Paragraphs 1 to 7 approved
Les paragraphes 1 à 7 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 1 a 7 son aprobados
PARAGRAPHS 8 to 9
PARAGRAPHES 8 á 9
PARRAFOS 8 a 9
Ernst ZIMMERL (Austria) (Original language German): In paragraph 9 we are given important information on the Commissary at WFP. You will remember that I asked a number of questions of the Secretariat. Nothing is said in this paragraph in answer to those questions. I would therefore ask that a sentence be included in the Report reflecting what I asked. I would suggest that the sentence should read as follows:
"Questions were raised relating to the Commissary accounts, like amount and utilization of surplus, rent for Commissary space paid to the Organization, personnel paid by the Commissary and working for other purposes and rent paid by the Organization for external storaging".
CHAIRMAN: Where would you like to have this included?
Ernst ZIMMERL (Austria) (Original language German): I think perhaps we could have a new paragraph immediately after paragraph 9, 9 bis, as it were.
CHAIRMAN: We find that quite acceptable. Would you give the text in writing to the Secretariat, please.
Paragraphs 8 to 9, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 8 á 9, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 8 a 9, así enmendados, son aprobados
Paragraphs 10 to 13 approved
Les paragraphes 10 à 13 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 10 a 13 son aprobados
Paragraphs 14 to 22 approved
Les paragraphes 14 à 22 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 14 a 22 son aprobados
Draft Report of Commission III, Part 4, as amended, was adopted
Le projet de rapport de la Commission III, quatrième partie, ainsi amendé,
est adopté
El proyecto-de informe de la Comisión III, parte 4, así enmendado, es
aprobado
PARAGRAPHS 1 to 19
PARAGRAPHES 1 à 19
PARRAFOS 1 a 19
CHAIRMAN: On document C 93/III/REP/5, I have been in previous consultation with the interested parties - that is, the delegates who spoke on this matter last week - and I have already introduced in the paper certain amendments which I shall read out to you.
It has been suggested to me by the interested parties and various delegates that paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 should remain as they are. Some suggestions were made that they should be deleted, but this is basically background information, and members of the Conference who were not involved in Commission III might benefit from knowing what went on before.
Paragraphs 7, 8,9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 are to be deleted because these are matters you will find in the verbatim reports. I would suggest to delegates that, on this particular item, you very seriously check and double check the Verbatim Records to see that they reflect what you have said.
We now come to paragraph 16. It has been suggested that the second sentence should read, "The Conference recognized", instead of "agreed": that is, "The Conference recognized that the proposals of the Director-General..." and so on.
Then at the end of the paragraph it has been suggested that the last word of paragraph 16 should be changed from "effectiveness" to "efficiency".
Paragraph 17: there have been some more substantial changes in this paragraph and I shall read it very slowly so that you can make a note on your own papers. "At the same time the Conference took note of the concerns expressed by many of contributors to the Trust Fund Programme well as recipient countries and the difficulties they had in accepting the proposals as submitted. The Conference noted that these members stated the
need for corrective action to be taken and requested that more time be given to work out solutions acceptable to all interested parties which also reflect the need of having a unified approach on this matter in the United Nations system."
I will also read out amendments and suggestions made for the other paragraphs and then I shall open the floor for discussion.
Paragraph 18: "The Conference generally endorsed the approach and the principles embodied in the proposals, but did not accept their implementation to take effect from 1 January 1994. It requested the Director-General to pursue consultations with all interested parties who had expressed concern, with a view to arriving at an overall consensus solution which would reconcile the various points of view expressed."
Paragraph 19: "The Conference requested the Director-General to report on the outcome of these consultations through the Programme and Finance Committees to the Council at its additional session in May 1994. If found acceptable, it authorized the Council to endorse eventual newly-proposed arrangements for implementation on a trial basis until the Twenty-eighth Session of the Conference in November 1995."
I open the floor for discussion. Are there any comments on paragraph 19 as it stands and with the amendments?
Robert ANDRIGO (Canada): Mr Chairman, I think you have given us a complete re-write of this paper and I feel we require more than a couple of minutes in order to absorb what is you are suggesting. Therefore, if could please have a few moments in which to reflect on this, we could come back with some recommendations or comments.
Pause
Pause
Pausa
Robert ANDRIGO (Canada): I should like to backtrack for a moment. I do not think we have necessarily agreed that the interim paragraphs up to 16 ought to be deleted. What we have in paragraphs 1 to 6 is a summary of past history. There is no reflection in this particular report, of the debate which actually occurred and of the differences of opinion which were expressed and which are referred to in the concluding paragraph. I think it is only appropriate to maintain the systematic recording, as we have throughout the Conference, of views as they actually were expressed, and even of differences of opinion as they were expressed. I really do not understand why, on this particular occasion, this rather important background information for all capitals should not be included in the Report. I would appreciate an explanation.
Igor MARINCEK (Switzerland): I certainly understand the question raised by my colleague, the delegate from Canada. When we looked at this Report we were surprised because we did not really find what we recalled of the debate we had on this item. This puts us in quite a difficult situation: either we have to go into a very, very long drafting exercise or we have to send back the report, asking the Rapporteur to re-draft it in line with the
verbatim, because we think that what we have here recalling the debate is not actually what took place.
In order not to have this very time-consuming approach and on the basis that, anyway, what is most important is the conclusion and the conclusion we have already reached at the end of the debate and the main conclusion is obviously that we are here in a process which was applauded by most of those who spoke, we were of the opinion that this process has not reached a state where we should finalize it. There are still some questions which are open and some improvements to be made.
It is in this spirit that we think what is most important to be retained in the report is the conclusion and some explanation on how the whole question has been raised prior to the debate at this Conference. This we have in paragraphs 1-7.
My delegation very much thanks the Chairman for his support for the idea of having a short report, to concentrate on conclusions which we have and to have a process-oriented conclusion for our Conference.
I can go along with this proposal. I have just one suggestion concerning paragraph 18. In paragraph 18 my delegation would prefer to have the following sentence as the first sentence: "The Conference generally endorsed the objectives embodied in the proposals" - and delete the second part of the sentence. We think by using these rather general terms we avoid prejudging the future debate in the Programme and Finance Committee and in the Council.
My delegation would very much welcome and thank the Chairman on his initiative to report on this quite tricky issue to concentrate on conclusions.
Ato Assefa YILALA (Ethiopia): I requested the floor on a point of order but this was not observed. We were in a disadvantageous position. The Chairman was not able to see our flag raised on any point. We apologize for having delayed the discussion on this item. At the time when I raised my flag, however, I was requesting a further extension of two or three minutes for us to have adequate consultations between ourselves. We have not had that time. I have been requested by my group to indicate a point of order. Since the discussion has proceeded, even though we have not had a chance to listen to what is going on in the discussion because we were having consultations, we have been able to conclude these discussions and there is no need for us to take the floor.
CHAIRMAN: I apologize for not recognizing Ethiopia.
P.R. JANUS (Netherlands): I would like to support the proposal made at the beginning of this session on this part of the report. I would also like to support everything that has been said by the delegate from Switzerland.
I understand the question raised by the delegate from Canada, that he would like to seek clarification. I hope the Swiss delegation has given this clarification.
In addition, may I mention that during the discussions which have taken place concerning the form that reports of FAO should take, many delegations have expressed the view that reports should be short and focus on conclusions and decisions. For that reason your proposal is an excellent one.
I would like to make a few small remarks concerning amendments read out on paragraphs 16 to 19. I think the amendments on paragraph 16 are excellent. I have no comment on them.
On paragraph 17 you mentioned that in the second line the words "a number of" should be replaced by "many". I thought it might be preferable, after reflection on the debate, that we should replace "many" with "most" because that, in my-view, is actually what happened. I have not been able to reread this in the verbatim report as it is not yet ready, as I understand it.
On paragraph 18 I support the proposal that was made by Switzerland to use the word “objectives” rather than “approach” as you read out and also delete the second part of the sentence and suppress the words "the principles".
On paragraph 19, I would appreciate it if you could read out the end of that paragraph or possible the whole paragraph to make sure we have that right. I would like to reserve the right to comment further on paragraph 19.
CHAIRMAN: I shall read out paragraph 19. "The Conference requested the Director-General to report on the outcome of these consultations, through the Programme and Finance Committees, to the Council at its additional session in May 1994. They found acceptable" - and here I mean 'found acceptable by the Council' - "and authorized the Council to endorse the eventual newly-proposed arrangements for implementation on a trial basis until the 28th session of the Conference in November 1995".
I would like to say that I deleted on purpose "no later than at its session in November 1994" because I have found that human nature being what it is, if you give them all that time, they will take more time. The Secretariat said that they might not be ready by the May session. If they are not ready by then, they should report back to the Council. I am sure the Council in the May session would then postpone it to November. If I had given until November, the thing would not have been ready for November. I am saying this in the verbatim record but I will not put it in the report.
