Page images
PDF
EPUB

It was decided, after discussion, to reword the resolution as follows with a view to clarifying its intent:

The Third Inter-American Conference on Agriculture Resolves:

To recommend that the importing countries of America contribute to the development of the production of fibers on the American Continent, avoiding such governmental measures as may oblige the use of materials made outside America to the exclusion of those manufactured with products of this Continent.

It was also decided, at the suggestion of the United States representative, that the resolution would be referred for further study to Subcommission 1, which was meeting during the afternoon.

At the meeting of Subcommission 1 that afternoon the United States representative suggested that the expression "when the war is over” be inserted immediately after the expression “To recommend” at the beginning of the resolution. He explained this suggestion by saying that the Commission is supposed to deal with post-war problems and that the United States Government, as a war measure, is purchasing commodities under contracts in which it specifies the type of packing that can be used, a practice that might be held to be in conflict with the resolution unless the phrase suggested is inserted.

He said that the resolution, with this change, was in accordance with the United States policy of not discriminating against efficient production from any source and that the United States can therefore support it. The United States, he said, will not discriminate against products produced in this Hemisphere but it cannot discriminate against other areas in favor of production within the Hemisphere.

The resolution with the change was approved by Commission II in its fifth meeting (July 31) and later transmitted to the Resolutions Commission. 3. Studies Concerning Production and Consumption

The resolution concerning Studies on Production and Consumption reads as follows: WHEREAS:

The various recommendations made on production and consumption by the Conference are so important that they should be the object of a permanent study

The Third Inter-American Conference on Agriculture. Resolves:

1. To recommend that the Pan American Union organize a special section to study all the Conference recommendations on production and consumption, preferably with respect to any product about which one or more of the American republics propose that a study be undertaken, and that based on the results of such studies, pertinent recommendations be made by said section to be sent to all Pan American Union members.

2. That the studies be especially directed to such products as fats, oils, vegetables, rice, and lumber.

The foregoing resolution developed spontaneously during the fifth meeting of Commission II (July 31) as the result of a suggestion of the Cuban representative to the effect that such a general resolution be approved to take the place of a number of resolutions that would have provided for studies on individual commodities. The idea was accepted, and the resolution was drafted and approved before the meeting ended. Among the resolutions covered were the Argentine proposal on fats and oils (No. 57) and the Cuban proposals on strategic products, the production of which has been increased in America (No. 120) and on insecticides, medicinal plants, essential oils, etc. (No. 121). It was also suggested that it might take the place of the Mexican proposals for studies on natural rubber (No. 141) and hard fibers (No. 144). Since a joint proposal on these two subjects had already been approved by the Commission, however, it was agreed that a recommendation be made to the Resolutions Commission that the Commission combine the resolutions. 4. Maximum Coffee Prices

It was obvious very early during the Conference, from speeches made in the opening sessions and from personal conversations, that many of the delegations attached great importance to obtaining Conference approval of a resolution on maximum coffee prices. The resolution finally approved on maximum coffee prices recommended that a “study submitted by the coffee producing countries which contains information on background and facts concerning the change in the cost of production of coffee and the increase in the cost of living in those countries, be turned over to the delegation of the United States of America with the recommendation that it place the said study in the hands of the competent authorities of the United States Government in order that it may be taken into consideration with the request for readjustment of the ceiling prices of the said product." Representatives of the coffee producing countries would have preferred a resolution committing the United States to increase maximum coffee prices. They were informed, however, by the delegation of the United States that no decision with respect to an alteration in coffee ceiling prices could be made by members of the United States delegation, since this matter was one falling within the competence of persons not on the delegation, and that the delegation could not therefore commit the United States in any way to increase coffee price ceilings. The resolution (No. 195) introduced by the Guatemalan delegation, containing the same recommendation as that finally approved but differing in its "whereas” part, and the Colombian resolution (No. 214) failed to receive the support of the United States delegation because it was felt that they took a more positive position on the necessity for a price increase than the United States delegation's instructions permitted it to endorse.

The resolution finally adopted was approved, after very brief discussion, at the fourth meeting of subcommission 1 (July 31). When it was later considered by Commission II, the delegates of Nicaragua and El Salvador requested that the minutes show that they concurred in the resolution along with its other sponsors (Guatemala, Colombia, and Costa Rica). The resolution was approved without further discussion for transmittal to the Resolutions Commission. 5. International Commodity Agreements

The resolution finally approved by Commission II on international commodity agreements was based on a resolution introduced by the Argentine delegation (No. 191). This resolution in certain respects was similar to the Cuban resolution (No. 188) that became the basis of the resolution finally approved on the orientation of production.

