Foreign Relations of the United States, 1969–1976, Volume E–14, Part 1, Documents on the United Nations, 1973–1976

153. Report of the Delegation to the World Food Conference, Washington, December 1974.¹ ²

Washington, December 1974

OFFICIAL REPORT of the UNITED STATES DELEGATION to the WORLD FOOD CONFERENCE
Rome, Italy

November 5-16, 1974

Submitted to the Secretary of State
Earl L. Butz
United States Representative

WORLD FOOD CONFERENCE
Rome, Italy
November 5-16, 1974

BACKGROUND

In September 1973, in his first speech before the United Nations after becoming Secretary of State, Dr. Kissinger asked that a World Food Conference be organized under U.N. auspices in 1974 to discuss ways to maintain adequate food supplies and to concentrate the efforts of all nations to meet the hunger resulting from natural disasters. He further asked that nations in a position to do so offer technical assistance in the conservation of food and said that the U.S. was ready to join with others in providing such assistance.

The Secretary’s recommendation was endorsed by the biennial FAO Meeting held in Rome shortly thereafter, and in December, ‘the United Nations’ General Assembly formally adopted a resolution calling for a World Food Conference of member governments of the U.N.

A Preparatory Committee open to all member states of the United Nations was set up to lay the groundwork for the Conference. The Committee met three times. At the first meeting in New York, February 11 to 15, procedural arrangements for the Conference were discussed. At the second meeting held in Geneva, June 4 to 8, the discussions centered on a review and critical analysis of the Secretariat assessment of the current world food situation and prospects for the future. A provisional agenda for the Conference was then agreed upon. The third meeting in Rome, September 23 to October 4, was devoted entirely to substantive discussion of the main issues to be addressed at the Conference. This third meeting was preceded by an informal working group meeting, September 16 to 20, which reviewed various proposals put forward by the Secretariat and some participating governments for international agricultural development funds and other follow-up mechanisms, as well as a declaration on the Eradication of Hunger, introduced by Peru. As a result of the third meeting, a set of ten draft resolutions incorporating the themes considered to be of central importance to the Conference was prepared by the Secretariat, and distributed with the understanding that it would serve as a basis for discussion at the Conference. The ten resolutions contain a synthesis of some 88 recommendations originally made by the Secretariat in its document “The World Food Problem, Proposals for Rational and International Action” (E/Conf. 65/4). It was generally felt that such a large number of recommendations on quite diverse topics would prove an unwieldy instrument for obtaining results at the Conference. The Secretariat also presented a new draft Declaration considerably revising the original Peruvian proposal, taking into consideration the comments made on that proposal during the working group meeting.

The Preparatory Committee’s work overall was extremely useful in setting the tone for the Conference and in reducing issues to manageable proportions. Meetings were marked by a degree of seriousness and a conciliatory attitude on the part of most participants, offering considerable hope for a constructive and successful Conference.

AGENDA OF THE CONFERENCE

1. Opening of the Conference and election of the President.

2. Adoption of the rules of procedure.

3. Adoption of the agenda and organization of work.

4. Establishment of committees and other sessional bodies.

5. Election of the officers other than the President.

6. Credentials of representatives to the Conference:

a Appointment of the Credentials Committee.

b. Report of the Credentials Committee.

7. General debate.

8. Assessment of the world food situation based on the reports of the Secretary-General of the Conference and the Preparatory Committee.

9 National and international programmes of action:

a. Measures for increasing food production in developing countries within the wider framework of development.

b. Measures for increasing food production in developed countries.

c. Policies and programmes for improving consumption patterns in all countries, and aiming at ensuring adequate availability of food in developing countries, particularly to vulnerable groups.

d. The strengthening of world food security through measures including inter alia a better early warning and food information system, more effective national and international stock-holding policies and improved arrangements for emergency relief and food aid.

e. Specific objectives and measures in the area of international trade and adjustment which are relevant to the food problem, including measures toward stabilization, and expansion of markets for exports from developing countries.

f. Arrangements for follow-up action, including appropriate operational machinery on recommendations or resolutions of the Conference.

[Omitted here is general World Food Conference information available in the public domain.]