Ms Turid KONGSVIK (Norway): My delegation, like others, appreciates the efforts made to shorten reports. This was a concern of ours in general. We should have short and to the point decisions in the report. We thank you in that regard.
We understand Commission II, when it discussed the report on WFP, shortened considerably the draft from the Secretariat of the Drafting Committee. That is good.
Of course, we would be willing, if Canada and others had particular issues with which they were concerned which were not covered well enough, to cover them in a few sentences. Perhaps that is the solution.
Page six, of course, with the conclusions is the most important. Here basically I can agree with the Swiss proposal, particularly on paragraph 18, which is the most important one as we see it, that we should endorse the objectives. Here I would open a parenthesis and perhaps like to focus on the rapprochement which we have arrived at in Conference. I think we have some common ground on which to work further. We are not starting from scratch. We have objectives on which we can all agree. I am sure, with constructive efforts and in a collective framework with those interested, we can work speedily because we are all interested in getting a solution which maintains field programmes, the soul and blood of this Organization which I am sure is the foundation for a continued interest from donors and recipients alike.
I shall not-continue in that philosophical vein. I confirm that we are eager to play a constructive role and build upon these objectives. That is why we think it is of paramount importance this is stated in paragraph 18. Let us stick to the objectives and not talk about implementation here. We come to it in paragraph 19. Here, although we are a member of Council, I understand those parties concerned who are not would like to be consulted and be sure that the proposal put to Council has been agreed in its broad outline with them before it is taken further.
Bo WILÉN (Sweden): I will limit my intervention to the last page concerning the conclusions. I go directly to paragraph 17. I can live with "many of the contributions on the Trust Fund Programme", but I am not prepared to accept "most of the contributors".
Coming on to paragraph 18, we have different opinions about this which we have seen during this interesting discussion which, unfortunately, will not be seen on the paper. We have different views. Several members have expressed the view that they endorsed the methodology and the principles of the present proposals and that should appear in the text. For example, saying, "The Conference generally endorsed the approach or the objectives embodied in the proposals", and then later on "several members further endorsed the methodology and the principles of it", or something like that.
Further on in paragraph 18 you proposed there "with all interested parties who had expressed concerns". I think we could leave that out because all we are interested in is this issue and now, especially when we have different views coming. We will try to find a definitive and final solution. All parties should be involved in this discussion.
For example, we were not involved in the discussions now before this meeting to come up with ideas on how this conclusion could be formulated, so I think we should leave that out.
As far as the rest is concerned, I think I can live with it.
CHAIRMAN: I would tend to agree with you that in paragraph 17 we should leave "many contributors". It is an all-embracing phrase. We never took a water-net - how many for this - it was a long discussion. We cannot say "most". Some people say "more", some people say "many". "Many" is all-embracing.
Your suggestion to delete "expressed concern" leads me to say that there were some parties who did not express concern, and this can easily be
gleaned from the Verbatim Record of our meeting on Friday. Therefore, I would feel inclined, unless the meeting has a different opinion, to leave "expressed concern".
Ray ALLEN (United Kingdom): I take the floor with some degree of trepidation. We could well be into a minefield here. I do, however, sympathize with the points made by the delegate of Canada. I also appreciate the comments made by the Swiss delegate. If we leave in paragraphs 7 to 15 we could be here all night, so I would go along with the suggestion that we take those out. However, what we have in the Conclusions is not really a balanced record of the actual debate. I would suggest that we concentrate on these few paragraphs to try and get the balance right by just altering one or two words perhaps.
Could I suggest one or two very minor amendments at the start of paragraph 17 that could perhaps take in the concerns of Canada. Shall I read out the first couple of lines of my suggestion? "At the same time, the Conference took note of the concerns expressed by" and I think we should put in here "major contributors" since it is not all contributors that had concerns, "to the Trust Fund Programme, who favoured full cost recovery as well as recipient countries, and the difficulties in accepting the proposals as submitted".
P.R. JANUS (Netherlands): I would like to go to paragraph 19 because I asked you to read out that paragraph again and I am grateful that you did. Then I would also like to make a small remark on paragraph 17.
I do not quite understand the last sentence as it was read out by you. You started the sentence with, "If found acceptable by the Council it authorized..." etc. That is my understanding. In our view, particularly because we are not in the Council, we would like to make sure that any proposal that comes out of the consultation process has the agreement of all interested parties, so that a proposal that goes to the Council is one that has already received consensus from the interested parties. Only on that condition would my delegation be prepared to delegate authority from the Conference to the Council to decide on this matter.
You will appreciate that we would like to insist on this point. In this connection, I would propose keeping the last sentence as it was with an amendment, one that you read out and another one that I would like to read out to you now. The sentence I propose, and that is the last sentence of paragraph 19, could then read as follows: "It authorized the Council to endorse eventual newly proposed arrangements on which consensus had been reached among all interested parties for implementation..." etc., as it stands. In that way, the sentence, in my view, would reflect the idea that it only makes sense to ask the Council to express itself on proposals at the moment that agreement has been reached by interested parties on these proposals, otherwise we would simply get a repetition of the discussions that we have had in this Conference and I do not think that that would lead us anywhere.
Then on paragraph 17, the question of "many" or "most", I still would prefer "most" or "a majority of" because, if you read the verbatim record of the meeting we had last week, you will find that there was a majority and that it was most of the contributors to the Trust Fund Programme who expressed themselves in this way. Therefore, in my view it would be a
better reflection. I am flexible. I would also accept other wording if it were acceptable to other members, for instance the wording suggested by the United Kingdom.
Those are my comments. I am still thinking about the amendment suggested by the United Kingdom delegation and maybe later on I will come back to those.
CHAIRMAN: The reason I did not repeat the consensus at the end of paragraph 19 was because we have that already at the end of paragraph 18 where it says, "arriving at an overall consensus solution", and this is a summary of all our discussions. If you remember, it will be stated in the verbatim record how this process should take place and for those of you who were not here I would like to repeat that there is the present paper presented by the Secretariat and it should be revised in accordance with the comments made by delegates last Friday which are stated in the verbatim records. That is why I stressed that delegates, once the verbatim record comes out, should check it very carefully. Once that paper is revised, then my suggestion was that this new paper be given to the representatives of the concerned countries here in Rome so that they can forward it to their governments for any additional comments, conclusions, amendments, and so on. These would then be incorporated into a new paper and this new paper would then be submitted to the Programme and Finance Committee for finalization.
Then it would be submitted to the Council in May, or possibly in November, - this is for the verbatim note -, for approval, for a trial period until the next Conference. That is why I am saying to the delegate from the Netherlands that I did not put "consensus" again. I see no difficulty in putting it in.
I am now going to give the floor to Canada on the point raised where Canada wishes us to keep paragraphs 7 to 15 which we have deleted.
Robert ANDRIGO (Canada): I seem to have been put in the uncomfortable position of arguing against motherhood, motherhood being the cause of brevity, the principle of brevity as described here today. I think I would have been more convinced if that motherhood principle had been espoused from the outset of this Conference rather than at the end.
Nonetheless, there appears to be no general consensus to retain paragraphs 7 to 15. Consequently, I suppose I shall have to beat a retreat with those comments firmly on the record.
In respect of the suggestion that you are making, I think it is important -as outlined by the delegates of both Sweden and the United Kingdom - that what we are left with on 16, including "particularly" in the reformulation, is a very partial view of what has occurred. I think we need to redress that somewhat. I think the formulation suggested by the United Kingdom is an important addition that should be accepted. I think we need to insert the fact that there were some who did feel very strongly that there ought to be full cost recovery as a major objective of this particular activity.
I am also a little concerned by the argument over "many", "the majority", "most" or "some". I think that "many" is about as far as we can or should go in respect of acknowledging those who had a different view on this particular issue.
In respect of paragraph 17 and the end phrase where we talk about "which also reflect the need for having a unified approach on this matter in the "UN system", I think we are reflecting the conclusion of a debate that we did not have. I do know that many delegates raised this particular issue. I am not aware that we consensually set out to debate it and to come to a conclusion. Therefore, I would propose that that particular phrase might perhaps be amended somewhat along the following lines, "which also reflect the need to consider the implications of this proposal for similar arrangements elsewhere in the UN system". I thought that was the concern in the sense that what we do here does have implications elsewhere, or we might wish to do it the other way round. I did not think that we came to a conclusion that harmonization is the overall goal. Perhaps we will get to it if we debate the point.
On the next paragraph 18, I think it is limiting to say "all interested parties... who had expressed concern". I think that the entire membership has a concern here. I detect in the formulation "all interested parties... who had expressed concern" almost an exclusionary approach to not involving in any eventual negotiations those parties who take, for example, the approach favouring full cost recovery. I think it is important that all interested parties, all sides of the fence, have their views reflected in whatever solution is eventually reflected to the Programme and Finance Committee. It is important either to capture that or to take out "who had expressed concern" because I think that is very limiting.
I will stop there and come back perhaps when we have a clear idea of what actual formulations we are working with.
