Srta. H. LOPEZ DE MORAL (Colombia): La delegación de Colombia desea felicitar al profesor Islam por la presentación del completo y detallado análisis que nos ofrece este documento. No deseamos entrar en el fondo de lo que el documento trata puesto que éste merece un profundo estudio por los expertos en la materia en nuestra capital.
Pero sí desea nuestra delegación presentar algunas consideraciones de índole general. Señor Presi‐dente: el documento C 85/19 abre una fuente muy útil de información y nos felicitamos por ello. Nos ofrece también a los países en desarrollo, una posibilidad adicional de obtener asesoría técnica de la FAO en la formulación y aplicación de políticas de precios adecuadas a cada uno de los países.
Las políticas de precios pueden ser un instrumento válido, tanto para aumentar el consumo interno con precios que resulten justos para el productor y para el consumidor, así como para generar productos de exportación persiguiendo no sólo fines económicos sino políticos y sociales.
Este tema es difícil, y como ya lo dije antes, merece un profundo estudio por especialistas en la materia, ya que una política de precios puede convertirse en un arma de doble filo. A este respecto, quisiera subrayar lo que está expuesto ya en los párrafos 307, 317, 318 y 525 del documento que nos ocupa.
Las políticas de precios adoptadas sin las debidas y adecuadas bases, y en aislamiento de las fuerzas de los mercados internos e internacionales, pueden producir efectos nocivos. Por ello, la información que contiene este documento debe ser cuidadosamente analizada, sopesada y estudiada dentro del contexto de condiciones reales que resulten equitativas en el intercambio de comercio de los productos agrícolas, y que además resulten en beneficio para los países en desarrollo, suprimiendo desigualdades que ahora nos afectan pero sin producir, por ello, ninguna corriente desestabilizadora en el comercio internacional.
Queremos felicitar a la FAO por la preparación de estos estudios que deben ampliarse, y que merece además, con adecuado apoyo por parte de la información estadística que recibe la FAO, por parte de los gobiernos ser ampliada y reforzada.
Sra. R. ZUÑIGA (Honduras\): Mi delegación felicita por la presentación de este valioso documento que nos ha llamado a profunda reflexión. Honduras, señor Presidente, ha participado con gran entu‐siasmo en la celebración del 40° aniversario de la creación de la FAO y de las Naciones Unidas. Para Honduras esto es muy significativo por ser uno de los países signatarios en 1945 de la Carta de las Naciones Unidas en San Francisco, California, y de haber sido también uno de los fundadores de la FAO.
Sin embargo, todo este regocijo nos llama a la reflexión y a cuestionarnos a nosotros mismos de que cómo es posible que después de 40 años de existencia de un sistema creado y fundado por las naciones, precisamente para establecer la paz y que, como lo ha expresado en varias ocasiones Su Santidad el Papa Juan Pablo II y varios Estadistas del mundo, la paz significa desarrollo. Profundizando más,
cuarenta años después nos encontramos con un cuadro que nos señala resultados patéticos y vergonzosos para la comunidad internacional. A la agricultura en el mundo en vías de desarrollo se le ha asig‐nado un papel que la coloca en desventaja frente a los otros sectores de la economía, y que además frena los esfuerzos orientados a mejorar las condiciones de vida de los pobres rurales y el desarrollo rural en general.
Este papel desventajoso consiste en producir alimentos al más bajo precio posible para el consumo urbano; suministrar mano de obra barata para el desarrollo industrial y materias primas a las agro-industrias; proveer, en algunos casos, divisas para el desarrollo de la economía nacional; y even‐tualmente, constituir un mercado para la industria manufacturera. En síntesis, transferir recursos para otros sectores.
Las estadísticas demuestran que en los países eufemisticamente agrupados en el sur, el hambre y la miseria se han esparcido e intensificado. Nosotros somos de la opinión de que uno de los mecanismos más eficaces para la solución de los problemas de la miseria y el hambre, podría ser una justa y equitativa relación comercial entre los países industrializados y los países en vías de desarrollo. Es decir, los agrupados eufemisticamente en norte y sur.
Nosotros no queremos comprender la realidad que vivimos. Una realidad que nos hace pagar costos exhorbitantes para importar los insumos y la tecnología necesaria para nuestra producción; y por otro lado, los bajos precios recibidos por nuestros productos agropecuarios, es decir, por la materia prima que nosotros vendemos a los países industrializados.
Se nos dice que son otros foros internacionales donde deben tratarse estos temas. Pero también sabemos que las reuniones de estos organismos responsables o especializados en estos temas, no avanzan en este sentido. Es decir, aquí también se aplica otra dimensión de la teoría del crecimiento cero. Como vía de ejemplo, citaré dos casos, el del banano y el azúcar.
En 1961, el precio deflacionado de la tonelada de banano era de 332,2 dólares US , y para 1984, el precio deflacionado de la tonelada había descendido a 285,5 dólares US. En el mismo año de 1961, el precio deflacionado de la tonelada de azúcar era de 163,6 dólares US , y para 1984, el precio deflacionado de la tonelada había descendido a 75,3 dólares US.
En cambio, los precios de los fertilizantes, insecticidas, pesticidas y maquinaria agrícola se había más que quintuplicado, e insumos que nuestros países importan de los países industrializados dado el nivel tecnológico adoptado.
Esta relación de intercambio comercial ha producido resultados que han llevádo al extremo de que el precio recibido en el mercado internacional por los productos, no cubre el costo de la recolección de las cosechas, y no digamos su costo total de producción.
Es por ello que nuestra delegación insiste y hace un llamado para la búsqueda de esa justa y equitativa relación comercial, y como dijo el Director General en su discurso inaugural, confiamos en que las decisiones tomadas sobre política agraria, actualmente en estudio por parte de los Estados Unidos y la Comunidad Económica Europea, se tomarán con amplitud de miras y teniendo debidamente en cuenta sus consecuencias para el comercio internacional, y en particular para los intereses de los países en desarrollo.
K.T. SALMAN (Iraq\) (original language Arabic): We would like to thank Prof. Islam for introducing the item on Agricultural Price Policies.
It is well known that determining agricultural price plays an important role in agricultural production as this has been clearly explained in the document under discussion.
Prices and their determination are largely dependent on cost production surveys and on world inflation, and this is particularly true for agricultural inputs where developing countries import from producer countries. We appreciate this document and hope that developing countries will use it for their own benefit since it provides a clear explanation of the pricing policies in centrally planned economies, market economies and even in developing countries themselves.
We would propose that each developing country should establish a mechanism whose competence would be agricultural prices and that it would keep in mind the content of this document as well as national production patterns and development in other countries, and should study in particular price increases in imported agricultural production.
It is also important to encourage production of high-profit crops whose production a state wishes to increase, especially commodities important for the country's economy, and in this way require price subsidies as an incentive to farmers for greater production.
Some countries adopted price reduction policies for certain products in order to limit their production and thus avoid any negative impact on the production of important crops. Such policies and their coordination in developing countries demand a competent mechanism to survey agricultural commodity prices. Most developing countries either abide by market economy or centrally planned economic priorities or even a combination of the two; hence the necessity of formulating a specific policy which takes into consideration national and international conditions.
Since the main purpose is to maintain agricultural commodity prices, especially those of surplus commodities in certain countries, we believe that it is worthwhile to examine the viability of establishing local industries to process the surplus and market it locally. I am sure this method would be suitable for many countries, and especially developing ones, since it would help producers by absorbing their surpluses and maintaining the prices of the crops.
J. THINSY (Belgique): En cant que pays qui représente la présidence du Conseil de la CEE, je vous prie de bien vouloir donner la parole à l'Observateur de la CEE qui aimerait faire une déclaration sur ce point de l'ordre du jour.
G. DESESQUELLES (CEE): Je voudrais tout d'abord commencer par féliciter le Secrétariat pour cette étude très complète qui compte parmi les plus réussies et les plus opérationnelles pour la mise en place des politiques de prix alimentaires appropriées dans les pays en développement et qui ont pour but d'encourager la production agricole.
La CEE a d'autant plus deraisons de s'en féliciter que les mécanismes décrits dans les trois premiers chapitres du document. relatifs à la vue d'ensemble, à la formulation et à l'exécution des politiques de prix, correspondent, dans une large mesure, aux principes sur lesquels est basée la politique agricole commune, qui a permis de passer de périodes répétées de pénuries à la sécurité alimentaire pour la plupart des productions agricoles.
Néanmoins, nous considérons que le chapitre IV et plus particulièrement la description des niveaux de prix et de la protection dans les pays développés à économie de marché sont fondés sur une analyse qui n'a pas été assez affinée.
En effet, les études et les tableaux et avis y afférents ont la faiblesse de s'arrêter quelquefois à l'année 1980. Le document devrait donc être actualisé et la Communauté économique européenne pourrait aider le Secrétariat en lui communiquant des données plus récentes.
Ce qui nous a en outre frappés, c ' est la généralité des documents sur le soutien apporté à l'agriculture. Bien souvent on affirme que le soutien agricole dans la CEE est plus important que dans les autres parties du monde.
Nous considérons que l'analyse phraséologique devrait être faite produit par produit. En effet, je peux indiquer que dans la CEE, pour certains produits agricoles, le soutien en 1984/85 est moins important que dans les résultats du tableau IV. 1.2 de la page 72 de la version française: c'est pourquoi comme nous l'avons déjà dit à plusieurs reprises, nous ne pouvons accepter le tableau IV. 1.2 figurant à la page 72 de la- version française ainsi que les commentaires qui s'y rattachent, aux paragraphes 380, 381, 382 et 385.
Dans le même ordre d'idées, la rédaction du paragraphe 37 devrait être adaptée. En effet, sans remettre en cause la lutte contre le protectionnisme et la spécificité des ajustements agricoles dans les pays où existent des excédents structurels, je voudrais rappeler qu'une récente étude de juin 1985 de l'Institut international pour l'analyse appliquée des systèmes IAS, organisation que le Secrétariat a citée comme source, arrive à la conclusion provisoire que l'effet bénéfique d'une libéralisation du commerce agricole sur la situation alimentaire des pays en développement serait relativement négligeable.
En ce qui concerne les problèmes budgétaires de la politique agricole commune et les commentaires des paragraphes 385, 391 et 400, je voudrais rappeler ce qui a déjà été dit lors de l'examen sur la situation alimentaire mondiale, c'est-à-dire que, si la part de l'agriculture dans le budget européen peut paraître néanmoins élevée, c'est tout simplement parce qu'à l'heure actuelle la politique agricole est pratiquement la seule politique intégrée de la Communauté européenne et qu'au fur et à mesure que d'autres politiques communes se développeront, cette part diminuera automatiquement. Les dépenses d'aide à l'agriculture dans la Communauté sont similaires à celles de bien d'autres pays et je rappelle que la part de l'agriculture dans le budget communautaire, qui était de 80 pour cent il y a dix ans, n'était plus que de 66 pour cent en 1985, compte tenu des ajustements permanents de l'agriculture européenne au fur et à mesure de l'évolution de la situation de l'agriculture européenne sur un plan interne et externe.
En ce qui concerne les paragraphes 86,87 et 88, j'indique que la Communauté économique européenne contribue aux besoins d'exportation des pays de la Convention de Lomé dans le cadre du système stabex dont les moyens ont augmenté de 66 pour cent dans la nouvelle convention.
De même, je voudrais attirer l'attention sur l'initiative de la Communauté européenne relative à un nouveau système de compensation des pertes et recettes d'exportation élargie en faveur des pays les moins avancés qui ne font pas partie des pays ACP. Dans le même esprit, la CEE vient de décider d'anticiper d'un an au 1er janvier 1986 la dernière étape des réductions tarifaires négociées lors du Tokyo round de 1979.
Je rappelle aussi une nouvelle fois que la CEE est de loin le premier importateur mondial de produits agricoles, 20 pour cent du commerce mondial, ce qui démontre que la CEE et ses Etats Membres sont contre le protectionnisme. Si la Communauté dispose de certains instruments que certains critiquent à l'heure actuelle, je rappellerai que la Communauté a payé cette liberté d'agir par des concessions tarifaires portant sur d'autres secteurs. Il n'en demeure pas moins, comme nous l'avons déjà indiqué, que la CEE est prête à de nouvelles négociations commerciales dans le cadre du GATT en tenant compte de la spécificité de l'agriculture et des intérêts des pays en développement.
