ADOPTION OF REPORT (continued)
ADOPTION DU RAPPORT (suite)
APROBACION DEL INFORME (continuación)

DRAFT REPORT OF PLENARY - PART 8 (from Commission III) (continued) and PART 8 PLUS SUPPLEMENT
PROJET DE RAPPORT DE LA PLENIERE - HUITIEME PARTIE (émanant de la Commission III) (suite)
et HUITIEME PARTIE AVEC SUPPLEMENT
PROYECTO DE INFORME DE LA PLENARIA - PARTE 8 (de la Comisión III) (continuación) y PARTE 8 CON SUPLEMENTO
PARAGRAPHS 1 to 11 including Resolutions (continued)
PARAGRAPHES 1 à 11, y compris les Résolutions (suite)
PARRAFOS 1 a 11 incluidas las resoluciones (continuación)

SECRETARY-GENERAL: The Resolution in paragraph 11 of document C 87/REP/8 was adopted last night, and Italy has proposed a footnote. The text is as follows: The Delegation of Italy explaining its lonely vote against this Resolution, regretted that Conference document C 87/LIM/46 had not even been mentioned in the Commission III Report (which owing to the lack of time had not been approved by the competent Drafting Committee). The Delegation felt that the Draft Resolution proposed by Italy and open to sponsors and obviously to amendments could have been the object of a full and timely discussion at the Conference and provided a final solution, not only to the problem of updated and equitable representation of Europe in the Committee, but also to avoid the risk of one or more regions not being represented, notwithstanding the principles stressed in the Resolutions approved.

CHAIRMAN (original language Arabic): If there are no objections we will consider the foot not submitted by Italy to be adopted.

It was so decided
Il en est ainsi décidé
Así se acuerda

LE DIRECTEUR GENERAL: Je désire simplement attirer l'attention des délégués et rappeler que le Conseil doit se réunir cet après-midi. Il serait donc souhaitable que vous terminiez vos travaux ce matin. Sinon, nous pourrions tenir une session du Conseil demain matin, pour 3 heures seulement, et une demain après-midi, pour 3 heures encore, et ceci non pas à cause du Secrétariat même mais parce que les interprètes ne sont libres que 3 heures le matin et 3 heures l’après-midi; c'est une simple information, utile pour tous.

CHAIRMAN (original language Arabie): I thank the Director-General. We sincerely hope that we shall dispense with our work this morning. If there are no further observations we shall take up document C 87/REP/8-Sup.1.

PARAGRAPHS 1 to 13 (including 2 Resolutions) (continued)
PARAGRAPHES 1 à 13 y compris 2 Résolutions (suite)
PARRAFOS 1 a 13 incluidas 2 resoluciones (continuación)

CHAIRMAN (original language Arabic): This document includes two resolutions. I should like to inform you that these two resolutions, after being amended, would call for adoption by the two thirds majority. We shall proceed with them by a roll call vote and we shall take each one separately. However, I have a question. There is an amendment to the first Resolution and also an amendment to the second Resolution. Would you agree that we put to the vote the two draft resolutions as amended, separately?

Wolfgang A.F. GRABISCH (Germany,Federal Republic of) (original language German): These Draft Resolutions, as far as I can see, have not yet been discussed in detail. Before we deal with them I think we should be able to express our views on what is proposed in this document. The first Resolution came from France and the second one (which also concerns the first Resolution) has been made by Italy. If I may, I will now proceed to give our comments. The proposal of the Resolution made by France can be supported by my delegation but we would not be in a position to agree with the Italian proposal, which also involves an addition to paragraph 8 of the Resolution. We cannot support the Italian proposal because we think we should stick to the principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations which enshrines the sovereignty of countries. Therefore we cannot prescribe anything to national governments as regards their budgetary arrangements and as regards their payments cycle. We feel this proposal in fact could be construed as an encroachment on national sovereignty. These two proposals from France and Italy were not discussed in Commission III and so I believe we should express our views about them, which I have now done.

CHAIRMAN (original language Arabic): I should like to recall that as regards the text in French there is a mistake because it says that the second amendment is also submitted by France. The correction is that the second amendment is presented by the Delegation of Italy and not France. Are there any further observations as regards the two Draft Resolutions or the amendment to them?

Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Este documento REP/8-Sup.l, Señor Presidente, no fue discutido en la Comisión III ni creemos que tampoco pasó por el Comité de Redacción. Quiero preguntarle, Señor Presidente, si antes de ocuparnos de los dos proyectos de resoluciones podemos referirnos a los párrafos 1 a 6 de este documento, porque sobre tres de esos párrafos tendríamos algunas propuestas que hacer, que esperamos no sean controvertidas, pero que juzgamos necesarias.

Le ruego a usted si me puede autorizar a hacer propuestas a párrafos 2, 5 y 6 de este documento REP/8-Sup.l.

CHAIRMAN (original language Arabic): I think you can go ahead.

Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Señor Presidente, presentaremos las tres propuestas en conjunto, porque pensamos que son sencillas.

En el párrafo 2, hacia la mitad del párrafo 2, se habla de "proporción cada vez mayor a América Latina". Hay que poner el nombre completo de nuestra Región: América Latina y el Caribe.

En el párrafo 5, en las dos frases del párrafo 5, se habla de: "Muchos Estados Miembros y diversos Estados Miembros". Nosotros pensamos que ese párrafo 5 contiene conceptos quo son generalmente aceptados y apoyados por toda la Conferencia. Proponemos, por tanto, una revisión de la redacción cambiando solamente la parte referente a la Conferencia que diría así: La Conferencia destacó la importancia de la contribución anunciada en apoyo del PCT y de la asistencia que tal contribución proporcionaría a numerosos Estados Miembros y, "acogió complacida" las garantías, etc. etc. hasta el final. "acogió complacida" refuerza el contenido del párrafo y lo simplificamos, en nuestra modesta opinión.

La última se refiere al párrafo 6. Siempre hemos compartido el sano criterio de austeridad con que se redactan los informes en esta Organización. Las personas pasan, son muchos los hombres y las mujeres que servimos a la FAO, pero hay casos particulares en que conviene hacer referencia a las personas, sobre todo cuando no se trata de resoluciones sino, de textos de informe. Proponemos que al final del párrafo 6, se diga el sincero aprecio de toda la Conferencia a Italia y a la eficaz colaboración del Embajador Pascarelii. Esta adición sería consecuente con la primera frase del párrafo 6 y con el párrafo 4, que deben reflejar el contenido del mensaje que se enviaría al. Primer Ministro de Italia.

Espero haber expuesto, Señor Presidente, con claridad las tres propuestas, que no son de gran trascendencia y que, ojalá no le causen dificultades a usted y a la Conferencia.

A.Daniel WEYGANDT (United States of America): I had asked for the floor, but obviously I could not anticipate the previous speaker's intervention, but since he has proposed some amendments I would feel somewhat constrained to respond, that is to say that as far as I am concerned his addition to paragraph 2 is a correct factual addition, so I support it..

I wonder whether we need to get into precise drafting at this stage. I am less enthusiastic about the other additions. This is up to the Chairman of the Drafting Committee of Commission III to respond to, but I note particularly that he asks us not to single him out by name. I would he happy to do that. It is really in deference to his wishes that we should decide on this, not to put him in the position of being singled out, but I certainly defer to his views.

I would like to propose a very modest amendment to paragraph 10. I would like to insert the word 'generally' at the beginnig of the second sentence of paragraph 10. I am sorry to make those drafting changes, but there are some people who oppose this for one principle and some for another principle and I think that by including the word 'generally' we should take both of those under one sentence. I hope this is not too much of a problem. It would then read: "generally they believed …" and so on.

I am a little confused about how we are proceeding now. You said you were going to take the votes separately on the two items, but with respect to the first resolution, the measures to deal with the problems of delayed payments, I do not recollect from the discussion in the Commission that there was actual opposition to this Resolution. Some delegations were not very enthusiastic about it, but I wonder whether we need to have a vote on this. I think we could probably take it by consensus. I do not want to prejudice anybody's position. I am somewhat less than thrilled by this Resolution but would be happy to join the consensus.

I would like to support what was said by the delegate of Germany with respect to the second amendment. I appreciate the spirit in which it was put forward, but I am wondering whether this is an advisable step at this stage. So I could support the Resolution by consensus as it is and with the French amendment but I think for anything further we would need to have more discussion.

CHAIRMAN: In answer to your query on the vote process, I think yes. I have asked the Legal Counsel whether we can have it by consensus and he said no, because of Regulation 6.1 (b) this has to be done by roll call vote. Thank you for your other comments.

Vanrob ISARANKURA (Thailand): I would like to state our position concerning measures to deal with the problem of delayed payment of assessed contributions. I refer to the amendment made by Italy. It said that all member countries should contribute to the Organization not later than the end of February. I would like to say that in the case of Thailand with our fiscal year system it is impossible for Thailand to contribute before the end of February. If we add this amendment my delegation would have to vote against.

A. SAINTRAINT (Belgique): Je voudrais vous dire que nous sommes entièrement d'accord et que pour des raisons statutaires il faudra voter sur le plan d'incitation conçu pour encourager les membres à verser leurs contributions en temps voulu. En d'autres enceintes internationales, ce problème a déjà été discuté; un Plan d'incitation a déjà été approuvé à l'OACI et à l'Organisation mondiale de la météorologie.

Je voudrais simplement signaler que je marque mon complet et entier accord à l'amendement français en faisant remarquer que nous sommes partisans de ce qu'on appelle "la courbe en S".

En ce qui concerne la proposition de la délégation italienne, un problème peut se poser pour un certain nombre de pays qui n'ont pas le même système financier que le nôtre. Avant de se prononcer sur l'amendement présenté, on devrait étudier les conséquences qui découleraient de l'adoption de ce type de projet pour les pays dont l'année fiscale ne correspond pas au cycle ler janvier -31 décembre. Un problème pourrait se poser pour ces pays.

Quant à nous, cette résolution recueille notre entier agrément.

Pour la seconde résolution, qui est la modification des procédures d'allocation de l'excédent de trésorerie, nous avons eu l'occasion de dire en Commission que nous émettions des doutes sur les possibilités de délégation, même exceptionnelles, au Conseil, dans le domaine budgétaire.

Carlos DI MOTTOLA BALESTRA (Costa Rica): Unicamente para apoyar al Embajador Bula Hoyos en que, para una mejor definición de la región, se incluya el Caribe. Entonces, tiene que decirse "América Latina y el Caribe", especialmente en lo que refleja a las palabras de aprecio que hicieron Italia y el Embajador Pascare! li.

No es norma nuestra el seguir en los informes esta clase de situaciones. Sin embargo, creo que lo que está haciendo Italia en estos momentos merece ser mencionado en el informe como forma de agra­decimiento por parte de toda la Conferencia.

DIRECTOR-GENERAL: It is ten minutes to eleven, Mr Chairman. Ladies and Gentlemen , may I suggest to the Conference, first that you agree with the amendments made by Italy, then there could immediately bea roll call vote which is imperative, on the first resolution as amended by France; also kindly see whether Ambassador Pascarelli would insist on his amendments; so we then can proceed to vote by roll call, which is imperative, on' the first resolution, and then we move to the other resolution, also by another roll call. Those who are against the resolution by just voting, against they will express their views, becauseat this stage we are not going to change any positions. So we can have two roll calls, one after another, and move on to the other topic.

Elio PASCARELLI (Italy) (Chairman,, Drafting Committee Commission III): I heard what the Director-General proposed. I do not want to Cause any delay in the proceedings. Since I am called by the Ambassador of Colombia and by the delegate of the United States to express my views as a person interested, I have something to say on it.

First, I apologize to the Caribbean countries because I used in my statement the expression "Lat in America", which is the usual way the region is named. We have the South West Pacific, Asia and the Pacific, Latin America. I present my apologies to the Caribbean coutries for that mistake. Of course they are in the region. I propose that we use the expression "Latin America and the Caribbean."

Thank you for the proposal of my being singled out. Actually, when the Chairman summed up, the reactions of the Conference to that lonely statement the other day - I like lonely positions - I did not approve that my name should come in a resolution because I am a public servant} what I did is nothing exceptional, but I have no opposition to being mentioned in a message to my Government. I cannot be promoted any higher because I am already at the top. But I think for a retiring Ambassador that would be very rewarding and I thank the Conference.

Finally, I heed the Director-General's wishes. I have always accepted his advice, and I hope he will accept mine sometimes - he will - and I relinquish my amendment. But please, Mr Chairman, we never thought that by this amendment we would encroach in the sovereign rights, would like to hear whether Mr Roche, the Legal Counsel, finds it normal that many countries with a different fiscal year should constantly and permanently violate our Regulations.

CHAIRMAN (original language Arabic): Thank you, Ambassador Pascarelli.

Atif Y. BUKHARI (Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of) (original language Arabic): I wanted to say the same thing as the Director-General about the vote and I have nothing to add. I just want to press that we should go to a vote as quickly as possible because time is running out.

CHAIRMAN (original language Arabic): Thank you very much.

G.H. MUSGROVE (Canada):I think in the course of the brief discussion we have just had there have been a number of items raised and perhaps I could touch briefly on those on behalf of my delegation.

In the first instance we should very much like to join in the congratulations and thanks to the Government of Italy for its very generous contributions to the Organization, in particular the one described, in this document with respect to the Technical Cooperation Programme. It is an excellent thought and an extremely generous one. We feel that it is a right trend and have suggested in the past that growth in the very useful Technical Cooperation Programme should attract voluntary contributions and that the Trust Fund aspect would be an element of that growth. I realise in this case it may be a contribution somewhat attuned to the financial crisis of the Organization, but we would encourage this development in normal circumstances. Our thanks go to the Government of Italy for this generous action.

Secondly, I was going to address myself to the Italian amendment, but I note that it has been withdrawn. My question was whether the solar year is exactly congruous to the calendar year and if the terminology might be instead of "the end of February" "by the summer solstice". But as we have withdrawn that amendment I will withhold that quest ion.. With respect to the Resolution itself, the problem with delayed payments, we very much support, and this is one that our delegation has addressed itself to over the years. We might indicate that we do have some difficulty with paragraph I Section (a) of the operative part of the paragraph insofar as it may adversely affect those many countries, particularly smaller countries, with currency problems who do pay in part, even in large part, during a financial period but for some reasons of exchange, sometimes between the time they make an exchange and the time payment is made they do fall short of their full contribution. It would be our view that (i) could possibly be deleted and leave the only operative part of that section to be (ii) of paragraph (a) which would have the similar effect of rewarding those who have paid in full or in large part with interest income. That being said, we realize that it is late in the day to be proposing two amendments but we signal our concern in that regardand if it did find favour with this Plenary perhaps consideration could be given to removing (1) without, we feel, affecting the intent of the entire Resolut ion.

CHAIRMAN (original language Arabic): Are there any other views before we goon to voting?

Thomas YANCA (Cameroun): Jo voudrais exprimer ici le point de vue de mon gouvernement à savoir quo le règlement des contributions de l'exercice budgétaire ne correspond pas toujours à l'année calendaire comme on le dit, et cette résolution nous poserait des problèmes: il nous serait difficile do régler nos contributions car il faut les prévoir dans le budget.

Pour en revenir à ce que vient de dire le représentant du Canada, nous avons un problème car nos monnaies ne sont pas des dollars et il faut convertir ce taux de contribution. A titre d'exemple, en ce qui concerne notre pays, les livres de la FAO font ressortir que nous avons, pour l'année 1986,une somme due de 49 dollars qui résulte tout simplement du problème du taux de change. S'il était possible de tenir compte do l'année budgétaire du pays en question et de la variation du taux de change dans le règlement, cela prendrait en compte nos préoccupations et nos problèmes qui sont réels.

DIRECTOR-GENERAL: I am thinking of the vote. You can now immediately have a roll call on the Resolution with the amendment of the French or, if Canada insists on its amendment, which needs to be repeated and well understood, then you should vote first on the amendment to the Resolution as amended by Canada. But I was not listening very well. I do not know whether Cameroon was supporting the amendment of Canada or not. Then we will have two votes, first the vote with the amendment of Canada then with the French amendment and if they are rejected then you have another vote on the Resolution itself. So we are in the hands of the delegate from Canada as to whether he will insist on having his amendment or he will agree to — let the Organization, the Secretariat study the matter and report in the light of the experience to the Finance Committee. Maybe at that, time he will perhaps consider again whether to put or not to put his amendment. So it has to be a short period in the light of experience. It is up to him.

CHAIRMAN: Cameroon, do you want to clarify your statement?

Thomas YANCA (Cameroun): Je voulais juste citer cet exemple qui concerne ce que vous venez de dire, car lorsque l'on dit au point i) ".uniquement entre les Etats Membres qui ont réglé intégralement leurs contributions à la fin de l'exercice financier", je voudrais que soient pris en considération les cas où, à cause des taux de change, il y aurait peut-être un manque à gagner pour l'Organisation. Le mot "intégralement" nous gêne un peu parce que nos monnaies ne sont pas des dollars, et il se pourrait qu'au moment du règlement, à cause du taux de change, le montant intégral ne soit pas réglé. Comme je vous l'ai dit, nous avons, pour l'année 1986, 49 dollars qui ne sont pas payés à la FAO par suite de ce problème. Peut-on considérer le Cameroun comme ayant réglé intégralement ses contributions pour 1986, ou est-ce que l'on ne peut pas le faire?

CHAIRMAN: Director-General, please I do not want a dialogue between…..

DIRECTOR-GENERAL: It is not a dialogue, it is just that we are discussing how to vote. I think the delegate of Cameroon is not talking about the Resolution. The question is whether you vote the Resolution as it is with the French amendment or you start to vote on the Canadian amendment. The question is for Canada. The Representative will have to indicate.

Ms Astrid BERGQUIST (Sweden): It is a bit difficult to be seen in this corner of the Hall, but I will make a brief comment. My delegation shares the concern earlier expressed by the Canadian delegation as to para, (a) (i). For our part we would prefer the model used by ICAO, The International Civil Aviation Organisation, So we could get along with the proposal by Canada to delete (a) but we are in the hands of this Conference.

A. SAINTRAINT (Belgique): Très rapidement, je voudrais quand même faire remarquer que le a) vise uniquement les intérêts afférents à l'excédent de trésorerie tandis que'le b) vise les excédents de trésorerie sans les intérêts afférents à ces excédents. Le problème ne se pose pas dans l'immédiat.

de sorte que, si notre collègue canadien pouvait l'accepter, je demanderais que le problème soit examiné par le Comité financier et que nous puissions passer au vote immédiatement sur le texte que nous avons, ou tel qu'amendé par la France. Il ne serait pas raisonnable d'entrer dans une discussion technique alors que le Comité financier peut l'examiner. Ce problème pourrait être réglé ultérieurement, il ne se pose pas à court terme.

Je propose quo l'on passe au vote sur la résolution telle qu'amendée par la délégation française .

Sra. Mónica DEREGLBUS (Argentina): Nosotros reconocemos que tenemos escaso tiempo y muchos temas para atender, pero creemos no obstante que la enmienda propuesta por la Delegación de Canadá tiene un sentido de justicia y equidad que no escapa a los miembros de esta Conferencia. Por consiguiente, creemos que se le debe dar la debida atención. La Delegación de Argentina apoya la enmienda de Canadá.

CHAIRMAN: May I suggest something: if the Conference agrees to delete (a) or (i) from (a), or (a) as a whole from the Resolution then it will be done and then the Resolution will be voted on as amended, with the French amendment. If I get your approval on that then we can finish the discussion on this and go into voting on the first Resolution, that is Measures to Deal With Problems of Delayed Payment of Assessed Contributions. So do I get your approval?

Ms Janet Lesley TOMI (Australia): With respect, Australia would have absolutely no difficulty supporting the original Resolution and although in the interests of consensus Australia would be prepared to go along with the deletion of (a) (i), although our strong preference would be to see it retained, it would appear to the Delegation of Australia that if you also intend to delete (a) (ii) then there is no sense left in this Resolution because the Resolution has been tabled in order to provide an incentive for prompt payment of contributions.

A. Daniel WEYGANDT (United States of America): Maybe I misunderstood you but I thought you were only talking about the sub-paragraph in question and that therefore i strongly support the motion and I think we should get on with the business in hand.

A. Y. BUKHARI (Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of) (original language Arabic ): : I would like to say the same.

CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Then let us see that you approve of deletion of (a) (i), the two lines, and there is no objection, so decided.

It was so decided .
Il en est ainsi décidé.
Así se acuerda.

Then now we go into voting on the Resolution as amended by the French Delegation:

Vote
Vote
Votación

CHAIRMAN: We can now start the vote on the Second Resolution, that is, Amendment of Procedures, for Application of Cash Surplus. We. will start with Venezuela.

Sra. Mercedes FERMIN-GOMEZ (Venezuela): ¿Cuál es la resolución quo vamos a votar?

