Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page

ADOPTION OF REPORT
ADOPTION DU RAPPORT
APROBACION DEL INFORME

EL PRESIDENTE: Como está previsto, comenzaremos la discusión del proyecto de informe. El Corniti de Redacción, bajo la Presidencia de nuestro Relator, el Embajador Wadda, quien ahora nos acompaña en el podio, ha cumplido una intensa y dura labor trabajando casi todos los días hasta altas horas de la noche.

Creo que todos estamos interesados en que el Informe de nuestro período de sesiones que está para concluir refleje de la mejor manera las conclusiones a que hemos llegado. El Relator estará aquí con nosotros para ayudarnos con la discuflión del Informe, y también los miembros del Comité de Redacción que por haber participado directamente en esas discusiones estarán en condiciones de privilegio para asistir igualmente a los demás miembros del Consejo y a la Presidencia.

Quiero recordar que terminó ya la etapa de los discursos. Que no es posible ahora, a estas alturas, introducir cuestiones de fondo que no hayan sido presentadas antes durante las discusiones. Se trata simplemente de que el Informe refleje lo que aquí se ha dicho. Igualmente les ruego que eviten hacer correcciones lingüísticas o de forma, salvo que sean sustanciales y que afecten al fondo de la redacción, porque como es de suponer, estos textos se han elaborado bajo la presión del tiempo y, naturalmente, más adelante se ajustarán todos los idiomas.

Cuando un miembro del Consejo no está de acuerdo con alguno de los párrafos del Informe, no bastará que diga simplemente que no le gusta ese párrafo, debe indicar como quiere enmendarlo presentando un texto claro y concreto de su propuesta e indicando exactamente dónde desea que se agregue la propuesta que haga. Les ruego tengan en cuenta estos principios que son esenciales para la mejor discusión de nuestro informe.

El Orden del Día de hoy indica que tenemos cuatro documentos; sin embargo han salido más, el REP/5 y el REP/6. Sería deseable que alcanzáramos a evacuar todos para procurar no terminar demasiado tarde mañana.

Finalmente quiero recordarles lo que ya habrán visto en el Orden del Día, en el sentido de que esta tarde a las 18 horas tendrá lugar la reunión de las delegaciones o de sus representantes en la Sala de Filipinas, a fin de tratar el Tema 15 (b), que aún está pendiente en nuestro programa,

DRAFT REPORT OF PLENARY - PART I
PROJET DE RAPPORT DE LA PLENIERK - PARTIE I
PROYECTO DE INFORME DE LA PLENARIA - PARTE 1

EL PRESIDENTE: En primer lugar tenemos la: "Situación mundial de la agricultura y la alimentación''.

PARAGRAPHS 1 to 8
PARAGRAPHES 1 à 8
PARRAFOS 1
A 8

G.W. THOM (United Kingdom): A very small point: paragraph 6; the final sentence of that paragraph is not really in the right place. I think it should be the second sentence in the paragraph.

EL PRESIDENTE: Si he entendido bien la propuesta del colega del Reino Unido se ha referido al párrafo 6 y propone que la (útima frase que comienza por: ''s relaciones de intercambio", se coloque como segunda frase del párrafo 6 o sea después de ''ningún progreso", que es el final de la primera frase del párrafo 6.

¿Es esto aceptable? Parece que sí y que podría ser lógica la propuesta del colega ¿el Reino Unido.

S.S. MAHDI (India): On paragraph 6, the last present line: here we would like to add at the beginning of the last line "the current extension of the agreement'' instead of "the current agreement".

EL PRESIDENTE: ¿Sería usted tan amable de indicar claramente cuál es su enmienda, teniendo en cuenta que la actual última frase del párrafo 6 ha pasado a ser la segunda frase de ese párrafo?

S.S. MAHDI (India): It is not the last sentence but the beginning of the last present line, where it says, "before the expiry of the current agreement", here we would like to add "before the expiry of the current extension of the agreement,"

EL PRESIDENTE: Ahora sí está clara la enmienda de India. A la actual penúltima frase del párrafo 6 él propone la enmienda siguiente: Que al final de esa frase se diga: "sobre cereales antes de que expire la prolongación del acuerdo vigente".

Paragraphs 1 to 8, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 1 à 8, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 1 a 8, así enmendados, son aprobados

Paragraphs 9 to 11 approved
Les paragraphes 9 à 11 sont approuves
Los párrafos 9 a 11 son aprobados

PARAGRAPHS 12 to 20
PARAGRAPHES 12 à 20
PARRAFOS 12 a 20

S.S. MAHDI (India): Paragraph 14, the first sentence: instead of "The Council noted", we would like to see "The Council urged."

EL PRESIDENTE: Entiendo que el colega de India ha propuesto que en la primera frase del párrafo 14 en vez de "el Consejo señaló", se diga "el Consejo instó". En castellano esta redacción no sé si tendría sentido. El reportero dice que tampoco en inglés tendría sentido.

¿Quiere usted aclararnos su idea?

S.S. MAHDI (India): I realised the difficulty which you had pointed out, but in the debates which were held on this item it was not only a question of noting that this kind of situtation exists at the moment, but there were many speakers, including our delegation, who asked that since this opportunity exists it should be used for food security purposes. This was the sense of my amendment.

If the amendment is creating terrible problems, then perhaps we could enlarge on the sentence to convey the full sense of what I have just mentioned.

EL PRESIDENTE: Parece que India desea aclarar algo.

A.T.WADDA: (Chairman, Drafting Committee): The fifth line there starting with "it, therefore urged developing countries and other potential donors to provide food, financial and technical assistance to developing countries for implementing their programmes" - I think provides for what the delegate of India is asking.

EL PRESIDENTE: Antes de dar la palabra a dos oradores que tengo en lista tal vez podría satisfacer al representante de India si pusiéramos en la primera frase del párrafo 14 lo siguiente:

"El Consejo enfatizÓ'' ¿enfatizó sería satisfactoria para usted?

S.S. MAHDI (India): I should like to thank the Rapporteur, through you, for the explanation given Just now, but these are two different ideas. The idea in the fifth line is to ask the developed countries to provide assistance, while the idea that I want to present is that the developed countries should earmark a portion of the stock that is available for the food security purposes. This is an idea which has been discussed in the Preparatory Committee of the World Food Council also.

EL PRESIDENTE: Parece que está de acuerdo el delegado de India. ¿Algún otro comentario sobre los párrafos 12, 13 y 14?

Si no hay ningún comentario pasamos a los párrafos 15 y 16.

B. de AZEVEDO BRITO (Brazil): With regard to the first sentence of paragraph 17, my delegation would like to put on record we reiterate our reservations in relation fo the International Undertaking on World Food Security, as well as in relation to the constitution and functioning of the Committer on World Food Security.

EL PRESIDENTE: Si no hay ningún otro comentario sobre los párrafos 17 y 18, la reserva del delegado del Brasil constará en actas.

G. SCHMIEDEL (Germany, Federal Republic of): I would like to propose in the fourth line after the figure '' 1977'' there should be a comma. It is the fourth line in paragraph 17 and it should read ''1977, if possible, all countries should define ...'', This is in accordance with the report of the Second Session of the Committee on World Food Security.

EL PRESIDENTE: Se pondrá la coma que ya aparece en el texto castellano. ¿Ningún comentario sobre los párrafos 17 y 18?

M.P. MASUD (Pakistan): This is regarding the first line of this sentence: ''the Council stressed the importance of early implementation of the principles of the International Undertaking ...''. This was discussed in the Drafting Group, at which time Brazil had not expressed a reservation. Now it expresses a reservation. I suggest we delete ''principles'' and state simply: ''the Council stressed the importance of early implementation of the International Undertaking on World Food Security...".

EL PRESIDENTE: Yo reconozco el espíritu constructivo de la intervención de Pakistán, pero si he entendido bien, Brasil se limita a que su reserva conste en actas, pero acepta el texto del proyecto de informe, de manera que es mejor conservar esta transacción que como usted dijo se logró en el Comité de Redacción.

M.P. MASUD (Pakistan): That is exactly the point. In the Drafting Committee, an attempt was made to accommodate the delegate for Brazil. He expressed a reservation, and ''principles' ' had been incorporated as a compromise.

