In June 1992, leaders from around the world will gather in Brazil to participate in the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). Organizers hope that UNCED will produce a global "Land Charter" and a "Plan for the 21st Century" establishing new mechanisms to reconcile tensions between the environment and development. To be successful, UNCED will have to confront and fashion remedies to increasingly worrisome global food production food security, and natural resource problems stemming from agricultural activities.

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations bears principal responsibility for agricultural and food system challenges within the U.N. system.

As these challenges evolve, so must FAO. A recent conference held in Den Bosch, the Netherlands, is one of several activities FAO has undertaken in an effort to define and assure a prominent role in pursuing sustainability on a global basis. But this mission is drawing FAO onto unfamiliar turf and stretching its technical competence and its institutional affiliations.

Institutionally, FAO clearly is broadening its expertise in the environmental sciences and natural resource management and attempting to improve its relationships with natural resource and environmental agencies and organizations, both within the U.N. system and the non-governmental organization (NGO) community. Dialogue and political maneuvering among U.N. agency representatives during the Den Bosch conference suggests that FAO still has some tough sledding ahead and is not alone in seeking to step forward and assist the developing world as it navigates the path to sustainability.

The concept of the meeting originated in 1990, when the Dutch minister of agriculture, G.J.M. Braks, offered to co-sponsor with FAO a major international conference on agriculture and the environment. The FAO agreed, recognizing that the Den Bosch conference could serve as an important comjponent of its preparatory activities leading up to the UNCED conference in 1992.

The co-sponsorship arrangement was attractive to FAO on two counts. First, the generous offer of financial support for the meeting, which reportedly cost the Dutch goverment well over $1 million, made it possible for FAO to tap a wide range of outside experts in developing the meeting's background documents and draft agenda for action. And second, since the meeting was co-sponsored by the Dutch government, FAO was not bound by the strict protocols governing its official conferences--rules that would have precluded, for example, the open participation of members of the NGO community.

Early on in the UNCED preparatory process, Fao recognized the need to seek the advise and support of NGOs in defining and later pursuing FAO's agenda for sustainability. Accordingly, for the Den Bosch conference to achieve both its technical and political objectives, it was essential for FAO to invite NGOs and other outside technical experts to participate. FAO also secured the participation of several individuals active within farm sector organizations including local cooperatives, farmer unions, and regional information and education organizations.

About 250 people from around the world attended the conference, which was held April 15-19. Attendees included delegates from about 135 FAO member nations, about three dozen representatives of FAO and other U.N. agencies--including individuals responsible for planning the UNCED meeting, representatives of about 15 NGOs, and about 25 resource people from around the world and a broad array of backgrounds.

Braks chaired the meeting, and Kang He, China's former minister of agriculture, served as its vice chair. Delegates from FAO member countries were, in the case of most developing countries, mid-level officials in agricultural or environmental ministries. Developed countries were, in general, represented by delegates from development agencies or institutes. The United States was represented by a soil chemist working in the Office of Agriculture of the Agency for International Development.

THE REAL ENEMIES OF SUSTAINABILITY

In the conference's opening address, FAO Director-General Edouard Saouma described the "root of the problem as an international failure to address the underlying causes of unsustainable uses of the land. "Our real enemies," he said, "are...underdevelopment, poverty, and the social inequalities of the rural world." He charged the attendees with forming the basis for a major international commitment to sustainable agriculture and rural development (SARD). "Your discussions will enable you to forge the underlying principles and orientations of such a commitment or, if you will, a kind of charter for sustainable agriculture."

In the opening session of the conference, Braks described the process that would unfold over the next five days in producing a "Den Bosch Declaration." This document would stand as a record of the conference and a first international attempt at defining the purpose, need, and scope of such a "charter" for the world to pursue sustainable agriculture.

The FAO's plan was that the Den Bosch Declaration would galvanize and focus debate within FAO, leading to the adoption of a formal platform of declaration at a November 1991 FAO meeting. This FAO-approved statement and "agenda for action" would then be formally transmitted by FAO to the U.N. government bodies for further discussion and action during the UNCED conference.

The focus of much of the discussion during the conference was the draft proposal of an "agenda for action," circulated to attendees, that presented an overview of the scope, purpose, and need to SARD, and surveyed policy goals and strategic options.

