F. KESMIR (Turkey): First of all I would like to thank Mr. Lucas for his excellent introduction of yesterday to this very important subject which deserves a high priority in the activities of FAO. By bringing under control all coastal nations large fish stocks the new ocean regime would give the developing countries an opportunity to provide better nutrition for their populations. It would also permit them to increase their foreign exchange earnings by exporting their surplus catches. Finally, it will place upon them new responsibilities in the field of fisheries management and conservation. However, as most of these countries do not have the means and possibilities for fully exploiting themselves their own resources, the situation calls for increased international assistance and cooperation.
It also opens new opportunities in the field of technical and economic cooperation among developing countries. Any realization in this field would constitute a major contribution to the efforts to create a new international economic order. FAO should continue its leading role in this respect and encourage such cooperation as it has done so well in the past. The programme that FAO has prepared for the EEZs and presented in the recent quarterly meeting shows an integrated structure and this is highly appreciated by my delegation.
However, we would like to make a few points about its implementation. First of all, priority should be given to the short-term needs of the developing countries. Many countries have already established 200 miles of EEZ and they urgently require equipment, fishing techniques and qualified staff to take advantage of the situation. . Emphasis must be placed on this point.
The second point is that small-scale fisheries already existing in the developing countries should be extended in order not to create new inequalities in income distribution and to prevent price increases. The new opportunities created by the EEZ should be well taken into consideration in the solution to the unemployment problem.
A third point is that special emphasis should be placed on the establishment of distribution networks in order to reach all consumers.
In Turkey 85 percent of the fish catch is consumed in the coastal areas as fresh fish. Since facilities for economic transportation are not available annual fish consumption per capita, which reaches 10 to 12 kgs in the coastal areas, drops to zero in some inner parts of the country.
Finally, we believe that the programme should also take into consideration the situation of geographically or otherwise disadvantaged states who are not in a position to benefit from the programme but when however there is a potential to be utilized and increased. For instance, in Turkey, which is surrounded by three seas and has a sea coast of about 2, 700 kms there is need for international assistance in determining fish stocks, improving the conservation and processing techniques and in preventing losses during marketing. In this respect we fully subscribe to the proposal made by the delegate of Malta for the inclusion in the report of this Commission of a paragraph duly reflecting the special situation and the needs of the countries in the Mediterranean.
M. LEROTHOLI (Lesotho): My brotherly greetings to you and the participants in Commission I. My delegation will confine its remarks to the Draft Resolution on the Programme of Assistance in the Development and Management of Fisheries in Exclusive Economic Zones contained in document C 79/LIM/41. We recognize the hard reality of the trend that has already superseded the purposes of the ongoing United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea in relation to the new phenomenom of nationalizing the seas by creating exclusive economic zones by some coastal states. We note that this resolution seeks to institutionalize this phenonmenom within the context of the United Nations system, even before the United Nations has adopted a formal position on it through the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea.
We wish to state our position clearly, Mr. Chairman, in this regara, that this Conference of FAO is being requested to invoke a serious precedent in the procedures of the United Nations system, where a United Nations agency jumps the gun and pre-empts the United Nations General Assembly on an issue of so profound importance that the United Nations has already accepted that there is the need to ascertain world opinion through our Conference. That Conference has not yet concluded this issue.
My delegation very sincerely fears the potential consequences of the proposed resolution upon the process of the United Nations system at large. A precedent once established usually evolves imponderables of limitless dimension, a complete Pandora's box.
It would be wise for this 20th FAO Conference to consider this resolution to have preceeded its time and shelve it, much though it has important prospects for intended beneficiary states. The United Nations is a legal entity with its own statutory procedures which we must consider carefully as we draw up decisions i-n this agency. We should not be found to have hastened to legalise lawlessness.
However, should this Conference deem it convenient to ignore our warning, my delegation wishes to draw attention to yet another fact: the fact that nationalization of the seas through the exclusivity concept permanently dispossesses the non-coastal and other disadvantaged states of a univeral right in respect of renewable resources of the sea.
We urge a reconsideration of the proposed resolution so that landlocked and other disadvantaged states may also be given a fair formula of standing as co-beneficiaries from the Exclusive Economic Zone with the coastal states. To that end my delegation formally proposes the amendment of both the preambular and operative parts of the resolution, in a modest way which will, however, profoundly express the common brotherhood of man within the forum of FAO in the following way:
1. In the 3rd preambular paragraph, In the 3rd line after the words ". . . benefit of the people insert the following words "without prejudice to the interests of non-coastal and other disadvantaged states". So that the preambular paragraph will then read "Realizing that in order to take advantage of these opportunities and to discharge responsibilities for managing fishery resources and utilizing them for the social and economic benefit of their peoples, without prejudice to the interest of non-coastal and other disadvantaged States, will urgently need considerable assistance' '.
2. In operative paragraph 1 after the words ". . . fishery resources", add "in the Exclusive Economic Zone" and after the words "economic objectives", add "including those of the non-coastal and other disadvantaged States".
It cannot be overemphasized how important these modifications are to the affected States whose right of exploitation of the sea, their economic circumstances permitting, would then be accorded appropriate universal recognition. The acceptance of these modifications could considerably ease our position in mutual support with regard to other aspects and activities of this Conference where such support is of importance even to the coastal states. We need each other, tne coastal and non-coastal states, in a wide variety of inter-state relationships, and please let us not forget one another when we enter the Kingdom of the Seas.
My delegation enlists the support of our fellow landlocked and other disadvantaged states, and we solicit the goodwill of the coastal states on this issue in the universal interest of mankind. Let us take advantage of the limitless prospects offered by Oceanic technology, with due regard for the basic principles that distinguish man as a social being. Even if some of us nationalize the seas let us do so rationally and equitably. A ruthless, unilateral nationalization by some coastal states of-and I quote the Secretariat in this ". . . . an area of sea about equal to the entire land surface of the world . . . . " without regard for the existence of non-coastal and other disadvantaged States could bring aboutirreparable rupture of human relations in new dimensions. Let us strive to retain the world of mankind intact and accomodate each other.
CHAIRMAN: Your suggestions and amendments are dulyy taken note of by the Secretariat.
W. WOLDEYES (Ethiopia): Mr. Chairman, first of all my delegation highly appreciates Mr. Lucas| preparation of the document on the Development and Management of Fisheries in Exclusive Economic Zones.
Ethiopia as recognized by the United Nations has a coastal line of over 1, 000 Km. on the Southwestern Red Sea. As one of the coastal states Ethiopia has repeatedly supported FAO's efforts in assisting developing coastal countries. FAO’s efforts include (1) holding regional multi-disciplinary seminars, particularly on the implications of the changing law of the sea on fisheries, with emphasis to regional management bodies, and the provision of direct assistance to coastal countries in remodelling national legislations.
The role of parastatal bodies in fisheries development and the implications of new law of the seas in fisheries legislation were highly supported by the Ethiopian delegations during the 19th Session of the FAO Conference.
At the 19th Session of the FAO Conference Ethiopia expressed the opinion that it would welcome the intended series of multi-disciplinary missions that FAO had planned to implement in order to assess the implications re the extended zones of jurisdiction for fishery development on a region-by-region basis which was actually a partial fulfilment by the Committee on Fisheries at its 11th Session.
In spite of our continued support for FAO's plan for fisheries development in coastal developing countries, our Permanent Representative to FAO was denied the right to attend the session of the Committee on the Red Sea. Although this decision was made by the majority of the countries bordering the Red Sea, we appreciate and give thanks to the Democratic Republic of Yemen for its unreserved support.
The Socialist Government of Ethiopia has given prior attention to the development of fisheries on the Ethiopian coastline of the Red Sea, in cooperation with concerned countries bordering those waters, and bilateral and/or parastatal bodies.
However, Ethiopia's sovereignty over fisheries resources in the Red Sea was not recognized. This was made clear by the Minister of Agriculture of Ethiopia in his address in the Plenary meeting of the august body of the Twentieth Session of the FAO Conference.
As one of the founding members of FAO, we have always upheld its noble aims and worthy achievements. Nevertheless, we are forced once again to reiterate our position regarding the so-called Red Sea area and Gulf of Aden Fisheries Development which was organized by the Arab States bordering those waters with the assistance of FAD, and with the exclusion of and without consulting my country.
My Government continues to consider this step as a violation of Ethiopian sovereignty over its territory, as well as a violation of international obligations.
These being the facts, my delegation believes that whatever the source of finance may be, FAO should in no way indulge and ultimately become instrumental in a regional exercise which might entail a discriminatory attitude against one member nation or a few member nations of the same region.
We believe that FAO is a vital instrument of multilateral development of member states which in its past history, its noble aims and achievements never entertained the values of a particular interest group at the expense of other member states . FAO, as a multilateral development agency of all member states, should hardly take the source of funding as the only criterion to prepare and implement a regional project to the exclusion of a vital member state of the region, otherwise FAO will easily be subject to a delicate situation and so unwittingly be used as an instrument to advance political objectives of particular interest groups.
Actually, excluding a member nation from the so-called Red Sea and Gulf of Aden Fisheries Regional Development Project is contrary to the principles on which the concept of the exclusive economic zone is based.
It is amazing to note that while all member countries which have small coastal areas in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden have the privilege of being included in the project, Ethiopia, with over 1000 km. of coastline on the Red Sea, has been excluded.
We insist on Your Excellencies' judgement on the implications of such regional fisheries development viewed against the basic principle of exclusive economic zones.
In these circumstances, Ethiopia strongly feels that the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden Fisheries Project and its so-called committee do not embrace the vital fishing interests of all the coastal states of the Red Sea Region. If PAD is to conduct a meaningful project for all the people of the region, the present intent must by all means be altered to include all coastal member states of the region.
Finally, my delegation proposes to this august Commission that a resolution should be adopted with a view to reotifying the illegal deprivation of its rights imposed upon my country, by omitting its membership from the Red Sea Committee, and should include all other countries of the region willing to participate in the work of the Committee.
The Ethiopian delegation would hope that, beyond this incident concerning the Red Sea, no similar motives will be entertained in other regions where FAO or similar organizations are involved.
A. ANTOINE (Grenada): First of all, let me say that we believe that the document before us is well prepared. However, we are a little worried that the problem of island economies has not been exclusively and specifically dealt with in the documentation We would have liked to see how the programme proposes to treat small-island economies like ours, which cannot talk about 200 mile limits because we are very close to other people. Secondly, we would have hoped that the documentation would have given us some information on who gains and who loses. For instance, on page 32 of the document on world fisheries and the law of the sea we have sum developed countries, like Canada, the United States, Australia and New Zealand, gaining from the EEZ, yet the document gives the impression that it is only the developing countries which are gaining.
We recognize the possibilities and challenges offered by the EEZ to develop-to some developed countries, as I have said-and that it will require political will to implement the proposals, and so on.
Our position is this that as an island economy fishing is vital to our people. So far we have implemented a fisheries development programme under which several projects are planned, one of which has been implemented or is being implemented, and that is the training of fishermen. However, as an island economy within the Caribbean, we share fisheries resources with several other countries.
Grenada will expect FAO to assist us in developing an integrated approach to the development and management of our shared fisheries resources. We are sure that other Caribbean countries are thinking along the same lines. We rely on FAO to give us some guidanc e in the development of our shared resources
We expect FAO to support and strengthen the regional fisheries development programmes, assist in the assessment of stooks and preparation and implementation of fisheries policies and programmes, and generally to promote cooperation with the countries with which we share fisheries resources. We would welcome a decentraiizati on of the fisheries bodies in our region. In our region there is WECAFC, but we would like to see smaller bodies able to deal with our speoific, insular problems.
We Welcome the assistance given to our fisheries development by Cuba. We also welcome the assistance given to that programme by Canada. We look forward to further assistance along the same lines, yet we would hope that inland fisheries would not suffer as a result of a preoccupation with any EEZs. So we would expeot FAO to continue to support, and in fact expand its support, for programmes in the EEZ as well. The EEZ will stress the technical and financial resources and, of o our se, the political will of governments, to the fullest, to the limit. We believe that FAO and the international community will face that challenge.
K. C. LUCAS (Assistant Director-General, Fisheries Department)! It has been hard enough to digest the large number of oral interventions, altogether 42, but as well as those we had to digest 16 written interventions and try to bring the whole into some sort of coordinated response. It will not be perfect, but we will try our best. I have written down various points made by delegates under seven headings, and I think I can pick up most of the issues raised under those seven headings. I am not attempting to summarize the discussion but am picking up the points of questions, misunderstandings, disagreements, contentious points, rather than discussing the points on which there was agreement, because there was agreement on a very large part of what was written and proposed.
The most consistent and important point of contention raised throughout the morning and early afternoon, where there may be some misunderstanding, was the question of where does inland fisheries and agriculture fit? The reason there is no document on inland fisheries and agriculture before the Commission is that it was not on the agenda, it was not an item, therefore there was no discussion of the important work of the Organization in inland fisheries management and agriculture. But there was an important discussion on this subject at the recent Thirteenth meeting of the Committee on Fisheries, in this very room only five weeks ago. It had on its agenda the Exclusive Economic Zone Programme and it also had on its agenda Agriculture. It spent a whole day debating and considering the agricultural and freshwater management programme of FAO and the development of fisheries on an equal basis with its EEZ programme. May I refer to the report of the Committee on Fisheries.
I think it is worth making the point that in the Report adopted by the Committee en Fisheries, and passed by the 76th Council, it says, under Aquaculture Development, that the Committee on Fisheries expressed strong support for the Organisations present and proposed programme in aquaculture development, which would help meet the special needs of rural communities. It was suggested that efforts be made to include coordination among various organizations and experts involved in aquacultural development programmes.
The debate on Aquaculture lasted for a full day-roughly a third of the total time available for the Committee-and that I think is the answer to the delegate who said that we needed to put aquaculture en the agenda of meetings of FAO and Fisheries. I think that that delegation was not present at the meeting of the Committee on Fisheries, and may not have realized that it was given a thorough airing. When this report did come before the 76th Council ten days ago, this point was again raised, as to the possible competition between the new Marine thrust and the Exclusive Economic Zones, and the deleterious effects it may have on aquaculture development. There was a thorough airing of the point and disoussion on it, and I have the draft Report of the Council in my hands now-this has not yet been officially released. Many of the delegations present here were represented at this meeting, although probably not individual delegates now present. The relevant paragraph reads, "with regard to aquaculture development, the second matter brought to its attention in the Committee on Fisheries, the Council expressed satisfaction at the Secretariat's assurance that support to aquaculture was being given high priority and was regarded as an essential complement, not as a competitor, to the Organisation's work in marine fisheries. "
So the issue has been discussed, and there was satisfaction in the minds of members of the FAO Council that aquaculture was getting fair treatment within the programme; I personally in fact advised the Council, as I have earlier advised the Committee on Fisheries, that the Organisation gives aquaculture, inland fisheries, and marine fisheries, equally high priority. We in fact have another subject of high priority as well and that is the utilisation of fish, once caught.