Since he now expresses a reservation we would like to suggest deleting "principles" and leaving the sentence as drafted by the Secretariat.

B. de AZEVEDO BRITO (Brazil): First, you are right when you said I just asked to put it on record. The second point is, the first sentence in paragraph 17 we drafted in the way it appears on the draft report. Not only Brazil, but many other countries have not subscribed to this. It is not only a question of Brazil, and therefore that particular way in which the sentence was drafted was found in order to accommodate all countries, and not only Brazil, which are not in a position to subscribe to the undertaking. I also wish to make this point very clear.

M.P. MASUD (Pakistan): I do not want to get involved in a detailed debate on this issue, but since reservations have been expressed on the question as a whole, it really does not matter whether it states "in principle" or "the implementation of the principles" or "implementation of the International Undertaking". For him, it is the same; he has expressed reservations as to the principle as well as the International Undertaking.

B. de AZEVEDO BRITO (Brazil): I read the sentence very carefully, and I can read it if you wish so that our colleague from Pakistan has the first part of my sentence. With regard to the first part of paragraph 17, my delegation would like to put on record that we reiterate our reservations about the International Undertaking on World Food Security. Then we commented on the Committee's constitution and functions.

EL PRESIDENTE: Creo que adoptaremos los párrafos 17 y 18 como los ha presentado el Comité de Redacción y que la reserva de Brasil constará en Actas; en Actas, repito.

G.W. THOM (United Kingdom): Paragraph 19, the last sentence: I propose that in the second line of that sentence there is a fullstop after "Agreement", and that the rest of the sentence should be deleted. Instead, we should substitute the following: "the Council broadly agreed that an important element of this agreement should be a new Food Aid Convention." I have taken that wording from paragraph 12 of the report of the Second Session of the Committee on World Food Security. Perhaps I should add that I now speak both with a national voice and with the voice of the European Economic Community.

EL PRESIDENTE: En primer lugar, quisiera rogarle a Vd. que repita lentamente su enmienda puesto que no la captamos aquí en la Presidencia.

G.W. THOM (United Kingdom): After "a new International Grains Agreement", put a fullstop. Delete the remainder of the sentence and substitute the following - I will slightly change what I have said -"It was also broadly agreed that an important element of the Agreement should be a new Food Aid Convention".

EL PRESIDENTE: Espero que ahora todos los miembros del Consejo tengan el texto que propone el colega del Reino Unido, en el sentido de que se pondrá un punto después de "Acuerdo Internacional sobre Cereales", en la ultima frase del párrafo 19, y se agregará el texto que él ha leído.

S.S. MAHDI (India): Since the delegate of the United Kingdom, in support of his amendment, is perhaps quoting from the conclusions of the Committee on World Food Security, I am a little at a loss, because if my memory serves me right the conclusions of the Committee on World Food Security included a number of elements which are in the second part of this sentence, especially the question regarding price and supply stability. Therefore, we can go along with this amendment as an addition to this paragraph as a separate sentence, but not as a substitution for the later part of the sentence.

G.W. THOM (United Kingdom): In fact, I would not object to a reference to the International Grains Agreement making some provision for price and supply stability. There are a number of members who do not think such an agreement should provide for food aid and there are a number of members who have reservations about the ''international system of nationally held grain reserves.'' That is really why I would like that bit out, but as for price and supply stability I see no objection at all.

EL PRESIDENTE: ¿Ningún otro comentario?. Tal vez puedo pedir al Secretario que lea la adición propuesta por el Reino Unido después de la última frase del párrafo 19 para ver como la centramos.

SECRETARY-GENERAL: The last sentence would read "the Council also stressed the need for an early conclusion of a new International Grains Agreement which should provide for food aid as well as an international system of nationally held grain reserves for ensuring food security, and for price and supply stability. It was also broadly agreed that an important element of the agreement should be a new Food Aid Convention." End of paragraph.

EL PRESIDENTE: ¿Cómo les suena esta redacción al Reino Unido, a India, a los demás miembros del Consejo y al Relator? ¿Sería aceptable?

G.W. THOM (United Kingdom): I would not welcome the retention of, in particular, the words "which should provide for food aid'' and I would prefer not to see the words ''as well as for an international system of nationally held grain reserves". That is my opinion. I would not mind if after the words ''International Grains Agreement" we were to say ''which should provide for price and supply stability.'' and then go on to add the addition which I have already proposed.

S.S. MAHDI (India) : We want to be helpful and we do not want to delay the work of the Council. The rationale behind the United Kingdom amendment is that we should not go beyond what has been agreed in CFS, in other words, that the conclusions of the CFS should be reflected and no more. I will go along with that because we did not have any substantial discussion in the Council in carrying forward the discussions in the CFS another step. What I would suggest, therefore, and here with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would seek the help of the Secretariat, is that these two sentences, the sentence which is here at the moment and the sentence which has been suggested, should be compatible with the draft of the CFS. That is the principle that I am presenting to you without any specific suggestions here.

D.J. WALTON (Officer-in-Charge, Economic and Social Policy Department): If the Council desired to follow the suggestion of the Representative of India the sentence could read as follows: ''the Council also" - and here we go on with the wording of the Committee on World Food Security -''stressed the need for an international agreement which would envisage the building up of reserve stocks appropriate for ensuring food security as well as price and supply stability." I can read that more slowly if you wish. That would then be followed by the additional sentence: ''It was also broadly agreed that an important new element should be a new food aid convention." that has been accepted I understand.

Perhaps I should read again the last sentence of paragraph 19 as it now stands: "The Council also stressed the need for an international agreement which would envisage the bulding up of reserve stocks appropriate for ensuring food security as well as price and supply stability."

EL PRESIDENTE: Y luego se agregaría el texto que propuso el colega del Reino Unido. ¿Es Esto aceptable para todos? ¿ Japon y Pakistán no desean intervenir? ¿Aceptan este texto? Gracias.

M.P. MASUD (Pakistan): Since we are so faithfully sticking to the proceedings of the Committee on Food Security, I think that these aspects were considered somewhere or other. I do not have the report with me at the moment, but I could dig up the reference to both an international system of nationally held grain reserves and the necessity for food aid. To take one part out of the report and not take the other part into consideration in any place would mean weakening this sentence far too much.

EL PRESIDENTE: Como estamos al comienzo de nuestras labores en materia de discusión dal Proyecto de Informe podríamos, tal vez, dejar por ahora la redacción de esta parte del final del párrafo 19 para verla más adelante cuando la Secretaría y los interesados puedan lograr un texto que satisfaga a todos. Si están de acuerdo, dejamos pendiente esta parte y si sobre el párrafo 20 no hay ningún comentario podríamos así concluir el REP/1. Naturalmente, volviendo luego al párrafo 19..

Paragraphs 12 to 18, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 12 à 18, ainsi amendes,sont approuves
Los párrafos 12 a 18, así enmendados, son aprobados

Paragraph 19 not concluded
Le paragraphe 19 est en suspens
El párrafo 19 queda pendiente

Paragraph 20 approved
Le paragraphe 20 est approuve
El párrafo 20 es aprobado

DRAFT REPORT OF PLENARY - PART II
PROJET DE RAPPORT DE LA PLENIERE - PARTIE II
PROYECTO DE INFORME DE LA PLENARIA - PARTE II

PARAGRAPHS 1 to 10
PARAGRAPHES 1 à 10
PARRAFOS 1 a 10

H. PUURUNEN (Finland): I do not want to reopen the debate concerning paragraph 9 but I have some points which I want to stress here. My remarks concern the last three sentences of paragraph 9 beginning "The Council concluded that the Organization" and so on. We feel that this formulation does not reflect the actual discussion that was going on when this matter was handled. We also feel that your summary, Mr. Chairman, was very clear and concise. We feel that it was fully discussed and so we have a new formula for the last three sentences of paragraph 9. The basis of this formula is your summary, Mr. Chairman, after that debate. I will read our proposal for these sentences slowly: Instead of '"The Council concluded'' we would say "The Council noted that this proposal obtained some support whereas some delegations expressed a dissenting opinion. It was pointed out that the present situation cannot be accepted until the Director-General is in a position to revert to this matter after consultation with the advisory organs. This view is also supported by the recent UNDP decision taken in Geneva to continue the present formula for two more years allowing thus for a deeper analysis of the question as a whole.

