《世界粮食与农业--过去50年的教训》

二十世纪六十年代 

摘译自（FAO）出版的《THE STATE  OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2000》一书

  ·技术进步

·对贫困和饥饿的关注——中国的饥荒

·农业的重新发现

·贸易-MTNs和UNCTAD肯尼迪回合

·发展援助——不成功的尝试

技术进步

在过去的五十年中，二十世纪六十年代的特征可能是农业技术的迅速进步，包括国际玉米小麦改良中心（CIMMYT）在内的第一批国际农业研究中心（IARCs）都是在二十世纪四十年代末和五十年代期间建立起来的。人们怀着极大的愿望，希望在减少饥饿的同时，农业生产力的快速发展能减轻农村贫困，支持社会经济发展。

1960至1970年十年间，《粮食与农业状况》有两期（1963，1968）用专门的章节讨论了提高农业生产力和改善农业根本要素的问题。亚洲是发展援助的重点，因此大家都极为关注灌溉条件，而且将大量资源用于改善灌溉条件是极正常的，当然增加化肥施用量和使用良种也是当时称作“绿色革命”的关键因素，在这十年间发展中国家化肥施用量的增长率创历史记录。在“消除饥饿”运动的支持下（附2），成功的“肥料计划”就是在这个时期由FAO建立起来的。

附2   农业绿色革命

本刊这期回顾中多次提到“绿色革命”。绿色革命主要是指二十世纪60年代末70年代初主要粮食作物水稻、小麦、玉米在产量上的巨大飞跃，亚洲表现最为明显。产量的提高使人口众多、粮食不足的国家仅在几年内变成了粮食自给自足的国家。绿色革命扭转了亚洲大国的粮食危机，是中国和东南亚及南亚国家的经济取得惊人成就的基础。

绿色革命的特征是高产品种的快速传播。科研机构培育的良种结合灌溉或水份管理和改善水份利用方式，以及施用化肥和农药，还配合相关的管理措施取得了粮食的高产。良好的社会经济环境以及体制环境，使活跃的市场起了重要的作用，从而促进了良种在成千上万人中广泛传播。

在20年内发展中国家有近一半的小麦和水稻采用了新品种。亚洲国家的小麦地里，几乎90%都是种植的现代品种，高产稻的种植面积由12%提高到67%。

这些发展使农业生产和粮食产量有了很大的提高。1963——1983年间粮食产量增长最快。在此期间，发展中国家的水稻、小麦、玉米总产量分别增长了3.19%、5.1%、3.8%。随后10年（1983——1993）间三种粮食年生产量分别减少了1.8%、2.5%、3.4%。

绿色革命本身并不是没有问题，为了提高产量而大量施用化学除草剂和农药引起了人们对环境问题和人类健康的担忧。另外，随着灌溉面积的扩大，需要技术的水份管理方法并非人人都能采用，性别角色的转变问题和新的科技挑战都尚待解决。缺乏合适的技术仍然是条件不好的地区许多农民的限制因素。

消费者可能是绿色革命的最大受益者。在过去30年中，通过应用提高产量、降低成本的技术和推广良种、肥料、除草剂，使亚洲的粮食价格稳定下降。相对而言，粮食价格低对穷人更有利，因为他们把大部分收入用于购买粮食。绿色革命技术也使农村收入增加。

科学、技术、教育、推广的相互联系也引起人们特别的关注。主要在具有温带气候条件的发达国家进行基本农业技术研究及其对本地耕作措施的适应性研究和应用。关键的任务是要使大量的农业科技知识适用于大多数发展中国家的干旱气候条件和热带气候条件，说服当地的农民接受这些新的知识。