CHAIRMAN: Before I give the floor to Mr Shah, I want to say that the way I interpreted it "all interested parties" were the delegates who were at our Friday meeting, who expressed their views and whose views were placed on the verbatim record.
V.J. SHAH (Deputy Director-General, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): First of all, my apologies for appearing late in the Commission. Just in case there is any misunderstanding about my respect for the Commission and distinguished members, I want to make it absolutely clear that I was detained in the General Committee.
Mr Chairman, I have tried very quickly to follow the debate you had in my absence and what has happened since. May I firstly make a point of clarification which will help, I trust, the Commission in arriving at an agreeable text of the report and then offer some suggestions.
The point I want to make is that, of course, you are not reopening the debate. You are capturing what happened in the debate on Friday. Everything you have said we have noted and is in the verbatim records, but I do not recall anything in the debate or the verbatim records to the effect that what the Director-General must review and submit must be acceptable to all the parties consulted. This is a very important point. I am taking the wording as I took it down - I hope I have it right; the wording suggested by the delegate of the Netherlands was “newly proposed arrangements on which consensus has been reached".
This is not just a debate. You are placing the Director-General, whom you expect to take action on this matter, in an impossible situation. It is one
thing to expect him to consult all of you whether you are in favour, whether you are against, whether you have concerns or do not have concerns. But it is another thing to put him in a situation where you say, "you can only put forward revised proposals if we have all agreed".
But as we know from the debate, it is possible that there will not be agreement. What if one or more Member Nations say "we cannot agree to what you are proposing"? Does this mean the Director-General cannot put forward proposals? This is against the Basic Texts, against the basic duties and responsibilities of the Director-General, and I cannot believe that that would be your intention.
Whatever text you decide to adopt I would ask you to bear in mind that you are urging the Director-General to consult all those concerned - fine! That can be expressed in any way you wish. But this cannot lead to preventing the Director-General from putting forward proposals which in his judgement would constitute a responsive to those consultations, and a course of action he would recommend to Member Nations through the Programme and Finance Committees and the Council.
If we may bear that in mind, may I now come to specific texts proposed to these paragraphs. If you will bear with me - my vision is not so good but my mind is not clouded, I hope. Paragraph 17 could read - and I am trying to absorb all suggestions so I will not mention names of delegations - "At the same time the Conference took note".
POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN
Igor MARINCEK (Switzerland): I think we should first try to find a solution among the membership. If we are really stuck in a situation where we cannot find a solution we may address ourselves to the Secretariat, but with your indulgence, Mr Chairman, I think we should not now invite the Secretariat to give its own formulation. The debate we had last Friday, the part we want to reflect in this Report, was a debate amongst the Members: it was not necessarily also the part in which information and so on was given by the Secretariat. One could give that in a special paragraph - why not? I think the whole thing here first is for the membership to trust us, so I suggest we continue among the Members to try to find a consensus on the text and if we do not reach such a consensus, the Secretariat might then propose its help in this endeavour.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, delegate of Switzerland; the point is well taken. The only reason I gave the floor to Mr Shah is that he has already listened to a number of delegates and he was formulating some sort of conclusion. After he had had his say, I would have reopened the discussion - the delegations of the Netherlands, Ethiopia and Cameroon have indicated their wish to speak - but Mr Shah has listened and formulated this. Having heard a number of delegations, he was proposing a solution which might or might not be acceptable to them.
Igor MARINCEK (Switzerland): We are much nearer to a solution. I think after what Mr Shah has said we are pretty near. First of all, dealing with
the point raised by the delegate of Canada with respect to shortening the Report, we have a precedent - the Conference in 1989 when Conference decided to have a very short Report on the outcome of the Review, because we found this a difficult thing. So I think there is precedence, and it is a good thing anyway to have a short Report.
On the suggested modifications, the delegate of the United Kingdom put forward a very good one regarding full cost recovery. Other delegations - I think particularly those of the United Kingdom and Canada - have spoken to this before. The proposal made by the delegate of Sweden that several members further endorsed the methodology and the principles - that is also a point which we could easily integrate into this Report. I also find feasible what the Netherlands delegate has said with respect to the end of paragraph 19, so my proposal would be that as there is not much difficulty any more with this text, we put down paragraphs 16 to 19 with these amendments, if that is acceptable, and we could then most probably reach a consensus on this Report. I invite you to do that, and then we shall be very near to the solution of the problem.
Thomas YANGA (Cameroon): There is broad consensus on the paragraphs which deal with the conclusion. In this respect my delegation proposes taking into consideration the many amendments which have been made so far by various delegations, which we do not all have written down, and that we proceed paragraph by paragraph which would give enough time for delegations to reflect on inputs to each paragraph. Then we could adopt the paragraph and move forward. Now we are moving from one paragraph to another, backwards and forwards, and we do not know what these paragraphs look like. I formally propose we move forward paragraph by paragraph and that we limit ourselves to these four which make up the conclusion of the Report.
P.R. JANUS (Netherlands): First of all, I would like to say that I agree with the delegate of Switzerland that we may be closer to a solution than some of you think. I believe we can proceed on the basis of trying to get agreement on the text already proposed.
I support the proposal made by the delegate of Cameroon that we should go paragraph by paragraph in an orderly manner, but I will put forward a reaction to Mr Shah concerning our proposal for paragraph 19. All along it has been my understanding that we have agreed to the following, although this has maybe not come out clearly enough in the debate but we have agreed to the following.
So far we have not reached agreement on the proposal. We need somewhat more time to get to an agreement. In my understanding, the idea was that once we got to this agreement - and that intention is expressed at the end of paragraph 18 with a view to arriving at an overall consensus solution -that once we have arrived at that point we can go to the Council and Council can make its decision. I think what we agreed last week was that we could delegate authority from the Conference to the Council on condition that we had reached this consensus. If not, it would be very difficult for the membership as a whole to delegate such an important decision to a Council in which many interested parties are not even represented. The acceptance of the fact of delegation to the Council was intended to be helpful in this situation in order to avoid unnecessary delays in the decision-making process here. But if the Report now would state that there was also a non-consensus solution, or if the Report still reflected
different views among the major interested parties in it - if such a Report went to the Council for decision my delegation would not be prepared to authorize the Conference to delegate this decision to the Council and in that case, we would like to take a decision in the 1995 Conference.
Carlos ARANDA MARTIN (España): Quería, señor Presidente, intervenir muy brevemente para hacer dos puntualizaciones. En primer lugar, estoy de acuerdo con Camerún en el sentido de que debemos actuar ordenadamente para llegar a una conclusión. También deseo adherirme a la propuesta del Reino Unido al párrafo 17, por entender que refleja bastante bien el debate que mantuvimos la semana pasada sobre este asunto, en el sentido de que fueron los principales contribuyentes al Programa de Fondos Fiduciarios los que expresaron las inquietudes.
En segundo lugar, señor Presidente, quisiera manifestar mi preocupaci6n sobre la interpretación que el Presidente ha hecho sobre quiénes son las partes interesadas a las que se consultará, ya que me ha parecido entender que él interpreta que exclusivamente las partes interesadas son aquellos países que la semana pasada intervinieron en el debate.
Unicamente quiero manifestar, en nombre de España, que, lógicamente, nosotros tenemos un vivo interés en este asunto, aunque no manifestáramos ninguna opinión expresa. No siempre hay que manifestarlas ya que el Presidente repite constantemente que no hay que estar diciendo lo mismo que ha dicho el país anterior, ya que alargaríamos enormemente estos debates. Por consiguiente, quiero decir que España, como importante contribuyente, no a los Fondos Fiduciarios pero sí al Programa de la FAO, quiere dejar de manifiesto el interés por este asunto y que, lógicamente, en un proceso de consultas, sea también parte consultada porque tenemos un vivo interés.
CHAIRMAN: Later on maybe you can elucidate to me who would be the interested parties. Is the Secretariat supposed to consult with all the 159 parties again? I tried to make it more simple. They were at the meeting; they were interested so they spoke, or if they did not speak, as you have said, they agreed with the others. We will come back to that point later.
Ato Assefa YILALA (Ethiopia): I am sorry, Mr Chairman, because I heard you call my name to speak and then all of a sudden, that was changed to another name when I started talking. I wanted to start talking but I was not fast enough to take the floor before you gave it to someone else and now you have given me the floor, may I express my views.
I have some views to express on paragraphs 17, 18 and 19. A request was made earlier by my colleague from Cameroon that we should proceed paragraph by paragraph. I did not hear your guidance on which way to go. If I know we are going in one of the directions you guide us to I shall be willing to go along that line. Before I make my points on any of these three paragraphs I should like to hear your reactions to the proposal made by my colleague of Cameroon so that I can proceed accordingly.
CHAIRMAN: We shall go paragraph by paragraph in adopting them. At the moment I am soliciting the views of the various delegations and their proposals. When they have made their proposals, the Secretariat will try to
rephrase paragraphs 17, 18 and 19 according to the various suggestions, and then for the adoption we will go paragraph by paragraph. Is that agreeable?
