PARAGRAPHS 1 to 20
PARAGRAPHES 1 à 20
PARRAFOS 1 a 20
R. GARCELL (Cuba): Quizás sea sólo un problema gramatical. En el párrafo 4 pienso que la preposición “de” sobra en.el texto en español. Debe decir: “al tratar ambas partes del Examen”. Creo que âsí lo recomendamos en el Comité de Redacción.
CHAIRMAN: I think that must be purely a Spanish text because in the English text I do not find “developed proposal” at all. I take it that the amendment proposed by Cuba has been accepted.
L. VROONEN (Belgique): A la troisième ligne du paragraphe 10: “complete par des matières organiques”, je propose que nous donnions la raison de ce “complete” que nous avons discute pendant les jours qui ont precede, et dire “complete par des matières organiques moins exigeantes en energies fossiles” parce que c’était, en fait, la raison qui nous avait poussés à completer par des matières organiques. Done: “complete par des matières organiques moins exigeantes en energies fossiles” ou “en energies de commerce” peu importe. Ensuite, les parentheses (notamment par le biais...) peut-etre peut-on simplement mettre une vir-gule et laisser tomber les parentheses.
CHAIRMAN: The proposed amendment by the Belgian delegate is accepted, I take it.
M. ARAFAH (Jordan) (original language Arabic): The Arabic text of paragraph 13, regarding the role of credit, has to be amended in accordance with the original text.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, that will- be taken into account in the Arabic text.
Paragraphs 1 to 20, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 1 à 20, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 1 a 20, así enmendados, son aprobados
Paragraphs 21 to 40
Paragraphes 21 à 40
Párrafos 21 a 40
In paragraph 22, there is a change proposed by the Secretariat.
D. WRIGHT (Secretary, Commission II): The change proposed by the Secretariat is not really a change but a correction. On the first line after the word “Conference” there should be a comma inserted and then the following: phrase: “the Conference, on the basis of provisional figures for 1980”, and then on the end of the third line in English and at the beginning of the fourth line we should delete “on the basis of provisional figures,”.
CHAIRMAN: Can we take it that paragraph 22 with these changes in the text has been approved? That is the case, approved.
Ms. C. McASKIE (Canada): With your indulgence I would like to propose the addition of one sentence to paragraph 24. The sentence could come either at the end or before the last sentence to the end and would read as follows: “Some members noted however that the selection of executing agency was the prerogative of the client country.”
CHAIRMAN: You have now heard the proposed amendment by the delegate of Canada.
J. de MEREDIEU (Assistant Director-General, Development Department): May I respectfully draw the attention of the delegate from Canada to the fact that the rule, if I am not mistaken, reads that it is the administrator of the UNDP which designates the executing agency in consultation with the recipient government.
Ms. C. McASKIE (Canada): We are here dealing, I believe, with the Report of the Conference in terms of a report of statements made by delegations. Several delegations, including the observer representative of the UNDP, did make thie statement and the statements are to be found in PV10 and P.V.11.
W. A. F. GRABISCH (Germany, Fed. Rep. of) (original language German): It seems to me that this small proposed amendment should not cause too much difficulty. It is just a matter of reflecting what was said in the meeting of the Commission and I therefore think that this proposal should be acceptable.
T. AHMED (Chairman, Drafting Committee): The fact is that this particular concern which the delegates of Canada and Germany are discussing now was expressed during the discussion in the Drafting Committee and to accommodate that, the íast but one sentence was changed. I would like to draw the attention of the delegate of Canada to the last but one sentence where it says: “Full support was therefore expressed for the action taken by the Director-General to help correct this situation, through consultation with the governments of recipient countries, which played a middle role in shaping their country programmes...” That part of the sentence was specifically inserted to accommodate this point of view but the general consensus was that it is a two-way dialogue between the recipient country and the UNDP. So the second part of the sentence brings out the balance between the two and I personally think that that would meet the Canadian delegate’s concern. But if the Canadian delegate has very strong views about inserting one separate sentence which we think has already-been accommodated in the text, we would perhaps have no objection but we would draw her attention to this particular sentence.
D. BETI (Suisse): Je remercie le Président du Comité de rédaction des explications qu’il a données. Il me semble néanmoins que la proposition faite par la délégation canadienne rend beaucoup mieux compte de Tétat de choses tel qu’il existe, dans certains cas, et tel qu’il devrait être dans la réalité de tous les jours, dans les relations entre le PNUD, la FAO et les pays récipiendaires.
Ma délégation serait heureuse si la Commission pouvait accepter l’amendement qui précise bien les choses et qui ne modifie pas essentiellement les termes du paragraphe 24.
A.G. GNGONGI NAMANGA (Cameroon): I would not like to drag this out, since I was a member of the Drafting Committee, but as the Chairman of the Drafting Committee has clearly explained, the Drafting Committee had some argument on this last but one sentence. This was because an expression saying that the developing countries or the beneficiary countries have the final choice on the executing agency is putting it very simplistically. It is not really a reflection of the facts of life. Seeing that that was what was discussed in the Drafting Committee, this does not actually reflect the conflicting forces or the powers of decision. I mean, to a large extent the UNDP Resident Representatives actually have a lot more to say than shows on the surface.
