PARAGRAPHS 3 to 13 (continued)
PARAGRAPHES 3 à 13 (suite)
PARRAFOS 3 a 13 (continuación)
CHAIRMAN: We start with document C 77/II/REP/2. We are on paragraph 8, and I believe the delegate of Pakistan asks for the floor.
J.S. KHAN (Pakistan): Mr. Chairman, we will resume where we left off before lunch break, and this was on paragraph 8 where, as we said, we have a suggestion to make. It is really a substantive suggestion in keeping with your advice, and not one of drafting. Let me also first say we find this section of the draft a particularly good one on the Programme of Work and Budget. I think the Drafting Committee has done a skillful job, but there is, I think, a point under the overall policy issue we are now discussing which apparently has been overlooked, and I think it received considerable, if not unanimous, support during our discussion. That, Mr. Chairman, was the proposal in the Programme of Work and Budget to increase the use of consultants and national institutions in the implementation of the Regular Programme. We think that this does not feature strong enough in the current draft. In fact, in this paragraph in the tail-end, in the last sentence, there is the first real reference to it. Earlier references to national institutions were in a different context regarding decentralization, and things like that. So, we would like to mention something about this, the need to use consultants and national institutions, particularly those in developing countries, and I recollect also this is a point supported not only by us but by the Programme Committee, and even the 18th Session of the FAO Conference drew attention to this, and there was also a suggestion that the use of this policy of using national institutions should also be reviewed in FAO perhaps by the Governing Bodies and the Programme Committee.
I would like to add something then to this. It could be another sentence or two at the end of paragraph 8, although my own preference would be for a new paragraph possibly after the existing paragraph 8, and if you permit me, Sir, I will read out my proposed amendment slowly on this subject. The proposal is as follows, and I quote: “Strong support was expressed for the greater use proposed of consultants and national institutions; and it was stressed that the maximum use be made of the consultancy services and the national institutions available in developing countries. It was further suggested that FAO's policy on the use of national institutions be reviewed in depth by the Programme Committee during the forthcoming biennium.”
I propose that these two sentences be added under the policy issues portion of the report, preferably as a new paragraph.
CHAIRMAN: Is this acceptable to the delegates? Would you like it read again from the Secretariat?
J. BERTELING (Netherlands): We have no problem whatsoever, except that this is mentioned also, I believe, in the world food problems and TCDC sections of the draft report, so that we now have it in several different places. There is nothing wrong with repeating it, but to repeat it three times may be too much. I have no problem with the content - as a member of the Drafting Committee I have already
agreed to all the different sections.
CHAIRMAN: Can I take it that that is acceptable to the Commission?
W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Fed. Rep. of) (interpretation from German): I have no problems with
what has been proposed either, but I too have the impression that the idea does appear in several other places in the report, especially in the Programme of Work and Budget, where we say that staff should be cut down and more use made of consultants and national institutions. Perhaps the Secretariat could help us here, and tell us whether or not this idea is to be found in other parts of the Report, and where. As I have said at the beginning, we have no problems with the substance of the amendment, but we would like to avoid repeating the same idea several times.
H. BAEYENS (Belgique): J'indique, en vue d'aider le Secrétariat, que vous trouvez exactement les mêmes dispositions aux alinéas 3 et 4 de la troisième section du rapport.
CHAIRMAN: I believe there is also a reference to this in REP/4, and in TCDC. Would the delegate of Pakistan agree that we have a cross reference, instead of his suggested context?
“ I do realize that there are references in the Review of Field Programmes, but here we are talking about implementation of the regular programme and the point was made in this connexion. It was an important point and it was fully supported by all concerned.
D. VUKICIC (Yugoslavia): I agree with the delegate of Pakistan that this is the right place for such a proposed text. Because this is the policy that has to be followed and there is a certain task - even for the Programme Committee - to review the development of use of national institutions and consultants, I would like to support the proposal of the delegate of Pakistan to have a separate paragraph on this item at this very place.
CHAIRMAN: The proposal of the delegate of Pakistan has been supported by Yugoslavia and no one has objected to it. I therefore take it that it is acceptable to the Commission that we include this para graph suggested by the delegate of Pakistan. It is so decided.
A.J. PECKHAM (United Kingdom): In regard to the last sentence, I am very tempted to suggest that it might be reworded. The Conference hopes that the level of UNDP-funded activities would soon be restored. So what happens to restoration to the previous levels? Undetermined?
CHAIRMAN: Are there any comments on this proposal which is to replace the words ”that FAO's “with ”the level of”? It is so decided.
W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Fed. Rep. of) (interpretation from German): I do not know whether this is right: in the third line of paragraph 13 there is a passage which does not seem to be in line with what was said yesterday and today in Commission I. I think we talked about an Account for the Prevention of Food Losses, and not about a Fund. To be in line with what Commission I said yesterday, we. would need to change ”Fund” to “Account”.
CHAIRMAN: The proposal is that we delete the words “the proposed Fund”. and replace them with the words “the Special Account”.
Paragraphs 3 to 13, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 3 a 13, ainsi amendés,sont approuvés
Los párrafos 3 á 13, asi enmendados, son aprobados
Paragraphs 14 to 19 approved
Les paragraphes 14 á 19 sont approuves
Los párrafos 14 a 19 son aprobados
PARAGRAPHS 20 TO 67, INCLUDING RESOLUTION
LES PARAGRAPHES 20 A 67, Y COMPRIS LA RESOLUTION
LOS PARRAFOS 20 A 67, INCLUIDA LA RESOLUCION
A.J. PECKHAM (United Kingdom): I have quite a small point. In the fourth line there is a reference to the amended statutes of the Commission on Fertilizers. I do not know whether there is some particular legal significance, I think that what the Commission agreed was revised terms of reference, and that it would be nearer the correct wording to delete “with amended statutes” and insert “with revised terms of reference”.
CHAIRMAN: Are there any comments on this proposal that we replace the words “amended statutes” with “revised terms of reference”? There seem to be none; that is accepted.
J.S, KHAN (Pakistan): I would suggest a slight amendment to paragraph 21(c) to cover perhaps all points of view. This point has been made by several delegations, including my own. The present wording is slightly restrictive, and we would propose “the necessity for the and then the words ” rehabilitation and improvement of ” and then I suggest we delete the words “ small-scale irrigation particularly to improve existing ” and insert “ irrigation schemes ”. The remainder remains as it is. I think that is what is proposed in the Programme of Work and Budget, and that would cover all points of view, small-large- and medium- scale.
CHAIRMAN: So the wording would then be: “The necessity for the rehabilitation and improvement of existing irrigation schemes. " Are there any objections? Accepted. So paragraph 21, with this amendement, is adopted. Paragraph 22 - any comments? Adopted. Paragraph 23 - any comments? Adopted. Paragraph 24 - any comments? Adopted.
We come now to the resolution on page 7, and we will take it paragraph by paragraph.
Are there any comments on the first paragraph commencing “ Recalling Resolution XII.., ” - no comments -adopted.
The next paragraph, “Noting also... “ ” - adopted.
“Appreciating the previous efforts... ” - adopted.
“Welcoming the agreements.. ” - adopted.
“Considering that the addition... ” - adopted.
On page 4 I think we should take the paragraphs as they stand. I see that there is a proposal for an amendment in the first one, and also a proposal by the Resolutions Committee to re-arrange the order of the paragraph, but we will take them in the order in which they stand, and we start with number 1, as it stands, “Requests Member Nations... ”
D, VUKICIC (Yugoslavia): First in this I could say on behalf of the co-sponsors of this resolution, that we should accept the rearrangement of paragraphs on the resolution.
Second, concerning the proposal of the Resolutions Committee for changing the text in paragraph 1, I think there should not be any problem to replace the last words “ which would lead to financing of projects ” which could be financed and so on, so that is also acceptable for the proposal of the Resolutions Committee, and going through this paragraph I would propose another paragraph which has developed in the meantime.
CHAIRMAN: Can I take it that the first paragraph is acceptable to the Commission with the amendments suggested by the Resolutions Committee, and accepted by Yugoslavia on behalf of the sponsors of the Resolution? That seems to be the case. Any comments?
K. ITANO (Japan): On this paragraph in our understanding the amount is 20 million dollars, which will be acceded to by both the contribution to the FAO Programme and also to the bilateral programme, so I would like to suggest that we delete “ the amount of at least 20 million dollars ”,
CHAIRMAN: Do I understand from the delegate of Japan that he wants to delete the words “in an amount of at least US$20 million ”. Was that the proposal?
D. VUKICIC (Yugoslavia): Unfortunately I could not go along with the proposal of the distinguished delegate of Japan because first, 20 million dollars for explanation does not cover both bilateral and multilateral or this amount which has to go through the FAO Programme in this field, because already bilateral assistance is much higher than 20 million dollars on a yearly basis. This amount of 20 million dollars was agreed on two occasions up to now by the Government of Japan; once it was in a Paris conference on International Economic Cooperation, and the second time in Manila at the third session in the World Food Conference where, after long consultations and talking and so on, the dele gation of Japan also agreed to this text which is used here in this paragraph.
The problem of bilateral assistance which is not mentioned in the operative paragraph here will be dealt with in an additional paragraph which I will propose when we get through these paragraphs which are already in the text,
J.A. BOYLE (United States of America): My colleague from Yugoslavia has shared with me his new pro posed paragraph which stresses the importance of bilateral aid for reaching the overall programmes we are all interested in, and since a good deal of United States aid is channelled on a bilateral basis we are very happy he has chosen to include this paragraph. Having said that I also would say we certainly can support paragraph No. 2.
CHAIRMAN: Are there any other observations? Delegate of Japan, can you accept the paragraph as it is?
K. ITANO (Japan): Yes.
CHAIRMAN: I thank the delegate of Japan. The operative paragraph No. 2 is accepted as it stands. We come to operative paragraph No. 3; any comments on that? There appears to be none. It is accepted. Paragraph No. 4, any comments? That is also accepted.
Then we come to the proposal of the delegation of Yugoslavia.
D. VUKICIC (Yugoslavia): First of all, as I said, we could not accept the arrangement of paragraphs, but the new paragraph, as we accepted that the existing paragraph 1 should come after paragraph 3, so
the paragraph which I would like to propose will be operative paragraph 1, and it should read, (the text has been agreed with most of the co-sponsors and with the delegations which have problems of including through necessity of increase and also bilateral aid in this field) and the text reads “Request the donor countries to enlarge essentially their bilateral and multilateral assistance toward the seed improvement in the developing countries and to cooperate closely with the Seed Improvement and Development Programme of FAO in this field ”. If necessary I will read it again before I deliver a copy to the Secretariat. I hear the Secretariat has it now. This will be paragraph 1, and the existing resolution will be paragraph 2. Paragraph 3 will be the existing paragraph 3, and the present para graph 1 from the resolution will be paragraph 4, and the present 4 will be 5. That I think will be the logical arrangement of the paragraphs by the Resolutions Committee.
CHAIRMAN: It is clear to everyone what the proposal is?
A.J. PECKHAM (United Kingdom): I would just like to ask the Yugoslav delegation whether the sixth or seventh word is “essential.. or ”substantial'. As I read this “Requests the donor countries to enlarge ” I would have thought “substantially their bilateral and multilateral assistance ”.
CHAIRMAN: I think your proposal is acceptable to the delegate of Yugoslavia, so we can take it that the proposal proposed by the delegate of Yugoslavia, as amended by the delegate of the United Kingdom, is acceptable.
W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Fed. Rep. of): l Could it please be read out?
CHAIRMAN: Certainly. The first paragraph would then read, “Request donor countries to enlarge sub stantially their bilateral and multilateral assistance to the Seed improvement in the developing coun tries, and to cooperate closely with the Seed Improvement and Development Programme of the FAO in this field. ” That would be the first paragraph. Any comments on this first paragraph?
W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Fed. Rep. of ): Just one thing, whether “the ” in connexion with donor countries is really necessary. Would it not be better just to say, “request donor countries ” and drop “the ”? We don't like to see new donor countries to be excluded if they wish to support the Programme, so I suggest that we delete the article “the ”, if this is all right with Yugoslavia and the others who have made the suggestion.
CHAIRMAN: I see the delegate of Yugoslavia is nodding and it is acceptable so I take it that the first paragraph is accepted with this change. The second paragraph will then be the second as it stands.
The third will also be No. 3 in the present context and the fourth will be the previous first paragraph starting with “Requests Member Nations”, and the fourth paragraph in the present text will become No. 5. Is that acceptable? That seems to be the case. It is accepted and the resolution is adopted with those changes.
We then come on to page 9, paragraph 25. Any comments on 25? No comments. It is adopted. Paragraph 26, any comments? It is adopted. Paragraph 27? No comments. It is adopted. Paragraph 28? No comments. It is adopted. Paragraph 29. No comments? It is adopted. Paragraph 30, page 10, no
: comments? It is adopted. Paragraph 31. Adopted. Paragraph 32. Adopted. Paragraph 33. Adopted. Paragraph 34. Adopted. Paragraph 35, page 11. Adopted. Paragraph 36. It is adopted. Paragraph 37.
' It is adopted. Paragraph 38. It is adopted. Paragraph 39?
R.L. TORRAS (Cuba): Excúseme señor Presidente, la velocidad con la que usted va en los párrafos, pero es referente al punto 38 al que nos referimos y es en relación al ultimo párrafo en donde comienza: “Se reconoció que incluso con esas adiciones, etc. ”. A nosotros nos da la impresión que el párrafo no está claro, o sea que la idea que se expreso en los debates es que la cifra que se había citado para la Conferencia Mundial de Reforma Agraria que aun era insuficiente en comparación con otras cifras autorizadas en otras reuniones internacionales al mismo nivel y no creemos que el párrafo recoja exacta mente esa idea.
CHAIRMAN: Has the delegate of Cuba any concrete proposal to make.
R.L. TORRAS (Cuba): No creo necesario hacer una propuesta en concreto; yo creo que la Secretaría puede revisar esto y ajustarlo a lo que realmente fue expresado en este caso.
CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will look into it.
A.J. PECKHAM (United Kingdom): I think the second sentence of paragraph 39 would be more direct if we replaced the word siven all feasible assistance by FAO ” by one word, that is to say, “regional agricultural credit associations should be encouraged to become self-reliant in the shortest possible time ”.
CHAIRMAN: Are there any comments on this proposal by the United Kingdom? That seems to be acceptable.
L.R. TORRAS (Cuba): Excúseme otra vez, señor Presidente, pero nos referimos al párrafo 44. Es en rela ción a la primera parte donde hace referencia a que “la Conferencia tomo nota de que las actividades en materia de población no se consideraban como un programa independiente ”. Mi pregunta es cuáles son estas actividades en materia de población que realiza la FAO, porque no vemos el vínculo con lo que este párrafo está planteando.
CHAIRMAN: Could you be a bit more precise and tell us what your particular problem is on this paragraph?
R.L. TORRAS (Cuba): Hace referencia a “actividades que está llevando la FAO en materia de población ”. No recordamos en este sentido lo que se ha debatido sobre este tema, pero lo que no tenemos claro es como la FAO está llevando a cabo esas actividades. ¿Quiere decir que se consideran en el programa de la FAO para hacerlas con el Fondo de las Naciones Unidas para la Población o son actividades propias que la FAO lleva a cabo en materia de población?
CHAIRMAN: I see that the text is, “The Conference noted ”, so it is obviously something that has been said from FAO, either in the document or as stated by one of the officials.
E.M. WEST (Assistant Director-General, Office of Programme and Budget): I was specifically asked a question to which this is the reply which I gave in the proceedings of the Commission. It is a long established activity, we are not handing out controceptives, we are carryng out activities under our own Constitution which are, however, linked to population activities in the broadest sense. There is no controversy about this, as far as I know, anyway.
CHAIRMAN: Does the reply satisfy the delegate of Cuba? It does, so I take it that paragraph 44 is acceptable as it stands.
A.J. PECKHAM (United Kingdom): We are making such good progress that I am tempted to make a suggestion on paragraph 45. It might read: “ The increased emphasis on the role of women in all aspects of rural development was particularly welcomed and merited the special attention fo FAO ”.
CHAIRMAN: Do you mean that this will be all and we should delete the rest?
A.J. PECKHAM (United Kingdom): We are running the two sentences together.
CHAIRMAN: Is this acceptable to delegates? There seem to be no comments so it is accepted.
F. SHEFRIN (Canada): I would like to deal with paragraphs 49 and 50. It is only a matter of transferring a sentence from paragraph 50 to paragraph 49, it is not a case of changing the text. The way paragraph 50 reads, the two sentences are not related to each other, and I think there may be a typing error in the drafting of the Report.
I suggest that the last two sentences of paragraph 50 should be moved to paragraph 49 so that paragraph 50 would consist of just the first sentence. Is my suggestion clear?
CHAIRMAN: I think so. We take the sentences from “ This had been considered... ” to the end of paragraph 50 and put them at the end of paragraph 49. Is that acceptable to other delegations? There seem to be no objections so I take it that paragraphs 49 and 50 are accepted with this amendment.
A. J. PECKHAM (United Kingdom): There is a very small point in paragraph 51; in the penultimate line after “ comprehensive information systems” there should be a comma.
CHAIRMAN: I do not think anyone will have any problems over a comma. Is the comma accepted? If so, paragraph 51 is adopted.
M. TRKULJA (Yugoslavia): It seems that the basic message of the second sentence in paragraph 53, or the basic stress, is on long-term projects. Of course, the meaning is that “ Agriculture Towards 2000 ” is a long-term project. As far as I am aware, the situation is that this programme should be finished in the next biennium. Perhaps Mr. West could reply to my worry, since I do not think this is really a long-term project.
Ε. M. WEST (Assistant Director-General, Office of Programme and Budget): There is a very good Italian word, “ speriamo ”. To be more serious, perhaps the wording is defective in that it seems to create a contrast between two different things. I think one word here is perhaps redundant, “ such ” in the last line. Would that meet the views of the delegate of Yugoslavia?
CHAIRMAN: If we delete the word “ such ” would that solve your problem? I see it will, so the word is deleted.
Y. I. MEDANI (Sudan) (interpretation from Arabic): On paragraph 57, in order to be more specific I think we should introduce the word “ annual ” here: “It was however observed that present world annual production... ”, etc. This could be so both for acquaculture and marine fisheries. That is one point.
My second point is that I think that in order to have a better result we should make a slight change and add after “ compared to 60 million tons from marine fisheries ”, “taking into account that most marine resources are not exploited as they should be ”. As a result, the last sentence will be more readily understood.
CHAIRMAN: I understand the amendment of the delegate of Sudan to be to insert the word “annual ” after the word “present ” and before the words “world production ”, so that the sentence reads:
“It was however observed that present annual world production... ”. Then we add to the first. sentence, after the word “fisheries ”, “taking into account that most marine resources are not fully exploited, ” Is that proposal acceptable to other delegations?
L. LAPEBY (Gabon): Le délégué du Soudan a fait état des eaux internes. Je voudrais savoir à quel endroit de ce paragraphe il faut mettre ces eaux internes, puisqu'il a fait une nuance entre la pisci culture et les eaux internes.
Y. I. MEDANI (Sudan) (interpretation from Arabic): I think that what Gabon said is quite correct. Indeed, I did speak of production of 10 million tons, which includes fishing in inland waterways and acquaculture. If I am wrong I hope the Secretariat will correct me, but I think the 10 million tons come from those two sources.
CHAIRMAN: Can we then take it that paragraph 57 is now adopted with these two amendments? That seems to be the case.
Paragraph 58, any comments on paragraph 58? No comments? It is adopted. Page 16, paragraph 59; any comments on paragraph 59? It is adopted. Paragraph 60; any comments on paragraph 60? It is adopted. Paragraph 61; any comment on paragraph 61? It is adopted. Paragraph 62; any comments?
S.H. AL-SHAKIR (Iraq) (interpretation from Arabic): As far as paragraph 62 is concerned, I would like to make the following comment. I think that COFI has agreed to the setting up of the Near East Fishery Commission and I think there is no need to reexamine this matter at COFI, because the subject has already been agreed to. That is why I would suggest the following amendment. In the second line of the French text, at least: “was being considered by concerned regional fishery bodies ” should be deleted. The second line would read “Commission has been agreed by COFI ”, and then we would delete the remainder of the paragraph.
E.M. WEST (Asistant Director-General, Office of Programme and Budget): Unfortunately, I have no one on Fisheries to advise me as to the situation, but I do not think there is any problem about the amendment. It seems to be a fact that this proposal has been agreed by COFI at its last session. If however there are other things to be done, if they have to consider amendment statutes or something like that or take any subsequent action, they will do it at their next session, so I do not think the amendment changes anything further that has to be done. I do not see any harm in it from that point of view.
CHAIRMAN: Can I take it then that the amendment is acceptable to the other delegations? The proposed amendment by Iraq is to delete everything that comes after COFI in the second line and you set a full stop there.
L. LAPEBY (Gabon): Je suis tout à fait d'accord avec l'amendement proposé, mais je dois souligner que le COFI n'est pas un organe qui prend des décisions définitives. Cet agrément doit être entériné, et je voudrais bien savoir s'il peut être entériné ou non, et comment.
Ε.M. WEST (Assistant Director-General, Office of Programme and Budget): Well, the Conference is just noting here, it has nothing in front of it which it could endorse or veto. I imagine that there would have to be cancellation of existing regulations and approval of new regulations under the statutes by setting up various bodies. If and when these are prepared, these draft amendments, they will go to the Council and/or Conference as dictated by the rules and regulations. I do not think there is any need to spell that out here, because nothing will be effective unless the regulations are observed. This does not prejudice anything one way or another.
CHAIRMAN: Can I take it that paragraph 62 with the amendment suggested by Iraq is acceptable? That seems to be the case. It is so adopted. Paragraph 63; any comments on 63? No comments; it is adopted. Paragraph 64; any comments on paragraph 64? No comments?
D. BABA (Tchad): Nous aimerions conserver seulement les mots: ”la Conférence approuve les propositions relatives aux forêts. “ On supprimerait les mots: ”de façon générale “ et les mots ”et la concentra tion des activités en un plus petit nombre de “ sous-programmes ”, car le programme 65 illustre bien ce que nous désirons.
CHAIRMAN: Is it acceptable to other delegations? Any other observations on paragraph 64?
L. LAPEBY (Gabon): Etant donné qu'il s'agit de propositions concernant les forêts et que l'accent est mis en particulier sur les forêts tropicales, comme ce n'est pas la première fois que la Conférence mettrait l'accent sur la foresterie tropicale, je pense qu'on pourrait essayer de fusionner les paragraphes 64 et 65.
CHAIRMAN: The proposal is to combine paragraphs 64 and 65 with the amendment suggested by Chad. Any objection to that particular proposal? There seem to be no objections to that.
We then go on to paragraph 65 which will then become part of paragraph 64.
H. MAURIA (Finland): On the first line of paragraph 65, at the very end of it is mentioned “small-scale industries ”. I think when forest industries are mentioned here for the first time, we should insert the word “forests ”, so it would be “small-scale forest industries ”.
