I. MAJOR TRENDS IN FOOD AND AGRICULTURE (continued)
I. PRINCIPALES TENDANCES ET POLITIQUES EN MATIERE D'ALIMENTATION
ET D'AGRICULTURE (suite)
I. PRINCIPALES TENDENCIAS Y POLITICAS EN LA AGRICULTURA
Y LA ALIMENTACION (continuación)

6.2 International Agricultural Adjustment: Progress Report
6.2 Ajustement agricole international: Rapport intérimaire
6.2 Reajuste agrícola internacional: Informe parcial

B.P. DUTIA (Assistant Director-General, Economic and Social Policy Department): Document C 91/18 is the seventh full progress report on the implementation of the Guidelines and Targets for International Agricultural Adjustment. This is a report submitted every four years to the Conference. As delegates will recall, the Guidelines on International Agricultural Adjustment, which were adopted by the Conference in 1975 and were revised in 1983, are intended to assist and facilitate policy harmonization. They represent a statement of goals and policy approaches at both the national and international levels, which Member Governments of FAO have agreed to take into account in formulating their policies.

Continued monitoring of progress in relation to the guidelines remains important since the guidelines bring together in a comprehensive framework many aspects of food and agricultural development that often are considered only separately. The progress reports could also contribute to monitoring progress in relation to the implementation of the International Development Strategy for the Fourth UN Development Decade and of the Declaration on International Economic Cooperation, in particular the Revitalization of Economic Growth and Development of the Developing Countries. Both of these were adopted in 1990 by the UN General Assembly and on which FAO will be required to report at regular intervals on progress in relation to the food and agricultural sector.

Agricultural production performance and the overall policy environment have been reviewed during the discussion under the previous Agenda Item on the World Food and Agriculture Situation, so I will make only a very brief reference to those aspects of international agricultural adjustment.

During the 1980s food and agricultural production in the developing countries increased at an average annual rate of 3.3 percent, compared with a target of 4 percent indicated in Guideline 1 which is under consideration. Excluding China and India, the annual average growth of the rest of the developing countries is only 2.7 percent, while for the group of least developed countries, singled out in the guideline, annual growth was only 1.4 percent. This led to a persistent fall of production in per caput terms in this group of countries. Overall, growth performance shows a wide variation among country groups and individual countries.

In recent years, many developing countries have adopted far-reaching changes in their agricultural policies as part of structural adjustment programmes. Also, Eastern European countries and the USSR have recently started to introduce major reforms in their agricultural policies as part of the overall transformation of their economies toward being more market-

.
- 89 -

oriented. Reform of agricultural policies in most developed market economies however remains limited and it tends to be more inspired by domestic needs.

Guideline 2 calls for increased resource allocation to the agricultural sector of the developing countries. Physical resources to agriculture (land, irrigation, fertilizers, machinery, and so on) all continued to grow through the 1980s but at rates considerably lower than in earlier decades. Regarding financial resources, investment in agriculture remained in the 1980s about constant in relative terms. External assistance to agricultural research, extension and training, however, declined in real terms.

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 Agenda Item 8 on the basis of the Third Progress Report on the Implementation of the WCARRD Programme of Action (C 81/19). I will not therefore anticipate the discussion on these policy issues, but limit myself to observe that on the whole progress in the fields covered by the WCARRD Programme of Action has been rather modest.

Guidelines 5 and 6 are concerned with nutritional policies, food consumption and food self-sufficiency. The importance of incorporating nutrition considerations into agricultural development strategies, programmes and activities is increasingly recognized as an effective way in which the agricultural sector may contribute to multi-sectoral efforts to eliminate malnutrition. Greater awareness of nutrition problems in many countries and of the need to identify effective ways and means to tackle these problems is also the subject of the International Conference on Nutrition to be held in Rome in December next year. The Conference will have an opportunity to discuss progress in the preparations for the International Conference on Nutrition under Agenda Item 20.

Many countries continue to implement economic austerity measures as part of structural adjustment programmes. It is now recognized that the reduction or removal of food subsidies and related schemes as well as other effects of structural adjustment programmes can have in the short term adverse effects on access to food by the poor. Various initiatives have therefore been undertaken at the national and international levels to analyse the social dimensions of adjustment programmes with a view to mitigating their negative effects on the poor.

Guideline 7 addresses issues in international agricultural trade and protectionism. A number of countries have introduced changes in their agricultural policies which led to reduced support for their agricultural sector and improved market access. Overall, however, the international markets for agricultural products still remain characterized by serious and widespread distortions as a direct consequence of agricultural policies. Largely due to the commitment by developed countries in the Uruguay Round to a standstill in protectionism, the general level of tariff and non-tariff barriers to imports of agricultural and agro-based products has not increased, but the average level of agricultural protection still remains high. The multilateral trade negotiations under the Uruguay Round have yet to achieve agreement on specific reductions in export subsidies and domestic support and on market access, although recently there are signs of increased flexibility in the position of some of the major actors in these negotiations.

As regards the greater stability of world markets, which is the subject of Guideline 8, the 1980s have been a particularly unfavourable period, with falling and unstable prices for most of the agricultural commodities exported by developing countries. Reliance on international commodity agreements to stabilize prices and market conditions has tended to diminish so that natural rubber is at present the only commodity which has an internationally agreed stabilization mechanism in operation. Given the present economic climate which favours market-oriented policies over price-and-supply-management agreements, it is unlikely that the negotiating climate for new commodity agreements with economic provisions will improve, at least in the near future. A positive development is that the Common Fund for Commodities, which entered into force in June 1989, has begun to designate International Commodity Bodies, including many of the FAO Intergovernmental Groups, which are eligible to sponsor commodity development projects for financing under the Fund's Second Account.

Guideline 9 advocates greater economic and technical cooperation among developing countries in food and agriculture. Economic cooperation arrangements among developing countries appear to have had limited impact on their agricultural intra-trade. Technical cooperation among developing countries, however, has been expanding and has been successful in attracting support from developed countries as well as from the developing countries themselves.

In the area of food security and food aid (Guidelines 10 and 11), recent years have witnessed a tightening of world cereal markets. Although food aid in cereals has exceeded for six consecutive years the annual minimum target of 10 million tons, it remains considerably below the estimate of requirements indicated in Guideline 11. Access to food supplies remains the most important food security problem in many countries and regions mainly because of lack of income-earning opportunities. Factors such as civil strife, logistical problems, inappropriate policies, as well as severe foreign exchange constraints also contribute to food insecurity. A positive development in many developing countries has been the establishment and strengthening of national early warning systems and preparedness plans.

External assistance to the agricultural sector of developing countries remained grossly inadequate at a level 34 percent below target in 1989 and far below the estimates for requirements by 1990 which are mentioned in Guideline 12. Also, the share of agriculture in official commitments to all sectors declined recently. The share of concessional commitments in total commitments to agriculture, however, reached 75 percent in recent years, which is close to the target indicated in the same guideline.

