EL PRESIDENTE: Señores delegados agradezco a nuestro Presidente la posibilidad que me da de dirigir nuestro debate, lo cual me resulta altamente honroso y satisfactorio.
Como se desprende del diario de reuniones, tenemos para esta tarde tres puntos:
Las reformas al texto español del Artículo XII-9(a) y del Artículo XII-17 del reglamento General de la Organización. Le diría al señor Asesor Legal, el Sr. Roche, que nos introduzca al tema. El Sr. Roche tiene la palabra.
LEGAL COUNSEL: This is a relatively straightforward point and it is a strictly linguistic one. You will notice from the document that you have, which is C 85/26, that the Committee on Constitutional and Legal Matters, at its Forty-fifth session which took place in October 1984, was reviewing certain rules governing voting procedures of the Council and Conference. In carrying out this task, it noted that the Spanish text of Rule XII paragraph 9(a) made use of the term which in Spanish is "por aclamación", and that this terminology did not entirely correspond with the words used in the English text which are "by clear general consent", and in the French text which are "par consentement général manifeste".
Therefore, the CCLM recommended that the Conference amend the Spanish text of Rule XII-9(a) of the General Rules by deleting the words "por aclamación" and replacing them with the words which, in Spanish, are an exact translation of the English and French texts, that is with the words "evidente consenso general".
On the same occasion the CCLM recommended that the Conference adopt a similar amendment to Paragraph 17 of Rule XII in which the words "por aclamación" should be replaced with the words "consenso general". In this way the Spanish text would be made consistent with the terms "by general consent" as used in the English text and "par consentement général" as used in the French text.
The Conference will then note that at its Eighty-Sixth Session in November 1984 the Council endorsed the recommendation of the CCLM that the Conference amend the Spanish text of the General Rules in the manner that I have just indicated. If the Conference at this present session agrees with the recommendations made by the CCLM, which have been endorsed by the Council, it may wish to adopt the Resolution amending the Spanish text of Rule XII.9(a) and paragraph 17. A Draft Resolution to that effect has been prepared and is circulated in document C 85/26 which you have before you.
I think that is all I need to say at this stage.
EL PRESIDENTE: Como los distinguidos delegados pueden observar se trata de una cuestión puramente gramatical que no incide en lo sustancial del Reglamento. Sólo se trata de poner de acuerdo las tres versiones del Reglamento. Si alguien desea hacer comentarios o alguna pregunta ofrezco la palabra.
J.M. WATSON (Panamá): La delegación de Panamá se siente verdaderamente emocionada con la Presidencia de usted, señor Embajador, ocupa y da las gracias al Sr. Roche por su magnífica exposición, y le comunica que está de acuerdo con la reforma al Artículo XII-9(a) y al Artículo XII-17 del Reglamento General de la Organización.
EL PRESIDENTE: ¿Alguna otra intervención? Si no la hay damos por entendido que queda aprobado el documento respectivo con la resolución correspondiente. Como ustedes saben hay un texto de una resolución propuesta; al quedar aprobado queda aprobada la resolución correspondiente, que se encuentra en el C 85/LIM/13. Si no hay alguna observación damos por terminado el punto con su respectiva aprobación.
LEGAL COUNSEL: We are now on item 20.2, which relates to certain voting procedures of the Council and Conference that were raised at the Twenty-second Session of the Conference two years ago. At that Session some delegates expressed concern at the fact that Rule XII.9(a) of the General Rules of the Organization provided for a vote by secret ballot when there was the same number of candidates as places to be filled. They suggested that the election procedures be reviewed in order to study the possibility of not proceeding to a secret ballot in such cases, for instance, for the election of the Independent Chairman of the Council. The Conference agreed "that the Council should review the present rule governing the voting procedures where there were the same number of candidates as places to be filled in the Conference or Council of the Organization with a view to speeding up procedures and thus saving valuable time."
When this question was raised at the last Session of the Conference, it was raised exclusively in order to gain time as at that Session the Conference found itself at a certain moment rather hard pressed to fit in all of the items it had to consider within the schedule it had adopted.
The Conference requested the Council to report back to it at this Session. At its Eighty-fifth Session the Council decided that the question raised by the Conference should be submitted for examination to the Committee on Constitutional and Legal Matters before reporting back to you on this matter.
