LE PRESIDENT: J'ouvre la deuxième séance de la Commission III. Nous poursuivons le point 20 de notre ordre du jour "Barème des contributions pour 1984-85".
A. SALGADO SANTOS (Brazil): The Brazilian Government have continuously indicated, both in the General Assembly and in recent sessions of the Specialized Agencies, that it is not satisfied with the criteria adopted by the United Nations to establish the scale of contributions of the member countries. Such criteria are limited to the national income and a discount formula based on the per capita income level presented by the countries. The Brazilian Government is of the view that such criteria are insufficient to allow a correct evaluation of the relative capacity to pay of each member country. Accordingly, Brazil voted against,Resolution 37/125 of the General Assembly of the United Nations which adopted the UN scale of contributions for the period 1983-85.
The Brazilian delegation in the Committee on Contributions of the United Nations, and in the General Assembly, has proposed, in a positive manner and in a constructive spirit, broader and more objective criteria for the preparation of the UN scale of contributions according to the principles of Resolution 36/231. I will refer to the criteria suggested by the Brazilian delegation.
First, better comparability of national income statistics. As we know, comparability is affected by the existence of different methods of national accounting and also by different inflation rates. Second, the national accumulated wealth should be included in the criteria. Developing countries in general have to face high expenditure in infrastructure works which, in the industrialized countries, have been amortized long ago. Third, the criteria should also take into consideration the difficulties of balance of payments of the member countries and their differing capacity to obtain foreign currency. Fourth, special attention should be given to countries whose export earnings depend basically on a single product or on a few products. Fifth, the criteria should also take into account the multiple circumstances which may actually and do affect the capacity to pay of member countries. Sixth, and finally, special consideration should be given to the developing countries in general and to LDC countries in particular which have to struggle against special economic and financial problems.
I believe that many, if not all, of those elements could be taken into account by FAO in the preparation of its scale of contributions. We should try to avoid burdening even more the contributions of the developing countries through the mechanical adaptation of the UN scale of contributions on a purely arithmetical basis.
I would like to reiterate the request made by the Brazilian representative, at the session of the Council in June 1983, to the Director-General to promote a study on this subject with a view to obtaining a more equitable calculation of the contributions of the Member Nations.
Consistent with the position adopted by the Brazilian Government during the last General Assembly of the United Nations, my delegation will not be able to accept the proposition contained in paragraph 242 of document C 83/LIM/3 proposing that the Conference adopts for 1984-85 the scale of contributions given in Appendix G of the Report of the Eighty-third session of the Council which was derived directly from the United Nations scale of assessments in force in 1983.
As things are now, my delegation is not in a position to support the scale of contributions as proposed in document C 83/LIM/3. Accordingly, my delegation will vote against the draft resolution contained in paragraph 243 of the above-mentioned document. My delegation feels that this proposal merely transposes the scale of contributions of the United Nations and that it does not respect the principle of equity and it does not take into consideration the capacity to pay of the member countries.
J. SAULT (Australia): Mr Chairman, as this is the first time we have taken the floor in this Commission we would like to congratulate you on your election to the Chair and also to congratulate other members of the bureau.
Australia wishes to associate itself with the views which are expressed in paragraph 241 of document C 83/LIM/3. We note that the scale of contributions of the Organization has been derived directly from the UN scale of assessments since 1955, and also that at the Eighteenth session of the Conference in 1975 this procedure was reaffirmed following a very thorough and detailed review of the matter at that time by the Finance Committee and the Council.
We consider that the present system of deriving the scale of contributions from the UN scale of assessments is the only practical, realistic and desirable way of carrying out the exercise.
We recognize that other members have difficulties with the UN scale. They perceive inequities in the scale, but we think that these are matters which should really be addressed in New York.
Australia supports the proposed scale of contributions and the draft resolution contained in C 83/LIM/19.
KWANG-HEE KIM (Korea, Republic of): I also join the previous speaker in congratulating you, Mr Chairman, on your election. I am happy to see you in the Chair.
Since we made reservations on the scale of contributions for my country during the last session of the Council in 1983, I feel that we are obliged to state our position at this time.
We decided to remove the reservations which we made last time because the scale is based on the United Nations scale on which the FAO Conference agreed. We had some discussions with the United Nations when their new scale was adopted, but we removed the reservations, so accordingly this time we would like to remove our reservations on the new scale of contribution for my country.
On this occasion I would simply like to draw the attention of this Conference - and especially this Commission - to the fact that our scale of contribution with this Organization has increased by 0.04 from 0.18 for the current biennium to 0.22 for the forthcoming biennium. This amounts to around 1 million US dollars for the forthcoming biennium from 650 000 US dollars for the current biennium. This puts my country in the rank of thirty-fifth or thirty-sixth as a major contributing country to the budget of this Organization. I am not boasting of the magnitude of our contribution to this Organization because it is still modest, but I would like to say on this occasion that we would like to play an active role in participating in the work of this Organization in the future, taking account of the growing importance to this Organization not only in terms of our budget contribution, but also in terms of the association of our country- more than thirty-five years - with this Organization. I am looking forward to cooperation from all member countries in this connection.
G. LAPOINTE (Canada)Jéliciter pour votre lection, Monsieur le Président. Ensuite je voudrais dire simplement que pOrUsa part, le Gouvernement du Canada appuie le barème des contributions proposé pour 1984 et qui est basé sur le barème établi par le Comité des contributions des Nations Unies à New York.
Nous pensons que c'est ce Comité qui est le mieux placé pour établir ce barème qui devrait servir de base aux contributions des Etats Membres à travers tout le système des Nations Unies afin d'éviter le double emploi qui en résulterait si ces barèmes devaient être définis dans chacune des institutions spécialisées du système.
J. GAZZO FERNANDEZ-DAVTLA (Perú): Señor Presidente, yo, en la reunion del Comité de Finanzas y también en otra reunión, cuestioné un poco la escala de cuotas y después he leído detenidamente el documento que se usa para establecer la escala de cuotas y confieso que no lo he entendido. El hecho de que se diga que las Naciones Unidas son la mejor organización a efectos de la escala de cuotas también me ofrece duda, porque creo que la escala de cuotas debería guardar alguna relación con la capacidad de pagos de los países, con la estructura economica de los mismos, con la devaluación de sus monedas, con la disminución del producto interno y con otra serie de signos de bienestar o malestar.
Me reitero pues, en el concepto que expuse en aquel entonces. Y este concepto no se basa en la casuística. Sin embargo, sin basarme en la casuística, me sorprende el hecho de que, con relación a mi país, en el Perú la devaluación en el último año ha sido de más del 150 por ciento. Ha habido problemas de producción, ha habido sequías y otra serie de razones, e inclusive me he metido contra el número de miembros que tiene dentro de la Organización, para ver si había habido un crecimiento que pudiera darme una explicación; pero verdaderamente no la encuentro ni en el documento que ha servido de base, ni en el sentido común tampoco.
Veo que la cuota del Perú se aumento al 0,08 lo cual es un aumento muy considerable. Con esto no quiero decir que Perú pudiera dar el doble de lo que da, en relación a los servicios que recibimos. Esto no está en cuestión; pero, por ejemplo, tengo la siguiente casuística: Canadá dio 4,01 por ciento en el año 1982/83 y ahora veo que es rebajada al 3,72. No creo que la situación interna del Perú sea exactamente como la del Canadá. Y no me refiero ahora a ningún otro país. Necesariamente hay que tomar aquí algunos ejemplos. En el caso de China, de 1,98 por ciento, se baja a 1,06, y así hay una infinidad de países desarrollados que ha disminuido sus cuotas en relación con los países en vías de desarrollo y no encuentro realmente una correlación entre el bienestar de los países y la disminución de las cuotas, ni el malestar económico de los países con el aumento de sus cuotas.
Por consiguiente, lo que si pido es que alguien estudie mejor y nos explique mejor el sistema, porque no debe endosarse un cheque en blanco y decir que porque las Naciones Unidas usan este procedimiento, nosotros lo adoptamos, sin ni siquiera discutirlo, ni tener apenas una explicación. Por lo tanto, el documento C 83/LIM/3, en lugar de aclararme las cosas, me las complica más. Creo que debería existir un sistema en el cual se valorase bien el bienestar del país, la moneda, el producto interno bruto, número de personas de la Organización, ayuda recibida de ésta, etc. etc., para que yo me pueda explicar y lo pueda explicar a mi Gobierno, cuando la moneda de mí país se ha devaluado en más del 100 por ciento en un año, cuando sus exportaciones han bajado, entonces tiene el "premio" de un incremento en su cuota.
Insisto en que no encuentro esto lógico y vuelvo a aclarar que Perú estaría dispuesto a dar mucho más, porque recibe mucho de FAO; pero lo que queremos es que haya una equivalencia entre lo que paga uno y lo que paga el otro, que realmente no lo hay, si se analiza bien este documento país por país.
T. AHMAD (Pakistan): May I say that it is indeed a pleasure, Mr Chairman, to see you sitting there and presiding over our deliberations.
I wish to reiterate the decision my delegation took earlier in the Council when this question was raised there. We would like to recall that the matter of the criteria to be applied with regard to the scale of contributions for FAO was discussed at length in the Council on the basis of the recommendations of the Finance Committee. We feel that it is only logical that since FAO is an agency within the UN system it should follow the practices in force within the United Nations itself. FAO has derived its scale of contributions directly from the UN scale of assessments applicable to all member countries. This has been the practice since 1955 when it was established by the Eighth session of the FAO Conference, and again the Eighteenth session of the Conference on the basis of a review by the Finance Committee and the Council reconfirmed this principle of deriving its scale of contributions directly from the UN scale of assessments.