The first day of the conference focused on the main documents describing SARD issues and technological options. Reaction to the draft proposal and agenda for action was the principal focus of the second day, which also included a review of the background document on criteria, instruments, and tools for SARD.

Attendees broke up into smaller groups on the third day and developed regional reports highlighting the unique challenges and initiatives needed to advance toward SARD in different parts of the world. Days four and five were devoted entirely to the drafting and discussion of the Den Bosch Declaration, which evolved from a rough draft on Thursday morning to a relatively polished statement Friday afternoon when the conference ended.

Open dialogue in the plenary session spanned about 25 hours over the five-day conference. During this time, there were a series of organized discussion planels during which individuals were asked to offer brief explanations of the content of various documents or present their personal or institutional reaction to the document under discussion. The majority of time, however, was preserved for open discussion during which the chair invited comments--called intervention--from the floor. The dialogue was lively, interactive, and surprisingly, substantive.

THE DEN BOSCH DECLARATION

The declaration's introduction explains the purpose and organization of the conference. The problem statement reads:

Worldwide, and for thousands of years, agriculture is the activity which is the most essential to human survival and well being. It has also been the economic sector which most affects and is most dependent on the natural environment... In many parts of the world, agriculture is notfulfilling its vital function of feeding people, providing other basic agricultural commodities and generating stable income. More than 500 million people are undernourished and the vast majority of the 1.2 billion poor people in the world live in or come from rural areas.

The sense of the conference is accurately captured in this key statement that appears as paragraph 7:

Ecological, economic, and social imbalances not only affect the viability of the agricultural sector for the future generations. This is partly due to the fact that prices for agricultural commodities may not fully reflect the cost of producing them sustainably. Bearing in mind the expected role of agriculture in the economy, the relationship between agriculture and the environment must be reconsidered so that this vital activity can be maintained on a sustainable basis. To the extent that life styles of the rich imply excessive claims on global resources, they are unsustainable and will have to be adapted.

The declaration's next section presents FAO's definition of SARD and explains the "best thinking: of the conference attendees regarding how to translate SARD into "an operational reality." It is also acknowledged that the declaration does not bind any FAO-member government to any specific course of action.

Four opening paragraphs summarize the need for and challenges of SARD. The declaration then lists eight prerequisites for SARD that include changes in developed world agricultural policies to "increase and stabilize incomes for (developing world) farmers and hence create incentives for appropriate investments in rural areas"; the need to the international community to provide technical and financial assistance; the importance of formulating and implementing policies designed to slow the rate of population growth; and education and public awareness campaigns.

Then, the declaration lists "the essential goals of SARD:"

- "Food security by ensuring an appropriate and sustainable balance between self-sufficiency and self-reliance."

- "Employment and income generation in rural areas, particularly to eradicate poverty."

- "Natural resource conservation and environmental protection."

Several "fundamental changes and adjustments" needed to achieve these goals are then highlighted: a greater role in the design and implementatoin of development projects for farmers and local farm-based organizations; the need for a plurality of institutions and new forms of cooperation among government, NGO, and rural leaders in decision-making, including an expanded role for women; clearer rights to land and other natural resources; new investments in natural resource conservation so that resources can be "used intensively and safely"; and, changes in macroeconomics and agricultural policies so that farmers produce crops and livestock adapted to a region's resources and gain new opportunities to pursue related off-farm employment opportunities, including food processing.

AGENDA FOR ACTION

In introducing the agenda for action, the declaration acknowledges that "most developing countries will have no choice but to intensify agriculture: and that "the transition toward SARD will require new investments and reallocation of existing financial resources." At the national level, the major requirements and initiatives for SARD are:

* Macro-economic and agricultural policy review and adjustment; * Strengthened rural organizations and the capacity of local people, particularly women, to participate in the development process; * Human resource development and training in the efficient use of off-farm inputs; * Supporting the diversificatIon of agriculture and related activities, including development of agro-industries like food processing; and * Assurance that relevant information is developed and disseminated.

Research and technology needs are identified as "essential to the success of launching the process towards SARD." The key recommendations are to: "redirect and increase support for agricultural research...especially on the biological processes that govern agricultural production"; make full use of indigenous knowledge; strive for increased efficiency in the use of external inputs; develop criteria and indicators for monitoring sustainability "in order to set up environmental and natural resource accounting systems"; enhance developing world research manpower and infrastructure; and, carry out inventories of practices that could be used in designing improved farming systems.

