring the establishment of international instruments to stabilize commodity prices. Fifth, there have been distortions in international markets provoked by agricultural protectionism.
This last item deserves a closer examination by this Commission. This year the protectionist situation in international agricultural markets has generally deteriorated, because of an unusually high rate of protection in developed countries, including domestic and export subsidies and non-tariff measures. Additional barriers have been introduced to restrict imports of a number of commodities, higher subsidies for cereals have been provided and other commodity sectors have remained extremely protected. According to the World Bank, for instance, nearly a third of the Agricultural exports from developing to industrialized countries are subject to quota restraints or other non-tariff barriers.
My delegation feels it is also important to remind the Commission that before entering into a new round of trade negotiations, we should demand urgent action for the implementation of the 1987 GATT Programme of Work adopted at the ministerial level by fulfilling all the commitments there‐in for individual and collective actions.
To conclude, my delegation urges FAO to continue monitoring the implementation of the Guidelines and Targets for International Agricultural Adjustment and to further report to the governing bodies of this Organization, on progress in this area, aswell as in agricultural protectionism.
Jaafaru Ladan, Vice-Chairman of Commission I, took the chair.
Jaafaru Ladan, Vice-Président de la Commission I, assume la présidence.
Ocupa la presidencia Jaafaru Ladan, Vicepresidente de la Comisión I.
J.S. NIELSEN (Denmark\): Mr Chairman, what is the aim of agricultural adjustment? The aim must be to achieve worldwide food security, in the short run with optimal utilization of available resources and in the long run with optimal utilization of production potentials. In some countries and regions, optimal exploitation of production potentials means a net self-sufficiency degree of under 100 percent. In other areas it means production considerably above the 100 percent self-sufficiency. The key criterion should be world supply security of food, with a free flows in trading netting out the differences between areas with self-sufficiency degrees substantially different from the 100 percent figure. This has been for several decades, and remains, the basic philosophy of Denmark , where normally two-thirds of our agricultural production is exported.
While we congratulate some countries for triggering a process to achieve their production potential, others certainly still need substantial assistance in formulating appropriate agricultural strategies, and that is very well shown in the Report we have before us.
The EEC, of which Denmark is now a member, provides a combination of production incentives, admittedly including a certain shielding from world market price fluctuations, that contributes to the realization of production potential for temperate agricultural commodities. Vast regions of the EEC do possess a production potential or a comparative advantage for such temperate products, and we are, of course, determined to realize them in order to achieve a division of labour internally within the EEC as well as in relation to other countries. The momentum for research and experimentation triggered from this will undoubtedly enhance the EEC's competitiveness still further in future.
As a part of the current close scrutiny of protectionist tendencies in world trade, it is, of course, a natural task for the international community, including FAO, to critically analyze and evaluate whether the composition and level of the EEC producer incentives is correct in the short or in the long run, just as we may assume that the very complex subject of producer incentives for countries with maybe less emphasis on trade regulations but more on internal incentives will be subject to the same kind of scrutiny.
Developed countries thus exhibit a wide variety of different policy measures from which elements can be derived in formulating their agricultural strategies which do not exclude, of course, the fact that developing countries themselves can create new and brighter incentives than those already known and practiced. As far as the description of the EEC policy is concerned, I would just refer to the intervention made by the delegation of the Netherlands on the repetitiveness of the data and of the studies used, and the comments of the EEC Commission this afternoon.
Despite the few shortcomings mentioned, the FAO Secretariat has again produced a fine analysis which provides an example for the future work of FAO. However, in formulating tasks and mandates for the Secretariat we should in the future be careful not to invite duplication of work. The report on the State of Food and Agriculture, the Study on Price Policies, and the Report on International Agricultural Adjustment are fine pieces of analysis, but do they not deal to some extent with identical matters seen from different angles? Do these reports help us to elucidate strengths and weaknesses in the performances by FAO in order to help us with the definition of priorities in work programmes and thereby with the current selection of appropriate activities for FAO? In our opinion, the answer is no. We believe that both member countries and the Secretariat are responsible for this. While once more complimenting the Secretariat on this set of excellent reports and analyses, through Dr Islam, I ask the Secretariat to inform us how they envisage Incorporating these analytical reports in dealing with the problems of updating and establishing priorities for the FAO Programme of Work and Budget.
CHAIRMAN: The question raised by the distinguished delegate of Denmark will be answered by the Secretariat at a later stage.
Srta. D. de VILLAMONTE (Panama): Permítame, Sr. Presidente, expresar al Dr. N. Islam nuestra com‐placencia por su excelente introducción al tema y por el documento tan completo, objeto de nuestro análisis. De igual manera deseo señalar que mi delegación brinda su total apoyo a las dos orien‐taciones del reajuste agrícola internacional, sobre todo porque mi país desde la adopción de las mismas en la FAO ha venido luchando por la aplicación de la concepción de las mismas en el marco de las acciones de esta Organización.
Panamá dentro de sus planes y estrategias nacionales lucha por el establecimiento de un modelo de desarrollo intensivo del agro que incluya la introducción y empleo de nuevas tecnologías, mejora‐miento de la seguridad alimentaria y de ingresos, procesos tecnológicos y operaciones de trabajo que promuevan una efectiva utilización de los recursos, comercialización de sus productos y, sobre todo, un incremento de la producción con miras a garantizar la autosuficiencia alimentaria y redu‐cir la importación que hoy alcanza el 40 por ciento en el total agropecuario.
Otro objetivo está encauzado hacia el desarrollo rural integrado para combatir la pobreza, el desem‐pleo y la desnutrición en las áreas más pobres del país. Esta política exige acciones tendientes a crear condiciones para incorporar a la población rural marginada, actividades económicas rentables y productivas. Sin embargo, Sr. Presidente, nuestro país es consciente de los obstáculos que enfrentamos los países en desarrollo para poner en práctica tales medidas. Para nuestra delegación,
a fin de lograr una mayor productividad, es necesario contar con los recursos adecuados, lo que en términos globales se derivan de nuestras exportaciones. Sin embargo, la crítica situación por la que atraviesa el comercio mundial con sus mercados inestables, inestabilidad monetaria, deformacio‐nes en las condiciones de intercambio, y lo que es más importante, el desvío de los pocos recursos en nuestro poder para dedicarlo al pago del servicio de la deuda externa, debido en gran parte al aumento de las tasas de intereses reales que efectúa la comunidad financiera internacional para resolver problemas totalmente ajenos al desarrollo económico y social de nuestros pueblos, han impedido un desenvolvimiento favorable de nuestras economías. Los efectos perjudiciales del pro‐teccionismo rebasan enormemente los aspectos económicos y su aplicabilidad ha producido disminución de ingresos, desempleo rural, así como inestabilidad e inseguridad sociales.