Ato Assefa YILALA (Ethiopia): Thank you, Mr Chairman, I agree with that and will include my insertion on paragraph 17. I understand that you have included a new phrase at the end of paragraph 17, which states, "Which also reflect the need of having a unified approach in the UN system". The phrase as it is indicates that we shall have to coordinate the activities of other UN agencies, which might be difficult. I would suggest that the word "eventually" be added between the word "of" and the word "having", so that the phrase would read, "which also reflect the need of eventually having a unified approach in the UN system."
Ms Teresa D. HOBGOOD (United States of America): My brief comment relates specifically to paragraph 17 and the proposals made by the delegate from the United Kingdom. Like the United Kingdom and Canada, my delegation favours a full cost recovery. Thus we whole-heartedly support the proposals made by our colleague from the United Kingdom. We believe it is important that the paragraph accurately reflect the debate on this issue.
Soumaila ISSAKA (Niger): Monsieur le Président, nous voudrions en tout cas partager les propositions d'amendements que vous avez communiquées à 1'assistance avant l'ouverture des débats; parce que cela nous fait nous concentrer sur la partie des conclusions et cela a le mérite de ne pas donner 1'impression (comme cela semble apparaître dans le texte initial) qu'il s'agit simplement d'un problème entre donateurs et donc l'organisme de soutien. Et effectivement le fait que, dans les amendements, aussi bien les pays donateurs que les pays bénéficiaires soient partie prenante de la continuation de ce processus, mérite d'etre souligné et donc d’être tout à fait inclus dans les aspects principaux des contributions.
Nous sommes également d'accord avec la proposition faite par le Cameroun de pouvoir procéder paragraphe par paragraphe afin d'apporter, au moment précis, les amendements que chacun souhaiterait.
Nous avons écouté avec attention le fait que certaines délégations estiment (notamment ceux qui pensent que le principe de la récupération intégrale des coûts devrait ne pas être perdu de vue) que cette opinion peut également être reflétée. Mais nous voyons davantage cela dans la partie Débats que dans la Conclusion qui, comme nous 1'avons dit, doit se concentrer sur un certain nombre de dispositifs pour l'avenir.
Donc voilá ce que nous voulons dire sur 1'aspect général de tout ce qui a été dit jusque-lá. Et nous pensons donc que, au fur et à mesure que nous procéderons à l'examen paragraphe par paragraphe, nous prendrons certainement la parole, si cela est nécessaire, afin de mieux faire valoir nos points de vue que nous venons d'exprimer ici de facon trés générale. Merci.
Thomas YANGA (Cameroon): I think we are now moving towards adopting this part of the Report paragraph by paragraph. In this respect, I presume that paragraph 16 does not pose any problem, with the amendments proposed so far. I would like to ask that the Secretariat should read out what they
have taken down for paragraph 17 so that we know from where we are starting and can make our recommendations.
CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will do his best to read out the paragraph, taking account of the proposals made by delegates.
Richard M. STEIN (Secretary, Commission III): It is right to say that I shall do my best, but I cannot guarantee that I shall get it right. Several suggestions have been made. There was one in particular by the United Kingdom, supported by the United States, and one by Canada, and a few smaller ones. I will read the whole thing and if I have gone wrong I will start again: "At the same time, the Conference took note of the concerns expressed by many contributors to the Trust Fund Programme as well as recipient countries and those who favoured full cost recoveries and the difficulties of accepting the proposals as submitted. The Conference noted that these members stated the need for corrective action to be taken and requested that more time be given to work out solutions acceptable to all interested parties and to consider the implications of these proposals (or solutions) for similar arrangements elsewhere in the UN system."
Igor MARINCEK (Switzerland): The Canadian amendment on the last part of this paragraph, "and to consider the implications of these proposals for similar arrangements elsewhere in the UN system", was supported by just one delegation. My delegation very much prefers the previous wording, as amended by Ethiopia by the inclusion of the word "eventually", which would read, "which also reflect the need of eventually having a unified approach on this matter in the UN system". If we followed the Canadian proposal, we should not be considering the need of changing something in the direction of a unified approach in the UN system. We would ask the question, "What do we have as a result of such an approach?". We are not just wondering whether we shall have problems or not. I think we have to give some directives. We have to say that, in general, those who deal with the question of giving funds to this, that or the other organization for field programmes or for trust funds are dealing with arrangements which are similar from one organization to the other, and this is expressed very well in the first version as amended by Ethiopia. I would propose that we return to that version.
P.R. JANUS (Netherlands): I would ask the Secretary to read out the last sentence of this paragraph again.
Richard M. STEIN (Secretary, Commission III): I was asked to take account of the proposals which were made without prejudice to what you decide. I have incorporated all the suggestions. On paragraph 17 the last sentence reads: "The Conference noted that these Members stated the need for corrective action to be taken and requested that more time be given to work out solutions acceptable to all interested parties and the need to consider the implications of these solutions for similar arrangements elsewhere in the UN system."
Robert ANDRIGO (Canada): I cannot agree with my Swiss colleague on the formulation that he has proposed relating to the need of eventually having
a unified approach. As I said earlier, we did not set out, at the outset of this Conference, or indeed in earlier discussions on this item, to debate this particular issue. In the formulation he has suggested, not having had a debate explicitly on the question designed to lead to a conclusion, he is trying to propose a solution before the debate takes place. I think that would be prejudicial to any eventual decision that we might take here, and consequently I do not think we can go along with it, in no small part because that was not something which we set out to do here, nor was it debated in the context of reaching such a decision.
Therefore I think we need a more neutral formulation for this. If, as a result of whatever discussions we have from here to the next Council, we reach that conclusion, at that point we can endorse such a conclusion. At this point, -I do not believe it is appropriate, and certainly it is not in keeping with the debate that we had.
Bo WILÉN (Sweden): I am very much in line with what my Canadian colleague has just said. I would like to support the way in which it is now said in the proposed text. I had perhaps formulated it in another way, saying that perhaps there is a need for harmonization etc., but this is a matter for the membership of other organizations to discuss also. We are also members of those organizations and we shall have to take it up there. But to summarize, I join in with what has just been said by my Canadian colleague.
Igor MARINCEK (Switzerland): I must disagree with my Canadian colleague. Firstly, the issue which I am raising here - that is, the one of having a unified approach - is a major reason why my delegation is not satisfied with the proposal which has been presented to us. We have said it in the debate. Others have said it, namely Germany, but also other delegations, so it is not a new point.
This is certainly one of the fields in which we would seek improvement in the process which should go on. I can understand the point which he raised, which was then supported by Sweden, that maybe we should formulate it a little more, in the sense that it is desirable that the instruction is not too rigid. What is important is that we go in the right direction. This is the signal we want to give. Hopefully whatever we approve once, will evolve still further in the future. So "which if possible also reflect the need" -something along those lines. I think that could then take care of his concern and, I hope, also the concern of my colleague from Sweden, by introducing "which if possible would also reflect the need for eventually having a unified approach".
CHAIRMAN: With a slight amendment, we are almost going back to the original amended text.
Ato Assefa YILALA (Ethiopia): Looking at paragraph 17, I have some concern with the new additions.
Firstly, the inclusions of those specified groups who are favouring the full cost recovery: as you can see in the paragraph that was formulated and given to us in the draft form, it indicates the donors or contributors to the Trust Fund and it also refers to the recipients. We know that the concerns which were expressed by the contributors or the recipients varied.
There were some differences between them. Here we take all the recipients in one group and all the contributors to the Trust Fund in another group, and yet we define those groups, which are favouring full cost recovery as a group. The formulation of this sentence as it is at present might have some inconsistency in the way it is set up in the documents that we have before us after the corrections by the Secretariat at the Conference.
Therefore, I would suggest that we put in a word that would be more in line with recipients, contributors or donors, and not really specified to the extent that it becomes indicative, even in the study that we eventually might have in the future, because we have not agreed on the full cost recovery, even though this was mentioned. If we indicate it here as it is, it might be indicative to those proposals, which might be coming forward in the future or anticipated in the future.
Therefore, I would say that we put in some sort of a word which is consistent with the words we have, donors, recipients and contributors to the Trust Fund, rather than a group favouring a Trust cost recovery. This is in the first sentence.
On the last sentence, I do not know whether I have taken the whole sentence as it was read because we have some difficulties with hearing here. However, I understand that he has included two words, consideration of implication of these solutions. Now this requires a mandate to be given by the other UN agencies, which we do not have. That is why we favour the earlier formulation, which also reflects the need of eventually having a unified approach, because if we put a sentence here in which we might be requiring the agreement of other agencies, we might get into trouble, because it says "considerations of implications of these solutions to other UN agencies". I do not think we are in a position to do this and we might be seeking the advice of Legal Counsel in this connection.
CHAIRMAN: I would like to hear the views of the other delegates regarding this inclusion of "countries favouring full cost recovery". Actually, it was suggested that we are getting into three groups, contributors who can state how much of a recovery they want, some want full recovery, and then we have recipient countries. Could I have comments on that?