I think that is all I wish to say about that particular question. Again, I want to reassure the delegations present that aquaculture is not listed on the agenda and therefore was not provided with supporting documentation, but it was discussed at those two other fora, and satisfaction was expressed that the aquaculture programme is receiving not only high priority but programme support, not only from the regular programme but from budget programme from which it gets the majority of its funds, both the inter-regional and global programme and the country programmes.
We are very well aware of the opportunities for development in inland waters, where there is much competition for alternative uses of these waters. Here we must be careful of pollution and also of the conflict of fisheries management with other activities. This of course also makes a strong contribution to rural development and to nutrition in areas which are very short of protein.
The second matter raised by a number of delegates was: "where do small scale fisheries fit?" They were mentioned" by me in my introductory remarks yesterday in the context of small-scale farmers. They have the best chance of all of gaining a benefit from the existence of EEZ, if-and I under-line the word if-it is in fact the policy of national governments to make that emphasis. I would like to make this point again: that it is the philosophy within FAO's Fisheries Department that the small-scale fisheries development should be encouraged and given priority. However, we are not in charge of anyone's fisheries-all we are is advisors-technical advisors, policy advisors-and that it is up to the government of each individual country to decide to whom it is going to allocate the use of its fishery resources. Now that at least 93 countries have declared zones of extended jurisdiction, this gives them authority over the resources within that zone. But more than ever now it rests with the governments to make the decision as to who should have access, who should have priority for use of their resources, and whether the use of the resources be for social reasons, economic reasons, and so forth. That is why in document C 79/21, on the very last page in paragraph 38, it is suggested that the Conference should discuss the question of fisheries policies. The
Government should make conscious decisions as to how their fisheries resources should be used, now that they are under their control; because without making such decisions, the resources in many cases will fall to the strong rather than to the weaker in the community, which means that the small-scale fisherman loses out again. So I would like to urge again that governments do address themselves to this question, and make their own decisions-as they are of course empowered to do -and take a conscious decision on the question of allocation of their resources, and to what end purpose they should be used.
The Delegate from Sri Lanka asked how this EEZ helped small-scale fisheries, and I think I have given the answer in my earlier remarks on this topic. It helps them in a sense that (as I mentioned in my introduction yesterday) 99 percent of the exploited resources of the sea will lie within Exclusive Economic Zones, and therefore governments do have the power to make clear allocations of excess of certain stocks of fish to small-scale fishermen, thereby providing the one basic ingredient for their livelihood-the other ingredient being their ability to catch the fish and their ability to sell them at a price which will allow them to make a profit, or to in fact not take a loss on their operations. So it is possible now, because of EEZ, because of the control over the stocks, to tilt in favour of the small-scale fisherman, to give him a better chance of a better livelihood and a better life.
The third general topic on which there was a fair amount of comment was the whole question of the role of PAD in giving policy and planning advice, and in every case where it was mentioned, it was I think agreed by all the delegations making the interventions that FAO should take a more active role in providing comprehensive advice on fisheries development and management, including that of policy and planning. Included in this was the recognition that fisheries information was a very important ingredient of providing advice and assistance in policy and planning. I think different legislations fell under that same heading. I understand that delegations have introduced into the Programme of Work and Budget discussions in Commission II, and the Director-General has in fact proposed-and I believe it has now been agreed in the Commission-that the Fisheries Department should strengthen its policy in the planning capacity in order to give advice to member countries in their planning of how they can best utilize their EEZ, and to help also to evolve a network of regional bodies and subsidiary structures to gain the best possible advantage from this opportunity. Also in fact there is an organisational adjustment proposed by the Director-General and agreed upon at Commission II, to put a sharper focus on this problem of the distribution of work.
I think the Norwegian intervention was particularly appropriate here, when he spoke of the need to define objectives more closely and specifically, and then follow the development and assistance projects carefully so as to meet those objectives as precisely as possible. Again, I think this can take place within the context of country programmes as well as the sub-regional and regional programmes. We are certainly committing ourselves to an attempt to sharpen our preparations for and follow-through of these programmes, and we are now engaged in evaluation and assessment. We have already been instructed by the Committee on Fisheries to bring forward a report at the next meeting of that Committee in 1981, to report for the first time on what has been accomplished so far and to evaluate and assess its accomplishments as far as corrections in directions are concerned.
The fourth point on which there was a substantial number of interventions was that of the centralized delivery of the programme through strengthened institutions under the framework of the regional bodies. The concept of the smaller management areas within the regional bodies was strongly supported, and the movement towards the setting up of subsiduary bodies under the present large regional groups, and the strengthening of technical support, both received, I think, unanimous support.
I would like to acknowledge the offer by Sri Lanka to host a technical unit. I do not think it is within the Secretariat's mandate to accept that offer-but certainly we are pleased to see that countries are thinking in that direction. I would recommend that Sri Lanka take the matter up with countries within its geographical area, to seek consensus on this. We are prepared to go wherever countries wish us to go. We will be looking for host nations for a large number-eventually there will be between 12 and 15-of these technical groups, located in various critical places around the world.
The fifth topic on which there was a fair amount of discussion was that of cooperation between developed and developing countries. Very constructive interventions were made by a number of delegations, discussing the various ways and means of doing this. One was licensing arrangements, which the Delegate from Japan suggested: this was a very useful way of doing business, and should be encouraged. Of course, going on bilateral agreements between countries, these need not be just between developing and developed countries, but between developing countries as well. The use of joint ventures is another tool for development between partner countries, to take advantage of development opportunities, to keep things keep moving, you might say, until more programme arrangements can be made.
A call went up for FAO to intensify its help in this area, and it is certainly in the programme plan to assist wherever a question on licensing arrangements, bilateral agreements, and joint ventures, arises. I welcome the support that the Commission is giving to this type of work.
My next heading is that of funding and assistance. There seemed to be support from a number of delegations for an integrated approach to planning and execution of programmes of this nature, which makes it easier to arrange funding on a programme basis. One delegation asked what the latest status funding of the programme was. I did mention the statement yesterday in my introduction, but, roughly speaking, in the first two years of the programme (1980/81) we have already secured firm financing for $13 million-that is, incremental firm financing-for the programme, with a further $8 to $9 million in active discussion at the present time.
However, for funding for 1982 and beyond, as we know, no commitments are made yet, in that medium-term, mainly because most agencies do not do their financing three years ahead; they only do it two years ahead. Another very important factor is that the UN Development Programme because its financial cycle begins in 1982, the planning on how the funds in the cycle will be allocated has not yet got to the point where they can make commitments. That is why in my intervention yesterday I was urging delegations which strongly support this Programme here also, in the forum of the UN open programme to make their voice heard and their weight felt when the time comes to be making allocations, which will probably begin in the meeting of the Governing Council in the Summer of 1980.
Also during the debate this morning there were a number of countries which in fact offered technical assistance, which is just as welcome to the Organization as financial assistance, because sometimes technical assistance is even scarcer than the funds. We are very pleased with the offers made by the delegate of Poland in his intervention offering training facilities, berths in research vessels, and other forms of assistance in kind. Also Korea made generous offers in this field, as did the Federal Republic of Germany and Canada. Canada in fact discussed what it was doing both in the way of financial assistance and assistance in kind. Again, we are open to all offers. There were other offers made in COFI and not repeated here and we promise that we will follow up every one of them after the Conference is over as quickly as we can to try to tie down some matching of the offers with the needs, so we can get moving to implement this Programme as quickly as possible.
This one did not have a category but the proposed technical conference to be held in 1982-the global conference-was mentioned by a couple of delegations, and in fact the delegate of the Philippines offered to host some preparatory meetings, for which we thank him very much, and I am sure we will be taking him up on that offer to have some of the preparatory meetings in his country.
We do not have a firm offer yet from any country for the hosting of that 1982 conference and we shall be rather anxious . to hear from anyone who is possibly entertaining the thought of inviting that conference to be held in their country.
I do not believe any one country could be expected to pick up the whole of the cost of that conference. I would see it being shared between the host country and the EEZ Programme, which I think should make some provision for it, since it would be contributing so much to the overall understanding and improvement of the fisheries development and management situation in the world.
One delegate mentioned the fact that small island economies were not mentioned anywhere in the documentation and I would beg to differ on that. Maybe it is not very obvious but in document C 79/21, it is mentioned in paragraph 27, where in fact the UN Programme of Assistance to Developing Island Countries is mentioned as one of the relevant UN issues to which this Programme relates, and we have it clearly in mind that the developing island states should be very important recipients of assistance from this Programme, because many of them have a very small population, so that they do not have the internal capacity, knowledge or expertise to take the many steps required to develop and better manage their fisheries. I would like to assure the delegation of Grenada that in the Secretariat we have their concerns very much in mind and we will see to it that in the future it is more clearly put in our papers.
I have only one more specific point concerning things mentioned at the meeting. The delegate of Ethiopia, who spoke last, I believe, mentioned the problem his country has had in the Red Sea project. I would just like to say that I have never heard about that problem until the intervention of his delegation at the Plenary a week ago. I managed to look into the problem and I found that the participation of Ethiopia in the Red Sea project which is, in fact, an OPEC Special Fund project executed by FAO, was considered by the Steering Committee in February of this year. There was no
decision taken and the delegations of the participating countries decided to refer the question to the next meeting, which has not yet been held, so there is really not a decision on Ethiopia's membership in that group. There are two other countries in the region who are also not members of that Programme, I believe, who are asking for participation. Through you, Mr. Chairman, I will commit myself to look into the question closely for Ethiopia and I will be communicating with Ethiopia further on that issue and with other countries in that regional programme.
If I may, I will give a few comments on the reaction to the resolution, introduced by a number of delegations and circulated to the meeting yesterday, and which was discussed by a number of delegations mentioned during the debate today. Firstly, could I make a correction on the document C 79/LIM/41. In that document it was noted that the resolution was submitted by delegations of seventeen countries listed from a paper and I now find that the name of the United Kingdom delegation should not have been on that list. Apparently the delegation wanted some changes made to the wording and the word did not filter back to the right people in time. Therefore, would delegates please delete the United Kingdom from the list of countries submitted in the document, although the United Kingdom delegation has said that it supports the resolution. Therefore it still wants to be on the list of countries supporting it but unfortunately it cannot be one of those submitting it.
While we are doing a roll call on this, therefore, sixteen countries submitted the resolution and a further sixteen expressed their support for it during the debate. Therefore there are 32 countries who through their delegations present here are now supporting the resolution.
There are four countries which have suggested modifications to the resolution and if I carry on with this now it may save time later. I am not quite sure how you, Mr. Chairman, want to deal with this when the time comes to report it. If I can report the proposed modifications, not all were mentioned in public. Some were mentioned to us privately. If I can exceed my authority, I will refer to those mentioned privately so that everything is face up on the table.
There was an intervention made by Poland about the resolution not recognizing the particular situation of geographically or otherwise disadvantaged states, and I must say that the Secretariat is very sympathetic to Poland for identifying this oversight. It was an oversight because that issue was discussed and decided upon in COFI and it appears in the report. Turkey also mentioned its concern on that matter and supported Poland's intervention. I think even the intervention at the very end of Lesotho reflected some of that concern. The Secretariat proposes to work out something and perhaps insert another paragraph in the action paragraphs of the document. It could be inserted after paragraph 2 and I can read it out quickly to put it on the record. It could be 2(a) pf the present draft until until it is adopted.
"Recognizes that a number of geographically or otherwise disadvantaged states will not be in a position to benefit directly from the Programme and request the Director-General to give attention as well to the special needs and interests of those States"
I understand that with that adjustment Poland will be prepared to support the resolution.
The United States which did not intervene, but mentioned they probably would intervene later during the debate, had a proposal to insert a small phrase in one of the preambular paragraphs. In the fifth preambular paragraph which begins "Recalling the declaration by the World Conference", after the phrase "permanent sovereignity over its natural resources" insert "in accordance with international law" in commas.
Then the delegate of Spain did in fact announce his proposal to the meeting. In further discussions with him he had two amendments. In operative paragraph 5 which starts "Recognizes that this decentralized approach" in the second line after "developing" in the English text insert "as well as industrialized" so that the phrase would then read "foster increased technical and economic cooperation among developing as well as industrialized countries, . . . ".
One further suggestion of the delegate of Spain was that operative paragraph 6 should be moved up to follow operative paragraph 2-or 2(a) was added. It was just the location of the paragraph; he would move paragraph 6 up.
Finally, right near the end of the intervention the delegate of Lesotho raised a pretty substantial point which could be the rocket on which this resolution might be grounded and sink. He was raising points which had been "debated in the past in the Law of the Sea Conference, on which I am not an outstanding expert at all. Mr. Lerotholi is. I would like to remind him of a couple of things though before he pursues those amendments much further.
Number 1 was that this resolution is addressing a programme of assistance in the development and management of fisheries in exclusive economic zones and that this programme has been in fact prepared and this resolution reflects support of that programme at the direction of the Conference at its meeting in 1977. Conference in fact entrusted the Director-General to prepare this programme and to implement it-gave very detailed instructions in paragraph 65 in the report of the Nineteenth Session of the Conference in 1977, so I do not think it can be debated that this programme is in fact being put together and operated under legitimate instructions from the Conference.
The second point is that it is a reality that 93 countries of the world have already declared either exclusive economic zones or exclusive fishing zones in the spirit and context of the growing consensus of the Law of the Sea Conference.
Thirdly, I would like to make the point that the Under Secretary-General of the Law of the Sea Conference in an address that he made recently at the Committee on Fisheries in fact endorsed the programme of FAO as being the first concrete evidence of action to implement the spirit of the Law of the Sea Conference and that it was going to have very concrete beneficial effects on economic and social benefits to developing countries.