In conclusion, progress in nearly all areas covered by the guidelines has been slow, uneven and on the whole unsatisfactory. Major adjustments in many policy areas are needed in order to achieve the goals and objectives of the new International Development Strategy and the Declaration on International Economic Cooperation, to which I referred earlier.

Mr Chairman, we look forward to the comments and views of the delegates on the issues covered in this document.

CHAIRMAN (Original language Arabic): Thank you Mr Dutia for the very complete introduction to this Agenda Item, the International Agricultural Adjustment. The debate is now open on this subject.

H. OVERMEER (Netherlands): On behalf of the Dutch Government allow me to congratulate the FAO on this Seventh Progress Report. We highly appreciate the kind of information surveys brought together here.

However, if we compare the guidelines to the results actually achieved, we must draw the conclusion that a lot of work still has to be done.

Our delegation supports the FAO concerning the conclusions about the importance of market access on the western markets and the necessity of the less developed countries to improve their real productivity. We support the FAO as concerns the importance of creating credit facilities to small farmers, help for artificial fertilizers and access to research. FAO's activities concerning nutrition must be continued.

A special compliment to the FAO must be made for her great knowledge concerning trade barriers and tariffs in the framework of the GATT negotiations. We should like to activate the FAO to use this knowledge in the framework of Guideline 7. We strongly support the FAO in her conclusions about food security.

Food security can be integrated into structural adjustment programmes by adoption of measures to accommodate the needs of especially nutritionally vulnerable population groups. Food security strategies are by their nature complex and should not be confined solely to the growing group of undernourished but should relate to all people in developing countries. In this respect diverse economic and social circumstances in these countries and also the position of women are factors to be taken into account. We strongly support the FAO in her conclusions about food security.

We can highly appreciate the content of the progress report about the People's Participation, Guideline 4, which is further elaborated in the plan of action of People's Participation. Our Minister of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries, Mr Bukman, stressed in this respect the need of strengthening the role of rural organizations. In that case people are in a better position to have control over their own position, and can press for participation in decision making in a dialogue with their governments.

In relation to the rural cooperatives we want to make a remark as is stated in the progress report "that while cooperatives are highly useful as instruments to promote rural development, they are less effective than less formal organizations in tackling the problems of the poorest of the poor". We are of the opinion that cooperatives are economic organizations which must be economically viable. The members of the cooperatives are financially responsible for the functioning and the continuity of the cooperatives. In this respect you cannot expect the poorest of the poor to be the first members of the cooperatives. Our experience has shown that if cooperatives become too much a social organization, whether or not influenced by government policies, they are not economically viable in the long run and cannot give an effective contribution to rural development.

The problem of the stabilization of prices of world market products is studied by several working groups of the FAO. This certainly contributes to the analysis of the problem and to recommendations to solve it. In practice however, the results of these studies seem to be less effective. Our delegation should like to get more information on this important issue.

Economic cooperation between developing countries should be intensified. We feel that FAO can play a role in this matter, as she already does in the field of technical cooperation.

In spite of progress made in the field of agriculture and rural development, food aid and emergency aid remain important supportive instruments in the cooperation with developing countries. Both types of aid should be tuned to the policies improving food security of the recipient countries and their traditional food patterns, at the same time encouraging production of local foods. Our delegation stresses the importance of triangular food aid activities at the regional level. These transactions need more support of donor countries, also in the field of technical assistance in bettering the transport and distribution facilities and improving the quality of the food delivered.

S. NAJMUS-SAQIB (Pakistan): The Pakistan delegation appreciates FAO Secretariat's efforts for producing a comprehensive Progress Report on the subject as embodied in document C 91/18. Guidelines 7, 8 and 12 were discussed by the Twenty-fifth FAO Conference as well: brief comments are being offered on some of the guidelines.

The First Guideline pertains to the expansion of food and agriculture in the developing countries. It calls for a growth target of four percent per annum during the Third UN Development Decade. At page 8, para 1.2, it has been indicated that the two countries which jointly constitute one half of the total population of the developing world, i.e. China and India, reflected an annual growth rate of 4.1 percent during this period. While in some of the developing countries, the growth rate fell in the 1980's. However, the growth rate during this period in my country, Pakistan, was satisfactory: the average growth rate worked-out to be slightly over 4 percent with oscillations between -4.8 percent to +10.9 percent. For the current year, 1991, the growth rate in my country has been 5.2 percent. As rightly pointed out at page 9, para 1.7, of the document, this guideline further refers to the need to "redress growing imbalances in world production"; a call has been made to check population growth so as not to upset the growth in food and agriculture production in the developing countries. While this may be done, we feel that more and concerted efforts must be made to increase production in this sector, at the same time. While results may or may not be achieved at the desired levels to check the population growth for a host of socio-religious and cultural factors in the developing countries, this should not deter efforts to increase production in the food and agriculture sector; so as not only to achieve sustainable development but to surpass the laid out targets - we feel this could lay the basis for Guideline 9, which calls on the developing countries to promote and expand trade amongst themselves in the food and agriculture sector.

Guideline 2 asks for the expansion of production and diversification of financial resources towards this end. It also calls upon the international community to support measures to provide agricultural inputs especially like fertilizers, pesticides, etc., to prevent post-harvest losses. In this respect, three observations are made: firstly, post-harvest losses in the developing countries need careful study. Certain developing countries tend to lose a significant percentage of their post-harvest production. In Pakistan, for instance, after a careful study, "rodents" have been identified as one of the major problems in this respect (See Naqué, Riaz H. Report, Tarrif Commission 1991). This results in heavy post-harvest losses. Careful studies on the subject are called-for, and FAO could assist the developing countries overcome this problem, where, at times, almost ten to forty percent of the post-harvest produce is lost.

Secondly, inputs like seeds are available in the developing countries - but the system of distribution and marketing may not be available. This sector needs to be organized: a system for the production, multiplication and delivery to the end user has to be developed. FAO and other developed countries should come forward to assist the developing countries in this respect.

Thirdly, inputs such as fertilizers and pesticides are, by and large, imported by the developing countries - unfortunately, the quality of such inputs is "highly suspect" at times. It is submitted that at least the developing countries and their farmers must get their money's worth. In this connection, FAO could play an important and objective role, and provide updated information with regard to fertilizers and pesticides to the developing countries.

