DRAFT REPORT OF COMMISSION I - PART VI
PROJET DE RAPPORT DE LA COMMISSION I - SIXIEME PARTIE
PROYECTO DE INFORME DE LA COMISION I - PARTE VI
PARAGRAPH 1
PARAGRAPHE 1
PARRAFO 1
Adel Mahmoud ABOUL-NAGA (Egypt): First, I would like to thank again the Chairman of the Drafting Committee. Before we insert this amendment, may I say that this is one amendment on which we all came to consensus. This is the one we all agreed upon so if there is anything more, it is not in agreement. Anything more, we did not agree on it. This whole package is a consensus to go with the rest of the amendment. If we agree that and it reopens the discussion, that does not reflect the spirit of the negotiations we have had with you over the last two hours. I wish that point to be cleared up.
LE PRESIDENT: Dans le préambule de la Résolution, la Suède voudrait apporter un amendement pour faire référence à la Conférence internationale sur les femmes. Je crois que nous pouvons accepter cet amendement de la Suède sur le plan du principe.
Je vais lire le paragraphe 4 en anglais ... Des problèmes? Le délégué des Etats-Unis a la parole.
Thomas A. FORBORD (United States of America): I do not know whether I have a problem or not, but I have a certain amount of confusion. I had thought that you were going to propose some editorial changes. After the delegate from Egypt spoke you made another proposal. I have no idea where that would go or what the words are. I wonder if you can clarify the process that you will now be using, Mr Chairman?
LE PRESIDENT: Je vais d'abord lire les amendements que j'ai à vous proposer, et on verra bien. Je reprends en anglais le paragraphe 4. (continue en anglais)
Paragraph 4 of the Resolution will read: " Decides that in considering all aspects of food security and in addressing ...". The amendment concerned is therefore "in addressing".
In paragraph 4(d) we start with the words "to establish a policy framework and adopt the plan of action ...".
We then move to paragraph 5, which will read: "Decides further that the plan of action will aim at constantly improving global food security at all levels, in particular at household level, within the framework of sustainable development".
Paragraph 6 will read: "Approves the preparations ...", and after "World Food Summit" insert a full stop, deleting the remainder of the sentence.
Paragraph 9 will read: "Decides that the Committee on World Food Security shall serve as the focal point for all aspects concerning the preparation of the Summit ...".
Paragraph 10 will read: "Calls upon the Regional Conferences in 1996 to address food security issues, especially those concerns which are region-specific ...", and the sentence continues.
Paragraph 11, in the second line instead of "and encourage" it will read "and to encourage".
Paragraph 13 will read: "Welcomes the Director-General's decision to open a special Trust Fund and to mobilize ..." and the sentence continues.
Those are the proposed amendments to the Resolution which I am submitting for your consideration. With those amendments I propose that we adopt the Resolution en bloc. We will then go on to the following proposals.
Kevin O'BRIEN (Australia): Not to comment on any of those suggestions which you have put to us, Mr Chairman, but to make one presentational suggestion.
May I suggest that paragraph 2 of the Resolution, unchanged, be relocated after the current paragraph 8? It is part of the implementation process and we suggest that it is better located after the invitation to Heads of State in paragraph 8.
LE PRESIDENT: Je ne pense pas que l'emplacement du paragraphe 2 soit un problème en tant que tel. Ce n'est pas sa place, c'est son contenu qui est important. Et je voudrais que nous nous limitions aux amendements que j'ai moi-même proposés, et que vous n'en ajoutiez pas car cela risquerait de nous mener très loin.
L'Ambassadeur du Sénégal a demandé la parole mais avant de la lui passer, je voudrais demander au Délégué de la Suède de nous faire part de son amendement dans le préambule de la Résolution.
Ms Anita MATEJOVSKY (Sweden): Amongst the other international meetings mentioned in the fourth paragraph of the preamble on the first page, Sweden would like to see included both the Social Summit in 1995 and also the International Conference on Women in 1995.
That leads us to the sixth paragraph in the preamble which starts "Conscious of the fact that policies ...", etc. Among the different fields that are mentioned we would welcome the insertion of "gender issues" between "labour" and "health". We believe that the sentence should read as follows: "Conscious of the fact that policies in many fields - agriculture, fisheries, forestry, industry, commerce, transport, labour, gender issues, health, finance ...", etc., because the words "gender issues" do not go with "sectors".
LE PRESIDENT: L'amendement de la Suède et les amendements que j'ai lus vous sont soumis. Je vous propose que nous adoptions la Résolution avec ses amendements.
Thomas A. FORBORD (United States of America): Commenting on the second of the two Swedish amendments, it still does not read very well if we call gender a "field". Inserting "gender" where the delegate from Sweden has suggested, it might be clearer if we say: "Conscious of the fact that many policies ..." and then have the long list of areas. That perhaps would be a little more successful.
Ms Anita MATEJOVSKY (Sweden): I agree.
LE PRESIDENT: Le Délégué des Etats-Unis est d'accord avec votre amendement. Je vous soumets donc l'amendement proposé par la Suède, et réamendé par les Etats-Unis, ainsi que les amendements que je vous ai lus pour que l'on adopte la Résolution sur le Sommet mondial de l'alimentation.
Roland MAUCH (Germany): Would you be kind enough, Mr Chairman, to read out the exact words of operative paragraph 6? I could not quite follow.
CHAIRMAN: I read paragraph 6 again. It reads as follows: "Approves the preparations made by the Director-General for the World Food Summit".
D.P.D. VAN RAPPART (Netherlands): Thank you, Mr Chairman. Can I have once again paragraph 5, and then I will comment on the changes?