CHAIRMAN: Any other comments on the previous paragraph 65? No comments, so that paragraph 64 will then consist of the first part of the previous paragraph 64, “The Conference generally approved the proposals for forestry ”, full stop, and then go on, “The Conference endorsed the emphasis being placed on ” etc., with the word “forest ” added at the end of the first line on page 17. It is
accepted?O. MBURU (Kenya): When you read that, Mr. Chairman, I think you read the word “generally ”, whereas I thought we had deleted it as a result of the amendment by Chad.
CHAIRMAN: I am sorry, I did read the word “ generally ”. Do I understand that the word “generally ” is to come out? Chad,, was that your proposal? Yes, we delete the word“generally ”, so it reads, “The Conference approved the proposals for forestry, ” and it goes on “The Conference endorsed the emphasis being placed on ”.
W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Fed. Rep. of) (interpretation from German): If we are speaking about forestry and paper, perhaps we might make a suggestion, which would help saving paper; we can just say, “It endorsed” instead of “The Conference endorsed ”.
CHAIRMAN: Paragraphs 64 and 65 are accepted with these amendments.
We go on to the next paragraph which will then become 65. Any comments on the new 65? No comments? It is accepted.
We go on to paragraph 67 which will become 66. Any comments? No comments? It is accepted.
We go on to paragraph 68 which will become 67. No comments? It is accepted.
Paragraphs 20 to 67, including Resolution, as amended, adopted
Les paragraphes 20 à 67, y compris la resolution, ainsi amendés, sont adoptes
Los párrafos 20 a 67, incluida la Resolución, así enmendados, son aprobados
PARAGRAPHS 68 TO 82
PARAGRAPHES 68 A 82
PARRAFOS 68 A 82
CHAIRMAN: Paragraph 69; any comments on 69? It is accepted.
Paragraph 70; any comments on 70?
A.J. PECKHAM (United Kingdom): Again I have a suggestion that we take the two sentences together. It would read “The Conference recognized” - I think we had better underline “recognized ” - “the crucial role of FAO's investment activities in helping countries obtain more funds for agricultural and rural development ” - and this is where the amendment would take place - “and in light of the imminent establishment of IFAD recommended this particular aspect of the Programme of Work and Budget should continue to receive high priority ”.
CHAIRMAN: Could you please read it again so that everybody can get it.
A.J. PECKHAM (United Kingdom): I will read it slowly. The first two lines would remain the same with the underlining of the word “recognized”, “the crucial role of FAO's investment activities in helping countries obtain more funds for agricultural and rural development and in the light of the imminent establishment of IFAD, recommended” - underlined - “this particular aspect of the Programme of Work and Budget should continue to receive high priority ”.
CHAIRMAN: I thank the delegate of the United Kingdom. Is that proposal clear to everyone, and is it acceptable? The delegate of Brazil, you have the floor.
M.A. GOMES PEREIRA (Brazil): I have nothing against the proposal by our friend from the United Kingdom, but I think as he makes his scolastic amendments, we could continue to adopt it “unanimously supported ”, if he changed his amendment, changed to “unanimously supported ”.
CHAIRMAN: I thank the delegate of Brazil. Could we have the words “unanimously supported ” instead of the word ”recommended'' that you suggested? Yes, it is acceptable, I see, to the delegate of the United Kingdom. I take it that paragraph 70 is accepted with this amendment? Is is so adopted.
- 436.-
We turn to page 18, paragraph 71. Any comments on paragraph 71? No comments. That is adopted. Paragraph 72. Any comments on paragraph 72? No comments. It is adopted. Paragraph 73. Any comments? It is adopted. Paragraph 74. Any comments on paragraph 74? It is adopted. Paragraph 75? No comments. It is adopted. Paragraph 76? No comments. It is adopted. Paragraph 77?
W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Fed. Rep. of)(interpretation from German): I would suggest that at the end of this sentence we add three or four further words. These might be, ''also in future” or ”also for the future ”. This is a question of drafting, a question of English which is not my mother tongue. The reason why I am proposing this is because there is already an activity going on in that area for quite a time and what the Director-General intends to do is to propose how this might be continued in future. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN:I thank the delegate of Germany. The proposal is to add the words ”also for the future” after the word ”industry ”, the last word in paragraph 77. Is this acceptable?
L. LAPEBY (Gabon): C'est à peu près ce que j'avais l'intention de dire, mais au lieu de ”également ”, je voudrais qu'on dise ”notamment pour l'avenir ”.
CHAIRMAN: Is this agreeable to the delegate of Germany? It seems” to be the case. Is it acceptable to other delegates? That would also seem to be the case. It is so adopted. Paragraph 78. Any comments on paragraph 78? No comments. It is adopted. Paragraph 79. Any comments on paragraph 79? No comments. It is adopted. Paragraph 80. Any comments?
L. LAPEBY (Gabon):On nous dit: ”de nombreuses delegations ont souligné l'importance d'une coordination étroite avec les représentants résidents du PNUD...” Ce problème a déjà été évoqué à plusieurs reprises et toutes les délégations ont reconnu l'importance d'une coordination étroite. Je ne pense pas qu'il s'agisse seulement de ”nombreuses délégations ”. Nous reconnaissons le fait et nous ne l'avons jamais mis en cause. Par conséquent, la question de la coordination avec les représentants résidents n'est pas un problème qui intéresse quelques ou de nombreuses délégations, c'est un problème reconnu par tous.
CHAIRMAN :I thank the delegate of Gabon. Do you propose to replace the word ”many” by ”all” or what is your exact proposal? That is your proposal. So it is proposed then to replace the word ”many” by ”all ”. Any objections? No objections. So decided.Paragraph 79 is accepted with the amendment proposed by the delegate of Gabon. Paragraph 80. Any comments on paragraph 80? No comments. So decided. It is so adopted. Paragraph 81?
A.J. PECKHAM (United Kingdom): This was a point which gave us a certain amount of difficulty when we were discussing the matter, and I would like to suggest perhaps a slight clarification of the first sentence, and rewording of the second. In the first place I would like to suggest, ”Concern was expressed at the speed with which FAO Country Representatives were appointed ”. It would then go on to read, ”Some delegates doubted whether the number of appointments provided for in the budget could be achieved within the time available ”.
CHAIRMAN: Your proposal is that we change the first sentence and it should read, ”Concern was expressed at the speed with which FAO Country Representatives were appointed ”. This is the first change. The second change is that we delete the second sentence and replace it by your sentence saying, ”Some delegates doubted whether the number of representatives provided for in the budget could be achieved within the time available ”.
E.M. WEST (Assistant Director-General, Office of Programme and Budget): I wish to point out, Mr. Chairman, the first sentence was intended to refer to two classes of concern. One that the offices were being established too quickly, and the other they were being established too slowly. The amendments proposed deal only with one class of opinion. Secondly, Mr. Chairman, I believe that the amendments now proposed would express concern about the number of appointments, but this seems to be totally inconsistent with what the rest of the paragraph says. In particular, the first sentence at the top of page 20 in the English text. So you are rather at a loss to make sense of the paragraph if that amendment is adopted.
A.J, PECKHAM (United Kingdom): With respect, Mr. Chairman, I do not think there is any inconsistency whatever. The first two sentences I thought represented one side of the argument in this Commission. I am not suggesting any amendment whatever to the arguments on the other side, but I think that if the text is to reflect what was said, then I think my amendments do, in fact, record the situation as I understood it, but perhaps other delegates can comment on that.
J. BERTELING (Netherlands): Mr. Chairman, indeed in a Drafting Committee we took it that the first sentence was meant to cover both sides, as Mr. West point out. The second sentence, as I see it, different kinds of comments were made in this respect that one read out. The suggestion read out now by the delegate of the United Kingdom was one thing; my delegation had a different opinion, a little bit different on it, and it was, indeed, felt more to what was in the text as it is now, which means that I prefer for my delegation the text as it now stands, which is clear enough to us, because it can cover the different kinds of remarks that were made on the number of representatives to be appointed would be less than it was expected to be. So I have some preference for the present text as it stands.
R.L. TORRAS (Cuba): Mi delegación igualmente comparte los criterios que nos ha expresado el señor West en el sentido dado a estas dos oraciones. Están bien logradas, pero nosotros invertiríamos los términos en los verbos; y es que en la primera oración en vez de “rapidez” diga “entamente ”; y en la segunda oración, en vez de “lentamente” diga “rapidez”.
CHAIRMAN: I thank the delegate of Cuba. The delegate of the United Kingdom, could you accept the text as it is proposed with the word “speed ” instead of “tempo ”?
A.J. PECKHAM (United Kingdom): No, Mr. Chairman, I do not think it reflects at all the discussion we had in Commission. I was not alone in this statement. If, in fact, the other members of the Commission now wish to adopt a different form of words, well and good, that is for the Commission to decide, but it is not satisfactory from my point of view. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: Any other comments on this?
L. LAPEBY (Gabon): Je me rallierai volontiers à ce que vient de dire le délégué de Cuba. Il s'agit de savoir si le problème qui nous préoccupe dans la troisième phrase, en ce qui concerne le retrait des conseillers agricoles du PNUD, n'est précisément pas mis en cause parce que ce rythme n'est pas satis fait; le PNUD va trop vite tandis que la FAO n'a pas la rapidité suffisante pour effectuer les rempla cements. C'est là où il faut voir la relation entre le retrait des Conseillers principaux et la mise en place du Bureau de la FAO. Il y a là une notion d'équilibre qu'il faudrait maintenir; le PNUD va peut-être trop vite et la FAO trop lentement. A mon avis, il y aurait lieu de modifier la rédaction du paragraphe.
G. WEILL (France): Notre collègue du Royaume-Uni a certainement raison en disant qu'il n'a pas été le seul à avoir fait des observations sur le rythme, sur la rapidité; le terme pour nous n'a pas une impor tance déterminante et, en ce sens, il est bien exact que,telle qu'il nous l'a lue,la deuxième phrase disant que certains délégués ont douté que le nombre de représentants puisse être trouvé et mis en place dans les délais prévus, il est bien exact,dis-je,que cette idée a été avancée, par ma délégation notamment. Quoi qu'il en soit, je dois dire,en remerciant le Comité de rédaction des efforts qu'il a faits pour refléter les opinions en présence, que tel qu'il est libellé actuellement le paragraphe 81 est parfaitement acceptable pour ma délégation.
CHAIRMAN: I don't know quite what to do about this because as far as I can see the United Kingdom delegate insists on having this change. On the other hand it is not supported by any other delegation.
A.J. PECKHAM (United Kingdom): I simply wanted the text to reflect the balance of discussion and I think the first sentence as I reworded it can still be read both ways. I think there is no problem about that. Would it help the Commission if the second and third sentences were run together? It might start “While some delegates doubted whether the number of representatives provided for in the budget could be achieved, it was however noted that UNDP was withdrawing etc. ”. You have both sides of it. W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany Fed. Rep. of): (interpretation from German): I think that this would reflect the actual discussion that occured and that after all is the aim of the exercice. That is one thing. The other thing is to say it quite frankly that we are a little surprised that there seems to be no coordination between FAO and UNDP in this field. We had always thought that this was well coordinated and that there were no difficulties. What's indicated here in this paragraph surprises me but I shall not belabour the point. What the United Kingdom delegate just said would I think reflect quite faithfully the discussions that occurred.
J. BERTELING (Netherlands): I think that those delegates who spoke against the proposed suggestions in the Programme of Work and Budget had two different things in mind. One has been expressed by the United Kingdom delegate and he said it, as he is pointing out now, as it is said in the draft report. So if we take up this proposal, either by combining the two sentences or by not doing so, then I think it is necessary to have it as a separate text.
We felt - not because of the fact - the number of appointées could not be reached - but for different reasons which I am not going to repeat - that they should not be reached and at this stage in the debate what comes in later paragraphs was pointed out, that maybe it was a necessity because the UNDP is withdrawing SAA/CRs. But they are two different things and maybe we have combined the two ideas.
R.L. TORRAS (Cuba): Solamente quisiera ayudar a clarificar el debate. El señor West aquí nos planteaba que lo que se trataba en el párrafo 81 era lo relativo a si la FAO podía a no acelerar sus nombramientos en los países o si podía compartir a los plazos del retiro de las representaciones en el PNUD.
Y yo creo que las propuestas que nos hacen las delegaciones de Francia y Gran Bretaña sí se podían referir cuando se comente el párrafo 82; en el párrafo 83 si se habla de lo que ellos están planteando. Mi propuesta es dejar este planteamiento para el párrafo 82 y que el párrafo 81 sea adoptado en la forma actual con la enmienda a los verbos a que me referí en mi intervención anterior.
F. D'ALMEIDA (Président du Comité de rédaction): Nous avons essayé d'être le plus objectifs possible au niveau du Comité de rédaction et de refléter vraiment les idées émises au sein de la Commission. Il
ne nous a pas paru qu'il y avait un doute dans le fait que la FAO devrait installer des représentants. Il nous a semblé qu'elle se trouvait devant un fait accompli en ce sens que bien souvent le PNUD laissait vacants les postes de représentants agricoles. La FAO ne pouvait donc pas suivre ce rythme, et nous avons nous-mêmes dit qu'il fallait, pour que les représentants de la FAO soient nommés, qu'ils soient de haute qualité et de bonne valeur. Or, quand on cherche des personnes de haute qualité et de bonne valeur il n'est pas toujours aisé de suivre le rythme. C'est la raison pour laquelle, à mon avis, le paragraphe que nous avons rédigé reflète réellement l'esprit qui a prévalu au sein de la Commission et que nous avons essayé de reprendre dans ce texte.
CHAIRMAN: I think it is a big difficult to reconcile all the ideas, but I wonder if we could get round it by the following: leave the first sentence as it is without amendment and leave the second sentence as it is and then have a new sentence which could read “One delegate or two delegates as the case may be doubted whether the number of representatives provided for in the budget could be achieved at all within the time available ”. Then I think all delegates would have had their views reflected. Would that be acceptable to the others, especially the United Kingdom delegate?
A.J. PECKHAM (United Kingdom): I would be very content to have that wording but I gathered there were other delegates. I am quite content to be in isolation if you like, but I thought that was a view expressed by at least three others just recently.
E.M. WEST (Assistant Director General, Office of Programme and Budget): I think some of the trouble here is being created by the combination of points in this paragraph. For example the third sentence “It was however noted that UNDP was withdrawing SAA/CRs faster... ” is an argument which belongs to a different paragraph and in fact it could be deleted. What I have in mind is that the two sentences at the end of paragraph 81 really belong to paragraph 82. Paragraph 82 says quite firmly that the Conference hoped that action on the 36 requests still oustanding would be expedited. That is one issue. They are taking into account in so doing that experience has shown that it took up to a year from the request to the establishment of an office, before the actual government appointment. So I would suggest that part is made part of paragraph 82 and 81 can express a view according to the views of those who differ. They are mixed. Some think we are going too fast and some think we are going too slow and some think we shouldn't be doing it at all. I am not sure which. It is really up to the United Kingdom delegate and the Netherlands delegate to produce a common text and submit it in a few moments, then we can tidy up that paragraph. My main point of difference with the United Kingdom delegate was not about whether he said something or not - he did, although according to our records there were only about two delegates in all who made this point - it is that he was confusing the appointment with the establishment of offices. However if the United Kingdom and the Netherlands could agree to a common sentence it could replace more or less what we have in paragraph 81 at the moment, and the last two sentences of paragraph 81 could be combined with paragraph 82.
L. LAPEBY (Gabon): Je suis tout à fait d'accord avec M. West. Dans cette troisième phrase, je souhaiterais que l'on essaie d'inclure ce que vient de dire M. Grabisch, car la notion de coordination a toujours été évoquée au cours de nos discussions, et c'est vraiment une surprise de voir que le PNUD fait cavalier seul, si je puis dire, pour retirer les Conseillers agricoles principaux alors qu'au départ, lorsque nous avons commencé à étudier ce problème, nous pensions que le PNUD laisserait ses Conseillers techniques principaux et que la FAO commencerait d'abord par remplacer ceux qui manquaient, ce qui était l'essentiel. Mais il se trouve que le PNUD retire actuellement ses conseillers, ce qui m'inquiète car la FAO ne pourra pas à la fois mettre en place les représentants qu'on lui demande et remplacer les conseillers qui étaient pris en charge par le PNUD. C'est pour moi une préoccupation et ce manque de coordination m'apparaît très important.
-.440-
E.M. WEST (Assistant Director-General, Office of Programme and Budget): One of the reasons I suggested tidying up this paragraph is that it gives rise to the wrong interpretation which has just been shown to be in the mind of the distinguished delegate of Gabon. The problem is not a shocking lack of consultation with the UNDP, it is that having reached an agreement with UNDP about setting up offices, we then run into trouble because it takes about a year to clear the whole thing with the government concerned. Very often it is the recipient government, not the UNDP, which holds up the matter. That is one of the reasons that I think it would be advantageous to all to tidy up these two paragraphs.
A.J. PECKHAM (United Kingdom): I should be very happy to follow up the constructive suggestion of Mr. West and put my head together with the delegate of the Netherlands but I would assure him there is no risk of confusion in the mind of the United Kingdom as to the two concepts of appointments and
representatives.
CHAIRMAN: So I suppose we get an agreed text for paragraph 81 and you agree that we take the last two sentences from the present paragraph 81 and combine it with paragraph 82 - that would be the sentence from “It was however ” and onwards. We will then come back to 81/2 in a moment.
K. ALADEJANA (Nigeria): My delegation would just like to make a small observation so that, while redrafting paragraph 82, it could be taken into account. Some delegates mentioned the need for balance in terms of regional representation in the appointment of FAO Country Representatives, and to reflect the views of these delegates my delegation would like to propose a rather small amendment in the second line of paragraph 82. If we said, in the second line of paragraph 82, “as far as consistent with the need to maintain a high and balanced level of representation ” I believe it would take care of delegates' views without creating any difficulty.
Paragraphs 68 to 82, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 68 à 82, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 68 a 82, así enmendados, son aprobados
Paragraph 81 not concluded
Le paragraphe 81 est en suspens
El párrafo 81 queda pendiente
PARAGRAPHS 83 TO 88, INCLUDING RESOLUTION
LES PARAGRAPHES 83 A 88, Y COMPRIS LA RESOLUTION
LOS PARRAFOS 83 A 88, INCLUIDA LA RESOLUCION
R.S. KAMARA (Sierra Leone): Referring to the second sentence of paragraph 83, I do not like the way this sentence reads. Instead of: The Conference noted with satisfaction the substantial achievements reflected... “, I would prefer to say ”the substantial achievements obtained as reflected in the approval... ”
CHAIRMAN: Are there any objections to this amendment? It is so adopted.
R.S. KAMARA (Sierra Leone): In the second line of paragraph 84 I would prefer that we deleted ”unbureaucratic “ so that it reads ”had provided support in a quick and effective manner “. I think that is enough. We have been talking about the unwinding of the unbureaucratic set-up all through our discussions, and I do not think we should overload our report with this.
J.A. BOYLE (United States of America): Some language has crept into paragraph 84 which we should really have cleared up. The next to last sentence says: “The Conference also noted with satisfaction that TCP projects had concentrated proportionately on the LDC and MSA countries. ” This is somewhat redundant, since obviously MSA countries are, by definition, LDC countries.
Another point I have to raise is the following: if we can say “concentrated proportionately ”, why cannot we give some percentages on how many TCP projects went to MSA countries, etc.?
E.M. WEST (Assistant Director-General, Office of Programme and Budget): I was just about to look in the Programme of Work and Budget to see if the percentages were there, but they will have changed since the budget was printed, so we would have to make a new calculation. I hope that point will not be pressed, unless the United States delegation has the figures themselves.
On the second point, I am not sure that all MSA countries are LDC countries. I rather think not.
CHAIRMAN: You are entirely right.
J.A. BOYLE (United States of America): Could I have a clarification of that last point, that all MSAs are not LDCs? I see a few of my colleagues shaking their heads as if to say I have blundered into a thicket, so I would appreciate clarification, just for educational purposes.
L. LAPEBY (Gabon): Les pays “les moins avancés ” ne sont pas forcément “les plus gravement touchés ”, parce que le terme “plus gravement touchés ” devrait se rapporter à quelque chose de précis. Or, les pays “les moins avancés ”, c'est quelque chose de global. Voilà la différence que je voudrais faire.
CHAIRMAN: Can we leave the sentence as it is without any percentages, Which I understand would create some problems? Yes. It is so decided.
So we have one proposal left, and that is to delete the word “unbureaucratic ”. Can you accept paragraph 84 with the deletion of that word?
L. LAPEBY (Gabon): Je ne sais pas s'il est vraiment avantageux de supprimer ce membre de phrase, car lorsque le PCT a été étudié, lorsque le Conseil a approuvé les propositions du Directeur général, il y avait cette notion des entraves qui a été soulignée et qui permettait au programme d'intervenir rapidement. Nous savons tous que la Maison a certaines lourdeurs administratives. Ces lourdeurs administratives n'interviennent pas dans le cadre du programme du PCT. Il est donc bon de maintenir ce membre de phrase.
CHAIRMAN: Can the delegate of Sierra Leone, who proposed the deletion of the word, accept that it remain in?
R.S. KAMARA (Sierra Leone): All I wanted to express was that we should not be too obsessed with this bureaucratic mentality, since some of us are also bureaucrats in our own countries; but I would agree.
CHAIRMAN: So can I take it that paragraph 84 is acceptable as it stands without any corrections?
L. LAPEBY (Gabon): Au paragraphe 87, il est dit que l'on attend des résultats, en ce qui concerne l'évaluation indépendante du PCT. Je pense que le mot est trop fort. Nous n'attendons pas de résultats, mais nous avons demandé, au niveau du Conseil, d'avoir un rapport circonstancié qui nous permette de. juger l'efficacité du PCT. Mais ce ne sont pas forcément des résultats. Les résultats, on ne peut pas les évaluer.
CHAIRMAN: Could we then say “and looked forward to the report ” instead of “the results ”? Is that
acceptable to delegates?
W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of ) (interpretation from German): I have no objection to the proposal, but of course on the assumption that the results of the independent evaluation would be contained in the report. That, after all, is the purpose of the evaluation. I do not think this changes anything at all.
L. LAPEBY (Gabon): J'apprécie beaucoup la proposition mentionnant les “rapports ” plutôt que les “résultats ”. Je voudrais quand même essayer d'éclaircir ce que je disais. L'évaluation indépendante du PCT ne peut être soumise au niveau du Conseil que sous la forme de rapport, mais non pas sous la forme de résultats, parce que le PCT a souvent un caractère catalyseur. Le PCT est le starter de l'opération, et l'on ne peut pas évaluer les résultats d'une opération de plusieurs millions de francs CFA par exemple, pour un projet qui avait besoin de ce starter. C'est pour cela que j'insiste pour ne pas employer le mot “résultats ”. Les résultats ne peuvent être connus qu'au bout de quatre ou cinq ans.