Guideline 3 calls for the creation of institutional frameworks and farming structures which allow wider equitable access to the vast majority of the rural masses. The practical manifestation of this concept is to develop such frameworks in the rural setup of the developing countries. At page 25 of document C 91/18, examples of different countries have been cited. As Mr Dutia pointed-out progress in this respect has been modest: However, amongst others, two examples of success could be mentioned: the most successful one where the concept of formation of 'groups of borrowers with joint liabilities' for a loan at the village level is the "Grameen Bank" in Bangladesh: its operations are directed towards the less fortunate of the society in a village-level-setup. Unfortunately, in most developing countries, loans, etc., are generally extended to the established strata of the society - where the default-rate is very high. The "Grameen Bank" caters for the needs of the rural poor - and interestingly, the recovery-rate is more than 97 percent. At the same time, as has been rightly pointed out, there have been sustained gains for the borrowers. As compared to other examples, the concept of the Grameen Bank deserves careful study.

It may be pointed-out that Pakistan has also taken policy initiatives in institutionalizing rural development and for the effective participation of the rural population in the development process - success, however, has been achieved in the private sector: the Aga Khan Rural Support Programme (AKRSP) serves as the best example in this respect. The success of the said programme is evident from the development process that the AKRSP has initiated in the northern areas of Pakistan, especially in Gilgit, Skardu, Hunza and other adjoining areas including Chitral. This concept too calls

for a careful study as it directly involves the rural poor at the grassroots levels; and must find place in the FAO documents for further study.

Guideline 7 (and 8 and it is more or less related): This relates to the imposition of tariffs and the non-tariff barriers by the developed countries, thus restricting access to their markets for the products of the developing countries.

Unfortunately, trade protectionism along with the different subsidies given by the developed countries for the production and export of their agriculture (and other) products, is a serious problem for the developing countries. In this situation, the main issue for the developing countries has been, and is: how to gain access to the international markets controlled by the developed countries. At the same time, the food-importing developing countries are faced with a paradox: they have to import food to feed their people, and this very import of food by these countries constitutes a constant drain on their limited foreign exchange reserves which, already depleted, cannot be balanced through normal trade practices because of the disadvantageous position that the developing countries find themselves in. As pointed out earlier, it is here that the developing countries are vulnerable to external pressures.

Finally, we join the FAO in urging the developed countries to display the necessary political will by not only refraining from imposing any new tariffs and non-tariffs barriers, but to do away with the existing ones and to pursue such trade practices which are beneficial to all.

Mirza Tasadduq BEG (Bangladesh): Mr Chairman, before I take the floor for the first time, I would like to take this opportunity to extend warm felicitations to you on your election as Chairman of Commission I and wish you every success in conducting and bringing the deliberations of the Commission to a successful conclusion.

Mr Chairman, I will confine my brief comments to some key issues addressed in the document which, as previous distinguished speakers have already mentioned, is an excellent, informative and analytical paper prepared with painstaking efforts. I congratulate Mr Dutia on his excellent introduction of the subject.

The subject of world food and agricultural policy issues is vitally important not only to the developing countries and the LDCs but also to the developed world. The Guidelines and Targets for International Agricultural Adjustment, which were originally adopted by FAO in 1975, provide a broad framework for bringing about far-reaching policy reforms in the FAO member countries. FAO has a crucial role to play in closely monitoring the progress of implementation of these guidelines.

It is disturbing to note that in spite of bold and sometimes difficult agricultural policy reforms adopted by many developing countries and LDCs as part of World Bank and IMF-sponsored structural adjustment programmes, by and large no appreciable improvement in per capita food availability has taken place. The rising production is neutralized by higher population growth. Unless the population growth rate is contained, no policy measures would be able to stop the trend towards deteriorating food self-sufficiency.

The situation in the developed countries is different. As such, the imbalance of world production continues to persist.

Mr Chairman, in this connection I would like to mention the prevailing situation in Bangladesh. Radical agricultural policy reforms, together with improved technology and adoption of high-yielding varieties of seeds and fertilizers, food grain (particularly cereal) production has been outstripping population growth in recent years. However, as pointed out by the leader of the Bangladesh delegation in his statement in the Plenary, that the green revolution technology using high-yielding variety seeds and other modern inputs has so far proved useful in raising productivity, it also has its limitations.

Therefore, we have to look for new technologies to increase the agricultural production to match the rapidly growing population in the coming years in the developing countries. Development of biotechnology seems to offer the possibility of another great revolution in agriculture. The developing countries will require considerable assistance from the developed countries for adaptation of this technology through strengthening the institutional framework, research and training facilities.

Mr Chairman, flow of resources, both material and financial, to the food and agriculture sector in the developing countries is far from adequate. The OECD countries must be aware of the need to provide increased commodity assistance to the developing countries to reduce their balance of payment difficulties. Flow of bilateral and multilateral fertilizer assistance from the developed country to the developing countries falls much short of actual needs. We feel that FAO's International Fertilizer Supply Scheme should have a larger allocation so that it has a wider coverage.

Mr Chairman, peoples' participation is a crucial element in sustainable agricultural development. It is heartening to note that many developing countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America have taken commendable initiatives towards ensuring active participation of rural people in promoting agricultural growth.

I am happy to say that Bangladesh has accorded topmost priority in involving people at the grass-roots level in the implementation of rural development programmes. Cooperatives as an institution have been a tremendous success in augmenting agricultural production and creating rural employment opportunities.

In Bangladesh the role of women in development, particularly agricultural development, is growing rapidly. More than 40 percent of our women folk are involved in primary agricultural production. Involvement and active participation of women in the mainstream of our development process is one of the key objectives of our fourth five-year plan. In this connection, we commend FAO's support in funding participatory rural development projects. We hope FAO would find it possible to finance more of such projects which would reach larger rural populations in the developing world.

We have a long way to go towards fulfilment of Guideline 6 of the document which calls for equitable distribution of income, special measures like food subsidies or income supplementation for the undernourished and disadvantaged groups of the population, and better utilization of food. The progress report has adequately highlighted the implications of subsidy

reduction or elimination in the developing countries, particularly in the LDCs. As we are all aware, supported by evidence, the agricultural policy reforms adopted by many LDCs have had negative effects on the poor and the disadvantaged groups of the population. The developed countries and multilateral funding agencies like IMF and IDA must appreciate the fact that subsidy reduction would have to be gradual and should be monitored carefully so that, should there be any adverse impact on the poorer sections of the population, adequate corrective measures could be initiated.

Many countries of the world, including the developed countries, have in the past achieved great success in boosting agricultural production through government intervention in the form of heavy subsidies to the farmers. Bangladesh also pursued a similar policy in previous years to encourage farmers to use fertilizers, irrigation water and improved seed. But in recent years we have been pursuing the policy of gradual withdrawal of subsidy to achieve the goals of a free market economy. We believe however that the process should continue slowly in a phased manner so that the efforts do not prove counterproductive.

Mr Chairman, before I conclude, I once again thank the FAO for doing an excellent job in preparing this analytical report. My delegation hopes that FAO will continue to accord priority in monitoring the progress of implementation of the guidelines on a regular basis.