The matter was examined by the CCLM at its Forty-fifth Session in October, 1984. At that Session the CCLM noted that according to Rule XII.9(a) of the General Rules it was mandatory to have a secret ballot in four cases: firstly, for the appointment of the Independent Chairman of the Council; secondly, for the appointment of the Director-General; thirdly, for the admission of new Member Nations or Associate Members; and, fourthly, for the election of Council Members. The CCLM expressed the view that in the said four cases one was dealing with highly sensitive matters and the secrecy of the vote was intended to afford Member Nations the possibility of expressing their choice without any constraint or any embarrassment.
The CCLM also considered the advantages of the secret ballot as weighed against the disadvantages of spending valuable time by this method of voting. It admitted, of course, that this method of voting was time consuming. In this connection the CCLM was informed by the Secretariat that while it was impossible to state with any precision the time required for voting, the experience of recent years indicated that the election of the Chairman of the Council, for instance, would normally take about twenty minutes for voting and twenty minutes for counting the votes, while the election of Council Members would normally take about two hours for voting and about an hour and a half for the counting. Of course, the time required for Council elections depends very much on the number of ballots that may be required for a particular election.
The CCLM noted - I think this was particularly relevant - that previously in 1959 and between 1965 and 1967 the governing bodies of the Organization had already examined the advisability of amending Rule XII.9(a). On those occasions it was concluded that it was preferable to maintain the secret ballot in all the four cases I have just enumerated.
Under these circumstances the CCLM concluded that the present provision was appropriate to protect the interests of Member Nations, and did not feel that any amendment was called for. However, if the Conference should decide that an amendment was desirable, technically it would be quite easy to eliminate the requirement of a secret ballot by making very minor amendments to Rule XII.9(a). In its Report the CCLM indicated the amendments that would be necessary.
However, at its Eighty-sixth session, the Council agreed with the conclusion of the CCLM that the present provisions were appropriate to protect the interests of Member Nations and that no amendment to Rule XII.9(a) was necessary. However, the Council noted that the question whether or not the Rule should be amended involved a policy decision and that the final decision would have to be made by the Conference itself.
If the Conference endorses the views which it has expressed on two previous occasions and which have now been reiterated by the Council in its Report to you, the Conference would not be required to take any action at this Session. Of course, it is up to the Conference to decide whether or not it wishes to retain a secret ballot under Rule XII.9(a) in the interests of maintaining absolute freedom for Member Nations when voting on these four extremely sensitive matters.
EL PRESIDENTE: Como los miembros de la Comisión pueden advertir, se trata aquí de una cuestión relativamente importante, por cuanto se trata de decidir sobre el sistema de votación en los casos en que la Conferencia debe pronunciarse sobre materias muy delicadas.
Sin embargo el tema de revisión es muy sencillo. O se aprueba el informe del Consejo en el sentido de que las normas quedan como están o se propone una reforma, y en este caso habría que volver al texto elaborado al respecto.
Si los señores delegados tienen comentarios u observaciones que hacer ofrezco la palabra.
R.F.R. DEARE (United Kingdom): I would like to suggest that we should agree to accept the report of the Council and not pursue this matter.
A.D. WEYGANDT (United States of America): On behalf of my delegation I would like to support the view of the United Kingdom delegation. We feel that there is no compelling reason to change the Rule providing for a secret ballot, and unless a case can be made otherwise, we would prefer to see the Rule remain as it is.
J. GLISTRUP (Denmark): I think that when this matter was first raised during our last Conference it was raised in the interests of saving time as all of us had to remain here for quite a long time.
I would like to support very much the wise decision which was taken by the CCLM and later on endorsed by the Council that these matters are very serious matters, these four instances when we have to have a secret ballot, and in the interests of protecting Member Nations I would very much support the view that we maintain the Rule as it now stands.
LEGAL COUNSEL: This is a question relating to the reimbursement of travel expenses of Council Members. It was first raised at the Eighty-seventh session of the Council in June 1985. At that session of the Council questions were asked about the practice of the Organization regarding reimbursement of travel expenses of Members of the Council.
The Council was informed that under Rule XXV-6 of the General Rules of the Organization only the travel expenses incurred by the representative of each member of the Council were borne by the Organization.
Then the Council noted with some concern that Rule XXV-6 apparently precluded the reimbursement of travel expenses of any one member of a delegation attending the Council when a permanent representative residing in Rome was designated as the representative on the Council. Thus, with a view to the possibility of considering the reimbursement of travel expenses to any one member of a delegation, the Council referred the interpretation or possible amendment of Rule XXV-6 to the Committee on Constitutional and Legal Matters. That Committee at its session in October 1985 examined the matter and concluded that it was not possible to interpret the rule, as it is at present drafted, to permit the reimbursement of travel expenses to any one member of a delegation to the Council.