With those few warnings-I think you could get into hours and hours of debate-the status of the landlocked and geographically disadvantaged states-which could bring the whole Law of the Sea debate into this House which would be very hard to manage-but I would just caution that this item would need to be addressed to this forum because of the facts I have just mentioned.
The delegation of Cuba had in fact said that they supported the resolution but they had some reservations and my understanding of the Cuban reservations is that they are editorial and presentational rather than of substance. I understand that the Spanish text of this resolution does not read as smoothly as the English text reads to me and perhaps the concerns of the delegate of Cuba could be best tackled within the Drafting Committee or a smaller drafting group which could take care of the Spanish and French texts of this document to make sure it is all in keeping with the interest of the language groups.
CHAIRMAN:I would like to announce to the House that a draft resolution on World Food Security as revised by the Contact Group is now available in all languages as document C 79/LIM/16.
R. PEREZ (Cuba):Nosotros, no obstante la sugerencia del Sr. Lucas entendemos que debemos hacer uso de la palabra ahora porque de hecho el Sr. Lucas en su intervención tomó, e hizo suyas y pasó a la Secretaría, una serie de modificaciones que le plantearon, según sus palabras, de un modo personal algunas delegaciones.
Nosotros, en particular, también tenemos algunas modificaciones al texto de la Resolución y entendemos hay otros países que también las tienen y si así se ha hecho en el marco de esta reunión nos creemos en el derecho y en el deber de plantear es tas modificaciones, si la Presidencia nos lo permite.
Queríamos hacer las siguientes ypequeñas propuestas:en el párrafo cuarto que comienza: "Convencida", aquí se añadió al texto original que le fue planteado a los patrocinadores "y otros organismos multilaterales". Cuba plantea que se suprima esto que se incluyó "y otros organismos multilaterales" ya que no sólo FAO y los organismos multilaterales han colaborado en el desarrollo de la pesca internacional y tendríamos que mencionar a otros, y estamos en el marco de FAO. Por lo tanto, nosotros sugerimos que se quede sólo mencionando a FAO y que se mantenga el texto como en la Resolución original, "convencidos de que la FAO ha aportado durante muchos, etc. " y así continuaría.
También, en el punto cinco de la propuesta de Resolución donde dice en el primer ranglón "reconoce que este criterio descentralizado facilitará la realización del programa" añadía a continuación del "programa", "ágil y eficiente": "facilitará la realización del programa ágil y eficiente", y el resto tel texto del párrafo continuará como está planteado.
¿La Secretaría está recogiendo estas modificaciones?, pregunto; muchas gracias.
Por último, en el párrafo 7 que comienza "Reconociendo", ahí nosotros insertaríamos "Reconociendo el estado apremiante en que viven muchos países en desarrollo", y continuaría el resto del pafrafo "y que se requerirán considerables recursos adicionales", es decir, como está expuesto en el documento.
Estas son las modificaciones que propone Cuba a la Resolución. En sentido general quisiéramos decir que aparecen otras palabras en el texto español de modo muy absoluto, por lo que sugerimos al Comité de Redacción que revisará el documento, lo señale con las palabras adecuadas, propias y lógicas a un escrito de esta índole.
CHAIRMAN: I would like to thank on behalf of the Commission BrLucas for his rather comprehensive answers and comment s on this issue. I think his somewhat lengthy comments were called for because of the great variety of comments from the floor. If you are in agreement I would prefer not to reopen the discussion on item 9 which has been discussed all the morning. Item 109 the next item, on Food Standards Natters has to be dealt with as soon as possible, otherwise the Secretariat will not be able to prepare the report to be adopted on Monday morning so it is my wish that now item 10 be dealt with and later on we could come back to item 9 which is the Draft Resolution on 23 EEZ.
M. LEROTHCLI (Lesotho): I have no wish to take up the time of the Commission. May I thank Dr. Lucas for having paid attention to what we have said but I would like to refer to the fact that we have made formal amendments which he did not refer to here, that is in respect of the preambulatory paragraph 3 and operative paragraph 1. He shall however submit this in writing to the Secretariat for appropriate consideration.
T. J. SHO-SAWTERR (Sierra Leone): I just wanted a little point of clarification. In his summary Dr. Luoas indicated that 16 speakers had supported the resolution. May we know if these 16 include delegates which submitted their written texts for inclusion in the record of the Committee?
A. LOPES RIBEIRO (Portugal): I asked for the floor in order to try and contribute to the speeding up of the procédures on this very important matter to all our member countries, I noted the different suggestions for improvement or amendment to the proposal. We know that you are working against the clock because we have other business to undertake and I would like to explore one or two alternatives to improve the work and to avoid if possible an extensive debate on this point. As I had no time to consult with the other states which are co-supporters with us on this, I take advantage of having the floor to exchange views with them in sharing them with you.
It is my impression that the proposals for amendments or improvement which had been read by Mr. Lucas, by the Secretariat, do not seem, as far as I can judge, to be very controversial matters. If my assumption is a correct one I would be inclined to suggest that the Secretariat, through consultations with those directly concerned, and by that I have in mind those that have made proposals on the one hand or those that have raised a particular point of disagreement or objection, try to get a text that could be submitted on a clean form to see if we could get consensus on this proposal If, however, you or the Secretariat consider that this is difficult, or any country on the floor objects to that procedure, another approach is to take advantage of your postponing of the debate on item 9 because we have now the matter of item 10 to consider to have a snail contact group to try and polish and improve the resolution so that we could come to the Plenary with a paper that could obtain, I would hope, consensus without further discussion. At the same time I would like to make an appeal to all member states here present to ensure that by concentrating our efforts and taking a certain pragmatic approach we succeed in putting into action the proposals for the programme, avoiding a debate for which there are other items -with full appreciation for the importance attached by some states to their positions-avoiding a debate in which certain elements of the Third Law of the Sea could bring considerable difficulties to the procedures.
In conclusion my proposal is to recommend that the Secretariat, through direct or bilateral consultation with those concerned, should try to get a text containing the basic improvements and amendments, and if this failed, should have a very anali contact group to try to do that job in the time available before the end of item 10. I hope that the colleagues of this proposal agree with my suggestion and I apologise for not having time to consult them before.
A. I. KIXIJEZ (México): Nosotros recogemos con interés y con positivo espíritu de colaboración los conceptos mencionados por el país que propuso la resolución y estamos en condiciones de hacérsela o formar un grupo pequeño de contacto para acelerar la velocidad de nuestro trabajo.
(illegible) A ronotros nos parecen pertinentes las recomendaciones hechas por Portugal y nos permitiríamos hacer modificaciones de forma que estamos seguros no alterarán el contenido de la resolución: el párrafo cuarto del inicio de la propuesta consideramos se debe eliminar en la segunda línea la palabra "FAO" rxroue es redundante; a la vez que "inmejorable" cambiándola por "mejores"; en la oiíT-riente línea en lugar de la palabra "determinante" por la "más importante", para no hacerlo en absolutos; consideramos que la FAO tendrá una mejor y más importante participación.
(illegible) manera on el párrafo cuarto de la hoja tres de la versión en español en lugar de que inicie palera "encomia" sugerimos que sea "apoya". Y por último en el párrafo séptimo consideramos que 'v siguiente frase: "reconociendo el estado apremiante en que viven los países en urtinúa la frase.
(illegible). . tras sugerencias concretas, señor Presidente.
(illegible). foul that all the suggestions made will make the task of the Commission and the Drafting when we come to item 9- I am very grateful to Portugal for the suggestions made, and the proposer of the Draft Resolution to act as convener, as he kindly suggested, co-sponsoring the resolution I think this will promote the work of this i e tic legate of Portugal said we are working very much against the clock. If I see declare item 9 closed and we will move to discuss item 10.
(illegible) E. L. SABEN (Director, Food Policy and Nutrition Division): Thank you very much Mr. Chairman, the to introduce deals with Food Standards Matters and the Work of the FAO/WHO Codex Comision.
I should like to refer to four main issues under this item. These are, first, the question of elaborating an effective mechanism to enable governments to comment on the economic impact on trade food of the recommendations of commissions. Secondly the re-orientation of the Commission designed to give greater emphasis to food standards, needs of developing countries. Thirdly, the question of spacing chat food standards take nutritional aspects fully into account. And, forth, the related need to further strengthen the food control capability of developing countries. These are the 4 points I would like to pur sue.
As regards our first point, the question of assessing the economic impact which may result from the recommendations of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, this matter has been dealt with by the 35th Session of the Programme Committee, and the 74th Session of Council. Both welcomed the action taken by the Commission in establishing new procedures for the assessment of economic impact, but had agreed that the effectiveness of these new procedures depended to a large extent, on the mechanism evolved within the Commission and its Secretariat for dealing with trade impact statements from governments. In connexion with this matter, it should be pointed out that the Codex Alimentarius Commission and its Secretariat have taken steps to find a practical and effective solution to ensure that economic aot statements and statements relating to technical aspects would receive appropriate attention. The Thirty-seventh Session of the Programme Committee was informed about the action being taken. The Committee on General Prinicples, which met in Paris in October this year, examined this question in depth and its recommendations will be discussed by the Thirteenth Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission to be held in Rome in December this year immediately following the Conference.
The Codex Committee on General Principles has recommended to the Commission detailed procedures to enable governments at any stage in the development of standards to have the economic applications of the standards fully considered within the Commission and/or its appropriate subsidiary bodies. Moreover it will also be open to any Member country after a standard has been adopted by the Commission to pr propose amendments when examining the standard with a view to its acceptance. The Council will, of course, be kept informed about developments.
The second question I would like to address myself to is that of reorientation of the work of the Codex Alimentarius Commission which has been dealt with in detail both by the Thirty-fifth Session of the Programme Committee and by the Seventy-fourth Session of the Council. I am pleased to inform the Conference that, in keeping with the objective to meet further the needs of developing countries in the field of food standards, the Commission and its Subsidiary Bodies are responding to the maximum extent possible. The requirements of developing countries in this respect will continue to receive high priority and increased attention will continue to be given to developing standards for products of economic or potential economic importance to these countries. In order to ensure these objectives, the Codex Alimentarius Commission is paying particular attention to the role of Codex Regional Coordinating Committees for Africa, Asia and Latin America. It has drawn up new terms of reference for these Committees and it is expected that they will be confirmed by the next session of the Commission in the light of the views of the various Coordinating Committees.
The third issue to which I made reference earlier relates to the agreement by the Seventy-fifth Session of the Council that food and nutrition should be a standing item on the agenda COAG and that the Programme Committee should follow developments in the nutrition programmes of the Organization. In response to the need to give greater emphasis to nutrition aspects wherever appropriate, the Food Policy and Nutrition Division has prepared a document for consideration by the next session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission setting out ways and means of ensuring that nutrition aspects are fully reflected in food standards work.
The fourth related issue refers to the need for expanding the food control field activities especially to assist developing countries in the establishment and strengthening of national food control infrastructures. Both the Thirty-fifth Session of the Programme Committee and the Seventy-fourth Session of the Council stressed this need. The Programme Committee again emphasized that more funds from extra-budgetary resources should be sought. I should like to inform the Conference that efforts are being made in this direction and that, in addition, a modest shift in resources has been proposed within the 1980-81 Programme of Work and Budget from food standards to food control under the appropriate sub-programme (2. 1. 6. 3).
In my brief introduction I have attempted to update information to recent developments designed to ensure that developing countries should derive greater benefits from the work of the Codex Alimentarius Commission by being in a better position to influence the work of the Commission and also by having better capability to give effect to the recommendations of the Commission through improved food control facilities.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you Dr. Sabry for that introduction.
The delegate of Israel has handed in a written statement for inclusion in the recorded proceedings in this Commission and on item 10 of the agenda.
E. MATTHEY (President de la Commission FAO/OMS du Codex Alimentarius):Je parle non pas au nom de la délégation suisse mais en qualité de Président de la Commission FAO/OMS du Codex Alimentarius. Je voudrais enchaîner sur ce que vient de dire M. Sabry au sujet du programme FAO/OMS du Codex Alimentarius. Je serai très bref mais vous me permettrez de rappeler les objectifs du Codex, Je me bornerai à lire une ou deux phrases du Manuel de procédure du Codex, Celui-ci a pour objet de "protéger la santé des consommateurs et d'assurer la loyauté des pratiques suivies par le commerce des produits alimentaires, de promouvoir la coordination de tous les travaux en matière de normes alimentaires entrepris par des organisations internationales, gouvernementales et non gouvernementales". J'insiste sur la suite: "d'établir un ordre de priorités et de prendre l'initiative et la conduite du travail de préparation des projets de normes" Vous avez indiqué tout à l'have, Monsieur le Président, la nouvelle orientation prise par la Commission du Codex lors de sa dernière session. Cette nouvelle orientation n'est pas due uniquement au hasard ou à un état nouveau de l'élaboration de normes Codex. Il s'agit tout simplement de ceci: sans vouloir remonter à la création de la
Commission FAO/OMS, en 1962 une trentaine de pays en étaient membres et, en 1979, ce chiffre est passé à 117 pays. C'est une démonstration éclatante, spectaculaire, de l'intérêt porté par les pays membres de la FAO et de l'OMS aux travaux du Codex, et en particulier ces dernières années par les pays en voie de développement. Cet intérêt ne s'est pas manifesté de façon soudaine mais insensiblement, de manière toujours plus évidente et convaincante, par une participation plus active des pays en développement aux travaux du Codex. Certes, ces travaux ont un caractère technique s'agissant de l'élaboration des normes et d'une nomenclature précise, concernant en particulier la fixation de la limite de résidus et de contaminants, tous facteurs propres à protéger la santé du consommateur et à assurer la loyauté des transactions dans le commerce international.