CHAIRMAN: Paragraph 5 reads: "Decides further that the plan of action will aim at constantly improving global food security at all levels, in particular at household level, within the framework of sustainable development."
D.P.D. VAN RAPPART (Netherlands): Thank you, Mr Chairman. I have considerable problems with these changes. The basics behind these paragraphs are to bring into the plan of action the concrete activities at all levels, and then we go into detail that the household level should be described in the quantitative and nutritional points of view, and these changes are changing actually the whole paragraph, and there is not much left of it. I don't have a problem in leaving out UNCED Agenda 21, but I have a lot of problems with the rest of the changes.
Thomas A. FORBORD (United States of America): Thank you, Chairman. In your proposal for adoption, are you including the Australian proposal? If so, we would support the Australian proposal without prejudice to later discussing the content of the paragraph that is to be moved; but now that I have the floor, I'd like to make two or three suggestions for amendments.
During our discussion last week, my delegation and several others proposed that the title of the meeting be returned to that which was originally proposed by the Director-General at the 106th Council when he proposed to have a Summit on World Food Security. During that discussion I was asked what did I mean by "food security". I subsequently answered that, of course, we mean the standard definition that FAO has used for a number of years on food security.
As there appeared to have been some doubt, let me simply read what that definition is: "Food security is a state of affairs where all persons at all times have access to safe and nutritious food to maintain a healthy and active life". That's the definition of food security endorsed by the International Conference on Nutrition in FAO over many years.
It was the understanding of my government that food security would be the subject of this Conference. I would like to propose that "security" be reattached to the name of the Conference in our Draft Resolution, and I would call on those countries that do not want to discuss food security to please tell us what they mean by "food". A conference on food could mean many, many different things. Some delegations have indicated to me that they don't want a conference on food security because their countries do not have food security concerns, and therefore they would like to have a much broader agenda, one that is a Conference on Food.
The Document itself then goes on, without specifying that it is going to be a conference on food security, to refer several times to "an emphasis on food security", leaving the uninitiated reader somewhat confused. And I hope we can eliminate that confusion by properly entitling this the "World Summit on Food Security".
If you plan to go through - that's just the title - if you plan to go through it paragraph by paragraph, I can come back later. If you would like other proposals at this time, we could, of course, make them.
LE PRESIDENT: Je pense que votre proposition est un rejet de la proposition que je vous ai faite d'adopter la Résolution en bloc avec les amendements proposés. La position des Pays-Bas va aussi dans le même sens. Je me trouve donc, dans ce cas, dans l'obligation de vous proposer que nous reprenions le texte qui nous est soumis par le Comité de rédaction, paragraphe par paragraphe, avec les amendements qui seront proposés au fur et à mesure. Je ne vois pas d'autre solution, car je crois que nous avons eu un très long débat sur cette question, tous les amendements ayant été faits et enregistrés. Le Secrétariat a fait une liste de tous ces amendements, les a remis au Comité de rédaction qui les a examinés un par un et qui est parvenu à un consensus sur le texte qui nous est soumis; et dans un dernier effort, pour éviter que nous ne soyions bloqués, j'ai essayé, pendant deux heures, de consulter un certain nombre de délégations pour réunir le consensus possible sur cette question.
Je crois que mes efforts ont été vains. Des délégations ont demandé la parole, en l'occurrence le Sénégal et la Belgique, mais à ce stade, je me sens dans l'obligation de vous proposer de reprendre le texte provenant du Comité des résolutions, de l'examiner et de l'adopter paragraphe par paragraphe.
Avant d'en arriver à cette procédure je passe la parole à l'Ambassadeur du Sénégal.
Mame BALLA SY (Sénégal): Notre délégation regrette que nous soyons maintenant obligés de revenir sur votre proposition qui nous semblait d'une sagesse particulière, mais chaque délégation est souveraine de sa décision. Toutefois, nous tenons à indiquer que notre délégation n'a nullement l'intention de discuter du titre. Nous sommes avec des Etats que nous devons respecter qui ont été saisis de ce projet depuis plusieurs mois et même depuis plus d'une année, qui ont pris certaines décisions sur cette base. Ce n'est pas aujourd'hui que l'on va se prêter à ce jeu. Il est clair que nous n'essayons même pas de discuter sur cette question. On pourrait parfaitement trouver une multitude de titres. Des objectifs bien déterminés ont été fixés à cette initiative. Concernant le titre, il a été soumis à beaucoup de chefs d'Etat dans le cadre de leur région et de leur organisation politique; ils y ont apporté leur appui et ont pris des décisions et ce n'est donc pas aujourd'hui à une modeste délégation comme la mienne de dire à son Chef d'Etat, qui a donné son parrainage pour le Comité d'organisation et de préparation, qu'il ne s'agit plus d'un tel Sommet mais plutôt d'un autre. Franchement, quelle que soit la méthode, ne laissez pas une majorité se déterminer sur ce point. En tout état de cause, ma délégation n'entend pas discuter aujourd'hui sur le titre.
Mme Régine DE CLERCQ (Belgique): Monsieur le Président j'avais demandé la parole tout de suite après l'intervention des Pays-Bas parce que j'avais un peu le même souci au sujet du par. 5 - par. 5 opérationnel -mais, puisque vous avez maintenant décidé d'examiner paragraphe par paragraphe, je reviendrai sur ce paragraphe quand nous y serons arrivés.
Adel Mahmoud ABOUL-NAGA (Egypt): I agree with the proposal of the Netherlands, but apart from that I think you call for adopting the whole resolution of the bloc; so if all of us agree to that, that's that. We agreed on some amendment. You read it, and I didn't see any objection to it, and that is what we have in front of us to adopt.