So if we want to say that that is how it should be, maybe the sentence should be changed to say that: “Some countries noted that the selection of the executing agency should be the prerogative of the developing countries”. I think that will be acceptable. But to say that it is the prerogative of the developing countries does not actually reflect the facts of life.
D. BETI (Suisse) (langue originale allemand): C’est bien sûr à la délégation canadienne qui a proposé un amendement qu’il appartient de prendre une décision sur ce point, mais en ce qui nous concerne, la modification proposée par la délégation camerounaise nous donnerait satisfaction.
Ms. C. McASKIE (Canada): I think the remarks of my colleague from the Cameroon are most relevant and I am very willing to take his comments into account and accept his amendment. I would add, however, that we are dealing here with situations in a very large number of countries and experiences differ from country to country. There is no one example which is true everywhere; in some countries, in my’ own personal experience it is the prerogative of the client country to choose the executing agency. I am not speaking on the basis of hearsay but on personal experience.
I am very happy, however, to accept the new wording that would read, “that the selection of executing agency should be the prerogative of the client country”.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, delegate of Canada. The proposal as amended by Cameroon would read now, “some members noted however that the selection of executing agency should be the prerogative of the client country”. Maybe “recipient country”. Right, “recipient country”. I think that has been settled. Can we take it that paragraph 24 has been approved? I take it.
W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of) (Original language German): My delegation too would like to congratulate the Chairman of the Drafting Committee and the members very much. You see how quickly we are moving, and I think that is the best proof of this.
Now to paragraph 34. My delegation would like to make a slight amendment at the beginning of the third sentence which begins with, “The Conference noted that there was scope”. We think that this is a little weak if we compare this with what developing and developed countries said about this here, so we suggest that we amend it as follows: we amend the word “noted” to “stressed” and the sentence would now begin, “The Conference stressed that there was scope for further improvement”. I hope that this will not create any particular difficulties. Thank you.
T. AHMED (Chairman, Drafting Committee): I appreciate the words with which the delegate of Germany started. We would have no difficulty with this proposed amendment, but I would suggest that instead of “stressed” we may use the word “emphasized”, which would meet your concern.
CHAIRMAN: The word “emphasized” has been proposed substituting “noted”. I take it you noted it and approved it.
Paragraphs 21 to 40, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 21 à 40, ainsi amendes, sont aprouvés
Los párrafos 21 a 40, así enmendados, son aprobados
Paragraphs 41 to 43 approved
Les paragraphes 41 à 43 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 41 a 43 son aprobados
PARAGRAPHS 44 to 46
PARAGRAPHES 44 à 46
PARRAFOS 44 a 46
MAI LUONG (Viet Nam): Les paragraphes 44, 45, 46 et 47 ont relaté assez fidèlement les travaux et debats de notre Commission II sur le point 14 de l’Ordre du jour. Nous voudrions cependant vous faire remarquer que ces paragraphes ne reflètent pas l’esprit de certains débats menés à cette Commission. Des délégations, aujiombre desquelles on compte la nôtre ont manifesté leur souci de voir l’aide alimentaire ne pas être employée comme une arme. Il faut éviter, autant que possible, l’ingérence de la politique dans les activités du PAM. Ceci, pour préserver le caractère humanitaire de l’Organisation et les ‘critères jusqu’icl appliques au cours des sessions du CPA pour l’approbation de l’aide alimentaire. Ces points de vue ont d’ailleurs été exprimés même en séance plénière par plusieurs délégations au cours du débat général.
Notre délégation, à la suite d’un fait anormal au cours de la douzième Session, a exprimé le voeu que soient réexaminées les modalités d’approbation par consensus, selon lequel une minorité doit imposer la politique à une majorité, en bloquant ainsi les travaux.
Notre délégation prie le Comité de rédaction d’insérer dans ce rapport l’esprit de ce que j’ai dit au début de mon intervention. Nous avons déjà préparé un amendement dont, avec la permission du Président, je pourrais donner lecture.
Voici ce texte: “Plusieurs délégations ont souligné le fait que l’aide alimentaire ne doit pas être utilisée comme une arme et qu’il faut appliquer strictement les critères déjà convenus pour une aide alimentaire, sans ingérence de la politique dans les activités du PAM et les travaux du CPA, C’est un fait anormal dans l’histoire du PAM que, pour la première fois, un projet de développement a été ajourné, réajoumé pendant deux ans de suite; une délégation a relevé le côté absurde et injuste du problème et a demandé de revoir le mode d’approbation par consensus par lequel, par deux fois, une minorité peut abuser pour imposer sa politique à une majorité et bloquer les travaux”.
LE PRESIDENT: Monsieur le délégué du Viet Nam, vous serait-il possible de mettre le texte de votre amendement à la disposition du secrétariat?