Bien entendu, et tout naturellement, au début les travaux se sont orientés sur les produits les plus courants faisant l'objet d'un commerce international. Quatre-vingt-treize normes, codes et pratiques ont été ainsi élaborés par la Commission du Codex mais je dois insister sur un fait; dans l'intérêt de plus en plus grandissant manifesté par les pays en développement aux travaux du Codex, ces pays ont insisté avec raison pour que les produits qui pourraient présenter un intérêt économique immédiat ou un intérêt économique potentiel soient étudiés. Cela entre parfaitement dans les lignes directrices de la Commission. Et si je me suis permis tout à l'heure de lire un extrait de l'introduction du Manuel de Procédure du Codex sur la priorité de certains aspects des travaux de la Commission, c'est pour dire qu'actuellement, après avoir travaillé sur les produits les plus courants faisant l'objet d'un commerce international, les produits provenant des pays en développement retiennent l'intérêt et font l'objet de l'activité des travaux de la Commission du Codex. Je citerai quelques exemples: la création de nouveaux comités, comme celui des céréales, ou la poursuite de l'activité du Comité Codex sur les huiles et les graisses qui prend en considération maintenant les produits oléagineux de graines exotiques et, mieux encore, certains travaux sur des jus de fruits exotiques. Les Comités de coordi-nation des régions ont désormais une plus grande latitude pour s'occuper des produits directement liés à l'économie de ces régions; exemple, le Comité de coordination pour l'Afrique qui n'a pas hésité, au cours de ses deux dernières sessions, à élaborer des normes pour des produits typiquement africains.
C'est dire que le virage est pris de manière à ce que la Commission du Codex puisse prêter plus d'attention aux intérêts des pays en développement. Tout à l'heure, M. Sabry a insisté sur les nouvelles procédures proposées par la Commission mais non encore décidées; il s'agit de la nouvelle procédure élaborée par le Comité des principes généraux à Paris. Je n'insiste pas car M. Sabry l'a très exactement montré. Je voudrais simplement m'arrêter sur le fait qu'à tous les échelons de la procédure d'élaboration des normes Codex, il est possible, soit au Comité des produits directement intéressé à l'élaboration des normes sur les produits pertinents, soit à la Commission, de tenir compte des observations susceptibles d'être faites sur les normes en élaboration, et sur leurs conséquences et leur impact économique.
La Commission du Codex a largement tenu compte des voeux exprimés auparavant par le Conseil de la FAO, et j'ai le ferme espoir que dans dix jours, lorsque la Commission du Codex se réunira, elle ne manquera pas d'appuyer et d'avaliser la nouvelle procédure préparée par le Comité sur les principes généraux pour tenir compte d'une manière plus évidente des intérêts des pays en développement.
M. Sabry a parlé des aspects nutritionnels qui devaient tenir compte des normes du Codex. Je rappelle ici aux membres de cette assemblée que les normes Codex sont élaborées selon un schéma mis au point dans le Manuel de Procédure qui, je crois pouvoir le dire, est un modèle du genre. Dans ce schéma d'élaboration des normes Codex, il est question de facteurs essentiels de qualité et il y est question d'habitudes alimentaires, des contaminants, d'hygiène. Ce sont là autant d'éléments, autant de problèmes sur lesquels l'attention du Comité du Codex et de la Commission est attirée précisément pour essayer de promouvoir une meilleure nutrition par les produits faisant l'objet d'un commerce international. Certes, le Codex ne peut pas tout faire dans la promotion d'une meilleure nutrition. Il ne faut pas oublier que la promotion de la nutrition dans un pays est avant tout une question de médecine préventive. Mais les travaux de la Commission FAO/OMS du Codex peuvent apporter une contribution très positive à la promotion de la nutrition précisément par l'élaboration de facteurs de qualité. Je pense en particulier aux résidus, aux pesticides et autres contaminants; je pense aussi aux facteurs de composition relevant de la teneur en protéines ou autres facteurs déterminants pour la santé. Je pense également aux nombreux codes de pratiques, codes d'hygiène élaborés par la Commission du Codex qui doivent en quelque sorte suppléer aux déficiences du contrôle.
En dernier ressort, M. Sabry a insisté avec beaucoup de pertinence sur le besoin des pays en développement de promouvoir les controles alimentaires. Ce besoin est évident; la surveillance des produits alimentaires passe par le contrôle, pas forcément par un contrôle policier mais par un contrôle éducatif, un contrôle de conseils, un contrôle consultatif prêt à venir en aide aux importateurs, aux exportateurs, aux producteurs, aux industriels d'où qu'ils soient, de manière à leur donner la possibilité d'observer les exigences des normes; bien sûr, et j'en suis parfaitement conscient, tout n'est pas opérationnel dans les pays en développement mais toute chose doit avoir un début, qui ne
passe pas forcément par des équipements sophistiqués. Ce serait un mauvais argument de dire qu'on ne peut pas le faire parce qu'on n'a pas d'appareil sophistiqué. Au contraire, à mon avis, tout doit commencer par la mise en place de structures de contrôle des denrées alimentaires qui puissent assurer l'essentiel, je dis bien l'essentiel des besoins, des populations de pays en développement comme ce fut le cas dans d'autres pays il y a longtemps.
D'autre part, dans la constatation évidente du fait que les pays en développement ne disposent pas encore, et il faut espérer que cela viendra, de structures de contrôle, le Codex Alimentarius a élaboré un code d'éthique du commerce international des denrées alimentaires, Code d'éthique en vue de la conduite à suivre dans le commerce international. Vous me direz que ce code d'éthique n'a peut-être pas une force contraignante et c'est vrai, mais rien n'empêche les parties contractantes, qui ne sont pas obligatoirement des parties gouvernementales, de signer des conventions en vue d'observer le code d'éthique. Cela faciliterait grandement la protection des consommateurs dans les pays en développement.
En résumé, je pense pouvoir dire ceci: l'idée du Codex était une idée généreuse, et elle le reste. Le Codex met à la disposition aussi bien des pays en développement que des pays industrialisés une documentation extraordinairement intéressante qu'aucun de ces pays n'aurait jamais pu rassembler sur les arguments nécessaires à l'élaboration de structures de contrôle des denrées alimentaires pour assurer une meilleure loyauté et la protection du consommateur dans le commerce international.
Puisque j'aigeu l'occasion, en ma qualité de Président de la Commission du Codex, de prendre la parole, voilà ce que je voulais dire en complément de ce que vient d'exprimer excellemment M. Sabry.
R. C. SOOD (India)s On some of the points that I wished to raise, some explanation has already been given, hut for the sake of the record I would briefly indicate those points.
The Codex Alimentarius Commission was set up jointly by FAO/WHO for dealing with food standards. It has an important responsibility. Ine Commission already has 117 members. The Commission has con-stituted 23 subsidiary bodies. The procedure laid down requires the standards to be processed through eleven steps. One of the disappointments of the programme is that, after all the elaborate effort, acceptance of the standards is very low.
The point was made at the 71st Session of the FAO Council in June 1977 that the standards recommended by the Commission were in fact being used as non-tariff barriers to trade, with a negative impact on food industries of developing countries. It is increasingly necessary that suitable mechanisms should be evolved to assess the economic impact of draft standards before they are adopted. We are glad to be advised that progress has been made in this regard.
Another problem we have is the cost involved in participation in the exeroise, involved for preparing the standards under the request that these procedures be modified to ensure that various matters are dealt with in a single meeting, and at reasonable intervals-maybe once every two years or so-and that work may be conducted as far as possible by correspondence or through Permanent Representatives stationed in Rome. The present procedure appears higily expensive and needs to be very carefully looked into by the FAO Secretariat as otherwise the developing countries are going to find it difficult to continue participating regularly.
Another point we would like to stress is the need for development of infrastructure in food control. Ohe developing countries need equipment for laboratory services and training programmes for functionaries at various levels, and FAO/WHO might examine how more assistance could be provided in this regard. I was glad to note from Mr. Sabry's explanation that this has already been looked into.
M. R. LEAR (New Zealand): New Zealand supported the decisions taken by the Codex Alimentarius Commission at its Twelfth Session to make Codex work more responsive to the needs of developing countries and we are pleased to see that the Codex Committee and its Secretariat are actively implementing these decisions. The Commission, we believe, has clearly shown itself capable of adaptive and flexible response to the express needs of its members. Although we would agree that the FAO Council and the Programme Committee should follow major development within Codex we do not consider it necessary for them to monitor the work of the Commission in any detail. The Commission should be given time to assess the results of the changes that have been made and are being made and to oensider any further changes that its members consider necessary.
As a nation which is highly dependent on trade and food products and because of our concern for the health of our consumers, New Zealand remains a strong and active supporter of the work of the Commission. Its work of elaborating assessments and codes is lengthy and complicated and highly technical but it is of vital importance in facilitating international trade in food and protecting the interests of food consumers.
We would note that this work is one of the relatively few FAO activities which directly benefits the developed countries as well as developing countries. Bearing this in mind, we have a special interest, therefore, in expressing the hope that the Codex Secretariat is provided by the Director-General and the World Health Organization with sufficient staff resources adequately to perfora its demanding and important work.
We believe that Codex's work continues to deserve a high priority among FAO's activities and that its resources should be commensurate with this priority.
Mrs. N. SHEANAKUL (Thailand): Thailand has always been interested in the activities of the FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission since its conception. A national committee was set up some time ago to act as coordinator between our country and the Commission and endless efforts have been made to improve our own food standards with the hope that eventually the principle of free distribution, wherever possible, will be realized.
Unfortunately Thailand, and other developing countries for that matter, has not been able to reap full benefit from the more than one hundred Codex standards that have been set up, for the simple reason that they could not be applied in our trade negotiations and instead standards of buyer countries were used.
Thailand supports any move to set up comprehensive and suitable standards that could be applied with full acceptance by both developed and developing countries and thereby help facilitate our trade negotiations instead of becoming barriers as they have been in the past. Indeed, Thailand believes that the key for the solution to the problem concerning full acceptance lies within the hands of the developed countries themselves who are, after all, designers of the said standards. Moreover the Thai delegation fully accepts that the full standard at the regional level is of the utmost importance as a step towards full acceptance in the international trade circle and that the standards for finished products rather than for raw materials is to have continued priority by the Commission.
In these respects the Thai delegation feels that FAO could spare its expertise to developing countries whose agro industry is mostly in its infancy in order that their food products may not only have a better chance for survival but also of reaching an international market in their adulthood.
J. C. SAINSBURY (Australia): Australia is a significant exporter of food products. In global terms Australia was the sixth largest exporter of food products in 1977 and in 1978 exports of food products accounted for 27 percent of our total export income. The Codex Commission's international food standards activities thus have a particular importance for Australia and we have therefore been an active participant in the programme since its inception.
Australia fully supports the report of the Seventy-Fourth FAO Council Session in Commending the initiatives taken by the Twelfth Session of the Commission towards more effectively meeting the needs of developing countries. Australia considere these initiatives to be sound and their implementation should ensure that the direction of work of the Commission is more attuned to the needs of developing countries and will enable them in the future to participate more fully in the Codex programme.
Finally, we fully support the point made in the report of the Seventy-Fourth Council Session that the work of the Commission is important to all countries, particularly within the context of nutritionally improved food production and food trade.
D. RICHTER (Germany, Fed. Rep. of ) (interpretation from German) t The Government of my country always attached special importance to the activities of the Codex Alimentarius Commission also with regard to the implementation of the general objectives of FAO. We note with satisfaction that the Programme Committee as well as the FAO Council also share this view. Both have stressed rightly the importance of the work carried out by the Codex Alimentarius Commission for all countries. In that the specific
needs and problems of developing countries must be taken into consideration. My Government feels that the reorientation of the work of the Codex Alimentarius Commission is a step forward in the right direction towards attaching greater importance to the interests of developing countries. Two new commodity committees have been set up. The Codex Alimentarius Commission has also shown its will to strengthen the work within the the framework of the regional Committees. The Codex Alimentarius Commission finally has taken account of another important concern to developing countries. It has amended its rules of procedure to the effect that in future greater attention will be given to the possible effects of Codex standards on the economic development of the countries involved.
From the overall point of view we can, therefore, note that since the last FAO Conference significant progress has been made with regard to the reorientation of the activities of the Codex Alimentarius Commission. We welcome in particular the fact that this development has taken place within the frame work of the present programme with relatively low financial and personnel expenditure. This fact deserves our apppeciation.
My Government will continue to make its contribution towards promoting also in future the programme of the Codex Alimentarius Commission in an effective way, and taking the interests of all participants into account.
Ms A. A. D'ALMEIDA (Angola): Before our independence the food laws and regulations were the sane as those applied in Portugal, The standards for each product were issued by the Portuguese Institution for Standardization and became legally valid once published in the Government Gazette.
Our nation has witnessed that a great part of the physical structures that existed in colonial times were destroyed, and that the technical cadres in charge of the work related to food control left the country, being nearly all of them of Portuguese nationality, which was in keeping with colonial policy.
Due to the considerable number of problems that our country must face, the government has resolved to put them in order of importance, establishing a clear line of priorities. In health, for example, the emphasis has been placed on such actions that can, within a relatively short time, reduce the high mortality rates observed in infants and preschool children and decrease the incidence of certain endemic diseases. For example, the Expanded Programme of Immunization, the Maternal and Child Health Programmes, the Nutrition Programme, etc. ; dedicating at the same time a considerable effort to the formation of cadres that are necessary for the materialization of these actions.
The considerations referred to above give evidence that our young nation must programme the conditions for organizing the important work that refers to food control and for creating the laboratories and the necessary technical cadres for its effective implementation. All of these will be given preferential attention. We do not have either the professionals with experience or training in food science or food technology, the supplies that are most necessary for the high levels of food control service, nor the medium level technicians. Without these human resources it will be impossible to expand existing laboratories so as to obtain a sigiificant increase in the coverage of food control services in our country. The Government of Angola recognizes the importance of food control and the application of food standards, especially those emanating from the Codex Alimentarius Commission, not only from the point of view of health but also in relation to agricultural, industrial and socio-economic development in general. It also recognizes that our present conditions are not satisfactory in relation to food control and standards.
We would like to take advantage of this opportunity to call attention to matters related to food control and standards in which our Government would like to obtain technical assistance from the Specialized Agencies of the United Nations, namely FAO and WHO. These matters relate to, first, the establishment of an administrative structure responsible for food control and standards; second, the study and adoption of a food law and its corresponding regulations; third, the creation of a system of laboratories capables of performing the analytical work demanded by an improved organization of food control services and by their extension; third and last, the formation of professional and technical cadres that are necessary for the work related to food control and standards.
P, GRIFFIN (Ireland): My remarks will be brief and it is largely to indicate our interest in this matter that I am speaking. First of all, I would like to say that your own introduction and the subsequent comprehensive survey of the nature and value of the Codex work given by Mr. Matthey, the Chairman of the Commission, has provided a very useful background within which to consider this whole matter. The increasing interest which has been taken in Codex work by the developing countries in recent years is greatly to be welcomed. Arising out of their proposals some years ago-it was
at some Council meeting a few years ago-consideration was given to the feasibility of making the Codex standards more acceptable to them, particularly in regard to economic impact; and positive action has been taken, as will be seen from document C 79/LIM/1 in this direction. No doubt this action, which has been found to be a step forward, will be developed further at the meeting of the Codex Commission which will begin in ten days' time.