二十世纪六十年代后期，部分亚洲国家培育的良种及其良好的农艺性状表现为农业带来了机遇，在《粮食与农业状况》1968、1969年两期中皆讨论了这个话题。这种品种改良在多大程度上反应了通过广泛的使用禾谷类优良品种和与此相关的其它投入的有意识的努力呢？在报告中没有给出明确的答案，但指出类似于“绿色革命”的某些因素确实发挥了作用。亚洲国家采用禾谷类优良品种的速度比其它洲要快，其粮食作物产量得到极大提高，尽管很多地方存在不利的气候条件，1968年有些国家粮食产量仍然翻了一番。由此说明，在受到粮食短缺威胁的紧急时刻，政府在粮食增产过程中起到了关键的作用。粮食状况极不稳定的远东国家采用优良新品种的速度最快，粮食进口国的进步大于粮食出口国。二十世纪六十年代，政府还意识到提高农业生产力不仅仅是引进和开发新的农业技术的问题。1960年的《粮食与农业状况》中专门阐述了土地资产和土地改革问题是农业发展的主要问题，但是也是最难解决的问题。在第二次世界大战末期农业改革运动赢得了支持。在《粮食与农业状况》中写道：“历史上没有哪个时期进行过如此广泛的艰难的尝试，影响如此众多的人，建立了更适应时代变迁需要的土地所有制”。但是这些成就还不够，大多数发展中国家的土地所有制结构仍然极端不平等，当开始实施土地改革的时候，土改方案有的取得了成功，有的却没有成功。报告强调了要想土改措施取得预想的结果，提供充足的贷款和进行市场营销及提供技术服务的重要性。

有关饥饿和营养不良的问题

尽管对提高农业生产力的可能性日益乐观，但二十世纪六十年代初期创立了一系列重要机构这一事实表明，人们日益关注饥饿和营养不良的问题及贫困国家的发展前景问题。首先是1961年“世界粮食计划署”（WFP）的成立，在初期试验的基础上将粮食问题作为联合国（UN）和粮食与农业组织（FAO）的共同责任。WFP的任务是探索利用发达国家的剩余粮食来援助不发达国家的经济发展，与饥饿和营养不良作斗争。虽然涉及双方计划的规模还小，但具有潜在的重要意义。

1963年在美国华盛顿召开的“世界粮食大会”引起了全世界对饥饿和营养不良问题的关注。这次大会要求各国政府和国际组织以及其它组织迎接挑战，将消除饥饿作为这一代的首要任务。同时，大会还强调，要长久地解决饥饿问题，必须依靠发展中国家本身粮食生产的快速增长。大会还通过了几项克服农业发展所面临的技术、教育、经济限制因子的推荐方案。在1974年“世界粮食大会”和1996年“世界粮食峰会”等主要大会上皆经常提到这些方案，而且至今仍然十分中肯，它强调解决饥饿问题的出路不在于寻求新的妙方，更多的在于去实施，重要的是政府的努力。

二十世纪六十年代初，有关中国自1958年以来粮食短缺达到极限程度的消息引起了全世界对饥饿普遍性的广泛关注。《粮食与农业状况》报道，中国大部分地区的收成受到灾难性的影响，一半以上的土地受到干旱、大风、洪涝、虫灾或其它破坏性灾害的影响，而在几十年后才知道死亡人数。可能估计的死亡人数有些出入，但有些人认为可能有上千万人死于饥饿。在1993年的报告中，Sen估计，1958—1961年间有大约2300万至3000万人死于这场灾难，这场灾难标志着农业计划“大跃进”的失败。

农业与发展

对饥饿、贫困、发展问题的兴趣的高涨与分配问题和农业在经济中的作用问题的激烈讨论不谋而合。1970年《粮食与农业状况》中回忆道，二十世纪60年代末期经济长期持续增长后，收入的分配问题受到极大关注，考虑公平成为制定经济发展政策不可分割的一部分。早期的发展理论趋向于认为虽然穷人的收入在增长，但经济快速增长会导致先进行业和落后行业间更大的收入不平等，到二十世纪六十年代末期有相当数量的相反的观点得到了重视。 “基本需要”法赢得了支持，这种方法强调脱贫是经济发展的中心问题。对分配的强调会有利于农业，因为在广大的农村有大量的穷人，相对于工业而言农业常常是落后产业。

这场讨论还涉及到农业和发展的其它方面。一方面，新的经济学家“重新发现”了农业。他们宣称更自由的市场、更自由的贸易和农业经济增长有利于经济全面增长，同时他们宣称出口悲观主义思想基本上是没有根据的，可以采用激励措施促进农业生产和农产品出口。这种观点受到包括来自于联合国拉美经济委员会（ECLA）的社会学家在内的“结构学家”的反对。他们是“通过工业化以进口粮食来代替国内农业”的强烈支持者，结构学家长期以来驳斥比较优势学理论。他们认为，和工业化国家出口的具有巨大附加值的商品相比较，发展中国家出口的初级农产品没有比较优势。农业出口贸易长期衰退的观点随后进一步发展，自此成了相当多的文献报道的内容。

