PARAGRAPHS 1 to 15
PARAGRAPHES 1 à 15
PÁRRAFOS 1 a 15
CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, may I call the meeting to order. We have Part 5 of the report of the Conference, which we can adopt. I hope that everybody has got the document, Agenda item number 6. World Food and Agriculture Situation from Commission I. As usual we are going to start our work by adopting this part of the report paragraph by paragraph, and I hope that we don't have interventions with regard to the substance of the subject. This has been discussed thoroughly during the Commission meeting and I don't think we should open discussion now as far as the substance is concerned. In case any delegate likes to make an intervention with regard to other types of intervention we will give him the right to do so, and I hope that the interventions will be very brief so that we can adopt this part of the report in time.
We have now on page 2, paragraph 1. No comment. Adopted. Paragraph 2, no comment. Adopted. Paragraph 3, no comment. Adopted. Paragraph 4.
RAM SARAN (India): I have a very small correction to suggest, it is not a matter of substance. The line 5 from below "the Conference also recommended'' because the first sentence ''This required study by FAO" - therefore the Conference also recommended.
CHAIRMAN: Well then the amendment introduced by India is accepted and the paragraph now is adopted after adding the word ''also''. Now we take paragraph 5. No comment. Paragraph 6, no comment. Adopted. Paragraph 7, no comment. Paragraph 8.
R. GARRELL CARRO (Cuba): Para advertir de una omisión en el texto español, en el primer renglón del párrafo 8.
Falta la expresión "pocos". Dice el texto "que se han hecho progresos", y debe decir "que se han hecho pocos progresos". Así estaba en el documento original que discutió el Comité de Redacción.
CHAIPMAN: Thank you very much. The Secretariat will take note of this intervention and the Spanish text will be examined to put it in order with the other in the English text. So paragraph 8 is adopted after having accepting The small amendmerrrt to the Spanish text only.
J. DUCOMMUN (Suisse): Je voulais signaler qu'il y a une erreur dans le texte français: à la troisième vant-dernière phrase, "bien que la baisse des prix des produits alimentaires à la consommation ait alenti e crois que c'est "bien que la hausse des produits alimentaires. . . ''; il faut dire hausse" au lieu de "baisse" en français'
CHAIRMAN: I hope the Secretariat will note this and make the right corrections. Any other comments with regard to paragraph 8? If there are no comments then paragraph 8 is adopted after the two interventions which are noted by the Secretariat as far as the Spanish and the French texts are concerned, the same paragraph. We move now to paragraph 9.
B. E. MATAMOROS HUECK (Nicaragua): Esta delegación propone una pequeña modificación en la penúltima oración del párrafo 9.
Se dice "La Conferencia recomendó que la FAO siga estudiando la cuestión del aumento y la inestabilidad de los precios de los insumos en relaciciôn con los. precios percibidos por los agricultores e insistió en que se suministraran insumos a precios razonables para los agricultores de los países consumidores''.
Nosotros creímos y seguimos creyendo que se suministraran a precios iguales a los vigentes en los países en desarrollo.
Durante el debate en la Comisión I, muchas delegaciones hicieron hincapié en que los precios de los fertilizantes suministrados a los países en desarrollo, importadores, deberían ser iguales a los precios de oferta en el mercado en los países desarrollados.
CHAIRMAN: I would like to draw your attention to the fact that this same paragraph has been'discussed in Commission I and has been agreed to by all delegates, and if it is going to be debated by all delegates on every paragraph we will not be able to finish our work on time. Therefore I appeal to you not to insist on this. So I will ask our friend from Pakistan to make his intervention to find out if it would be roughly the same issue or a new one. But first I will ask our friend from Nicaragua if the is going to agree.
B. E. MATAMOROS HUECK (Nicaragua): Creo que si consultáramos el informe de la Comisión de Fertilizantes lo que yo estoy pretendiendo incorporar en dicho informe, recoge literalmente lo que en el mismo se decía. Lo que yo estaba proponiendo no es un nuevo elemento sino algo que ya había sido decidido durante los debates de esta Comisión. Pero si es algo tan diferente, yo también acogería su sugerencia, señor Presidente, pero la razón por la que yo he insistido es porque es algo que, a nuestro concepto, ya estaba aceptado y en lo que nosotros, los países en desarrollo, insistimos. Yo había entendido que ya había sido aceptado por parte de los países desarrollados.
CHAIRMAN: The floor is open for discussion, and I have no objection to finding out if this amendment is accepted by the other delegates. We will now ask the delegates all around to say whether they have any objection to including the amendment introduced by Nicaragua with regard to paragraph 9.
D. RICHTER (Germany, Fed. Rep. of) (interpretation from German): As far as I understand it we are still dealing with the amendment suggested by Nicaragua. If I remember the discussion correctly in the Commission, and also the discussion of this particular report, the wording of the paragraph was discussed at length and I do not remember that anyone suggested a wording according to which prices for fertilizers in developed and developing countries should be equal or fixed at the same level for the farmers in the two groups of countries.
Therefore, I consider we should accept the text as adopted in Commission I.
B. E. MATAMOROS HUECK (Nicaragua): Yo le voy a proponer una solución intermedia al delegado de Alemania, que parece ser la unica delegación que no está de acuerdo con nuestra enmienda. En vez de "precios iguales", podría ser ''precios similares". Yo creo que esto quizá le satisfaría.
CHAIRMAN: I do not know whether Germany will speak again on this issue or whether he will accept the new proposal.
M. ISHAQUE (Bangladesh): I agree with the Federal Republic of Germany. I too was present and if my memory is not failing me paragraph 9 is worded as was decided in Commission I when the report was being discussed there.