After outlining the above fundamental changes and eight "action items," the operational passage of the declaration states in full:

International cooperative programs which include financing mechanisms should be developed and used to support comprehensive SARD initiatives at the local, national, and regional levels in these eight above areas. This will require cooperation and coordination among the varous actors bilateral and multilateral assistance, and financing institutions).

The declaration concludes with a call for "other international action of more general interest and applicability," including:

* More efficient ways to collect, share, and analyze data; * Establishing needed codes of conduct and standards; and * Reviewing and modifying as necessary the rules applicable to international trade, in order to improve market access and ensure fair prices with a view to promoting SARD."

The Den Bosch conference and its declaration clearly did not prescribe a clear or complete path to sustainable agriculture, but conference documents and dialogue did convey accurately the sense of urgency for action felt by most attendees, particularly those from the developing world. Moreover, conference dialogue also provided many insights into the essential ingredients of such a path as well as some of the contentious issues that stand in the way of progress.

This section describes and analyzes some of the recurrent themes, appeals, and recommendatons that arose during plenary sessions when all delegates and invited guests were invited to offer interventions from the floor. Several direct quotes are reported that reflect the translations into English as offered during the conference.

PERSPECTIVES FROM THE SOUTH

Delegates from Latin and South America were among the most vocal and articulate at the meeting. Interventions often were prefaced with a recognition of the gravity of the dilemmas their countries face in responding to domestic economic and political pressures while also managing their natural resources to both sustain productive capacity and contribute to the attainment of local and global environmental imperatives.

The domestic challenges they emphasized most frequently included population growth, food security, economic development, compliance with the terms of structural adjustment loans and agreements reached with the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, and earning the foreign exchange needed to meet debt obligations.

Many spoke of recent efforts within their countries to devise new national strategies to manage natural resources. Yet they voiced concern about the time it would take to develop and implement new policies and to generate stable earnings from sustainable activities. One delegate cautioned, "In our country we have very incipient democracy...With any change in the direction of government, we get a change in policy."

THE ROLE OF NGOS IN LATIN AMERICA

Several delegates from Latin America stressed the critical and positive role local NGOs play in the development process. Jesus Duran, representing a Bolivian NGO focusing on agro-ecology, reported that there are about 600 local private voluntary organizations (PVOs) working the rural areas of Bolivia, with the majority existing for 20 years or more. A few recently have gained enough resources to hire professional staff and are now taking on a more active role in developing agro-ecological approaches to food production, a process that relies heavily on indigenous knowledge and local skills. Duran said that in Bolivia "agro-ecology is fundamentally a cultural practice."

The Chilean delegate explained an emerging policy in her country designed to restore equity between different groups within society in a given generation and between generations. While praising the overall content of conference preparatory documents, she offered the following criticism: "The documents say needed measures are not being carried out because of ignorance. But it's the policies that are driving practices damaging to natural resources and the environment--not ignorance." She then identified a list of policies that she felt deserved more attention: terms of access to international markets; European agricultural policies and protectionism; and developed world policies that distort and depress commodity prices.

Ramel Reese, representing a Colombian NGO, said that whever choices had to be made in a developing country between development and the environment, "environment will lose, resources will be degraded." He urged that the definition of SARD be revised to emphasize more strongly the economic needs of local populations. He also criticized the documents for failing to address key institutional issues, including the bias against environmental concerns within most contries' agricultural ministries. He reported on progress made in Colombia after moving responsibiity for natural resources and the environment from the agricultural ministry and vesting it within a new department on the environment.

He urged the delegates and FAO "to go to the UNCED meeting with concerted proposals for institutional change," including institutional shifts in authority for agricultural-natural resource issues in national governments and international institutions patterned after the steps taken in Colombia. For obvious reasons, it is hard to imagine FAO enthusiastically sponsoring such a proposal at UNCED, just as it is hard to imagine the U.S. Congress shifting authority for agricultural water quality or erosion control programs to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Tensions between the North and South routinely surface in international meetings. Den Bosch was no exception. The Panamanian delegate captured most succinctly the view from the South: "Our agroecology problems started when Columbus reached America... Ever since they've always given us little bits of glass in return for our gold."