尽管《粮食与农业状况》没有直接参与辩论，但该刊在这一时期和随后的立场仍然站在以农业作为发展的源泉这一方，公平是发展的先决条件，农民是容易起反应的经济力量，他们需要政府的支持来提高生产力。该刊重视发展中国家的农业生产、生产力和国际竞争的重要性，清楚地表明本刊始终坚信农业发展的道路。1962年该刊还特别强调了正在进行的很多农业发展计划应该紧密地与总的经济发展相结合。这些计划虽然在有些情况下有些好高骛远，但其努力被看作是意识到农业的重要性及农业对全面发展的潜在贡献的标志。

附3  1955年和1995年间的农业产出模式

二十世纪后半叶，农业产出显著提高。

整个农业生产中的主要变化有：

·尽管大多数作物的面积增长是有限的，但每种粮食作物的产值都有所增加。

·禾谷类粮食作物的生产面积增长特别快，几乎增长了三倍。

·肉类的产值提高了三倍，奶产量提高一倍，这有赖于饲用粮食作物的增加。

粮食产量最高的10个国家的变化：

·中国的农业生产飞速发展，按世界生产的比例，中国的产量增加了一倍，而产值上升了三倍以上。中国超过美国成为世界的第一大农业生产国。

·中国的农业产出也增长了一倍，远远高于其它农业生产大国。

·印度仍为世界第三大农业生产国，其农业产出增长两倍。其同期的农业增长低于中国。

·从人均产出来看，印度的农业生产只扩大了35%，低于中国。

·巴西是世界的第四大农业生产国。

·尽管阿根廷的人均产出有所下降，但其人均农业产出仍是全世界最高的；法国也提高了其农业人均产值。

贸易争端

二十世纪六十年代期间，尤其是在六十年代后五年中，贸易争端是《粮食与农业状况》关注的主要问题。这个时期有两个主要特征：1967年贸易磋商肯尼迪回合的闭幕，1964年联合国贸易与发展大会（UNCTAD）的建立。该大会旨在通过制定和实施有效的面向发展的贸易新政策，成为加速各国发展的一个机构，从而提高了发展中国家的出口收入。

“肯尼迪回合”降低了参与这个协定的工业化国家的关税，估计平均为35%。虽然从发展中国家向发达国家的出口对此协定积极响应，但受影响最大的是工业化国家之间进行贸易的产品。农业贸易没有遵照这个协议，但磋商的各方达成了协议——每年将提供450万吨粮食援助。

《粮食与农业状况》注意到“世界粮食大会”和UNCTAD的建立时间相近，表明这两个组织所处理的问题有密切联系。消除饥饿只有依靠贫穷国家的经济发展，这些国家除了得到外援以外，其发展的关键在于它们通过出口换取外汇的能力。

1968年在印度新德里召开的第二次UNCTAD会议也突出讨论了这方面的问题，其议事日程包括了直至今天发展中国家仍然感兴趣的焦点问题，即初级商品进入工业化国家的市场的问题，发展援助的数量、期限和条件，发展中国家间扩大贸易，进行经济合作和整合的问题，世界粮食问题，而针对粮食问题，最终得出的结论反映了1963年“世界粮食大会”所确定的原则。

各国极大地关注国际商品协定的问题。其中一个明显的结果是恢复了1961年终止运行的“国际糖类协定”，经过UNCTAD主持的磋商后，1969年1月1日起该协定执行了五年。包括其它粮食商品和非粮食商品协定的磋商也取得一定程度的成功。尽管联合国粮农组织提倡物物交易方式是更实用的方法，但同时也讨论了引入补偿金方案和更多的世界商品协定的综合形式的可能性。