A. M. BESHIR (Egypt): I propose to accept this statement as it is, because we cannot make the prices of imports similar as the prices of the outputs are not similar, and I do not think this was raised in Commission I. We all agreed on this statement, and I hope we will accept it as it is.
CHAIRMAN: It seems that we do not have enough support, so I will appeal to you again to withdraw the amendment so that we can listen to Pakistan now with a new intervention.
P. MASUD (Pakistan): I do not think that Nicaragua is totally without support, as the amendment I was going to suggest is something on the same lines. I suggest in line 10 of paragraph 9 of the English version of document C 77/REP/5 we should delete the words ''for farmers in" and the sentence would then read ''and urge that imports be supplied at reasonable prices to consuming countries".
While I have the floor, I do not want to raise a matter of substance, but I would like it recorded in the verbatim record that the Pakistan delegate noted with regret that although a point was made in relation to the storage in developing countries there is no mention in the final report which has been presented to the Plenary.
CHAIRMAN: As far as your second intervention is concerned, it will be noted in the verbatim records.
As far as your first intervention is concerned, I will ask the Secretary-General to read it out and we will write it down and find out if it is accepted by others.
SECRETARY-GENERAL: Paragraph 9, the third line from the bottom would read "be supplied at reasonable prices to consuming countries. It agreed. . . " etc.
RAM SARAN (India): I support the delegate of Pakistan on the amendment suggested by him.
CHAIRMAN: If there are no other comments, I take it the amendment introduced by Pakistan is accepted. It is the case, then, that paragraph 9 is amended as suggested by the distinguished. delegate from Pakistan. Now we move on to paragraphs 10-15. No comment. Adopted.
Paragraphs 1 to 15, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 1 à 15, ainsi amendes, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 1 a 15, asl enmendados, son aprobados
Draft Report of Plenary - Part 5, as amended was adopted
Le projet de rapport de la plènière - Cinquième partie - ainsi amendé, est adopté
El proyecto de informe de la Plenaria - Parte 5, asi enmendado, es aprobado
DRAFT REPORT OF PLENARY - PART 6 (from Commission I)
PROJET DU RAPPORT DE LA PLENIERE, SIXIEME PARTIE (de la Commission I)
PROYECTO DE INFORME DE LA PLENARIA, PARTE 6 (de la Comisión I)
PARAGRAPHS 1 to 10, INCLUDING RESOLUTION
PARAGRAPHES 1 à 10, Y COMPRIS LA RESOLUTION
PÁRRAFOS 1 a 10, INCLUIDA LA RESOLUCION
P. J. BYRNES (United States of America)i We have just received this document, Mr. Chairman. May I suggest that we have five minutes to read the document before proceeding?
CHAIRMAN: I had the impression that this had been discussed very thoroughly during our debates in the Commission, and here we are just formally adopting this Report. If you feel that we should have a short break we will do so by all means; I have no objection to that.
The meeting was suspended from 16. 15 hours to 16. 30 hours
La sëancê est suspendue de 16 h 15 à 16 h 30
Se suspende la sesión de las 16. 15 a 16. 30 horas
CHAIRMAN: I hope everybody has had time to read the document and we can now proceed with our work and start adopting the report, C 77/REP/6, paragraph by paragraph. Paragraphs 1-2.
R. CONTRERAS (España): En la penúltima frase del párrafo 2 se habla de celebrar consultas de expertos-para crear tecnología.
Esta delegación estima que los expertos no crean tecnología; lo que pueden hacer es estudiar y recomendar nuevas tecnologías. Y por ello propongo que en vez de ''para crear tecnología", se diga ''para estudiar y aconsejar nuevas tecnologías".
CHAIRMAN: Since there are no comments to this amendment, I take it as agreed upon by everybody.
Ν. AL-SALEH (Saudi Arabia) (interpretation from Arabic): I did not actually want to make any comments now but I note that in the first paragraph there is reference to the setting up of a fund. We had said that this was not a fund but an account and I would like to say that before we discuss the Draft Resolution we should understand that there is an error in the first paragraph and in all the other paragraphs as well, because we speak not about an account but about a fund. The English document also says "fund". It is not therefore an error in translation, nor is it an error in wording: it is an error of substance. The document to be submitted to my government will be in Arabic and there should therefore be a readjustment so that the English version and the other texts are in line. That is why I would like to ask you, Mr. Chairman, and the Secretariat, to give us an explanation with regard to this error and to tell us how it can be corrected. Could I tomorrow have a document in Arabic which would already be corrected?
CHAIRMAN: I would like to explain - and even on behalf of the Secretariat - that in paragraph 1 we are talking about the past, when it was discussed in the Council; at that time it was considered to be a fund. But when you go back to the rest of the document you will find, especially in the resolution, that we are not talking about a fund but about a special account. So if there is something wrong with the Arabic translation, I hope the Secretariat will take note of it and then we shall make the necessary corrections as regards changing the word "fund" in order to meet with your point of view, to be replaced by the words "special account", where applicable.
Ν. AL-SALEH (Saudi Arabia) (interpretation from Arabic): I quite agree with you, Mr. Chairman, with regard to what is stated in paragraph 1, but I wanted to avail myself of this opportunity to raise the problem so that I will not have to re-discuss it when we come to the rest of the report. I should like to have an answer from the Secretariat to the questions I have already raised.
CHAIRMAN: I think it is noted but I will give the floor to the Secretariat to answer your remarks.
SECRETARY-GENERAL: I believe there is a mistranslation of the Arabic of the resolution and it should be put in line with the English and refer only to ''special account" and not ''fund".
CHAIRMAN: I hope the delegate from Saudi Arabia is satisfied now with the answer given by the Secretary-General.
