CHAIRMAN: The eighth meeting of Commission I is called to order.
Soukaseum PHOTHISANE (Laos): Monsieur le Président, si je vous demande la parole, c'est pour vous dire que la délégation de la République démocratique populaire lao a suivi avec plaisir l'excellent exposé préliminaire de M. Rao et a examiné avec intérêt les documents relatifs à l'expansion à l'aide en nature pour les approvisionnements en intrants agricoles en Afrique.
Bien que cette étude ait été réalisée dans les pays de nos amis africains, nous trouvons que les observations, les remarques et les leçons à tirer de l'expérience en matière d'intrants agricoles décrites dans ce document pourraient être également utiles pour les pays d'Asie comme le nôtre où ces intrants font aussi défaut.
Nous appuyons l'idée que la FAO devrait redoubler ses efforts pour aider les pays en développement à identifier leurs besoins, à former des cadres appropriés et peut-être à trouver les financements nécessaires aux projets visant à accroître le degré d'autosuffisance en intrants agricoles.
D'autre part, nous pensons que l'aide en intrants devrait être liée à celle des infrastructures de transport et de stockage sans lesquelles il serait difficile, voire impossible, d'utiliser ces intrants d'une manière efficace.
En ce qui concerne les engrais minéraux, nous pensons, pour notre part, qu'ils sont l'un des principaux facteurs pour augmenter la productivité du sol. Encore faut-il bien les identifier et bien: les utiliser. Cependant, ils sont malheureusement fort coûteux aussi bien pour les produire nous-mêmes que pour les importer.
C'est pourquoi, dans l'état actuel des choses, nous nous contentons de recourir aux moyens dont nous disposons, c'est-à-dire utiliser les déchets organiques, les composts et divers engrais verts pour amender nos champs. Mais cela ne va pas sans difficulté; nous avons encore besoin de former nos cadres et nos agriculteurs pour exploiter correctement toutes les ressources organiques renouvelables qui existent dans notre pays.
Philippe PIOTET (France): La delegation française a examiné avec un vif intérêt le rapport préparé par le Secrétariat. Mon pays est heureux d'avoir pu participer avec d'autres donateurs aux premières réflexions engagées dans le cadre de cette étude. Nous aurions toutefois souhaité pouvoir disposer du rapport avant le début de la Conférence pour l'étudier bien en détail avec les Administrations et les responsables des secteurs économiques concernés; je pense aux fabricants d'engrais, de semences et de machines agricoles. Aussi, je me limiterai aujourd'hui à vous faire part de quelques observations préliminaires.
Ma délégation constate tout d'abord qu'un certain nombre de préoccupations qu'elle avait évoquées lors des récents conseils ont été prises en considération dans le cadre de cette étude. Je pense en particulier aux précautions à prendre pour que l'aide en nature soit bien adaptée aux besoins spécifiques des pays bénéficiaires et ne fasse pas obstacle au développement dans ces pays des activités artisanales et industrielles susceptibles de répondre à ces besoins. Je pense aussi à la nécessité de concevoir l'aide en nature dans le cadre global des politiques de développement agricole, ce qui implique que l'on agisse simultanément sur la recherche, la formation, les investissements, la commercialisation des produits notamment. Aussi, la délégation française appuie-t-elle tout particulièrement le paragraphe 44 du rapport concernant les règles à respecter en matière de livraison des intrants, les paragraphes 115 et 135 concernant la création d'un environnement favorable pour une utilisation efficace des intrants.
Avant d'en arriver à quelques questions spécifiques évoquées dans le rapport, je souhaiterais faire deux remarques d'ordre général.
L'expérience montre tout d'abord qu'il ne saffit pas d'accroître les disponibilités en intrants pour, ipso facto,accroître la production. De même, un accroîssement qui ne serait dû qu'à des livraisons extérieures de moyens de production serait très fragile. Le rapport explique clairement ces deux risques, mais je crois nécessaire de les souligner et de les garder en mémoire tout au long de notre examen.
Je crois nécessaire également d'avoir pleinement conscience que certaines propositions peuvent aller à l'encontre des recommandations faites dans le cadre de mesures d'ajustement structurel et qui concernent les nécessités de fournir à leur vrai prix, sans aide extérieure, les investissements nécessaires à l'agriculture.
Sur les problèmes plus ponctuels, je formulerai maintenant un certain nombre de remarques.
En premier lieu, c'est à juste titre que le paragraphe 18 évoque trois options pour combler le déficit des intrants des pays africains. Je rappelle ces options: stimuler la production nationale d'intrants, promouvoir le commerce international et accroître les importations en provenance d'autres régions, tant à conditions commerciales qu'à conditions de faveur.
Ma délégation ne peut qu'appuyer la recommandation du paragraphe 44 selon laquelle l'aide en nature doit viser en priorité à stimuler l'industrie locale et les échanges intrarégionaux, en particulier les échanges triangulaires soulignés à juste titre dans les rapports. Toute la difficulté cependant est de savoir comment atteindre cet objectif. Les situations sont en effet très diverses. Il est difficile et sans doute imprudent de généraliser. Aussi, une approche pragmatique cas par cas est certainement la plus recommandable dans un premier temps.
En second lieu, les comparaisons qui sont faites avec l'aide alimentaire nous semblent intéressantes car il s'agit d'un domaine dans lequel la communauté internationale a une certaine expérience. Je pense toutefois qu'il faut se garder de pousser trop loin de telles comparaisons. Certes, il existe un certain parallélisme entre l'aide en nature et l'aide alimentaire; par exemple, dans les deux cas, il y a des risques de créer des habitudes différentes et inadaptées, dans les deux cas, il y a risques de déséquilibrer les flux commerciaux. De même, encore l'idée de réaliser des opérations triangulaires mérite d'être mise à l'épreuve.
La notion de programme "intrants contre travail" nous apparaît toutefois plus complexe et plus délicate à mettre en oeuvre que les programmes plus classiques et bien connus de "vivres contre travail". Nous pensons néanmoins que cette idée pourrait être utilement approfondie et expérimentée en particulier dans les pays qui n'ont pas besoin d'aide alimentaire.
Par ailleurs, du côté des donateurs, les situations sont assez diverses. Certains pays ont en effet des surcapacités de production en engrais ou en machines agricoles qu'il serait intéressant d'utiliser. Mais dans un certain nombre de cas, le développement de l'aide en nature n'entraîne pas nécessairement une réduction des coûts marginaux dans les secteurs industriels concernés. C'est le cas par exemple des industries qui fabriquent des engrais, lorsque leur matière première est importée, ou bien des industries du machinisme agricole lorsque leur production de série n'est pas adaptée aux besoins des pays bénéficiaires d'une aide en nature.
Du coté de la demande maintenant, comme cela est signalé justement aux paragraphes 105 et suivants du rapport, un certain nombre de contraintes doivent être résolues au préalable comme le manque de disponibilités financières dû aux déficiences de systèmes de crédit ou à l'inadaptation de systèmes de production à des apports supplémentaires d'intrants.
Enfin, s'agissant du rôle que la FAO pourrait jouer dans un tel dispositif, ma délégation n'estime pas très souhaitable que soit encouragé le développement de nouveaux mécanismes administratifs. En effet, l'aide en nature, pas plus que l'aide alimentaire n'est une fin en soil elle ne constitue qu'un moyen déjà largement pris en compte dans un certain nombre de projets.
C'est pourquoi, ma délégation estime que la FAO pourrait en priorité prendre en charge certaines missions définies aux a) et b) du paragraphe 145, c'est-à-dire; la fourniture d'une assistance technique et de moyens de formation; l'appui à la définition de politique agricole intégrant les intrants.
Ce n'est me semble-t-il, que dans un second temps, après quelques années d'expérience, que l'on pourra examiner l'opportunité pour l'OAA de créer une banque de données ou de mettre en place un système d'alerte rapide comme le suggèrent les points b) et c) du paragraphe 145.
V.K. SIBAL (India): At the outset we would like to place on record our appreciation for the veil-analyzed and incisive report under debate and its very clear presentation.
There is no doubt that the poorer food deficit countries do find their efforts to increase agricultural production hamstrung by reduced export earnings, especially because of depressed commodity prices, their huge foreign debts and reduced aid flows. There is a gap in their input requirements if they are to establish and operate well-considered programmes for increasing their agricultural production even though account is taken of increased local production and trade flows. This provides the scope and potential for aid-in-kind, which so far mostly has been in the shape of food.
The Director-General in his speech in the 9th session of COAG mentioned that inputs such as fertilizers, improved seeds, pesticides and appropriate machinery had been provided as aid-in-kind on a much smaller scale than food. This situation constitutes a serious case for aid-in-kind to African countries facing serious problems with their agricultural production and balance of payments. In this context the under-used capacity of the industrialized countries could be mobilized to produce inputs that the poorer nations cannot normally afford to purchase. At the same time aid could be directed to building up the delivery systems and developing policy frameworks that will be required if food-deficit countries are to maintain a higher level of agricultural technology at a later stage when international input aid is progressively scaled down. We consider this a very important point-because this kind of aid is not meant to induce or establish dependencies for all time to come but must keep in focus all the time a phased programme for reducing the requirements for such aid over time.
In the 10th session of the Commission on Fertilizers in April 1987 it was felt that the study should consider the improvements in the modalities of distribution of inputs to farmers and that the implementation of fertilzer aid should be linked with training to ensure the use of recommended types and rates of fertilizer application. It also stressed the importance of effective monitoring to ensure that aid-in-kind reaches the farmers. There is also a need to safeguard against aid-in-kind leading to the introduction of inappropriate technology or becoming the means of disposing of the surpluses of developed countries that are unsuited to African conditions or that harm local industries.
We note that much of the present aid-in-kind is provided on an ad hocbasis; a coherent policy framework for channelling input assistance is needed; that input assistance requires bilateral action on incentives, institutions and infrastructure; that recipients have suffered from insufficient coordination of input aid; and that such aid needs to be tailored to country, area or group-specific requirements.
The suggestions in the report aimed at strengthening national capacities for assessment of input requirements, the coordination and monitoring of commercial and concessional flows of inputs, the development of guidelines towards aid-in-kind and other forms of input, and mechanisms needed to facilitate the systematic programming of commercial and concessional flows are important and need to be seriously pursued.
The possibility of the use of triangular transactions in handling such aid is important. The use of aid-in-kind to provide raw materials for local production of input programmes, for greater production of staple crops in deficit, or export crops, for soil conservation and for weed management, are aspects of the report with which we agree. The generation of counterpart funds to sustain local cost financing would be a clear advantage in some of the activities programmed.