CHAIRMAN: I am sorry, we are starting the vote on the Second Resolution, and we are starting with you.

Vote
Vote
Votación

CHAIRMAN: The resolution is adopted. Thank you very much.

Paragraphs 1 to 13, including Resolutions as amended, adopted
Les paragraphes 1 à 13 , y compris les résolutions ainsi amendées, sont adoptés
Los párrafos 1 a 13, incluida las Resoluciones así enmendadas, son aprobados

DONG QING SONG (China): (original language Chinese): Just now China voted abstention in the Resolution we have just voted on. I would like to offer some explanations for our vote. First, we consider that this Resolution has very good content. Second, China has always paid its assessed contribution in time. Therefore we consider the withholding of the cash surplus is as good as imposing a penalty on those countries who have paid their contribution without fail. Third, China at the end of last year advised FAO that China would postpone its withdrawal at least for one year of the cash surplus for 1984 and 1985.

Draft Report of Plenary, Part 8, plus supplement, as amended, was adopted
Projet de rapport de la plénière, huitième partie, avec supplément, ainsi amendé est adopté
El proyecto de informe de la Plenaria, Parte 8, con suplemento, así enmendado, es aprobado

DRAFT REPORT OF PLENARY - PART 11 (FROM COMMISSION II) (C 87/REP/11)
PROJET DE RAPPORT DE LA PLENIERE - ONZIEME PARTIE(emanant de la Commission II) (C 87/REP/11)

PROYECTO DE INFORME DE LA PLENARIA, PARTE 11 (de la Comisión II) (C 87/REP/11)

CHAIRMAN: Before we start our discussion, the Secretary-General has an amendment. to make regarding a correction in the French version of the document.

PARAGRAPHS 1 and 2 INCLUDING 3 RESOLUTIONS
PARAGRAPHES 1 et 2 Y COMPRIS 3 RESOLUTIONS

PARRAFOS 1 y 2 INCLUIDAS 3 RESOLUCIONES

LE SECRETAIRE GENERAL: Dans le document C 87/REP/11, version française seulement, page 3, à la fin de la partie introductive du paragraphe 2, par erreur, les crochets entourant l'expression "telle qu'adoptée" n'ont pas été enlevés. On devrait lire: "conformément à la résolution 3/75 telle qu'adoptée, et notamment", sans crochets.

Bernard LEDUN (France): Je voũdrais rassurer les délégations. Je n'ai pas l'intention de présenter un amendement à mon amendement. Simplement, je pense qu'il y aurait peut-être deux précisions à apporter dans le document que nous sommes en train d'examiner.

D'une part, pour mieux cerner le mandat que nous allons confier au mécanisme, je propose d'ajouter un très court paragraphe - un considérant - qui viendrait se placer à la fin du préambule que nous avons dans le document C 87/REP/11, c'est-à-dire à la page 2 de ce document. il se lirait comme suit:

"Considérant qu'il est souhaitable d'entreprendre un examen approfondi de certains aspects des buts et opérations de la FAO".

Cela, bien entendu, nous amènerait à supprimer, dans le paragraphe 1 du dispositif de la résolution, les mots "au paragraphe 2 ci-dessous" puisque, en fait, cet examen étant mentionné dans le dernier alinéa du préambule, la première phrase du paragraphe 1 deviendrait celle-ci: "Aux fins de l'examen mentionné ci-dessus" ...", pour être logique dans la présentation du texte. C’est la première adjonction que je propose.

La seconde viserait à trouver une formule pour remplacer le vide qui existe actuellement dans le paragraphe 2 du projet de résolution qui se trouve en haut de la page 3. Tl y a en effet des crochets qu'il s'agit de remplir. La délégation française suggère de retenir les termes suivants:

"Les experts, travaillant en liaison avec les Comités du Programme et des finances," - le reste sans changement.

Je répète: "Les experts, travaillant en liaison avec les Comités du Programme et des finances, examineront le rôle, les priorités", etc. Voilà la proposition que souhaite faire notre délégation. Bien entendu, la même formule s'appliquerait aussi au paragraphe 3 puisque, là également, il y a une paire de crochets avec un blanc.

DIRECTOR-GENERAL: On a point of clarification, who is going to be responsible for the study? Will it be the Programme and Finance Committees, or the experts?

Elio PASCARELLI (Italie): Je vais parler français puisque j'ai le texte français.

Il y a contradiction entre cette proposition et le paragraphe 1 parce que le sujet est aussi au paraqraphe I amendé par la France: "Aux fins de l'examen mentionné ci-dessus, le Comité du Programme et le Comité financier ...". Voilà les acteurs; mais maintenant, ce sont les experts qui deviennent les acteurs. J'y suis tout à fait contraire. On pourrait dire: "Les Comités conjoints, assistés des experts..." mais pas les experts assistés des Comités. Cela n'a pas de sens.

Bernard LEDUN (France): Là, je ne suis pas tout à fait d'accord avec notre collègue italien. Dans le paragraphe 1, nous disons bien que les experts assistent le Comité du Programme et le Comité financier, c'est-à-dire qu'il font bénéficier le Comité du Programme et le Comité financier de leur concours, sous forme d'avis, sous forme d'opinions, sous forme d'études, sous forme d'examens réflexifs. Ms assistent, donc de leur concours le Comité du Programme et le Comité financier qui, pour autant, ne sont pas dessaisis de toute possibilité d'intervention, qui ne sont pas pour autant dessaisis de leurs prérogatives en ce qui concerne leur participation à cet examen. Il s'agit simplement d'essayer de trouver une formule suffisamment souple, suffisamment flexible, pour permettre aux uns et aux autres de travailler conjointement, chacun dans la sphère de sa spécificité, de former une synergie permettant d'apporter, les uns et les autres, leur propre contribution.

Srta. Margarita LIZARRAGA SAUCEDO (México): Creo que anoche salimos de esta Sala encargando una tarea a la Secretaría en la cual nos comprometimos todos, después de un trabajo realizado en el seno del Comité de la Comisión II y del Grupo de Contacto. Llegamos a esta Sala con el espíritu de un compromiso, tal como lo habíamos manifestado en el día de ayer.

En ese espíritu, rogaríamos a la distinguida representación de Francia que intentáramos no reabrir el debate; porque en realidad, la fórmula gentilmente y muy acertadamente propuesta por ellos y aceptada por nosotros, fue una fórmula de compromiso en la cual estaban balanceadas las posiciones de los países en desarrollo, que en su inmensa mayoría, hemos considerado que nuestra Organización había evolucionado con el tiempo, había consolidado grandes logros expresados en su marco progra­mático, y que si bien perfectibles, estábamos satisfechos con ella.

En el espíritu de gran comprensión, nos sentamos a discutir todo y ellos, la delegación francesa, nos propuso una solución de compromiso y la aceptamos. La aceptamos después de un proceso Largo y dolo­roso que vivimos ayer en la Sala Roja. Y tenemos un Proyecto de Resolución que, si bien no satisface a todos, lo hemos aceptado con un gran espíritu de compromiso.

Creo que hemos vivido una lección muy importante en todo este proceso que es la percepción que los diversos países, por nuestras diferentes culturas y nuestras necesidades, podemos tener de los aspectos. En el Grupo de Contacto oímos explicaciones que dábamos unos, cómo eran recibidas por unos, recibidas y absorbidas a medias por otros, y definitivamente por algunos de ellos práctica­mente entendidas en sentido opuesto.

Sin embargo, después de todo este proceso que podría llevar anos porque el diálogo de las differentes culturas y de los países es difícil, y se tienen que entender con diálogo, ruego a todos que trate­mos de buscar un concierto, El título del tema está diciendo lo que se quiero poner ahora en el Preámbulo. No es necesidad para mí cambiar nada, porque ni es el Preámbulo del LIM/29 que nosotros propusimos, que estaba del Grupo Nórdico, que ahora ya tiene un cuerpo amalgamado que es el texto del mandato y que tiene el mecanismo que fue una proposición francesa.

Yo creo que en el número 2, si nos limitamos a decir: "el órgano citado en el punto l", que es lo que expresa cuál es el mecanismo, puede ser el elemento que podría traer la concordancia a todos. No cambiemos nada.

Yo muy atentamente, Sr. Presidente, le pido que si puede pedir a la Sala que sin cambiar nada, y solamente diciendo que la entrada del párrafo sea: "el órgano citado en el párrafo l", y si esto fuera aceptado en este llamamiento de concordia. Porque creo que en el Grupo de Contacto estuvieron expresadas todas las diferentes tendencias, de las más duras a las que estábamos mayoritari amente expresadas, tanto en el Consejo de junio como en el inicio de las discusiones, que nos llevaron a formar el Grupo de Contacto, y que nos expresamos muy claramente.

Vamos a terminar bien esta Conferencia si, con este espíritu, todos aceptamos el texto propuesto por la Secretaría y esta resolución de esta mañana. Muy honestamente, el gran trabajo que hizo Francia para tratar do reunir las posiciones de ambos grupos está muy reconocido por todos nosotros. Le rogamos que no nos lleve a otro elemento; y, si esto fuera aceptable y fuera posible aprovechar todo este trabajo, yo le ruego, Sr. Presidente, que pregunte a la distinguida Delegación francesa si podría suspender su proposición y si toda la sala pudiéramos aceptar todo este tema. Muchas gracias.

CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. I do not want to go into detailed discussion about the places we put things and about the parentheses that have to be filled. In all honesty, in the service of this Organization and to clarify how the task can be carried out, Mexico has suggested that we should refer to the body mentioned in the first paragraph and not to create any confusiòn by inserting words that might give a different meaning. We are agreed on the first paragraph that the two Committees working jointly shall be assisted by a small number of experts and let us say that the above body, or the joint Committee, assisted by the experts shall ..."I hope you agree to that. I will ask our colleague from Franco if he has any objection to that - and I do not see any objection. If you approve that we can fill the parentheses by saying either "the above body" or "the two Committees working jointly and assisted by the experts ...".

Bernard LEDUN (France): Je trouve le terme "d'organe" vraiment un concept bien vague et bien indéfini. Pour ma part, outre que je tiens tout de même à maintenir le considérant que j'ai proposé tout à l'heure et que je souhaite insérer dans le corps du préambule parce qu'il permet de préciser le role qui sera imparti au mécanisme. J'estime qu'en ce qui concerne le paragraphe 2. Si notre proposition suscite un certain nombre de réserves de la part des délégations qui nous ont soutenus, et je les en remercie d'ailleurs, dans la proposition que nous avions faite ici, cette proposition aujourd'hui suscite des réserves trop nombreuses, nous pouvions inverser la formulation d'abord initialement proposée et dire que "les Comités du Programme et des finances assistés des experts"... Nous pourrions à ce moment-là inverser la formulation - ce qui permettrait peut-être de lever cer­taines résistances telles qu'exprimées par notre distingué délégué collègue du Mexique.

CHAIRMAN: Is that agreed to? Netherlands? I am asking whether this is now a change in the phrasing of the French proposal. Will you comment on that please?

Leo HERTOG (Netherlands): Yes of course. My observation refers to operative paragraph 2. Asregards the original proposal of France putting the experts to work in conjunction with etc.... I would strongly support that proposal rather than the second one. In our opinion the centre ofgravity should be the Group of Experts and not so much the Programme and Finance Committees. In conjunction with that I would propose an amendment to operative paragraph I to change the word"assisted".

POINT OF ORDER

POINT D'ORDRE

J. Augusto DE MÉDICIS (Brazil): I propose that we vote on your proposal.

CHAIRMAN: I have a list of speakers in front of me. There is a motion to vote on the proposal that I have submitted: that is "the Joint Committee assisted by experts, shall….. ". This applies to both paragraphs 2 and 3. The parenthesis will be that "the two Committees working jointly and assisted by experts, shall....". Shall we vote on that?

Vote by show of hands
Vote à main levée
Votación a mano alzada

The French amendment was adopted by 77 votes to 7 with 8 abstentions
L'amendement de la France est adopté par 77 voix contre 7 et 8 abstentions
Por 77 votos contra 7 y 8 abstenciones queda aprobada la enmienda de Francia

Mrs Kate ABANKWA (Ghana): Mr Chairman, my delegation voted for the compromise French proposal as it satisfies the aspirations of a number of countries. The resolution before us also takes into consideration the need for experts to make appropriate studies and advise on the reforms needed in FAO. The involvement of the Programme and Finance Committee ensures that the experiences of these bodies together with those of the experts are fully utilized for a better appreciation of the problems of FAO. In this connection my delegation associated itself with the possible disadvantages of making use of experts alone, as pointed out by the delegate of India. My delegation hopes that this mechanism which like other mechanisms, may not be perfect, will be given the cooperation it must have for successful work. 1/

________________________
1/ Statement inserted in the verbatim records on request.

DIRECTOR-GENERAL: I want to draw the attention of this Conference to the fact that this resolution has financial implications. The cost of the meetings of the Joint Programme and Finance Committee and the experts has been roughly estimated by the Secretariat at between US$ 1 million and US$ 1.5 million, depending on the intensity of meetings and also on the number of exports. No financial provisions were included in the budget to cover this unforeseen expenditure when the Programme of Work and Budget was prepared. We have US$ 600 000 for contingencies which can be used, if we have some money in the Special Reserve Account, this, according to the financial rules, can be used for unbudgeted expenditure on condition that the Programme and Finance Committees agree. But we will certainly provide the necessary finance to let the work of the Committees and experts be carried out. We will report to the Finance and Programme Committees and also to the Council on . how we have been able to meet these financial obligations.

CHAIRMAN: Now we will have the vote and decide on the Resolution as a whole.

POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN

Ian BUIST (United Kingdom): I formally request a roll call vote.

CHAIRMAN: There is a motion for a roll call vote on the Resolution as it is and as amended by France and Mexico.

Vote
Vote
Votación

POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN

Akbar Mirza KHALEELI (India): We want to be clear what we are voting for. We have the French explanation: "Whereas it was desirable to undertake a greater in-depth examination...^”, is that included in the voting? Secondly, "paragraph 2 below", does it remain unchanged or is it changed -in the first line of paragraph 1, "For the purpose of the review mentioned in paragraph 2 below...", has that been changed?

CHAIRMAN: I thought I said the Resolution as a whole as amended by France and Mexico. We continue the voting.

Vote (continued)
Vote (suite)
Votación (continuación)

HAN DEA SUNG (Korea, Democratic People's Republic of): The second roll call, we are being called. So our stand is yes.

CHAIRMAN: The Resolution is adopted.

Igor MARINCRK (Suisse): J'aimornis également donner une explication de vote sur le vote de la résolution qui vient d'avoir lieu.

Premièrement, mon pays soutient les principes de la FAO et souhaite le renforcement de cette Organisation.

Deuxièmement, mon pays considère cependant que des réformes à la FAO sont nécessaires pour qu'elle puisse apporter une contribution plus efficace aux efforts des pays et des populations en vue d'éliminer la faim, la malnutrition et la pauvreté.

Troisièmement, mon pays a fermement soutenu la proposition des pays nordiques visant, à charger un groupe indépendant d'experts de haut niveau d'examiner le rôle, les priorités, les objectifs et les stratégies de la FAO en matière d'alimentation et d'agriculture.

Quatrièmement, la résolution qui vient d'être votée et adoptée par la majorité des Etats Membres prévoit certes un examen mais le mécanisme adopté ne peut être qualifié comme indépendant par mon pays.

Cinquièmement, les Comités du programme et des finances réunis sont un mécanisme extrêmement lourd. Nous remarquons également que les membres de ces deux comités sont choisis pour des qualités différentes de celles exigées pour le genre d'examen que nous considérons nécessaire. Par ailleurs, ces deux comités n'ont que rarement pris des initiatives notables ces derniers temps. De par leur fonction, ces deux comités ne se distinguent pas par leur esprit innovateur.

Pour conclure, ma délégation pense que le mécanisme adopté préjuge des résultats de l'examen décidé; la valeur de l'examen est ainsi compromise. Ma délégation voit peu d'utilité dans cet exercice, c'est pourquoi elle s'est abstenue lors du vote. Nous regrettons qu'on ait manqué une chance pour redonner de l'élan au soutien de tous les pays membres à notre Organisation.

Antonio GAYOSO (United States of Ainerica): Before I say anything, I am a little bit confused because we are waiting for the results of the latest vote. I will want to offer an explanation of our vote on the latest vote.

It is quite clear to those who were listening that the United States voted against adoption of the Resolution on Consideration of Review of Certains Aspects of FAO and so on and so forth in Item 12. The United States of America has been one of the countries advocating the need for a review of FAO's role, priorities, objectives and strategies in the fields of food and agriculture. Consequently, we strongly associated ourselves with the Nordic resolution proposal contained in C 87/LIM/27.

My delegation also participated with a very constructive spirit in the conversations conducted in the Contact Group. We reached consensus there on the need for a review and on the terms of the reference for such a review. Our position remains unchanged on those two matters.

We strongly disagreed with the French proposal for a mechanism now contained in the Resolution that this Conference has just approved. We firmly believe that notwithstanding our agreement, with the terms of reference, the review under such a mechanism does not ensure a fully independent and objective review of the Organization's goals, its strategies, internal structures and procedures.

We deeply regret and fail to understand the fears the majority in this Assembly seem to have felt regarding the conduct of an independent external review of the Organization.

Mr Chairman, and I say this with more sadness than bitterness, the United States is convinced that the next few years will bear witness to the need for such an indépendant review and to the implications in my view negative to the Programme that failure to conduct one will have.

G. MUSGROVE (Canada): We too should like to explain our vote, which was against this particular Resolution.

We were one of these countries who have spoken early and frequently on the need, in our view, for a review of the role and objectives of our Organization with a view to strengthening the Organization in the future, and we are pleased in this exercise, there seems to bo a broad consensus, if not a general agreement of the membership with us in that particular view.

However, it was our view that there needed to be an independent external review by experts who had the required expertise, objectively and independence to open the window and allow n breath of fresh air of new ideas to sweep into our Organization. We do not feel that the mechanism that has been proposed for this review meets those requirements. Indeed, we feel the mechanism that has been proposed would to some extent be the antithesis of the basic aspiration of such a review.

We voted 'No' on this resolution because we feel that the expenditure that will be put to it will not be good value, although we would hesitate to pre-judge the results of the Group that has been set up. We also voted 'No' because we feel that the exercise may preclude the appropriate external look that will be required in the future. Having held such an exercise there will be resistance at any early date to have another that is properly focussed.

It was for these two reasons that we felt compelled to vote 'No' on the Resolution, although we do wish our colleagues the very best of luck in the conduct of the Resolution.

Ian BUIST (United Kingdom): Mr Chairman, the United Kingdom has voted against the Resolution just adopted precisely because as an original member of FAO, which continues to support the Organization and its developmental aims, we do have very much at heart both the interests of FAO and the interests of the hungry in the world whom it exists to help.

The United Kingdom set out its views in full in the Plenary and in Commission II and they are recorded in the verbatim records. The United Kingdom believes in particular that the time has come for a fresh and independent review of FAO and therefore gave its fullest support to the proposals of the Nordic countries. The Resolution now adopted to us is far removed from those proposals, especially in relation to the mechanism. We hope nevertheless that the process launched by the decision now taken might indeed result in a thorough and wide-ranging re-examination of FAO's role, priorities, strategies, structure and effectiveness which we have sought. We believe its outcome and the decisions then taken upon it will be absolutely vital to the future of this very important Organization.

Finally, my country exercises its right to have this statement entered as a footnote to the Resolution as adopted.

Jaafaru LADAN (Nigeria): My delegation would like to explain the way we voted on the Resolution just adopted.

We abstained in the voting because we believe the Programme and Finance Committees will have, as their usual mandate, a lot of work in the coming biennium and if they are to undertake other responsibilities these may impede upon their normal mandate. Moreover, it is not clear to my delegation who will own responsibility for the final report, the two Committees or the experts that will produce the final report.

We also believe that the number of people that will be involved in the duty will be very unwieldy and costly. A small number of experts would have been less costly, free and manageable.

Harald HØSTMARK (Norway): My delegation has just abstained on the Resolution before us. We did so because even the Resolution, which is built upon an initiative by the Nordic countries, contains many elements of value. Indeed, they stem from a meld of a Resolution submitted by the Nordic group and a Resolution submitted by a group of Latin American countries. They were agreed by consensus in the Contact Group that was established for that very purpose and in this Resolution now before us constitute the mandate, the terms of reference for a body that shall carry out the review which this Resolution has established. However, the Contact Group did not have the time available to finish its work. That is one thing that I particularly regret since my feeling was that it. would have been possible to have had consensus on the whole Resolution if time had been available.

However, concerning that body of which I spoke, the mechanism that is to carry out the mandate, the present Resolution is so removed from the principles upon which the original Nordic idea was based that is was necessary for the Nordic group to dissociate itself from what in practice had become a new Resolution negating a central element of its original proposal. I refer to the report given in C 87/REP/11 and the previous report from the Commission. For those reasons my delegation abstained in the present vote.