Por ello, Sr. Presidente, consideramos que el consorcio de países aquí reunidos, según su nivel de responsabilidad, debe realizar esfuerzos tendientes a permitir un mayor acceso a los mercados delos países en desarrollo, así como de eliminar, o como mínimo no crear nuevas barreras al comercio agrícola y no aplicar subsidios a las exportaciones u otras formas de ayuda.
Para terminar, Sr. Presidente, mi delegación desea expresar su esperanza de que una nueva serie de negociaciones multilaterales en el GATT contribuyan al establecimiento más justo y racional en la producción y comercio mundial.
J.E. ROSS (United States of America): The delegation of the United States considers the Secretariat paper, on the whole, a balanced and worthwhile study. It is especially useful as a compendium of developing country activity in domestic agricultural adjustment. I must point out that the United States still considers the original 1975 version of the Guidelines adequate. At the November 1983 FAO Conference, the United States disassociated itself from the resolution adopting revised Guidelines and Targets for International Agricultural Adjustment. Having reserved its position, the United States is not bound in any way to follow or comply with the revised Guidelines. Our participation, therefore, in this discussion is without prejudice to the United States reser‐vation on the revised IAA Guidelines.
Several delegates today have called for developed countries to reduce or eliminate trade barriers, both tariff and non-tariff barriers, for products exported by the developing countries. The United States believes 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, whenever possible.
In our view, the GATT is the appropriate forum for negotiating trade liberalization. It offers the best means for strengthening and improving the multilateral trading system, and for expanding trade opportunities in developing countries. We believe that all countries, both developed and developing, should take active roles in these efforts. Unilateral dismantling of barriers is not realistic.
The delegate of India commented that the concern of the United States with subsidies is not because of our concern with developing countries, but because of our concern with our budget. We are concerned with all of the negative aspects of subsidies, both for the economies of developing countries, and for our own budget. We believe that heavily subsidized exports of agricultural products are injurious to world food security. Subsidized exports depress world prices, create market instability, discourage needed production in developing countries and constitute a major impediment to the liberalization of trade in agricultural commodities. We recognize that reduction or elimination of such subsidies could result in maintaining or increasing market shares and export earnings for many countries, including developing countries. The United States and other third country exporters have been extensively damaged by countries which follow long-standing practices of limiting market access, and at the same time, use export subsidies.
The United States has used export subsidies in a very limited manner. We have only recently enacted an export enhancement programme largely in response to Congressional frustration over the unwillingness of some countries to address these concerns and work constructively in helping to resolve agricultural trade issues, especially the use of export subsidies.
The programme is carefully targetted to challenge the markets of subsidizing exports. We are not using the programme to compete against non-subsidizing suppliers in specific markets. As
a matter of principle, the United States considers an international trading regime with a minimum of market-distorting practices, such as export subsidies, in the best long-term interest of world agriculture.
Reform of domestic agricultural policies must focus on achieving better control of surplus production. It is also necessary to eliminate the current practice of subsidizing the surpluses into world markets, thus depressing prices, competing with commodities produced by unsubsidized exporters and rendering necessary a panoply of protectionist measures. We share the hope of other delegates for an international agricultural environment in which countries can compete in world markets without the need for subsidies. In reference to the Generalized System of Preferences, I have two points. First of all, we implement our GSP programme as a recognized aid in trade policy to assist beneficiary countries subject to our domestic safeguards. The primary intent of the GSP programme is to provide duty-free treatment in supporting economic development.
Secondly, contrary to the statement in the FAO paper on the United States GSP, paragraph 93, the renewed GSP programme remains non-reciprocal because benefits under the programme are provided on a unilateral basis. The decision of the President to reduce competitive need limits on certain products from certain beneficiaries will be based on the country's competitiveness with respect to a particular product, its level of development and an assessment of the discretionary factors in the statute.
Finally, I want to emphasize that the United States believes it is in the interests of all countries to promote trade among developing countries and support activities which increase developing country participation in the international trading system. Our effort to do this should be compatible with GATT.
H. M. CARANDANG (Philippines): Guideline 1 calls for "Food and agricultural production in developing countries, particularly in the least developed countries and developing countries in the other special categories" to grow at an "average annual rate of 4 percent". According to the study presented to us in document C 85/21 the developing countries as a whole have come close to fulfilling the 4 percent annual growth rate, but the study says, "as a whole". This is the problem with statistics. Mr Chairman, if I eat a chicken and you eat none, a statistician would say that both of us on the average ate half a chicken, but I am satisfied and you are hungry. The problem with statistics is that if you take away some countries like India and China , then you have a negative growth for many developing countries.
I think this Conference should point out clearly why the countries mentioned in Guideline 1, the LDCs and countries in other special categories, have not achieved this growth of 4 percent stipulated by the International Development Strategy.
The study before us has already pointed out several of the reasons. One is that, as pointed out in the study, the overall economic adjustment has caused developing countries to curtail the subsidy element both in production and consumption. But I think that over and above the curtail‐ment of the subsidy element, particularly with regard to critical inputs such as fertilizer, -pesticides and irrigation, many developing countries - including my own - in fact have been obliged to curtail investment in agriculture because of the overall economic difficulties of the countries. Again the study tells us that, on the whole, the reduction is only 32.2 percent, but again this is a statistical figure. There are many countries that are curtailing their invest‐ments in agriculture more than 2 percent because of their economic difficulties. Therefore, their own investment in agricultural production is consequently suffering more than others.
The second reason that is also pointed out in this paper is that external assistance to agricultural countries remains inadequate and below the targets of these guidelines. You will see, for example, in Table 2.2, that indeed in real terms, and as a percentage of the total commitment of assistance in the broader definition, assistance to agriculture has been decreasing.
Then again if you go to page 50, Table 12.1, "Official Commitments of External Assistance to Agriculture: Total (Concessional and Non-Concessional)", you will find that the estimated figure of aid that is required for an adequate agricultural growth is 4 percent, but the percentage of concessionality has gone down. You will see, on page 50 in Table 12.1, agriculture in the narrow and the broad definition.
However, if you consider, as has been pointed out by the other delegations, that indeed the flow of resources into the developing countries has been reversed, more money is flowing from the developing countries as a result of their debt burdens than is flowing into the developing countries. Therefore, it takes no great imagination to see that even investment in agriculture has suffered, and consequently also productivity in the developing countries.
