Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 24 Jun 1980

Vol. 322 No. 9

Food Aid Convention, 1980: Motion.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Lenihan):

I move:

"That Dáil Éireann approves the Food Aid Convention 1980".

The International Wheat Agreement, 1971, has two parts:

(i) the Wheat Trade Convention for the regulation of the commercial wheat market; and

(ii) the Food Aid Convention for the supply of food aid in the form of cereals to the developing world.

Under the terms of the Treaty of Accession to the European Communities, Ireland was obliged to accede to the Food Aid Convention because the original member states and the European Economic Community as such were parties to it. We did so in June 1973. In June 1974 and again in 1975, 1976, 1978 and 1979, the Government, with the approval of Dáil Eireann, agreed to extend the convention, which is now due to expire on 30 June 1981. The Wheat Trade Convention, 1971, was extended at the same times and it also is due to expire on 30 June 1981. The most recent extension was necessary as the United Nations Negotiating Conference on a new International Wheat Agreement had failed to reach any agreement on a replacement for the 1971 Wheat Agreement of which, as I indicated, both the Food Aid Convention, 1971, and the Wheat Trade Convention, 1971, are constituent parts.

In view however of the deteriorating world food situation it became obvious that the negotiation of a new Food Aid Convention, involving higher minimum levels of food aid, was urgently necessary. The text of a new convention, the Food Aid Convention, 1980, was agreed at a special session of the Food Aid Committee held in London from 3 to 6 March 1980.

The objective of the Food Aid Convention, 1980, is to secure, through a joint effort by the international community, the achievement of the target set by the World Food Conference in 1974 of at least 10 million metric tonnes of food aid annually to developing countries in the form of wheat and other grains suitable for human consumption, as determined by the convention's provisions.

The new convention was open for signature in Washington from 11 March to 30 April 1980 and was signed on behalf of Ireland, the other member states of the European Community and the Community itself on 30 April last. It is scheduled to enter into force on 1 July 1980 provided that by that date the Government referred to in paragraph 3 of Article III of the convention have ratified it and provided that the 1979 Protocol for the fifth extension of the Wheat Trade Convention 1971 on a new Wheat Trade Convention replacing it is still in force. The Protocol for the fifth extension of the Wheat Trade Convention 1971 is scheduled to remain in force until 30 June 1981. By that date, it is possible that a new international wheat agreement may be negotiated into which the 1980 Food Aid Convention will be incorporated. If not, the likely course of action is that the 1971 International Wheat Agreement incorporating the new Food Aid Convention will be extended for a further period.

The essential difference between the 1971 and 1980 Food Aid Conventions is that the minimum annual contribution of the members are increased from a total of 4.226 million tonnes to 7.592 million tonnes. The countries which are members of the revised convention are Argentina, Autralia, Austria, Canada, the European Economic Community and its member States, Finland, Japan, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States of America. Any other country may accede to it under such conditions as the Food Aid Committee, established by the new convention, consider appropriate. Under the new arrangements the Community and its member states have undertaken to supply a minimum of 1,650,000 tonnes of cereals in the form of wheat, coarse grains or derivative products suitable for human consumption, compared with the minimum of 1,278,000 tonnes which the Community was obliged to supply under the 1971 convention. This contribution will be discharged, partly by the Community from its own resources and partly by the member states, nationally, in accordance with an agreed scale.

Ireland's national contribution will be in the region of 4,100 tonnes and, as under previous conventions, the cost will be borne by the Vote for Agriculture. Ireland's national contribution will continue to be channelled through the World Food Programme. I should point out that Ireland has fulfilled its obligations under the 1971 Food Aid Convention up to the present time.

I am particularly pleased that agreement has been reached on the higher levels of food aid provided for in the new convention. Ireland has for long supported the idea of an increased minimum community contribution and has played a full part in bringing this about. I particularly hope that more countries can be encouraged to join the convention so that the World Food Conference target of 10 million tonnes of food aid can be reached as soon as possible. It is vital that until agricultural production in the Third World reaches a sufficiently high level, continuity of this food aid can be guaranteed and efforts strengthened to eradicate hunger and malnutrition.

