Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page

I. INTRODUCTION - PROCEDURE OF THE SESSION
I. INTRODUCTION - QUESTIONS DE PROCEDURE
I. INTRODUCCION - CUESTIONES DE PROCEDIMIENTO

EL PRESIDENTE: Declaro abierto el 72° período de sesiones del Consejo. Como ustedes saben, este período de sesiones de nuestro organismo tiene carácter particular ya que, de acuerdo con las disposiciones vigentes y con lo que se ha hecho siempre en el pasado, esta sesión breve debería de estar limitada a revisar y concluir los arreglos para la Conferencia que se iniciará el próximo sábado. Digo esto porque notarán ustedes que en el programa provisional aparecen temas y documentos muy importantes sobre los cuales, por la razones que acabo de exponerles, agradecería que limitaran sus intervenciones a temas muy específicos y concretos. Me refiero en particular a los temas 10, 11 y 12, Programa de Labores y Presupuesto para 1978-79. Examen de los Programas de Campo y Objetivos a Plazo medio.

Son documentos que dentro de muy pocos días van a ser discutidos en la Conferencia. Naturalmente, les ruego que interpreten esta observación mía con carácter flexible pues en ningún momento intento limitar la forma como cada uno de los miembros del Consejo desee intervenir en nuestros debates.

Creo que yo debo dar el buen ejemplo y no tengo más nada que agregar por el momento, y si ninguno de los miembros del Consejo tiene observaciones de carácter general, de acuerdo con el Orden del Día que ha sido distribuido esta mañana, les propongo que pasemos al tema 1: Adopción del Programa y del Calendario.

1. Adoption of the Agenda and Timetable
1. Adoption de l'ordre du jour et du calendrier
1. Aprobación del programa y del calendario

EL PRESIDENTE: Voy a conceder la palabra al Secretario, señor Caprona, Secretario del Consejo, quien les propondrá unas breves y simples adiciones al programa provisional que se ha distribuido.

SECRETARY GENERAL: It is just to add under item 17, Other Constitutional and Legal Questions, the following sub-item "Agreements concluded under Article 14 of the Constitution" which would be for discussion and/or decision. The relevant document has been distributed, which is CL/72/17, and the Members of the Council will see that it is really more of a housekeeping nature. It is not controversial at all.

The second sub-item is under item 18, Any Other Business, where we would have the standard traditional Report on Unscheduled Sessions in the 1976-77 Biennium. The document is CL 72/14. That is also an uncontroversial item.

EL PRESIDENTE: Espero que todos ustedes hayan tomado nota de la adición que se propone a nuestro programa provisional. Como lo dije antes, y lo ha confirmado el señor de Caprona, se trata de adiciones simples que espero no ofrecerán problemas a los miembros del Consejo.

Sobre el Calendario, quiero hacerles una propuesta de modificación. En el documento CL 72/INF/1, notarán ustedes y así está confirmado en el Orden del Día para hoy, que el tema 7: Programa Mundial de Alimentos figuraba como segundo tema de fondo de esta mañana después del tema 6, sobre la Comisión de Fertilizantes.

Sin embargo, en la segunda parte del tema 7 - Aprobación de las Normas Generales revisadas del PMA, aún falta un documento adicional que entiendo será el CL 72/16/Sup.1, que contiene el extracto de informe del CFA, del Comité del Programa Mundial de Alimentos que apenas concluyó su último período de sesiones el viernes pasado. En atención a que este extracto del Informe del CFA tiene relación directa con la segunda parte del tema 7 - Normas Generales revisadas del PMA, me permito proponerles que el tema 7 sea aplazado, que la discusión del tema 7, Programa Mundial de Alimentos tenga lugar mañana por la mañana.


Si el Consejo estuviere de acuerdo con esta propuesta, querrá decir que el programa continuará tal como está, o sea que después del tema 6 irán los temas 10, 13, etc., y que sólo el tema 7 se aplaza hasta mañana por la mañana.

Si no hay ningún comentario, entiendo que los miembros del Consejo están de acuerdo con las adiciones propuestas hace poco al programa provisional y con el cambio que les acabo de sugerir en el Calendario. En cuanto al Calendario, quiero hacerles una observación, que es obvia para todos ustedes, y es la de que no está prevista ninguna mañana ni tarde libre como acostumbrábamos hacerlo en el pasado. Esto se debe al carácter particular de esta reunión. Sin embargo, confío en que obtendré la cooperación de todos ustedes para que podamos concluir este período de sesiones el jueves en la tarde del modo que está previsto, y así facilitemos la reunión del Comité de Candidaturas que tendrá lugar el viernes próximo, o sea inmediatamente antes del sábado cuando se inaugurará la Conferencia.

Si no hay ningún comentario por parte de los miembros del Consejo, entiendo que procederemos así, y podemos ahora pasar al tema 2.

2. Election of Two Vice-Chairmen and Designation of the Chairman and Members of the Drafting Committee
2. Election des deux Vice-Presidents et nomination du Président et des membres du Comité de rédaction
2. Elección de dos vicepresidentes y nombramiento de presidente y miembros del Comité de Redacción

EL PRESIDENTE: Para la elección del primer Vicepresidente, ¿quién desea hacer propuestas?.

Sra. C. I. DOMINGUEZ (Panamá): La delegación de Panamá tiene el placer de proponer a la distinguida Embajadora de México, Doña Guadalupe Rivera Marín de Iturbe para la primera vicepresidencia de este período del Consejo.

Doña Guadalupe Rivera Marín de Iturbe ha tenido una larga y brillante carrera política y técnica en su país, luchando siempre por elevar el nivel de vida de las comunidades campesinas y en especial de la integración de la mujer en el desarrollo económico y social de México. Las poblaciones de las zonas rurales de la capital la eligieron por dos períodos como su representante en la Cámara de Diputados. Durante ese período trabajó afanosamente por resolver los problemas de los grupos marginados. Antes de ocupar su actual cargo como Representante Permanente de México ante FAO, la Embajadora Iturbe desempeñaba el cargo de Director de Estudios Económicos del Departamento del Distrito Federal. Consideramos, señor Presidente, que por las grandes capacidades y el dinamismo que caracterizan a la señora Iturbe, será una excelente Primer Vicepresidente, y por eso la delegación de Panamá al presentar esta candidatura lo hace sabiendo que contará con el apoyo de todos los miembros del Consejo.