R. GARCELL (Cuba): Nos sentimos comprometidos con el trabajo del Comité de Redacción y consideramos que se hizo un trabajo arduo bajo la magnífica presidencia del distinguido delegado de Pakistán, que condujo hábilmente y en la forma más amplia el desarrollo de nuestros debates. De los cientos de oradores que han intervenido, a veces occuren omisiones, y parece ser que estamos en presencia de una de ellas. Yo recuerdo perfectamente la declaración de Viet Nam, que expresaba la necesidad de que no se use la ayuda alimentaria como un arma. Pero además recuerdo que no sólo fue la distinguidísima delegación de Viet Nam, una mujer del pueblo de Viet Nam, quien la hizo sino que también otras delegaciones hicimos referencia a este aspecto, y realmente procede de alguna forma incluir algún párrafo en este sentido.
LE PRESIDENT: Monsieur le délégué du Viet Nam, l’amendement que vous avez présenté maintenant et la declaration prononcée par Mme le délégué de votre pays lors du débat sur le Programme alimentaire mondial sont fidèlement reproduits dans le procès verbal. Mais, si j’ai bien compris votre suggestion. yous désirez incorporer votre amendement maintenant dans le rapport, (Continue en anglais):… Distinguished delegates, you have heard the suggestion of the delegate of Vietnam.
W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Fed. Rep. of): (Original language German): This seems to be a rather lengthy suggestion that we have heard read out and we wonder whether the balance of the whole excerpt would somewhat unbalance the remainder of the text. We think that part of what has been stated in substance is to be discussed in the WFP itself, for example the criteria which have been referred to. Our Delegation would like to hear what the Chairman of the Drafting Committee has to say abour this suggestion, and I do not know whether in this case it would be a good thing to hear from the representative of the WFP, but I am sure that there are other opinions in the plenary on the matter.
T. AHMED (Chairman, Drafting Committee): I appreciate the confidence of the distinguished Delegate of Germany. The fact is that, while drafting the Report, we attempted to reflect the general trend of the debate in Commission II. Very rarely did we make reference to one delegate’s pleas of observations or statements during Commission II because the consensus was that the verbatim report carried all the discussion absolutely correctly and that the Report should be the gist of the general trends of the discussion that had taken place.
This issue was not raised during the Drafting Committee’s deliberations but other matters to which the distinguished delegate of Vietnam referred, like strictly observing the criteria, etc., are already contained in these paragraphs on WFP. The issue of food aid not being used as a weapon was not brought up and.it was not discussed in the Drafting Group.
It is up to Commission II now to consider whether or not they want this to be included in the Report. However, I do agree with the distinguished delegate from Germany that, if you want to reflect this, it will have to be reflected briefly in one or two sentences and not in a lengthy paragraph which would unbalance the Report.
I respectfully suggest, Mr. Chairman, that you invite the opinions of the members of Commission Il on the formulation it should take or whether or not it should be included. As far as we are concerned, we tried to reflect the debate as it took place, and we have presented the Report.
CHAIRMAN: Indeed, the Report would have to reflect faithfully the views held by the overwhelming majority, and, in my opinion, that is the case.
Sra. L. ELIZONDO C. (Nicaragua): Nuestra delegación considera oportuna y apoyaría la moción de que se incluya un párrafo breve donde se haga referenda a que los alimentos no deben de ser usados como un arma política.
F. D’ALMEIDA (Benin): Je voudrais intervenir dans le sens de la déclaration de la déléguée du Nicaragua. Je pense que l’on peut ajouter ce membre de phrase parce qu’effectivement beaucoup de délégations avaient fait état de l’utilisation de l’aide alimentaire coinme une arme.
J.M. SCOULAR (United Kingdom): Might I suggest a sentence on the lines: “Some delegations indicated their view that food aid should not be used for political ends”.
CHAIRMAN: You have heard the suggestion proposed by the delegate of the United Kingdom.
M. KRIESBERG (United States of America): That is indeed a useful suggestion by our colleague, the distinguished delegate from the United Kingdom, because that has been the burden and the real concern of several delegations. Those views have been expressed and those views have been touched upon in Commission I as well. We have no objection to that kind of a statement being made at this point in Commission II. We think, though, that that is the basic issue and that is the extent of a balanced report.
CHAIRMAN: We have here a concrete proposal of a text that could be a compromise: “Some delegations indicated their view that food aid should not be used for political ends”. Could this be a formula that might be acceptable?
I. MAAZOU (Niger): Nous aimerions également appuyer la proposition du représentant du Viet Nam, parce que nous estimons que le PAM doit être un organisme strictement humanitaire. Nous proposons donc un amendement.
Cependant nous voudrions une légère modification à l’amendement propose par le Viet Nam. Dans la dernière phrase de cet amendement, au lieu de dire: “Pour imposer la politique à une majorité...” nous dirions: “Pour imposer une politique”.
T. AHMED (Chairman, Drafting Committee): It is obvious that this question was raised in Commission II, and most of the members have agreed that this question that food aid should not be used for politics should be included in the Report. I would personally be happy with the formulation offered by the delegate of the UK and would suggest that it be inserted in paragraph 46 on page 11 in the sixth line after the sentence beginning, “Some members suggested that while maintaining its established priorities...” etc. Then you could add the sentence, “Some delegations indicated their view that food aid should not be used for political ends”, because that is the general trend of the debate in this paragraph 44. That sentence would, in a brief manner, reflect the viewpoint of a number of delegations who expressed their concern on this issue.