CHAIRMAN: So we replace the word “results” with “report ”. I understand that is also acceptable to the delegate of Germany, so paragraph 87 is adopted with this amendment.
G. WEILL (France): J'ai quelques amendements à vous soumettre à propos du projet de résolution.
En ce qui concerne le paragraphe: “Invite le Directeur général à faire tout ce qui est en son pouvoir pour renforcer le Programme.... ”, je propose que l'on mette “....l'efficacité du Programme… ”
Ensuite, en utilisant à peu près tous les termes de la rédaction actuelle, je propose que le reste du texte se lise de la façon suivante: “… pour renforcer l'efficacité du Programme de coopération technique, afin de permettre à l'Organisation d'intervenir le plus facilement et le plus rapidement possibles dans ce domaine de compétence technique....”, je voudrais que l'on ajoute, pour tenir compte de tous les critères qui ont été mentionnés dans les paragraphes précédents “ intervenir, de façon ponctuelle ”. Cela reflète l'idée d'opérations de faible ampleur, rapidement exécutées, pour répondre à un besoin urgent.
Par conséquent, je dirais: “dans son domaine de compétence technique, de façon ponctuelle ”, et le reste de la phrase telle qu'elle est présentement rédigée: ”pour répondre à leurs besoins les plus pressants en matière de développement “. Le texte se lirait de la façon suivante: ”Invite le Directeur général à faire tout ce qui est en son pouvoir pour renforcer l'efficacité du Programme de coopération technique, afin de permettre à l'Organisation d'intervenir le plus facilement et le plus rapidement possibles dans son domaine de compétence technique, de façon ponctuelle, pour répondre aux besoins les plus pressants des Etats Membres en matière de développement ”.
C'est essentiellement une redistribution du texte actuel.
CHAIRMAN: Are there any comments on the proposal you have just heard?
L. LAPEBY (Gabon): J'ai du mal à accepter la proposition de la France.
D'abord, en ce qui concerne le fond, je ne pense pas que l'efficacité du Programme puisse permettre à l'Organisation d'intervenir plus facilement, et que l'efficacité puisse engendrer une intervention facile. Je ne le crois pas. Il y a donc là déjà un problème pour accepter cette formulation.
Par ailleurs, je crois que le problème qui nous préoccupe est de renforcer le Programme de coopération technique. C'est l'idée qu'il faut essayer de garder dans le texte. Cette idée existe dans le rapport depuis le paragraphe 83 jusqu'au paragraphe 88. Nous avons parlé de ce programme et de ce qu'il faut pour que ce programme aboutisse à un résultat.
Il y a des difficultés pour admettre que l'efficacité à elle seule, quels que soient les moyens que l'on puisse mettre, puisse permettre à l'Organisation d'intervenir rapidement et facilement. L'inter vention facile et rapide n'est pas engendrée par l'efficacité. J'en doute.
Mais ce qui est important pour moi c'est le Programme de coopération technique et le renforcement de ce programme. Ce n'est que par ce programme que nous pouvons admettre que l'Organisation peut rapidement intervenir et de façon plus accessible aux Etats Membres, compte tenu de la compétence technique de cette Organisation.
Je crois que le libellé qui nous était présenté correspondait mieux à ce que nous voulions. C'est une objection de fond. Je regrette de m'opposer à M. Weill en ceci. Je crois que dans le fond l'effica cité n'engendre pas une intervention plus facile et plus rapide.
J.S. CAMARA (Guinée): J'ai demandé depuis fort longtemps la parole, mais ma position n'étant pas très bonne dans cette salle, je n'ai pas été vu par le Secrétariat. Ce n'est pas un reproche. Mais mon collègue du Gabon m'a devancé et a développé la façon dont je voulais contre-attaquer l'offensive française. Nous avions présenté un texte au nom du groupe africain - et M. Weill le sait très bien puisque nous étions membres du Comité des résolutions - et ce texte nous l'avions soigneusement discu té et nous étions parvenus à un accord unanime pour que le texte soit présenté de cette façon à la Commission.
De toute façon, la proposition de M. Weill vide la résolution de son contenu, parce qu'en plus des commentaires faits par mon collègue du Gabon, je voudrais dire ce que nous entendons par le renforce ment du Programme de coopération technique. Il faut savoir si nous voulons utiliser la compétence de la FAO de façon régulière, ou si nous voulons que de temps en temps la FAO apporte sa compétence technique.
Nous voulons pouvoir toujours compter que la FAO sera là.
Je regrette de devoir dire que nous ne pouvons pas accepter l'amendement de la délégation française. Il serait souhaitable que M. Weill retire son amendement pour que la résolution, ainsi que nous l'avions souhaité, puisse être adoptée sans amendement, c'est-à-dire à l'unanimité.
J.A. BAKER (United States of America): I would like to speak in support of the suggestion of my colleague from France. It seems to be that his thought is more in line with the position the Conference has taken in paragraph 88 in endorsing the Director-General's intention to consolidate the progress made.
In that sense, making every effort to strengthen the efficiency of the Programme seems to be quite appropriate. We could equally well say “strengthen the effectiveness of the Programme ”, and, for that matter, following the line of his amendment, we could use the word “respond ”, rather than “intervene ”, which might have a bad connotation. But in general I would find his suggestions in line with the position we have already approved in paragraph 88.
E.M. WEST (Asistant Director-General, Office of Programme and Budget): May I say that the Director-General would see considerable difference between what is said in paragraph 88, which he himself has proposed, “to consolidate the progress”, and introducing wording which seems to me to convey a very negative note to the effect that he has not been effective or efficient in conducting the TCP. The wording suggested seems to be a criticism, whereas consolidating progress seems to be an endorsement in one form or another.
L. LAPEBY (Gabon): Je regrette que M. West ait pris la parole avant moi. Le paragraphe 90 parle de “renforcer l'action ”. Quand on parle d'action, je ne pense pas que cela veuille dire uniquement efficacité. L'efficacité du programme n'est pas mise en cause pour l'instant. Nous ne connaissons pas cette efficacité. Ce que nous voulons c'est ce que vise la deuxième partie de cette phrase “la modeste augmentation proposée ”. Que concerne cette “modeste augmentation ”? Elle ne concerne pas l'efficacité. On ne peut pas augmenter l'efficacité par une modeste augmentation. La modeste augmentation concerne quelque chose de global qui est en quelque sorte le programme, et ne concerne pas l'efficacité du programme. Il y a une nuance entre l'efficacité du programme et le programme, et c'est sur ce point que je voudrais insister. Je ne crois pas qu'on puisse renforcer l'efficacité du programme alors que nous n'avons pas le rapport du Directeur général. Nous le demandons. Attendons d'avoir ce rapport pour juger de cette efficacité.
CHAIRMAN: I wonder if a compromise solution could be that we take the French proposal, but not with the words “strengthen the efficiency ”, but leave that as it is, “strengthen the Technical Cooperation Programme ” and end with the rest of the amendment. Would that be acceptable to the delegate of France and the delegate of the United States who supported him?
J.A. BAKER (United States of America): Yes, though I would prefer the word “respond ” rather than “intervene ”, if my French colleague would approve.
CHAIRMAN: Would that be agreeable to the delegate of France? I understand that it would be acceptable to him. Is it acceptable to other delegates?
J.W.S. MALECENA (Tanzania): I think the French delegate proposed two amendments. The first amendment was to add the word “efficiency ” before “Technical Cooperation ”. The second amendment was to come somewhere in the second line, inserting “allow the Organization to intervene readily and in an ad hoc manner ”, and so on.
My delegation would certainly object to this amendment, because we do not want FAO to deal with our problems in an ad hoc manner. What do the words “ad hoc manner ” mean? Therefore, we would appeal for the text to remain as it is, because by adding the words “in an ad hoc manner ”, as far as we are concerned, this has no meaning. If anything, it definitely spoils the meaning, because our problems in the developing countries are not those which can be dealt with in an ad hoc manner.
CHAIRMAN: I understand that this may be a language problem, because I believe the text as read by the French was equivalent to the present English text, if I have understood the Secretariat correctly. Perhaps we could ask them to read the second part of the French amendment, with the other amendment proposed by the United States, so that delegates can see whether it. is acceptable.
G. WEILL (France): Je suis heureux de pouvoir dissiper l'impression erronée retenue par le délégué
de la Tanzanie. Comme vous l'avez dit vous-même, Monsieur le Président, c'est une question d'interprétation.
Pour éviter à la secrétaire de la Commission de faire cette lecture en français, je vais redonner lecture de mon amendement:
“Afin de permettre à l'Organisation de répondre (c'est la proposition américaine) le plus facilement et le plus rapidement possibles dans son domaine de compétence technique, de façon ponctuelle, aux besoins les plus pressants des Etats membres en matière de développement... ”
CHAIRMAN: The part that I understood Tanzania did not like about it was the “ad hoc manner ”.
J.S.W. MALECENA (Tanzania): Indeed, it is a question of language. Now, if in the French language it means one thing and in English it means “ad hoc manner ”, then I take it in English because that is the language I am using in this hall. Therefore, I would like to appeal that when it comes to the use of the words “to allow the Organization to intervene readily ”, it is already in the text, and what we were objecting to was particularly these words “ad hoc manner ”. Unless we get some other English word which would mean something better, certainly my' delegation would object because we do not like it to be dealt with in “an ad hoc manner ”. The words “ad hoc ” mean something which is done without planning, something which somebody just jums up and starts to do in an ad hoc manner, and therefore we would object to it.
G. WEILL (France): La formulation que j'ai cru devoir proposer “de façon ponctuelle ” tendait simple ment à reprender ce qui figure à la deuxième ligne du paragraphe 85, à savoir: “...s'intéresser... à des problèmes de développement limités, mais urgents. ” Je ne verrais aucun inconvénient à ce qu'on reprenne une formulation qui rappellerait qu'il s'agit de répondre à des problèmes de développement limités mais urgents ou: et urgents.
J.S. CAMARA (Guinée): Je pense que c'est une conception philosophique tout à fait opposée et nous ne parviendrons pas à un accord, car la conception de la France n'est pas la même que celle qu'a mon pays de la coopération technique. Je crois que la délégation française pense que le programme de coopération technique ou la compétence technique de la FAO n'est valable que pour un temps bien précis ou une intervention de façon ad hoc, alors que nous nous voulons que le programme de coopération technique soit renforcé et également que la compétence technique de la FAO soit accessible le plus facilement et le plus rapidement possibles. Ce n'est donc pas de façon ponctuelle. Nous ne sommes pas malades. Mais puisque la technique est une chose en évolution, la FAO étant l'organisation la plus compétente au jourd'hui, nous voulons qu'elle soit au service de tous les pays et que les pays puissent y avoir accès le plus rapidement possible, et cela par le canal du programme de coopération technique. Nous ne pou vons pas accepter qu'on dise “de façon ponctuelle”.
Et la proposition française, une nouvelle fois, a modifié complètement ce que nous entendions proposer. Il s'agit d'une nouvelle philosophie. Nous pensons que le texte devrait demeurer tel qu'il est actuel lement.
CHAIRMAN: Before giving the floor to Gabon, can I ask the delegate of France, do you insist on having the words “in an ad hoc manner”, or could you delete that from the text? Would that create diffi culties for you because it seems that this is really the difficult part of your proposal.
G. WEILL (France): Je ne suis pas un philosophe, et ce n'est pas le lieu pour moi d'échanger des con ceptions philosophiques avec mon collègue et ami de la Guinée, mais tout de même, puisqu'il a parlé de philosophie, qu'il me soit permis de rappeler que ce programme de coopération technique a été conçu, a été admis, a été lancé comme un programme d'appoint pour des opérations, comme le dit le rapport au par. 85 “des problèmes de développement limités mais urgents”.
Etant bien entendu que ce programme se rapporte à de telles opération\s, et si la rédaction que je me suis permis de vous soumettre ne prête pas a équivoque en supprimant les mots “de façon ponctuelle”, je suis tout disposé, compte tenu de l'heure tardive et pour ne pas allonger les débats, supprimer les mots “de façon ponctuelle”. Mais je tiens à préciser que cette conception que je viens de rappeler n'est pas une invention de la délégation française, c'est la décision prise par le Conseil dans son ensemble, qui a fait l'objet de propositions soumises en ce sens par le Directeur général, ce n'est pas une innovation. C'est le rappel de ce qui est exactement le statut du programme de coopé ration technique au sein de cette organisation.
CHAIRMAN: I thank the delegate of France. I appreciate that several delegations want to take the floor, but I think that before we give them the floor wo should try to see what we are now discussing.
After what the French delegate said, the proposal would then be “... the Director-General to make every effort to strengthen the Technical Cooperation Programme with a view to enabling the Organization to respond more readily in its field of competence to the most pressing development needs of member nations”. Could that be acceptable to the other delegations?
L. LAPEBY (Gabon): En matière de développement, il est évident qu'on peut donner à des termes un sens qui n'est pas le même suivant le degré de développement. Une opération ponctuelle ou “de façon ponc tuelle” n'est pas toujours ce qui a été caractérisé dans l'esprit du PCT. Lorsqu'on parle de quelque chose de ponctuel en français, cela veut dire que cela s'applique à un point. Or les opérations du PCT concernant un projet, ne s'appliquent pas à un point, par conséquent, ce n'est pas ponctuel. Pour essayer d'illustrer ce que je dis, et M. Weill en conviendra certainement avec moi, je me référerai à une matière qu'il connaît très bien, la Phytopathologie. Lorsque nous parlons d'une opération phyto-sanitaire, ou d'un laboratoire, ce laboratoire est créé pour une spécialité mais ce n'est pas à ce seul niveau que ses effets sont ressentis. Par conséquent,l'expression “de façon ponctuelle” ne me satis fait pas.
CHAIRMAN: Excuse me for interrupting, delegate of Gabon, but the delegate of France has said he agrees to the deletion of those words so we have not that problem in mind.
W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Fed. Rep. of) (interpretation from German): My delegation has no difficulty with this proposal but we are wondering whether there is a very simple solution to overcome the difficulty. We could say, for instance, “in accordance with the established criteria”. I do not have the pertinent TCP paper in front of me, but when the Programme was adopted there were various criteria established, for example, that it should be short-time projects, and that the Director-General wanted to be able to respond speedily; perhaps it would be simplest if we could merely refer to these criteria which were laid down earlier.
J.W.S. MALECENA (Tanzania): First of all. I would like to say that as soon as you remove the words “ad hoc” from the French amendment then frankly the amendment is not necessary because those words “more readily and speedily” are already in the text.
Another point I would like to raise is this. We have to go back a little to the third paragraph which says the meeting of the Technical Cooperation Programme operation was started on 1 November 1976. It is true that this Programme might have been started in an ad hoc manner, but we see it as working well, and the intention of this Resolution is to see that this Programme is strengthened, and not only strengthened, but in another paragraph, paragraph 85, at the end there is this sentence: It was also hoped that projects in the’miscellaneous' category could be more specifically defined in future''. This means that really what we want to see is that something which was started last year is something that must be strengthened so that it can respond to the needs of developing countries readily.
Therefore if you remove from the French amendment the words “ad hoc ”, I do not see why the delegate of France should press for the amendment because the words already operative in paragraph 1 would be absolutely appropriate and would meet the need of those who framed this paragraph. Therefore instead of just accepting an amendment for the sake of it, I would appeal to the delegate of France to withdraw his amendment, because the words he wants to use are already in the paragraph and are stated much more clearly than if we add the other word to bring the interpretation.
G. WEILL (France): Le délégué de la France est navré de retarder ainsi la discussion. Si je suis sen sible à l'argumentation du délégué de la Tanzanie, je pense que le délégué de la République fédérale d'Allemagne nous a fait une bonne suggestion. Alors, ne conviendrait-il pas de mettre à la place conve nable:
“en accord avec les critères établis ”? A ce moment-là bien entendu, je retirerais très volon tiers mon amendement.
CHAIRMAN: I thank the delegate of France. I understand the latest French proposal then to be that he withdraws his amendement. We keep paragraph 1 as it is, but insert the words, proposed by the delegation of Germany, “which are in accordance with the established criteria ” and we could insert it in the third line after the word “available ”. Would that be agreeble to all delegates?
J.S. CAMARA (Guinée): Je ne vois pas du tout où l'on va mettre l'expression “en accord avec les critères ”. Je remercie cependant le délégué de la RFA pour sa proposition, mais je ne pense pas que le Secrétariat de la FAO ne respecte pas les textes. Nous savons que le PCT est fait selon certains critères. Je ne pense pas que les 190 projets approuvés étaient tous conformes aux critères; s'ils ne le sont pas, le Directeur général le fera savoir. Je voudrais simplement qu'on me dise où on les insère dans le texte.
CHAIRMAN: The suggestion is to put it in in the third line after the word “available ”. So it would read “Invites the Director-General to make every effort to strengthen the Tecnical Cooperation Programme with a view to making the technical competence of the Organization more readily and speedily available in accordance with the established criteria for the solution of the most pressing development needs of Member Nations ”. Is that acceptable? It seems to be the case. Paragraph 1 is adopted with this amendment.
M.A. HAIDAR (Libya) (interpretation from Arabic): Mr. Chairman, my delegation thinks that the paragraph which came in the Arabic text before me is complete in expressing the idea and is not in need of any further clarification. Therefore, I call for maintaining the text as it is without any amendments.
CHAIRMAN: The delegate of Libya, I appeal to you to accept the text with this amendment. We have been discussing this for half an hour at least, and since it does not disturb the text in any way I appeal to you to accept it. Delegate of Libya, can I take it that you accept it?
M.A. HAIDAR (Libya) (interpretation from Arabic): Actually, there is no need for further clarification in this text before us. It is actually complete.
M. TRKULYA (Yugoslavia): It is not my wish to complicate the situation here. I have no strong feeling about inclusion or delation of reference to the criteria, but if you are to accept it I think the better place is to place it somewhere just after “the Technical Cooperation Programme in accordance ” and so on. I think it sounds better.
CHAIRMAN: I thank the delegate of Yugoslavia. Would that be acceptable to the delegate of Libya?
M.A. HAIDAR (Libya) (interpretation from Arabic): I still insist that there is no need to include a reference to the criteria. I think there is no need for such a word, but as long as the other delegates think that it is necessary I have no objection.
CHAIRMAN: I thank the delegate of Libya for his cooperation. Paragraph 1 is accepted with the proposed general amendments but after the words “Technical Cooperation Programme ” in the second line. It is so adotped.
Operative paragraph 2. “Welcomes the Director-General's ” etc. Any comments on that one? No comments. It is adopted.
Paragraphs 83 to 88, including Resolution, as amended, adopted
Les paragraphes 83 à 88, y compris la résolution, ainsi amendés, sont adoptés
Los párrafos 83 a 88,incluida la Resolución, asi enmendados, son aprobados
PARAGRAPHS 89 to 95
PARAGRAPHES 89 a 95
PARRAFOS 89 a 95
CHAIRMAN: Paragraph 89. Any comments? No comments on paragraph 89. Paragraph 90. Any comments on paragraph 90? No comments. It is adopted. Paragraph 91, any comments on paragraph 91?
G. WEILL (France): J'aurais deux questions à poser sur le paragraphe 91. J'apprécie la façon dont le Secrétariat, en liaison avec le Comité de rédaction, a tenu compte de la discussion qui a eu lieu sur ce thème, mais je me demande s'il est tout à fait exact de dire que la Conférence prend note des instructions données par le Directeur général. En fait, nous n'avons pas eu connaissance de ses instructions, et les termes de “prend note ” sont peut-être impropres. Je propose de dire: “a été informée des instructions données par le Directeur général ” au lieu de “prend note ”.
Sur un deuxième point j'aimerais une clarification. Le texte de ce paragraphe dit que la Conférence renouvelle la demande qu'elle avait adressée au Conseil lors de sa 14ème session. Or, il semblerait que la recommandation adressée à l'époque, tendant à ce que le Comité du Programme examine périodiquement
la politique et la pratique de l'Organisation en matière linguistique, il semblerait que cette partie, qui est entre guillemets, se rapporte plus particulièrement aux publications. Je voudrais que le Secrétariat nous confirme qu'il s'agit bien des réunions et en particulier de celles visées au paragraphe 90 précédent, c'est-à-dire des réunions appartenant à la catégorie 3. En effet, il est simplement dit que le Comité du Programme fera porter expressément son examen sur la classification des Conférences et sessions du point de vue de l'emploi des langues. Ce n'est pas là una rédaction très claire. Pour dissiper toute équivoque, peut-être pourrait-on mettre: ”en faisant porter son examen en particulier sur les réunions de la catégorie 3 visée ci-dessus”. Je laisserais volontiers au Secrétariat le soin de situer ce membre de phrase, mais je répète que la rédaction de ce paragraphe me paraît assez complexe.
CHAIRMAN: I thank the delegate of France. His first proposal was to replace the word “noted” with ”was informed”. Is that acceptable to all delegations?
L. LAPEBY (Gabon): J'accepte la première proposition du délégué de la France, mais en ce qui concerne la deuxième, si vous me permettez d'intervenir maintenant, je pense qu'il ne faudrait pas viser une catégorie alors que l'examen devrait tendre vers un équilibre linguistique sans porter sur une seule catégorie.
CHAIRMAN: Could I ask perhaps the delegates of France and Gabon to try to agree on this and let us have a new text, if necessary. Could I ask the delegates of France and Gabon to agree among them selves on this point? We will have a new text if necessary. If not we will take it you agree with the present text as it stands. Would that be acceptable?
G. WEILL (France): Le délégué de la France capitule devant le délégué du Gabon.
CHAIRMAN: So the first amendment proposed by the delegate of France is accepted, and for the rest we leave paragraph 91 as is. Can I take it as adopted? It is adopted.
We go on to paragraph 92. Any comments on 92? No comments. It is adopted. Paragraph 93. Any comments? No comments on paragraph 93. It is adopted. Paragraph 94. Any comments? No comments. It is adopted. Paragraph 95. No comments? It is adopted.
Paragraphs 89 and 95, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 89 et 95, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 89 y 95, así enmendados, son aprobados
PARAGRAPHS 96 to 100
PARAGRAPHES 96 à 100
PARRAFOS 96 a 100
CHAIRMAN: Paragraph 96. No comments? It is adopted. Paragraph 97. No comments? It is adopted. Paragraph 98. Any comments on paragraph 98? We have a proposal with regard to (b) in the first line after the word “promoting” to insert the words “and/or provide appropriate training” etc. Is that acceptable? And is the rest of paragraph 98 acceptable? It seems to be the case. It is adopted. Paragraph 99. Any comments on paragraph 99? No comments. It is adopted. Paragraph 100. Any comments? No comments. It is adopted.