En effet, les relations commerciales que la CEE a établies sous des formes multiples et parfois originales avec divers groupes de pays témoignent de sa volonté de développer les échanges agricoles dans le respect des intérêts légitimes réciproques tout en accordant une attention particulière à ceux des pays en développement.
En conclusion, je tiens à souligner encore une fois que, globalement, cette étude a le mérite de poser le problème des prix agricoles de manière adéquate; que toutefois il nous semble nécessaire d'approfondir certains aspects de cette étude, notamment en prenant en considération les commentaires que nous venons de faire.
DATO ALWI JANTAN (Malaysia\): My delegation welcomes the study on agricultural price policies in document C 85/19 and wishes to congratulate the Secretariat on producing this report, which we consider as nothing short of excellent.
Malaysia , as a major exporter of cash crops, practices an open policy with regard to agricultural prices. Except for rice, which is a strategic crop, and grown only for domestic consumption, we feel that the development of other commodoties should not be encouraged through direct price interventions. We follow the concept of market/production/market, whereby production of agricultural produce is
dictated by the market in terms of quantum, quality, timing and other market requirements. As such, marketing improvement programmes become the focal point for the stimulation of greater production, with the support of research, extension and credit facilities and services.
My delegation, therefore, is in agreement with the conclusion of the study that, while price incentives are a necessary condition for increased production; they are by themselves not sufficient. Other imperatives for greater production include development of infrastructure, improvement in technology, credit, irrigation, research and extension services, marketing, transport and storage facilities.
For the improvement of trading climate, and taking into account the socio-economic demands of developing countries, we cannot agree more with the observations in paragraphs 93 and 94 of the report which stress the need for developed countries to restrain the use of export subsidies and import levies. We also think that paragraph 95, which calls for greater assurance regarding the international framework for agricultural trade, is most timely, and we urge all Member Countries to work towards the establishment of such an effective international framework.
N.V.K.K. WEREGODA (Sri Lanka\): As stated, price policy is a complex issue. However, the authors of this document in the FAO Secretariat should be congratulated on the comprehensive and informa‐tive manner in which the subject has been treated. It provides a good cross-section of information on key issues and options in price policies across the global canvas, ranging from developing countries to developed countries and countries of centrally planned economies.
I will now touch on a few issues on price policies in relation to Sri Lanka . We in Sri Lanka , when we talk of price policies, differentiate between those applicable to the tree crop sector - that is tea, rubber, etc. - and the food crop sector - that is, paddy and pulses, etc. This differentiation is necessary because of the difference in the type of holding patterns in these two sectors. As pointed out in this document, the main issue we have focused our attention on with regard to price policies is the need to maintain a reasonable balance between producer and consumer interests. In our price policies we have introduced input subsidies and ensured guaranteed prices for identified major products. Parastatal organizations have also been set up to ensure purchase of these products at the guaranteed prices. To look after consumer interests we have set up a small working group of top decision-makers that meets once a week to review the prices of key items in the consumer food basket. If the Committee observes any possibility of a rise in the price of any major items, the stocks retained by the parastatal organizations are released through the cooperative network to maintain a reasonable supply level and thereby reasonable prices. This arrangement has worked satisfactorily.
One of the problems we have encountered in giving correct signals to the producers through price policy is the difficulty in collecting information on quantities produced and also estimates on consumption demand patterns. This, I think, is an acute problem in countries with small farmers.
I think this is an area where FAO can be of assistance in improving information on yield estimates and extents under crops so that an accurate picture of quantities produced is available to the decision-maker and the farmers to make suitable adjustments in price policies and for the farmers to make adjustments in resource allocations. Similarly, estimates on consumption patterns, to have a fair idea of demand trends, are also necessary to formulate effective price policy.
Yet another problem we have encountered is the lack of adequate storage capacity, mainly for perish‐able food commodities. As a result, irrespective of price policies, during glut periods of production producers have been badly affected due to price depressions, and consumers have been affected during lean periods of supply.
We have also made use of price policies to attract local and foreign investment for certain crops, like sugar production. Here I must emphasize that we have really ignored the international market prices, because, as you know, they are very unrealistic in relation to cost of production. These prices are heavily subsidized. We have fixed an assured price for sugar produced with an undertaking to purchase by a parastatal organization. This price has been fixed to ensure a given rate
on investment. The price is higher than the imported price for this commodity, but the price to the consumer is subsidized on revenue derived by an import duty fixed on quantities imported to meet the difference between local produce and total demand.
D. KINZEL (Austria\) (original language German): First of all, I should like to thank the Secretariat for the presentation of this comprehensive survey and Mr Islam for the precise and clear introduction.
It is the central task of agriculture to cover a rising demand in food and raw materials in an expanding economy. Beyond that, agriculture must help to fulfill general economic targets and objectives by obtaining foreign exchange, or save foreign exchange by creating incomes for those active in agriculture. It makes another contribution towards national income, although the size and distribution of the income produced in agriculture is a very basic agrarian policy aspect in both industrial countries and developing countries.
There are substantial differences in the way in which this task is carried out in practice. In developed countries, for example, in my own country, Austria , the primary aim of agrarian policy is to secure and maintain an adequate level of income for those active in agriculture, in particular as compared to what is earned by other branches of the economy.
In most developing countries, on the other hand, the stress lies in other spheres. Agriculture there must first of all contribute to capital formation, provide a labour force and manpower and - and this is not the least important task - open markets for agricultural products. The knowledge that in many developing countries a large part of the agricultural sector is still on a subsistence basis necessarily slows down the general pace of economic development. Paradoxical as it may sound, the greater the progress of agriculture as a whole, the more disparities and discrepancies, particularly in terms of income, are felt within agriculture. It is clear that inherent disadvantages cannot be compensated for by producer prices for agrarian products. The opposite is true.
Price policy as an instrument for creating agricultural income, important as it is, will in fact strengthen the gaps and discrepancies in most cases. Income transfers such as the Bergbauern-zuschuss, the mountain farmer allowance in Austria , form a greater promotion of investment in the mountain areas and are therefore decisive tools in decreasing existing disparities.
The question of leveling income differences within agriculture must be a national task. Circumstances are different in every country and prescriptions valid in one country cannot always be adopted by or transferred to another. It is also interesting that the Council of European Communities in the mid-1970s enacted directives for agriculture in mountain areas and other backward or disadvantaged areas which also provide for transfer payments similar to the Austrian mountain farmers basic allowances. The advance in production in agriculture in industrialized states, as we know, has produced considerable surplus. In terms of marketing policy we are facing a particularly difficult task in Europe. Willynilly, the price will ultimately have to be oriented by the world market price for that volume of production that cannot be accommodated in world markets. Therefore, the European Community introduced guaranteed thresholds.
This raised the question of price splitting. It would be conceivable that the price as established for bread grains consumed within a country which, as before, has a guaranteed price, is higher than the world market level for export, so the quoted price would come into play oriented by the world market.' Production policy would depend on the market political situation. In price policy, where a good income is secured, the papers of the OECD would be of great importance as I see it. It is therefore desirable in this important sector that the work of FAO should be continually coordinated with that of other international organizations. Duplication must be avoided at least, not only for economic but for other reasons.
Mme L. OUEDRAOGO-GUIGMA (Burkina Faso): La délégation du Burkina Faso remercie le Secrétariat pour son exposé introductif sur la politique de prix agricoles. Dans cet exposé on a soulevé à juste titre les difficultés que le Secrétariat a rencontrées pour l'obtention de simples statistiques dans nos pays en développement. Nous pensons que ceci traduit aussi la complexité de l'étude qui nous est soumise. Aussi, la délégation du Burkina Faso aimerait attirer votre attention sur ce
que dit le texte en français aux par. 302 à 308, de la page 55 à la 56 sur l'harmonisation des prix entre les pays voisins. Nous sommes d'accord sur ce qui est dit, mais il faut avancer prudemment afin de laisser le temps aux pays en développement, surtout nous, pays sahéliens, de nous relever de plusieurs années de déficit céréalier.
Si nous prenons l'exemple du tableau 2.3 page 55, dans le cas du pays cité, le petit paysan a un double statut de producteur et de consommateur; aussi à la récolte il est heureux de voir une politique de prix qui l'avantage et préfère le pays le plus offrant même si ce dernier est un pays voisin. Trois mois après les récoltes, il devient plus consommateur et il n'hésitera pas à aller là où il doit pour se procurer les céréales. Chez nous, en Afrique sahélienne, les frontières sont très perméables pour plusieurs raisons, donc pour nous Burkinabe (ce qui est dit à la page 56, paragraphe 306, 9ème ligne) à savoir la proposition de solution pour empêcher la contrebande (c'est-à-dire l'intervention de l'armée ou de la police) ne nous paraît pas la meilleure formule. L'abolition de la contrebande est souhaitable. Cependant, elle se fera dans un ensemble de résolution globale du problème agricole. Une stratégie d'actions qui inciterait le paysan à produire plus, à garantir un prix rémunérateur et revaloriser la fonction d'agriculteur serait déjà un départ pour la réduction de la contrebande.
Chez nous la politique des prix se pose sous plusieurs angles et l'harmonisation ne pourra être réelle entre pays voisins que lorsque nous aurons résolu notre propre politique agricole dans nos pays qui garantirait la sécurité des paysans.
R.W.M. JOHNSON (New Zealand\): We have commented at some length on the first draft of the present document at the meeting of the Committee for Agriculture. We will try not to repeat our comments in this intervention, but set out further positive contributions to the analysis of this important topic. FAO is to be congratulated on the coverage of the document. It is comprehensive in its coverage of country experiences and brings original material forward for the attention of all relevant agencies. It is also useful because it brings together material not elsewhere available. The analysis of the data and policies of 37 developing countries contributes to the basic thrust of the document.
It is useful in its contrast of developing, developed and centrally-planned developing country experiences. The developed country section adds worthwhile information on the effects of protectionism through distorted price signals, aggravated price instability and market uncertainty. We have addressed these problems’ elsewhere in this Conference.
Perhaps the main benefit from the study will be the discussion of many situations which economic planners in all countries can study in the light of their own situation. In this context we recommend the identification of a number of practical aspects concerning the formulation and implementation of price policies for developing countries set out on pages 55 and 56 of the English text.
We note the references in paragraph 15 to the changed situation in New Zealand . We have moved recently to remove import and credit subsidies for agricultural producers in an effort to more closely relate the returns in the market place to producer decisions on output. Our experience in this endeavor should yield further valuable evidence of the effects of a less interventionist policy in a developed country.
In our intervention at COAG we drew attention to the lack of a rational theoretical structure behind the discussion of the topics presented in the paper. Some of this material can be found in the Annex to the paper, but it is still not presented as a general framework followed logically through the presentation. What I would like to suggest is that further analysis could be developed from the earlier work carried out by FAO on nominal rates of protection referred to in paragraphs 521 to 524 in the Annex, and also in Table 4.1 of the text.
The sections on price policy objectives for developing countries at paragraphs 19 to 21 and for developed countries at paragraphs 91 to 98 could be drawn together for such an approach. Very briefly, the approach would involve identifying appropriate agricultural price policies in a sequential order following the changes which take place as developing countries move from food sufficiency objectives to food efficiency objectives associated with the full comparative
advantage of international trade. At each stage, the position with regard to effective protection could be clarified and the assistance effects and price distorting effects analyzed for their welfare implications. The path taken will identify price policy objectives as food sufficiency, food security and food adequacy are achieved, through the increasing specialization of crops in regions, then the introduction of export crops and finally, the emergence of a price system for crops and other projects consistent with international specialization. This is but a brief outline that such an approach could follow but it does appear to us to add to the basic framework of the present approach as in the body of the document.
In this context, we would be interested to know what plans there are for further study and analyses for presentation to future Committee meetings and the Conference.