发展援助

二十世纪五十年代后期和六十年代初期，各个国家都纷纷赢得政治的独立，尤其是在非洲。但有时这种受欢迎的发展却导致政治动荡和国内冲突，同时也为拓展发展援助渠道开辟了道路，特别是从多边渠道获得援助。1969年的《农业与粮食状况》报道了“皮尔森报告”，这是由世界银行发起的独立委员会出版的书，其主席是勒斯特·B·皮尔森。报告回顾了在援助国和接受国共同努力促进发展的20年中所取得的成就；同时得出结论，当援助所驱动的经济发展已开始发挥作用时减少援助。这个报告号召增大政府援助，至1975年时达到工业国家国民生产总值（GNP）的0.7%，同时敦促其中20%通过多边机构募集，在1968年时政府援助是0.4%，多边机构募集的占10%。最终只有几个国家达到了这个目标。

同一期《粮食与农业状况》还高度地强调由国际复兴与发展银行（IBRD）资助农业的政策。农业贷款水平提高四倍以上反应了这项政策的转向是正确的。这次发展的结果是1964年初FAO和IBRD间新的合作署的建立，为IBRD出资制定了很多农业和农村发展计划。

附4  农业贸易——变化的趋势和模式

在过去的几十年中，由于世界农业贸易的结构、方向和组成产生了深刻的变化，在此过程中出现了一些矛盾。农业出口失去了其在整个贸易中的相对重要性，同时在很多国家的经济中仍然是主要的成分。然而，那些对农业贸易依赖性较少的经济在农业市场中获得了极大的赢利，而那些紧紧依靠农业的经济不仅失去了市场份额，而且由于日益依赖农产品出口和粮食安全的进口而面临农业贸易平衡状况的恶化。

另外，国际农产品价格还出现了总体下降的趋势。在整个农业贸易中，具有附加值的产品和初级农产品相比，其重要性越来越明显。

农业在世界贸易中的重要性日益下降

在过去十几年中，随着世界经济的相互依存和一体化进程的加快，农业贸易的扩张速度比农业生产快得多。尽管农产品贸易和农业生产相比较具有较强的动力，但和其它行业尤其是制造业相比，其贸易相对滞后。其中一个重要的原因是，和制造业价格相比农产品价格相对下降。在全球范围内，农业出口不到整个商品出口的10%，而在二十世纪60年代农业出口要占25%。农业贸易在对外贸易中的重要性的下降趋势对所有地区都是普遍现象，发展中国家在60年代至70年代初表现尤为明显。

在拉美国家和加勒比地区及亚撒哈拉非洲地区，农业出口仍然占整个支出的五分之一。有很多国家在经济上对农业的依赖性仍然很强。48个亚撒哈拉非洲国家中有12个国家的外汇收入中近一半靠农业出口。拉美国家和加勒比地区的37个国家中有10个也是这样。这些国家包括拉美国家中的伯利兹、乌拉圭及非洲的布隆迪、埃塞俄比亚、肯尼亚、乌拉韦、乌干达、苏丹等国家。

缔约发展中国家在农业市场上的份额

世界贸易总额和农业贸易额的地区分布发生了巨大的变化。60年代初至近年来，发展中国家的商品出口总额的市场份额有所增加（从20%增至25%），但其农业出口额从40%降至27%。

除亚洲和太平洋地区以外，所有发展中国家都逐渐地失去了其出口在世界市场上的份额。亚太地区自70年代中期起其农业出口份额增加，也是除农业出口外多样化最成功的地区。而与此形成鲜明对比的是亚撒哈拉非洲国家，自70年代以来，在国际农业市场上逐渐失去其重要性。自80年代中期，拉美国家和加勒比地区的市场损失极为严重，农业出口量增长缓慢，出口价格大幅下降。

农产品实际价格下跌

50年代和60年代期间，国际粮食产品和非粮食产品价格保持相对稳定，只比制造业产品价格略低。70年代，价格出现了大幅波动，农产品和制造业产品价格出现巨大的差距，制造业产品价格上升的趋势比农产品快得多。结果，农业出口从实质上来说出现明显的下降。发展中国家农产品实际价格的下跌比发达国家更明显，反映了其出口商品上的差异，发达国家出口的温带地区的产品比其它国家出口的热带地区的产品价格相对稳定。

在此期间，出口量皆呈现恒定的上升趋势。然而，由于价格上涨的差异，目前出口农产品的价值从总体而言，发达国家的上升得比发展中国家的快。

初级产品出口向加工产品出口的转变

具有重大意义的是发展中国家的出口从不加工的初级商品向具附加值的产品的转变。不同发展中国家在这方面皆有成功的例子。亚太地区和拉美国家及加勒比海地区的农业出口产品中加工产品的比例从60年代早期的10%上升至近年来的三分之一。这些地区中工业化程度高的国家其加工产品的份额增加更多。因此，巴西和阿根廷的出口产品中加工产品已占50%，马来西亚已占到70%。