Paragraphs 96 to 100, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 96 à 100, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 96 a 100, así enmendados, son aprobados
PARAGRAPHS 100 and 102, INCLUDING RESOLUTION
LES PARAGRAPHES 100 et 102, Y COMPRIS LA RESOLUTION
LOS PARRAFOS 100 y 102, INCLUIDA LA RESOLUCIÓN
CHAIRMAN: Paragraph 101. Any comments? It is adopted. We come then to the text of the Resolution. Any comments on the first preamble paragraph? No comments. It is accepted. The second preamble paragraph “Taking into account ”? It is accepted. The third, fourth and fifth preambular paragraphs? Approved.
The substantive paragraph of the draft resolution reads: “Requests the Director-General to continue... to develop FAO activities... ” There is a proposal to insert in the first line, after the words “within the ” the word “regional ” before the word “provisions ”. Are there any objections to that proposal?
L. LAPEBY (Gabon): Vous m'excuserez, mais je n'ai pas suivi. Je voudrais savoir où vous mettez le mot “régional ” dans le paragraphe en question.
CHAIRMAN: The word “regional ” comes in the first line after “within the ” and before “provisions ”. It is proposed by the delegation of Ethiopia. Is it acceptable?
J.S. CAMARA (Guinée): Dans le texte français, nous n'avons qu'une seule fois le mot “limites ”. Je pensais qu'il s'agissait des limites du Programme et budget. S'il faut ajouter des limites régionales, je ne comprends pas. Peut-être M. West pourrait-il nous expliquer ce qu'on entend par là.
E.M. WEST (Assistant Director-General, Office of Programme and Budget): I can assure the delegate of Guinea that I am not the brain behind this amendment. It is the first I have heard of it and I really cannot explain it, because it does not have any meaning as far as I am concerned; it only introduce a misconception. Provisions of the budget are provisions of the budget. There is no need to talk about limits or otherwise. I really do not think it assists understanding at all.
CHAIRMAN: Are there any other comments? Then it seems the proposal to insert the word “regional ” is not acceptable and the last paragraph is accepted as it stands.
Paragraphs 101 and 102, including resolution, adopted
Les paragraphes 101 et 102, y compris la resolution, sont adoptés
Los párrafos 101 y 102, incluida la resolución, son aprobados
PARAGRAPHS 103 to 108
PARAGRAPHES 103 à 108
PARRAFOS 103 a 108
J.A. BAKER (United States of America): I think that if we are to send forward a report which, in effect, endorses an FAO budget for the next biennium just about double that of four years ago we would want to reflect more strongly the substantial reservations that a number of Member States, certainly including my own, hope about the level. For this reason, I would like to suggest the strengthening of paragraph 107, which as I read it is the part of this report where these reservations are reflected.
Let me suggest an alternative wording for this paragraph: “Some delegations expressed strong concern. with the continuing increases in the budgets of the organizations in the United Nations system, noting that the budget of the FAO for the coming biennium is about twice the level of the budget adopted four years ago. They also consider that, with the anticipated establishment of a $5 million Special Reserve Account available both for currency fluctuation and inflationary trends beyond those provided for in the proposed budget, the increase from $206,8 million to $211.35 million was not justified. ”
I have a suggestion on paragraph 108, but I will hold that until we reach that one.
L. LAPEBY (Gabon): Je voudrais d'abord rappeler ici qu'au niveau de cette Commission, et bien avant cette Commission au niveau du Conseil, le Directeur général a donné des explications suffisantes en ce qui concerne l'augmentation du niveau du budget. Dire que cette augmentation du niveau du budget n'est pas justifiée serait ne pas reconnaître les arguments que le Directeur général avait donnés. Ou bien il fallait le dire au Directeur général et lui faire comprendre que ces arguments n'avaient pas de valeur, alors que, bien conçus et bien présentés, ces arguments étaient valables.
Le budget a été estimé lorsque le dollar était à 900 lires. Lorsqu'il nous a été présenté en novembre, le dollar représentait 877 lires. Automatiquement, il y a eu une répercussion dans l'augmen tation du budget. Le dollar ne cesse de baisser.
Le paragraphe tel qu'il était conçu ne me convenait pas. Dans sa nouvelle rédaction, il me convient moins encore.
On parle d'augmentations exagérées. Toutes les déclarations qui ont été présentées en plénière ont mis l'accent sur le role primordial de l'agriculture et, partant, de la FAO. Si l'on dit que le budget de la FAO subit une augmentation exagérée, il faudrait peut-être demander à des économistes de revenir un peu en arrière. La FAO a toujours été en recul. C'est ce qui passe dans tous les pays agricoles du monde. Les produits agricoles sont mal considérés par rapport aux produits industriels. La FAO a été mal considérée, elle n'a pas eu le soutien qu'elle devait avoir. Son budget n'a pas augmenté comparativement à ses objectifs. Maintenant que nous avons une idée plus précise de ces objectifs, qui n'ont pas été atteints dans la décennie du développement, nous considérons que cette augmentation de budget est exagérée. Mais nous sommes les premiers fautifs pour ne pas avoir donné à la FAO les moyens nécessaires. Il faut quand même être conséquents. Lorsqu'on essaie de bloquer les prix pendant un certain temps, il y a finalement une explosion. Nous sommes obligés d'admettre cette explosion. Il en est ainsi dans tous les pays du monde et pour tous les produits agricoles. Je ne vois personne ici qui puisse dire que les prix des produits agricoles ont suivi les prix des produits agricoles.
Il faut quand même être logique. Je trouve que le terme “exagérées ” est trop fort. Selon moi, ce paragraphe 107 aurait pu s'arrêter lorsqu'il dit que “certaines délégations ont déploré une augmen tation continuelle des budgets des organisations faisant partie du système des Nations Unies ”. C'est un fait général. Mais la FAO est un cas particulier. Le drame du Sahel que nous avons vécu en 1972 revient avec la même acuité. Il n'est pas résolu et nous n'avons pas trouvé les moyens de le résoudre. L'homme devient de plus en plus incapable de copier ce que la nature lui a donné pour vaincre les phénomènes de la faim. Est-ce que cela doit se traduire par ce que je lis dans le paragraphe 107? Je me pose la question.
J.S. CAMARA (Guinée): Il n'y a pas d'entente entre le représentant du Gabon et moi-même, bien que nous nous suivons pour prendre la parole, mais je partage entièrement l'idée qu'il vient de développer.
Je ne voudrais pas parler ici du fond de la proposition, mais de certains termes que l'on utilise dans le rapport. Jusqu'à présent, on avait trouvé des termes justes, pondérés, convenant à un rapport digne de cette Organisation. Ici, je ne veux pas m'en prendre au Comité de rédaction, mais je pense que l'on a dépassé certaines limites. Dans le rapport, on parle d'augmentations exagérées. Chaque pays est libre de faire des déclarations et dire ce qu'il souhaite et que cela soit mentionné dans le rapport. Mais je pense que certains termes ne doivent pas être mentionnés. Je suis choqué par certains termes du paragraphe 107.
On nous présente un autre libellé qui laisse entendre qu'il faudra changer également le paragraphe suivant. Il y a une disproportion entre les nouvelles propositions et ce que les autres membres de cette commission ont pu dire. Nous devrions dire qu'il y a eu un appui massif aux propositions du Directeur général concernant le budget.
Nous devrions arriver à établir un texte qui reflète les différents points de vue et qui soit assez modéré - bien que je ne sois pas modéré moi-même.
De toute manière, il m'est difficile d'accepter tous les termes qui sont contenus dans le paragraphe que j'ai sous les yeux.
J.W.S. MALECENA (Tanzania): I hope that I can save you the problem of again arguing on a paragraph which is very contentious. First f all I think what we are doing here is that we are approving a report of the Commission which, after it is approved, then it means that all the delegates agree with the contents of the report.
Now in paragraph 107 - and I must say at the outset that if it were put to the vote my delegation would certainly abstain or we would not support this paragraph, simply because this paragraph raises certain issues which various delegates concerned should have included in their statements in the Plenary because it expresses an opinion of a delegation - but our efforts here are to get a report which is acceptable to all of us.
There are the following ways with which we can deal with this. The first would be in paragraph 107 where at least would be all the countries which said this and agreed to paragraph 107, and then my delegation would have no objection, and they could make it as strong as they wish provided they mention it.
Secondly, we would have together with other delegations to state what the other majorities said in opposition to paragraph 107, and really I would have said, Mr. Chairman, that those countries which agree with this paragraph would simply state their names, and then we will know they are there and let the paragraph remain there, but knowing fully well that some of us are abstaining from this paragraph and therefore we will not be committed to the contents of this paragraph and we will go on with our work. Otherwise, if it is the intention of the amendment, that after the amendments which have been added by the delegate of the United States that you come and say we now agree to this paragraph, certainly my delegation does not agree and they will abstain from voting on it, and we do not see why we should waste a lot of time discussing on issues and the feelings of the particular delegations which are not supported by the majority. I am afraid the alternative would be to go back again and say what is what, which would be a waste of time.
H. BAEYENS (Belgique): Il est de l'avis de ma délégation que le rapport doit refléter les opinions exprimées au sein de la Commission. Cela veut dire des avis parfois divergents. C'est pourquoi le paragraphe 107 commence d'ailleurs par les mots “certaines délégations..”.
Il est certain que la délégation des Etats-Unis a proposé un texte plus explicite que celui proposé par le Comité de rédaction. Mais elle n'est pas la seule à penser qu'une formulation plus précise de cet avis est souhaitable.
Pour ma part, je ne puis que me rallier à ce qui est proposé par la délégation des Etats-Unis.
J.A. BAKER (United States of America): I simply wish to clarify that although I made a reference to the subsequent paragraph I did not have any intention of changing the basic sense of that paragraph, and it seems to me that the final paragraph should meet the concerns that are expressed by some of those who have spoken before me, so I would appeal to them that in the interests of having a report which expresses the views of all of us that they permit those delegations who wish to express concern to do so in the language which they support.
DIRECTOR-GENERAL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When sitting in my office, listening to this debate, I was really surprised to hear the intervention of the distinguished delegate of the United States. The reason for my surprise was that we have been working in my office for several days with the 77 and the Geneva group in the so-called “Contact Group ”, in an attempt to solve all problems and avoid any confrontation.
The text now proposed for this paragraph is couched in very strong terms and I must admit that I fully agree with the distinguished delegate of Tanzania in thinking that it goes very far. First, I would challenge any delegation to confirm that the new proposed text reflects what has been said in this Commission. It has never in fact been stated that the budget of FAO for the forthcoming biennium was approximately twice the amount of that adopted four years ago.
Second, the United States delegation has always played an active part in the Drafting Committee, which has proposed the original text.
Why was it necessary to wait until almost the last day of the Conference to say the things which it is now proposed to include in this paragraph? While any delegation is, of course, free to say what it wishes, it is still not possible to include in the report points which have not been raised during the debate. I confess, therefore, that I find this new long paragraph very disturbing, in that it reopens basic problems.
The FAO budget does not have any special reserve fund, unlike Unesco, which has one of 7.5 million dollars. Is it possible to have a budget of $200 million with nothing in reserve? I have requested the Council, which has agreed, and I have now asked the Conference to provide me with a reserve amounting to 2 1/2 percent of the budget. This point was discussed in my office with the Contact Group and agreement was reached that we should have a reserve of $5 million derived from savings, without asking any country to pay an additional contribution. We cannot risk our programme of work being vulnerable to a situation whereby a delay in the payment of contributions by any country might result in FAO being unable to pay its staff. This has occurred in Unesco; so it could occur in FAO, too. We need this reserve precisely to meet such a situation and this is not connected with the budget level. This is a basic need which should be met on a permanent basis. But to combine the budget and the reserve and state that it was said in this Commission that our budget amounts to twice what it was four years ago is incorrect; we might just as well say that it is ten times what it was 25 years ago!
What disturbs me here is the attitude of some delegations, which were present at meetings of the Contact Group as well as the Drafting Committee, and which never expressed before the intention to have a con frontation on the level of the budget.
How much does the substantive budget increase amount to? 6.8 percent over two years, that is to say, 3.4 percent per year! If we had solved the problem of hunger and malnutrition, we might be justified in having no increase in our budget. But FAO's role is to provide food to poor people and to combat malnutrition; we cannot propose a budget increase of 1.5 or 2 percent just because some countries have decided that it should not exceed that amount!
What we have proposed is a budget which, for the first time, includes no increase in staff at Headquarters; in fact, there is even a decrease of one post in Rome! Two years ago, there were 550 new posts in the budget; during the next biennium all I have proposed are 40 new posts, all in the field. We have eliminated bureaucracy and proposed an effective and practical budget. The pro gramme we propose is the best which money can buy!
What is the point, then, of talking about what is contained in other budgets of the United Nations system? What we are concerned with is FAO,
I would add that, if I were to fulfill all requests made in this Commission, I should need $4 million more. Moreover, many requests for new activities were made or supported by those delegations which are now proposing to reduce the budget level: I have in mind nutrition and languages, for instance. To meet all requests made in this Commission, I would not need 211 million but 215!
Two years ago, your Conference approved unanimously a substantive increase of 26 percent and another 26 percent for costs increases, that is to say, 52 percent in total! Now, two years later, I have proposed a programme including a 17 percent cost increase and a programme increase of 6.8 percent only. This is twice less than what the Conference approved for the last biennium. Furthermore, I also stated in the Council that $10 million, representing savings and miscellaneous income, would be returned to member countries, so that, in fact, what has to be paid is actually $200 million only. I fully recog nize that some member countries do not wish, for reasons of principle, that the budget of FAO should increase. While it is natural that they should like to express that wish, I regret that they considered it appropriate to do so in such a manner and at this late hour. Delegates have had every opportunity to intervene at the Resolutions Committee and the Drafting Committee. I would consider it unfortunate, therefore, that they should do so at this stage, and in such terms. The fact that FAO will have a reserve fund of $5 million has no connection with the new level of the budget. The reserve fund is something FAO has lacked in the past and which has been agreed upon now. I can also assure you that the proposed programme will make the most effective use of the funds requested, since publications and meetings have been greatly reduced. Finally, we must keep in mind that I may have to spend $4 million on new unbudgeted activities, which have very often been proposed by the same developed countries which now object to the budget level. Perhaps, during my concluding statement, I shall review in detail some of the new proposed activities which will not really lead to concrete action, such as food planning for instance.
I regret, Mr. Chairman, having had to intervene again, but I considered it my duty to do so. It is my responsibility to present the Programme of Work and Budget to member countries and to defend it, and I believe that what I have said is correct.
S.S. MAHDI (India): After the intervention of the Director-General, I shall be very brief. I know that the executive head of an organization which consists both of developed and developing countries, because he has a responsibility both to the developing and to the developed countries, could not raise in his intervention certain issues which our delegation feels free to raise.
Two questions have been mentioned in the new paragraph. One is inflation, and the other is currency fluctuations. I shall not dwell on this at length, but the simple question is who is responsible? Who has the global responsibility for these two phenomena: inflation and currency fluctuations?
I shall go to the extent of saying that because of the decisions of a group of countries which dominate the world economically, a number of small countries, poor countries like ours, also have to share a cost for which we are not responsible in a global and universal manner.
However, in spite of this, we are going along with the increased budget because we feel that among all the United Nations agencies, FAO is one of the most important, because it deals with the problems which are closest to the concerns of the developing countries.
I shall not dwell very much on the substance, because facts and figures have been given in a very convincing way by the Director-General himself, and by a number of delegations in the debates which took place here.
The point to which I would like to draw attention is that in the Drafting Committee this was a new paragraph which was added, after long discussions, and this paragraph was suggested by the delegation which is now moving the amendment. Therefore, this has the status of a negotiated text.
Because of what happened in the Drafting Committee, I do not think it is fair that this paragraph should be reopened and couched in the language which has now been presented.
In view of these two arguments on substance and on fact on this paragraph, which was suggested by a particular delegation in the Drafting Committee, I would appeal that the present text, which was not liked by many delegations in the Drafting Committee, should be retained, which would be a fair compromise.
Sra. DOÑA G. RIVERA MARIN DE ITURBE (México): Había pedido la palabra inmediatamente después de que lo hizo el señor delegado de Guinea porque los dos fuimos compañeros de trabajo en el Comité de Redacción de esta Segunda Comisión, asimismo con el señor delegado de la India. Trabajamos activamente en la redacción de este párrafo, fueron muy largas las discusiones que tuvimos, y al final - sin exagerar dos o tres horas de trabajo en que estaban presentes miembros de otras delegaciones y además representantes de la delegación que ha propuesto la enmienda - llegamos a estos conceptos de redacción, considerando que todas aquellas objeciones que eran planteadas estaban comprendidas en un lenguaje de transacción y de adecuación. Lo mismo sucedió en la Comisión donde estuvimos analizando las resoluciones. En la Comisión de Resoluciones también se plantearon problemas semejantes y tampoco hubo una objeción tan excesiva como la que se ha planteado. Pero considerando las palabras que ha pronunciado el señor Director General que vienen a complementar de nuevo la información que antes ya se nos había dado, y tomando en cuenta todas las actividades que dentro de la misma Comisión II hemos estado analizando que va a ser necesario llevar a cabo el año entrante, el año 1978 y el 1979, me permito llamar la atención sobre lo exagerado de los términos y de la enmienda que se propone. Considero que el sólo hecho de llevar a cabo la Conferencia de Reforma Agraria con las Conferencias Regionales que ésta va a necesitar mas las conferencias regionales normales de la organización que se tendrán que llevar a cabo durante el curso del año 1978, es más, escuchamos esta mañana el ofrecimiento del señor delegado de Filipinas en el sentido de que sugiere y ha indicado que la Conferencia de Reforma Agraria se celebre en Manila, No veo cómo si nosotros que somos delegados y representantes de nuestros países ya estamos preocupados por todo el trabajo que va a significar para nosotros estos dos próximos años de labores y el esfuerzo que va a ser para nuestras propias representaciones poder cumplir con todo lo que se nos ha encargado como representantes de nuestros países; no veo cómo se pide a la Organización un buen cumplimiento, una buena realización de sus labores, un éxito rotundo en la Conferencia de Reforma Agraria y Desarrollo Rural que para nosotros, los países en vías de desarrollo es de fundamental importancia; no veo cómo podremos llegar en el año 1979 a metas satisfactoria si tenemos una discusión por un aumento en un presupuesto que además de ser justificado, está compensado con los ahorros que se han efectuado dentro de la propia Organización.
Mi delegación hace un llamado de ponderación en esta situación. Creo que una confrontación a estas alturas, unas cuantas horas antes de que se clausure la Conferencia, haría necesario que tomemos varias delegaciones más y quizá nosotros mismos pidamos nuevamente la voz, porque son puntos que no
solamente hemos defendido en la Plenaria sino que los hemos defendido como representatntes de nuestros países, representantes de regiones y representantes de grupos informales como es el Grupo de los 77. Lo hemos estado defendiendo en el curso de las dos semanas activas de trabajo y empezar en este momento a volver a plantear situaciones tan espinosas, nos está llevando a un peligro serio. Llamo la atención sobre esto y pido a los señores delegados que recapaciten y que como ya lo habíamos decidido y acordado en el seno del Grupo de Redacción de esta Comisión se acepte esta propuesta como una transacción a la que llegamos, vuelvo a decirlo, después de varias horas de meditación, de escuchar las opiniones de todos los miembros de la Comisión y de trabajo efectivo.
A.K. EL MOKHTAR (Mauritanie)(interprétation de l'arabe): Notre famille a fait son travail, or qui dit famille dit des liens fort solides; malheureusement des points fort préoccupants se posent. Il y a un proverbe arabe qui dit: si on connaissait la raison, toutes les surprises seraient dissipées. Nous devrions donc connaître les raisons de l'augmentation du budget. Or, nous les connaissons: on a déjà réduit les publications, on a réduit les postes; sans cela le budget aurait augmenté dans des proportions beaucoup plus importantes. Pourquoi donc maintenant employer des termes tels que déplorer, exagérer? Au nom de ma délégation, nous nous opposons à cet.amendement; en effet, les délégations ont pour la plupart déjà accepté le budget dans son ensemble.
K. ITANO (Japan): As mentioned in our general remarks, my delegation is very much concerned with the upward trend of budgets in the United Nations agencies as a whole. At that time we expressed our opinion that the increased rate of the budget proposed for FAO for the next biennium should be kept as low as possible. In this context, we would like to support the proposal made by the delegate of the United States, because it will reflect the course of the discussion in our debate.
H. ABDALLA (Egypt) (interpretation from Arabic): First and foremost, we would like to express our sincere thanks to the Director-General for the excellent intervention he made and for the way in which he defended the Programme of Work and Budget which we have all debated in a constructive manner, which is aimed at satisfying the concerns of the developed and developing countries throughout the world. This subject, therefore, has been debated at great length by the Council, even before the Conference.
We set up a Contact Group, of which the delegate of the United States was a member, in an effort to arrive at a compromise, as the Director-General himself, along with some of my colleagues, in particular my colleague from India have said. We have therefore examined this question in the Contact Group and again in the Drafting Group.
Of course, we realize that the opinions of some countries need to be expressed because of their financial concern, but we are used to these countries tending to exaggerate their terms when referring to their conditions, as was said by the Director-General himself and my colleague from India.
There are factors of another kind, such as the hindrances, inflationary trends. These are crises beyond our control. We would therefore invite the delegate of the United States and delegates of the countries supporting the United States' delegation to review their position and maintain the text as presented, especially since this text has already been debated on several other occasions and at this very late hour in the Conference I think it would be very difficult to go through the question again.
For this reason, we would make a sincere appeal to the delegate of the United States, who has already given his opinion, which can be recorded here, but we would beg him to agree to maintain the text as presented at the outset.
F. SHEFRIN (Canada): Over the years we have had the experience of going through the budget exercize, and the Director-General and I have borne arms together as delegates, and we have also been in a situation where he was a member of the staff. He knows as well as I do that, by their very nature, budgets are controversial subjects. It is very difficult to arrive at a budget with 100 percent agreement. But we also feel that, no matter what the discussion is, there is scope and room for some agreement by all parties concerned, not necessarily by one group or the other, and Canada is very appreciative of the cooperation from the Director-General and the member governments during the past few weeks in seeking a consensus.
I might say this is one of the reasons why some delegations like ours did not actively speak, because at that time there was very active contact between the Director-General and the Consensus Group and we felt it would not be correct at this point to enter into a debate while the Director-General and some of my colleagues were trying to find a way out in a very peaceful manner, so this is where we stand now. This Conference, because of the work of the Consensus Group and the Director-General, has until now certainly been able to avoid lengthy debates on the budget item, and as a result was able to concentrate on technical matters.
The Canadian delegation would also like to compliment the Director-General on the care that he has taken in presenting his budget to Member Governments.However, since the beginning of November a number of additions have raised the budget level from 206.8 million to 211 million. There have been some changes. Our delegation because of the sensitivity of the issue of the budget and being very much aware of the deep concern of the Director-General has been in constant touch with our capital just to make sure that the views expressed by our delegation reflect more than, as the Director-General said, the views of the Minister of Finance, and we have kept him fully informed on developments.