That ends my explanation of vote, but permit me to add a few words. To introduce new ideas is seldom an easy process. But we are delighted to see how far this process has reached. As the present vote has shown, the idea of a review has been widely accepted by an overwhelming membership.

Let me also express my happiness about the positive spirit in which the negotiations and the discussions, were undertaken by so many delegations with whom we worked during this process up to this moiuoment , and for a willingness to reach a consensus, as was clearly demonstrated by so many and, I hope, indeed, by my own delegation. We appreciate that spirit. We hope the work will go on. We shall participate in it.

Masahiko YASUMURO (Japan): Japan has always been an ardent support of FAO since it joined the Organization in 1951, and highly appreciates the activities in the field of food and agriculture. FAO has certainly responded to the changing needs of the international community in carrying out the functions for the past 42 years as spelled out in Article I of its Constitution.

My Government considers that FAO should play an increasingly important role in combatting hunger and malnutrition and other problems in the field of food and agriculture.

Although my delegation, believing that the mechanics are not adequate for implementation of the review, voted against the Resolution, my delegation recognized that the review, voted against the Resolution, my delegation recognized that the review is necessary and supports the objectives of the review as described in paragraph 2 of the Resolution. My country stands ready closely to cooperate with FAO in the work of review.

Michael Joseph RYAN (Australia): As we did last night, we would like yet again to express our extreme disappointment in the outcome of the debate on this issue at this Conference. Originally we had thought that with some goodwill and a thorough understanding of the original Nordic proposal that that proposal would have attracted strong support from among the membership. After all, the study that was being proposed there, the external independent study, would in the end come back to this Organization to the Members, for their consideration and for their decision.

Secondly, we find it difficult to believe that many delegations here have expressed the view that the Organization is heading in the right direction at the moment. We find it difficult to understand that they can be so sure of that. It is a long time since a study of this Organization along the lines proposed in the original proposal has been undertaken. Circumstances have changed; the agricultural and economic environment has shifted over the years. We would have thought that undertaking a comprehensive external review would have gone a long way to achieving the aim of rebuilding or strengthening the Organization and strengthening confidence in its administration.

I suppose that there has been an achievement here over the last three weeks, and that is that we do have a consensus that reform is necessary and that a review of sorts will be carried out.

Australia will give serious consideration, naturally, to participating in this review. We voted against the proposal that just came before us because we believe that the mechanism proposed to carry through the review is neither adequate nor appropriate. Australia, while supporting the aims and ideals of FAO, as a founding member of the Organization, leaves this Conference with the intention of participating in yet another review and that is of the degree of our future participation in the Organization.

Atif Y. BUKHARI (Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of) (original language Arabic): On various occasions we have mentioned that we are absolutely not against evolution in this pioneering Organization. We have also mentioned before that discussions should take place through some main channels.

We, the developing countries, have felt during the deliberations and discussions on the various documents submitted to us that the changes that we are asked to make in this Organization represent an onerous task on it, especially under the present circumstances that are prevailing in this Organization and in the world. We have also expressed our belief that this OrganizaLi on has numerous responsibilities to discharge viz-a-viz developing countries in order to increase the food production of these countries. Yet we do not believe and we have not said that this Organization alone will be responsible for the elimination of hunger in the world. This Organization is but one. link in a chain, one organization among numerous others, be they international or regional, all those organizations that are trying to put an end to hunger and poverty.

From that standpoint we found that the Resolution - when I say we, I am talking on behalf of the Group of 77 - that has just been adopted by the Conference is a balanced one, including a spate of important elements that might be conducive to our achieving some excellent results thereby enabling this Organization to continue its activities towards the developing countries mainly.

The developing countries have not asked for any kind of review in this Organization because we believe firmly that FAO is carrying out its duties within its limited financial resources in the best possible manner. The Organization has been trying to help as far as possible and effectively as possible the beneficiary developing countries. And despite the fact that we have not asked for a review or for changes in this Organization, we, the developing countries, have shown a great measure of flexibility. We were understanding; we were even wise since the establishment of the Contact Group and until that Contact. Group had ended its activities.

You must be aware of the amount of work we had to carry out, especially at the level of Commission II, Mr Chairman. The same applies to the fruitful results achieved by the Contact Group. The Contact Group under the sapient attitude of its Chairman managed to reach the good results that we have before us. I do not think we can judge here and now the results of the review, as this is shown in the Resolution we have just adopted. The Organization is rather a permanent feature. Changes and reviews are gradual. They should be carried out with ail patience.

Allow me here to express my thanks to the developed industrialized countries for their understanding of the stance of the developing countries. We would like to thank them for the good declarations we have heard on their part at this Conference.

Alfred AMISI (Kenya): My delegation would like to associate fully with the sentiments so ably expressed by the delegate of Nigeria. It was for the reasons stated by Nigeria that Kenya abstained from the vote. Those reasons do emanate from a principle we in Kenya hold very dear.

Miss Anna Liisa KORHONEN (Finland): For the sake of brevity, my delegation wished to put on record the following explanation for our abstaining in the vote on the draft resolution on the review of certain aspects of FAO's goals and operations.

The position of my country is well known because we were a party to the Nordic draft resolution; therefore, it is sufficient to say that Finland associates itself with the explanations given on the vote by the delegations of Norway and Switzerland.

Leo HERTOG (Netherlands): My country abstained from voting on the resolution on the review, and I would like to give an explanation for that decision. Indeed, the contents of the resolution just adopted is far removed fron that which we had in mind when, together with other countries, we tried to generate a review or reform which we thought nécessary. In fact this idea for a reform or review of FAO was inspired by real concern about the future of FAO; for example - and this is only an example - in view of the changing international environment in which the Organization is operating, more explicitly I mean our concern about FAO's position in regard to other intergovernmental organizations as well as the position of FAO in the sphere of food and agriculture. One of our aims, indeed, was to strengthen the position of FAO in this respect.

I can now only express the hope that what has just been decided will lead to something concrete and positive. For this to be achieved an open mind will be necessary on the part of those who are going to work in the intersts of our FAO, of the FAO of all of us.

Clifton E. MAYNARD (Barbados): My delegation voted in favour of the resolution which it consistently suggested in the debate on this item to be unnecessary, because we maintain that there is obviously no crisis in FAO that would merit this report of examination. There has been constant review by the Programme Committee; there is the work of the evaluation service; there have been external reviews and, indeed, until about two years ago FAO in its Conference was able to make most of its decisions on the basis of consensus.

The Director-General has just told us the cost of this review. We believe that this money could be better spent at a time when the Organization is in difficulties because of circumstances beyond its control, either because of the deliberate withholding of contributions or because of the economic problems facing some other Member States. I believe some of those economic problems obviously are not the responsability of the majority of the countries in this Organization.

It has been said in the debate on this question that there was no need to respect the role of the intergovernmental organizations in this Organization. But there are those of us who felt it was an absolute necessity that one had to protect the Constitution and role of its Chief Executive and the sovereign quality of its members. Reference was made to something called the tyranny of the few but it seems to mo that the dictatorship of the few has now forced us to inflict $1.5 million probably on the Organization. No one can refuse or oppose regular review, for I believe change is a part of growing up, and it would be impossible to maintain efficiency if change does not arise. Again, until two years ago we heard in several other international organizations, as I have repeated on two occasions before, that FAO was being held up as a well-managed organization, as an organization which others should emulate. It was a well-managed organization in terms of its programmes because of the orientation and the emphasis on people in need, yet this is the Organization that is in need of urgent study, reform and review. But there has been a stubborn refusal to change in other organizations, like the possible removal of the power of veto in Security Council, or a recognition that the power structure was changing and other countries might well be in a better situation to have the power of veto in the Security Council.

Why cannot we have a change in the nationality of the head of the World Bank, or UNDP? If you will bear with me, Mr Chairman, I must recall the point my Minister made in his statement in Plenary. He was quoting from a statement made by the Prime Minister of Barbados in the present session of the General Assembly when explaining why in his view, large and powerful States can forego multilateral diplomacy. He went on to say that small States like mine must be active participants in the

international community, and to do so they must be vigorous exponents of multilateral diplomacy and firm supporters of international organizations. The Minister also said that our world will never prosper if the sense of moral unity inherent in the habit of cooperation developed since the founding of the UN system of organization and the Basic Texts of FAO, and the unity inherent in the Charter of the United Nations are strong enough to prevail against the forces of narrow selfishness.

He ended by saying - and so will I - I hope that I am right in predicting that the history of the past 40 years justifies the belief of this delegation that the present crisis in FAO will pass and it will emerge with greater moral strength.

L.Th.B.Hertog, Vice-Chairman of the Conference, took the Chair

L.Th.B.Hertog, Vice-Président de la Conférence, assume la présidence

Ocupa la presidencia L.Th.B.Hertog, Vicepresidente de la Conferencia

Akbar Mirza KHALEELI (India): I think my colleague from Barbados made an extremely balanced commentary on why a number of countries in the developing world went along with this proposal for review in the first instance. Frankly, many of us were not convinced one needed a wholesale review. We felt the review was being called for because of factors extraneous to the work and efficiency of FAO. It was a shortage of money for which FAO was not responsible, although it would be justified on other counts.

But in the interest of consensus and after discussion among many developing countries, we felt we should show our goodwill and went along with a consensus which, in many ways, does not satisfy many of us. Therefore, we make an appeal that this Conference as a whole which has adopted this consensus, should not prejudge what will come out of it. After all, no organization, even while changing, would like such change to be initiated, guaranteed or decided upon entirely by outsiders. Change is built into life, and if we accuse the Finance and Programme Committees of not being able to bring about the required changes, certainly it is partly because it was not their mandate to do so. Their mandate is defined by other factors and rules. Besides, the membership of the Finance and Programme Committees is not based on the type of expertise now being sought. The membership is independently selected, in a personal capacity and to my knowledge many of us who have been on those committees really keep our governments informed. We are not subject to directions from our governments even when we are government servants.

Coming to the consensus decision, let us also bear in mind that by having the Finance and Programme Committees as the core of whatever review is taking place, there is interaction between experts who are there. Therefore, it is easier for FAO and Conference the next time to take it as if there has been a balanced, in depth analysis of what is needed. Just as you cannot rule out that the Programme and Finance Committees may have experts among them, we should not presume that independent experts are always as expert or independent as one imagines. I will just touch on India's own experience without being an expert myself.

Certainly we would not like to believe that what we call the Green Revolution in India is the result of the decision of one agronomist or one wheat breeder. It is the vision of a man like Pandit Neru; it is the work of the administration and of the people of India in a certain international environment, so keeping each thing in perspective and not just saying that an independent expert will achieve this, because he may achieve it in one country and not in another. FAO is working within the international environment.

There is a new international economic order that we would like. We know what are the policies of a number of countries which have surpluses in food grains. They have achieved these by hard work and research, but the policy is built around that. We have not gone into this. Therefore let us not prejudge what this group does now. Let us not say that the report is good to the extent to which it critizes FAO or supports FAO. Let us try to have a decision that we have taken on the basis of consensus. The very dignified manner in which the delegation of Norway accepted the position augers well.

I thank everybody for their sense of participation. Towards the end of the discussion on this most important matter which has a momentum of its own, a large number of delegations have had to leave. To that extent I feel it is a pity that such a momentus decision has not been fully participated in by altogether 30 or 40 countries who, because of thier own problems, could not: participate.

Sra. Mónica DEREGIBUS (Argentina): La delegación argentina quisiera explicar su voto de abstención en la resolución que acabamos de adoptar. La delegación argentina está de acuerdo, en términos gene­rales, con la resolución que acaba de ser adoptada. Lamento que la falta de tiempo disponible haya conspirado contra la posibilidad de alcanzar un acuerdo más amplio a este respecto.

Quisiera expresar brevemente que ha debido abstenerse en la votación por no haber podido, en el transcurso de las consultas y en el texto de resolución, aclarar el significado y comprender el alcance de cierta terminología utilizada en el párrafo 2 del texto de la resolución.

La reserva argentina se refiere al término "función", incluido al inicio del párrafo 2. Estimamos que la función de la FAO está legislada en el preámbulo y en el artículo 10 de su constitución, y que dicha normativa continua hoy teniendo vigencia.

También expresamos nuestra reserva, señor Presidente, con relación a la parte del inciso b) del párrafo 2 en el que se dice que "el grupo deberá examinar si es necesario introducir cambios en las estructuras internas y procedimientos de la FAO". No nos ha sido posible, señor Presidente, aclarar el alcance y el significado de estos términos, y es por ello que hemos debido abstenernos. No obstante, la delegación argentina expresa su deseo, su esperanza y su confianza en que el trabajo que hoy se inicia dé sus frutos para el bien de nuestra Organización.

Anwar Mohamed KHALED (Yemen, People’s Democratic Republic of) (original language Arabic): May I make a brief intervontion. The delegation of my country, in previous interventions, has said that we agree to the idea of a review as set forth in the draft resolution submitted by he delegate of France and amended by the Nordic countries to defend the interests of this Organization. Allow me to express my full support for the declaration made by the Ambassador of Saudi Arabia, Mr Bukhari, and the Chairman of the Group of 77.

Allow me also to associate myself with the views expressed by the delegate of India as far as external experts are concerned. They are rather limited because their specialists are limited. We find it impossible for any expert to be able to understand all the various circumstances under which this Organization is working. Any such experts need to work for quite some time with this Organization before they can fully understand the picture.

Ms Astrid BERGQUIST (Sweden): I will not prolong our deliberations very much, but at the outset I would like to associate my delegation with what was said earlier by the delegate of Norway, to whom I would like to address the sincere thanks of my delegation for having voted so nobly for tho idea and visions put forward by the Nordic countries in the true spirit of multilateralism.

I was much taken by the words of the delegate of Mexico. Indeed, it takes time to reach out to one another, coming from the many and various backgrounds, countries and cultures as we do. It is still a dialogue and a sincere wish to understand one another and it is our only hope of changing the world and for changing swords into ploughshares. This was the vision of the founders of this Organization, and this vision we still want to see conveyed to the coming generations. It is in this spirit that my delegation has worked and will continue to do so.

Michel MOMBOULI (Congo): Ainsi que l'a bien dit avant nous Son Excellence l'Ambassadeur do l'Arabie Saoudite qui s'est exprimé au nom du Groupe des 77 dont il assure la Présidence, au nom des pays en développement qui viennent de s'exprimer, notre délégation pense elle aussi que la FAO

fonctionne bien. Bien sûr, rien n'est parfait et à plus forte raison quand il s'agit d'une Organisation aussi grande et aussi complexe que la FAO. C'est pour cela que nous sommes, par principe, toujours ouverts aux modifications susceptibles d'améliorer toutes les structures quel les quel les soient mais dans ce cas précis nous ne pensons pas qu'il soit indispensable de procéder à une étude de l'ampleur de celle pour laquelle nous venons d'adopter une Résolution. Parce qu'en réalité il n'y a pas crise, à proprement parler, de la FAO.

C'est sans être convaincus des fondements de l'étude d'une telle ampleur que nous avons voté favorablement cette Résolution pour donner preuve de notre bonne volonté et faire preuve de "fair-play" à l'égard des partisans de cotte étude qui,semble-t-il, pourrait donner un "new look" à la FAO, pour utiliser un mot à la mode.

Nous voulons également dire quelques mots à propos des modalités de financement de cette étude. Nous n'avons jamais demandé des réformes et à plus forte raison des études d'une aussi grande ampleur et qui sûrement coûteront. Un chiffre vient de nous être avancé par le Secrétariat. Nous ne sommes pas demandeurs et par conséquent nous ne souhaitons pas que les quelques petites ressources ordinaires que nous nous efforcerons de constituer pour permettre au Secrétariat de s'acquitter de sa tâche soient utilisées pour financer cette étude. Que ceux qui ont réclamé cette étude l'assument. Nous estimons qu'on nous a forcés à accepter cette étude; le vin est tiré il faut le boire. Nous venons d'accepter la Résolution qui va permettre le déclenchement d'un certain processus à partir d'une étude. Nous pensons que ceux qui ont crié fort et à corps et à cris, exigeant cette étude, commencent déjà à constituer, par des contributions extrabudgétaires des ressources nécessaires. Le Secrétariat nous a fait savoir qu'ily a quelques ressources et ce sera insuffisant vu le chiffre. A ce premier stade qui a contribué à l'adoption d'une Résolution, il faudra penser à faire des contributions extrabudgétaires.

John GLISTRUP (Denmark): Since it is now becoming very late, I should like to associate myself with a statement made by Norway in explaining my delegation's abstentions.

CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I think you have gone ahead of the clock. We have passed our original hour, which was set for 1 p.m. I have on my list seven speakers and I presume it might be possible to end by 1.30 p.m. At that moment we will take the decision as to whether to go on with the resolutions laid before us or whether to take them in the afternoon session.

Germán CARRASCO DOMINGUEZ (Chile): La delegación de Chile desea expresar que ha votado afirmativamente el proyecto de resolución contenido en el documento C 87/REP/11, sobre un posible examen de algunos aspectos de las -metas y operaciones de la FAO, como un compromiso político, con el esfuerzo del Grupo de los 77, para buscar un consenso en esta materia.

Nunca hemos creído en la urgencia de alterar las estructuras de la FAO, hemos sostenido siempre que el problema que enfrenta la Organización es fundamentalmente financiero, con todo, Sr. Presidente, tenemos que recordar nuevamente, que la FAO es una agencia especializada del sistema de las Naciones Unidas de carácter intergubernamental y, en consecuencia, no parece apropiado que el mecanismo que hemos aprobado para evaluar algunos aspectos de la marcha de la Organización está insertado en la competencia de esas instancias constitucionales; por lo tanto confiamos que la Comunidad Internacional aquí representada, cualquiera que sea su capacidad económica y nivel de desarrollo, continúe con el espíritu de cooperación internacional indispensable para mantener vigente el sistema multilateral y principios y disposiciones de la Carta de las Naciones Unidas.

Leopoldo ARIZA HIDALGO (Cuba): Vamos a ser brevísimos puesto que ya se han expresado los criterios genera les.

Nosotros no sólo hoy hemos votado, creo que este es el resultado de dos años de votos iguales, este es un estudio que viene haciéndose hace dos aos, uños pretendiendo modificar y otros pretendiendo mantener.

Creo que la votación en las comisiones y en las plenarias son consecuencia de esta forma de actuar durante dos años. Hemos mantenido el criterio de que todo se puedo analizar siempre, nunca se ha negado la necesidad de mantener en un órgano vivo corno la FAO, como toda obra humana, la necesidad de revisión, analizar, fortalecer su eficacia; todo eso lo hemos mantenido durante dos años, lo que no aceptábamos es que se nos impusiera un cambio estructural, producto artifical de presiones financieras que eso es lo que se ha tratado y esto ha sido resultado do las votaciones. Creo quo muchos han dicho que somos los gobiernos representados en este sistema de las Naciones Unidas ios quo internamente tenemos que analizar la situación. Se rechazaba la necesidad de la reforma, so acepta la necesidad de agilizar, fortalecer la FAO, buscar mayor eficiencia, esto no impone gastos. Se ha demostrado que la FAO no tiene crisis institucional, sino de liquidez impuesta.

No queremos utilizar más tiempo; hacemos nuestras, totalmente, las palabras de la distinguida representación de Barbados, en su totalidad, por constituir, a nuestro juicio, el reclamo genuino y unánime de los países en desarrollo.

WolfgangA.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of) (original language German): My delegation has already explained in detail in Commission II why we think the setting up of a group of experts would have been our preference. We will forego giving these reasons now. The mechanism now being suggested

is one to which unfortunately we could not give our approval. The constructive attitude of my country vis-à-vis FAO as a whole, including this particular item on the agenda, has already been set out by the Federal Minister Mr Kiechle on the 10 November in Plenary. My delegation hopes that the work of review as being envisaged now and to which we give much importance, will lead to positive results.

Faisal Abdul-Razzak Al-Khaled, Chairman of the Conference, took the Chair
Faisal Abdul-Razzak Al-Khaled, Président de la Conference, assume la présidence
Ocupa la presidencia Faisal Abdul-Razzak Al-Khaled, Presidente de la Conferencia

Mounir KHORAYCH (Liban) (langue originale arabe): Permettez-moi tout d'abord de faire référence à la prise de position de mon pays lors du débat général où nous avons exprimé notre soutien, notre satisfaction vis-à-vis des procédures qui auraient pour objectifs de renforcer les travaux de notre Organisation.