W.A.F. GRABISCH (Rep. Fed. de Alemania): La delegación de la República Federal de Alemania, apoya con gran placer la propuesta de que Doña Guadalupe Rivera Marín de Iturbe, Embajadora y Representante Permanente de México ante la FAO sea elegida Vicepresidente Primero de nuestras sesiones de Consejo.

La distinguida señora Rivera Marín de Iturbe es bien conocida en el seno de nuestro Consejo. Sus virtudes fueron destacadas por la distinguida delegada de Panamá. Estoy seguro de que se podría agregar mucho más pero no voy a hacerlo para ser breve y facilitar los trabajos.

EL PRESIDENTE: Si no hay ninguna otra intervención de los miembros del Consejo entiendo que se decide elegir por aclamación como Primer Vicepresidente a la distinguida señora Doña Guadalupe Rivera Marín de Iturbe, Embajador de México y Representante Permanente ante la FAO.

Applause
Applaudissements
Aplausos


Sra. G. RIVERA MARIN DE ITURBE (Mexico): Muchas gracias, señor Presidente, por otorgarme la palabra. Deseo en forma muy breve agradecer la nominación de que he sido merecedora y debo recibirla no tanto por méritos propios sino en nombre de mi país, nación que como ustedes saben, señores miembros de este Consejo, se ha distinguido en la historia del mundo moderno por luchar por reivindicar los derechos de las clases débiles y sobre todo por llevar adelante una lucha en el mejoramiento de las clases campesinas que son quienes padecen y sufren las diferencias de un desarrollo que, desafortunadamente para nosotros, no ha sido lo debidamente equilibrado.

FAO y todos nosotros estamos empeñados en la misma lucha y es por esto que agradezco a los señores consejeros, y en primer término a la distinguida delegada de Panamá y al distinguido delegado de Alemania Federal, que me han hecho el favor de proponerme como candidato a la vicepresidencia, y agradezco a ustedes que hayan apoyado esta propuesta, vuelvo a repetirlo, tanto en nombre de mi Gobierno como en el mío propio.

EL PRESIDENTE: Para la elección de segundo vicepresidente, ¿quién desea hacer propuestas?.

O. BORIN (Italie): J'ai l'honneur et le plaisir de soumettre à l'attention du Conseil la possibilité d'élire comme deuxième Vice-président le représentant permanent des Pays-Bas, Monsieur de Bakker.

M. de Bakker n'est pas à la FAO depuis longtemps mais il nous a été possible de très bien le connaître. Il est très actif, extrêmement intelligent et dans ses interventions il a toujours fait preuve de grande capacité et d'un grand équilibre.

Pour ces raisons, nous avons le plaisir de présenter sa candidature comme deuxieme Vice-président.

E. CAKAJDA (Tchécoslovaquie): La délégation tchécoslovaque appuie la candidature de M. de Bakker, étant sûre que son expérience de longues années et sa connaissance du système de la FAO seront profitables à cette session du Conseil.

A.R. MIHURA (Argentina): La delegación de Argentina, en base al conocimiento de los problemas de la FAO y de los antecedentes del señor de Bakker quiere adherirse y apoyar la candidatura para la segunda vice-presidencia del representante de los Países Bajos ante la FAO.

EL PRESIDENTE: Si no hay ninguna otra intervención de los miembros del Consejo, considero que decidimos elegir por aclamación al señor de Bakker, de Países Bajos, como segundo Vicepresidente.

Applause
Applaudissements
Aplausos

G. DE BAKKER (Netherlands): It is for my country and myself a great honour to be elected as Vice-Chairman of this very important Council Session, the Session that precedes this important Conference that we are going to have next week. I feel very honoured and pleased to be in the same bureau with you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased that with you, as Chairman, and the other Vice-Chairman, we can form this bureau together. I must thank the three delegations that proposed and seconded my election and I can assure you that when you call upon me I will do my best, together with the lady sitting next to me, to make this Session a great success.

EL PRESIDENTE: Tenemos así los dos vicepresidentes a quienes felicitamos cordialmente en nombre del Consejo.

Sobre el Tema 2 queda pendiente el nombramiento de Presidente y miembros del Comité de Redacción.


Para el cargo de Presidente del Comité de Redacción se nos ha sugerido al Sr. Haque, representante alterno de Bangladesh ante la FAO. El Sr. Haque es bien conocido por todos ustedes, pues participa con actividad, inteligencia y consagración en los trabajos de nuestra Organización. Quiero preguntar al Consejo si están de acuerdo en que elijamos por aclamación al Sr. Haque de Bangladesh, como relator y presidente del Comité de Redacción. Entiendo que todos están de acuerdo y así se decide.

Applause
Applaudissements
Aplausos

Sobre los países que habrán de integrar el Comité de Redacción, hemos iniciado las acostumbradas consultas que todavía no han concluido. Confiamos en poder proponer al Consejo esta tarde, o mañana por la mañana, los nombres de los siete países que han de integrar este Comité de Redacción. Si están ustedes de acuerdo dejamos pendiente el Tema 2 y podemos pasar al punto siguiente.

III. ACTIVITIES OF FAO AND WFP
III. ACTIVITES DE LA FAO ET DU PAM
III. ACTIVIDADES DE LA FAO Y EL

6. Report of the Commission on Fertilizers (4th Session, Rome, September 1977)
6. Rapport de la Commission des engrais (quatrième session, Rome, septembre 1977)
6. Informe de la Comisión de Fertilizantes (Cuarta reunión, Roma, septiembre 1977)

- Future of the IFS
- Avenir de l'IFS
- Futuro del PIF

EL PRESIDENTE: Concedo la palabra al Sr. Blanco Delgado de México, quien fue el Presidente de la Cuarta Reunión de la Comisión de Fertilizantes, con lo cual vamos a seguir el punto 6. Espero que todos tengan a la mano el documento CL 72/2, que es el informe de la Cuarta Reunión de la Comisión de Fertilizantes. Vamos a tratar, pues, el Tema 6 que incluye, como está especificado en el orden del día, el futuro del PIF, sobre el cual les va a hablar el Presidente de la Comisión, pero además ustedes podrán encontrar detalles sobre la posición de la Comisión en los párrafos 32 a 35 del documento CL 72/2.