Another Latin American delegate raised a fundamental problem addressed by several other participants. "We have been asked to bear the costs of environmental provisions in development projects, but we don't know how to show an economic return. The same people that run FAO run the development banks, so they need to develop and agree on new tools we can use to convincingly show benefits." Other participants spoke to the need for progress toward the delineation of natural resource accounting methods, a recommendation that receives some mention in the conference's agenda for action.

After nearly five hours in continuous debate, the Venezuelan delegate offered the following request for a change in emphasis within the draft agenda for action:

"The fundamental reason we are all here is that there are some serious problems we all face which we can not solve on our own. Our countries' economies are not healthy now... There is poverty and no money for investment. If this is our problem, we have spoken of effects but no causes... There need to be changes in the behavior of developed countries, but we have not seen them yet. The fundamental course of action is to change the international terms of trade and access to agricultural export markets."

POLICY AND MARKETS

Several participants stressed in their interventions that commodity prices, policies, and related institutions shape the economic environment in which farmers make decisions, and that this environment must become -- and remain for many years -- far more conducive to sustainable practices, regardless of the state of knowledge and availability of technology.

This point was made perhaps most forcefully by F.L. Gapar, the chairman of the National Farmers' Association of Zimbabwe, who introduced his remarks by stating that he felt someone at the meeting needed to speak for and from the perspective of farmers. He expressed dismay over current pressures for trade liberalization and structural adjustments in developing countries designed to enhance "competitiveness" and asserted:

"Now the developed world is asking developing countries to get ready to compete in open markets in one or two years when it took developed coutries 300 years to get strong enough to do well in "free markets." Who are we making to suffer by these developed country agricultural policies?... Our small farmers."

Much discussion focused on causes and prospective solutions to basic economic constraints. The most frequently cited causes were a range of developed world institutions and policies that place downward pressure on commodity prices and strive to export market price instability into the world market as opposed to suffering and its consequences within domestic markets. Examples cited most frequently included European agricultural policies and protectionism, the provisions of structural adjustment loans that force countries to lower the prices of export commodities to increase earnings of foreign exchange, the debt crisis and the terms imposed for developing countries to gain access to capital and markets, the U.S. export enhancement and related export subsidies, and related policies.

As the meeting progressed, the basic economic challenges facing the world as it strives toward SARD gained definition. In the first days of the conference, many delegates stressed that poor farmers, either because of population pressure or marginal soils or climate, were unable to produce food to sustain a family, and in their efforts to do so they often drew down the soil's natural fertility, exposing it to erosion or water management-related problems. Too often, the cycle of resource degradation and declining standards of living force farmers to move on. But many have nowhere to go but onto other, generally less fertile lands where the cycle is repeated, only more quickly. Farmers who stay are forced to cope as best they can and often turn in desperation to practices fundamentally inimical to sustainability such as consuming seed, killing livestock breeding stock, or using dynamite to harvest fish.

Despite many such disturbing reports, many delegates stressed that even in the world's most stressed agroecosystems there are proven conservation and agronomic practices effective in restoring soil fertility, controlling erosion, and building up the productive capacity of a farming system. These practices, though, come at a cost in terms of cash, labor resources, and the quantity and marketable value of harvests in the short run. Moreover, during periods of transition to ecologicaly-based farming systems, farmers would face some additional risk and the need to make investments in new skills, plantings, and conservation practices.

While there was broad agreement that markets and pricing policies would have to change to create incentives for farmers to move toward SARD and sustain their livelihoods during possibly costly periods of transition, another fundamental constraint was identified -- the lack of appropriate policy models for the sorts of changes needed to strive toward SARD.

THE NEED FOR NEW MODELS

Sustainable agriculture is inherently a biologically-based systems approach to farming. Its viability rests on careful matching of crop and livestock activities to the productive capabilities of the land, coupled with successful management of biological and ecological cycles so that food production is maximized with minimal inputs and problems with pests. Essential ingredients of SARD include efficient utilization of available nutrients, labor, water, and other inputs as well as annual improvements in the physical structure and fertility of soils.

No one practice is uniquely critical in making a farming system sustainable. The essential and often unique inputs for SARD include human skills and activities, guided by information and insights into how to manage an ecosystem for maximum production consistent with the resources available to the farmer.