另一方面，过去30年间，亚撒哈拉非洲的农产品出口中，加工制品的份额稳定在15%左右，在这种停滞局面的背后，有些国家表现出暂时的极大的变化。但对该地区的大多数国家而言，总体情形是主要依赖有限的初级产品出口。在近东和北非地区，总体而言，具有附加值的产品份额高，反映了在相对较小的农业出口基地上几种加工产品的比例较大。大多数是贝类加工产品和其它海产品及水果和蔬菜罐头和腌制品。

THE 1960s

Technological progress
Concern about the poor and hungry - and famine in China Rediscovering agriculture
Trade - the Kennedy Round of MTNs and UNCTAD
Development assistance - the unsuccessful attempt to set targets

Technological progress

Of all of the past five decades, the 1960s could possibly be characterized best by the rapid advance of agricultural technology, although the first initiatives - including the establishment of the first international agricultural research centres (IARCs) such as the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) - had been taken in the late 1940s and the 1950s. There were high hopes that rapid gains in agricultural productivity would alleviate rural poverty and underpin economic and social development while reducing the incidence of hunger.

Twice during the decade (in 1963 and 1968) special chapters of The State of Food and Agriculture discussed the issue of raising agricultural productivity and its underlying factors. With Asia the focus of development assistance efforts, it was logical that much attention and a large amount of development resources were directed at irrigation development, although the increased use of fertilizer (consumption by developing countries grew at record rates during this decade) and improved seeds were also key contributing factors to what was to become known as the "green revolution". FAO's own successful Fertilizer Programme, established under the aegis of the Freedom from Hunger Campaign, stems from this period.

The interlinked issues of science, technology, education and extension also received particular attention. It was noted that basic agricultural research, and still more its adaptation to local farm practice, was carried out predominantly in the developed countries with temperate climates. The crucial task ahead was to adapt the growing body of knowledge to the arid or tropical climates of most developing countries and to persuade farmers there to accept and apply this new knowledge.

The opportunities being opened up by new improved varieties and the good agricultural performances of a number of Asian countries in the latter part of the 1960s were the object of discussions in the 1968 and 1969 issues of this publication. To what extent were such improved performances a reflection of the conscious efforts to accelerate output, in particular through the more widespread use of improved cereal varieties and other inputs associated with them? While the reports offered no definite answer, they did point to a number of elements suggesting that something like a "green revolution" was in fact under way. The rate of adoption of the new cereal varieties had been much faster in Asian countries, where cereal crop yields had shown the greatest improvement. Improvements had been dramatic - the rate of growth in output in 1968 had doubled in those countries in relation to past trends - despite unfavourable weather conditions in many cases. It was suggested that government commitment, triggered by the urgency of the threat of food shortages, may have been crucial in this process. It was probably no coincidence that the fastest rate of adoption had taken place in the Far East, where the food situation had been particularly precarious, and that progress had been greater in food-importing countries than in exporting countries. It had been well perceived by the early 1960s that raising agricultural productivity was not simply a matter of developing and introducing new agricultural technologies.

In improving agricultural productivity, issues associated with land tenure and agrarian reform were the most difficult to address.

Land tenure and agrarian reform issues, reviewed in particular in The State of Food and Agriculture 1960, were seen as key aspects of agricultural development, but perhaps the most difficult ones to tackle. Moves towards agrarian reform had gained momentum since the end of the Second World War and, as the report stated, "in no comparable period of history were there such widespread efforts, affecting so many people, to establish systems of land tenure better adapted to the changing needs". However, achievements had been limited, agrarian structures continued to be dominated by extreme inequalities in most developing countries and, when actually implemented, schemes of agrarian reform met with uneven success. The report stressed the importance of providing adequate credit, marketing and technical services if measures of agrarian reform were to achieve the results intended.

World food conferences over the decades have emphasized that the solution to the problem of hunger lies less in seeking new remedies and more in implementing what is already known.