Thomas YANGA (Cameroon): I will try to respond to your appeal for comments on this last sentence of paragraph 17. The way it is formulated makes reference to "these Members"- and I understand that "these Members" includes the donors, those who favour full cost recovery, and the recipient countries - and implies that we should either take into consideration the views of all the three groups or we leave out any consideration proposed by any of those groups. So I would suggest that either we stop the paragraph after "all interested parties", or we include both the amendments because they are not exclusive. In my view, they are a possible means of coming to a solution, even for the unified system, and I go back to paragraph 14, where Members have expressed divergent views on this approach and the conclusion that it may not be either feasible or desirable.
Therefore, I would suggest that we stop the paragraph at "all interested parties", or if we want to amend it by adding something after that, we should include the views expressed by the various countries, which are mentioned in the first sentence of the paragraph.
P.R. JANUS (Netherlands): You have asked for comments on the proposed amendments to the first sentence, Mr Chairman. My delegation is flexible there. I think the amendments as proposed by the UK were acceptable to us. If other amendments are proposed to reflect the concerns expressed by all the members, then my delegation can live with that.
Now that I have the floor, I should also like to make a comment on the discussion on the last sentence. It has been the understanding of my delegation all along that there are a number of Members of this Organization who indicated last week that they would like to have a unified system in the UN system on this issue, and that they would not like to have different systems in different parts of the UN system. I understood that we have not said in this Commission that we would have to wait until we have a unified system before we could implement anything, but we have to work in that direction. Therefore, I would like to support Switzerland and Ethiopia in their proposal to retain the originally amended text, so that we have that idea reflected in that paragraph.
Talking about implications for the UN system, that is quite a different matter. I would even imagine that if you had a system, which stands on its own, operating in FAO, it would not have any implications for other parts of the UN system. But the question we are talking about is that we would like to have a similar approach throughout the UN system. That is what is important here. I would, therefore, certainly like to keep the text as it was first amended and which was read out at the beginning of our meeting.
Robert ANDRIGO (Canada): It seems to me that we are redefining the Agenda item. We came here to discuss a piece of paper as prepared for the Conference. Several delegates have certain ideas that they want to propose in that particular context. Others are not prepared to comment on those ideas. I do not believe, therefore, that it is appropriate to take those few ideas and make them the general wish of the Conference. It is certainly not a decision. I think perhaps that the only way out of this particular impasse is to suggest that we have two phrases: one phrase, which says some members, thought that and others thought differently. I think perhaps everybody can have their point of view and honour can be preserved on both sides. However, certainly it is not acceptable to me to include a decision that goes forth from this Conference that eventually there should be a uniform approach. Perhaps we may arrive at that conclusion after we have considered the proposal in all of its implications, but right now I am not prepared to so conclude.
CHAIRMAN: Could I ask the Secretary to read out paragraph 17 again taking the latest comments into consideration, because so far as the UN system is concerned, I understand that we are going back to the original amended proposal, where the last part of the sentence says solutions acceptable by interested parties, which also reflects the need of eventually having a unified approach on this matter in the UN system. The word "eventually" is very valuable. Could you read the whole paragraph again please?
Richard M. STEIN (Secretary, Commission III): Paragraph 17 as it stands at this moment: "At the same time, the Conference took note of the concerns expressed by many contributors to the Trust Fund Programme as well as recipient countries and those who favoured full cost recovery and the difficulties of accepting all the proposals as submitted. The Conference
Noted that these Members stated the need for corrective action to be taken and requested that more time be given to work out solutions acceptable to all interested parties, which also reflect "the need of eventually having", and then at this stage I think it is up to you whether it be "unified" or "similar" and I recognize there is a difference, "approach on this matter in the UN system".
CHAIRMAN: Are there any comments of substance on paragraph 17?
Igor MARINCEK (Switzerland): I think from the reading it came out very clearly that it is not the Conference, which gives instructions on the second sentence, but this is something that these members stated. I think the concern that was just expressed by Canada is not valid because here we are just speaking about what these members were wishing. So it is the wish that is addressed to the Secretariat. We hope that this wish will be reflected in the new proposal but it is the Secretariat who will tell us about all the difficulties it will have, or hopefully it will not have, in addressing these wishes.
Ato Assefa YILALA (Ethiopia): Maybe I was not able to communicate my ideas clearly because of my difficulty in speaking English. I would repeat the same thing with regard to the first sentence because this is the specification that says "favoured full cost recovery as a group". It might be difficult to justify here because there were some recipient countries during the discussion that also favoured full cost recovery. It is not only one group, that you are tied to a certain group and not the others. Here I do not think this is properly placed if you say, "those who favoured full cost recovery and recipients" because there are some countries in that category who also favoured some full cost recovery. Instead of using that specification, I was trying to refer to another term, which would be more appropriate. I have suggested "others" or "donors" which could be used here instead of "a group that favours full cost recovery”.
I am willing to accept anything that would be similar and consistent with the other terms that we have used in the sentence instead of using this phrase as it is because I do not think this is consistent with the other words that we have used for the text like "recipients" or "contributors to the Trust Fund". This is not consistent. That is why I am objecting to it, even though I am flexible in accepting anything which would be similar like "recipients" and "contributors".
CHAIRMAN: I got the point from Ethiopia the first time. Perhaps I was not lucid enough in explaining it to the delegates because we were splintering into groups with "permits donor countries" and "some favoured full recovery" and some did not favour full recovery. On the other hand, they are recipient countries. My suggestion was to leave it, as it was, “donor countries” or contributors and recipient countries and get to the nitty-gritty. After all, everybody knows that within donor countries there are certain divisions. Some might want a contribution of 10 or 15 percent? This has to be worked out. My suggestion is to leave out the recovery thing.
Robert ANDRIGO (Canada): In response to what the Swiss delegate said, I do believe that the antecedents of the members being referred to are the totality of members addressed in the first sentence; that is, "contributors, recipients and those who favour full cost recovery". Consequently, I do not believe that the phrase as he has put it, as he says here, is as harmless as he suggests. I have suggested a reformulation, if you will, of this particular phrase. I think we need to take out "the need of" because indeed that prejudices any eventual outcome. I would suggest that instead of "the need of" we replace it with "the practicality and implications of eventually having a unified approach on this matter in the UN system" . I think that that would satisfy those who would push for it and those who may not necessarily do so or have reservations about it.
Igor MARINCEK (Switzerland): Could the delegate from Canada read that out again?
Robert ANDRIGO (Canada): The last sentence, therefore, would read: "The Conference noted that these members stated the need for corrective action to be taken and requested that more time be given to work out solutions acceptable to all interested parties, which also reflected the practicalities and implications of eventually having a unified approach on this matter in the UN system".
P.R. JANUS (Netherlands): On this last Canadian proposal, I still think that the wording would not give the meaning that we would like to give to this part of the sentence. May I make a counter-proposal and propose replacing the word "need" by another word perhaps? I was thinking, for instance, of the word "importance" - "reflect the importance of eventually having" etc. I am open to other suggestions. The difficulty is in the word "need" . Could we try to find another wording? I think the "practicality and implications" does not fully reflect what we intend to say here in the last part of this sentence.
Igor MARINCEK (Switzerland): If the word "need" is too strong, we may replace it with "desirability". I think that gives the direction. Then we will see from the arguments the Secretariat will give us to what extent this desirability can be fulfilled.
CHAIRMAN: We have spent two hours on two sentences. We can always find a better word or a slightly different word. This reminds me of a film I saw years ago where at an international conference a distinguished delegate said, "If we insert a comma here and another one there -", but in the meantime a hundred thousand people were dying.
Thomas YANGA (Cameroon): Taking into consideration the difficulties that we have in terminating this sentence, I will repeat the decision made earlier which is that we stop the paragraph at "all interested parties" because when we talk about "solutions acceptable to all interested parties", it implies that any view or any conditions that these parties may have in mind should be taken into consideration hopefully to arrive at the solution which they will accept. For me to try to add something after that rather weakens the sentence, so I will again suggest that we stop the sentence at
"interested parties". Having in mind a solution that would be acceptable to all parties, we will have to take into consideration their concern.
Richard M. STEIN (Secretary, Commission III): We will try again to reach a compromise, taking account of what Cameroon has said but at the same time not losing entirely the idea that has been put forward by a number of delegations in different words. Take the paragraph as it is written now and come to where Cameroon would like it to end, "acceptable to all interested parties", and put instead of a stop a comma "including the possibility of arriving at" - that means also "eventually" - "a unified approach in the UN system".
I will read-paragraph 17 again slowly, as I understand it, at this stage. "At the same time, the Conference took note of the concerns expressed by many contributors to the Trust Fund Programme as well as recipient countries and those who favoured full cost recovery…".
CHAIRMAN: Leave it to two groups, "donors and recipients", I would suggest. Now read on.