N. AL-SALEH (Saudi Arabia) (interpretation from Arabic): I am terribly sorry, Mr. Chairman, to have to speak again but I already asked the Secretariat to tell me when I could have a document in Arabic which would be corrected and in line with the English text.
CHAIRMAN: I am being told just now that tomorrow morning you will have the correct text in Arabic.
G. DUCOMMUN (Suisse): Je suis maintenant un peu désorienté concernant les modifications qui seront apportées suite â l'intervention de l'Arabie Saoudite. Est-ce que, dans tous les textes, au paragraphe 1, nous allons enlever le terme "fonds spécial" pour le remplacer par ''compte spécial"? Je n'ai pas le texte anglais, mais je crois que dans le paragraphe 1, on va laisser le terme ''fonds spécial". Je vois que M. de Caprona opine, donc nous sommes du même avis.
CHAIRMAN: I think I have said that with regard to the Special Fund mentioned in paragraph 1 it will continue to be the same thing because we are talking about the past; but as to the other paragraphs, when we come to them, we can say whether we are going to keep the same wording or change it to "special account".
M. ZUHUR (Syria) (interpretation from Arabic); There has been an amendment in paragraph 2. Where is this amendment going to be put in?
CHAIRMAN: I think it is the third line from the bottom: "to build up a technology" has been changed to "to study and advise on new technology". Paragraph 3. No comments? Approved. 'Paragraphs 4 a 5? Approved. Paragraph 6?
P. MASUD (Pakistan): In the first line I would like to know what R. P Budget stands for. Presumably they are talking about the Regular Programme Budget. If that is true then I think that we could state it clearly instead of just writing R. P. Budget.
CHAIRMAN: We will make the right correction as far as this is concerned.
R. CONTRERAS (España): La última frase del párrafo sexto tiene una redacción que en castellano nos parece desafortunada.
Voy a leer despacio tal como debe quedar para que se comprenda bien, sin que en realidad haya variación de fondo: "se intensificarán las actividades previstas en el Programa Ordinario en compilar y difundir información en tecnología postcosecha, en proyectos satisfactorios y en recursos necesarios'', etc.
B. E. MATAMOROS HUECK (Nicaragua): Une cuestión de forma solamente. En el texto en francés, cuando se hace referencia al Grupo GASCA, se menciona con todo detalle y se hace en lengua francesa y en lengua inglesa; pero en la versión española solamente se hace en lengua inglesa, por lo que solicito que la Secretaría haga la corrección oportuna.
CHAIRMAN: If there are no other comments I take it that Paragraph 6 is now adopted after the small intervention as far as R. P. is concerned and the Spanish version of the text of this Paragraph.
RAM S ARAN (India): This paragraph has attracted a lot of attention in the Commission's meeting. In fact it appears to me that there is an error because the -last sentence would read '' Several Delegations noted that the projects to be implemented under the FAO Action Programme would not be intensified with any donor countries and would be financed by FAO on a truly multilateral basis", that was not to be a part of the Report. In fact I had mentioned at the meeting that we would raise this issue at the meeting of the Plenary. That was the factual position.
Coming to the point that I want to make now, this is something which is basic with all FAO Action Programmes that have to be financed on a multilateral basis and they have not to be identified with any donor countries as such. That is something basic. There is nothing new about it. Therefore, this recommendation has to be that of the Conference and not something which is mentioned by a few or by several delegations. Therefore, I would suggest that this sentence should start with ''the Conference noted" and not "several delegations".
G. DUCOMMUN (Suisse): Il y a dans la FAO un programme d'assistance spécial pour la sécurité alimentaire; il y a un programme des semences, il y a un IFS, le Programme des engrais. Tous ces programmes sont financés, en partie en tout cas, par des contributions multibilatérales, en particulier par des fonds fiduciaires. Le délégué de l'Inde le sait aussi bien que nous et dans les discussions que nous avons eues au COAG, il a toujours été question que le Programme d'action pour la réduction des pertes alimentaires pourrait aussi être financé par des contributions multibilatérales.
Nous ne sommes pas d'accord et l'avons déjà dit hier, de commencer cette phrase par "La Conférence" et si cette phrase doit rester dans ce texte il faudra la commencer par "plusieurs délégations", ou ''de nombreuses délégations", mais en tout cas, par "La Conférence".
J. TROUVEROY (Belgique): Pour les raisons exposées par notre collègue suisse, je voudrais dire que la Belgique marque son accord sur ce qui a été exposé par le représentant de la Suisse.
D. RICHTER (Germany, Fed. Rep. of) (interpretation from German): I fully agree with what was said by the delegate of Switzerland.
P. MASUD (Pakistan): As this sentence has been drafted it does not make any sense at all because it says "Several delegations noted that the projects to be implemented under the FAO Action Programme would not be identified with any donor countries and would be financed by FAO on a truly multilateral basis". The point that these several delegations wish to urge is that the programme should be on a truly multilateral, basis and therefore their simply noting does not make any difference, so in case this sentence has to be retained then either it should be "the Conference" or "the majority", but it cannot be "Several delegations", because reading that it does not make any sense at all.
Β. Ε MATAMOROS HUECK (Nicaragua): Deseo apoyar la propuesta de la India, que ha aducido razones muy válidas. También los comentarios de mi colega del Pakistán han corroborado nuestra opinion.
Estimamos, señor Presidente, que este programa, por su característica, debiera de ser endosado por la Conferencia como tal y no ser circunscrito al contenido que se le da en el párrafo séptimo como una notación de carácter marginal que hicieron algunas delegaciones.