V.S. BLANCO DELGADO (Presidente de la Comisión de Fertilizantes): El Informe de la Cuarta Sesión de la Comisión de Fertilizantes, como ya lo ha dicho usted, señor presidente, se presenta como documento CL 72/2, sobre el cual voy a considerar únicamente las partes más importantes del mismo. Tal como fue solicitado por el Presidente Independiente del Consejo, la Comisión puso durante sus trabajos especial interés en la revisión del mandato, en donde, gracias a los constructivos comentarios que se hicieron se llegó a un acuerdo sobre el mandato revisado, el cual se presenta como Apéndice E de este Informe para su aprobación por el Consejo. Para esto el Consejo habrá de aprobar una resolución, la cual se presentará en el proyecto de informe de esta sesión del Consejo.

Con respecto al mandato revisado que fue aprobado por la Comisión, notará usted, señor presidente, que además de ayudar a todos los países, particularmente a los países en desarrollo para tener a su disposición, en cantidades suficientes y a precios razonables, los nutrientes que requiere su desarrollo agrícola y su producción alimentaria, se incluye la ayuda para promover la producción de fertilizantes, particularmente en los países en desarrollo, en cooperación con los organismos apropiados de las Naciones Unidas y tal como fue solicitado por el Consejo en su 60a sesión.

Durante las deliberaciones de la Comisión, el representante de la ONUDI señaló que la producción de fertilizantes era una responsabilidad de ONUDI y a este respecto quiero hacer énfasis que la Comisión no tiene intenciones de duplicar las actividades de ONUDI en el campo de la producción de fertilizantes, sin embargo, el punto de vista que se refleja en el capítulo C del Mandato revisado y aprobado, es que existe la necesidad de promover la producción de fertilizantes, particularmente en los países en desarrollo, producción que será directamente benéfica para los países; a ONUDI para ampliar sus responsabilidades y a otras instituciones como el Banco Mundial que provean asistencia financiera para la construcción de plantas de fertilizantes en países en desarrollo.

Notará también usted, señor Presidente, que los representantes de ONUDI, el Banco Mundial y otras organizaciones, participaron activamente en la reunión, lo cual fue apreciado por la Comisión y se muestra claramente que las actividades de las diferentes organizaciones están siendo coordinadas como se refleja en el capítulo E del Mandato revisado de la Comisión.


En el párrafo 10 del Informe, la Comisión expresa su sentir con respecto a que, aun cuando la situación actual y las perspectivas hasta 1981-1982 parecen ser satisfactorias, esto debería ser visto con precaución ya que las experiencias pasadas pueden cambiar en forma rápida. También creo prudente llamar la atención al párrafo 11 de este documento en cuestión, donde se refleja que la Comisión puso énfasis en la importancia de su labor para superar los desequilibrios cíclicos, además de los que son de naturaleza estacional en la oferta y demanda que llevan a ampliar fluctuaciones en los precios, por lo que se solicitó que para llevar a cabo esta importante función se deberá dar la prioridad necesaria en el Programa de Labores y Presupuesto para que los recursos adecuados estén disponibles para llevar a cabo su trabajo.

Por lo tanto la Comisión solicitó a la Secretaría que mejorara su metodología para las determinaciones previas a corto y largo plazo de la oferta y la demanda, como se expresa en el párrafo 12. Así como también era necesario un trabajo más extenso en lo que respecta a los contratos a largo plazo (párrafo 15), y se debería también incluir los estudios de los costos de producción como se dice en los párrafos 22 a 24 del Informe.

En los párrafos 16 al 19 se expresan los puntos de vista sobre las propuestas de opciones, y la Comisión también solicitó al Director General que proceda con la propuesta de opciones, la cual tiene como objeto general asegurar que los países en desarrollo, particularmente los países más gravemente afectados, obtengan los fertilizantes que se necesitan importar a los precios que equivalgan a los precios domésticos de los países desarrollados. También introduce un elemento de estabilidad en los precios internacionales para los fertilizantes.

En los párrafos 32 al 35, la Comisión tomó nota de la ayuda de fertilizantes a países en desarrollo, especialmente el Plan Internacional de Suministro de Fertilizantes. En el párrafo 33 se refleja que la Comisión avala la cercana interrelación entre el PIF y las otras actividades de los fertilizantes de la FAO, como fue recomendado por el Director General y como punto de vista general se consideró que las actividades del PIF deberían ser continuadas y reforzadas durante el próximo bienio.

En los párrafos 36 al 42 se refleja el informe de las actividades de la FAO en materia de fertilizantes y la Comisión solicitó que informes similares fueran presentados en las próximas sesiones de la Comisión.

En el párrafo número 62: programa futuro de trabajo de la Comisión, se solicita que se deberá dar la prioridad apropiada en el Programa de Labores y Presupuesto y fondos adecuados para llevar a cabo su trabajo deberán ser puestos a su disposición.

El párrafo 63 indica el acuerdo de la Comisión para que el Director General en consultas con el Presidente de la misma determine la fecha de la próxima reunión.

EL PRESIDENTE: Gracias colega y amigo Blanco. Creo que su presentación ha sido muy concreta y sin duda ayudará a los miembros del Consejo a la discusión del Tema 6, cuyos debates vamos a empezar.

En primer lugar ha solicitado la palabra la delegación de Brasil para hacer una declaración, entiendo que a nombre del Grupo de los 77.

B. de AZEVEDO BRITO (Chairman, Group of 77): My delegation would first like, at this stage, to thank Dr. Blanco, Chairman of the Commission on Fertilizers, for presenting to us a very interesting report and we are confident that the Commission of Fertilizers' fourth session has indeed done very interesting work and produced thus a report with very important suggestions. With your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, and that of the Council, I would very much appreciate it if I could be allowed to make some comments of a very general nature since we believe, we feel, in the Group of 77, that perhaps the Council Members could benefit by having a rather general picture of the substantive items we have before the Council. I must say that in offering our comments at this stage we are doing so in a spirit of cooperation, as a possible point of reference so that our deliberations can be more easily focused and therefore the fact that I shall try to give a general view on several points is simply to show the kind of integrity of views and a general picture of the way we see the main matters before us at the present Session of the Council.

We understand that the present Session of our Council must endeavour to prepare the work of the Nineteenth FAO Conference, as you have said, Mr. Chairman, which is going to start its deliberations in just a few days. In order to facilitate this task, the Group of 77 thought it appropriate to present briefly its views on the main issues before us. These views will of course be elaborated and further explained by individual delegations in the course of our deliberations.


At the time of the 71st Session of the Council we had the opportunity to comment upon the outlook of the world agricultural situation. At that time, available indications had led us to expect that agricultural production would once again show healthy signs, although concealing serious disparities among countries and regions. More recent information suggests that those initial expectations were perhaps too optimistic, as unfavourable weather in recent months resulted in shortfalls in the total volume of production, particularly of foodcrops, damping the hopes for a much-improved world food security situation. It would appear, however, that not only unfavourable climatic conditions have conspired to reduce food availability in the coming year: the well-publicized plans for reducing acreage planted with grains will, in fact, increase the risk of a return to the tight supply/demand situation of the early years of this decade.