My delegation wishes to point out the hazards of any departure from this basic principle; we must all adhere to it. Any departure from this basic principle would be tantamount to opening Pandora's box. Any other criteria can not be as objective and viable. In addition, any attempt at adopting a different set of criteria will have an adverse impact on the UN system. In view of this my delegation would urge that we adopt with unanimous consensus the scale of contributions for 1984-85 as given in Appendix G of the document.
We feel generally that there are two basic questions involved here. One is the question of principle and the other is the question of the result of applying a certain criteria. It is indeed true that the present scale has had a different impact on different Member Nations. In some cases contributions have been reduced and for some countries the contributions have been increased, but what has to be examined and seen is an objective criteria which has been applied to all Member Nations. If the criteria has been applied objectively, perhaps there would be no quarrel with the end result; there would be only a question of re-examining the criteria. If you want to re-examine the criteria independent of what is happening in the UN system, you have to duplicate the whole process. Within the framework you have to devise the machinery for devising an entirely different set of criteria. Number one, that would be a great duplication and a great expense. Number two, the question would arise that when you are departing from the criteria being applied by the United Nations system, what other criteria do you want to establish. That would become a ticklish question, because you would have a number of suggestions and there would be an endless chain.
We are of the opinion that it should be an objective criteria and the balance of convenience is in favour of the fact that the UN system has a criteria and FAO logically follows that. However, we feel that however you go about it, it is not the end result that you can quarrel with; it is the criteria you have to look at. As long as we feel that the criteria of the UN system has been devised on the basis of some objectivity,, we can go along with that and not try and re-establish new criteria within the FAO system.
If you try to look at the end result only you will get into that very difficult situation where it would be said that this country is rich, this country is poor, so each must contribute this or that. You would be building the yardstick of the criteria to fit the results. That is not the way I think we can go about it.
Under these circumstances we feel that the balance of convenience is in favour of FAO continuing to use the UN assessment system. If any member country has any problem on the criteria being applied, the proper forum to question that criteria is in that UN system and not here.
J. MAJCHER (Poland): In the discussion on the scale of contributions for 1984-85 many points have been raised. One of them is that the FAO scale of contributions should derive directly from the current United Nations scale of assessments, taking into account the difference in membership between the UN and FAO. From time to time some reservations have been expressed, among others during the 1983 Session of the FAO Council, suggesting that a different basis for establishing the FAO scale of contributions should be considered.
It is well known that the process of preparing and agreeing on a scale of contributions is a very complicated and long one. First of all, it is necessary to prepare and to agree a set of guidelines indicating which elements are important and to what extent such elements should influence the assessment of the scale of contributions. Then it is necessary to collect the indispensible statistical data covering a period of at least a few years, keeping in mind that the statistical data should be uniform and comparable and reflect recent changes in the economic and financial situations in individual countries. Considering the degree of complications and difficulties, as well as the time required for the whole process of agreeing on a new scale of contributions, the United Nations General Assembly established that the UN scale of contributions would be changed only every three years. To have a separate basis for the FAO scale of contributions not only would be very difficult and very long, it would be the duplication of efforts and work carried out by the Committee on Contributions of the United Nations, and therefore unnecessary and unjustified waste of time and money. In addition, it would have a negative impact on the functioning of our Organization.
For these reasons we should view with great caution any change. After all, the representatives of FAO member countries also participate in the United Nations debate on the scale of contributions. And it would be pretentious to think that we within the framework of FAO would be able to elaborate a better solution than that agreed upon in New York. Any break away from the use of the UN scale as a basis for the FAO scale would have undesirable repercussions throughout the whole UN system. For the last 28 years our Conference has recognized that the United Nations Committee on Contributions is the most qualified body for assessing the ability of member countries to pay, as well as the other aspects considered for the computation of an equitable scale of contributions.
In the opinion of my delegation we should continue to derive our scale of contributions directly from the current United Nations scale of contributions. We fully support the arguments for deriving the FAO scale of contributions directly from the UN assessment indicated by the representative of Pakistan.
My delegation would like to inform you that Poland supports the UN Scale of Assessments for the years 1983-1985. At the same time, we would like to state that my country, even despite the decrease in the new scale, continues to be over-assessed. The over-assessment amounts to more than 15 percent, but despite this over-assessment and despite our well-known financial and economic difficulties, in the spirit of compromise Poland accepts the new Scale of Assessments as proposed in document C 83/LIM/19.
J. GAZZO FERNANDEZ-DAVILA (Peru): Desde ahora yo acepto la Escala de Cuotas, pero lo que estoy cuestionándome es que no me gusta actuar como un robot, ya que yo tengo que explicar a mi país, a mi Gobierno, a qué se debe que la asignación de la Escala de Cuotas del Peru del 0,07 haya subido al 0,08, no obstante pasar por el peor momento socioeconómico en la historia del país.
Yo acepto la Escala de Cuotas, pero no me gusta endosar errores de otros y ver como esta Escala de Cuotas no guarda relación con mi país. Tengo la sensación de que no va bien. No estoy de acuerdo con mi amigo de Pakistán que cuenta con toda mi admiración, pero que su país baja en la Escala de Cuotas de 0,09 a 0,07; yo si hubiera bajado así tampoco hubiera tomado la palabra.
No quiero ser casuístico, pero para hablar tengo que tomar algunos ejemplos, no puedo inventar datos. Veo que algunos países con evidente mejor situación que nosotros, como Hungría, baja de 0,40 a 0,28. Y hay más casos, por ejemplo Finlandia, baja de 0,59 a 0,58; Egipto, de 0,09 a 0,08, Filipinas, de 0,12 a 0,11, Polonia, de 1,52 a 0,87. Yo así también, hago una apología de la Escala de Cuotas.
Yo apruebo con modestia y humildad la Escala de Cuotas, pero me parece que no guarda relación con la situación de mi país, ahora, si a todos les gusta endosar los errores de los otros y poner nuestro visto bueno, a mí no me gusta. Como digo, no lo tomen los países amigos como algo casuístico, porque son cosas evidentes que están aquí en la lista. Yo creo que la Escala de Cuotas de las Naciones Unidas es la resultante de toda la acción, pero no todos los organismos son iguales. Lo que se hace en la Organización Internacional del Trabajo, lo que se hace en la Organización Mundial de la Salud no es igual a lo que se hace en la Organización de la FAO. Por consiguiente, lo único que me preocupa es qué le voy a decir a mi país, ya que, no obstante la pésima situación de los últimos 50 años, nos han subido la cuota y yo no he reclamado. No voy a distorsionar nada, digo que apruebo la Escala de Cuotas y no voy a poner ni siquiera una reserva porque no es mi sistema de trabajo; pero me queda en mi interior la duda de que no hay una correlación entre la situación de algunos países en relación al crecimiento, o decrecimiento de la Escala de Cuotas; pero, repito, apruebo la Escala de Cuotas pero sugiero con toda modestia y humildad que tratemos de desenmascarar este tabú que es la repetida Escala de Cuotas que para mí, que he leído un libro amarillo grandísimo, después de leerlo he quedado peor que antes.
D.H.J. ABEYAGOONASEKERA (Sri Lanka): Mr Chairman, since this is the first time I have taken the floor I should like to extend to you the good wishes and congratulations of my delegation.
I think it might be useful at this stage of our debate to give a little of the background to the discussions which took place regarding the Scale of Contributions both at the Finance Committee and at the Council, because this delegation happened to be very closely associated in both those discussions.
The Finance Committee is required to keep under review the Scale of Contributions and to make recommendations to the Council regarding any modifications of the Scale of Contributions which would be applicable during each biennium. The Council was informed by the Finance Committee after its Fifty-second session that the Scale of Contributions was derived from the UN Scale of Assessments and that this had been the practice since 1955 when it was first adopted at the Eighth session. of the Conference.
There was a request by some members that the Finance Committee should again review the matter and make recommendations to the Eighty-fourth session of the Council, that is the pre-Conference session which was held from 1 to 3 November this year. Some members recognized that neither the time nor the resources required effectively to review the Scale were available prior to the Council sessions. These members were prepared to accept a compromise but requested the Finance Committee to look carefully into this matter. One grout) objected because they felt that the procedures used to derive the UN Scale were not based on objective data or on the real capacity to pay but rather on a political basis.
We all know that as a result of the rejection by the General Assembly of the United Nations of the first scale submitted by the Committee on Contributions a compromise procedure had been followed. To a large extent, this has cast doubts on the soundness of the criteria which had been applied in developing the UN Scale of Contributions.
If the FAO were to work out its own Scale of Contributions there are certain very real difficulties, as mentioned by the delegate of Pakistan. First, there is the question of how much time will be needed to do this. As you know, we have to call for individual data from each country, and many countries may not have the data in the form that FAO needs. There may be recourse to obtaining data from the UN Department of Statistics. All this means that a lot of time and money will be spent. Secondly, if a secretariat is set up in FAO to study this carefully it means again an additional allocation will be made to meet the requirements, which again means in terms of money that there will be additional funds required. Thirdly, there is the difficulty in evolving applicable parameters to each country in relation to national income or to per capita income criteria. This point has been raised by delegates who have taken the floor before me. Fourthly, a departure from the practice of deriving the FAO scale from the UN scale would also lead to duplication of the work of the UN Committee on Contributions. Finally, an independent Scale of Contributions for the FAO would lead to undesirable repercussions on the entire United Nations system.