Addressing hunger and malnutrition

Despite growing optimism regarding the possibilities for raising agricultural productivity, a number of important institutional events in the first half of the 1960s indicated growing concern about the problems of hunger and malnutrition and the development prospects of poorer countries. The first was the creation in 1961 of the World Food Programme (WFP), initially introduced on an experimental basis as a joint responsibility of the UN and FAO. WFP was "to explore methods of using the surplus of food production of the more developed countries to aid economic development in less developed countries, and to combat hunger and malnutrition. Though small in relation to some bilateral programmes, it is potentially of great significance" (The State of Food and Agriculture 1962).

The World Food Congress, held in June 1963 in Washington, DC, drew world attention to the problems of hunger and malnutrition. It called on all governments and international and other organizations to take up the challenge of eliminating hunger as a primary task of that generation. It emphasized, however, that any sustained attack on the problem of hunger would have to come from a much more rapid growth of food production in the developing countries themselves. The Congress passed numerous recommendations to overcome the technical, educational and economic constraints facing agricultural development. These were often reiterated in such major meetings as the 1974 World Food Conference and the 1996 World Food Summit, and still remain fully relevant. They underline that the solution to the problem of hunger lies less in seeking new remedies and more in implementing, with the weight of political commitment, what is already widely known.

As emphasis to the prevailing concern about the prevalence of hunger, the 1960s opened with news that food shortages that had been developing since 1958 in China were reaching dramatic proportions. The State of Food and Agriculture reported disastrous harvests in large areas of the country, with more than half of the farmland affected by drought, typhoons, floods, insect infestation or other damage. The extent of the catastrophe in terms of human losses was to be known, however, only decades later. Estimates of the death toll vary but some point to tens of millions. Writing in 1993, Sen² estimatedthat, during the period 1958-1961, between 23 million and 30 million people died as a consequence of this disaster, which marked the failure of the agricultural programme of the "Great Leap Forward".

Box 13 AGRICULTURAL OUTPUT PATTERNS BETWEEN 1955 AND 1995 Significant increases in agricultural output occurred across geographic regions and products during the second half of the twentieth century. Figure A shows the growth in value of agricultural production between roughly 1955 and 1995, for all major products, as well as changes in land area planted. Figure B shows the agricultural output of the top producing countries in 1955 and 1995, in value and in proportion to the world total, along with per caput production and crop yields. Major changes in total production · Output value increased in every product category, in spite of a limited area expansion for most crops. · There was a particularly strong expansion of cereal production, which almost tripled. · Meat production value tripled and milk production value doubled - fed by the huge increase in cereals grown for feed use. Major changes among the top ten producer countries · China's total agricultural production surged, doubling as a proportion of total world output and more than quadrupling in value. China overtook the United States as the world's largest producer. · China also doubled the per caput value of its agricultural output, which was far more than any other of the large producer countries. · India retained its position as the world's third largest producer by tripling its agricultural output, although this was less than the increase achieved by China in the same period. · In per caput terms, India only expanded its agricultural production by 35 percent, again less than China. · Brazil gained several positions to become the world's fourth largest agricultural producer. · Argentina maintained its position as the world's highest per caput producer, although per caput production actually declined, and France also substantially increased the value of its per caput output - inching past the United States.

Agriculture and development

The surge in interest in problems of hunger, poverty and development coincided with an intense debate over distributional issues and the economic role of agriculture. The State of Food and Agriculture 1970 recalled the late 1960s when, after a long period of sustained economic growth, issues regarding distribution of income gains received increasing emphasis, to the point of making equity considerations an integral part of economic development policy. While earlier development theory had tended to stress the likelihood that rapid economic growth would lead to greater income inequalities between leading and lagging sectors, although the incomes of the poor would still rise, by the late 1960s quite the opposite perspective gained respectability. A "basic needs" approach took hold, stressing the alleviation of poverty as the central concern of economic development. The emphasis on distribution tended to benefit agriculture, since it was in rural areas that the majority of the poor were found and agriculture was often the lagging sector relative to industry.