Therefore while on the production front the prospects do not seem to be altogether satisfactory, the results of effort undertaken by the international community to lay the foundations for a more just world economic order are even less encouraging. The much hailed North-South Dialogue ended, as we all know, without any tangible results but it left in its way instead an inventory of pent-up frustrations. At this stage we can only hope that the current negotiation in UNCTAD, in particular the resumed Conference on the Common Fund, now taking place in Geneva and the talk-around of multilateral trade negotiations will prove more fruitful. What is needed now is for the developed countries to come forward with more imaginative and forceful counterpart action to dovetail with intensive efforts of developing countries to meet the challenge of their food and agricultural development needs.

We similarly hope that the response of the international community to the renewed priority accorded to rural development in developing countries will be reflected in clear policy initiatives particularly in the supply of agricultural inputs and in a much larger volume of external financing on better terms. We are gratified, in this connection, that the entering into force of the IFAD agreement is imminent. We are also pleased to know that the re-orientation of FAO's programmes with much greater emphasis on field activities is beginning to bear fruits. At the same time we cannot but show an apprehension in the external financial flows for agricultural development and the worsening of its terms which took place in 1976 after the encouraging trends of the two previous years. Last year the external flows to developing countries amounted to less than half of the real value of the requirements estimated by the World Food Conference as the minimum necessary to ensure the 4 percent growth rate on agricultural production recommended in the International Development Strategy for the Second United Nations Development Decade.

We are also concerned that measures restricting access to markets in developed countries are increasingly acting as disincentives to agricultural development in the developing world.

In line with these preoccupations the Group of 77 would like to comment briefly on some recent developments in the FAO and the World Food Programme, in the report of the Commission on Fertilizer, the intoduction of which we have just heard; we were happy to note that the Commission was in a position to recommend the continuation of the International Fertilizer Scheme, an arrangement which in spite of its modest scope provided its benefit to a number of developing countries. It is equally gratifying to see that the Commission is in the process of evolving specific policies and measures aimed at ensuring price stabilization, and, just as important, at reducing price differentials for fertilizers paid by farmers in developing importing countries and in the major suppliers' markets. Farmers in developing countries should not be placed at a comparative disadvantage in the use of this essential input for improving yields and expanding agricultural production. In this connexion we would like to underline our support to the option proposal which the Commission on Fertilizers has discussed at its Fourth Session. This proposal, which has already received wide support in industry, could in our view increase significantly the use of fertilizers in developing countries. It is our hope that it will soon become operational.

The Committee on Food Aid Policies and Programmes, an item we are discussing a little later, has just completed a very fruitful session in our view. We urge this Council to endorse the target of US$ 950 million approved by the CFA for contributions to the World Food Programme in the biennium 1979-80. We also urge this Council to approve the two specific decisions recommended by CFA relating to the general regulations of¡ the Programme. The recommended increase in the level of resources of the Programme is indicative of the wide support for the World Food Programme in channelling multilateral aid in an effective manner, including emergency operations for which resources within the Programme must be allocated at the appropriate level. Moreover we very much hope that the revised general recommendations in the manner they are intended to be adopted will serve well the Programme in its new stage of maturity so that its humanitarian objectives can be extended to all those in need.

At the last session of our Council we had already commented on the general outline of the 1978-79 Programme of Work proposed by the Director-General on the trends and the priorities which it reflected and on the budget level required to împlement it. We still feel that those proposals reflect a realistic approach in support of the efforts of developing countries to accelerate their process of agricultural development so as to meet the needs of their growing populations.


The Group of 77 takes this opportunity to reiterate its full support to the Director-General in his quest for a debureaucratization that saves resources for practical action, a decentralization that assists the real transfer of activities to the country level, and technical cooperation activities specifically designed to promote investment and encourage production.

While acknowledging that our Council will not be in a position to consider in detail the specific points raised in the programme and budget documentation before us, and in particular the very interesting remarks of the Programme and Finance Committees, we would like a few comments on the subject.

On the overall level of the proposed budget we would like to recall that last June we endorsed as a group a total package of programmes which by any standards had to be considered an absolute minimum in the light of requirements of developing countries and of the statutory obligations of the Organization. We understand that the level of expenditure now has to undergo a relatively minor readjustment in order to reflect the difference in currency exchange rates and the additional costs to be incurred with the World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development. We agree that such readjustments are fully warranted. Thus the Group 77 fully endorses the new level of budget proposed by the Director-General which amounts to approximately US$ 211.3 million. In any case this budget will have, I must stress, to absorb nearly US$ 870 000 for other Programme requirements of primary concern to developing countries as mentioned in the report of the joint meeting of the Programme and Finance Committees.

We need not dwell on the obvious need to take into account exchange fluctuations in the final dollar value of the budget. The additional costs budgeted for the Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development are fully justified in our view by the enlarged scope of the work to be accomplished in line with the new awareness of the new international community on the need for integrated rural development. As a priority target for action, instead of the more limited technical meeting first envisaged it has become apparent during the preliminary work for the Conference that a much broader conceptual approach is required to promote a thorough appraisal of the difficulties involved in overcoming the complex problem of rural priority. It is obvious that the Conference, including its preparatory work, will require sufficient financial resources if the whole exercise is to meet our expectations. Even so we should like to stress that the total budget allocation for the Conference is still far below that of international meetings of similar importance and scope.

At the time of the June session of our Council we had already advanced our support for the proposal of the Director General to set aside from the savings expected to accrue at the end of the current biennium in the expense account established under Conference resolution 35/75 the amount of US$. 5 million in a special reserve account to protect the Organization's programme of work against persistent currency instability, inflationary tendencies and other uncertain factors. We also gave our support to the proposal that the balance of US$ 10 million still remaining in the suspense account after the establishing of the special reserve account be transferred to the new special fund for reduction of food losses. We strongly believe that the Organization must have a minimum of security against unforeseen circumstances which could affect its programme performance. Similarly we believe that the US$ 10 million earmarked for the new special fund for reduction of food losses would provide the necessary seed money for the type of programme which is generally agreed to be of high priority.

Now, a matter of principle: We consider that potential savings from currency fluctuations and good financial administration should not be a windfall gain to contributors to the budget, especially to the richest member states.