Taking all those points into consideration, the Council approved and recommended to the Conference the adoption of the UN Scale of Contributions for the coming biennium, although the reservations by certain members were tenable.
In the circumstances, at this staee of our discussions we could only record these objections because the forum where the matter should be taken up is in the United Nations itself. Also, in the United Nations Resolution itself which adopted the scale for 1983 - 1985, there is a clause which makes it obligatory for the UN Committee on Contributions to examine this thoroughly before the next Scale of Contributionsisevolved for the period 1986 - 1988, in order to give consideration to the various misgivings which had been stated in this forum.
In view of those facts, which have been quite rightly reflected in the report C 83/LIM/13, I think it is futile to proceed with this debate here as the forum which should take this up is the United Nations itself.
T. AHMAD (Pakistan): I am not going to argue this point again, Mr Chairman, because it has been done very eloquently by the delegate of Sri Lanka, but I did want to say that we are speaking on a matter of principle, and even if our scale had been in the reverse direction we would still have said the same. We would still have said it would be a duplication of effort. If we are trying to devise a new parameter of criteria, as the delegate of Sri Lanka has said, it will have a big financial impact on the FAO itself. You would perhaps need a committee other than the Finance Committee, maybe a committee on Scale of Contributions, to look into this question more effectively. That is why we think that if we have any argument on the Scale of Contributions and other parameters or criteria we should definitely take it up in the proper forum in the United Nations system.
H. HRISTOMANOV (Yugoslavia): Mr Chairman, as my delegation is taking the floor for the first time in our deliberations in Commission III, I should like to use this opportunity to congratulate you on your election.
My delegation fully agrees with the statements made that the United Nations Scale of Contributions does not take into account the real economic position of individual countries or groups of countries. Yugoslavia itself is among those countries which did not have reason to be satisfied with the proposed Scale of Contributions.
I should just like to recall the tremendous difficulties the whole process of adopting the Scale of Contributions underwent in New York - a process which I believe most countries present here today took part in. Having this in mind, we are of the opinion that although we ourselves, as I stressed, have reason to be dissatisfied with the proposed scale as the Yugoslav contribution has risen from 0.51 percent to 0.56 percent at a time when my country has severe economic problems, it is quite unthinkable to have the situation where a United Nations Specialized Agency such as FAO should undergo an exercise of creating a separate Scale of Contributions. It is our belief that this would bring about similar controversies and difficulties to those which were present in the General Assembly. We should like to stress that the only possible course of action is to approve the Scale of Contributions which was, with great difficulty and with a relatively small majority, adopted in the General Assembly of the United Nations.
H. REDL (Austria) (original language German): The Austrian delegation accepts in full the agreements reached in New York, and specifically accepts the Scale of Contributions which appears in the appendix of C 83/LIM/3.
AMIDJONO MARTOSUWIRYO (Indonesia): Mr Chairman, since I take the floor for the first time, I should congratulate you on your election as Chairman. In discussing the substance I shall be very brief. I would like to underline what has been stated and verified by the distinguished delegate from Pakistan and the additional information, additional analysis, given by the distinguished delegate from Sri Lanka. I wish to say, on behalf of the Indonesian delegation, that we are in favour of adopting what has been accepted in the UN system, namely to adopt a scale of contributions as contained in C 83/LIM/3.
L. ZELKO (Hungary): I also would like to join with those who congratulate you, Mr Chairman, on the occasion of your election as Chairman of the Committee, and also the Vice-Chairmen.
I see that this discussion is quite heated and is becoming even more so, because some of the delegations which are affected adversely think that the criteria which have been established by the Contributions Committee of the United Nations may not be quite realistic, and they try to discuss the right way of procedure that we are following here in FAO.
Now, first of all, I think that all the matters which affect the interests of nations are very difficult to solve. Really good criteria, realistic criteria, in such matters as comparing national incomes and similar problems, can be very difficult to be accepted by everyone. But we feel that in the United Nations there are real experts who are dealing with these problems, and I do not think that here in FAO we could reach or find better criteria than they could find in the United Nations.
The second problem is that, even if we think that there are problems with these criteria, the right place to discuss this problem is the United Nations. We would take a very unfortunate path if we were to try again to raise these questions which, I am sure, have been debated many times in the United Nations, to raise them again here in FAO.
With regard to these considerations, the Hungarian delegation thinks that we have no better solution than to follow the United Nations system and to apply the scale of assessments which has been adopted by the United Nations.
After this I would like to make a few remarks since Hungary has been fingi ed out by the very distinguished delegate of Peru, and in a very favourable way he thinks that Hungary is in a very good economic situation. I wish I could think in the same way. I would just like to refer to the fact that at this time all countries are experiencing economic difficulties. I would like to remind all the delegates that there were occasions when Hungary's scale or share of the budget has increased and we adopted the scale of contributions on those occasions too. Of course I understand that it is very difficult to get a good explanation for the fact that if the economic situation of a country is worsening, the share of contributions might still rise a little. I do not want to give an explanation to this, I would just like to make a remark,not to the delegate of Peru but to all the delegations which might feel that, since their share is increasing somewhat, it might be an unjust situation. May it be that some percentages, some details, some shares have so far been unrealistically low? Maybe. I think it may be.
J. TCHICAYA (Congo): Ma délégation voudrait également s'associer a celles qui l'ont précédée pour vous présenter ses félicitations à l'occasion de votre élection à la présidence de cette Commission.
Pour ce qui concerne le point de notre ordre du jour, lors de la discussion de ce point au Conseil, la délégation de mon pays a effectivement été parmi celles qui pensaient qu!il fallait adopter le barème tel qu'il nous est proposé, mais nous pensons également que les arguments de certains pays en développement, qui ont vu leur taux de contribution augmenter, étaient des arguments valables et qu'il fallait que nous puissions en tenir compte.
Pour en tenir compte, vous avez dû remarquer qu'il y avait le paragraphe 239. Nous pensions effectivement que le Comité financier pouvait se pencher à nouveau sur la question pour essayer de trouver des critères valables. Il faut bien reconnaître que la crise mondiale frappe toutes les économies, mais frappe certainement les économies des pays en développement beaucoup plus que les économies des pays développés
On peut également s'étonner que dans ce barème certains pays développés voient leur taux diminuer, alors que les pays en développement voient leur taux augmenter, mais nous devons reconnaître également que cela tient compte de certains critères qui avaient été arrêtés par le Comité qui a travaillé sur la question. C'est pour cette raison que nous pensons qu'il faut continuer à appliquer les barèmes qui sont créés au niveau des Nations Unies, d'une part, parce que cela coûte moins cher à l'Organisation mais parce que d'autre part, cela nous fait perdre moins de temps sur ces problèmes - en effet beaucoup de temps est perdu au niveau des Nations Unies sur ces questions. Je crois qu'il convient de dire aux pays qui voudraient que la FAO étudie d'autres critères, que l'instance la plus appropriée pour le faire se trouve au niveau des Nations Unies, à New York. Nous pensons que c'est là que la discussion devrait avoir lieu sur ces questions, parce que l'on ne peut pas comprendre que certaius pays qui sont en difficulté réelle, du point de vue économique, puissent voir leur taux de contribution augmenter au niveau des organisations internationales.
C'est pour cette raison qu'il convient vraiment de lancer un appel à ceux qui ont des réserves sur le projet de résolution pour leur demander que l'on adopte ce projet de résolution et pour les inviter à redoubler d'effort et de vigilance en ce qui concerne les discussions ultérieures qui auront lieu sur la question aux Nations Unies.
S. M. MATIUR RAHMAN (Bangladesh): Mr Chairman, I must thank you for giving me the time. As I am taking the floor for the first time I must congratulate you on your election to the responsible post. I sincerely hope that under your dynamic leadership the Commission will fulfil its obligations.
Regarding the issue before us, I have listened with great interest to the discussions and, after the distinguished delegates from Pakistan, Sri Lanka and others have spoken on the floor of this Commission, I have not much to say except to reiterate that, in my view, in principle it will neither be desirable nor possible for FAO to have criteria for the assessment of the contributions. All the UN agencies including FAO should have uniform criteria for the scale of assessment in all the agencies in the UN system. There is some apprehension about the UN system of criteria and this should be looked into by the UN Committee on Contributions. As has already been explained by our distinguished colleague from Sri Lanka, this question will be looked at by the UN Committee on Contributions. In view of this, my delegation voluntarily supports the resolution, the proposed resolution, which is in line with the basis of the UN system of contributions.