Therefore, the CCLM prepared an amendment to Rule XXV-6 which would permit such reimbursement. In doing this, the CCLM also noted that if the Conference decided to amend Rule XXV-6, then a consequential amendment should be adopted by the Council to Rule VII.2 of its own Rules of Procedure.
The question of reimbursement was also discussed by the Finance Committee at its Fifty-sixth session in September 1985. That Committee felt that to reimburse the travel expenses of any one member of a delegation could only have a positive effect on the Council's work, and the change of policy proposed would not entail an increase in budgetary appropriations. The Council, at its 88th Session - that is the Session that was just held - noted the views of the Finance Committee, agreed with the CCLM, and endorsed the CCLM's amendment to the Basic Texts. Therefore the Council recommended to the Conference that it should adopt a resolution which has been prepared by the CCLM. If the Conference now feels that it can agree, it may wish to adopt the resolution reproduced on the last page of document C 85/LIM/22.
A.D. WEYGANDT (United States of America): At the Eighty-eighth session of the Council my delegation stated that we do not support in principle the provision of paying for representatives from capitals to attend United Nations meetings. It is a question of principle which remains unchanged. So my delegation cannot support this draft resolution as contained in document C 85/LIM/22.
Pichai PONGPAET (Thailand): First of all may I thank Mr Roche for his introduction to this document. We can clearly see that this introduction gives the benefit of his knowledge to this Conference. We see that the amendment to Rule XXV-6 of the General Rules is useful for the work of the Council because of the presence of a member from the country. In the case of the small country, which has limited numbers of representatives in Rome, this amendment will certainly bring technical support from the capital to the Council, as explained by Mr Roche.
Lajos ZELKÓ (Hungary): I would like to remind the Commission that the overwhelming majority of the Council supported this amendment. I understand their points of view. Most of them are small countries and for them the travel expenses are sometimes by no means negligible. In order to make it possible for them to attend Council meetings, I think it is justified that this Rule be amended. Therefore, my delegation supports the amendment and we suggest that the Commission also give its full support to the amendment.
J.M. WATSON (Panamá): La delegación de Panamá apoya la enmienda al Artículo XXV.6 sobre Reposición de gastos de un miembro indistintamente, ya que puede tratarse de un funcionario de apoyo o de refuerzo a la delegación que está en Roma. Por lo tanto, apoyamos lo expuesto por la delegación de Tailandia y creemos que es de justicia que se le pague indistintamente al miembro que venga de un país pequeño, sobre todo la reposición de los gastos.
A. ALMEIDA RIBEIRO (Portugal): Tout simplement pour appuyer la modification qui nous est soumise maintenant.
J.C. LOEMBE (Congo): La délégation congolaise partage entièrement l'avis des délégations qui l'ont précédée et appuie l'amendement proposé.
P. SEBASTIAO (Angola): La délégation de l'Angola apporte son total soutien à la résolution qui nous est soumise.
J. ORZESZKO (Poland): Our delegation would also like to support the amendment.
G. STUYCK (Belgique): Avant de me prononcer sur cette question, je voudrais me permettre de poser une question à Monsieur le Conseiller juridique de l'Organisation pour lui demander si, parmi les institutions spécialisées des Nations Unies, il existe d'autres organisations que la FAO où cette pratique a été admise, c'est-à-dire, où les représentants du Conseil voient leur voyage jusqu'au Siège de l'Organisation financé par l'Organisation elle-même.
LEGAL COUNSEL: When we considered this matter of the amendment we looked at the governing bodies of a number of other organizations in the United Nations System, but it has to be realized that the structure of the governing body below the supreme body varies considerably from one organization to another. In quite a number, the executive board is not made up of states but of individuals. In others, such as the International Labour Organization, the representation is tri-partite, that is to say, it is made up of government, workers and employers representatives. Therefore it is not easy to make a direct comparison between the FAO Council and the equivalent body in other organizations.
G. STUYCK (Belgique): J'ai le plaisir et le privilège d'être représentant permanent de mon pays auprès de la FAO depuis plusieurs années et l'expérience que j'en ai acquise, et j'ai moi-même siégé d'ailleurs au Conseil, m'a permis de constater que la plupart des représentants au Conseil étaient des représentants permanents ou des personnes qui occupaient un poste dans l'ambassade de leur pays à Rome.