If somebody has any reservation, he can record it, but we cannot go on with this procedure forever; we have been discussing that for weeks and months and days and hours, and that's that. That is what we achieved for a consensus, and that is what we should respect. So I still recall your proposal to adopt it by bloc with the amendment of the Netherlands and, of course, with the amendment you announced, Mr Chairman.
LE PRESIDENT: Je crois que tout le monde a entendu la nouvelle proposition faite par le délégué de l'Egypte. J'aimerais que vous réagissiez à cette proposition d'adopter en bloc la résolution avec les amendements proposés par la Suède, puis amendée par les Etats-Unis ainsi qu'avec les amendements que je vous ai lus et qui ont été sous-amendés par les Pays-Bas concernant le par. 5.
Je souhaiterais que vous vous exprimiez sur ce point.
Kevin O'BRIEN (Australia): Thanks, Mr Chairman. Without wanting to re-enter into the debate, I think I agree with the honourable delegate for Egypt to this extent, that we should move to adopt the Resolution en bloc, as you read out, with the suggestions from Sweden and modification to that by the United States; otherwise we will get into a very extensive and protracted debate including on paragraph 5.
Applause
Applaudissements
Aplausos
I don't think it would be useful to get into a paragraph discussion, Mr Chairman.
LE PRESIDENT: Puis-je considérer ces applaudissements comme signifiant l'adoption en bloc? Je sais que pour les autres paragraphes, les délégations auront le loisir de faire figurer leurs points de vue, y compris sur le titre s'ils veulent, mais la résolution reste en l'état avec l'amendement de la Suède et les deux amendements que j'ai lus.
Puis-je considérer que c'est ce texte qui est adopté en bloc?
Mme Régine DE CLERCQ (Belgique): Monsieur le Président je voudrais être certaine du texte sur lequel nous sommes supposés nous prononcer. Je serais d'accord pour l'adopter en bloc, mais j'avais compris que c'était avec l'amendement suédois tel que modifié par les Etats-Unis, l'amendement des Pays-Bas, et bien sûr tous les amendements que vous avez lus.
Donc, sur l'amendement suédois aucun problème; sur l'amendement des Pays-Bas aucun problème - et j'entends que d'autres sont d'accord également, notamment l'honorable Président des G77 - et sur vos amendements aucun problème non plus. Dans ces conditions-là je ne vois pas d'obstacle à adopter la résolution en bloc.
LE PRESIDENT: Je vous remercie. Je voudrais essayer de relire le par. 5 tel qu'amendé par les Pays-Bas. Il se lirait ainsi: (continue en anglais)
"The plan of action will translate these objectives into concrete activities and will aim at constantly improving global food security at all levels, in particular at household level, within the framework of sustainable development."
Is that the amendment of the Netherlands on paragraph 5? Netherlands, you have the floor.
D.P.D. VAN RAPPARD (Netherlands): I am happy with the improvements, but I don't want to disturb the discussion. It's not quite as it should be. I explained the importance of the household level and its explanation in the quantitative and the nutritional point of view, and I should appreciate to have that added. Thank you.
LE PRESIDENT: Vous avez écouté l'amendement des Pays-Bas qui consiste à enlever du paragraphe 5 "CNUED Agenda 21".
Je reprends les amendements qui sont proposés, (continue en anglais)
CHAIRMAN: Paragraph 6 of the Preamble will read:
"Conscious of the fact that many policies in agriculture, fisheries, forestry, industry, commerce, transport, labour, gender issues, health, finance ..." .
In paragraph 4 of the Resolution:
"Decides that in considering all aspects of food security and in addressing... "
In 4 (d): "to establish a policy framework and adopt a Plan of Action ...".
In paragraph 5: "Decides further that the Plan of Action will translate these objectives into concrete activities and will aim at constantly improving global food security at all levels, in particular at household level, from both a quantitative and nutritional point of view, within the framework of sustainable development. "
Paragraph 6: "Approves the preparations made by the Director-General for the World Food Summit ..."
Paragraph 9: "Decides that the Committee on World Food Security shall serve as the focal point for all aspects concerning the preparation of the Summit. "
Paragraph 10: "Calls upon the Regional Conferences in 1996 to address food security issues, especially those concerned which are region-specific in nature ...".
In paragraph 11, in the second line, between "aims and" and "encourage", we put the word "to" - "and to encourage".
Paragraph 13: "Welcomes the Director-General's decision to open a special Trust Fund ...".
Those are the amendments submitted for consideration. Australia has asked for the floor - I hope to endorse these amendments with a view to adopting the Resolution en bloc.
Kevin O'BRIEN (Australia): Very closely Mr Chairman. I would just return to the suggestion, which I do not think anyone spoke against, and indeed there was support for, for paragraph 2 to be moved to after paragraph 8. The reason for this is that this Resolution is meant to be a statement of political will to our leaders, and I am concerned with any Resolution that has as its second decision something on the format of a Conference.
I know that this is a very closely negotiated paragraph. My suggestion is to move it closer to the other paragraphs that reflect on the implementation aspects of the Summit.
CHAIRMAN: We take that amendment, and move paragraph 2 after paragraph 8. Germany has asked for the floor. I shall give the floor to Germany and then we shall have to take a decision upon my proposal.
Roland MAUCH (Germany): I would like to appeal to all delegations to refrain from any single amendment right now, but to adopt the Resolution as it stands.
CHAIRMAN: I submit to you the adoption by consensus of the Draft Resolution as amended. Any delegations against the adoption by consensus and en bloc please raise your hand. I see UK and USA, so we will go back to the Resolution.
David SANDS SMITH (United Kingdom): I do not have difficulties with the amendments you have proposed, Mr Chairman, nor do I have difficulties with the text, by and large, but I do have to register a point. My understanding is that it is a point which is not shared by the majority of my colleagues in this room, but I have to register it.