L. ARIZA HIDALGO (Cuba): Queremos primeramente felicitarle por la decision como Presidente de este Grupo y, rápidamente para no utlizar su tiempo, queremos expresar que nosotros no queríamos intervenir porque pensábamos que ese punto, independientemente de algunos criterios, se había discutido en el Consejo bastante; se analizó lo mismo que lo estamos analizando aquí, la necesidad de seguir la Comisión de Cuotas de Naciones Unidas, pensando que no podía seguirse duplicando. La FAO es un organismo de Naciones Unidas especializada, pero del Sistema de Naciones Unidas, eso se viene utilizando desde hace varios años. Queremos comprender, y comprendemos, a todos los países que han planteado problemas porque se les ha aumentado su Escala, y lo comprendemos porque hablan de realidades y es verdad que la situación financiera no es buena. Nosotros sí queremos expresar que no sabemos a qué países y a cuáles no la Comisión de Cuotas de Naciones Unidas analizó y denegó un análisis. Nosotros tenemos una rebaja sustancial en Naciones Unidas, del 0,13 al 0,09, aquí es al 0,11 porque los porcentuales son distintos; pero queremos expresar que no fue de oficio hecho por la Comisión de Cuotas en Naciones Unidas. Hace dos años y medio que nosotros estamos discutiendo de la Comisión de Cuotas de Naciones Unidas la situación, que se refleja realmente en el documento que se nos presenta. Esta situación se aprobó en Naciones Unidas y por eso hace escasamente cinco o seis meses la Comisión de Cuotas nos aprobó una rebaja. Consideramos que hay un trabajo que hacer dentro de la Comisión de Cuotas de Naciones Unidas y que sería una posición muy difícil para la FAO ponerla en una situación de que ella tuviera que duplicar o hacer una dicotomía específica
Por lo tanto nos unimos a lo que se ha planteado en esta Comisión de pedirle a los países que realmente tienen esta situación, que aprueben esta Escala de Cuotas y que se pueda hacer una discusión posterior en Naciones Unidas; creo que Naciones Unidas les escuchará; lo que no creo es lo que se dice de que son cuestiones políticas, no creo que Naciones Unidas haya bajado la cuota a Cuba por problemas políticos y lo que sí creo es que se razonó bien el porqué.
Pensamos que todos los países tienen razones para pedirlo.
R. de MEIRA FERREIRA (Portugal): I should like to join the previous speakers in congratulating you upon your election to the chairmanship of this Committee. With regard to the point which we are presently discussing: My delegation understands the problems and difficulties faced by several countries regarding their contributions to the budget. However, as other speakers have already stated, this is not the proper forum to discuss this matter. It would better be discussed in the Committee of Contributions of the United Nations, where the views of all sides can be presented and discussed. With all respect, a continuation of this discussion, to gain the opinions of everyone, costs a lot of time and a lot of money. We would like to appeal to everyone to approve the scale of contributions.
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Señor Presidente, para la delegación de Colombia es muy grato verle a usted en la presidencia de esta Comisión, pues conocemos sus antecedentes y sabemos que vamos a trabajar muy bien bajo su acertada dirección.
Como ya lo han dicho otros colegas, este asunto fue discutido en el Consejo y nosotros compartimos los argumentos que se expusieron en aquella ocasión y que aparecen especialmente en el párrafo 238 del informe del Consejo en relación con aquellos representantes de países que no estuvieron en favor de la propuesta de adoptar la unidad de cuota de las Naciones Unidas. Además, el distinguido representante del Brasil y el representante del Perú también, expusieron nuevos argumentos, que habrá que tener en cuenta. Sin embargo, hemos intervenido solamente para apoyar lo que ha dicho nuestro distinguido colega y vecino a la sazón. Creemos que hay que tener en cuenta todos esos argumentos.
Igualmente hemos oído con atención la intervención del distinguido colega y amigo de Sri Lanka, que a la vez es presidente del Comité de Finanzas, y también es necesario tener en cuenta los razonamientos acertados que presentó.
Quisiéramos igualmente apoyar lo que ha dicho el Embajador del Congo; es decir, que se adopte esta propuesta, pero que el Comité de Finanzas se ocupe de que se tenga en cuenta los argumentos que hemos citado. Creemos que el Comité de Finanzas puede analizar todos los argumentos que se han puesto aquí y después de presentar un informe en el Consejo, podremos buscar el mecanismo para que en el Comité de Cuotas de las Naciones Unidas se conozca la reacción que ha producido su propuesta en el seno de la FAO con relación a la posición de los distintos gobiernos.
Creo que una solución más o menos en este sentido podría atender las justas reacciones de aquellos representantes de gobiernos que no han compartido esta propuesta.
B. SEQUEIRA ( Angola): As this is the first time we are intervening, let me say that we are extremely pleased to see you directing our work
If you were to ask the delegation of Angola whether we are satisfied with the scale of contributions and the amount of money which we have to pay FAO, I would say that we are not satisfied. I can substantiate my allegation with an amount of comparative data with other countries, and'l am quite convinced that a large number of people believe that the amount of money which we are paying is too much, taking into account Angola's objective conditions. On this, I only want to say that it is always possible for any country to argue in favour of or against the scales of contributions which are proposed. This does not mean that in some cases the arguments which have been advanced are not genuine - on the contrary. The delegates of Sri Lanka and Pakistan have aptly analyzed the substantive issues involved, the tenets of which are strongly supported by my delegation. There are always some inequalities in the scale of contributions: it is therefore the view of this delegation that those inequalities must be taken into account in the future so that a more equitable scale meets the approval of all member countries of FAO. However, at this juncture, and for a reason which we have already explained in the last Council Session, the delegation of Angola strongly supports the proposed scale of contributions for 1984-85 as a modus operandi. We are not of course arguing m favour of new criteria, but for an objective means of evaluation which is satisfactory to all member countries, so that our Organization has enough resources to meet its increasing demands.
Therefore, to avoid a negative consequence for FAO, we strongly appeal to all delegations to approve the proposed draft resolution as campaigned in document C 83/LIM/19.
CHAIRMAN: We have had one delegation which is clearly against the proposed scale of contributions, and against the proposed resolution. It has made a number of proposals as to how it could be improved, and has suggested that FAO develop its own scale of contributions - do you wish to speak now?
A. SALGADO SANTOS (Brazil): I am sorry, but yesterday afternoon two other delegations - Mexico and Venezuela - also expressed a view against the scale of contributions. So it is not only one delegation, as you said - there were three delegations.
CHAIRMAN: As I understood it, there was one delegation which was very clearly against, and many other delegations then had reservations and expressed dissatisfaction, but for practical reasons could go along with the resolution which is proposed. One argument which is being brought forward by many delegations is that we do not want to double the work of the United Nations Committee in New York, and then there is a third group, which is a small minority, entirely happy about it.
For all practical purposes, I suggest that the Commission adopt the proposed resolution. This is not a unanimous decision, but I think there is a clear majority in favour of adopting the resolution. We can then ask the Secretariat and our Drafting Committee to suggest to us a report in which the various complaints, and also suggestions, are listed.
A.G. NGONGI NAMANGA (Cameroon): The scale of contributions has attracted quite a considerable debate, especially the resolution. Initially, I did not wish to take part in this debate, because I think all of us have a long list of grievances that we could air here on the scale of contributions, since I feel they are grossly weighted against the poorer countries, especially those which have grave difficulty in looking for foreign exchange to pay in the dollars. However, we believe that the Committee in New York is quite technical and looks at all the various problems concerning ability to pay, and tries to spread out the burden of contributions to the UN system equitably, and that FAO adjusts the scale of contributions taking into account the composition of members in this Organization.
We do hope somehow that in the future this scale of contributions can be more realistic, based on more equitable criteria, and that the burden - especially in these times of hardship when we are having difficulties in getting foreign exchange - will be made a little bit less especially on the developing countries. But we have voted a budget for this Organization for 1984-85 and must have some realistic basis for paying the contributions, and on this account I would say that we support the scale of contributions and urge that this resolution be adopted.
M.I. CASELLAS (Venezuela): Quiero reiterar lo dicho por la delegación de Brasilo Nuestra delegación en concordancia con nuestra posición en la 37a Asamblea de las Naciones Unidas, manifestamos ya ayer nuestro desacuerdo con el proyecto de resolución sobre cuotas de la FAO para 1984-85.
CHAIRMAN: Are there any other comments? If not, I declare the resolution on the scale of contributions for 1984-85 adopted.
We move to the next point on our Agenda which is Item 21. First we have Item 21.1 entitled Headquarters Accommodation. Mr Georgiadis, Director of the Administrative Services Division, is going to give an introduction.
A.G. GEORGIADIS (Director, Administrative Services Division): The delegates will have in front of them Conference document C 83/LIM/11 on headquarters accommodation which gives an extract of the Report of the last Council session which ended exactly.two weeks ago. Further developments since that session could not be much since only two weeks have passed, but before I give some news on at least one positive step towards the construction of 70 rooms, I would like to highlight once more, for the benefit of the Conference, some aspects of this long-standing problem.
As the Director-General announced in the past, this is a major crisis afflicting the Organization. It is a continuing problem which appeared many years ago and will remain open probably for many more years until a final permanent solution is found, and a permanent solution can be no other but one which would permit the bringing together of all the Headquarters unit in one - I repeat - one location.
The Conference will have noticed that despite a practically zero growth in Headquarters' staff in recent biennia, and again in the next biennia, the total office space is not adequate and it will almost certainly be necessary to rent additional space when major repairs have to be undertaken in the prefabricated building E.
We were also obliged to request the World Food Council, which is located in this very building, to vacate the space it occupies since we have to make room for some new posts approved for the World Food Programme.
I would also refer to the Report of the Council at its session last June which defines the problem as grave and gives as the underlying reason for this gravity three aspects: one, the high cost of renting accommodation outside this building, namely building F; the high cost of duplicating certain services. We have to have the same services here and there. And the high cost of staff time lost in travelling between two buildings estimated at two hundred thousand dollars a month.
During the approval of the debate on the Programme of Work and Budget for the next biennium, some delegations expressed the desire to see administrative costs further reduced. Well, the only way the Director-General feels able to achieve further savings in the administrative area is to group all the staff in one location, to avoid the loss of time in commuting, and to eliminate the duplication of certain services.