WORK OF THE COMMITTEES

First Committee

The Conference allocated to the First Committee consideration of the following items of the agenda:

9(a) Measures for increasing food production in developing countries within the wider framework of development:

9(b) Measures for increasing food production in developed countries; and

9(c) Policies and programmes for improving consumption patterns in all countries, and aiming at ensuring adequate availability of food in developing countries, particularly to vulnerable groups.

The Committee also prepared the Declaration on the Eradication of Hunger.

With the exception of work on the Declaration, which was handled by a smaller drafting group, all discussions were held by the full Committee. Sub-groups were not utilized.

The Committee took as the basis for its discussions the first five resolutions set forth in Annex VII to the report of the Third Preparatory Committee (E/CONF.65/6).

These resolutions dealt with:

a) Objectives for food production.

b) Priorities for agricultural and rural development.

c) Fertilizers.

d) Agricultural research and training.

e) Policies and programmes to improve nutrition.

Resolution I - Objectives and Strategies of Food Production

The U.S. delegation basically supported the Secretariat resolution but made several recommendations to broaden its scope and increase the sense of urgency conveyed.

A number of delegates welcomed the U.S. proposal to incorporate Secretary Kissinger’s appeal that all governments accept the goal “that within a decade no child will go to bed hungry, that no family will fear for its next day’s bread, and that no human being’s future and capacities will be stunted by malnutrition.” The U.S. also proposed (1) taking into account environmental concerns; (2) emphasizing that technology transferred to LDC’s should be appropriate and adapted to their special needs; and (3) urging governments of exporting countries to encourage the early expansion of food production; and (4) recognizing the problem of waste and the need for improved marketing, storage and distribution systems.

The substance of all the U.S. recommendations were incorporated in the final version.

A good deal of debate arose from an Algerian proposal to handle agenda item 9(b), “measures for increasing food production in developed countries,” as a separate resolution. Eventually, it was agreed that recognition of the need to increase food production in certain developed countries should be incorporated in the resolution under discussion.

Resolution II - Priorities for Agricultural and Rural Development

While there was full agreement on the basic importance of accelerated growth of food production, it was generally recognized that this could not be achieved through application of capital and technology alone, but also called for increasing the participation of the rural population, especially small farmers and landless rural laborers and their families. There was therefore general agreement that far-reaching socio-economic reforms are urgently required in many developing countries.

The U.S. delegation recommended that the important role played by women in food production be recognized, as did several other delegations. This recommendation was incorporated in the Resolution.

A number of other amendments were also proposed and adopted, including the need for providing rural families with education, health and other services.

Resolution III - Fertilizers

The U.S. delegation generally supported the Secretariat resolutions. At the U.S. suggestion, an amendment was adopted which requested nations to call upon their citizens voluntarily to reduce non-critical uses of fertilizer toward making available more fertilizer for food production in developing countries.

A few other amendments to the Secretariat draft were adopted including a request to the FAO Commission on Fertilizers to undertake an analysis of the long-term supply and demand situation to provide policy aimed at avoiding cyclical imbalances between supply and demand.

Resolution IV - Food and Agricultural Research, Extension and Training

The U.S. delegation recommended changes in the proposed resolution which recognized the need: (1) to protect environmental quality; (2) to develop appropriate technology with special concern for small farmers; and (3) to encourage more effective linkages between national and international research centers and farmers. All these suggestions were adequately reflected in the final draft.

Most delegations emphasized the need to combine research with active extension and educational services to translate research into action. These emphases were incorporated into the resolution.

Resolution V - Policies and Programs to Improve Nutrition

The U.S. delegation supported the draft resolution on nutrition but offered a number of additions to strengthen the resolution and a few modifications.

First, the U.S. strongly supported the portion of the resolution calling on governments to adopt food and nutrition plans as part of their national planning. To strengthen this proposal, the U.S. recommended that the international agencies concerned prepare a project proposal for assisting governments to develop inter-sectoral nutrition plans and programs.

The U.S. also proposed the incorporation of Secretary Kissinger’s initiatives: (1) to establish a global nutrition surveillance system; (2) to arrange for an internationally coordinated program of applied nutrition research; and (3) to establish a world-wide control program aimed at reducing vitamin A and iron deficiencies.