Likewise, fertilizer consumption, which is one of the critical inputs in this production, has been decreasing. The percentage increase in the consumption of fertilizer has been declining. It is enough to refer to the report of the Commission on Fertilizers to confirm this assertion.
The other point which I. think deserves a comment is the question of protectionism. In this respect I hope you will allow me, Mr Chairman, to quote some of the words that have been spoken by the Head of the Philippine delegation in this connection. The Head of the Philippine delegation, said that while we allow them - that means the developed countries - to flood our domestic markets with industrial products, they slam the doors on our agricultural exports and worse, they use the riches to subsidize their inefficient producers in competing unfairly or with more efficient produ‐cers in the export market. Then he continues to cite paragraph 37 of the Agricultural Price Policies, and quotes the following paragraph: The general effect of developed country protectionism has been adverse to an orderly and stable expansion of world agricultural trade. Protectionism has led to lower world prices for a number of products, as well as a greater fluctuation and restrictive entry into developed country markets.
Then he cites the case of sugar. If a group of countries issues a regulation, producers of the product have been dislodged from the market. The Philippines alone have been forced to cut its sugar production by half. This year we lost some US$600 to 700 millions worth of potential exports, exporting only US$100 million worth to the United States through preferential arrangements.
This is a very complete case. Probably the case of sugar is a very classical one which has been subject to protectionist policies. While the most efficient producers produce sugar at, let us say, 10 cents a pound, the world market price now is way below half of the cost of the most efficient producers. As the Head of the Philippine delegation has stated, this has probably been caused by a group of countries that produce sugar at a very high cost, and dump or sell their surpluses on the world market, causing the price of sugar to go down. If we have GATT rules that regulate the dumping of agricultural products, we are wondering why these rules should not be applied.
In this connection, we should like to reiterate the recommendations made in the report of the Council of FAO, where on page 7, the Fifty-fifth session of the Committee on Commodity Problems is covered. I think that the recommendations of the Council should be highlighted in our report and that the accepted recommendations that have been made in that Committee should be recorded in our Commission's report. Among them is the recommendation that all efforts should be made by the international community to persuade countries to curb or eliminate export subsidies and other similar practices, as well as protectionist measures which restrict access to international markets. It should be agreed that these recommendations be endorsed during the next round of negotiations in GATT. The topic of international trade should be pursued in future sessions of the Committee on Commodity Problems. Other recommendations dealing with protectionism, such as the one suggesting that strong signals be sént to the appropriate forum for agricultural trade liberalization to receive high priority, should be implemented as soon as posible.
N. ROSSI (Italie): En ce qui concerne la question du protectionnisme agricole en Italie, il est particulièrement important pour notre pays d'avoir accès à la plus complète libéralisation des échanges internationaux. Ces échanges peuvent être plus aisément obtenus si l'on élimine les obstacles à ces échanges déterminés par des limitations quantitatives de restrictions nationales aux importa‐tions, de restrictions aux importations qui se cachent, parfois, derrière des exigences sanitaires et phitosanitaires et même sous forme de taxes très élevées non justifiées par l'exigence de défendre une production nationale sensible et considérable.
A ce propos, nous désirons exprimer notre confiance la plus entière , notament pour ce qui est des travaux du Comité du GATT sur le échanges agricoles. En ce qui concerne la ligne d'orientation N° 7 et en par‐ticulier le SPG, nous soulignons qu'au niveau communautaire on est actuellement en train d'examiner le nouveau schéma du SPG pour 1986. Une attention particulière est portée aux problèmes des pays les moins avancés au sein même de cette Organisation.
T. ISKIT (Turkey\): We also commend the Secretariat for the excellent document, C 85/21, and we thank Professor Islam for his concise but very substantial introduction.
The report before us covers an extremely wide range of issues and we are in broad agreement with the analysis and conclusions set forth therein.
At this advanced stage of our debate, my delegation will confine its remarks to only a few points which we deem to merit emphasis.
Firstly, it is obvious that developing countries bear the heaviest burden of adjustment, and the success of their self-help efforts depends heavily on the improvement of the world economic situation.
This, in turn, can only be arrived at through the concerted will and action of the international community.
In this text ECDC and TCDC are important frameworks for developing countries to further their efforts in adjustment. We think that this kind of cooperation can also be very useful in ensuring the needed technology and Knowhow exchanges between countries with similar economic structures and requirements. It is observed in many cases that developing countries can sometimes absorb and effectively implement technologies in fellow developing countries which have cumulative experience in a given field, rather than technologies developed in a more developed economy. Turkey partici‐pates through various ECDC and TCDC activities in this way and strives to share its experiences with other countries which are willing to benefit from them.
Secondly, we believe that stability of agricultural commodities markets is crucial, especially for commodity exporting developing countries. Commodity agreements or arrangements with market stabilization provisions which strikes a right balance between the exchanges of both the producers and the importers are the principal, and almost the most efficient, means of achieving this aim. We deplore the negative development in this field in the early 1980s and urge the revival of negotiations to this effect, and the establishment of a common fund for commodities.
Finally, and thirdly, whatever the definition of protectionism, it jeopardizes the development efforts of developing countries especially in agricultural trade. To quote the Secretariat, protectionism is indeed "persistent, widespread and strong. " I do not wish to elaborate on a subject which is only too well known, I only want to join our voice to all previous speakers who condemned protectionism and who pleaded for an open trading system. In this respect, we strongly hope that the new round of multilateral trade negotiations in GATT will be launched soon, and that these negotiations will fully consider all the interests of developing countries whose economic welfare depend on agricultural trade.
M. TAPAVIČKI (Yugoslavia\): I would like to congratulate the Secretariat for presenting to us the very useful progress report based on the Guidelines and Targets for the International Agricultural Adjustment.
We have already had the opportunity to express our views and comments on the World Food and Agriculture situation and trends, particularly in Africa, under item 7. Therefore, the Yugoslav delegation will emphasize only a few points, with some unavoidable repetition, of interest to the entire international community.
The document states very clearly that the signs of recovery from the worst post-war recession, continued to be selective, uncertain and weak. The recovery failed to spread in many developing regions - where it was most needed. The developing countries as a whole have accelerated
agricultural production growth, but this is reflected mainly in the extraordinary production performance in
China
and few other countries. However, excluding China and
India
, the agricultural growth rate of the 1980s was below that of the preceding decade, and it shifts from positive to negative in per caput terms.
At the same time, many developing countries experienced stagnant or falling per caput food consumption levels. The pressure for external adjustment of the economies of the developing countries, with the heavy burden rising debt service payments, have affected the overall economic and social development and living standards of the population.