Now on developments: mainly one aspect of the problem, the construction of 70 rooms on the roof of Building D; we are happy to announce that Foreign Minister Andreotti of the Host Government has officially requested in writing the application of the urgency procedure which is described in the document and although we are still a long way before we can see these seventy rooms, we are thankful to the Host Government for this positive step which is one more complete and positive step towards the implementation of the construction project. But even when these rooms are ready, they serve to house less than 1 percent of the total staff. Therefore the only permanent solution is the implementation of the other part of the project, that is the construction of a new wing adjacent to the main buildings. Now there, as the document states, we can only hope that the Department of Archeology, which is undertaking further excavations, will complete this work and submit its report by the end of December next as originally announced.
Finally, one other aspect which the Conference will have noted is that a Working Party, appointed by the Conference two years ago during its last session, and representing all regions of FAO - member countries from the seven regions of FAO - and which was assigned the task of meeting with the Italian authorities at the highest level and requesting the adoption of measures leading to a permanent solution of the accommodation problem, has not yet met with the President of the Council of Ministers, so we have nothing to report on this since the meeting has not yet taken place.
The Director-General has written to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on this subject and submitted to him an aide mémoire outlining the whole history of the problem. The attention of the Minister was also drawn to the urgency of the matter when the Director-General met with him a few weeks ago.
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): El Sr. Georgiadis ha presentado en forma muy adecuada este tema y nos complace que por lo menos haya transmitido a la Conferencia algo ligeramente positivo, después de las últimas discusiones que al respecto tuvimos en el Consejo pasado.
Nosotros creemos que esta Comisión debe destacar la gravedad del problema, que no solo causa problemas económicos a la Organización, sino que también afecta a su trabajo, por las razones que también expuso el Sr. Georgiadis, y también pedir al Gobierno de Italia que, como lo ha hecho en otras ocasiones con el espíritu generoso que caracteriza a este país, contribuya para que por lo menos en parte quede compensado el perjuicio que se causa a la Organización. Creemos también que esta Comisión debe apoyar la acción del Director General para alentarle a que siga en la buena dirección en que está tratando de preservar el buen funcionamiento de la FAO. Esto ya lo hizo el Consejo, en el párrafo 18.
En el párrafo 17 se habla del grupo de trabajo que fue nombrado por la Conferencia pasada, hace dos años. Colombia formó parte de ese grupo de trabajo, en representación de América Latina y del Caribe. No obstante la buena disposición en que estuvimos todos los representantes de gobiernos integrantes de ese grupo de-trabajo, no nos fue posible realizar la deseada entrevista con las altas autoridades italianas. No pudimos por lo tanto, realizar en forma esa Conferencia, porque, por fuerzas mayores, distintas a nuestras posibilidades, no estuvimos en condiciones de cumplir con ese mandato. Sin embargo, como lo ha hecho el Sr. Georgiadis, el Director General ha insistido también a ese respecto, y en esta situación la delegación de Colombia desea proponer formalmente que la Conferencia prolongue su mandato al grupo de trabajo que eligió hace dos años, que ese mandato sea prolongado por otros dos años más, período durante el cual agotaremos nuestra paciencia, con la esperanza de que algún día seamos recibidos por las altas autoridades del Gobierno de Italia.
M. FRANCISCI di BASCHI (Italie): Je voudrais avant tout vous adresser mes félicitations, Monsieur le Président, pour votre élection, puisque c'est la première fois que j'ai l'occasion de parler dans cette commission. Je voudrais aussi remercier M. Georgiadis à travers vous pour l'illustration qu'il a faite du problème.
Il est exact qu'il y a eu un petit pas en avant et on peut considérer comme acquise la procédure d'urgence pour l'appel d'offres; donc on a toutes les raisons de penser que les travaux pourront commencer à partir du mois de janvier. Ce qui est une bonne nouvelle; elle ne peut pas résoudre le problème grave du Siège des délégations, mais c'est quand même un pas en avant. Quant à l'aile nouvelle, je pense que là aussi je peux confirmer qu'il y aura un premier rapport sur les résultais de ces fouilles avant la fin de l'année. Ce rapport sera naturellement présenté à notre Président du Conseil, au Ministre des affaires étrangères et au Secrétariat de l'Organisation. En ce qui concerne les résultats de l'analyse de ce rapport, je ne peux naturellement pas me prononcer.
Je voudrais maintenant dire quelques mots sur le destin du Groupe de travail. Je suis le premier à regretter que cette visite n'ait pas eu lieu entre notre Premier Ministre et le Directeur général, et le Groupe de travail. Je souhaite que cette rencontre puisse avoir lieu dans un très proche avenir.
Monsieur Andreotti a été informé directement par M. Saouma de ce désir du Groupe de travail d'avoir une rencontre avec le Premier Ministre. M. Craxi a été aussi dûment informé de ce désir et je crois que finalement on pourra assister à cet événement. Par conséquent, je suis tout à fait d'accord avec le délégué de la Colombie dans le sens que je souhaite que le mandat du Groupe soit prolongé pour deux ans; cela ne veut pas dire qu'il faudra attendre deux ans, mais il est nécessaire de prolonger le mandat du groupe pour assurer cette visite dans un avenir que j'espère très proche.
J. TCHICAYA (Congo): Monsieur le Président, comme mon collègue et ami l'ambassadeur Bula Hoyode Colombie, le Congo, en ma personne, fait partie du Groupe de travail qui avait été désigné lors de la dernière Conférence pour accomplir une mission, mission précise ainsi que nous l'a rappelé le secrétariat de la FAO.
En effet, déjà lors de la dernière Conférence, la question des locaux avait retenu l'attention de la Conférence. Elle avait si bien retenu l'attention de la Conférence que l'on a été obligé de mettre en place un Groupe de travail pour essayer de discuter au niveau le plus élevé de cette question. On le sait, ce Groupe de travail n'a pas pu accomplir sa mission, non pas par incompétence, ou par manque de volonté. Comme vous le savez, c'est plutôt du côté des autorités italiennes que le bât blesse. Nous sommes heureux de ce que l'on vient de nous dire et de ce qui est dit dans ce document qui nous est soumis, à savoir que les autorités italiennes vont consentir à rencontrer ce Groupe de travail.
Cela dit, Monsieur le Président, nous devons nous féliciter avec le secrétariat, des efforts du Gouvernement italien pour arriver à essayer de régler les problèmes de locaux parce que, pour ce qui concerne la construction de 70 bureaux au huitième étage, nous pensons, comme le Conseil, que la Commission devrait se féliciter de cet effort et demander au Gouvernement italien de le poursuivre afin que la nouvelle aire soit construite.
Pour terminer je voudrais appuyer la proposition faite par l'Ambassadeur Bula Hoyos pour que le Groupe de travail qui avait été mis en place puisse enfin accomplir sa mission.
G.E. GONZALEZ (Argentina): Permítame en primer término, señor Presidente, dado que hago uso de la palabra por primera vez, felicitar a usted y a los demás miembros de la Mesa por su elección y quisiera agradecer al Sr. Georgiadis por el informe que nos ha presentado y congratularnos porque en la última parte de su informe aparece algún elemento positivo que nos permite alguna esperanza en la solución de este problema que se viene prolongando quizá por más tiempo del que fuera necesario.
Coincidimos en que el problema no puede ser tomado a la ligera, dado que afecta económicamente a la Organización y afecta en la eficiencia de sus labores.
Hemos escuchado con detenimiento a la representación de Italia y vemos con satisfacción que las autoridades italianas están dispuestas a tomar contacto con el Grupo de Trabajo que se creó en el seno de esta Organización. Todo esto nos hace pensar, señor Presidente, en que resulta sumamente conveniente dar nuestro total respaldo a la propuesta hecha por el representante de Colombia en el sentido de que esta Conferencia prolongue el mandato de este Grupo de Trabajo y confiamos en que en esta oportunidad el Grupo de Trabajo podría llevar adelante la misión que se le ha encomendado contando siempre con el beneplácito del país sede.
J.L. SAULT (Australia): We would also like to thank Mr Georgiadis for his opening address which has given us the main elements of the situation relating to headquarters accommodation. We should also like to thank the representative of Italy for giving us further information on the present situation. We welcome the positive developments that have taken place regarding the construction of 70 rooms on top of Building D. We also note that there has been a small step forward towards a long-term resolution of the Organisation's accommodation arrangements in respect of the Director-General's proposals regarding an urgency procedure in the contract process. We also note that it may now be possible for a meeting to take place between the Working Party that was established at the last Conference and the President of the Council of Ministers.
We certainly could support the extension of the terms of reference for the Working Party. The accommodation situation affects the efficiency and costs of operation of the Organization. Therefore, we can give our support to efforts by the Director-General and the Italian Government towards reaching the most cost-effective solution to the Organization's accommodation.
LE PRESIDENT: S'il n'y a pas d'autres demandes de parole, nous pouvons conclure sur le point 21.1 de notre ordre du jour.
La Commission a donc pris acte du document C 83/LIM/11 et s'est félicitée des progrès qui ont été faits pour améliorer la situation quant au problème du siège, et en même temps le désir a été exprimé que les travaux en cours soient encore accélérés. Une extension du mandat du Groupe de contact a notamment été proposée. Ce Groupe devrait rencontrer au plus haut niveau les autorités italiennes.
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Yo comparto plenamente con usted, señor Presidente, el resumen que ha presentado y también la complacencia que usted expresó a nombre de esta Comisión por el mejoramiento parcial de esta situación. Sólo quería dejar constancia como representante de Colombia de mi reconocimiento a la manera activa y eficaz como el nuevo Embajador de Italia, nuestro colega y amigo Marco Francisci, ha actuado en toda esa situación. Creo que todos reconocemos la manera atenta y vigilante como él ha actuado, e igualmente la forma sencilla, cordial, siempre positiva como se ha expresado en todas nuestras reuniones; han sido factores muy decisivos para este avance que ojalá se prolongue; por eso, si fuera posible, en nuestro informe desearíamos que quede esa constancia en favor de la acción del Embajador de Francisci como estímulo para que él siga ayudándonos en la solución de estos problemas.