Herein lies the problem. Many ways are known through policy interventions to alter specific farming practices, enhance farm income, or increase use of certain inputs, but policy interventions rarely have attempted to alter the fundamental approach a farmer follows in deciding how to accomplish the task of producing food. Many participants stressed that successful adoption of sustainable prices will require a change of the paradigm governing both on-farm decisions and agricultural research, technology development, and education programs.

But a basic question lingered: How can a government or institution or a PVO change a farmer's approach to farming through policy, or the paradigm within which a scientist or development officer evaluates the basic character and, hence, path of development? There was much uncertainty about how, and indeed whether, policy could create ample leverage to bring about desirable changes in light of the powerful influence of tradition, market and economic reality, and indeed, the challenge of survival.

In the past, whether in the developed or developing world, governments or international institutions have attempted to improve agricultural productivity or farm income through programs and policies designed to make some technology or input to the farming system more readily available. Some programs have coupled new plant varieties with credit for fertilizer and other inputs, and perhaps a new source or irrigation.

Other policies have focused more narrowly on a particular problem area or limiting resource, providing credit or subsidies or cost-share payments for adoption of some specific practice. Developed world farm income enhancement policies work by providing farmers a higher price than available through the market, and their value tends to become capitalized into land values; risk-sharing policies reduce the cost of risky investments, and so on.

In general, though, the operational principle has been to achieve specific goals by changing the value of farming inputs and outputs or rewarding the adoption of certain practices, and in this way alter decision-making on the farm. It rarely is worked out so neatly, however.

By the end of the conference, there was a shared sense that institutions and political leaders will have to break a lot of new ground to define and adopt policies that increase the economic returns to a farming system as opposed to just altering the prices or accessibility of the inputs and technologies and outputs that define a particular system.

 GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSIBILITY TO HELP

J.C. Pant, the delegate from India, made one of the few concrete suggestions to address this problem. He stressed that national governments must bear the major responsibility to develop and help farmers adopt such new approaches to farming. Yet he acknowledged that "this will be a difficult problem since the task is so complex and varies across the landscape." He urged FAO to compile, assess, and describe a set of "implementation models" and offered the option that the only way SARD can be pursued in a big country is a model farms approach, one in each large district, representing different regions and zones."

In the research arena, Dr. Miguel Altieri, from the University of California at Berkeley, urged FAO "to start providing the guidance needed to develop the scientific basis for the transition to ecologically-based production systems." Toward this end, he suggested that FAO convene a consortium of experts from a broad array of disciplines and regions to recommend specific actions and investments.

Dr. Filemon Torres, the deputy director general of the International Center for Research on Tropical agriculture, suggested the establishment, within selected major agro-ecological zones, of a network of centers of excellence dedicated to multi-disciplinary research on cropping, livestock, and agro-forestry systems adapted to the unique resource endowments of each area. He said such centers could be designed to maximize farmer involvement in the programs, including the delivery of information and new technologies to farmers.

 FINANCING SARD: "WHO IS GOING TO PAY?"

The Den Bosch Declaration accurately reflects two points repeatedly stressed during the conference--progress toward sustainable agriculture and rural develoment will cost money; and second, the poor cannot and should not be asked to bear this cost. And so, speaker after speaker challenged the conference to address the question, "Who is going to pay?"

Many attendees were pleased that the declaration asserts the need for fundamental, far-reaching changes in the "international economic order" but were disappointed that it is nearly silent on how such a fundamental transformation is to be accomplished. Many attendees asserted that the only way SARD can be financed within the framework of the declaration would be through changes in commodity policies in the major producing nations along with reform in the rules governing international trade. It seemed equally obvious to others that developing country treasuries would be unable to bear the cost directly by somehow supplementing world market prices, even if multilateral institutions and the NGO community were able to top unprecedented levels of resources to commit to the task.

At the outset of discussion on the agenda for action, B.P. Dutia, FAO's assistant director-general for economic and social policy, said progress toward SARD 'will require affirmative action to shift resources from the haves to the have nots, and this will not be very popular."

Others stressed that a price will be paid one way or another since the lack of progress toward SARD will mean further resource and environmental degradation, in turn reducing the capacity of developing countries to meet their own needs, slowing global economic growth, and heightening the dependence of populations trapped in a declining spiral of living standards and resource endowments upon richer segments of society, both in the developing and developed worlds.