Dans ces conditions, je suis un peu indécis sur la question de savoir si, dans tous les cas, une indemnité de voyage devrait être prévue pour permettre aux délégués au Conseil de faire le voyage du pays d'origine jusqu'à Rome.
Il faudrait peut-être malgré tout un certain contrôle sur la mise en oeuvre d'une telle mesure qui peut se justifier dans le cas de pays ne disposant pas de moyens financiers importants et pour lesquels il est nécessaire qu'une aide soit apportée par l'Organisation. C'est une question de nuance, essentiellement.
El Hadj Mamy KOUYATE (Guinée): Je voulais tout à l'heure vous demander de faire admettre par notre assemblée le document qui nous est soumis étant donné que j'ai constaté qu'il y avait une certaine répétition de soutien qui signifiait que l'unanimité était pour l'adoption de ce document.
Avec les précisions qui viennent de nous être données par le premier responsable du Département juridique, je pense que nous devrons absolument accepter que ce document soit tout de suite adopté par notre assemblée, surtout que la seule opposition n'est pas une opposition mais une question de nuance, comme l'a dit l'Honorable délégué de la Belgique.
J.A. SANTOS OLIVEIRA (Guinée-Bissau): Je veux seulement appuyer l'amendement proposé dans cette résolution.
G. de KALBERMATTEN (Suisse): Ma question est dictée par l'intérêt qu'il y aurait à avoir une réponse un peu plus précise de la part du Conseiller juridique à la question posée par le distingué représentant de la Belgique.
Puis je voudrais formuler la question de la manière suivante: est-ce qu'il y a des cas d'organisations dans le cadre des Nations Unies dont les organes directeurs sont composés d'Etats Membres et où il est admis que les voyages soient payés par l'Organisation?
Je crois savoir que dans certains cas les voyages, par exemple des pays les moins avancés, sont payés sur la base des contributions volontaires, mais nous parlons d'autre chose et il serait intéressant de savoir si c'est effectivement la première fois, dans l'enceinte des Nations Unies, qu'une telle mesure est introduite parce qu'effectivement, dans ce cas là, elle aura un caractère de précédent.
C'est pourquoi, dans mon ignorance, j'aimerais poser la question au Conseiller juridique.
LEGAL COUNSEL: I think with your permission, Mr Chairman, I will try to answer both the delegate of Belgium and the delegate of Switzerland, because I think there might be some slight misunderstanding relating to this matter on the part of the delegate of Belgium. I may be wrong, but I just want to be quite sure that the question is quite clear.
The present rule provides that the representative, that is the head of the delegation, attending the Council will have his travel expenses reimbursed if, of course, he has to travel to Rome to attend the Council. It so happens that over the years many Member Nations have appointed Permanent Representatives who are actually living in Rome, so the Permanent Representative being not always, but almost always, the head of the delegation, on an average over the last few years some 20-odd countries attending the Council out of 49, do not get a ticket reimbursed because the head of their delegation is actually a resident in Rome.
Any other members of a delegation supporting that Permanent Representative coming from their capital cities or other duty stations travel at the expense of the Government. As a result some Member Nations felt it was unfair that just because their Permanent Representative was the head of the delegation nobody got a ticket from their duty station or capital city at the expense of the Organization, whereas if in all those cases the Permanent Representative had, say, been the No. 2 member - since there is only one "representative", they would all have received one ticket.
That is just a little clarification in the event that the exact scope of the present proposal was not absolutely clear, or that maybe I did not make it absolutely clear in my introduction. So, the proposal now is to see that at least one member of a delegation attending the Council is reimbursed, provided always that he has to travel to Rome. Of course, if the delegation on the Council consists of one person only as head of the delegation, and that single person is resident in Rome, no ticket would be paid.
To return to the question raised also by the delegate of Switzerland, I am afraid I do not have detailed information at hand. We did not carry out a survey of all the organizations in the United Nations system, but I believe the Executive Board of the World Health Organization is made up of individuals. I believe that the equivalent body in Unesco is also made up of individuals, and as I said, the ILO is a rather different case. In the United Nations itself delegations pay their own tickets for I think all meetings, at least when attending all the principal organs of the United Nations; but I am ready to stand corrected on that. If the delegate of Switzerland would like more detailed information on this, I can certainly undertake the research. I think the general support for the proposal is fairly apparent from the interventions so far, but I can certainly provide this information for the edification of the delegate of Switzerland and the delegate of Belgium and perhaps other members of the Commission with a little bit of notice, so that we can go through the constitutional instruments of some more of the Organizations in the United Nations system.