The role of FAO has been well outlined in the report. The African countries would need the assistance of FAO for determination of their input needs. FAO could set up a data bank on requirements and bring urgent needs to the attention of donors. FAO would also be called upon to monitor the programmes and to arrange consultations between the parties. We agree that some parts of the programme could start on a bilateral basis in some countries, and in come cases provision for phasing in and phasing out the input assistance would have to be built in.
In short, we have a very useful report that lays the groundwork for a systematic approach by the international community and by individual African countries towards identifying needs and mobilizing resources for meeting them. We would support the report. We would like to underline the fact that the need for aid-in-kind, however, is not limited to Africa. In other continents too such aid could be usefully deployed. Therefore, FAO should consider how it might be extended eventually to cover other regions at a later date.
In closing, we would underscore the fact that the proposals need to be pursued, as stated in the paper, as the first step in a possibly phased process, and should be built upon slowly on the basis of experience to operate an effective programme of aid-in-kind. In view of our past and ongoing association with the Commission on Fertilizers, to which we had the privilege of providing the last Chairman, we would like to suggest that consideration be given to expanding the mandate of that Commission to cover other inputs presently being discussed, which are necessary to achieve maximum fertilzer efficiency.
Anastase MUREKEZI (Rwanda): La délégation rwandaise felicite le Secrétariat pour la qualité du document C 87/20 et son supplément qui portent sur l'étude de faisabilité et sur l'extension de l'aide en nature sous forme d'intrants agricoles. Cette étude complète le rapport sur l'agriculture africaine pour les vingt prochaines années, présenté par le Directeur général de la FAO à la quatorzième Conférence régionale de la FAO pour l'Afrique qui s'est tenue en Côte d'Ivoire en 1986.
L'aide en nature, sous forme d'intrants agricoles que sont les semences, les engrais, les produits phytosanitaires, les machines agricoles, les aliments pour bétail, les produits vétérinaires est une réponse appropriée à la crise de l'agriculture africaine et elle profite à la fois aux bénéficiaires et aux donateurs.
Nous adhérons donc entièrement aux conclusions et aux recommandations de cette étude. Nous avons besoin d'engrais organiques et minéraux adaptés à nos sols acides, nous avons besoin de profiter de progrès déjà accomplis ou à accomplir dans le domaine du génie génétique et de disposer de semences hautement performantes de haricots, de bananes, de maïs, de riz ainsi que de races d'animaux plus produtrices de lait et de viande.
Mon pays est par ailleurs très reconnaissant envers la FAO pour le soutien à notre programme national d'intrants à travers le programme engrais/FAO. Beaucoup de donateurs nous fournissent des engrais et nous aident à produire des semences de qualité.
Nous souhaitons le renforcement de ces activités et nous lançons un appel à la communauté internationale pour consacrer plus d'attention à la valorisation des ressources phytogénétiques locales et au droit pour tous les pays d'accéder facilement aux biotechnologies existantes.
Les pays développés nous ont habitués, jusqu'à maintenant, à l'aide alimentaire Pour nourrir nos populations mais, faut-il le rappeler, l'aide alimentaire n'est vraiment appropriée que dans les cas de famine ou d'autres catastrophes comme ce fut le cas en Afrique en 1984. En période normale, l'aide alimentaire paralyse la production nationale et désarticule l'effort des populations locales, elle constitue en fait une subvention subtile à l'agriculture des pays du Nord. Elle empêche une commercialisation efficace des produits locaux, ce qui anénantit les capacités des paysans des pays d'Afrique à payer les intrants nécessaires à la modernisation de leur système agricole.
Certains pays africains produisent déjà des engrais. Je vois là un atout majeur aux transactions triangulaires entreles pays développés et les pays en développement. Ce concept doit être étendu à l'ensemble dès intrants agricoles.
Mais il faut aussi renforcer la formation et les moyens de distribution dans les pays en développement. Il faut améliorer la capacité de planification dans nos pays pour mieux définir et utiliser les intrants agricoles en profitant des expériences des autres pays similaires dans le cadre de la coopération entre pays en développement, conformément aux recommandations de la treizième session du Conseil mondial de l'alimentation qui s'est tenue à Beijing, en République populaire de Chine, en juin de cette année.
La FAO devra jouer, tout au long de ce processus, un rôle prépondérant comme consultant, comme conseiller et comme pourvoyeur de données de base pour l'utilisation efficace des intrants agricoles.
Jean BANTSIMBA (Congo): Ma délégation s'associe aux précédents orateurs pour noter la pertinence des analyses et propositions faites dans le cadre de l'étude de faisabilité sur l'expansion de l'aide en nature pour les approvisionnements en intrants agricoles dont elle approuve les principales conclusions.
Naturellement, il est indispensable d'intensifier l'agriculture africaine pour lui taire atteindre un niveau de productivité conforme à son objectif d'autosuffisance alimentaire. Cependant, l'utilisation rationnelle des intrants nécessaires au passage de son état actuel à celui d'une productivité satisfaisante implique les déploiement d'une recherche d'accompagnement et de systèmes de vulgarisation efficaces pour définir et planitier correctement nos besoins. Nous proposons que cette idée, qui apparaît déjà dans certains paragraphes des documents, puisse faire l'objet d'un alinéa spécifique dans les lignes d'orientation pour l'aide en nature et l'aide aux programmes, paragraphe 163.
Enfin, ma délégation constate qu'une catégorie importante d'intrants,ces concentres pour aliments du bétail, ne semble pas avoir été prise en compte dans l'étude; elle propose de l'intégrer.
Victor E. MACHINEA (Argentina): Mi delegación felicita al equipo que elaboré el documento C 87/20 y el suplemento 1 y ve con agrado los resultados del mismo al cual apoya con determinadas observaciones: el suministro de insumos agrícolas deberá estar acompañado de la cooperación técnica que evalúe las necesidades de cada país, en el uso de los mismos, teniendo en cuenta la cantidad y calidad de estos insumos, como bien lo destacara el distinguido delegado de la República hermana del Perú.
Para mi delegación es fundamental que esta forma de ayuda no afecte los niveles de intercambio comercial y los niveles de precios que rigen el mercado de este tipo de insumos, pues si no, no seríamos coherentes si por una parte reclamamos el libre juego del mercado sin proteccionismos ni subsidios, y por el otro, apoyáramos algún tipo de control del mismo.
Mi delegación ha recibido con satisfacción las declaraciones de algunos países desarrollados que apoyan el libre comercio sin medidas que afecten los precios de los productos.
En resumen, mi delegación apoya dicho programa dentro de un marco de medidas que no afecten el libre comercio.
Mohsen BOUJBEL (Tunisie) (langue originale arabe): Permettez-moi, Monsieur le Président, de remercier les équipes techniques qui ont élaboré cette étude sur l'aide en nature. La délégation de mon pays appuie les propositions contenues dans cette étude et en particulier celles concernant le renforcement des échanges entre pays en développement, en matière d'intrants agricoles.
Ma délégation voudrait également appuyer les opérations trilatérales et souligner davantage les effets positifs de ces opérations ainsi que la façon dont elles peuvent être mises en oeuvre.
En ce qui concerne le rôle de l'Organisation dans le domaine de l'aide en nature, ce role est tout à fait important, en particulier en fournissant l'aide nécessaire aux pays qui ont besoin de créer l'infrastructure nécessaire en intrants agricoles. L'Organisation pourrait également jouer un rôle très important pour définir les nécessités de chaque agriculture dans les pays en développement en intrants agricoles.
M.R. MULELE (Zambia): Mr Chairman, let, me thank you, first of all, for affording me the opportunity to make a few remarks on the subject under discussion.
Before I go any further I should like to commend the consultant and the secretariat for a job extremely well done in undertaking the Study and making available to us these excellent documents.
There is no doubt that inputs play a significant role in increasing agricultural production. We know too well that all farmers need some kind of traction, be it in the form of tractors or oxen; they require ploughs, hoes, implements, fertilizers, seeds, chemicals, etc. When a good supply of inputs is supported by an efficient extension service, remunerative prices and indeed sound infrastructure, increased agricultural production becomes assured.
The need for the supply of inputs-in-kind is, in the main, necessitated by the balance-of-payments difficulties with which most of the African countries are faced. As the terms of trade have moved against these countries, their ability to purchase inputs for agriculture has been made more and more difficult. There is no doubt that, if properly implemented, aid-in-kind should result in maximum benefits to recipient countries. A multiplicity of donors supplying similar commodities as aid-in-kind can all too often exacerbate the problems of a country. Take the case of the supply of tractors and equipment: in many instances we find that there is a wide range of makes and this is a common feature in most developing countries, with all the attendant problems that go with machinery. Little wonder that we can talk of the developing countries increasingly becoming dumping grounds for goods and commodities from the developed world.
Aid-in-kind is a strong candidate for encouraging dumping of old stocks of fertilizer and chemicals and outmoded tractors and equipment. We need to watch out against this. In our view, serious dialogue between the donor and recipient countries is of paramount importance and the latter should determine and articulate their own needs.
Aid-in-kind, if not properly controlled and monitored, can thwart regional trade initiatives and efforts. Donors could easily off-load their products at subsidized prices to recipient countries, particularly in Africa, thereby killing the emerging industries. In our region, the Preferential Trad'e Area, PTA, is becoming increasingly important, with trade between member states picking up. We now know what each member state produces and we can obtain commodities quite often without using foreign exchange. We think this is a good development which should not be destroyed but encouraged.
The aim of my delegations intervention is not to condemn aid-in-kind per se. On the contrary, we want to state that we support it and it should be country or situation specific. It should not be seen to promote the businesses of the developed countries and to threaten the growth of emerging industries in developing countries.
As we have already stated, aid-in-kind can definitely lead to increased food and agricultural production, but we believe that in the final analysis the answer lies in the developed countries opening their doors wide to goods from developing countries and paying proper prices, prices which we think would enable these countries to purchase the kinds or forms of inputs needed. These should be inputs which are tailor-made to their requirements, not approximations as is often the case.
Fereydun SANEI (Islamic Republic of Iran): On behalf of the Iranian Delegation and myself, I would like to extend my deep appreciation to the Secretariat for the presentation of the very lucid and elaborate documents C 87/20 and C 87/20 Sup.1.
The Iranian delegation would entirely support the aid-in-kind concept and hopes that this measure can help the developing countries to further their activities in the provision of more agricultural commodities, to combat hunger and malnutrition.
Here we would like to pose the following suggestions and we do expect that FAO should pay attention to facilitate their accomplishment.
First, since one measure to extend agricultural development is education followed by proper training in the field of better utilization of resources and productivity elements, we therefore, believe in the compilation and recruitment of properly and sensibly planned educational and training programmes in schools and training centres for both youngsters and elderly farmers.