Pascal BRIODIN (France): Le document préparé par le Secrétariat dresse un tableau de la situation agricole et alimentaire mondiale dans les années 80, ainsi que des moyens qui ont été mis en oeuvre par les gouvernements pour atteindre les objectifs fixés par les lignes d'orientation adoptées par notre Conférence en 1975 et révisées en 1983.

Ces lignes d'orientation demeurent certes de la plus grande actualité et il est intéressant que le Secrétariat s'emploie à cet exercice d'analyse, mais ma délégation observe que les sujets traités figurent déjà pour l'essentiel sous d'autres points de l'ordre du jour. C'est pourquoi ma délégation appuie la suggestion faite par d'autres délégations au cours des débats précédents de traiter simultanément des points 6.1 et 6.2. Cependant, je vous ferai part des réflexions principales que m'inspire ce document.

Des multiples sujets traités, j'en retiendrai trois principaux.

Premier sujet: celui des politiques agricoles. Des réformes profondes des politiques agricoles ont été entreprises dans de nombreux pays en développement qui ont permis souvent un rééquilibrage entre le secteur agricole et le reste de l'économie, et encouragé une croissance soutenue de la production, mais elles ont eu des conséquences néfastes parfois pour les pays les plus pauvres. D'importants obstacles subsistent néanmoins, notamment ceux de l'accès à la terre, de l'accès au crédit et aux services de vulgarisation, ainsi que de la sécurité foncière.

Deuxième sujet: celui de la croissance de la productivité en agriculture. D'importants progrès ont été réalisés, ce qui en moyenne a amélioré la disponibilité en produits alimentaires. Malheureusement, de graves déficits subsistent: l'autosuffisance des pays les moins avancés a diminué au cours de la décennie. De plus, une menace pèse sur l'avenir: la surface agricole

par actif a diminué, ce qui signifie que les effets des gains de productivité peuvent être anéantis par une trop forte poussée démographique. L'attention plus grande portée par les gouvernements sur l'environnement législatif et économique des producteurs agricoles, et les progrès induits par les techniques de production nouvelles ne suffisent donc pas. Ils butent sur deux obstacles: d'une part, la croissance démographique mal contrôlée, et le maintien d'un différentiel de productivité en faveur des agricultures des pays développés d'autre part.

Troisième thème: celui des marchés internationaux. J'observe qu'une grande attention est portée dans ce document aux négociations multinationales.

Pourtant, notre Conférence n'est pas le lieu pour poursuivre des débats qui ont lieu dans une autre enceinte.

Evidemment, personne ne peut observer sans réagir le déséquilibre persistant entre des agricultures, au nord, qui souffrent d'excédents chroniques, et des agricultures, au sud, qui ne parviennent pas à satisfaire les besoins nationaux.

Comment corriger ce déséquilibre? Faut-il préconiser une levée de tous les dispositifs de soutien à l'agriculture? Mais sait-on alors quelle serait l'évolution des prix et des productions si la libéralisation des échanges au niveau mondial était appliquée à l'ensemble des économies nationales? Quelles seraient les conséquences d'un libéralisme pur et dur sur la situation particulière de chaque pays en développement?

Les économistes ne s'accordent pas sur les réponses à toutes ces questions.

Pour notre part, nous pensons que les perturbations qui résulteraient de l'application sans nuance de ces principes mettraient en danger la production agricole de nombreux pays, tant dans les pays en développement que dans les pays développés.

Quelles sont les caractéristiques des marchés agricoles?

Ces marchés sont divers et segmentés, et des problèmes différents se posent à chaque catégorie de produits. Le fait est que souvent les produits tropicaux ne se trouvent pas en concurrence véritable avec les produits tempérés sur un même marché. A produits différents, marchés différents. Donc, à produits différents, traitements différents.

Aux pays en voie de développement, il faut délivrer un message clair. De ce point de vue, je veux rappeler le soutien de mon pays aux accords internationaux de produits, et l'ouverture large des frontières de la Communauté européenne aux produits agricoles de pays associés, ouverture qui s'est concrétisée non seulement dans la quatrième Convention de Lomé, mais aussi dans l'amélioration du Système généralisé de préférences, ainsi que dans les propositions faites par la Communauté au sein du GATT.

Le document que nous examinons a le mérite de brosser un tableau assez large de la situation de l'agriculture, comme des moyens mis en oeuvre pour améliorer cette situation.

Je veux en retenir une réflexion principale: des décisions de politique agricole courageuses ont été prises, des décisions courageuses sont à prendre en matière de politique agricole. Elles seront le moteur principal des transformations que nous attendons tous.

Oscar Sales PETINGA (Portugal): Le document C 91/18 que le Secrétariat a préparé contient un ensemble de points essentiels pour le développement équilibré des pays, en incluant l'autosuffisance alimentaire des pays qui ne l'ont pas encore atteinte et le commerce international des pays agricoles.

A la Conférence de 1989, on a examiné les progrès accomplis en ce qui concerne les lignes d'orientation: politiques ayant une incidence sur le commerce international des produits agricoles mondiaux et sur l'accès aux marchés; stabilité des marchés agricoles mondiaux et accès des pays en développement importateurs de vivres aux approvisionnements alimentaires à des conditions raisonnables; aide aux pays en développement dans le secteur de l'agriculture.

La délégation portugaise a déjà exprimé son point de vue sur les lignes d'orientation numéro l lors de son intervention sur la situation de l'alimentation et de l'agriculture.

Cette orientation prévoit une croissance annuelle moyenne de 4 pour cent de la production alimentaire et agricole dans les pays en développement au cours de la troisième décennie des Nations Unies pour le développement.

Le taux de croissance annuelle, en moyenne de 3,3 pour cent, enregistré dans la décennie 1980 représente une accélération par rapport au taux des années 1970.

Bien que n'ayant pas encore atteint les objectifs fixés par les lignes d'orientation, nous reconnaissons avec joie qu'il y a eu des progrès en ce qui concerne la production globale.

Cependant, malgré l'augmentation de la production, une grande partie des pays en développement n'ont pas encore amélioré de manière significative leur production per capita, notamment en Afrique, où les disponibilités en aliments de production locale n'ont en général pas augmenté. Cela nous amène à recommander un effort plus important pour que la production agricole augmente dans ces pays.

Pour que cela devienne une réalité, il est nécessaire d'augmenter le flux total des ressources financières et autres, et notamment les investissements, ainsi que l'assistance extérieure à la recherche, à la formation et à la vulgarisation agricole. Dans ces domaines, le Portugal a investi et continue à investir des ressources matérielles et humaines très importantes. Nous avons donné une réponse positive à toutes les sollicitations que nous avons reçues dans le domaine de la formation des cadres des pays en développement.