A.T. WADDA (Chairman, Drafting Committee): When the Drafting Committee looked into this we had a lengthy discussion. We reviewed all the opinions that were expressed here and we examined also your summing up, Mr. Chairman, as a guidance to the Committee. But it was felt that the paragraph reflected the majority of the opinions to say that "The Council concluded that the Organization" submit the request. I was particularly concerned that the view of Finland and the other countries which share that view should be reflected in this draft and for that reason we stated "Some delegations suggested that the Council should request the Director-General to present to the FAO Conference a report on the implications of various alternative solutions to the overhead cost problem for FAO's management and its total administrative budget." We felt that that one sentence did indicate the desire of those who were not in agreement with the conclusion of the Council. But, the draft now being suggested by

Finland is denying that the majority of the Council concluded and I do not think that the majority of the Drafting Committee,or at least the consensus that was reached in the Drafting Committee agrees with the formulation given by Finland.

H. PUURUNEN (Finland): I want to point out that this formula does not reflect the discussion and there was no such strong conclusion as is expressed here in the last three sentences. I must say therefore that it is not agreeable to my delegation and the other Scandinavian delegations for the formula to be like this.

M. BEL HADJ AMOR (Tunisie): Je voudrais me référer aux remarques qui ont été faites par le délégué de la Finlande.

S'il juge que le texte que nous avons devant nous ne reflète pas ce qui a été dit au Conseil, je suis contraint d'estimer que l'amendement qu'il a proposé ne reflète pas non plus l'esprit qui s'est dégagé des débats de ce Conseil.

Le Président du Comité de rédaction a déjà exprimé ce que je voulais dire, mais je voudrais aussi préciser qu'à ma connaissance - et j'ai été présent à tous les débats - il ne me semble pas qu'il y ait eu une opposition au maintien du système que nous avons.

Pour respecter certaines opinions, on peut peut-être ajouter un mot ou deux au texte que nous avons devant nous mais nous ne devrions pas faire une autre phrase, comme l'a proposé le délégué de la Finlande, d'autant plus que dans cette phrase, si j'ai bien compris l'interprétation, il avait dit que la proposition a obtenu ''un certain appui". Je dirais plutôt "a.obtenu un appui certain".

J.C. VIGNAUD (Argentina): A estas alturas de lo que se ha dicho sólo quería expresar nuestro acuerdo con el punto de vista manifestado por el Relator.

S. JUMA'A (Jordan): I should like to propose the deletion of two or three words in the second line of the same sentence so that it will read: "The Council concluded that the Organization should request the continuation of the present arrangements" without saying "over a period of years". Just to say "The continuation of the present arrangement" without mentioning how many years, or anything like that.

EL PRESIDENTE: Han oído Vds. ahora la propuesta del distinguido colega de Jordania que propone decir en la frase controvertida "el Consejo llego a la conclusion de que la Organización debía pedir que se mantuvieran los acuerdos actuales".

¿Podría esto satisfacer al, colega de Finlandia en atención a que, como ya lo señalo el Relator, la frase anterior que empieza por "Algunas Delegaciones'' trata de reflejar la opinión que expresaron ciertos miembros del Consejo a este respecto? Parece que no es satisfactorio.

G. DE BARKER (Netherlands): You may remember, Mr. Chairman, that on this matter our Special Adviser, Mr. van Gorkom, took the floor some length and explained that for the Dutch delegation this is an important matter and, although not fully agreeing with the Finnish proposal that this matter be studied again and referred to another Council session, our Special Adviser did mention quite clearly, I think, that he could not go along with the idea of continuing the present arrangements for an indefinite period. I think he said in the last of his speeches that for a short interim period he could agree, and that is just what is going to be discussed now in the UNDP. I therefore feel that this is what is called for here, in the text of the Finnish delegate, that a dissenting opinion should be expressed somewhere in the text. We are not going to repeat the discussion, nor are we trying to convince each other; that is not the intention of the discussion we are having now. The intention is only that delegations who have made a substantial contribution during the debate do find some of their opinions expressed in the report We must say that the wording here in the report proposed in the last sentences of paragraph 9 of item 14(b) is not satisfactory to our delegation.

I would therefore support the sentences proposed by the Finnish delegation, though perhaps I would change it a little by saying that "The Council noted that this proposal received some support". I think it is fair to say "much support" because most delegations did support the proposals from the Director-General and some delegations expressed a dissenting opinion. If that sentence could be added, I would be satisfied. I think that the reference to the UNDP decision/or the UNDP discussion is better because there is not a decision yet: the UNDP discussion - should also make it a little more specific.

In short, my proposal is that the sentence be added according to the proposal of the Finnish delegate, but saying: "The Council noted that this proposal obtained much support, whereas some delegations expressed a dissenting opinion", and then the rest follows as proposed by the Finnish delegate but, instead of saying "the recent UNDP decision" to say "the recent UNDP discussion". I hope we do not repeat the discussion we had the other day; that is not my intention.

DIRECTOR-GENERAL : I am sorry to have to intervene on this subject. I am not trying at all to change anything in the text. However, the matter is so important that I feel obliged to remind you that, in my introductory statement to you, I stressed the importance of this matter and requested you to give me very clear instructions on it. I think, therefore, that the text which has been suggested by the delegate of Finland - and we have here the minutes of all the statements - does not reflect the discussions which took place. I fully agree with the Chairman of the Drafting Committee and I am, frankly,very surprised and puzzled by the position now taken by some governments on this issue. Perhaps it is a lack of understanding of what is at stake. What is at stake is that, if UNDP decides, and if this Council or the Conference decides, that FAO has to absorb the 14 percent overhead costs, we would then have to add to our budget, or cut from our programme, $14 million every year; $28 million for the-biennium! It would destroy my whole programme - your whole programme - and this is just impossible. As a matter of fact, Mr. Morse himself has also realized that FAO cannot contemplate doing this.

This is a situation which I really do not understand and which could have grave consequences. I think Mr. Yriart pointed out that, under such circumstances, all our Trust Fund projects could also be deprived of the 14 percent overhead costs, as any donor country could then say: since you are covering UNDP overhead costs, why do we have to reimburse them to you? So the yearly loss would not only be $14 million but $20 million. This is why we are insisting on continuing to receive 14 percent overhead costs.

The next question is: to which governing body should I refer? It is now proposed to say: "The matter, after consultation with the proper organ" etc... I recognize this Council as one of my Governing Bodies but I have nothing to do with that of UNDP; the organs to which I have to refer are this Council and our Conference. We have discussed this matter at length with UNDP and I think it has now been decided, at the UNDP Governing Council, to leave this matter on abeyance for the next two years, pending further discussion. I cannot, therefore, understand the attitude here which amounts to favouring another organization and to asking us to include in our budget $14 million more per year, to pay for UNDP. Who is going to be hit? FAO, certainly. In any case, I hope that, whatever decision you take, it will be a clear one, so that I know exactly what you want me to do. But a sentence like the one proposed here is really not clear at all; at least, I do not understand it.

G. WEILL (France): J'espérais, mais ne sais pas si après l'intervention du Directeur général ma proposition aboutira bien à cela, faciliter votre tâche en proposant, si le Conseil en décide ainsi, qu'en tenant compte de l'amendement de la Jordanie et également de la position de la Finlande et des Pays-Bas nous disions: "le Conseil" ou bien "le Conseil dans sa majorité conclut néanmoins ....". Si nous mettons "néanmoins", nous nous référons à la phrase précédente sur laquelle le Président du Comité de rédaction a attiré notre attention pour montrer qu'il y a une opinion divergente: le reste du texte restant ce qu'il est présentement.

G. DE BARKER (Netherlands): I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, and also the Director-General that our delegation really does its best to understand the issue; that is why we are here. We always listen very attentively to the explanations, the reasoning and the arguments, but what I said is that we are not going - at any rate it is not our intention - to repeat the argument. We are trying to reflect here as best we can the discussions and although I am not sure that the word ''concluded" was used in his summing up by the Chairman - perhaps it was, I am not sure - I am not even objecting to the word "concluded ". But what I do object to is the fact that some dissenting opinions are not reflected in the report. We do not consider that this is a small, unimportant matter, because it is quite an important matter and we therefore wish it to be reflected; and perhaps a lot could be achieved by saying: "A great majority of the Council nevertheless concluded" etc. Then it makes it clear that it is not the full Council, and if that is better acceptable to a number of delegations, then I think, in a will to compromise, we could accept that. But certainly this is not a completely fair reflection of the discussion.