I think that it is of particular interest, however, to hear the interventions of delegations such as Thailand and Angola, which enable us to realise that of course all these problems are not yet solved, that there are specific problems which some of these countries have and to which I am sure further attention will need to be given. However, there is no doubt that developing countries and especially those engaging in exports of food, will find it very much in their interest to take full account of what is happening in the Codex. And, although the evolution of the Codex itself has perhaps not been precisely on the lines on which it was originally anticipated, Ï think that the growing accumulation of material arising out of the responses by various countries to the standards which have been transmitted for acceptance to them, is becoming of steadily increasing value to all countries.
M. DIALLO (Senegal): Mon pays, le Sénégal, suit avec beaucoup d'attention et d'intérêt les travaux de la Commission sur le CODEX ALIMENTARIOS. Il a participé jusqu'à présent à toutes les réunions organisées sur le CODEX ALIMENTARIUS et il dispose déjà d'un Comité national du CODEX.
Ma délégation voudrait insister essentiellement sur l'importance qu'il faudrait accorder à l'évalua-tionde l'incidence économique alimentaire internationale dans les pays en développement. Eh effet, même si nous souscrivons entièrement an CODEX ALIMENTARIUS paroe qu'il peut améliorer la qualité des aliments de notre population, nous souhaiterions qu'il ne constitue pas par sa rigueur une arme à double tranchant pouvant paralyser les efforts des exportations des produits alimentaires des pays en développement.
Aussima délégation pense que le CODEX ALIMENTARIUS sur les produits alimentaires n'aura de chance réelle de succès que dans la mesure où les pays en développement disposent des structures de contrôle national et du personnel compétent.
C'est pourquoi nous demandons qu'un effort soit entrepris par la FAO et la communante int ernational e, d'une part, dans la formation du personnel technique chargé dans les pays en développement d'assurer le contrôle efficace des denrées alimentaires et, d'autre part, dans la mise en place des moyens matériels de controle efficace.
Nous appuyons le rapport de la Commission sur le CODEX ALIMENTARUS.
Ms. V. F. WIGHTMAN (Canada): We would not want to pass this point in silence because, as you know, Canada has long supported the work of the Codex Alimentarius. We support it as a measure to facilitate international trade and to protect the ultimate consumer. We recognize that over time, some orientation is necessary in any programme in order to keep it relevant and useful for the full membership. As developing countries assume a larger role in world trade, the Codex will take on a greater sigiificance for them and we welcome their active participation in the formulation of standards. We in Canada are working with others to give greater emphasis to the food standards needs of the developing countries. We have offered to host-and this just awaits final endorsement by the Codex Commission-a new Committee on vegetable proteins. These foodstuffs, as we know, represent a. sigiificant part of the diet in many developing countries.
Canada is also contributing to working out a new focus on nutrition for the activities of the Codex Alimentarius Commission. For many years we have been host to the Committee on Food Labelling. Labelling is of considerable importance in setting nutrition standards, in informing the consumer and it could be of value in nutritional education programmes.
My Government strongly supports the FAO work in the area of food control and in assisting the developing countries to improve their national programmes, to regulate and to monitor the quality and safety of food for the consumer. This in turn will help the developing countries to meet international standards and to participate increasingly in world trade.
We look forward to pursuing these and other issues at the meeting of the Codex Commission here in Rome in early December.
Z. I. SABRY (Director, Food Policy and Nutrition Division): I wish to thank all the delegates for their interventions and the very fine points that were raised. They will he of great help to us certainly here in the Secrétariat. I will make reference to a number of points that were raised.
The point was raised by the delegate of India as well as the delegates of Thailand and of Senegal regarding the acceptance of the standards and whether, in fact, this has an economic impact. As I indicated in my introduction of the item, the Committee of General Principles has developed the necessary amendments to introduce an assessment of the economic impact of a food standard at any time during the acceptance of the standard and it could be introduced at any number of steps . that are followed in accepting a food standard. This will certainly bear fruit in time and we should be able to look at an introduction of food standards that are designed to help both developing and developed countries in that respect-an objective that we all agree on.
The second point I would like to refer to is regarding the importance of food control work, particularly in developing countries. The delegate of India as well as the delegates of Thailand, Angola and Senegal, have particularly elaborated on this. We in the Food Policy and Nutrition Division give great emphasis to this work and endeavour to strengthen the food control infrastructure in developing countries to assist them implementing the recommendations of the Commission. This is a very important part of our work and it ties very closely to the work of the Codex Alimentarius.
Another point that was raised by the delegate of India was regarding the cost involved in developing standards. Certainly we have taken note of this and it will guide our thinking as we proceed through our work in this area.
We appreciate the supportive indications that were given by a number of delegates, particularly the delegate of Thailand, in support of the work of the regional coordinating committees. The work of these committees is bearing fruit and we can see a role that these committees are playing that will enhance the advantages that we can reap from the work of the Codex Alimentarius Commission.
These basically are all the points that I have noted down, Mr. Chairman. If there are any specific points that I have not covered I will be glad to address myself to them.
CHAIRMAN: I really do not see any reason why I should sum up this discussion, as everyone seems to be in agreement that the Codex Alimentarius Commission is doing commendable work. I will only say that this Commission seems to be in agreement with what has been suggested by the Council and we will recommend and suggest to the Conference that the Report of the Council should be accepted as it stands. With that I declare Agenda Item 10 closed.
H. BAR-SHAI (Israel): I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission for the very important work they do.
Israel applies Codex Alimentarius Standards wherever feasible, especially where Israeli standards are concerned.
One cannot exaggerate the importance of the contribution of the Codex Alimentarius International Standards to more efficiency in food production, to the removal of unnecessary obstacles to trade at both national and international levels, and ultimately to better food for the world's population, for whom we all speak and do so much. 1/
1/ Statement inserted in the verbatim record on request.
Mohamed SIDKI ZEHNI; Chairman of Commission I, took the Chair
Mohamed SIDKI ZEHNI, President de la Commission I, assume la présidence
Ocupa la presidencia Mohamed SIDKI ZEHNI, Presidente de la Comisión I
CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabic) : You will remember that as we have been moving through these items this afternoon each time a draft resolution was offered for your consideration we postponed the discussion in favour of adopting various measures to allocate them to various other bodies. We will not move to discuss these draft resolutions themselves.
You know that we have a draft resolution on Commodity Trade, Protectionism and Agricultural Adjustment. We have another draft resolution on World Food Security. We also have a draft resolution on Fisheries. We also have a draft resolution on World Food Day.
My proposal is that we should now begin our examination of these draft resolutions in order. Before the discussion of each of these draft resolutions I will explain to you the status of these draft resolutions in each of the various Commissions which have been examining them.
You will remember that the draft resolution on World Food Security is document C 79/LIM/16; on Commodity Trade, Protectionism and Agricultural Adjustment the document is C 79/LIM/42; the draft resolution on World Food Day is C 79/LIM/37; on Fisheries the document is C 79/LIM/41. I propose that we should examine them in the following order. Let us take Protectionism first. Let us take World Food Security second. Let us take World Food Day third. We will take the draft resolution on Fisheries fourth.
If you agree we will begin straight away with the first draft resolution, which is on Commodity Trade, Protectionism and Agricultural Adjustment. For this one you will recall that you asked me to carry out unofficial consultations within the context of a small unofficial contact group, which I did I can now tell you that this small unofficial contact group was able to achieve a consensus upon a text for this draft resolution. I would just like to mention here that the consultations on this draft resolution were long and arduous and I think each person had to contribute a considerable amount of effort in order to achieve this consensus. In the light of that I really would like to appeal to you all to accept the results of the working group, to view their work with a favourable eye, to adopt it even, because, believe me, all those involved most intimately have accepted it. I repeat that on Saturday during the day and the evening we worked on it at considerable length. I think the results we have achieved should be to the satisfaction of all of you.
Having said that, I will open the discussion on the draft resolution on Commodity Trade, Protectionism and Agricultural Adjustment. This is document C 79/LIM/42. Nobody seems to be asking for the floor. Then my conclusion must be that you agree with the draft resolution.
Ms. V. F. WIGHTMAN (Canada): I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, everything seems to be moving so quickly. We received the clean draft only today. We referred it to Ottawa and have not had final clearance from Ottawa. But based on developments so far I would like to make an interpretive statement which I hope can be included in the record of the proceedings.
The Canadian delegation is most appreciative of the work of the contact group, which we did not participate in, as you know. However, there are certain aspects of this resolution which still give us concern. We are troubled both by the thrust of the resolution and by some of the wording.
There is reference in the Preamble to the work undertaken in other international agencies.
CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabic): Are you making your interpretive statement now? Usually we have the interpretive statement after the approval of the draft resolution by the Commission. As I see no objections to the draft resolution, to my mind it has been approved.
The draft resolution was approved
Le projet de resolution est approuvé
El proyecto de resolución es aprobado
Ms, V. F. WIGHTMAN (Canada): As I indicated, we have some problems with the resolution which has now been approved. These relate, as I said, to the thrust of the resolution and to some of the wording.
There is reference in the Preamble to the work being undertaken in other international agencies. We have studied the resolutions anew, the resolutions emanating from UNCTAD V. We note, for instance, with regard to protectionism, including agricultural protectionism, that the Trade and Development Board of UNCTAD was instructed by the recent Conference in Manila "to review developments involving restrictions on trade with a view to examining and formulating appropriate recommendations concerning the problem of protectionism". The Trade and Development Board is also asked "to make a global evaluation of the MTN". The GATT is of course constantly monitoring barriers to trade. I think we are well served in this respect.
The UNCTAD resolutions to which we refer cover the full membership of that Organization which is almost identical to that of the FAO. While we fully appreciate and are participating in consideration of the many problems of the developing countries, we find that the resolution before us makes an unfortunate distinction between groups of countries, and we would have wished a more balanced text reflecting the interests of all the members of the FAO. We hope that the proposed examination of problems of CCP and the subsidiary bodies will not in any way duplicate the work under way in UNCTAD or GATT. The proposed examinations should seek to focus on particular problems which warrant further investigation and should be cost-effective, bearing in mind budgetary concerns of the Organization.
Finally, Canada has indicated on a number of occasions its support for the conclusions of the MTN as a major improvement in world trading conditions not only in terms of tariff concessions but also the far reaching effects of the codes which have been negotiated. That negotiation is now concluded and the implementation is to begin next year. A great deal of work will continue in the GATT in putting the conclusions of this negotiation into operation and we hope for the widest possible participation of all countries in this work.
In adding this last paragraph, it is simply to go on record that we feel the MTN is perhaps not receiving sufficient recognition in the resolution before us.
D. SMITH (United States of America): The U. S. delegation wishes to support the Resolution on Commodity Trade Protectionism and Agricultural Adjustment. We wish to express our appreciation for the skill with which you led the contact group, Mr. Chairman, and for the constructive atmosphere which characterized its negotiations.
The United States Delegation wishes to make the following statement concerning our understanding of preambular paragraph 7 concerning the Multilateral Trade Negotiations. The United States delegation
considers that the Multilateral Trade Negotiations achieved more in the area of agricultural trade than any previous round of trade negotiations. Moreover, the liberalization achieved in the MTN will, we believe, substantially improve the access of developing countries to all major markets. We realize, however, that further progress is needed in liberalizing agricultural trade, and we urge all countries to participate actively in the GATT in order to work towards increased market access for all countries in this important area of international trade.
The United States would like this statement to be placed in the Report of the Conference and asks that the paragraph in the Resolution be footnoted to that effect.
G. DUCOMMUN (Suisse): La délégation de la Suisse adopte la résolution sur le coneroe dos produits, le protectionnisme et l'ajustement agricole. Toutefois, elle aimerait rappeler la déclaration faite au point 7 de l'ordre du jour concernant la sécurité alimentaire. La Suisse a, elle aussi, en tant que pays industrialisé, une politique de sécurité alimentaire. Notre pays est largement ouvert aux exportateurs agricoles du monde mais, parallèlement à nos importations massives de produits agricoles, nous tenons à maintenir un potentiel national de production agricole pour assurer notre sécurité alimentaire.
L'ajustement agricole international a donc des limites et l'application du principe des Coûts comparatifs avantageux ne peut Ótre totalement appliquée au secteur agricole alimentaire.
A propos du dernier considérant, avant le dispositif de la résolution, nous aimerions souligner que la Suisse n'a pas accru son protectionnisme agricole et qu'elle n'a pas l'intention de le faire.
S. BE MARE (Sweden): The delegations of Finland, Norway and Sweden wish to make thefollowing statement in connection with the Resolution just adopted. In the view of these delegations, the Resolution must be considered in the context of the discussion that has taken place during this Conference concerning long-term developments of the future food supply, taking into account such factors as population growth and the fast increase of food imports of developing countries.
Against this background, it does not seem to be meaningful to substantially reduce a technically efficient food production in some industrialized countries, even if this production under the present somewhat irrational market conditions should require some economic support.
Accordingly, the delegations of Finland, Norway and Sweden do not interpret the Resolution in such a way that it should call for any important changes in the present agricultural system of our three countries. We would like this statement to he inserted in the Report of the Conference.
P. GRIFFIN (Ireland): First of all, I would like to associate myself with the remarks made by the United States of appreciation toward yourself and the hard and patient work which you in collaboration with the members of the Contact Group put in to achieve this Resolution.
In relation to this Resolution, now that the Resolution has been adopted I wish to make the following interpretative statement on behalf of the nine member states of European Economic Community. The fourth and eighth preambular paragraphs do not and cannot mean or imply an invitation to a country or a group of countries to change or to modify the instructions of their own or common agricultural policies. The adjustments undertaken in the agricultural sector are exclusively of the competence of each country or group of countries concerned, taking into account the specific problems whioh occur in this sector.
The eeventh preambular paragraph and operative paragraph 3 oannot give grounds to justify a reopening of the Tokyo Multilateral Trade Negotiations, whioh must be considered as concluded.
As for sugar, we would like to point out that the Community considers that the contacts which have already been established between the Community and the informal group of the International Sugar Organisation are in line with the request made in operative paragraph 8 of the Resolution. Possible participation of the Community in the Organisation would be determined by the Resolution on such negotiations and by the compatability with the EEC sugar polioy.