Nous considérons qu'il est décisif d'augmenter la production agricole dans les pays mais nous ne pouvons pas oublier le bon fonctionnement des marchés, l'existence des moyens de communication appropriés et la réduction des pertes après les récoltes. Ces récoltes atteignent parfois 40 pour cent

du total et ont aussi une grande importance en ce qui concerne les disponibilités alimentaires.

La délégation portugaise se félicite des progrès déjà accomplis dans les domaines des lignes d'orientation No. 3 en reconnaissant que les nouvelles technologies devront être adaptées aux conditions de travail et devront être accompagnées d'investissements bien forts pour ce qui est de la formation professionnelle, de façon à ce qu'il soit possible de mettre en marche les nouveaux systèmes introduits.

L'on arrive parfois à de meilleurs résultats avec l'introduction de technologies intérimaires adaptées aux possibilités locales. Ces résultats sont également meilleurs lorsque nous utilisons des équipements fort bien sophistiqués.

Dans le domaine de la ligne d'orientation No. 5, le Secrétariat fait ressortir, entre autres aspects, la réalisation de la Conférence internationale sur la nutrition qui se tiendra à Rome en décembre 1992.

Nous sommes entièrement d'accord avec cette perspective et nous interviendrons sur ce sujet lorsqu'il sera traité spécifiquement. Ainsi que nous le savons, il existe des aspects de faims qualitatives et quantitatives qui provoquent des effets défavorables sur l'activité des populations et parfois même, lorsque les conditions sont très graves, la mort peut être le résultat final.

Une alimentation rationnelle pourra contribuer à une utilisation plus appropriée des ressources disponibles et pourra se traduire par de grandes économies d'importations de biens alimentaires.

Les carences en protéines, en vitamines du complexe B, E et A sont encore aujourd'hui fréquentes dans certaines régions et atteignent plusieurs centaines de milliers d'êtres humains. Le Kwashiorkor, l'aveuglement, les glocités, le bocio endémique et l'anémie sont les maladies qui sont pour la plupart le résultat de situations provoquées par une alimentation déséquilibrée.

Le type de l'alimentation peut influencer la survie alimentaire des populations. Dans certaines régions, ce sont les céréales et les produits secs qui sont la base de l'alimentation, ainsi qu'on l'a constaté dans le sud-est asiatique et en Amérique latine. Ce sont des produits de conservation facile qui permettent une certaine stabilité en ce qui concerne l'approvisionnement d'aliments.

On vérifie des situations assez différentes dans des régions où la base de l'alimentation sont les racines et les tubercules, riches en eau, de production saisonnière, ce qui donne lieu à des périodes ayant des excédents alimentaires et d'autres périodes de pénuries.

Les résultats déjà atteints pour ce qui est de l'ajustement agricole international adopté par la Conférence de 1975 nous transmettent l'espoir que les objectifs fixés seront atteints bien que les progrès ne soient pas semblables dans les diverses régions. Tout cela ne peut pas nous éloigner des orientations tracées.

Rolf AKESSON (Sweden): The extensive and thorough progress report prepared for this item is very much in line with what we Members collectively have been asking for. There may be a few exceptions, for example, regarding Guidelines 4 and 5 where the country coverage is not universal, but on the whole we find that the report well covers developments relevant for the twelve guidelines. In fact the report is a very good example of the kind of analytical macro-oriented work with global policy relevance that is one of our top priorities for the FAO. This demonstrates once again that the Organization has an excellent capacity in that respect. Let me also say that we generally agree with Mr Dutia's conclusion that progress overall has been slow, uneven and unsatisfactory.

But we still feel somewhat uneasy about this exercise. I think the main reason is that the guidelines basically were developed and adopted at a time when prevailing opinions and philosophies in some respects were different from these of present times. While for example Guideline 8 on Stability of Markets and International Commodity Agreements, and Guideline 10 on World Food Security and Global Cereal Stocks, were not only relevant but also considered important aspects at their time of formulation or re-formulation, it is more than likely that they would be formulated differently or perhaps left out altogether were they considered from scratch today. And that is valid also for some of the other guidelines.

Another reason for our uneasiness is the lack of universal coverage and balance. While we certainly do not advocate that equal importance is paid to all regions and countries, and certainly recognize that agriculture plays a greater role in the economies of developing countries than in developed ones, it looks a bit odd to us that out of the twelve guidelines, nine refer exclusively or primarily to agriculture in developing countries, while - as far as we can see - not a single one refers only to developed country agriculture. And the remaining three guidelines, while covering both groups, are formulated mainly from a developing country perspective.

A third reason stems from the fact that international events are about to take place which are likely to markedly affect the guidelines and the basic pre-conditions for them. I have in mind particularly the result of the Uruguay Round, but other events, such as the UNCED next year in Rio and perhaps the ICN may also be relevant.

Finally, it seems to us that some of the principal objectives of the guidelines, such as the precise figure for growth of agricultural production, are based on a view of the economic system that is no longer shared by a large number of governments. This change in perceptions also means that present and future agricultural problems of the economies in transition in East and Central Europe and the USSR cannot be adequately covered by the guidelines. That is a subject which is likely to remain a top priority of the international agricultural agenda for a long time since it has clear global repercussions.

For these reasons, we find the time may be approaching for a reconsideration of this activity: a reconsideration with an open mind where all possible alternative ways of achieving the objectives are taken up. If it is found useful to continue with this kind of guideline - and we have no firm opinion in that respect since obviously it depends on the content -then the Danish suggestion that monitoring takes place in connection with a more policy-oriented discussion of the State of Food and Agriculture is an

attractive one to us. But I am very anxious to stress that we are not putting into question this kind of analytical macro-economic work which we regard very highly, but rather to see whether the impressive resources available for this purpose could be used even better.

Praphas WEERAPAT (Thailand): The Thai delegation would like to make a short comment on the expected average annual growth rate of food and agricultural production, and to comment on the activities of Technical Cooperation among Developing Countries or TCDC.

The average annual growth rate of food and agricultural production of developing countries as shown in Table 1.1 of the document C 91/18 was lower than expected and tended to decrease from 1988-90, with fluctuation of rates from year to year. My delegation is concerned about how we can reach the annual growth rate at 4 percent because the expected rate seems to be very high. The fluctuation of growth rate from year to year would suggest that agricultural production in developing countries was largely dependent on weather conditions and the outbreak of diseases and insect pests. So how can we expect output from food crop production? Several guidelines as recommended in the document are very good guidance for increasing food production. So we thank the Secretariat for the preparation of the document.

My delegation recognizes the beneficial activities of TCDC that were organized by FAO, but we would like FAO to strengthen the TCDC to coordinate the precise activities with related activities in terms of food production so that the developing countries can help each other in the future.

David DRAKE (Canada): The Canadian delegation welcomes this item and commends the Secretariat for preparing document C 91/18, which is well written and contains a wealth of information and analysis on agricultural development in the 1980s.