Srta. D. de VILLAMONTE (Panamá): Mi delegación desea en primer lugar agradecer a la Secretaría el valioso y equilibrado documento relativo a la política de precios agrícolas, objeto de nuestro estudio; dejando por nuestra parte su análisis detallado para los expertos de mi país.
Panamá confiere especial importancia a este tema, debido a la incidencia que tiene en el sector agrícola, especialmente en la producción y la seguridad alimentaria, que se ve afectada por el desplazamiento de las fuerzas de trabajo y el empeoramiento de los ingresos en el mismo. Dentro de la infraestructura panameña, funcionan ya desde hace muchos años: el Instituto de Mercado Agropecuario, la Oficina de Regulación de Precios y el Bando de Desarrollo Agropecuario, entidades que tratan de conciliar los intereses en el sector agrícola y cuyo fin es el de mejorar la economía nacional.
La crítica situación económica actual, que se ha venido recrudeciendo con el paso de los años, ha compelido a mi gobierno a adoptar una serie de medidas de regulación, tendientes a equilibrar los precios entre productores y consumidores, para evitar la explosión de problemas sociales y políticos.
Es por ello que concedemos especial importancia a las orientaciones contempladas en el presente estudio, tanto para los países desarrollados como para los países en desarrollo y para la FAO, las que a juicio de nuestra delegación constituyen elementos básicos que serán de gran utilidad para crear un marco general adecuado para el diálogo futuro en este aspecto.
Igualmente concedemos relevancia a las evoluciones en torno a las subvenciones de los insumos, acciones en las que Panamá tiene alguna experiencia.
Para terminar, Sr. Presidente, y dentro del marco internacional de la política de precios para los cultivos de exportación, estimaríamos oportuno que la Secretaría complementase este estudio con un análisis sobre la influencia de las empresas transnacionales, sobre la producción y comercio de productos básicos y la seguridad alimentaria.
M. GARIJO HIERRO (España): Deseo expresar la satisfacción que ha producido a esta delegación el examen del documento C 85/19, que nos ocupa, documento que nos parece ejemplar, tanto por su fino análisis como por la claridad de su exposición y que creemos puede suponer una gran ayuda para facilitar la evolución de las políticas de precios agrarios para los diferentes países.
Particular mérito encontramos en la identificación de los objetivos múltiples a los que sirven las políticas de precios y su caracterización, según el grado de desarrollo de los países que las aplican.
Precisamente en mi país puede constatarse la evolución habida en el tiempo, desde una época en que eran preponderantes los objetivos más propios de los países y economías rurales cuando nuestra economía era de fuerte componente rural, desde hace varias décadas, hasta el tiempo presente, en que los objetivos de nuestra política de precios son más acordes con una economía industrializada
WU TIANXI (China) (original language Chinese): China is now undertaking a price policy reform. Therefore, we are very interested in document C 85/19. We feel that the recommendations contained in the document are very useful to us. We think that a price policy is an important means for the development of commercial agriculture. When some developing countries were embarking on com‐mercial development of agriculture, FAO promptly raised the issue of an agricultural price policy and subsequently carried out many studies and presented many valuable suggestions. We wish to commend the Secretariat for its efforts in this connection. I should now like to make a few comments on some of the issues contained in this document.
Firstly, in the process of developing an agricultural commodity economy, price plays an important role in stimulating the growth of production, regulating supply and demand and assessing the value of commodities. However, in view of the current needs of most developing countries, enhancement of production should still be the first and foremost aim of the adjustment of price policies. A rational agricultural price policy should be designed to encourage producers to expand production with modern inputs, enabling them to obtain better income from the development without gravely affecting the interest of the consumers.
Secondly, farm production is strongly influenced by seasonal factors. Many products are difficult to store. Besides, they are produced in scattered locations and vary in quality. Bearing in mind all these characteristics of farm production, we should implement such producers' prices as are flexible, differing with seasons, regions and qualities, to encourage the development of production within the context of specific local conditions and continually improving quality of products. At the same time, because of the change in production costs and supply and demand at the market, price fluctuations for agricultural commodities within certain limits are normal.
Thirdly, stability should be the most essential feature of consumer prices. Retail prices for food grains, which are a primary necessity of people's livelihood, especially should be kept stable to the greatest possible extent. The contradiction between the stimulation in the growth of production and the maintenance of relatively stable consumer prices can be solved through government intervention by providing the necessary subsidies to consumers, by providing input to producers at subsidized prices, or by selling the products at parity prices through state or Para-state marketing systems. Obviously, all these interventions must be practiced within the financial means of the state.
Fourthly, it is necessary to emphasize the important role of price management. A sound price policy can play its positive role only when it is coupled with a sound management system. For this reason, attention should be given to the establishment of a rational marketing system and to the improvement of mechanisms responsible for designing agricultural prices, monitoring, and analyzing prices and exchanging relevant information on prices, so as to address problems which crop up in the implementation of price policies promptly.
Fifthly, in theory domestic prices should harmonize with international prices. However, there are constraints in practice. Therefore, it is undesirable to over-emphasize uniformity at present. In case the price differences between neighboring countries should affect mutual production and trade, they could be settled through negotiations in accordance with the principles of equality, mutual benefit and the exchange of equal values.
Sixthly, in 'formulating and implementing price policies, stress should be laid on the needs and capabilities of individual countries. The relationship between the prices of agricultural products and those of other commodities should be handled in a proper way. We sincerely hope that FAO will play its unique role in this field and organize, where appropriate, exchanges of experience in the future.
We have noted that the document contained some information about China. With your indulgence, Mr Chairman, I should like to make a few additional remarks and explanations.
In the past the state followed the system of unified purchase at fixed prices for major agricultural products, and rationed supply and marketing at parity prices. In the days when self-contained agriculture could not provide abundant products, this practice did play a useful role in guaranteeing the supply of food and clothing for urban and rural people. Nevertheless, this system also had its defects. For instance, the most prominent was that price differentiation between the industrial product and the agricultural products was irrational, with the prices for the latter being relatively too low. The marketing prices for major agricultural and side-line products were lower than the state purchasing prices. As a result, the state had to bear the heavy financial burden of providing subsidies. Besides, there was no appropriate price differentiation among the same commodities with different qualities and of different seasons, which could not stimulate production. Now the supply of agricultural products is adequate, the rural economy is brisk and the shift towards commercial agriculture is fast. Such a situation propels us to readjust the existing agricultural price policy.
Beginning this year, the government introduced reforms in the price system under the guidance of the principle of "relaxing control in prices while readjusting them and advancing in small steps". The ultimate objective is to adjust the irrational price differentiation according to the principle of exchange of equal values and the changing relations between supply and demand, and to ensure that the real income of the urban and rural consumers will not be affected as a result of the price adjustment. At the same time, the financial means of the state as well as the capability of the consumers were taken into account. We followed the following approaches in the current agricultural price reform: (1) Rationally adjusting the purchasing price of grain and cotton, abolishing unifield procurement and practicing the system of purchase on the basis of contracts. Farmers are allowed to sell grain and cotton at free markets after fulfilling their procurement quoat under contract. (2) Assigned purchase of meat, aquatic products, timber and vegetables will be abolished in accordance with prevalent circumstances and all the products can be sold at markets. Prices can be regulated according to supply and demand, and differ with qualities. (3) Properly widening the price differentiation of agricultural commodities of different qualities, regions and seasons. (4) Protecting consumers' interests. For example, after de-controlling the selling prices of meat, the state provided a fixed amount of subsidies to urban consumers. (5) Developing multi-channel circulation by the state, collective and individual, and encouraging and helping farmers to enter circulation. (6) Strengthening the management of prices and markets.
The reform of rural circulation in China has just started and, therefore, we have not accumulated much experience in this regard. It is our sincere hope that through the deliberations of this Commission, we shall be able to exchange information with, and learn from, the experience of other delegations in a common endeavour to improve our work.
K. SHIOZAWA (Japan): To begin with I would like to appreciate the effort made by the Secretariat in carrying out a difficult study on agricultural price policies. My delegation recognizes the importance of the economic aspect of the prices policies as well as the technical aspects for agricultural and rural developments. It has been stressed that a proper price policy is indispensible for the programme of food deficit developing countries at various international fora, especially the World Food Council.
Given the difficult food situation in many developing countries, I think it is important to provide farmers with more incentives for increasing their food production, while supplying food with reasonable prices to CORsumers. From this viewpoint, it is very meaningful to examine the development of agricultural price policies in the world. The Secretariat analyzed various aspects concerning the formulation and implementation of agricultural price policy in developing countries and a quick check list for formulating and carrying out price policy was presented. I believe that this list is quite comprehensive and practical, and that it will be of great help as a useful guideline when developing-countries try to implement an adequate price policy. One of the problems which many developing countries may often encounter in improving their price policy is the shortage of financial resources. In this connection, my Government, providing bilateral food aid and farm-inputs to the developing countries, encourages them to reserve the cash accrued from sales of the food and farm-inputs for the purpose of agricultural development in their countries. Therefore, we hope that the recipient countries, consulting with my Government, effectively use the reserved fund for the implementation of their price policy.
I will next outline some of my views on price levels and protection of developed countries. Table IV 1.1 and Table IV 1.2 of the document refer to the indicators of support levels. I am convinced that the quantitative analysis based on producer support ratios, or producer subsidy equivalents has limitations as a tool of international comparison because it does not reflect the different agricultural situation in each country. Firstly, Table IV 1.1 and Table IV 1.2 were prepared by a calculation based upon a number of hypothetical assumptions.
Secondly, they do not properly reflect the agricultural characteristics of each country, such as the difference between food exporting countries and food importing countries with many small-scale farmers and with a low self-sufficiency ratio in food supplies.
Thirdly, there are other technical problems. International markets are influenced by the various measures such as export subsidies. Prices are greatly affected by the changing exchange rates and it is very difficult to take the difference of the quality into account.
In this regard, my delegation is of the opinion that this document should be restricted only for our use.
Finally, I would like to make a brief comment on paragraph 394 on the protection measures provided to Japanese farmers. My Government so far has implemented a series of external economic measures to improve the market access for the foreign agricultural products. Due to the increase in the imports, Japan's food self-sufficiency ratio has been decreasing year by year, and is now down to one of the lowest levels in the world. We now depend upon imported foods for about half of our food supply on the calorie basis. It is, therefore, felt virtually necessary by our people to maintain the domestic agricultural production at least at the current level, considering the economic and social importance of agriculture and its significant role not only in supplying food but also in enriching the environment. The present support measures are limited to the minimun necessities for Japan's agricultural policy, regional development policy and food security.
V. MOE (Trinidad and Tobago): The Trinidad and Tobago delegation would like to congratulate Professor Islam on his lucid presentation of this important agenda item, which is particularly relevant to a small open island economy such as that of Trinidad and Tobago at a time when we are attempting to encourage national agricultural development within the framework of a regional common market, CARICOM. In our case, the problem is further aggravated by two elements: firstly, the substantial disparity in wage levels and the deteriorating terms of trade between agriculture and the rest of the economy within the national context, and secondly, the differences in wage and income levels between ourselves and our partners in CARICOM, and all open island economies much smaller even than ourselves.
In this situation, regional and pan-territorial pricing, as the FAO study points out, assumes great importance. We are, indeed, aware of the importance of working towards similar price structures within the region.
Similarly, we are aware of the importance of and the need for an integrated, coherent, overall pricing policy such that the price signal is not offset by over-valued exchange rates or disadvantageous interest rates and fiscal policies, inconsistent with agricultural development policy. The shortcomings of excessive recourse to input subsidization are also borne out by our own experiences in the recent past.
We strongly endorse the finding that there has been some lack of appreciation of the role of adequate statistical data in the formulation and monitoring of price policies. We are well aware of the need for regional household surveys of income and consumption if we are to have a reasonably accurate estimate of income and price elasticities for the agricultural commodities, the production of which we wish to influence. This is why, at the last Council meeting in June this year, we requested FAO's advice and technical support in the elaboration of a price and marketing policy and strategy that would give a new impetus to our domestic food production and widen the productive base in our agriculture. We are therefore most interested to note the regional initiatives in this area in Asia and West Africa. We feel very strongly the need for, and usefulness of, such an undertaking in the Caribbean Region, and request that immediate and urgent consideration be given to the form, timing and modality of a regional workshop in this domain.