Richard M. STEIN (Secretary, Commission III) : For the moment, as I read it, and I am sorry for the break, "many contributors to the Trust Fund Programme as well as recipient countries and those who favoured full cost recovery and the difficulties of accepting the proposals as submitted. The Conference noted that these Members stated the need for corrective action to be taken and requested that more time be given to work out solutions acceptable to all interested parties, including the possibility of arriving at a unified approach in the UN system".
Ato Assefa YILALA (Ethiopia): I am lost because earlier when I made my proposal I thought that you agreed to include only donors and recipients, and not specify. Your Secretary did not record the view that you expressed, and this was in line with our understanding.
Then at the end it says "including", that means making a study of the unified system at this stage. Even though we are aware of the need to have it eventually, we are not forcing this study in the present proposal. It is for that reason that we prefer to have the earlier formulation, which was suggested by you, Mr Chairman, with some additions that were proposed by Canada. "Practicality" is acceptable to me and the inclusion of "eventually" in that modification, but not this last proposal that was read to us by the Secretary.
Ray ALLEN (United Kingdom): I thought that the whole point of putting in "those who favoured full cost recovery" was so that we did not reopen the debate on all the previous paragraphs. There were those countries who did express the desire to have full cost recovery who are neither recipients nor donors. What I was trying to do was to get a balance between the two arguments - one in favour and one against full cost recovery. If you take out "those who favoured full cost recovery" you have a one-sided view of the debate here, without all the previous paragraphs. If you are going to take out the previous paragraphs, we have to balance the conclusions. I hope that is clear.
CHAIRMAN: Yes, it is very clear but the point is that we are not trying to reflect here the debate that took place last Friday. I left in the introduction although some delegates even wanted me to delete that, so that the delegates who were not familiar with what we were discussing here about the two-year history, of this paper would have something. The debate took place and a conclusion was arrived at that there should be a new paper prepared that explained these procedures. If we try and include these now we will have three groups: full recovery, recipient countries, donor countries and another group that will cover that. We have to look at the purpose of this resolution. For anybody who wants to have the full text, there is the Verbatim Record where all the different views will be reflected.
Aldo PUGLIESE (Italy): I have not taken the floor so far and I was interested to hear the various suggestions, but we must get down to a formulation, which is acceptable to everybody. I understand the point now made by our British colleague, which reflects the views of the United States and of Canada. I wonder if we could not tackle the problem by starting paragraph 17 in the following way: "The Conference took note that some members favoured a full cost recovery. At the same time, the Conference took note of the concern expressed by many contributors to the Trust Fund Programme, as well as recipient countries, and the difficulties..." and so on. I think this point would reflect that there were several positions without mixing them and saying which ones favoured it and which ones did not favour it, if it was recipient or donors, and then keep on in the same way.
As far as mentioning the unification of the UN system is concerned, we can go along with any formulation. Maybe using the word "need" is a bit too strong and does not reflect the overall position. We could find another formula, which is slightly less stringent.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Italy, for your very constructive comment.
Mr Secretary, could you read out paragraph 17 with the suggestion that was made by Italy.
Richard M. STEIN (Secretary, Commission III): Yes, Chairman, at least as far as the beginning is concerned. Paragraph 17 would then read: "At the same time, the Conference noted the concerns expressed by those who favoured full cost recovery..." Maybe Italy could repeat his suggestion.
Aldo PUGLIESE (Italy): After the number 17, "The Conference took note that some Members were in favour of full cost recovery. At the same time, the Conference took note of the concerns expressed by many contributors to the Trust Fund Programme, as well as recipient countries, and the difficulties of accepting the proposals as submitted." Then it will continue, "The Conference noted that these Members..." and so on.
Richard M. STEIN (Secretary, Commission III): Paragraph 17: "The Conference took note that some members were in favour of full cost recovery. At the same time, the Conference took note of the concerns expressed by many contributors to the Trust Fund Programme, as well as recipient countries,
and the difficulties of accepting the proposals as submitted. The Conference noted that these Members had stated the need for corrective action to be taken and requested that more time be given to work out solutions acceptable to all interested parties, including the possibility of arriving at a unified approach in the UN system".
CHAIRMAN: We can spend another two hours on this. We have two more paragraphs and these two paragraphs each contain two sentences. I do not think we can improve on that. Unless there is very strong opposition, I move that paragraph 17 be adopted.
P.J. JANUS (Netherlands): As far as concerns the first sentence of the paragraph, I can agree. I can also very much agree to the United Kingdom's proposal. I thought that was a proposal which indeed reflected in a more balanced way what has been concluded in this Commission on this issue.
As far as the last part of the second sentence is concerned, which has just been read out, I cannot agree to the word "possibility", "including the possibility". In my view, that is too vague and I would propose that we replace that word with a stronger one, for instance "importance". That would be my preference but I am open to suggestion for any other word, but "possibility" is really too weak. I cannot agree to that.
CHAIRMAN: Ladies and gentlemen, I know that every country may have a different view and wish to impose that view, but unless we move on I shall move that we take a vote on paragraph 17 and then move to other paragraphs. We can talk about the "stronger", the "weaker", or this and that. We can continue until midnight; I have no objection. I am not tired. However, unless we have something I shall put paragraph 17 to the vote.
Christian BERGER (France): Notre intervention, Monsieur le Président, voudrait soutenir ce que vous venez de dire.
Je voudrais attirer 1'attention des membres de notre Commission sur le fait que nous voyons ici toutes les difficultés qu' il y a à vouloir retoucher le texte présenté par la présidence au début de cette session. Nous avons passé deux heures sur le paragraphe 17. Je crois qu'il faudra se souvenir, dans la suite de l'examen du texte, que nous pourrions passer de nouvelles heures sur d'autres paragraphes, si nous ne prenons pas beaucoup de précautions.
Pour notre part, nous appuyons très fortement la proposition faite par l'ltalie qui non-seulement résume bien les débats, mais aussi qui soupèse bien les différents points de vue. nous voudrions que soit approuvé rapidement ce paragraphe 17 tel qu'il a été proposé.
Si le mot "possibilité" devait causer de grandes difficultés à certaines délégations, on pourrait envisager de le remplacer par le mot "interêt": "y compris l'intérêt a voir à terme une approche unifiée..."
Robert ANDRIGO (Canada): I have difficulty in understanding the problem that we have here. It is very clear that there is a small group of countries that wish to have the phrase "relating to unification in the UN
system" included. Let them have their view and say that some countries felt that way. That is a perfect solution. We have just spoken out as per the Italian suggestion about the question of those who wish full cost recovery. Let us also break out unequivocally at the end, that some countries felt very strong about this issue which is where the debate actually lies. The rest of the people have not expressed a view on this and it would be inappropriate to reflect this as a decision of this Conference. Let us use the time-tried method and let them have their say.
Ms Turid KONGSVIK (Norway): I do not want to delay the debate further. Actually, I raised my hand to put forward a compromise formula. I can read it to you although I have almost lost hope and will withdraw it immediately if it is not acceptable. My proposal is to say at the end "which also takes into account the potential benefits of a unified approach within the UN system".
Ato ASSEFA YILALA (Ethiopia): I agree with whatever proposal comes forward on the last part of the sentence but at the beginning I agree with the proposal made by Italy which makes reference to some countries who favoured supporting full cost recovery. However, in the first sentence before we begin the original draft that we have we should balance that sentence by stating that "most favoured a proposed study before a conclusion" or something to that effect could be added, because if you talk about "some countries favouring full cost recovery" there are other countries who did not favour full cost recovery and some indicated even a sharing arrangement between the Regular Programme and the Trust Fund. It would be only fair to indicate that there were others who wanted to see a proposal being presented before making that conclusion. We want to add one small sentence after the proposal made by Italy that would balance the sense of the message, those supporting and those against.
CHAIRMAN: Can you please suggest that sentence?
Ato Assefa YILALA (Ethiopia): I will, if you give me some time.
CHAIRMAN: We do not have the time. I am sorry, but unless there is some concrete proposal...
P.J. JANUS (Netherlands): Mr Chairman, I did not ask for the floor, but I understand you wish to proceed on this matter. I thought the proposal made by the delegate of Norway was excellent. He mentioned the wording "potential benefits", and I certainly would like to support that proposal.
Richard M. STEIN (Secretary, Commission III) : I will read out the wording. "The Conference took note that some Members were in favour of full cost recovery. At the same time, the Conference took note of the concern expressed by many contributors to the Trust Fund Programme as well as the recipient countries and the difficulties in accepting the proposals as submitted. The Conference noted that these contributors had stated the need for corrective action to be taken and requested that more time be given to work out solutions acceptable to all interested parties which also took
into account the potential benefits of a unified approach in the United Nations system."
Robert ANDRIGO (Canada): If my learned colleague from the United States were here, he would say that this would be like leading the witness. If there are potential benefits there may be potential shortcomings as well. The formulation, if such it is, should reflect both. If we want to have a truly neutral formulation in the Report we should return to what I suggested and talk about practicalities and implications which means both benefits and shortcomings. I do not understand why, if we are interested in a solution that prejudges known decisions, we cannot accept a perfectly neutral formulation.