Just to say a word in reply to the plea of the Director-General not to deprive him of $14 million, I can really assure him that that is the last thing we want. We did make it clear that the intention of our Government is to increase the possibilities for FAO, and not to decrease them. So there must be a solution found in that case. It is more a matter that we feel FAO should have the full amount of money available for its own expense as well as in the field. It is more a matter of principle than of cutting down the budget of FAO by $14 million. I am discussing now vhat I do not want to do. It is just a matter of asking for a reflection of the discussion.

So perhaps again in a spirit of compromise, "The Council nevertheless in great majority concluded" is pertiaps the best solution, and reverting then to the UNDP discussion of the two years.

EL PRESIDENTE: Antes de conceder la palabra a tres oradores que tengo en mi lista, tal vez convenga que el Secretario lea lentamente la proposición francesa.

LE SECRETAIRE GENERAL: On commencerait la phrase par: "Néanmoins, le Conseil dans sa majorité conclut que l'Organisation, etc.".

EL PRESIDENTE: Yo creo que eso daría satisfacción a lo que acaba de decir el colega de Bakker, de Países Bajos. ¿Podría ser esto aceptable? ¿Finlandia estaría satisfecho? Se acepta, entonces, la propuesta de Francia. ¿Finlandia quiere intervenir?

H. PUURUNEN (Finland): I do not want to hurt anybody and I do not want to alter UNDP or FAO work. I hope the best, of course, for FAO and for the Director-General but I agree with my Netherlands colleague who said that there were some dissentive opinions which should be reflected in this, but anyhow the French proposal is quite acceptable to us but we want to delete this sentence, the words "over a period of years of the present". So what we want to stress is a temporary solution which should be studied more and that a permanent solution will be reached. That is why we are raising the question at this moment.

EL PRESIDENTE: Yo creo que la frase anterior, que empieza por "algunas delegaciones...." podría dar satisfacción al colega de Finlandia y a sus compañeros y podríamos adoptar la frase siguiente propuesta por Francia y aceptando también la supresión de las palabras "durante algunos años" que había sido hecha por el colega de Jordania. ¿Sería aceptable así para todos ustedes el párrafo 9?

S. JUMA'A (Jordan): I think my proposal still stands but I would like to add one other sentence to this particular sentence. After saying "14 percent of delivery until new agreement is finally reached between UNDP and the agencies." So that we delete "over a period of years" and add to the sentence "until a final arrangement is agreed upon by UNDP and the agencies". So this might go along with the proposal of the delegate from Finland.

EL PRESIDENTE: Tal vez convenga que el Secretario lea la frase de Jordania.

SECRETARY-GENERAL: It would be to add at the end of that sentence, after "at 14 percent of delivery'' the following words ''until a final arrangement is agreed upon between the UNDP and the agencies".

E.M. WEST (Assistant Director-General, Office of Programme and Budget): I would like to explain with regard to the last suggestion that we have been in that situation of waiting for a final arrangement for as long as I can remember, from biennium to biennium and I do not think the FAO Council could be saying anything new or anything helpful in this regard if it said that. Obviously any decision which is going to be reached eventually will have to be reached by a number of governing bodies and we are a long way from that stage because the governing bodies equivalent to the FAO Council in other agencies have not been able to discuss the administrative proposals to the present session of the Governing Council. They have not had the advantage of being able to pronounce in advance of the Governing Council's decisions. They will have the advantage of being able to pronounce in the light of whatever emerges, which is not final. The Governing Council has not adopted its report. We do not know for certain what the Governing Council is going to decide. They will have the disadvantage, of course, of having to pronounce upon their own views after the Governing Council has frightened everybody into listening to its own point of view - perhaps I should not have said that. If there was any point of discussion, and we are reporting something which happened before the Governing Council put up this question, it would be to indicate that the wish in this body is to reach a certain solution which lasts. Now this may or may not be accepted in the long run but it is the point of view at this time which the FAO Council has expressed and which can be taken into account by the Governing Council before it reaches its own conclusions in a week or two. So I am afraid I am suggesting that the Jordanian amendment is not as helpful as I am sure it was intended to be.

EL PRESIDENTE: Creo, señores, que podemos adoptar el párrafo 9 con la propuesta de Francia, con la supresión de las palabras ''durante algunos años", que fue propuesta originalmente por Jordania, y se agregue la última adición de Jordania sobre el párrafo 10. ¿No hay ningún comentario?

Paragraphs 1 to 10, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 1 à 10, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 1 a 10, así enmendados, son aprobados

PARAGRAPHS 11 and 12
PARAGRAPHES 11 et 12
PARRAFOS 11 y 12

LEGAL COUNSEL: In the first sentence of paragraph 11 the impression is created that there will be a supplementary arrangement between FAO and the World Food Council. It will not be so. The supplementary arrangement will be between FAO and the United Nations and it will concern the relations between FAO and the World Food Council. If I may I would, therefore, suggest keeping the sentence as it is with only the insertion of the following words: after the words ''supplementary arrangements" insert "concering the relations between FAO and the World Food Council".

EL PRESIDENTE: Creo que esta aportación legal de nuestro Asesor no ofrece dificultades para ser adoptada. ¿Ningún otro comentario sobre los párrafos 11 y 12?

Paragraphs 11 and 12, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 11 et 12, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 11 y 12, así enmendados, son aprobados

Paragraph 13 approved
Le paragraphe 13 est approuvé
El párrafo 13 es aprobado

M. BEL ADJ AMOR (Tunisie): Je désire simplement attirer l'attention sur les paragraphes 14 et 15 où il faut remplacer le mot ''Comité" dans la version française, par le mot ''Conseil".



DRAFT REPORT OF PLENARY - PART III
PROJET DE RAPPORT DE LA PLENIERE - PARTIE III
PROYECTO DE INFORME DE LA PLENARIA - PARTE III

Paragraph 2 approved
Le paragraphe 2 est approuvé
El párrafo 2 es aprobado

Paragraphs 3 and 4 approved
Les paragraphes 3 et 4 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 3 y 4 son aprobados

Paragraph 5 approved
Le paragraphe 5 est approuvé
El párrafo 5 es aprobado

Paragraphs 6 to 8 approved
Les paragraphes 6 à 8 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 6 a 8 son aprobados

PARAGRAPHS 9 and 10
PARAGRAPHES 9 et 10
PARRAFOS 9 y 10

LEGAL COUNSEL: It concerns the introductory phrase to paragraph 10. It is stated here "The Council endorsed the Committee's recommendations and approved the following amendments to Staff Regulations and General Rules". First of all, in the preceeding paragraph both the Finance Committee and the Committee on Constitutional and Legal Matters have been mentioned and it would be therefore desirable to refer to the two committees.

Secondly, the procedure for giving effect to Staff Regulations and General Rules of the Organization is not the same. In one case the approval is given by the Council; in the other case the adoption is made by the Conference.

In order to reflect this, I would venture to suggest that the introductory sentence in paragraph 10 be amended as follows. It would consist of two sentences, which, if you will permit me, I shall read at dictation speed. "10. The Council endorsed the amendments recommended by the two Committees. It approved the amendment to Staff Regulation 301.133 and recommended to the Conference the adoption of the draft amendments to rules XXIV and XXVII of the General Rules of the Organization, as set forth below.''

Then follows footnote 2 and the text given for the rest of paragraph 10.

EL PRESIDENTE: Se trata de cuestiones de orden legal que corresponden a los objetivos de cada uno de los órganos rectores respectivos. De manera que creo no ofrecerá dificultades.