The point concerns paragraph 2 and the reference to "its second half with the delivery of statements clearly by Heads of State or Government". This is a question that has been thrashed over extensively. I would wish to clearly record that so far as the United Kingdom is concerned it gives cause for serious concern about the effect it would have on the Summit.
Thomas A. FORBORD (United States of America): I would like to express the shared concern that the United States Government has on the point just raised by the Delegate from the United Kingdom. We have a proposal for a very unusual structure where some delegations will be consigned to, as was pointed out in our discussion last week, a "Team B" status, while others will be invited to the "Team A" party. We feel that this is a distinction that may in fact discourage wider participation in the Summit than may otherwise be the case.
As the Director-General knows from discussions with political leaders in the United States, we are not able at this time to give a commitment on the level of participation that we will have at the Summit meeting. We think that the division between Team A and Team B may complicate that fact, and I leave that as a concern, as the delegate from the UK has, knowing what the general view of this body is.
I would also like to seek a clarification of the meaning now of paragraph 6 in the operative section. It was my understanding that the preparations referred to in paragraph 6 will be spelt out in the Committee's report. We would certainly hope that is the case, and would like to find out if these preparations will be detailed. Otherwise, it seems to be a rather broad endorsement of anything, and we would like to see those arrangements spelt out in the report of the Committee.
CHAIRMAN: The Commission takes note of the concerns expressed by the USA and UK. Concerning your question on paragraph 6, I would like to give the floor to Mr Hjort to give some clarification on it.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: I just want to point out that the preparations are detailed, or set out, in the Appendix to Document C 95/17. If one needs to make that explicit, I assume that the Commission would have no difficulty in adding to the end of that sentence as amended: "as set out in the Appendix to C 95/17", but I do not believe that would be necessary in a Resolution. I think it is just a matter of understanding that the preparations to which reference is made are those in the Annex. You have been informed that all members will be kept informed on the preparation and the evolution of the process as we go on.
With respect to the other point which I think the United States raised, I would note that in paragraph 8, "Invites governments to be represented at the level of Heads of State or Government". It will therefore of course be up to the Head of State to decide whether he should send the A Team or the B Team.
Nasreddine RIMOUCHE (Algérie): Je ne comprends pas pourquoi nous sommes en train de discuter. Va-t-on adopter le texte tel qu'il est en bloc, ou bien va-t-on rouvrir le débat pour discuter des points de façon indépendante? Je crois que le Comité de rédaction a fait un très bon travail. Il s'est penché sur cette question pendant plusieurs jours et je crois qu'il est arrivé à une décision de consensus qui reflète bien les préoccupations des uns et des autres. Au niveau du Comité de rédaction, les membres représentent les différentes régions et les différentes propositions faites au niveau de la plénière sont reprises en considération au niveau de la Commission. Je crois qu'au début de votre intervention vous avez évoqué les longues consultations qui ont permis d'aboutir à un consensus. Nous nous sommes déclarés favorables aux amendements proposés pour arriver à ce deuxième consensus. Je pense que si nous continuons ce débat nous allons remettre en cause le consensus.
Je lance un appel pour que cette Résolution soit adoptée avec les amendements mentionnés.
LE PRESIDENT: Je pose à nouveau la question: Y a-t-il une délégation qui s'oppose aux amendements que j'ai lus? Je n'en vois pas. La Résolution est adoptée avec les amendements.
Paragraph 1, including Resolution, as amended, approved
Le paragraphe 1, y compris la résolution, ainsi amendé, est approuvé
El párrafo 1, incluida la Resolución, así enmendado, es aprobado
PARAGRAPH 2
PARAGRAPHE 2
PARRAFO 2
Roland MAUCH (Germany): My delegation has agreed to the adoption of this report on the understanding that, as for my country, the representation according to up to paragraph 2 would have no "A" or "B" league.
Kenji SHIMIZU (Japan): My delegation also shares the concern expressed by the United States and the United Kingdom, particularly in terms of discrimination. However, our concern is fully reflected in the text as it has now been adopted.
CHAIRMAN: I do not think there is any discrimination there.
Anton KOHLER (Switzerland): We agree with the amendments including those of the United Kingdom and the United States.
Kevin O'BRIEN (Australia): We share the concerns of other governments that this paragraph should not result in discrimination between delegations attending the Summit. It is meant to be a World Summit, not a summit of some and not others.
LE PRESIDENT: Je souhaiterais que nous reprenions une à une vos propositions d'amendements et que nous les examinions.
Kevin O'BRIEN (Australia): The Resolution that we have adopted helps to clarify a number of points that might otherwise have been raised in the rest of the report. We would have a few small suggestions to make of the drafting kind only in paragraph 2 to reflect what we have already decided.
In line three of paragraph 2 it refers to the words "the food security problem". The draft Resolution in fact refers to the opposite. It refers to the problem of food insecurity. I suggest therefore that we use a simplified form of words along the lines of "subjects having a bearing on food security concerns." There is potentially more than one problem. There are a number of concerns that can give rise to food insecurity.
Secondly, on line 5 again we have used the words "food security problem" and, for variety, in English you may want to refer to "food security issues" rather than "food security problem".
Thirdly, in the same line we refer to "food production and sustainability". I wonder if we are referring to agricultural sustainability here as part of the dual challenge.
Fourthly, in the second last line I find it surprising that we have a reference to "taking into account its own suggestions". I am not sure what the Conference or the drafters mean by this. I believe it would be better simplified to read "taking into account suggestions made by the Committee on Food Security and the Council".
Perhaps others can help me on this, but I find that wording rather curious.