The developing countries lost their position as net food exporters in the present unjust world trade situation because of a deterioration in terms of trade. The protectionism in agricultural trade has continued to be persistent, widespread and strong in recent years, with heavy negative effects on the economies of the developing countries.
Protectionism, the absence of political will in some developed countries, and depressed conditions in the international markets for agricultural commodities have contributed to the fact that no new market stabilization agreements have been negotiated in recent years.
The economic and social situation in Africa is extremely critical. Although the immediate crisis in Africa is past, the real challenge is to attempt to solve its structural problems in the short, medium and long-term.
Unfortunately, the trend in the growth rate of official development assistance to agriculture in developing countries has been decreasing, and the target of the estimated annual requirements will not be fulfilled before 1988, as it was stated by FAO estimates for Guideline 12.
The above-mentioned factors cause great concern and offer major challenges for the entire interna‐tional community and for FAO's strategy, priority and programme of work in dealing with them. The hostile economic and financial environment must be altered in the spirit of complete solidarity, interdependence and cooperation among all countries. Our Conference has to urge the international community, particularly the developed countries, to make a special effort to support the programmes of the developing countries to eradicate poverty, hunger and malnutrition.
With this in mind, I deeply believe that the next report will have to show much more positive development and progress in international agricultural adjustment according to the revised Guidelines.
Ms N. MORAD (Egypt\) (original language Arabic): My delegation would first like to express our thanks to the Secretariat for their excellent work in having prepared this very useful document for us. We are very pleased to know that certain developing countries have been able to reach the targets for the annual production growth, a fact established in paragraph 3 of the document. We are also pleased to know that the food availability per caput in the same developing countries had also improved as stated in paragraph 4. We note the special interest accorded to the small and landless farmers. But we are concerned to see that the developing countries have had to reduce public spending in certain vital fields, creating negative effects.
My country's delegation has studied the second part of the document on the results achieved according to each of the Guidelines, and I would like to express the importance which my country feels attaches to these Guidelines and to the achievements which have been made in increasing food production and establishing food security. The basic Guidelines are in keeping with the objectives of the Egyptian agricultural policy. The basic tenets of this policy have been to provide a selection of the most appropriate technologies for our agriculture, to establish links between agriculture and research, to decrease the costs of agricultural production through mechanization, and to increase the role of women in agriculture, a role which is of special importance. Our agricultural policy has also wanted to guarantee credits on concessional terms for farmers, as well as to make inputs available to them at acceptable prices, and to increase prices for producers.
My country has been implementing settlement operations, as well as creating new settlements, as is stated in paragraph 46 of the document. The activities of the organizations working in this field and in the distribution of land have been adapted to agro-industries to increase the income level of
those working in these new areas. We would also like to mention the other efforts which have been made. In the field of agricultural incentives, our basic goal has been to make credits available to farmers. Special branches of the credit banks have been established throughout the country to work with the farmers as well as with the national development banks. I would also like to mention the efforts that have been made to rationalize dietary habits so as to raise the nutritional level of our population. We also hope that a new wheat agreement will be reached and that the agreement on the common fund on commodities will be implemented so as to stabilize international markets.
P.N. BAIGENT (New Zealand\): Document C 85/21 is a useful summary of where we are with implementing the Guidelines, and perhaps more importantly, highlights how much we still need to do. A major effort is clearly needed for some of the Guidelines, and for particular developing countries. The report is comprehensive, but I want to comment on particular aspects of a few of the Guidelines.
With regard to Guideline 1, we agree with the argument set out in paragraph 25, that very high levels of protection and subsidization distort producer incentives and promote irrational resource use. Paragraphs 26 - 28 highlight the significance of protection and subsidies for a number of developed countries and it is a serious concern that producer subsidies remain high for a considerable number of commodities in these countries. The paper focuses on the undesirable effect of subsidies and protection in developed countries, but in general the same principles do apply for rational use of resources in developing countries, and any further reviews could usefully focus on this as well.
The tables set out under Guideline 1 show that there have been wide variations in growth rates in agricultural production. Because of these variations, there are good grounds for concentrating the development efforts and assistance covered by Guideline 2 on fewer countries with the greatest need. This further reinforces the need, which we highlighted in the discussion on the African situation, for FAO to focus its efforts on high priority areas.
The discussion under Guideline 3 highlights the real increase in resources required in developing countries for expanded production, particularly for long-term agricultural development. We applaud FAO's efforts to organize its programmes in reaching this long-term goal. Indeed, these aspects of development warrant greater emphasis in the documents.
Guidelines 7 and 9, which are largely concerned with trade and market access are, of course, of particular concern to us. As our Minister of Agriculture pointed out in his Plenary address New Zealand farmers have been seriously affected by growing protectionism in agricultural trade. Our firsthand experience indicates quite clearly that there is little hope for producers in developing countries if the protectionist policies of developed countries continue to frustrate their attempt to do what they do well. Furthermore, continuation down this protectionist path will leave the world with high cost food and serious misallocations of resources which must flow on to the other sectors. We simply cannot afford such waste.
We agree with paragraph 91 that protectionism continues to be "persistent, widespread and strong". The situation in the market place and deteriorated returns for our own farmers make this fact quite clear. The increased and heavy use of export subsidies also highlighted in paragraph 91 is a matter of great concern. On a more positive note, we are pleased to see efforts both by the EEC and the US to curb dairy surpluses. We are concerned, however, to note in paragraph 96 that levels of support on protectionism in the dairy sector have tended to revert to high levels in the past two years in the major developed country markets.
It remains a concern, for instance, that the EEC annual surplus is still almost twice the New Zealand total production. Clearly, even greater efforts are required. We agree with paragraph 97 under Guideline 7 that protectionism in the meat sector has remained high. In this sector, subsidized disposal of surpluses has had a serious flow-on effect for low-cost producer countries. There is indeed a risk that low rather than high-cost producing countries will be forced to reduce production as a result of these unfair trading practices.
The same problems clearly apply to other commodities such as sugar, commodities in which developing countries in general have a clear comparative advantage, paragraph 101 implies a disturbing tit-for-tat development as certain countries jostle to dispose of their surpluses on a limited
international market. It demonstrates an unwillingness on the part of those countries to grapple with the real problem and the serious flow-on effects that their trading policies have on low-cost exporters.