Nous avons voté pour la Résolution car mon pays, le Liban, estime que les modifications doivent se passer de façon graduelle, naturelle et équilibrée. Il faut donc qu'il y ait changement et innovation et que tout soit accompagné. C'est d'ailleurs la méthode qui a toujours été retenue par notre Organisation en la matière. Nous sommes d'avis que la Résolution qui vient d'être adoptée relève de la même pratique et nous espérons donc qu'elle débouchera sur des résultats pratiques qui seront satisfaisants pour toutes les délégations de tous les pays. Tout le monde a dit que l'objectif était en fait le renforcement de notre Organisation. A l'évidence, chacun d'entre nous peut avoir une conception différente, des opinions différentes par rapport aux autres quant aux méthodes et aux résultats. Mais c'est bien là la démocratie et c'est la démocratie qui anime notre Organisation

Bashir El Mabrouk SAID (Libya) (original language Arabic): Considering that all countries have had an opportunity to express their views on the matter, under Article XII-24(d) of the standing Rules I formally request the closure of the debate on the subject.

CHAIRMAN (original language Arabic): I thank the delegate of Libya, i would simply like to point out that we have two speakers left on the list of speakers and then we will end the debate and we shall hear a statement from the Director-General.

Thank you for your proposal. The delegate of the United States requested the floor for a comment only and not to discuss the subject matter. I shall therefore now give him the floor.

Antonio GAYOSO (United States of America): Simply to request that my statement be introduced as a footnote to the Resolution, that is all. Thank you very much.

Elio PASCARELLI (Italy): Thank you, Mr Chairman, for giving once again the privilege to the host country to be the last. I am sorry that the head of our delegation is absent and I do not want to keep the audience busy for more than a couple of minutes.

The host country abstained on this Resolution yesterday but voted in favour today after it was completed by the French and the Mexican suggestions. I do not want to explain the abstention. I am here just to say that since Italy does not limit its contribution to the Organization by merely hosting it, and you know how, I think that we have the right also to give our contribution of ideas, although no paperwork was presented, to the momentous decision of reviewing at a certain tine in life - after forty, I said - the goals and operations of FAO. As the head of the delegation said here, we are for evolution not revolution; we are for review, not reform.

We heard the Director-General's cost estimate of the exercise. May I in relinquishing this hall announce that I shall once again propose to my Government a last lonely gesture, that we contribute to easing the burden of the Organization, which is not extremely rich now, to foot some part of the bill, and I hope this time not to be the only one to do so.

We express deep appreciation for all the contributions that have been given by the Nordic Group, by the United States, by Canada, by the United Kingdom, by Australia and by the Group of 77, by their papers. We know that there has been an objective and praised document of the Secretariat which we have thoroughly and accurately examined. We have read all those papers and we are expecting this report that the Director-General proposed yesterday, a short one, to reflect the views expressed here now, a couple of pages, and a longer one to come later.

Let me join the wise Indian Ambassador - and I know how wise they are, especially in this particular field, because I witnessed the miracles that they performed in their country - when we say that we should not prejudge the results of what we are going to do. We shall take good care of the opinions expressed so that the end result will be a collective effort to rejuvenate and bring up to the time,without violating the Basic Texts, this Organization that we love.

CHAIRMAN: Trinidad and Tobago have asked the Chair whether we will be having a meeting this afternoon. I hope not. I hope we finish in an hour or so with your collaboration. Trinidad and Tobago, do you want to speak, or is that sufficient? Trinidad and Tobago says it is all right. The Director-General has asked to speak at this moment.

LE DIRECTEUR GENERAL: Comme vous le savez tous ici, je souhaitais très vivement une décision par accord général sur ce point important de l'ordre du jour. Je l'ai dit dans mon discours le premier jour où nous nous sommes réunis. Il y a eu quand même consensus sur un aspect très important, le mandat du groupe, ainsi que sur le calendrier de travail.

On m'a dit: le temps nous a manqué, nous aurions peut-être pu avoir un consensus quant au mécanisme même. Dans mon désir d'atteindre ce consensus, j'ai émis l'idée de renvoyer la décision à une session extraordinaire du Conseil - qui sera d'ailleurs peut-être nécessaire.

Il y a désaccord sur l'organe chargé de l'étude. Je voudrais sur ce point apaiser ceux qui s'inquiètent du résultat d'une étude faite par les deux Comités assistés d'experts. Ce sont ceux qui ont des appréhensions qui vont décider, comme tout le monde, des résultats de l'étude. Ce sont eux qui vont accepter ou refuser les recommandations qui seront faites dans le rapport. Ce ne sont pas les membres des deux Comités qui décideront.

Préjuger des résultats c'est condamner d'avance l'intégrité, l'intelligence et la capacité d'innovation de 20 respectables membres élus au scrutin secret par vous-mêmes, membres du Conseil, et dont quelques-uns, et même plusieurs, seront choisis parmi les pays qui ont voté contre cette résolution.

Le groupe de travail ne part pas du néant. Il y a déjà un document, le C 87/30, qui retient les propositions laites par ceux-là mêmes qui ont volé contre cette résolution, et qui pendant un an se sont préparés à ce travail.

Un même objectif, un même idéal unit tous ceux qui veulent servir la FAO à travers leur appartenance au Comité du Programme et au Comité financier. Je suis sûr que tous ceux qui sont candidats à ces Comités veulent renforcer la FAO, la rendre plus efficace. Il faut avoir confiance dans leurs analyses que vous-mêmes examinerez.

Je voudrais remercier le Royaume-Uni, les pays nordiques, en particulier M. HØSTMARK, et tous les autres pays qui se sont déclarés prêts à participer à l'étude. A ce stade, comme l'a si bien dit le Représentant de l'Italie, il faut souhaiter plein succès; il serait dommage de dire quo cotto étude ne sert à rien, ou va nécessiter une autre étude. Ce serait malheureux. Il serait également dommage de dire qu'étant donné qu'il y a cette étude, tel pays va réexaminer sa participation à la FAO.

Ne soyez pas étonné si je tiens ces propos, Monsieur le Président. Ne soyez pas étonné si je dis que la FAO, comme toute organisation, a besoin de réformes. C'est une nécessité absolue. Mais il n'y a pas de crise. On l'a dit, il y a une crise de liquidités, mais le Secrétariat et nous-mêmes n'avons pas été condamnés pour viol des règlements. Les pays membres,dans leur grande majorité, sont très satisfaits des services rendus.

Je remercie encore une fois l'Ambassadeur Pascarelli pour l'offre supplémentaire que l'Italie vient de faire à là FAO pour aider à financer cette étude.

Je vous prie maintenant de bien vouloir m'excuser, car j'ai un engagement avec le Président de la République du Cap-Vert qui est en visite en Italie; Monsieur Walton sera avec vous. S'il devait y avoir une autre réunion - je ne vous le souhaite pas - je serai là. En tout cas je serai là pour le Conseil.

Je voudrais encore une fois remercier tous les délégués, et leur dire, comme je l'ai, fait à plusieurs reprises, que je suis ouvert à tout dialogue, à toute proposition sur n'importe quel sujet, sur la réforme entre autres.

Nous sommes prêts à travailler pour vous, pour vous servir. Notre but commun est le vôtre. La FAO est toujours au service de tous les Etats Membres. Il faut qu'elle soit encore plus efficace et qu'ello soit toujours aussi fortement au service de la justice sociale dans tous les Etats Membres.

Applause
Applaudissements
Aplausos

CHAIRMAN: Now we move to the items in front of us. On pages 4 and 5 of document C 87/REP/11 we have a draft resolution, and on pages 6 and 7 we have another draft resolution on programme and budgetary matters. The first one is presented by the United States delegation. The second one is presented by the delegations of India and Costa Rica.

I now ask how delegates would like to handle these two resolutions.

Carlos DI MOTTOLA BALESTRA (Costa Rica): Como copatrocinador del Proyecto de Resolución que se ha sometido, me permito agregar unas pocas palabras, si usted me lo permite. Nuestro documento es prácticamente une propuesta de compromiso respecto ai Proyecto de Resolución presentado por los Estados Unidos. Se acepta la propuesta de una reunión anticipada de los Comités del Programa y de Finanzas en forma conjunta para recomendar el nivel del presupuesto.

Estimamos que estos organismos deberían hacer todo esfuerzo posible para llegar a una posición compartida por todos los miembros. Como de costumbre, y de acuerdo con los principios democráticos, en los casos en los que no se lograra un acuerdo, deberían ser claramente expresados ios distintos puntos de vista y debería ser indicada cuál es la opinión de la mayoría.

La fórmula de exigir una unanimidad llevaría consigo el peligro de dejar en la incertidumbre al Director General y los Organos Rectores, parando así la actividad de la FAO cuya continuidad es fundamental para el proceso de desarrollo.

Yendo más allá de las fórmulas acordadas para la Organización Mundial de la Salud y para la Organización Internacional del Trabajo, proponemos que el nivel del presupuesto se logre, si fuera posible, por consenso. Sin las palabras "si fuera posible", se crearían problemas tal vez insuperables.

Esperamos que este esfuerzo sirva para evitar un largo debate entre concepciones diferentes y que el mismo sea apreciado por los que aquí desean lo mejor para la FAO y quieren que la Organización se consolide, se fortalezca y continúe su valiosa labor con la tranquilidad y continuidad requeridas.

Antonio GAYOSO (United States of America): Mr Chairman, you put a question to the room on how to handle this issue.

Being the author of the first of these two resolutions reproduced in the document, and since the resolution presented by the United States was presented to the Resolutions Committee on the first day of the Conference, I would respectfully request that this assembly takes a decision on that resolution as soon as possible, so that we can go to lunch.

Vanrob ISARANKURA (Thailand): I know that we are short of time, but I have no choice but to intervene as we have an amendment to add to one of the resolutions. I tried to bring it forward in Commission II, but I had no opportunity. If the Plenary wishes to continue to have a debate on. this issue this morning, I will propose my amendment. If not, I will wait for the afternoon.

CHAIRMAN: I think we will go on and try to finish with this. We will not adjourn.

Horacio CARANDANG (Philippines): In both resolutions an additional step is being requested in the programme/budget process. This is the outline that would be the basis of establishing, determining or recommending the level which would be required by January, and I should like to ask what are the implications of such an additional step in the programme/budget process.

Right now, we have a Summary Programme of Work and Budget being presented in June of the Conference year and a full budget a few months before the November Conference. I should like to ask what is the implication of this additional step now being proposed. I should appreciate it if the Secretariat could give us some information on this.

CHAIRMAN: Before asking the Secretariat to give you an answer to this, the United States has a point of order. Please state your point of order.

POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN

Antonio GAYOSO (United States of America): My point of order refers to the question you put to the Assembly, Mr Chairman, to which I suggested an answer. I should like to know where we are, notwithstanding the validity of the question raised by the Philippines.

CHAIRMAN: I put a question, and I am receiving some statements. Potentially, maybe they do not want to answer right now, so let us wait.

May I ask the Secretariat please to give an answer to the Philippines.

V.J. SHAH (Director, Office of Programme Budget and Evaluation): There are two elements which I should like to indicate in response to the question put by the delegate of the Philippines. First, the timing of the Summary Programme of Work and Budget, and secondly the time necessary to prepare the Summary Programme of Work and Budget.

Both matters were determined by the Council in November 1972 and endorsed by the Conference in 1973, at which time it also amended the Basic Texts to include the steps necessary for these provisions.

The timing of the Summary Programme of Work and Budget is deliberately placed by these bodies at the end of the first year of the bienniurn so that in preparing the Summary Programme of Work and Budget the Director-General may take into account all the recommendations received from the technical bodies meeting during the first year of the biennium, take into account also all the recommendations of the Regional Conferences, which normally meet between the months of March or April and up to October during the first year, and the recommendations of the Council itself which meets in November of the first year. The time necessary to prepare the Summary Programme of Work and Budget amounts to a period of about five months. It extends from October to the end of February. This period is a fairly intense period because although the document itself is shorter than the full Programme of Work and Budget - it is about one third of the length of the full Programme of Work and Budget - the process of analysis and preparation is, in fact, much more complicated than the length of the document would suggest. It includes receiving the proposals from every organizational unit, having them analysed, having them considered by the Director-General, following which he has meetings with the heads of every department and division, leading to his preliminary decisions to be reflected in the Summary.

This means in effect that the Summary Programme of Work and Budget is finalized at the end of February so that the relevant extracts can immediately be drawn to the attention of the Committee of Agriculture, which has usually met in March, and then submitted to the sessions of the Programme and Finance Committees at the beginning of May.

I hope I have answered adequately the question raised by the distinguished delegate of the Philippines.

CHAIRMAN: Mr Walton would like to add to what Mr Shah has said.

DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: As the Conference will have seen from Mr Shah's explanation, this is already quite a complex process, and the addition of a third stage would make it even more so.

The two resolutions, irrespective of which one is finally adopted, both call on the Director-General to establish a new schedule for the preparation of the Programme of Work and Budget. Such a schedule would of course be discussed as soon as possible next year, before the work actually starts, with the Programme and Finance Committees to ensure that there was a full understanding as to how the exercise would be done.

I would like to reserve the Director-General's position at this stage on whether it would be advisable, necessary or even feasible, to prepare both a Summary Programme of Work and Budget and an outline Programme of Work and Budget. This would need to be worked out. My personal view, for what it is worth, is that the outline could probably best substitute the Summary Programme of Work and Budget, thus saving a lot of work for the staff and a lot of reading for delegations. But this is not a final view. I am merely suggesting that this is a matter that will need to be held over, worked out in detail and discussed with the Programme and Finance Committees, and ultimately the Council itself, before final conclusions are reached.

Horacio CARANDANG (Philippines): I think these are very concrete problems that we are facing here, and since apparently it will not be possible to prepare both the outline and the Summary Programme of Work and Budget, I would like to submit for the consideration of this meeting the following words

CHAIRMAN: I am sorry, please could you save it till later on. I would like to decide first on the question that I put to distinguished delegates. Would you save it, please, and I will give you the floor later on.

Horacio CARANDANG (Philippines): I would like to move that we consider first the India and Costa Rica proposal, for the simple reason that during the Contact Group the India delegation and the United States delegation had been in contact with each other and I understand the India proposal is a reaction to the United States proposal, which was the original one, and would reflect the sense of many if not the majority of the delegations regarding the United States proposals, regarding the aspects of consensus, and other aspects as well.

I was wondering if, when we take up the resolution, I could propose a few words of amendment related to the schedule or outline.

Antonio GAYOSO (United States of America): In view of the back and forth on this issue, I would like to formally move that this Assembly vote on the United States resolution at this time.

CHAIRMAN: There are now, I think, two proposals - one from the United Stated and the other from Costa Rica and later the Philippines. I would like to move that we vote on which one we want to vote on to start with. If you agree, we will start voting ... I see a point of order.

POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN

Leopoldo ARIZA HIDALGO (Cuba): Teniendo en cuenta lo que ha planteado la delegación de ios Estados Unidos, nosotros queremos advertir que si se saca primero Estados Unidos, quisiéramos que se nos diera la palabra para proponer una enmienda; cuando se vaya a sacar la de los Estados Unidos, si se saca primero.

Harald HØSTMARK (Norway): I have a point of procedure, not a point of order.

CHAIRMAN: If you do not have a point of order I shall give the floor to a delegate who has a point of order.

POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN

Bashir El Mabrouk SAID (Libya) (original language Arabic): Pursuant to Article XII, paragraph 26, as I understand the text, the United States proposal is the original one, and the proposal submitted by India and Costa Rica is an amendment to the United States resolution. That is why I agree with the Philippines representative, that we should first vote on the United States proposal.

POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN

Reza ASKARIYEH (Iran,Islamic Republic of): We have heard what has been said by Mr Walton, and, considering the complexity of the matter, we would like to request that the matter be postponed pending study by the Programme and Finance Committees.

CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the Legal Counsel would like to tell us exactly the position on this resolution, in answer to the point of order raised by the distinguished delegate of Libya.

LEGAL COUNSEL: If I understood the point of order raised by Libya, he is saying that the second resolution - co-sponsored by India and Costa Rica - is an amendment to the original proposal made by the United States of America. It was pointed out earlier in our discussions that these two resolutions have a number of similarities and also certain dissimilarities. I would hesitate to say whether one resolution was an amendment of the other. If the house considers that they should be treated in that way then clearly the amendment should be voted on first. You have a motion by the United States to the effect that a vote be taken on the resolution that he proposed. If the Conference is in favour of voting first on the United States proposal, then that is quite a simple proposition. In the event that the Conference votes in favour of not voting on the United States resolution first, then the automatic result would be that you should vote on the other resolution.

POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN

Antonio GAYOSO (United States of America): For the benefit of the Legal Counsel, I shall repeat the specific motion that I made because I think that he may have misunderstood me. I move the vote on the resolution presented by the United States, simply like that. I do not move to decide on one or the other - I move that this Assembly decides by vote on the resolution presented by the United States on the first day of the Conference, before the Resolutions Committee. I cannot consider a different text that went through the Resolutions Committee as an independent resolution to be an amendment to the first resolution. They are totally independent - they have each had a life of their own, but one was born much earlier, in fact on the first day of the Conference.

I reiterate my insistence that this Assembly should decide by vote on the United States resolution.

POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN

Horacio CARANDANG (Philippines): You will recall that I had made an earlier motion, prior to the United States motion, that the Costa Rica/India resolution be considered first. I am wondering whether my motion had precedence.

POINT OF ORDER

POINT D'ORDRE

PUNTO DE ORDEN

Harald HØSTMARK (Norway): In paragraph 26 in the Basic Text of the Rules, it states "An amendment by way of substitute shall not be voted on until the vote has been taken on the original proposal and any amendments thereto." "An amendment by way of substitute" - that is clearly our understanding, and I would like, through you to have the Legal Counsel's opinion, if this, presented as it is, as its own original proposal, is not clearly a substitute for the other.

LEGAL COUNSEL: The distinguished delegate of Norway quoted quite correctly from the Basic Texts. It is therefore a question of opinion whether the resolution proposed by India and Costa Rica is a substitute for the other resolution. The final judgement on this is clearly in the hands of this Conference. My personal opinion is that it would be very difficult not to have one substitute for the other, and that in fact, although fairly similar, they are, shall we say, mutually incompatible. So in my opinion one substitutes for the other: but as I said before, any definitive view on this question is that which is held by the Conference itself. As has already been pointed out, the Legal Counsel merely gives an opinion: the Conference decides.

POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN

Jean-Luc GRAEVE (France): Je suggérerais de suivre la proposition de la Libye qui consisterait à retirer les deux propositions de Résolution, la raison en étant que nous n'avons pas pu procéder, notamment au sein du Groupe de contact, à une étude fouillée de ces questions et de leurs applica­tions pratiques, entre autres de l'articulation avec les fonctions du Conseil. Ma délégation avait demandé au Groupe de contact que Monsieur Shah puisse venir nous expliquer les problèmes; cela n'a pas été possible pour des raisons de temps bien compréhensibles; il y avait aussi d'autres choses à faire mais nous pensons que les deux Résolutions posent des problèmes pratiques de mise en oeuvre.

Conformément à ce qu'a dit la Libye, nous souhaiterions que les deux Résolutions puissent être retirées et que leur substance puisse être examinée plus tard par le Comité financier et le Comité des Programmes.

POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN

Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Sr. Presidente, he debido recurrir a punto de Orden, al igual que otras muchísimas Delegaciones han aprovechado esa circunstancia para poder intervenir. Constato que hasta el final usted conserva el defecto inicial de mirar muy poco hacía su izquierda.

CHAIRMAN: I have you on my list. I have others on my list. I do look to the left and the right - and straight ahead. So please do not accuso me of not looking to my left. And you must remember that I have others beside me who are also looking at you.

Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Aunque hoy es el último día de la Conferencia, yo soy un hombro de mucha fe, de fe profunda, y conservo la esperanza de que algún día usted logre incluir a Colombia en la lista de Estados del privilegio a su gusto.

CHAIRMAN: Please - I do not accept this. I have all respect for you personally, and for the country to which you belong, so do please have respect in your turn for the Chair and to the country to which I belong. I have respect for all the representatives. Please refrain from using this kind of language to the Chair.

Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): No estoy usando ninguna palabra desobligante, sino constatando hechos, Sr. Presidente. Respaldo (sic) la propuesta de Libia y Francia; amb.os proyectos de resolución son inconvenientes (sic), crean dificultades a la Secretaría y a ios Gobiernos. Propongo que, alternativamente, en el informe de la Conferencia se incluyan las ideas principales de estos proyectos de resolución y que se pida a los Comités del Programa y de Finanzas que las estudien.

CHAIRMAN: Are there any further points of order?

Adel Helmy EL-SARKI (Egypt): The Egyptian delegation supports the proposal put forward by France...

CHAIRMAN: Do you have a point of order?

Adel Helmy EL-SARKI (Egypt): I asked to speak but not as a point of order.

Elio PASCARELLI (Italy): I have no point of order, but since all the speakers - with your permission, because you are very liberal - have been taking the floor under the protection of a point of order, may I say that we look very favourably on the resolution, but we have not the time to study it.