T.E. KITLELI (Lesotho): After having heard more clarification from the Legal Counsel, my delegation raises its flag to support the resolution.
Sra. Doña Yolanda GAGO (Costa Rica): Mi delegación se une a las otras delegaciones para apoyar esta enmienda.
H. AL-ZALTINI (Libya): I should like to have more information from the Secretariat, if this is possible, in regard to the number of Council meetings over the next two years. Will they be held anywhere other than Rome?
LEGAL COUNSEL: I do not think the Council is planning to hold a session out of Rome in the next two years. Of course, it would only be done at the invitation of a Member Nation, and to my knowledge since the Council was established in 1948 it has - at least in the last twenty or twenty-five years - only once held a session outside Rome. It held a session in Madrid I think sometime in the
late fifties. Otherwise it has invariably met in Rome and, as you know, in non-Conference years there is a Council in November. In Conference years there is a Council in June, and one immediately before and another immediately after the Conference. So generally, unless there is a special session, there are four sessions in each biennium, and I think we can foresee that they will all be held in Rome.
H. AL-ZALTINI (Libya) (original language Arabic): I am obliged to the Legal Counsel for filling us in on those points. I support the amendment proposed.
R. MARTINEZ MUÑOZ (Colombia): Sr. Presidente: La delegación de Colombia apoya la enmienda propuesta, por las siguientes consideraciones: Una mayoría abrumadora de países aprobó esta enmienda. Hay que permitirles asistir a las reuniones del Consejo a pequeños Estados que, dentro de las misiones no tienen personal suficiente. Por otra parte, dentro de ese personal suficiente, a las reuniones del Consejo es preciso que asista en determinados momentos personal calificado en determinadas ramas de asuntos que se van a debatir en el Consejo.
Y por último, la delegación de Colombia quiere aprobar la enmienda, en vista de las amplias y justificadas explicaciones que ha dado el Sr. Consejero Jurídico.
Sra. Doña Silvia CARBALLO VIVES (Cuba): Gracias, señor Presidente: Solamente para expresar el apoyo de nuestra delegación a esta enmienda.
J. GLISTRUP (Denmark): I had no intention of involving myself in this discussion when I came here, but I think that during the course of the discussion I have had certain concerns on my mind. Let me try to address them in two ways. First we have been informed that in latter years more and more governments have been represented here by Permanent Representatives and therefore the existing rule on travel to Rome by a representative has been somewhat outdated. The matter has been examined by the Finance Committee, and now we are being faced with a proposal that any member of the FAO Council can bring a person to Rome at the expense of FAO.
In actual fact it will be at the expense of the member governments of FAO, and I would assume that this would mean that more people will come and attend the FAO Council. That in itself is a good thing. But I am somewhat puzzled that the Finance Committee has told us that this would not involve additional expenses for the Organization. I think the Legal Counsel said to us that out of the total number of Council Members about 20 were represented by the Permanent Representatives. Now those 20, if we take that as an average figure - and I assume it was an average figure - I assume most of those will bring in an additional member in their delegation and that means we will have to pay 20 more persons' travel expenses to Rome.
The other question I would like to raise is the fact that Belgium and Switzerland have asked for clarification of what the situation is in other United Nations bodies and we have received some kind of clarification. But perhaps I may point the question more clearly to the Secretariat through you, Mr Chairman, because I am still not clear on this. May I ask, with the knowledge that we now have, is there any other United Nations organization which reimburses travel expenses for member governments to come to the governing bodies of these organizations?
EL PRESIDENTE: Muchas gracias distinguido delegado de Dinamarca, pero realmente la misma pregunta se ha hecho aquí varias veces.
En este caso yo seguiría el sistema tradicional de responder al final a todas las preguntas. Si no resulta suficientemente claro, el Sr. Roche lo aclarará al final y por eso ruego al representante de Dinamarca esperar hasta el final a la respuesta de la Secretaría.