We endorse the principle of comparative advantage discussed in paragraph 105, although we believe this paper should focus more on the critical importance of this principle for primary agricultural producers. I should note at this point that some of the figures have been used in rather a spurious way during the course of this debate, and I am referring particularly to the discussion on import and export figures. For example, we would expect the EEC to import a large proportion of their total food requirement and the total food imports of the world. They have a very large consuming population and there is much food that they cannot produce, and still much more that they cannot produce as cheaply as other countries. Thus, we need to interpret the figures on a product by product basis. If we look at sugar, for example, given the relatively high cost of production in the EEC and the United States as implied by the producer-subsidy equivalents in the table 1.7, we would expect both those countries to import all their sugar. But we know this is not the case, and many delegations have pointed to the disastrous situation they face: in this market, and developing countries in general they are. It is for these logical reasons also that New Zealand imports all its sugar. That we import virtually no meat, milk or wool is not because we prevent these from entering the country, but simply because others cannot profitably compete on our market. I raise these examples simply to demonstrate how easy it is to fool ourselves with figures. Let's not fall into that trap in this debate.
In conclusion, it is clear that exporters of agricultural products and raw materials, including developing countries, have gained little from successive moves to liberalize international trade. In our view, therefore, more attention should be paid to policy changes in major industrial countries which would, without much real disruption to them, accommodate the needs of agricultural exporters. If this point is pursued with conviction, we can look forward to much more positive progress on these particular guidelines when the Secretariat reports again in two years' time.
Sra.Dra. G.SOTO-CARRERO (Cuba): Quisiera, en primer lugar, expresar la satisfacción de la delegación de Cuba por el buen trabajo de evaluación que ha hecho la Secretaría sobre los resultados conseguidos con respecto a las Once Orientaciones y Objetivos del Reajuste Agrícola Internacional, y en segui‐miento a la reunión de 1983 y que completara muy claramente el Profesor Islam, en presentación del documento C 85/21.
Mi delegación se referirá brevemente a algunos aspectos de esta evaluación. Consideramos, señor Presidente, que muchos países en desarrollo han hecho grandes esfuerzos por cumplimentar, e incluso superar, la meta de una tasa anual del cuatro por ciento de crecimiento en la producción agrícola. Otros se han visto agobiados por catástrofes naturales y otros efectos adversos que han llevado a que los resultados sean negativos.
Se requiere, por consiguiente, un gran esfuerzo de todas las partes para garantizar que, en términos generales, esta Primera Orientación analizada pueda cumplirse. En lo que se refiere a la corriente de recursos financieros necesarios para el desarrollo, mi delegación considera que si no hacemos del financiamiento una cuestión capital y decisiva, y dejamos su proceso en manos de los mecanismos ban-carios internacionales y de la gran banca privada, si no nos sentamos a deliberar y discutir cómo hacer frente a la enormidad de recursos que demanda el desarrollo, no avanzaremos en la solución de estos problema's.
Como bien expresara nuestra Ministro en la Plenaria de esta Conferencia, resolver de modo satisfac‐torio el grave problema del financiamiento será ya un avance en el programa del Nuevo Orden Econó‐mico Internacional que nos proponemos.
Un ejemplo concreto que ha afectado grandemente el incremento de la producción alimentaria es el reciente crecimiento del consumo de fertilizantes en los países en desarrollo, lo cual se debe, como se plantea en el párrafo 37 del documento que analizamos, al empeoramiento del clima económico gene‐ral, y en particular, a los problemas relacionados con la deuda extranjera, relaciones de intercam‐bio desfavorables, y la grave escasez consecuente de divisas en algunos grandes países consumidores.
En cuanto al acceso a la tierra, el agua y otros recursos naturales, la enseñanza, la extensión, la investigación, la capacitación, y al importante aspecto de la igualdad de la mujer especialmente en
su participación en el desarrollo agrícola, mi delegación considera que el programa de acción que fue aprobado en la Conferencia Mundial de Reforma Agraria y Desarrollo Rural contiene los aspectos fundamentales para llevar adelante estos conceptos.
Señor Presidente: mi delegación no puede dejar de condenar las medidas proteccionistas de todo tipo que imponen algunos países desarrollados a las importaciones de productos agrícolas provenientes de los países en desarrollo, las cuales impiden el acceso de los mismos a los mercados internacionales.
En realidad, como se expresa en el párrafo 91, el proteccionismo del comercio agrícola, comprendido el de productos basados en el agro, ha resultado persistente, amplio y vigoroso. Como bien se señala en el párrafo citado, entendemos que este proteccionismo debe cesar. A pesar de los análisis hechos por el GATT y que han sido mencionados por esta Sala, esas medidas nocivas se mantienen. Mi dele‐gación, señor Presidente, apoya plenamente el análisis hecho sobre la Orientación Nueve referente a la cooperación entre países en desarrollo.
Referente a la Orientación sobre el establecimiento de una seguridad alimentaria mundial efectiva, consideramos que deben tenerse en cuenta los aspectos contenidos en el Pacto de Seguridad Alimenta‐ria, que también han sido analizados por esta Comisión.
Finalmente, consideramos que si bien la meta referente a la ayuda alimentaria, ha sido sobrepasada este año, debe entrar en seria consideración la revisión de la cifra actual, a la luz del contenido de la Orientación Once. Esperamos que ésta no sea la última evaluación de los progresos de las Orientaciones del Reajuste Agrícola Internacional y se nos continúe presentando valiosos informes como el que hoy analizamos.
D. KINZEL (Austria\) (original language German): I would like to start by thanking Professor Islam for his very lucid and full introduction to this very highly informative document, C 85/21. With your permission I will state my delegation's view on a number of guidelines. Guideline 1. According to Table 1.1 the growth rate for developing countries ' agricultural production, excluding India and China , was 3.1 for the 1970s. It then dropped to 2.3 for 1980 to 1984. However, the growth rate then rose to 3.3. Moreover, the initial figures for harvests in 1985 justify optimism which suggests that one can assume that the 4 percent target of Guideline 1 has been met to a very considerable extent.
Guideline 2. The deceleration of fertilizer use growth in 1980 and the insufficient growth in 1981, 1982 and 1983 as shown by Table 2.1, indicates very clearly that in the future this is some‐thing which has got to be given increasing attention. Balanced investment programmes for increas‐ing productivity which will also contribute to raising agricultural income are vitally necessary.
Guidelines 3 and 4. With regard to small farmers, landless peasants and especially participation of women and young people in the process of development, the Austrian delegation appreciates the efforts made in Asia, but at the same time we would point to the need for further reforms, particularly in Latin America and in Africa.