Finally it is worth noting that these proposals as well as the overall level of the budget have been approved without reservation by both the Programme and Finance Committees:

Still in relationship to the programme of work for the next biennium we should not like to leave without notice the recommendation of the Programme Committee that the Director-General present to the spring session of that Committee a proposal for changing the status of the Industry Cooperative Programme. We endorse their proposal without any prejudice to an effective and fruitful co-operation with industry. We very much hope that the deliberations of our Council by taking positive action on these different initiatives and ideas will auger success for the Nineteenth FAO Conference.

I must say that I am very grateful that you and the Council have allowed us to present this overview of the Council at this session and as I stated at the beginning of my intervention those views that I have advanced on request of the Group of 77 are presented here in a spirit of cooperation in an effort to help deliberations of the Council. We are for the dialogue as we always have been ready.


EL PRESIDENTE: Gracias. Seguimos ahora la discusión del tema 6.

Sra. P. DE CASTRO MONSALVO (Colombia): La delegación de Colombia apoya las principales conclusiones que aparecen el el documento CL 72/2, Informe de la Cuarta Sesión de la Comisión de Fertilizantes.

La delegación de Colombia aprovecha esta oportunidad para expresar su reconocimiento y gratitud al colega y amigo Virgilio Blanco, de México, quien presidió esta reunión con gran habilidad y mucha competencia.

S. JUMA'A (Jordan) (interpretation from Arabic): We would like to know if we can state in a general discussion on all points or are we all going to discuss this document CL 72/2 by itself, because the representative of Brazil spoke about all the items that are going to come up before the General Conference. My question, therefore, is are we discussing everything or are we just discussing the report of the Commission on Fertilizers ? I think we ought to stick to the documents presented to us because now we do not know what the point of discussion is any more, what subject is under discussion. Obviously I do agree with everything that was said by the representative of Brazil but I do feel that right now we are discussing a particular point and that those other points could have very well been left till later.

With respect to the report of the Fourth Session of the Commission on Fertilizers, this is an outstandingly good report, and the comments made by the Chairman of the Commission were more than adequate. Even so, I do have one or two questions to ask, in particular about the cooperation between FAO on the one hand and the UNDP on the other. Will there be better cooperation between these two organizations on fertilizers later on ? Does the cooperation already exist ? Is it going to be followed up ? That is my first comment.

My second comment is that in this report we noticed that the Director-Cenerai of FAO was being asked to ensure price stabilization, that is, to make sure that the price of fertilizers should not increase in developing countries. Now, what has been given to the Director-General to make quite sure that he can stabilize prices ? We all know only too well that they are subject to the laws of supply and demand. They do not depend upon the good intentions of any particular country or any particular organization, so we would like to have an answer from the Secretariat about this, and in particular we would like to know what steps can be taken to stabilize prices in developing countries.

EL PRESIDENTE: Espero quede claro para todos los miembros del Consejo que, como lo hemos hecho siempre, cada tema del programa será discutido separadamente, de acuerdo con el orden en que aparece en nuestro calendario. Esto quiere decir que ahora nuestra discusión está concretamente limitada al tema 6, Informe de la Comisión de Fertilizantes.

Sobre las pertinentes preguntas que hizo el distinguido Ministro de Agricultura de Jordania, entiendo que la Secretaría al final del debate sobre este punto tratará de responder.

R. TANABE (Japan): My delegation associates itself with the other delegations in appreciating the work of Mr. Blanco, the Chairman of the Commission on Fertilizers, at its Fourth Session. I would like to take this opportunity to express the view of my delegation with regard to the option scheme. This scheme pertains to industry and the government cannot force industries to join it. Therefore, to ensure the effective operation of the scheme, it should be improved so as to be attractive not only to the buyers but also to the suppliers. My delegation is of the view that this scheme should be further examined, discussed and improved so that the aims could be achieved in terms of the benefit to the buyers and the suppliers.

C.V.K. RAO (India): We would like to congratulate the Fertilizers Commission and also the FAO Secretariat for preparing an excellent report of the Fourth Session of the Commission which properly highlights the important issues discussed and also the decisions taken. We would like to express our concern about the recent upward trend in the prices of fertilizers. This would thwart the efforts of the developing countries in augmenting agricultural production. This is a very unsatisfactory trend,


and it is desirable that it should be halted if it cannot be reversed. We therefore extend support for the decision taken by the Commission to find ways and means for overcoming this cyclical imbalance in the supply and demand of fertilizer which led to wide fluctuations in prices and also a need to further improve the forecasting methodology in this regard, We feel that the communication of information collected by the Secretariat can be improved. Such communication of information is presently being done through the annual review which becomes available very much after the year is over, and the data included therein usually pertain to the previous year or the year before it. An efficient system of supply of data to countries is therefore essential.

We welcome the initiative taken by the Director-General for making preliminary contacts with fertilizer producers under the option proposal, as the scheme would considerably help several countries. At the same time it will bring about the desired measure of stability in fertilizers, and I am sure this would meet the point raised by Japan. It is necessary for not only the countries but also the manufacturers to realize that stability in prices is good for all concerned. The scheme should open up a new style of international trade for fertilizers. We, therefore, consider that the implementation of the scheme should start without any further delay and that it should be given a fair trial by all concerned.

We also extend support to the continuation of the International Fertilizer Supply Scheme, as it will enable the more needy countries to derive benefit from it, and we do hope that substantial quantities of fertilizers will be made available under this dcheme to developing countries.

We would like to reiterate that the Commission on Fertilizers, which has been doing excellent work, should be made a permanent body and its working should be given due priority in the Programme of Work and Budget of the FAO. The proper and timely supply of fertilizer is the biggest boost we can give for fertilizer production and it is essential that the Commission on Fertilizers should be placed on a permanent footing. The Commission has played a positive role in bringing the world food situation to normalcy, and there are numerous aspects which deserve the close and continuous attention of all of us. Their comments need to be reviewed with caution and there is need for continuous monitoring of supply and demand and of promotion and trends. There is also a need to continuously assess the requirements for production of developing countries, as recommended by the World Food Conference, and efforts should be made to ensure adequate supplies of important raw materials in developing countries. We would like the Commission to meet annually unless the situation warrants early meetings.

We also lend support to the adoption by the Council of the revised terms of reference mentioned by the Commission. We hope that these terms of reference will enable the Commission to play a very significant role in the production, availability and promoting of consumption of fertilizers, particularly in developing countries, and help the member countries in keeping abreast of the latest developments in this work. The terms of reference would also help the Commission to accelerate the activities of FAO, UNDP, UNCTAD and the World Bank.

A.R. MIHURA (Argentina): Mi país da su aprobación al Informe de la Comisión de Fertilizantes que considera apropiado. Sólo desea sugerir como contribución práctica a la mejor utilización de los recursos en el marco de la Comisión de Fertilizantes que se intensifiquen los seminarios nacionales sobre fomento del uso de fertilizantes, como medio idóneo para tratar exhaustivamente los problemas que inciden en el bajo consumo de fertilizantes y en el mejor aprovechamiento de los mismos. Consideramos que el informe producido es laborioso y solamente queremos hacer esta observación práctica para mejorar la utilización de los recursos disponibles.

W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of): I will limit my delegation's comments on the item before us, Item 6, namely, the Report of the Fourth Session of the Commission on Fertilizers. The delegations which attended that session noted with satisfaction - and this is also reflected in the report before us - that in the medium term a balanced supply and demand situation can be expected for fertilizers. That does not mean that no further thought should be given to measures which help avoid major price fluctuations which may occur in the future as a result of different supply and demand situations.

The report also meets with the approval of my Government, because it shows clearly that the members of the Commission always discuss a great number of topical questions relating to fertilizers with the aim of further improving the food supply situation in developing countries. We also feel that there is no doubt that the specific use of fertilizers plays a special role in this respect. Therefore a Commission or Committee on Fertilizers should have a permanent place within FAO as a forum to discuss all questions relating to the application, supply and distribution of fertilizers.


In our opinion, the new terms of reference provide a comprehensive basis for that. However, the idea to hold in future the sessions of the Commission on Fertilizers every second year, depending on prevailing conditions, is thoroughly worth considering. Apart from savings in cost, such a solution would have the advantage that longer-term problems such as long-term contracts, for example, or uniform fertilizer terminology could be discussed without pressure of time with all interested groups concerned with the fertilizer market.

With regard to fertilizer aid to developing countries, in particular with regard to IFS, mentioned in paragraph 32 of document CL 72/2, let me make the following remarks: the requests for bilateral and also multilateral fertilizer aid were declining in 1976/77. This is not least reflected by the free availability of fertilizers on the world market and the expanded production capacities in developing countries. We should always recall that fertilizer aid is primarily intended as an incentive to convince farmers of the advantages of the use of fertilizers. In cases where balance of payments difficulties and problems exist in logistics and in the credit system which render an adequate fertilizer supply more difficult, we are prepared to support all efforts to secure the supply situation of these countries. In this respect, the International Fertilizer Scheme was during the last years able to make a significant contribution. However, the main aim in this connexion was to help overcome a critical deficiency situation. Meanwhile, as is known, conditions have changed fundamentally. As the IFS, as a consequence of that development, was substantially restricted in its original mandate, my Government does not see an immediate necessity to continue the IFS in the original form. However, we feel the cooperation so far of the IFS with the Fertilizer Programme is a thoroughly justifiable interim solution. Whether, however, an institutionalization of the IFS within the framework of the envisaged Fertilizer and Plant Nutrition Service is useful remains to be seen

With regard to the suggested price stabilization measures, that is to say, in particular para. 14 and following of document CL 72/2, I should like to make the following remarks:

We can fully support the recommendation of the Commission on Fertilizers that the long-term model contracts should be further revised. The buyers' option likewise requires, from our point of view, further elaboration. In this respect, it should be avoided in particular that the option model will automatically be applied if a percentage of the current import requirements of the MSA countries is met by industry. The pertinent formulations adopted by the Commission of Fertilizers take account of these considerations.

Still a last word about fertilizer terminology. The financial and administrative expenditure which a conversion or uniform expression of plant nutrients in elemental form would cause, seems only justified if it is based on coordinated action with the appropriate international and national organizations and interest groups. From my Government's point of view the further discussions about that subject should, therefore, not be placed under pressure of time, all the more so as the major proportion of fertilizer production and sales, including fertilizer exports, is accounted for by countries which are using anyhow the oxide form.

I.A. IMTIAZI (Pakistan): My delegation has read Document CL 72/2 with interest. We would like to compliment the Secretariat on producing such an informative and useful paper. We would also like to thank the Chairman of this Commission, Mr. Blanco, for his interesting presentation. While endorsing the recommendations contained in the report, my delegation would like to underline some of the points made in the report. Although the Commission was established during a world fertilizer crisis, it has proved itself to be a valuable focal point for discussing the international fertilizer situation.

The adverse effects which limited supplies of fertilizers and their high prices had on fertilizer promotion and food production programmes in developing countries are well known. I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that you will agree with me we all wish to avoid the recurrence of such a crisis in future. We would, therefore like to draw attention to the importance of the Commission's deliberations in this regard and to stress that its work should be given the appropriate priority in the Programme of Work and Budget, and that adequate resources be made available to it to carry out its work.

Its work means to overcome the cyclical imbalances in fértilizer supply and demand and sharp fluctuations in prices which have affected developing countries adversely. Of special interest to us is the option proposal which the Commission has requested the Director-General to follow-up. We believe that this proposal should benefit the developing countries, particularly the most seriously affected countries, and would suggest to all fertilizer producing countries to support the proposal so that it becomes operational without delay. Though the target figure for putting the option system into operation is for nitrogenous fertilizer only, we would urge that phosphatic and potassic fertilizers also be included in the scheme once it becomes operational.


The option system will complement the IFS, the International Fertilizer Scheme, which depends on contributions by donors. Unfortunately, contributions to the IFS declined sharply in 1976/77 and we would urge that contributions to the Scheme be increased since it has fairly demonstrated its importance in assisting the developing countries. My own country has benefited from the IFS and we would like to avail ourselves of this opportunity to place on record our deep appreciation to the donors who have contributed to the Scheme.

Though fertilizer supplies may look adequate, fertilizer price trends in the international market today do give cause for concern to the most seriously affected countries with serious balance of payment problems. We would agree with the Commission that the IFS should be strengthened and would recommend its continuance on a permanent basis. We also endorse the need for close relationship between the IFS and other fertilizer activities of FAO as recommended by the Director-General.

We also endorse the revised terms of reference of the Commission and support the proposal of the Commission that its fifth session should be convened during the latter part of 1978, unless the situation requires an earlier session.

A.J. PECKHAM (United Kingdom): I wish to make a brief statement on behalf of the United Kingdom, and I am delighted to hear the measure of support there has been for this report. I had at the Fertilizer Commission to say that the United Kingdom had an open mind on the future of the International Fertilizer Supply Scheme. You know we always have an open mind, Mr. Chairman, but I am delighted to take this opportunity of informing the Council that after the deliberations of the Commission we decided to put up another 5 million pounds to the IFS Scheme so that in all since its inception we have contributed something over 54 thousand tons of fertilizer which brings our total contribution to a figure just short of 140 thousand tons.

That is on the one side of the balance sheet. The United Kingdom can go along with the recommendations of the Commission, subject to one or two slight reservations. I would like to say in respect of the very important question of price stabilization that I noted earlier speakers - in particular Jordan and India - emphasizing the importance of further studies of ways and means. The report in fact refers to three particular forms of price stabilization. We agree with earlier speakers that it is helpful and useful for further work to be done on the model long-term contract.

Secondly, with reference to the UNIDO draft scheme on options, we agree that this needs further evaluation particularly as regards costs and administration and the legal aspects. It is very important there should be further clarification and there should be no automatic decision on this until the Secretariat have been able to do the further work which the report envisaged.

That completes what I wish to say except I want to record our thanks to the Chairman of the Commission for the competent way in which he chaired this meeting.

Q.H. HAQUE (Bangladesh): First of all, we would like to compliment the Fertilizer Commission and its Chairman for its excellent work in its fourth session. We find this document very informative and useful.

While generally endorsing the recommendations of the Fertilizer Commission, we would like to put forward a few points underlining them for the consideration of this Council.

It is heartening to note that consumption of fertilizer in developing countries has been improving since the depression in 1973, 1974 and 1975. It should be noted however that still the rate of increase in consumption is far below the requirements to obtain full growth in agriculture.

The other point which has to be noted is that with an increase in the consumption rate the import requirements of developing countries is also increasing.

The production in developing countries collectively and also individually is not increasing at the same rate or in the same space as the consumption requirements. For example, I can cite my country. Our consumption in 19 75/76 was 450 thousand tons. In 1976/77 it is estimated to be about 600 thousand tons, while our production is about 300 thousand tons. That means our import' requirements have gone up by about 150 thousand tons. I believe this is similarly the case with most of the developing countries.

In this context it is important to draw to the attention of the Council the price trend in fertilizers in recent months. After the slump in the prices, in the current year the price is strengthening - in other words, the price is hardening. If you look at the food information issued by the FAO for


October, 1977, you will notice the price of urea or nitrogen fertilizer which was US$40 per ton over six months or so, which is very indicative of the future trend of the price of fertilizer which is of great concern to the developing countries.

In this context I would also draw the attention of the Council to the recommendation of the Fertilizer Commission regarding price stabilization measures to find ways and means, as you find in the Recommendation, paragraph 11 of page 4 of the document. It is very important, this price stabilization measure.

The next point I would like to touch upon is the IFS Scheme. As you all know this Scheme was born in a very emergent situation. I am very happy to say as one of the beneficiary countries that the Scheme has done an excellent job in the crisis period. It has proved its worth, it has proved its merit. Unfortunately, in 1976/77 the role of the IFS has considerably gone down due to lack of resources.

A point is made that the emergency situation is no longer there. In this context I would like to underline that for the MSA countries the emergency has not gone down, for two reasons: first, that the price is again hardening; second, that their consumption requirement is going up compared with their production, which means that they have more import requirement. If they are required to import more they have to invest more of their scarce resources. In that situation I feel that the emergency is still there for the MSA countries.

We appreciate the role of the IFS and we feel that the donor countries will also realize its importance, particularly for the MSA countries, and that contribution to the IFS will be forthcoming in more generous terms.

We appreciate the recent changes made by the Director-General in linking up the role of the IFS with other fertilizer bodies in the FAO and we believe that it is a very good step.

As regards the Commission on Fertilizers we feel that it is a very important Commission dealing with very vital ingredients of agricultural development in developing countries. For this reason we recommend that the Commission should be institutionalized, its meetings should be annual, and we endorse the revised terms of reference of the Commission as proposed by the Commission on Fertilizers.

With these words I would like to conclude my statement, drawing the attention of the concern of the developing countries to increase resource flow in the IFS, institutionalization of the Commission, and price stabilization of fertilizers.

L. LAPEBY (Gabon): Je voudrais tout d'abord remercier le Président de la Commission pour la présentation de ce document, présentation claire qu'il nous a faite, et je voudrais également féliciter la Commission des engrais pour le travail qu'elle a réalisé.

Je ne pourrai pas m'abstenir de faire ici observer la disproportion des attentions qui sont portées, d'une part sur les problèmes de prix, de quantité, de disponibilités, de tendances de production d'investissements et autres, et, d'autre part, les attentions apportées aux problèmes d'une utilisation optimale des engrais, partant, certaines questions connexes qui sont parfois quelques amendements qui permettent de mieux utiliser les engrais. Je crois qu'il ne s'agit pas seulement d'utiliser les engrais pour utiliser les engrais, il faut surtout les utiliser pour qu'ils donnent les meilleurs résultats qui peuvent en être attendus.

Je ne doute pas que, dans certains cas, on n'ait pas eu de réponse et je crois avoir lu dans le rapport que certains pays ne répondent pas quand on leur pose des questions quant à l'utilisation qu'ils ont faite des engrais. Cela revient simplement à dire que parfois ils ne veulent pas dire exactement ce qui a été fait, quelles utilisations ils ont données à ces engrais et parfois ces engrais n'ont peut-être pas été utilisés pour une production agricole qui était nécessaire. Lorsqu'on parle, dans le mandat de la Commission, du prix raisonnable des fertilisants, c'est nécessaire pour le développement agricole et je crois que c'est là où il y a vraiment achoppement. Je considère plus utile de se reporter aux travaux qui sont faits par la FAO en son sein et je pense là au paragraphe 37 dans lequel il est indiqué qu'il faut promouvoir des actions de terrain pour l'utilisation rationnelle des engrais. Malheureusement, je n'ai pas entendu dans le débat, dans les interventions qui ont précédé, prononcer ce terme de "rationnel", et c'est là où certaines délégations pourraient porter leur attention.

Il est évidemment proposé que ces activités s'appuient beaucoup plus directement sur les données pédologiques. Certains sols, quelle que soit la quantité d'engrais qu'on y mette, ne rendront pas ce qu'on croit en attendre. Je crois qu'il est souhaitable que nous soulignions ce point, qu'il n'y a pas que les prix, les quantités disponibles, les industries pour produire les engrais, mais qu'il y a ce problème de l'utilisation rationnelle des engrais pour un rendement optimal et de leur utilisation en fonction des données pédologiques, ce que nous manquons parfois de souligner.