T. ISKIT (Turkey): I would like to start by expressing our thanks to the Director-General for his initiative of undertaking a study on agricultural price policies which are widely implemented by a large number of countries, and have great impact on the performance of agriculture in the world. We are happy to see the result of this initiative in the form of the excellent and comprehensive document provided to us. Let me also commend Professor Islam for his lucid introduction to this subject, which, indeed, helped us to grasp better the major issues related to agricultural price policies. We are grateful for the opportunity to discuss at the Conference the main findings of the study and believe that our deliberations will further increase the awareness among us regarding the importance of agricultural price policies.
Turkey has been implementing price policies in agriculture since the early 1930s with the primary objective of providing incentives to farmers to increase the productivity of arable land within a suitable production structure. The encouragement of farmers in this way has greatly contributed to the increased greater self-sufficiency that we have attained in most basic commodities. Let me stress, however, that these improvements and high level of productivity were not free of basic economic problems. Subsidies associated with implementing Drice and input policies in agriculture brought about heavy burdens to the economy. The losses incurred by the state economic enterprises administering support activities reached unbearable levels. Furthermore, prices higher than the world prices caused both inflationary pressure on the economy and inability of the surplus product to compete in the international market. Since 1980, however, Turkey has revised its subsidy programmes in the light of the improved domestic production levels and the state of the economy. The basic policy guiding support pricing is new export promotion rather than import substitution.
We have drawn some lessons from our experience in implementing price support programmes for agriculture. Now I would like to make some comments on the main issues touched upon by the paper in the light of our experience.
We agree to the view referred to in paragraph 19. Price policies always have multiple objectives. In fact, political and social variables play an important role in domestic price policies. There is at least one clear-cut conclusion that price policies are not and cannot be designed with pure economic variables. However, we believe that a compromise can be reached within economic, political and social objectives and constraints.
The coverage of commodities to be supported, the degree of support and the timing of price announcements are also major points to consider in agricultural policy implementations. It is certain that these commodities which have inelastic demand should be included in the commodity package of the support programme. Let me, however, emphasize that we should never waste our resources for the sake of self-sufficiency in too many crops. Whenever possible, the comparative advantages in production should be duly taken into account for better resource allocation through price policies.
The degree of support is also important, because there can be no downward adjustment, but almost always escalation of prices which may soon reach unbearable levels.
In the paper, attention is drawn to the desirability of announcing prices in good time to influence production decisions of farmers. As I mentioned before, we consider this aspect of support prices very important. In practice, however, it is rather difficult to announce prices prior to planting seasons in the absence of adequate information to determine the appropriate price level. In view of this fact, we are prepared to give our full support to the increased FAO assistance to developing countries in improving their data collection systems.
Mr Chairman, as the Director-General clearly points out in his foreword to the paper, there is no universal formula which can be adopted by all countries in the design and implementation of agricultural price policies. Having said this, I would once again emphasize our belief that sharing experiences among countries will greatly contribute to the implementation of better price policies in agriculture. With this view in mind, we think that some follow-up activities to this study, for example in the form of regional workshops, are needed in the years ahead. We also believe that some country-specific case studies will also help verify some of the generalizations made in the paper on this complex issue.
H. BAR-SHAI (Israel\): Referring to the excellent review in Document C 85/19, I would like to note a few points from the Israeli angle. As mentioned before, the matter of price policy is connected with the item of agricultural adjustment which was discussed yesterday during the discussions on protectionism.
As a country develops, eventually its dependence on foreign trade grows. One of the main targets in the economic recovery programme of my country is to increase earnings from export trade, thus improving our balance of trade, as well as strengthening our own production facilities. Unfortunately, protectionism, through intervention, price and similar policies, continues to be a major obstacle in the international agricultural and agriculturally based products, as we know from our own experience as well as from the documents which have been presented before us by the FAO.
An example of this is that in some exporting countries prices for raw and semi-finished foods are determined through subsidies, refunds, export taxes, etc., so that they are more expensive than the finished product itself. I think that this situation of differential pricing should be changed so as to enable other countries to develop from their own stage of food processing according to their possibilities and specializations on an economic basis. This should be part of a general call from this Conference - and here I join my colleague from the EEC - to Member Nations and to the GATT framework to progress beyond preparatory activities towards a new, fruitful round of multilateral trade negotiations aiming at further liberalization, as well as on easing the present impediments to international trade in agricultural products.
I would like to add here with your permission that last year Israel had removed the requirements for import licenses for sugar and tea from most of supply sources. Imports of other products like rice, dried fruits, etc., were also liberalized a few years ago. All this was done within a long-term process of liberalization of Israel's foreign trade in agricultural products.
I do not delude myself that this extensive survey will solve all the problems involved in the vast -complex of internal and external agricultural areas of activity. I do not suppose that this is the final form of this survey, and I do not necessarily subscribe to all its conclusions and suggestions. But I believe, from our own experience, that an agricultural price policy, properly and justly applied, is a strong necessity for the development of a sound agricultural production system. We know it is difficult to achieve. We know all the problems, all the pressures. But the absolute price of a commodity as well as its relative price to substitute, may be a matter of to be or not to be to the farmer, with long-term implications for consumers and for nations. Agriculture means to us in Israel, and surely to everybody in the world, much more than an economical source of income. May I suggest, then, that this review become the basis for an updated handbook which may assist decision-makers in many countries in their agricultural price policy solutions. In accordance with our tradition in Israel, we are ready to help other nations in various ways in this respect to form their own policies and to arrive at a sounder agricultural policy.
R. PRESTIEN (Federal Republic of Germany) (original language German): The question whether farmers in developing countries receive adequate prices for their products that also constitute an incentive for producing more has been of interest to us for a long time. We have expressed this interest in FAO in past years repeatedly, and we are satisfied to note that this complex subject has now been taken up in determining the impact on consumers and has already been discussed in 1984 at the Regional Conferences. For the preparation of the summary study now before us on the complicated agricultural price policies we can only thank the Secretariat. In preparing this document the Secretariat has met the acute need for a compilation of objective statistical data and for their evaluation as a factual basis for decisions in developing national and regional strategies for the formulation of agricultural price policies. We would have preferred, however, for this study to have covered more than just 34 countries. It would have substantially increased the representation of this study. We believe that the authors of this study rightly stress the immediate importance of agricultural price policies in the development of agricultural production and in the supply of consumers with food. To that extent the analysis in Section II on the importance of mutual relations in developing countries between various parameters of price policy and their influence on production and marketing of agricultural products seems particularly useful. Here and also in the technical in-depth considerations in the appendices it becomes clear, inter alia, how difficult it is to balance the optimum price relations for the producer of foodstuffs in domestic consumption and for the producer who provides goods for export .The proposals for price policy formulation contained in the Box
in paragraph 329 are particularly valuable in this context. The key characteristics of global agricultural price movements between 1969 and 1983, as shown in paragraph 515, constitute the statistical background for what is stated in paragraphs 523 and 527. They show that the productivity of agricultural production in developing countries is often penalized by "negative protection" rather than favored by "positive protection". The incomes of farmers, and thus the incentives to produce more of the urgently needed foodstuffs, are obviously determined rather by national agricultural policy decisions, and world market prices play only a minor role in that context. My delegation, on the other hand, believes that section 4 on the description of the price policy of developed countries, the level of prices and the protection level is too broad in this connection, and charged with as yet unrecognized theoretical parameters. They do not sufficiently take into account the fact that these countries, in formulating their agricultural price policy, are not only subject to the constraints of foreign trade policy, but also to societal, economic and social policy constraints. This of course also applies to the relevant paragraphs in the summary that precedes the study. These considerations, in the light of what is said in paragraphs 515 to 527, provide in our opinion no reliable basis for assessing their effects on agricultural price and production policies of the countries in the developing process.
Also, the conclusions from studies on trade liberalization in paragraphs 429 to 439 can only be seen in a very relative light because of their largely hypothetical nature. This does not in any way belittle the very scrupulous preparation, and we would endorse what is said in paragraph 442, that in multilateral trade relations, what helps developing countries most is to have as few barriers as possible. Our trade balance shows, as a result of this conduct and policy, rising benefits, particularly for developing countries.
Here I should like to refer to the relevant detailed statement of my delegation on topic 8.
Let me say in conclusion that, on the whole, the result of this study encourages us to welcome the principles formulated for this sector as outlined as the future scope of FAO at the end of part I, paras. 99 to 103. Here the offer of the Secretariat to make available to individual countries the experience and instrumentarium of the Organization in formulating their individual agricultural price policies is considered to be very positive indeed by my delegation. The prerequisite for getting increasingly reliable answers for the solution of problems is the continued and more detailed collection and processing of data as proposed by the Secretariat for the further improvement of its statistical area of work that we consider extremely valuable.
KYO-EUN KIM (Republic of Korea): Firstly, my delegation would like to express heartful thanks to the FAO Secretariat for the excellent study on agricultural price policies. In my delegation's opinion, this study report, even though it was focused mainly on policies of developing countries, will be of great help to all Member Nations in formulating and applying their price policies.
Prices by themselves, as mentioned in paragraph 49 on page 7 of document C 85/19, may still not be enough to bring about a sustained annual growth rate of approximately 4 percent in agricultural output which most developing countries need to achieve. However, price policies of the developed countries, in particular food exporting countries, strongly influence not only the agricultural performance and the consumers' well-being of their own countries but also those of other countries. Furthermore, they can also, in certain circumstances, distort international trade, marketing opportunities and agricultural development of the developing countries. In this regard, I fully agree with the views which are presented in paragraph 40 on page 5 of the above mentioned document, as follows. Global benefit of comparative advantage cannot be fully gained under all circumstances unless the displaced resources can be used efficiently elsewhere. If not, it would lead to social and political instability. This important fact must be taken into full account as we change or modify agricultural price policies.
In this connection, I should like to touch briefly upon my Government's agricultural price policy. The main objective of the present agricultural price policy in my country is to maintain agricultural prices at a reasonable level for the consumers' benefit and at the same time high enough to increase farm income. The emphasis, however, has been shifting gradually from farm income support to consumer price stabilization since the early 1980s. Such a policy modification was made in order to lessen the financial costs of agricultural price policies.
Since the beginning of the 1970s, my Government has given a high priority to the production incentive and income support function of price policy and has adopted a dual price scheme for basic foods, rice and barley. However, this scheme generated a huge burden òf financial compensation. Therefore, policy readjustment has inevitably been made in order to alleviate the financial costs. At the same time, numerous other measures have been expanded or employed. Expansion of the buffer stocks scheme, amplification of operation and mobilization of price stabilization fund, future farmers' support programmes, farmers' new income source development projects, and production control/coordination programmes have been implemented with great emphasis.
Due to the small size of farming, however, the effects of those policy measures are very limited. Therefore, it is still a difficult task for my Government to decide the level of producer price supports. Price support levels have been so far decided on the basis of an integrated assessment of various criteria such as cost of production, parity prices, income disparity between farm and non-farm sectors, market prospects and international prices, etc.
The final decision, however, has been frequently influenced strongly by political considerations of social equity and stabilization. Choosing levels of support prices has become in recent years more of a political issue than one of economics due to consumers' demands for lower prices, as well as the reinforced demand of the developed countries for more liberalization of agricultural imports.
In this respect, I hope FAO would undertake an in-depth study on the net balance of socio-economic impacts of both agricultural free trade and protectionism on both importing and exporting countries of agricultural products.
M. NIETO LARA (Cuba): Por ser la primera ocasión, Sr. Presidente, en que hago uso de la palabra en esta Comisión, le ruego me permita felicitarlo por su elección como Vicepresidente y, asimismo, le pido que transmita mi beneplácito al resto de la Mesa elegida para dirigir los debates que nos ocupan.