MAI LUONG (Viet Nam): Si j’ai bonne mémoire, je crois qu’il faudrait mettre “plusieurs délégations” et non pas “certaines délégations”.
CHAIRMAN: I take it that the wording that might be acceptable is now: “Several delegations indicated their view that food aid should not be used for political ends.” Looking around, I take it that that is an acceptable formula. Thus, it will be inserted as suggested by the Chairman of the Drafting Committee.
Paragraphs 44 to 46, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 44 à 46, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 44 a 46, así enmendados, son aprobados
PARAGRAPH 47 INCLUDING DRAFT RESOLUTION
PARAGRAPHE 47 Y COMPRIS LE PROJET DE RESOLUTION
PARRAFO 47 INCLUIDO EL PROYECTO DE RESOLUCION
L. VROONEN (Belgique): A la fin du paragraphe 47 il y a, je pense, une petite omission qui pourrait être réparée avec la permission du Président du Comité de rédaction. Il a indiqué tout à l’heure que l’on ne peut pas tout mettre, bien sûr, dans le rapport. Cependant, lors des travaux de la Commission, ma délégation avait introduit un point qui n’est pas reflété, et puisque dans le texte français je vois qu’il y a un peu de place qui reste en blanc en bas de la page, cette petite omission pourrait peut-être trouver sa place dans cet espace blanc.
Je propose donc un point que la Commission avait souleve lors de ses travaux, et je le formule de cette manière.
“Une délégation s’est toutefois inquiétée du nombre croissant d’opérations d’urgence, notamment en faveur des réfugiés, qui diminuent les ressources pour les projets PAM, alors que d’autres organisations internationales ont un mandat précis concernant les réfugiês. Cette délégation demande des critères plus stricts pour l’acceptation des opérations d’urgence”.
LE PRESIDENT: Je vous remercie, Monsieur le délégué de la Belgique, mais je dois dire que le Comité de rédaction a eu le devoir de faire un résumé sincère et fidèle de ce qui a été débattu. Le procès verbal a exactement reproduit les positions de chacun des délégués présents dans cette enceinte. Mais je pense qu’il ne serait pas rationnel d’inclure toutes les positions prises par un seul délégué dans le rapport. Si nous le faisions, le rapport deviendrait énorme et je suis sûr que ce précédent inviterait un grand nombre de déléguë à faire la même chose. Je demande donc au délégué de la Belgique de bien vouloir reconsidérer sa proposition.
L. VROONEN (Belgique): Je n’insisterai pas Monsieur le Président. Simplement je l’ai signalé.
LE PRESIDENT: Je vous remercie pour votre compréhension. Je pense que ce pas apporte une contribution très importante au débat à venir. Continue en anglais: We are on the draft résolution, Target for the WFP Pledges for the period 1983-84. I would like to remind delegates that the subject of pledges for the World Food Programme as well as the résolution has been amply debated. To the best of my recollection--and the Chairman of the Drafting Committee will perhaps confirm this--no amendments have been suggested to the text of that draft resolution. I would like to propose, therefore, that Commission II approve the Resolution as contained in document C 81/II/REP/2 on page 13. Or would the Commission prefer to go through the preambular and operative paragraphs? Can I take it that you would agree to approve the resolution as a whole? I see a lot of nodding going on.
Paragraph 47, including draft résolution, approved
Le paragraphe 47, y compris le projet de résolution, est approuvé
El párrafo 47, incluido el proyecto de resolueión, es aprobado
PARAGRAPHS 48 to 59
PARAGRAPHES 48 à 59
PARRAFOS 48 a 59
C. R. BENJAMIN (United States of America): Just a small point on paragraph 54, actually a point of grammar, I think, but it changes the sense of this first sentence sufficiently for us to think that we ought to take out the comma in the third line after “meaningful progress”.
CHAIRMAN: Could you indicate exactly where this is?
C. R. BENJAMIN (United States of America): In paragraph 54, the third line, after the words “meaningful progress” there is a comma which changes the sense.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for that suggestion. It is a valid one and has been accepted. I take it that with this amendment we approve paragraph 54.
There is a correction to be indicated now by Mr. Wright on paragraph 58. In the third line it should not read “...the role of UNDP Resident Co-ordinators” but “...the role of UN Resident Co-ordinators”.
Ms. C. McASKIE (Canada): I should like to propose an amendment to paragraph 58 in the second sentence, “Some countries emphasized the role of UN Resident Co-ordinators”. I should like to change the words “Some countries” to “The Conference” because, to my knowledge, no government spoke against this. The normal procedure used throughout the Report has been that, where there was no negative statement made, there was a general feeling that it was the agreement of the Group as a whole.
T. AHMED (Chairman, Drafting Committee): I personally see no difficulty with the amendment proposed by the Canadian delegation unless Mr. de Meredieu has some comment to offer.