LE PRESIDENT: Je reprends votre première proposition qui consiste à remplacer le terme "problème" par le terme "préoccupation". Y a-t-il des observations sur cet amendement?
Kevin O'BRIEN (Australia): On line three in the English text I suggest the deleting of the word "the" before "food security" and replacing the word "problem" by the word "concerns". That was the first suggestion.
The second suggestion was in line six, after "food security" deleting the word "problem" and replacing it with the word "issues". In the same line adding the world "agricultural" before "sustainability", if that was the intention. I believe it was.
In the second last line after the words "taking into account", delete "its own" before "suggestions" and insert the word "the" and then delete the words "as well as those".
Thomas A. FORBORD (United States of America): I think my friend and colleague from Australia is missing the point on "the food security problem". That is exactly what I thought this summit was going to address. These are not merely concerns and issues. It is the food security problem that we are to address, and I would oppose those two changes. I can agree with the other changes that are proposed.
Mme Régine DE CLERCQ (Belgique): J'ai un peu le même problème que le Délégué des Etats-Unis en ce qui concerne le premier amendement, surtout lorsqu'on le lit en français, car parler: "de la préoccupation concernant la sécurité alimentaire" n'a aucun sens. Je crois que le texte original est bien préférable au moins pour le premier amendement et en français.
LE PRESIDENT: Je voudrais vous proposer de supprimer le terme "problème", ce qui fait que la phrase se lirait comme suit: "des questions ayant une incidence sur la sécurité alimentaire".
Dans son dernier amendement, l'Australie propose les termes suivants: "En prenant en considération les suggestions formulées par le Comité de la sécurité alimentaire mondiale et le Conseil". La Conférence fait référence aux suggestions qui ont été faites, c'est pourquoi il est question de ses propres suggestions, notamment celles qui ont été formulées lors du débat en Commission I sur cette question.
Roland MAUCH (Germany): I come back to the third amendment proposed by the Australian delegate about sustainability. I do not think we can talk about agricultural sustainability. It is about food production sustainability. I suggest "of food production and its sustainablity." That is what is meant.
LE PRESIDENT: L'Allemagne propose que la deuxième phrase se lise comme suit: "Elle a rappelé qu'il devrait porter l'attention voulue aux multiples aspects de la sécurité alimentaire, au double défi que représentent la production alimentaire et sa durabilité".
Cet amendement est adopté.
Mame BALLA SY (Sénégal): Qu'avez-vous décidé au sujet de la dernière phrase?
LE PRESIDENT: Nous l'abordons maintenant. L'Australie propose que la dernière partie se lise comme suit: "En prenant en considération les suggestions formulées par le Comité de la sécurité alimentaire mondiale et le Conseil".
L'Australie maintient-elle son amendement malgré ces commentaires?
Kevin O'BRIEN (Australia): I do not have any difficulty recording what the suggestions are, but as this is now effectively the very first paragraph of our report on the Summit, given that we have moved the Resolution to the end of the process, I think that we should at least record what the suggestions are, if they are additional to those of the Committee and the Council. We have simply said "taking account of its own suggestions" without indicating what they are meant to be.
LE PRESIDENT: Je passe la parole au Président du Comité de rédaction pour qu'il nous éclaire sur ce point.
C.B. HOUTMAN (Chairman, Drafting Committee): You indeed gave the right explanation as to "own suggestions as well as those made" is mentioned. If you look at the following paragraphs, you will see the Conference expressed a desire to see "concrete achieveable objectives". Their suggestions are being set out in the following paragraphs, and for that reason it is quite proper that the original text is maintained and that the following paragraphs give what is mentioned here.
LE PRESIDENT: Après les explications fournies par le Président du Comité de rédaction, l'Australie maintient-elle son amendement?
Kevin O'BRIEN (Australia): Reference to "the following suggestions" would help me enormously, if that is
what we are talking about. "Taking into account the following suggestions as well as those made by......... " - if that is what we are referring to, I am happy with that.
Mame BALLA SY (Sénégal): Il me semble qu'après l'explication du Président du Comité de rédaction, il va sans dire que nous avons tous compris de quoi il s'agit. Pourquoi n'intègre-t-on pas les suggestions des autres organes sur lesquels il est d'accord?'Ce qui est important c'est de laisser le texte en l'état.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: Both at the Committee on Food Security and at the Council, the suggestions were so rich and numerous that it was agreed by both of those bodies that the Secretariat would have access to the full set of suggestions.
In those cases, in the interests of brevity, the suggestion was made that perhaps the Secretariat might wish to review the verbatim reports when making suggestions on the Summit, and that we could be enriched by that.
If you wanted to include all the suggestions that have been made, there are quite a few pages in the verbatim reports which I have seen so far. It would be a reasonable compromise to leave this paragraph as it is drafted. It then gives us the guidance we need. We will do precisely the same as we have done in the other cases - go into the basic documents and interventions and from there come up with whatever is necessary.
LE PRESIDENT: A la lumière de cette explication, l'honorable Délégué de l'Australie maintient-il toujours son amendement?
Kevin O'BRIEN (Australia): As I said I find the reference curious. If people want to leave "taking into account" it is their own suggestion. We should rely on the verbatim record.
LE PRESIDENT: Le paragraphe 2 est adopté avec les amendements, et la suppression des termes contestés.
Paragraph 2, as amended, approved
Le paragraphe 2, ainsi amendé, est approuvé
El párrafo 2, así enmendado, es aprobado
PARAGRAPH 3
PARAGRAPHE 3
PARRAFO 3
Y-a-t-il des observations sur le paragraphe 3?