We have indicated on two occasions, both at the Council sessions in June and at the Council session in November, that the Canadian delegation could accept the 206.8 million figure, although the head of our delegation held the view that even the 206,8 million figure was somewhat high, and there was room for some savings.
In our own statement at the beginning of Commission II, we indicated briefly how the programme work could be accomplished with a lower budget without any cuts in the programme. We also noted the use of the full budgetary procedure which allows, if I understand correctly, the interpretation given for all future anticipated costs, inflationary of otherwise.
We recognize that the majority of the Conference does support the budget level for 1978–79 as proposed by the Director-General, After consideration of the Director-General's explanations and the views expressed by various delegations, the Canadian delegation has been instructed to state that we have difficulty in accepting the new total of $211 million proposed for the budget. Our delegation also hopes that there could be a closer consensus, but at the moment the figure we are faced with is $211 million, and so far, the consensus is still on the one side, not on the other side, because these are the figures which the majority of the delegations have supported, and I know this is the figure discussed with the Consensus Group. Thus, we have been only partially successful in the work of the Contact Group. It was a good thing to have this Group, because it allowed our Conference to concentrate on the key issues of the programme.
At this point in time, it would appear there is a need to have the different views adequately reported in the report, and therefore, in respect to the United States proposal, our delegation can support it, as read by Mr. Baker. There might be the odd word you wish to change in any discussions which can be held, because the views expressed by the United States closely reflect our own concerns, and I would hope perhaps there might be some wording, but I would make the appeal to all our colleagues that the views expressed by some of us in respect to the budget does not mean we are trying to interfere with the FAO programme of work, it does not mean that we are reducing our aid programmes; the Canadian government's programme will be unchanged; we will continue to provide the aid that we have done in the past; we will do our best to increase the total. So let us not get involved in this kind of discussion.
Our problem is that there are limited resources, and we want to maximize the use of the resources, and our experience has always been that every budget, no matter how thoroughly it is prepared, and every Director-General in the past has assured me there is no more water left in the stone called the budget, but there is always a little bit found later on and, therefore, the appeal here is a two-way appeal: just as much as the developing countries are appealing to us, we make the appeal to them to understand our position too.
DIRECTOR-GENERAL: We are not discussing the substance here; we are adopting the report. As I have already stated, the amendment proposed by the United States includes elements which have never been raised in this Commission. How is it possible to do this at the time the report is being adopted? The verbatim records are here to be consulted and they include the statement of the United States delegation on the subject. Nowhere is it said that the budget level is twice what it was four years ago, nor was it said that the increase from $208 million to $211.35 million was “unjustified ”. If any delegation had made such statements, they would have been recorded. I would ask any delegation which is not in agreement with this to say so now. We are here to be frank with each other. Now that it is considering its report, this Commission should only reflect what was said during its discussions.
Your Drafting Committee has gone through the whole report and has approved paragraph 107. Why, therefore, should it be necessary to make changes at the last moment? X know this has little significance, since the resolution will be adopted by the majority and maybe the few delegations which are encountering difficulties now will also vote in favour; I hope they will, although perhaps some will abstain. I certainly do not expect the vote to go against the resolution, but I must say that I find it somewhat unfortunate that such a controversial matter should be raised, in rather strong terras, at this late stage.
I therefore appeal to the United States delegation to reconsider their proposal.
CHAIRMAN: I thank the Director-General for his statement. I have a very long list of speakers. I wonder at this stage whether the delegate of the United States of America would like to take the floor to comment on some of the statements that have been directed at him. The United States, would you like to take the floor?
J.A. BAKER (United States of America): I would like to say that I did not intend in making this suggestion to open a controversy here. My intention was to try to reflect here in this report the strength of the concern that my delegation and other delegations here have about budgetary growth. There were some new developments during the same time period in which the Drafting Committee was working which had an influence on the views of delegations, and I mention here also our agreement on a special reserve account, so I would not wish to insist that a prolonged debate occur on account of my proposals. It did appear to me that they reflected the strength of concern that I know a number of delegations have, and it did appear to me that it would only be appropriate, given the conclusions on paragraph 108, that these concerns might be expressed in a manner that a number of delegations here wished to support.
However, rather than prolong a debate here on this occasion, perhaps it will be equally possible for those delegations concerned, including my own, to express their reservations in another form.
F. SHEFRIN (Canada): I am put in a very embarassing position, I am almost afraid to say it, because the Director-General is a very strong man, but I think I should correct it. I was told that in the French version, the statement I made came out exactly opposite to what I said in English. That is quite possible. The Canadians are always more gentle in French than they are in English.
What I had said was in respect to the $211 million, our delegation has been instructed to state we have difficulty in accepting the new total proposed for the budget. In French I was told that the Canadian delegation said it can accept the $211, but we are not a split personality; my instructions are that we have difficulty in accepting the $211, so I wanted that correction made before there is any further discussion.
CHAIRMAN: I would like to ask the United States, do I-understand his last statement to mean that he withdraws his proposed amendment, the paragraph that we are discussing, that he can accept the wording as it is?
J.A. BAKER (United States of America): I can accept the language which is expressed in paragraph 107. That language is satisfactory. I wished on behalf of my delegation and others to strengthen it, but I will agree to the language as it is stated here on the understanding that we may wish to express views in another context.
CHAIRMAN: I thank the delegate of the United States for his cooperation, so can I take it that paragraph 107 is acceptable? Can we adopt it?
W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of) (interpretation from German): The reflection of the opinions expressed during the discussion about this agenda item to be included in a paragraph of the report, namely paragraph 107, is in our view no confrontation. It is merely an attempt to balance the report, and I do not think that anybody can refuse that.
The Minister of my country stated in Plenary that the suggested increase of the budget rate for 1978–79 is the highest in the United Nations system. In the Council and during the discussion of the Programme of; Work of Budget in Commission II we made concrete proposals to make possible savings. We hoped therefore that the Director-General would suggest a lower budget level. In our view, this would still have been possible. My delegation would have supported the proposal made by the delegate of the United States. It may be that perhaps the doubling of the budget compared with that of four years ago was not discussed in Commission II, but nevertheless it is a fact. The delegate of the United States is not going to insist on putting forward his proposal, but we would now like to make a proposal for a small addition
-.457 –
to the end of paragraph 107, In the view of my delegation, at the end of paragraph 107 we should add the following sentence: “They also made concrete proposals for possible cuttings ”, I will repeat it very slowly: “They also made concrete proposals for possible cuttings ”.
I think that this slight addition to paragraph 107 will not cause any difficulty because it does reflect the discussion that took place in the Commission.
POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN
A.T. WADDA (Gambia): Mr. Chairman, having heard that my neighbour has just said “we ” I would like to know who are “we ”? After that I will continue on my point of order.
W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Fed. Rep. of) (interpretation from German): Mr. Chairman, I regret that my neighbour on the left has found that. Sometimes we say “my country ”, sometimes I say, “we ”. I simply meant my delegation. I was not including anybody else, although similar proposals were made by other delegations.
A.T. WADDA: (Gambia): Starting with what my good friend started with, he would like to see the report well balanced. If by balancing the budget we have to quote exactly what each delegation states I am afraid we are not going to have a report, we are going to have a verbatim report instead. What has been reflected here was the consensus of the majority of the delegations, and the consensus on the minority side. This is the type of balancing that has gone through and, Mr. Chairman, my point of order is that the Chair should guide this meeting to restrict itself entirely on what was stated in this Commission, not what was stated in the Plenary; what was stated in order for us during the Conference. We are considering here a report which is supposed to reflect the statements that were made here during the course of the discussion. This is my point of order, and I appeal to the Chair to give guidance, especially since the United States have been very generous in withdrawing their statement. Thank you. I appeal for your guidance, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN: I thank the delegate of Gambia. I would appeal to the delegate of Germany to withdraw his proposal. I would, in fact, put to you that we have had a long discussion. In view of the fact that the United States, who proposed the amendment, have accepted paragraph 107 as it stands, and also in view of the fact that it was a compromise reached in the Drafting Group, I appeal to all the delegates without any other discussion to accept it so that we can go forward with our work. The delegate of France, can you accept it?
G. WEILL (France): Avant que notre collègue de la République fédérale d'Allemagne ne réponde à votre invitation, je voudrais dire que pour ma délégation le paragraphe 107 est acceptable. Je voudrais dire aussi qu'il nous semble que la proposition du delegué de la République fédérale d'Allemagne, au moins en ce qui nous concerne, reflète la réalité. Nous avons aussi formulé des propositions d'économie. Mais si néanmoins, répondant â votre appel, Monsieur le Président, le délégué de la République fédérale d'Allemagne retire son amendement, nous n'y voyons aucun inconvénient.
CHAIRMAN: I thank the delegate of France. I do appeal to the delegate of Germany in our own interests, all our interests, to withdraw your proposal.
W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Fed. Rep. of) (interpretation from German): Paragraph 107 begins by saying, “Some delegations ” and does not at all imply what was said by other delegations. Mr. Chairman, you have listened carefully to the discussions which took place on that subject and I am sure you have heard several delegations making specific proposals for reductions and savings. The little phrase that I suggested, “they also made concrete proposals for possible cuttings ” would only reflect what we, and others said during the discussions. I do not understand, Mr. Chairman, why this fact cannot truely be reflected by the addition of the short amendment I have suggested.
-.458 –
CHAIRMAN: I thank the delegate of Germany. I will tell you why I do appeal to you even once again to do it: first of all we have had a very lengthy discussion. We have a lot of work ahead of us which we have to complete tonight. I have a list of 12 speakers that will take the floor on this subject. I am quite sure there are other.speakers raising their flags now to speak. We should try to get a compromise. We cannot always have something we have said reflected in the report. This paragraph 107 has been agreed by the Drafting Group and there were members of both sides present in that Drafting Group. I think we should take it as a compromise, and I think we should accept it, and I do appeal to you once more to withdraw your proposal. You have the floor.
W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Fed. Rep. of) (interpretation from German): Today and all through the Conference we worked together in a spirit of constructive cooperation, and under your distinguished chairmanship we have been able to adopt a large part of the report. When adopting that report amendments were put forward although these reports had been agreed upon by the Drafting Committee. The Chairman of the Drafting Committee did not object because he felt that those amendments and comments were made in a constructive spirit, and it is in the same constructive spirit that we are now making this proposal, Sir. Before my delegation decides whether or not we withdraw this proposal, we would like to know if other delegations who made proposals for reductions or savings are prepared to give up the idea of their views being reflected in the report, or if they would prefer their points on savings being reflected in general in a little phrase at the end of the paragraph.
CHAIRMAN: I understand that the delegate of Germany will not withdraw his proposal. I will then have to ask the floor to express their opinion on this, unless we can get around it in a different way, by having your phrase, which we have not quite got in English, to be quite honest, if we could have perhaps that in a footnote, just to take care of your interest, if that would present a possibility? I ask the delegate of Germany first to give us his text in English and then to reply whether he would be prepared to have it in a footnote, and leave the text as it is.
W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Fed. Rep. of) (interpretation from German): We are still on 107 and not on paragraph 108. I think we should not forget that. The) small addition which my delegation was and is proposing, reads as follows, and I will read it very slowly so that there will be no misunder standing: [“Some delegations ” at the beginning of this paragraph.] “They also made concrete proposals for possible cuttings ”, the “They ” referring to [...]. That is all, Mr. Chairman. It is perhaps not very good English. English is not my mother tongue. Perhaps somebody from the English-speaking delegations could suggest better wording, but that is the very simple proposal I am making, Sir.
CHAIRMAN: We have got now the text which in English would read, “They also made concrete proposals for possible reductions ”. Would it satisfy you to get this covered in a footnote? Would that satisfy you? I give the floor to the Director-General.
DIRECTOR-GENERAL: Mr. Chairman, one would need a crystal ball to answer that question! The French and German delegations have proposed to reduce the budget level, and perhaps also Switzerland. Even if there were 5 or 6 of these countries, they would still represent only a small minority of our 144 members. No doubt many others are in favour of the original text, so that, if this paragraph is reworded, as suggested, other paragraphs may then also have to be reworded, in order to maintain a proper balance.
CHAIRMAN: Delegate of Germany, to be quite clear before I have so many to give the floor to, I would like to be quite clear on one point: first of all would you be prepared to have this inserted in a foot note. You will not. I see. Then we have to give the floor to the speakers in the order that they have asked for the floor, and I am afraid you are in for a very long session. The delegate of Gambia is pressing for a point of order. Please do not speak on the substance.
-.459 –
POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN
A.T. WADDA (Gambia): Mr. Chairman, if I heard the delegation of Germany quite clearly before your suggestion, he has appealed to others who have made the cutting to say and if others who have made similar statements did not voice any objection, if I understood he was prepared to accept the paragraph as it stands, as the delegation of France has already declared. We were at that stage, when you decided to ask Germany again whether they will accept the footnote and they returned back to the discussion of the substance again. The last statement before your invitation, the delegate of Germany was appealing to hear from others whether they will insist on having this included in paragraph 107, so I would like us to go back to where Germany has asked others, and we have heard France is prepared to accept this statement as it stands, and on the basis of that, Mr. Chairman, we appeal again to Germany, since they are the only ones so far, to accept this statement as it stands. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: I thank the delegate of Gambia. The problem is we have a long list of countries that ask to speak, and it may take a long time to get round to get these replies, and I have a point of order. The delegate of Tanzania, you have the floor.
POINTOF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN
J.W.S. MALECENA (Tanzania): I would like to raise a point of procedure. The point of procedure is really not only on a matter of substance, but on a matter of procedure, in the sense that here we have a paragraph which speaks about what some delegates said. We are now even being asked to accept an amendment which says, “they also made some concrete proposals. ” Now, could we know what those concrete proposals are; that they must have suggested that cut(a), cut(b), cut(c), cut(d); this would be concrete proposals. I would like to say if the distinguished representative of Germany is not prepared to withdraw, then I would like to move one amendment immediately we will insert what Germany is saying and if we have the support of others, we agree, but immediately they are asked to let us add the following sentence, “the majority of the delegates oppose these views ”. Just that one sentence. I will repeat it slowly so that you can take it down. We will accept the amendment by Germany but after it we should add a sentence which should read: “The majority of the delegates opposed these views.”
Then after this sentence you will go to paragraph 108 which, of course, will reflect the consensus of the Conference. But now we want paragraph 107 to be a contentious paragraph, let us say what some delegates said and what the majority said, because really to accept the points of some delegations means,.I am afraid, that we are not being democratic in the Organization. If he insists on his amendment, I also insist on my amendment being put after it.
W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Fed. Rep. of) (interpretation from German): My delegation would like to thank the delegate of Tanzania. I think that he has shown a way how we could overcome our little difficulty. My delegation could accept his proposed amendment if my amendment is also accepted, on condition that the other delegations which also proposed reductions are not opposed to that addition.
CHAIRMAN: We have heard the proposal from Germany and from Tanzania. In order to formulate the proposal by Germany and, as the delegate of Gambia pointed out, we would need the intervention of the other countries that support the delegate of Germany in this amendment. I give them the floor to express themselves on this point.
-.460 –
POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN
F. SHEFRIN (Canada): We are not going to get anywhere in the next three hours. Feelings are setting in and we are having problems now with definitions. I propose a five-minute break, a cooling-off. period. Mr. Chairman, you take hold of the delegates of Germany and Tanzania and perhaps the Director-General will give each of you a strong drink. It is a serious proposal about the drink and the five-minute break, otherwise feelings are getting worse and worse. Theres is unfairness on both sides. There have been some pretty rough statements taken. There is not a consensus. I do not like the spirit that is here. I suggest a five-minute break and I am sure that the Director-General does not mind spending a little money on a free drink.
CHAIRMAN: I thank the delegate of Canada for his proposal.
Q.H. HAQUE (Bangladesh): I support Canada's proposal for a five-minute break.
The meeting was suspended from 18.50 to 19.10 hours
La séance est suspendue de 18 h 50 à 19 h 10
Se suspende la sesión de las 18.50 horas a las 19.10 horas
CHAIRMAN: We will resume our meeting. I understand agreement has been reached on paragraph 107. The following two sentences will be inserted: “A few delegates also made suggestions for possible reductions in order to lower the budget level, ” and “The majority however did not agree with these suggestions. ” We add these two sentences at the end of the paragraph. I understand this is the agreement that has been reached so I take it there is no objection.
M. LAPEBY (Gabon): Je voudrais avant tout vous faire une remarque: avant que vous n'interrompiez la séance, j'avais demandé la parole depuis très longtemps. Or, certains délégués ont pu s'exprimer huit fois de suite sans que vous me donniez la parole. Je consentirai cependant à faire quelques modifica tions de terme et à admettre votre proposition à condition que l'on supprime la deuxième phrase du paragraphe 107, c'est-à-dire: ”elles estiment que les augmentations de cout de la FAO sont exagérées.. ” et j'appuie bien sur le terme "exagéré ”. Si l'on enlève cette phrase, je consentirai à étudier avec plus d'attention les propositions que vous venez de faire.
CHAIRMAN: You have heard the proposal by the delegate of Gabon.
J. A. BAKER (United States of America): With all respect, I would have to say that rather than make that change I would reintroduce my proposed language.
CHAIRMAN: Gabon, I think in view of the fact that this was the compromise reached among delegations from both sides, when you had the opportunity to participate if you liked, I would appeal to you to agree to paragraph 107 with the suggested additions, and that you withdraw your proposal in order that we get a final agreement on this paragraph.
M.L. LAPEBY (Gabon): Je vous remercie de votre suggestion, Monsieur le Président, mais vous la faites bien tard. Lorsque M. Sheffrin a fait sa suggestion, il vous a demandé de retenir les propo sitions de l'Allemagne, des Etats-Unis, de vous-même et éventuellement du Directeur général. Je n'y étais pas associé. Par conséquent, vous me soumettez un consensus que je n'ai pas examiné atten tivement; je ne peux donc pas retirer ce que j'ai dit.
A.T. WADDA (Gambia); I am afraid we are back to square one. If, with all your efforts, a compromise cannot be reached, then regrettably my delegation would like to propose that we proceed on a strictly procedural basis: that is, when adopting a report, if amendments are made, an amendment can be put to the vote and if the majority accept it we insert the amendment; if the majority reject it, then the amendment falls. This is the only way we can make progress because, if not, we will reopen the debate.
Therefore, I move that the amendments which have been put forward by the various delegations, the latest being that by Gabon, should be put to the vote, and if the majority accept them they will stand. That is the proposal of my delegation.
CHAIRMAN: Just for clarification, your proposal is that we vote not on the first proposal that was agreed upon by delegations but on the proposal put forward by the delegate of Gabon? Is that your proposal?
A.T. WADDA (Gambia): The delegate of Gabon's amendment is conditional. If we accept the other amendments, there was supposed to be a compromise. If the compromise is not accepted by all, we are back to square one. We will take the United States' amendment and vote upon it, then take Germany's amendment and vote on it, and then we will take Gabon's amendment and vote on it, if this is the procedure which delegations want. I do not think it is fair for any one delegation to keep this meeting going on indefinitely. We are here to adopt a report, not to renew substantive discussions on subjects which have been dealt with intensively earlier in this Conference.
CHAIRMAN: A proposal has been put forward by the delegate of Gambia that we take a vote, As far as I remember the rules, two delegations are allowed to speak in favour of taking a vote and two delegations are allowed to speak against taking a vote.
Q.H. HAQUE (Bangladesh): Reluctantly, I make a suggestion, but I do not know if it is acceptable. Could we leave paragraph 107 now and go on to paragraph 108 and the resolution? Then we could come back to paragraph 107, and perhaps Gabon would be reconciled to the idea that the sentence that was arrived at as a sort of consensus was acceptable to Gabon.
CHAIRMAN: I think the question would have to be answered by the delegate of Gambia who asked for a vote. Can you accept such a procedure, delegate of Gambia?
A.T. WADDA (Gambia): Since I am sandwiched between Gabon and Germany and they have both indicated to me that they accept it, I will not be difficult. I will postpone my amendment, but if they fail to reach an agreement I will reintroduce it.
CHAIRMAN: I thank the delegate of Gambia for his cooperation.
B. de AZEVEDO BRITO (Brazil): I can fully understand Gabon's point. I think why he suggested deleting the second sentence in the compromise proposal was because the sentence just says “opposed” and no reason is given as to why. I would suggest - I think probably the delegate of Gabon could agree -retaining the two sentences of paragraph 107 plus the compromise proposal if a little is added about the majority view. This says they are opposing but it does not say why, which is very unfair. I think the sentence is unbalanced. Your proposal of a consensus is not a real balance, and on this point I fully agree with Gabon. Perhaps we could just hint at the motivations of the majority by saying after the text proposed “and reiterated that the budget proposals represented a basic minimum to meet requirements”. With such an addition, perhaps Gabon could accept the second sentence of paragraph 107, as I think that small addition would restore the balance.
CHAIRMAN: Is the proposal clear to the delegate of Gabon and can he accept it?
L. LAPEBY (Gabon): Je n'aime pas les dialogues et je préfère que vous donniez la parole aux délégués qui l'ont demandée avant moi.
J.S. CAMARA (Guinée): Comme mon collègue du Brésil, je pense qu'aujourd'hui nous sommes très défavori sés et je voudrais faire une proposition semblable à la sienne.
Depuis que je participe aux réunions de la FAO, je n'ai jamais entendu ni lu le terme “exagéré ” que vraiment nous ne voulons pas voir figurer dans le texte. Je ne suis pas un modéré mais je n'ai jamais proposé que l'on utilise. de tels termes dans un rapport de la FAO. Sur ce mot “exagéré” je rejoins complètement la position de mon collègue du Gabon, et la proposition du délégué du Brésil. Même au cours de notre discussion au sein de la Commission II nous n'avons jamais entendu cette expression. Je ne sais pas le sens qu'on lui donne en anglais mais en français c'est vraiment trop fort. “Exagéré ” veut dire que vous avez dépassé les bornes. Or, je ne pense pas que le Directeur général ou les pays qui approuvent le budget aient dépassé les limites. Je demande donc que l'on change le mot “exagéré ” et, si tel n'est pas le cas, vous devez faire voter et en ce qui nous concerne nous n'ac cepterons pas le verbe exagérer.
CHAIRMAN: I should like to give the floor to the delegate of France since it was the French word that really caused some difficulties. Can you help us delegate of France?
L. VELAY (France): A mon avis, il s'agit là d'une simple question de traduction. Le texte anglais dit “too high ” et la traduction littérale française est donc “trop élevée ” et non pas “exagérée ”.
CHAIRMAN: I should like to ask the delegate of Gabon whether he can accept the proposal of Brazil, or whether he would prefer to wait?