J. de MEREDIEU (Sous-directeur général, Département du développement): Bien entendu, c’est a notre commission qu’il appartient de décider, mais enfin, dans un rapport qui cherche à doser les nuances qui ont été exprimées au cours du débat, et où précisément beaucoup a étë dit au sujet des functions relatives des coordonnateurs résidents et des représentants de la FAO, il me semble que la formulation proposée, en attribuant à l’ensemble de cette assemblée ce qui n’a, en fait, été exprimé que par un certain nombre de membres, risquerait peut-être de déséquilibrer le sens de l’ensemble du paragraphe, mais, bien entendu, c’est à votre commission qu’il appartient de décider.
Ms. S.M. MAIER (Netherlands): I should like to support the suggestion of the Canadian delegate. It is my opinion too that no country said anything against the role of the UN Resident Co-ordinators.
G. IJIGU (Ethiopia): With regard to the proposed amendment by Canada, I cannot lend my support to that statement because our own position has been that we see a balance between the UNDP Resident Co-ordinators and the other organs. So the statement cannot be “The Conference”. “Some countries” should remain.
Ms. C. McASKIE (Canada): I fully appreciate the comments of the delegate from Ethiopia and in respect of the relations between the various agencies in the field he is absolutely right, there is a balance in the relationship. My comment in no way attempts to denigrate or reduce the role of the FAO representative in the field, which the Conference has accepted as being a unique role with direct access to governments and direct access to its own Headquarters. This is enshrined in the General Assembly resolutions. The UN Resident Co-ordinators, however, does have a specific role, and it is a role that has been endorsed by all of us here in the General Assembly resolutions. There is nothing, therefore, that could detract from our discussions or cestroy the balance between the agencies of the various members of the UN family by merely acknowledging that the FAO Conference endorsed what is in effect a decision that has already been taken by all of us concerning the over-all balanced picture. I am not in any way trying to suggest by my comment that the Conference gave a role to the UN Resident Co-ordinators that they do not already have.
D. BETI (Suisse): II faut dire qu’une conférence comme celle de la FAO est une chose très compliquée, et qu’il faut probablement la faire plusieurs fois avant d’en comprendre tous les mécanismes. Moi, j’en suis à ma deuxième Conférence de la FAO, et je crois avoir compris un certain nombre de ses mécanismes, notamment justement que quand il n’y a pas de voix discordantes dans la discussion de la commission, on peut admettre que la commission a approuvé une proposition, une remarque, ou en tout cas elle n’a pas contredit cette remarque faite par une ou plusieurs délégations. Sur ce point de l’ordre du jour, ma délégation n’as pas cru devoir intervenir dans la discussion, estimant que ce qu’elle aurait pu dire avait déjà été dit par d’autres délégations, et que certains points auxquels elle tenait n’avaient pas été contredits. Ceci pour gagner du temps à la commission; ceci aussi parce que si l’on commence, dans cette conference, à devoir prendre la parole sur chaque sujet pour qu’il soit bien clair que si l’on se tait on consent ou on ne consent pas, pour que justement à ce moment-là on n’arrive pas à un état de choses où toutes les délégations se prononcent systématiquement sur tous les points. Dans ce sens il me semblait avoir compris que ce qui est exprimé dans la phrase qui est en discussion maintenant ici était effectivement approuvé, ou en tout cas pas cpntredit par les délégations ici présentes, notamment par la mienne qui ne s’est pas prononcée. Je trouve par consequent qu’il serait souhaitable et heureux que nous puissions admettre ce texte et, par consequent, approuver la proposition faite par la délégation du Canada.
A.A. KHALIL (Sudan) (original language Arabic): I do not want to speak at length on this matter, but I fully agree with what was stated by the representative of Ethiopia about this paragraph, and we insist that this paragraph should be retained as such, namely; “Some countries emphasized the role of the Resident Co-ordinators” and so on, but without any amendment.
W.A, F: GRABISCH (Germany, Fed. Rep. of) (original language German): Perhaps it might be useful or helpful if those who have doubts about the representative of Canada’s proposal, which was supported by the Netherlands, could have their attention drawn to paragraph 59 - that those who hesitated could have
their attention drawn to paragraph 59. It says there that the relations between the Resident Co-ordinators did “not affect relations between Governments and individual organizations of the United Nations system”, so it is stated quite clearly there what is meant, and therefore I think that the proposal of Canada, as supported by the Netherlands, should be adopted.