Thomas A. FORBORD (United States of America): Just to more accurately reflect the debate I propose after the word "Conference" in the last line we insert the following phrase: "welcomed the Director-General's proposal that the Summit should not call for new funding mechanisms or institutions", ending that phrase with the word "and". The sentence would then begin "The Conference welcomed the Director-General's proposal that the Summit should not call for new funding mechanisms or institutions and expressed a desire to see concrete...", etc.
LE PRESIDENT: Avez-vous pris note de cet amendement? Y a-t-il des réactions? Le paragraphe 3 est adopté avec l'amendement des Etats-Unis.
Paragraph 3, as amended, approved
Le paragraphe 3, ainsi amendé, est approuvé
El párrafo 3, así enmendado, es aprobado
PARAGRAPHS 4 to 6
PARAGRAPHES 4 à 6
PARRAFOS 4 a 6
Paragraphs 4 to 6 approved
Les paragraphes 4 à 6 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 4 a 6 son aprobados
PARAGRAPH 7
PARAGRAPHE 7
PARRAFO 7
Kevin O'BRIEN (Australia): At the end of this single-sentence paragraph, we would like to propose an additional sentence. "The Conference agreed there would be no discrimination between delegations on the basis of their attendance".
LE PRESIDENT: Avez-vous pris note de l'amendement de l'Australie? Y a-t-il des réactions à cet amendement?
On demande au Délégué de l'Australie de répéter son amendement.
Kevin O'BRIEN (Australia): I will read out the words, and may want to reconsider the very last part of the sentence. I suggested an additional sentence beginning "The Conference agreed there would be no discrimination between delegations ...", and I would like to amend slightly the suggestion I made "... no discrimination between delegations based on the level of their representation full stop". "The Conference agreed there would be no discrimination between delegations based on their level of representation".
Mame BALLA SY (Sénégal): Monsieur le Président, je crois qu'il faut quand même faire une distinction. Il s'agit d'un Sommet et tout pays a la souveraineté de se faire représenter au niveau de son choix. C'est ce que l'on ne peut pas contester à un pays. Et les règles et les pratiques protocolaires ne peuvent pas être changées par quelque Conférence que ce soit. Ce n'est donc nullement acceptable, à moins qu'on ne définisse ce qu'est une discrimination. Comment voulez-vous, dans quelque pays du monde que ce soit, traiter un Chef d'Etat au même pied d'égalité qu'un Ministre? Mais un pays est libre de se faire représenter même par son Ambassadeur, fusse même à une Conférence ou un Sommet mondial. Et ce pays devra, à ce moment-là, savoir qu'il y a des règles protocolaires qu'on ne peut pas changer.
LE PRESIDENT: Puis-je proposer au Délégué d'Australie d'utiliser l'expression "un certain nombre de délégations" ou "quelques délégués".
Jean Robert GOULONGANA (Gabon): Je crois qu'on devrait tout simplement s'arrêter à l'observation faite par la délégation du Sénégal. Je ne pense pas qu'il faille préciser davantage ce texte. Il est certain que la Conférence est un sommet de chefs d'Etat et de gouvernements et que chaque pays se fait représenter au niveau qu'il souhaite en sachant, à partir de là, que le protocole s'applique conformément à l'usage diplomatique. Je ne vois pas pourquoi on le spécifierait pour certaines délégations et pas pour d'autres. Dans le domaine, il n'y a pas un protocole pour certaines délégations et un protocole pour d'autres; le protocole dans ce domaine est universel.
Je pense que la proposition d'ajouter une phrase à cet endroit ne nous avance nullement; elle nous complique au contraire la situation.
LE PRESIDENT: Je dois dire que c'est une importante préoccupation pour certaines délégations et je pense qu'elles l'ont clairement exprimée dans leurs interventions mais - et c'est pourquoi j'ai proposé qu'on note le nombre de délégations - "quelques délégations" ou "certaines délégations" ont exprimé l'espoir qu'il n'y aurait pas de discrimination.
Jean Robert GOULONGANA (Gabon): Si vous voulez préciser cela, je pense alors qu'il faut mettre "un petit nombre de délégations" ou "un tout petit nombre de délégations".
Salah HAMDI (Tunisie): Monsieur le Président, il me semble qu'on a passé beaucoup de temps à discuter de cet aspect des choses alors que, comme l'ont dit plusieurs honorables Délégués, particulièrement les Délégués du Sénégal et du Gabon, chaque Etat reste, en fin de compte, souverain pour déterminer son niveau de participation. En faisant état de convergences quant à l'approche de la structure, ou en faisant état de discrimination, je ne sais pas si on se situe vraiment, ici, au niveau souhaitable.
Je vais peut-être me hasarder à aller un peu plus loin que certains de mes collègues en proposant purement et simplement de rayer tout le paragraphe 7.
C.B. HOUTMAN (Chairman, Drafting Committee): When we discussed this Report there was quite a long sentence instead of the small one we now have at paragraph 7. We agreed on this small sentence because previously there was too much discussion of "much", "many", "it is not so" and things like that. If the Commission would like to maintain the proposal by the delegation of Australia then possibly it could be said in the passive sense thereby avoiding the use of words like "many" and "much". We can then record "that the view was expressed". We touched on this, and finally agreed on a small sentence but there were differing views on the format and I am not sure whether we should be more explicit or not.
Mame BALLA SY (Sénégal): Quelle que soit la forme utilisée, je voudrais à ce moment-là qu'on précise la position d'une délégation parce qu'on peut avoir des idées, on peut discuter de tout ce qu'on veut durant une réunion, mais il y a des principes fondamentaux que des diplomates ne peuvent pas se hasarder à remettre en cause. Il s'agit d'un sommet pour chefs d'Etat et de gouvernements et un pays souverain peut envoyer qui il veut. Mais c'est, à ce moment-là, le protocole, suivant ses principes et ses pratiques, qui s'applique. Et quelle que soit l'idée que vous retiendrez, vous noterez la position que je vous indique.