Guideline 6. Given prevailing circumstances, high foreign debt, budget restrictions, low economic growth and deteriorating terms of trade, it would appear to us that measures designed to achieve more equitable distribution of income would be particularly difficult. Nonetheless, such measures can create the necessary demand; and hence production incentive. They are also useful, indeed, and absolutely vital in reducing the abyss between rich and poor.
We shall address problems relating to protectionism under agenda item 7.3.
Guideline 8. Since international markets for farm products continue to be unstable, necessary pre‐conditions for creating international commodity agreements have become less favourable. At the same time, such an agreement becomes all the more necessary.
Guideline 9. We are pleased to see the achievements in economic and technical cooperation between developing countries, which we hope will continue to expand. In this connection, I would point to the importance of the liberalization of world trade for developing countries as well as for industrialized nations.
Guidelines 10 and 11. As far as food security is concerned, the target of Guideline 10 of stocks of 18 percent of world consumption has been reached. However, increased cooperation at regional level is desirable.
The Austrian delegation is glad to see that food aid targets have been exceeded, with most of the food aid granted on emergency terms going to Africa.
I. MARINCEK (Suisse): J'aimerais d'abord remercier le Prof. Nurul Islam pour son excellente introduction du document sur l'ajustement agricole international. Les lignes d'orientation qui ont été modifiées il y a deux ans, et en particulier rallongées, sont devenues un peu lourdes et nous nous retrouvons avec certaines répétitions dans le document. Tout de même les nouvelles lignes accordent une attention particulière aux besoins des petits exploitants, des femmes et autres groupes vulnérables et nous nous en félicitons.
Un premier commentaire concernant le paragraphe 9, je cite : "La famine en Afrique et les réactions généreuses qu'elle a suscitées auprès de donateurs ont permis pour la première fois de dépasser l'objectif de 10 millions de tonnes". J'aimerais plutôt dire "ont nécessité". Il n'y a aucune raison de se féliciter de ce triste record.
Concernant la ligne d'orientation, les pays en développement réalisent des résultats de plus en plus différents. Le paragraphe 24 met très bien le doigt sur un des points essentiels, je cite : "Dans certains pays (par exemple la Chine), l'accélération de la croissance de la production peut être facilement attribuée aux réformes de politique. A l'autre extrême, la tendance à la prolifé‐ration des plans et des stratégies alimentaires et des déclarations concernant la priorité de l'agriculture dans les décisions de politiques nationales ne s'est pas accompagnée de résultats visibles suffisants ."
L'objectif de la sécurité alimentaire nationale demande le maintien d'une certaine base de production alimentaire dans chaque pays. En Suisse, nous savons que la sécurité alimentaire a son prix. Pour assurer une production alimentaire minimale dans notre pays nous devons donc accorder à nos paysans des revenus comparables à ceux des autres secteurs, mais nous y mettons des limites. Mon pays ne produit que soixante pour cent de ses besoins alimentaires, le solde est importé. Nos importations agricoles par tête d'habitant dépassent le montant de 600 francs suisses, c'est le niveau le plus élevé de tous les pays de l'OCDE. Vu sous cet angle nous avons pratiquement le marché le plus ouvert.
Le paragraphe 55 ayant trait à la ligne d'orientation 4 nous rappelle que seulement douze pays en développement ont ratifié la Convention N° 141 du BIT relative à la liberté d'association; de même seulement 49 pays en développement ont ratifié la Convention N° 87 du BIT concernant le droit d'organiser des associations. Cependant, rappelons-nous que sans dialogue avec les popula‐tions directement concernées, leur potentiel de développement ne pourra pas être suffisamment mobilisé et le Directeur général l'a très bien dit à l' occasion du Comité de l'agriculture en mars dernier. Je cite: "Le gros de la production agricole est encore entre les mains du petit paysannat. C'est lui qui produira de quoi nourrir l'humanité". Il faudra alors l'encourager. Donc, M. le Président, quel gaspillage encore aujourdhui! Tant de besoins, tant de travail pro‐ductif disponible dans beaucoup de pays en développement et tellement d'hommes sans travail.
Le paragraphe 79 relatif à la ligne d'orientation 6 nous rappelle que c'est encore en premier lieu les produits céréaliers de base comme le blé, le riz et le mais plutôt que le mil et le sorgho qui sont subventionnés dans de nombreux pays en développement. Alors, on peut se demander s'il ne serait pas plus avantageux pour ces pays de vendre l'aide alimentaire en blé à des prix de marché pour en‐suite utiliser les recettes de ces ventes pour financer le subventionnement des aliments de base produits dans les pays pour soutenir la production locale.
Le paragraphe 86 nous rappelle l'importance des infrastructures de transport. C'est un point très essentiel car sans accès au marché les incitations à la production des meilleures politiques de prix restent vidées de leur sens.
Finalement, pour ce qui est des chiffres de l'aide extérieure à l'agriculture, davantage devrait être fait, c'est vrai. J'aimerais tout de même rappeler que les donateurs ne sont pas seuls à ne pas réaliser les objectifs ambitieux. Les pays en développement eux-mêmes n'accordent à l'agricul-
ture que 7,3 pour cent de leurs budgets et seulement 10 pour cent des investissements totaux de leur économie. C'est loin de la part de 20 à 25 pour cent du produit intérieur brut d'un bon nom‐bre de ces pays et c'est loin également de l'objectif des pays africains de porter de 20 25 pour cent la part des investissements publics au secteur agricole.
R. PRINS (Canada\): We should like to thank Professor Islam and his staff for the preparation of this very useful and informative document which covers in a concise manner a broad range of food-related matters. We are also appreciative of his lucid introduction. We would encourage the FAO to continue this type of reporting, to further sharpen its analyses and to continue to improve its data-base in selective areas through full cooperation by member countries.
Some of the analyses presented in this document should have drawn clearer conclusions, in our opinion. We are pleased with the wide selection of country groupings used in this report, such as in Table 1.1, with geographical and income categories, and we would encourage further developments in this regard.
The document before us underlines a series of positive and not so positive developments, as other interventions have already mentioned. We should like to just note a few of these developments, starting with the generous international response to Africa, the global and regional improvements in per capita food consumption, the overall inadequate levels of domestic investment in agriculture, the growth in protectionism, and world food security.
With regard to world food security, we believe too much emphasis in this document is being given to the global carry-over stocks of cereals at the expense of presenting other measures. The emphasis on international commodity agreements in this document distracts attention from a discussion on achieving world market stability through other means.
Broadly bringing together a number of suggestions made under the various Guidelines, as is, for example, done in another FAO publication, the Fifth World Food Survey, it is clear that coherence in a wide set of policies is required at the national level to assist and promote agricultural development and to adjust effectively to the ever-changing international situation.