Secondly, the preparation of such programmes requires the proper recognition of resources and productivity elements, together with the demands of working rural inhabitants. As a consquence, the collection and compilation of data and information can be of great help to agricultural development.
It is obvious that in programming not only do we require the aforesaid factors, but also other elements such as aquaintance with different social aspects, classic education, hygiene and welfare, transportation and communication, lodging and accommodation and some other factors that have a very effective influence on the agricultural activities in each region. Therefore, recognition of all these elements is of prime significance if we want to gain success and secure the proper implementation of our already-planned projects.
Thirdly, another very important requirement of the rural and production centres, particularly in countries where great distances exist among rural and urban centres, is the preparation of a category of services which would enable the farmers to get the best benefit from facilities such as available inputs, loans and credits, marketing and machinery services, all on the spot. Under such circumstances farmers, through saving costs, time and energy, would be able to carry out their duties and to further the management of their farms easily and efficiently.
Fourthly, considering the above-mentioned factors, the Islamic Republic of Iran has been able to achieve success in the establishment of approximately 600 agricultural services centres. These centres deal with the implementation of training and extension and data collection, which are necessary for programming and meeting the demands of farmers concerning agricultural inputs.
The outcome of this measure has proved to be fruitful and we do hope that in future we shall be able to extend the number of these centres throughout the country.
Fifthly, considering these procedures and the significance of each individual element which we have pinpointed so far, we do expect that FAO should put forward programmes of evaluation of these activities in countries such as the Islamic Republic of Iran and, following that, should prepare facilities for them to gain the best benefit from the experience and expertise of those countries which have similar climatological, cultural and social frameworks and conditions.
Aboubacar KOUROUMA KOLY (Guinée): La delegation guinéenne apprécie l'excellente présentation du document C 87/20 faite par M. Rao.
La question abordée par ce document représente en réalité un des facteurs limitant le développement économique dans nos pays. La place des intrants parmi les différents facteurs qui accélèrent la production agricole est certainement la plus importante. En effet, lors de la treizième Conférence régionale de la FAO à Yamoussoukro, l'ensemble des pays africains étaient convenus qu'une utilisation rationnelle des engrais, des pesticides et des équipements appropriés améliorerait rapidement la production agricole. Pour ce faire, il est indispensable que toute aide en nature soit précédée d'essais appropriés pour l'adapter à chaque cas.
Le paragraphe 5 de la page 7 du document C 87/20 mérite de retenir l'attention pour servir de cadre à l'harmonisation de l'aide en nature avec les besoins.
Plus loin, le paragraphe 61 du chapitre II, page 15 du même document, souligne le préalable essentiel à une rationalisation de l'aide en nature.
Pour terminer, notre pays reste favorable à toute démarche visant à l'expansion de l'aide en nature, sur la base d'enquêtes minutieusement menées pour éviter les dégâts qu'une mauvaise utilisation pourrait provoquer.
Ms Anna Liisa KORHONEN (Finland): On this occasion I have the honour to speak on behalf of the Nordic countries,Denmark, Norway, Sweden and my own country, Finland. First of all, we should like to thank the Secretariat for the comprehensive introductory statement to this item.on Friday.
Our delegations have carefully studied the report of the Feasibility Study on Expanding Aid-in-Kind of Farm Inputs in document C 87/20. In general it contains valuable information about different requirements for accelerated agricultural development. The Nordic countries follow very closely the African development prospects and have actively supported special multilateral arrangements to alleviate the difficult economic situation, especially of those Sub-Saharan low-income, debt-distressed countries who are implementing national structural adjustment programmes. In these endeavours the Nordic countries have constantly emphasized the importance of agricultural development.
The report gives ample evidence of the widening resource gap between available resources and actual needs. It also rightly points out that the international support measures must complement national policies and plans as defined by the governments concerned.
All Nordic countries attach considerable importance to agricultural development in their bilateral assistance programmes. Over the years we have learned that agricultural development is a complex issue that must be promoted by different measures. The input constraint is just one of many difficulties. Unfortunately, aid-in-kind is often tied aid, with all the problems caused by this fact as mentioned in paragraph 87 of the background document. In addition, if aid is also given on a short-term basis, it may cause additional problems. In the multilateral context our delegations are strong supporters of untied aid. Thus, we are opposed to FAO getting involved in any additional kind of operations in this area. Against this background, our delegations have assessed the issue at hand - expanded role of aid-in-kind - with some concern. The report suggests that the readily available surpluses in developed countries should be used for filling the input gap in developing countries. Our delegations are not convinced that in the near future this kind of arrangement would result in increased overall resource flows. In our view these two aspects - surpluses and needs -should be delinked and aid-in-kind only given when appropriate for the recipient countries. In this way the aid will not harm the development efforts of the recipient countries. In our bilateral programmes we are trying to integrate the delivery of aid-in-kind with other components of planned agricultural programmes in order to increase the agricultural production.
The chapter on past experiences with aid-in-kind we found very interesting, and we agree that it is necessary to try to find ways to avoid the possible negative implications of aid-in-kind.
Such work is now going on in the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC), where the group of evaluation experts are working to establish guidelines for aid-in-kind and programme aid. We would suggest that the FAO should be in contact with the DAC Secretariat in order to avoid possible duplication of work and, in our opinion, the document 87/20 would also be a very valuable input in these DAC discussions.
Turning now to FAO's future role in the area of aid-in-kind; as we said above, we are strongly opposed to FAO getting involved in new operations in this field. We agree that there are some areas where the policy advice role of FAO could be useful and appropriate. It could advise recipient countries in the area of aid-in-kind, as to how these countries could identify requirements, monitor availability, coordinate supplies and use transportation facilities and marketing arrangements. These tasks should be performed using existing FAO facilities. The suggestion to widen the FAO International Fertilizer Supply Scheme to include also multi-annual commitments of other agricultural input aid ought to be clarified and the possible benefits of such a proposition described in more detail before any decision on this matter could be taken.
The Nordic countries find that FAO could make periodic reviews on the use of agricultural inputs in development aid and in this show how aid-in-kind is channelled and used in order to point out possible concerns and make recommendations for overcoming obstacles encountered. This kind of information may bring about facts which could be easy to remedy and would bring immediate benefit to all partners concerned.
Bernardo PALESTINI (Italy): We have read with great interest documents C 87/20 and C 87/20 Sup.1 and find that they provide an in-depth and comprehensive review of the issues involved. While we agree in principle with their conclusions, nevertheless it is our opinion that the solution to the problems involved is still a long way off, by reason of the multiple factors which affect it. It is true that a substantial improvement of yields can only be obtained by the use of modern agricultural inputs, such as mineral fertilizers, improved seeds and pesticides. But then other problems arise, such as production of the said inputs on a fairly wide scale, their distribution, technical guidance and expertise, etc.
Let us take, for example, the fertilizer sector. Italy, in the 1985/86 period, had a fertilizer production of over 6 400 000 tonnes. The annual consumption was of 5.5 million tonnes, and the stocks added up to about 1 million tonnes. But, as the said documents point out, only a small part of the over-production of the developed countries can be made available. There is a need to improve the distribution, on the one hand, and, on the other, to develop agricultural inputs production in the developing countries themselves, providing financial means and technical expertise for the realization of field programmes.
There is a further factor to consider, and this is irrigation. An appropriate irrigation network is essential if we want fertilizers and other inputs to be effective and thus provide an increase in agricultural yields.
Last but not least, transport and communication facilities are necessary to render agricultural inputs available when needed.
However, in spite of the many constraints facing the provision of agricultural inputs to developing countries, we are aware that such inputs are badly needed if a sustained and balanced growth, both quantitative and qualitative, in the production of food and cash crops is to be achieved.
Therefore-, apart from the provision of aid-in-kind to meet emergency situations, Italy's efforts in this field have led to the implementation of specific programmes, combining the supply of inputs - equipment, pesticides, fertilizers - with adequate support activities, mainly training, extension, credit schemes, technical assistance and soil conservation.
Based on recent experience, the latter approach has made possible a more effective use of the inputs provided, as was pointed out in the joint evaluation of FAO-executed mechanization projects funded by Italy. Whenever possible, Italy has tried to follow the same approach in carrying out emergency operations in such countries as Angola, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Madagascar, Mozambique, Niger, Sudan Tanzania and Zimbabwe, where the inputs requested by the recipient governments - pesticides, fertilizers, seeds, equipment - amounting to approximately US$ 55 million have been provided, along with relevant technical assistance.
Another joint evaluation is now under way to assess the achievements of Italy's assistance to the International Fertilizer Scheme.
Mme Cristina Isabel DUARTE (Cap-Vert): La delegation du Cap-Vert félicite la FAO pour l'état d'avancement, la qualité de l'étude, et l'encourage dans sa poursuite. L'importante étude sur l'aide en nature élaborée par la FAO fait suite à la remarquable étude sur l'agriculture africaine qui fut présentée à Yamoussoukro, lors de la Conférence ministérielle de la FAO pour l'Afrique.
Nous partageons l'idée selon laquelle l'accès aux intrants et aux moyens de production est un facteur décisif pour le développement agricole et alimentaire. Cependant, ma délégation aimerait faire quelques commentaires à propos du document C 87/20.
Il nous semble que, dans les premières pages, la question des intrants a été présentée comme la seule solution pour le développement africain, et nous pensons que l'on devrait avoir toujours présentes à l'esprit les limites de la fonction des intrants dans le cadre du développement économique africaine La question de fond est qu'il convient de relativiser la fonction des intrants comme solution au développement économique africain, puisque n'importe quelle mesure de politique comporte des relations de complémentarité en amont et en aval.
Le deuxième aspect concerne les effets possibles de cette aide en nature. Lors de notre première intervention au sein de cette commission, nous avons eu l'occasion de déplorer la mercantilisation des économies africaines. Nous pensons que l'accroissement prévu dans l'utilisation des intrants provoquera sans aucun doute des changements au niveau de l'organisation du travail dans le monde rural africain, qui influeront sur les aspects socio-culturels. Nous pensons donc qu'il ne faut pas concevoir l'opération intrants en Afrique comme une solution strictement technique associant l'écoulement d'excédents à l'augmentation de la productivité.
L'expérience faite dans notre continent nous montre que des solutions strictement techniques provoquent des résultats non souhaitables et parfois déstabilisateurs.
Le troisième aspect consiste à réaffirmer que l'opération intrants est avant tout un élément d'une stratégie de développement, donc sa matérialisation ne peut toujours être associée à l'existence - ou non - d'excédents. L'écoulement d'excédents des pays industrialisés sous forme d'aide en nature constitue l'une des façons les plus particulières de concrétiser cette ligne politique.