CHAIRMAN: I am with you - but there are points of order being raised, so I must receive them.

POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN

Reza ASKARIYEH (Iran, Islamic Republic of): I would like to correct the delegate of France, and claim that it was my delegation which introduced that point of order and requested the postponement of both resolutions.

POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN

Carlos DI MOTTOLA BALESTRA (Costa Rica): Siendo uno de los proponentes, no,es técnicamente una moción de orden, sino una declaración. Yo declaro que, en lo que se refiere a mi Delegación, estoy dispuesto a retirar la propuesta, únicamente si está de acuerdo a retirar la suya Estados Unidos. En el caso de que se retirara, contemporáneamente mi Delegación estaría de acuerdo. Gracias, Sr. Presidente.

POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN

Vanrob ISARANKURA (Thailand): I have finally got the floor. I raised my hand ten minutes ago. I have a point of order. I believe that this is not finalized yet, because we have not discussed it in Commission II. That is why I am prepared to amend some of the resolution. I consider that the best way is to listen to the amendment first, and then make a decision; otherwise it is impossible to make a decision.

POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'O RDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN

Raúl LOPEZ LIRA (Mexico): Sr. Presidente, yo pediría a usted que la proposición de que se retiren las dos resoluciones sea puesta a votación en este momento. (Pausa.) Repito: Yo solicito a la Presidencia que se someta a votación la resolución propuesta, tengo entendido que por Irán, para llegar a una solución.

CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that only the sponsors can take this decision, to withdraw or not to withdraw. I cannot decide on a proposal that the two proposals be withdrawn, unless it is decided by the two sponsors.

POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN

Michel MOMBOULI (Congo): Nous ne pouvons pas forcer les auteurs à retirer leurs Résolutions, mais nous disons malgré tout que nous voulons procéder au vote pour ces deux Resolutions. En collaboration avec le Comité financier et le Comité du Programme, nous exigeons qu'il y ait vote ; nous devons nous prononcer pour le report de l'examen de ces deux Résolutions que le temps ne nous permet pas d'examiner dans le détail. On nous a dit que certaines difficultés n'étaient pas aplanies; nous ne pouvons pas fermer les yeux et procéder à l'adoption de l'une ou de l'autre.

Nous exigeons qu'on transmette les deux Résolutions au niveau des deux Comités, sous la responsabilité du Conseil.

CHAIRMAN: We can go on like this, raising points of order, until the end of the day. I can certainly give every one of you who has a point of order an opportunity to raise it, but from the points of order which have already been raised,it seems to me we shall be in difficulty even discussing these two proposals. May I suggest that we go on taking them one at a time, and vote on them. If you do not approve them, you will vote against them and, therefore, the two resolutions will not be approved by you.

I understand you do not approve of this.

POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN

Reza ASKARIYEH (Iran, Islamic Republic of): I made a motion which was seconded and supported by many countries. I should like to ask you, Mr Chairman, to close the debate so that we may vote immediately on the motion.

POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN

A. SAINTRAINT (Belgique): Je crois que les motions d'ordre sont en train de devenir des motions de désordre. Je voudrais faire appel à la raison. Nous avons devant nous deux textes qui diffèrent très peu. Mais j'ai eu l'occasion, hier soir, après notre longue réunion, d'étudier attentivement les règles qui nous régissent et je dois dire que ces deux résolutions méritent une étude approfondie et. circonstanciée, premièrement, en ce qui concerne les points de droit de la réglementation qui nous régit et, deuxièmement, en ce qui concerne la praticabilité des mesures proposées.

Il est clair qu'au niveau de tous les pays il est impensable de recommander des procédures de ce type, à savoir fixer un budget et discuter d'une hauteur du budget sans connaître les besoins des différents départements, des différentes sections. Pas un seul pays au monde ne pourrait réaliser ce qu'on est en train de demander, pour le moment, aux services administratifs de la FAO.

Je crois que, sur le plan du droit et sur le plan de l'application pratique, il serait de loin préférable que l'on étudie à tête reposée les implications juridiques et les conséquences pratiques des mesures proposées. Je crois que le Conseil et le Comité financier sont parfaitement habilités à ce faire dans le calme, dans la sérénité, sans poursuivre une discussion qui ne débouchera sur rien.

POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN

Igor MARINCEK (Switzerland): My Point of Order is the following: could I ask Legal Counsel through you, Mr Chairman, if it is possible that the motion is voted on the question whether a resolution which has passed through the Resolutions Committee and which is proposed for the decision by this Conference, whether by motion this resolution can be forced out.

LEGAL COUNSEL: There are two resolutions. There is also a current of opinion which favours not discussing either. The motions are there before you. You cannot just make them disappear. If you do not like the resolutions, you vote against them. There should be a vote on one or both of the draft resolutions. If the prevailing opinion is that it is premature to adopt them and that neither should be discussed,then neither resolution will get a majority. It would then be quite clear that what the Conference wants to do is to refer the matter for further study by the competent bodies during the forthcoming biennium.

Igor MARINCEK (Switzerland): Could I ask Legal Counsel, through you, Mr Chairman, to give a precise answer to my question?

CHAIRMAN: Mr Roche, please be as precise as possible in your answer.

LEGAL COUNSEL: The precise answer to the question asked by the delegate of Switzerland is, no, you cannot make the resolutions disappear.

DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: I am not attempting to resolve the procedural difficulties at this stage, which seem to be rather considerable, but I would like to say that it is surely quite paradoxical that we have here two resolutions essentially aiming at the same end. While one originated from the United States, the other one is aimed deliberately also at meeting requirements which were set out by the United States and are embodied in its resolution. In turn, both are linked to the process of budgetary reform which was started in the United Nations.

If we get into a competition of virtue, it will be regrettable, to say the least, if it appears that we had winners and losers. I feel it would be desirable to try to reach some sort of an agreement.

At the risk of creating still further confusion, I just wonder if it would be possible for consultations to take place over a period of five or ten minutes with a view to amalgamating or achieving joint sponsorship of these resolutions, so that an agreed draft could be put forward.

POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN

Reza ASKARIYEH (Iran, Islamic Republic of): I would like to ask the Legal Advisor, supposing one of the resoltuions were passed? My understanding is that it should come under the Rule and the Rule should be amended. Therefore, there is a need for a total majority of the votes. Am I correct or not?

LEGAL COUNSEL: If I understand the delegate of the Islamic Republic of Iran correctly, he is stating that if one of these resolutions is approved, there are some amendments which must be made to the General Rules of the Organization, or maybe the Financial Regulations. When these resolutions

were tabled needless to say, we did examine them from the strictly legal point of view. As you are aware, the General Rules - and also, to a lesser extent, the Financial Regulations - refer on a number of occasions to "summary" budget or "draft" budget. In fact, they describe the current schedule which is followed for the preparation of the budget which, in the end, is approved by the Conference. It has also been stated - and I think quite correctly - that both resolutions introduced, shall we say, a third step at the beginning of the schedule. The question then arises whether it is indispensable to amend the General Rules and the Financial Regulations to reflect this additional step.

If my understanding is correct, the additional step leaves the other two current steps unaffected. It is just adding a new point of departure and the concept of an "outline" budget.

Clearly, from the point of view of good and clear administration, it would be desirable for the General Rules and the Financial Regulations to reflect exactly what the budget preparation schedule actually is. I do not believe that any of the proposals now made are actually in conflict with the existing Rules. Rather, they add to them. There are perhaps certain nuances in certain Rules, particularly Rule XXXVII.2(g)(i), and Rule XXXIV.2(a) which reflect the role of the Director-General and of the Council; and also of the joint meetings of the Programme and Finance Committee in Rule XXVIII.

At least the way I see it, the first step is added before those steps which are reflected in the various rules. It could therefore be maintained that the addition of the new step need not yet be reflected, and could be adopted. Then, in the course of the biennium, the appropriate adjustments to reflect the new step could be made by the CCLM and the Council and be submitted for adoption by the next Session of the Conference.

CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Roche. Are you satisfied? Very good.

POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN

Marc-André FREDETTE (Canada): It appears clear that the only thing that the Assembly can agree on at this moment is to disagree. In the light of two formal motions for votes which were submitted over an hour ago, and in view of the total confidence that this delegation, for one, has in your Chairmanship of this Conference, I formally request you at this moment to call a vote on one of the two resolutions. I am absolutely indifferent as to which one, but I request that we proceed to a vote. The result of the vote itself could determine the issue which is before us, and the participation of the Secretariat in the debate has further clarified the fact that indeed if we all disagree with that procedure we can all decide collectively to vote against and resubmit, amend or do what we will with these resolutions. At the moment the only way to resolve it is to call successive votes on the two resolutions submitted. The only exception to that would be if Costa Rica or the united States withdrew their resolutions.

CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, distinguished representative of Canada. I will come to your suggestion.

POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN

Thomas YANCA (Ćameroun): Cette motion rejoignait un peu celle du Canada et je voulais préciser que tous les pays qui parrainent ces projets sont membres du groupe de contact et ont été en contact pendant plusieurs jours, de longues heures,et n'ont pas pu trouver une solution de compromis. Je crois qu'étant entendu que les deux résolutions ne peuvent être, retirées, il n'y a qu'une seule façon de se prononcer, c'est par le vote. Nous vouions dire que nous voulons soit la renvoyer, soit l'accepter.

POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN

Leopoldo ARIZA HIDALGO (Cuba): No he querido utilizar esa epidemia, que no creo que le haga bien a la discusión de las mociones de orden, sino que he pedido la pnlabra porque creo que podemos hablar sin estar tratando de poner un orden que ya desordenamos con las mociones de orden.

Sr. Presidente: Yo quería aclararles o recordarles solamente que yo había planteado que si se sacara a votación la Resolución propuesta por Estados Unidos, tengo una enmienda que hacer, que es que se me tenga en cuenta, porque esta discusión, un poco confusa, termine. Si usted decide ya sacar a votación esa Resolución, tengo una enmienda que plantear.

CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, distinguished representative of Cuba. If we start bringing in amendments, we shall again not finish. I would rather see if we can exhaust the Points of Order and then see how we can tackle this problem.

POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN

Ibrahima KABA (Guinée): La Guinée souhaite intervenir sur ce point pour deux raisons. D'abord, nous militons fermement pour le rejet des deux résolutions. Pourquoi, à la suite des interventions édifiantes de M. Shah donnant des éclaircissements pour l'appiicabilité de ces résolutions, il s'avère que ces résolutions ne sont pas applicables? D'autre part_,ces résolutions contiennent des modifications qui sont du mandat du Comité conjoint assisté des experts. A partir de ce moment-la, il est clair qu'il faut mettre de côté ces deux résolutions.

Basii ir El Mabrouk SAID (Libya) (original language Arabie): The delegation of Costa Rica said that it stood ready to- withdraw the resolution if the United States of America would do so. Let us now put the question to the United States. In order to clarify the picture, are they ready at this stage to withdraw their resolution or not?

CHAIRMAN: Are you ready to withdraw your proposal?

Antonio GAYOSO (United States of America): I am not ready.

POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN

Ismael DIAZ YUBERO (España): Sí, quiero presenter una auténtica moción do orden. Retire usted la palabra a quien hable sin presentar moción de orden, por ios siguientes motivos: primero, porque es una falta de respeto a usted. Le están engañando; segundo, porque es una falta de respeto a los que han pedido la palabra y quieren hablar en el orden que corresponde; tercero, porque es una falta de respeto a la Asamblea y, en definitiva la Organización

POINT OF ORDER
POINT.D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN

Mohsin Ali KHAN (Bangladesh): I should like to recall the proposal made by Thailand, and I should like to support the proposal stated by the Deputy Director-General that we might go into recess for 15 minutes for consultations since there are two resolutions and a lot of similarities between them.

That is my proposal.

CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, I see that, as one delegate said, we are agreed not to agree. I shall have to put the two proposals to the vote. I think that is what we shall do. The order of voting will be that we shall vote first on the proposal of the United States and then on the proposal of Costa Rica/India.

POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN

Leopoldo ARIZA HIDALGO (Cuba): Ahora sí la moción de orden. Le recordé que si va a sacar la Resolución de Estados Unidos, me debe permitir que yo proponga una enmienda, que realmente debe analizarse, debe votarse primero que la resolución. Si usted quiere, hago la proposición en estos momentos. Es posible que la delegación de los Estados Unidos acepte esta enmienda, y si la acepta, no tenemos por qué votarla, porque creo que ella no ha oído todavía mi enmienda.

POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN

James AITKEN (United Kingdom): In view of the importance of these particular resolutions, if, as seems likely, they go to the vote, we would formally call for roll call votes.

CHAIRMAN: We should do that. The distinguished representative of Cuba has asked to be allowed to bring in an amendment to the United States proposal. I hope there will be no more amendments than the one that our distinguished colleague is going to present to us, otherwise we shall again be opening the door.

POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN

Harald HØSTMARK (Norway): May I respectfully remind you that I requested the floor an hour ago to speak, and I had a signal from the Secretariat that they had received my request. The reason I asked to speak was precisely to introduce an amendment to the US resolution. In view of the time I have waited for that, I think I should have precedence on it.

CHAIRMAN: It was not neglect on the part of the Chair, it was just that the Points of Order that have been made take precedence over statements to be made. We now have two requests to make, amendments. The Philippines has previously stated that he wished to put forward an amendment, so there are three requests.

Jean-Luc GRAEVE (France): Si on devait voter pour le projet de résolution du Costa Rica et de l'Inde, je voudrais présenter un projet d'amendement au paragraphe 6. On dit qu'en l'absence de consensus le rapport indiquera...

CHAIRMAN: We are not asking for the amendment to be introduced now, but, if you have an amendment to introduce, on which resolution it is.

Carlos DI MOTTOLA BALESTRA (Costa Rica): Bien, no deseo presentar una enmienda a la Resolución americana.

CHAIRMAN: May I ask the distinguished representatives of Cuba, Norway, Philippines, Thailand, and Costa Rica to table their amendments. These are amendments to the American proposal. We will start with Cuba.

Leopoldo ARIZA HIDALGO (Cuba): La enmienda que proponemos al proyecto de Resolución presentado por la delegación de Estados Unidos es la siguiente. Son pequeñas correcciones, a nuestro juicio aceptables. Es eliminar del primer párrafo, donde pide al Director General que establezca un nuevo calendario de examen del Programa de Labores y Presupuesto, la palabra "determinar" por "considerar". Primera cuestión de mi propuesta de enmienda.

Segundo, pasemos al párrafo 4. El párrafo 4 dice: "Conviene en que la reunión conjunta de enero del Comité del Programa y de Finanzas determine por consenso". Estas dos frases para nosotros son inadmisibles, porque esto determina un veto que va contra los principios de la Organización. Aquí nosotros lo que mas pudiéramos aceptar es que se pusiera "Considerará el nivel de presupuesto que la Secretaría podría utilizar", y seguir el párrafo hasta la línea número 6, en que también las

segundas palabras, después de recomendación, eliminar la palabra "decisiones"; o sea, repito, en el primer párrafo do las decisiones, eliminar "considerarán", eliminar "determinar" por "considerar"; en el párrafo 4, eliminar "determinar por consenso" por "considerarán el nivel", y en la línea 6 eliminar "y decisiones".

Esta es la enmienda que propongo a la delegación de ios Estados Unidos sobre su Resolución. Como es de rigor, Presidente, creo que se debe tratar primero de la Resolución.

CHAIRMAN: Would the United States delegate agree to that?

Antonio GAYOSO (United States of America): Small though they seem to be, these are not small, they are fundamental and they would constitute a total gutting of the Resolution we have presented. Therefore I cannot accept them.

POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN

Jean-Luc GRAEVE (France): Je suis trouble. J'ai cru comprendre que l'on avait demandé un vote sur un projet de résolution et qu'une délégation, je crois celle du Royaume-Uni, avait demandé un vote par appel nominal. Je crois que l'on est obligé d'examiner cet amendement. Par ailleurs, lorsque j'avais voulu présenter un amendement, on m'avait fait remarquer, que ce n'était pas l'heure des amendements. Et maintenant, on examine les amendements d'autres délégations.

CHAIRMAN: I am sorry, delegate of France, I said that we would be dealing with the resolution presented by the United States and then I said that OK, we want to vote on that. But the representative of Cuba had asked before going to the vote on the motion, to introduce amendments to the US Resolution. Then others have requested the same, while you have requested to be allowed to introduce amendments to the other proposal, so I said, "Wait until we come to that resolution, when we will discuss it." OK, I hope this is clear.

Norway has some amendments to introduce.

Harald HØSTMARK (Norway): The present draft of the US resolution contains many interesting elements. However, the Nordic countries believe in managing by objectives, while at the same time keeping to realistic budget levels. This differs from the concept of zero budgeting. In order for the present draft resolution to express our concerns about the prominence of the programming side, it is accordingly necessary to have some amendments to the text. Taken each by itself, my amendments may seem small and, I hope, acceptable. But in sum they will give an emphasis to programming which will make it possible for us to accept the draft.

My amendments are as follows: In the operative paragraph I, which begins with the word "Asks" insert after the word "early", before "determination" in the second line, "participation by all members", then move the words "ranking of priorities and the" from the third line up to the second line before the words "budget level" and insert the word "programme". The paragraph then reads, "Asks the Director-General to establish a new Programme of Work and Budget schedule that will permit early participation by all members in the determination of the ranking of priorities and the programme budget level for the next biennium and, in this context;" and so on.

Now as to paragraph 4, in the second line of this paragraph delete the first word "determine" and substitute the word "recommend". Then in the same line add the word "Programme" before the word "Budget".

In paragraph 5 which begins "Recommendation" in the first line delete "should again meet jointly, to review the SPWB and the PWB in order to assess" and substitute for that, "in their May meeting expand the length of the joint meeting in order to review". So it rends, "Recommends that the Programme and Finance Committees would in their May meeting expand the length of the joint meeting in order to review not also their priorities and attendant financial implications;".

Paragraph 6 begins "Agrees". That paragraph should be moved up to before the present paragraph 5 and then the word "aspects" in that paragraph should be deleted and the word "implications" should be substituted. That is the sum of my amendments. Mr Chairman, I have these amendments here in writing and if it is acceptable to the US delegation I can hand them to the Secretariat to save time.

CHAIRMAN: Please do so.

Horacio CARANDANG (Philippines): Our amendment would be operative paragraph 2. After the words "that the Director-General prepare" I would put the following words "in lieu of the Summary Programme of Work and Budget". Then in paragraph 4, the last line there is "the SPWB", we should omit the "S". In the fifth operative paragraph, second line, omit "the SPWB and".

The reason for these amendments is that according to the Secretariat it would not be possible to have the outline and the Summary Programme of Work and Budget. It would be either/or, so it would be the outline instead of the Summary Programme of Work and Budget. This is a practical amendment and I hope those proposed amendments have been understood.

Antonio GAYOSO (United States of America): I appreciate Mr Carandang's spirit of cooperation, but as the Legal Counsel said, one of the virtues of this proposal is that it does not change the exist­ing system nor affect the Basic Texts. It only adds a slight change in the procedure at the begin­ning. If we were to say "in lieu of the SPWB", we would be proposing something that requires much more complicated legal processing, if you wish.

The second thing I wanted to say in regard to the intervention by the Philippines is that I really did not hear - and I stand to be corrected if I am wrong - that the Secretariat had submitted that it was impossible to prepare a budget outline defined loosely as a three to four-page short document in January. In my view, what they explained was the workload involved in the present system. Of course, the additional budget line will increase that workload, but the early participation by all members and the earlier signals back to the Secretariat will in the end reduce the workload because we shall not have as much discussion perhaps in the June Council.

Vanrob ISARANKURA (Thailand): We understood that this resolution had one main objective. That was to increase the participation of Member Nations in the budget process. But when we studied the operative paragraph, we thought there was nothing much the matter with this objective because there does not exist any chance for Member Nations to participate more in that process. So I would like to suggest that we should add the following in the second operative paragraph at the and, after "budget level", "for submission to the Council for this approval during the non-Conference year."

I think only the FAO Council is the right body to determine first the budget level and then to ask the Finance and Programme Committees to consider the details.

Antonio GAYOSO (United States of America): I shall defer to the Legal Counsel on this one, but my understanding of the text is that the review process must take place during the Conference year. So I think that to bring it back to the November Council in the non-Conference year would be a bit too much for the Secretariat who will have their hands full preparing for the Council coming out of the regional conferences. This is why I placed the time in January; I did not even say "early", it can be late January, first to be within the Conference year and secondly not to overload the system.

CHAIRMAN: Does the delegate of the United States still want Legal Counsel to give a reaction on that? Do you still seek Legal Counsel's reaction to what has been proposed, or is what you have said sufficient?

Antonio GAYOSO (United States of America): Only if he thinks I am wrong, Mr. Chairman.