Al profesor Islam, quien magistralmente ha presentado el tema, le reitero nuestra felicitación por su claridad permanente a que nos tiene acostumbrados.
Señor Presidente, el tema de los precios agrícolas y las políticas que se siguen con respecto a los mismos se enmarca perfectamente dentro de la problemática general de los problemas de la agricultura en la generalidad de los países. Por constituir un asunto tan sensitivo, celebramos y respaldamos la decisión del Director General para que este tema fuera examinado en las Conferencias Regionales, en el Comité de Agricultura y finalmente en esta Conferencia. Creo, sin embargo, que los problemas planteados no quedaron suficientemente claros y resueltos dada la diversidad de matices y. modalidades que adoptan las políticas de precios en los diferentes países y regiones. Por esta razón deseamos proponer que se otorgue por parte de la FAO el adecuado seguimiento sobre las conclusiones de esta Conferencia y se mantenga una asistencia sistemática de la Organización a los países en esta materia.
El problema de los precios agrícolas, Sr. Presidente, en nuestra opinión, debe examinarse en dos campos: en el comercio exterior y en el mercado interno.
En el comercio exterior de los productos agrícolas, lejos de observarse resultados y avances positivos, se incrementan las medidas proteccionistas de los países desarrollados de economía y de mercado. Estos agravan el intercambio desigual y hacencada vez más angustiosa la situación de nuestros países, cuyos ingresos por exportación disminuyen ostensiblemente, mientras crecen desmesuradamente los precios de los productos que importamos, entre ellos los insumos agrícolas, tales como maquinaria, fertilizantes, pesticidas y otros. Al mismo tiempo, aumenta en forma alarmante las importaciones de alimentos con destino a los países subdesarrollados.
En consecuencia, las actuales políticas de precios de los productos agrícolas en el comercio internacional tienen que ser examinadas como un producto del injusto orden económico internacional imperante y entendemos que para encontrar soluciones válidas es requisito indispensable el establecimiento de un nuevo orden económico internacional.
En lo relativo a las políticas de precios agrícolas al interior de los países éstas se formulan en ocasiones sin tener en cuenta que los precios constituyen un vehículo que interactúa entre el productor y el consumidor. Un examen técnico del problema pone de manifiesto que inadecuadas políticas de precios pueden frenar el efecto positivo de estímulo al consumo de productos locales y la movilización de los productores, sobre todo de los pequeños campesinos.
Es necesario revertir esta tendencia y hacer que.nuestras economías en el marco interno se estimulen y recuperen.
La aplicación de adecuadas políticas de precios, Sr. Presidente, es un instrumento de mucha fuerza para actuar en favor del desarrollo de la economía agrícola, que es la principal fuente de ingresos para la mayoría de los países subdesarrollados que dependemos en lo fundamental de la agricultura.
En mi país los precios agrícolas se han convertido en un instrumento altamente valioso para estimular y planificar el desarrollo de la producción agrícola. Específicamente hemos tomado como base de formulación de precios, los costos de producción; de manera que los productores conozcan lo que les cuesta producir y cuántos serán sus ingresos, determinando así una orientación clara de los mismos hacia donde inclinarán sus esfuerzos.
Desde luego que no todos los países subdesarrollados tenemos iguales condiciones, pero reconocemos que el estudio de los costos es un elemento que técnicamente no debe dejarse de lado.
Mi delegación entiende que un de los principales problemas que afectan al adecuado funcionamiento de los precios en muchos países es la actuación de los intermediarios. Es la práctica común que los intermediarios entre los productores agrícolas y los consumidores resulten los principales beneficiarios de los esfuerzos de los productores. Por ello consideramos que este aspecto debe ser examinado con suma atención.
Para terminar, Sr. Presidente, debo señalar que el documento C 85/19 es un gran esfuerzo de la Secretaría, equilibradamente formulado y con una valiosa información y por ello merece nuestra felicitación, no sin antes exhortarle a continuar trabajando en esta dirección para hacer que cada día avancemos más en la aplicación de precios justos para nuestra agricultura.
Ms. P. WEST (United Kingdom): First of all we, too, would like to congratulate the Secretariat on the production of a most valuable report. We believe that a comparative study such as this is an entirely appropriate exercise for FAO to undertake, and hope that the Organization will continue to play an important role in the collection and exchange of information on price policies.
However, it is not clear what manpower and financial resources have been employed in the preparation of this report. We would welcome information on this point in the future so that cost-effectiveness can be judged.
We also wonder whether the country specific nature of price policies and the importance of political factors mean that the envisaged regional workshops may be limited in scope, and whether efforts might not be better spent in assessing individual countries as is, of course, proposed in paragraph 102, so that the political complexities can be fully considered and the policies formulated within these constraints.
But finally, we` would like to pledge our support for the thoughts and suggestions set out in the section on future policy suggestions at paragraphs 52 to 89.
M. RYAN (Australia): I would like to make a few brief comments on the document, particularly in regard to that section dealing with developed market economy countries.
First of all, we agree wholly with the comment at paragraph 93 of the paper that: "It is unquestionably desirable to reduce developed country protection which, through distorting prices and aggravating price stability and uncertainty, has serious global consequences". The situation has arisen as a direct result of agricultural and trading policies which prevent farmers from receiving signals from the market place. In setting its own policies in place, Australia recognizes that producers require some safeguards against sudden short-term downturn: ininternational agricultural commodity prices. However, they are not insulated against longer-term trends in the market place, and are forced to make economic decisions in the light of market realities.
As we see it, this is only as it should be if we are to achieve a rational allocation of resources not only in the national agricultural sector, but in the general economy. Secondly, the question of protectionism and pricing policy are intimately linked. Domestic production reduces demand through higher domestic prices and retards economic growth, but its international consequences are even more severe in residual world markets. All efficient producing and exporting countries, both developed and developing, suffer alike. As a direct consequence, because of the policies adopted and pursued by a number of developed countries, many efficient producing developing countries are greatly inhibited in carrying through agricultural and trade policies which will ensure food security and sustained economic growth.
Finally, I would like to express our agreement with the comment by Dr Islam earlier today when he expressed doubts as to the validity of using the level of imports of agricultural commodities as a direct measure of the level of protectionism maintaining in a particular country or group of countries. It is our view that this is a particularly crude and unsophisticated and, might I say, completely misleading means of assessing the situation. The situation is much more complex and an analysis needs to be made on a commodity-by-commodity basis which includes the sources of specific products and the level at which price supports and other forms of assistance are set in comparison with world market levels.
J.E. ROSS (United States of America): The United States has been closely following the preparatory work leading to the price policy document before us today, the expert consultations and discussions at regional conferences, and the review of the interim report at COAG last March. In our view, the result is an outstanding document which has integrated numerous recommendations into a meaningful global study. Having thoroughly reviewed this study, the United States commends Dr Islam and his staff for preparing a comprehensive digest which, if proper steps are taken, will help developing countries to formulate more effective pricing policies.
No one here needs to be reminded that price policies are but one component of a frequently complex policy network designed to improve the performance of the agricultural sector. Both developed and developing countries need to ensure that price policies are consistent with the entire array of policies relating to agriculture. We believe that countries should adopt policies which minimize government intervention in the price formation and distribution system. This is a policy our own government is trying to follow, although we all know that complete reliance on market forces is sometimes difficult to achieve.
To reiterate, a point made by my delegation during deliberations on Agenda Item 8, the United States is committed to dismantling trade barriers so that developed and developing countries alike can trade in world markets without resorting to subsidies. We are also working to reduce artificially high domestic support prices on certain commodities in order to bring our agricultural market in line with market realities.
A policy of minimizing government intervention in pricing and distribution using market forces to establish realistic prices and allocations, and avoiding public sector displacement or pre-emption of private firms in the distribution of goods will not only reduce the strain of subsidies on developing country budgets, but will allocate resources more efficiently than under the various controls which have been instituted in many developing countries. This implies moving away from panterritorial pricing policies, whenever feasible, which discourage private sector involvement in the marketing system. Although pan-territorial pricing policies may be based on legitimate equity considerations, they generally impose too great a financial burden on developing countries
to absorb, given the distorting effects they have on the normal operations of commodity markets. Commodity markets should be allowed to function to reflect the real economic costs of transportation and storage, although the difficulties in administering regional prices are not to be taken lightly.
The United States generally supports policies which reflect the realities of the market place, including such factors as cost, supply, and demand. This is likely to have a salutary effect on agricultural production in those countries. The United States also recognizes that policies which result in higher food prices can create hardships for consumers operating near the margin of existence. In these cases, special programmes may need to be implemented to protect those consumers at risk. These programmes should be designed so that they are targetted more effectively to the truly needy, but the difficulty in doing this is not an easy task, as was stated by our colleague from India.
The United States supports the conclusions concerning the adverse effects of over-valuing exchange rates. Frequently, exchange rates are determined without due consideration to the implications for the agricultural sector. Over-valued exchange rates impose substantial disincentives on agricultural export production and strengthen price competition from imports. We also concur with the study, is recommendations, which have already been supported by the delegation of Norway and others, that domestic agricultural prices should not be linked too closely to international prices
The United States commends the Secretariat for expanding the empirical evidence component of the study. By providing a unique blend of price policy theory supported by empirical evidence, it recognized the complex inter-relationships of many political and economic interests. The study appropriately concludes that despite numerous differences between economic and political philosophies, there are actions which developing countries can take, in terms of policy adjustments, to improve their agricultural performance. The study describes several country initiatives that have proved to be successful. While we fully acknowledge that developed country actions are important and can significantly influence what happens in developing countries, we reject any notion that developing countries are powerless to influence their own destiny.
In this regard, we strongly encourage FAO to proceed with the recommendations for follow-up actions, as described in paragraphs 99 to 103. The United States firmly believes that FAO's time and effort in preparing this very lengthy and complex document will only have a minimal impact unless FAO's expertise in this area is further utilized. We also question the value of the need to incorporate the suggestions, most of which are very useful, in order to prepare an even more voluminous study. We encourage FAO to work with individual countries to develop timely price commodity collection and processing systems, to examine existing price policies and make recommendations for improvements, and to conduct workshops to promote information exchange among neighbouring countries.
In this connection, the United States Agency for International Development is cooperating with FAO by co-sponsoring two workshops of African agricultural policy analysts and planners in late 1986, as a step towards building African policy analysis capacity.
Finally, the United State proposes that FAO keep us informed - perhaps through a report at the next COAG and/or next Conference - on what impact the study and follow-up actions have had in modifying "price policies. Such a report could prove useful in giving guidance for all of us as to what approaches work best and how future economic cooperation can be enhanced.
G. FRADIN (France): Je voudrais tout d'abord m'intéresser rapidement aux problèmes qui se posent plus spécifiquement au niveau national en matière de politique de prix agricoles et aborder ensuite les problèmes internationaux.
S'agissant des questions de formulation et d'exécution des politiques de prix agricoles, ma délégation est heureuse de renouveler ses félicitations au Secrétariat pour la qualité de l'étude qui nous est présentée, tant pour sa précision que pour la pertinence des nombreux points soulignés par M. Nurul Islam dans son introduction.
Je rappelle brièvement tout l'intérêt déjà exprimé lors de nos précédents débats que nous portons à des questions telles que l'organisation des marchés nationaux, la souplesse des mécanismes spéculateurs et des organismes de gestion, le lien et la nécessaire cohérence avec les autres secteurs économiques et bien entendu le soutien des prix à la production tant en ce qui concerne leur niveau que leur stabilité.
J'aimerais insister sur ce dernier point en attirant votre attention sur le paragraphe 47 du document qui signale que l'élasticité de la production par rapport au prix n'est que de 0,5 donc relativement faible; ce qui signifie que pour avoir un effet sensible et soutenu sur la production, le relèvement des prix risque d'être insupportable pour l'économie. Je crois qu'il faut noter ici que l'élasticité ainsi indiquée n'est bien entendu qu'une moyenne et qu'elle peut sensiblement varier, notamment en fonction du type d'exploitation considéré.