Le quatrième aspect à souligner concerne la coplémentarité entre les quatre "i". En effet, nous pensons que les fonds provenant de la commercialisation de l'aide en nature seront utilisés dans le cadre du renforcement de cette complémentarité pour le financement des infrastructures, incitatifs et des institutions.
En dernier lieu, nous aimerions commenter les paragraphes 22 et 23. Si à l'heure actuelle, il devient difficile pour l'Afrique de satisfaire ses besoins en intrants, nous estimons cependant qu'à moyen ou à long terme, la situation puisse se renverser. Et par conséquent, l'étroitesse des marchés •nationaux ne constitue pas d'obstacles, vu que la dimension minimale optimale pourrait avoir comme référence les marchés régionaux. C'est dans ce contexte que l'aide en nature ppurra contribuer à la consolidation d'une demande solvable et, à plus long terme, à viabiliser les industries africaines. D'où la pertinence d'une aide pluriannuelle échelonnée et d'échanges interrégionaux.
R. BATTI (EEC): Mr Chairman, we have read with great interest the report on the "Feasibility Study on Expanding the Provision of Agricultural Inputs as Aid-in-kind" and would like to thank the Secretariat for providing us with such a thorough analysis of the issue. The study draws attention to such crucial problems as the availability of inputs to make rural development and food self-sufficiency endeavours a success.
The ninetieth session of the Council set two principal objectives for the study: to determine the likely gap in the medium term between input requirements and availabilities, and to assess the potential role of aid-in-kind to close such a gap. The report invites donors to help fill the estimated gap.
As far as the Community is concerned, the third Lomé Convention contains provisions for multi-annual support for key inputs and raw material imports, sectoral import programmes, which allows us to intervene in this area in appropriate circumstances. Besides, the Lomé Convention, the assistance granted by the countries of Asia and Latin America has for many years provided the framework for the supply of fertilizers to a certain number of countries in these regions.
I would like to make a few remarks on the content of the report and to draw the attention of this Commission to two points: first, in considering direct aid-in-kind, one should bear in mind that commodity aid has its drawbacks. Food aid for example has too often harmed the development of local food production. In all countries the symbiosis of rural and industrial sectors represents the driving force of development. One should therefore ensure that the normal outlet of industry is not restricted by flooding the market with readily available imported inputs, especially if they are effectively subsidized.
On the other hand, commodity aid is usually even more difficult and costly to supply, store, manage and distribute than straight human and financial aid. Commodity aid should not be provided unless it is cost effective and combined carefully with an adequate overall and sectoral strategy and efficient management.
Secondly, input availability is not the main constraint on development. Past policies have often discouraged farmers from investing in input use. In our view, a certain number of factors have to be taken into account besides input supply. Pricing policies: both crops grown and fertilizers, and other inputs need to be priced in accordance with economic realities, thus encouraging farmers to step up production without wasting inputs. The extension of credit availability and its improved management are necessary to strengthen the absorptive capacity of the rural sector and its financial capacity to increase input use. Applied research should focus on cropping systems which diminish risks for the farmers and are carefully designed for the particular locality concerned. Parastatals have often been characterized by the lack of efficiency and excessive costs and therefore have not often contributed to the timely availability of the needed inputs nor to the prompt payment for crops harvested to the farmer.
The Community shares the view that the importance of inputs supplied should be stressed, but we hesitate to follow an across-the-board kind of approach because input availability represents only one element in an agricultural production orientated strategy which needs to take into account the macro-economic and sectoral policy and the institutional framework, as well as the social realities for the relevant farming community.
Giuseppe VASTA (Observateur de l'Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Economiques): Je voudrais féliciter le Secrétariat pour les excellents documents qui nous ont été présentés.
En ce qui concerne l'aide en nature, plusieurs délégations ont parlé des études et des évaluations faites à ce sujet par le Comité d'Aide au Développement de l'OCDE, le CAD. A ce propos, j'ai le plaisir de confirmer que l'OCDE est toujours prête à collaborer avec le Secrétariat de la FAO y compris dans le domaine dont nous venons de parler. Cette coopération du reste a été également offerte en plusieurs autres occasions et cela dans un esprit de cordiale et utile collaboration.
CHAIRMAN: Now that the discussion on these two documents has been completed, may I request Dr Rao to react to some of the points which have been raised by delegates during the discussion.
G.V.K. RAO (Special Adviser to the Director-General on the Feasibility Study on Aid-in-Rind):
Mr Chairman, thank you for giving me this opportunity to react to some of the comments which have been made. There have been 41 speakers, 39 representatives of countries and 2 observers from the floor. A very large number of useful suggestions have been made and I think it would not be possible, nor even fair to try to answer all the points. In fact, I am most grateful for the extremely helpful comments which have been made and generally the conclusions have been welcome.
However, there has been a feeling that inputs have been emphasized to the detriment of the other factors. I think I should take delegates back to the discussions which took place in the Council earlier. After the study on Africa was considered by the Conference and also by the African Ministers for Agriculture, the Council mandated the Director-General to do a feasibility study on the supply of inputs. The study was deliberately confined to one aspect of the particular task which had to be done
As has been mentioned in the report itself, there are other factors also, particularly the other three "i's" which have been mentioned, "incentives, institutions and infrastructure". They are all equally important. It was, however, felt by the Council that inputs had a higher importance than the other three and the Director-General in his foreword has pointed out that efforts to increase the proper use of foreign inputs may well provide a stimulus for improvements in the other three "i's". That does not mean that this study has tried to emphasize inputs as being the most important thing and not the other factors. There are a large number of other factors and this has been pointed out in the main book as well as in the main report which we have submitted for consideration. There were a number of other factors, policies, pricing, and all these have to be taken into account so that there can be successful agriculture.
But the Council rightly felt that inputs were extremely important and if I may be permitted to mention it, I would like to point out that in some countries the increase in the consumption of inputs, particularly of fertilizers, has led to those countries achieving very great success. I would refer to the case of my own country, India, in which the consumption of fertilizers just a few years back was only 2.5 million tons in terms of planted nutrients; at the time of Independence it was just 50 000 tons. It came up to 2.5 million tons after about 25 years' work. But a decision was taken, particularly when the new miracle seeds, so to speak, came in which were fertilizer responsive, that consumption of fertilizers should go up. A large number of factories were set up. We also imported a lot of fertilizers and the consumption of fertilizers went up from 2.5 million tons to 9 million tons and it is 9.2 million tons now. That is how the country's agricultural production went up to 150 million tons and we are in a fairly comfortable position.
The same thing is the case with China. China's consumption of mineral fertilizers now, this year, is of the order of 25 million. That is why their production is much more than 300 million tons Inputs, particularly fertilizers, are extremely important. You will find in the document, if you will go through it in greater detail - I am sorry that some of the documents were not available in time - that the consumption of fertilizers in many African countries is extremely low. The total consumption is just 2.5 million tons, and out of that more than 80 percent is concentrated in a few countries. Without inputs, really agricultural production cannot go up. That was the philosophy of the Council which mandated the Director-General to do a feasibility study on inputs. That is why inputs are raised again and again in this document.
Some delegates have made extremely helpful comments, and I am sure that they will be taken into account if further action has to be taken. The report itself makes it very clear that a general solution is not applicable for the whole of Africa. There is no such intention. It has to be a country-by-country study. It has to be tailor-made for each country, because the requirements of one country differ from those of other countries, as has been pointed out. In fact, what has been done is to set up small groups with local participation to find out what is happening now and what is required, and to try to find out in what manner those requirements can be fulfilled. There is no doubt that it has to be a tailor-made approach. There is no intention of having a general pattern for every country.
The idea that it is a disposal of surplus from developed countries has been mentioned only in passing. That is not the intention. The intention is to increase agricultural production in Africa, which is the only way of eliminating poverty also. There are some developed countries which have temporary surpluses and it was felt that this might be a mutually advantageous arrangement. The intention is not to see that the developed countries get out of a temporary difficulty; the intention is to assist African countries, and if in the course of that action it helps the developed countries, so much the better. In fact, that has been mentioned fairly clearly in the report also.
One delegate has pointed out that a new programme is not needed, that the existing mandate of the FAO itself is good enough. It is true that the FAO mandate is quite broad enough to cover these cases, but the case of Africa is somewhat separate. Africa, in spite of the mandate, in spite of all our goodwill, continues to be a problem continent, and it is going to have a large number of problems in the future. Unless we get out of the mandate, increase the mandate, or interpret the mandate in such a manner that special attention is paid to some countries in Africa, they are not likely to get out of the kind of trouble they are in.
That is the kind of spirit which moved us in making this study. I am grateful for the extremely helpful comments which have been made by most of the delegates in this particular Commission.
My colleague, Mr Bonte-Friedheim, has something else to add.
C. H. BONTE-FRIEDHEIM (Assistant Director-General, Agriculture Department): I should first like to echo Dr Rao in thanking all those who participated in this debate and discussion since Friday evening, all those who have provided information, those African countries which we have bothered with country missions, those donor countries which have provided information on their experience, and those colleagues from all member countries who have provided advice on the study.
I should like to start with what one normally ends with, that is to try and say where I see FAO going from here.
First of all, we will study the individual comments which have been made, and we might take up a few of them with individual delegations now or after the Conference. Of course we will discuss with OECD and DAC, we will discuss with EEC and bilateral donors, and certainly we will discuss with industries, but above all we will discuss with mainly the African countries which require our assistance in implementing in their own country some of the recommendations and some of the ideas as outlined in the study.
Furthermore, there are four broad subjects where FAO will have to do some more in-house thinking. The first one deals with the input study analysis. The second will deal with the national data and data coordinating systems. The third will deal with inputs for work and all the problems of benefits, and the fourth one will deal with animal feeds.
I should like to answer one particular question because I think it was a question which required an answer. Algeria pointed out that there seems to be some difference of view between paragraph 39 on the one hand and paragraphs 45 and 46 on the other. We believe that the proposals in the three paragraphs cited are intended to be complementary. Improvements in information on national input supply are a prerequisite in some countries for the effective operation of the proposed consultative committee or any other body considering input requirements and aid coordination.
With regard to the question by Peru on paragraph 8, I think that we have already dealt with this on a bilateral basis in informing him.
We in FAO are very pleased about the general agreement that the study, which has been prepared in record time, is a study found acceptable by most if not all speakers. We accept that the study has dealt with the very complex problems related to one of the four "i's", or possibly of the five "i's" as the delegate of Thailand has reminded us that the information and the need for information might be the fifth "i". We fully agree that this aspect of aid must be seen as a part of overall aid, and we agree also that agriculture in itself cannot be seen in isolation.