We would like this statement to be inserted in the Report of the Conference and that a footnote indicating that the EEC made an interpretative statement be appended to the Resolution.
P. MASUD (Pakistan): Kay I also join all the others who have complimented you, Mr. Chairman, on your patience and perseverance in chairing this group. But apparently your patience and perseverance have not been well rewarded because from the length of these interpretative statements I am wondering wnat will be the effects of this Resolution, because some of the interpretative statements are longer than the Resolution itself, and if these were to be inserted in the Report-and to the best of my knowledge there are two or three paragraphs about this subject in the Report-if you are going to have lengthy statements in fact negating the whole exercise, then I do not see the point of adopting such a Resolution. On the one hand, you adopt a Resolution and then you pull the rug from underneath it, Sir. Therefore, I would like a consideration. If these interpretative statements are to be recorded, they should be brief, concise, and to the point, not lengthy, rambling statements which cover all aspects of the matter.
I. TAKI (Japan): First of all, I would like to express appreciation with other delegates for the excellent chairmanship you showed in order for us to reach the adoption of this Resolution.
On behalf of the Japanese delegation, I would like to make the following interpretative statements which concern paragraphs 7 and 8 of the preamble and operative paragraph 3 of this Resolution, and ask the Secretariat to put them on record.
First, with regard to paragraph 7 of the preamble and operative paragraph 3 which concern the Multilateral Trade Negotiations, I wish to state that in the course of the ΜΊΝ, the Japanese Government made a great effort to bring the ΜTN to a successful conclusion, and its viewpoint now is that the results of the MTN in the agricultural sector should be highly appreciated.
I understand that the developing countries have a deep concern for the problems which have not been resolved in the ΜΊΝ. I do hope, however, that the exporting countries of agricultural products on the other hand understand the serious difficulties with which the importing developing countries are confronted on their agricultural sector.
I further wish to clarify that Japan's acceptance of the paragraphs should not be interpreted as implying that the MTN should be prolonged.
Second, with regard to paragraph 8 of the preamble, I am not reluctant to recognize the necessity of agricultural adjustments mentioned in this paragraph. At the same time, however, I am convinced that many agricultural adjustments should be carried out taking into account the economic and social structure and the economic, social and security objectives of the developed countries concerned, as stated in Resolution 96 (IV)E of the UNCTAD V.
M. S. AL-SAYED AHMAD (Yemen Arab Republic)(interpretation from Arabic):I fully agree with what the delegate of Pakistan has said, and pay tribute to you and the Contact Group for the excellent efforts they have made in the lengthy negotiations on this draft Resolution. I really do not see why such lengthy interpretations are given for this Resolution because the present text does represent the opinion of most delegations here.
That is why I support the proposal of Pakistan that the Resolution should be adopted as is and any reservations should be appended to the report without changing the text of the Resolution.
M. TRKULJA (Yugoslavia):I was privileged enough, Mr. Chairman, to work under your guidance in this small Contact Group so I fully share the sentiments already expressed. You have been very patient and have invested enormous efforts after so many hours of our work. But now, of course, as we have discussed in the Contact Group, it was announced there that some interpretative statements would be made here.
My point is, first of all, procedure. As we understand the basic purpose of our report is to reflect as briefly as possible our collective feeling, and in a very very short statement-in one sentence, in fact-only the strong points of some statements. With regard to that, I would see it as very difficult, if not impossible, if all these lengthy interpretative statements are now to be included in our report.
May I suggest for your consideration Mr. Chairman, that we place in the text a close cross-reference and indicate with regard to certain specific elements of the Resolution that interpretative statements were made and recorded in the verbatim of the Conference, otherwise it would be difficult if not impossible as it would certainly make our report highly unbalanced.
CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabic): Thank you very much. I hope that this meeting will not be transformed into a substantive discussion of the problem.
RAMADHAR (India):The Contact Group under your guidance has accomplished an excellent job, and I agree with the solution suggested by the delegate of Yugoslavia that this interpretative statement in any case will find their place in the verbatim record and what is required is to briefly refer to them somewhere in the text of the draft of this Commission.
If you are going to have all these interpretative statements here, then this will be lengthy and cumbersome and will not be in conformity with the conventions we have in this situation in this House. Therefore I would support you.
P. GRIFFIN (Ireland):I am, of course, speaking only in regard to the interpretative statement made by me on behalf of the European Economic Community, but you will recall that at the Contact Group when these matters were being discussed-I am speaking about the EEC only-in the case of these matters which were at issue certain questions were accepted on the understanding announced at the Contact Group that we should make an interpretative statement.
This is of the essence of the arrangement we made, and for the European Community at least I must say that the statement we have made is very short and concise and contains nothing but the essential points and is not capable of being condensed.
That is my declaration on behalf of the statement which we have made, at any rate.
CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabic): Thank you. First of all I would like to thank all of you who have paid tribute to my efforts and the efforts made by the members of the Contact Group, but in fact these thanks should be addressed to the members of the Contact Group because it was they and not I who enabled us to reach the results that we have.
My second comment, as was stated by the delegate of Yugoslavia, is when we had agreed on the present text of the draft Resolution some of the members of the Contact Group told us that they were going to make interpretative statements at the Commiittee meeting. During the discussions at the Contact Group of course we did not discuss the nature or substance of these interpretative statements and did not refer to the possible length. After having heard the various interventions here, I believe the solution if you would agree should be, or might be, to first of all have the full text, the text of the interpretative statements, in the records and we should mention the fact that some delegations made interpretative statements, and we would put the most important portion in connection with the relevant passages of the Resolution so that we would in fact maintain the original text in its entirety as well as the sense of the interpretative statements.
This would mean it is not necessary for the full texts to be reproduced, as they were often lengthy and they would unbalance the texts of the report in many cases.
So if you would agree, if you would trust me to be very careful in the drafting of the verbatim record or of the report we could in fact give satisfaction to all delegations and include the sense of the interpretative statements in the report and the verbatim record. This is by no means unusual; there have been precedents at other conferences where it was the essential basic point in the basic interprétatives statements which were reproduced while the full text was put in the verbatim record of the meetings, in other words, summaries of the report and the full text of the verbatim records.
If you think this is a fair procedure, and I think we are reduced to having a faithful reproduction of the statements given, then I suggest we agree to this procedure.
P. GRIFFIN (Ireland): Mr, Chairman, I do not insist on it, but if no one else is offering to take the floor then I will. I think that as usual you are showing the qualities of chairmanship which we greatly appreciate in you, not only in the Commission policy at the Contact Group, and I certainly appreciate the suggestion you have made. As far as the statements of any other group are concerned we would not raise any objection to the proposal you would make.
However, I am in a position that I am unable to accept your proposal on behalf of the statement of the Community at this moment, because the Community we feel went to great lengths to arrive at an agreed resolution but we did specifically stress at the time the importance we attach to the interpretative statement, and this importance as I say in the case of our statement, is a very short and concise one. However, I am talking about our statement and our position is that we would like that to be incorporated in the report, and I am not in a position to depart from that situation at the moment at any rate. That does not mean I will be later on, but that is my situation at present.
CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabic):I cannot really imagine that the Contact Group could solve all problems and overcome all obstacles, but the Contact Group did find solutions to some very difficult problems. I can hardly conceive we would now be in a position that would not enable us to find a solution to such a minor problem of procedure, in connection with the length of the interpretative statements, as reproduced. I therefore believe that once you have an opportunity to see the text of the draft report, you will see the conciseness at which we have aspired, and the faithfulness of the report.
RAMADHAR (India): Your proposal is an excellent solution of the situation, and as you rightly said, was in conformity with the tradition which we have been following. This is not the first time that a situation of this nature has arisen. I have before me the Report of WCARRD, and we were there faced with a similar situation, where certain countries wished to make interpretative statements-9 of them-and they had been brought out in a separate document with an explanation that these were the statements made by these countries. We resorted to that procedure because there was no system of verbatim reporting. Here we have that system, so, in conformity with the conventions we have followed, once they are in the verbatim record and are referred to in the Report of this Commission, the matter ends there. What the representative of EEC and the Delegate from Ireland are suggesting is an entirely new procedure, which I am afraid we will not be prepared to accept.
M. TRKULJA (Yugoslavia): First of all, Sir, I wish to wholeheartedly second what you yourself suggested as a means by which we could perhaps best reflect some of the interpretive statements. Secondly, on substance, I fully support what my colleagues from Pakistan and India have said. I even want to add something. I don't need to waste your time expressing something of which you are fully aware. My delegation party in this Contact Group is equally unhappy-in some cases, even more unhappy-than some others who have made interpretative statements.
They would start by saying oertain things, which, by the rules of the day, become more and more modified. We would certainly, in two other cases, make our own interpretative statements, to make sure what our position on the same issue is.
Ρ· MASUD (Pakistan): We agree with what the Delegate of India, and later the Delegate of Yugoslavia have said. I think the best way out is to add in the report "The delegations of the following countries and the representative of the EEC made interpretative statements which are reflected in the verbatim record"-and this would give them an opportunity of making even lengthier interpretative statements.
I. TAKE (Japan): We have a good example in the report of WCARRD. This report shows that several interpretative statements and reservations were made, with the name of the countries. The interpretative statement is duly abridged in this report.
CHAIRMAN: You have used the word "abridged", or summarized-and that is what we are trying to convince our friend from Ireland of.
P. MASUT (Pakistan): Regarding the suggestion made by the Delegate of Japan. I think that this was already explained by the Delegate of India: that these statements had to be annexed because there was no verbatim report of WCARRD. In this case we do have a verbatim record, and a reference could be made to that.
P. ELMANOWSKY (France): En ce qui concerne la Conférence sur la réforme agraire, j'en parle d'autant mieux que je suis en quelque sorte à l'origine de ce complément qui est annexé au rapport.
Nous avions demandé que les réserves figurent in extenso dans le rapport lui-meme. Cela n'a pas été possible à ce moment-là et ce n'est pas parce qu'il n'y avait pas de verbatim de séance que cela n'a pas été inséré dans ces verbatim, c'est tout simplement en raison des conditions dans lesquelles nous avons été amenés à travailler les uns et les autres dans les différentes commissions et parce que l'on nous avait dit "Il faut que vous remettiez les textes de vos réserves et de vos déclarations interprétatives au bureau de chaque commission pour qu'il en soit tenu compte et qu'elles figurent. "
Au moment de la dernière séance, nous nous sommes aperçus que, si elles étaient mentionnées sous une forme succincte dans le cours du rapport, elles ne figuraient pas telles qu'elles l'étaient et comme il était nécessaire lorsqu'on se rapportait au projet de déclaration et au programme d'action; pour que les leoteurs puissent éventuellement lire in extenso le texte des réserves, il a été décidé par la suite, et c'est un document de septembre qui a été adressé maintenant à tous les membres, qu'il figurerait en annexe au rapport.
Dans ces conditions, il n'est pas suffisant pour nous que le texte puisse être dans les verbatim, vous savez très bien ce qu'il en est, ils se perdent, ils s'égarent et pratiquement personne ne les lit, tout au moins pour corriger ses propres observations ·
Alors, oe qu'il faut c'est que, si vous ne voulez pas que ce soit dans le rapport lui-meme, mais vraiment ce serait curieux puisque là nous avons le temps, il faut que cela figure dans une annexe au rapport, tel que oela a été fait pour la Conférence sur la réforme agraire et le développement rural, annexe qui comprendrait les différentes déclarations in extenso des pays qui en ont fait.
P. GRIFFIN (Ireland): While the Delegate of France was speaking, I was frantically sending for my own copy of WCARRD, which I now have. I have looked at it while he was explaining the position -and there is no one in a better position to explain it than he-but, as I looked at it, I saw that my own share of the supplement is an annex to the Report and contains the interpretative statement in full: so in effect, I would say it is included in the Report. If there is to be an annex to the Report, well and good-but that is rather different to putting it in the verbatim record. If those delegations who were prepared to abide by the precedent set at WCARRD will appreciate this, then I think the problem is solved, because in effect we are following the suggestions of the delegations who advocated our following the WCARRD precedent. We will then put this in an annex to the Report, and there is no problem for anybody.
M. TRKULJA (Yugoslavia): I will not reiterate what I have already said. We fully agree. I think that what you propose is much more possible, practically speaking-that we have an extremely concise report-wise statement, certainly not very lengthy. But to follow what seems to have become the fashion, I reserve the right to present-not orally, in order not to waste your time, but in written form-our own views on all these subjects-on trade, and on other subjects if necessary, to make sure that we record that we are not very happy, and in some cases very dissatisfied with the fact that we are excepted. So far, we have always followed a practice which at least seemed to us to be very normal. Of course, "compromise'' is by definition something which makes all parties equally unhappy-but if we are to make interpretative statements, then I reserve the right to present in written form our own interpretation of this.
S. DE MARE (Sweden): We on our part would like to support the procedure used during the WCARRD Conference. We think there is a great difference between statements recorded in the verbatim record and statements recorded in an annex to the Report itself, and I think that would be a good solution.
CHAIRMAN: I myself think that the analogybetween WCARRD and this Conference is not valid, in the sense that in WCARRD we resorted to certain measurements in the absence of a verbatim record. I see the views of delegations polarizing into two extremes: I as Chairman, with your trust, must find a middle course between these two opposing opinions. I understand the feeling of those who think that if interpretative statements are included in the verbatim record they may be overlooked and not easy to find, and there is no reference index to them.
On the other hand, to have the full context-we are not particularly talking of the text we have now, we are not judging length or width here, but I mean to put this precedent, or this procedure, forward: that for interpretative statements to be inserted in full, or to be appendixed, is, I think carrying the matter a little further than the normal, usual procedure. I need your understanding and your cooperation to accept a reasonable mid-way course, that we put the full statements in the verbatim report and then we have a concise summarized statement which has to meet your approval when the report comes to you for your adoption, so that you have a chance to see it. For me, to my understanding, I think this is a reasonable and good course to take and I really count on you to continue your cooperation with me in this matter. Thank you.
RAMADHAR (India): When I referred to WCARRD I made it very clear that we resorted to this procedure in WCARRD-and you also mentioned the same thing-only because there was no verbatim record, and this Annex is only verbatim record. If we look at this, these are just verbatim records of the interpretative statements. What X am speaking of now is not only on behalf of India but also on behalf of the Group of 77 because references have been made to the position of EEC and of certain nations.