L. LAPEBY (Gabon): Même le terme “trop élevé ” ne me convient pas. Je peux reprendre les budgets de la FAO, si l'on compare le programme de travail et qu'on l'accepte avec enthousiasme, ce qui a été le cas, aussi bien au Conseil qu'à la Conférence, et qu'on vienne au niveau du budget dire que les coûts sont trop élevés, je pose la question: trop élevés par rapport à quoi? qu'est-ce qui les rend élevés? Peut-on dire que ces coûts par rapport à la conjoncture actuelle sont trop élevés? Cela voudrait dire que ceux qui ont calculé ce budget n'ont pas la tête sur les épaules. C'est tout ce que je peux trouver comme explication. Je n'admets pas de telles expressions, En 1975, 600 postes nouveaux ont été créés, le budget a été en augmentation selon un pourcentage plus fort que celui de cette année pour le biennium, et l'inflation continue. Je pose la question: qu'estimez-vous trop élevé dans les coûts? C'est ce que je ne comprends pas.
B.E. MATAMOROS HUECK (Nicaragua): Mi delegación se quiere referir a que la preocupación expresada por el delegado de Gabon era probablemente debida a un error de interpretación que había en los diferentes textos; pero me parece que la aclaración de Francia ya lo ha aclarado. No sé hasta qué punto nos ha favorecido el trago que no nos tomamos. Sim embargo, el párrafo 107 establece en forma clara dos cuestiones: por un lado, la opinión expresada por algunas delegaciones, y por otro lado la opinión. expresada por otras delegaciones. Creo que la solución de transacción que se nos ha presentado quizás establecería un equilibrio y aceleraría el debate.
Además creo que la propuesta hecha por la delegación de Brasil, a criterio nuestro, completaría en una forma bastante adecuada lo que se expresa en este párrafo. Por lo tanto, mi delegación estaría de acuerdo que lo aprobáramos tal como figura, con la propuesta transacción más la enmienda que presentó la delegación de Brasil.
W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of) (interpretation from German): My delegation finds itself in a very pleasing situation, because it can agree with practically everything that has been said. First of all, I should like to thank the delegate of Gambia for being ready to withdraw his proposal.We could have accepted the proposal of Bangladesh to move on first to paragraph 8 108.We can accept the addition suggested by the delegate of Brazil, that is to say “and reiterated that the budget proposals represented in their views the minimum requirements. ” If this is the basis for a compromise, as I think the delegate of Nicaragua said, then I believe we could adopt this paragraph, and I should like to thank all those who have contributed to solving this little problem.
A.J. PECKHAM (United Kingdom): I have been sitting that back listening with rapt attention to the debate taking place, but I really was rather surprised at the very good suggestion, I thought, by Bangladesh, not was taken up. His suggestion was - but perhaps you do not want to bypass it - I thought the really important paragraph was 108. With your agreement I would suggest we proceed as fast as we can past paragraph 107 and get on to the more important matter.
A.T. WADDA (Gambia): I was going to raise a point of order, but the delegate of the United Kingdom has just expressed the view I wanted to put forward. I had an amendment here which has priority to all amendments, that is, voting, and with your gentle and persuasive manner, I withdrew it, but delegates are more or less abusing that gentleness of yours, we need firmness. I suggest we move to paragraph 108, I appeal to you to be firm on this decision, we are going backwards and forwards. Let us proceed to paragraph 108 or we table my amendment and we vote.
CHAIRMAN: I thank the delegate of Gambia, I think he is quite right. We do then as the delegate of Bangladesh suggested, we leave paragraph 107 for the moment and go on to paragraph 108 and consider that paragraph.
Are there any comments on paragraph 108? We start with the first part at the bottom of page 26. We then go on to the solution which I suggest is now in document C 77/LIM/55.
L. VELAY (France): Je voudrais m'exprimer au nom des délégations dont il est fait mention au paragraphe 107. Je voudrais dire que nous ne souhaitons pas apporter d'amendement particulier au paragraphe 108, mais je dois également vous informer, M. le Président, ainsi que les membres de cette commission, que ces délégations se réservent la possibilité de ne pas approuver la résolution figurant à ce paragraphe et d'expliquer pour quelles raisons, à l'occasion du vote pour l'adoption de cette résolution.
LE DIRECTEUR GENERAL: Je n'ai pas l'intention de proposer un amendement au paragraphe 108; loin de moi une telle idée! Il s'agit d'exprimer le point de vue de la Conférence et non pas celui du Directeur général. Toutefois, je voudrais faire remarquer à tous les délégués ici présents que le taux du dollar est aujourd'hui de 877 lires, et non pas de 879 comme indiqué au paragraphe 108. De ce fait, je devrai commencer l'année budgétaire 1978 avec un déficit de 300 000 dollars, si ce taux se maintient. Il se peut, bien sûr, qu'il descende ou qu'il monte, mais, pour le moment, nous n'obtiendrions que 877 lires par dollar et non pas 879.
Il m'a semblé indispensable d'attirer l'attention des délégations sur ce fait; surtout lorsqu'ils'agit de celles qui trouvent que l'augmentation de notre budget, due à l'inflation, a été calculéed'une façon qu'elles disent exagérée.
Le Comité financier, qui s'est penché sur la question pendant plusieurs jours, n'a pas été de cet avis; il a trouvé que les augmentations dues à l'inflation n'étaient pas du tout exagérées. De même, l'ACABQ, Comité des Nations Unies qui revoit le budget des Agences spécialisées, a partagé cette opinion et considéré que les estimations que nous avions faites en ce qui concerne les augmentations obligatoires dues à l'inflation étaient tout à fait justifiées.
CHAIRMAN: I thank the Director-General. Are there any other observations with regard to paragraph 8 at the botton of page 26?
B. de AZEVEDO BRITO (Brazil): I will ask the Secretaries to remind you. My delegation would like to say we heard with much attention the observation made by the delegate of France. Any country or any group of countries is free to vote or not vote. I hope this possibility indicated right now, the possibility of not supporting, will not be exercised. I must say so. We have been working on a number of elements important to this Conference on the assumption that there will be no opposition to the Budget proposal. That was our working assumption and I think we, the Group of 77, and I speak in the name of the whole group, have the right to expect that that assumption is still valid. I hope that was an indication of a possibility that will not be concretized.
L. LAPEBY (Gabon): Le délégué du Brésil a dit ce que je voulais dire. Je crois que nous avons fait beaucoup de concessions. J'ai été, pour le paragraphe 107, le deuxième à prendre la parole. J'aurais pu, dès le départ, faire comme ceux qui sont partis sur certains textes qui ont été étudiés, en disant qu'il n'était même pas envisagé de vote, et dire:”je voterai contre et m'en tiendrai là ”.
S'il en avait été ainsi, j'aurais pu dès le départ, moi aussi faire cela, mais le groupe des 77, comme vient de le dire le Président de ce groupe, s'est tenu à une ligne de conduite pour éviter ce genre de problème et je voudrais ici reprendre ce qu'il a dit et exprimer aux délégations (que je ne connais pas encore puisqu'on dit “au nom des délégations ”) que j'espère qu'elles n'useront pas de ce droit car, comme l'avait dit M. Sheffrin lors de la dernière discussion: il ne faudrait pas se relancer la balle; et lui-même avait dit “finir cette Conférence avec deux blocs ”; c'est lui qui avait lancé l'expression.
A.T. WADDA (Gambia): I would like to associate myself with what the delegate of Brazil just said. He is Chairman of the Group of 77 whom I have associated with in the Contact Group and I hope the other side of the Contact Group will still hold to the agreement or understanding that we have reached. The compromises that have been arrived at in the other Resolutions that we discussed were based entirely on a package deal. I think the spirit which led to that understanding was that the level should be maintained as it is, and I hope the other side will stick to the agreement that we arrived at, and at most what they should do would be to make a declaration after the voting rather than voting against this Budget.
S. JUMA'A (Jordan) (interpretation from Arabic): I do not feel like speaking about this subject any more after listening to this debate. I became rather sick and disgusted listening to all this argument about something of not so much importance to many of us, but anyhow I felt I would reserve my position until we go back to paragraph 107, for I do not have anything to say with regard to paragraph 108 and the Resolution itself.
L. VELAY (France): Je voudrais seulement faire une mise au point sur un point d'histoire: à aucun moment n'a été réalisé, au sein du Groupe de contacts, un accord sur le niveau du budget; au contraire, nous sommes convenus à un moment de ne pas faire un package deal avec ce problème, mais de nous concentrer sur les deux résolutions relatives à la création de deux fonds. Nous avons clairement dit - et le Directeur général le sait bien - que quelques pays auraient des difficultés à approuver le niveau du budget. Je crois qu'il était nécessaire que je rappelle les faits tels qu'ils se sont déroulés au Groupe de contacts.
Q.H. HAQUE (Bangladesh): Bangladesh happened to be also a Member of the Contact Group which met a number of times, but the statement by my colleague the delegate of France is true but not the whole.truth. It is true we did not take it as established, but we from our side thought if we were making concessions on the other two Resolutions, and on top of everything on the Resolution on the Special Fund, our brothers from the developed countries would come at least a few steps forward to meet with us, because we thought we were going much more than halfway. I would like to remind this Commission of the final form of the Resolution on the Special Fund.
You will see that the Group of 77 as a whole, and all the developing countries individually, have made a great concession there, even to the extent that the nomenclature which had existed for a long time was changed at the last moment. The Group of 77 had to become 78. I saw the plight of the Chairman, which was quite miserable, in trying to convince the Group to accept the idea that we were making a sort of concession. I could see that the Chairman of the Group of 77 could find only one straw which was that if we were making a concession there, we expected that our brothers from the developed countries would accept the budget level. This was our expectation, I would agree that it was not part of a package deal.
Among the countries who have been vocal this evening, I find some who are very good friends, particularly Mr. Grabisch, a very good friend of mine. The other day I remember calling him “Mr. Grabisch” and he said, “Since when did I become a Mister? ”. I thought at first that Mr. Grabisch had become Miss Grabisch, until I had a second look. Some of the speakers are very good friends, some of them are almost relations. So I would appeal to my colleagues and friends that if we have come a long and difficult way - and for us in the Group of 77 it was a very difficult way -I must today congratulate in public the Chairman of the Group of 77 in this Commission. He undertook a most difficult task in convincing the 77 to accept such a diluted resolution and it was because of his specific ability and competence that he could persuade the 77 to accept that resolution.
In this situation I would again appeal to my brothers from the developed countries not to vote against this budget level. We feel that it has been a trust, although it was not part of a package, it was an understanding that we in the Group of 77 have been nursing when we made one concession after another on the other two resolutions. With this appeal, I shall conclude.
Β. de AZEVEDO BRITO (Brazil): Our colleague from Bangladesh is too kind, I see that I probably made a mistake from what I see happening now, but I acted in good faith, I always do.
It is true that there was no package formally made, but it is also true that after exploring tentatively the three elements, we came to a point where, in order to get to the second and third parts of those elements - that means the food losses business and the special reserve - we needed to know what the reaction would be and the position of the developed countries on the budget level. The indication was put to us that there would be no opposition. The suggestion was made that perhaps there would be some abstentions, and I put the specific question of whether that would mean any difficulty in the operation of the Organization, if that was what would happen. The representative of the United Kingdom, Mr. Martin, was the person who replied to me and said no. So the maximun that was envisaged at that time at least, when I was working on the assumption that there might be some abstentions, was that maybe it would be possible to remove them at the time of the vote. We hoped it would not be more than that, but certainly not the position now. But perhaps I was completely mistaken, and in that case I must say that I was a bad negotiator.
A.T. WADDA (Gambia): I have just a point of clarification, on the intervention by the delegate of France. I did say there was an understanding and not an agreement. I was one of those who reported to my Group on the basis of the negotiation that was led by the delegate of Brazil. At no time did we reach an agreement, but we had an understanding and on the basis of that understanding we gave in to the concessions. I would like to clarify this to France, that we had an understanding, even though we did not reach agreement on this.
L. VELAY (France): Puisque nous en sommes à faire l'historique détaille des réunions du groupe de.contact, je voudrais tout d'abord assurer notre collègue du Brésil. J'ai dit que certaines délégations feraient demain des déclarations et ne seraient pas en mesure d'approuver le niveau du budget. Je n'ai pas dit qu'il y aurait des votes contre. A ma connaissance du moins, jusqu'à présent. Mais puisque j'ai la parole, je voudrais dire aussi que je remercie en mon nom et au nom de mes collègues du groupe de contact, les partenaires des 77 pour les concessions qu'ils ont faites et qui ont permis d'arriver, aussi bien au sujet du fonds sur les récoltes que du fonds de réserve à un compromis satisfaisant. Mais je rappellerai aussi qu'un certain nombre de pays développés, lorsque cette Conférence a commencé, n'étaient pas du tout convaincus de la nécessité de créer ces deux fonds et que si les 77 on fait un certain nombre de concessions - dont je leur suis reconnaissant - les pays développés, eux aussi, ont fait des concessions parce qu'ils ont accepté non seulement le principe, mais la création des deux fonds en question.
Je crois par conséquent que la discussion au sein du groupe de contact a été loyale, confiante. Elle a abouti à des résultats dont nous sommes tous satisfaits, et je pense que cela n'empêchera pas que les pays qui ont reçu de leur gouvernement des instructions précises quant au niveau du budget expriment leur avis lorsque ce problème viendra au moment du vote en séance plénière.
F. SHEFRIN (Canada): The delegate of France has taken care of most of what I would have liked to have said, but I am a little puzzled. I find myself with scales in front of me, the Chairman is here some delegates speak on one side, some on the other, it has become a question of faith, trust and goodwill, and I am a little lost on the whole exercise.
I think a consensus is not a one way street, the delegate of France said that consensus and conciliation were by all the delegates concerned. We came with a very strong set of instructions on three items: we were never given the impression that, with one hint or the other, we agree on each separate one, and we have shifted considerably on many of the items, I think it is rather unfortunate to imply a betrayal of faith by a certain group, because the group feels that, being under instructions, it has to take certain actions. Whether it is voting against or abstaining, it should be treated with respect, each delegation does what it thinks best.
J.S. CAMARA (Guinée): Je ne vais pas faire référence à l'histoire des discussions, mais je voudrais faire une constatation à savoir que nous sommes ici dans une conférence où il y a des négociations. On vient avec des positions de départ mais je pense qu'à l'arrivée devraient être modifiées les positions qu'on avait au départ. Nous avons tous reçu des instructions, mais ces instructions peuvent être modifiées au cours de discussions, et des pays développés sont dans les meilleures conditions pour avoir la possibilité de faire modifier les instructions reçues vu le déroulement de la Conférence, les négociations qui se nouent, et ainsi de suite.
Dire qu'il y a eu trahison d'un coté, je trouve le mot un peu fort. Personne n'a dit ici que nous avons été trahis. Nous défendons des positions.
Je pense que la question n'est pas là. La question est que nous arrivons au bout de nombreuses difficultés, nous sommes presqu'à la fin de la Conférence et nous nous retrouverons demain avec de nombreuses déclarations. Il serait fort souhaitable qu'il n'y ait pas de nombreuses déclarations sur cette question du budget, car pratiquement nous avons tous approuvé le programme proposé, et il serait regrettable qu'il y ait une flambée de discours pour dire que nous n'acceptons pas ce budget. Alors que des orateurs de l'autre coté pourraient se lever et dire: nous l'approuvons.
Nous avons souhaité qu'on présente le budget, qu'on vote à l'unanimité et qu'on s'abstienne sans faire de déclarations. Mais si chacun doit monter à la tribune pour dire: mon gouvernement m'a dit de faire cette déclaration, je pense que la confrontation que nous voulons éviter ne le sera pas. Si l'on doit faire des déclarations, j'informe la Commission que ma délégation fera une déclaration en séance plénière.
J.C. VIONAUD (Argentina): Si tuviera que hacer una propuesta para insertar una oración en este párrafo que usted ha puesto en consideración, estoy seguro que debería decir que la mayoría de las delegaciones desean irse a su casa y eso sería aprobado por todos. Pero no lo voy a proponer sino simplemente decirle que usted ha puesto a consideración de la Asamblea el párrafo 108 que, si he entendido, el debate no ha sido observado, tampoco ha sido observada la Resolución que usted puso a consideración sino que hay una delegación que ha manifestado en el Plenario, y espero que manifieste, una declaración con el objeto de dejar sentada su posición pero tampoco ha dicho que votará en contra de esa Resolución. De manera que yo creo que lo que conviene hacer ahora es aprobar el párrafo 108, aprobar la Resolución, remitirla al Plenario y luego en el Plenario, señores, constarán en Acta todas las manifestaciones que las delegaciones deseen hacer; pero estoy seguro que si las delegaciones son coherentes con cuanto dicen de estar en favor de la cooperación internacional, nadie podrá estar en contra de que este nivel de presupuestos se apoye, porque precisamente este presupuesto tiende a pro mover la cooperación internacional. De manera que lo que concretamente le propongo es que usted decida ahora, sin dar más la palabra a nadie, que apruebe el párrafo 108 y la Resolución y lo pase directamente a la Plenario para mañana.
En cuanto al párrafo 107 que ha quedado sin resolver, quizá le pediríamos al delegado de Brazil que nos lea la propuesta de transacción mañana, y la analizaríamos, porque yo creo que es una transacción perfectamente aceptable para todos.
CHAIRMAN: The delegate of Argentina was the last speaker on the list, so I hope that we can now go forward on paragraph 108. Can we take it that paragraph 108 is acceptable? Yes. It is so approved. Can we then go on to consider the text of the resolution itself, in document C 77/LIM/55? It starts: “Having considered the Director-General's Programme of Work and Budget and the conclusions of its Commissions... ”. Are there any comments on this? If not, it is accepted.
The next bit is: ”Approves the Programme of Work proposed by the Director-General for 1978–79 ”. Are there any comments on that? If not, it is accepted.
The third paragraph says: “Resolves that for the financial period 1978–79 ”. Then we take”1. Appropriations 1/ are voted for the following purposes: ” Are there objections or comments on this? There seem to be no comments. Paragraph 2, “The appropriations (gross) voted in paragraph 1, ” etc: are there any comments on this one? There seem to be none. It is accepted.
Paragraph 3 on page 3 of the document, “In establishing the actual amounts ”, etc, are there any comments on that one? No comments? It is accepted.
Paragraph 4, “The contributions due from Member Nations ”, any comments on that? It is accepted. Can I take it then that the text of the Resolution, paragraph 108, is acceptable? It is adopted.
Then we have paragraph 107. It was suggested by Argentina that we should wait for this one until tomorrow. I do not think we really have the time to do that. We have to complete our adoption of the report tonight. I am sure we would have liked to have some more time, but I am afraid we haven't, so I think we have to go back to 107 and consider the last proposal again.
I would like then to remind you that it was a proposal agreed upon by many delegations, that was to insert two sentences. I will read them again for those who have not got them. That was after the last word in 107 to add, ”A few delegations also made suggestions for possible reductions in order to lower the budget level ”, and the next sentence, ”The majority however did not agree with these suggestions ”, and also a further amendment by Brazil that we should add to this last sentence ”and reiterated that the budget proposals constituted the minimum to meet the requirement ”.
Can I take it that this is now acceptable to all delegations?
L. LAPEBY (Gabon): Je voudrais faire une observation. Je voudrais savoir si la FAO fait, on non partie des organisations du système des Nations Unies, car la première phrase du paragraphe 107 concerne toutes les organisations du système des Nations Unies et pr\écisément, certaines délégations ont déploré l'aug mentation continuelle des budgets. Est-il nécessaire de maintenir la deuxième phrase de ce paragraphe concernant la FAO en particulier?
CHAIRMAN: I do not think that there is any question that FAO belongs to the UN system, but there are several delegations that would like to have this sentence in, and I would appeal to you not to object to this, since we have still a long way to go, and this is the result of long hours of debate.
L. LAPEBY (Gabon): Il a été dit déjà dans le paragraphe 106 qu'il y a un taux général d'accroissement des coûts.
La dernière phrase de ce paragraphe 106 est très importante, et dès lors qu'on accepte un programme et. qu'on veut le protéger contre des coûts d'origine inflationniste et des situations de change non prévues au budget, il est à mon avis aberrant de raisonner en disant que les augmentations des coûts de la FAO sont exagérées. Par rapport à quoi? Est-ce que la conjoncture précise que ces augmentations ne sont pas réelles vis-à-vis du niveau actuel de ce qui se passe dans les autres organisations? Et je voudrais aussi rappeler que lorsqu'on fait des suggestions en matière de budget, il est préférable de préciser l'opération dont on ne veut pas et qu'on la supprime dans le budget et éventuellement qu'on dise: nous sommes contre telle opération, par conséquent la ligne budgétaire correspondante ne devrait pas exister, mais des suggestions verbales sans précision, sans chiffres, à mon avis, ne doivent pas amener à dire que le niveau du coût est trop élevé. Il y a une conjoncture internationale que chacun connaît, mais cette affirmation est trop gratuite.
DIRECTOR-GENERAL: Mr. Chairman, I would appeal to the distinguished delegate of Gabon not to insist on this point, which I accept. The important thing is the resolution.
If I asked for the floor, however, it was in fact to appeal to all delegations who have expressed the intention to abstain tomorrow. It is their right to abstain if they so wish, and we have already been informed, in the Contact Group, that a few of them would do so. But never at any of the meetings of that Group, which took place in my office on many occasions arid for many hours, were we told that those member countries which intended to abstain would make a declaration to explain why they would do so. I respect, of course, their right to make a declaration, but, in that case, it will be my duty, as Director-General of FAO, responsible for the Programme of Work and Budget which he is submitting, also to express my views and to comment on that declaration.
I would like to remind you once more that the last Conference voted unanimously, without abstention, a budget which called for an increase of 52 percent and which contained a large number of new posts, meet ings and publications. The present budget requests an increase of 24 percent only, less than half as much.
Inflation did not exist only in 1976 and 1977; it was there also in 1974 and 1975. In view of what was acceptable to governments and, in particular, to the main contributors in 1975 - I am afraid I have to use that expression, because those who criticize the budget level are, indeed, some of the main contributors - I am surprised that a lower rate of increase is unacceptable now, that it is creating so many difficulties and threatening to culminate in a formal declaration which could have serious consequences. We have been hearing for two days about a declaration which might be made tomorrow in the plenary on behalf of a few countries, and we shall await it with interest.
It is true, of course, that, at the beginning of this Conference, we anticipated a dialogue rather than a confrontation. In my opening statement, I appealed to all member countries to try to resolve problems through a constructive dialogue; this is why, for the first time at an FAO Conference, we established a Contact Group.
During the Council and the Conference, the Contact Group has dealt with two main issues. While both groups have made concessions, I think it would be fair to say that the Group of 77 has made more. concessions than the Geneva Group. It was the French delegation which drafted the resolution, concern ing the $10 million transfer to the Special Food Losses Account, which was ultimately accepted as a draft document by the Group of 77. As I say, both parties have made concessions and compromises, but: am sure that the Group of 77 were very much surprised, if not shocked, to learn that the Geneva Group might make an important declaration at tomorrow's plenary.
I believe it would be a pity if this happened and hope it will not. As you know, I have always done my best to avoid any confrontation, whether political or non-political, and I believe it would be most unfortunate to have a confrontation on the last day, because of a strong declaration, or to have a series of statements by one group after the other, to which the Director-General would have to reply.
