Roger P. LEWIS (United States of America): With respect to paragraph 2, line number 5 in the original text, which says "However, a few member countries called for efforts to make the Review more evaluative", and in the last sentence also "A few Member Nations", we would like the word "few" to be changed to "a number of member countries", in the absence of which the United States would ask for the specific countries to be named.
CHAIRMAN: Any objection? The United States of America on paragraph 5?
Roger P. LEWIS (United States of America): Our point is the same, with respect to line 4 in paragraph 5. We would like the word "few" to be changed to reflect "a number of Member Nations".
CHAIRMAN: Any objection?
Temei ISKIT (Turkey): Turkey is a member of the Drafting Committee so I do not want to intervene on the substance of the United States proposal but may I suggest at this point that whenever such questions arise perhaps the Chairman of the Drafting Committee may help you, but I do not see him. On such questions we need his advice.
CHAIRMAN: We would like to have him but unfortunately he is faced with a scheduling problem, a need to be in two places at once and he is participating in the Contact Group which is meeting at this very moment, and it was felt on the order of needs it was more important for him to be at that meeting than at this meeting but this body is fully capable of making those decisions. Any objection to the change in paragraph 5? It has been approved. Any comments on the paragraphs 6-15? Approved. Paragraph 16?
Barthélémy BOUASSA-MOUSSADJI (Gabon): Nous intervenons au titre du paragraphe 16. A la neuvîeme ligne de ce paragraphe, nous lisons la phrase suivante: "La Conférence a toutefois souligné la nécessité d'une formation ultérieure et a demandé instamment qu'une aide extérieure supplémentaire soit fournie à l'Ecole de lutte anti-tsé-tsé (ELAT) ..."
Nous pensons que le mot "supplémentaire" n'a pas sa place parce que, lorsque nous regardons la structure actuelle de l'ELAT, nous constatons que les donateurs initiaux, qui étaient la France et la République fédérale d'Allemagne, ont considérablement réduit leur apport au point qu'ils ont presque cessé de fournir des fonds. Donc, au lieu de mettre "supplémentaire", nous souhaiterions que l'on mette "substantielle" parce que, à ce moment-là, cela s'adresserait non seulement aux donateurs initiaux, mais aussi aux donateurs qui seraient intéressés par la formation de l'ELAT.
CHAIRMAN: Are there any objections to Gabon's proposal that the word "further" be changed to "substantial"?
Rainer PRESTIEN (Germany, Federal Republic of) (original language German): I think that I am directly addressed and I have no problems with the suggestion but at the present time I am not informed to what extent my country has reduced its contribution; I can neither confirm or deny. I am not able to say anything about the situation at this stage.
CHAIRMAN: The Chair sees no objection to the proposed change by Gabon. Argentina, do you wish to speak on paragraph 16?
Sra Mónica DEREGIBUS (Argentina): Lamentablemente, nosotros pudimos llegar a la banca en un momento en que usted daba por aprobado el párrafo 15. Mi Delegación quisiera, si usted lo permite, y dado que no ha pasado mucho tiempo, proponer una pequeña enmienda con relación al párrafo 15. ¿Puedo formularla?
CHAIRMAN: Paragraph 15 has been adopted, but with unanimous consent we can return to it. Is there any objection? There being no objection, paragraph 15 is re-opened.
Sra Monica DEREGIBUS (Argentina): La segunda frase del párrafo 15, nosotros preferiríamos que, en lugar de decir "La Conferencia animó al Director General a continuar las evaluaciones externas", dijera "Las evaluaciones externas podrían continuarse", y después continuar la frase como está redactada. Es decir, querríamos que se eliminara "La Conferencia animó al Director General a continuar las evaluaciones externas" y que se reemplazara por "Las evaluaciones externas podrían continuarse."
CHAIRMAN: Is there any objection to the change proposed by Argentina? United States of America you have the floor.
Roger P. LEWIS (United States of America): The United States of America questions the wisdom of such a change. We would object to it.
Sra Monica DEREGIBUS (Argentina): Tal vez, Señor Presidente, interesaría que yo explicara por qué quisiera ver este cambio. Por lo menos dos delegaciones, que yo recuerde, objetaron el costo de las evaluaciones externas y dijeron que preferían verlas en un numero limitado de casos,
a fin de no cargar con demasiados gastos a esta Organización. No obstante, el sentido de la frase es el mismo; es decir, la Conferencia da su aquiescencia a que se pueda continuar la práctica cuando sea necesario y conveniente; pero lo que no queremos es que la Conferencia diga que entusiásticamente animó al Director General a continuarla, puesto que nosotros en nuestra intervención, y México también en la suya, lo objetamos.
Yo creo que este cambio no es tan susLancial; es un cambio, digamos, de énfasis. Es una manera de recoger tambén otras opiniones que han sido formuladas en esta Sala.
E.V. WADE-BROWN (United Kingdom): We should like to say we prefer the original language because we believe there were a large number of Member Nations who said that they supported external evaluations.
Ton A.J.M. OOMEN (Netherlands): As members of the Drafting Committee, we are rather surprised at this objection by Argentina because the cost implications are mentioned in the last part of the sentence. As a matter of fact, to our recollection the Food Security Assistance Scheme of Evaluation was financed by external resources and not from the regular budget.
CHAIRMAN: Argentina, you may wish to respond. The Netherlands has called your attention to the fact that the concern you have just expressed is in their judgement addressed later an in the sentence about bearing in mind the size of the programme and the cost implications.
Sra Monica DERECIBUS (Argentina): Es cierto, Señor Presidente, que se hace una mención a los gastos a que diera lugar la evluación. No obstante, me parece a mi que la manera en que está redactada la frase es demasiado enfática como para que la salvedad de los gastos a que diera lugar la evaluación sea tenida en cuenta, digamos, primordialmente. Creo que si nosotros quitáramos el énfasis de la primera frase que al inicio de la frase estamos diciendo que la "Conferencia animó al Director General" es cierto que muchos Miembros animaron al Director General, pero no fue la Conferencia, ya que al menos dos Delegaciones opusieron ciertas reservas a la continuación de este procedimiento. Yo creo que una buena fórmula de compromiso es la que acabo de sugerir. No creo que los Miembros que han animado al Director General no reconozcan que por lo menos dos delegaciones, no sólo no lo animaron, sino que pusieron ciertos límites a que esta práctica se siguiera efectuando en la Organización.
Ton A.J.M. OOMEN (Netherlands): We could agree to replace "It" by "the majority encouraged the Director General" because that is what happened. As my Argentina colleague stated only two Member Nations have some doubts, particularly relating to the costs of the evaluation. If "the majority" could be accepted by Argentina we could adopt it.
CHAIRMAN: Argentina you are nodding your head, but for the Verbatim Record, can you please state your concurrence?
Sra Monica DEREGIBUS (Argentina): Si, Señor Presidente, podemos aceptar esa formulación.
CHAIRMAN: The language will say "A majority of member countries encouraged" rather than "It". Is there any objection to that? There being no objection paragraph 15 is adopted as amended with the Netherlands language. Paragraph 16 has been adopted. Any objections to paragraph 17? The Chair sees, none - 17 is adopted. Paragraphs 18 and 19 - Australia is your objection on paragraph 18 or on paragraph 19?
Paul Richard BRYDEN (Australia): I am not speaking on substance as a member of the Drafting Committee, but just to point out that in the second last sentence of paragraph 19 in the English language, there is a conjunction which is wrong. It should be "on" not "and". T think it should read "further dependence on external inputs". If you use the word "and" as we have here, it does not make sense.
CHAIRMAN: Is there an objection to that?
Ibrahima KABA (Guinee): Je voudrais revenir au paragraphe 17 concernant le problème de la trypanosomiase.
CHAIRMAN: Just a second, we are not on paragraph 17. We have already had a considerable discussion on 17 and closed it. We would be glad to do what we did with Argentina, namely, with unanimous consent re-open. You can only re-open with unanimous consent I will ask that, but let us now finish the business we are on and deal with paragraph 19. Does anyone object to the English language correction by Australia? There being no objection to the language change the paragraph is adopted. If there is unanimous consent we will go back and re-open paragraph 17 at the request of Guinea.