The U.S. also proposed a number of modifications in the sections on child feeding. The purpose of these modifications was to emphasize the need for developing comprehensive nutrition programs and weighing the costs and benefits of child feeding in this context.

There was general agreement among the delegates that the emphasis on child feeding in the Secretariat draft should be modified and that specific targets should not be established for child feeding. All the U.S. interventions were accepted in substance. The Nordic delegations played an active role and emphasized the problem of over-consumption among the affluent.

Resolution XIII - The International Fund for Agricultural Development

There was considerable discussion of the resolution proposing the establishment of an International Fund for Agricultural Development. The proposal was sponsored by 34 nations, primarily from the group of 77, but including Australia, Netherlands and New Zealand.

The Committee agreed that there was an urgent need for a substantial increase in the flow of assistance to agriculture in developing countries, to help them to bring about the required increase in food production and to speed up their agricultural development. The Committee therefore welcomed warmly the proposal made by a number of countries to establish an International Fund for Agricultural Development.

The Committee stressed that the contributions to the Fund, which would be voluntary, should be additional to aid and investment funds already flowing to agriculture.

There was agreement that the Fund would not become operational until the Secretary-General of the United Nations determined that the Fund held promise of generating substantial additional resources and had a reasonable prospect of continuity.

The U.S. delegation welcomed the Fund proposal and recommended that disbursements from the Fund be handled through bilateral as well as regional and multilateral institutions. The U.S. also noted that a number of points about the operation of the Fund will need to be clarified.

Other Resolutions

The intention of the Secretariat had been to focus attention on the first five major resolutions prepared by the Secretariat. The U.S. generally supported this objective.

However, a number of delegations felt strongly that additional resolutions were needed on such topics as a world soil charter, water management, the seed industry and other aspects of agricultural development. Since the objectives sought in these resolutions were laudable, the U.S. acquiesced in the passage of these additional resolutions. In fact, the U.S. spoke in favor of resolutions on women and food, and on population and food supply.

Two resolutions were introduced of primarily a political nature: (1) reduction of military expenditures for increasing food production, and (2) national and international programs of action for food aid to victims of colonial wars in Africa. The U.S. delegation spoke against both resolutions as being inappropriate for the WFC to adopt. However, they were accepted by the Committee.

Declaration on Hunger

The drafting group of the First Committee charged with preparing the Declaration on the Eradication of Hunger was as follows: Sweden (rapporteur), Algeria, Brazil (substituting occasionally for Mexico), Congo, Cuba, German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Kenya, Mexico, Peru, The People’s Republic of China, The Soviet Union, Switzerland, United States of America, United Kingdom, Venezuela and Yugoslavia. The Soviet and Cuban delegations were represented at high levels, demonstrating the importance they attached to the Declaration.

At the first drafting session, Peru proposed that only the original Peruvian draft declaration be considered as the basic text from which a new draft would be developed. Peru argued that its draft had not been properly discussed at the Third meeting of the Preparatory Committee. This recommendation was supported by GDR, Yugoslavia, the USSR, Romania, PRC and Cuba. No other countries spoke, except Group B members (U.S., U.K., Switzerland) all of whom opposed the suggestion, noting that the Peruvian draft had been thoroughly discussed in the Third PrepCom as well as at the one week informal Working Group which preceded it. The USA noted that the Secretariat draft was the result of those deliberations and that to return to the Peruvian draft would mean ploughing the same ground again.

As a compromise, the rapporteur suggested that the agenda of the WFC be the “skeleton” around which the Declaration would be built, using both the Peruvian and the Secretariat drafts. This proposal was discussed by Group B and it was decided to proceed as suggested by the rapporteur. Peru, Algeria and the Socialist countries dominated the drafting sessions, determined to make the Declaration the major vehicle for expression of their views.

The tactics of Peru seemed to be to draw on the most militant members of the Group of 77 by switching participation in drafting sessions. Yugoslavia substituted for Indonesia, Algeria for Dahomey, Kenya and the Congo did not attend sessions. Mexico, Brazil, and Venezuela had little to say.