LEGAL COUNSEL: This is more a question for Mr Shah to answer because he is the one who has the practical difficulties. But I think you are probably right, subject to what Mr Shah might say.

I feel perhaps I should make one additional clarification on the legal aspects. You will recall that we discussed at some length the question of the budget schedule. Perhaps because at that time I was thinking of how the schedule was affected by the two resolutions, I omitted to make a point which I distinctly remember making when I was invited to the Contact Group. That was on a point which I think has also been indirectly referred to by the delegate of Cuba in this amendments. That is, one of the features of the amendment of the United States resolution which refers to "consensus". There, you will recall, I made a very clear distinction between "consensus" as an objective which everybody seeks, quite obviously, and "consensus" as a rule.

In this particular context, I regret having omitted to say earlier that I feel that if the intent - and certainly from the context it appears to be the intent of the United States resolution - in operative paragraph 4 that the reference to "consensus" means that it is a voting rule, as I pointed out in the Contact Group, this creates a serious legal problem. If the wording can be attenuated in any way to make the context clearer that it is not a rule, then that particular obstacle would be removed.

Antonio GAYOSO (United States of America): Indeed, the Legal Counsel raised that point at the Contact Group and I explained to him that we were not trying to change a rule in a legal way. We were trying to move the Programme and Finance Committees to reach consensus. So the way in which we had worded it was essentially in our view not a rule.

However, I have the distinct feeling that the Norwegian suggestion which I have accepted and which says "recommends by consensus" may have attenuated the word "consensus" sufficiently to satisfy the Legal Counsel's concerns.

Carlos DI MOTTOLA BALESTRA(Costa Rica): Antes de presentar mi enmienda, necesito saber cuál es la nueva propuesta de los Estados Unidos y cómo atenúa la palabra, ya que no ha quedado, claro qué propone.

LEGAL COUNSEL: I must say that from a strictly legal point of view I do not find the suggestion made by Norway, although very helpful, actually changes the situation, because if there is "Recommend by consensus" and no recommendation can be made you are back to the starting point. It says "recommend by consensus", followed by its being the budget level that would be used in preparing the PWB. So

we would be back to the same position. But, "if possible", as suggested by the delegate of India, would, I believe, solve that particular problem quite clearly. That is reflected to a certain extent in the joint resolution submitted by Costa Rica and India which adopts a slightly more flexible approach, providing for a procedure that would apply in the event that consensus could not be reached.

CHAIRMAN: I think the United States have acknowledged that Legal Counsel had maybe referred to this word in earlier discussions. Then he said that maybe the Norwegian proposal for amendment of this word, by deleting the word "determine" and substituting it with the word "recommend", might be the weight of the consensus mentioned. This is my understanding. Is that correct United States?

Sorry, there is a point of order.

POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN

Akbar Mirza KHALEELI (India): We would like Legal Counsel to let us know whether the word "recommends" falls within the mischief of the same interpretation of the original formulation by the United States, because much of the problem we had was to introduce that element "if possible", so that it would fall within the rules and within the realms of possibility.

Carlos DI MOTTOLA BALESTRA (Costa Rica): Sí, Señor Presidente, quisiera antes de todo referirme al párrafo que comienza con la palabra "Reconociendo". Proponemos que se elimine todo lo que queda después de la palabra "presupuesto". O sea, sería: Reconociendo la necesidad de alcanzar con suficiente antelación un acuerdo sobre un nivel de presupuesto. Después nada más.

La otra propuesta es la de sumarme a la propuesta de Cuba en el sentido de que en el párrafo 4 en vez de las palabras: "determine por consenso", se diga: "considerarán". Yo creo que se tiene que dejar claro que estos Comités tienen que estudiar el nivel del presupuesto, pero no tienen derecho de veto. Las palabras "por consenso" sin ser condicionadas por adverbios que las precedan es un derecho de veto, y esto acaba de declararlo el Asesor Jurídico. Yo propongo que se ponga la palabra: "Considerarán".

CHAIRMAN: I thought the United States had not accepted what the distinguished delegate of Cuba proposed as an amendment regarding this change of words.

El Salvador, you have asked for the floor. May I ask you if you have an amendment to the United States proposal? El Salvador, please state your point of order.

POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN

Sra. María Eulalia JIMENEZ (El Salvador): Creo que la Conferencia debe ser realista; no hay un consenso ni sobre una resolución ni sobre la otra. Señor Presidente, creo que deberíamos, a través de una votación, eliminar estas dos propuestas, que el contenido de las mismas se refleje en nuestro informe y que se mande a estudio a los comités correspondientes. Esta propuesta ya la hizo el delegado de Francia.

POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN

Temel ISKIT (Turkey): Mr Chairman, it is a point of order. It is clear under Rule XI of the General Rules that amendments to proposals, as a general rule, should be submitted to the Secretariat in writing twenty-four hours before the discussion of the proposal. Of course that is a general rule, and paragraph 3 also states that you, Mr Chairman, may permit votings on amendments even though they have not been circulated or have been circulated in less than twenty-four hours. But may I appeal to you, Mr Chairman, not to put these amendments to the vote in view of the fact that we are within the last hours of this Conference, and having heard the negative reactions of the United States to most of the amendments I have the feeling that we will not have a consensus on the amendments themselves. So may I appeal to you that we proceed directly to the vote on the United States proposal as it stands, and now.

CHAIRMAN: I would like to thank the distinguished delegate of Turkey for his very constructive proposal. If the. Conference agrees to that, this goes along with my first proposal. I made a suggestion to you that we vote without the introduction of any amendment. If you approve that we can go ahead with voting on the United States proposal without amendments. Do you approve?

POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN

Sra. Mónica DEREGIBUS (Argentina): Previo a ello, mi delegación agradecería una clarificación adicional de parte de la Oficina Legal. ¿Puedo formular la pregunta?

Mi delegación desearía saber si las facultades que tienen constitucionalmente los comités del Programa y de Finanzas son para recomendar, aconsejar o asistir al Consejo, o si tienen facultades constitucionales para decidir o determinar el nivel del presupuesto.

En segundo lugar, quisiera saber si el párrafo 4 del proyecto de resolución de Estados Unidos, con o sin la enmienda de Noruega, entraría en contradicción con alguna disposición legal o con el reglamento de alguno de estos comités.

LEGAL COUNSEL: The functions of the Programme and Finance Committees are set out in Rules XXVI and XXVII. They do take some decisions, and I think this has been pointed out on a previous occasions, for instance on transfers between the chapters of the budget as far as the Finance Committee is concerned and so on. They do not take a decision on the level of the budget. That is quite clear. That is only taken by the Conference. They, in fact, are part of a continuing process working up towards the final decision taken by the Conference.

On the second question, regarding operative paragraph 4 of the United States proposal, with or without the amendment proposed by Norway, I think that the observation I made when I had the floor a little earlier is fairly clear on that it was to the effect that if "concensus" is left in, in the way it is phrased at present, it implies the need for all to agree.

I would also make a little parenthesis here. The question of consensus is often referred to in terms of veto, but the veto is the extreme situation where only one member of a body disagrees. Very often there are several members, or at least a minority. Any number of members of a particular body can obstruct or prevent a consensus being reached.

That parenthesis being closed, I merely want to confirm what I said to the delegate of the United States earlier - and now I am saying it to the delegate of Argentina - that the requirement of determination or even recommendations being reached by consensus would be a new form of voting procedure. It is certainly contrary to the rules of procedure of the Finance Committee as they are at present, and certainly would introduce an entirely new concept in FAO's voting procedures which does not exist anywhere in the Basic Texts.

CHAIRMAN: Again, having listened to the legal adviser, would distinguished delegates go to the vote on the United States proposal as it is without any amendments? If I see no objection we can proceed with the voting on the basis of the rollcall. I see no objection, so it is decided. Thank you very much.

Vote
Vote
Votación

The draft resolution was rejected
Le projet de resolution n'est pas adopté
El proyecto de resolución no queda aprobado

Wolfgang A.F. GRABISCH (Germany,Federal Republic of) (original language German): I would like to say that my delegation voted in favour of the present draft resolution on the understanding that the principle of consensus mentioned in the operative part in paragraph 4 is in line with the recognized principles of the right to vote in the United Nations and in all specialized agencies of the United Nations system.

CHAIRMAN: Before I give the floor to the next speaker, in the interests of saving time may I ask the distinguished delegates, if they wish to give an explanation of their vote, to write it and cable it, and it will be placed in the verbatim, so that we can now go ahead and complete our business.

Harald HØSTMARK (Norway): Unfortunately, I did not have time to clarify the basis on which we voted before the vote was taken. I therefore had to act on what I believe, and what I believe is still the case, concerning what I actually voted upon.

When I introduced my amendments, they were asking you a question clearly and officially accepted by the United States and therefore, under the normal practice of parliamentary procedure, they become what is called in that parlance "friendly" amendments and form part of the original resolution. In that belief I voted yes to the proposal.

Carlos DI MOTTOLA BALESTRA (Costa Rica): Para ahorrar tiempo quisiera decir que la delegación de Costa Rica retira su copatrocinio al Proyecto de Resolución que ha presentado.

POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN

Zbigniew KARNICKI (Poland): My point of order was to proceed directly to vote on the second resolution, as we decided; but, as it has now been withdrawn, my point of order is no longer valid.

POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN

V.K. SIBAL (India): The resolution which we had partly sponsored, which was co-sponsored by Costa Rica, was offered as a measure of consensus in an attempt to reach agreement on an issue which has been very extensively debated. In view of the circumstances now prevailing, and bearing in mind the last intervention, we should also like to withdraw from this resolution.

Applause
Applaudissements
Aplausos

CHAIRMAN: On your behalf gentlemen I would like to thank the two distinguished delegates, representative of Costa Rica and India for their very constructive attitude.

A. SAINTRAINT (Belgique): En trente secondes, pour ne pas retarder, je voudrais quand même signaler qu'il me paraissait léger de voter sur un texte qui va à l'encontre des règles qui nous régissent actuellement et qui proposent dans la pratique une procédure difficilement ou pratiquement impraticable sur le plan opérationnel administratif. Telles sont les raisons pour lesquelles mon pays a estimé devoir s'abstenir.

Horacio CARANDANG (Philippines): Now that both the resolutions are withdrawn - the first one is eliminated and the other one withdrawn - I am wondering what will be the procedure we will take regarding the Programme of Work and Budget. Will the matter be examined by the Programme and Finance Committee, as suggested by some delegations?

DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: I can only make one or two general remarks at this stage. I do feel that in the course of the last two or three weeks we came extremely close to a consensus on this particular issue. I believe that with perhaps a little more time, with perhaps a little more movement, a consensus could have been found which would have met the concerns expressed by all parties. I do not think that in any way this vote will be interpreted by the membership, or by the Secretariat, as a refusal to consider the types of measures which have been introduced in the United Nations, in ILO and WHO. I believe rather that in the period ahead it should be possible to go back to the matter, that the review of the budget programme process has been initiated. It has not yet been concluded; an agreement among the membership remains to be worked out, but this is only the starting point, and the additional steps that can be taken with the agreement of all concerned will have to be worked out in the course of 1988.

I would suggest simply that in a very brief textual report on this matter the Conference might wish to record the very careful attention that was given to this matter over an extended period, the failure to reach an agreement, but in which the Conference would note that attempts to develop satisfactory formulae for all concerned would be pursued in the immediate future.

CHAIRMAN: I would ask whether the delegate of the Philippines is satisfied that an answer has been given to him or not.

Horacio CARANDANG (Philippines): I do not know how this is going to be recorded in the Report, but I understand that it is going to be done and that the silence, the lack of opposition of the Plenary, is understood to form part of the Report of the Conference.

Antonio GAYOSO (United States of America): I very much regret not only the decision to reject the US proposal, but also - and perhaps even more so - the withdrawal of the second proposal by its ex-sponsors. In my view, they decided not to place their resolution to the test of this Assembly and the potential amendments. There was a lot of work in the proposal of India and Costa Rica which was very much in line with the Norwegian amendment to the US proposal. It seems to me that the Conference is not willing seriously to consider and to debate alternative ideas, the India/Costa Rica resolution being one of them, then we are really not fulfilling our responsibility to the Organization and to ourselves. What we have done is simply to look at the proposal which was indeed controversial, which was discussed extensively by most of the members present here, because we had a Contact Group and there were regional groups working on what was going on directly in, and at the margins of, the Contact Group. So this did not arrive in Plenary unannounced; it was discussed extensively. There

was a lot of cooperation. There were many contributions. There was indeed a lot of goodwill in the process. Yet I think it would be far-fetched in a report of the proceedings to say that this Assembly moved in the direction of changing the budget review process, since in fact the first Roche's proposal to do so with a slight change - and I keep recalling Mr Roche's word at the Contact Group - was rejected by a significant majority, 60 to 14. We have to have the courage to accept what we ourselves have done in a democratic forum. The report must record that indeed there were a lot of negociations, there was a lot of constructive spirit, there were a lot of people willing to move towards an agreement on a resolution on this matter, but that in the end the Conference decided by 60 to 14 to reject the proposal for slight changes in the budget review procedure.

Second - and I do not know whether this is within the Rules or tradition - the Report should also record that an alternative proposal was not subject to discussion by Plenary because it was withdrawn before there was any discussion on its content. I cannot convey to you how much I regret that all us who have been talking about democracy, exchange of views and the right of members to discuss things, find ourselves impeded from discussing a proposal that was ligitimately put on the floor. This is not to say that the sponsors did not have the right to withdraw it. Of course they had the right to withdraw it. I am just giving you my reaction, regret and disappointment, that the test of the Assembly was not accepted.

Temel ISKIT (Turkey): This is half an explanation of our vote and half a reply to the United States. Turkey abstained on the United States proposals. It would have abstained on the Costa Rica/India proposals for a very simple reason. My delegation is aware of all the efforts and intellect put into the elaboration and discussion of both these proposals. However, we deemed that for lack of time and lack of occasion to involve all the members of Conference, this in-depth discussion, which could have lead to a consensus, was not possible, but I want to underline that Turkey desired this compromise and this consensus. The sole reason for our abstention was - and I repeat it again - this impossibility, but I must underline again that Turkey is in agreement with the substance of both proposals, in that our Organization needs to review its budget and programme procedures in line with other international organizations which have already done so.

On that point, I must thank Mr Walton for his statement and his assurances that this review will not only be done, but has in fact already been initiated.

I have a reply to the United States, if they will accept it. We want to believe that something should be done about this programme and review process. I think this is a very positive step. We hope that the United States and other delegations will convey this positive feeling to their Governments. I do not doubt that it will be done, but I repeat that appositive step has been taken. It was unfortunate that this positive step could not take the form of a resolution but the spirit is there and we must hail this spirit and we must understand its spirit.

Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Nosotros no podemos aceptar que en el informe aparezca ninguna referencia al hecho de que esta Conferencia no ha cumplido con su deber.

Habíamos dicho antes en apoyo de Irán y de Francia que convendría registrar en el informe el espíritu, las partes esenciales del contenido, como lo ha dicho Turquía, de la propuesta, porque la misma se dará translado al grupo ampliado ahora del Comité del Programa y de Finanzas más los expertos para que lo incluyan en el mandato de ese grupo. Esto es lo máximo que podemos aceptar. En Colombia y en Cuba hay un proverbio que dice "quien corre detrás de dos conejos suele no alcanzar ninguno de los dos".

Horacio CARANDANG (Philippines): I understand that the India/Costa Rica proposal has been withdrawn, not because of a substancial defect in the resolution itself, but due to some minor legal problems and difficulties with some members of some regional groups. It now appears that the idea in substance contained in this resolution is acceptable to many delegations. I would therefore make a motion that the resolution tabled by Costa Rica be one of the subject matters to be considered by the Programme

and Finance Committees, assisted by the Group of Experts, in their review and that that should be the beginning of a process of considering how the Programme and Budget process would be adapted to the changes that are now being instituted in other parts of the UN and in other UN organizations. I hope that I have made it clear that I have made a motion to this effect.

CHAIRMAN: Is there any objection to the motion made by the distinguished delegate of the Philippines?

Michel MOMBOULI (Congo): Je dois dire que nous trouvons assez difficile cette proposition qui vient de nous être présentée. Un enfant qui n'est pas né ne peut pas avoir un nom. Les auteurs de la résolution présentée par l'Inde et le Costa Rica ont soumis d'abord un projet de résolution puis ils l'ont retiré, ce qui veut dire que la Conférence en est dessaisie; je ne vois pas comment elle pourrait l'envoyer soit au Conseil, soit aux autres comités. Pour ma part, je pense que cela n'est pas possible.

Le projet de résolution a été retiré, nous ne disposons plus de rien, nous n'avons plus rien à transmettre à qui que ce soit; c'est au niveau du Conseil ou au niveau de ces différents comités qu'une tentative peut être faite. Pour notre part, nous n'avons plus rien dans les mains.

CHAIRMAN: Mr Walton wishes to speak at this juncture.

DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: Once the review process gets under way, it is to take into account the papers submitted by Member Nations and also the opinions expressed during the discussion of the item in this Conference. All this discussion has been on the same item, item 12, and therefore I believe that all this discussion which has taken place today, including that on these two resolutions, is automatically, in terms of the earlier legislation, within the purview of the groups that will be looking into the reform process. I believe that, even without a formal decision by the Conference to that end, this will automatically take place, and could, indeed, be one of the ways forward for further consideration of the review of programme budgeting in FAO.

L.Th.B.Hertog, Vice-Chairman of the Conference, took the chair

L.Th.B.Hertog, Vice-Président de la Conférence, assume la présidence

Ocupa la presidencia L. Th.B. Hertog, Vicepresidente de la Plenaria

James AITKEN (United Kingdom): To supplement what has been said by the distinguished Deputy Director-General, the resolution which we adopted earlier on the form of mechanism says in the third paragraph: "The Group shall, subject to the terms of reference, take into account the views contained in document C 87/30, the views expressed during the Conference, and any further views submitted in writing, before 1 February 1988, by Member Nations who did not submit views before the Conference." I would suggest that in those circumstances the position is that the delegates of Costa Rica and India can, if they wish, submit those sorts of views in writing to the Group, views in line with their previously stated positions in the draft resolution. Presumably the Group will take account of the views that have been expressed within the Conference and also the voting pattern.

Ilan HARTUV (Israel): I wish very much to support the opinion of the distinguished delegate of the Philippines, whether it is considered a motion or part of the proceedings.

V.K. SIBAL (India): We had stated earlier that the resolution which we had submitted for considera­tion before the Conference was a search for a consensus. There was a time, indeed, when we felt that consensus was very near and there was even a possibility of a single resolution coming before the Conference. However, that. could not be, but we were still optimistic and, pursuing this purpose, we thought that this alternative should also remain before the Conference until the very end. In the course of the debate some operational and legal difficulties were mentioned, and the time came when we found that certain delegations had revised their views about this. As we were not seeking devisi-veness,-we thought that the right thing would be to withdraw the resolution and, in a spirit of calmness and coolness, consider the situation in order to find a solution which might be more accep­table in time. We are very grateful to the distinguished delegate of the Philippines for his sugges­tion. Although we have withdrawn the resolution for a matter of decision at the Conference at this time, as an idea it remains. If for all sections of the house there are features in this resolution which are attractive, we would feel ourselves amply rewarded if they were followed up and considered and studied further with a view to reaching an agreement which could be found acceptable eventually in the Conference itself. We also agree with what the distinguished delegate of the United Kingdom says. Within the terms of reference which we have determined in the resolution for setting up the mechanism for the study of FAO, there is provision for putting forward more ideas on this subject to the group which will be looking at it. In that context, the suggestion made by the Philippines is very pertinent and relevant.

Srta. Margarita LIZARRAGA SAUCEDO (México): Se ha hablado aquí de la búsqueda del consenso y de la apertura al dialogo. Creo que hemos estado con este espíritu desde que se inicio la Conferencia, y que los que formamos parte del Grupo de Contacto, pueden dar constancia también a sus diversas re­giones que en el proceso de análisis de esta Resolución - que no ha logrado el consenso gastamos gran parte de las horas de trabajo.

Faltaron, como dije esta mañana, muchas explicaciones; cada quien veía las cosas que se explicaban de diferente manera, de diferente óptica, y para nosotros había elementos que eran ciertamente no aceptables.

En esos momentos y en ese contexto, nosotros propusimos que el objeto, el espíritu de esta Resolu­ción pudiera quedar como parte de una sola Resolución, y hasta formulamos una propuesta para que quedara como parte de un párrafo que se dedicaba a la revisión de este proceso dentro de la Resolu­ción que íbamos a traer a esta Asamblea.

Sin embargo, esto no pareció satisfactorio y se insistió en una Resolución aparte que sabíamos que tenía las dificultades que, una vez explicada aquí en la Plenaria, harían objeto de los resultados que hubo.