Pour certaines exploitations disposant de ressources monétaires, cette élasticité sera sensiblement supérieure. Les exploitations apporteront donc une réponse significative à une mesure de soutien des prix, laquelle aura pour conséquence une amélioration structurelle sensible même si l'effet sur la production reste globalement modéré.
Je pense par ailleurs qu'il convient de rappeler que le soutien des prix à la production est un moyen efficace d'accumuler du capital au niveau de l'exploitation et par conséquent de favoriser les investissements par les agriculteurs eux-mêmes.
J'ai souligné tout à l'heure, le lien nécessaire avec d'autres secteurs de l'économie. Il serait bon àcet égard que dans une telle étude soient au moins signalés les intérêts d'une politique des revenus des populations urbaines ce qui nous paraît un complément indispensable à la politique de développement agricole.
Enfin et pour en finir sur ce chapitre, je voudrais attirer votre attention sur le paradoxe qu'il y a à préconiser des aides alimentaires plus importantes pour permettre aux Etats de mettre en place un double système de prix à la consommation et à la production, paradoxe difficile à lever sans doute mais qui doit certainement prêter à réflexion plus ample.
En ce qui concerne l'aspect international des politiques de prix agricoles, le document a été sensiblement enrichi depuis notre précédent débat et ma délégation n'a malheureusement pas les mêmes motifs de satisfaction en ce qui concerne la façon dont est abordée cette question.
L'idée maîtresse que défend le document est que la majorité des problèmes auxquels se trouvent confrontés la communauté internationale et principalement les pays en développement résulte des distorsions apportées dans les échanges commerciaux, et fait de la correction de ces distorsions un instrument privilégié du rétablissement des équilibres économiques internes.
Cette approche ne nous paraît pas adaptée aux problèmes que nous avons à traiter, celui du développement agricole et celui de la sécurité alimentaire.
Elle ne nous paraît pas adaptée d'abord parce qu'elle omet d'autres éléments tout aussi essentiels et en particulier les aléas du système monétaire international et notamment les fluctuations du dollar. Elle ne nous paraît pas adaptée, ensuite, parce que ce discours purement commercial, qui fait des mécanismes internationaux l'élément central du maintien des équilibres économiques nationaux, vient s'opposer à la souveraineté des Etats et àla maîtrise effective des moyens à leur disposition pour assurer leur stabilité économique.
Je rappelle à cet égard les paroles fermes prononcées par le Président de la République du Pérou lors de la Conférence Mc Dougall qui a précédé nos travaux, affirmant son droit de fixer pour son pays un programme de transformation économique sans interventions extérieures, et en n'ouvrant pas le marché péruvien selon les diktats d'un libéralisme absolu.
Cette approche conduit les rédacteurs à dénoncer le protectionnisme au paragraphe 37, en particulier comme source principale de la distorsion des échanges. Quoique très souvent répétée dans cette enceinte, cette affirmation ne me paraît pas totalement pertinente.
En premier lieu, elle est globalement inexacte. Je note d'ailleurs que le sentiment du Secrétariat lui-même est partagé à son égard. Je n'en veux pour preuve que ce qui est décrit dans le document 85/13 relatif au protectionnisme, que nous avons examiné lors du dernier Comité des produits. Dans ce document, les paragraphes 3 à 6 rappellent qu'au cours des vingt dernières années le commerce mondial des produits agricoles a cru en moyenne de 3,9 pour cent par an, et en expliquent clairement les raisons.
Le paragraphe 6 conclut même que l'accroissement de l'entité commerciale ne correspond pas nécessairement à un recul du protectionnisme; pour une part, c'est même le contraire.
En second lieu, l'analyse qui sous-tend cette affirmation manque singulièrement de précision. Ma délégation aurait apprécié par exemple que le protectionnisme soit défini de façon plus exhaustive. Il aurait fallu notamment tenir compte des restrictions quantitatives et sanitaires ou des aides indirectes.dont il n'est pas question. Cela aurait évité d'évaluer des niveaux de' protection selon des critères dont les auteurs reconnaissent eux-mêmes qu'ils ne constituent pas des indicateurs satisfaisants; de produire des tableaux, notamment celui de la page 72 faisant état de données encore discutées et dont pour cette raison le retrait avait été obtenu déjà lors du dernier Comité des produits; d'éliminer enfin d'un trait de plume au paragraphe 430 les contradictions qui subsistent. Nous pensons que cette question est suffisamment importante pour justifier un minimum d'objectivité.
En disant cela.M. le Président, je n'oublie nullement les risques que fait courir un protectionnisme croissant à la Communauté économique internationale.
Le Président de la République française, dans le discours qu'il a prononcé ici même à l'occasion du 40ème anniversaire de notre Organisation, a clairement affirmé notre position à cet égard: nous sommes contre le protectionnisme.
Mais nous ne pensons pas pour autant que -la seule libération du commerce international constituera une garantie pour le développement agricole des pays où précisément les ressources alimentaires font défaut.
Comment ne pas voir que l'exercice des seules forces du marché tournera inéluctablement au désavantage de la majorité des pays en développement qui n'ont pas les moyens de participer à la compétition internationale?
L'approche retenue par le document conduit à se demander si notre objectif doit être de créer un marché mondial unique ou bien d'organiser les échanges selon des normes supportables par tous. Je note que le document répond indirectement à cette question aux paragraphes 447 et 448 au travers d'une contradiction. Il y est dit en effet que la libéralisation générale des échanges ne s'oppose pas à la nécessité des accords de produits destinés à appuyer la stabilité des marchés internationaux. C'est reconnaître tout simplement que toute politique libérale à laquelle nous demeurons fermement attachés doit être accompagnée d'une certaine régulation qui ne doit pas être confondue avec le protectionnisme. Tous nos pays ont intérêt au développement harmonieux des échanges internationaux. Tous nos pays ont intérêt à ce que les règles commerciales internationales favorisent le développement de ces échanges. Nous ne pensons pas que le problème se réduise à un simple choix entre le protectionnisme et le libre échange: il s'agit plutôt d'apprécier de quelle manière et à quel rythme la libéralisation des échanges peut se faire dans l'intérêt de tous les pays et en particulier des moins favorisés, compte tenu de la spécificité du secteur agricole. A cet égard, la protection des agriculteurs les plus faibles, la coopération régionale et l'ajustement des marchés internationaux par le biais d'accords économiques nous paraissent des éléments essentiels.
Une qualité essentielle du document qu'a préparé le Secrétariat est de nous avoir introduits à un débat fondamental. Ma délégation est persuadée, tout comme beaucoup d'autres qui nous ont précédés, que ce débat ne peut en rester là, même si des recommandations opérationnelles fort intéressantes ont déjà été dégagées. En se référant à ce que je viens de dire sur les aspects internationaux du problème, ma délégation pense qu'il nous appartient, au sein de cette Organisation qu'est la FAO, d'approfondir notre réflexion à ce sujet. Elle souhaite que, laissant de côté les dogmes économiques, nous fassions preuve d'imagination afin de rechercher ensemble les voies et moyens concrets d'organiser nos échanges et de faciliter le développement des agricultures en péril.
Ma délégation est prête à participer pleinement à cet exercice et suggère qu'y soient associées maintenant les institutions du Fonds monétaire international et de la Banque mondiale.
Mme A. NIOMBELA MAMBULA (Congo): La délégation de mon pays souhaite féliciter le Dr Islam de l'introduction du document C 85/19 concernant la politique des prix agricoles. Ma délégation remercie et félicite le Secrétariat d'avoir permis à la Conférence d'examiner un document aussi fouillé.
Notre gouvernement est très attentif aux questions des prix et notamment des prix de produits agricoles aussi bien à la production qu'à la consommation; car nous estimons que la question des prix de produits agricoles ne peut pas être abordée dans un contexte isolé. En effet, le souci de notre gouvernement, qui est du. reste partagé dans ce document, est de pouvoir offrir des prix rémunérateurs aux producteurs pour accroître leur pouvoir d'achat et valoriser le travail de la terre et permettre aux consommateurs d'avoir un accès relativement aux produits agricoles pour améliorer leur nutrition.
Cependant, comme nous l'avons dit, cette question est liée à tout un ensemble de paramètres que nous ne maîtrisons pas et parmi ces facteurs,il y a les prix du marché international concernant les produits d'exportation dont on sait qu'ils ont fléchi depuis le début de cette décennie. Rien donc d'étonnant à ce qu'on relève ce qui est mentionné au paragraphe 24, à savoir que les prix à la production des cultures d'exportation ont chuté puisque les cours mondiaux eux-mêmes enregistraient une forte baisse.
Voilà pourquoi le Congo pense que les effort des pays en développement dans ce domaine pourront apporter des résultats sensibles avec l'avènement d'un nouvel ordre économique international qui organiserait davantage le marché mondial.
En outre, la politique des prix agricoles semble être un facteur très important en tant qu'élément incitatif pour accroître la production, alors que la terre et la main-d'oeuvre ne suffisent pas. Il faut pourtant des semences améliorées, des engrais, des pesticides et autres intrants pour augmenter la productivité des sols et donc accroître la production. Tous ces intrants ne sont pas accessibles à nos gouvernements et encore moins à nos ruraux qui, hélas, voient leur pouvoir d'achat s'amenuiser chaque jour davantage en raison de la détérioration des termes de l’échange,d'une part, et, d'autre part,à cause de l'endettement de nos pays qui nous oblige à des restrictions budgétaires qui interdisent toute subvention à l'agriculture comme le font les pays développés.
A la fin nous encourageons la FAO à aider les pays africains dans la mesure du possible à l'établissement d'un système de statistiques fiables afin de leur faciliter la formulation de politiques des prix.
R. PRINS (Canada): On behalf of the Canadian delegation, I would like to thank Professor Islam and his staff for the preparation and presentation of this excellent document. We agree with many of its findings. The study concludes that its objectives have been met and we generally agree with this conclusion. But, in many respects, this is the beginning only. The watershed of policy changes to which the document refers is only starting, and we would encourage the continuance of efforts both in FAO and among policy makers, to correct the policy bias documented so clearly in the Secretariat's report.
There is strong evidence that aggregate agricultural supply responds positively to prices. While such incentives have been lacking in a great number of countries and while we would emphasize the central importance of getting prices right, we would not discount non-price measures as being important.
Marketing, transportation infrastructure and agricultural research come to mind immediately as important non-price measures. Nevertheless, the ingredient which has so often been missing and on which this document focused, is the question of prices.
While each country is, of course, different, we believe strongly that an effective food strategy, indeed, a vigorous agricultural sector, is a most important element of national development. In this respect we regret to see price policies which discriminate against producers. We believe that some follow-up to this agenda item is required in the years ahead. The Council Session in 1986, or the Committee on Agriculture of 1987, appear to be possible venues for such follow-up. We appreciate that some mechanisms for follow-up have already been built into the Programme of Work and Budget for 1986-87. In the spirit of openness and of constructive dialogue, we would like to see such follow-up and monitoring through the preparation of a report on policy adjustments, particularly pricing policies, in the member states. We would not like to limit this follow-up to any particular group of countries, since on the theme of adjustment, as was discussed yesterday, changes will have to be made by developing as well as by developed countries. FAO, in this report, has created awareness, has facilitated the exchange of views, has identified issues, has documented price bias and has shown that FAO can be a facilitator in the process of this dialogue on the exchange of views of the various member country experiences.
It is now the turn of governments to consider FAO's practical advice in order to implement more appropriate policies in support of food production, and ultimately in food security. The decline in per caput food production, extensive malnutrition and poverty, and burdening fiscal deficits, are some of the signs which are encouraging many governments to reconsider not only their policies, but also their institutional arrangements.
Canada, along with other food aid donors, is actively involved in an experiment to help Mali to restructure its cereal market. The preliminary conclusions of these efforts heve been published and could be further highlighted in paragraph 455 of the pricing policies document.
Some countries will want to draw on the expertise of the FAO. Resources have been provided in the FAO budget to focus on analytical support to member governments in implementing appropriate policy changes.
My government would request the Secretariat to place a follow-up report before the Ninetieth Session of the Council, outlining FAO assistance in implementing price policies as well as noting the results which such assistance is having.