With regard to aid-in-kind, I should like to cite the study and just read a few sentences. We say that aid-in-kind should be complemented by supporting measures to address three other weaknesses identified by the study which need urgent attention. One, the widespread absence in African countries of coherent strategies for input production and use. Secondly, the lack of a suitable policy and coordination framework for input assistance which has frequently resulted in badly provided and badly received input aid. Thirdly, the demand and supply constraints that inhibit local production
We agree that if one were to implement aid-in-kind projects one should do it on a pilot approach basis. I would like to say that we note with pleasure that there was general agreement, first and foremost on FAO's general mandate in this field; second, on the need for data banks and their use on coordination, on the need for local production, but also on the need for triangular transactions. The need for guidelines has been supported by many speakers, though not by all The need that we should also think of the transfer of the right technology, especially for the small farmers, has been registered by us and will not be forgotten. In a way, it was surprising that some speakers objected to a mighty annual commitment of input or aid-in-kind while at the same time requesting long-term planning from the recipient countries.
We have been reminded Dy one delegate that a major donor country, and maybe others too, is expecting that aid will be levelling off in the near future. In this respect, I should like to draw attention to the last two paragraphs. Since to my mind they are very important, I should like to read them. The last two paragraphs of the study say:
"African countries have essentially two choices regarding future food supplies. They can work to reverse the past trend of declining per caputfood production by giving agriculture higher priority and improving support services for farmers. Alternatively, they can neglect agriculture and continue to be increasingly dependent on food imports, thereby foregoing employment creation from greater domestic food production and from capital goods imports that have to be restricted because of the cost of food imports. Most of them are actively pursuing the former choice, and off-farm inputs are playing, and must increasingly play, a vital role in its achievement. But qualitative and quantitative weaknesses in input supply, as well as problems with the other three "i's", are holding back progress. Removal or alleviation of these weaknesses requires greater aid-in-kind and other forms of input assistance, and it is feasible to expand them.
Concrete proposals require further investigation, and actions must vary according to country and commodity. Many countries in Africa require further institutional and infrastructurai improvements to ensure the correct identification of the inputs needed and to bring about their effective procurement and distribution. At the international level the needs are for greater donor support to input production in Africa combined with the expansion of intra-regional trade in inputs, and at the same time for more generous and longer-term commitments of input aid".
Maybe the study should have continued by stating not that African countries have essentially two choices but that the donor countries have essentially two choices regarding future food supplies for food deficit countries. Many donor countries have two choices to help these food deficit countries. They must do this without either harming emerging market farmers or harming local industry, as Zambia pointed out very clearly. These donor countries can use the existing productive capacity of their agriculture which is in excess of local or normal demand and they can supply food aid; or they can use the existing productive capacity of the industry, machinery, fertilizers, pesticides, insecticides, veterinary vaccines, in excess of local or normal demand, to supply suitable - I repeat suitable - or appropriate inputs. The discussions by recipient countries today have quite clearly indicated their preference.
I should like to end my contribution by two sentences from the foreword and leave it with the delegates. The foreword states:
"In most African countries, population pressure has brought about the spread of agriculture to a point where only marginal land remains to be developed. Moreover, crop and livestock yields on the land which is at present under cultivation or pasture cannot be raised on a sustained basis without the more widespread use of purchased inputs".
CHAIRMAN: We now come to the end of the discussion on agenda item 7. In this discussion from the floor there have been 39 country representatives who have participated. Among them were all the donor states and also many of the recipient states. Of the four states which have been studied by the consultants, two have spoken, namely Ghana and Zambia, and the representatives of Niger and Senegal have not participated in the discussion. In addition to those we also had participation by the EEC and the OECD observers.
understandably, in a discussion of this type the views that were expressed about the recommendations made as a result of the study have varied. Despite that wide variation there has been near unanimity in terms of the quality of the study and the thoroughness and competence with which the report has been prepared and presented. There was unanimity that this document presents a wealth of data in one volume relating to all of the 46 sub-Saharan countries in the area of inputs that was the focus of this study.
There has been some discussion as to whether there should be aid-in-kind through commodities or through providing cash. We are aware of the plusses and the minuses of each of these options.
While the debate goes on, the report has brought out clearly that aid-in-kind is already taking place as indicated under para. 70, table 4, which gives the magnitude of the fertilizers, pesticides, farm tools and seeds that have been supplied over a 6-year period, although there was a reservation entered that because of the paucity of data it was not clear how much was commercial transactions and how much was project aid. While this is so, the report also brings out the need for systematizing the transfer of resources taking place so that the aid being given could be used to optimum advantage by the recipient countries.
The report also brings out clearly the problems in observing the economies of scale in the underdeveloped or developing countries, particularly the effects of the fertilizer industry, and how most countries find it very difficult to set up modern fertilizer plants. It also brought out clearly the transport bottlenecks and how often it is easier to move something to Africa from Antwerp than from a neighbouring country, and in this context the study has highlighted the importance of triangular transactions.
Two questions were raised in relation to aid. Is aid-in-kind related to surpluses? Possibly in a manner of speaking, the answer has to be yes, at least under certain circumstances. But it is clear that it is not the surpluses alone that account for the aid but a number of other types of transactions not entirely related to the surpluses in the donor countries that result in the various programme aids and developmental programmes financed by the donor countries.
Another question raised was whether aid-in-kind replaces trade or project aid. The answer clearly is no, because this has got to be in addition to and over and above whatever other project aid and trade goes on, and hopefully trade of a commercial nature will have to expand.
The report brings out clearly the varied distribution in the consumption of inputs. For example, if we take fertilizer, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Kenya and Sudan account for 61 percent of the total consumption, five countries. Similarly for pesticides, Nigeria, Sudan, Kenya, Zimbabwe and Tanzania account for 60 percent, another five countries. For tractors another 5 countries, Zimbabwe, Tanzania, Sudan, Angola and Nigeria account for 60 percent. Delegates will have seen the details in the Supplement, which provides the wide variation not only in the graphics but in the tables where in a number of cases we find the figures not occurring for a number of countries.
The report also highlights the problem of determining exactly what the demand pattern Is going to be. All of us who are dealing with the developing countries, particularly under rainfall conditions, know that predicting demand is a very difficult and risky proposition because the crop area and also the use of inputs often depends on the monsoon or the rainfall. In this context a need arises not only for buffer stocking but also some public policies so that the inputs are prepositioned at the consumption centres and the right material is at the right place at the right time.
Another thing that has come into focus is the importance of the seed industry, and all of us who are dealing with agriculture are aware of how the seed industry is the most difficult industry to promote in terms or organization, research base and multiplication starting from the breeder seed, the foundation seed, and also the process of certification following growing in isolated conditions.
In the background of the prevailing unanimity that the report is thorough and competent, the question arises as to what the approach should be of FAO for further action on this report. In answer to that question three views have been expressed.
A majority of countries, particularly from the recipient group, have reiterated the need for follow-up of the contents of the report in terms of solutions. On the other hand, a contrary view was presented stating that what is being researched is already a part of the mandate of FAO, nothing new is needed and the country representatives of the FAO who are already located in the various countries should do a better job in trying to coordinate the requirements and in relating to the donor countries.
A third view lying somewhere in between has been expressed, which highlighted a gradual approach to this problem by taking a piecemeal approach in certain countries using the existing mechanisms such as the UNDP National Roundtable or the World Bank Consultative Group, as contained in para. 143, and also to the extent possible using certain existing mechanisms such as the Commission on Fertilizers, which could possibly cover some of these areas and programmes by expanding its scope. Whatever further action is to be taken, it is clear that so far as the recipient countries are concerned, as highlighted by Mr Rao and Mr Bonte-Friedheim, it has got to be done on a country-by-country basis associating the representatives of the countries concerned in trying to work out their needs in specific terms, how they see the programme over a period of time, five to ten years, and in trying to relate them to the work of the donor countries.
So far as the donor countries are concerned, basically a view has to be taken by them on the 11 conditions indicated in para. 163 of the Report indicating that possibly a long-term view has to be taken as to how difficult or how uncertain such an aid proposition would be in the circumstances in which we have to operate.
Those of us who are familiar with agricultural production, know as has been emphasized in the report, by a number of speakers, including Mr Bonte-Friedheim, that input supply constitutes but one of the important parameters for agricultural growth, albeit an important parameter. This has to go along with public policy, prices, marketing and state supports. Over and above all of this we must have a state-supported extension missionary capable of motivating the farmer so that all the inputs, thanks to the donor assistance that we are able to position in the area, are actually being used.
Now we come to the last question. Why Africa? The last item that we will be considering in this Commission relates to agriculture towards the year 2000. It is a revised report that is being presented to us for consideration. Some of us who have seen the earlier report know that the assumptions that were made five or six years ago have not turned out to be correct. Particularly in relation to Africa, possibly there has been a downward trend, which the world community as a whole must try to do its best to arrest and to see that the self-sufficiency goals set by the African governments are achieved to the extent possible.
With this background I conclude the discussions on agenda item 7 by saying that while the report is welcome we request that FAO take further action on the report keeping in mind the various points of view that have been expressed in our discussion.
We now close the discussion on agenda item 7.
CHAIRMAN: We now take up agenda item 8 where we have the pleasure of welcoming an old friend of ours, Mr Islam, who will present to us the document on agenda item 8, the Progress Report on International Agricultural Adjustment on the 12 guidelines and what has happened in the Sixth Biennial Report.
Nurul ISLAM (Special Adviser to the Director-General): I am happy to be here again to participate in the discussions on this item of the Agenda in Commission I.
Document C 87/21 is the Sixth Biennial Report of Progress in International Agricultural Adjustment. You may recall that the guidelines on international agricultural adjustment are intended to assist and facilitate agricultural policy harmonization among the members of the international economic community. The policy guidelines adopted by the Conference in 1975 and revised in 1983 represent a statement of goals and policy approaches at national and international level. FAO member governments have agreed to take into account those goals and policy approaches in formulating their own policies.
You had an occasion for reviewing the agricultural production performance and the overall policy environment during the discussion on the world food and agriculture situation, so I will make only a passing reference to those aspects of international agricultural adjustment.