MOHSIN ALI KHAN (Bangladesh): My delegation supports the Resolution for the following reasons. As indicated by Mr Roche, this will not involve any additional expenditure, so we are not losing financially but rather will receive more benefit, because this will provide an opportunity for member countries to send the appropriate official actually dealing with the subject in the country, who may also have field knowledge. In view of this, I would like to support the Resolution.
Hasin ÖGÜT (Turkey): We support the amendment proposed regarding the reimbursement of travel expenses of one delegate from each member country of the Council, even if the delegate does not head his or her country's delegation. We endorse the Resolution in view of the fact that this foreseen amendment does not have any budgetary implications, as allocations are already made in the budget of FAO in anticipation that FAO will cover the cost of travel expenses of heads of delegations from 49 member countries. Another thing is that, as was mentioned by other delegates, this amendment will ensure the attendance of qualified experts from countries, together with the permanent representatives, at the sessions of the Council.
A.K. OSUBAN (Uganda): The Ugandan delegation would like to add its support to the amendment to this rule mainly for the reasons given by my neighbour from Turkey. We believe that when the rule was first made they had it in mind to make it possible for countries to send representatives to the Council meetings on a timely basis, and we all know that these days Council meetings deal with a lot of complex matters which usually require experts on various subjects. So that in the case of small countries this would still be added assistance. We believe that it is already budgeted for and would not necessarily entail an additional encumbrance on the Organization.
G.H. MUSGROVE (Canada): I do apologize that I was not in the room when this item was introduced and therefore may have missed part of its introduction, but I take the floor to respond in part to my colleague, the delegate of Denmark, who referred to the deliberation of this item in the Finance Committee and, as a member of that Finance Committee, I thought perhaps I could add some words on the view that was held at the time.
Our delegation is disposed towards this amendment and views it favourably. The reasons why we did so, both in the Finance Committee and now, are several. First of all, there is the question of additional financial cost. Our concerns in this connection were put somewhat to rest on the basis of the explanation that the budgetary process called for a financial appropriation to cover all anticipated costs under the existing provisions for providing travel and that while in recent years there has been some decline in the call upon this particular appropriation, the appropriation, for reasons of prudence, nevertheless, continued to be made on the basis of full anticipated costs. Of course, when it was not used in its entirety, those sums were absorbed within the budget, perhaps for other reasons. So in accepting the change, the appropriations process would not appreciably change. The same appropriation would be made, I believe - and I am speaking; only from memory - that in terms of actual expenditures this would be minimal over the biennium. I hesitate to name a number, but perhaps Mr Crowther or someone more familiar with it could do so, but I think the additional expenditure was in the vicinity of perhaps 40 to 50 thousand US dollars. But, as I say, that is not an additional appropriation or additional funds within the budget. It is merely expenditure for the item for which they were appropriated.
There were several other questions I heard raised today which were certainly raised in the Finance Committee. First of all, the concept of paying for travel at all is an old one and is embedded in the Basic Texts and in the very foundation of the Organization. I think this question arose once or twice today. While there may be merits in questioning the principle, I think there is considerable equity in that provision. Whenever a headquarters foreign organization is chosen, it is nearer to some and further from others. The equity in some small way recompenses a certain amount of travel to ensure adequate representation at Council sessions, and particularly for an organization that is located not in one part of the developing, but in the developed world, and I think the equity is even more relevant.
The other aspect of equity that I think entered partially into the discussion was the concept that where those countries have, at some considerable expense, established permanent representation in Rome, a matter I think is beneficial to the Organization and beneficial to us all - to have such permanent representation, they should not be further penalized because they have incurred such expenses by not having access to travel positions where the permanent representative is the head of delegation. Certainly, when there is such a permanent representation, sometimes for a matter of years there is a lack of close coordination between that permanent representative and his home government which cannot entirely be solved by modern communications methods. It is of benefit to those permanent representatives to have technical and other expert assistance available to them in the form of delegation representation which would not otherwise be available if travel funds could not be incurred.
So I think if I could just make those points on behalf of what I deem to be the case - and I am not able to sum up the position in the Finance Committee - but to review some of the points which have been raised and those points were such and the discussion was such that our delegation would view the change favourably -which may be somewhat surprising in view of our usual austere approach to management and financial expenditure patterns.