Por tanto, nos adherimos a las opiniones expresadas por las delegaciones de India y Pakistán ·
RAM SARÁN (India): I agree that there will be bilateral programmes or projects also but they will be over and above the programmes to be financed by the FAO Action Programme. We are not objecting to the bilateral programmes. What we are trying to say is that these projects to be financed under the FAO Action Programme will be on a truly multilateral basis, therefore, in our view it should be ''the Conference noted", or I can go along with what the Pakistan delegate suggested.
M. ISHAQUE (Bangladesh): Here we are adopting the views of the Conference not of certain delegates or delegations. This is the view of the Conference or what is said after the words ''Several delegations noted" etc. This is a concern of all the countries and all the delegations, therefore I would suggest that this is the Conference viewpoint and that should be recorded and not be recorded in the name of "Some delegations", or "Several delegations".
R. GARCELL CARRO (Cuba): Nuestra delegación sugiere que se adopte por la Conferencia; y lo hacemos a pesar de la aclaración de la Secretaría, toda vez que en este momento nos estamos refiriendo al programa de acción para la pérdida de alimentos. Es decir, que no excluimos que para otras actividades existan estos programas bilaterales, pero en este caso lo que hacemos ahora se refiere exclusivamente a la pérdida de alimentos. En esto basamos nuestra sugerencia.
M. A. GOMES PEREIRA (Brazil): The Brazilian delegation fully supports the amendment presented by the delegate of India, as supported by Nicaragua, first because this was what was said in the Commission and also there is no sense in accepting a Programme financed by FAO on a non-multilateral basis.
Mrs. V. P. WIGHTMAN (Canada): I have the impression I have heard all this before, having started in the drafting group. Obviously we cannot state that the Conference says or decided anything unless it is unanimous. May I suggest we use the terminology we often do that several delegations stated or stressed, or whatever verb would appear to be the most suitable. Such terminology as "Several delegations stated or stressed that the projects to be implemented under the FAO Action Programme should not be identified with any donor countries", this covers the position of any countries which made such a statement but obviously it is not an unanimous view.
A. A. MANSOOR (Bahrein) (interpretation from Arabic): As far as the point raised by the preceding speakers goes I believe that the Arabic wording of this sentence, I am not a linguist but not very exact since it is stated "Several delegations noted that the projects to be implemented under the FAO Action Programme should not be identified with any donor countries". I believe that this does not reflect what was said by the delegate of Canada because according to what she said some delegates or several delegates were of the opinion or stated that such projects should not be considered to be identified with any donor countries but that they would have to be considered as being financed on a truly multilateral basis.
- 499-
P. MASUD (Pakistan): I am sorry for taking the floor again but after hearing the delegate from Canada I thought that I would suggest another way which has been adopted on many occasions when there has not been total unanimity. I would say the sentence should read "The majority of delegations noted that the projects to be implemented under the FAO Action Programme would not be identified with any donor countries and would be financed by FAO on a truly multinational basis". This is also a way out that has been adopted on many previous occasions.
CHAIRMAN: I hope this last amendment introduced by Pakistan will meet the requirements of other delegations not in favour of using the word "several". I see Canada approving the new amendment, and Germany and Belgium approve - everybody is nodding and are happy to adopt this amendment. I hope others are in favour of it so that we move to the next paragraph. Accepting the change of the word, instead of "several" delegations to "majority" delegations, and then we go on with the same words as are already in the text. I see no problem in this regard so we move to paragraph 8.
R. CONTRERAS (España): La segunda frase de este párrafo dice: "La FAO deberá ayudar a movilizar más recursos, por ejemplo, por medio del Fondo Fiduciario, Banco Mundial y FIDA". Esto parece querer decir que los fondos del Banco Mundial y FIDA dependen de la FAO, lo cual, por desgracia, no es exacto. Habría que decir "ayudar a movilizar más recursos en colaboración o de acuerdo con el Fondo Fiduciario, Banco Mundial o FIDA".
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for your remarks, I think they are valid and I hope that we will observe this small change in the second sentence of paragraph 8. The same paragraph 8 is adopted after amending it according to the Spanish intervention. We now move to paragraph 9.
d. richter (germany, , fed. rep. of) (interpretation from german): my delegation yesterday in the discussion in commission i proposed an addition to paragraph 9, and this proposal was unanimously adopted. in the fourth line of the english text after the word "resolution'' the following words should he added, "agreed upon as a compromise''. mr. chairman, i am a little bit surprised that this wording, which was unanimously adopted, does not appear in the text we have before us.
CHAIRMAN: I don't know whether we use this term when adopting Resolutions - we say this has been through a compromise solution. . It has been known that it was a compromise, it has been mentioned many times during the interventions, whether in the Council or in the Commission. I don't know whether we have to keep it in the Conference record, to say it has been reached by compromise. Anyhow, I will give the floor back to the Federal Republic of Germany to put forward his point of view.
D. RICHTER (germany, fed. rep. of) (interpretation from german): it is quite true this was a. compromise and that is why my delegation feels that this needs to be expressed in the wording of the report. indeed this was the unanimous view of commission i in the course of yesterday's discussion, so i would like to insist that this wording be re-introduced into the report.
CHAIRMAN: Since you have heard the intervention of the Federal Republic of Germany for the second time if there are no observations or comments I don't think we have a problem in accommodating this proposal, but I would say again that in all Resolutions a compromise has been reached. If we are going to insist that in every Resolution we have to introduce this element I don't think it would be very wise to insist on it, because we are talking about a compromise all the time, and putting in in writing, black and white, we may say it in the corridors and lobbies but we don't want to say it in the record. But anyhow, if you ineist, I will leave it to the Conference to decide whether it shall be or not.
A. M. BESHIR (Egypt): Well the word "compromise" if it has to be placed I propose it comes in paragraph 9, not paragraph 10, so after the end of paragraph 9 we can say, "a compromise has been reached" and in paragraph 10 then we will not note that there was a compromise in this case.