CHAIRMAN: Is the present formulation satisfactory to you, Canada? I think it is as neutral as possible.
Robert ANDRIGO (Canada): I disagree. I think in fact it leads to a very specific set of conclusions that there are benefits and benefits are all you look for. If we are truly looking at the full range of implications, the pluses as well as the minuses, then we can only talk about practicalities and implications by doing what I proposed for this formulation about half an hour ago. I still think it is the best way out of the impasse.
CHAIRMAN: How do you propose to improve this present formulation? A lot of water has gone down the river and I cannot recollect your original proposal. Everyone except you agrees to this formulation. I would be grateful for your suggestion as to how we can improve this version.
Robert ANDRIGO (Canada): It seems that each new version is the latest and all we are doing is responding to a reformation and a shortened one. I suggest we go back to the original formulation I proposed half an hour ago -"which also reflected the practicalities and implications of eventually having a unified approach on this matter in the United Nations system."
Igor MARINCEK (Switzerland): I think the text as proposed now is perfect. I thank the delegate of Italy for having sorted out the problem and for proposing the sentence ahead of it. I think the problem is that he has not included those Members who think there is a potential benefit to a unified approach, so if he feels strongly about this maybe we could add to the first sentence proposed by the delegate of Italy that they also have concern about the possibility of a unified approach. However, I do not really think this is the language he would seek. I suggest we adopt the paragraph as it is now before us.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I have closed the debate on this paragraph. I apologize to the delegate of Canada, but it seems he is in a definite minority. Paragraph 17 as in the last version read out by the Secretariat is adopted.
Igor MARINCEK (Switzerland): Two hours ago, at the beginning of our debate, we made a proposal so I will ask you to read out the proposal as it was made. Perhaps we can start from that. I hope this is acceptable so that we can go on very speedily.
CHAIRMAN: "The Conference generally endorsed the objectives embodied in the proposals. It requested the Director-General to pursue consultations with all interested parties, with a view to arriving at an overall consensus solution which would reconcile the various points of view expressed."
P.J. JANUS (Netherlands): First of all, I would like to mention that we took a wise-decision to delete some paragraphs; if we see how much time we have spent on what is left! I strongly support the text you have just read out,Mr Chairman. This is a perfect text which takes into account all the remarks that have been made, and I strongly support it. I hope we can quickly adopt this paragraph because we still have another difficult paragraph to deal with.
Thomas YANGA (Cameroon): My delegation has a problem with the last part of the last sentence concerning the need to arrive at a consensus solution. We would like to propose an amendment which says, "with a view to arriving hopefully at an overall consensus solution….”
CHAIRMAN: I appreciate your contribution but I think it does not add anything. Putting in the word "hopefully" just expresses goodwill that everybody will arrive at a consensus and show their own goodwill.
Ato Assefa YILALA (Ethiopia) : I also agree with the text as it has been read out, except for a choice of word in the sentence before last, where it indicates "overall consensus". The word "overall" could be replaced by the word "broad". I suggest this because it relays a better message.
CHAIRMAN: To please the delegate of Ethiopia we will put the word "broad" instead of the word "overall".
Bo WILÉN (Sweden): I would like to insert in the second sentence, "Several Members also endorsed the methodology and the principles of the present proposal."
CHAIRMAN: I think we can include that.
Richard M. STEIN (Secretary, Commission III): First of all, may 1 apologize to the delegate of Sweden. His delegation made that suggestion earlier. I had taken note of it but it got lost in the scuffle. I will now read it out as agreed. "The Conference generally endorsed the objectives embodied in the proposals. Several Members also endorsed the methodology and the principles of the present proposals" - we could say "these" proposals -"the methodology and principles of these proposals. It requested the Director-General to pursue consultations with all interested parties with a
view to arriving at a broad consensus solution which would reconcile the various points of view expressed."
Robert S. THWALA (Swaziland): I think I appreciate the expression put forward by the delegate of Sweden but rather than having it put the way it is, we are talking about the Conference and therefore we think the sentence should read, "The Conference generally endorsed the objectives embodied in the proposals and noted that several Members endorsed the methodology and principles of these proposals".
CHAIRMAN: I will read paragraph 19: "The Conference requested the Director-General to report on the outcome of these consultations, through the Programme and Finance Committees, to the Council at its additional session in May 1994. If found acceptable by the Council it authorized the Council to endorse eventual newly-proposed arrangements for implementation on a trial basis until the Twenty-eighth Session of the Conference in November 1995."
I remember that there was a suggestion that the last sentence should include another consensus, but my view was that we already had a broad consensus at the end of paragraph 18 and that this was not necessary, although I am quite flexible on this point and I am open to any suggestions.
P.R. JANUS (Netherlands): I should like to respond to your view that at the end of paragraph 18 we already have the idea of consensus and that we therefore do not need it in paragraph 19. At the end of paragraph 18 there is mention of an intention with a view to arriving at consensus. It does not say whether we shall succeed. We may succeed, we may not. In paragraph 19, however, we are talking about quite a different matter. Here we are talking about delegation of authority from the Conference to the Council, which is a different matter, and I think that here we have to repeat that this can only be done if there is consensus. If there is no consensus, my delegation is not prepared to delegate this authority to the Conference. If that notion is not to be taken into account in this paragraph, I would propose that the last sentence be deleted altogether.
CHAIRMAN: I have not counted how many interested parties there are. Let us say there are 20 interested parties. If 19 of them agree and one disagrees, what do we do? Someone might disagree and then you would throw the whole thing back to the next Conference.
P.R. JANUS (Netherlands): The idea of delegation of authority from the Conference to the Council has come up in order to avoid unnecessary delay in arriving at a decision. This is an idea which was expressed in order to help the process. If we talk about delegation of authority and try to conceive of what this will mean in this particular case, we shall have to take into account that there are interested parties who are not members of the Council. I do not think you can expect those members of the Council to accept that they could get into a situation where they, first of all, cannot agree to the proposals which have been further discussed and then are left out of the decision-making process afterwards. That is a procedure which is very hard for my delegation to accept. For that reason, I would
suggest that we have something of this included in the final paragraph. I can assure you of my delegation's cooperation with the Secretariat in order to arrive at this consensus solution. The idea is not to delay matters further, but we have to make sure that the procedure which we agree upon is one which gives us the opportunity to express ourselves and to make sure that our point of view is taken into account in the final decision-making process. The formulation as read out by you does not give us that guarantee. I would appeal to you to consider our proposal. We are flexible regarding the wording of it and we are open to any suggestions for improvement, but we would like to keep the idea itself in this paragraph.
CHAIRMAN: The sticking point for me is "all interested parties". While I give the floor to other speakers, would you consider whether you could soften that insertion by taking out the "all"?
Igor MARINCKK (Switzerland): I fully agree that "all interested parties" is a problem, but that would be a problem at the Council. Let us not pre-judge. We know the problem is there. In the debate in general, and here also, I think, a strong wish has been expressed that we arrive at a consensus. We all know that consensus is very important for the Field Programme. It is an important thing, and I think that, in the consensus, the biggest donor of Trust Funds certainly needs to find its place. If the repetition of consensus in paragraph 19, as proposed by the delegate of the Netherlands, can help us to adopt this Report, I think it is a small price to pay. We know that we have not overcome the other difficulties, but I do not think we can solve those difficulties here. We shall have to have the new proposal from the Secretariat. Let us not overstate the difficulties. Let us hope we can find a consensus.
CHAIRMAN: Netherlands, have you come up with an acceptable solution?
P.R. JANUS (Netherlands): If the difficulty is the word "all", my delegation, in a spirit of compromise, would be prepared to delete that word. If that would provide a solution, we can accept that. I will read the last sentence as I understand it now with the amendment: "It authorized the Council to endorse eventual newly-proposed arrangements on which consensus has been reached among interested parties for implementation on a trial basis until the 28th Session of the Conference in November 1995".
CHAIRMAN: Excellent, Netherlands. Thank you very much.
Ato Assefa YILALA (Ethiopia) : I have two proposals for minor changes to the wording so that it can better fit the sense. I propose that in the second line the word "consultations" should be replaced by "proposal", because we are talking about a proposal to be presented, not a consultation. The report will be on the outcome of the proposal indicated in paragraph 18.
In the last but one line I suggest that the word "eventual" be deleted. The sentence would then read: "It authorised the Council to endorse new arrangements for implementation on a trial basis until the 28th Session of the Conference in 1995". If we take out the word "eventual" we are covered
by the phrase "trial basis". The word "eventual" does not add anything to the sentence.
CHAIRMAN: The Chair cannot accept your recommendations Ethiopia. For paragraph 18 we were speaking of consultations, and the Director-General will report on these consultations. As far as "eventual" is concerned, we are not sure that there will be any new arrangements. There might not be any.