To turn very briefly to some of these policies, as they are raised in the document, there is a useful discussion of the frequent ineffectiveness of national stocking policies. The document points out the areas where follow-up is required if such policies are to become an operational reality. With reference to rational production policies, we should like to see a greater use being made of the existing FAO studies on crop production potentials to address various aspects of rationally using the available natural resources at the national level. Other policies which need careful consideration would include, to name just a few, ways to increase domestic savings, export diversification, and a generally more efficient use of inputs.
We were pleased with the manner in which the results of the price policy study were drawn into the preparation of this document. We commend the Secretariat for this integrative approach. The document before us specifically raises two subjects - food subsidies and protectionism - which are also touched upon in the price policies document. We should therefore like to consolidate our comments on these subjects and refer to them now rather than on both occasions.
Some delegations have raised the questions of assumptions and methodology in the calculation of producer subsidy equivalents. We would suggest the document focus much more on the trade effects of the different policies involved. The protection subsidy equivalents while being one useful indicator, do not reflect the impact that the underlying policies have, or would have, on world prices. It is the form and not the magnitude of these PSEs that is important. The damage done to other trading countries, particularly efficient producers, might suggest that countries which are determined to maintain the protection should at least choose policies which minimize the trade impact. Canada has been concerned about this for some time, as we have sometimes experienced spillover effects of national policies on international markets. If we have been affected, we can imagine what the effects have been on other agricultural producers, particularly developing countries.
Turning briefly to the studies of trade liberalization, of which a number have been quoted, we believe the Secretariat could also have referred to studies with slightly different conclusions.
For example, the author R. Tyres, already quoted in the price policies paper, has also studied the liberalization of trade in rice and concluded that a decrease in world prices would follow from the liberalization of trade in this commodity. This conclusion is the opposite of what is suggested in the studies of other grains, and results from the combined effects of removal of positive protection in the industrialized countries and negative protection in the Asian rice-producing countries.
Canada places major importance on tackling the agricultural protection question through a new round of GATT negotiations. We have participated actively in the Committee on Trade in Agriculture of GATT. We see a new round focussing on (a) how to improve and secure access to markets; (b) how to bring subsidies affecting agricultural trade under effective international discipline and (c) how to improve the balance of rights and obligations so that agricultural trade rules may apply equally to large and small producers.
Canada 's position on protectionism was clearly stated in an earlier intervention in this Commission, and I will not refer to it further.
The subject of food subsidies is a delicate one and one which has received considerable academic and operational attention. It is referred to in this document and in the study on Price Policies which will be on the agenda following our discussion of this document. On the one hand, we note the role of targetted food subsidies as a partial cushion for price increases for consumers. Hesitancy in raising prices is based in part on the effect of such price increases on poor consumers. We believe such effects have been over-stated.
To explain briefly, measured food production and consumption in developing countries typically includes only food marketed through official channels. If measured consumption occurs during a price increase, it may be erroneous to conclude that total consumption decreases by the same amount or the same percentage. The price change on the unofficial market and the consumer response to price changes can both be different from those observed on the official market.
In conclusion, the document before us is a good one and extremely informative. In looking back to the report of this agenda item of the 22nd Conference, we note in paragraph 106 of that report that the Secretariat was asked to follow up on three areas; first, the improvement of data on domestic resource flows in agriculture; second, the reduction of post-harvest losses and, thirdly, price indices. While we see evidence of these efforts in many of the reports before this Commission, we are under the impression that this work is not complete. Therefore, we suggest that the Conference report on this agenda item should contain a reference to the need to complete outstanding work.
On the subject of post-harvest losses we would like to lend support to the intervention made by the distinguished delegate of India earlier today, when he referred to the need for more work in this area as underlined in paragraph 4 of this report. Canada has provided considerable resources for work in this area through UNDP and bilateral channels.
MANIRUZZAMAN CHOWDHURY (Bangladesh\): Document C 85/21 prepared by the FAO Secretariat as the first monitoring report based on the Guidelines and Targets for International Agricultural Adjustment, revised in 1983, is a commendable one. My delegation takes particular note of the excellent intro‐duction by Dr Islam, which is very useful. As we have expressed our views on the various subjects covered by this report in appropriate fora already, our observations will agree.
This report frankly reveals that although some remarkable achievements were made by some developing countries, notably China and India, the overall position has not really been up to the level of expectations. International commodity agreements particularly with a view to safeguarding the interests of agriculturalists in the underdeveloped countries need to be rationalized vis-à-vis the present stagnating rather than deteriorating condition of the agricultural commodity prices of the underdeveloped countries.
As has been voiced quite rightly by other delegates, we find that protectionist practices by some developing countries, particularly regarding agricultural commodities, will have a negative
effect in the long run in attaining the desired growth in the agricultural sphere. This is al‐ready being felt by some developing countries whose economies are mainly dependent on this sector.
Once again, we appreciate the publication of such analytical reports by the FAO Secretariat. We hope that it will be possible to liberalize international trade and particularly to find a common point of agreement on agricultural commodity prices based on such reports. This will ensure that agricultural production in developing countries will grow significantly and in turn, will not only ensure the very survival of those countries but hopefully will allow them to improve their lot.
D. DANG MEKOULA (Cameroun): La délégation du Cameroun a suivi avec attention l'excellente presen‐tation du document C 85/21 par le Professeur Islam. Dans son analyse concise et claire, le Professeur Islam nous a donné des précisions et des informations très utiles sur ce vaste sujet qui couvre les 12 lignes d'orientation et les objectifs de l'ajustement agricole international.
Il ressort de cette analyse que pour répondre aux besoins nutritionnels et à la demande alimentaire croissante des populations des pays en développement et jeter les bases d'une industrialisation et d'une diversification rapides de leurs structures économiques, les pays concernés se devaient d'accroître leur production agricole au taux annuel moyen de 4 pour cent au moins. Pour ce faire, ces pays devaient s'efforcer de rationaliser les systèmes de production en tenant compte de leurs besoins spécifiques.
Notre délégation approuve en conséquence cette étude dans son ensemble, ainsi que les 12 lignes d'orientation qui sont ses axes et qui en soi constituent autrement autant de recommandations en matière de politiques d'expansion du secteur de la production agricole dans les pays en développment.
Nous avons noté que le taux de croissance de la production alimentaire dans le monde pour l'année 1984 est globalement positif, mais aussi que pour l'Afrique et le Moyen-Orient cette croissance est négative.