J. GAZZO (Perú): Ya en una intervención anterior expuse los inconvenientes que sufrió el Perú al no tener por casi seis años representante de la FAO y solamente tener representante de las Naciones Uni-das. En la mayoría de los países en vías de desarrollo tenemos como gran prioridad el sector agrope-cuario; al cubrir la FAO específicamente este sector y no la amplitud de los sectores que cubren las Naciones Unidas, es muy conveniente y muy necesario el que exista un representante de la FAO en nuestros países. Nosotros hemos vivido los inconvenientes de la ausencia de este representante y muchas veces el representante de las Naciones Unidas, por mucha buena voluntad que tuviera, no tenía los co-nocimientos suficientes en la especialidad del sector agropecuario y los mensajes que queríamos que llegaran al Director General no llegaban en el lenguaje especial del sector agropecuario que se requería. Es un gran inconveniente que se tengan que tomar algunas decisiones de emergencia a través de una intermediación. Nosotros pensamos que la existencia de un representante de la FAO en nuestros países es ya una descentralización de la Organización, lo que sí es necesario es que ese representante lleve unido todas las prerrogativas y la delegación de autoridad por parte del Director General para que sea un hombre ágil que tome decisiones, no solo en los programas ordinarios, sino en las solucio-nes de emergencia y evitar esta intermediación a través de cartas, a travës de correo, que demoran mucho tiempo y que en mi país han demostrado una gran ineficacia.
Por consiguiente, Perú apoya firmemente, y cree que ésa es la opinión de la mayoría de los países en vías de desarrollo, la conveniencia de que exista en nuestros países un representante de la FAO.
CHAIRMAN: Let us come back now to the point of departure. There were two words, either “The Conference” or “some delegates”. Let us not re-open the debate. I have now a number of speakers and I plead. with them to speak to the point.
T. AHMED (Chairman, Drafting Committee): I am trying to help the Commission in their deliberations. The Canadian delegate would have by now realized that it was not “the Conference”; it was “some delegates”, and I have been looking through my papers that we were using during the drafting group in this form, that “some countries emphasized the role” and it was not the Conference, and now that there is the bleak prospect of re-opening the debate on this issue, it is obvious that it is not the Conference; it is some members. So I would suggest and ask the distinguished delegate from Canada to leave the paragraph as it is because that more truly reflects the opinion of Commission II than saying it was the Conference.
J PILANE (Botswana): I think that the Chairman of the Drafting Committee has answered my question. I was going to ask for his leadership on this aspect. I think I have nothing to say.
Ms. C. McASKIE (Canada): I think we are starting to get off on the wrong track here, and I certainly did not wish, as I hoped I had made clear in my earlier intervention, I certainly had not wished to dene-grate in any way whatsoever the unique role of the FAO representative in the field, his relations with governments and his relations with Headquarters. This is not the point we are discussing. I would like to refer to the very helpful remarks of the delegate from the Federal Republic of Germany in pointing out to us the contents of the following paragraph, and with this in mind I would like to make a counter-suggestion that instead of saying “The Conference emphasized the role of the UN Resident Coordinators”, that we say, “The Conference endorsed the role of the UN Resident Coordinator in the field as defined in General Assembly Resolution 34/213”. Now as we have the quotation in paragraph 59 from this very resolution, then I see no difficulties in our, merely making a statement which is something we have said in several other forms.
M. TRKULJA (Yugoslavia): I really hate to be formal but our business here is to reflect our debate as faithfully as we possibly can, so I think Mr. Chairmen if we want to involve the Conference here then the Conference could only note. I do not think there is any point in endorsing something that was approved by the General Assembly. It seems to be redundant, so I am trying to offer a way out to say, “It also noted the role”, and if we want to use the terms “emphasized”, then it should be only some or several countries. If you want “Conference”, then “The Conference certainly noted the role of UNDP Resident Representatives”. That is all. I repeat, I really do not see any point in endorsing their role.
J.O. ALABI (Nigeria): After the explanation by the Chairman of the Drafting Committee I do not think I have much to say. I really prefer that you leave the text as it is, or if you want to put “it is noted” as Yugoslavia suggested, I am all right.
NGA MA MAPELA (Zaíre): Notre délégation appuie la position de ceux des délégués.qui ont souhaité voir maintenu le texte dans son état actuel. Nous croyons que dire: “certains pays ont souligné……....’ cela reflète le débat. En fait, chacun n’est pas satisfait. Si nous voulons rouvrir le débat, nous voulons dans ce paragraphe qu’on dise aussi que le rôle de coordination doit être joué par le gouvernement de chaque pays. Car, ce sont des choses qui ont été dites ici, lors des débats, mais le temps étant compté, nous ne pouvons pas trop discuter, c’est pourquoi nous demandons que le texte soit maintenu en l’état.
G. CAMELARIS (Cyprus): Perhaps I could provide a middle solution to solve the problem. We can probably omit both the word “Conference” and the words “Some countries”. After the full stop of the first sentence the rest of the paragraph would read: “The role of UNDP Resident Coordinators in the field was emphasized.”, and then it would go on according to the text.
B. E. PHIRI (Zambia): First of all I would like to comment on the proposal made just now by Cyprus and say that regretfully we cannot accept their amendment right now. We think that the paragraph as it stands reflects what took place in the Commission. It was not the full Conference that emphasized this role; some countries of course mentioned it, so we think that to say “Some countries emphasized” is a correct reflection of what happened. But if the insistence is on replacing “Some countries” by “The Conference”, we would go along with what the delegate of Yugoslavia has just said, “The Conference noted this role”. But we would say again that we do not accep the proposal made just now by Cyprus.