The agricultural production target for the developing countries as a whole indicated in Guideline I is 4 percent per annum. In the 1970s the actual growth rate was 3.0 percent but it picked up in the first half of the 1980s so that for the period 1980-85 the growth rate rose to 3.8 percent, which is close to the target. The last two years, however, saw a decline in the growth rate for agricultural production in the developing countries. It did not exceed 1.5 percent per annum on the average, though staple food production increased by 3.0 percent in 1986. Furthermore, the 1980-86 average was pulled up by the impressive performance of China and India. If these two large countries are excluded, the average growth rate falls below 3.0 percent per annum, while for the least developed countries singled out in the Guideline the growth rate is only just over 2.0 percent and so was negative in per .caput terms.
The policy environment in many developing countries continues to be characterized by greater attention than in the past to the needs of agriculture. Reform of agricultural policies has often been part of the wider policy packages for macroeconomic adjustment. The external environment for the success of such policy reforms continues, however, to be very unfavourable. In the developed countries the policy debate towards ways and means of removing the serious imbalances and policy disharmonies has recently increased in intensity. I am pleased to report that the concepts and methods for measuring government support to agriculture in terms of Producer Subsidy Equivalents pioneered by FAO in the context of this very agenda item are increasingly proving to be a valuable tool in the current debate on coordinated policy reform.
Guideline 2 calls for increased resource allocations to the agricultural sector of the developing countries. Here the record is mixed. There was a 3.2 percent drop in fertilizer consumption:in the crop year 1985/86 and FAO forecasts the average growth rate for the second half of the 1980s at just over 5 percent which is half that of the 1970s. As noted in the report, the data for monitoring financial flows to agriculture are incomplete. Data available for some countries indicate that the declines in total investments as a result of domestic fiscal and external imbalances also adversely affected agricultural investment. Between the late 1970s and early 1980s the share of total public expenditure going to agriculture was also unfavourably affected in most countries and regions for which data are available. Africa, however, made efforts to channel an increasing share of public expenditure to the agricultural sector.
Guidelines 3 and 4 are concerned with policy issues which are covered in the WCARRD Programme of Action. Progress in this area will be reviewed in detail under the next agenda item. I will not, therefore, attempt to address these issues now.
Guidelines 5 and 6 are concerned with nutritional policies, food consumption and food self-sufficiency The trend noted in our earlier reports on IAA for an increasing number of developing countries to place greater emphasis on food production and nutrition objectives in their plans and policies has continued and received added impetus from their overall economic difficulties and scarcity of foreign exchange. At the same time these difficulties have made it increasingly .important for governments to intervene and support per capita incomes and food consumption levels of the poor. Thus, the economic austerity measures in many countries with debt problems often bear particularly hard on the poor with the inevitable result that their nutritional situation is, at best, not improving.
Concerning per capita food availability, the first half of the 1980s witnessed a marked slowdown in the rate of improvement compared with the 1970s, including outright reversals in many countries, while the slow production growth in the current year means that the situation is not improving and when all the data are in they will probably show reversals. This situation coincides with plentiful world supplies and stocks of cereals. That many developing countries could not benefit from low world prices to increase their food consumption is a further reminder of the pervasive effects of the economic crisis and balance of payments problems.
Guideline 7 is on agricultural trade and protectionism. We are all aware that over the past year or so government interventions in agriculture, particularly in the developed countries, which distort trade flows, have come under intense scrutiny, largely as a result of mounting budgetary and economic costs of these practices and also because of the increase in agricultural trade conflicts. The decision to include agriculture in the Uruguay round of GATT negotiations is an important step in the right direction. However, while these negotiations are under way, in the meantime more immediate measures are needed to combat the difficulties which currently afflict world agricultural trade, for example, application also to agriculture of the standstill and rollback provisions of the Punta del Este declaration.
Concerning stability of world markets for agricultural products (Guideline 8), the 1980s have been characterized by sharp reductions in international commodity prices and strong price volatility combined in recent years with large fluctuations in exchange rates. The climate has been particularly unfavourable for the negotiation of international commodity agreements and, with the exception of those on cocoa and rubber, no such agreements with market stabilization provisions have been concluded in the last few years. It is encouraging to note, however, that since the preparation of this document, export quotas have been re-introduced by the International Coffee Council with the aim of halting and reversing the precipitous decline in world coffee prices. It is also encouraging that UNCTAD VII resulted in agreement to revitalize aspects of the Integrated Programme for Commodities, while at the same time the entry into force of the Agreement on the Common Fund in the near future became a realistic prospect.
Guideline 9 advocates ECDC and TCDC in food and agriculture. Data available up to 1984 indicated that the rising trend of agricultural trade among developing countries was reversed in recent years, reflecting the economic recession and the decline in world agricultural trade in general. However, the agricultural trade among developing countries declined by less than their exports to the developed countries.
In the area of food security and food aid, global supplies remain plentiful notwithstanding the declines in cereals production reflecting reduced plantings in North America and some other exporting countries and the effects of unfavourable weather, particularly in Asia. World cereal stocks are forecast to decline by some 45 million tons by the end of the 1987/88 crop year, but they would still remain high at 396 million tons or 23 percent of world consumption. At the same time, stocks continue to be concentrated in the main exporting countries, while those of the developing countries are expected to fall to their lowest level for a decade. Thus, the main global issue in rural food security continues to be the inability of the poor countries and poor population groups to benefit from the global plenty. However, the global abundance of cereals has made possible the maintenance of food aid at nearly 12 million tons in 1986/87 and it is estimated that in 1987/88 it will be somewhat over 11 million tons.
In the area of external assistance to agriculture, the targets of Guideline 12 of $8.3 billion at 1975 prices, with $6.5 billion on concessional terms, have not been achieved. Total commitments were $6.2 and $5.8 billion at 1975 prices in 1984 and 1985, respectively, the latest years for which complete data are available. Data for 1986 are available only for multilateral commitments, which increased by 25% in current dollars and 5% in real terms over the level of 1985. Furthermore, the increase was entirely in non-concessional lending.
In conclusion, also this year in preparing this report we have tried to strike a balance between the need for full reporting and that for maintaining the document at a reasonable length. This was made possible also because some of the topics of this Agenda item are covered in more detail in other FAO documents submitted to this Conference or to other FAO bodies, e.g. to Council, the CFS and CCP. In recognition of this fact, and in view of the fact that many parts of the world food and agriculture situation and policies change only slowly, so that necessary information for monitoring becomes available infrequently and only after a longer time lag than two years, we have included a proposal in the introduction to this document: to change the periodicity of preparing progress reports on the guidelines from the present practice of once in two years to that of once in every frour years - that is in alternate Conference years. We hope that this recommendation of the Secretariat will receive serious consideration by this Commission.
AugustynWOS (Poland): On behalf of the Polish delegation I would like to present some remarks concerning the currently discussed document C 87/21, as elaborated by the FAO Secretariat.
First of all I would like to state that the Polish delegation fully agrees with the proposition that reports concerning the progress in realization of adjustment processes in world agriculture be elaborated at four-year intervals instead of the two-year schedule so far.
Turning to the Secretariat report itself, which in our opinion has been elaborated very thoroughly and includes a substantial amount of interesting statistical material, we would like to present the following reflections. The guidelines concerning the realization of adjustment processes elaborated in 1975 were accepted through consensus decision. Nevertheless their implementation has encountered great problems in practice.
This in particular concerns the Guidelines 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 10, where - if our interpretation of the report is correct - the progress achieved was slight, although some prospects for the improvement of the situation in the future are apparent presently.
While assessing very highly the total content of the report presented, we would like nevertheless to point out some either too-brief or superficial approach to some subjects.
The issue of agricultural protectionism and the development of subsidized production, frequently surplus from the point of view of the domestic market, has been discussed in parts 35, 36 and 37, while quoting non-FAO works concerning this subject. These works- in question do not have to be necessarily broadly known and in our opinion these issues should receive more attention, bringing more examples, facts and material, and, in the case of own reports on the subject, outside works could be added. The isolation of agricultural markets and surplus production realized at excessively high costs constitute today one of the major causes of the difficulties appearing on the international markets of food and agricultural products.
In part 37 we find the statement that the growing degree of isolation of the domestic markets from the international ones is a reflection of the decline of prices of farm products on the international markets. It seems that this statement could be reversed, taking into account the fact that excessively high production of some types of food products supported by high subsidies causes the supply of these subsidized food products on the world markets to grow and results in a dramatic decrease of prices. Such a statement would, in our opinion, much more accurately reflect the very nature of the phenomenon discussed.
In discussion of Guideline 3, we find the statement that this Guideline is not being implemented in the majority of countries, where this issue is particularly important at present or where progress has been very modest. One could possibly essay to answer the question whether this results from objectives and difficulties of an objective nature which are encoutered by Governments in the implemementation of this guideline or whether perhaps the Governments of some countries do not find the realization of this Guideline an important matter from the economic and social point of view. The problems and obstacles encountered in the realization of this Guideline would deserve, in our opinion, more and broader analysis.
In discussion of Guideline 4, as a most disquieting fact, we recognize the difficulties in securing for women equal rights as concerning access to land and identical remuneration for labour with men for the work actually performed. It appears that this issue should continue to be a central point of interest and concern of Governments of numerous countries and international organizations.
We find rather close linkage between Guidelines 5 and 6. To secure proper level of nutrition to all inhabitants of the globe and to eliminate hunger and malnutrition requires in the case of less developed countries, those with a lower level of the national product, first of all a more just distribution of the incomes among the particular population groups. It is a paradoxical development, although confirmed by much empirical research, that the discrepancies between the levels of incomes of the well-to-do and the poorest population groups are much greater in the less developed countries compared to those in the developed countries with a high or very high level of income per capita. The analysis and explanation of this issue and assessment of its weight is, in our opinion, very insufficient in the material presented.
The lack of progress in the realization of Guidelines 7 and 8 ought to be clearly assigned to the economically developed countries with a market economy, and this statement is lacking in the discussion of the Guidelines in question. There is, however, no doubt that the less economically developed countries are definitely interested in the liberalization of international trade in food and agricultural products.
When discussing Guideline 10 concerning food security, the issue of international debt is also mentioned as one of the crucial causes of the deterioration of the food situation in some countries. It appears that this problem, which indeed underlies the economic difficulties of numerous countries and makes it difficult to achieve any economic progress - among other things, in food security -ought to be seen in a much broader context, taking into account all of its implications. We hope that our proposition on this matter will be taken into account by the Secretariat when elaborating future Reports.
Ms Patricia WEST (United Kingdom): I should like to thank the Secretariat for an interesting report. There are, however, one or two points that the United Kingdom would wish to question. For instance, in the overview paragraph 21 states that external financial assistance for agriculture in the developing countries remains crucial. We believe that in many countries more money for agriculture by way of public spending is not a primary need. Our view is that the first priority is to introduce appropriate policies, since without these financial assistance would be of limited benefit. Increased use of the private sector for marketing, etc, will reduce calls upon the public purse.