CHAIRMAN: I think we are playing with words here. The meaning will be the same whether we put it after 9, 10 or 11. I think it will be the same. Anyhow, we will listen to the other speakers.
R. CONTRERAS (España): Yo deseo defender el texto del párrafo nueve tal como está, puesto que dice "la Conferencia considero'que sobre la base de la resolución que sigue''. Esta implícito que ha habido un compromiso y no hace falta recalcarlo más.
RAM SARÁN (India): In fact this was to agree with you on your observation. Most other Resolutions emerge as the result of compromise. I have not seen such a phrase coming in in other drafts. Therefore, we should have a similar approach for all the Resolutions, and we should not bring in this idea of compromise. It is understood that it is based on compromise. How is a Resolution presented here? It must have been compromised, that is very clear. There is no need to add the words, "as a compromise''.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you for supporting me.
P. MASUD (Pakistan): I apologise in advance if I sound a little philosophic when I say, Sir, that life itself is a big compromise. This Conference is a compromise, and I fully agree with you when you say that there is no need to stress the obvious. Because we have a compromise, everybody knew that this was a compromise Resolution so I don't think there is any need to mention it specifically.
I. MOSKOVITS (Malta): I am also supporting you because I think the words, "after careful consideration and full exchange of views'' means compromise, it is not necessary to say it again.
B. E. MATAMOROS HUECK (Nicaragua): Mi delegación también le apoya a usted, en el sentido de que queremos mantener el texto tal como figura. Cualquier otra decisión que tomáramos nosotros creemos que sería improcedente, como muy bien dijo mi colega de Pakistán. Alguna vez en la vida, incluso aquí, nuestra presencia es un compromiso entre nuestro deseo de irnos y el deber de tener que quedarnos aquí. Creo que las resoluciones algunas veces son así en nuestro deseo de aprobarlas y en nuestro deseo de rechazarlas. En estas circunstancias, yo sugiero que mantengamos el texto tal como está.
M. ISHAQUE (Bangladesh): We have had a lot of lobbying here and there and a lot of discussion and parleys and then we came to a decision. Whether we had one lobbying or three compromise sessions I personnaly feel, and on behalf of my delegation that it should not come into the text. Therefore, Sir, I am with you.
J. TROUVEROY (Belgique): Bien sûr, je crois que la grande majorité des délégués estime qu'une résolution est un compromis. Evidemment si l'on supprime cette proposition, qui est présentée par notre collègue de l'Allemagne, je dirais que toute résolution est également prise "après mûre réflexion". Il faudrait donc supprimer "après mûre réflexion" et "à l'issue d'un débat" il faudrait supprimer aussi "à l'issue d'un débat". Toute résolution est toujours prise après mûre réflexion et après un débat complet. Je pose alors la question sans vouloir prendre part è cette proposition, ais c'est pourtant un point logique.
A. A. MANSOÖR (Bahrain) (interpretation from Arabic): I feel that this expresses very clearly the Resolution. All resolutions, or at least the majority of resolutions, are indeed a compromise between divergent ideas and, therefore, every delegate has a right to maintain his own convictions. That this should be stated in the report of the Plenary, or the report of the Commissions, this is quite normal, but to have it reflected in the resolutions I think is not reasonable.
G. DUCOMMUN (Suisse): Je pense que du fait qu'il s'agit d'un compromis particulier et non pas d'un compromis habituel, l'adjonction demandée par l'Allemagne est bonne et je la soutiens. Mais j'ai autre chose à dire. Hier en Comité de rédaction nous avons adopté un texte et le texte contenait l'amendement fait par l'Allemagne, Or maintenant le Secrétariat présente un texte où cet amendement ne paraît pas. Je me demande de quel droit le Secrétariat modifie un texte adopté à l'unanimité par un Comité de rédaction. Il aurait fallu au moins présenter le texte tel qu'amendé de manière à ce qu'aujourd'hui certaines délégations puissent demander de retirer l'amendement établi par l'Allemagne.
CHAIRMAN: We are talking about the Commission, not the Drafting Committee, because in the Drafting Committee you can raise whatever issue you like, but we are interested to know what happened in the debate in the Commission. I was not present at that time, but I hope someone from the Secretariat will come and say a few words in this regard as you have already requested an answer from them. If the delegate from Switzerland will agree, we will get someone to answer his request later on, but we will now move to the next speaker on my list so that we can continue our work.
M. . A. GOMES PEREIRA (Brazil): I was in doubt as to whether I should participate in the rather philosophic exercises which have been going on for some time, or to alter the historic part of the exercise. As to what happened in the Commission, of course, the Plenary can decide one way or the other - that is quite clear. My own feeling Is that this paragraph possibly leads to the main action taken by the Conference, so I wonder if we are doing a good service to the Organization and the Conference if we somehow give an impression we are not fully supporting this Resolution.
This is the point I would like to bring to my colleague of the Federal Republic of Germany. This is one of the corner stones of the Nineteenth Session of the Conference of the FAO. We are starting in a bad way. Both sides have made such an effort to come to this Resolution, which is a compromise, but why put it like that and make it explicit? The text makes it clear something goes on, so I would appeal to my colleagues from the Federal Republic of Germany. Maybe he is quite right, the text has been amended and we are not disputing that point; but we are doing a disservice at the beginning of this very important programme by disputing this,
RAM SARAN (India): I am repeating what other delegations have said, but I think the words "full exchange of views" which are in the English draft take into account the idea of compromise, and that is already there.
CHAIRMAN: Having listened to all the interventions I take it the Conference would like to adopt the text as it stands here. I would appeal to our distinguished colleague from the Federal Republic of Germany to say whether he agrees with me, so that we can move on to the next item of our agenda.