A.H. EL SARKI (Egypt) (Original language Arabic): My delegation supports the idea that the text should be left as it because I think “Some countries” represents the debate which actually took place better.
CHAIRMAN: I take it that the compromise that was suggested by the delegate of Yugoslavia and supported by a few of the delegates could meet in the middle. He suggested, “The Conference noted the role of”. Is this an acceptable formula?
Ms C. McASKIE (Canada): First of all I would like to thank my Cyprus colleague for his very helpful suggestion which I have to confess I rather liked. But at the same time I also very much appreciate the suggestion from the delegate of Yugoslavia who has been noted in this Commission for his very successful mediation at difficult moments. I believe therefore, from some of the comments that have been made, that his suggestion would have a wider acceptability in Commission II and the delegation of Canada would be prepared to accept this wording. We would still however dispute the fact that we go back to the original wording because there were no countries who spoke against it during the debate.
D. AMBOULOU (Congo): La rédaction du texte qui nous est présenté nous satisfait totalement, et nous aimerions à cette occasion appuyer l’intervention de la délégation du Zaíre. Cette intervention reflète tout à fait l’esprit du débat tel qu’il s’est déroulé ici. Beaucoup de pays ont effectivement dit au cours du débat qu’ils souhaiteraient (et, il en est déjà ainsi) que la coordination des activités soit faite chez eux, par le gouvernement en place. Si l’on souhaite revenir sur ce point, nous demanderions qu’on ajoute cet amendement parce que cela a été dit dans le débat.
K. CHOUERI (Liban) (Langue originale arabe): Nous avons examiné en profondeur ce document et ce paragraphe. II n’y a pas eu d’observations faites par les membres du Comité de rédaction; nous devons conserver le texte tel qu’il est, conformément à ce qu’a dit le Président du Comité de rédaction.
B.E. PHIRI (Zambia): In our intervention on this item we mentioned that we did not want to go back to the situation which had prevailed in the past when a Senior Agricultural Adviser used to work through the Resident Representative of the UNDP. We actually made this statement and therefore for Canada to say that no country spoke against this is not quite correct because we mentioned it. In fact we were just trying to be accommodating when we accepted the Yugoslav formula, “The Conference noted”. We could in fact insist that “Some countries emphasized” because we certainly did not want this to come into it. So we are just trying to go along with those who are on the other side of the pendulum. But certainly we could insist on going back to this because some of us do not want to get to the previous situation which we did not like before and which we spoke about in the Commission.
J. MOLDE (Denmark): Our delegation took part in the deliberations concerning the relationship between the UNDP and FAO and the role of the UN Coordinators. We did emphasize the role of the UN Coordinators and it was our understanding actually that nobody spoke against it.
In this respect we had the same understanding as Canada and Germany and also in our opinion the original Canadian proposal would present a fair balance considering the beginning of paragraph 59. But in a spirit of compromise we could go along with the Yugoslav proposal as the Canadian delegation can also now accept it.
S. AIDARA (Sénégal): Je ne vais pas allonger le débat. Vous le savez, Monsieur le Président, j’ai participé personnellement au Comité de rédaction. Je voudrais tout simplement confinner ce qu’a dit le délégué du Liban, à propos du paragraphe 58 qui a fait l’objet, devant le Comité de rédaction, d’un très large débat et d’un échange de vues très positif. Un certain nombre de propositions ont été faites, notamment par la Yougoslavie et elles constituent à nos yeux une solution de compromis, d’autant plus que ce compromis semble être accepté par l’autre partie, en l’occurrence les délégations qui pensent comme la délégation du Canada.
Il me semble donc qu’on pourrait adopter cette solution de compromis pour avancer dans nos travaux. On pourrait donc remplacer les termes “certains pays ont souligné..… “ par “la conférence a noté ….” cela reflèterait les vues des uns et des autres, exprimées au cours du débat.
M. BEL HADJ AMOR (Tunisie): Lorsqu’un projet de rapport est présenté à une Commission, on sait par experience qu’il a toujours fait l’objet auparavant d’un très long débat. Et je suis certain que si le Comité de rédaction nous a propose l’expression “certains pay ont souligné …..”, cela signifie qu’il existe déjà un consensus au sein du Comité de rédaction. Très franchement, ma délégation préfère cette expression. Cependant, je ne veux pas du tout rouvrir le débat, et si la majorité entend appuyer le compromis présenté par la Yougoslavie, je suivrai cette voie mais, très franchement, avec réticence.
J. TCHICAYA (Congo): Le représentant de la Tunisie m’a devancé. En effet, le Comité de rédaction nous a fait part des longues discussions qui ont eu lieu au cours de ce paragraphe 58. Nous savons que ce paragraphe constitue déjà un compromis au niveau du Comité de redaction, je ne vois vraiment pas pourquoi nous serions amenés à en changer le libellé. Lorsqu’on dit “la conférence a noté …..” cela signifie que tout le monde a accepté, et par conséquent, on peur employer le mot “conférence”. Dans la mesure où on dit “certains pays …..” alors que d’autres pays int avancé des idées qui ne sont pas celles retenues ici, je crois qu’il convient de laisser “certaitos pays …..” En tout cas, le libellé tel qu’il nous est présenté satisfait entièrement notre délégation, et nous souhaitons qu’il soit maintenu.