Ibrahima KABA (Guinée): Excusez-moi mais c'est une question que je voudrais poser concernant la dernière phrase du paragraphe 17 qui commence par "Quelques Etats Membres ont déclaré qu'une sélection excessive pouvait avoir des conséquences négatives". C'est une question que je pose car j'ai déjà, au cours de ce débat (je ne sais pas quelle était la délégation qui a déclaré cela) étant donné qu'on a surtout dit dans le document de travail que des croisements de trypanotolérants pourraient aboutir à l'élimination de la race, de l'espèce trypanotolérante. Mais dire qu'une sélection excessive pouvait..., alors là j'aimerais avoir des éclaircissements, c'est une question qui m'intéresse dé très près.
CHAIRMAN: Does anyone wish to take up that point?
Nils Ragnar KAMSVAG (Norway): Questions were raised about that matter in the Drafting Committee and the French delegation explained that they had brought it forward in their intervention.
CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone here from the French delegation to speak on the point that France apparently made? The Chair observes there is no one here to respond to that?
Ibrahima KABA (Guinee): C'est une question technique très importante pour la Guinée étant donné que la race DAMA se caractérise par son aptitude de trypanotolérance. Dans mon pays, actuellement, se déroule un projet d'amélioration et de sélection de la race DAMA, sous la conduite de la FAO. C'est pourquoi cette question qui est posée dans ce paragraphe revêt une importance certaine pour ;mon pays.
Si la délégation française n'est pas présente pour soutenir cette déclaration qui figure ici, je ne vois pas comment on pourra la résoudre.
CHAIRMAN: We can solve it very simply. The Chair has authority under the rules to suspend discussion and will exercise it and we can take up para.17 later when we can have a more fruitful discussion on it, and when we observe the French delegation is able to assume its seat. We will return then to item 17 and you can have an exchange on that matter.
Roger P. LEWIS (United States of America): Paragraph 22, the first sentence reads "The Conference noted that the Director-General had accepted almost all the recommendations of the evaluation tram". We would like to replace "almost all" with "many of the recommendations of the evaluation team".
Humberto CARRION MCDONOUGH (Nicaragua): Yo creo que la propuesta de Estados Unidos'.es aceptable, si concuerda con la realidad. Esta es una cuestión que es fácilmente constatable. Creo que la Secretaría misma podría responder si las recomendaciones contenidas en el documento han sido aplicadas en cerca de su totalidad, casi todas las recomendaciones han sido aplicadas, o si muchas de ellas. Es una cuestión meramente do número, pero podríamos acercarnos más a la realidad con una explicación por parte de la Secretaría, en este caso.
CHAIRMAN: The Secretariat is in an unfortunate position of having to pass judgement on the Secretariat's superiors, and this is a Body where the Member Countries have to make these decisions not the Secretariat. I do not think it would be prudent to ask someone who works under the Director-General to pass judgement on whether the Director-General has or has not done something.
Humberto CARRION MCDONOUGH (Nicaragua): No.-
CHAIRMAN: Do you accept the amendment or not? I am sorry; I was not clear. No? Let us have a discussion on the amendment. But for a point of clarification, Nicaragua, let me state, so you do not misunderstand the Chair's interpretation, the Chair is not attempting to squelch any debate of that, but the language here is about what the Conference noted. To ask that an Assistant Director-General report to us on whether the Director-General had done an excellent job, a good job, or a fair job is to put anybody under the Director-General in à bit of an unfair situtation. It is also, if you look at it on the other hand, likely to invite a highly biased response. What we are dealing with here is what the Conference noted, the Conference being the Member Countries. So it is really up to the Member Countries to pass judgment on what the Member Countries did or did not do. That was the sole point.
Humberto CARRION MCDONOUGH (Nicaragua): Esta es su opinión. En todo caso, la respetamos y nos sometemos al debate tal y como se llevó a cabo, y me parece que la opinión de los que hablaron sobre este tema en relación con las recomendaciones específicas era sobre la casi totalidad de la aplicación de las recomendaciones, por lo tanto, en este caso no es que haré un debate al respecto. Usted ya tiene su opinión sobre el particular, es obvio. Sin embargo, si hay otras delegaciones que están de acuerdo con nuestra exposición, obviamente defenderemos entonces la propuesta nuestra de que quede el texto como esta.
Milutin TAPAVICKI (Yugoslavia): As a Member Country of this Organization I would like just to mention that we have before us the suggestion, the draft report from the Drafting Committee. The Drafting Committee was composed also from the Member Countries. As my country was not a member of the Drafting Committee, 1 have also the right to ask the Secretariat for an explanation not just because I would like to have support or not support from him; I would just like explanation as a Member Country because I have before the suggestion from the Drafting Committee whose Member Countries .ire suggesting such a Draft Report to us.
CHAIRMAN: Unfortunately, what the Chair would normally do is to ask the Chairman of the Drafting Committee to respond to these many questions but, as has been explained earlier, because of the press of business the Chairman of the Drafting Committee has elected to be at the Contact Croup Meeting this morning because in his judgement there are some critical matters going on there, and he wants to be an active participant. But it would be his role normally to clarify that. It would be the Drafting Committee's role to clear that.
Are there any further discussions on this paragraph?
Milutin TAPAVICKI (Yugoslavia): I suggest postponing the decision on this paragraph until the Chairman of the Drafting Committee will come back to give us an explanation.
CHAIRMAN: That is a good suggestion. It is so ordered.
Humberto CARRION MCDONOUGH (Nicaragua): Párrafo 25, Primera oración, segunda línea. Entre paréntesis dice: "producción, estabilidad y acceso" relacionado con el concepto ampliado de seguridad alimentaria. Ahí debemos agregar: "y acceso a los alimentos", "producción, estabilidad y acceso a los alimentos".
CHAIRMAN: Nicaragua says that we should say "access to food," the two words "to food" added there. Does anyone have any objections to that? There being no objections it is so ordered.
Marcos I. NIETO LARA (Cuba): Como miembro del Comité de Redacción, no tenemos una cuestión de fondo que plantear en este párrafo, simplemente nos remitiremos a la tercera frase, donde dice: "los dos factores limitadores habían sido ..." Esta palabra limitadores en el texto español no suena muy bien. Habría que decir: "los dos factores limitantes". Sería más correcto.
CHAIRMAN: That objection on 25 is reopened and so amended and adopted. The Chair sees no objection to paragraphs 26 and 27, so they are adopted. Paragraphs 28-30. Adopted.
Humberto CARRION MCDONOUGH (Nicaragua): Era sobre el párrafo 29. Usted disculpe, porque Usted toma rápido la decisión de aprobarlo. En todo caso, es una aclaración. Desgraciadamente, como Usted lo ha manifestado anteriormente, hoy no está con nosotros el Presidente del Comité de Redacción, pero el texto en español del párrafo es confuso. En la cuarta oración, por ejemplo, en la línea 6, se comienza diciendo: "En cambio, pidieron a la FAO," etcétera, haciendo relación, imagino yo que, o a la Conferencia, o a la mayoría de los miembros, o a algunos miembros, no se sabe. En la línea décima es lo mismo, ée menciona: "pidieron también a la Secretaría", etcétera y en la línea trece aparece "ios Estados Unidos", como país específicamente, pero realmente no logro entender la
secuencia de ese párrafo, incluso el párrafo comienza con: "la Conferencia", después se habla de "muchos miembros" y después dice "otros formularon" y, por último, "En cambio, pidieron" después "pidieron también..."
CHAIRMAN: With the unanimous consent 29 is returned to reopen.
Humberto CARRIO MCDONOUGH (Nicaragua): Quisiera de jar constancia de que no lo mencionaba porque en el texto en español se menciona a los Estados Unidos. Es solamente una secuencia completa, que no tiene lógica en el texto en español. No es solamente porque aparece un país mencionado al final. Es toda la secuencia.