C'est pour cette raison essentielle que nous pensons qu'afin de permettre aux gouvernements intéressés de mieux s'organiser en vue d'intégrer les stratégies proposées dans le contexte des plans nationaux de développement, il serait utile à l'avenir, dans la mesure du possible, de ramener les propositions d'ajustement agricole au niveau des régions, des sous-régions et même au niveau des pays.
Dans ces études, les problèmes de communications intrarégionales et de désenclavement doivent retenir notre attention.
KYO EUN KIM (Republic of Korea\): First of all, my delegation wishes to express its appreciation to the FAO Secretariat for its excellent work. Document C 85/21 is really useful for us. We also wish to express our thanks to Dr. Islam for his brief and concise introduction of the subject. With regard to the report, I will confine my remarks to only two points.
First of all, my delegation welcomes the fact that more attention is being paid to small farmers and to the participation in the development process of rural people, particularly women and rural youth. Furthermore, we wish to state strongly that the future activities of FAO in these matters should be strengthened with full recognition of their importance, as has been strongly suggested by other delegates in previous sessions, and with special emphasis on rural youth programmes, It is my firm belief that such focal group approaches will provide new energy sources to rural development.
Secondly, I would like to express once again my views on agricultural protectionism. First of all, within the category of usual commodity trade it may be more desirable for us to promote agricultural trade in a free and fair manner. However, it is also my firm belief that global benefit of comparative advantage in the agricultural sector cannot be fully exploited unless displaced resources are effectively transferred and utilized with greater efficiency and benefit. Therefore, I hope that the characteristics of small- farming agriculture, like that of Korea , will be fully understood by all Member Nations. As the delegate of China mentioned this morning,
small-farming agriculture needs a certain level of protectionism for its survival because of its complicated nature which has so much to do with social welfare, social stability, national food security and other associated economic concerns. For this reason, I strongly hope that wider and deeper considerations will be given to this when we look into ways and means of taking alternative action on this issue of agricultural trade.
V.M. del ANGEL GONZALES (México): Deseamos expresar, en primer lugar, nuestro agradecimiento al Dr. Islam por la presentación del tema. La delegación de Mexico apoya el documento de la Secretaría, y en relación con ello hacemos la siguiente declaración.
La crisis económica por la que atraviesan, tanto los países en desarrollo como los desarrollados, se caracteriza por presiones proteccionistas en aumento, y tensiones y conflictos en el campo de las relaciones comerciales internacionales cada vez más deterioradas.
Aun más, el crecimiento negativo y el creciente desempleo en muchos de los países se han traducido en un descenso de las exportaciones mundiales, y han dado lugar a la proliferación de barreras comerciales y técnicas que dificultan el comercio.
Por ello, la crisis del sistema comercial internacional amenaza no sólo con agravar la situación de las economías en general, sino también con continuar obstaculizando su recuperación.
Ante esta situación, señor Presidente, la evolución del comercio de los productos básicos en la esfera mundial y su perspectiva a corto plazo, se presentan desfavorables para la mayoría de los países desarrollados, principalmente por la baja creciente de los precios de exportación, reflejo a su vez de la abundante oferta de productos básicos y de materias primas agrícolas, y también debido a la retracción de la demanda generada por las fuertes presiones del servicio de la deuda exterior para dichos países.
La falta de una política racional del comercio resulta cada vez más urgente ante los actuales excesos de oferta vinculados a la falta de un crecimiento adecuado de la demanda. Por otra parte, a pesar de que América Latina en su conjunto ha aumentado sus productos de exportación agrícola, sus ingresos de divisas por ese concepto se han visto afectados por la inestabilidad de los precios prevalecientes en el mercado internacional.
Esta situación se ve agravada por el elevado proteccionismo de los mercados del mundo desarrollado, ya que impide la participación de los productos latinoamericanos, y por supuesto de los que provienen de otras regiones del mundo.
En los países de la Comunidad Económica Europea y en Estados Unidos se han adoptado políticas de subsidio interno a sus productos para mantener elevada su producción de alimentos. Esta política genera distorsiones en el orden internacional al anular las ventajas comparativas de los productos del mundo en desarrollo, y al propiciar la baja de los precios internacionales. Dichas políticas son, por tanto, perjudiciales para todos los países productores, y especialmente para los que no disponen de los medios económicos necesarios para enfrentar esa competencia.
Otro efecto provocado por la situación descrita es el de la transformación de las estructuras de producción agrícola tradicional, cuestión que no se ve adecuadamente reflejada en nuestro Informe.
Los países en desarrollo, y en aras de obtener mayores ingresos por concepto de exportaciones, han impulsado una agricultura de carácter comercial que, en la mayoría de los casos, deteriora su producción agrícola básica y aumenta el déficit alimentario.
En algunos países de Africa y de América Latina, por ejemplo, se puede advertir con toda claridad esta problemática. Ante esta situación, señor Presidente, esta Conferencia debería impulsar las medidas propuestas por los países en desarrollo en la UNCTAD, tendientes a disminuir los efectos negativos de las fluctuaciones de los precios de los productos básicos en general, y de los cereales en particular.
La delegación mexicana hace un exhorto a todos los países a que participen activamente en la aplicación de los objetivos señalados en las Resoluciones de la UNCTAD tendientes al establecimiento de convenios internacionales con cláusulas económicas que regulen el mercado internacional de los productos básicos.
Asimismo, destacamos la importancia de poner en marcha, lo más pronto posible, el Convenio Constitutivo del Fondo Común como un medio eficaz para alcanzar la estabilización de los precios de los productos básicos y la inclusión de medidas económicas.
En este sentido, exhortamos también al país que fundamentalmente se ha resistido a apoyar la constitución de este Fondo, a que rectifique su actitud en bien de la reactivación del comercio mundial, con ventajas compartidas por todos los que en él participan. Señalamos que ante la impostergable necesidad de atender los problemas de desarrollo interno y fortalecer al mismo tiempo la capacidad de los países en desarrollo para hacer frente a sus compromisos externos, resulta indispensable orientar las estrategias hacia el crecimiento económico interno. El crecimiento debe ser premisa undamental en la superación de los problemas por los que atraviesan nuestras economías de desarrollo. En este contexto, señor Presidente, resulta vital que se respeten las normas del comercio internacional y que se fortalezcan los términos de intercambio de los países en desarrollo.
CHAIRMAN: Tomorrow morning the Secretariat will respond to some of the points raised by the delegates before we run off our discussion on this item.
The meeting rose at 17.40 hours
La séance est. levée à 17 h 40
Se levanta la sesión a las 17.40 horas