It is the right of some countries to abstain if they find difficulty in accepting the budget level, but I sincerely hope, however, that any declarations they may make on this occasion will not be controversial enough to result in a confrontation.
It would be of no help to the Director-General if member countries were to split into two groups. It would be most unfortunate if this Conference, which has brought together more than 95 Ministers of Agriculture - an unprecedented number - and at which full agreement was reached on all technical mat ters, on priorities, on new policies and on the new strategy of FAO, should end in this kind of confrontation.
My intention, in speaking at this late hour, was to appeal to the Group of important contributors mentioned by the French delegation and to ask them to respond to the appeal made by the distinguished delegate of Bangladesh and reconsider their position. I hope that we shall all be relaxed and in a better mood when we reassemble tomorrow and that this session of the Conference will conclude in an atmosphere of friendship and good will, without unnecessary formal declarations.
CHAIRMAN: The Director-General has appealed to the delegate of Gabon, as I did before. The delegate of Gambia has asked for the floor. Is it a point of order?
POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN
A.T. WADDA(Gambia): Yes. If I understood you, Mr. Chairman, you declared that paragraph 107 was adopted, and after the adoption the delegate of Gabon made a statement. I would appeal to you that we do not go back to paragraph 107, because it started with a general statement about the increased costs within the United Nations system and then singled out FAO as being too high. In other words, paragraph 107 implies, as Gabon is saying, that the budgetary costs within the United Nations system are rising and that of FAO is too high. This is what bothers my friend on the left.
But since we have reached a compromise and you, sir, have declared paragraph 107 adopted, and you have been very kind in letting the delegate of Gabon make his statement, I think his statement is noted and I hope we will not go back on paragraph 107. That is point of order.
CHAIRMAN: I hope we can leave it at that and regard paragraph 107 as adopted.
Paragraph 103 to 108, including Resolution, as amended, adopted
Les paragraphes 103 à 108, y compris la résolution, ainsi amendés, sont adoptes
Los párrafos 103 a 108, incluida la Resolución, así enmendados, son aprobados
S. JUMA'A (Jordan) (interpretation from Arabic): Allow me to make just one remark, namely, that for the first time in the history of our Organization we find that there are a few countries that do not agree to the Budget proposed by the Secretariat. With our respect for the principle that every delegate has the full right to express freely and frankly his opinion about this Budget, whether by approving it or opposing it, or by abstaining from voting on it, yet we should always try not to allow a precedent to happen whereby those who would abstain from voting make official declarations in the Plenary, because that will not be in the best interests of the countries which the delegates represent or in the best interests of international understanding and of the United Nations.
I believe that the spirit which has prevailed in the discussions of the various Commissions has been a very positive spirit, a spirit we should maintain, and we deeply regret indeed that every now and then we may find ourselves compelled to go near what may be called a confrontation, whereby certain countries are allied to or against other countries. We firmly believe that cooperation should prevail between all countries, large and small, rich and poor, developed and developing, and that there will be no peace in the world unless there is sincere cooperation among all the nations of the world.
It is also regrettable that this confrontation turns around a handful of dollars that could be counted on the fingers of one hand, and this is going on at a time when billions of dollars are being spent on armaments or developing military objectives that do not achieve any humanitarian aim. It is indeed shameful that we should talk of this in such detail, for the whole subject can hardly go beyond a trifling matter from the material point of view, yet its effect will indeed be very harmful to relations between developed and developing countries in the long run.
It is therefore our sincere hope that this Organization will avoid a confrontation, because that would serve everybody's interests, particularly the interests of developing countries.
We wish to avail ourselves of this opportunity to thank all those colleagues of the Geneva Group who have shown excellent understanding in arriving at the other decisions we have taken and resolutions we have adopted. We sincerely hope that there will be no declarations or statements in connection with abstention from voting, and it is my sincere and earnest hope that what I have said may find receptive ears among all countries.
PARAGRAPH 81
PARAGRAPHE 81
PARRAFO 81
CHAIRMAN: Then we come back to a question that we were considering before, that is on page 19 of C 77/II/Rep.2, paragraph 81. You remember we left it to the United Kingdom and the Netherlands to agree on a text for paragraph 81, and they have agreed on the following: To have only the first two sentences in paragraph 81 and delete the words from “It was however noted ” and the rest of the words “However ”, and then have the rest of that sentence as it is and delete the last sentence which starts with “Steps were being taken ” etc. Is this also acceptable to other delegates? It seems to be the case.
Paragraph 81, as amended, approved
Le paragraphe 81, ainsi amende est approuve
El párrafo 81, así enmendado, es aprobado
Draft Report of Commission II - Part 2, as amended, was adopted
Le projet de rapport de la Commission II - deuxième partie, ainsi amende, est adopté
El proyecto de informe de la Comisión II- Parte 2, así enmendado, es aprobado
CHAIRMAN: I suggest that we now adjourn for 15 minutes. I do not think it can be more than that.because we have to conclude the adoption of our Report tonight, but I think delegates deserve a 15 minute break, after which we shall go on until we have finished.
The meeting was suspended from 20.25 to 20.50 hours
La séance est suspendue de 20 h 25 20 h 50
Se suspende la sesión de las 20.25 horas a las 20.50 horas
DRAFT REPORT OF COMMISSION II - PART 3
PROJET DE RAPPORT DE LA COMISSION II - TROISIEME PARTIE
PROYECTO DE INFORME DE LA COMISION II - PARTE 3
CHAIRMAN: Distinguished delegates, I think it is time we resumed our meeting. I should like to warn you straight away that we have to complete our report. We have interpreters until 10.00, maybe 10.30, so we have not got very much time. I hope that the rest of the report is fairly easy and will not cause us too many problems. I would suggest that we start with C 77/II/REP/3 going page by page until we run into some difficulties. The delegate of Gambia has the floor.
A.T. WADDA (Gambia): Mr. Chairman, I am going to be complimentary to the Drafting Committee and the Resolutions Committee for the work they have done and for the document that has been presented here. I think all the delegations present here must have read the document, or if not have been briefed by their overseers that have read the document. For that reason I am not disagreeing with you, but I would suggest that you put the document in its entirety for adoption, and ask for comments. Anybody who has a comment on any paragraph in the document can voice it out, and if there are no comments on any part of the document then we put the document as it stands for adoption.
A.J. PECKHAM (United Kingdom): If I may so, Sir, I think that is an admirable suggestion, and I would also like to say that I think this section of the report is admirably drafted. It is very clear. I have one comment only, Mr. Chairman, which may surprise you, but it is in paragraph 9, line 4 of the English text. “The Conference felt however,” I find a comma. The report is so good I sould like the comma removed.
F. SHEFRIN (Canada): I have agreed to everything the delegate of Gambia has said. If he is willing to sacrifice his talking rights, so am I.
S.S. MAHDI (India): Mr. Chairman, I entirely agree with the previous speakers, but I also had one small comment and that is page 4. After the first sentence we start a new paragraph. That is all.
CHAIRMAN: Does the new paragraph start with “There was ”? Are there any other comments to the document REP.3? The delegate of Cuba.
P.A. MORALES CARBALLO (Cuba): Señor Presidente, ¿tendrá la bondad de decirme dónde estamos?, porque con la velocidad que andamos nos hemos perdido.
CHAIRMAN: Delegate of Cuba, it was a proposal by the delegate of Gambia, which I understand is supported by many delegates, we should deal with the document REP.3 in its entirety, and that I should just ask for comments on the whole document, and this is what we are doing. You have the floor.
P.A. MORALES CARBALLO (Cuba): Muchas gracias. Nos referíamos a la última propuesta que hemos oído; ya sabíamos que se iba a tratar el documento en su conjunto, es la última propuesta que no sabemos a qué párrafo se refería.
CHAIRMAN: We were on page 4 and paragraph 7 on page 4. It is the sixth line. We make a new paragraph before “There was at the same time general concern ” etc. Is that clear? The delegate of Kenya has the floor,
O, MBURU (Kenya): Mr. Chairman, my comment is that paragraph 31 - has everybody got paragraph 31 now –“Some delegations stressed the need for a discussion on forestry investment ” and so forth. I wanted to add at the end of the sentence, “and requested the Secretariat to prepare a paper for such discussion''.
CHAIRMAN: I thank the delegate of Kenya. Any other observation on document REP.3? No other observation.
Draft Report of Commission II - Part 3, as amended, was adopted
Le projet de rapport de la Commission II- troisième partie, ainsi amendé, est adoptée El proyecto de informe de la Comisión II- Parte 3, asi enmendado, es aprobado
DRAFT REPORT OF COMMISSION II - PART 4
PROJET DE RAPPORT DE LA COMMISSION II - QUATRIEME PARTIE
PROYECTO DE INFORME DE LA COMISION II - PARTE 4
CHAIRMAN: We go to document REP.4, then in its entirety. Are there any observations? Any proposals on document REP.4?
S.S. MAHDI (India): Mr. Chairman, again a few momentus amendments. In paragraph 1, the last two lines, just a few adjustments of the text. “It was pointed out that a TCDC policy framework has ” instead of “now ”‘'already ”, and then it continues, ”emerged to a considerable extent; therefore, concerted steps by all concerned, including FAO, will be needed”. Now, between “will be ”, between “will ” and “be ”, insertion of “now ”, “will now be needed ”. It is just a textural adjustment. In paragraph 6 on page 4 the merger of the last two sentences in the way I am suggesting will make the meaning clearer. The present sentence says “The Conference welcomes the Director General's resolve to pursue this policy and related measures. ” Then we can put a comma and merge this next sentence in the sentence and say: “Taking fully into account, inter alia, such recommendations as might emerge from the discussions at the Buenos Aires Conference ” - then a full stop and the rest of the sentence deleted. I will read it out again for the sake of clarity. The readjusted sentence will read: “The Conference welcomes the Director-General's resolve to pursue this policy and related measures vigorously, taking fully into account, inter alia, such recommendations as might emerge from the discussions at the Buenos Aires Conference.”
The rest is deleted.
CHAIRMAN: Are there any other proposals for amendments?
Doña I. DI GIOVAN DE SUAREZ (Argentina): Señor Presidente, era para recordar a nuestra Comisión que dentro del tema de Cooperación Técnica entre Países en Desarrollo hicimos un proyecto de resolución contenida en el documento C 77/LIM/55, que pensamos que podría ser tratado antes de pasar al segundo punto del REP/4 que se ha sometido a consideración.
CHAIRMAN: We have that in document REP/6 and we will deal with it later in that document.
S.S. MAHDI (India): I would like to make a very humble suggestion. Since this Resolution is connected with this part of the report in paragraph 10, page 4, we should just add a sentence: “The Conference adopted the following resolution”and then we adopt this resolution which is on pages 4 to 6 of REP/6. I think it would be simpler: we will have disposed of the subject.
CHAIRMAN: I thank the delegate of India for his proposal. If delegates agree, we can do it this way. It is then contained in document REP/6 and it is on pages 4 to 6, as he rightly stated. So can I take it then that we can include this in the consideration of REP/4? Where did you say you wanted the reference to it?
S.S. MAHDI (India): On page 4 of REP/4, after paragraph 10 we have paragraph 11 which says “the Conference adopted the following resolution” and then the resolutions. That is the logical place for it.
CHAIRMAN: Are there any other observations on document REP/4?
J,C. VIGNAUD (Argentina): Lamentablemente no tengo el REP/6 a la mano, pero quiero hacer un punto pa ra aclarar que el proyecto de resolución es una propuesta conjunta de Argentina, Rumania, India, Yugoslavia y que ser copatrocinada por Colombia, Uruguay, Chile. Ecuador, El Salvador y Perú y quizá esto deba consignarse en el informe.
CHAIRMAN: Would it be all right to record it in the footnotes?
J.C. VIGNAUD (Argentina): Sí, señor Presidente, no tengo inconveniente.
S.S. MAHDI (India): There is no problem about the footnote. We can go along with that. I would like to thank the delegate of Argentina for his brief statement which cleared some misunderstanding which arose yesterday.
P. CELAN (Roumanie): Je voulais souligner que je suis d'accord avec ce que vient de dire le délégué de l'Argentine. Je suis également d'accord sur le fait qu'il serait préférable d'introduire le projet de résolution dans le document REP/4 après le Point 10, à la page 5 du texte français. Je voudrais également de mentionner, après le Point 10, que la délégation roumaine est prête â accueillir une réunion sur la coopération technique entre les pays en voie de développement, ceci en référence avec le projet de résolution dans lequel il est fait mention des mesures en vue de renforcer la coopération entre pays en voie de développement et aussi comme exemple d'organisation de réunions intergouvernementales.
CHAIRMAN: Are there any other observations on document REP/4 including the resolution?
W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Fed. Rep. of)(interpretation from German): I have just two very small comments. The first one concerns the second paragraph of the resolution: “Taking into account General Assembly Resolutions” and so forth, on page 4 of REP/6. We would like to ask whether the sponsors of the Resolution would agree that instead of saying ”Taking into account” we should say “Recalling” We think this would be better wording. I apologize but this delegation does not know exactly what is in the various resolutions' texts, so it might be better to say “Recalling General Assembly Resolutions ”.
The second point is under (c) of operative paragraph 4.It states that the “UN Conference on TCDC to Consult Member Nations... ”The “C” should be lower case rather than a capital. It looks rather odd with a capital.
A.T. WADDA (Gambia): I· would like some clarification here: Taking into account General Assembly Resolutions ”, so and so, ”as well as the Declaration of Kuwait on TCDC ”. Why do we have to include Kuwait's Declaration? Here they say the Declaration of Kuwait as a country I understand that the Declaration means by Kuwait. Or is it a Kuwaiti declaration? This is something different.
S.S. MAHDI (India): I thank our old friend Mr. Grabisch for drawing the attention of the Commission to this “Consult ”.That was bothering me also and I am very happy if “Consult” is put in small case instead of with a capital.Here we agree, and I also agree with Germany about the other point “Taking into account ”.I think it is the usual phrase that we use and there will be some difficulty at this stage in substituting it with “Recalling. ”
On the point which has been raised by the delegate of Gambia, I think “Kuwait Declaration” looks much better than “the Declaration of Kuwait. ”So that proposal is all right to us.
CHAIRMAN: Do I understand that Germany is not pressing the first point? I understand that is the case. We had another proposal from the delegate of Ethiopia that in the third line of the first operative paragraph after “achievement” and before “collective self-reliance” we should have” individual and/or collective self-reliance.” Is there any objection to this inclusion of those words? There seems to be no objection.
S.S. MAHDI(India):I have no objection to the concept which has been expressed but here we will be mixing two concepts in the paragraph because this deals with collective self-reliance of the developing countries, although individual self-reliance is equally or more important. We are not talking here about individual self-reliance so maybe nothing will be lost if we do not add that word.
CHAIRMAN: I thank the delegate of India but I wanted to raise it as the delegate of Ethiopia asked me to do. I take it that it is not acceptable so we will leave it as it is.
Β. de AZEVEDO BRITO (Brazil): During the consultations on this draft my delegation had a chance to indicate that it would prefer not to have enumerated paragraph 3, since we believe that it is after the Conference at Buenos Aires that we will be in a position to indicate to FAO which are the areas of priority. We feel that the enumeration of paragraph 3 is rather incomplete, but not quite. One could comment on many aspects of technology and scientific research. For instance, it speaks about the exchange of experience and results. For example, in the debate we have advanced more than that in regard to direct programming and cooperation in scientific research. Just to give an example, it speaks, in (a) of increase in production in terms of livestock, forestry and fisheries. Not only production, productivity is more important sometimes for developing countries in order to be able to compete with other levels of income. So there are many aspects. Normally I would simply have suggested that we take out the enumeration, which I insist is rather imperfect, with respect to the sponsors views. In order not to make such a radical amendment, I suggest that we put at the beginning: ”Place particular emphasis, inter alia, on matters with particular reference to'' so at least to indicate that we are not really competent that this list is fully comprehensive, that this was even discussed to justify this. This is the kind of thing we should like to hope for in Buenos Aires and we do not feel we have attained any kind of serious discussion or achieved any kind of cooperation. In order to be cooperative, we would make a small alteration.
CHAIRMAN: I take it it is acceptable? It is acceptable. Are there any other observations on REP/4 with the Resolution in REP/6?
SANG WOO PARK (Korea, Rep of): It is not concerned with the Resolution but it is related to REP /4. Since we have been talking about whether we should delete ”s'' or ”st ” I will comment on just one thing. At the top of page 2 we see ”Technical Cooperation amongst developing countries...'' In some documents we say ”among ” developing countries'', so whether we put ”st” after ”among'' or not is mv concern.
CHAIRMAN: So we delete ”st” and say ”Cooperation among developing countries ”. Are there any other observations on REP/4?
J.C, VIGNAUD (Argentina): Quiero estar seguro de haber tomado buena nota de la observación que nos formulo el Delegado de Brasil. En su momento, si él nos hubiera aportado otras prioridades, podríamos haberlas incorporado en este párrafo 3; pero quiero estar seguro que lo unico es agregar ”entre otras” y dejar, los incisos (a) a (f). ¿Es eso lo que se ha propuesto?
CHAIRMAN: This is the way I understood the proposal. Are there any other observations?
I. OROZCO GUZMAN (Mexico): Unicamente para señalar que en la versión española en el párrafo 3 operativo, inciso (a), las tres ultimas palabras dicen ”y mejorar la alimentación ”. Creo que se debe decir ”mejorar el nivel de nutrición”.
CHAIRMAN: I am sure the Secretariat has made a note of this. Are there any other observations on the report?
A.J. PECKHAM (United Kingdom): While you have been discussing the first ten paragraphs I have taken the liberty of reading the rest of this document which I had not previously done and I am happy to inform you that I find it entirely acceptable.
CHAIRMAN: I hope it is also acceptable to all other delegates. Can I take it that we agree with all the amendments including the Resolution on REP/6 TCDC.
Draft Report of Commission II - Part 4, as amended, was adopted
Le projet de rapport de la Commission II - quatrième partie, ainsi amende, est adopte
El proyecto de informe de la Comisión II, Parte 4, así enmendado, es aprobado
CHAIRMAN: Now we go on to REP 5 which includes two Resolutions, the Resolution on the Acceptance of the Statute of the Joint Inspection Unit and the Resolution on Cooperation with the World Meteorological Organization. Can we take this document as a whole. Are there any comments or proposals for amendments to this document?
A.J. PECKHAM (United Kingdom). I have not myself read this document. Perhaps we could have two minutes to whistle through it.
CHAIRMAN: I think this is a good idea. Is the document REP 5 acceptable? Are there any observations on REP 5?
I. OROZCO GUZMAN (México): Nada más que una observación de redacción para la Secretaría. En lo que se refiere al párrafo 6, acerca del FIDA, en el segundo renglón, que preferiría una redacción en castellano que dijera: “que le permitiera iniciar sus operaciones”, en lugar de “entrar en ejecución.”
J.S. CAMARA (Guinée): A la page 4 du texte français, “Relations avec le PNUD”, je ne sais pas s'il
n'y a pas une contradiction entre ce qui est au paragraphe 7 et au paragraphe 8. Il est dit au paragraphe 7 “selon de nombreuses délégations, il convient de maintenir...” et ensuite au paragraphe 8, on dit “Plusieurs autres délégations ont estimé qu'il serait plus opportun ”. A la suite du débat qui a eu lieu ici, cela n'était pas ainsi; il n'y a pas eu de nombreuses délégations qui ont mentionné cette question, il y a eu des délégations certes, mais je pense que la tendance était de plusieurs autres délégations, comme écrit au paragraphe 7; tandis que “d'autres delegations”, mais pas “plusieurs autres ont estiméLà, il y a contradiction, je pense que “plusieurs ” est de trop au paragraphe 8. Et puis, à la fin de la première ligne du paragraphe 8, il est dit “qu'il serait inopportun pour la Conférence ”, il convient d'ajouter: ”de la FAO de faire
CHAIRMAN: It has been suggested by the Secretariat that the word in French should be “quelques ” rather than “plusieurs”. Would that be acceptable? It is accepted. Are there any other observations on document REP 5?
Y. STAMBOULI (Algérie): Nous faisons un amendement au paragraphe 18 de la page 8 du texte français. Il nous semble qu'on a omis de faire allusion à une importante manifestation qui est la Conférence générale pour la désertification de Nairobi et, à cette occasion, on n'avait pas manqué de lier la mise en oeuvre du plan d'action de Mar del Plata aux conclusions mêmes de la Conférence de Nairobi. Pour avoir été présent à Nairobi, nous nous rappelons que la FAO était présente et il nous paraît surprenant que la FAO puisse envisager d'exercer une certaine activité en matière de mise en oeuvre de ce plan d'action de Mar del Plata sans tenir compte des importantes résolutions sur la désertifi cation. Nous souhaitons qu'il s'agisse là seulement d'une omission.
CHAIRMAN: I think this could be solved by inserting a few words to that effect. The Secretariat will take care of that. Are there any other observations on REP 5?
R.L. TORRAS (Cuba): Una observación en el párrafo 8. Y es que al final del mismo no se termina la frase y rogaría a la Secretaría que nos leyera el párrafo completo, a partir de: “Tras examinar atentamente..”
CHAIRMAN: I will read it in English: “After thorough consideration of the matter the prevailing view of the Conference was that the Director-General must nevertheless be assured of the continued concern of the Conference and of its strong views that continued stability must be ensured as regards the Organization's resource and work planning in the short as well as in the longer term. ” Is that all right? I understand this is in order. Are there any other observations on REP 5?
S.S. MAHDI (India); This is not under REP 5 but in this hall I find a caucus between Brazil and Cuba and my appeal is that they should enlarge the scope of this and share their biscuits.
CHAIRMAN: Can I take it there is agreement on REP 5 with the amendments we have heard? Are there any other observations?
Draft Report of Commission II - Part 5, as amended, was adopted
Le projet de rapport de la Commission II cinquième partie, ainsi amendé, est adopté
El proyecto de informe de la Comisión II, Parte 5, asi enmendado, es aprobado
DRAFT REPORT OF COMMISSION II - PART 6
PROJET DE RAPPORT DE LA COMMISSION II - SIXIEME PARTIE
PROYECTO DE “INFORME DE LA COMISION II ” - PARTE 6
CHAIRMAN: In REP 6 there are two resolutions we still have to consider. The Resolution on nutrition on pages 2 and 3 and the Resolution on the International Food Corps on page 7.
D.M. ULNES (Norway): On the Resolution on nutrition I just want to point out to the Secretariat that there is a printing error in the last line of paragraph 2(b). It should be “.... in FAO's activities in agricultural projects and programme planning ”. I take it that the Resolutions Committee's suggestion for redrafting probably stends out of this misprint but anyhow my delegation would be prepared to accept the text of the Resolutions Committee.
CHAIRMAN: Are there any other observations on the document REP 6?