As regarding Guideline 1 we are not keen on the way this focuses in paragraph 29 and table 1.6 on page 12 on self-sufficiency ratios. We believe that the emphasis should rather be on self reliance through comparative advantage. We retain doubts about the statements contained in paragraph 34 that in some countries higher price support for certain crops has not led to tangible results. This may well be true. Higher prices are necessary but probably not a sufficient condition, but more time is needed for the effects to show. Hard evidence is so far scarce and we feel it would be counter-productive to provide an argument for not adjusting prices.
Turning to Guideline 2, we would criticise the Guideline itself for not mentioning that assistance, in whatever form, must be appropriate and cost effective. We would also query the suggestion in paragraph 39 that structural adjustment measures have slowed growth in some economies We feel that this is not the case. Structural adjustment measures area adopted in order to lay a firm foundation for growth.
On Guideline 6, we cannot accept as true the statement in paragraph 100 that adjustment measures have, in general, borne particularly hard on the poor and above all on the rural poor. Many standard structural measures have helped the rural poor. For example, increased producer prices helped the small farmer.
As regards Guideline 10, there seems very little point in urging donors to meet the 500 000 tonnes target for the International Emergency Food Reserve and urging new donors to contribute when there are not, and never have been, problems in meeting the targets.
We are concerned that this report does not consider the environment.
Finally, the United Kingdom would agree with the proposal that the frequency of the preparation of progress reports on the implementation of the Guidelines and Targets for International Agricultural Adjustment be changed to every four years.
Roberto NICOLAI (Italie): Tout d'abord, je voudrais féliciter le Secrétariat pour l'excellent document qui nous a été remis. Ensuite, si vous le permettez, je voudrais faire des commentaires d'ordre général sur le document.
En ce qui concerne le protectionnisme en matière d'agriculture, notre pays est favorable à une plus grande libéralisation des échanges internationaux par l'élimination des entraves qui plus directement freinent les échanges tels que les restrictions quantitatives à l'importation ou à l'exportation, les calendriers d'importation et par l'harmonisation des dispositions en matière sanitaire, phytosanitaire et vétérinaire. Quant aux subventions, on estime que l'appui aveugle à la production et à l'exportation est une des causes de la dépression actuelle des marchés mondiaux et de la formation de surplus considérables dans certains secteurs tels que les produits laitiers, les céréales, le sucre, et la viande de boeuf. Il faut donc une concertation au niveau international pour une politique d'ajustements structurels visant à limiter la production et à ajuster l'offre par rapport à la demande. A ce sujet, il nous semble que les négociations auprès du GATT pourront être une occasion pour parvenir à la stabilisation des marchés par des ajustements apportés aux politiques agricoles respectives.
Pour ce qui est en particulier de la ligne d'orientation n°7, ainsi que tout le monde le sait, la Déclaration Ministerielle de Punta del Este du mois de septembre 1986 a sanctionné l'engagement de couces les parties concractantesà repousser le recours au protectionnisme, à éliminer les distorsions et les déséquilibres des échanges et à établir un système commercial multilatéral plus ouvert. En particulier, dans le secteur agricole on demande, en vue d'une plus grande libéralisation du commerce mondial des produits, de corriger les distorsions et les déséquilibres, notamment ceux qui sont liés aux surplus structurels qui frappent les marchés agricoles mondiaux, par une discipline plus rigoureuse de l'utilisation de toutes subventions directes ou indirectes ainsi que de toutes autres mesures qui influencent le commerce des produits agricoles.
Ces nouvelles orientations de politique commerciale, qui ont été réaffirmées lors de la réunion ministérielle de l'OCDE à Paris, du Sommet économique à Venise et de la CNUCED a Geneve, recueillent notre accord.
Cependant, il est impossible de faire abstraction dans la poursuite de ces objectifs de certains principes essentiels tels que la spécificité de l'agriculture, la sauvegarde des revenus des agriculteurs et l'emploi, le maintien des mécanismes prévus par la PAC, même s'ils sont adaptés pour permettre la solution du problème des surplus. En effet, on estime que pour atteindre les objectifs dont il est question ci-dessus, il serait nécessaire de tenir compte de la concurrence des productions des autres pays grands exportateurs de produits agricoles.
En ce qui concerne le problème des surplus, il faut reconnaître que la Communauté a déjà introduit toute une série de liens et de limitations qui directement ou indirectement visent à limiter la production et à impliquer la responsabilité des producteurs.
De notre côté, nous estimons utile de mettre l'accent sur le rôle que peut jouer une plus grande prise en compte des critères qualitatifs dans les productions agricoles pour contribuer à la réduction des surplus et pour stimuler les cultures les meilleures. On estime également que l'appui aux revenus agricoles devrait être assuré par la politique des prix ainsi que, et surtout, par des interventions de caractère structurel plus efficaces et destinées aux agriculteurs les plus défavorisés.
Quant au système des préférences généralisées, il faut souligner que tout récemment le Conseil de la Communauté a adopté certaines améliorations pour une série de produits, eu égard notamment aux intérêts des pays les moins développés.
Enfin, pour ce qui est des soucis manifestés par les pays méditerranéens en ce qui concerne le secteur des fruits et des légumes, 'en particulier, les agrumes, il faut remarquer que les protocoles additionnels aux accords, négociés tout récemment et qui vont entrer prochainement en vigueur - le premier est déjà entré en vigueur le 1er novembre dernier - prévoient des améliorations importantes par rapport au traitement précédent. En particulier, ils prévoient la démobilisation tarifaire et l'éventuel ajustement du prix d'entrée dans le cadre de contingents très élevés pour les agrumes, tomates, raisins frais, aussi bien que des concessions importantes pour toute une longue série d'autres produits tels que le vin, l'huile d'olive, les fleurs, etc.
Je termine en disant que nous pourrions être d'accord avec les propositions concernant La mise à jour du rapport, tous les quatre ans.
Arif H. UGUR (Turkey): The document C 87/21 prepared by FAO on the implementation of the Guidelines and Targets for International Agricultural Adjustment sheds light on how much progress has been achieved within the past number of years in this area.
The need for agricultural adjustment takes many forms, but, whatever form it takes, it calls for one or more types of public action. In fact, agriculture has been giving rise to increasing concern for the policy-makers of the governments in recent years.
One of the major roles of public activity and policies related to agriculture; in addition to promoting growth, is to promote agricultural adjustment. One form that the need for adjustment takes is the need for attention to income distribution as between farmers, and to the apparent income gap between the rural and urban areas. An improvement in the quality of rural life, valuable in itself, also creates demands capable of supporting industry.
Another type of adjustment that is frequently needed is to weigh the advantage of higher prices to farmers against the advantage of lower prices to urban consumers and make whatever adjustment is needed. This balance is of crucial importance in the recovery of economies from inflationary pressures.
As a result of agricultural policies followed and of continuing productivity growth, agricultural production has shown increases in developed and in some developing countries which are higher than the rates of growth of effective demand. Although there has been some slight progress in reducing the imbalances in world production, it is very impressive to see in the report C 87/21 almost half of developing countries with less than two percent agricultural growth rate and nine countries negative. This phenomenon indicates that the share of agriculture in total public expenditure should be increased; the services should be improved; the inputs and credits should be made available; and marketing, pricing and foreign trade policies should be improved so as to accelerate agricultural development.in a rational manner.
External financial assistance is definitely needed to support these government activities. The document indicates that official commitments to agriculture have stagnated in real terms. In this context I would like to emphasize the inclusion of local cost financing of development projects financed by the world credit organizations. This is of crucial importance for the countries having budgetary problems in the structural adjustment period. In fact, providing local cost will definitely help to speed up implementation. The other important issue is to put reasonable and realistic conditionalities in the loan agreements and procedures for disbursement of either project or policy-based loans, which complicate spending and cause delay in implementation.
Support measures directly affecting agricultural production have given rise to increasing concern to governments. The extensive use of farm income support and incentives policies has a long history in Turkey. Recently, the Turkish Government has taken steps to reduce some of the more wasteful aspects of production price supports. The number of announced supports has been reduced, farmgate price stabilization has become the main policy objective. In connection with the new policy objectives the Government recognizes that the substitution of floor pricing for incentive pricing and income support at high levels will curtail the inherent bias towards large farmer beneficiaries in the working of the previous programme. The reforms introduced have had beneficial effects on the level and structure of commodity pricing, and the overall financing cost of providing farmer protection.
Through the 1970s official prices for seed, fertilizer, irrigation water, and machinery and equipment were kept artifically low to encourage the adoption of new technologies and diffusion of more productive agricultural practices. Since 1980, the Government has instituted measures to reverse this situation. The subsidy level for all inputs has been reduced, and eliminated for plant protection materials since 1980. It is the Government's policy to furthe'r reduce and eliminate the remaining subsidy in the medium term. It is interesting to note that producer subsidy level is estimated to be about 8 percent of the gross value of agricultural production in Turkey in 1987.
It is worth noting a recent OECD study which covers the period of 1979/81 estimated overall producer subsidy equivalent 55 percent in Japan, 39 percent in the EEC, 41 percent in Australia, 29 percent in the OECD, 24 percent in Canada, 15 percent in the United States. However, revision of the same study covering the period of 1982/85 has indicated that the situation has further deteriorated.
The revised study estimated the overall producer subsidy equivalent to be 60 percent in Japan, 36 percent in the EEC, 40 percent in Australia, 32 percent in OECD, 33 percent in Canada, 22 percent in the United States of America.
The economic effects of subsidies are not confined to this sector only. The effects of high subsidization that increases agricultural production draws resources from other sectors in the economy, either directly into the agricultural sector, or indirectly into the agricultural input supplying and processing sector. Production increases through subsidization, import restriction and export subsidy influence both the relative levels of internal and world prices and give rise to price instability on the world markets.
As indicated in document C 87/21, in agriculture the limited progress in trade liberalization in recent years has been completely overshadowed by the restrictive measures and trade distorting measures taken by a number of countries. Despite the fact that GATT contracting parties committed themselves on trade liberalization, new measures have been developed in addition to traditional tariff and non-tariff measures, such as levies or quotas.
The EEC sets levies or quotas for major exporting countries. Turkey's horticultural products, and in particular textiles, citrus and tomato products are subject to EEC quotas. In addition, the EEC imposes a variety of other tariff-like measures that tend to hinder Turkey's exports, including minimum import prices, licensing requirements, ad valorem charges, variable levies, etc. Not only the EEC but also the United States of America are imposing quotas on Turkey's exports of textile and clothing.