Con ese espíritu, se dijo allí en ese grupo que se había formado un subgrupo tratando de buscar un consenso. Se negoció en ese subgrupo hasta tardías horas y se produjo un texto que era el texto alter­nativo y que después no había encontrado realmente ese consenso.

Creemos, por lo tanto, que sería injusto que quedara plasmada que la Plenaria no tomó responsable­mente el análisis y la búsqueda del consenso. El consenso se trató de buscar desde el inicio; hubo una gran flexibilidad, una gran apertura; estuvimos ahí representados todos ios grupos y sabemos que sí, que intentamos, que lo buscamos, que se formularon alternativas y exploradas todas éstas y porque se restringieron las vías, nos encontramos aquí. Pero como se ha dicho ya antes, seguimos en ese espíritu y lo que se refleja en esta Plenaria está tomándose en consideración, y por lo tanto, ose proceso de revisión que ya iniciamos desde que se inició esta Conferencia, contempla perfectamente que se analice ese aspecto y que se den los pasos suficientes.

CHAIRMAN: The Unites States has a Point of Order.

Fred J. ECKERT (United States of America): Would the Legal Counsel clarify the interpretation by the United States of America that under the Rules of this Organization a proposal which has been with­drawn may be reintroduced by any member?

LEGAL COUNSEL: The reply is very easy. The delegate, of the United SLates has referred to paragraph 4 of Rule XI, which says that a proposal may be withdrawn at any time before voting on it has commenced, provided that the proposal has not been amended. A proposal which has thus been withdrawn may be reintroduced by any member. That is what paragraph 4 of Rule XI says. I think it needs no clarification.

CHAIRMAN: Is that satisfactory to you?

Fred J. ECKERT (United States of America): The United States understands the Rules. For a point of clarification, to rephrase that, I think it means that the United States of America could today re­introduce the Indian/Costa Rican Resolution and call for a vote on it, does it not?

LEGAL COUNSEL: Yes, it does.

Fred J. ECKERT (United States of America): For the sake of those who are worrying about that, we shall not do so, however tempting it might be.

CHAIRMAN: As we all know, the United States is a country of unlimited possibility.

POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN

A. SAINTRAINT (Belgique): Je suis d'accord avec mon excellent collègue américain. Je voudrais faire remarquer que, si l'on avait prolongé la Conférence d'au moins 24 heures, il aurait fallu dans ce cas distribuer le texte et nous réunir. Je ne pense pas que cela aurait été possible durant le week-end à moins que nous ne passions le dimanche ensemble.

CHAIRMAN: The United States has a point of clarification.

Fred J. ECKERT (United States of America): Is not the Belgian colleague incorrect when he states that you would need to print the text? Is that not the text? The question on the Point of Order was, would it not be perfectly in order to introduce the text?

POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN

Ismael DIAZ YUBERO (España): Hace un rato hice una reclamación de la apreciación que se estaba haciendo de los Puntos de Orden. Evidentemente considero que no es el sistema oportuno el de hacer Puntos de Orden constantemente. Pero también considero que hacer un Punto de Orden cuando está un país en uso de la palabra para plantear algo que luego no es Punto de Orden, volver a dar la palabra a otro país que no plantea Punto de Orden o por lo menos no formal, y seguir dando la palabra a otro país que sigue haciendo informaciones, habiéndoseme quitado a mí la palabra, me parece incorrecto.

Lo que quiero decir es lo siguiente; hemos votado, hemos votado todos; todos somos conscientes, no tenemos malas conciencias, y aceptamos nuestras responsabilidades. Creo que no merece la pena seguir hablando más después de la conclusión a la que hemos llegado.

Por otra parte, creo que los dos Proyectos de Resolución, tanto el de Estados Unidos como el de india y Costa Rica, son documentos que el Comité del Programa y el de Finanzas y el Grupo de Expertos pueden tener en sus manos y lógicamente tendrán y considerarán; pero de eso a hacerles que estos Comités tengan que emplearlos necesaria y obligatoriamente, creo que hay un auténtico abismo. Piendo que ios Miembros de estos Comités, sean los que sean, serán suficientemente responsables y no será necesario indícales nada.

CHAIRMAN: I would like to respond to what the delegate of Spain said. I gave him the floor, there was a point of order raised by the United States, I followed the rules and gave the United States the floor, to have the opportunity of raising the point of order. There was another point of order, and in between there was the explanation by the Legal Counsel. So everything went the way it should go. I was about to give the delegate of Spain the floor, he took it, starting with the point of order, and then he made his statement. I think he has made his statement, now I can give the floor to the next speaker.

Atif Y. BUKHART (Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of) (original language Arabic): We should like wholeheartedly to support the words of our colleague, the representative of the Philippines. We believe that a reexamination of this issue, a very objective approach and scrutiny is in the interests of all of us, of all member countries. Indeed, it is in the interests of the Organization as a whole. We voted against the American draft resolution for the reasons that we handed in to the Secretariat so that they could be included in the record. These only refer to paragraph 4, as regards the reference to "consensus".

Our views then were handed in to the Secretariat, they only refer to paragraph 4 and therefore we would like to reiterate our wholehearted support for what the delegate of the Philippines said.

CHAIRMAN: I have finished my list of speakers. Before going on is there anybody who would like to intervene? Any delegation wishing to insert a written statement may do so by handing the text to the Secretary. Those written statements will subsequently be visited in the verbatim records.

Horacio CARANDANG (Philippines): Very briefly, I want to state that goodwill has not been lacking, all parties concerned were ready for dialogue, if we were not able to reach agreement it was because we lacked the time to do so. Time ran out on us, but I think we still have time before us and that dialogue and examination will continue.

Atif Y. BUKHARI (Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of): The objection of the delegation of the Kingdom to the USA Resolution on changes in FAO Budget/Programme Procedures, is basically focused on the Fourth operative paragraph of this resolution, which "Agrees that the January joint meeting of the Programme and Finance Committees would determine, by consensus,..." We consider that this implies "Veto Right" for any member of the two committees to impede the budget approval and withhold approval thereto. Such a right is not in the interest of FAO nor the developing countries, as well as it is not in use in many UN organizations. 1/

Mrs Kate ABANKWA (Ghana): Mr Chairman, my delegation voted against the resolution on particular operative paragraph 4 in view of the explanation given by the Legal Counsel that the expressions "determine by consensus" would mean a veto. In fact this was the fear of many members, including the developing countries, as it will not facilitate the adoption of a budget level agreed on by the majority.

My delegation voted for the compromised French proposal as it satisfies the aspirations of a number of countries. The resolution before us also takes into consideration the need for experts to make appropriate studies and advise on the reforms needed in the FAO. The involvement of the Programme and Finance Committees ensures that the experience of these bodies, together with those of the experts, are fully utilized for a better appreciation of the problems of FAO. In this connection, my delegation associates itself with the possible disadvantages of making use of experts alone, as pointed out by the delegate of India. My delegation hopes that the mechanisms, which, like other mechanisms, may not be perfect, will be given the cooperation they must have for successful work.1/

Mohamed ABDELHADI (Tunisie): Ma delegation pense que le projet de résolution des Etats-Unis, telle qu'elle nous est présentée comporte quelques points faibles, points faibles qui risquent d'avoir des conséquences fâcheuses notamment sur le déroulement de la procédure de préparation, d'approbation du budget et du Programme de travail de la FAO.

En effet, l'Article 4 de la Résolution stipule que le Comité financier et le Comité du programme détermineront dès janvier par consensus le niveau du budget que le Secrétariat utiliserait pour établir le Programme de travail et budget.

On pourrait so poser la question de savoir quello serait la situation si le consensus n'est pas obtenu.

Le projet de résolution est silencieux sur ces aspects de la question. C'est pourquoi, ma délégation, par souci d'éviter tout blocage au processus d'élaboration et d'approbation du budget et Programme de travail tel que défini dans les textes constitutifs et le Règlement financier de l'Organisation, ne pourrait pas adhérer à la résolution des Etats-Unis d'Amérique. 2/

Humberto CARRION MCDONOUGH (Nicaragua): Mi declaración será breve. Las delegaciones que me han precedido en el uso de la palabra en este tema 12 han sido exhaustivas.

Se han presentado dos posiciones principales en este debate. La de pocos países que desean reformar sustancialmente la Organización, y la de la gran mayoría que desea conservar las estructuras básicas de la FAO, sus estrategias, objetivos, prioridades y métodos de trabajo.

Nicaragua está claramente al lado de la gran mayoría de las naciones miembros de esta Organización que han expresado su oposición al establecimiento de un grupo de expertos que examine las propuestas de reformas contenidas en el documento C 87/30. La posición de Nicaragua al respecto está resumida en el párrafo 27 del documento en mención, párrafo que suscribimos plenamente.

__________________________
1/ Statement inserted in the verbatim records on request.

2/ Texte reçu avec demande d'insertion au procès-verbal..

Cualquier propuesta de examen de las estrategias, objetivos y operaciones de nuestra organización se debe canalizar a través de Los órganos constituidos de la FAO. Creemos que sólo de esta manera estaremos, todos, reafirmando el carácter multilateral y democrático de esta institución, que ha sido y continúa siendo válida, eficiente y eficaz en la lucha contra el hambre, la pobreza y la desnutrición en el mundo. Sólo de esta manera podremos analizar con serenidad y ánimo constructivo, lo que de positivo para' la FAO podría haber en las propuestas de ajustes y reformas contenidas en el docu-mento C 87/30.

La FAO no está en crisis y en este sentido rechazamos las presiones financieras unilaterales hechas por el mayor país contribuyente. Reiteramos que estamos abiertos al diálogo franco y constructivo, dentro de los mecanismos ya existentes en la Organización. Y apoyamos plenamente la declaración que en su oportunidad hizo el Presidente del Grupo Latinoamericano y del Caribe, Embajador Carlos Di Mottola, de Costa Rica.

En aras de la colaboración y la comprensión entre todos los países miembros de esta institución, apoyamos especificamente propuesta de que se realice un solo proyecto de resolución a ser adoptado en esta Comisión.

Para concluir, Señor Presidente, deseo citar algunos párrafos pertinentes de la Declaración del Comandante de la Revolución Jaime Wheelock Román, Ministro de Desarrollo Agropecuario y Reí orina Agraria de Nicaragua, en las sesiones plenarias:

^“En los últimos anos la FAO ha ganado prestigio, eficiencia y fuerza en su lucha contra el hambre y la desnutrición en el mundo.

Consideramos que su estrategia, sus objetivos y estructuras continúan vigentes. La FAO es un instru­mento multilateral de cooperación al desarrollo y de asistencia emergente por desastres en los países de mayor vulnerabilidad.

Nicaragua está convencida de que los problemas globales del hambre, de la pobreza y del subdcsarrollo sólo pueden ser resueltos con el establecimiento de un verdadero orden económico internacional más justo y más equitativo que modifique, en favor de los países en vías de desarrollo, el desequilibrio en el intercambio comercial, causa de la deuda externa; que modifique el proteccionismo y la política de subsidios; y que nos permita recibir un flujo adecuado y sostenido de recursos financieros y técnicos.

Señor Presidente. Cualquier propuesta de cambios en la FAO debe coincidir con el establecimiento e implementación de este nuevo orden.

Estamos de acuerdo con que siempre debemos estar abiertos a los cambios. Sin embargo, creemos que mientras no se modifique sustancialmente el orden injusto internacional que nos golpea hoy, y se continúen utilizando los alimentos como arma de presión política, tal como ha ocurrido en Nicaragua, y ahora recientemente contra Panamá, tenemos que conservar, consolidar y fortalecer la FAO, que hoy contribuye, en medio de las grandes desigualdades del mundo, en asistir en forma multilateral a las naci'ones pobres de la tierra." 1/

Paragraphs land 2, including Resolutions as amended, adopted

Les paragraphes 1 et 2, y compris les résolutions ainsi amendées, sont adoptés

Los párrafos 1 y 2, incluidas las resoluciones así enmendadas, son aprobados

Draft Report of Plenary, Part 11, as amended, was adopted

Projet de rapport de la plénière, onzième partie, ainsi amendée, est adopté

El proyecto de. informe de la Plenaria, Parte 11, así enmendado, es aprobado

____________________________
1/ Texto incluido en las actas a petición expresa.

DRAFT REPORT OF PLENARY - PART 12 (from Commission II)
PROJET DE RAPPORT DE LA PLENIERE - PARTIE 12 (de la Commission II)
PROYECTO DE INFORME DE LA PLENARIA - PARTE 12 (de la Comisión II)

PARAGRAPHS 1 TO 10 INCLUDING DRAFT RESOLUTION
PARAGRAPHES 1 A 10 Y COMPRIS LE PROJET DE RESOLUTION
PARRAFOS 1 A 10 INCLUIDO EL PROYECTO DE RESOLUCION

CHAIRMAN: We now come to the next point, the Draft Report of Plenary C 87/REP/12 which has come from Commission II. I would request the Deputy Director-General to introduce this to you.

DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: Late yesterday evening the Secretariat was asked to prepared a very, very brief, objective, factual account of what happened under item 12 at this Conference, as a kind of "chapeau" to the resolution on the Review to be included in the Report of the Conference.

I think there was general agreement that it would be extremely difficult and not very useful for the Plenary to attempt to act as a drafting committee. There was no drafting committee available to which the Secretariat could submit a proposed text. We have therefore done our best in C 87/REP/12.

Paragraphs 1 through 8 deal with the question of the Review. Paragraphs 9 and 10 deal with the issue of the Programme and Budget process. Paragraphs 9 and particularly 10 are now superseded by events and we would have slightly to rewrite this section of the document. The text is necessarily extremely superficial, I cannot pretend that it gives the flavour of a debate which at times induced at least in me a fear that the automatic sprinkler mechanism was about to be activated! But I hope that it will be found generally acceptable as a rough and more or less procedural summary of what happened.

If that is so, it would be our hope that the Conference could agree that this text should simply be added to the Report as the introductory section before the Resolution.

Fred J. ECKERT (United States of America): On the comments by the Deputy Director-General, the United States of America certainly agrees that while superficial, the statement is certainly not objectionable. I was not in the chamber at the time when we got into the discussion last night, but the United States feels no difficulty whatever with this.

We discussed with the Deputy Director-General and others earlier the difficulty of arriving at a comprehensive draft report, given the late hour and the work to be done. We have no objection to the language of that report.

CHAIRMAN: I thank the United States. Would the proposal just made by the Deputy Director-General be acceptable by a consensus or with acclamation? So this part of the report will be accepted.

Applause
Applaudissements
Aplausos

Draft Report of Plenary, Part 12, as amended, was adopted
Projet de rapport de la plénière, partie 12,ainsi amendé, est adopté
El proyecto de informe de la plenaria, Parte 12 así enmendado, es aprobado
Faisal Abdul-Razzak Al-Khaled, Chairman of the Conference, took the chair
Faisal Abdul-Razzal Al-Khlaed, President de la Conférence, assume la présidence
Ocupa la presidencia Faisal Abdul-Razzak Al-Khaled, Presidente de la Plenaria

CHAIRMAN: I understand that this concludes our business. I would like at the end to thank you all for putting your trust in me as your Chairman for this very important and difficult Conference which you have gone through. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to each and every one of you for the efforts which you have made and for the spirit you have shown, as well as the interest which you have indicated in your sincere positions and deliberations in the best interests of the institution to which we all belong.

I wish you a very fruitful two years to come in carrying out our and FAO's business according to the resolutions which you have agreed upon and the conclusions which you have reached. No doubt there were difficult times and difficult moments for you all, but it was in a good spirit, in the best interests of this institution. I hope that we shall depart from here agreeing and in a consensus that whatever we have concluded will be in the best interests of this institution. Thank you all very much.

Applause
Applaudissements
Aplausos

CHAIRMAN: At this moment I should not miss the chance to thank the Secretariat for their hard work and for the late hours during which they have stayed in preparation for the Conference. I shall not forget those who are behind the scenes, the interpreters who have done a wonderful job for us, who have facilitated our work. On your behalf I shall thank them all for their work.

Applause
Applaudissements
Aplausos

A. SAINTRAINT (Belgique): Monsieur le Président, au nom d'un bon nombre de pays de la Communauté économique européenne et de beaucoup d'amis, nous voudrions du fond du coeur vous remercier pour la façon objective et élégante avec laquelle vous avez présidé nos différentes réunions. J'ai eu personnellement l'occasion d'apprécier votre attitude et votre comportement lors de réunions difficiles, notamment au niveau du Bureau. Vous avez fait preuve à la fois d'une présence et d'une objectivité auxquelles je tiens à rendre hommage. Je n'ai pas l'intention de prononcer un discours. Nous avons apprécié vos hautes qualités. Nous avons été particulièrement heureux que cette Conférence difficile ait été présidée par un homme de votre qualité, et je voudrais, au nom de tous ces pays, vous dire un très cordial merci.

Atif Y. BUKHARI (Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of) (original language Arabic): Mr Chairman, on behalf of the Group of 77, your excellency, Minister on behalf of the Group of 77, we would like to thank you most sincerely for the most praiseworthy and indeed ceaseless efforts you have engaged in to bring the work of our Conference to a happy conclusion. You have done this is in a most masterly manner. Quite honestly, you have been an excellent pilot and helmsman. These were very difficult circumstances which we have witnessed. We had of course already heard about you, although we had not made your acquaintance, but we realized that you were well known for high merits and distinction and you have shown that you are particularly -deserving of your reputation.

You have proved extremely skilful and able and indeed, extremely patient. This calls for our respect and it is with great sincerety that we should like to assure you, Sir, that all developing countries are particularly proud - proud I say - of having had you as our Chairman. I can assure you that the Government of the sister country, Kuwait, will be particularly proud of what you have achieved here, Sir.

I am unable to find the right words to express my personal appreciation of everything that you have contributed to this Conference. Indeed, this Conference has had its ups and downs, and some very difficult moments, but we were sure that you would lead us out of our difficulties. When we elected you we were sure that you would bring us safely into port following the many storms we have had to go through.

Carlos DI MOTTOLA BALESTRA (Costa Rica): El grupo Latinoamericano que tengo el honor de presidir en este momento y que es parte del Grupo de los 77 quisiera apoyar y reiterar lo que ha manifestado el Embajador Bukhari, agradeciéndole muy calurosamente toda la labor que usted ha llevado a cabo en este período. Usted ha llevado a cabo una presidencia muy brillante, muy equilibrada. Hubo momentos y situaciones extremadamente difíciles, que han sido resueltas de una manera que yo quiero decir que fue absolutamente ejemplar; de una manera que nos ha satisfecho a todos y que ha logrado resultados que no estarnos en este momento al tanto de apreciar, porque son resultados de compromisos importantísimos.

La diplomacia está hecha para lograr resultados y entendimientos, y éstos los hemos logrado. Esto va ser probado durante los dos próximos años. Además de mi agradecimiento a usted, quiero agregar un agradecimiento especial a la Secretaría, que hizo todo lo posible para hacer más fácil la difícil labor de esta Conferencia.

Gracias, Sr. Presidente, y los mejores-augurios del Grupo latinoamericano.

Sra. Mercedes FERMIN-GOMEZ (Venezuela): Unas breves palabras para decirle hasta luego al amigo Presidente Faisal Ai-Khaled. Habíamos trabajados juntos en el Fondo Internacional de Desarrollo Agrícola, como delegados de la segunda categoría que allí somos, y desde entonces conocíamos su gran capacidad de trabajo, su condición de dirigente. Por eso, cuando su jefatura fue propuesta aquí para esta Conferocnia, nosotros gustosamente dimos nuestro apoyo, porque estábamos seguros de su capacidad, estábamos seguros de su tino y de sus condiciones de líder para llevarnos a buen puerto, como lo ha decho felizmente hasta hoy, esta mañana.

Otras responsabilidades le llaman a su país para seguir allá su tarea. Nosotros le deseamos buena suerte y esparamos que podamos volver a verle por aquí, en Roma, en no lejana fecha. Buena suerte, buen viaje, Presidente Faisal. Hasta luego.

CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. I hope to see you in Kuwait.

Lajos ZELKÓ (Hungary): Mr Chairman, in the name of the Group of Socialist Countries I would like to join those who congratulated you on your way of conducting our meetings and who eloquently spoke about your qualities and skills. We thank you again for your very efficient work.

Antonio GAYOSO (United States of America): Salamu Aleygum Sayiidi Rayes.

Applause
Applaudissements
Aplausos

Mr Chairman, it is well known that outside of this room your country and mine sail together. In my view, and in all seriousness, this has been a very safe and enjoyable trip. I want to express my appreciation and that of my country for your fairness, your firmness and your conduct, and reiterate our warm-felt. desi res for a good future.

Retirement of Mr Decían Walton
Départ de M. Declan Walton
Jubilación del Sr. Declan Walton

LE DIRECTEUR GENERAL: Le plus grand ennemi do cotto Conférence a été le temps. Je pense que si nous avions ou le temps, il aurait été possible d'arriver au consensus sur les deux points importants de l'ordre du jour.