CHAIRMAN: I have been advised that there is a mistake in the Spanish language. There is no reference to the United States of America in the English language version, by the way. That is a mistake in the Spanish language, and your points are well taken. We will.suspend paragraph 29 until we do have the Chairman of the Drafting Committee back here and we can take it up. We will suspend that and return to it.
Getachew TEKLEMEDEHIN (Ethiopia): In paragraph 30, we just have a point which we thought is missing in one of the suggestions we made. We had a point which has not been included in this section in any one of the paragraphs. So if I am allowed, I want to raise that point.
CHAIRMAN: You can go and make any suggestion you want.
Getachew TEKLEMEDEHIN (Ethiopia): In our intervention we indicated that a review of programmes and budgets of the current biennium should be discussed before the discussion of the budget and the programme of the coming biennium so that we can have the benefit of the programmes and budgets which have been ongoing. In fact, in many of the discussions on the impact or the implications of the devaluation of the dollar, at many points there has been a question raised as to whether this effect has been reflected in the coming biennium programme and the budget. So for the benefit of the discussion in the future, we propose a review of the current programme and budget, to the effect that any of the matters should be reviewed before discussion on the coming biennium. That has not been reflected in any o£ the paragraphs.
CHAIRMAN: I think you are talking, really, about item 12. Also, we are dealing here with the adoption of the language. We can have suggestions for inclusion of sentences that are not there, deletions of sentences that are there, changes, but this is not a point for just a general discussion. If you have a specific language change that you wish to propose, we can take that up, but I did not really hear one.
Sra Monica DEREGIBUS (Argentina): La idea que acaba de ser expuesta por el distinguido delegado de Etiopía resulta bienvenida por nosotros. Nosotros creemos que es muy útil que el examen se realice en el futuro de esta manera, pero pensamos que tal vez bastaría con agregar una frase en el párrafo dos, que es el que se refiere a la iniciación del examen del Programa Ordinario. También podríamos dejar tiempo a la Delegación de Etiopía para pensar una frase para agregar allí y volver sobre el tema un poquito más tarde.
CHAIRMAN: That is a good suggestion. Ethiopia, we will return when we get toward the end here or at the end, to paragraph 30. At that time, if you have a sentence that you suggest, we will take it up. We will be flexible about taking things up. We are trying to go for speed, but we will reopen any automatically if we just happen to miss somebody's sign.
Paragraphs 1 - 30 not concluded
Les paragraphes 1 - 30 sont en suspens
Los párrafos 1-30 quedan pendientes
Marcos INIETO LARA (Cuba): Voy a referirme al párrafo 37 y quisiéramos hacer una observación de carácter general. El texto en español comienza diciendo "tras tomar nota de la función" etc. Esta expresión de "tras tomar nota" no nos parece en español una expresión muy correcta. Esto aparece en diferentes párrafos de otros informes que vamos a ver y pediríamos, por favor, a la Secretaría que buscara una fórmula, como pudiera ser "tomando nota" y aplicar esa fórmula para todos los demás párrafos donde aparezca esta expresión porque en español no nos parece la más apropiada.
CHAIRMAN: It is so ordered.
Frank Mensa K. DENYOH (Ghana): The African Group is very much concerned with the African Regional Aquaculture Centre. At least two African countries, Zambia and Ghana, mentioned this in their statement. We would like this to be highlighted in the report and therefore, in the fourth sentence of paragraph 39 we would add "In that context, the African Regional Aquaculture Centre and the Eastern Central Atlantic were mentioned." That is a slight modification.
CHAIRMAN: There is no objection.
Alrair F. DE SA BARBUDA (Brazil): I have an amendment to propose in the last sentence of this paragraph 49. Reference has been made to the UNEP Report by some delegations, as my delegation has done several times. We would like the sentence to read, "I noted the conclusions of the recent reports of the UN EP (Environmental Perspective to the Year 2000 and Beyond) and of the World Commission on the Environment and Development (Our Common Future) as they pertained to the conservation of tropical forest".
CHAIRMAN: No objection.
Almir F. DE SÀ BARBUDA (Brazil): I have two proposals. The first one is in paragraph 51 to change the first sentence. The first sentence says "... keep the international community informed". I propose to change that wording to "member countries" because this report is for member countries.
CHAIRMAN: Does anyone have any problems in changing the words "international community" to "member countries" in paragraph 51? The amendment is approved.
Almir F. DE SÂ BARBUDA (Brazil): In paragraph 52, in the sentence after "Conference" I propose to change the words so they read, "The Conference, noting the adverse affects on the environment of the serious economic difficulties in developing countries and as well the need to reverse present trends in tropical deforestation, urged that..." - and then it would be the same language.
CHAIRMAN: Any objection? Paragraph 52 as amended is adopted.
Paragraphs 1 to 30 (continued)
Paragraphes 1 à 30 (suite)
Párrafos 1 a 30 (continuación)
CHAIRMAN: That brings us to the last paragraph so we can go back and try to pick up the details. Have you prepared the sentence you wish to put in paragraph 30, delegation of Ethiopia?
Getachew TEKLEMEDEHIN (Ethiopia): I hope I may be assisted by people who can draft the English language better than I can, but I have put my idea into a sentence. "In the future preparation of the agenda it will be more useful to discuss the review of the Programme and Budget of the current biennium before the budget and the programme of the coming biennium is discussed and approved".
CHAIRMAN: Will you please state where you propose to put that sentence.
Getachew TEKLEMEDEHIN (Ethiopia): I do not know where it should go.
CHAIRMAN: Is there any problem with that? This is paragraph 30. Where in paragraph 30 do you wish to place that amendment?
Marc-André FREDETTE (Canada): In close cooperation with my Ethiopian colleague, I think the end of paragraph 1 in effect is probably the best place because this has to do with the organization of work and does not have to do with the substance, so it would probably fit best at the end of paragraph 1. May I ask my Ethiopian colleague to repeat it slowly so we can write it in longhand?
CHAIRMAN: Is there any objection to reopening paragraph 1 for the purpose of including at the end of that paragraph the amendment put forward by the delegate of Ethiopia? There being no objection, paragraph 1 is reopened. Can you please read your sentence slowly, delegate of Ethiopia?
Getachew TEKLEMEDEHIN (Ethiopia): uIn the future preparation of the agenda it will be morti useful to discuss the review of the Programme and Budget of the current biennium" - this wording can be improved if someone can suggest a better one - "before the budget and programme of the coming biennium is discussed and approved."
CHAIRMAN: Mr Shah advises the Chair that there is a point of clarification and I will ask him to state it.
V.J. SHAH (Director, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): In order to help the Commission, I think the suggestion that this addition go at the end of paragraph 1, as made by the distinguished delegate of Canada, is very appropriate, but may I suggest that the sentence begins, "The view was expressed that in the future preparation of the agenda it would be more useful to consider discussing the review of the Regular Programme before the Programme of Work and Budget or the coming biennium is discussed and approved."
Marc-André FREDETTE (Canada): I appreciate Mr Shah's mastery of the language, but there is a significant change in what he has proposed in the preambular portion. Unless there is actual opposition in this room - and I invite it now - I would much prefer the sentence begin as the delegate of Ethiopia suggested and we simply say, "In the future preparation of the agenda it would be more useful ...".
Sra. Monica DEREGIBUS (Argentina): La delegación Argentina también preferiría que se mantuviera la redacción originariamente propuesta por el delegado de Etiopía.
CHAIRMAN: Another country has suggested otherwise.
Marcos I. NIETO LARA (Cuba): Nuestra contribución es más bien un problema de forma, no queremos abordar el fondo de la cuestión. Quizá sería más conveniente para la estructura del texto que esto se expresara en un párrafo aparte, entre el uno y el dos. Sería más conveniente, quizás.
Ton A.J.M. OOMKN (Netherlands): As a matter of fact we were considering asking you or our Ethiopian colleague for a reference by whom it was stated or whatever was the divided opinion between the members of the Commission, and therefore we are very grateful for the help of the Secretariat that formulated the beginning of the sentence "the view was expressed that".