LE PRESIDENT: Merci beaucoup M. l'Ambassadeur Bula Hoyos pour votre complement que je fais très volontiers mien.
Nous passons donc au point suivant de 1!ordre du jour, le point 21.2: Immunités de l'Organisation.
Le Conseiller juridique, M. Roche, va nous présenter ce point.
LEGAL COUNSEL: The subject of the Organization's immunity from legal process in Italy has already been examined by the Council at its Eighty-second session in November 1982, and at its Eighty-third and Eighty-fourth sessions in June and November of this year, Howeverm this is the first time that the Conference has been seized of the question. Therefore, I believe that a summary of the background would help the Conference better to understand the various issues and, in particular, the extract from the Report of the Eighty-fourth session of the Council which has been submitted to it in document C 83/LIM/10.
To begin the summary, which I will make as brief as possible, the first point to note is that in August 1977 the landlords of Building F - that is the building which the Organization had to rent because the accommodation in this particular location was not sufficient to house all of the staff -which is a public corporation known as INPDAI, requested a retroactive increase in rent. They did this on the basis of a clause in the lease which provided for a cost-of-living adjustment to the rent. FAO declined to make this payment because such clauses had been made inoperative by Italian legislation, and if there was any dispute on this, the matter could be taken to arbitration. However, rather than submit this divergence of views to arbitration as provided in the lease, the landlords chose in July and November 1978 to bring two actions against FAO in the Italian courts. In the first case they claimed a substantial retroactive increase in rent, and in the second action they sought the eviction of FAO from the premises.
In view of the significant administrative and financial implications that the landlords' claims might have for FAO, the Finance Committee was informed of the situation at its Fortieth session in 1977 and since then has been kept informed of developments.
When the actions were brought against the Organization, the Italian Permanent Representation was requested by FAO to bring FAO's immunity from every form of legal process, provided for in Section 16 of the Headquarters Agreement, to the attention of the judicial authorities concerned.
Since it appeared that the Italian courts would nevertheless proceed with their hearing of the actions, the question arose whether for the sole purpose of invoking and having recognized its immunity from all forms of legal process, FAO should put in an appearance in the proceedings. We consulted the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and were given their written advice to do so. Accordingly, FAO retained the services of an Italian lawyer to appear in order to plead the Organization's immunity from legal process. He also drew the attention of the courts to the fact that such immunity did not lead to a denial of justice, since the dispute could be settled by arbitration as provided for in the lease.
In the proceedings relating to the Organization's eviction from Building F, the Tribunale Civile di Roma held that it had jurisdiction to hear the case. As the Organization's immunity from legal process had clearly been disregarded, in March 1981, the Organization referred the question of immunity to the Corte di Cassazione - which is the supreme judicial authority in Italy - for a ruling; that is a ruling solely on the question of the Organization's immunity. In the meantime, pending a decision by the Corte di Cassazione, the two actions brought by INPDAI were suspended in the lower courts.
The Corte di Cassazione held its final hearing on the issue of immunity on 1 April 1982, but the judgement only became available in October. In the meantime, it appeared prudent to envisage the practical and financial situation that might arise if the Corte di Cassazione decided that FAO did not enjoy immunity from legal process with respect to actions arising out of the lease.
Accordingly, the matter was submitted to the Finance Committee, which considered the administrative and financial implications of the litigation, and to the Committee on Constitutional and Legal Matters (CCLM) which examined the legal issues, in particular the interpretation of Section 16 of the Headquarters Agreement.
Both the Finance Committee and the CCLM, at sessions held in Autumn 1982, expressed serious concern at the situation that might arise if the Corte di Cassazione did not fully recognize the immunity from all forms of legal process laid down in Section 16 of the Headquarters Agreement. Such immunity was recognized by these Committees as being an important safeguard for the smooth and independent administration of the Organization and an essential feature of the legal status of FAO in Italy.
In addition, the CCLM considered that Section 16 of the Headquarters Agreement was unambiguous and that the phrase "Immunity from every form of legal process" should be given its full literal meaning. In other words, FAO could become subject to the jurisdiction of the Italian courts only if it had expressly and voluntarily waived that immunity. Accordingly, the CCLM recommended that, if FAO's immunity were not fully recognized, action be taken by the Host Government to find a way of resolving the problems that had arisen with INPDAI without further recourse to the Italian courts and, looking at the more general problem of immunity, that measures be taken by the Host Government to safeguard FAO's immunity in the future.
The Corte di Cassazione's judgement became available just before the Council's Eighty-second session, that is, after the Finance Committee and the CCLM had met. In its judgement, that court held that, for reasons which have been rejected in other countries and are certainly not shared by this Organization, FAO did not enjoy immunity from legal process in one of the actions brought against it under the lease. Its denial of immunity was couched in extremely broad terms which implied that most types of official transaction that the Organization might enter into in Italy would be subject to review by the Italian courts.
Since then, the Council has considered this question in great detail, at its Eighty-second, Eighty-third and Eighty-fourth sessions and it adopted resolutions on this matter at its Eigthy-second and Eighty-third sessions. The Conference will find in paragraph 2 of document C 83/LIM/10 a summary of the action which the Council requested the Host Government to take.
The attention of the Conference is also drawn to the fact that, as indicated in paragraph 4 of document C 83/LIM/10, the Council found that little progress had been made to give effect to the resolution which it had adopted at its Eighty-second and Eighty-third sessions. The Council therefore hoped that contacts which the Director-General had recently had with the new Minister of Foreign Affairs would lead to concrete measures being taken by the Host Government.
The position at present may be summarized as follows:
First, no visible measures have yet been taken to safeguard FAOs immunity from legal process in the future. However, the Government has declared to the Council that it will prevent any measures of execution being taken against FAO, and that the Government is considering the possibility of amending Italian legislation on the immunity from measures of execution of State property and the property of international organizations. It is not clear to us, however, in what way FAO would be favourably affected by any such amendments, since the Government has declared that the Organization was protected from any measures of execution already.
Secondly, after the Corte di Cassazione's judgement, the lower courts resumed their hearings in the two actions brought against FAO by the landlords of Building F. In accordance with instructions from the Council, FAO has not participated in those proceedings. This is only logical since the Organization does not consider that these courts have jurisdiction over these matters. One court held that there were no grounds for evicting FAO. The judgement on the merits of whether the retroactive increases in rent are due or not is pending. The Court's last hearing was held on 18 October, and we expect a judgement will become available in the coming months.
Thirdly, the notes which I have before me say that three other actions have recently been brought against FAO. I should amend that to "four", because a fourth arrived this morning through the Permanent Mission. In two of these cases judgements have been rendered against FAO in cases where FAO has not waived its immunity. I might just add that the fourth case is not a very important one, since FAO has been cited as a co-defendant in a case relating to a traffic accident involving a car which I think is quite clearly not owned by FAO. On the other hand, this is indicative of the fact that it is widely known that FAO is now exposed to cases being brought against it.
Finally , the Conference will no doubt share the serious concern which has been expressed by the Director-General, by the Council and its Committees, at the present situation, and I am sure it will echo their hope that effective measures will be taken expeditiously by the Host Government to remedy the present situation.
LE PRESIDENT: Merci M. Roche de cette présentation. J'ouvre le débat pour les commentaires.
I.P. ALVARENGA (El Salvador) : Quisiera agradecer la exposición clara y exhaustiva que de este tema nos ha hecho el Asesor Legal, Señor Roche,.Sobre el mismo nuestra delegación ha tenido la oportunidad de opinar en diversas ocasiones y en todas hemos hecho notar que se trata de un problema complejo de naturaleza jurídica y que atañe a un conjunto de hechos igualmente complicados, los cuales, ya sean los hechos como las implicaciones jurídicas, no es fácil reducir a un esquema sencillo ni es, a nuestro modo de ver, tampoco fácil encontrar una solución simple
No vamos a repetir los términos del problema, sobre todo teniendo en cuenta la clara exposición realizada hace un momento por el Sr. Roche. Sin embargo, quisiéramos reiterar a este respecto únicamente nuestra confianza en la actuación de la Secretaría y particularmente de la Oficina Jurídica
En una oportunidad, hablando ante la penúltima sesión del Consejo, expresamos dudas de tipo técnico. Nos parecía que no había sido adecuado recurrir a la Corte de Casación italiana, sabiendo como se debía de haber sabido, que en esa instancia la demanda de la FAO, la petición de la FAO, iba a ser contraria para la Organización, Iba a ser contraria, porque la jurisprudencia de la Corte ha sido unánime; todas las sentencias que la Corte de Casación italiana ha dado han sido en favor de una solución que estaba en contra de la FAO, De ahí que nosotros expresamos nuestra perplejidad ante el hecho de que se hubiera recurrido a la Corte de Casación, ahorrándole a la contraparte de la FAO, o sea, a los propietarios del edificio F,
Sin embargo, creemos que esos son pasos que se habrán meditado oportunamente por la Oficina Jurídica, por quien dirigía el conflicto por parte de la FAO, y que habrá tenido sus razones. No pongo en duda la buena fe y la capacidad profesional con la que se operó. Por lo demás, en materia judicial, siempre cualquier posición será discutible. Nos llama la atención algunos términos que se han repetido en varias oportunidades, cuando se ha tratado este tema y quisiéramos detenernos sobre ello.