The Group of 77 would like for these interpretative statements to go only in the verbatim and references to be made in the report so that if somebody wants to consult the verbatim records, he may do so.
M. S. AL-SAYED AHMAD (Yemen Arab Republic) (interpretation from Arabic): Once again I would like to congratulate you, Mr. Chairman, for the objective approach which you have taken towards this extremely thorny subject. I thank you for having striven to give an excellent interpretation of the discussions but, before adopting this resolution, I would like to suggest that the resolution should be unchanged as a text, with reference to whatever objections have been raised. The delegates of the United States, Ireland, India, and Yugoslavia could well help you in this text so as to give due wording to everything which has been said in here and in order that we may proceed to adopt this resolution.
CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabic): I thank the delegate of Yemen for his suggestion but the resolution has already been adopted; there is no difficulty from that point of view. We are not getting into trouble on the adoption: it is a question of procedure concerning only these inter-pretative statements whioh have been made. We are trying to find some way of giving due record to these statements.
Gentlemen, we must find a solution to this procedural matter. I would like you to think about the proposal I made a few minutes ago; I had hoped your reaction would be positive.
P. GRIFFIN (Ireland): I have been thinking about what you said, Mr. Chairman, and in saying this I am not saying anything I do not fully believe; anything that you say is certainly worthy of serious consideration but I think that I should say this, in this case. This is something that I have been concerned with, as you know, and in which I have certainly proved as co-operative as possible on behalf of the Community, and the Community has proved as cooperative as possible. But I really feel that I should make it clear-and I would like those delegates to note this, who wish to have the interpretative statements relegated to the verbatim record-that this would mean that we had really agreed under a mistaken impression because the agreement to some of the items in the resolution was given with the greatest of difficulty. I am not arguing the
merits or otherwise, but certainly it is true to say that agreement was given with the greatest of difficulty and only on the clear understanding that there would he definite interpretative state-ments made which would indicate the position of the Community. And furthermore, as I said, I announced this at a time when in fact we had agreed to these difficult tasks of the resolution, so that if these interpretative statements are now to he relegated to the verbatim report-which I think it is very clear nobody reads, except in the case of a specific desire to look up something particular-I really feel that our position would be seriously undermined. So that if the countries that wish to do this could understand that point of view-- I am not clear what serious harm can come from following the procedures of adopting WCARRD and incorporating these statements, which were statements to which the Community attaches considerable importance-if these could be incorporated in an annex to the report, if not in the report itself- -
I am speaking now about our position. I do not know what the position of ether countries would be, which have made such statements, but ours is short and concise and we feel it would not be unreasonable to incorporate it at least in an annex to the report.
P. MASUD (Pakistan): This is just to say, Mr. Chairman, that we were very impressed with your suggestion a moment ago that what has been stated by those countries who have to make interpretative statements could be condensed, with their approval, as you yourself said, Sir; and that portion could be kept in the report; and while that portion could be kept in the report, a footnote could be added to it also to the effect that for details see verbatim record, etc.
In this way we would have two references: one would be in the report and the other would be for those who are deeply interested in knowing what they said, to the verbatim record.
CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabic): Thereare of course taped records of all these sessions which anyone can consult. I think that what the delegate of Pakistan has said is wisdom, particularly as he is Chairman of the Drafting Committee. Such a course of action would be that these explanations could be added to the report in an abridged version so as nevertheless to give a clear idea of what the various commentators have had to say.
Well, gentlemen, we must finish our work this evening. We have solved the problem of interpretation up until 8. 30; it is up to us now to solve our own problems. To my mind the proposal which I have made, even if it does not satisfy every single person in the Commission, could I think be considered as judicious. I think that you could rally to it and I must make a direct appeal to the delegate of Ireland now: could you go along with it, so that we can move on?
P. GRIFFIN (Ireland): There is only one way in which I feel I might be able to help you, Mr. Chairman, to some extent. I referred earlier to the fact that at the Contact Group we had announced that we would be making this statement, and really our agreement was contingent upon those state-ments. Now we would almost feel it was a breach of faith if these interpretative statements were not clearly available to anybody reading the resolution. It is for this reason and the fact that we announced it in advance at the time that we agreed to difficult passages, that we feel that we have a case for insisting on an interpretative statement being included in the report. This probably does not apply to various other countries; I do not know. As I have said before, I am only speaking from the Community point of view but in our case we certainly did announce these interpretative statements and the agreement that we made to extremely difficult passages was contingent on these interpretative statements being made and, by understanding, being read in due course.
CHAIRMAN: I am glad that you hesitated a little bit at the last sentence, Mr. Griffin, because I said it and Yugoslavia said this, that we came out of the Contact Group on the clear understanding that you and other delegates or members would make an interpretative statement, but we did not go as far as saying that they will be recorded sort of statements or lengthy statements or short ones, to be in the verbatim or not to be there; we did not talk about this.
So what I am saying here is that we agreed on the interpretative statement, and now we are trying to agree on how to acoommodate that provision during our discussion. I am not saying that merely "because we did not say that we would record it, you are not entitled to it. All I am saying is: we are discussing it now and hoping to get to some conclusion. And I make another appeal for understanding in view of the time and the urgency, and the critical point of this meeting.
P. MASUD (Pakistan): I am just making up my mind. We have known Mr. Griffin for a very long time and always found him to be expremely reasonable and cooperative. The point I wish to stress in my capacity as Chairman of the Drafting Group is this. There were four paragraphs in the adoption of this resolution. After tonight you would have eight paragraphs adopting the resolution. I think the report would be a little lopsided. This is my concern and this is why I raised the point. You must have a balanced report. It must not give the impression that while we have adopted this report we have so many reservations that it was adopted under some sort of compulsion. That is the impression that we should try to avoid giving and it was in that context that I was suggesting a very interpretive statement. Within a paragraph or two a reference could be made to the fact that for details you could refer to the verbat im record. Incidentally, I may add that the verbatim record is the official record. It is an entirely different matter that we are lazy and we do not read it, but it is part of the official proceedings.
P. GRIFFIN (Ireland): First, I would like to recriprocate the good opinion that my friend from Pakistan has of me. I would confirm that we have known each other for a long time and I think our exchanges have always been friendly and no doubt beneficial. Then I would like to deal with the point of balance in the report. If the suggestion that we made were adopted there would be a small annex which would not undo the balance of the report at all because this would be an annex which gave the wording in full of the interpretive statements.
Secondly, from the point of view of the difficulties of the Drafting Committee there is nobody more sympathetic than myself to the difficulties of such a Committee, on many of which I have served, but I had always thought personally that to simply copy something which already existed was simpler than to make a précis of it.
Thirdly, I would simply refer to the fact that the EEC statement consists of seventeen lines for nine countries which is something short of two lines per country.
CHAIRMAN: If you accept this division, the short statement of Yugoslavia or India on behalf of the Group of 77 divided by 77/130-if you accept the share of each country-then we can go along. Your statement will be much shorter. But I do not think I am talking about your statement or how short it is. I am talking about the principle itself, that we do not need to include the full length of the statement but the salient and most important parts. Maybe in your case, in your statement, all of it will be salient and important, so it will all be included. So why don't you just agree to the procedure and see the results and judge for yourself? Maybe it will make it even more concise and short than what you had done yourself on that.
M. TRKULJA (Yugoslavia): It is not my wish to be involved in an exchange of compliments though I highly appreciate the contribution of Mr. Griffin himself. I made it known to him in our small Contact Group but here again I think even what you suggested is going to create a fairly dangerous precedent. As the delegate of Pakistan very clearly pointed out the verbatim record is official - the actual proceedings of the Conference. It is usually, for the benefit of those perhaps who do not know, a textbook containing all the views expressed in this Conference. That is the reason that we have a verbatim record. I would now suggest that we simply mark in the text a cross reference and then whoever is deeply interested in what happened in the Conference and in the small group, let him read carefully the verbatim record which is the official document of the Conference. So I am in a way even departing from what you suggested and what I supported. All these interpretative statements are going to destroy the balance that we established in the small group. It is correct that Mr. Griffin and the EEC countries and some other countries, I think all the people in the Group, were fully aware that we were at least equally unhappy with so many provisions in this resolution, so that is the reason I will reserve the right, that whatever procedure you follow I always want our interpretations also to be included.
CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabic): Clearly we cannot spend the whole night here discussing this simple matter of procedure particularly as we have been able to get over all the other fundamental difficulties when we were putting this resolution together. I still hope that the representative of Ireland will be understanding of our position so that we can move forward.
P. GRIFFIN (Ireland): There is nothing I would like more than to save you this very vexatious problem because I can understand your position very well-I have been in the same position myself as Chairman and these sort of things seem to go on endlessly and people are taking opposite positions. But I have to say that while you say that we got through all the fundamental problems which were those in the resolution, that we resolved all those and now we are held up on a matter of procedure, well this is not altogether the case because the fundamental ones are included in our case-they were negotiated on the basis of an interpretative statement being made and this is what I have been saying. I am sorry to say for your sake that I am not in a position to depart from this. I would say-I am just thinking aloud now-I usually do understand the points of view of everybody-this is one of the difficulties with which I am beset. But in this particular case where it is only a question of including certain statements into a very slim volume I am not quite sure what enormous national or international difficulties this can cause because they are statements that were made-they are statements that certain countries very much want to have incorporated in full. I can see our difficulty but in this particular case I do not quite as easily see the difficulties of countries who think this should not be done and I would ask them would they please see our difficulty because we did indicate that this agreement was on the basis of interpretative statements and it is important where these statements appear.
P. MASUD (Pakistan):May I propose to Mr. Griffin as a compromise that instead of 17 lines he can have nine lines, one for each country, and that that could be a way out. Seriously speaking, if it could be condensed somehow we could see a way to accepting something but this is just a suggestion for Mr. Griffin's consideration.
CHAIRMAN: As I said earlier to Mr. Griffin and his colleagues with these 17 lines, I am sure they are drawn carefully but I am sure as well that you did not spend that long just to be sure that there could not be 18 lines so the principle here is-let us see what can be done with this text in the Drafting Committee, and if you are not happy with it you can come back to it. But we are setting a precedent which could be unacceptable that everything said as an explanatory note or verbatim should be annexed. We have not done it before. WCARRD was a different thing. So I do not see the difficulty here. If the main points of your statement are included and put there I do not see where the difficulty could be.
M. S. AL-SAYED AHMAD (Yemen Arab Republic) (interpretation from Arabic): This is a question of order I would like to raise. I am extremely surprised that we have not been able to adopt the same procedure for all resolutions. The Drafting Committee has done this work. It is ready to pick up all statements which have been made by delegations in this room. This resolution which has been put together already expresses the opinion of the majority and has been worked out so as to accommodate the reservations expressed.
RAMADHAR (india): You have made an excellent suggestion, let us leave it to the Drafting Committee and let the Drafting Committee draft this portion, giving a brief account of the interpretative statements. It is very clear that we cannot accept the interpretative statements as they are in the report.
The question is in what form the gist of these statements could be put in the report and you have rightly said that this should be left to the Drafting Committee, so I would request Mr. Griffin, who is a friend of mine and all of us here, to agree to this and of course we can refer back to this after we have seen the draft report and see in what way there could be a meeting point of all the views because if we adopt this practice, Yugoslavia has rightly pointed out that many of the countries would like to have interpretative statements and probably your Annex of the interpretative statements might be much better and more voluminous than the report itself.
The Meeting was suspended from 19. 00 to 19. 30 hourse
La séance eat suspendue de 19 h a 1 9 h 30
Se suspende la sesión de las 19 a 19. 30horas
CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabic): I think we have had a sufficient pause now and let us admit, it lasted a little longer than planned. However, we have had ample time and I wonder if private consultations have been such that we can now reach a conclusion?
Is any delegation in a position to announce that the result that we were hoping for is acceptable?
I have made a proposal which could constitute a solution. I think it should be widely accaptable, because we have spoken of the possibility of inserting wording which will mention the interpretative statements made by delegates on the paragraphs in the resolution.
It is obvious to all of us that time is getting on. It is also obvious to all of us that we still have a lot of work to do, and I do need the cooperation of delegates. I should like to ask who would like to give me the fruits of the conversations held during the pause? Is the delegate of Ireland in a position to tell me anything?
P. GRIFFIN (Ireland): Yes, there has been considerable discussion and consultation going on during the pause and I have a slight modification, but I do not know whether it is any more acceptable-in fact, I am not quite certain if it is acceptable to all the Community, but I think it probably would be.
It is this. If it were possible-and I do not know if this is the case-to have footnote to the resolution itself, indicating that interpretative statements were made, then we could accept a somewhat abridged version of our interpretative statements; and, of course, the full texts would appear in the verbatim record.
I hope I am speaking for the Community in this, but if there is any difficulty about it I would wish any member who cannot accept it to indicate.
In case that was not clear, what I said was that we might have a footnote to the resolution, a resumé in the report of the interpretative statements; and, of course, it goes without saying that the full text would appear anyway in the verbatim record.
I am speaking for the Community, with the proviso that if there is difficulty concerning other individual members they will indicate that-but this is I think acceptable to the Community.
P. MASUD (Pakistan) :We are very grateful to the delegate of Ireland for having shown the spirit of accommodation, We would like to know where exactly this footnote would be placed and how the whole thing would read, because this is very important. I would be grateful for further guidance from you.
I. TAKE (Japan): We would support the proposal of the EEC, that a resumé in the Report will be a good solution.
CHAIRMAN: May I ask the Delegate of Ireland to give a precise reply to the question from the Delegate from Pakistan.
P. ORIFFIN (Ireland) : I think what we would wish to have at the foot of the resolution itself would be a simple note, saying that on this Resolution an interpretative statement was made by the EEC. That is as far as the Resolution is concerned. After that, we would agree to the abridgement of the actual statement in the Report itself. The points would be referred to, as they were for instance in WCARRD, and of course the full text would be in the verbatim record. Would that be acceptable?
CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabic): Would this concern the whole Draft Resolution, or would it to be added to the various paragraphs referred to in your interpretative statement?
P. GRIFFIN (Ireland): I think what we would have in mind is that the footnote would simply say, "On this Resolution an interpretative statement was made by the EEC"-but the interpretative statement itself obviously does not cover the whole Resolution, it only covers the definite parts of it which are mentioned in the statement, as you know. But a simple statement, keeping it as simple and short as possible.
