THE INTERNATIONAL EMERGENCY FOOD COUNCIL

REPORT NO. 1

This new body, to succeed the Combined Food Board and its
Committees, is to be called into existence as soon as possible,
probably next week. The procedure is to be for the C.F.B. to meet,
having invited a host of other countries to attend also, and then
for the assembled representatives to transform themselves into the
I.E.F.C.

[matter omitted]

3. Before the I.E.F.C. is constituted, the Commodity Committees
[1] may be still further enlarged to qualify national
representatives for membership of I.E.F.C. It is unfortunate that
no compromise has been found possible between the C.F.B. of three
members and I.E.F.C. of between fifty and sixty members. The
Commodity Committees will be overburdened, and efficiency has had
to be abandoned under the pressure of national status and real or
supposed interest. I have said in cables that Australia may need a
staff comparable to that of the British Food Missions. We are
instructed to be on the Central Committee, and no doubt we will be
on several of the Commodity Committees also. There is nothing to
add to what has been said in telegrams except to repeat the fact
that the staff position has been made very much more urgent than
it was.

4. I have some doubts whether we can, in fact, play our full part
in this new scheme. It will probably strain staff capacities both
in Canberra and Washington, though it would be useful if you could
appraise the situation generally and inform us here as soon as
possible.

5. The I.E.F.C. is the simplest form of organization that could be
devised in the circumstances. We resisted many endeavours to build
it up into a more formidable organization, with powers and
authorities that would not be enforced. We deferred these claims
until the question of a permanent organization is dealt with at
the next F.A.0. Conference, now scheduled for Copenhagen in early
September. I.E.F.C. will, therefore, be very little more than the
C.F.B. was, except that it is preposterously enlarged.

6. We hope to be able to inform you shortly as to the range of
information each government is to furnish through F.A.O. and
directly to the I.E.F.C. The first part of this information will
be precise data, furnished promptly at frequent intervals, on your
allocations of all exports within the range of the new body, which
at present is the same as that of the old C.F.B. Commodity
Committees. We are already committed to that by the resolution of
the UNRRA Council in March.

7. The relations between I.E.F.C. and the London Food Council [2]
have yet to be thought out. The U.K. view is that the L.F.C. will
no longer be a high level body, but that it will be necessary on
'the operational level' for implementing policies in detail.

Doubtless this idea will suit Australia, if only for the purpose
of allocating to Indian Ocean and nearby areas appropriate
quantities of commodities purchased in bulk by the Ministry of
Food, and for shipping arrangements.

8. Hitherto, except for cereals, it has been the practice for U.K.

representatives on the C.F.B. Commodity Committees to report
arrangements made in London, and to act on our behalf generally.

Our membership of the Cereals Committee cut across this practice,
and proper adjustments were not made until recently, so that
confusion often arose. We have attended other Committees as
occasion required (especially of late) but the U.K.

representatives have always had more information than we had about
Australian supplies and their export distribution.

Now we must have a new system, appropriate to the new
organization.

9. It will be important always to remember that Australian
contracts to supply the U.K. are not exempted from any recommended
allocations which the I.E.F.C. may make. New Zealand has not
understood this.

New Zealand has been willing to throw all of its food exports into
a pool, to be distributed as the I.E.F.C. thinks fit, but on the
tacit understanding that 'commitments' were exempted. Some other
countries were willing to do the same, and the deficit countries
might have been willing to start that way. It would have been
unwise to agree, and we have not done so. The next step would have
been a direct attack on our so-called 'bilateral agreements',
which give preference to the U.K., contrary to the general
principles of F.A.0. and other international authorities.

[matter omitted]

14. I do not expect that I.E.F.C. will do any better than C.F.B.

It will be much more cumbersome. But something still more
difficult might have been forced upon us, and may still be imposed
by majority opinion if I.E.F.C. fails to do what is possible. Such
failure would, of course, react on F.A.0. and its associated
bodies. Those nationals who are concerned for the welfare of
F.A.0. have been trying, in the recent Conference, to protect it
against such risks, but F.A.0. has chosen to take them.

[matter omitted]

J. B. BRIGDEN