Algeria and Peru attempted in the preambular part of the Declaration to establish that the food problem in the developing countries was due to past economic and social injustices and with the help of Yugoslavia attempted to cite past UN resolutions to support their contention. In the operative part of the Declaration, they tried to call for restitution from developed countries for these past injustices. Socialists invariably gave support, others were silent, leaving UK, USA and Switzerland representatives to carry the full debate against these tactics.

Group B representatives were successful in getting a number of constructive amendments into the Declaration, in softening the harshness of Peruvian and. Algerian proposals, and in a limited number of cases were able to obtain withdrawal of all or parts of the Algerian and Peruvian proposals. The Declaration as presented by the drafting group was accepted by Committee I.

Committee II

The Second Committee dealt with agenda item 9(d), the strengthening of world food security. Of the ten draft resolutions recommended to the Conference by the third session of its preparatory committee, three were assigned to Committee II. These were on:

-- an information system for food and agriculture,

-- world food security.

-- food aid policy.

Additionally, the Committee was assigned responsibility for developing a resolution on follow-up action.

The Committee was delayed by about one day in beginning its work because of difficulty over the selection of conference officers. The Committee first met late on November 6. It adopted a program of work under which the full Committee debated each of the draft resolutions before referring them to working groups for revision and referral back to the Committee. Representation in these working groups was open to all delegations, and the United States participated actively in each.

Conference follow-up was handled separately by referring preparation of a draft resolution to a distinct working group for which representatives were delegated by blocs. These represented the developed countries (Group B), the developing countries (Group of 77), the Socialist block, and the People’s Republic of China. The United States, along with the United Kingdom, represented the developed countries.

Approximately eighty delegations regularly took part in meetings of the full Committee, but only about twenty in the working groups discussing resolutions apart from follow-up. These working groups completed their tasks and reported agreed drafts back to the Committee on November 13 and 14. The Committee completed its review on November 15, and the texts it recommended to the Conference plenary were adopted by acclamation. However, the People’s Republic of China formally reserved its position on the resolutions on a food information system and on world food security -- both in the Committee and in the Conference plenary -- on grounds that obligations under these resolutions could infringe national sovereignty. It was joined in this reservation in plenary by the People’s Republic of Albania.

As adopted, the three resolutions conform to the positions approved for the U.S. Delegation and respond to the initiatives announced in Secretary Kissinger’s speech at the Conference.

-- The resolution on a food and agriculture information system responds to the need for more timely and precise information on world food supplies, crop conditions, weather and the cost of production inputs. The principle responsibility for developing and implementing this system was assigned to the FAO.

-- The resolution on world food security endorsed the objectives, policies and guidelines of the draft Undertaking on World Food Security, initially proposed by FAO Director-General Boerma, and recognized the special responsibility of major exporting and importing countries to take the lead in implementing these principles. It also urged donor countries and institutions to assist developing countries with implementing appropriate national stock policies.

-- The resolution on food aid policy advocated forward planning of food aid and recommended an annual global target of 10 million tons of grains. It requested all potential donors to give urgent consideration to food aid needs for 1975 and 1976. It also advocated a greater proportion of food be made available through multilateral channels, such as the World Food Program, and on a grant rather than on a loan basis.

Committee III

The Third Committee dealt with agenda item 9(e), “National and International Action Programs: Specific objectives and measures in the area of international trade and adjustment which are relevant to the food problem, including measures toward stabilization, and expansion of markets for exports from developing countries.”

The Committee had as the basis for its discussion two draft resolutions prepared by the Secretariat for the World Food Conference which took into account the various views expressed by delegations at the Preparatory Committee meetings which preceded the World Food Conference. It also had before it a draft resolution proposed by the Yugoslav delegation. However, early in the Committee’s deliberation, Mexico, on behalf of the Group of 77, submitted a new draft resolution which the developing countries wanted to use as the basis for discussion. With the introduction of this resolution, Yugoslavia withdrew its draft resolution. The developed countries, on the other hand, preferred the Secretariat’s drafts since they reflected the previous extensive discussions on the subject matter, and constituted an attempt at compromising the divergent views. Moreover, the instructions which delegations brought with them from their capitals we based primarily on the Secretariat’s draft resolutions.