D. RICHTER (Germany, Fed. Rep. of) (interpretation from German): Obviously there is not a clear majority in favour of this proposal. I will not insist on it but I do want to state as an explanation that this addition was intended to show there was a very definite process of arriving at an agreed opinion of the long discussions. It led to â solution which was accetable to everyone, and I would like, to say to the delegate of Brazil that this was not intended to indicate that we had any doubts with regard to the compromise solution.
We are perfectly right to agree to it, but as the delegate of Switzerland said quite clearly, it is very surprising. I am surprised myself at the wording which appears in paragraph 9, since yesterday in Commission I we had very clearly decided upon a text which included this addition. If delegates did not want it it should have been discussed in Plenary whether this wording should be deleted.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for your explanation. I take it you do not insist on your proposal and we can move now to the Resolution itself. We are very grateful to our friend from the Federal Republic of Germany for accepting our suggestion.
We move now to the text of the Resolution itself which was of course reached by compromise.
K, OLZVOY (Mongolia): 1 have just one question: I would like to ask the Secretariat through you,
Mr. Chairman, to give an explanation of the meaning of the operative paragraph 2. I would like to know
what kind of contribution should be made - obligatory or voluntary.
CHAIRMAN: Although we have not reached that part of the Resolution, it is voluntary contributions, of course.
K. OLZVOY (Mongolia): If it is voluntary contributions then it is better to add the word "voluntary" before the word "contributions".
CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, you have heard the amendment - introduced by Mongolia.
P. MASUD (Pakistan): I just want to know where exactly we are at the moment, as I seem to have lost track of the debate for the moment.
CHAIRMAN: We are at page 5, paragraph 2 which "Invites Member Nations. . . "
P. MASUD (Pakistan): Paragraph 2, which states: "Invites Member Nations of FAO and other contributors accordingly to make contributions amounting to at least $20 million to the Special Account: " - if I am not mistaken, a closer study of the Resolution would indicate that all contributions are not strictly voluntary, and therefore to include the word ''voluntary'' here would add more meaning to the text than is required.
CHAIRMAN: I do not know whether Mongolia will accept it should be left as it is,
K. OLZVOY (Mongolia): If we put the word "voluntary", it would better clarify the meaning of this paragraph, but I would not insist on this.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for not insisting,
W. JURASZ (Poland): I would like to ask that a statement that it is a voluntary contribution should be fully recorded in the minutes of this Conference,
Η, Α, Ι, HAKIM (Indonesia): I am sorry to intervene, but does the delegate of Poland only want this to be fully recorded, but not put in the Resolution?
CHAIRMAN: It is the same in the sense we are not going to change the Resolution text. I take it everybody is happy with this text, and the Resolution is adopted by the Conference.
M. ATRIA RAWLINS (Chile): Sólo para hacer una aclaración. En el texto español, en el párrafo tercero de la resolución, figura la fecha 31 de marzo de 1978, y en el texto ingles figura la fecha de 31 de enero de 1978· Quisiera saber cual es la correcta.
CHAIRMAN: It is a mistake in the Spanish text which will be corrected.
Paragraphs 1 to 9, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 1 à 9, ainsi amendes, sont approuves
Los párrafos 1 a 9, asi enmendados, son aprobados
Paragraph 10, including Resolution, adopted
Le paragraphe 10, y compris la resolution, est adopte
El párrafo 10, incluida la Resolución, es aprobado
Draft Report of Plenary - Part 6, as amended was adopted
Le projet de rapport de la Planiere - Sixième partie, ainsi amenda, est adopte
El proyecto de informe de la Plenaria - Parte 6, así enmendado, es aprobadô
DRAFT REPORT OF PLENARY - PART 7 (from Commission I)
PROJET DU RAPPORT DE LA PLENIERE, SEPTIEME PARTIE (de la Commission I) PROYECTO DE INFORME DE LA PLENARIA, PARTE 7 (de la Comisión I)
PARAGRAPHS 1 to 7
PARAGRAPHES 1 ä 7
PÁRRAFOS 1 a 7
CHAIRMAN: We now have Part 7 of the Conference Report which deals with agenda item 8 - Progress in International Agricultural Adjustment. This subject was discussed in Commission I.
SECRETARY-GENERAL: A line dropped out from the English in the printing at the top of page 3· Paragraph 4 continues and the following words should be inserted at the beginning of page 3 - it is a new sentence: "Delegates from some developed countries emphasized the increase in their agricultural imports from developing countries as a result. ··", and the sentence continues, "of improved trade and stabilization arrangements. "
CHAIRMAN: I hope those who have English texts now have the sentence which was mentioned by the Secretary-General. We now start our Report. Paragraphs 1 and 2, approved. Paragraph 3·
L. RITTERSHAUS (Pays-Bas): Seulement une correction concernant le texte français. Je me demande s'il ne serait pas souhaitable de souligner le mot "approuve" au singulier dans la première ligne du paragraphe. Dans le texte anglais, il est indiqué: "The Conference agreed. . . . "
M. A. GOMES PEREIRA (Brazil): In paragraph 3 we referred to "some progress". We think that "solid" in paragraph 4 is a little exaggerated. There is very little progress which is a reality. So perhaps we could delete the world "solid" in paragraph 4, because it gives too rosy a picture. I suggest therefore that we delete the word "solid" and just say "achievements", and even so I think perhaps we are going a little far.
CHAIRMAN: There is a proposal to delete the word "solid". If there are no comments I take it that the amendment is accepted. I am sorry, it seems that we have other speakers.
B. E. MATAMOROS HUECK (Nicaragua): En relación con el párrafo cuarto, esta delegación tiene que presentar algunas enmiendas.