Kenji SHIMIZU (Japan): My delegation was also concerned about discrimination during the Plenary session of this Conference. However, we were one of the members of the Drafting Committee which worked out this text, so our concern is reflected in the text as a whole. We have no differing views about the Protocol Arrangements for the Heads of Delegations. We think it is better to leave it as it has been stated.
LE PRESIDENT: Je lance un appel pour que nous suivions le sage conseil de la délégation du Japon de laisser la phrase en l'état.
David SANDS SMITH (United Kingdom): The sentence we have in the Report refers to differing approaches. As the Chairman of the Drafting Committee indicated, that means exactly what it says - that there are differing approaches.
I would very much like to think I could use my persuasive powers this evening to persuade others to join my views and those of the delegation of Australia and, indeed, a number of other countries. But I think that could take a great deal of time and I am not sure I would achieve my objective at the end of the day. In those circumstances, the pragmatic approach is to accept paragraph 7 as it stands. I am sure it was worked over extremely carefully. It does record differing approaches, and we all know what that means!
LE PRESIDENT: Je lance un appel à la délégation d'Australie pour lui demander d'accepter le paragraphe en l'état, sous-entendu que leur préoccupation est comprise dedans.
Kevin O'BRIEN (Australia): In suggesting this additional sentence, I am conscious we have already agreed to a Resolution that makes it clear what the format of the Summit would be, even though in our Report here we have noted there were differing approaches to the format of the Summit. I have heard many suggestions referring to protocol, and I agree with those suggestions.
I understood that the former paragraph 2 respected protocol and that is why we did not oppose it; but I have not heard any suggestion from around the table this afternoon that we should discriminate between countries. If the objections that I hear are that we should discriminate between countries, and that is the intention of that paragraph, then it gives us a different meaning which we will take back to our governments. I presume, however, that it is not the intention to do so.
If, in the spirit of cooperation, people would prefer me to drop the suggestion, then I will, but I would make it very clear that this is meant to be a World Food Summit. If the intention of some delegations is to offer some form of discrimination, then clearly we will not have a world summit; it will be a summit of some leaders and some delegations, but clearly not a world summit.
LE PRESIDENT: La phrase reste en l'état et le paragraphe 7 est adopté.
Paragraph 7 approved
Le paragraphe 7 est approuvé
El párrafo 7 es aprobado
250 C 95/1/PV/9
PARAGRAPH 8
PARAGRAPHE 8
PARRAFO 8
Thomas A. FORBORD (United States of America): Before proceeding to paragraph 8 as now written, I would like to propose that a new paragraph be inserted before paragraph 8. It is a single sentence and it is something that a number of delegations have brought up during the debate.
The sentence would read: "The Conference requested the Secretariat to provide a detailed estimate of the overall costs of the Summit."
LE PRESIDENT: Il s'agirait d'un nouveau paragraphe 8 qui viendrait se placer avant l'ancien paragraphe 8. Y a-il des observations?
Abdesselem ARIF1 (Maroc): Monsieur le Président, je voudrais juste demander une explication au sujet de la signification de ce paragraphe 8. On parle de fournir une étude détaillée sur le coût général du Sommet. Qu'est-ce qu'on entend par coût général du Sommet? Est-ce le coût qui sera supporté par l'Organisation? Dans ce cas, on sait que le monde est au courant du budget qui est prévu pour le Sommet. Mais, ici, c'est un peu confus pour moi et je voudrais avoir des éclaircissements.
LE PRESIDENT: Monsieur Hjort va vous les donner.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: I believe there have been clear explanations that many of the costs have not been incurred - or very few of them. Just to make the point, without getting into a long discussion, you might make an addition to the end of the proposed sentence so that it would read: "The Conference requested the Secretariat to provide a detailed estimate of the overall costs of the Summit once they become known".
Jean Robert GOULONGANA (Gabon): Monsieur le Président j'aimerais que l'on nous indique à qui l'on devrait fournir cette évaluation détaillée?
Mame BALLA SY (Sénégal): Monsieur le Président non seulement je suis tout à fait concerné par les questions qui viennent d'être posées, mais notre délégation estime que l'on devrait, si toutefois des pays avaient cette préoccupation, adopter la formulation du par. 5. Personnellement je refuse que l'on associe ma délégation à une telle demande disant que c'est la Conférence. D'abord on ne sait pas si ces coûts seront fournis et ensuite, comme l'a dit le délégué du Maroc, nous connaissons les prévisions budgétaires normales mais il y a une autre possibilité de financement, notamment le sponsoring. Je ne comprends pas ce que l'on veut là. Les pays n'ont qu'à prendre cela à leur compte mais, pour notre part, nous ne pouvons pas accepter que cela soit mis sur le dos de la Conférence à laquelle nous appartenons.
LE PRESIDENT: Donc nous reformulons la proposition des Etats-Unis en disant: "Plusieurs pays ont demandé à avoir une évaluation des coûts généraux du Sommet quand ceux-ci seront disponibles." Cette proposition satisfait-elle les Etats-Unis?
Thomas A. FORBORD (United States of America): I could not agree to the inconsistent connection between "estimate" and "when they become known". An estimate is an estimate. It is not a known quantity.
For the sake of clarity, I could amend this to say: "The Conference requested the Secretariat to provide to the next meeting of the Committee on World Food Security a detailed estimate of the regular budget and extrabudgetary costs of the Summit".
LE PRESIDENT: Je crois que c'est aux pays de discuter avec la Conférence. "Plusieurs délégations ont demandé à avoir une évaluation détaillée des coûts extrabudgétaires du Sommet à la prochaine session sur la Sécurité alimentaire mondiale", cela vous agrée? ... Pas d'observation? ...