En primer lugar, el ofrecimiento del Gobierno, del Poder Ejecutivo, de Italia, de impedir la ejecución en bienes de la FAO, no me parece que en ninguna de las actuaciones en que este tema se ha planteado se haya visto clara la actitud del Gobierno para oponerse a una medida que proviene de las autoridades judiciales. Se nos ha señalado que el Gobierno tiene la intención de legislar y podría hacerlo, según el procedimiento constitucional italiano, pero desde luego está sometido a la revocación del poder legislativo, y no alcanzamos a comprender cómo puede el poder ejecutivo comprometerse en nombre del poder legislativo.
Disculpe, señor Presidente, la extensión de esta intervención; pero es que, como se ha repetido hasta la saciedad y no importa repetirlo de nuevo, este es un problema en el que están involucrados no sólo varios millones de dólares presentes y futuros, sino que es además una cuestión de un principio, que afecta a la esencia misma de nuestra Organización. Le ruego a usted y a los distinguidos delegados que disculpen la extensión de mi intervención, por ese motivo
En la ocasión en que hablamos de este tema en la penúltima reunión del Consejo dejamos planteados algunos puntos, que, debido a nuestra condición de observadores, no fueron tomados en cuenta en el curso de la discusión. No expresamos entonces opiniones y por eso querríamos exponerlas en esta oportunidad. Planteábamos que, según un conocido lema jurídico, es mejor una mala transacción, que no un buen pleito. Nos planteábmos por qué la FAO no podía entrar en negociaciones con los propietarios del edificio para llegar a una solución extrajudicial del conflicto, y haciendo un examen de conciencia, pudimos darnos cuenta de que si FAO había tratado de evadir el contacto, no veíamos por qué no podía asumir las responsabilidades financieras. Si eso fuese así, ¿por qué no entra en conversaciones con los propietarios para llegar a una solución extrajudicial? No creo que sea por una cuestión de dignidad política, ni de inconveniencia jurídica. No le veo ninguna razón práctica.
Otra cuestión que nos planteamos - y esto es de competencia más estrictamente correspondiente a esta Comisión - es la siguiente: según el Convenio de CEDE, existe una cláusula mediante la cual se puede llegar a la interpretación del Convenio en tal forma que no queden dudas. Nuestro procedimiento es: ¿por qué la FAO no acelera los tiempos, no acelera el dictamen de un órgano competente para decidir sobre el Convenio, provocando ese mecanismo de conflicto entre el Gobierno de Italia y la FAO?
Otra duda es, si fuese necesario, por qué la FAO no recurre al órgano internacional de justicia pidiendo también una interpretación del Convenio y pidiendo una interpretación del principio de inmunidad de las organizaciones internacionales. Yo siento pot Italia un cariño, como ya lo hemos expresado en otras oportunidades, como el que más; tenemos el más absoluto respeto por sus instituciones únicas, pero somos conscientes de que este tema puede estar muy distante en el tiempo, si esperamos a que se dicten medidas legislativas, que nadie nos podría garantizar, porque dependen de una serie de circunstancias del Parlamento italiano. Creo que debemos ver la posibilidad de salir adelante, de constreñirse a los hechos, a fin de poder obtener una resolución de este tema cuanto antes
Estas son dudas, señor Presidente, que obviamente la Secretaria podría aclararnos y yo le rogaría a usted permita a la Secretaría que nos haga las consideraciones oportunas que respondan a este interrogante y después continuaríamos con el debate; porque, si se plantea la posibilidad jurídica de intervenir, nuestra delegación pedirá se recomiende al Director General que ejercite las acciones necesarias.
G. STUYCK (Belgique): Je voudrais me borner à poser une question à Monsieur le Conseiller juridique: dans toute cette discussion, il a été fait mention à maintes reprises de l'Accord de Siège. Mais dans le cas qui nous occupe, peut-on savoir si la Convention sur les privilèges et immunités des Nations Unies et sur les institutions spécialisées ne s'appliquent pas au cas qui nous occupe et si sur la base de cette convention une action ne pourrait pas être envisagée éventuellement sous forme d'une demande d'avis consultatif de la Cour Internationale de Justice ?
Je sais que c'est en principe le privilège des Nations Unies de demander des avis à la Cour Internationale de Justice et je ne sais pas si une Institution spécialisée comme la FAO est en mesure de le faire.
Ma délégation ne fait pas partie du Comité des questions juridiques, je ne sais pas si la question a été éventuellement évoquée et je serais heureux d'avoir une réponse à ce sujet.
H. M. CARANDANG (Philippines): After hearing so many questions regarding this issue I just wanted to raise one more: this is with regard to the provisions in the Headquarters Agreement which stipulates a system of arbitration in a case where there is a dispute regarding the interpretation of the Headquarters Agreement. Since the Corte di Cassazione has given a different interpretation to that which is apparently being held by this Organization, I understand that there is now a difference of interpretation between the Organization and the Host Government regarding a clause in the Headquarters Agreement. I now ask the question, whether it is not appropriate that the system of arbitration, as provided for by the Headquarters Agreement, should not be invoked on this occasion ?
LE PRESIDENT: Nous avons plusieurs questions qui ont été posées à M. Roche, M. Roche est-ce que vous êtes prêt à les éclaircir ? Vous avez la parole.
LEGAL COUNSEL: I shall begin by answering the four questions asked by the delegate of El Salvador. The first question which he asked was why FAO referred the matter to the Corte di Cassazione, because it should have known better, since the case-law of that court was obviously unfavourable to FAO. The answer to that is that there are many cases which would be favourable to FAO, if not more than those that would be unfavourable. In particular, the Corte di Cassazione has dealt with many cases relating to the immunity of States, and this, I think, is where one has to make an important distinction. It is one which, I would submit, the Corte di Cassazione failed to make. The immunity of States is based on what have become fairly well-established principles of international law which are at present in the process of being codified by the International Law Commission. These principles are also influenced by nations of reciprocity. On the other hand, the immunities enjoyed by intergovernmental organizations are essentially based, not on customary international law, but on the specific provisions of treaties. In the present case the treaty is the Headquarters Agreement. There have been no cases before the Italian courts, or certainly not before the Corte di Cassazione, interpreting an unambiguous clause such as Section 16 of the Headquarters Agreement. There are absolutely no clear precedents, except one, which involved FAO before a court of first instance, where the court held that FAO did enjoy immunity. But this finding was not in general terms; it applied to that particular case.
For those reasons, the Organization felt that it was desirable to refer the case to a very high-level court, because, quite clearly, questions of general principle - in particular relating to questions of public international law - do not frequently have to be decided by courts of first instance. And the Corte di Cassazione would be a much more appropriate and well-informed forum for an important decision interpreting a treaty to which the Host Government is a party. Therefore we went before the Corte di Cassazione with considerable confidence, and I must say that we were very much surprised that when interpreting what appeared to be an absolutely unambiguous and unequivocal provision in a treaty, the Court interpreted it in a way which (at least in our humble opinion) is contrary to the clear wording of the treaty.
With regard to the second question asked by the delegate of El Salvador, that is, why did we not enter into negotiations with the landlords, I must point out that, before the dispute, shall we say, concretized, we certainly had numerous contacts with the landlords, but we basically did not agree. At this stage it would have been perfectly normal for the landlords to refer the matter, as provided in the lease which they had quite blithely signed to arbitration. They might well have said "well, let's arbitrate". This would have been cheaper and quicker and much easier. FAO has never maintained that it must necessarily be right. Maybe the arbitrators would have found in favour of the landlords. But the fact remains that the Organization was not prepared to discuss the merits of this question before the Italian courts. Thus, we certainly did have contacts, and it was not just a question of going straight into the litigation stage. In fact we very much regretted that this matter did not go to arbitration as it should have done.
In this connection, I think an important element which should be borne in mind is that FAO is a public institution, and whereas a private company might very well have said "litigation will be long and costly, I shall reach a compromise as I am only dealing with my own money", FAO is handling public money. Likewise, the landlords too might have said that, but they are also a public corporation, their accounts go before the Corte dei Conti (public auditors). They too find themselves in what is probably a difficult position, and are not free to reach a transaction which is not, shall we say, based on law, but more on convenience. So that is probably the reason why this matter has not been settled out of court, by for example, splitting the bill down the middle.
The third question which El Salvador asked was, "why don't we go to arbitration with the Italian Government on the interpretation of the Headquarters' Agreement?" This is in fact provided for in Section 35 of that Agreement, which provides for disputes being settled by arbitration. Although the Corte di Cassazione has expressed its views on the question of immunity, we are not sure that we actually have a dispute with the Government, and at the moment we are at the stage where we hope that the Government will find a way out which will not lead us to a direct confrontation and the possible need for arbitration as a solution.
This leads me to the fourth question, which has also been mentioned by the delegate of Belgium; "why don't we go to the International Court of Justice for a ruling?". This is certainly possible. We are authorized under our relationship agreement with the United Nations: the Conference may choose to ask for an advisory opinion or it can authorise the Council to do so. Thus FAO could ask for an advisory opinion, but I think it would be preferable at the moment, at least, while the Italian Government is trying to seek a solution to the matter, to get it solved in that way. Otherwise we could put the interpretation of Section 16 of the Headquarters' Agreement to the International Court of Justice.