John GLISTRUP (Denmark): I fully endorse the proposal of the Netherlands to delete the word "all" from the phrase which they have suggested for insertion.
Soumaila ISSAKA (Niger): Je commencerai par réagir à la proposition faite par le Représentant de 1'Ethiopie en faisant le mêmo commentaries que vous, Monsieur le Président, parce que le termed qui ressort dans ce paragraphe 19, "consultations", reprend co qui a déjà été dit au paragraphe précédent que nous venons d' adopter.
Pour en venir au commentaries spécifique que je voulais faire, nous sommes tout à fait d’accord avec le paragraphe tel qu’il a été lu par le Secrétaries. Ce paragraphe fait nécessairement le lien avec le paragraphe 18, qui met 1'accent sur le consensus à 1'issue des consultations envisagées. Nous pensons également que le fait d' indiquer que le Conseil est autorisé à approver d'éventuels arrangements reprend également ce qui est dit dans cette formulation. A notre sens, l' ajout proposé par le Représentant des Pays-Bas, qui répéterait l' idée de consensus, n'est vraiment pas nécessaire. Mais si c'est le seul moyen de parvenir a 1'adoption de ce paragraphe, nous pouvons nous y rallier et nous lancons un appel à tous les autres membres pour que celui-ci soit accepté.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Niger. It is the only way.
Robert S. THWALA (Swaziland): I shall try to make it simpler by modifying the last sentence with your approval. First, I should like to thank the delegate of the Netherlands for softening his proposal on the issue of "all". If we all agree that consensus should be there, I would propose that there is no need to have "has been reached among interested parties" but that we should leave it at "has been reached".
The sentence begins, "If found acceptable by the Council it authorised the Council…”. I think that is too verbose and would propose that the last sentence should read: "It authorised the Council to endorse the eventual newly proposed arrangements on which consensus has been reached, for implementation on a trial basis until the 28th Session of the Conference in November 1995, if it found them acceptable".
CHAIRMAN: The only thing is that you have left out what the Netherlands wanted to say in that section, "on which consensus has been agreed among interested parties". The Netherlands was kind enough not to insist on "all". The Secretary will formulate it appropriately.
Ms Turgid KONGSVIK (Norway): Our delegation insists on the necessity to have a consultation, and also in 19, but I think that is already agreed now.
Herald HILDEBRAND (Germany) (Original language German): I am wondering, with regard to the part of the last sentence "among the interested parties", whether we should not leave that out, because I think this is an issue which should interest all member countries. In the interests of coming to a solution, I think it might be more appropriate to leave that out, even if many of the member countries have not intervened in the discussion on the final wording of these paragraphs of the Report. My delegation would favor leaving it at that.
CHAIRMAN. Unless we include this small part of the sentence, which does not hurt anybody, we are going to continue here for another two hours of debate. I do not think it does anything wrong to say "on which consensus has been reached among interested parties". I objected to "all interested parties" because all parties cannot agree. There is not total agreement on that. The Netherlands was kind enough to delete "all" so as not to prolong the debate.
Could I ask the Secretary to read out amended paragraph 19 as it now stands because once again we change a little word here or a common there. Before the Secretary reads that out I give the floor to Cameroon.
Thomas YANGA (Cameroon): The Cameroon delegation has a problem with the word "consensus". As you have so rightly pointed out, Mr Chairman, when we use the word "consensus" it means that, if 99 percent are in favour and 1 percent is not, I do not think we have a consensus, so no decision can be taken. We would appeal to the Netherlands and the other countries to choose another word instead of "consensus", because we foresee that we may not have any arrangement before the next Conference. If that is to be the case we would rather put it there straight out, let us wait for the next Conference and we will look at what will be proposed to us, because the word "consensus" has approval.
CHAIRMAN: It depends how you interpret "consensus". I interpret the consensus of this meeting is if the great majority, 80-85 percent of members, agree. The consensus has to be a majority. It is not all. It depends how you interpret it. Maybe Mr. Shah could interpret the word "consensus" for us, because he is very lucid on such points.
V.J. SHAH (Deputy Director-General, officer of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): In all lucidity, I will respectfully decline.
CHAIRMAN: Do we want to prolong the discussion? I am going to ask the Secretary to read out the paragraph as it now stands, unless there are really substantial changes; or I will take it to the vote. I think the majority will vote that this paragraph be accepted, because we cannot sit here for another two hours on paragraph 19.
Richard M. STEIN (Secretary, Commission III): I will do my best to get it right. Paragraph 19: "The Conference requested the Director-General to report on the outcome of these consultations through the Programme and Finance Committees to the Council at its additional session in May 1994. It authorized the Council to endorse eventual newly proposed arrangements on which consensus has been reached among interested parties for implementation on a trial basis until the Twenty-eighth Session of the Conference in November 1995".
CHAIRMAN: Unless we accept this proposal, I think we shall sit here for two or three hours; or else we can postpone the whole thing to the next Conference. I find this acceptable, reflecting maybe not the views of every individual country but I would say a consensus of the meeting.
I am sorry, Ethiopia, but compared to other members you have occupied the floor the most. The only country which has not spoken yet, is Saudi Arabia. I give the floor to Saudi Arabia.
Waleed A. ELKHEREIJI (Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of) (Original language Arabic):Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank you for the way in which you are running the discussion this afternoon. I certainly regret the quality of the Report submitted for consideration, which has forced us to have this lengthy discussion on the draft text. I decided to take the floor somewhat late, but I just wanted to reiterate a point on the unanimity in making decisions with regard to the point now before us. I would like to support very strongly what was said by the distinguished representative of the Netherlands. I also trust and hope that the consultation will take place and be conducted with all countries involved, including my own.
CHAIRMAN: I thank Saudi Arabia for their very constructive support of paragraph 19.
Ato Assefa YILALA (Ethiopia): I will use the opportunity you have given me because I feel that the point I raised earlier is of interest to the group here. I agree with the points, which were included in the suggestions made by the Netherlands with regard to the need for having a consensus on the eventual measures, which we take.
With regard to consultation, our delegation sincerely believes that this is a means towards achieving a proposed study that we are all waiting for. We are not waiting for a consultation or an outcome of a consultation. It is from that point of view, because we have expressed and indicated in paragraph 18 that a consultation needs to be organized, but what we are expecting is not the outcome of this consultation but a proposal upon which some temporary actions would be taken during the special session of the Council and eventually be decided upon during the Conference in 1995. It is from that point of view that we feel that the word "consultation" should be replaced. We have listened to your ruling. I am not sure whether your ruling was made because of the frustration that we have taken too long -which I admit is the case, and I also admit that I have taken the floor too many time, but I feel that I am constructively adding to the discussion. I also admit that I feel that this word should be changed in all honesty, also considering that we might come up with a better understanding at the end of this session after approving this report. I am not going to stand
Strongly against the earlier ruling you made, but I think I have a responsibility and obligation to express my views, which were misunderstood by you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN: It was not misunderstanding. I would say that it was polite disagreement between two different views. You have one view; I have another view. I replied to your view. Everybody in the meeting seemed to agree, so I feel that my view was supported more than your view.
Egypt has not spoken, but I would like to close this meeting so that we can have a cup of coffee at least.
Ashraf Mohsen Mohamed MOHSEN (Egypt) (Original language Arabic): I apologize for taking the floor so late, but with regard to the proposal made by the Netherlands, I should just like to voice my country's support. We too support what was said by Saudi Arabia. Therefore, I think we should move on and adopt the decision unanimously, also among the various countries concerned, whether donors or beneficiaries, even if those countries have already spoken or preceded me at this meeting.
CHAIRMAN: For the last time the Secretary will read paragraph 19, because it seems that I have reached a consensus, whatever the definition of that word is. I shall have to go back and look it up in my Oxford dictionary. Then we can go home and feel happy that we have really achieved something, which I had hoped we would have achieved in 45 minutes, but I was an optimist as usual.
Richard M. STEIN (Secretary, Commission III): Paragraph 19, as has now been agreed: "The Conference requested the Director-General to report on the outcome of these consultations through the Programme and Finance Committees to the Council at its additional session in May 1994. It authorized the Council to endorse eventual newly proposed arrangements on which consensus has been reached amongst interested parties for implementations on a trial basis until the Twenty-eighth session of the Conference in November 1995".
Paragraphs 1 to 19, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 1 à 19 ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 1 a 19 así enmendatos, son aprobados
Draft Report of Commission III, Part 5, as amended, was adopted
Le projet de rapport de la Commission III. cinquième partie, anise amendé,
est adopté
El proyecto de inform de la Comisi6n III, Parte 5, así enmendado, es
aprobado
CHAIRMAN: Commission III has finished its work. Thank you very much for your patience. I appreciate the hard work you have put in. I apologize if I was sometimes a bit too abrupt.
Applause
Appplaudissements
Applauses
The meeting rose at 18.15 hours.
La séance est. levée à 18 h 15.
Se levante la sesión a las 18.15 horas.