The debate extended to other aspects of agriculture and development. On the one hand, there was a "rediscovery" of agriculture by neoclassic economists who claimed that freer markets, more liberal trade regimes and a growing agricultural economy were conducive to overall economic growth. They also claimed that export pessimism was largely unfounded and that agricultural production and exports did respond to incentives (and disincentives). This position was opposed by the "structuralists", including social scientists from the UN Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLA). Strong supporters of import-substitution industrialization, structuralists had long contested the theory of comparative advantage, noting that it was not to the advantage of developing countries to specialize and to export primary and agricultural products when industrialized nations were exporting manufactured goods with greater value added. The thesis of a secular decline in the terms of trade of agricultural exports then evolved and has been the object of considerable literature since.

Although The State of Food and Agriculture did not enter directly into the debate, its position during this period - and thereafter - remained on the side of agriculture as an active source of development; equity as a sine qua non condition to development; and farmers as responsive economic agents who, however, require government assistance to improve their productivity. The importance attached by the publication to agricultural production, productivity and the international competitiveness of developing countries implicitly suggested its faith in an agricultural path to development, if not agricultural specialization, for many of them. The 1962 issue, in particular, emphasized the fact that many ongoing plans for agricultural development were, as they should be, closely integrated with those for general economic development. Although overambitious in many cases, these planning efforts were seen as signs of awareness of the importance of agriculture and its potential contribution tooverall development.

Trade issues

Trade issues were prominent in The State of Food and Agriculture during the 1960s, especially in the latter part of the decade. Two main features marked this period: the conclusion of the Kennedy Round of trade negotiations in 1967 and the establishment of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) in 1964 "to serve as an agent of accelerated development for all countries by means of formulating and carrying into effect new development-oriented trade policies ...",³ with the aim of raising the export earnings of the developing countries.

The Kennedy Round resulted in reductions of industrialized participants' tariffs with an estimated average of 35 percent. Although exports from developing to developed countries responded positively to the concessions made in the Round, the products that were most affected were those traded among industrialized countries. Agricultural trade was absent from the negotiations, but there was an agreement among the negotiating parties to contribute food aid to the extent of 4.5 million tonnes of grain annually.

The State of Food and Agriculture noted that the proximity of the World Food Congress and UNCTAD's establishment illustrated the close link between the problems with which they dealt. Freedom from hunger could come only from the economic development of the poorer countries. Even more than foreign aid, the key to development for these countries was their ability to earn foreign exchange from their exports.

The second UNCTAD session of 1968 in New Delhi was remarkable for the scope of its agenda, which covered issues that remain at the centre of developing country interests to this day. These included access of primary commodities to markets in industrialized countries; volume, terms and conditions of development aid; trade expansion, economic cooperation and integration among developing countries; and the world food problem, on which conclusions largely echoed the principles promulgatedat the 1963 World Food Congress.

Considerable attention was given to the question of international commodity agreements, then at the height of their popularity. One visible result was the revival of the International Sugar Agreement, which had been inoperative since 1961. After negotiation under the auspices of UNCTAD, it was enforced for a period of five years from 1 January 1969. Agreements covering other food and non-food commodities were also negotiated with varying degrees of success. There were also discussions on the possibility of introducing schemes of compensatory finance and more comprehensive forms of world commodity agreements, although FAO itself advocated the commodity-by-commodity approach as the more practical method.

Development assistance

The last years of the 1950s and the early 1960s also saw the gaining of political independence by several former colonial territories, particularly in Africa. While in some cases this otherwise welcome development led to political instability and civil strife, it also opened the way for a broadening of development assistance flows, particularly from multilateral sources. The State of Food and Agriculture 1969 reported on the "Pearson report", published by an independent commission sponsored by the World Bank and chaired by Lester B. Pearson. The report reviewed the results of 20 years of development efforts by both donors and recipients and concluded that the aid effort was "flagging" at the very time that the drive for economic development was beginning to produce results. It called for a large increase in government aid, to 0.7 percent of the GNP of the industrial countries by 1975, and urged that 20 percent of the total be channelled through multilateral institutions, compared with the 0.4 percent and 10 percent, respectively, that had been committed in 1968. This objective was to prove unattainable by all but a few donor countries.

Calls for increased official development assistance failed to produce the desired results.

On a more positive note, the same issue of The State of Food and Agriculture also reported a much greater emphasis on agriculture in financing by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD). This policy shift was reflected by an expected fourfold increase in the level of loans to agriculture. One consequence of this development was the establishment in early 1964 of a new Cooperative Programme between FAO and IBRD to identify and help formulate many more agricultural and rural development projects for IBRD financing.