In the months leading up to the special session of the United Nations General Assembly on development matters when the new international development strategy for the Third United Nations Development Decade is to be adopted and when the new round of global negotiations on economic co-operation for development is to be launched, the role of food aid is to be considered in a broader context. The recently published report of the Brandt Commission entitled North-South: A Programme for Survival recognised that while food aid has at times been the subject of some controversy—in the sense that food aid can in certain cases act as a disincentive to increased agricultural production—it will continue to be essential for the foreseeable future. The report emphasised the role of food aid in increasing investment in agriculture, particularly in labour-intensive projects including irrigation works. It recommended in this regard that food aid should be increased and linked to employment promotion and agricultural programmes and projects without weakening incentives to food production.

While no one will consider that the new Food Aid Convention is the complete answer to the problems of the world's hungry and underprivileged, it is a step in the right direction and I recommend it to the House.

Mr. O'Keeffe:

On behalf of this party, I welcome this convention and support its ratification by the House. At the same time, when we are discussing the question of food aid, we must put the amounts being allocated into the broader perspective of the entire population of the world. In this context there is problem that I have mentioned before but which bears repeating, that is, the fact that 50 million people die each year from hunger, disease and starvation while on the other side of the coin there is the situation of the expenditure each year on arms of £250,000 million.

There is, of course, the other aspect which I do not intend to labour here this evening. It is that there is a shortfall in our foreign aid programme of £5 million. It is in that context that we have to consider the Food Aid Convention, and I readily accept that it is an improvement on the 1971 convention. We now have a target of 10 million tonnes per annum. It is proper to point out that our actual commitments only total three quarters of that amount, 7.592 tonnes, and the question arises whether the target of 10 million tonnes, which is significant, can be made up.

That has to be looked at from two aspects, one, whether the signatory nations to this convention could do a little more and whether there should be many more nations supporting the convention. On occasion I have had to criticise our own Government and other Governments in the west for not putting a better foot forward in the matter of foreign aid. Here this evening it is significant that in the list read out by the Minister not a single nation in the Soviet bloc has been contributing to the Food Aid Convention. When one considers the protestations of those nations and their preaching of the brotherhood of man, one realises how very hollow they sound, becauses food aid involves aid at its most basic level. There are problems about it to which I will refer later, but the main concern is that if a man is dying of hunger his first and most immediate need is food to sustain himself and his family.

From that point of view we must highlight the fact that there are many nations who could afford to do so but who are not contributing in any way to this convention. There is also the question of whether the nations of the West are doing enough, and one can sum it up by saying that this is a step in the right direction but that there are many more steps that must be taken.

There are some problems in regard to food aid, like whether the giving of food aid directly is a disincentive to the recipient countries in the matter of improving their own agricultural production. More importantly there is the fact that food aid must be accompanied concurrently by programmes of helping to provide technology for those nations so that they can produce their own food, because in the long term that is the only solution. Though I approve of the efforts to deal with the immediate problem by way of providing food, there must be a larger more sustained programme to help those countries with their agricultural production problems.

There is another problem in regard to food aid. As a small nation it does not affect us and nobody will suggest that we have anything other than altruistic motives in our foreign aid and food aid contributions, but there have been suggestions that some other countries may be using food aid as a way of encouraging recipient nations to become dependent on the donors. That is an aspect of food aid which is unworthy. The point has been made by a number of people. I recall former US Senators McGovern and Humphreys referring to this aspect, and not with disapproval. We should make it clear that food aid from this country will not have strings attached. We have a fundamental belief that where fellow human beings are on the verge of starvation we have a moral obligation, within the limits of our resources, to help in any way we can. We are in a unique situation and we can give a lead in this regard, being neutral without any military commitments. If we do a little more than we are expected to do that would provide moral leadership to others who are capable of providing far greater aid than we are.

There is an aspect of the convention which I should like the Minister to deal with when he is replying. We do not contribute the food aid in kind — we contribute a cash sum equal to the 4,100 tonnes to which we are committed. I should be interested to know the rate at which this is convertible into cash. In 1971 the rate was 1.73 dollars per bushel. I do not know if there has been a change in that rate.

There is one general point I should like to make. It is whether the developed nations in a broader way could tackle the problems of huge food surpluses in the developed world side by side with appalling starvation on the other side of the globe. I appreciate there are difficulties in regard to storage and freezing facilities, but anybody who takes an interest in the problem must be appalled at reports of surpluses, wine lakes and butter mountains and so on, while there is a picture of abject hunger in so much of the world. In the short time we have, we cannot discuss solutions to that, but as human beings are we discharging our duty if we permit this appalling situation to continue? From time to time we export subsidised butter to the Soviet bloc, and naturally the question must arise as to whether some of it could not be sent to the starving nations rather than sending it to a nation which can well afford to pay in full for the requirements of their own people. The same applies to other agricultural surpluses.