So, to many the issue seemed to be not whether a price had to be paid, but rather what sort of a "price" and who would be compelled to bear it and when the bill would become due. Many also expressed deep concern that a full and accurate accounting of this "price" must contain estimates of the consequences of possibly irreversible environmental and ecological damages that will pass along a kind of surcharge onto future generations.

The conference did seem to reach a seemingly unavoidable conclusion: international bodies and UNCED must come up with tangible ways to raise commodity prices and farm family incomes high enough to sustain life while also covering the full costs of the agronomic, pest control, and natural resource conservation practices integral to SARD.

Toward the end of the conference the delegates of Norway, Sweden, and Finland said that, as written, the Den Bosch declaration lacks sufficient emphasis on poverty alleviation as a principal goal for SARD. The Norwegian delegate pointed out that his country, a major donor to international relief and development efforts, currently provides less than 10 percent of its development assistance to agricultural projects, and that he could not imagine Nordic donors either shifting current development resources or providing an overall increase in assistance to help finance SARD's program and policy initiatives that seem so loosely relevant to the challenge of alleviating poverty among the world's most desperately poor. He and others emphasized that they shared the concern of all nations about natural resource degradation, about slippage in food production capability, and ecological problems but stressed that Nordic countries view poverty as the underlying cause and poverty alleviation as the most pressing objective for new international efforts.

In response to the strength of these interventions, a special drafting committee was formed and asked to review and revise the draft Den Bosch Declaration before the conference's closing session to heighten its emphasis on poverty. The final draft presented before the delegates had several additional passages stressing the importance of alleviating poverty but few ideas or items within the agenda for action.

Despte the changes, during the final plenary session delegates from Sweden, Finland and others expressed, again, grave disappointment that the agenda for SARD seems to offer so little new reason for hope that the lives of the poor will be materialy improved. They apparently were skeptical that the review of agricultural and macro-econoic policies called for in the declaration would result in the higher incomes and material progress for people now surviving largely outside the market economy.

CONCLUDING IMPRESSIONS

All the documents prepared for the meeting and the declaration itself are comprehensive in scope and, in many respects, exhaustive in their analyses of the nature and consequences of unsustainable food production practices. But they are far less complete and persuasive in articulating the causes of unsustainable food production systems and even less successful in prescribing the sorts of initiatives that are needed and viable to strive more systematically toward SARD.

The documents also seem to shy away from an open appraisal of the barriers to change that are embedded in the international economic order and the current distribution of wealth, productive potential, and access to markets, capital, and technology. Many delegates expressed frustration that there is virtually no discussion of the financial, institutional, and political challenges and changes that must be accommodated in order to make even a minimal effort to act upon the items called for in the declaration's agenda for action.

While there was a surprising level of consensus and understanding of the basic technical and economic dimensions of sustainability, other signs pointed clearly to a general lack of political will and commitment to the concept and the efforts by FAO to promote new initiatives toward SARD.

For example, most delegates sent by developed nations were mid-level career bureaucrats, few of whom were either capable or allowed to say much about a country's willingness to support a given policy initiative. And the delegates of two of the utmost important countries -- the United States and Japan-- did not offer a single intervention during the plenary sessions. May people wondered what their silence signified. During breaks and "off-the-record" conversations, others pointed out that nothing significant can happen without clear support from the United States since it pays nearly 25 percent of FAO's annual operating budget.

Diplomatic, but nontheless pointed, questions were also raised about the role and institutional capability of FAO, indeed the U.N. system as a whole, in advancing SARD. Tension was also evident between representatives of FAO, UNCED, and various other U.N. agencies responsible for some aspects of SARD. Many delegates were left uncertain what role or status the Den Bosch Declaration and associated background materials would have as plans move ahead toward UNCED.

Despite its limitations, the Den Bosch conference marks an important step forward for FAO in the process of engaging its members in a collective assessment of the concepts underlying SARD. A good start was made at defining key elements within a "charter" for sustainable agriculture. Little progress was made in specifying operational details or in resolving the fundamental economic question--who is going to pay?

But perhaps everything was acomplished at Den Bosch that FAO could have reasonably hoped for. The FAO is clearly in no position to fully orchestrate or act upon the operational details of the declaration's agenda for action until it is ratified both substantively and financially by the international community. Many people hope that UNCED will emerge as the perfect opportunity for world leaders to rise to that enormous challenge.