During the past two years, however, the world agricultural crisis and the policies which led to this situation have ranked top on the world's agenda. Now that the crisis has become difficult to bear, even the developed countries seem to be more aware of the necessity for urgent and concerted action towards restoring non-inflationary growth conditions and the need for reforms in their policies. A common purpose appears to emerge among them, as witnessed by the outcome of the OECD Council of Ministers last May, endorsed in part by the Venice Summit. The last IMF and World Bank meetings in Washington enhance this feeling. We hope that this positive trend will materialize in the coming round of GATT negotiations, and that the aim of progressive, predictable and greater liberalization of agricultural trade, and a better harmonization of agricultural policies will be achieved.
Steen SØNDERGÂARD (Denmark): The Danish delegation would like to mention two items relating to the sixth progress report on International Agricultural Adjustment, that is, Guideline 7 on trade issues, and the question of the need for this report.
Regardless of one's attitude to trade issues, Guidelines 7 is in our view the key guideline. In particular concerning the work of the GATT negotiations, it is very important that the agricultural policy forum at FAO contributes constructively to trade negotiations in GATT and elsewhere. This requires, of course, an open dialogue, where everybody is prepared to listen with an open mind, if needed, to respond in an appropriate way.
The report contains many appropriate criticisms of trade policies of member countries, not least those of the industrialized countries. However, it is not acceptable that FAO focuses on divergences between governments and their administrations, as in paragraphs 118 and 119 dealing with the agricultural policies in the USA and the EEC respectively.
Turning now to the need for this report, and in particular with reference to progress in reporting on guidelines other than number 7 on trade issues we agree with the Secretariat that this is a duplication of the work done in reports like the State of Food and Agriculture, the CFS analysis and the WCARRD follow-up.
I would, however, like to underline the fact that we have found many interesting analyses or statements in the follow-up reports; for instance, paragraph 50 on the introduction of environmental aspects to assure a sustained agricultural and rural development; paragraph 64 on too much priority given to export crops when using limited credits; paragraph 69, the need to strengthen the research to the.benefit of local crops and existing farming systems; paragraph 81 on the unintended negative impact on the position of women of some well meant agricultural reforms in certain regions; finally, paragraph 95 on urbanization and its impact on trade patterns.
In conclusion, I would recommend wholeheartedly that the capable analyses would be better utilized if they were integrated into other reports from this Organization.
Enrique MONTERO CONTANDO (Chile): En primer lugar, quisiera felicitar al equipo tecnico que ha elaborado este completo informe. Es posible apreciar en el documento, que si bien algunas metas han tenido un cumplimiento relativamente aceptable, en su mayor parte, no han sido satisfechas y es mucho lo que queda por hacer.
A causa de las condiciones económicas, financieras y comerciales de los últimos años, los países en desarrollo han tendido a aumentar su autosuficiencia alimentaria. El cumplimiento parcial de este objetivo no parece haber ido acompañado de logros en otros aspectos de interés, como es el de la integración más activa del sector rural a una estructura social modernizada y a la economía comercial tecnificada y sus beneficios
Frente a esta realidad, es evidente que los países en desarrollo deben redoblar sus esfuerzos por lograr un mejoramiento de la situación vital de su población agrícola tradicional, así como de su participación en el proceso. En este sentido, y para este efecto, un buen camino es la implementación de planes integrales de desarrollo rural.
Por su parte, parece necesario que la FAO acentúe, congruentemente, su asesoría y apoyo a los países en el área de diseño e implementación de políticas. Igualmente importante es la acción de la Organización, tendiente a la consecución de una mayor liberalización del comercio mundial de productos agrícolas.
Consideramos que el desarrollo de los países debe basarse, más que en la ayuda externa, en la posiblidad de acceso que tengan sus productos a los mercados internacionales. En cuanto al punto que se somete específicamente a consideración de la Conferencia, de espaciar los informes sobre esta materia cada cuatro años, parece del caso apoyar la proposición.
Avram E. GUROFF (United States of America): The Secretariat is to be commended upon what we consider to be a very balanced and objective analysis of the current agricultural situation. The problem of agricultural trade and its causes have been debated at length in FAO and in other international organizations. The heart of the problem, in our view, is government interference in agriculture.
Many countries, both industrial and developing, have pursued policies of subsidy or protection for agriculture. The United States is no exception. The combination of subsidies with today's technology has an explosive effect on productivity leading to large surpluses and trade disputes.
Last July President Reagan announced a major new approach to the problem of agricultural trade and the United States presented this proposal in the agricultural negotiating group of the GATT. The nature of this proposal is probably already familiar to this group, so it is only necessary to refer quickly to its main features. The United States has proposed a complete but gradual elimmination over ten years of all agricultural subsidies which directly or indirectly affect trade and production. This applies to export subsidies, nearly all domestic farm programmes, and all import barriers. Important exceptions include income supports not distortive or production and trade, and bonafide food aid. Restrictive health and sanitary regulations also would be harmonized.
Virtually without exception and with varying degrees of comprehensiveness and success, all governments have contributed. It needs a solution in which all governments participate. The United States is prepared to implement its proposals, but only if and when others do. Without commitments from both developed and developing nations, change to benefit all agricultural trading nations cannot be made.
Rather than comment on each provision individually, I should like to associate my delegacion with the specific comments made by my colleague from the United Kingdom.
I would just like to continue by joining what appears to be perhaps the strongest consensus emerging from this Conference, that is the appropriateness of moving to a four-year reporting cycle a proposed by the Secretariat.
Almir F. DE SÁ BARBUDA (Brazil): I should like to congratulate the Secretariat on the high quality of this report. In general, we are in agreement with its conclusions and can offer our support to the document.
It is regrettable that the serious economic difficulties faced by the developing countries on the one hand and the persistence of mounting protectionism in the industrialized world on the other, have led to a disappointing overall performance in the implementation of the guidelines. The excessive burden in the service of external debts, the continual losses of markets for subsidized products from the north, and depressed commodity prices have substantially contributed to the decline of the rate of growth of food and agricultural production in developing countries, and also in their expenditures in the agricultural sector.
Like many other developing countries, Brazil has been facing in the last few years a serious economic and social crisis resulting from a huge external debt service and a domestic debt that limits the government's capacity properly to invest in the agricultural sector. In spite of these difficulties, great efforts have been made by my government to improve our irrigation and storage facilities, to extend the availability of credit to farmers, and to build and expand rural infrastructure facilities. As as result of these efforts, we had a record grain crop in 1986-87 totalling 62.5 million tons, around 8 million tons larger than In the previous season.
We still had some other remarks, Mr Chairman, to offer in relation to other areas dealt with in the document, but, not wishing to be repetitive, we will leave them to the debate related to items 9 and 10 of the agenda. In this context, we fully agree with the Secretariat that while the monitoring of guidelines remains essential, it duplicates a number of other regular reports. We therefore join the consensus and support the proposal to change the frequency of the preparation of the progress report to every four years.
Esa HÄRMÄÜLÄ (Finland): In this statement my delegation will mainly concentrate on issues of international trade and adjustment dealt with in guideline number 7 of the report.
The problems of agriculture are manifold today. On the one hand we have structural surpluses and the need to adjust agriculture in western industrialized countries, and on the other hand we have the need .to promote agricultural production in most of the countries of the world.
International trade In agriculture is in confusion. Enormous resources are wasted, for example in the form of export subsidies. There are no more healthy world markets for any major produce.
Because of this, trade in agriculture has risen to the top to the international trade political agenda. The Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations were launched last year with the aim of making international trade in agriculture more liberal. While fully accepting the goal of making trade in agriculture more liberal, there are also reasons to consider its consistency with positive global development of agricultural production.
Answers should be found to questions concerning relationships between more liberal trade and aspirations to increase domestic products in developing countries. Perhaps it is not easy to find a single answer to these questions, but certain basic elements are to be found.
My country, Finland, happens to be in the good position of being self-sufficient in basic temperate zone products in spite of being the northernmost agricultural land in the world. Indeed, today we are even producing too much. How is that possible? How has Finland been able to raise her agricultural production in a couple of decades to a sufficient level? Of course, there are many answers. But the basic fact is that this development could not have been possible without efficient protection of domestic production.
The need to protect farmers certainly applies today to many developing countries also. Domestic production cannot be raised and self-sufficiency rate growth improved without border protection behind which farmers can be given certain production incentives. Too low priced imports would - as happens in some cases today - ruin the aspirations to increase domestic production. Totally free world trade would not offer anything positive to many developing countries. This fact is also recognized In the Punta del Este declaration when it states "The developed countries do not expect the developing countries in the course of trade negotiations to make contributions which are inconsistent with their individual development, financial and trade needs." According to my understanding, this means that developing countries will also have the right in the future to protect their own production with the help of various means.
My delegation thinks it also fair to state in this context that at least for some of the developed countries, my own country included, it would be neither politically realistic nor economically feasible to totally give up the protection, and thus production of temperate zone products.
On the other hand, my delegation feels strongly that an industrialized country which protects its own agriculture against imports has no right to expand its exports with the help of direct or indirect export subsidies. I am sure we all agree to the fact that export subsidies are the main reason for the chaotic situation in the world markets.
With the help of export subsidies, many governments try to transfer abroad their domestic agricultural policy problems, and in doing so they cause enormous problems to countries producing and exporting without support and to developing countries trying to increase their domestic production.
The policy of Finland - and we have also expressed this in GATT - is to decrease the use of export subsidies. This will be done, and actually we have already done quite a lot by decreasing exportable surpluses by using effective supply management policies.
All that I have said above refers to temperate zone products. From the point of view of many developing countries, however, tropical products are also of major importance. In the past, Finland has taken concrete steps to liberalize imports of these products from developing countries, and is ready to go further and urge other industrialized countries to do the same.
Finally, I should also like to say that we have a feeling that this policy line which I described is consistent with guideline number 7 in the report because the guideline is actually written in relative terms.
Moisés TELIZ ORTIZ (México): La delegación de México expresa su reconocimiento a la Secretaría por la presentación de este elaborado documento C 87/21 sobre la aplicación de las orientaciones y objetivos del reajuste agrícola internacional, aprobada por la Conferencia de 1975.
Sobre su contenido, esta delegación expresa su apoyo a la propuesta de que el Informe sobre este tema se presente cada cuatro años, y solicitamos que la presentación de Informes a la Conferencia se realice alternadamente para una adecuada revisión de los mismos. Asimismo, solicitamos que la Secretaría distribuya los documentos correspondientes con suficiente antelación para que los países miembros puedan aportar precisiones al documento.
The meeting rose at 17.30 hours
La séance est levée à 17 h 30
Se levanta la sesión a las 17.30 horas