Paragraphs 9 and 10, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 9 et 10, ainsi amendes, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 9 y 10, así enmendados, son aprobados

Paragraphs 11 and 12 approved
Les paragraphes 11 et 12 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 11 y 12 son aprobados

Paragraph 13, including draft resolution, approved
Le paragraphe 13, y compris le projet de résolution, est approuvé
El párrafo 13, incluido el proyecto de resolución, es aprobado

Paragraphs 14 and 15 approved
Les paragraphes 14 et 15 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 14
y 15 son aprobados

Draft Report of Plenary - Part III, as amended, was adopted
Le projet de rapport de la plénière, - Partie III - ainsi amendé, est adopte
El proyecto de informe de la Plenaria - Parte III, asi enmendado, es aprobado

DRAFT REPORT OF PLENARY - PART IV
PROJET DE RAPPORT DE LA PLENIERE - PARTIE IV
PROYECTO DE INFORME DE LA PLENARIA - PARTE IV

PARAGRAPHS 1 to 7
PARAGRAPHES 1 à 7
PARRAFOS 1 a 7

G.W. THOM (United Kingdom): Paragraph 2: At the end of the second line, a comma followed by "and as endorsed by the Committee on Agriculture". I thought that might be worth saying.

EL PRESIDENTE: Entiendo que el colega del Reino Unido propone que en el párrafo 2, en la tercera línea después de CL 71/9, se ponga una coma, y diga cómo se acepto en el Comité de Agricultura.. Es aceptable esta adición que propone Reino Unido al párrafo 2? Parce que sí.

Paragraphs 1 to 7, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 1 a 7, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 1 a 7, asì enmendados, son aprobados

Paragraph 8 approved
Le paragraphe 8 est approuvé
El párrafo 8 es aprobado

Paragraphs 9 to 11 approved
Les paragraphes 9 à 11 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 9 a 11 son aprobados

Paragraph 12 approved
Le paragraphe 12 est approuvé
El párrafo 12 es aprobado

Paragraphs 13 to 17 approved
Les paragraphes 13 à 17 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 13 a 17 son aprobados

PARAGRAPHS 18 to 21
PARAGRAPHES 18 à 21
PARRAFOS 18 a 21

S.S. MAHDI (India): The third sentence of paragraph 20: my amendment is "The Director-General was requested to submit his report on such an evaluation to a future session of the Council".

EL PRESIDENTE: Espero que los miembros del Consejo hayan entendido la propuesta de India. Si he entendido bien, se refiere a la tercera frase del párrafo 20. India propone que esa tercera frase del párrafo 20 diga: "el Consejo pidió al Director General que presente su informe sobre una evaluación en un futuro período de sesione''.

P.J. BYRNES (United States of America): You may wish to refer to the Rapporteur on this, but I think it was my Government that specifically asked that this be submitted to the autumn 1978 session.

Beyond that, I have another little point. My colleagues on the Drafting Committee tells me that in that same sentence on line 5 of paragraph 20, a typographical error has crept in: "submit his report'' should read "the report".

EL PRESIDENTE: ¿Quiere alguien ahora referirse a la propuesta de India sobre la cual el Delegado de Estados Unidos ha dicho que fue su propio país el que propuso que esa evaluación se celebre en la sesión del otoño de 1978? ¿Nadie quiere intervenir?

J.C. VIGNAUD (Argentina): Sin tener la intención en absoluto de abrir una discusión, la pregunta es si realmente de acá a nuestra sesión del otoño será posible tener una evaluación que permita hacer un juicio crítico objetivo sobre lo que está pasando con el Programa de Cooperación Técnica.

Perdón: veo ahora que es en 1978, no había observado eso. Retiro lo que dije. Estaba pensando en 1977.

EL PRESIDENTE: Si no hay otra intervención, podríamos tal vez, combinar las dos posiciones diciendo después de "otoño 1978, en la medida de lo posible''.

¿Satisfaría esto a India, a los Estados Unidos y al Director General?

DIRECTOR-GENERAL: I hope there is no misunderstanding between the representative of the United States and myself when he said "the report". I mean my report. I hope he does not mean that this report is to be prepared by somebody else. What we are talking about is the report on the evaluation which will be carried out by the Director-General and, therefore, the report of the Director-General to the Council; so, to me, "his report" and "the report" are one and the same thing!

S.S. MAHDI (India): I will defer to the United States to reply to the Director-General's remarks first, and then I will make my point.

A.T. WADDA (Chairman, Drafting Committee): The Committee did ask for the Director-General's report. We put there "his report", and in answer to the question of the United States, yes, the representative of the United States did prove to the Committee that his delegation requested that the report be submitted in autumn 1978. There were other delegates that were in sympathy with the request of the United States. So as to bring out the consensus, the Committee agreed on this formulation, but the suggestion made by India reflects more what was said in Council, I regret to say, than what we have put.

India is suggesting that "The Director-General was requested". Here we put "The Council requested". I think it is truer to say that "The Director-General was requested" since the United States request was backed by some delegations, which is a minority, but still we felt that it should be reflected in the report, so if India insists on his amendment, I will go along with it -- only as far as the 1978 is

included, because this was the Committee's undertaking with the United States delegation. If the Indian delegation will accept this: "The Director-General was requested to submit his report on such an evaluation to its autumn 1978 session".

S.S.MAHDI (India): The point of my amendment is not whether this sentence should be put in an active form or a passive from the grammatical point of view. I am prepared to withdraw the earlier part of my amendment, and I would go along with "the Council requested" which is a fairer form of expression. However, I would still suggest instead of a deadline of 1978, which was not generally approved, to reflect the sense of the discussion, we could say "to a future session of the Council"; and after that we have another sentence which gives further details of what is being requested from the Secretariat for the Seventy-Second Session.

Therefore I could accept "the Council requested the Director-General to submit a report on such an evaluation to a future session of the Council", followed by what has been said about the Seventy-Second Session. This is a truer reflection of the debate in the Council.

EL PRESIDENTE: ¿Qué piensa Estados Unidos?

P.J. BYRNES (United States of America): I am not quite sure what problem the delegate of India has. This request was made and the Director-General stated he was going to arrange for this evaluation, so that he has no problem, as I understand it. In the forthcoming session of the Council he will advise how he proposes that it would be carried out and how he would submit it. If he is prepared to undertake this, and I think that was the conclusion of the Council, I am not sure why the point is being raised.

On the second item where it is suggested this should read "the report", I think this is reasonable. The proposal was made that an evaluation be conducted, and it was agreed this could and should be done. I wonder if it would meet the Director-General's point of view - we are probably talking in semantics, if it should read that he should submit the report along with these comments?

DIRECTOR-GENERAL: I have in front of me the text of my declaration on this matter, and if you will allow me, I will read it. "As for an evaluation, I have noted carefully what has been said. I still adhere to the view - which applies also to UNDP projects - that ultimately the only form of evaluation which will be acceptable, is one which respects the responsibilities of the Member Nations directly involved in selecting and implementing projects. I also feel that we cannot embark on an evaluation with a selective and theoretically subjective approach, such as whether or not the same results might have been achieved by using some other hypothetically available source of funds. In any case, I think it would also be very difficult to find genuinely "independent" evaluators or really expert "experts" who could satisfy all the members of the Council and Conference of their understanding of agricultural operations and local situations in countries, as well as their real objectivity on the justification for the TCP.

For me, the question is not to make an evaluation in order to see whether what the TCP is doing could also be achieved by UNDP. The TCP is different from UNDP and its objectives are to stimulate, to be an incentive, to act as a catalyst.

On the other hand, I do recognize the need to justify the expenditures on the TCP in terms of adherence to approved criteria and procedures and effectiveness. I will, therefore, now consider what would be the best way to set up a satisfactory evaluation process which could provide a suitable report to the Council in 1978".

If you talk about "the report", it means that you would like me to appoint a group of experts who would go about checking the performance of the countries, whether they have done the job well, whether they have used the funds we have provided properly, as it is largely national institutions which are going to do the work. Then I would have to submit "a report" which would include all criticisms, founded or unfounded, of the countries concerned. I really cannot do that.

I accept that, as Director-General, I may submit "a report" to the Council. I take it that some members are asking me to make plans to present this evaluation to the 72nd Session of the Council. I am not compelled to do so; it is up to me to judge whether it is necessary or warranted. However, I am ready to provide you with a report in 1978, so I suggest that the delegate of India withdraws his amendment which says "if possible" .

Otherwise, you should appoint a Commission of the Council, which would carry out the evaluation and report to you.