On the other hand I think that our Ethiopian colleague has the right and has the opportunity to formulate his proposal in the way he did.
But I should like to ask the Secretariat - the Chairman anyway - that perhaps the formulation "It was stated that" is of a more general nature and is perhaps more acceptable to both the Ethiopian and perhaps also the other view.
CHAIRMAN: The Chair will leave that for the country that proposed the amendment to decide what it wishes to do.
Now on the proposal of Ethiopia to have its sentence approved at the end of paragraph 1, is there any objection at this point? The Chair sees none. It is adopted. Paragraph 1 is now readopted as amended by Ethiopia. We should now go back to para. 30 and because the language was changed I believe we will now have no other areas open on para 30.
Temei ISK.IT (Turkey): I am sorry, Mr Chairman, you have stated that the Ethiopian amendment or addition was adopted, but was it adopted with the addition of the Netherlands - that is where the sentence starts with "It was stated that", or was it adopted in the general version as stated by Ethiopia? I am confused.
CHAIRMAN: There should be no confusion. The Chair very clearly stated that it would be to Ethiopia to make any changes in Ethiopia's language. The Chair did not hear any. It is up to Ethiopia to state the Ethiopian resolution; it is not up to the Chair. It seemed clear, and while there have been different suggestions maàe it was then the role of Ethiopia at that point to state any changes if any.
Temei ISKIT (Turkey): Sorry Mr Chairman, it is not about the substance, but I agree with Netherlands that the sentence should start with something saying who stated this view. Of course it is Ethiopia's right, but any other country has the right to bring amendments to any proposals by any country. So I support the amendment of Netherlands.
CHAIRMAN: It was never stated as an amendment. There were a number of casual suggestions made along the way, but none stated as an amendment.
Ton A.J.M. OOMEN (Netherlands): I formulated as a proposal, as an amendment to the Ethiopian text, and I invited also via the Chair to Ethiopia to agree or not agree upon it.
CHAIRMAN: There being no objection, let us reopen para 1 and complete the business.
Sra. Monica DEREGIBUS (Argentina): Señor Presidente, tal vez sea útil, a esta altura, explicar las razones por las cuales nos parece a nosotros que sería enormemente más útil realizar el examen del Programa ordinario del bienio que termina, antes de considerar las actividades del nuevo bienio.
Hay dos órdenes de cosas, hay dos órdenes de razones, que impondrían ésta como la solución más racional. La primera categoría estaría dada por una cuestión conceptual: es mucho mejor saber qué se ha hecho, qué se ha obtenido y qué queda por hacer, antes de decidir lo que se va a hacer en el siguiente bienio. Y, en segundo término, está siempre pendiente la' cuestión de la falta de liquidez que eventualmente pueda tener esta Organización. Es una oportunidad para que los Estados Miembros piensen seriamente en términos de prioridades y en términos programáticos. Yo creo que las Delegaciones aquí presuntos no pueden tener objeciones de fondo a que sea la propia Conferencia la que decida sobre esta cuestión.
Creo que la idea es enormemente útil, que mejoraría nuestros trabajos en un gran porcentaje. No creo que deberíamos dejar pasar tan buena idea como la idea de una sola Delegación; creo que debería ser la Conferencia la que tomara esta idea como propia, porque no va a ser más que en beneficio de todos nosotros y de la FAO.
Salim SARRAF (Liban): Je fais partie du Comité de rédaction, donc je n'aurai pas à prendre la parole pour cette question qui n'a pas été discutée au cours du Comité de rédaction. C'est pourquoi je me permets de donner mon avis et je suis d'avis d'appuyer la proposition des Pays-Bas qui ont exprimé l'avis comme l'a proposé M. Shah et comme l'a proposé la Turquie.
Marc-André FREDETTE (Canada): I frankly dare anyone to challenge the Cartesian logic which was put forward by Argentina just a few moments ago. Surely, in this Organization, if nothing else, we can agree to a good idea being absorbed, as she put it, by the Conference, and in the Drafting Committee I made the same point as Lebanon has made just now. I was a member of that Committee I was there when this item was discussed. This particular idea was not discussed which is why I take the liberty of intervening, but many times - and I will not name any countries - many times suggestions came up in the Drafting Committee and in the past have come up in the Commission here which were "the good idea of one country", and were indeed generously absorbed by the Conference. I invite you all to show the same generosity to a colleague who has chosen with great wisdom not to intervene too often in our deliberations, and who now comes forward with a very useful and practical suggestion.
Milutin TAPAVICKI (Yugoslavia): I think that we have nothing to do with the opening of the discussion. I would just like to say that I agree with the idea proposed by Ethiopia, but 1 support the amendment from the Netherlands.
Marcos I. NIETO LARA (Cuba): Como han manifestado otras Delegaciones, esto no se examinó en el Comité de Redacción, y en el debate tampoco fue puesto de manifiesto o, mejor dicho, no fue debatido, aun cuando la Delegación de Etiopía lo expresó. Nosotros consideramos que podría adoptarse la propuesta de Países Bajos. Esto recoge la opinión de Etiopía y, además, recoge también un criterio de la Conferencia, toda vez que el primer párrafo al que se va a agregar esto tiene un horizonte general.
Roger P. LEWIS (United States of America): We share the views of others, that this is a good addition. We do not feel strongly either way. Our preference though, we are persuaded by our colleagues from Canada that there is some benefit in adopting it as the spirit of the Conference.
Michel MOMBOULI (Congo): Nous n'avons, en fait, aucune objection de fond sur ce que la délégation de l'Ethiopie souhaite ajouter à ce rapport, notamment la proposition qui a été faite tout à l'heure; mais après avoir également suivi le débat nous nous rendons compte, en fait, qu'il y a quelques difficultés à attribuer cette proposition à toute la Conférence, et pour notre part nous pensons que l'on pourrait utiliser la forme impersonnelle ou la formulation proposée par le délégué de la Turquie. Mais si nous avons demandé la parole, c'est surtout pour attirer l'attention sur le fait que peut-être la place que nous voulons donner à cet ajout n'est sûrement pas le paragraphe 1, parce qu'il est introductif. Il est suivi d'autres paragraphes qui expriment dans le détail, les différentes déclarations et positions qui ont été formulées et d'ailleurs lorsque nous étions déjà plus avant, c'est dans le rapport que l'Ethiopie avait suggéré cette proposition; nous avions à l'époque dit que nous considérerions cette proposition au paragraphe 2. Nous pensons que le paragraphe 1 devrait rester en l'état et mettre la proposition que nous fait la délégation de l'Ethiopie, reformulée par la Turquie et les autres orateurs, et non pas au paragraphe 1. C'est une question de logique.
Temei ISKIT (Turkey): Just to clarify our position in -response to the interventions from Argentina and Canada. We do not have any difficulty at all with the substance of the proposal. Indeed we like the idea, we support the idea. Our only concern was to give a subject to the idea, and by supporting the Dutch proposal we thought that an impersonal subject would perhaps be more convenient, but my delegation has no difficulty whatsoever in accepting any other formulation which gives a subject such as: "The Conference agreed that" or "The Conference felt that". If there are no other delegations objecting to this I want to make this clarification. Also we do not have any difficulty with the latest proposal of Congo to change the place of the sentence.
CHAIRMAN: The Chair would venture that possibly just simply saying "Many Member Countries felt that". It seems clear, sitting here, that many Member Countries do concur with the view of Ethiopia. Would that phrase rather than "It" solve the problem?
Ethiopia has asked the Chair's attention, and if it is on your amendment we will grant you the floor at this time in case there are any changes that would affect the discussion.
Getachew TEKLEMEDEHIN (Ethiopia): I just wanted to intervene. As far as the substantive matter in the sentence, I have no objection to the amendment as well as the placing of the sentence in any paragraph.
CHAIRMAN: At this point then, is there anybody who has any objection with the Ethiopian proposal as amended by the Netherlands being included at the last sentence of para 1.
Sra. Monica DEREGIBUS (Argentina): La Delegación argentina se resiste a creer que la Delegación de Países Bajos no quiera realmente que la Conferencia adopte esta recomendación. Nos gustaría saber cuál es el argumento de la Delegación de Países Bajos para que nosotros, que estamos aquí como Conferencia, como Comisión en pleno, no podamos adoptar esta decisión, que yo creo que es útil - que muchas Delegaciones creen que es útil - y no creo que haya ninguna otra Delegación que se haya opuesto hasta este momento.
CHAIRMAN: Netherlands, would you wish to respond to that very direct question?
Ton A.J.M. OOMEN (Netherlands): Sure Mr Chairman. There is no shadow of a doubt that one delegation has the right to propose an amendment. As a matter of fact it seems to my delegation a fruitful
addition to the report as a whole. On the other hand if the Commission should decide to make the Conference as the body to what is referred, that is democracy and good FAO tradition. We have no point about that. Once again, the Ethiopian member is indeed showing a very good understanding of what is of importance for FAO. So for my delegation there is no point that also “The Conference felt that" is perfectly acceptable for our delegation if the Commission decides upon that.
CHAIRMAN: Well that is a change.
Mme Anna Teresa FRITELLI-ANNIBALDI (Italie): Je ne m'opposais pas à ce que vous aviez dit.
E.V.WADE-BROWN (United Kingdom): We have no problem whatsoever with this amendment but it occurs to our delegation that it might be better to include it as a new paragraph 31. After all, this is a report of what has happened and this paragraph is suggesting what ought to happen in the future.
CHAIRMAN : We have had some changes proposed and some views expressed. The Chair would recommend that we should consider the United Kingdom proposal and the Ethiopian proposal, which is a matter which comes after, so that there would be a new paragraph following what is now paragraph 30. Is there any objection?
M.M. SIDDIQUE-ULLAH (Bangladesh): We have no particular difficulty with the substance of the Ethiopian proposal, and whether it should be added to the existing paragraph or appear as a new paragraph is more or less a matter of editorial opinion. We are prepared to go along with the consensus on that point; but permit me to say that wherever it is placed, as it is an observation of a general nature, I should like to add one sentence to it. I have one formulation before me, and before placing it ready for the consideration of the Commission I wish to say that during the few interventions we made on certain tables attached to certain documents, discussed in the last few sessions of the Commission, we pointed out that the regional shares of expenditures do not bring out the shares of the poorest countries of "the world, If you are vitally concerned with the problems of food and hunger, which are more prevalent in the least developed countries that any others, it is of vital importance for policy guidance and the fixing of programme priorities that the shares of the least developed countries, within their own regional groups should be brought out. With that end in view, I would suggest that along with the Ethiopian amendment a second sentence should be added, which may be as follows...
CHAIRMAN: That is not really an amendment to Ethiopia's amendment. It is a different topic. We will be glad to take up your proposal but we shall get into a very confused area if we do not stick to the topic at hand. We will come back to this and recognize your proposal and discuss it, but let us first dispose of this item. I am advised by the Secretariat that the proper place for the Ethiopian proposal would be a paragraph following what is now paragraph 30. Is there any objection to that? - Let us deal with the placement of it.
Michel MOMBCULI (Congo): Je constate qu'il y a un progrès puisqu'au départ vous vouliez le mettre au paragraphe 1. J'étais, et je suis toujours convaincu, que le paragraphe 1 n'est pas le meilleur endroit puisque c'est un paragraphe qui introduit le sujet. J'avais proposé tout à l'heure que la proposition de l'Ethiopie soit intégrée dans le paragraphe 2, et je voudrais expliquer le pourquoi de la chose.
Je pars du principe que notre Rapport a une certaine structure au sein duquel le paragraphe 1 est un paragraphe général introductif; le paragraphe 2 donne certaines idées d'ordre général, expose certaines positions; et il nous semblait que c'est à l'intérieur de ce paragraphe 2 que l'on pouvait glisser, parmi les considérations d'ordre général, cette proposition de l'Ethiopie.
Vous nous proposez maintenant de mettre cette proposition au paragraphe 31, c'est-à-dire qu'on la trouverait dans la section Examen du Programme ordinaire 1986-87. C'est une façon de faire, mais notre préférence irait à ce que cette phrase soit plutôt dans le paragraphe 2 qu'ailleurs, et en tout cas pas au paragraphe 1.
CHAIRMAN: In the interests of time, the Chair would like to get the feeling of the membership on the basics first. Let us try to dispose of this in an orderly fashion. By a show of hands will you indicate your preference of the following three suggested placements; first, at the end of paragraph 1; following as a separate paragraph; and following paragraph 30. Will those countries who feel that it should be at the end of paragraph I please so indicate.
Paul Richard BRYDEN (Australia): I thought that many delegations considered it ought to go in paragraph 2, and I do not think you have mentioned that.
CHAIRMAN: Then we can have four options: at the end of paragraph 1; a separate paragraph following paragraph 1; at the end of paragraph 2; or after paragraph 30. Are there any other suggestions? Then let us solve the placement problem first. In our discussion of the proposals we keep coming back to suggestions of different movements. We have not yet reached clarity as to where we wish to place it.
Sra. Monica DEREGIBUS (Argentina): Para la Delegación Argentina, el mejor lugar para poner la enmienda de la Delegación de Etiopía sería a continuación de la segunda frase del párrafo 2, o sea como tercera oración del párrafo 2.
CHAIRMAN: We have four different options: as a new last sentence of paragraph 1 or, as Argentina has just suggested, in paragraph 2; as a separate paragraph, as someone suggested earlier, between paragraphs 1 and 2; or following paragraph 30 as a separate paragraph. Let us see if we can achieve a consensus view on that. Will those countries who feel that it ought to be at the end of paragraph 1 please so indicate.
Vote by show of hands
Vote à main levée
Votación a mano alzada
CHAIRMAN: Nobody feels it ought to be there. Will those who feel that it ought to be a separate paragraph between what is now paragraphs 1 and 2 please so indicate.
Vote by show of hands
Vote à main levée
Votación a mano alzada
CHAIRMAN: Nobody feels that should be done. Will those countries who agree with Argentina's proposal that it be placed in paragraph 2 please so indicate.
Vote by show of hands
Vote à main levée
Votación a mano alzada
CHAIRMAN: It seems obvious that there is a strong consensus and that it ought to be placed there. The issue of placement is now closed.
That is where it will go. The item is closed and cannot be reopened unless there is unanimous consent. We will now proceed to the substance.
Barthélémy BOUASSA-MOUSSADJI (Gabon): Nous n'étions pas beaucoup intervenus sur cette question et nous pensions même ne pas pouvoir continuer à en débattre dans la mesure où, sur le fond, presque toutes les délégations qui sont intervenues n'ont pas jugé utile de revenir là-dessus puisque la proposition éthiopienne recevait en principe l'accord de tous ceux qui sont intervenus. Il était seulement question de savoir où placer cet amendement, et il nous semble, en fait, que la question que vous soulevez n'a pas sa raison d'etre.
CHAIRMAN: Unfortunately what occurred was not as you have stated it. There was in fact an amendment by the Netherlands, now concurred in by Ethiopia. Can we now take up a vote on the Ethiopian proposal as amended?
Mile Faouzia BOUMAIZA (Algérie): J'ai, suivi le débat et il me semblait que notre ami des Pays-Bas avait retiré son amendement.
CHAIRMAN: You are right. I stand corrected. On the Ethiopian amendment, does anybody object? Then the Commission accepts that should be the language. There being no objections, it is hereby adopted. Netherlands, the Chair has to apologize. I misunderstood your statement: 1 misinterpreted you as pressing your point.
Before proceeding with any new business, let us go back to deal with paragraph 30. Originally that is where this item came up. Let us take paragraph 30: does anyone wish to speak on that?
M.M. SIDDIQUE-ULLAII (Bangladesh): It was just a point of order, because I got an assurance on an earlier intervention from the Chair that I would be allowed to take the floor after the Commission had finalized its decision on Ethiopia.
CHAIRMAN: You will. This is just a housecleaning task. We did not want inadvertently to forget that paragraph 30 has not been closed. The only question raised in that paragraph was Ethiopia's, and that was then shifted to another point, so that technically we have not closed out paragraph 30. We will conclude that in two seconds and then we will come to you far your point. Are there any objections to paragraph 30 as it is? Paragraph 30 is adopted.
M.M. SIDDIQUE-ULLAH (Bangladesh): As I said, I want my proposal to be added to the Ethiopian amendment because it is also of a general nature. I am referring to my earlier interventions on this subject, that the regional shares of expenditure either of the programme budget or of extra-budgetary resources do not. really show how much of those expenditures have gone for the poorest countries of the world, and this is very important for policy formulation in FAO and also for adopting programme priorities. So in view of that in my interventions on two occasions I had suggested that whenever the regional shares in expenditures are shown a separate presentation of the shares of the poorest countries of those regions should also be shown. With a view to achieving this objective I have the following formulation to table before the House: "It was also stated that in future documentations relating to any agenda item where regional shares in expenditure either of the Regular Programme budget or of the extra-budgetary resources are shown, a separate table to show the shares of the least developed countries should be added."
CHAIRMAN: Is there any discussion on the amendment by Bangladesh?
Roger PÌ LEWIS (United States of America): Could I ask the Secretary to read the sentence in its entirety one more time.
CHAIRMAN: I think I will pass on that because I did specifically ask Bangladesh to read it slowly and state where he envisaged it being placed. We have already read it twice. It is difficult enough. Does anyone else wish to speak?
M.M. SIDDIQUE-ULLAH (Bangladesh): If there is any difficulty with my pronunciation 1 can give this to you, Mr Chairman, to read it out to the Commission.
CHAIRMAN: No, there was no difficulty. it would be quicker to read it than talk about the time we would save by not reading it. Read it, please.
Michel SAVINI (Assistant Secretary, Commission II): "It was also stated that in future documentation relating to any agenda item where regional share of expenditure either in the Regular Programme budget or the extra-budgetary resources are shown, a separate table to show the share of the least-developed countries within those regions should be added".
CHAIRMAN: On the Bangladesh proposal, any discussion, any objections?
Paul Richard BRYDEN (Australia): I have no difficulty with the substance of the Bangladesh proposal but I do wonder whether we are developing paragraph 2 into too much of a basket of ideas. I wonder whether the Bangladesh proposal might stand quite nicely as a separate single-sentence paragraph, a new paragraph 3. I just offer that suggestion.
CHAIRMAN: Bangladesh, can you respond to that, please.
M.M. SIDDIQUE-ULLAH (Bangladesh): I have no objections, Sir,
CHAIRMAN: Does anyone else have any objections? There being no objections, the Bangladesh proposal is adopted as a separate paragraph.
We have a few items to dispense with. The Chair has asked the Secretary to ask the Chairman of the Drafting Committee to come here for a while to clear up points on which member countries had questions for him to clarify. We also had a question earlier when France was absent that we held in abeyance - I am sorry, I thought I saw France a few minutes ago.
Ibrahima KABA (Guinee): Concernant la question posée sur le paragraphe l7, la délégation française a préféré se référer à M. Poly qui est un fonctionnaire de la FAO, et qui pourrait certainement répondre à la question posée par la délégation guinéenne.
CHAIRMAN: 1 am sorry, Mr Poly is a member of the French delegation, he is not a member of the Secretariat. I think we had better suspend that so that we are not with hearsay. We will save that for France to come back to. The Chairman of the Drafting Committee can also clarify some of those points.
Barthélémy BOUASSA-MOUSSADJI (Gabon): Après que cette phrase, qui avait soulevé l'indignation de la délégation guinéenne, ait été à nouveau abordée, nous avions consulté le procès-verbal de la Commission pour essayer de voir si la délégation française avait effectivement fait ressortir cette; idée. Nous nous sommes rendu compte que cela n'avait pas été le cas. Mais nous avons eu en plus des contacts avec la délégation française qui ne trouve pas d'objection à ce qu'on l'enlève dans la mesure ou c'est pratiquement une vérité de La Palice qui ressort dans le document, d'autant qu'on Ia trouve daus le document d'évaluation. Mais on peut attendre que la délégation française revienne pour confirmer elle-même mes propos.
CHAIRMAN: Let us proceed on that basis and take a decision on paragraph 17 rather than have other member countries speaking on behalf of France. If France wishes to speak, France can deal with this.
Ibrahima KABA (Guinée): En complément d'information, je me suis entretenu avec la délégation française qui est malheureusement retenue dans une autre Commission. Nous sommes tombés d'accord pour dire que cette phrase est inutile parce que, s'il s'agit de la règle générale de la génétique, nous savons tous ici que la sélection excessive dans toutes les espèces est négative. Cette phrase; est donc inutile et ne nous apprend rien.
Mais concernant. le cas spécifique de la trypanosomiase, et plus particulièrement la race trypanotolérante, i 1 y a eu des problèmes dans le cadre des croisements qui constituent une méthode de sélection - spécifiquement dans le cadre des croisements. Nous avons eu à constater ces problèmes dans mon pays.
S'il s'agissait donc de problèmes de croisement comme cela a été évoqué dans le document de travail, la phrase aurait donc un sens. Mais nous étions bien tombés d'accord au contraire, dans le cadre de la sélection générale, sur le fait que la phrase était inutile et. qu'on pouvait la supprimer.
Michel MOMBOULI (Congo): Je crois que même si nous avançons vite, les jours passent et nous. n'avons plus tellement de temps. Aussi je ne crois pas qu'il soit raisonnable de laisser ouverts plusieurs paragraphes des rapports qu'on est en train d'adopter. La phrase est là et elle pousse à une certaine curiosité. Nous nous sommes seulement pressés pour traiter les paragraphes, mais c'est aussi à notre avis une occasion pour savoir exactement de quoi retourne ce dont nous parlons. Notre ami de la Guinée nous a fait comprendre qu'il y avait dans cette salle un expert en La matière qui pourrait donner des explications. Je n'ai pas de position arrêtée sur le fait. qu'il faut ou pas barrer cette phrase. Mais je crois qu'on peut donner la parole, si on le peut, a un expert qui pourrait nous clarifier la situation, nous dire ce qu'il en est, et nous donner des explications; et nous pourrions décider ensuite de supprimer ou de maintenir la phrase. Il est quand même bon de savoir ce qu'il en est exactement de la réalité sur le terrain. Y-a-t-il eu effectivement des preuves selon lesquelles la sélection excessive pourrait avoir des conséquences négatives et dans quel sens? Nous pourrons ensuite nous décider sur ce point sans attendre le retour de la délégation française par manque de temps.
CHAIRMAN: By the way, the Chair has asked the Secretariat if there is anyone nearby who is an expert. on this and the Chair is advised that there is no one handy.
Marc-André FREDETTE (Canada): Two very quick points, of grammar and of principle. Continued in French
Je pense que le français de la Guinée et du Gabon était très clair; il était impeccable, il était transparent. Le message du Gabon est très clair: on a vérifié, cela n'a pas été dit en Commission de la part de la Guinée. On nous apprend que c'est la France elle-même qui, au Comité de rédaction, a eu la créativité d'introduire ce point, mais cela n'avait pas été dit à la Commission et on peut se débarrasser de la phrase. Tout le monde est d'accord. Continue en anglais
As a consequence, if we do delete that sentence we have to take out the word 'other' from the next sentence: we have to say 'Some Member Nations', as a purely grammatical consequence. By the same token, but 1 am in your hands, Mr Chairman, as to when you want to return to that, there is another grammatical change in paragraph 2.
CHAIRMAN: The Chair was just going to. ask Guinea whether your suggestion just made to them is acceptable.
What Canada simply did was to say to you that it needed a grammatical change in the next sentence,
Which is right. Let us get their response to that first. Is Guinea in accord with that?
Barthélémy BOUASSA-MOUSSADJI (Guinée): Je suis entièrement d'accord avec le Canada.
CHAIRMAN: On that point does anybody object to proceeding?
Michel MOMBOULI (Congo): Monsieur le President, je vous ai dit, dans ma dernière intervention, que je n'avais pas de position arrêtée. Si la Conférence convient du fait que, pour gagner du temps, on barre cette phrase, ce n'est pas moi qui ferai des difficultés. Mais j'ai cru comprendre qu'illy y avait quelqu'un, à côté de vous, qui pourrait quand même nous dire ce qu'il en est de cette question.
CHAIRMAN: I had asked the Secretariat that very question and the answer was in the negative. If you do not believe me - Mr Shah, did 1 not just ask you if there was anybody expert on this subject up here?
V.J. SHAH (Director, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): You did, Sir, and I said there was nobody at the time. There is now, if you wish.
CHAIRMAN: I also asked to find one. Where is he? Get him up here. We now have a certifiable expert. Are you aware of the discussion under way? Will you please make a statement that will expedite our work.
P. FINELLE (FAO Staff): Je crois que cette question pourrait facilement être réglée si l'on ajoutait quelques mots à la phrase proposée. Voici le texte que je propose: "Quelques Etats Membres ont déclaré qu'une sélection excessive basée uniquement sur des critères zootechniques pouvait avoir des conséquences négatives sur la résistance à la maladie".
Marc-André FREDETTE (Canada): I am all for creativity but that simply was not said. We cannot put in our record something that was not said. The opinion is undoubtedly valid; "we respect it; we take it into account. The Secretariat has heard the debate. Surely we can move along. It is costing us, in interpreters alone, not to mention the cost of our patience, far more than the issue. We are all agreed it was not said. Let us take it out of the record. The parties principly concerned are already agreed so let us move along and deal with the grammar adjustments that follow.
CHAIRMAN: Your point is very well taken. However, we did have a request from a member country for clarification and expert opinion which was available, not immediately present, but we were able to get it and it is a reasonable request and ought to be accommodated. Guinea, do you wish to move your point? It seems to be clear that we are ploughing the same ground. Your point was that something was not discussed, by report that it was. Let us delete the sentence. Is that point and why don't we vote on it?
Barthélémy BOUASSA-MOUSSADJI (Guinée): C'est justement ce que je voulais dire. Il ne s'agit pas d'arranger des phrases; il s'agit de refléter ce qui a été effectivement dit. Cela n'a pas été dit; pourqoui cela figure-t-il dans le rapport? Eliminons-le, étant donné que cela ne nous apprend rien.
CHAIRMAN: Guinea's point is clearly stated, that in their judgement this was not said, the report should report what was said, it should not report what was not said and does anybody object to the motion by Guinea simply to solve this simply by deletion? Does anybody object to that? The Chair sees no objection. It is deleted. That paragraph is adopted with that change. We have now the Chairman of the Drafting Committee here and there were some items his presence was needed on and I would ask the Secretariat to check your notes and let us start taking those up in order.
On paragraph 22 we have a discussion or lack or agreement on the first sentence, the phrase "almost all" the amendment moves to substitute the words "almost all" for the word "many". Let us take that point and plough through. Would the Chairman of the Drafting Committee care to respond on paragraph 22? That particular paragraph was not discussed by the Drafting Committee.
Joseph TCHICAYA (Président, Comité de redaction): Le paragraphe 22 a été examiné, comme l'ensemble du rapport d'ailleurs, et je dois dire qu'il n'a posé aucun problème au niveau du Comité de rédaction. C'est pour cette raison que je voudrais inviter la Commission à accepter la proposition qui est faite ici. En tout cas, aucun membre du Comité de rédaction ne s'est opposé à la rédaction du paragraphe que vous avez devant vous. Nous pensions donc, par conséquent, qu'il ne poserait aucun problème ici non plus.
Bien entendu, la Commission reste souveraine, mais je ne peux que l'inviter à faire preuve de beaucoup de pragmatisme. Je dois dire qu'il s'agit là d'un rapport qui a été étudié avec beaucoup de minutie et que nous avions souhaité qu'il soit adopte non pas en bloc mais, en touL cas, sans difficulté.
Humberto CARRION MCDONOUGH (Nicaragua): Agradezco en esta ocasión al Representante del Congo por su explicación como Presidente del Comité de Redacción lo que en su oportunidad mencioné en relación a la propuesta de los Estados Unidos y, por lo tanto, podemos de nuevo apoyar el párrafo 22 tal' y como fue discutido y propuesto por el Comité de Redacción.
Roger P. LEWIS (United States of America): The intervention of the Chairman of the Drafting Group is understood and his comments could apply to any suggestions for changes which have been made earlier today. As a matter of fact our country was not a member of the Drafting Committee and we would like to reserve our right as a sovereign nation to comment upon the Report which is submitted to us. We think that the wording "almost all" gives a prejudicial bias to the context of this sentence, it is a judgement that is difficult to quantify. That is the reason for our suggestion that the Director-General had accepted many of the recommendations of the Evaluation team. It is our belief that there were other countries who also had reservations about the extent to which the Director-General had implemented recommendations with respect to evaluation, hence our suggestion that the wording be changed from "almost all" to "many of".
CHAIRMAN: Any other member wish to speak on this point? Let us resolve it.
Milutin TAPAVICKI (Yugoslavia): After hearing the explanation from the Chairman of the Drafting Committee our delegation supports the wording as originally presented in the text of the Drafting Committee.
Ms. Mery Cecilia HURTADO SALAMANCA (Colombia): La Delegación de Colombia está de acuerdo con el párrafo, para que éste no se modifique y nos atengamos a lo expresado en este momento por el Presidente del Comité de Redacción.
Michel MOMBOULI (Congo): Notre délégation en tant que membre du Comité de rédaction souhaite vivement que le libellé du rapport reste en état. Je voudrais attirail' attention sur le fait qu'en français, il y a le mot "presque" qui atténue; on n'a pas dit que la Conférence a accepté toutes les recommandations: il y a le mot "presque" qui atténue. Il y a quand même une nuance et le petit mot qui existe certainement dans les autres langues établit la balance nécessaire pour tenir compte du fait que certains autres délégués ont certainement dit, et qui ont constaté qu'il émet peut-être des doutes. On a mis le mot "presque" pour équilibrer. J'attire l'attention sur ce mot. Ceci étant j'invite tout le monde à en tenir compte et à accepter que la rédaction proposée puisse rester en état.
Sami SUNAA (Jordan) (original language Arabie): I think most of the recommendations were adopted earlier. I wished to propose using the word "most" but I think that I will withdraw this proposal and uphold the initial form of the sentence.
CHAIRMAN: We now have a third proposal.
Pedro Agostinho KANGA (Angola): Nous associons nos voix à celles qui nous ont précédés. Nous sommes en accord avec notre collègue du Congo. Je crois que le mot "presque" apporte une certaine atténuation. Je rie vois donc pas la raison pour laquelle on veut le changer par un autre mot qui serait la même chose. Le mot "presque" en français dit déjà que l'histoire est un peu atténuée. De ce fait, ma délégation insiste afin que cette phrase soit maintenue ainsi que cela nous a été présenté par le Comité de rédaction.
Roger P. LEWIS (United States of America): In the spirit of compromise, the United States withdraws its requests to change the wording "many of" and replaces it with the wording "most of".
CHAIRMAN: Any objection to "most of" ? The Chair sees none, the paragraph is adopted as amended.
We now have a point raised by Nicaragua on paragraph 29. The Secretariat advises me that your concern is about the fact that "Member Nations" in the Spanish text appears as "United States". My understanding was that you had more than a language problem with that paragraph, did you not?
Humberto CARRION MCDONOUGH (Nicaragua): Sr. Presidente, no; no va más allá de la redacción: es en relación con la redacción, porque el párrafo comienza con "La Conferencia tomó nota", etcétera. Eso es correcto, en la primera eración. La segunda comienza diciendo "Otros formularon", refiriéndose a otros miembros, y a continuación se dice: "En cambio, pidieron a la FAO que preparara un nuovo mandato para el PASA". En la siguiente frase dice: "Pidieron también a la Secretaría que presentara", etcétera, y la última frase comienza con "La Conferencia recibió seguridades", etcétera. Hay una incongruencia de redacción meramente, porque no sabemos, en los párrafos intermedios, si nos referimos a la Conferencia, a algunos miembros, a la mayoría, a unos pocos, etcétera, al menos en el texto español. Se dice "En cambio, pidieron", y no se refiere a quiénes, y la siguiente frase dice "Pidieron también", pero no sabemos quiénes pidieron esto.
CHAIRMAN: Would the Chairman of the Drafting Committee clarify the points raised by the representative of Nicaragua?
Joseph TCHICAYA (Président, Comité de redaction): J'ai le texte en français. Je crois que dans un premier temps on a parlé de la Conférence. La seconde phrase commence par "dé nombreux pays membres ont jugé"... La troisième phrase commence par les mots "d'autres ont exprimé des réserves concernant la validité de cette structure" (ce sont les membres bien sûr). Ensuite, "ils ont demandé par contre à la FAO de préparer un nouveau mandat pour la PASA". Ce sont les mêmes pays qui ont invité le Secrétariat à soumettre cette proposition à l'examen du Comité de la Sécurité alimentaire mondiale. Je ne sais pas s'il y a des problèmes au niveau du texte en espagnol. Je croyais que le texte français était clair. C'est peut-être un problème de traduction.
Humberto CARRION MCDONOUGH (Nicaragua): Ahora tengo claras las ideas. El texto en español es el que tiene un problema, meramente de traducción. Porque cuando dice "En cambio, pidieron" refiriéndose a otros miembros, no se entiende; no se ve la relación con el párrafo anterior. Entonces, ese párrafo, en vez de "En cambio, pidieron", debería comenzar diciendo "Estos miembros pidieron"; es decir, los otros miembros de los que se habla en la frase anterior.
De modo que la tercera frase comenzaría diciendo: "Otros formularon reservas acerca de la idoneidad
de la misma, especialmente las dimensiones de su personal". Punto y seguido. "Estos miembros
pidieron", etcétera. Tal vez eso resolvería la contradicción del texto en español.
CHAIRMAN: No objection - approved. Does that complete the difficulties with paragraph 29?
Amador VELASQUEZ GARCIA-MONTERROSO (Perú): Sr. Presidente, había pedido la palabra antes de que usted aprobara el párrafo 29, y ya que este párrafo estaba en revisión, solicitar la inclusión de una frase, porque es algo que se dijo en el Tema 14, en esta Comisión, y también lo dijo Perú en la Plenaria, quien solamente desea que quede registrado.
En la quinta línea, comenzando desde abajo, después de "para que lo examinara", viene un punto y seguido, donde el Perú solicita que se incluya la siguiente frase: "Se sugirió también que la Secretaría estudiara la viabilidad para la creación de los Fondos Regionales de Seguridad Alimentaria."
Yo estoy seguro de que todos recordarán lo que se dijo en la Plenaria y lo que el Perú resumió en esta Comisión en el Tema 14. No pretende el Perú, obviamente, que se reproduzca lo que considera como objetivos, ni mecánica, ni estrategia de lo que serían los Fondos Regionales de Seguridad Alimentaria; sino, sencillamente, la sugerencia que se hizo, que es lo que pide que se incluya.
CHAIRMAN: Any objections to the adoption of paragraph 29? There being no objection-so ordered.
Marc-André FREÜETTE (Canada): A quick grammatical suggestion-with all the various manipulations that paragraph 2 underwent earlier, in the English text, what used to be the fifth line in the sentence started with the word "however". The word "however" has now lost its sense grammatically because it has nothing to do with the Ethiopian proposal which now precedes it in the text. I suggest we start the paragraph "A few member countries called for".
CHAIRMAN: You are correct. The Chair would presume there would be no objection to using correct English - so ordered. The report is adopted.
Paragraphs 1 to 30, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 1 à 30, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 1 a 30, así enmendados, son aprobados
Draft Report of Commission II, Part 2, as amended, was adopted
Projet de rapport de la Commission II, 2ème partie, ainsi amendée, est adoptée
El proyecto de informe de la Comisión II, parte 2, así enmendado, es aprobado
DRAFT REPORT OF COMMISSION II - PART 3
PROJET DE RAPPORT DE LA COMMISSION II - 3ème PARTIE
PROYECTO DE INFORME DE LA COMISION II - PARTE 3
CHAIRMAN: We are now on Part 3. The Secretariat has a couple of announcements to make on it.
Michel SAVINI (Assistant Secretary, Commission II): There were just a couple of printing mistakes in REP/3 in several languages. For the English version on paragraph 9, on the fifth line, the two words "in particular" should come after "referred to", so the line should read "was also referred to, in particular, in relation to the environmental effects of projects."
In the Spanish version on paragraph 6, on the sixth line, one word is missing. At the end of the sixth line the sentence reading "Sin embargo, la Conferencia tomó nota" the word "complacida" is missing.
Dans la version française, à la page 4, le paragraphe 9 doit commencer par les mots suivants:
"Concernant le suivi des projets et notant les difficultés croissantes ...". Le reste sans changement. Les mots à ajouter sont: "Concernant le suivi des projets".
De même, à la page 6, les trois dernières lignes du paragraphe 16 - et cela uniquement pour la version française car les autres versions sont correctes - doivent constituer un nouveau paragraphe, le paragraphe 17.
CHAIRMAN: The Chair will go through the paragraphs and see where there is unanimity and declare those paragraphs approved. Where there is substantial discussion we will defer that to a later point.
POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN
Ms Joan DUDIK-CAYOSO (United States of America): This is a point of order. The re is a document being circulated at the moment, and I would like to know its status and whether it has been through the Resolutions Committee before it gets distributed any further.
CHAIRMAN: The Secretariat does not know. The rules provide that it must go to the Resolutions Committee, and the rules also have a 24-hour hold on it. So there will be no discussion on this. It will have to be referred to the Resolutions Committee.
Ms Joan DUDIK-GAYOSO (United States of America): Then I would request that this not be distributed until it has suitably gone through the Resolutions Committee.
CHAIRMAN: Hold the distribution of that. We have got enough confusion without inviting something new. The point is well taken.
CHAIRMAN: Paragraph 1, has any country any objections to paragraph 1? It is adopted.
Paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 - the USA and Belgium have an objection. Paragraph 5 - no objections approved. Paragraph 6 - no objections, approved. Paragraph 7 - objection. Paragraph 8 - there is objection. Paragraph 9 - there is objection. Paragraph 10 has an objection. Paragraph 11, are there any objections?
Paragraph 11 is adopted. Paragraph 12 - objection; paragraph 13 - objections. Paragraph 14 is adopted. Paragraph 15 - .any objections?: Paragraph 15 adopted. Paragraph 16 - are there any objections? There are objections. Paragraph 17 - no objections, adopted.
Paragraphs 1-17 not concluded
Les paragraphes 1-17 sont en suspens
Los párrafos 1 - 17 quedan pendientes
CHAIRMAN: Paragraph 18, any objections on 18? Adopted. 19? Objection. 20? I see no objection. 20 is adopted. 21? Objection. 22? Adopted. 23? Adopted. 24? No objection; adopted. 25? Objection. 26? No objection;adopted. Objection. 27? No objection; adopted. 28? Adopted.
Paragraphs 18 - 28 not concluded
Les paragraphes 18 - 28 sont en suspens
Los párrafos 18 - 28 quedan pendientes
CHAIRMAN: The time for discussion for this morning has expired. Once again, we would admonish you that we should try to be here at 2:30 to commence business. We are adjourned until 2:30.
The meeting rose at 12.30 hours
La séance est levée à 12 h 30
Se levanta la sesión a las 12.30 horas