G. IJIGU (Ethiopia): I just wanted to be clear on the compromise that was suggested by the last speakers before the delegate of the Congo. If the compromise is to change the word “noted” for “emphasized” and then retain everything else, I do not see very much change in what we are debating now. Therefore unless there is a substantial change to show “The Conference”, meaning all of us, I just wanted to emphasize that our position is that we feel very strongly about this and I would remind you of it.
D. BETI (Suisse): Nous sommes probablement arrives au point où il faudrait peut-être relire attentivement le verbatim pour savoir ce que nous avons tous dit exactement. Nous n’en avons pas le temps. Comme j’ai déjà eu l’occasion de le dire, nous n’avons pas participé directement et expressément à ce débat, mais nous y avons participé activement en écoutant ce qui a ëté dit et nous nous basons sur ce que nous avons entendu. Or nous ne nous rappelons à aucun moment avoir entendu quelque contradiction que ce soit à l’égard de ce qui est dit dans la phrase telle qu’elle serait amendée par la proposition du Canada.
Si nous voulons commencer à nous disputer sur ce point, je serais prêt - et j’en.reviens aux remarques du Président du Comité de rédaction - à présenter rapidement un certain nombre de ces expressions où on retient que la Conférence a noté, que la Conférence a souligné, que la Conférence a pris note, et à vous prouver qu’il y avait eu au moins une voix discordante dans l’assemblée, et que par consequent on ne pouvait pas parler de la Conférence mais plutôt de plusieurs membres ou d’une grande partie des membres.
Si on pouvait accepter la proposition du Canada, amendée par la très bonne proposition du délégué de la Yougoslavie, cela rendrait effectivement ce qui a été dit ou ce qui a été admis tacitement dans cette discussion.
Je voudrais ajouter un mot à l’adresse notamment du délégué du Zaîre pour le rassurer. Nous discutons maintenant sur un paragraphe, mais il y a d’autres choses qui sont dites dans d’autres paragraphes. Nous sommes tout à fait d’accord avec ce que l’on dit sur la coordination, que la coordination des activités de développement doit revenir aux gouvernements des pays concernés ou gouvernements récipiendaires. Nous acceptons cela aussi pour la coopération bilatérale. Or, je me permets de renvoyer le délégué du Zaîre, et si je ne m’abuse le délégué du Congo, au paragraphe 56 où il est question de cette coordination, notamment à la première phrase: “...cette tâche (de coordination) doit continuer d’ncomber essentiellement aux gouvernements eux-mêmes”.
G. CAMELARIS (Cyprus): We have been discussing this issue quite extensively, and we must proceed, so since, indeed, the paragraph as it is meets what has been said during the Commission, during the debate, and it seems the majority approach as it is in the report, the Cyprus delegation has no difficulty, in order to help the Commission, in accepting the paragraph as it is in the report.
T. AHMED (Chairman, Drafting Committee): As was pointed out by my friends on the Drafting Committee, particularly Lebanon and Senegal, we had a fairly long debate on this paragraph, and we thought that the formulation that we have presented reflects the true nature of the debate. But as the issue has been reopened here the Yugoslavia proposal seems to be a compromise formula which is perhaps acceptable to both sides’point of view, and would reflect then the debate, I would, Mr. Chairman, recommend that we accept the proposal made by Yugoslavia and say that the Conference “noted” and we eliminate the word “emphasize”. That would perhaps meet all the doubts and concerns, and we can go forward.
NGA MA MAPELA (Zaîre): J’ai bien écouté le délégué de la Suisse et je le remercie de ses remarques. Il y a effectivement l’idée de coordination par les gouvernements des pays eux-mêmes et la coordination par le coordinateur résident. Cela exprime une même chose alors qu’au paragraphe 56, déjà adopté, il est dit: “On a reconnu que... la coordination est nécessaire...”. Dans ce paragraphe 56, on devrait incorporer la proposition de la Yougoslavie.
CHAIRMAN: We have a formula in front of us that seems to be acceptable to most of the delegates. Could I ask the delegate of Yugoslavia to read it out again?
M. TRKULJA (Yugoslavia): Well, Chairman, it was my feeling that our debate would be perhaps best reflected in the report if we say in the second sentence “it also noted the role of UNDP Resident Coordinators” and so on.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, delegate of Yugoslavia. That is the proposed amendment. I take it that that has been approved by the Commission.
Paragraphs 48 to 59, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 48 à 59, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 48 a 59, así enmendados, son aprobados
Paragraphs 60 to 63, approved
Les paragraphes 60 à 63 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 60 a 63 son aprobados
Draft Report of Commission II, Part 2, as amended, was adopted
Le projet de rapport de la Commission II, deuxième partie, ainsi amendé, est adopté
El proyecto de informe de la Comision II, parte 2, así enmendado, es aprobado