S.S. MAHDI (India): After the explanation given by the Director-General I will not insist very much on the deletion of his deadline of Autumn 1978, but I will again insist that this sentence should reflect the sense of the discussion. Therefore, it should say instead of "the Council requested'' - now I am amending it - "the Director-General was requested", then the rest of the sentence could remain as it is,as was suggested by the Rapporteur.

S. JUMA'A (Jordan): May I suggest the deletion of the last sentence of this paragraph, which starts with the words "Some members..." until the end of it.

A.T. WADDA (Chairman, Drafting Committee): I would like to appeal to the delegate of Jordan to withdraw his amendment. As we have just heard from the Director-General, here we are expressing the opinion of the minority, and the Director-General made it very clear that it is up to him to say if he can or if he cannot provide this. I am in the Drafting Committee, and we have tried where possible on critical issues to reflect the dissenting opinions, and this is one of the cases where we have spent more than two hours on this issue, in spite of the compromise we have reached so as to get a consensus for the report.

I appeal to the delegate for Jordan to withdraw it, and leave it entirely in the hands of the Director-General who will decide whether he can provide this information at a requested time or not.

EL PRESIDENTE: Después de la declaración del Director General y de la aclaración del Relator tal vez yo quisiera extender mi llamado también al colega de la India para que adoptásemos el párrafo 20 tal como está. ¿Puede ser esto aceptable?. ¿Se adopta así el párrafo 20?.

S.S. MAHDI (India): I do not want to sound very insistent, but various explanations have been given, and the Rapporteur himself has clarified the situation. The whole purpose is that we should reflect what has been discussed in the Council at this stage, and that is why I refrained from going into the merits of the matter,which I have done in my intervention when this question was discussed, and this was which Fund I supported in the Council.

I still think, unless this is creating any specific problems for any delegate or the Secretariat, that this formulation in which the Director-General was requested to submit his report on such an evaluation to the Autumn 1978 session would be a correct explanation of the debate.

I did support the United States desire for an evaluation of this programme, but the only thing I said was it is too early - even two years would not have passed before we started evaluating this programme. I said, let some time pass, let some experience be gathered, then by all means we can evaluate it. It is not a question of one or two parties, a number of countries are also involved, A number of countries who have just started receiving TCP would not like to have an evaluation before some projects have come to a conclusion or shown a result in relation to other projects. In any case, I do not want to go into the merits of the matter, I just say this sentence should reflect the sense of the discussion in the Council, and as suggested by the Rapporteur, if you put it like this: the Director-General was requested..." etc. etc., this would be a correct reflection of the debate instead of saying "the Council requested" , as the Council did not request. It did not request unanimously.

A.T. WADDA (Chairman, Drafting Committee): I am sorry, have to come in again, but I just want to clear one point. The evaluation that is being requested is not the TCP programme as a whole which stated clearly that ''The Council noted the statements of several members whose countries had already benefited from TCP projects... The Council recognized it was too early to evaluate the effectiveness of the TCP since few projects had yet been completed." This was understood, and is reflected in the report.

The evaluation sought from the Director-Cenerai is of certain selected projects on the TCP that have been completed. We are talking about projects, and not the TCP programme as a whole.

With that explanation I hope India will be satisfied.

P.J. BYRNES (United States of America): This is indeed proving to be a very unpopular paragraph: I quite agree with the Director-General's request and with the wording that has been suggested by the Rapporteur; I would make one further comment however. In proposing this evaluation my Government did speak of an independent evaluation, and we thought this would be the way to find an objective evaluation which in the words of the Director-General "was satisfactory to all concerned". It is certainly not the intention of my Government, or any government, to find an evaluation which is going to be critical of any country. This is not the intention at all. The intention is to find a sound basis on which we can make a decision regarding the continuation of technical cooperation in future years. This would be extremely helpful to my Government.

With regard to how this would be conducted and carried out, the latter part of this paragraph 20 speaks of the detailed planning which the Director-General will present to the Council at its Seventy-Second Session. My Government was relying on this detailed planning - and still is - to prevent any evaluation which does reflect unnecessarily against any country or is unfair or unconstructive.

We see this as a very constructive excercise, and in order to ensure that it is acceptable to all Governments we wanted to ensure it would be an objective and independent report, and one on which the Director-General would provide, his views. However, if it is not the consensus of the Group, for the text to read '' the report", I would accept that it should read ''his report".

EL PRESIDENTE: Tengo tres oradores en lista. Sin embargo, antes de concederles la palabra quisiera preguntarles si están de acuerdo en que se adopte el párrafo 20 diciendo: ''Se pidió al Director General que presente su Informe", el Informe del Director General.

Si esto no es aceptable para alguno de los miembros del Consejo, les ruego que de nuevo pidan la palabra. Si nadie la pide entiendo que adoptamos así el párrafo 20.

Paragraphs 18 to 21, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 18 à 21, ainsi amendes sont approuves
Los párrafos 18 a 21, asi enmendados, son aprobados

Paragraphs 22 to 25 approved
Les paragraphes 22 á 25 sont approuves
Los párrafos 22 a 25~"son aprobados

PARAGRAPHS 26 to 37
PARAGRAPHES 26 á 37
PARRAFOS
26 a 37

S.S. MAHDI (India): On the last sentence of paragraph 34 our amendment is: ''It was also urged that" and instead of the words ''agro-industries" the words ''food and agricultural products processing industries" should be added and then after the word ''mechanization'' instead of the words ''would be given sufficient emphasis'' we insert the words ''should be given additional emphasis". Should I read that out again? The last sentence would read: ''It was urged that food and agricultural products processing industries and also mechanization should be given additional emphasis."

S. STAMPACH (Tchécoslovaquie): Je pense que l'intervention du représentant de l'Inde risque de limiter la portée de ce que nous avons pensé sous le terme ''agro-industries'' parce qu'il ne s'agit pas seulement de transformation, mais aussi par exemple de la production des fourrages, etc. , Cela veut dire qu'il s'agit d'un complexe plus large que de la seule transformation des produits alimentaires.

F. REDA (Egypt) (interpretation from Arabic): I am sorry I cannot agree with my colleague from India when he speaks of food and agricultural processing industries. This concept of agro-industries is quite different from processing industries, so I would prefer to maintain the word "agro-industries" instead of saying "food processing industries".

EL PRESIDENTE: ¿Después de las dos últimas declaraciones, entiendo que el colega de India permite que adoptemos el párrafo 34 como está?

S.S. MAHDI (India): I have taken full account of what has been said by my colleagues from Czechoslovakia and Egypt and I fully appreciate the points that they have made. I withdraw my suggestion for substituting the words "agro-industries" with the words "food and agricultural products processing industries". Therefore, "agro-industries" in our view may remain but there were also other suggestions in this paragraph and if they are acceptable I will go along with the suggestion made by Czechoslovakia and Egypt.

EL PRESIDENTE: ¿El Secretario podría leer ahora el texto? Suprimiendo la referencia a los términos que preocupan a Checoslovaquia y a Egipto?

SECRETARY-GENERAL: The sentence would, as far as I understand it, read thus: "It was also urged that agro-industries and mechanization be given additional emphasis."

M.P. MASUD (Pakistan): It would read "...agro-industries development and mechanization"

S. JUMA'A (Jordan): I think we had better retain the word "sufficient" because when you say "additional" it does not mean that it is sufficient. So I would prefer to see the word ''sufficient" retained.

EL PRESIDENTE: ¿Se puede aceptar, entonces, la enmienda de India con la aclaración de Pakistán y aceptar el término "suficiente" propuesto por Jordania? ¿Se adopta así el párrafo 34?

Paragraphs 26 to 37, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 26 à 37, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 26 a 37, asi enmendados, son aprobados

Paragraphs 38 and 39 approved
Les paragraphes 38 et 39 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 38 y 39 son aprobados

Draft Report of Plenary - Part IV,as amended, was adopted
Projet de rapport de la planiéré - Partie IV, ainsi amendé , est adopté
El proyecto désinforme - Parte 4, asì enmendado, es aprobado

DRAFT REPORT OF PLENARY - PART V
PROJET DE RAPPORT DE LA PLENIERE - PARTIE V
PROYECTO DE INFORME DE LA PLENARIA - PARTE V

Paragraphs 1 to 17 approved
Ees paragraphes l á 17 sont approuvé
Los párrafos l
a 17 son aprobados

Paragraph 18 approved
Le paragraphe 18 est approuvé
El párrafo 18 es aprobado

PARAGRAPHS 19 to 24
PARAGRAPHES 19 á 24
PARRAFOS 19 a 25

K. ITANO (Japan): I have a very small point in paragraph 21. In the first line of the first sentence, instead of the word ''unanimously" we propose the word ''generally".