Le biennium qui s'annonce est très difficile, avec devant nous une crise do liquidités sans précédent. Il faut que nous prenions, avec l'accord de notre Conseil, des décisions très importantes pour éventuellement ajuster le Programme de travail et budget. Nous commençons avec un fonds do roulement où il n'y a pas un seul dollar, et avec un compte de réserve spécial à zéro. Nous allons aussi être très occupés par la préparation des travaux des deux Comités assistés d'experts pour examiner les activités do l'Organisation. Nous avons donc besoin de la confiance do vous tous, et de votre coopération.

Malheureusement, au cours do cette année, je vais perdre mon plus fidèle collaborateur, Monsieur Walton. Il doit nous quitter après avoir servi pendant tant d'années cotte Organisation, après avoir donné le meilleur de lui-même à vous, à la Conférence et au Conseil.

Je voudrais profiter de cette occasion pour, en présence de tous les Etats Membres, lui rendre hommage pour sa compétence, pour son dévouement-, pour sa contribution aux travaux de l'Organisation, aux travaux de la Conférence, et lui dire un grand merci au nom de tous parce qu'il n'a que des amis, à la FAO et dans toutes les Organisations du système des Nations Unies ou il est très connu et appréci depuis dos années.

Moi-même, je lui dois énormément. J'ai beaucoup profité de son expérience, de sa sagesse, de ses conseils, de ses lumières. Très souvent, il a été pour moi un guide, et je voudrais encore une fois le remercier et lui souhaiter le meilleur succès, à lui et à sa charmante épouse. J'espère aussi que nous aurons l'occasion do bénéficier parfois encore de ses lumières de l'expérience unique qu'il a accumulée durant ses années de travail non seulement à la FAO, mais aussi aux Nations Unies, au Haut-Commissariat pour les réfugiés, au Programme alimentaire mondial. Vraiment, son départ est une très grande perte qui sera durement ressentie. Je tenais à vous le dire.

Applause
Applaudissoments
Apiausos

CHAIRMAN (original language Arabie): I would now like to speak in my mother tongue. I have a few words which I would like to say in Arabic.

There is very little that I have to add because the Director-General has preceded me in some of my remarks, especially in thanking Mr Walton, who is we'll known to us all. He'has been a very valuable helper for me, too, at this Conference. He has helped mo and he has given us the benefit of his guidance at difficult moments in the course of the Conference, as the Director-General said, in the light of his experience, capabilities, insight and wisdom. When he goes we shall really notice his absence. It will be a serious loss for the Organization, this Organization that is so tirar Lo us all.

I now turn to Mr Walton on behalf of you all and offer him our very heartfelt thanks. I wish him a very long and happy life wherever he may go. We shall always have very happy memories of him. Every time that we have a question that calls for a decision we will remember him, and we hope that we will be able to turn to him still in order to draw on his experience which is so wide and so rich. So on behalf of you all I would like to say thank you to Mr Walton.

Applause
Applaudissements
Aplausos

Lassaad BEN OSMAN (Président indépendant du Conseil de la FAO): Je voudrais apporter un témoignage pour ce qui concerne M. Walton.

En tant que Président indépendant du Conseil, j'ai eu à présider trois Conseils importants, dans des conditions difficiles et j'ai pu mesurer l'ampleur de l'intelligence du Docteur Walton, sa faculté exceptionnelle de trouver des compromis honorables et acceptables pour tous, son esprit construct if pour permettre au Conseil d'aboutir à des résultats concrets.

Je voulais donc présenter ce témoignage sincère et j'ai eu l'occasion de dire à M. Walton combien j'étais impressionné par son intelligence sa vivacité, son amour du travail bien fail.

J'ajoute donc mon témoignage à celui du Directeur général, et au vôtre, Monsieur le Président.

Applause
Applaudissements
Aplausos

Akbar Mirza KIIALEELI (India): We have just heard from the Direetor-General about the impending departure from FAO of Mr Walton, which is a very surprising and painful development for us.

Mr Walton, I do not think the love and respect with which you are held by many of us, perhaps without your knowledge, can be measured by the hand claps which lasted just thirty or forty seconds. You have given a lifetime not only to international organizations but to suffering people. You have gone into international organizations which have served people very directly. Therefore, except for the fact that the resolution has only recently been taken, I would propose you as the first member of this committee which should go into the review of the working of FAO.

Applause
Applaudissements

Aplausos

Beyond that, it would be unfair to say anything, because that in itself speaks of the great respect in which I personally hold you.

I would like to support the Chairman in his kind consideration, respect and tributes to those behind the scenes, the Interpreters whose lovely voices have kept us company through days and nights and who have been exhausted by our efforts; and also all the seen and unseen members of the Secretariat. Some of us have also worked fairly hard - I think that we deserve congratulation ourselves...

Applause
Applaudissements
Aplausos

... including those who have contributed a great deal without talking as much as some of us have!

Finally, I have been given the honour by Mr Carandang to speak on behalf of Asia to thank you personally Mr Chairman. We are very close to each other, nationally and geographically. You are from Asia, you have presided over what is really a historic FAO Conference. I do not know what is the precedence for second and third terms and so forth, but - Ahlam Wa Sahlam.

At this very important Conference you have conducted the proceedings with great elegance and humour and where necessary with firmness, and you have enabled us to finish on Friday rather than on Saturday.

I would also wish the Director-General all the best for his new term with the FAO, since he has been elected by all of us.

Applause
Applaudissement s
Aplausos

- 639 -

Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Estamos de acuerdo con todo lo que han dicho los oradores anteriores. Sólo queremos proponer que en el informe de la Conferencia se incluya un párrafo en el cual se reconozcan y agradezcan los valiosos servicios del Sr. Walton a nuestra Organización.

Applause
Applaudissements
Aplausos

Patrick Oliver RYAN (Ireland): With all these tributes to the departing Deputy Director-General this is beginning to sound like a wake! - but of course, wakes are not always sorrowful occasions. I would point out too that the corpse is still alive and well and has many years of productive life ahead of him! Whatever you wish to do in the future, Decían, we wisfi you well - and on behalf oí all our fellow countrymen, whenever you decide to return you are more than welcome.

Applause
Applaudissements
Aplausos

Bashir El Mabrouk SAID (Libya) (original language Arabic): I really did not want to take the floor after so many long days and nights spent speaking here. However, I have decided to do so because I wish to add the gratitude of the Near Eas„t Group to all those others who have appreciated you, Sir. We are very proud of the fact you belong to our region, because you have been very successful indeed in guiding the work of the Conference. So we too would like to add our congratulations to those already given you.

On behalf of our regional group I would also like to express our gratitude Mr Walton, Deputy Director-General.He is a friend; he is a brother, in certain difficult conditions; and he will be a serious loss because he is leaving us at a rather difficult time in the life of the Organization. Nevertheless, we thank him for all the work he has done in the past and for all that he has given us. We would beg him to stay with us so that we can benefit from his insight.

Applause
Applaudissements
Aplausos

Wolfgang A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of) (original language German): On behalf of the OECD member countries, 1 too would like to express our very sincere thanks for the excellent work that Mr Walton has done in FAO for so many years. This has obviously not been an easy time for him at all, but he has certainly made it easier for all of us through the work he has done. As previous speakers have pointed out, he has achieved a great deal - and I have nothing more to add to that. I turn to you, Mr Chairman, and would like to thank you very sincerely, for the way in which you have chaired the Conference. I am sure that it was no easy task for you; we have done our best to assist you, and I do not feel I need add anything on this subject either: I need only endorse what has been said by other speakers.

Aplause
Applaudissements
Aplausos

Haraid HOSTHARK (Norway): I ask for a point of order through you, Mr Chairman, to clarify whether it would be in order to use a point of order to thank you Mr Chairman, for the way in which you have conducted our debate here.

Applause and laughter
Applaudissements et rires
Aplausos y risas

I would like also to clarify this in order to thank the members of the Secretariat who have worked very hard during very difficult times: from the messengers to the interpreters, and those who have worked on the documents behind the scenes.

Is it also in order to thank Mr Walton and wish him "God speed and siáinte"?

This is a point of order on behalf of the Nordic Group!

Applause and laughter
Applaudissements et rires
Aplausos y risas

Michael Joseph RYAN (Australia): Just a few comments from the Southwest Pacific. First, we would like to thank the Chairman who has done a good job and who has brought this Conference to a conclusion. We thank him very much for the work he has done.

Secondly, we would like to thank Declan Walton. We in the Southwest Pacific are well aware of the contribution he has made to this Organization, and we wish him ail the best in the future. Good luck, Declan - and thanks very much.

Applause
Applaudissements
Aplausos

Atif. Y. BUKHARI (Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of) (original language Arabic): If the Group of 77 allows me and if the Finance Committee allows me - because at this moment I am still Chairman of the Finance Committee - I would like to say very honestly and sincerely that we are now facing a very unpleasant loss. We are losing a very illustrious helper, an outstanding friend - a man who was everybody's friend. Nevertheless, we must accept his loss and we wish him and his family a long and happy life.

Applause
Applaudissements
Aplausos

Lajos ZELKÓ (Hungary): Although I am speaking in the name of the Group of Socialist Countries, I would like to make a few personal comments, because I am sure that my friends within the Group agree with me. I have had the very welcome opportunity of having a few conversations with Mr Walton, and from these I have gained the impression that he is not only a very skilled Deputy Director-General, as we all know, but he is a fine human being with a good sense of humour. We are deeply sorry that he is leaving us but we all wish him the very best for the years to come.

Applause
Applaudissements
Aplausos

Dedan Robinson KAMAU (Kenya): On behalf of the member countries of the Eastern African Region, I wish to express our appreciation for the manner in which you, Sir, have been conducting the proceedings of this Conference. Although our contact with you has not been an extended one, you have a quality which gives honour, not only to you, but to your country of Kuwait. We look forward to interaction with you in commerce, in tourism, and in other areas, when you return to Kuwait.

While I am on this subject, the Eastern African Region, as is universally known, has been a great beneficiary of FAO, and we are certain that Mr Walton has contributed greatly to some of the humanitarian activities which we know to have saved thousands of lives in that particular region. We are very sorry to know that Mr Walton is not going to continue assisting us in the way he has done in the past - but we know that a time does come when he may wish to do something else in his lifetime. We extend our very best whishes to Mr Walton and his family and we look forward to hearing of his success in whatever endeavours he embarks on in the future.

Applause
Applaudissements
Aplausos

Joseph TCHICAYA (Congo): Monsieur le Président, au nom de ma délégation, je tiens à vous féliciter pour la manière fort brillante avec laquelle vous avez conduit nos travaux. Ces félicitations sont d'autant plus sincères que vous avez présidé une conférence extrêmement difficile et importante. Mais, vous ayant connu en d'autres occasions, nous n'avions aucun doute lorsque vous avez été élu à ces importantes fonctions.

Nous aussi, nous avons été surpris par la nouvelle du départ de M. Walton. M. Walton a été, je pense, un ami de nous tous, ici, et nous avons su l'apprécier. Tous les regrets sont donc pour nous et nous ne pouvons, à présent, que lui souhaiter le bonheur dans toutes les entreprises qu'il aura dans l'avenir. Pour notre part, nous ressentons ce départ comme une grande perte pour notre Organisation et nous espérons de tout coeur que le Directeur général trouvera un remplaçant digne de M. Walton.

Applause
Applaudissements
Aplausos

Namukolo MUKUTO (Zambia): May I thank you for affording the Zambian delegation an opportunity to contribute to the conclusion of this 24th FAO Conference. I am taking the floor as the representative of the Chairman of OAU. May I preface my remarks by paying tribute to you, Mr Chairman, for the diligent and excellent manner in which you have steered this Conference to success. During this Conference there where very many tense moments when you could have lost your cool and your composure. This has been an unusual Conference, combining the re-election of the Director-General, and the reform measures compounded by the reality of a reduced budget. Tempers rose, and sometimes debates were abrasive, but you handled it all very skillfully.

Much of the success of the Conference is also due to the skillful work of the Commission Chairmen. Each Commission had its share of the character of this Conference, a character which was basically that of the polarization of the developing countries versus the north. However, in the end the discussions were all good and ended in success.

The main feature of this year's Conference was quite different from the previous ones; it was the emphasis on the environment. In the African region, pressure on the land is immense and the Brundtland Commission has been one of the main highlights of this particular Conference. Never before has a Conference on agriculture stressed so much the issues of the environment. Therefore, we take great pleasure in accepting the Report of the Brundtland Commission. We wish however to add that there should be no conflict between the FAO work programme and the work of UNEP - that is the United Nations Environmental Programme. The two Organizations should complement each other and not duplicate their work.

My delegation feels that this particular Conference has been a great success, and this is due entirely to you, Mr Chairman, and your Vice-Chairmen.

We take this opportunity of thanking all the interpreters, the secretaries and the messengers who have been working behind the scenes. Without their work the Conference would not have succeeded. Finally, we also wish to thank those serving us in the kitchen where we used to go to refuel. One wonders what would have been achieved by the Conference if there had been nothing to eat. I think this is a good point at which to end because if you are dealing with agriculture, you must always bear in mind the idea of food. Nobody can play a proper role if they are hungry, poor, ignorant or diseased.

My delegation wishes to thank Mr Walton for the excellent work he has done for FAO in the past. We also wish him and his wife a successful new life. We also wish the Director-General, Dr Saouma, a successful new term of office.

Applause
Applaudissements
Aplausos

Mrs Kate ABANKWA (Ghana): My delegation joins other delegations in congratulating you, Mr Chairman, for steering the work of the Conference to a successful conclusion. My gratitude goes to the Director-General and his staff for their assistance.

During the Conference divergent views and aspirations of various groups have been expressed. My delegation hopes that these views will be taken in good faith and not made to affect cooperation between member countries and this Organization. In this way we shall make FAO strong and find solutions to problems related to food production, nutrition, etc.

Finally, my delegation heard with regret of the departure of Mr Walton, the Deputy Director-General, We wish him every success wherever he will be.

Applause
Applaudissements
Aplausos

CHAIRMAN: Our last speaker is the representative of our host country, Ambassador Pascarelli.

Elio PASCARELLI (Italy): Sayidi Rayes. Mr Chairman, I thank you for giving me the floor. I had come here for another purpose, I want to collect the postage stamp for this wonderful letter you are addressing to the Primé Minister. Then I suddenly discovered that you had miraculously closed the Conference. I want to tell you that I am going to use my own car without asking for any fees because Ambassadors have to do that after all.

This was an exceptional Conference. I do not think I will sit in any of the scats in this Assembly again in my lifetime, but I will be staying in Rome. You have done a tremendous job in conducting our work. I want to present to you the congratulations and thanks of my Government. I am sorry that Minister Pandolfi is still engaged in a fight elsewhere. I will also tell you that we shall not forget you, you are always welcome when you pass over. You have been to Rome before, and you know how welcome you arc here. I give you our wholehearted thanks and congratulations.

The news of the sudden disappearance of the host Government representative was no news to me, but I did not expect the departure of Mr Walton from this building to happen so soon. However, I have immediately to add that I remain the representative of the host country for him. He is not going back to Ireland, we will deny him the exit visa and he will be staying with us.

I would need half an hour to tell you how much we are indebted to Declan and Jeannette Walton, as officials and as family. We love both of them; but there is one thing 7 have to mention to all delegates: if the skies over the relations between FAO an Italy are so serene it is very much due to the fact that the Director-General designated Declan Walton as plenipotentiary in the negotiations with me. So I was luckier than most of my fellow delegates because I had to handle both immunities and privileges with him. I never thought it would be so smooth. I do not envy the Director-General in the task he has to replace Mr Walton. I wish him Godspeed. It will be a decisive element in the life of this Organization in the future, because it is very rare to find so many virtues combined. Unfortunately, my English is not so refined as Ambassador Khaleeli's English. If I could ask him to help me, I would find a poem for Declan Walton tonight. If I am wrong I would like the Secretary-General to tell me, but I think it is a tradition of this Organization to decide on a resolution of thanks to the departing Deputy Director-General. I would join my distinguished friend, and enemy sometimes, Bula Hoyos, in proposing that we go further than he proposed and, I do not doubt with the unanimous consent of this Conference, we would vote for a Resolution to thank Declan Walton for his invaluable service to this Organization. Thank you.

Applause
Applaudissements
Aplausos

CHAIRMAN: Thank very much Ambassador Pascarelli. When you were making that suggestion I saw heads nodding. This means there is approval and agreement for what you have proposed, together with what our colleague from Colombia has already proposed. I think this receives the approval of the Conference. There will be something in the Report.

Secondly, rest assured that you will be missed by all the members and your colleagues who have served with you as representatives of their countries in Rome when you depart and leave your chair for another. Than you very much.

Having exhausted the statements, I should like to give the platform to Mr Walton.

DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: Mr Chairman, for the right of reply.

Laughter
Rires
Risas

It has been said by somebody that there are two kinds of obituary, the horizontal and the vertical. I am very pleased that this is a vertical obituary.

The Director-General pointed out that the big enemy of the Conference was time. I think it has been my enemy too. This time has passed all too quickly. I have worked with almost all of you present here in the Conference, Council and various subsidiary bodies. Two of my principal objectives have been to keep my interventions brief and my sense of humour under control and I have failed miserably on both counts.

I would like to thank all of you who have said quite exaggeratedly kind words. I would like to say a particular word of gratitude to Ambassador Pascarelli. I am quite sure that he and I will find lots of things to negotiate, even in the after-life.

Laughter
Rires
Risas

I would like in the first place to give my very best wishes to the Director-General for his new term of office; next, to all of you when you leave the Conference and go back to your normal duties; to my many colleagues; but above all to FAO itself. In the last few years I have worked for many different Organizations. In the course of my international service I have been either employed by, or tempted to join, many other organizations. I must say it has remained my conviction that FAO is perhaps the most important, but certainly the most interesting, organization in the United Nations system. I would like to wish FAO strength, success and, I hope, prosperity in the years ahead. Thank you.

Applause
Applaudissements
Aplausos

CHAIRMAN: The Director-General has announcements to make.

DIRECTOR-GENERAL: My announcement is about the Council session. It is suggested that the Council should meet in one hour's time if it is so wished.

J'ai aussi l'immense regret de vous informer que mon collaborateur, qui est à ma gauche, M. Savary, qui a servi loyalement cette Organisation pendant plus de trente ans, le Secrétaire général de la Conférence, va aussi nous quitter. Je pensais qu'il fallait vous en informer parce qu'il est également en étroit contact avec vous. J'aurais voulu que tous les deux restent. Je regrette de les voir tous les deux partir.

On a demandé s'il était dans la tradition que la Conférence vote une résolution pour remercier. Cela a été le cas pour M. Eduard West et pour tous les Directeurs adjoints quand la Conférence l'a demandé. Si vous êtes d'accord, nous pouvons ajouter à vos paroles une résolution à cet effet comme cela a été suggéré.

Nous avons été contents, Monsieur le Président, et je voudrais vous remercier de la patience que vous avez témoignée à cette occasion. Je voudrais également vous féliciter encore, vous souhaiter un bon retour dans vos foyers et vous dire combien nous avons apprécié la façon dont vous avez dirigé ce débat.

Applause
Applaudissements
Aplausos

CHAIRMAN: Mr Savary, Secretary-General, would like to make an announcement.

LE SECRETAIRE GENERAL: J'ai cru comprendre que la proposition du Directeur général de tenir la réunion du Conseil aujourd'hui même recueillait votre assentiment. Dans ce cas, la séance du Conseil pourrait commencer à 17 h 30 dans la Salle Rouge et se poursuivre jusqu'à assez tard dans la soirée de façon que le Conseil puisse achever ses travaux dès aujourd'hui, évitant ainsi de tenir une séance demain matin.

Retirement of Mr Paul Savary

Départ en retraite de Monsieur Paul Savary

Jubilación del Sr. Paul Savary

Akbar Mirza KHALEELI (India): As a delegate to FAO, as an Oriental, I should like to take the opportunity of conveying our great appreciation to Mr Savary, who is also leaving us. I do not think we are here to have a competition in paying compliments to anyone who is with us or who is departing. I do not want to speak on behalf of anyone, but I do not want another round, which will delay the Council, so I will have the presumption to say that I speak on behalf of the house when I say that we deeply appreciate all you have done, your firmness, the calmness with which you conduct yourself in the interests of FAO. We shall certainly miss you a great deal. We look forward to your conduct at the Council Meeting.

Applause
Applaudissements
Aplausos

CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ambassador Khaleeli. Once again I wish all of you who are departing this beautiful country, this beautiful Rome, a pleasant and safe trip back to your home and families. Once again, thank you all very much. With this, we conclude our Conference.

The meeting rose at 16.45 hours
La séance est levée à 16 h 45
Se levanta la sesión a las 16.45 horas