In the time available I will not even begin to talk about possible solutions, but it is important that we raise the question and look at the problem in a broad way because it affects anybody who has any heart or any feelings for humanity. This new Food Aid Convention is an improvement on the last one. It is a step in the right direction, but it is a long road and I hope we will be taking further steps in the near future.

Mr. B. Desmond:

The Labour Party support the adoption of this convention. The main comment I have to make is that, in view of the current critical food situation where literally, and the words cannot be understated, millions of human being are, as of now, starving because they do not have the absolute minimum level of human subsistence, the World Food Conference target of 10 million tonnes of food aid has not been deliberately and effectively reached at this stage. There has undoubtedly been a growth in aid in this category since 1971. But right through the seventies there was no improvement in the overall dimension of hunger and malnutrition.

The aid being given has not matched the absolute need to eradicate basic hunger, starvation and malnutrition. There are hundreds of thousands of children affected by this. It is true that under the convention the improvement has grown in terms of contributions from, as the Minister indicated, 4.2 million tonnes in 1971 to 7.6 million tonnes in 1980. I would have thought there would have been a concerted effort to reach the target of 10 million tonnes of aid in 1980 rather than in the distant future of 1985.

The publication of the Brandt report, which is readily available in paperback form and should be read by every Irishman, woman and adolescent, has brought home to everyone the extent to which with population growth the situation has deteriorated. For that reason I urge the Minister to press forward within the Community for the reaching of the 10 million tonnes target as a matter of urgency. That is the main point our party would make in agreeing with Ireland's national contribution.

It would be interesting to hear from the Minister the cost to be borne on our own Agriculture Vote in 1980 and, in the context of our total budget or total Agricultural Vote, it would be interesting to know what proportion of the Vote is given in that direction. I deplore the cutback in the current year's budget in overall world development aid given by our country. No matter how bad or difficult our economic situation may be at home or how stringent the requirements may be on our budgetary Exchequer commitments, there should be no effort spared in contributing in this direction. Under this convention there is no cutback as such and we are honouring our commitment. While that is welcome and while that was the policy of the last Government, we must place our contribution in respect of this convention in its overall perspective. I welcome the adherence of the Government to the convention. My party welcome it, but we want to continue to express our very grave concern at the deterioration in the overall world situation.

All the publicity, diplomatic effort and expenditure of political time and money in preoccupations about, for example, the Olympic Games when literally every day hundreds of thousands of people are starving and dying in these parts of the world, when the major political preoccupation of the western powers centres around whether or not a couple of hundred athletes go from their country to run against one another in the picture of their health in the Olympic Games in 1980, calls into question the sense of political priority we should have. With all the efforts, summits and discussions around the dinner tables of the capitals of the world and Foreign Ministers meeting and so on, one feels like screaming at them: "Why not talk about food aid conventions and world aid conventions and devote your energies, talents and capacity for organisation and diplomatic initiative in the direction of aiding people who have not got enough food to walk never mind run".

We, in this House, can say to the Minister: "You have our total support in assisting this convention and approving it for 1980". We urge him to expand it and bring every pressure to bear on his colleagues in other parliaments in the Community to bring it up to the 10 million tonne level and beyond. Only then can we say we are making a real contribution in any meaningful sense.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Lenihan):

I am grateful to the House for the constructive approach to this matter, particularly that of Deputies O'Keeffe and Desmond. As I told Deputy Desmond last week I share his sentiments in relation to this matter. The Brandt Commission report, North-South; A Programme for Survival, which has now been published in paper back form, is recommended as essential reading for any thinking person concerned about the future of life on our globe as a whole. It is a fundamental and readable document which I recommend. There is one tragic matter in regard to it, that it should appear in a year where the real damage being done to the developing world comes from the activities of certain Third World countries themselves. The indiscriminate rises in oil prices which has been secured by OPEC countries has damaged their neighbours who do not have oil or energy resources. It has damaged them to a greater extent than it has damaged the developed world. It has also harmed the developed world to the extent that it has limited its capacity to help the Third World.