A.T. WADDA (Chairman, Drafting Committee): In examining and reviewing the verbatim record of the deliberations which took place in Council we did not find anywhere where a delegation had registered its objection to the eligibility. As a result of that the Committee unanimously agreed to state in the report that the Council unanimously agreed to recommend to the Conference to amend the resolution appointing the Director-General to include eligibility without any restriction. I am surprised that the delegation of Japan is amending the word ''unanimously'' by substituting the word ''generally". If at any time it had been made clear to the Committee we would never have adopted the word ''unanimously''. If I go by the earlier statement made by the Chairman that substantive statements that were not made during plenary should not be introduced now in the discussion of the report, then I would appeal to the delegate of Japan to concur with the Committee's recommendation that the word "unanimously'' should be retained. We have tried, as I said earlier, on controversial issues or on issues where people have certain feelings or reservations, to accommodate minority views and, in the case of the question of electing the Director-General, the Committee debated this for many hours and what we have here is the best compromise and one which reflects the general feeling of plenary. I repeat my appeal to Japan, therefore, to drop its amendment and to retain the word ''unanimously " .

K. ITANO (Japan): Do not misunderstand our position. I am not opposing this matter, but in the discussion in plenary our delegation said that this matter needed to be studied further. So our position is like this and it is for this reason that I proposed what I proposed just now.

EL PRESIDENTE: Después de la declaración que hizo el Sr. Relator, podría tal vez pedirle al delegado del Japon que acepte el texto del párrafo 21 tal como está, antes de conceder la palabra a tres delegaciones que la han solicitado.

M.P. MASUD (Pakistan): The concern which the delegate of Japan has just expressed is a catered for in paragraph 22 which states ''A few members felt'', etc. As has just been said by the delegate of Japan himself there is no opposition to re-eligibility. He said: please do not misunderstand us, we do not oppose it. Therefore, there is unanimity on this point.

M.R. LEAR (New Zealand): I do recall that two delegations had problems with this particular issue; mine was not one of them. However, I think it would be more accurate to strike out ''unanimously" and just put ''The Council agreed". I think that is sufficiently strong and it is more accurate. I do not think it is quite true to sav that there was completely unanimous agreement and, furthermore, you do have an obvious contradiction, it seems to me, with paragraph 22 where you express the reservations of some members; and if some reservations are expressed, then how can you have a unanimous opinion?

I therefore think that just ''The Council agreed" would be sufficiently strong.

A.T. WADDA (Chairman, Drafting Committee): The reference I wanted to make has been pointed out by the delegate of Pakistan: paragraph 22 caters for the Japanese view and that of the other delegations. It was New Zealand, in fact, who drew the attention of the Committee to these two delegations, but after examination of what was stated, it was clear that these two delegations were not opposing re-eligibility.

But if it is now felt by the Council and by these members that they are not prepared to go along, their statement was an implied lack of support for re-eligibility and it would then be correct to state "generally'' and accept the Japanese version; but to be fair and to be correct, we have reflected here what we have seen in the verbatim and there was no opposition. However, we are prepared to accept "generally" in place of "unanimously".

F. REDA (Egypt): (interpretation from Arabic): I fully agree with the delegate of Pakistan when he said that during the discussion of this matter in plenary no reservation or opposition was expressed as to the re-election of the Director-General, and paragraph 22 of this report provides some clarification respect to the difficulties that some delegates felt and pointed out during the discussion.

I. OROZCO GUZMAN (Mexico): Consideramos que si suprimimos la palabra ''unanimidad", como ha sido sugerido por Nueva Zelandia, daría un equilibrio al informe acerca de esta cuestión. Consideramos que en la primera frase lo que se desea es que la Conferencia reexamine la cuestión de la reeligibi-lidad, porque en español dice ''prevea la posibilidad". Tal vez nada más sea una diferencia de enfoque. Para nosotros sería recomendar que la Conferencia reexaminara la cuestión de la reelegibilidad del Director General.

Tengo otra observación al párrafo 21 en el sentido de que donde dice "la inmensa mayoría del Consejo apoyo plenamente la legitimidad de "asegurar la elegibilidad, no sé si esa inmensa mayoría del Consejo desearía efectivamente ''asegurar'', Yo diría ''permitir''. Para nosotros es una diferencia de grado que el español lo permite. 0 sea ''permitir" la elegibilidad donde dice "asegurar".

A. CISSE (Niger): Je crois que le problème a été scindé en deux; en un premier temps, on a vu le pro blème sous l'angle de la rééligibilité et par la suite, on a parlé de réduction du second mandat du Directeur général. Et sur ce point-là, après la proposition des Etats-Unis qui a proposé ces deux points, le Japon et la Hollande se sont accordés avec le point de vue des Etats-Unis. Si le Secrétaire général veut faire apparaître les conclusions du Directeur général sur ce débat, on peut le vérifier.

M.P. MASUD (Pakistan): Mr. Chairman, I would just recall the earlier ruling you gave when we started on this, that no substantive issues were to be raised; and if this is not a substantive issue, I have yet to come across one.

Secondly, there was total unanimity, and even now, the delegate of Japan has said his delegation had no opposition to this; and if they have no opposition then why not unanimity.

B. de AZEVEDO BRITO (Brazil): My delegation had understood the intervention of Japan as being in terms of the modalities of eligibility for reappointment but no diversions from the main issue. That is the first point.

The second point is the fact that we had a debate and when a decision was taken, that decision, as far as I remember hearing from you, Mr. Chairman, was a unanimous decision. I think you used the specific word, notwithstanding whatever comments might have been made before; and that is an important point.

Third point: I would be inclined to believe that the word ''generally" in this case would be misleading. ''Generally" would usually be employed with other connotations and would be quite different from what is really unanimity.

K. ITANO (Japan): As I stated before, we are not opposing this but we suggested further study on this matter, nor are we at the moment in a position to subscribe to this. For this reason, I propose again to delete "unanimously" and to say just "The Council agreed''. That expression would be acceptable for us.

A.T. WADDA (Chairman, Drafting Committee) I hate to intervene again, but I would like guidance from the Chair. As I have said earlier, there was unanimity in the Committee that the wording to be used in this report was: "The Council unanimously agreed". What the delegate of Japan has raised is a substantive issue and if I may recall what you said earlier, Mr. Chairman, new substantive issues cannot be raised in the discussion of the report. So, I regret and I am surprised that the delegate of New Zealand - himself a member of the Drafting Committee - will not concur with the use of unanimity and is suggesting to change it to "generally".

In my earlier intervention I said that if these countries did say during the plenary that they were opposed, then we should accept "generally", but since the Committee is of the view that there was no opposition, we arrived at unanimity.

If the delegate of Japan is not prepared to give in to our appeal, I would ask that a ruling be made somewhere; but I would rather prefer the delegate of Japan to recognize the effort of the Committee. We have debated at length and tried to accommodate the views of the Japanese. We have refused in many cases to include in this report one delegation's own view and we have provided in paragraph 22, almost verbatim the view of Japan. For that sake I am appealing again to the Japanese delegation to withdraw their amendment.

T. MINKOUE (Gabon): Notre delegation commence à penser que, dans cette assemblée, il y a des mots tabous tels que "unanimité", tels que "le Conseil a appuyé" ou les remplacer à la majorité de ceci ou de cela... Nous avons tous admis ici le principe de la rééligibilité, comme l'a souligné le Pakistan appuyé par le Niger et d'autres délégations. Il est question de voir quelle durée de mandat il sera donné au nouveau Chef du Secrétariat. Mais n'ayons pas peur des mots: "unanimité'' est bien un mot qu'il faut utiliser ici. A moins que l'on nous dise qu'à partir de maintenant on n'emploiera plus de tels mots.

EL PRESIDENTE: Antes de dar la palabra a los cuatro oradores que tengo en la lista tal vez convenga recordar al Consejo que justamente el objeto de disponer de un Comité de Redacción es el evitar la manera de presentar unas conclusiones antes de que venga a la Plenaria, a fin de no reabrir discusiones sobre los temas que ya se discutieron antes.