The Canadian delegation would like to join with other delegations in expressing Canada's deep concern over the relative decline in agriculture in the developing world during the 1980s. A decade now commonly referred to as "lost to development". Although the situation remains serious, particularly in Africa, Canada maintains a cautious optimism about the potential for real recovery in the agricultural sector in the developing world, thanks to the recent trends of more participatory forms of government and increased attention to market forces and reformed macro-economic policy in developing nations.

The report is extensive and all of the guidelines remain basically valid. In the interest of time, we will not comment at length. Nevertheless, we would like to highlight the following few issues raised in the report.

Guideline 2 urges that the total flow of financial and other resources to the agriculture sector should be greatly increased in the developing countries. While my delegation would not disagree with this in principle, we would point out that circumstances have changed somewhat as far as external funding is concerned. Since the guidelines were first established in 1975, both donors and developing nations alike have found themselves

faced with severely restricted budgets which to a large extent rule out any significantly increased infusion of external funding to the developing nations for the foreseeable future.

What the report does not adequately highlight in our view is the requirement for all concerned to concentrate on efficient use of resources. In some cases, this means tough structural adjustment measures involving some temporary hardships. Often, what is required is a reorientation of the economy to recognize the primacy of agriculture. There is also a strong connection with Guideline 7, which stresses the need for developed countries to refrain from restraining the trade of the developing nations. Internal attempts to restructure developing economies to respond more freely to market structures will fail if access to export markets is blocked by restrictive trade practices of developed nations. While support for structural adjustment programmes remains one of the main policy pillars for the Canadian International Development Assistance Programme, I should point out that it is my country's view that any structural adjustment programmes should be accompanied by special measures to protect the interests of vulnerable groups, especially women and children, and that these measures should be integral parts of the design of adjustment programmes from the outset.

My delegation, like the delegate of the Netherlands, would also like to underline the importance of Guideline 4, which states that national policies should encourage fuller participation of rural people in planning, implementing and evaluating policies and projects which affect their well-being. This includes the full participation of women in the development process. A strong link is needed between people's participation and people's organizations. Active participation can only be brought about through local community and membership-based self-help organizations the whose primary aim is the pursuit of their members' economic, social and cultural prosperity. Much work remains to be done to organize rural populations in the developing world to benefit from such dynamics. We strongly support this guideline and believe that it deserves much stronger emphasis in the future.

In conclusion, although much of the information imparted in the document is already well-known, this report does make a special contribution to the body of knowledge on the subject because it addresses the issues of agricultural adjustment in the 1990s in an integrated and intellectually disciplined form, thanks to the reference to the twelve guidelines established in 1975.

Therefore we agree with the delegate of Sweden in what he said for the reasons that he specified.¹

Jorgen Skovgaard NIELSEN (Denmark) : At this late hour I promise to be brief. The Secretariat has given us a very thorough and comprehensive report, with much interesting information. However, as I mentioned under Agenda Item 6.1, Denmark considers the time to be ripe for integration of this policy paper into a more comprehensive policy-oriented version of the

¹ Statement inserted in the Verbatim Records on request

State of Food and Agriculture. I am grateful for the support I have received from several countries on this proposal, and also for the very constructive and comprehensive comments I have already received from the Secretariat.

Consistent with this attitude, I have not prepared a detailed statement on this agenda item. However, I will repeat what I said on the earlier item -that is, I question whether experience from a few success stories in a few developing countries can be transferred to other countries. I am here particularly thinking of China and India.

Finally, I associate myself with the statement made by the delegation of Sweden.

Ms Carol J. KRAMER (United States of America): Thank you, Mr Chairman, for the opportunity to present the views of the United States delegation. Thanks also to Mr Dutia for the overview at the beginning and to the Secretariat for carrying out their mandate.

The paper presents a factual assessment of recent trends in relation to the established guidelines. These international agricultural adjustment guidelines were established in 1975 and revised in 1983. In many respects, as some other countries have suggested, they appear out of line with current realities, especially Guideline 8 which calls for reliance on international commodity agreements to stabilize global agricultural markets. In addition, the guidelines do not focus explicitly on some important features of current adjustment programmes, most particularly the commitments to creating policies and institutions which make a transition to more market-oriented agricultural systems.

The current review is in large measure an attempt to look at the 1990s through 1970s glasses. The United States questions whether continuing this type of review is the best use of FAO resources. In future, reports should include an examination of whether this is an item that could be dropped from FAO agendas, or at minimum whether these guidelines are appropriate to the current situation. There are several areas in which such a review might be particularly helpful, including eliminating the call for the use of international commodity agreements as the primary vehicle for stabilizing international markets - Guideline 8; secondly, reviewing the guidelines to make them more consistent with the widespread emphasis on making a transition from more State-controlled to more market-oriented agricultural systems, and finally, increasing the emphasis on individual participation through institutions such as open competitive markets to complement the heavy emphasis on organizations in Guideline 4.

My delegation would now like to make some additional brief points. First, Guideline 1 refers to achieving a target of an annual increase in developing country food production of 4 percent to enable developing countries to become more self-reliant in the production of basic foodstuffs. "Self-reliance" is generally interpreted to mean that countries are able to produce or purchase on the international market an adequate supply of basic food-stuffs. The paper discusses the estimate as one of food self-sufficiency and of food self-reliance.

Secondly, we agree the discussion of policies under Guideline 1 correctly identifies the major thrust of policy change in developing countries and in East and Central Europe as progress is made in the transition of market-oriented economies. We also note, as has the World Bank, that this adjustment is a long-term process that they initially envisioned.

Thirdly, the discussion of progress under Guideline 2 correctly identifies both the extension of developing country agricultural research programmes and the decline in real level of external assistance supporting agricultural research in the second half of the 1980s.

Other assessments of agricultural research point now to the need to make newly acquired agricultural research facilities and workers more productive and efficient and sustainable.

Fourthly, Guidelines 7 and 8 are not wholly consistent with the position of the United States taken in the Uruguay Round. Guideline 7 uses the terminology "refraining to the maximum extent possible" to suggest that exporters should not use export subsidies and importers should not impose new tariffs or non-tariff barriers for agricultural and agro-based products. The Government of the United States holds that countries should reduce or eliminate trade distorting policies such as export subsidies and should improve market access by reducing tariff and non-tariff barriers.

Fifthly, we believe that the reference to Japan's improvement of market accessibility is perhaps too generous a statement. While the Government of Japan has increased its beef and citrus import quotas, and abolished quotas for processed cheese, tomato products and certain non-citrus products, Tokyo has continued to maintain relatively to completely closed markets for other commodities such as wheat, barley and rice. The United States believes that the Government of Japan can do more to improve its market access.

Sixth, as a note of clarification the United States-Canada Free Trade Agreement was signed in January 1988 and not 1989.