The sharp and divisive debate on the substance of the issues before the Committee led to the establishment of a Contact Group of 14 members -- Algeria, Argentina, Cuba, India, Nigeria and Yugoslavia representing the Group of 77; Australia, France, Japan, Sweden and the United States representing the Group B countries; Poland and the USSR representing the Socialist countries; and China. The representative from Indonesia, Mr. A. Ismet Hakim was elected Chairman of the Contact Group. Since other members of the Committee expressed a great interest in the subject matter, it was decided that any other member of the Committee could participate in the Contact Group if they wished.

The Contact Group used, as the basis for discussion, the resolutions prepared by the Secretariat and the newly introduced resolution submitted by the Mexican delegation. The divergence of views was so great, however, that no significant progress could be made in agreeing on a resolution which could be approved by consensus. The developing countries insisted on using the language and paragraphs of the Mexican draft resolution while the developed countries called attention to the various difficulties presented by the operative paragraphs of the Mexican draft. The Contact Group, therefore, established a small Drafting Committee consisting of 3 representatives from Group B -- Australia, France and the United States; 3 representatives from the Group of 77 -- Algeria, Argentina and India; and 1 representative from the Socialist countries -- Poland. This drafting committee met under the chairmanship of Mr. Hakim of Indonesia, and after two days and one night of intensive negotiation, succeeded in reaching agreement on a draft resolution. On November 15, the Committee adopted the draft resolution without a vote and recommended its adoption by the World Food Conference.

Credentials Committee

As a result of efforts by the African group to change the composition of the Committee from that used in the General Assembly, the Credentials Committee spent the better part of the Conference period discussing its own membership. With the cooperation of the PRC, who agreed to withdraw from the Committee, the African group proposed that Zambia fill the Chinese seat in the Committee and that it further be elected President. This latter proposal was resisted by the United States and other Group B countries, particularly since the motivation for this move was unclear and the change could set an unfavorable precedent for future UN activities. The situation was further complicated by the fact that the Philippines, another Group 77 member, would normally have had the Presidency. The consequent absence of a solid Group 77 position further delayed resolution of the issue. Sporadic meetings were held throughout the first eight days of the Conference. The question was finally resolved in favor of Zambia after it became clear to the United States that the proposed change would not result in adverse decisions on sensitive credentials issues. Once the membership problem was settled, the participants’ credentials were approved routinely.

Work of the Conference

The Conference met in plenary session beginning on November 5. The first session opened with ceremonial speeches by UN Secretary-General Waldheim, Italian President Leone, and Conference Secretary-General Marei. Guiseppi Medici of Italy was elected President of the Conference.

Substantial difficulty was encountered in the selection of the remaining officers of the Conference. The Group of 77 insisted on a. larger share of bureau and committee officers, rejecting the generally accepted UN formula proportioning for the 77, for Group B, and for the Socialist countries. After three days of fruitless negotiation on this question, the Group B countries acquiesced to the 77 proposal, while making clear that the decision was based on a desire not to threaten the success of the Conference, that it was taken reluctantly and should not be regarded as a precedent for future international meetings. Resolution of this issue permitted essential Committee work to begin

The plenary sessions were occupied through November 11 with formal statements by national delegations and representatives of international organizations. Plenary speeches were opened by Secretary Kissinger, whose statement to a great extent set the tone for further discussions. The plenary resumed on November 14 to consider the work of the Committees. In the course of the last three days of the Conference, it approved 22 resolutions and the Declaration on the Eradication of Hunger and Malnutrition. The approved resolutions included, in modified form, the original resolutions proposed by the Secretariat in the Third PrepCom with all the additional resolutions, with the exception of follow-up mechanisms, emanating from the First Committee. All measures were approved without a vote. However, on a number of resolutions, several countries noted in formal statements that, had the item come to a vote, they would have abstained. The United States delegation did this in the case of the Resolution on disarmament and food production. The only major country to reserve on an issue of central importance to the Conference was the PRC, which declared its reservations on the food information and food reserves resolutions as involving impingement on national sovereignty.