J.C. VIGNAUD (Argentina): Lamento que se esté reproduciendo este debate, ya que lo tenemos que analizar en la medida en que el informe lo reflejo, que es lo que se discutió. Lo que se discutió fue el principio de la reelegibilidad como institución jurídica y luego quien debía decidir acerca de la elección de un Director General en el futuro.

En relación con el primer tema de la reelegibilidad, desde el punto de vista institucional y jurídico, este tema ya se discutió y no hubo ninguna oposición; por eso planteo el cierre del debate y que se apruebe el texto tal como se ha reproducido, salvo en el caso de que usted, señor Presidente, convenga en que se va a reabrir la discusión.

K. ITANO ' (Japan): After hearing the explanation given by the Rapporteur and other speakers we withdraw our proposal in paragraph 21 with the understanding that in paragraph 22 our opinion is reflected.

EL PRESIDENTE: Gracias por su actitud constructiva sobre el párrafo 21. Entiendo que México habìa planteado una inquietud en relación con la palabra "asegurar la elegibilidad''. Si he entendido bien él propone cambiar el término "asegurar por "permitir".

¿Quiere insistir el delegado de México sobre esto? Parece que no.

Paragraphs 19 to 22, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 19 à 22, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 19 a 22, asi enmendados, son aprobados

Paragraph 23, including draft resolution, approved
Le paragraphe 23, y compris le projet de résolution, est approuvé
El párrafo 23, incluido el proyecto de resolución, es aprobado

Paragraph 24 approved
Le paragraphe 24 est approuvé
El párrafo 24 es aprobado

Draft Report of Plenary - Part V, as amended, was adopted
Le projet de rapport de la plénière - Partie V - ainsi amendé, est adopté
El proyecto de informe de la Plenaria - Parte V, así enmendado, es aprobado

DRAFT REPORT OF PLENARY - PART VI
PROJET DE RAPPORT DE LA PLENIERE - PARTIE VI
PROYECTO DE INFORME DE LA PLENARIA - PARTE VI

Paragraphs 1 to 3 approved
Les paragraphes 1 à 3 sont approuvés
Los párrafos l
a 3 son aprobados

Paragraph 4 approved
Le paragraphe 4 est approuvé
El párrafo 4 es aprobado

Paragraphs 5 and 6 approved
Les paragraphes 5 et 6 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 5 y 6 son aprobados

Paragraphs 7 and 8 approved
Les paragraphes 7 et 8 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 7 y 8 son aprobados

PARAGRAPHS 9 to 19
PARAGRAPHES 9 à 19
PARRAFOS 9 a 19

Q.H. HAQUE (Bangladesh): The last line "Arabic, Chinese, English, French and Spanish" we suggested that it should be "shall be the languages of the Organization" but the Legal Counsel was to consult the text and could explain.

B. de AZEVEDO BRITO (Brazil): I would like to indicate that the reason for the doubt in our Drafting Committee between 'shall' or 'are' was the fact that there were some exceptions referred to in paragraph 13, languages, German and Portuguese and therefore I hope the Legal Counsel when deciding takes into account the exceptions.

A.T. WADDA (Chairman, Drafting Committee): I think the delegate of Bangladesh as a member of the Drafting Committee is right, we did agree to include 'shall' because this is the normal terminology but after consulting with the Legal Adviser, he advises me that instead of 'shall' "are the languages" is the correct form and since this was only a point of legality I agree 'shall should be replaced by 'are'. Unfortunately there was not enough time to inform the other members of the Council that I have agreed to these changes. The reasons behind the changes can best he explained by the Legal Adviser himself.

EL PRESIDENTE: En atención a que el Relator ya transmitió la opinion del Asesor Legal, tal vez el colega de Bangladesh pueda aceptar la explicación, ¿o quiere oír al Asesor Legal?

LEGAL COUNSEL: The language which is now in Rep. 6 is the language which is being put forward as a proposal by the CCLM. The Legal Counsel would perhaps be ill advised to suggest a solution which would depart from the colective wisdom of the Committee on Constitutional and Legal Matters. I honestly believe that the use of one or the other of the formulae will not make much difference in practice. It is preferable to have ''are the languages'' because, as has been pointed out, some other languages are also used in the Organization. On the other hand, this has already been done in the past, namely that other languages were used, and, nevertheless Rule XLI as it is on the books now uses the normative form ''shall be". I would therefore express preference for maintaining the words, "are the languages" but if the Council felt that there is a strong case for "shall be" on account of the fact that most other provisions of the General Rules use the normative wording, I think from the legal point of view there would be no strong objection.

Q.H. HAQUE (Bangladesh): As the Legal Counsel correctly pointed out in the present rule GRO reads "Arabic, Chinese, English, French and Spanish shall be the official languages of the Organization. English, French, and Spanish shall be the working languages, and Arabic shall be a working language for limited purposes". So with the present rule when it is positive the language used is "shall be" but I do not know, in the present rules also it is "shall be". Why are you going to make it different. And we think it is most appropriate to use the words "shall be".

J.C. VIGNAUD (Argentina): Sin perjuicio de que me complace esta discusión jurídica tan refinada, diría que yo creo que en tanto las resoluciones que adopte la Conferencia tienen ejecutoria desde el momento en que son aprobadas, no hay inconveniente en que se use el presente. Quizá en nuestras reglas fundamentales estaba en futuro en tanto que fueron las reglas que se dictaron cuando se creó la Organización y entonces debieron aplicarse cuando la Organización empezó a funcionar, pero ahora la situación ha cambiado y esa resolución sirve para ejecutar inmediatamente después de su aprobación. No veo inconveniente en que se diga en presente, pero es una cuestión de purismo jurídico.

EL PRESIDENTE: Veo que Bangladesh tiene cierta validez en su argumento, pero quisiera preguntarle si puede adoptar el presente.

Paragraphs 9 to 19 approved
Les paragraphes 9 à 19 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 9 a 19 son aprobados

Paragraph 20 approved
Le paragraphë~20 est approuve
El párrafo 20 es aprobado

Paragraph 21, including Resolution, adopted
Le paragraphe 21, y compris la résolution, est adopté
El párrafo 21, incluida la Resolución, es aprobado

PARAGRAPHS 22 to 25
PARAGRAPHES 22 à 25
PARRAFOS 22 a 25

J.C. VIGNAUD (Argentina): Desearía que se excluya una palabra en el párrafo 23 que en español tiene una connotación muy desagradable. Dice: "se advirtió la necesidad de mantener el Consejo con un numero de miembros manejable". ''Manejable" en español tiene una connotación muy desagradable, de manera que propongo que se ponga otra palabra que la sustituya.

EL PRESIDENTE: Se puede poner "aceptable".

Paragraphs 22 to 25, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 22 à 25, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 22
a 25, así enmendados, son aprobados

PARAGRAPHS 26 to 30
PARAGRAPHES 26 a 30
PARRAFOS
26 a 30

I. OROZCO GUZMAN (Mexico): Es una mera cuestión de idioma. En el tercer renglón del párrafo 30 se dice "los países que están"; preferiríamos que fuera "son". A los miembros del Consejo de habla inglesa les parecerá raro pero en español hay diferencia entre ser y estar.

EL PRESIDENTE: La enmienda de México es sencilla. Al final del párrafo 30 donde se dice "a los países que están atendidos por la Oficina Regional," decir "a los países que son atendidos por la Oficina Regional". No hay ningún problema.

Paragraphs 26 to 30, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 26 à 30, ainsi
amendés, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 26
a 30, así enmendados, son aprobados

Paragraphs 31 to 37 approved
Les paragraphes 31 à 37 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 31
a 37 son aprobados

Paragraphs 38 and 39 approved
Les paragraphes 38 et 39 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 38 a 39 son aprobados

Draft Report of plenary - Part VI, as amended, was adopted
Le projet de rapport de la pléniére - Partie VI. ainsi amendé, est adopté
El proyecto de informe de la Plenaria - Parte VI, así enmendado, es aprobado

The meeting rose at 17.45 hours.
La séance est levée à 17 h 45.
Se levanta la sesión "a las 17.45 horas.



Previous Page Top of Page Next Page