A.T. WADDA (Gambia): Commenting on the International Food Corps Resolution...
CHAIRMAN. Since we have been taking the document as a whole we will continue with that.
A.Τ, WADDA (Gambia): My comment is not on the Resolution itself but on the suggestion made by the Resolutions Committee. As one of those who helped in bringing this Resolution to the Resolutions Committee I would like to see here that the Resolution presented was that of a compromise nature. To interfere with the text might cause a breach of faith among those who drafted the Resolution, especially when what they are suggesting is to add “and its possible role” I do not see how anybody could make a study of establishing the International Food Corps leaving out its role. If you make a study of establishing it, it should include what role it should play, so by adding its role they are adding nothing to the Resolution. I would suggest that the Resolution as was presented be accepted.
B. de AZEVEDO BRITO (Brazil): We are invited to make comments on both resolutions at the same time. On the first, as Brazil is co-sponsor I do not have anything in particular to say, just one amendment. In line with my friend, may I suggest the deletion of a comma in paragraph 1, before ”for the improvement''. I want to make it very clear that the level of resource allocation in the regular budget is for the nutrition of the rural and urban poor. I want to make the reason for this very clear. I do not want to increase other expenditures on nutrition here when we know very well what they are and we fully support them. That is why I co-sponsored this Resolution that much more should be spent on nutrition directly related to the problems of the rural and urban poor. So that small comma should come out.
As to the second resolution, I must say I feel a little embarrassed. We are discussing the report of Commission II, and this is the first time we have had a chance to consider this resolution. It is a new idea; it is an idea which surely deserves to be considered, but it needs to be discussed first of all. In the context of the adoption of the report, we are seeing the text of the resolution for the first time. I must say that while my delegation was sincerely moved by the very important lecture given by Ambassador Young as the McDougall Lecture at the beginning of the Conference and while we feel that many of the points he raised were valid and cogent, we also feel that the idea of the international food corps is not quite clear, to say the least.
In analysing the state of food and agriculture, for instance, one of the elements that becomes quite clear is the problem of under-employment and unemployment. What developing countries need, therefore, is not unskilled workers. Of course, people with the will to work are always welcome, but in this particular case we very much doubt whether it is a real addition to the measures and instruments to promote develoment.
In the past, we have had experiences of a bilateral nature similar to that. The recent United Nations volunteer corps which is an institution of UNDP has tried to promote the idea of volunteer service, and we are not quite convinced that the idea here in terms of the food corps is such a positive one.
In his statement, Ambassador Young made a very strong criticism of bureaucracy. He said that bureaucracy is the death of development. Perhaps in having a rather nice formula to provoke one more study we are going again into bureaucracy. Let us pay homage to his lecture by not taking a bureaucratic step to cover up reality. Ambassador Young gave an extraordinary lecture and made some very important points. Let us not create a bureaucratic set-up in the Organization just because we have to do something. Can we be honest and, with due respect to his intellectual contribution in the lecture - which I must underline was indeed outstanding - take his point that bureaucracy is the death of development and not take a bureaucratic step instead of facing reality?
I. OROZCO GUZMAN (México): Consideramos que estamos en el momento de aprobar el informe de la Comisión II y nos encontramos ahora con una resolución que lleva por título “Cuerpo Internacional de Voluntarios para la Alimentación”. Me pregunto dentro de qué contexto de los debates de la Comisión se encaja este tipo de resolución que se nos está presentando a nuestra consideración. Nosotros, ciertamente, escuchamos también con atención la disertación emotiva que hizo el conferenciante sobre McDougall, pero nosotros no consideramos que sea el momento oportuno para iniciar un debate sobre los elementos que contiene esta resolución; por eso opinamos que siendo algo que no fue considerado por la Comisión en su oportunidad estaríamos abriendo un debate sobre algo que no existió.
CHAIRMAN: I understand the resolution will be located under item 29, Any Other Business. That is really the answer to the question.
J.S. CAMARA (Guinée): (Sur la première résolution concernant la nutrition, je n'ai pas de commen taires à faire et je lui apporte mon appui.
La deuxième résolution pose quelques problèmes à de nombreuses délégations. Je ne dirai pas que je n'ai pas pris cette résolution en considération car je l'ai déjà étudiée au sein du Comité des résolu tions. La déclaration que je fais ici n'est pas contre la résolution qui nous est proposée ni contre l'idée émise par le distingué Ambassadeur des Etats-Unis, mais je voudrais exprimer une position poli tique de mon gouvernement que je suis obligé de préciser pour que les choses soient bien claires pour mes amis africains qui ont déposé cette résolution et pour tous les membres de la Commission. Nous ne sommes pas contre le volontariat mais notre gouvernement n'est pas favorable à l'arrivée dans notre pays de volontaires. Nous avons déjà exprimé notre position sur le problème des experts qui a été développé par notre Ministre lors de la Conférence générale, mais nous sommes opposés au volontariat tel qu'il est conçu actuellement et qui n'est pas conforme à notre politique de coopération interna tionale. Pour cette seule raison, ma délégation n'est pas en mesure de se prononcer sur cette résolution.
A.T. WADDA (Gambia): I will attempt to answer the question raised. It was unfortunate that the dele gate of Brazil, as Chairman of the Group of 77, should make such an intervention. First, this resolu tion is in order. The sponsor of the resolution was Tanzania and it was brought to the African Group for endorsement before it was sent in. The resolution calls for a study. I do not think one should anticipate the study that is to be made by the Director-General; nor should we pre-judge what that study is going to be. This resolution does not call for comment on what Ambassador Young said in his lecture. The idea of an international food corps is not new; it does not originate from the lecture of Ambassador Young. What Ambassador Young did was to dramatize the idea before the Conference as a result of which certain countries felt, after consultation with the Secretariat, it would be necessary to have a study and the study should be carried out in consultation with other interested organizations; the Director-General would report to Council, and it would be there and then that the real analysis and discussion should take place. This is not the time to go into detail and discuss the question of the international food corps. This is an idea which many people have subscribed to all over the world. With regard to anything dealing with food production and the improvement of food production, FAO should make an examination, and that is what this resolution is calling for. On behalf of the original sponsor, who is not here, I would ask that the resolution be sent to Conference for adoption.
P.A. MORALES CARBALLO (Cuba): En primer lugar, deseamos referirnos a la resolución sobre nutrición, la cual apoyamos, no tenemos inconveniente en apoyarla. Con respecto a la resolución que se nos pre senta nominada “Cuerpo Internacional de Voluntarios para la Alimentación” nosotros deseamos expresar, en primer lugar, que estamos de acuerdo con lo expuesto por las delegaciones de México, Guinea y Brasil.
Esta idea no está clara, al menos para nosotros, y, como dijo nuestro Ministro en la Plenaria, la experiencia que existe sobre este tipo de cuerpos no es la mejor.
Nosotros vemos esta resolución por primera vez, y, sin entrar a profundizar en detalles, manifestamos que no estamos en condiciones de considerarla, no tenemos instrucciones y en este momento no podemos menos que rechazarla. Tal vez vendrá en el futuro una nueva oportunidad, cuando estén más claras las cosas respecto de este tipo de cuerpos de voluntarios y en esa ocasión, en un futuro posiblemente lejano, estaremos en condiciones de considerarla.
Esta es la posición de nuestra delegación que adelantamos con toda claridad para evitar continuar en un debate al respecto.
S.A. MADALLALI (Tanzania): We are the sponsors of this resolution and, as the delegate of Gambia has explained, the idea is not to discuss all the implications of the international food corps; it is a fact which exists. All those countries which happen to have some doubts have mentioned that there are such international organizations, even from bilateral countries, subscribing to this idea and sending such corps, or volunteers, to operate in various countries. The idea here is to give FAO the opportunity
to study the implications of such organizations, and how best FAO can adivise after having studied how such a system could be effective in improving production and nutritional standards, in particular of developing countries or of any other countries where such need arises. As my colleague from Gambia has said, this is to give FAO the opportunity to go into greater detail in studying the implications and how such a scheme could be worked out, and then present a report to the next session for discussion. The FAO study might come up with a negative report that such organizations are really valueless, or it might come up with a report that if they were organized in such-and-such a manner they would be of use to countries, and such cooperation could help improve the nutritional standards and the production of agricultural products in different countries.
What we want is that the idea should be studied. In fact, this might help delegates who wonder why such organizations which have been organized bilaterally have failed; it might help them in deciding on a new establishment. The idea is that the matter should be studied.
So it is just an idea to study. The Tanzanian delegation had no idea of opening up a discussion on this issue. Many of the countries mentioned already have this corps, they are not international but coming from other different countries with no limitations on this. We want a forum and FAO is very competent and not an international organization as in Geneva, like the International Corps, to enlighten us on the implications and how we could grow into implementing, if we so agree, on presenting this study to the Conference.
I thought these explanations would remove the doubt about these things, they exist today and will exist tomorrow in your country, and so many countries, developing countries, have subscribed to the idea of giving assistance through such corps.
So with this I think my fellow delegates from developing countries should not be very much amazed by the idea of study. We want more information. They are doubtful, they do not know what it implies and whether the corps are not properly built, we want more information. I do not know why we should take this floor and vehemently oppose an idea of study which should enlighten us in future for proper implementation or decision. Give us all the facets of such involvement in this type of voluntary work.
S.S. MAHDI (India): Much has been said on this Resolution. In the interests of brevity I would like to submit with due respect to the sponsors and the other speakers that this is a matter which has not been discussed even in a preliminary session. Therefore we do not find ourselves in a position to con sider it even at this late stage. If it is at all decided to have some reference to this idea maybe the best place would be the paragraph dealing with the McDougall Lecture with a short descriptive paragraph which should take care of this matter at this stage. Perhaps at some future date those in terested may like to elaborate on this and have a proper discussion before a study is commissioned, because you are commissioning a study which has many implications. So with these few brief remarks I submit that we do not consider this, and the substance could be incorporated, short of any operative part, in the Report.
J.A. BOYLE (United States of America): Like the previous speakers I will certainly try to make my re marks very brief. As Tanzania pointed out, it was the delegate of Tanzania who introduced this amend ment and only after getting approval from the African Group. It might be constructive to recall the background on this.
Ambassador Young was invited to give the McDougall Lecture. He is a great believer in people and cer tainly his political career in the United States reflects that. His comments which made some of us wince about inflated bureaucracies also reflect another trait of Ambassador Young that this gets in the way of people to people interaction. When he gave his proposal and mentioned the Food Corps the propo sal was favourably mentioned by several other countries. I happened to be there in the room at the time and New Zealand, Upper Volta and Tanzania spoke favourably of it, so it is something that did strike a responsive chord.
Earlier this evening we talked of technical cooperation among the developing countries. I think the delegate of Brazil made mention of unskilled workers. It was my understanding that Ambassador Young talked about skilled workers who would be volunteers, presumably young people, and he stressed that they would be young people who had talents that they would be willing to bring to bear to help their fellow men and in promoting agricultural development.
He also stressed these would be people from various countries, so it is not anticipated to be necessarily an exchange of people between the developed and developing countries. Not at all. It is intended to be in the spirit of what we talked about earlier this evening, technical cooperation among developing countries, as well as developed countries insofar as they have volunteers capable, and it would be up to the recipient to decide if they would like such volunteers.
Lastly, I echo what the delegate of Tanzania said, this does not commit anybody to anything. It does not prejudge the outcome of the study or talk of the extent or the magnitude of the study. It suggests the issues should be studied and a report made whether it is feasible, and if so how it should be worked out. It is consistent with many of the items we have been discussing over the last two or three weeks but I leave it to your discretion whether it should be a resolution or something else, but simply dis missing it seems incompatible with the spirit in which Ambassador Young made the suggestion.
B. de AZEVEDO BRITO (Brazil): I must first make it clear that obviously this is a text which I see right now and I cannot speak as Chairman of the Group of 77. Ί was taking notice and I can only just reflect my delegation's opinion. That is the first point.
The second point made by several speakers is about not having a chance to discuss it. I advance one point. It is not clear to me what is the relationship with U.N. Volunteers. It is an organization established over a number of years. If I had a chance in normal time, not at this moment of the Report, my first discussion would be to see to what extent U.N. Volunteers were an established organization not the UNDP but operating as a link with UNDP and to what extent U.N. Volunteers could give greater attention to food production. That is the kind of observation I would have made in normal timing if we had time, and unfortunately we have no time. I see this resolution which we must accept or not. It is not fair to us who have just seen this resolution. If I had to discuss it here I would make a point of ask ing the Director-General to explore it with the U.N. Volunteers Organization, to what extent Ambassador Young's suggestion could be utilized for food production and to increase agricultural production in all the countries. That is a valid point. So we are in a difficulty, it is possible either to accept or not, and obviously we find some difficulties of principle. May I say again on a text I just read now I could not reflect the position of the Group of 77. Everybody understands that, I hope.
J.C. VIGNAUD (Argentina): En tanto esta Resolución lo que propone es un estudio, a nosotros no nos plantea grandes dificultades aunque por cierto reconozco la validez del punto suscitado en cuanto a que no ha sido motivo de discusión quizá suficiente, porque algunas delegaciones citaron este tema en sus intervenciones, pero no ha sido motivo de discusión suficiente en el plenario. Sin embargo, qui zá no convendría desechar totalmente la idea y me pregunto si no sería una transacción aceptable se guir la sugerencia del señor delegado de la India e incorporar un párrafo en el informe que más o me nos podría decir: ”teniendo en cuenta la sugerencia que se hizo en la disertación en memoria de MacDougall de que se cree un cuerpo internacional de voluntarios para la alimentación se pide al Director General que,en la medida de lo posible,y en consulta con otras organizaciones interesadas, estudie la conveniencia y eventual utilidad de que se cree el Cuerpo Internacional de Voluntarios pa ra la Alimentación y estudie, asimismo, sus consecuencias, y presente una evalución o los resulta dos de ese estudio a una próxima reunión del Consejo de la FAO.'' Algo así habrá que redactar; qui zá esto se podría incorporar como un párrafo en el tema 29 de nuestro informe y así podríamos satis facer quizá a nuestros colegas de Gambia, Zambia y a quienes no están de acuerdo con que esto sea una Resolución.
S.A. MADALLALI (Tanzania): Our main preoccupation as Tanzania is to get an insight into this idea of having a corps that will improve maybe in technology on food production and decrease in malnutrition. We know very often international volunteers - there have been countries offering volunteers to developing countries and vice-versa with an exchange of technology. So long as we give the chance to FAO, which my delegation considers the appropriate Organization to look into the affairs of increased food production and reducing malnutrition and hunger, so long as we can direct or give opportunity to FAO, competent Organization as it is, to have a study of this nature in relation to and concerting with other organizations involved on the international field, and have a paper giving us an insight of such programmes, whether this appears as a full resolution as it is now, we really would not mind, or if it appears as a page as suggested by the delegates from India and Argentina, my delegation will have no objection.
CHAIRMAN: Could I suggest, if it is agreeable to everyone, that the delegates of Tanzania and Argentina get in touch with the Secretariat and draft a text.
RIGHT OF REPLY
DROIT DE REPONSE
DERECHO DE REPLICA
A.T. WADDA (Gambia): I am taking the floor as right of reply to what the delegate of Brazil has just said. At no time did I say that he was speaking on behalf of the Group of 77. I made it clear that it was unfortunate that he, as Chairman of the Group of 77, had made the statement he has made, especially when this Resolution was put and endorsed by the African Group.
It is unfortunate also to see that some people are obsessed with what Ambassador Young has said about bureaucrats. This is no place, and we are not discussing the McDougall lecture. I could go into detail on all the comments that Ambassador Young made, but we are discussing a Resolution which recalls resolutions which have been passed on technical cooperation among developing countries. This idea of an International Food Corps is not new, it is not Ambassador Young's idea. All he did was to dramatize it before our Conference, and the sponsors of the resolutions have used the idea in response to the promotion of technical cooperation among developing countries.
I do not understand the way that the Chairman of the Group of 77 has reacted. Sometimes it is surprising to know when the Chairman of the Group of 77 is speaking on behalf of the Group of 77 or as the delegate of Brazil. My remark to him was directed to him as the delegate of Brazil. Nevertheless, I cannot forget that he is wearing the other hat as Chairman of the Group of 77.
CHAIRMAN: Before giving the floor to other speakers, may I ask speakers to address themselves to the question: is it acceptable, instead of having the resolution, to have a text inserted, as proposed under item 29, other business, to the effect suggested by the delegation of Argentina? Could the delegations of Argentina and Tanzania, in cooperation with the Secretariat, prepare such a text?.
I. OROZCO GUZMAN (Mexico): No quiero entrar en una inútil confrontación, lo que sí quiero decir es que yo no se qué tenga que ver aquí las menciones al delegado de Brasil en su calidad de Presidente del Grupo de los 77. El intentar poner aquí una bifurcación entre los objetivos que persigue el Grupo de los 77 en relación con una Resolución tardía, cuyo contenido no hemos tenido oportunidad de examinar no creo que tenga mucho sentido. No quiero referirme desde luego a los aspectos que encierra cada uno de los pá rrafos de esta Resolución; desde luego que de los dos extremos de su propuesta obviamente no estamos. de acuerdo con un texto así, con una Resolución que se nos presenta en hora tan inoportuna. Ahora, en cuanto al segundo extremo de su propuesta, pues bien, si usted así lo de'sea, estamos de acuerdo en que se reúnan los delegados que están interesados y nos presenten un texto y ya tendremos oportunidad de referirnos a él.
POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN
F. SHEFRIN (Canada): On a point of order, it is my impression that a decision has been made that two of the delegates will get together and work out a text acceptable to all parties. As I see no other items on the Agenda, I propose that we adjourn the meeting now. If other delegates wish to have funny discussions, I would prefer that they did it in the hall rather than here.
RIGHT OF REPLY
DROIT DE REPONSE
DERECHO DE REPLICA
Β. de AZEVEDO BRITO (Brazil): On a point of order, I think I have the right of reply in order to put on record that I had no information at all until I spoke about having this Resolution approved by the African Group.
When I made my statement, I had no knowledge at all about that. If I had had that knowledge, I would certainly have discussed it' first with the African countries. I shall not say anything more about it.
CHAIRMAN: Several delegates have asked for the floor, but there is a proposal by the delegate of Canada, on a point of order, that we adjourn the meeting now and consider our position with regard to the International Food Corps. It has been suggested that the delegations of Argentina and Tanzania get together with the Secretariat and draft a text. This has been accepted by the delegate of Tanzania, the sponsor of the proposal, and I think we should leave it at that.
With all due respect, I think we should be happy that we have come to the end of our business. It is five past ten, you have done a lot of work. Can I take it that everyone agrees that this is the end of our debate, the end of the adoption of our Report? I take it that that is the case.
Draft Report of Commission II - Part 6, as amended, was adopted
Le Projet de rapport de la Commission II - sixième partie, ainsi amende,est adopté
El proyecto de informe de la Comisión II, Parte 6, asi enmendado, es aprobado
CHAIRMAN: I would like to thank all of you very much for your cooperation, and especially for the speed with which you have adopted the last three parts of our Report. Thank you very much.
W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Fed. Rep. of) (interpretation from German): I would just like to thank the Chairman very much indeed for the way he has guided our work. I do not know if we shall have a further opportunity to thank him, so we wanted to have it done now.
Applause
Applaudissements
Aplausos
S.S. MAHDI (India): If delegates would bear with me, I would like to say one brief word, that I whole heartedly support what my friend Mr. Grabisch has said.
K. OLZVOY (Mongolia): Just for the record, I would like to second what has already been said by the delegates of Cuba, Mexico and many others on the Draft Resolution on the International Food Corps. It is very difficult to take any definite position on such an unclear subject. Moreover, we have no instruction to discuss it at this stage and that is -why I would like to appeal to the co-sponsors of this Resolution to withdraw it and any other suggestion on the inclusion of such a vague idea in the Report.
CHAIRMAN: I must tell the delegate of Mongolia that we have already settled this matter, it has been decided upon and I think we have now come to the end of our meeting.
B. de AZEVEDO BRITO (Brazil): At a meeting of the June Session of the Council, when a choice was made or first nominations were put forward for the Chairman of the Commissions of the Conference, the main Group of 77 had the honour and privilege to second your nomination, Mr. Chairman.
I have very much confidence and trust in your nomination, and I am more then happy to say, in the name of our Group, that our trust and confidence were fully reflected in the actual results of the Conference.
You have directed our work with patience, wisdom and a clear sense of the interests of the developing countries, and the need to promote the development of food and agriculture production in nutrition. We are vey much indebted to you, and I want to put that on record.
H.M. CARANDANG (Philippines): I would just like to put on record out appreciation of the calm patience and wisdom with which, Mr. Chairman, you have guided the deliberations of this Commission. We should like to express our appreciation and thanks to you.
E. SAENZ (Colombia): No quisiera dejar pasar por alto, antes de retirarnos de esta reunion, el agradecimiento de nuestra delegación y en especial también del grupo latinoamericano a quien me honro de representar aquí, para agradecerle y reiterarle una vez más nuestra satisfacción por la forma en que ha llevado a cabo esta reunion, y felicitarle una vez más por la feliz terminación de ella.
Z. SZEDLACSKO (Hungary): I would have liked to have spoken about ten minutes earlier on this matter because I wanted to put our position concerning the International Food Corps, but the matter has been settled.
On behalf on my delegation, I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your conduct during this Commission.
J.S. CAMARA (Guinée): Monsieur le Président, je suis le dernier, mais je voudrais quand même suivre la tradition et vous exprimer, au nom du groupe africain, notre profonde gratitude, et vous féliciter de la façon dont vous avez dirigé les travaux de la Commission II. Le délégué de l'Argentine en sourira, mais la Commission II est en général la Commission la plus difficile et vous l'avez très bien dirigée.
Je vous en remercie infiniment.
S.A. MADALLALI (Tanzania): We were just discussing what my colleague from Argentina said. In order not to prolong the discussion on the International Food Corps, perhaps the suggestion of the addition of a paragraph could be looked at under item 29. We suggest that the paragraph should read: ”The need for long-term programmes of international cooperation...''
CHAIRMAN: Excuse me for interrupting, but could you give that to the Secretariat, and they will take care of it. I do not think there are any objections to the text, as far as I understand the feeling of delegates in this hall, so the delegate of Tanzania could submit his text to the Secretariat for inclusion in the Report.
CHAIRMAN: Distinguished delegates, it is then up to me to thank you for your cooperation and patience. I think you have helped me very, very much in this task, and I would also like to thank the Secretariat, especially the two people sitting on the left of me, who have been very helpful and very patient, both with me and with you and with the Drafting Committee. I would also like to thank the interpreters who have helped us a great deal and been extremely patient, and also all the ladies who have been kind enough to run around with all our messages forward and backwards. In short, I thank you all for your cooperation.
We have come to the end of the business of Commission II. The meeting is adjourned.
The meeting rose at 22.15 hours
La séance est levée à 22h 15
Se levanta la sesión a las 22.15 horas