Turning briefly to the report itself, we see the following main conclusions: - a) price bias should be reduced; b) food subsidies should be targetted; c) protectionism should be reduced; d) price measures are necessary but not sufficient.
Without dwelling on these individual conclusions, it goes without saying that governments need to take action in developing consistent, pragmatic and flexible action to optimize the use of their domestic resources. The value of a consistent set of policies, was demonstrated by the performance of many developing Asian economies during the period 1980-1984.
Turning to specific paragraphs, the Section starting at paragraph 423 has our general support in concluding that positive protection in developed countries has had the effect of lowering world prices. By contrast the effect of negative protection in some developing countries must also be kept in sight. For the previous agenda item I quoted one study which considered these aspects for the liberalization of trade in rice.
In paragraphs 74 and 75 some interesting conclusions are drawn with respect to the conditions of the small farmer. FAO's focus on small farmers would warrant the highlighting of the findings reported in these paragraphs.
There are a number of other comments of details that we could refer to. In our opinion the minor nature of these comments would tend to diminish the overall satisfaction we have with this excellent document. In total it contains many useful thoughts. They are food for thought which policy makers in developing countries must borrow from in relation to their own unique problems.
K.M. EJAZUL HUQ (Bangladesh\): The Bangladesh delegation thinks that the FAO Study on Agricultural Price Policies as documented in C 85/19 is self evident in its merit. We pay tribute to the Secretariat for undertaking it, and we congratulate Professor Islam for his lucid and precise introduction to this very complex subject.
In spite of the formidable divergence among countries in political, economic, and administrative systems the study has succeeded in capturing virtually the entire spectrum of factors that influence price policies and the dilemmas of developing country governments.
Its conclusions will help many developing countries to formulate and upgrade their policies. The study rightly points out that agricultural price policy is country specific. But, of course, it includes extraneous pressures and budgetary constraints. The objectives of the government of Bangladesh: are. 1) to achieve food self-sufficiency and provide all citizens access to food; 2) maintain a balance between producer and consumer prices; and 3) ensure appropriate resource allocation so as to maintain production of major export crops.
A few implications of these objectives are as follows: a) in relation to achieving food self-sufficiency it is desired that output prices remain remunerative so that increasing technologies be adopted by farmers. Related to this is higher labour use and a consequent increase in effective demand. Until such time food production rises to the level of self-sufficiency, a continuation of input subsidies may be indicated; b) given that there is urgent need for rapidly raising the nutritional status of the vast majority of the population, subsidies on consumer food prices may also be required. Such actions are, however, rendered difficult by budgetary constraints any rate, market stabilization is carried out by release of public grain stocks at one end, and public procurement of grains at harvests at the other.
For export crops, intervention to maintain production levels is more difficult due to sharp fluctuations in international market prices.
The Bangladesh Government recognizes the need for a national agricultural price policy to ensure the improvement of people's nutritional status, to secure optimum resource allocation between sectors and within the agricultural sector, and to promote rural development.
The position of the Government of Bangladesh was succinctly stated by the Head of my Delegation at the Plenary and which I quote: "budgetary and other constraints have forced us to rapidly withdraw subsidies on agricultural inputs. This may have a negative impact on the productivity of small farmers who are preponderant in Bangladesh. It is in this context that the value of appropriate pricing policies has assumed vital importance for desirable resource allocation and balanced growth. We welcome the study undertaken by FAO on this important subject as critically relevant to all developing countries. I wish to also thank FAO for the TCP project which has helped us greatly in understanding and formulating policy in this regard".
As the study recognizes, in formulating and implementing an effective price policy there is dependence on numerous variables. Reliable statistical information and proper analysis to provide policy inputs, improvement of marketing conditions, efficient inter-sectorial linkages and compatible growths, stability of exchange rates and international market prices are but a few. Many of these variables are outside the control of many developing country governments. It appears, therefore, that at the very best their price policies will not be optimally affected; at any rate, serious attention must be paid to this area. Also as suggested in the study, it is important to strive to achieve as close a harmony in price policies in the regional countries as possible. Each may stand to gain from it.
Finally, we are constantly in quest of the most appropriate price policy for ourselves in a given time. In trying to refine our current price policy, we have undertaken a number of studies in addition to the study carried out with FAO assistance. We wish that the unique experience and skill of FAO will continue to join forces with our own. We also hope that this is only the beginning of an exercise, and that there will be appropriate follow-through.
B. BEN AMMAR (Tunisie): La delegation tunisienne voudrait tout d'abord remercier le Dr Islam pour l'introduction claire du document C 85/19 se rapportant à la politique des prix agricoles et objet du point 7.3 de l'ordre du jour. Nous trouvons que cet excellent document donne un aperçu clair et objectif sur les politiques de prix appliquées dans les pays tant développés qu'en développement. La délégation tunisienne, en félicitant la FAO pour la qualité du rapport qui nous est soumis pour discussion.tient à faire part de certaines observations sur des paragraphes qui ont particulièrement retenu son attention.
Tout d'abord il y a un fait certain, comme il est dit d'ailleurs dans l'avant-propos du Directeur général, c'est que les politiques de prix à elles seules ne suffisent pas. En effet, tant qu'elles ne sont pas accompagnées de mesures d'ensemble permettant au secteur agricole d'évoluer dans un environnement incitatif et favorable au niveau de l'acquisition aisée des moyens de production et des services, l'amélioration des prix à la production ne pourra profiter, comme cela est souhaité, à l'accroissement de la production. Ainsi les prix incitatifs à la production agricole se justifieraient encore plus lorsqu'ils sont conçus dans un cadre de développement macro-économique global et harmonieux.
Par ailleurs, la délégation tunisienne trouve que la réduction graduelle des subventions et l'intéressement du secteur privé dans la commercialisation des intrants agricoles sont dignes d'intérêt, quoiqu'il faudrait oeuvrer habilement de telle façon que le secteur agricole n'ait pas à subir les effets négatifs d'un tel changement et soit en mesure d'assurer son autodéveloppement par la procuration de revenus suffisants aux producteurs. Encore faudrait-il que l'environnement international soit favorable à une telle évolution. Or, il est constaté que le protectionnisme pratiqué par les pays développés a plutôt créé un climat incertain tel que mentionné dans le paragraphe 37 du document; et les prix internationaux dans ces conditions ne pourraient servir de référence pour la fixation des prix à la production à l'échelle nationale.
C'est pourquoi nous considérons que les principes évoqués dans le document représentent un cadre général et une référence à la disposition des pays concernés par l'élaboration d'une politique des prix. Ces principes doivent être adaptés aux conditions particulières de chaque pays compte tenu des moyens dont il dispose et des contraintes auxquelles il est confronté.
Ms. N. MORAD (Egypt) (original language Arabic): Allow me to preface my remarks by congratulating the Secretariat for the excellent job of work they have done in producing this document which has been submitted now to our Commission. We all agree that pricing policies can have a great effect on other sectors, as is said in paragraphs 105 to 114. We are sure that certain measures have to be taken so that we can limit the adverse effects which have been quoted in paragraph 115 of this document.
Regarding agricultural price policies in my country, I shall give you a brief run-down. We applied well-defined criteria for subsidizing imputs to farmers to be able to provide them at acceptable prices. Recently, we adopted the principle of changing prices for some products so that we could approximate world price, and therefore, provide more incentives to farmers. In my country, those responsible undertake surveys of certain prices, of certain crops, and apply them to world prices to ensure that the farmers receive a decent profit margin when they sell their goods nationally or internationally. We also try to balance the interests of producers and consumers, and we give subsidies on’ certain food prices or staples. This is to make sure that there is a sufficient supply of these goods.
H. POPP (Switzerland) (original language German): I would like to add my words to those who have thanked the Secretariat for this excellent document. This is a source of a great deal of information. It is a very comprehensive analysis, and it gives a great many data and a lot of recommendations are contained within it.
I do have some criticisms. There are too many repetitions. It is too large, it is too comprehensive. It tries to cover too much. I would hope that next time we get something shorter or more abridged which would base itself on the salient points. I would, however, like to say something from the point of view of my own country. I would like to say that I am going to advocate a system of price
guarantees for limited amounts; in other words, for an ordered market system with fair prices for farmers, instead of a system where there is competition and displacement in the market using so-called market prices, where, in reality, it is only the larger and stronger farm which is going to survive.
The first observation I would like to make, and the one I would like to stress in the main thrust of this report is that producer prices are very important for the farmer as an inducement for production with the requisite that they be high enough, that they should not fluctuate too much, that the farmer should know that he has a guaranteed price, that he can sell at that price and that there are market structures of this nature. Looking at price levels, we know that if the price is too low there is not sufficient inducement and incentive, and that there is too much diversion. This is a problem in many developing countries. If prices are too high, then the tendency is for is over-production. These are the main problems of agriculture in Western Europe and in other developed economies.
The second observation is that the target of price stability is presented very well in this document, and we give our full support to it. The idea is that we prevent big fluctuations in price. In Switzerland this is done using price guidelines. There is a spread, and prices can fluctuate within a given band.
My third observation is on so-called protectionism. There are a number of calls for some adjustments to be made to this document.
I agree with what was said by France, that the reasons for this so-called protectionism are not given full coverage in this document. The thin is that there is a orice policy where prices are very important in the composition of income for the farmer. This is certainly what is done in my country, because we have to make sure that farming families have a decent income and livelihood. Many of the small-scale and medium-sized farms cannot live with world market prices as they now are, and they could not accept the American prices which are fine for large American agricultural holdings.
Here I would indirectly like to say something to the doctrine put forward by the American Delegate, the so-called world market prices. I think this is Utopian for European agriculture. We need prices which are higher than world market prices so that we can have survival of the family-sized farm in Europe. We have seen that consumers are prepared to pay such higher prices. My conclusion would be that our so-called price policy is not targeted at anyone else.
The reason for it is that we pay prices to our farmers which give them a decent and comparable standard of living. There are other political targets involved in this. For example, we have food security at times of emergency. We try to protect the landscape. We have certain economic reasons, such as job protection in rural areas, and we also want to prevent rural exodus.
I should like to say something about the problem of surpluses. The criticisms of high pricing policies are made because we are told that these create surpluses. However, I have to say that the problem of surpluses is really the biggest problem in Western Europe and in most developed market economies. But I believe that it does not have to be like this. There are ways and means to overcome this difficulty. They would be a system of price guarantees for specific amounts, for amounts which can be sold domestically. This, of course, assumes that there would be an allocation of quotas to specific and individual farmers. The farmer who produces more than his quota would then get a much lower price for the amount which is overproduced, and he would get a disincentive, to do it. The advantage would be that there would be good prices for farmers but there would be no surpluses. This would not disrupt international markets either. The question is, though: is this feasible? My answer to that question is "Yes". This is done in our country for sugarbeet, for oil seeds, for potatoes, for fruit, for the wine industry, for milk since 1977 and for beef and pork since 1980. In 1984 the EEC tried to do something along these lines for milk production.
In a nutshell, I would say that this is a system that works. It is a price and incomes policy for farming families. There are no surpluses produced. This does not cause any problems which have an adverse effect on the community. This does not disrupt international markets because surpluses are put on to the international markets. This is, therefore, something which does not adversely affect developing countries who can themselves seek international markets. There are, of course, many commodities where there is a comparative cost advantage for developing countries and, as far as possible, we should allow them to have access to their world markets for those goods.
Finally, what we need for this work - the corollary, if you like - is a protection against imports. If we are prepared to limit'our production then, this should not be undermined by cheap imports of cheap feedingstuffs, such as oil cake, manioc, etc.
Such a market system which I am advocating means definite measures to be taken. We also have to be able to control the imports of fodder and feedingstuffs, using a levy system. I would ask the exporting countries to understand this approach. I am sure that we have to revise current GATT provisions in this area. In the long term, this is in the interests of agricultural exporting countries, because it cannot be in their interest for us to import a lot of feedingstuffs and overproduce eggs, milk and meat, and then put these back, at bargain basement prices, on to the world market.