M. NKAKE NDOLO (Cameroun): Compte tenu des éclaircissements obtenus de la part de M. Roche,'de la plupart des autres délégués et surtout des explications complémentaires que vient de nous fournir le délégué du Canada, la délégation du Cameroun ne peut qu'appuyer fermement la recommandation qui est faite, notamment en prenant l'exemple même du Cameroun qui vient de détacher, après le départ de son ancien délégué permanent auprès de la FAO, un nouveau délégué arrivé il y a seulement un mois à Rome. A supposer que cette faveur ne soit pas accordée, et en considérant les difficultés budgétaires de certains pays en voie de développement, je crois que notre délégation ne pourrait pas contribuer efficacement aux travaux des présentes assises.
Donc le Cameroun appuie, comme la majorité des autres délégations, la proposition qui est faite.
A.D. WEYGANDT (United States of America): I asked for the floor a second time essentially in an effort to save the Commission some time here.
Since I believe that my delegation is the only one that has spoken against this proposal, perhaps we can solve the matter when I say that we do not wish to oppose a consensus on this issue. Our opposition is a question of principle, and of principle only. We understand the merits of bringing additional technical representatives from capitals to the Council meetings, and we found, for example, the arguments of our Turkish colleague particularly persuasive in this regard. We were also impressed with the arguments of equity and other arguments that have been brought forward by our Canadian colleague, and we are certainly sensitive to the concerns of our Cameroonian colleague.
However, it is important to bear in mind that in fact, as was pointed out, additional expenditure is almost certainly to be involved in this proposal if the proposal is to serve any particular purpose, and it is on that basis, but not on that basis alone, that we oppose this. It is just a question of the precedental nature of paying for additional travel of government representatives to United Nations meetings. Although this question has been put to the Secretariat a number of times so far today, we have not received a direct answer.
If I am not mistaken, I do not believe there are a significant number of examples in the UN system where similar bodies to ours have travel paid for by that body. Nevertheless, as I stated, we would not stand in the way of the consensus as long as the record would reflect that our opposition is one of principle.
EL PRESIDENTE: Si no hay ninguna intervención daría la palabra a la Secretaría para que haga las consideraciones que estime oportunas.
LEGAL COUNSEL: I think the only question which has remained completely unanswered is how much this amendment would cost. The delegate of Canada is quite right that the estimate that we made was $45 000, but that does have to be multiplied by three because this would apply in the biennium to three sessions of the Council. You might wonder why it is not four sessions of the Council. That is because the Council decided on a previous occasion some years ago that, for rather obvious reasons, it would not be within the spirit of Rule XXV, paragraph 6, to pay for the attendance of a representative of a member of the Council for the one-day post-Conference Council. Therefore, it would cost approximately $120 000 to $135 000 more in a biennium if all 49 Members of the Council availed themselves of the possibility of having one ticket from their home country.
On the question about which and how many organizations in the UN system pay for the attendance of governments attending their executive body which carries out the stewardship of the organization between sessions of its supreme body, I am not in a position to give a detailed answer to that, but since certain delegates have expressed an interest in this I will try to obtain some information and give it to them either privately, or at some later stage during the Conference.
EL PRESIDENTE: Muchas gracias Sr.. Roche. Con esto queda concluido nuestro debate sin tener la más mínima intención de abrir la discusión de nuevo, y me permitiría formular como creo que se ha desarrollado la discusión de este tema. A mi juicio la Comisión aprueba, porque es evidente una amplísima mayoría, el informe del Consejo, la decisión del Consejo y especialmente aprueba la resolución propuesta de reforma.
Algunas delegaciones insistieron - hablo en este momento de las delegaciones que aprobaron - en que esta reforma no introdujese nuevos gastos a la Organización.
Algunas delegaciones observaron que deseaban saber cómo funciona este mecanismo en otros organismos de las Naciones Unidas para que se siga el mejor procedimiento posible.
Algunas delegaciones manifestaron la conveniencia de que la medida se aplique en modo tal que beneficíase únicamente a aquellos países que más necesitasen de un apoyo financiero.
Una delegación manifestó estar en contra de la reforma por razón de principio, aunque expresó que no desea oponerse al consenso y reconoce los beneficios de la reforma propuesta.
No pretendo reabrir el debate. Esta es una propuesta de síntesis que el Comité de Redacción elaborará en mejor forma. Si no hay ningún comentario queda terminado este punto, con lo cual creo que concluimos nuestra agenda del día y estimo que estamos dando un ejemplo, que las otras Comisiones pongan en práctica, de cómo se discute con velocidad y eficiencia.
The meeting rose at 16.15 hours
La
séance est levée à 16 h
15
Se levanta la sesión a
las 16.15 horas