Closing statements by chairmen of the various groups reflected general satisfaction with Conference results, although Algeria, speaking on behalf of the 77, was less than enthusiastic in its appraisal, the tone of its comments being that although half a loaf is better than none, it did not meet the expectations with which the developing countries had entered the Conference.

Future Meetings

No future meetings of the World Food Conference are planned. A detailed follow-up program was recommended by the Conference and is discussed in detail in the following section.

Conclusions

The World Food Conference was a considerable success from the U.S. standpoint. A framework was developed for concerted international action on the food problem and U.S. objectives were almost completely achieved. Despite heavy rhetoric in some areas, a conciliatory spirit prevailed on substantive issues and bloc confrontation was avoided.

The meeting could be divided into two categories in terms of the tone of discussions and the nature of the outcome. The first category might be termed the rhetorical sphere, which included the plenary sessions, the drafting committee on the Declaration and some aspects of the Third Committee on Trade. Many of the developing countries, particularly more radical members of the Group 77, utilized the plenary forum to the fullest in delivering national speeches excoriating the United States and other developed nations as responsible for the current food crisis and for the generally depressed economic state of developing countries. They called for radical adjustments in the current economic order and for reparations from developed to developing countries. Fortunately, however, polemics were largely confined to speechifying and did not, for the most part, carry over into the second category of substantive discussions. Despite efforts of some of the more radical members of the Group 77 to place discussions in a more political and ideological context, work on substantive resolutions generally stuck close to the subject matter. The only exceptions were resolutions, sponsored by Algeria and Peru respectively, calling for food aid to victims of colonial wars in Africa (Portuguese territories) and for reduction of armaments to free additional funds for food production.

One reason for success in avoiding an atmosphere reminiscent of the April 1974 UNGA Special Session was the serious attitude of most of the developing countries in seeking a positive outcome. Socialist countries were generally passive and often took positions paralleling those of Group B, although they employed strong rhetoric in the plenary and declaration drafting group.

The broad objective of the United States in entering the Conference was the establishment of a substantive and organizational framework for concerted international effort on several fronts to combat the food problem. This was wholly achieved. The major accomplishment of the Conference was, in fact, supporting creation of a series of follow-up activities and organizations to implement a wide range of specific, useful, and agreed upon recommendations for national and international action. While these are all included in complete detail in Annex A, the following is a brief resume of the major items.

Heading the list is the World Food Council, a variation of an idea presented by Conference Secretary-General Marei at the Third PrepCom. The Council will be high level, limited membership UN organ, charged with overall review of follow-up action in all food policy areas. Council mercers will be nominated by ECOSOC and elected by the General Assembly. It would report to the General Assembly through ECOSOC. The Council would be headquartered in Rome and serviced within the framework of FAO, although encouraged to seek assistance from any appropriate UN agency. While assigned a coordinating role, it would have no authority beyond moral suasion to force action on the part of governments or UN bodies. The U.S. supported adoption of the Council recommendation by the Conference.

In addition to the Council, the Conference recommended several, perhaps even more important, bodies with specific responsibility for one or more aspects of food policy:

a. Committee on World Food Security will review supply, demand, and stock data as well as steps taken by governments to implement the proposed international undertaking on world food security. This was supported by the U.S. However, we made the further recommendation, which was accepted by the Conference, urging major grain importers and exporters to begin urgent talks on a reserve system. This, in somewhat vaguer terms, is what Secretary Kissinger proposed as the Reserves Coordination Group.

b. Consultative group on food production and investment in developing countries. This is a further U.S. initiative for creation of a group composed of bilateral and multilateral donors and representatives of developing countries charged with coordinating and seeking an increased volume and efficiency of financial and technical assistance to agricultural production. The group will be chaired by IBRD, and will be staffed jointly by IBRD, FAO, and UNDP.

c. Reconstitution of World Food Program Inter-Governmental Committee to enable it to serve as a food aid policy and coordinating body in addition to carrying out its current activities. The U.S. did not propose this recommendation. However, we suggested the creation also of a Food Aid Subcommittee under the Consultative Group mentioned above to coordinate food aid policy, negotiations, and financing for the 10 million tons minimum annual food aid commitment recommended by the Conference. We expect that the establishment of this Subcommittee will be among the first order of business of the Consultative Group when it gets underway.