Seventh, the United States Government does not endorse international commodity agreements as outlined in Guideline 8. The United States does, however, recognize legitimate food aid needs and its obligations to such crises.

Eighth, we suggest that the phrase "greater stability in" in Guideline 8.3 be replaced with "additional downward pressure on".

Ninth, we believe that Guideline 8.5 should be modified to reflect the recent development in the GATT talks.

Tenth, the United States Government commends the FAO for its efforts to incorporate better monitoring of local market conditions into its assessments of food needs in developing countries, as described on pages 67 and 68 of the Report.

Kiyoshi SAWADA (Japan): My comment is very brief. My Government would like to commend the role, as described in the Guidelines of International Agricultural Support, to improve the agricultural imbalance between

developed and developing countries. Also, we appreciate the periodic monitoring and evaluation of the agricultural situation from the viewpoint of these guidelines. Considering these guidelines, my Government has been executing international technical and financial cooperation for developing countries to support the promotion of their agriculture, as well as to try to improve our agricultural markets as much as we can. Actually, our self-sufficient rate is 48 percent in energy-based, and if you calculate it in cereal crop-base, it is only 30 percent. We consider it to be a worldwide exceptional case.

My Government would like to support these guidelines continuously in order to realize better results in the next progress report.

Ali ERYILMAZ (Turkey): The Seventh Progress Report on International Agricultural Adjustment, confirmed to you once again that developing countries cannot achieve agricultural development objectives without the appropriate and timely support of the industrialized world. A more favourable external environment for developing countries means solutions corresponding to their needs for higher level of exports, improved terms of trade, more access to external capital resources, lower net resource outflow and increased food aid and external assistance to agriculture.

We should also take into consideration that the increase of the external debts together with the augmentation in the prices of the fertilizers, machinery and other important agricultural inputs, have created bottlenecks in many developing countries along with inadequate institutional infrastructure and environmental conditions.

Within this framework a lasting solution to the problem can only be reached through the development of production and import capabilities of developing countries. Here, needless to mention the elimination of international trade barriers which was brought up by several distinguished delegates during the discussion of previous item of State of Food and Agriculture is the critical issue to deal with.

Realization of the policies and goals stated in Guideline 4 full and effective participation of rural people in decision-making is very much related to the existence of democracy and to the full utilization of democratic processes and institutions. Therefore, it is in the interest of all developing countries to take this point into consideration in their approach to development and prosperity.

My delegation fully support the objective stated in Guideline 11. "Current targets for food aid should be fully met by the international community. Every effort should be made both to enlist new contributors and to increase the commitments of existing ones." In line with this guideline, Turkey contributes to the efforts of the international community to assist the developing countries. For instance, Turkey has been implementing since 1985 a food and technical assistance programme for the drought-stricken Sub-Saharan countries. This contribution which was mainly based on food and medical aid has now been converted to technical assistance programmes so as to enable these countries to increase their products.

Mr Chairman, Turkey with suitable ecology, rich soil and water resources has a high agricultural potential and will continue to share her knowledge and experience with the countries which are in need of this.¹

J.M. SCOTT (United Kingdom): We would like to support the line taken by the delegate of the United States to the effect that guidelines may no longer be appropriate to economic and political situations of the 1990s. Perhaps FAO should consider revamping or withdrawing this item from the Agenda in the future. Apart from that, I would like to make a very brief point on specific guidelines.

On Guideline 4 on the full and effective participation of rural people, the United Kingdom delegation would like to underline the importance of this in any developmental process, as has already been stressed by the delegate of Pakistan.

On Guideline 11 on food aid, the United Kingdom delegation feels that the general thrust is that there is not enough food aid. We are disappointed that no attention is given to negative impact of food aid on agricultural production in recipient countries, and that food aid should be used sparingly and carefully.

Finally, we wish to agree with the comment made by the delegate from Bangladesh on population growth and the difficulty of increasing agricultural production so as to maintain per capita food consumption in a situation of rapid population growth.

Apart from that, Mr Chairman, I think that most of our comments are made under Agenda Item 6.1.

Hans-Dietrich VON BOTHMER (Germany) (Original language German): Could I begin by congratulating the Secretariat for producing this document. It is an interesting communication of their assessment of the situation and of trends.

In contradistinction to the view of the delegation of the United States and the United Kingdom, I think it is very good in describing the challenges of the 1990s and is very open to them.

Unfortunately, as Mr Dutia said at the start of this debate, the process or adjustment is much more difficult than had originally been anticipated. Many more sacrifices still have to be made, particularly by the industrialized states.

Might I be permitted to address myself to one point. A number of delegations, more particularly the French and Canadian ones, leveled criticism at the fact that many of the points broached feature again under another agenda item where they are dealt with at greater length. If this report is to be continued, perhaps there should be appropriate reference to those agenda items here.

¹ Statement inserted in the Verbatim Records on request.

May I comment on one or two elements in the guidelines that we regard as being of importance. Guideline 1. We believe that increasing agricultural production in developing countries by an annual figure of 4 percent is a priority aim, in particular as far as the production of basic foodstuffs is concerned. How such a goal can be achieved is impressively demonstrated by the growth rate of 4.4 percent achieved by the People's Republic of China. However, agricultural production increases must be flanked by responsible family planning in order to counter the increasing demographic pressure, which is increasing very much indeed. We are very much concerned that, particularly in Africa south of the Sahara, no increase was achieved in production rates. We hope that in the context of political restructuring and the progressive process of democratization the right policy choices will be taken for the introduction of a free market economy, and the strengthening of agricultural production.

As far as Guideline 2 is concerned, we agree with this guideline, more particularly with the call to diversify agricultural production. We would emphasize that achieving the goal of Guideline 1, the 4 percent production increase, is not possible without greater increase in research and extension.

These fields must, more than hitherto, include protection of natural resources so that possible risks attendant on intensification of agriculture may be countered.

The long-term aim of persistent sustainable agricultural development depends essentially on the application of research and advisory capacity. Extra efforts are necessary in order to ensure that basic foodstuffs are produced instead of export crops. Also, greater efforts are needed to protect against post-harvest losses.

As far as Guideline 5 is concerned, it is absolutely necessary for agricultural production and food strategies to be geared to each other more than in the past. Attention should be paid to local crops since they are generally most appropriate. They represent an important component of the daily diet of the agricultural population.

It would be desirable if, in the light of increasing environmental problems, the relationship between forests and food security could be emphasized more strongly. Proper foodstuffs are also determining as far as the spread of disease is concerned. Once again, extension programmes and information are very important here.

As far as Guideline 8 is concerned, in recent years there was experience on implementation of commodity agreements with market intervention mechanism. In particular as far as the level of price was concerned.

In the past a mistake was made that price levels were set too high instead of gearing them to a medium or long-term trend where unrealistically high prices were striven for, these were exacerbated by structural, not only seasonal, surpluses as experience has shown. In those circumstances any commodity agreement is bound to fail where major structural surfaces which exist over a longer period adjustment to consumption to production is the only long-term solution.