In the first meeting of Subcommission 3 (July 30) the Cuban representative suggested that since the resolutions introduced by Cuba and Argentina were more general than the other resolutions under consideration by the subcommission and since they provide for treatment of the problems raised by those other resolutions, the subcommission should consider Nos. 188 and 191 first with a view to ascertaining whether or not they could be redrafted in such a way as to make it unnecessary for the subcommission to approve a large number of separate resolutions. This suggestion was approved, as was a suggestion that an attempt be made to merge the two resolutions.

It was later decided not to merge the two resolutions, however, since to a very large extent they concerned separate questions. A joint commission set up by Commissions II and IV, which also had an interest in the matter, therefore decided that Resolution No. 188 should become the basis of a joint resolution by Commissions II and IV on reorientation of production, that Commission IV would use the United States resolution (No. 172) as the basis for a resolution on the expansion of trade and consumption, and that Resolution No. 191 would become the basis of a resolution by Commission II on commodity agreement principles.

The resolution on commodity agreements, approved by Subcommission 3, stated that commodity agreements may be an appropriate means of dealing with certain international commodity problems and established the principles which should be observed in such agreements. This resolution was approved, with minor alterations, by Commission II in its fifth meeting (July 31) and later by the Conference. The text of the Conference resolution may be found in the Final Act as Resolution No. XVI. 6. Orientation of Production

The development of this resolution is to some extent treated in the preceding section, as well as in the report of Commission IV. Changes which took place in the resolution during its evolution were directed toward the strengthening of those portions advocating the encouragement of production in efficient areas and the transfer of those sections referring to commodity agreements to the resolution dealing with that subject. The resolution was a joint project, as has been indicated earlier, of Commissions II and IV. The text of the resolution, as finally adopted by the Conference, appears in the Final Act as Resolution No. XVII.

COMMISSION III: FOODSTUFFS AND RAW MATERIALS Commission III was the technical commission of the Conference on phases of agriculture other than economic. It had the largest number of delegates and advisers—approximately 90—and it also had under consideration the largest number of reports and resolutions. Ninetyfive resolutions were considered by the commission, and seventy-one were approved.

ORGANIZATION OF THE COMMISSION At the first plenary session of the commission, it was obvious that the number and breadth of subject matter fields under consideration would require breaking the commission down into subcommissions. After much discussion, seven subcommissions were set up, a representative of the United States being assigned to each as follows:

[ocr errors]

Subcommission

1 2 3

4

Nutrition-Hazel K. Stiebeling
Soils and Climate-Hugh H. Bennett and Richard Bradfield
Engineering-Ross E. Moore
Agricultural Extension, Education, and Plant Science-

Philip V. Cardon, Ross E. Moore, William C. Brister,

and M. L. Wilson
Animal Production and Sanitation-Hugh C. McPhee
Plant Pathology-Philip V. Cardon
Forestry—Edward I. Kotok and Arthur T. Upson

5 6. 7

COMMISSION PROCEDURE

A special committee of four, made up of representatives of the delegations of the United States, Argentina, Paraguay, and Venezuela, classified the resolutions and assigned them to the respective subcommissions. Consideration of resolutions started immediately and occupied practically all of the time of the subcommissions and of the plenary sessions of the commission throughout the Conference. The subcommissions took action on resolutions in their fields and their actions were reviewed at plenary sessions of the whole commission.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS

The commission considered 98 resolutions and sent 71 to the resolution committee for final consideration. The following table lists, by quantity of resolution, the action taken by each subcommission and by the commission,

RESOLUTIONS
Considered
Combined Withdrawn or Not Approved.

Approved
I I
10
2. in 1

3

6
II
12
6 in 3

9
III
6

1

5
IV
31
11 in 5

1

24
V
15
2 in 1

2

12
VI
10
2 in 1

2

7
VII
11

4 in 1

8

[blocks in formation]

There was little opportunity in the commission meetings to discuss the various agricultural problems encountered in the various countries of the Hemisphere except as such problems were reflected in the resolutions considered. The only variation from this general type of activity occurred in subcommissions 2, "Soils and Climate," and 7, “Forestry”. In each of these two subcommissions, the subject-matter field was more specific than in other subcommissions; the interests of the delegates assigned from the various countries fell entirely within the interests of the subcommissions; and the number of delegates in these subcommissions was small which contributed to more efficient operation.

The commission meetings afforded an opportunity to make and extend acquaintances between the agriculturists of the hemisphere, and the degree of interest shown in the resolutions indicated the problems in which the delegations were principally interested. The trip to Maracay and surrounding areas and visits to experimental tracts and herds as well as many impromptu group conversations gave some op

U. OF ILL LIB.

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »