A.T. SLATER (Director, Personnel Division): You have before you document C 93/16, Appointment of Representatives of the Conference to the FAO Staff Pension Committee. The United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund provides retirement, death, disability and related benefits for the staff of the United Nations and other related organizations such as FAO. It is administered by the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Board and Staff Pension Committees in each of the member organizations. The Board's membership is drawn from those committees whose membership and alternate members are chosen by the governing body, the executive head of the Organization and the participating staff of each organization.
In the case of FAO, Conference appoints three of the nine members and three of the alternate members of the FAO Staff Pension Committee. At the last session of the Conference the proposal to extend the term of office of the representatives of the Conference from two to three years and to stagger these terms with a transitory measure in order to permit a change from a two-year to a three-year term was endorsed.
Delegations were advised yesterday that the matter was postponed to allow further consultations among delegations. The Secretariat has now been informed that these consultations have concluded. The following candidates have been proposed to serve as members or alternate members representing the FAO Conference on the FAO Staff Fund Committee: Mr Frank D. Buchholz, currently Alternate Permanent Representative of the United States of America to FAO. His term would be for the period 1 January 1994 to 31 December 1995. He is currently a member of the Committee, so he would continue.
The second member proposed is Mrs Graziella Dubra, Alternate Permanent Representative of Uruguay to FAO. She is proposed for the period 1 January 1994 to 31 December 1996 to succeed Mr Bonaparte.
The third member proposed is Mr Pinit Korsieporn, Alternate Permanent Representative of Thailand to FAO. He is proposed for the period 1 January 1995 to 31 December 1997, and he is also currently a member of the Committee.
The three alternate members proposed are as follows: Mrs Souad Abdallah, Permanent Representative of Syria to FAO. She is proposed for the period 1 January 1994 to 31 December 1995. She is currently an alternate member of the Committee.
Mr Olivier Margueritte, Alternate Permanent Representative of France to FAO. He is proposed for the period 1 January 1994 to 31 December 1996 and would succeed Mr Prillevitz, and finally Mr Ato Assefa Yilala, Alternate Permanent Representative of Ethiopia to FAO. He is proposed for the period 1 January 1995 to 31 December 1997 and will succeed Mr Bature.
You may wish to ask Conference if it wishes to proceed with the appointments of the persons just named to become members and alternate members of the FAO Staff Pension Fund Committee.
CHAIRMAN: You have heard the names of the proposed membership of the FAO Staff Pension Fund and the Alternates. If there are no comments, I am going to recommend that we accept these nominations by acclamation.
APPLAUSE
APPLAUDISSEMENTS
APLAUSOS
ADOPTION OF REPORT (continued)
ADOPTION DU RAPPORT (suite)
APROBACION DEL INFORME (continuación)
Mustapha-Menouar SINACEUR (Président, Commission II): J'ai déjà eu le plaisir de soumettre pour approbation de l'Assemblée plénière le rapport relatif à la question du Programme de travail et budget, point 12.
Vous avez maintenant devant vous les trois documents relatifs au Rapport d'exécution du Programme: Rapport d'évaluation, point 10; Plan à moyen terme, point 11; les mesures phytosanitaires pour la quarantaine végétale, point 13; Objectif de contributions au Programme alimentaire mondial pour le biennium 1995-96, point 14; et enfin le point 15, Faits nouveaux survenus dans le système des Nations Unies et relations de l'Organisation avec les organisations gouvernementales et non gouvernementales.
Je serai bref, pour vous dire que nous avons travaillé dans de très bonnes conditions au sein de la Commission II. Nous avons eu 15 séances, dont deux ont été réservées à l'adoption du rapport de la Commission. Le Comité de rédaction, sous la présidence de M. Marsh, Représentant des Etats Unis, a travaillé dans d'excellentes conditions et le rapport transmis à la Commission reflétait bien les débats, ce qui nous a permis de l'adopter très rapidement et dans les meilleurs délais.
J'ai donc l'honneur de soumettre à l'approbation de l'Assemblée plénière, à travers vous, Monsieur le Président, ces trois rapports de la Commission II.
CHAIRMAN: First of all we will take C 93/REP/6. Page 1 describes what is in the paragraphs covering this Report.
Paragraphs 1 to 17 approved
Les paragraphes 1 à 17 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 1 a 17 son aprobados
Draft Report of Plenary, Part 6, was adopted
Le projet de rapport de la plénière. Sixième partie, est adopté
El proyecto de informe de la plenaria, Parte 6, es aprobado
Igor MARINCEK (Switzerland) : As the Chairman of Commission II has already recalled, we had a very swift adoption of the Report of Commission II. My delegation has no problem with the reports we have here and I would propose the adoption en bloc of the Report of Commission II.
Shri Vishnu BHAGWAN (India): I support this suggestion.
CHAIRMAN: Do I sense that all delegations would wish to accept the paragraphs in this document en bloc? That being the case, all the paragraphs in document C 93/REP/7 are adopted.
Paragraphs 1 to 42 approved
Les paragraphes 1 à 42 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 1 a 42 son aprobados
Draft Report of Plenary, Part 7, was adopted
Le projet de rapport de la plénière. Septième partie, est adopté
El provecto de informe de la plenaria, Patrte 7, es aprobado
Paragraphs 1 to 4 approved
Les paragraphes 1 à 4 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 1 a 4 son aprobados
Paragraphs 5 to 11, including draft resolution, approved
Les paragraphes 5 à 11, y compris le projet de résolution, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 5 a 11, incluido el proyecto de resolución, son aprobados
Paragraphs 12 to 27 approved
Les paragraphes 12 à 27 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 12 a 27 son aprobados
Draft Report of Plenary, Part 8, was adopted
Le projet de rapport de la plénière. Huitième partie, est adopté
El proyecto de informe de la plenaria, Parte 8, es aprobado
- 657 -
Mustapha-Menouar SINACEUR (Président, Commission II): Monsieur le Président, j'aimerais simplement, à travers vous, remercier la plénière pour la confiance qui a été placée en les membres de la Commission II et remercier également mes deux collègues Vice-Présidents, M. Parannos du Brésil et M. Janus des Pays-Bas, qui m'ont constamment secondé dans cette tâche; et je voudrais leur rendre hommage ici, en plénière.
Ninth Report of the General Committee
Neuvième rapport du Bureau
Noveno informe del Comité General
CHAIRMAN: The delegate of Tanzania and a number of other delegates had advised earlier that they had not seen a copy of document C 93/LIM/44 carrying the Ninth Report of the General Committee. I would ask if there is any delegation still without a copy of the Report. All delegations now have this Report and we will take this item now, the Ninth Report of the General Committee, dealing with the appointment of the Director-General and the appointment of the Independent Chairman of the Council, with the two Resolutions in respect thereof.
Ninth Report of the General Committee, including two Resolutions, adopted
Le neuvième rapport du Bureau, comprenant deux résolutions, est adopté
Il noveno informe del Comité General, incluyendo dos resoluciones, es aprobado
Paragraph 1 approved
Le paragraphe 1 est approuvé
El párrafo 1 es aprobado
Paragraphs 2 to 3 approved
Les paragraphes 2 et 3 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 2 y 3 son aprobados
Paragraphs 4 to 6, including draft resolution, approved
Les paragraphes 4 à 6, y compris le projet de résolution, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 4 a 6, incluido el proyecto de resolución, son aprobados
Paragraphs 7 to 8 including draft resolution, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 7 et 8 v compris le projet de résolution, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 7 y 8 incluido el proyecto de resolución, así enmendados, son aprobados
PARAGRAPH 9
PARAGRAPHE 9
PARRAFO 9
Jacques LAUREAU (France): Monsieur le Président, je vous remercie de me donner la parole. Je voudrais évoquer le point 28 et le paragraphe 9 du rapport C 93/REP/9, puisque nous avons fixé les dates de la prochaine
Conférence. Or, au Bureau, hier et aujourd'hui, je voudrais souligner la nécessité de raccourcir si possible les conférences, comme je l'ai dit. Il nous faut absolument rénover l'organisation de la Conférence avec l'objectif d'accroître la participation des délégués dans les moments les plus utiles. C'est une préoccupation qui avait été soulevée à plusieurs reprises dans le passé.
Cette préoccupation est également partagée par d'autres institutions des Nations Unies comme l'ONUDI, par exemple, où la Conférence biannuelle ne dure qu'une semaine. S'agissant de notre Conférence générale, il faudrait tenter de concentrer ses travaux sur deux semaines : en rénovant intégralement l'organisation du débat général délaissé par un nombre important de délégations en fin de Conférence; en répartissant aussi notre ordre du jour - c'est une réflexion que j'offre à la Conférence - sur deux commissions: la première consacrerait ses travaux aux grandes orientations du Programme de travail et budget ainsi qu'aux questions techniques et la seconde examinerait les questions administratives, financières, institutionnelles et juridiques. Je sais qu'il existe des textes mais rien n'empêche de réfléchir à la modification de ces textes; en adaptant certaines de nos méthodes de travail, par exemple, les principes de rédaction des rapports et de leur adoption. Ne faudrait-il pas, dans les rapports, ne retenir que les décisions et conclusions, étant entendu que tout le monde peut aller lire les procès-verbaux pour savoir ce qui a été exprimé par les uns ou par les autres?
Voilà un certain nombre de sujets de réflexion qu'il faudrait avoir à l'esprit et qui permettrait, pour la prochaine Conférence, d'avoir un système beaucoup plus léger et beaucoup plus efficace de prise de décision. Je tiens à souligner cet aspect des choses car le caractère démocratique de notre Organisation veut que les petites délégations puissent également s'exprimer. Or, elles quittent très rapidement la Conférence, faute de moyens. J'en appelle donc à tous sur ce point. Si nous décidons que la réunion se fera du 11 au 20 novembre 1995, nous recommençons ce que nous avons fait cette fois-ci. Ne vaudrait-il pas mieux écrire "du 11 au 25" ou "au 26 novembre 1995" étant entendu que, s'il n'y a pas assez de temps, nous pourrons la prolonger? Entre-temps, on indiquerait dans ce paragraphe la recommandation faite hier par le Bureau.
Carlos ARANDA MARTIN (España): Muy brevemente quisiera adherirme totalmente a la propuesta que acaba de hacer el Representante de Francia. Este es un tema que los delegados frecuentemente comentamos y se puede decir que estamos siempre de acuerdo en que las sesiones de la Conferencia, incluso algunas sesiones del Consejo, tema que también hemos debatido en el último Consejo, estamos de acuerdo en que se puede hacer lo mismo con una organización distinta y conseguir los mismos fines, por tanto, mi Delegación se adhiere a la propuesta francesa en el sentido de acortar la duración de la Conferencia.
Iván MARULANDA GOMEZ (Colombia): Nuestra Delegación está de acuerdo con la sugerencia o la solicitud que ha hecho el señor Delegado de Francia y que ha sido respaldada por la Delegación de España.
Harald HILDEBRAND (Germany) (Original language German): On behalf of my delegation, I would like to give my support to the matters which have been tabled by the French delegation, particulcirly when it comes to our
considering the Conference and the Council. We believe we should try to shorten them and concentrate our efforts better. I believe that this reflects the general atmosphere in the Conference.
At the 103rd Council Meeting in June, my delegation made a proposal regarding the length of the Council in non-Conference years. We thought that, rather than its lasting two weeks, it should last just one week. We feel that the savings which the Organization could make would be considerable.
Julio César LUPINACCI (Uruguay): Mi Delegación también comparte los argumentos que se han expresado para acortar el período de la Conferencia. Quizá pueda hacerse una previsión para que eventualmente pueda haber una prolongación de un día o dos si fuese necesario, pero me parece muy pertinente la propuesta que ha hecho el distinguido Representante de Francia, apoyado por otros países.
John Bruce SHARPE (Australia): I should like to add my delegation's support to what previous speakers have said.
Rolf AKESSON (Sweden): I wish very briefly to say that the Swedish delegation would very much like to support the proposal made by France. For some time we have been entertaining ideas along the same lines.
William H. MARSH (United States of America): My delegation is quite sympathetic to the ideas expressed, but we have a concrete question before us: namely, what shall we accept in terms of scheduling. Therefore, our suggestion would be that we accept the dates indicated on a provisional basis and indicate that we would like consideration and study be given to a shortening of the Conference, with a definite date to be issued at a later time.
Jan BIELAWSKI (Poland): I just wish to add my voice to the suggestion made by France. Realizing that we are discussing and deciding upon a specific issue, I should also like to support the motion made by the distinguished delegate of the United States.
Francis Montanaro MIFSUD (Malta): I should also like to add my support to the suggestion that the length of the Conference be shortened. I should also like to propose, since there seems to be fairly general support for this idea, that we decide here and now, and not refer to a future occasion, as we are so often in the habit of doing, the decision to shorten the dates of the Conference, and that we should a fix a duration shorter than the one fixed a day or two ago.
Winston RUDDER (Trinidad and Tobago): It is clear that the sentiment of the house is for a shortened version of the Conference and the other supporting meetings such as Council. It appears to the delegation of Trinidad and Tobago that the General Committee did in FAOt reflect very seriously on this particular matter and, in FAOt, the Ninth Report does indicate that on the second page. In the light of that, and given the feeling in the house,
it does appear to the delegation of Trinidad and Tobago that the matter should be addressed in the way suggested by the distinguished delegate of the United States of America: that is to say, we opt for allowing the date as we have here to stand provisionally and, on the basis of further analysis and in the light of the General Committee's recommendation, the Director-General and the Secretariat may then wish to reduce the number of days for the Conference, depending on that kind of analysis. I would support the recommendations and the proposal made by the United States of America in regard to this particular matter.
Ato Assefa YILALA (Ethiopia) : 1 would also like to support the proposal made by France to shorten the length of time required for Conference. However, we feel that further consideration of the matter would be needed in order to finalize this matter. We would like to support the views expressed by the delegate of the United States in that regard, to have a presentation made upon which we make our decision.
Gheorghe APOSTOIU (Roumanie): J'ai simplement demandé la parole pourm'associer pleinement à la propostion et à la déclaration de la délégation française.
Michael KIMA TABONG (Cameroon): In supporting the proposal by the distinguished delegate of France, I wish to recall that this issue was placed before the Conference in 1985 by the Head of the Cameroon delegation who, as a matter of FAOt, chaired the Conference. It was not only a question of reducing the period at that time; it was also a question of reviewing the whole Organization.
Mustapha-Menouar SINACEUR (Maroc): J'aimerais remercier le Représentant de la France d'avoir évoqué cette question. Effectivement, comme vient de le dire l'Ambassadeur du Cameroun, cette question remonte déjà à 1985; et mes collègues se rappelleront qu'au cours de l'année 1991 j'avais moi-même repris cette idée déjà exprimée en 1985 pour faire une proposition concrète qui n'avait pas reçu, à l'époque, l'assentiment de mes collègues: il s'agissait de revenir à une ancienne formule d'organisation de la Conférence selon laquelle des comités préparatoires de la Conférence se réunissaient pendant une semaine ou dix jours pour avoir ensuite une session plénière de cinq jours pendant lesquels nous étions assurés de la présence des ministres pour prendre les décisions et voter, par exemple.
Mais je crois qu'il ne faut pas débattre de cette question maintenant. Le Conseil est peut-être l'instance idéale pour examiner les modalités pratiques de cette proposition et entendre les avis exprimés à ce sujet. Aussi la proposition faite par Monsieur Marsh nous semble-t-elle tout à fait intéressante.
Cela dit, nous pouvons quand même adopter provisoirement ce calendrier et le Conseil aura toute latitude pour examiner cette question en profondeur.
Soumaila ISSAKA (Niger): Sur le principe de réduire la durée de la session de la Conférence, ma délégation se rallie à tous les avis exprimés en ce sens. En fait, nous venons d'adopter une recommandation du Bureau qui va dans ce sens. Mais il faut également se pencher sur l'aspect pratique. En
se penchant sur cet aspect pratique, il faudrait se rappeler qu'il ne s'agit pas d'une question tout à fait nouvelle, comme viennent de le dire un certain nombre de représentants. Déjà, en 1985 mais également plus tard, en 1987, au moment de la Revue de la FAO, cette question avait été discutée par les membres de l'Organisation. Il faut quand même réunir un certain nombre de conditions pour pouvoir arriver à cette réduction de la durée de la session de la Conférence, notamment en termes d'organisation, de prise de décisions, comme cela a été évoqué par la France. On pourrait peut-être laisser tomber tout l'aspect rédactionnel de nos rapports, étant entendu, comme l'a-dit le délégué de la France, que l'on peut en trouver le détail dans les procès-verbaux. Je pense qu'il faut réfléchir à tout cela afin de pouvoir faire cadrer le souci de la réduction de la Conférence avec les aspects pratiques. Il me semble difficile de prendre actuellement une décision très précise. La proposition faite par le Représentant des Etats-Unis nous permettrait justement de pouvoir faire cet exercice étant entendu que nous sommes tous d'accord sur la réduction de la session. On pourrait peut-être dire que la Conférence décide que ses sessions seront réduites, mais la réduction précise devrait être fonction de notre réflexion. C'est pour cela que nous sommes tout à fait favorables à la proposition des Etats-Unis, qui va dans le bon sens et qui nous permettrait d'éviter de revenir là-dessus.
Ricardo VELAZQUEZ HUERTA (México): De igual manera, señor Presidente, sólo para dar nuestro apoyo a las propuestas de Francia y Estados Unidos. Pensamos al igual que otros países que se han expresado ya, que el asunto requiere de un análisis muy a fondo y que debemos aceptar de manera provisional las fechas propuestas para que se incorporen a él las posibles sugerencias sobre cómo acortar la Conferencia. Nuestra Delegación puede pensar en muchas razones, pero principalmente aquéllas de tiempo y de gastos que afectan al presupuesto, nos impulsan a apoyar firmemente ambas propuestas.
Jacques LAUREAU (France): Je comprends bien tout ce qui a été dit et je cherche moi-même un compromis. Si nous ne décidons pas actuellement d'une date avec une durée raccourcie, nous n'aurons pas d'éléments de réflexion pour rendre le système plus efficace. Donc je maintiens la proposition de changer les dates pour réduire la durée de la Conférence. Ensuite, évidemment, nous adapterons le système pour que les 15 jours soient utilisés de la manière la plus efficace, soit, comme l'a dit le Représentant du Maroc, par des réunions préparatoires qui ne rentreraient pas dans ces limites de temps, soit, comme l'ont dit d'autres délégués, par une réorganisation des travaux. Si nous ne prenons pas de décision sur les dates, nous retrouverons la même situation qu'en 1985. On va traîner le problème de conférence en conférence sans qu'il y ait de décision ou d'obligation. Je proposerais qu'on limite à 15 jours, avec d'éventuels correctifs, la durée de la Conférence et que l'on renvoie au Conseil la discussion des modalités pratiques pour améliorer les travaux, ce qui serait en quelque sorte un compromis dans le compromis.
Ray ALLEN (United Kingdom): I fully support the sentiments that everyone is expressing here this morning about the shortening of the Conference. However, I think the delegate of the United States made a very pragmatic suggestion that we make the dates provisional and make it clear that the dates we are setting out are provisional, giving everyone time really to
consider the implications and the work that will need to go into the setting up of the next Conference.
On France's suggestions about the working methods and the adoption of reports, etc., perhaps we could put this on the agenda of the Special Session of the Council in May and also give the Council in May the authority to set the dates for the next Council.
Gürsu OKURER (Turkey): We would also like to associate ourselves with the proposal to shorten the duration of the Conference. I would like to support the views on the modalities of this by France, the United States and Morocco.
Jacques IAUREAU, Vice-chairman of the Conference, took the chair
Jacques LAUREAU, Vice-Président de la Conférence, assume la présidence
Ocupa la presidencia Jacques LAUREAU, Vicepresidente de la Conferencia
Cephas GOODING (Barbados): Barbados too would like to lend support to the proposal to reduce the length of time of the Conference, especially in the light of the financial implications associated with the long duration, which has been taking place previously. Of course, we recognize that it may be difficult to decide precisely the length of time for the next Conference; so we would lend support also to the idea that perhaps we could accept the proposal for a provisional acceptance at this Conference.
Mrs Hannelore A.H. BENJAMIN (Dominica): My delegation would like to support what has been suggested by the united Kingdom in respect of shortening the Conference. My delegation agrees with France but also with the United States that we must think about what we are going to do. Therefore, I think the solution the United Kingdom proposed is very acceptable. Perhaps Conference could, therefore, authorize the Council in May to make the decision on how long the next Conference will run.
LE PRESIDENT: Je pense qu'il se dégage une sorte de consensus dans la plénière pour dire que ce serait au prochain Conseil de décider des dates. Donc nous ferions un paragraphe qui renverrait au Conseil spécial, prévu en mai, la décision concernant les dates de la Conférence, étant entendu qu'entre-temps on aurait étudié les modalités pratiques pour FAOiliter les travaux et leur efficacité.
Mustapha-Menouar SINACEUR (Maroc): Permettez-moi tout d'abord de vous dire, Monsieur le Président, que cela me fait vraiment plaisir de vous voir présider nos travaux.
Sans vouloir aller contre la proposition de notre collègue de la Dominique, je pense qu'il ne serait pas raisonnable de soumettre la question au Conseil extraordinaire du mois de mai. Ce Conseil a un ordre du jour assez chargé, les questions sont très importantes, et c'est une courte session. Il serait peut-être plus raisonnable de porter cette question à la session de novembre de 1994.
- 663 -
LE PRESIDENT: Y a-t-il d'autres avis?
Iávn MARULANDA GOMEZ (Colombia): Yo estoy de acuerdo con usted, señor Presidente, en que hemos encontrado un consenso en la sala; sin embargo, me parece que habría que agregarle al enunciado que usted ha hecho de ese consenso lo siguiente: "que la Conferencia recomienda al Consejo la disminución del tiempo de sesiones de la próxima Conferencia".
P.C. PRILLEVITZ (Netherlands): I would prefer the Council meeting in May. I am a little against the proposal of Morocco but is it possible that in your conclusion you will also recommend that working methods of meetings will be improved and at least studied. We had an initiative a couple of years ago here but we did not work it out. If you conclude that now, I think again it would be very helpful. It is more in the sphere of the United Kingdom's proposal to discuss more than just the date of the next Conference.
As you will remember, we have a lot of repetition in our meetings. The Council meetings talk about a subject; then we have the technical committees; then later on we have the Conference. Perhaps we can shorten that process. We also have your idea about a study of working methods.
Winston RUDDER (Trinidad and Tobago): It is unusual for me to intervene twice on the same agenda item, but it appears that we are approaching a consensus on what we would wish to have done. We are all concerned about shortening the Conference, and the intervention by the Colombian delegation could add direction and focus to our intentions.
However, we will be making a serious mistake if we seek to overload the agenda for the May Council meeting, having regard to the specific purpose for which the May Council will be convened. If we begin to overload that agenda we will be doing ourselves no justice since, in the event, the reason for putting it to the Council was to allow the Director-General and the Secretariat, having regard to the injunction that the Conference is now giving it, to study the matter thoroughly and come up with a practical, workable set of solutions.
I would urge Conference to opt for the proposal as modified by the delegate of Morocco. It makes eminent sense in the current circumstances.
Mrs. Razane MAHFOUZ (Syria) (Original language Arabic): There is an amendment to be made to the report in the Arabic language because we read there that the next Conference will be in 1955 rather than in 1995. We need a correction to be made to the Arabic version.
LE PRESIDENT: Il y a toujours des problèmes avec la langue arabe depuis le début de la Conférence. De toute façon, un autre paragraphe va remplacer ce paragraphe. Je pense que la correction se fera d'elle-même.
Je retiens les remarques faites par le Représentant de Trinité-et-Tobago et par le Maroc. La remarque du Représentant du Maroc me paraît fondée. Il ne faut pas surcharger le Conseil spécial qui va traiter des questions de réorientation que le Directeur général voudra donner à l'Organisation. Peut-être pourrions-nous mettre cette question à la session du Conseil de
novembre. Mais, au mois de novembre, nous devrions décider afin que la Conférence soit préparée dans des conditions plus efficaces.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: As members here have been reminded, this is certainly not a new topic. Reference has been made to the 1985 Review of the procedures and arrangements for the Conference. I understand, incidentally, that one of the prime instigators of that rather detailed Review was an Ambassador of France. This, therefore, is not a new matter; this is not the first time that consideration of the matter has been requested.
Secondly, I wish to remind Conference of what you have already said on this matter. In approving C 93/LIM/28 earlier, you agreed with the General Committee's views saying that, whilst it would not be advisable to alter the timetable for the present Session, it recommends that in future consideration be given to having key votes by the Conference taken during the first week in order to accommodate those Member Nations who can be present at that time only. That is one piece of guidance that you have given.
This morning, when you adopted C 93/LIM/44 - as you have also been reminded by the distinguished delegate from Trinidad and Tobago - you approved a statement that said "...recommends that the Conference encourage the Secretariat to consider ways and means of shortening the duration of future Conference sessions". Of course, these bits and pieces at different places and at different times during the Conference will all be put together with this paragraph which you have already adopted and which says that the Conference decided that its Twenty-eighth Session should be held in Rome from 11 to 30 November 1995. This has been adopted, so you have adopted all of that, but in the final report your guidance here, there and there will all be put together into one section.
Next, I wish to remind you that the Council at its meeting immediately following the Session of the Conference will consider the timetable for meetings and so this will again appear - most likely tomorrow - at the Council. It has that delegated authority but, more important for this debate, the arrangements for a Conference are matters that are delegated to Council. Normally, the Council would consider this matter based on the advice and guidance of this Conference in June 1995. That is when it would review the arrangements of the 1995 Conference. There have been several suggestions to modify that normal scenario. I am not sure I understand why it would be necessary to try and bring this matter to the additional Session of the Council or even the November 1994 Session of the Council. The time when the arrangements would need to be modified in accordance with the desires of this Conference would be at that June 1995 Session of the Council.
In view of all the guidance that you have already approved - in C 93/LIM/44, which recommends that the Conference encourage the Secretariat to consider ways and means of shortening the duration of future Conference Sessions, and the guidance with respect to arrangements or schedules for voting so that the key votes can take place closer together if possible, and that you had already decided that it should be held in Rome from 11 to 30 November - you will have these qualifiers in the Report. You are asking that ways and means be considered for shortening the duration of the time. If that is still not sufficiently explicit, you may wish to consider going back to the document that has already been adopted and put a comma and then
"subject to reconsideration by the Council at its June 1995 Session". That is the normal time when matters would come to the Council.
Again, I remind you that these dates would stand here with that reference and there would be explicit instruction from this Conference that ways and means of shortening the duration be considered; and additionally there would be this matter about the key votes of the Conference being taken during the first week in order to accommodate certain Member Nations, and so forth.
If I could appeal to the Conference, if that were an acceptable solution it would seem to me to take care of the problem.
LE PRESIDENT: Je remercie Monsieur Hjort pour son exposition mais il faut que le paragraphe 9 du document C 93/REP/9 soit cohérent avec ce que nous venons de dire.
Je donne la parole au Royaume-Uni et je demande à ceux qui se sont exprimés tout à l'heure de dire ce qu'ils pensent de la proposition de M. Hjort. Encore une fois, il m'a semblé que le sentiment était très fort pour que les choses marchent dans le sens de la réduction du temps de la Conférence et que les choses ne soient pas comme d'habitude renvoyées ou enterrées, car c'est un risque.
Ray ALLEN (United Kingdom) : I entirely agree with the sentiments you have just expressed that we should not bury this issue. Mr. Hjort has mentioned that it is normal practice to review the timetable in June but, with all due respect, I do feel that if we leave it until June 1995 we are leaving it much too late. The June Council in 1995 will probably already be faced with a set agenda. What we need to do is set the duration and then fill in the agenda, rather that the other way round.
LE PRESIDENT: Je remercie le Représentant du Royaume-Uni. C'est un peu ce que j'avais dit lorsque j'étais à mon banc de délégué.
Iván MARULANDA GOMEZ (Colombia) : Señor Presidente, para respaldar totalmente lo que acaba de decir el señor Delegado del Reino Unido.
Jan BIELAWSKI (Poland): If I take the floor it is for two reasons: firstly, you appealed for that; and, secondly, indeed I would be very worried if the Conference sent two converging but not clear enough signals to the Secretariat. We cannot have a fixed date for the Conference and a general recommendation that we do something about this. Accordingly, the solution would be to modify paragraph 9 of C 93/REP/9, if this has been adopted as apparently it has.
Secondly, it seems to me that the modus operandi of the FAO - the working methods that were referred to a couple of minutes ago - will also be the subject of intensive debate in order to improve the efficiency and efficacy of the Organization which is definitely an issue very close to the heart of the new Director-General. That is why we are thinking that we do this cause a good service if we take up the issue earlier than 1995.
LE PRESIDENT: Merci Monsieur le Représentant de la Pologne pour votre intervention. Est-ce que je pourrais suggérer, comme Président (je ne sais pas si c'est la pratique), que ceux qui se sont exprimés et qui ont donc des idées, comme le Représentant du Maroc, le Représentant des Etats-Unis, le Représentant du Royaume-Uni, mes collègues français, le Représentant de la Colombie et le Représentant de la Pologne, proposent peut-être un texte qui pourrait venir sur le paragraphe 9, de manière à ce que nous ayons une expression claire de la volonté de la Conférence; et puis soumettre ce texte à la Conférence à une prochaine séance. Je crois que c'est la bonne manière de procéder, enfin la manière la plus démocratique.
Mme Yvonne ALVES DIAS DA GRAÇA (Gabon) : Je voudrais appuyer la proposition initiale de la France, parce qu'il me semble que les propositions du Secrétariat risquent de renvoyer le problème, comme cela a été le cas tant d'autres fois. Et je propose également que l'on retienne les propositions de la Colombie et des Pays-Bas, et que la méthodologie soit réexaminée lors du Conseil de novembre 1994.
George LAMPTEY (Ghana): I think it is the sense of the Conference that the duration of the next Conference should be reduced. There is a general feeling among delegations, and this has been expressed in the General Committee and throughout the corridors.
Since we have decided that the in-coming Director-General must have the opportunity to review various things and submit proposals if he so wishes to the additional Council meeting in May, he can also consult his staff on this matter and submit a proposal for shortening the duration during the May session of Council.
It is easier for the Secretariat to be able to tell the Director-General which factors led us to want to shorten our Conference. They can then discuss with them questions such as "why don't we shorten, for instance, the general statements of delegations? Why don't we do this and reduce the meeting from three weeks to two weeks or ten days, or whatever?" I think this can be done. You can take an immediate decision now, which means we can go ahead and deal with the matter, and it should be possible in May for the Director-General to make a proposal.
If the Conference accepts this I would suggest we say "The Conference decided that its 28th Session should be held in Rome from 11 to 30 November 1995", and then we can say "subject to a review by the Director-General", with the aim of reducing the duration of that Conference and presentation to the Council at such-and-such a time. That would have done it.
LE PRESIDENT: Monsieur le Représentant du Ghana, je vous remercie pour votre intervention. Je crois que si nous constituions un groupe qui rédigerait ce paragraphe, il faut que vous y figuriez pour justement faire éventuellement rentrer votre idée en ligne de compte. Mais je rappelle qu'il faut que la Conférence prenne une décision à ce sujet, sur la durée. Vous, vous avez réduit la durée d'emblée. C'est très bien. Mais je pense qu'il faut que tout le monde soit d'accord.
- 667 -
Ivan MARULANDA GOMEZ (Colombia) : Me referiré a lo dicho por el Sr. Delegado de Ghana. Me parece que el Director General tiene ya demasiado trabajo con sus funciones constitucionales para que le agreguemos las de la Conferencia. Esta es una decisión de la Conferencia y tenemos que demostrar que somos capaces de tomar las decisiones que nos corresponden. Insisto en que hay un consenso sobre la materia. Se trata simplemente de redactar, como Ud. bien lo ha dicho, lo que ya todos hemos expresado con claridad.
F.C. PRILLEVITZ (Netherlands) : What the delegate of Colombia has just said about the proposal of the delegate of Ghana was my comment also. It is not only the Director-General who has to review this - it is the membership. So we have to take the decision here. But what we can advise is that there will be an informal process during the first part of next year organized by the two Chairmen of G77 and OECD about not only the duration of the Conference - that is just the Pandora's Box - but also about working methods, as I have said before.
George LAMPTEY (Ghana): Let me clarify once again. This Conference can take a decision that we shorten the period. We can take the decision now. You can set up a group to consider that, but what would they do? You cannot do it unless the Secretariat has been able to provide the factors that go in to arranging the Conference; in other words, they will be able to tell you that for these agenda items you have two days, for those you need that and for the others you need something else, and that is work which only the Secretariat can do. It cannot be done by the Conference. The Secretariat put together the contents of the Conference and present it to the Conference. The Director-General is the person through whom they send it. When you talk about the Director-General you are talking about the Secretariat.
I know my colleague from the Netherlands does not know any difference between the Director-General and the membership, but I think that is a wrong conception. The Director-General represents the Conference, the membership. He brings everything to the membership. When he goes to Council he is taking everything to the membership. Every member of the Organization goes to the Council. I think you are delaying matters by talking about setting up a Group. What are they going to do without those factors? The factors can only be provided by the Secretariat and they have experience in what is needed.
We know we want a shortening of the duration period. That is all we are talking about. We are not talking about what matters go into the Conference; we are talking just about shortening the duration. As everyone is complaining it is too long and too expensive, therefore let them prepare something for the Director-General, he will look at it and on the basis of that he will put it before the Council. The Council can then say, "We accept the shortening to ten days", or instead of ten days they could make it twelve or fourteen days. I do not think we need to set up any group of this kind.
LE PRESIDENT: Le Représentant du Ghana n'a peut-être pas compris ce que je proposais. C'était de faire un groupe de rédaction pour le paragraphe 9 et non pas de discuter du fond. Il ne s'agissait pas du tout de discuter du fond. Et je voudrais rappeler également que ce sont les Etats Membres: les Etats Membres sont souverains. Donc, les Etats Membres décident d'étudier
une question. Et il faut qu'un certain nombre de gens permettent de rédiger ce paragraphe en liaison avec le Secrétariat. C'est uniquement de la rédaction du paragraphe 9 dont il s'agissait et pas d'un groupe de travail sur le fond. Cela, c'est pour plus tard, éventuellement, si c'est une formule. Mais c'est bien sûr le Secrétariat qui va préparer, sous l'autorité du Directeur général, des propositions sur la base des directives données par la Conférence, bien sûr. Il s'agissait juste de la rédaction du paragraphe 9.
William H. MARSH (United States of America): The United States of America would like to propose a reformulation of paragraph 9 as follows - and incidentally, I believe this reflects a number of views. We would submit it to the delegations for their consideration.
"Date and Place of the Twenty-eighth Session of the Conference Item 28. The Conference decided that its Twenty-eighth Session should be held in Rome during a period in November 1995 preferably not to exceed two weeks in duration. The Conference requested that the Director-General review the working methods of the Conference and report to the Special Session of the FAO Council in May 1994, when a final decision on the exact dates for the Twenty-eighth Session should be taken".
LB PRESIDENT: Je remercie le Représentant des Etats-Unis. Je trouve que c'est là un travail de compromis tout à fait intéressant. Et je demande les réactions des délégués.
Carlos ARANDA MARTIN (España) : Muy brevemente, para adherirme a la propuesta que acaba de hacer Estados Unidos, porque creo que recoge los dos aspectos que llevamos discutiendo toda la mañana.
El primero es el de que propria Conferencia, que por supuesto es la soberana y es la que debe decidir la duración y no remitirlo a otros órganos de gobierno de la FAO, ya limita el tiempo de duración de la Conferencia a dos semanas. Por tanto, queda perfectamente claro el deseo y la decisión de esta Conferencia, que es la soberana para decidir estos aspectos; por otra parte también recomienda la revisión de los métodos de trabajo, que es otro de los aspectos en que todos los intervinientes hemos estado totalmente de acuerdo.
Por tanto, creo que esta propuesta de los Estados Unidos refleja, al entender de nuestra delegación, perfectamente, el sentir de la Conferencia.
F.C. PRILLEVITZ (Netherlands): I also think the proposal of the delegate of the United States of America is a good one. I have only one point in the second sentence - "The Conference requested that the Director-General review the working methods..." - I would like to add after "Director-General" "in consultation with the membership". We have that in other Resolutions and other Reports "... the Director-General in consultation with the membership..."
George LAMPTEY (Ghana): I do not think the proposal of the Netherlands is at all wise. We had a problem accepting it when we approved the Resolution
on the Review of the Programme. I can tell you that when the Director-General came in we wanted that changed, because both the present Director-General and the incoming Director-General did not feel it was right. When we talk about "membership" what do we mean? The Council is the membership of the Organization. According to the Basic Texts, when the Council acts, it acts for the Conference. When the Conference is not sitting, the Council is the body, which acts. That is what the Text provides. There is no question of "in consultation with the membership". Are they going to come to ask Ghana, ask Gabon or ask Germany on this? When a proposal is put to the Council, you are there to speak, as Ghana has done in saying, "No, we do not agree with this". When the collectivity takes a decision, the membership will have taken a decision. It is not the Director-General who is taking the decision. Therefore please let us leave this. It is the same with the Secretariat and the Director-General. The Secretariat only acts for the Director-General. In the UN system, we do not talk about the Secretariat, we talk about the Secretary General of the UN or the Director-General of the Organization. That is what we are talking about.
LE PRESIDENT: Je remercie le Représentant du Ghana. Je laisserai de côté le débat entre les Pays-Bas et le Ghana. Et je reviendrai au texte qui nous a été proposé par les Etats-Unis, en demandant donc au Cameroun, qui a demandé la parole, de s'exprimer.
Michael KIMA TABONG (Cameroon) : The Cameroon delegation supports the very well-refined wording proposed by the delegate of the United States, which takes account of all aspects of our discussion this morning.
Waleed A. ELKHEREIJI (Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of) (Original language Arabic): We, too, support the proposal of the United States of America, but we should like to have some flexibility and not have a binding commitment which ties the hands of the Director-General with respect to the May 1994 Session. We should like to have some flexibility by saying, "until the November session", for example. The new Director-General will have many tasks to carry out and a lot of work to do. There will be many aspects he will have to look at before he can turn fully to this matter.
LE PRESIDENT: Je remercie le Représentant de l'Arabie Saoudite. C'est en effet l'un des points qui a été soulevé par plusieurs délégations: Trinité-et-Tobago et d'autres.
Il faudra recueillir le sentiment général sur ce sujet. On pourrait dire "dans la mesure du possible" ou, sinon, "au plus tard, lors de la session de novembre 1994".
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: On this particular point I fail to understand what the sense of urgency is and why it is felt necessary to overload the additional session. You have the regular session of the Council in November. It would seem to me that the matter could be placed on the agenda for that session and the debate could take place on the basis of a document submitted by the Director-General, which in turn would be based upon the guidance which this Conference is giving, i.e. what it has said very clearly today, that it wishes to have shorter sessions. It seems to me that an orderly process would be for the Director-General to be requested to
prepare a document for consideration and discussion at the November 1994 session of the Council. The final arrangements for the next Conference will be decided by the Council meeting in June 1995. Even if it could not come to a final conclusion, the Council next year could discuss the agenda for the Conference and how to arrange the work and so on. The decision would have to be taken at the June 1995 Council. It seems to me that that would be an orderly process. I suspect that the Director-General will be very busy getting ready for the additional session. It is certainly true, that, as part of his consideration of ways of saving money, and so forth, this matter may be on that agenda.
The other point with which I have a problem in what is being proposed is that a decision be taken on the duration of the Conference before the matter has been considered. That makes me a little nervous, recalling that this matter has been studied before and recalling very clearly that one of the findings was that FAO devotes fewer days to its Conference, or its meetings of its supreme governing body, than most other organizations in the UN system.
Thinking forward to what is likely to be on the agenda, there are certain matters, which will have to dealt with by the Conference. We shall be completing the first two years of the term of a new Director-General, and there may be some additional and special matters, which need to be on the agenda. I do not see how this Conference can decide how many days the next Conference should last. It would seem to me that there should be an orderly process to this matter.
I would appeal to, and encourage, the Conference to amend this to make it clear that this Conference wishes future conferences to be of shorter duration and, secondly, that it asks the Director-General to prepare a document for consideration and discussion at the November 1994 session of the Council. You do not need to have anything else in there but there could be just a reminder that the June 1995 session of the Council will be the Council session which will decide on the final arrangements. The final decisions will be taken then. A preliminary decision will be taken in 1994 and will be an input into that ongoing process.
LE PRESIDENT: Je remercie Monsieur Hjort de ses explications. Je pense que les délégués en prendront note tout en exprimant, bien entendu, leurs vues, puisqu'ils sont souverains.
Julio César LUPINACCI (Uruguay): Mi Delegación comparte la propuesta muy atinada y muy equilibrada que hizo la delegación de Estados Unidos, y creo que la observación que hizo el Delegado de Arabia Saudita es muy pertinente porque flexibiliza esa Resolución y pienso incluso en base a lo que ha expresado el señor Secretario, se podría no mencionar la reunión del Consejo y tendría que ser presentada la modificación del estudio del método de trabajo, o poner como máximo quizá en el mes de noviembre de 1994. Yo me inclino por cualquiera de las dos situaciones de que lo importante sería flexibilizar para permitir al Secretario General, como se ha dicho, va a verse abocado a mucho trabajo e intenso trabajo, a darle el tiempo suficiente para que prepare bien las cosas, y al mismo tiempo, con la antelación suficiente, fijar la fecha para el período de trabajo de la Conferencia y los métodos de trabajo adecuados para que ese período se puede cumplir preferiblemente, como dice el Delegado de Estados Unidos, en quince días. Creo, señor Presidente, que la flexibilidad es un buen
principio y sobre la base de lo que dice Estados Unidos y -la observación de Arabia Saudita, podemos llegar a una solución razonable.
LE PRESIDENT: C'est tout à fait mon sentiment, mais nous verrons avec la suite de la discussion.
Jan BIELAWSKI (Poland): I should like to say, first, that my delegation can support the United States' proposal. Secondly, since we have turned into a drafting group as a body, I suggest to all delegates and colleagues that they should focus solely on the issue under debate, which is the duration of the Conference, and not introduce other elements. I will try to do the same.
My delegation can accept the suggestions made about the November 1994 Council but would stress that there should be an element of flexibility in a wording which would reflect that the Director-General should report to one of the 1994 Council sessions, and at the latest to the November 1994 session.
As for the indications given by the Conference, I agree with Mr. Hjort, if I have interpreted his comments correctly, that we should not put the cart before the horse and we are consistent with the requirement for flexibility. However, it seems to me that this flexibility is already contained in the language of the US delegation's proposal, which is "preferably not exceeding two weeks", which accurately reflects certain preferences or even specific motions made during this Conference.
Francis Montanaro MIFSUD (Malta): I support the amendment proposed by the distinguished delegate of the United States. This amendment takes account of the whole range of views expressed, which are all, as I understand it, strongly in favor of a shorter duration of the Conference. We would have preferred to have seen the word "preferably" dropped, as we originally indicated, and I think this point was also made by the distinguished delegate from the United Kingdom, but we would go along with the present phrasing.
As to whether the study and report should go to the May session of the Council or to the November Session, we do not have strong feelings on that matter, but we think it should not be later than November.
There are always pros and cons about having a longer or a shorter Conference, but unless you fix the duration, you will never deal with this problem. The technical committees do a lot of the more technical work of the Conference. I think more reliance could be placed on the Reports and proceedings of these committees. The ceremonial in the Conference could be shortened. There are ways and means of shortening the Conference, but unless we fix a shorter duration I do not think we will ever succeed. We shall continue with academic studies but we shall never succeed in actual shortening the duration of the Conference.
Franco F.G. GINOCCHIO (Italie): La délégation italienne attribue une grande importance à la question soulevée par la France concernant la durée de la Conférence, étant donné que trois semaines consécutives de travaux représentent une période assez longue. Toutefois, nous pensons qu'il
faudrait réfléchir non seulement sur la durée de la Conférence mais aussi sur l'organisation des travaux. A cet égard, nous suggérons que la Conférence se tienne en deux sessions de deux jours chacune, l'une pour les commissions et l'autre pour les décisions définitives en plénière. De cette façon, les délégués de la plénière auraient le temps suffisant pour examiner les rapports des Commissions I, II et III. Nous suggérons que cette question soit examinée par le Conseil, en novembre 1994.
Harald HILDEBRAND (Germany) (Original language German): My delegation would like fully to support the proposal of the delegate of the United States of America. We feel that it does reflect the general feeling of Plenary and is a specific contribution to moving forward on this matter.
After consideration of the matter in the Special Session in May 1994, it would be possible to take a decision at the November 1994 Council meeting on the exact dates of the next Conference. We feel that it would be too late, it would not be a good idea to wait until the June 1995 session for this, because the June Council meetings visually have a very heavy agenda and it would be a little late in the day to take a decision there. Mr. Hjort has said that if we have a two-week duration for the Conference, there would be some contradiction between the duration of the Conference on the one hand and the duration of Council on the other.
I should like to return to a previous proposal by my delegation: in the interest of savings, we should see if Council meetings in non-Conference years, the November session, could perhaps be reduced, maybe not to a week but at least to ten days.
Winston RUDDER (Trinidad and Tobago): It is true that very often works, and sometimes talk, expand to occupy the space provided. Maybe that is a concern we have in Conference. However, it may also well be true that conflicting and crowded social agendas might cause problems if we shorten the Conference. Nevertheless, I think we have before us a proposal by the distinguished delegate from the United States with which we can live. The word "preferably" allows the flexibility, which we would wish to have. I would offer but one small modification or amendment, that we do not restrict the Director-General to the May session but perhaps the November 1994 session. Apart from that, I think we have a suggestion that Conference could well adopt.
William H. MARSH (United States of America): I should like to propose an amendment to the earlier text I submitted for your consideration. That amendment is reflective of the very wise advice received from the distinguished delegates of Saudi Arabia, Uruguay, and Malta and, most recently, Trinidad and Tobago. However, in the second sentence we indicate that it would be reported to the 106th Session of the FAO Council in November 1994. This is also reflective of points made by Mr. Hjort, the Deputy Director-General, concerning the amount of time that would be useful.
We wish to express our appreciation to those delegations who recognize in "preferably" the intention that was there to give flexibility, but to allow the Conference to express its preference.
Finally, may I suggest that you determine whether there be any objection to this and, if not, that perhaps we could move that as an amendment to paragraph 9 of the Report.
LE PRESIDENT: Votre proposition, Monsieur le Représentant des Etats-Unis, rencontrera certainement l'agrément de la Conférence. On ne peut pourtant pas mettre un chiffre concernant la cent sixième session. Il faudrait peut-être mettre: à la session de novembre 1994. Ce serait plus exact, parce que, si on met un chiffre, il peut être changé si on décide tout à coup d'avoir un Conseil spécial supplémentaire.
Un certain nombre de délégués ont demandé la parole: Finlande, Norvège, Ethiopie, France, Pakistan, Maroc. Je voudrais leur demander s'ils tiennent à intervenir ou s'ils pourraient se rallier tous à la proposition corrigée présentée par les Etats-Unis.
Ms Birgitta STENIUS-MLADENOV (Finland): I can certainly support what has just been proposed, but I should also like to support the amendment suggested by the Netherlands earlier, that the review should be made in consultation with the membership. I agree with what the Ambassador of Ghana said, that the Council and Conference are sovereign, but I think this is a reflection of good administration and could very well be stated in the Report.
LE PRESIDENT: Je remercie la Finlande de son intervention, mais je voudrais rappeler que si le Directeur général, pour faciliter son travail, estime qu'il est nécessaire de consulter des Etats Membres, il le fera certainement, mais il faut lui donner, dans le cadre du texte, la possibilité d'agir comme il le veut. Je crois que c'est sur ce point que portait le débat. Je vois très bien ce à quoi vous songez, lorsque je pense par exemple aux réunions qui ont lieu en marge du CPA. Mais si c'est un point important, je le soumets à la décision de la Conférence.
Mustapha-Menouar SINACEUR (Maroc): Pour la question de novembre, nous sommes d'accord. Vous avez vu le temps que nous avons passé pour une simple question de procédure. Si l'on devait parler de la question de fond de la session de mai, on n'en finirait plus. Donc pour la session de novembre 1994, nous sommes d'accord.
Je n'ai pas de grande difficulté avec la propositon américaine, mais je ne sais pas si on peut parler expressément de deux semaines alors que plusieurs projets ont été lancés aujourd'hui. On n'a pas discuté d'un projet disant qu'il s'agissait effectivement de deux semaines, de dix jours ou de dix-sept jours. Bien sûr, on introduit un peu de souplesse en introduisant les mots "de préférence". Je préférerais toutefois que l'on s'arrête à la recommandation sur laquelle tout le monde était d'accord qu'il fallait écourter la session de la Conférence. On pourra en décider lorsqu'on discutera les propositions concrètes, lorsqu'on aura un ordre du jour et que l'on travaillera sur des hypothèses.
LE PRESIDENT: Les mots "de préférence", quand on lit la phrase en français, donnent une flexibilité évidente.
- 674 -
Somalia ISSAKA (Niger): Après avoid écouté la proposition américaine, l'intervention de Monsieur Hjort, ensuite l'intervention de Monsieur Marsh, de la Pologne et de l'Arabie Saoudite, j'ai vraiment résisté à la tentation de demander une motion d'ordre, par respect pour vous, Monsieur le Président, et pour l'assemblée, parce qu'après ces trois interventions, on avait matière pour arriver à une entente sur la façon dont il faut libeller cet article. L'amendement apporté par les Etats-Unis, indiquant l'échéance de novembre, me semble la seule retouche qu'il faille faire à ce texte, qu'il faudrait adopter pour avancer.
F.C. PRILLEVITZ (Netherlands): I only wish to let you know that I fully disagree with my colleague of Ghana but I do not want to continue this debate as otherwise we will have a lengthy debate and show that we need at least three weeks for a conference, and we could keep the old text. So I will take the opportunity elsewhere to debate what we have started here.
Ray ALLEN (United Kingdom): I want to thank our colleagues from the Netherlands because if this point were to be opened we could be here all day. I would also like to point out that the discussion here this morning on shortening the Conference session seems to have added a considerable amount of time to our session! I would also like to suggest that we go along with the American proposal and adopt it unless there are any objections. We should just adopt it.
LE PRESIDENT: S'il n'y a pas d'objection, je déclare la proposition d'amendement de l'article 9 du document C 93/REP/9 adopté.
Paragraph 9, as amended, approved
Le paragraphe 9, ainsi amendé, est approuvé
El párrafo 9. así enmendado, es aprobado
Paragraph 10 approved
Le paragraphe 10 est approuvé
El párrafo 10 es aprobado
Ms Birgitta STENIUS-MLADENOV (Finland): Last Monday the Plenary adopted the Report of the General Committee containing the Resolution on the Budgetary Appropriations. Should this Resolution not be included in the Report of the Plenary? Where will it be inserted?
LE SECRETAIRE GENERAL: La résolution a été effectivement adoptée et elle serait incluse dans le rapport de la Conférence, si c'est la question qui a été posée.
Ms Birgitta STENIUS-MLADENOV (Finland): My question was as to which part of the Report it will appear in. Is it not supposed to be in this general Report of the Plenary? There will be no more reports for us to adopt.
CHAIRMAN: I will ask Mr. Shah to clarify the matter.
- 675 -
V.J. SHAH (Deputy Director-General, Programmed, Budget and Evaluation Department): I will try to provide the clarification which I hope will satisfy the distinguished delegate of Finland and any others who may have this query. All the reports which are adopted in Plenary then appear in the bound version of the Conference Report. In that bound version of the Conference Report, under the section on Programmes and Activities of the Organization, will appear the entire Report as you adopted it, together with the Resolution on the Budgetary Appropriations 1994-95, which you adopted by the roll call vote here on Wednesday 17 November, and also the subsequent Resolution on the Programmed of Work and Budgetary Appropriations 1994-95 which you submitted from the General Committee to the Plenary. All that will appear in the printed Report.
Ato Assefa YILALA (Ethiopia): I suggest that some lighting arrangement will have to be made in this corner of the hall because it is very difficult for the Chairman to see this side when we raise a flag. Today is not the first time; we have noticed it throughout the sessions.
I have a question. I am not intending to take you back, but I intend to make further clarification to the document. On page 5 of the document that you have just approved, it talks about the appointment of the Director-General, and paragraphs 7 and 8 refer to the appointment of the Independent Chairman. I am not sure if this is a correction or something which I did not understand. I just want clarification on that point.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: If I understand the question correctly, the answer is that the resolutions which appear in C 93/LIM/44, firstly with respect to the appointment of the Director-General and, secondly, with respect to the appointment of the Independent Chairman of the Council, which you approved immediately preceding taking up the Report of Plenary, will be in the final Report. When you come to this particular section on appointment of the Director-General, there will appear the Resolution precisely as it has been approved and appears in C 93/LIM/44. When you come to read about the appointment of the Independent Chairman of the Council, here again you will find the Resolution as that Resolution appears in C 93/LIM/44. I hope that answers the question.
Draft Report of Plenary, Part 9, as amended, was adopted
Le projet de rapport de la plénière. Neuvième partie, ainsi amendé, est adopté
El provecto de informe de la Plenaria, Parte 9, así enmendado, es aprobado
CHAIRMAN: With that, I think we can move on to the Report of Commission III. There are reports in five documents. May I invite the Chairman of Commission III, Mr. Zemaitis, to the platform to take the Conference through these Reports?
Algirdas ZEMAITIS (Chairman, Commission III): Commission III had a total of six very good meetings. Consensus was reached on all the items, which are presented in the Reports before the Conference. I shall be very brief. I want to thank my two Vice-chairmen, Mr Kima Tabong of Cameroon and Mr. Laureau of France for the assistance they gave me; also the Secretary,
Mr Stein, Assistant-Secretary, Mr Flood, and the Reporter who was very patient with all the delegations, Mr Magederagamage of Sri Lanka.
Paragraphs 1 to 4 approved
Les paragraphes 1 à 4 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 1 a 4 son aprobados
PARAGRAPHS 5 to 8 INCLUDING RESOLUTION
PARAGRAPHES 5 A 8 Y COMPRIS LA RESOLUTION
LOS PARRAFOS 5 A 8 INCLUIDA LA RESOLUCION
Mustapha-Menouar SINACEUR (Maroc): J'aimerais proposer que le reste des paragraphes 5 à 12, y compris la révision de la Résolution, soient adoptés en bloc.
LE PRESIDENT: Le texte de la Résolution doit être adopté par un vote aux deux tiers. Je suis donc obligé de passer au vote nominal. Le Secrétariat va nous dire comment nous allons procéder.
LE SECRETAIRE GENERAL ADJOINT: Il s'agit d'une Résolution qui demande la majorité des deux tiers et d'après le règlement il faut un vote par appel nominal. On doit donc procéder au tirage au sort du premier votant et on demandera aux délégués de répondre par oui, non ou abstention.
Vote
Vote
Votación
If a vote is equally divided on a matter other than an election, a second vote shall be taken at a subsequent meeting to be held not less than one hour after the conclusion of the meeting at which the equally divided vote occurred. If the second vote is also equally divided the proposal shall be regarded as rejected.
En cas de partage égal des voix lors d'un vote ne portant pas sur une élection, on procède à un deuxième vote en cours d'une séance ultérieure, qui ne peut avoir lieu moins d'une heure après la fin de celle à laquelle s'est produit le partage égal de voix. Si les voix restent également partagées lors de ce second vote, la proposition est considérée comme repoussée.
Si hubiera empate en un asunto que no sea una elección, se repetirá la votación en una sesión subsiguiente la cual no deberá celebrarse hasta que haya transcurrido una hora, por lo menos, desde la conclusión de aquélla en que se produjo el empate. Si en la segunda votación hubiera también empate se considerará rechazada la propuesta.
Paragraphs 5 to 8, including Resolution, adopted
Les paragraphes 5 a 8, y compris la résolution, sont adoptés
Los párrafos 5 a 8, incluida la Resolución, son aprobados
PARAGRAPHS 9 TO 12 INCLUDING RESOLUTION
PARAGRAPHES 9 A 12 Y COMPRIS LA RESOLUTION
LOS PARRAFOS 9 A 17 INCLUIDA LA RESOLUCION
LE PRESIDENT: Ecoutez, nous allons continuer, je crois, l’examen du texte. Et je vous propose que le point 18, que nous avons eu le temps de lire et qui constitue un chapitre cohérent, soit adopté en bloc, sauf s'il y a une objection sur tel ou tel paragraphe. Il n'y a pas d'objection? Le point 18 est donc adopté.
Paragraphs 9 to 12, including Resolution, adopted
Les paragraphes 9 à 12, v compris la résolution, sont adoptés
Los párrafos 9 a 12 incluida la Resolución, son aprobados
Draft Report of Plenary, Part 10, was adopted
Le projet de rapport de la Plénière, Dixième partie, est adopté
El provecto de informe de la Plenaria, Parte 10, es aprobado
PARAGRAPHS 1 TO 2
PARAGRAPHES 1 A 2
PARRAFOS 1 A 2
LE PRESIDENT: Nous arrivons maintenant au document C 93/REP/1l révision de C 93/III/REP/2. Le point de l'ordre du jour, c'est le point 19, dont les points 19.2 et 19.4 sont particulièrement importants, parce qu'ils vont donner lieu à un vote. Je voudrais donc passer au point 19.1 "Suppression du groupe d'experts chargé des mesures d'urgence contre le criquet". Y a-t-il une objection à l'adoption de ce point, pris globalement, de l'ordre du jour, le point 19.1? Ce point 19.1 est donc adopté.
Paragraphs 1 to 2 approved
Les paragraphes 1 à 2 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 1 a 2 son aprobados
PARAGRAPHS 3 TO 29 INCLUDING RESOLUTION
PARAGRAPHES 3 A 29 Y COMPRIS LES RESOLUTIONS
LOS PARRAFOS 3 A 29 INCLUIDAS LAS RESOLUCIONES
LEGAL COUNSEL: If I may just raise a point on the Agreement on the Flagging of Vessels Fishing in the High Seas and also on the Cooperation Agreement and the Agreement on the Establishment of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission, the word "Draft" in the title and in the texts of the Agreements should now be dropped. They now become Agreements and not Draft Agreements.
- 681 -
Julio César LUPINACCI (Uruguay): Sobre el párrafo 3 del documento que estamos considerando quisiera hacer dos pequeñas obsrvaciones. En los últimos renglones se dice: "se acordó confiar a la Organización la tarea de elaborar un acuerdo internacional oficial". No veo la necesidad de poner "acuerdo internacional oficial", que es un término técnicamente impreciso y no corresponde. Simplemente es un acuerdo internacional, no existen acuerdos internacionales oficiales y oficiosos. En consecuencia propongo quitar la palabra "oficial".
En el renglón siguiente la traducción española tampoco es correcta porque dice:" con miras a su aprobación oficial" y es "a su aprobación formal", como bien dice el texto inglés. Por tanto, propongo estas dos cosas: Eliminar la palabra "oficial" que califica al acuerdo internacional y sustituir en el texto español las palabras "aprobación oficial" por "aprobación formal", en el penúltimo renglón del párrafo 3.
LE PRESIDENT: En français, c'est "comme on l'avait noté au Conseil". La même erreur. C'est "formellement" qu'il faut mettre et pas "officiellement".
Gian Paolo PAPA (CEE). Monsieur le Président, il s'agit du point 5, page 7 du texte français. Il y a une différence entre le texte anglais et le texte français, et je pense aussi le texte espagnol. Il est évident que le texte anglais fait foi. Mais alors, à la ligne 11 de la page 7, il faut biffer "nationales" qui n'existe pas dans le texte anglais.
A la page 9, deuxième ligne: éliminer "Etats" qui n'existe pas dans le texte anglais.
Et au point 11, avant-dernière ligne: enlever un mot superfétatoire qui est "pour". On se demande pourquoi ce mot se trouve là. Merci Monsieur le Président.
LE PRESIDENT: Est-ce que vous pourriez répéter?
Gian Paolo PAPA (CEE): Je répète, Monsieur le Président: page 7 du texte français, onzième ligne du point 5 (a), vous lisez "compétence des autorités nationales". C'est "compétence des autorités chargées de la pêche".
Page 9, deuxième ligne, "par des membres de la FAO" et pas "par des Etats Membres de la FAO".
Et encore à la même page 9, point 11, avant-dernière ligne "pour présenter": enlever ce "pour".
Robert ANDRIGO (Canada): I would like to crave your indulgence to allow me to make a short statement, which, for reasons I explained at the Commission meeting, I was unable to make. Then I would like to propose two modifications to the text, which were not caught in the version that we have.
On the first point, I would simply like, as others have, to mark the successful conclusion of this particular Agreement. Canada participated actively in the formulation and negotiation of this Agreement. It represents a finely balanced compromise but, on the whole, it stands as an effective legally binding instrument undesr which flag states undertake to ensure that their vessels do not engage in fishing activities that undermine international conservation and management measures.
To ensure that this agreement is effective it is essential it command the widest possible acceptance in FAO member countries and all other members of the United Nations family. The urgency of the problem requires it to be brought into force as soon as possible. This agreement represents an important building block in the FAO Code of Conduct on Responsible Fishing, which we have strongly supported at its inception at Cancún. We welcome the effort made to give high priority to the formulation of the Code of Conduct, in which we intend to participate actively. Indeed, we have offered to host the Expert Consultation on Technical Standards in early 1994.
We would be remiss if we neglected to pay warm tribute to the high standards and professional excellence shown by the FAO Secretariat, in particular Legal Counsel Mr Moore and Mr John Fitzpatrick. We also wish to express a special word of thanks to Dr Krone who vigorously and effectively spearheaded this operation within FAO. I also pay tribute to the superb skills and chairmanship demonstrated from the outside at the initial meeting of experts by Dr Joseph of ITTC and subsequently of Under-Secretary Camacho De Gaus of Mexico, but most particularly to Mr Illanes of Chile who saw us so diplomatically, effectively and masterfully to the successful conclusion of the Agreement.
I would like to turn to two small changes in the text itself, in paragraph 10 on page 9, the fourth line from the bottom where we say that the Code "should be complementary to and supportive of . . . ", and I would propose that the word "should" be replaced with the word "must" to conform to the text of the agreed conclusions we reached in Commission II on this very point. I believe that is contained in document C 93/REP/4 of the record, and I think there ought to be correspondence between what we said. In fact, we did say the same thing in both.
In paragraph 12 on page 10 there is one change, which was agreed in Commission III but is not taken up in this text. This is in the second line, to remove the phrase "completed by September 1994 and the text..."; we did agree that that would be removed. This should be simply corrected in this version.
LE PRESIDENT: Je remercie le délégué du Canada pour ses observations. Et je pense que le Secrétariat va donc corriger les différents textes en fonction de ce qui a été dit à la fois par la Commission et par le Représentant du Canada, si cela correspond bien aux travaux de la Commission III.