d. Resource availability. The U.S. proposed and the Conference accepted a recommendation that the Development Committee of IBRD and IMF undertake continuing review of the adequacy of external resources available for investment in the food production and procurement of both food and agricultural inputs.

e. Nutrition. The Conference requested ECOSOC to study the need for new institutions or adjustments in the current UN system to ensure effective follow-up on its nutrition recommendations, chief among which were US proposals for a global nutrition surveillance system and an internationally coordinated program in applied nutritional research.

f. Agricultural Development Fund. This is a new Fund proposed originally by the OPEC countries, but later sponsored by numerous developed countries - Australia, The Netherlands and New Zealand. The Fund would receive voluntary contributions and resources would be dispensed through existing international and regional lending institutions to avoid creation of a further bureaucratic structure. The resolution specified that the Development Fund will not come into being until the UN Secretary-General, in consultation with pledging countries, determines that the Fund holds promise of generating substantial additional resources for development assistance, and that its operations have a reasonable prospect for continuity. The US supported the proposal in hopes that it will be used as a vehicle for promoting development by the countries with surplus oil revenues, but the US has no present intention of contributing to the Fund, and will continue directing its substantial multilateral contributions through existing institutions.

g. Research. Follow-up on research will remain the responsibility of the Consultative Group on international agricultural research.

h. Additional follow-up. Action on fertilizers, pesticides, .and a food information system will remain the responsibility of appropriate subgroups within FAO.

The US supported all of these proposals except as noted above.

Our position on Committee I resolutions is clearly spelled out in the section of the report dealing with that Committee.

The US fully supported the resolutions prepared by Committee II. On Committee III, the US, in cooperation with other Group B countries, was able to obtain a final resolution far more acceptable than that which had been proposed by the Group 77 countries. While not fully in accord with our interest, the resolution does not contain substantive recommendations for follow-on mechanisms, and operative paragraphs were sufficiently finalized that the delegation felt that we should let it stand without opposition. The same is true of the Declaration on Hunger and Malnutrition which, in its final form, was generally acceptable though not all that we might have desired. Given the original position of the developing countries on these two issues, the final product represented a considerable compromise on their part, and as such, merited U.S. acceptance.

Whether the Conference ultimately produces beneficial results will depend on the degree of seriousness with follow-up is pursued by international agencies and participating governments, particularly the major developed and developing nations.

ANNEX D

Summary of Non-Governmental Organization Activities

I. Pre-Conference Activities

Throughout the 10 month preparatory period leading up to the WFC, a primary objective of U.S. policy was the open and active encouragement of non-government involvement in the process of preparing for the Conference. Based upon both official and public initiatives, and with the full support of the Office of the U.S. Coordinator for the WFC, the American Freedom from Hunger Foundation sponsored the establishment of a World Hunger Action Coalition. The Coalition eventually grew to include more than 75 U.S. non-government organizations and became the focal point for a close relationship between official U.S. Government preparations for the Conference and the views and opinions of non-government organizations and individuals on major food issues. During the year, the USG Coordinator and members of his staff participated in more than 50 separate NGO events throughout the United States, including speaking engagements, seminars, conferences and general briefings. While many of these events were sponsored by Coalition members, others were sponsored individually. In particular, the United Nations Association of the United States sponsored several such meetings in many parts, of the country.

In early September, the US Coordinator’s Office and the Coalition sponsored a day-long seminar for non-government organizations. The purpose of this meeting was to provide a forum, prior to the finalization of U.S. positions, for NGO views, opinions, and comments on the U.S. approach to the Conference. AFFHF’s Coalition assisted in this effort, issuing invitations and providing staff for the meeting. The seminar also included a number of senior U.S. officials, including Secretary Butz, Ambassador Martin, AID Administrator Daniel Parker, and others from several government agencies. NGO participants numbered approximately 400.