En este momento creíamos que se estaba considerando solamente la enmienda presentada por Brasil a la primera línea; enmienda con la cual nosotros coincidimos.
En la tercera línea se habla de la recuperación de la producción alimentaria. Nosotros calificaríamos esta recuperación como ligera, pues todos sabemos que no ha sido uniforme y satisfactoria para todos los países productores, particularmente para los países en desarrollo.
Por lo expuesto, esta delegación preferiría que dijéramos "con uña ligera recuperación de la producción alimentaria, "
A la página tercera del texto en español del mismo párrafo cuarto también deseamos formular algunas observaciones. En la segunda oración, cuando dice: "No obstante, muchos delegados expresaron su profunda preocupación por la persistencia de algunos obstáculos", nosotros preferiríamos suprimir la palabra "algunos" y que se diga "por la persistencia de obstáculos. "
En la misma oración dice el texto: "qu impiden una mejora más rápida de la situación respecto a la producción". Nosotros cancelaríamos las palabras "más rápida".
Posteriormente, señor Presidente, tendríamos que hacer otros comentarios en relación con este párrafo. No sé si convendrá ahora que nos pronunciemos primero sobre estas enmiendas. El señor Presidente dirá qué procedimiento seguimos.
CHAIRMAN: I think we had better take them one by one so that the delegates can respond to these amendments and say whether they agree or not. We will start with your first amendment. Could you repeat it slowly so that delegates can note it in their text?
B. E. MATAMOROS HUECK (Nicaragua): Lo que proponemos es que se diga "una ligera recuperación de la producción alimentaria". Es en la cuarta línea del texto en español.
Mrs. V. F. WIGHTMAN (Canada): I merely wish to ask a question here, Mr. Chairman. You were referring to the Director-General's assessment of programmes. Could we ask the representative of the Director-General if that is what was said in his statement or in the report, that he referred to a slight recovery? I should have thought the situation was a little brighter than that. Could we have information on this?
CHAIRMAN: I think it would be very difficult for us now to bring to the attention of delegates the full statement of. the Director-General, nor do I think we remember much of it now. At any rate I do not believe the word ''slight'' was mentioned but if you feel that way, I will bring the text of the Director-General's statement and try and find out whether these words have been used or not. I do not know whether the delegate of Nicaragua will insist in using the word "slight" for it seems that is the view of those of us who still remember whether this word was used by the Director-General in his statement, to the Commission, Shall I say that you are not insisting, in the first amendment, on putting the word "slight''before the word "recovery"?
B. E. MATAMOROS HUECK (Nicaragua): Mi memoria es tan mala como la del delegado de Canadá, y preferiría que en cuanto se refiere a la enmienda dejásemos a la Secretaría específicamente este punto.
CHAIRMAN: I think it is fair enough. If you find that the Director-General has been using this word we will put it there; if not, we will leave it as it is. Could we have your second amendment and see what can be done about it, since you have so many?
B. E. MATAMOROS HUECK (Nicaragua): La segunda oración del numero 4, del texto español, dice: "No obstante, muchos delegados expresaron su profunda preocupación por la persistencia de algunos obstáculos que impiden", etc. Nosotros omitiríamos "algunos". Diríamos "su profunda preocupación por la persistencia de obstáculos).
Sigue la oración: "que impiden una mejora más rápida de la situación en lo que respecta a le orodución". Nosotros suprimiríamos las palabras "más rápida".
En resumen, nuestra propuesta en relación con esta oración es la siguiente: que se diga "No obstante, la mayoría de las delegaciones expresaron su profunda preocupación por la persistencia de obstáculos que impiden una mejora de la situación", etc.
CHAIRMAN: As far as the first part of the intervention goes, I think it was only in the Spanish text; but in regard to the second part of your second - or third - amendment, you want "improvement" without "more rapid".
B. E. MATAMOROS HUECK (Nicaragua): Me refiero solamente a la primera enmienda. Por- lo que respecta a la segunda enmienda, creo que ha habido un lapsus mental, y la damos por cancelada.
Z. OWIRO (Kenya): I do not want to comment on the previous amendments but I have an amendment on the last sentence of the English text. Instead of the sentence beginning with the word "Various", I would propose that the word "Various" be changed to "Many": "Many delegations from developing countries" instead of "Various delegations from developing countries".
CHAIRMAN: There is no problem in accommodating this small amendment, I think, it seems that it is accepted.
V. STIPETIC (Yugoslavia): My amendment relates to the same sentence, the second line from the bottom on page 2 in the English text. It says, "which have a negative effect on the economy of the developing countries because they limit or render problematic the access of their agricultural products to the markets in the developed countries". I regard this "render problematic" as a probably not too successfull translation of the French text introduced by the Algeria delegate: "rendent aléatoires". I would suggest, if it is the opinion of the Conference, to change the words "render problematic" with "make uncertain": "make uncertain the access of their agricultural products to the markets in the developed countries".
CHAIRMAN: I am informed by the Secretary-General that is a better translation.
M. A. GOMES PEREIRA (Brazil): I fully agree with that but there is an amendment related to it. The sentence first says impede, second to limit, third is the problematic business. I would therefore suggest that before "limit" we add " impede ": "they impede, limit or" and then the new version of the problematic business.
CHAIRMAN: There are two small amendments concerning these last two lines of this paragraph, at least on this page: first by Yugoslvia concerning a translation error from French to English, and the second one just introduced by the delegate of Brazil. Seeing that nobody is against accepting this amendment, we take it as accepted.
A. M. BESHIR (Egypt): Really the report we are dealing with here was not very bright concerning the increase of production in many developing countries but there was no reference to this here. This report emphasized that in many countries the increase in production was very slight and even fell short of the increase in population, but there is no indication at all of this in paragraph 29.