By reason of the indiscriminate manner in which that was done and the lack of planning involved, real harm is being done to the deprived countries of the Third World, those without oil or any other form of basic resources. That can be seen from two figures I shall quote. The overall rise in oil prices in the OECD countries this year was in the region of 120 per cent. The withdrawal from the OECD countries into OPEC countries of moneys arising out of that reached 130 billion dollars. Much of that money has not found its way back into the financial system and is not available for the building up of infrastructural employment, agricultural requirements and industrial development in the Third World. Those countries are now starved of capital by reason of the inability of the world's financial system to cope with their capital and financial requirements. It is tragic that that should happen in the year of the publication of the Brandt Commission report that was primarily concerned with this problem of recycling funds into the Third World not just because it was the enlightened and right thing to do but also because, from the practical point of view, it was good from the developed world's point of view to build up markets where it could export its technology and sophisticated products while at the same time help to build up economies there that could consume and absorb what the developed world had to offer.

That message in the Brandt report is essentially valid and one which stands for a generation ahead if we are to resolve the growing disparities between the north and south of the globe. The countries that contribute to the Food Aid Convention and provided cereals in the last ten years under the International Wheat Agreement are all from the Western world. The countries which are members of the revised convention are Argentina, Australia, Austria, Canada, the European Economic Community and its member states, including Ireland, Finland, Japan, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States of America. Those countries, the civilised countries of the western world, have a feeling in this regard. As Deputy O'Keeffe stated, that list of countries does not include one from the Soviet bloc.

We are glad to note that at present Iraq and Spain are contemplating joining the convention and the World Food Council are actively encouraging others to do so. The convention is open for signature by every country and it is in that way that we can achieve the target of ten million tonnes which has not been achieved yet. It is open to countries in any part of the world with cereals available to join the convention. Existing members will match any contributions made by new members and increase their contributions in the years ahead. Ireland has been a member from the outset and we have made our contribution, in volume and percentage terms, as sought each year. Our contribution this year will amount to 4,100 tonnes at the present market price for wheat. Our minimum contribution has been increased, as sought, from .54 per cent to .56 per cent and this will be at a cost of £500,000 from the Vote for the Department of Agriculture. That contribution is in full accordance with the amount sought in volume and percentage terms.

I agree that aid of this kind represents an interim approach to this problem. As Deputy O'Keeffe stated, the real problem is to improve the technology of agricultural production. The more positive work we are doing under various programmes of aid — the Agricultural Institute are playing a positive role in this respect — is in the area of exporting expertise temporarily, sending personnel, scientists and research people to make the appropriate soil tests and planning for agricultural reclamation. It is in that area of exporting to the vast areas of Africa, South America and South-East Asia, the technology of food production which Western Europe and North America developed over the centuries, that the permanent solution lies. The question of the aid which is necessary in the present year is essentially an approach which is interim but the long-term solution lies in the area of building up the capacity and the resources and the personnel in these developing countries to develop and expand a whole new approach towards full production, which we have taken for granted in western Europe and North America. I have been in countries like Tanzania and one can see the enormous gap that exists between farming there and farming in western Europe and North America.

It is in developing this expertise and scientific approach towards food production that the future lies. In so far as mistakes have been made in some Third World countries, they are coming to a realisation there now that in some cases there has been an over-rapid approach towards quick industrialisation rather than an emphasis on food production. Food is going to become the great area of scarcity and the great problem facing mankind in a few years' time.

Energy may dominate the problems facing man at present, and understandably so, but food is going to be the great problem in a few years' time. Unless the Third World gets to grips with food production and the means, the methods, the capacity and the research and the personnel and science and everything associated with modern food production, they will be in continuing serious trouble. It is in that area that the future lies in regard to practical help to the developing world.

In conclusion, I should like to thank the House for agreeing to this Food Aid Convention, which was a very necessary response by the countries concerned in the World Food Council, because we are facing a situation where the Wheat Trade Convention was due to expire on 30 June 1981 and unless this Food Aid Convention introduced now and ready to proceed to enable cereal distribution to take place there could have been a hiatus in the event of the Wheat Trade Convention itself not being replaced by a similar instrument. On 30 June 1981 it is hoped that there will be an extension of the Wheat Trade Convention, but that requires further negotiation. However, the point is that the provision of cereals is protected now by the introduction of this Food Aid Convention which can be subsumed into the International Wheat Agreement when it, hopefully, is negotiated next year on the expiration of the Wheat Trade Convention.

Question put and agreed to.