In a nutshell, I am in favour of a system where we have ordered agricultural markets with reasonable prices for farming families in all countries. This would be in place of untrammeled competition where prices can fall greatly, where only the very large holdings in the best areas of the world will survive. I advocate a system which concentrates on small and medium-size holdings and allows them to survive without specific protectionism, and without a specific market order this will not be possible. This will be worth it, because we want to have work, food and a livelihood for as many as possible rather than expansion for only a few.
P.A.L. de RIJK (Netherlands): Our delegation considers the document on agricultural price policies particularly useful. It is a type of major study dealing with important items not earlier analyzed in such a comprehensive way that can have considerable practical impact. The report provides, indeed, useful guidance for countries in the formulation and implementation of their food and agricultural price policies, the aim stated in paragraph 6. Our delegation encourages FAO to continue further studies in this field, as well as actions at the country and regional level.
An interesting result of the study is that the early 1980s are indicated as a period of important positive changes in the evolution of price policies. First of all, the common element in price modifications being made in many developing and developed countries is that of bringing consumer and producer prices closer to costs and returns Respectively. Secondly, it appears that, in spite of weakening international prices, prices received by farmers in developing countries for cereals were slightly increased, reflecting a shift in national price policies from favouring export crops to favouring food crops. An important conclusion of the study is that policies which raise or support agricultural product prices or subsidize inputs are likely to worsen the distribution of farm income, because larger farms sell a higher proportion of their output than the poorer, smaller farms.
As is indicated in the report, structural policies are required to compensate for the worsening distri-bution of income. The question is to what extent such a compensation can be realistically obtained. In view of the importance of this aspect, in the context of which we refer also to Guideine 6 of the International Agricultural Adjustment, we should like to suggest that the Secretariat should elaborate on this problem in a future study.
What has not been sufficiently dealt with in the report, in our opinion, is the aims of the general agricultural policy in relation to price policy that are valid for all countries and tensions between those aims that would justify some level of protection also for the developed countries.
The aims of a general agricultural policy include: (1) to ensure the availability of basic agricul‐tural products, especially food, and, related to that, to ensure reasonable prices for consumers; (2) to ensure a rational use of resources; (3) to ensure a reasonable income for the farmers.
The tensions between these aims also become apparent when attempts are made, notably in GATT, to reduce agricultural protection to reasonable levels.
Our delegation is in agreement with the aim of limited protection in agriculture to a level that reflects a proper equilibrium of the various aims of the agricultural policy. There are certainly negative effects of agricultural production in the developed countries on the developing countries, but remarkably, whereas developing countries would experience on balance a negative impact of trade liberalization measures, as is indicated in paragraph 437, the report indicates in fact that the effects of liberalization would be unevenly distributed among developing countries, yet provides only a few examples. Our delegation therefore suggests that this aspect be studied in more detail, focusing on its impact on the poorer developing countries. Such an analysis should not only deal with direct effects of trade liberalization but also estimate its indirect effects, which have hardly been dealt with in the present report.
N. ROSSI (Italie): Je remercie le Secrétariat pour son rapport très concerne le document sur la politique des prix, nous partageons les de la Commission CEE.
De notre côté notamment, nous voudrions dire que la réalisation d'une telle politique, même de manière imparfaite, atteint quelques-uns de ses principaux objectifs comme celui d'assurer un revenu équitable aux agriculteurs, la stabilité du marché et la sécurité des approvisionnements.
Nous sommes conscients que, là où cela est possible, on devra apporter les corrections nécessaires au PAC. En particulier, nous estimons que le soutien aux revenus agricoles devrait être assuré non seulement à travers la politique des prix mais aussi et surtout avec les interventions de caractère structurel qui peuvent éliminer les différences de revenus existant au niveau régional et les "handicaps naturels des agriculteurs les plus défavorisés de la communauté".
Nous désirons également souligner la nécessité de mettre l'accent sur cet aspect particulier, compte tenu du fait que les ressources communautaires sont presque entièrement destinées au soutien de la politique des prix, tandis que la politique structurelle, même si lors des dernières années elle a obtenu un niveau plus élevé de soutiens et de financements, reste tout de même limitée et réduite, en comparaison des moyens utilisés au soutien du marché. Ceci, surtout pour résoudre les "handicaps" de certaines agricultures défavorisées que la politique des prix ne peut pas résoudre.
En ce qui concerne plus particulièrement le paragraphe 427, page 81 du document, il semblerait justifier une modification pour indiquer les vraies caractéristiques du Système STABEX: ce n'est pas un mécanisme commercial, il s'agit d'un mécanisme économique de soutien des pays en voie de développement, tel que prévu dans la Convention de Lomé à l'article 147 qui énonce les objectifs du système STABEX: "... Remédier aux effets négatifs de l'instabilité des recettes d'exportation pour aider les pays PAC, etc."
En outre, il faudrait relever qu'une récente décision du Conseil de développement de la CEE a décidé l'extension du système STABEX aux pays les moins avancés non PAC, c'est-à-dire aussi aux pays de l'Amérique latine et de l'Asie.
Une telle décision doit être appliquée par les organismes compétents de la CEE.
En ce qui concerne la question des politiques nationales et de la libération des échanges, nous sommes d'accord sur le fait qu'il faut atteindre un niveau plus élevé de libéralisation des obstacles aux échanges.
Ceci dit, il faut souligner que cet objectif ne peut pas être réalisé par un démantèlement de la politique communautaire des prix. Si cela était, on arriverait au résultat qui serait de mettre les exploitations européennes dans une position telle qu'elles ne pourraient pas concurrencer les productions des autres pays grands exportateurs de produits agricoles.
Comme nous l'avons dit hier, nous sommes d'accord sur le fait que,dans la mesure du possible, on devrait apporter les correctifs nécessaires à la politique agricole commune et que,d'autre part, par la PAC (politique agricole commune), on entend l'exigence, à moyen terme, d'aligner les prix communautaires aux prix internationaux pour leSs produits pour lesquels cela est possible (les céréales par exemple). Pour les autres produits, pour lesquels cela n'est pas possible, le soutien reste encore nécessaire.
Enfin, pour ce qui est des aides nationales qui directement ou indirectement peuvent avoir une incidence sur les échanges nationaux, et en ce qui nous concerne, nous devons considérer que toute mesure d'aide nationale ne peut être mise en vigueur que si elle est notifiée, d'abord à l'état de projet à la Commission CEE et que si elle a reçu un avis favorable de celle-ci. Nous aussi travaillons dans ce secteur dans la réalité communautaire et sommes soumis au contrôle préliminaire de la Commission CEE pour ce qui est de la comptabilité des aides communautaires. Ce secteur ne falsifie pas la concurrence entre les Etats Membres et, cependant, pour la même raison, il n'en résulte pas de répercussions au niveau des échanges internationaux.
Il s'agit en conclusion d'interventions structurelles liées aux programmes structurels communautaires dont les effets ne se feront sentir qu'à long terme.
En effet, ces interventions sont nécessaires parce que dans le cas contraire nous laisserions le secteur agricole abandonné (et en Europe, les agriculteurs ne peuvent pas payer les intérêts élevés existant sur le marché).
P.M. AMUKOA (Kenya): May I first apologize for taking my place on the list of speakers so very late. I am afraid I have no alternative but to speak at this late hour.
Allow me first of all to say that the Secretariat has done a commendable job in putting together a wealth of information on this very complex subject. We find the study very useful. In order not to take up the time of the Commission I shall emphasize only the following few points: the need to strengthen the data collection and analysis system on commodities in developing countries which includes the training of national personnel on the various aspects of commodities; secondly, the need for regional and sub-regional workshops or seminars to share experiences on commodity prices, as well as the mechanism for setting up these prices, problems in the implementation of price policies, and so on; thirdly, the development of infrastructure for the quick delivery of inputs and outputs. Here, I single out transport costs for both inputs and outputs. These can be very high depending on what is involved so that by the time, for example, that fertilizers reach the farmer the price is far beyond what the government may have set. Delivery systems of essential inputs like fertilizer must be considerably improved, if the fertilizer price is to be an incentive to increased farm production.
Fourthly, we agree that the announcement of prices in time will influence production decisions. Howerve, the degree of influence will depend on the relative prices of competing agricultural commodities and also on the assurance of marketing, including the purchasing of farm produce in time. Small farmers normally have serious financial problems and any money they have or wish to get is for multiple ends. They have enormous problems. So that delayed output farm purchase is not an incentive to production because usually they have no farm storage facilities. They will not grow the produce again if it is not bought quickly.
My last point is on the relative prices of other countries. Here I shall pick out one category, that of all those countries who may share a common border. In setting up price policies - for example, subsidies - one needs to look at prices across the borders. All of us here probably agree that the border trade can sometimes be very complex. It is not easy to enforce the necessary legislation against any undesirable practices where they exist, however good that legislation may be. A significant amount of some commodities can be involved in that kind of trade and those who formulate price policies should therefore also examine this factor where such practices may have an impact on the economies of the affected country or countries. Perhaps this is one area, among others, where regional or sub-regional workshops or seminars could help to elaborate on the nature of the problem, and the type of policy that could be developed to minimize the problem.
CHAIRMAN: The delegation of Zambia has submitted a written statement. The delegation of Sudan has also submitted a written statement on agenda item 7.3 and both will be included in the verbatim record.
K.S. MULHERIN (Secretary, Commission I): I announced this morning that statements not delivered can be inserted in the verbatim record at the request of the Chairman or of a delegation during the discussions on the particular item. The statement must be handed to the Chairman or the Secretary during or immediately after the meeting in which the item referred to in the statement is examined.
N. NUMBA (Zambia): I am happy to participate in the debate on item 7.3, document C 85/19.
This paper gives very good guidelines on the parameters to be used in using pricing mechanisms as a means of policy interventions. We in Zambia have taken note of the contents of the paper. We intend to use it in our future policy initiatives in order to ensure that farmers, especially small-scale farmers, benefit from such measures.
We are particularly pleased with the contents of paragraph 329 and the box that follows it.
1/ I wish to congratulate FAO for a very balanced and well-prepared paper. 1/
A.M. OSMAN (Sudan) (original language Arabic): Mr Chairman, the prices of agricultural products are normally determined by quality and availability on the one hand, and by costs and national policy on the other. Therefore it would be helpful to improve the quality of various commodities. Similarly, should there be adequate capabilities and agricultural inputs, it would be helpful to provide enough seasonal quantities of any given crop. It is, however, very difficult to control the prices of: (a) machines and spare parts; (b) fuel oils, etc.; (c) broad national policies; (d) support to commodities similar to those provided by large-scale producers.
Agricultural products are basically seasonal. It follows that in order to make them available during times of scarcity, they have to be preserved in such an easy manner that facilitates their distribution and marketing; such as canning of fruits and vegetables. In the Sudan, for instance, the price of tomatoes went up to L.S. 5 per kg. in July 1985 when this commodity was scarce; but in October 1985 the price went down to L.S. 0.5 and many even go further less in the course of the season. It is evident, therefore, that the price of such a commodity could decline appreciably, and still the commodity would be available to citizens should there be a factory for canning it in the time of plenty so that it could be supplied in the time of scarcity. The same thing applies to other crops such as onions, maize and okra.
As for the cotton crop, its production has become very expensive due to the rise in the cost of such agricultural inputs as spare parts, fuel and pesticides. It is important, therefore, that we should adopt a price policy that would promote agricultural development; such a policy has to be based on ensuring a remunative incentive, so that farmers would be encouraged to carry on production activities; and safeguarding prices against fluctuation, with a view to ensuring a stable income for farmers.
To achieve this, the Sudan is moving towards linking the prices of basic commodities such as cotton and wheat with those of the international market. As for such crops as broad beans, sesame, and Arabic gum, we have established minimum prices that cover the costs of production plus a reasonable profit for farmers.
We believe that commitment to an appropriate price policy is a pre-requisite to the promotion of agricultural development 1/
The meeting rose at 18.25 hours
La séance est levée à 18 h 25
Se levanta la sesión a las 18.25 horas
_____________________
1/ Statement inserted in the verbatim records on request.