CHAIRMAN: Perhaps you can give us this amendment in writing so that we can then find out whether it will be acceptable. Or shall we leave it to the end and find out if you can put it down for us and then bring it to the attention of the delegates?
B. E. MATAMOROS HUECK (Nicaragua): Estamos de acuerdo con las enmiendas propuestas. Acerca del encabezamiento de este párrafo, estamos conformes con la delegación de Kenya, pero preferiríamos que dijera: "Los delegados de países en desarrollo", en vez de decir "La mayoría de los delegados de países en desarrollo''. No sé qué delegación de país en desarrollo no iba a mostrar su preocupación ante la persistencia de esos obstáculos.
Èn cuanto a la ultima oración de este mismo párrafo, mi delegación no logra comprender exactamente cómo se puede poner al mismo nivel la situación de gravedad en que están afectados los agricultores en los países en desarrollo y los agricultores en los países desarrollados.
Estimo que esta frase debería modificarse y reflejar la situación particularmente grave de que están afectados los agricultores en los países en desarrollo por las características estructurales de nuestras economías.
No comprendo cómo pueden ser asimilados, cómo se pueden poner en un plan de igualdad los pequeños agricultores de los países en desarrolllo con los de los países desarrollados.
CHAIRMAN: I do not know whether you can give us your text so that we can replace the last sentence or find out whether we can accommodate the new ideas. But I am afraid that if we are going to discuss it like this, we are not going to reach any conclusion because we do not know exactly where we are going to introduce this new point of view. Are we going to replace a sentence by a new sentence, and where, and how? So perhaps you will be kind enough to give us your exact opinion in this regard.
B. E. MATAMOROS HUECK (Nicaragua): Voy a leer la oración tal como nosotros sugerimos que figure en el texto, y lo voy a hacer lentamente.
"Se llamó también la atención sobre la gravedad de los problemas que tienen los pequeños agricultores, particularmente en los países en desarrollo durante el reajuste estructural de la agricultura. "
Se cancelaría lo de la gran mayoría de los países desarrollados.
CHAIRMAN: I do not know whether we are going to open the debate with regard to all issues concerning this very important item. I am afraid if we are going to get into a detailed debate it will bring so many new ideas and I am afraid that this is not the right place or the proper place to introduce a new way of thinking. This could be done easily in the Commission but here in the Plenary if we are going to bring out some new elements I am afraid everybody will be encouraged to introduce new ideas and I am afraid things will get very much complicated, not only for the Secretariat but for the delegates themselves to understand where we stand. I would rather appeal to all the delegates, and Τ am not just saying this to my friend from Nicaragua but to everybody, not to start introducing new ideas. I wonder whether we can accept the text as it stands?
A. LOCHEN (Norway): I will not introduce any new ideas but a new word. In Paragraph A, in the sentence which was dictated to us in the English text at the top of Page 3 I propose the inclusion of the word "countries" after "their". That means that the sentence would read "Delegates from some developed countries emphasized the increase in their countries agricultural imports".
CHAIRMAN: I think this is a valid point so that there will be no problem in accepting this small amendment.
B. de AZEVEDO BRITO (Brazil): Just commenting on the sentence "Attention was also drawn to the
severity", perhaps here the best solution was simply to drop "in the large majority of developed and
developing countries", just drop that and say "severity of problems faced by small farmers in the
course of structural adjustments in agriculture". The reason is very simple, in fact the problems
of small farmers in adjustment in the developed countries is usually on subsidised agriculture and
there is the basic problem of adjustment and therefore I would feel in this particular case to take
out completely "developed countries" is not appropriate. The difficulties with the community,
common agricultural policy is because of that, therefore I think one can just delete the insertion
"in the large majority of developed and developing countries" and leave the sentence without that.
part and we could live with that,
CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody not in favour of deleting these few words at the top of Page 3 of this document?
Paragraphs 1 to 7, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 1 à 7, ainsi amendés sont approuves
Los párrafos 1 a 7, así enmendados, son aprobados
Draft Report of Plenary - Part 7, as amended was adopted
Le projet de rapport de la Planiere -Septième partie, ainsi amendé, est adopté
El proyecto de informe de la Plenaria- Parte 7, así enmendado, es aprobado
CHAIRMAN: I see that Switzerland is asking for the floor. I do not think we can open, this discussion again as far as any part of the Report is concerned although I know you are still waiting for an answer to your question, but I am afraid that there is nobody from the Secretariat to do this, I am sure they will tell you in private probably something which will meet with your requirements. We can leave it until tomorrow morning. I am afraid there will be nobody to answer your questions for the time being.
G. DUCOMMUN (Suisse): Si J'ai posé une question en public, c'est pour qu'on me réponde en public. Le Secrétariat a enlevé un amendement qui avait été adopté. Il faut qu'il nous explique pourquoi.
CHAIRMAN: I hope it will be possible to provide an answer in the Plenary Meeting tomorrow. At all events, the Secretariat will certainly get in touch with you as soon as possible.
RIGHT OF REPLY
DROIT DE REPONSE
DERECHO DE REPLICA
CHAIRMAN: Before closing the meeting 1 have a request for the floor from the delegate of the United Kingdom to use his right of reply.
G. W. 'THOM (United Kingdom): At the end of this morning's session we were addressed by the Observer from Zimbabwe. In the course of this he made a statement to the effect that the British Government had been supplying arms to the Smith Regime. I would like to put on record that there is no question whatsover of the British Government having supplied any arms to the Smith Regime at any time.
The meeting rose at 18. 10
La séance est levee à 18 h 10
Se"levanta la sesión a las 18. 10 horas