P. MASUD (Pakistan): If we were to place a footnote on the whole Resolution, would it not give the impression that there was an interpretative statement on the whole Resolution?-whereas in actual fact it is on certain paragraphs, and the others have been accepted without any interpretative statements. I would like to consult my colleagues if you could give me a moment-hut I would like an answer to that question first.
P. GRIFFIN (Ireland): That suggestion would be quite acceptable to us. We would be quite happy if the specific paragraphs to which the interpretative statements are mentioned in the footnote. That would cause no problem.
S. DE MARE (Sweden): We could go along with the EEC proposal but we think it is very important that all countries that made these interpretative notes are included in the footnote, and we made an interpretative note of a more general nature concerning the whole resolution.
T, GLASER (Switzerland): Like the Swedish speaker before me, I could go along with the proposal from the European EconomicCommunity provided that all the countries that made statements are mentioned in the footnote, and since we made a declaration which covers various paragraphs I would prefer that there is one footnote under the whole resolution and not paragraph by paragraph.
D. SMITH (United States of America): I would like to support the suggestion of the delegate of Switzerland.
D. VUJICIC (Yugoslavia): After hearing all these statements by the delegates from developed countries, I think we are now at the beginning of today's proceedings on the matter and at this moment I would like to come back and propose that we keep to the normal procedure of the work of the FAO Council and the Conference, that is to make a cross-reference in the resolution or in the report that those countries made interpretative statements on the resolution, which are in the verbatim records and no other solution seems to me possible now.
P. MASUD (Pakistan): I have consulted my colleagues and, as has just been stated by the delegate of Yugoslavia, they seem to be a little perturbed over the shape this debate is now taking. We are exactly where we started today with delegations expressing views which are very difficult for us to accept. We had hoped, Mr. Chairman, that after the effort that you had put in, and in which you were joined by a large number of other delegations, it would have been possible for us to go through this smoothly and quickly. But apparently now we are told that we have interpretative statements on the whole of the re-solution. I see that my friend from the EEC is nodding his head vigourously. I apprehend the position of the EEC but I heard Switzerland and Sweden speaking on behalf of the Nordic Countries. They have in-terpretative statements on the whole of the resolution. So where would this end? That is what is really bothering us at the moment. We are willing to try and search for a compromise solution that would really be acceptable to everybody but we should be given a reason for this apparent-I have no words to explain it-a reason for making interpretative statements.
A. I. MENENDEZ (Mexico): El debate que estamos teniendo esta noche nos recuerda las cuarenta horas que empleamos en los trabajos del pequeño y sustantivo Grupo de Consultas. Nosotros pensamos que se deben aplicar los procedimientos conciliatorios con un límite, y que si no se encuentra ese consenso, se de-bería llegar a lo que indica el Reglamento interno de votaciones de esta casa.
Nos solidarizamos con la posición de Yugoslavia y de Pakistán, que feflejan la posición del Grupo de los 77.
D. VUJICIC (Yugoslavia): It seems to me that it is obvious that all of us have been working very hard the whole week and we are so tired that we cannot understand and solve a very small procedural matter. I think that it would be advisable at this moment for you to decide, Mr. Chairman, that we close our debate on this matter and come refreshed and with goodwill on Monday to continue this debate.
CHAIRMAN: I hope that our friend from Yugoslavia is not at this moment submitting a formal motion of closure of the debate. He has said he is not.
P. A. MORALES CARBALLO (Cuba): Mi delegación también comparte la preocupación del colega de Yugoslavia en el sentido de que ya es muy tarde y, estamos cansados ya que llevamos trabajando todo el día y, tal vez, no estemos en condiciones de seguir ensistiendo sobre este tema al cual no encontramos una solución inmediata.
Nos parece sensato dejarlo para el lunes y reflexionar con calma, ya que estamos próximos a llegar a un punto en que se traben de nuevo las cosas. Me parece que eso sería lo más logico. Repito que apoyo al colega de Yugoslavia.
S. DE MARE (Sweden): I do not want to prolong this discussion but if it helps we could refer our interpretative notes to one or two paragraphs of the resolution and not to the whole of the resolution. For instance, we could refer to paragraph 1.
CHAIRMAN:Before we decide to leave this matter until Monday, which I do not think will be a good course for us to take since we have so many things on hand, and with the sort of discussion that is going on probably there is not much hope that a better solution to what we proposed tonight will come up-you will recall that I suggested a course which, after listening to delegates, consulting with them and sensing the feeling of the House, I thought I presented a course which is reasonable:that we duly record in an abridged way. Without harming or upsetting the real meaning which is meant by the interpretative statement, and I said that delegates would have a chance to look at this when the draft report comes up.
To my thinking this reasonable suggestion has been rejected to be substituted by a different course which accepts part of that report but endangers the whole thing by introducing a new element- that interpretative statements were made in paragraphs 1 or 2 of the whole resolution. This really has thrown the whole thing into a new confusion. For a final attempt I really want you to reconsider your position concerning my earlier suggestion because I think it covers all your concerns. It will record your interpretative statements and you will have a chance to look at it and to express your opinion. I want to hear from you before I decide to close this debate or defer it to Monday, or any other decision.
P. GRIFFIN (Ireland):I sympathise with you in the position we are in at the moment, and you have again referred to the suggestion that you made. It was in the hope that we could reach agreement that I suggested on behalf of the Community that we should do exactly what you said, that is to say have an abridged version of our interpretative declarations in the report. The text in the verbatim is automatic but the only additional suggestion was that there should be a footnote to the resolution showing that there was in fact an interpretative statement. This was the only suggestion that we should have a footnote which could convey in general terms if you wished or could refer to the specific paragraphs if this were
preferred. This one can still do. The only difference between that and your suggestion is in fact a footnote. It is up to other countries what the decision is. That is something that we can do. It does not seem really to be a very considerable departure-it is simply the insertion of a simple footnote of one and a half lines at the bottom.
D. SMITH (United States of America): I think that one thing that all the delegates can agree on is that we have discussed this topic long and hard and long enough and I believe that the proposal which the Chairman has made, which I understand to be in three parts, is that in the report of the Commission there would be reference by name to the countries which have made interpretative statements. Secondly, there would be a slightly abridged version of the interpretative statements. Thirdly, the verbatim record. Given the length and nature of this debate this represents a reasonable compromise and I would hope in order to bring this matter to a close, that we might all be able to agree to that proposal.
I. TAKI (Japan): We feel that this is a reasonable solution. We can support the American proposal.
T. GLASER (Switzerland): This procedure would be entirely satisfactory to my delegation as well.
P. GRIFFIN (Ireland): I would like to hear the precise suggestion of the United States delegation again.
D. SMITH (United States of America):I was not really offering what I understood to be a proposal of the United States but summarizing what I understand to be the Chairman's proposal in three parts.
CHAIRMAN: The three parts first that in the report there will be a reference by name to those countries who made interpretative statements. The second thing is that there will be an abridged-and this is where I differ maybe slightly from the United States suggestion-we say abridged, slightly or whatever the term-abridged statement of the interpretative statements. Third, obviously, is the verbatim record which duly records all the statements made, interpretative or otherwise. Is that clear, Mr. Griffin?
C. F. LASCHINGER (Canada): My delegation can also support the proposal which you have now restated. S. DE MARE (Sweden): We can also support your proposal.
P. MASUD (Pakistan): We could also support what you propose with one proviso-that exactly the same treatment that is being accorded to those who have made interpretative statements should be accorded to those who may have the contrary point of view. The thing that I am trying to suggest is that the developing countries would also like to have interpretative statements and they would also be abbreviated and not abridged, and that reference will be made to the verbatim record and the countries will be mentioned by name.
CHAIRMAN: Granted. Now if I don't see any objection I consider the matter decided.
P. GRIFFIN (Ireland): As I understand it this is in fact the suggestion that you made originally-a reference in the report to the countries who have made interpretative statements, then an abridged version of the statements and the full text in the verbatim record. But there is no question of any footnote and I am afraid that I am not in a position to accept that. When I say that, I am not speaking as the delegate of Ireland, I am speaking all the time as occupying the Presidency of the European Economic Community, and that is to say the nine countries are not in a position to accept that. The Community of Nine is not in a position to accept it. I just want to avoid any confusion about the role in which I am speaking.
P. MASUD (Pakistan): I thought we were heading towards an agreement but evidently we are a little faraway still. What I wanted to ask you was that you did state once or twice or even more that the resolution had been adopted. If the resolution has been adopted how can you suggest any amendment? The only question that remains is the interpretative statements, their length and their position in the report. It will be very difficult for us to allow any changes in the resolution now. By all means we can accept the proposal made by you but it will be difficult for us to reopen the question of the resolution.
CHAIRMAN: As I recall clearly, this question of a footnote to the resolution was really never brought up in the Contact Group. I was under the clear understanding-and I think I once made the answer because I was not aware of the procedure on these interpretative notes, I must admit, and I asked whether there should be anything attached to the resolution-I was under the clear understandins. and I think we talked about it but I do not remember when and how, that the idea of a footnote to the resolution was never brought up, but that does not mean that you cannot bring it up here. This is just a statement of fact that we really did not talk of any attachement to the resolution. I was under the impression that the resolution was approved, was agreed to, but that interpretative statements would be made in the usual manner. So I do not know where to go from here gentlemen. The great majority of delegates here seem to have agreed to a reasonable and mid-course solution but I do not seem to get any further than that. So for the last time I appeal to the EEC Group to come and join the consensus in this matter.
P. GRIPPIN (Ireland): I am very sorry that we seem not to be making very much progress. However, -I would like to think aloud for a moment and tell you how it strikes me at the moment. We have had a long, very difficult, but I must say very cooperative, in one way, session at the contact group. Now it was really a difficult session for all parties beoause there were countries with diametrically opposed wishes engaged in that group. And yet we did come out eventually with a consensus. In our case it was related to the interpretative paragraph that we would later insert. Now I just want to give it a background, why, if there seems to be any intransigence, simply that it is very important. Now it is true- and I oan say this, I think genuinely, that we certainly made very substantial concessions in that contact group.
Now getting to the present situation, we did request first of all-I requested on behalf of the Community-that a full interpretative statement be incorporated and this was contested. Many countries had problems with this and we have departed from that requirement and are prepared to accept an abridged version of interpretative statements. And in that way we have really considered quite a lot beoause we were hoping for the full text, but we decided to accept the abridged version, and the only suggestions we made to make this possible for us was to insert a footnote which would refer to the interpretative statement. This could be very brief. In fact I did not hear very many countries asking for such footnotes, but if other countries want to be associated with it, as I say I am only speaking on behalf of the Community. As far as we are concerned we could say "the EEC made an interpretative statement". This oan be put in general terms, as I said or, if you wish we can specify the paragraphs and if others want to be associated with us you could say "the EEC and others. " This was the suggestion we were making. So long as we have a brief footnote like that we would be prepared to accept your proposals. I mean basically it is your proposal with a small modification, and I do feel that in fairness to the Community I should say that really we have gone very close to your proposals.
P. MASUD (Pakistan). : We have listened with great attention to what the President of the EEC has had to say on the subject. But you recall even before he made his statement I had, on behalf of the Group of 77· already stated that it would be difficult for us to accept any amendments to the resolutions. I thought that the 55 hours that you spent on working on this resolution was with the very objective that when it came to the Commission, and ultimately to the Conference, there would be no amendments, no
changes. And that is why you were working so hard and so intensely on this resolution. But a foot-note to the resolution changes the entire complexion. Therefore, in those circumstances; we find it extremely difficult to go along with the suggestion made by the President of the EEC, much as we would like to accomodate this request. We find that we are simply unable to do so. We would, however, go along with the suggestion as you outlined earlier-countries by name-an abbreviated version of the interpretative statement and a reference to the verbatim record.
CHAIRMAN: Vieil gentlemen, at this stage I see a general consensus, a general acceptability of the idea. But either we say people had oertain reservations on this resolution and we name them by name and put that they had reservations on the resolution, or, we have to put the whole thing in the way we generally feel. I don't want to get out with the faults-or the illusion-that we had the resolution which we all accepted and then we come with a footnote and other things. It is probably better to face reality and say that certain countries had their reservations on this resolution. I mean we cannot have it that it is there and it is not there. Either we have a resolution which is accepted, or we do not. After all, resolutions are not just single bits of paper lying around and someone picks it up and acts on it without seeing the report attached to it and comments made on it and their cross-referenoes. I do not see what the Community is worried about if their point of view is not expressed there.
P. MASUD (Pakistan): Sir, I make the suggestion on behalf of my own delegation. Sometimes when you see things in writing they become more appealing. If what has been stated by you were to be put in writing-of course we have heard delegates of Canada, of Sweden, Switzerland, the EEC-making their interpretative statements. If this could be abbreviated and put in black and white and then presented to the countries ccnoerned perhaps they may find a greater degree of acceptability in them. Because sometimes the spoken word does not have the same impact as the written word. When they read those they might find that all their concerns are covered. This is just a suggestion, and I must reiterate on behalf of my own delegation.
CHAIRMAN: Now you have heard both the interpreters and the delegations of Pakistan. Nell, Ladies and Gentlemen, if you recall my suggestion I mentioned this as well. Give it a ohance, see how it is going to be when it comes to the Drafting Committee and, probably, you will feel better and happier about the way it is presented. I am appealing to you for the last time because we have been warned by our good interpreters that time is running out and we are short of time and short of rest as well.
P. GRIFFIN (Ireland): Thank you Mr. Chairman for giving me the floor. I am afraid that the situation that I have mentioned is the furthest that I can go. At the moment the position is as I say, as I have already stated it is certainly as far as I oan go. In other words if we don't have either of the alternatives that we have suggested I am afraid it will be necessary to enter a reservation.
CHAIRMAN: I think we have no other course than to adjourn but meanwhile I will ask the Secretariat to prepare the Draft Report in the line of my suggestion to have it in front of the Drafting Committee. You are not deciding about it yet, so let us have a try at that and nobody is bound by it, or not going to accept it, but if we reach an agreement-in the likelihood that we reach an agreement-we have ready texts rather than starting again. I think the only thing left to us is to adjourn the meeting until Monday morning at 9. 30 ·
The meeting rose at 20. 30 hours
La séanoe est levée a 20 h 30
Se levanta la se si a las 20. 30 horas