Edouard MOLITOR (Luxembourg): Monsieur le Président, j'aimerais avoir un éclaircissement. A quoi nous engageons-nous adoptant cette résolution? Je pense que dans les deux cas, il s'agit d'un traité, d'un accord international en bonne et due forme. Normalement, ces textes sont d'abord soumis aux gouvernements, à l'administration. Sinon, ils sont soumis à une conférence. Mais au moins ils sont paraphés, sinon signés. Il y a une
procédure de ratification normale qui est prévue. Il y a une adhésion pour ceux qui n'ont pas signé. Alors, que se passe-t-il avec ce texte? Est-ce qu'il sera encore une fois soumis aux gouvernements, ou comment procède-t-on? Peut-être ma question est-elle superflue, parce que je ne suis pas encore habitué aux procédures ici. Mais cela me semble quand même un peu étrange comme façon de procéder.
LE PRESIDENT: Le Conseiller juridique va répondre pleinement à la question de l'Amassadeur du Luxembourg. Vous verrez que vos gouvernements, bien entendu, auront à examiner ce texte.
LEGAL COUNSEL: If I can explain - these two agreements, the flagging agreement and IOTC agreement are being submitted to the Conference under Article XIV. Under Article XIV the Conference is empowered to approve conventions and agreements concerning questions relating to food and agriculture by a two-thirds majority of the votes cast. This means, then, that the first stage, if you like, of the adoption of the agreement is done by Conference here. It approves the agreement, and then the agreement is circulated to the Member States, to the Member Nations and member organizations of this Organization and to eligible non-member states. Then there is a process of ratification - or we call it acceptance - under Article XIV which means that every country goes through its own internal ratification procedures and then sends in a formal instrument of acceptance.
On the occasion when we have had the necessary number of acceptances - 25 in the case of the flagging agreement or ten in the case of the IOTC agreement - that agreement enters into force. The formal approval by the Conference is akin to the signature phase, and acceptance is the formal ratification phase. Does that clarify the situation for you?
LE PRESIDENT: C'est très clair. D'ailleurs, je voudrais souligner que c'est une des beautés de notre Organisation que d'être justement capable, sur des sujets comme le développement durable, d'imaginer des conventions ou des codes de conduite qui, en quelque sorte, permettent de faire avancer le droit international technique. Je crois que c'est vraiment là une des fonctions essentielles de l'Organisation.
Julio César LUPINACCI (Uruguay): Le pido disculpas porque yo pensé que íbamos a ir analizando párrafo por párrafo y estamos analizando ahora el conjunto. En ese sentido, yo quisiera formular dos o tres observaciones a algunos otros párrafos. En el párrafo 7, en el antepenúltimo renglón dice: "en el futuro la oportunidad para restringir sus disposiciones"; es decir, siempre quedaría abierto en el futuro la oportunidad para restringir sus disposiciones. Yo creo, señor Presidente, que la palabra adecuada no debería ser "restringir", debería ser "hacer más eficaces sus disposiciones" porque a veces lo mejor no será restringir, sino ampliar. Si estamos hablando en materia de cooperación, señor Presidente, no sería lo mejor restringir, sino ampliar. Por tanto, creo que la manera de calificar sería "hacer más eficaces sus disposiciones". Esa es la primera propuesta, señor Presidente, que formulo.
En segundo lugar, habría que hacer algunas correcciones al texto español, no sé si es ésta la oportunidad de hacerlo, pero en ese caso lo dejo
sentado para que los traductores hagan su parte. En el párrafo 5, apartado a), dice en el texto español, en el cuarto renglón: "evitar el cumplimiento con las normas aplicables", debía decirse "evitar el cumplimiento de las normas aplicables" esto rige únicamente para el texto español.
También en el párrafo 10 al final, en el último renglón dice: "celebrar consultas informadas", en español debe decir: "celebrar consultas informales basándose en el proyecto", es una corrección evidente, señor Presidente. Y en el párrafo siguiente está mal utilizado el verbo examinar y presentar, en el tercer renglón, debía decir en español: "para que lo examinen y presenten", no examinasen y presentasen porque estamos en presente y no en pasado, son dos observaciones que se aplican lógicamente al texto español pero que creo que deben de ser corregidas.
Quisiera, señor Presidente, hacer una pregunta más y es respecto al párrafo 8, que dice: "La Conferencia aprobó por unanimidad el Proyecto de Acuerdo", pregunto si es por unanimidad que lo aprobamos o por consenso, no estoy muy seguro, es una pregunta que formulo, porque no sé si se pone a votación y entonces es unanimidad, o es que se vota por consenso.
LEGAL COUNSEL: I think we are probably slightly jumping the gun here because we are about to have a vote on this and then we can see whether it will be adopted unanimously. I suggest we leave this word "unanimously" in suspension and await the results of the vote. If the results of the vote are unanimous we can put it down, but we do require the vote because we require a two-thirds majority and that means under our Basic Texts we must have a roll-call vote.
I would urge delegations to remain in the hall so that we have a quorum, because it would be terrible if we lost the agreement because we did not have a quorum.
Le PRESIDENT: D'ailleurs, je voudrais insister sur la nécessité de nettoyer les textes, car ceux-ci peuvent poser des problèmes lorsqu'ils devront être examinés ensuite, pour ratification, par les autorités nationales.
John Bruce SHARPE (Australia): I just want ro raise a couple of minor points with regard to paragraph ten. This may be just a correction needed in the English text.
In the sixth line from the bottom of paragraph ten, the line beginning "were prepared to accept", only the following word "to" should be deleted so that the sentence reads "... were prepared to accept the majority views on this matter."
In the last line of that paragraph beginning "opportunity for possible", the text says "informed", but I think perhaps it should be "informal consultations".
While on the point of mentioning these consultations, I apologise for bringing up this matter so late but I did not have previous advice from my capital. I wish to register Australia's concern about practical difficulties in holding these informal discussions in the margins of the United Nations Conference. Difficulties were experienced during the UN
Conference earlier when the reflecting consultation too place, where people wanted to be in two places at once. People were drawn out of working sessions of the Conference to attend the informal consultations. This was particularly a problem for smaller delegations. Such problems are likely to be even more severe with the general principle issue of reflecting, as many more delegations will wish to be involved in the general principles Code and to maintain a close watch on its development, but they will also have heavy commitments to the UN Conference itself.
I am not seeking to have this statement reflected in the Report, but I wanted the opportunity to register the views.
Edouard MOLITOR (Luxembourg): Encore une fois, je m'excuse d'intervenir mais la procédure me semble un peu particulière et j'aimerais savoir de quoi il s'agit. Si nous adoptons maintenant la résolution, est-ce que nous lions tous les membres ou seulement ceux qui votent? Quelle est vraiment la valeur juridique de ce vote?
LEGAL COUNSEL: This is the first stage in which the Conference is being asked to approve the Resolution and the draft Agreement. This then becomes the approval of the entire Conference. No Member State is bound at that stage. The Agreement is then sent to the various members, who are asked to go through their formal procedure of acceptance. Once they have accepted and deposited an instrument of acceptance with the Director-General, and once the Agreement comes into force, then the Agreement is in force for those who have accepted it. It is not in force for anybody at the moment of approval. This is merely, if you like, the signatory stage. It will not come into force until it is ratified, which is the acceptance stage under Article XIV of our Constitution. Once the Agreement has entered into force it then comes into force for those who accept it as of the date they accept it.
Carlos ARANDA MARTIN (España): Unicamente y muy brevemente, es una matización con relación al párrafo 10, al final de la página 9 del texto en español. Creo que el texto tal y como lo presenta la Secretaría es correcto en cuanto al texto castellano en el sentido de que "la Conferencia subrayó que la labor de la Organización respecto del Código debería ser complementaria y en apoyo del trabajo de la Conferencia de las Naciones Unidas". El "debería", término condicional en español, refleja mucho mejor que el imperativo "deberá" que, en definitiva, según nuestra opinión no refleja ni la discusión en la Comisión II y III, porque muchos países intervinientes recomendaron que esto tuviera estas caracteríscas de ser complementario y de apoyo al trabajo de la Conferencia de Naciones Unidas, pero no un imperativo, no una supeditación a lo que se decida en Nueva York. Creo, por tanto, que mi propuesta, la propuesta de España, es que el texto se mantenga tal y como está escrito por la Secretaría.
Robert ANDRIGO (Canada): In respect of that last statement, I would simply refer the delegate to document C 93/REP/1, paragraph 14, where, on the eighth line, there is a phrase which says: "While endorsing this proposal, the Conference stressed that this work must be complementary with and supportive of other related initiatives within the UN system...". I think it is very clear that that was the formal decision, which has been accepted by Conference following on from discussions in Commission I, and I think
the same comments were reflected when we had this discussion in Commission III.
LE PRESIDENT: Je propose à mes collègues canadien et espagnol de se voir pendant l'heure du déjeuner. Je dois vous dire que nous n'avons plus le quorum et que nous ne sommes donc pas en mesure de voter maintenant sur les documents. Nous devrons le faire à 14 h 30, et je demande à tout le monde d'être à l'heure afin que nous puissions procéder au vote. Vous voyez quel est le problème des conférences un peu prolongées: il finit par y avoir un tiers des membres absents.
Paragraphs 3 to 29, including Resolutions, not concluded
Les paragraphes 3 à 29, y compris les résolutions, sont en suspens
Párrafos 3 a 29, incluidas las Resoluciones, quedan pendientes
The meeting rose at 13.00 hours.
La séance est levée à 13 heures.
Se levanta la sesión a las 13.00 horas.