II. Conference Activities

Continuing its policy of close rapport with NGOs, the U.S. Delegation in Rome undertook several activities to ensure a continuing dialogue with U.S. groups at the WFC. An NGO liaison officer was appointed within the Delegation and immediately began working with the President of the American Freedom from Hunger Foundation (also the Chairman of the World Hunger Action Coalition) as a liaison team in Rome between the U.S. Delegation and the various U.S. non-government organizations. Informal arrangements were made for the Hunger Coalition to borrow an office at U.S. Del Headquarters in order to further these objectives. The office was staffed at Coalition expense and took over many of the problems of visiting NGO officials that otherwise would have fallen to the Delegation or the Embassy.

The primary role of the U.S. Delegation NGO liaison officer was to keep senior members of the official delegation informed of NGO views and concerns. In addition, it was this officer’s responsibility to relate, on a continuing basis, official U.S. positions to non-government representatives, both individually and collectively, whenever possible.

NGO activities at the Conference included a number of organized events. Among these were a series of NGO briefings and workshops, organized by the UN Secretariat, for the entire duration of the Conference. As a means of promoting a meaningful exchange of information, U.S. Delegation officials and U.S. NGOs were invited to participate in these to the extent possible. The first of these briefings was held on the second day of the Conference, Wednesday, November 6, with Secretary of Agriculture Butz, Chairman of the U.S. Delegation, as the initial participant and speaker. Later participants included Congressman James Symington, Anne Armstrong, Counselor to the President, and other U.S. officials. The U.S. also held a daily press briefing, and NGO officials were encouraged to attend these as a means of updating their knowledge of U.S. positions and approaches.

During the two weeks of the Conference, nearly all of the 40-50 U.S. NGOs were contacted personally by the NGO officer of the U.S. Delegation. (The actual number of U.S. NGO personnel at the Conference exceeded 300 people.) Further, the liaison efforts of the World Hunger Action Coalition Officer reinforced the conduit of information between NGOs and the U.S. Delegation.

One of the most useful mechanisms for NGO influence was their ability to deal directly with the many Congressmen, Senators, and Congressional staff attending the Conference. The U.S. Delegation NGO Officer actively assisted in introductions, assuring that the NGO officials had access to their elected representatives.

Other events providing a forum for an exchange of views between NGOs and the U.S. Delegation included Mrs. Armstrong’s first official speech at the Conference to a group of nearly 300 NGOs from the U.S. and other parts of the world. In addition, the Delegation NGO Officer conducted individual briefings for a special delegation of NGOs from the State of Pennsylvania, met with U.S. UNA officials, briefed several student groups and arranged a meeting between leaders of American voluntary agencies and several U.S. Senators and Congressmen. Nearly 20 leaders of U.S. NGOs also met privately with Mrs. Armstrong. American agribusiness officials attending the Conference were also briefed personally on separate occasions by Ambassador Martin and Mrs. Armstrong. A highlight of the second week of the Conference was an NGO meeting organized by the AFFHF for U.S. groups. This “open forum” was attended by most U.S. NGOs, four U.S. Senators, five House Members and several official U.S. Delegates.

During the Conference, the U.S. Hunger Coalition was chosen a member of the eleven-member NGO steering committee directing NGO activities at the Conference. In addition, the Chairman of the Coalition met personally with Secretary Butz and arranged continuing follow-up contact with NGOs from other countries, particularly other donor countries, through the American Freedom from Hunger Foundation.

1. Source: Department of State, IO/D/AGR Files, Lot 88 D 305, U.N. World Food Conference, U.S. Delegation Report, Kissinger speech, November 5–16, 1974. No classification marking. Drafted in S/WF. Butz submitted the report to Kissinger. Annexes B and C are published in Department of State Bulletin, December 16, 1974, pp. 821–837. The United Nations report on the World Food Conference, including Annex A, is published as U.N. Document E/Conf.65/20. A condensed version of the Official Report was circulated to all diplomatic posts as telegram 261676, November 27. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy Files) Additional documentation on the conference is scheduled for publication in Foreign Relations, 1969–1976, volume XXXI, Foreign Economic Policy, 1973–1976. Kissinger’s 1973 address to the United Nations General Assembly is scheduled for publication ibid., volume XXXVIII, Foundations and Organization of Foreign Policy, 1973–1976.
2. The report summarized the negotiations and results of the World Food Conference.