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: I am not being facetious in making the statement "once they become known". There has been considerable discussion here. You have heard many members of this particular body make offers; there are many countries which have expressed the wish to contribute. Some of them have expressed the wish to make improvements to the rooms they have adopted here. That is not necessary in order to have a successful Summit, but some will want to have this contribution included.
You know what the figures are for the regular programme budget; they have been well reported and discussed. What you are concerned about are the extrabudgetary costs. We do not know what the contributions will be from extrabudgetary sources. We will not know for some time. We stand perfectly ready to provide a report to the bodies in accordance with normal procedures on how much was collected, what it was used for, and so forth. I do not see what you gain, however, by putting into a report that we should provide something at the next Committee on Food Security when we will not have very much more precise information than we have now.
We will not know until after the fact how much was collected, what it was used for, and so on. It is fine to ask for something but it is also necessary to be realistic. "The Conference requested the Secretariat to provide a report of the overall costs of the Summit upon its completion, once they become known", and so on. What difference does it make anyway to the Conference?
Can we not find a formulation here that records the fact that we were asked to provide information on extrabudgetary resources provided in connection with the Summit and that Conference has been assured that such information will be provided once it is known? I do not know what else we can say.
LE PRESIDENT: Les Etats-Unis acceptent-ils la proposition de M. Hjort?
Thomas A. FORBORD (United States of America): I am sorry, Mr Chairman, the sentence did not come through very clearly. I wonder if Mr Hjort could repeat it?
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: I did not have it written down. It would have been something like: "The Conference requested the Secretariat to provide information on the extra-budgetary resources provided in connection with the Summit and was assured that such information would be made available once known".
Kevin O'BRIEN (Australia): May I support the formulation suggested by the United States, for this reason: we appreciate that an estimate is only an estimate but the more detailed that estimate, the greater its helpfulness to some delegations in identifying how they can offer various forms of assistance to the Summit process. Many of us may not have a full appreciation of the wide range of activities necessary to make the Summit a success. It seems to me the better the estimate the Secretariat can give us, the greater the likelihood that some delegations may be able to assist that process.
Thomas A. FORBORD (United States of America): Chairman, I agree with the point just made by the delegate from Australia. It is not information on what other countries have pledged or provided that would be useful to us. What we would like to have is information on money that the Secretariat needs in extrabudgetary contributions and what it needs it for so that we can approach our governments on making contributions, and I think the argument just made by Australia makes that point.
The original proposal that I made could be changed to - instead of "extrabudgetary costs" if you put down "extrabudgetary needs" for the Summit, that may make it a little clearer; but the formulation by Mr Hjort would be ex-post, could not be used to solicit our governments for contributions, and I don't think it would serve the purpose.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: Please, then, since I obviously misunderstood, let me reformulate it. I thought that those who had offered to provide extrabudgetary resources already had in hand the list which is available; and so maybe we can just turn the rest of this around: "and was informed that any such prospective donors would have immediate access to the list of items for which such resources may be needed" or some such thing like that.
But certainly there has never been any problem; anybody that is in this room that has made a formal offer has received information on what the needs might be, and some of them are bidding. If you want to get in the queue, you better get in touch with the people and get a copy of that list to sign up and see which ones you want to take up. Otherwise others from either governments or private sector may be before you.
LE PRESIDENT: Honorables délégués je vous proposerais une courte suspension de séance afin de pouvoir mettre cette phrase au point et régler un certain nombre de problèmes urgents.
The meeting was suspended from 18.00 to 18.20 hours
La séance est suspendue de 18 heures à 18 h 20
Se suspende la sesión de las 18.00 a las 18.20 horas
LE PRESIDENT: Je crois que cette interruption a été mise à profit pour parvenir à une entente sur la proposition du Délégué des Etats-Unis. Je passe la parole à M. Hjort afin qu'il nous lise le compromis auquel ont abouti les consultations.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: The suggestion that I hope would meet with the approval of the Commission was to add at the end of paragraph 8 this sentence: "The Conference was informed that regular reports on Trust Fund receipts and expenditures would be provided. " This incidentally was the same model that was followed in connection with the ICN, and I believe it was quite satisfactory to the members.
LE PRESIDENT: Je vous soumets donc cet amendement avec le paragraphe de notre rapport. Y a-t-il des observations à la fois sur l'amendement et sur le paragraphe 8? Je n'en vois pas.
Paragraph 8, as amended, approved
Le paragraphe 8, ainsi amendé, est approuvé
El párrafo 8, así enmendado, es aprobado
The Draft Report of Commission I, Part VI, as amended, was approved.
Le projet de rapport de la Commission I, sixième partie, ainsi amendé, est approuvé
El proyecto de informe de la Comisión I, Parte VI, así enmendado, es aprobado
LE PRESIDENT: Nous terminons ici l'adoption du rapport de la Commission I. Je tiens à remercier tous les délégués pour leur participation et leur contribution au cours des débats et pour leur assistance dans les comités de rédaction ou dans les consultations restreintes. Je remercie le Secrétariat pour l'assistance inestimable qu'il a apportée à nos travaux et personnellement au Président que je suis. Je remercie la FAO pour les documents qu'elle nous a fournis et qui nous ont permis d'avoir des débats très fructueux. Je remercie les interprètes, les messagères et tous ceux qui derrière les murs nous ont assistés dans nos travaux.
Je voudrais donc clore ici les travaux de la Commission I de la vingt-huitième Conférence de la FAO.
The meeting rose at 18.25 hours.
La séance est levée à 18 h 25.
Se levanta la sesión a las 18.25 horas.