It is our belief that the Cocoa Agreement has not been frozen since 1988 but paralyzed, since there was no agreement on price range and therefore no market withholding scheme could be implemented. It should be mentioned that because of this was the failure or the absence of financial commitments on the part of the producers. At present the debts of the producer countries towards the compensatory stock are about US$150 million. That represents a major obstacle in the way of future cooperation in the cocoa sector for any new Cocoa Agreement.

The projects for research and development programmes for cocoa, nuts, oil palms and other products have been drawn up by the FAO Secretariat and are passed on the Intergovernmental Group on Oil Seed, Oils and Fats.

The Secretariat submits as comprehensive a project offer as possible for all areas. A pre-selection of a limited number of projects would have meant less work for the Organization and thus less costs and the inter-state group would not have yielded to the temptation of including too many in the fund. The problem is there were too many projects that were accepted with too high financing needs. The reaction of the Joint Fund still remains to be seen and apart from that the Joint Fund should not be given the burden of setting priorities.

We hope that in the future, and this applies to all inter-state commodity groups, more realism will return to the deliberations.

Paulo Estivallet de MESQUITA (Brazil): The scope of this excellent document is so wide that it would be impossible to cover all aspects. I will therefore concentrate on a few selected issues referring to a limited number of guidelines.

Guideline 1 sums up the situation. Its target of an annual rate of growth for food and agriculture production in developing countries provides a quick reference yardstick against which we can measure progress in the international implementation of the international agreements mentioned in paragraph 3 of document C 91/18 but also towards the achievement of FAO's goals themselves.

In this context, the picture seen from Latin America and the Caribbean is somewhat disappointing. In particular, the reduction in growth rate from the '70s to the '80s cannot be accepted with indifference. Several internal and external factors contributed to these meagre results. Let me however stress one point. Over the last 20 years, the fertility rate of women in Brazil was cut in half, with a steep corresponding reduction in the growth rate of population. As this decline in demographic growth coincided with a decline in the rate of economic growth, it is difficult for my delegation to accept the claim that demographic growth lies at the root of development problems.

If you allow me to highlight one more point in this section, I would like to bring your attention to paragraph 1.17. It is clear that the growth of agricultural production in the developing countries can hardly happen as it continues to be squeezed out of the market by the subsidized production of the developed countries.

This brings me to Guideline 7. Paragraph 7.1 describes in a nutshell the dilemmas that we face. The patchy attempts to compensate for the high level of protection in most OECD countries by means of preferential arrangements has had mixed results at best. Moreover, they tend to shift the burden of adjustment to other developing countries through frequent recourse to discriminatory measures. Some of these are mentioned in the document. Of particular interest to Brazil are the restrictions in the markets for meat, tropical beverages and processed natural products such as paper and sisal harvest twine. As you can see, we are quite safe from the dangers of liberalism "à outrance".

Turning now to Guideline 9, I believe it is important to recognize that south-south trade has suffered markedly from the financial crisis of the 1980s. The lack of adequate supportive financial mechanisms undoubtedly hindered trade among developing countries. We are encouraged, however, by the reversal in trend which occurred in the latter part of the decade, thanks to imaginative schemes and the renewed determination to foster ECDC.

Finally, allow me to refer briefly to the paragraphs on TCDC. We are fully in agreement with the main thrust of those paragraphs and call upon FAO to pursue and strengthen its contribution to this fundamental line of international cooperation.

Rudolph de POURTALES (Suisse): M. le Président, permettez-moi tout d'abord de vous féliciter de votre élection à la présidence de cette Commission.

J'aimerais me référer à quelques points qui ont attiré mon attention pendant ce débat. Je n'avais pas l'intention de prendre la parole au départ. Mais l'introduction très intéressante de M. Dutia m'a fait penser que probablement cet exercice n'est plus tout à fait d'actualité.

M. Dutia a fait un constat d'échecs sur toute la ligne. Il a dit que les progrès sont lents et peu satisfaisants. Est-ce que les progrès sont peu satisfaisants et lents par rapport aux lignes directrices, ou est-ce que les lignes directrices ne sont plus tout à fait d'actualité? Je crois que cette question mérite d'être étudiée, comme d'autres délégués l'ont fait remarquer, et il faudrait peut-être revoir ces lignes directrices et les adapter à de nouvelles situations.

Permettez-moi maintenant de faire quelques réflexions tout à fait spontanées sur le document très intéressant, très fourni et très analytique et d'essayer d'identifier un fil conducteur.

Il m'a semblé que le fil conducteur est la stabilisation et la sécurité alimentaire. Malheureusement, dans le document, la sécurité alimentaire est un peu trop identifiée avec le stockage et pas suffisamment avec les mesures de politique agricole. Je crois que c'est un tournant qu'il faudra absolument prendre. Les politiques agricoles sont essentielles pour la sécurité alimentaire, et nous ne pouvons pas nous contenter de simples stockages, qu'ils soient locaux ou internationaux.

D'autre part, le document fait état de la libéralisation nécessaire dans les marchés agricoles. Comme l'a dit le chef de ma délégation dans son intervention en séance plénière, la libéralisation n'est pas une recette pour assurer le développement de l'agriculture des pays en développement.

Elle peut être également très dangereuse pour le développement de l'agriculture de ces pays, puisque l'avantage comparatif n'est pas absolument garanti, comme d'autres observations l'ont fait remarquer.

Un autre point qu'il me semble important de soulever, c'est le flux des ressources vers l'agriculture. Le document remarque qu'il y a un manque de flux de ressources vers l'agriculture, d'investissements dans l'agriculture. Mais le document a tendance à poser le problème sur les ressources gouvernementales, en disant que les gouvernements n'ont pas suffisamment de ressources budgétaires pour investir dans l'agriculture, et sur les apports externes.

A mon avis, le document aurait dû analyser davantage les raisons pour lesquelles il n'y a pas plus d'épargne interne investie dans l'agriculture. Je crois que c'est un facteur extrêmement important. Si les politiques des pays favorisaient un tel investissement vers l'agriculture, les choses pourraient évoluer différemment.

Enfin, quelques mots au sujet de la participation des populations. C'est un des facteurs extrêmement importants du développement de l'agriculture. De récentes expériences ont montré en Afrique et en Asie qu'avec une participation active à tous les niveaux - c'est-à-dire depuis la conception, la prise de décision jusqu'à la mise en oeuvre - des populations intéressées, les programmes de développement agricole et les autres programmes de développement en général peuvent fonctionner de façon beaucoup plus rationnelle avec moins de ressources et avec moins de pertes de ressources.

The meeting rose at 22.30 hours.

La séance est levée à 22 h 30.

Se levanta la sesión a las 22.30 horas.