I think that exhausts my reply to the delegate of El Salvador, and that I have, incidentally, also answered the delegate of the Philippines. There remains one part of the question asked by the delegate of Belgium and that is whether the Conventions on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, or of the Specialized Agencies, apply. The answer is no - the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations does not apply to the Specialized Agencies. As for the Specialized Agencies' Convention, Italy is not considered a party to it, because althugh the Government of Italy tendered for deposit an instrument of ratification in 1952, it contained reservations which were considered unacceptable and the depositary of the Convention - who is the Secretary-General of the United Nations - did not accept the instrument for deposit. Therefore, neither of these Conventions apply , but in fact - and this is an important point - Section 16 of the Headquarters' Agreement is absolutely identical in substance to the corresponding provisions in those two Conventions which I have just mentioned. So, even if they were applicable to FAO, we would be no better off, because it must be assumed that the Corte di Cassazione would interpret those Conventions in exactly the same way, since the wording is the same.
LE PRESIDENT: Je remercie le Conseiller juridique pour ces explications. Je donne la parole à la délégation italienne.
M. FRANCISCI di BASCHI (Italie): J'ai écouté les interventions de mes collègues et l'illustration de M. Roche avec grand intérêt. Je voudrais simplement chercher à éclaircir un point central du problème, c'est-à-dire le contenu, la portée et les imputations du jugement de la Cour de cassation d'avril dernier qui a été rendu public en octobre.
En réalité, ce jugement se limite à réaffirmer un point connu de la doctrine et de la jurisprudence italiennes et non pas seulement italiennes parce que beaucoup d'Etats suivent ces doctrine et jurisprudence, c'est-à-dire que les Etats étrangers ou organisations internationales, sur n'importe quel sujet de droit international, lorsqu'il s'agit d'un domaine de droit privé, sont considérés comme étant assujettis au juge national. C'est une doctrine qui n'a jamais changé, elle est constamment réaffirmée par la Cour de cassation.
Par conséquent, je voudrais d'abord dire que ce jugement n'aurait pas dû surprendre beaucoup parce qu'on aurait dû s'attendre à une réaffirmation de cette doctrine, qui, je le répète, n'est ni bizarre, ni isolée, elle n'est pas seulement italienne, elle est acceptée et réaffirmée par beaucoup d'Etats qui ont la même tradition que l'Italie en matière de droit.
Cela dit, il est vrai qu'il est difficile de concevoir une modification ou un ajournement du droit italien pour garantir d'une façon plus claire les immunités des Etats et des organisations internationales en présence de cette doctrine, parce que cette doctrine serait appliquée par la Cour de cassation italienne à n'importe quelle loi interne ou à n'importe quel traité international qui pourrait chercher à modifier ou à clarifier la portée des immunités.
Mais il est vrai aussi que lorsqu'on passe, disons, aux mesures d'exécution, c'est-à-dire que les tribunaux italiens passent du jugement sur le mérite du différend aux mesures d'exécution, dans ce cas-là nous avons plusieurs fois formulé un conseil devant le Comité financier, selon lequel nous pensons que l'Organisation est absolument protégée par les sections 16 et 17 de l'accord de siège. Nous avons le moyen d'intervenir en tant que pouvoir exécutif pour bloquer n'importe quelle mesure d'exécution qui pourrait entamer ce que sont les droits souverains de l'Organisation de la FAO sur le plan institutionnel. Donc là, nous avons plusieurs fois donné cette assurance. Cette assurance peut être garantie à travers deux ou trois moyens, je ne sais pas s'il est vraiment nécessaire ici d'expliquer quelles pourraient être les clauses de droit administratif ou législatif que nous sommes prêts à expérimenter dans le cas où il y aurait des mesures d'exécution à l'endroit des biens de la FAO.
Sur ce point, je peux réaffirmer ce que j'ai dit moi-même deux fois en Conseil, je le répète et je le dirai même à la Conférence, de ce point de vue je pense que l'Italie ne peut pas être accusée d'avoir ignoré ses obligations qui dérivent de l'accord de siège et pratiquement de manière spécifique des sections 16 et 17. Je dirais que quand ces mesures d'exécution seront adoptées ou envisagées, le Gouvernement italien est prêt, sur demande de l'Organisation, à défendre l'Organisation en justice à travers "l'Avvocatura Generale dello Stato", c'est-à-dire le Corps d'Avocats chargé de la défense de l'Etat en Italie. Pour le moment, je voudrais me limiter à cette déclaration.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: There are two points. One is that we certainly do not accuse the Italian Government of anything, except, now, a desire to help us, and verbal guarantees that have been given. I do, however, want to make one point in defence of my colleague. The point has repeatedly come up: "why did we go to the Court di Cassazione?" and in the remarks we have just heard it has been said "why did we go when we knew that we were likely to lose?".
We went because we received written advice from the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs to do so. If they knew we were going to lose, why didn't they tell us that?
That is all I would like to say. I do not want to be controversial with the Italian delegation, particularly as the present team of Italian representatives were not in any way involved at the time, and we very much appreciate the constructive attitude of the team on this question. But the problem remains as outlined by Mr. Roche - we are continuing to get cases. So I think it is fitting and proper that the Conference should express its concern on this matter.
I.P. ALVARENGA (El Salvador): Por supuesto no pienso arrastrar la discusión de este tema al infinitum pero quisiera hacer algunas consideraciones.
Yo dije claramente que no ponía en duda la capacidad profesional y sobre todo la buena fe con que recurrió a la Corte de Casación y no era una pregunta que había dejado planteada, porque lo dije completamente. No hago cuestión sobre ese tema, pero se me ha respondido. Realmente, en la sesión del Consejo yo presenté ante la reunión las hojas del computer de la Corte Suprema de Casación italiana donde está toda la jurisprudencia sobre el tema, es decir ni hay fuera ni dentro; no había posibilidad de duda y leí algunas sentencias en las que los casos son idénticos en términos jurídicos al planteado por la FAO.
Se me dice que el Gobierno de Italia "aconsejó"; realmente es la primer noticia que tengo; yo sabía, había oido antes, y en los informes del Director General queda señalado que se había aconsejado que se buscara un abogado italiano; eso está muy bien; que el Gobierno haya aconsejado ir a la Corte de Casación me parece lo más extraño. No veo porqué el Gobierno italiano iba a hacer esa recomendación y porqué la FAO la iba a seguir, supongo que hay algún mal entendido al respecto.
Sobre las intervenciones del señor delegado de Italia quisiera solamente llamarles la atención a la Comisión sobre un punto: dice él que esta es una doctrina unánimemente seguida por los Tribunales italianos y es muy difícil cambiarla. Ese es el temor: justamente que es muy difícil cambiarla mientras no haya una decisión del Parlamento dando una nueva ley que no permita a la Corte de Casación continuar con esa jurisprudencia, porque la Corte de Casación no puede fallar en contra de la Ley italiana, as evidente, pero como ahora la Ley es vaga; se basa en la doctrina que fuese considerada oportuna; entonces, repito, nosotros podríamos estar esperando durante mucho tiempo con una espada de Damocles pendiente, cada vez más procesos se van sentenciando contra la FAO y yo pienso que tomando en cuenta las aclaraciones del señor Asesor Legal de que no cree oportuno en este momento recurrir a un Tribunal de Arbitraje señalado por el convenio o a la Corte Internacional, que esta Comisión sugiera a la Conferencia que pida al Director General que considere las posibilidades, es decir, que analice los pros y los contras de recurrir a un organismo internacional o al Tribunal de Arbitraje señalado por el convenio y que de acuerdo con el Consejo y el Comité de Asuntos Constitucionales y Jurídicos tome la decisión cuando lo crea oportuno. Con eso dejamos a nuestro Director General la decisión con base técnica de tomar las medidas del caso, pero no nos quedamos simplemente esperando a ver qué sucede.
M. FRANCISCI di BASCHI (Italie): Je voudrais simplement faire remarquer au distingué délégué du Salvador qu'il est très difficile de faire adopter une loi au Parlement, loi qui statuerait sur une immunité totale. Comme vous le savez bien, l'Etat italien est basé sur le respect de la loi. Donc l'Etat italien a le devoir impératif de protéger les intérêts légitimes de ses ressor-tissants italiens. Il y a donc là un grave obstacle.
D'autre part, dans le cas d'espèce du montant de la location du bâtiment F, la Cour de cassation a statué sur la compétence du juge italien. Dans un autre cas, concernant une mesure d'exécution qui frapperait des biens, donc la fonction typique de l'Organisation, il est à espérer que la Cour de cassation s'exprime d'une autre façon. Ce n'est pas que l'Italie ne reconnaisse pas les immunités mais il y a seulement cette distinction entre le sujet qui agit en temps que souverain pour ce but institutionnel et, de l'autre côté, le même sujet qui agit dans la sphère du droit italien. C'est là la difficulté.
LE PRESIDENT: Je ne vois plus d'autres drapeaux levés. Nous pouvons donc conclure sur ce point.
Nous avons pris note des différentes questions qui ont été soulevées. Nous prions le secrétariat et le Comité de rédaction de nous proposer un rapport.
L'heure est avancée mais heureusement nos travaux sont également bien avancés. Nous avons gagné un peu de temps sur l'horaire prévu. Il nous reste encore deux points à traiter: Etat des contributions, point 21.3, et le point 21.4 : Amendement du règlement financier. Puisque plusieurs délégations m'ont prié de leur laisser un peu de temps, je vous propose d'ajourner nos délibérations jusqu'à demain après-midi. Il n'y aura donc pas de séance de la Commission III demain matin et nous reprendrons les travaux demain après-midi pour traiter des deux points qui nous restent encore sur l'ordre du jour
The meeting rose at 17 .35 hours
La séance est levée à 17 h 35
Se levanta la sesión a las 17.35 horas