D. MORK ULNES (Observer for Norway): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to speak as an observer on a subject to which my Government attaches importance. I shall be brief. The main recommendations of this report my delegation can subscribe to. In particular I would like to point out that efforts towards greater stabilization for both supply and prices should be pursued as they are listed in the conclusions of the report. In particular I have in mind the conclusions that are contained in paragraphs 15 and 16 on long-term contracts and option proposals, to which my Government would give support and would like to see put into force.

As I said during the Commission's session, fertilizer has proved itself to be one of the main inputs in agricultural production. It is in this light that we see the work of the Commission and the FAO in the field of fertilizer. The four sessions of the Commission which have evolved have equally shown that the Commission itself has developed into a forum or a focal point for discussion on the international fertilizer situation with a view to avoiding serious disruption of prices and supplies. We fully agree with the conclusions that the Commission should be placed on a continuing and permanent basis and given appropriate priority in the work and budget of FAO and adequate resources to carry out its work.

P.J. BYRNES (United States of America): I also would like to commend our distinguished colleague, Mr. Blanco of Mexico, for his work in this Commission and in the report that he has given us this morning to study.

My delegation fully supports the closer relationship between the International Fertilizer Supply Scheme and the fertilizer activities of FAO as recommended by the Director-General and as endorsed in the Commission's report.

We welcome also the shift in emphasis from supply of nutrients to ensuring that nutrient availability is accompanied by rational use.

With regard to the permanency of the Commission this is something that we would prefer to give some study to, also the situation concerning annual meetings. We note that the Commission speak of the existing situation dictating when the next session should be, and we hope that this will be the criterion that will be applied.

A. HARIBOU (Observateur pour les Comores): En tant qu'observateur des Comores je tiens à prendre la parole pour faire à peu près les mêmes remarques que M, le delegue du Gabon. En effet, dans ce document, il semble qu'il v ait quand même une question importante qui ne se dégage pas de cet ensemble. Il ne s'agit pas d'employer coûte que coûte des engrais pour obtenir un rendement. Nous avons des données intrinsèques de chaque type de sol et nous pensons que, jusqu'à présent, si des erreurs ont été commises, si des résultats n'ont pas été observés dans certains davs du Tiers monde et si, dans certains pays du Tiers monde, on constate que finalement on a affaire à des cultures hydro-pomiques plutôt qu'à des cultures classiques, c'est parce que justement on a négligé ces facteurs intrinsèques, autrement dit ces facteurs pédologiques des sols, sols qui représentent quand même dans leur totalité une certaine originalité. En effet, nous savons que nous avons affaire souvent à un milieu tropical humide, à un milieu souvent fragile où on utilise à tort et à travers des quantités énormes d'engrais et, finalement, on se rend compte qu'on détruit même la fertilité existante de ces sols.

Ceci étant, j'aimerais qu'au sein même de cette Commission on prévoie cet aspect de l'étude intrinsèque des sols et que, finalement, en utilisant les termes "emploi d'engrais pour optimiser le rendement", on associe aussi la notion de rationalisation d'engrais, c'est-à-dire qu'on n'utilise pas ces engrais à tort et à travers, et je suis certain que nous arriverons un jour à utiliser de meilleure façon et à obtenir de très bons rendements dans les pays où les sols sont très fragiles.

EL PRESIDENTE: Voy ahora a conceder la palabra al Dr. Bommer, Subdirector General del Departamento de Agricultura, para que responda a las observaciones planteadas.

D.F.R. BOMMER (Assistant Director-General, Agriculture Department): First of all, I would like to express appreciation for the support given to various activities and measures in the light of servicing the Commission on Fertilizers. I think there were only two distinct questions raised by the delegate of Jordan. One was on the collaboration with UNIDO. It is simply to say that collaboration is very good. The Director-General has given specific emphasis to improve the already on-going collaboration with UNIDO which is going on in various fields in which we have a common interest with our sister organization. In the field of fertilizers it is specifically concentrated in a working group in which we


sit regularly together with UNIDO and the World Bank, discussing not only the forecast and development of supply and demand in the field of fertilizers but, at the same time, other matters of common interest including the development of new production in developing countries. In the meetings organized by UNIDO for the development of the fertilizer industry we are collaborating with UNIDO in the preparation of documents and in various other ways.

These are two distinct activities in which we very clearly collaborate and I think there is no problem here.

The second question raised was on the price stabilization measures. I hope the discussion has already given you some additional information. Three items actually fall under these activities so far crystallized out of the discussion of the Commission on Fertilizers and the one which is, I think, closest to possibly becoming operational is the option proposal which will be pursued in the light of the recommendations of the Commission. The second one will need some longer preparations, probably, models or formulae for longer-term contracts; and the third one, for which an even study may be necessary, is a specific proposal made by Iran to link up fertilizer prices with production cost prices, which is a very complicated model but it is certainly worth further looking into.

I think I have answered the specific questions raised by the Council.

EL PRESIDENTE: Creo que podemos concluir así la discusión del tema 6 sobre el cual, para agilizar nuestros trabajos, presentaré un resumen muy sucinto.

Entiendo que el Consejo, en general, apoyo el contenido del informe de la Cuarta reunión de la Comisión de Fertilizantes.

Igualmente el Consejo aprueba el mandato revisado de la Comisión que aparece en el Anexo E del documento CL 72/2.

El Consejo destaco la preocupación de la Comisión por la falta de recursos para la marcha exitosa del PIF, plan sobre el cual el Consejo está de acuerdo en que se continue y se refuerce en el bienio próximo; respecto a lo cual se hicieron observaciones en el sentido de que convendría examinar y revisar algunos aspectos de ese plan en orden a tratar de perfeccionarlo.

Igualmente se expresaron ciertas reservas no muy de fondo, según me pareció entender de las observaciones de algunos oradores, y se hicieron referencias a la oferta y la demanda, al uso racional, a los precios, al consumo, etc., todo lo cual aparece en las actas donde están sus intervenciones y que serán enviadas al Comité de Redacción para que trate de reflejar esas distintas posiciones.

Finalmente, creo que el Consejo fue unánime en reconocer la excelente labor que viene realizando la Comisión de Fertilizantes, sobre lo cual la mayoría de los miembros del Consejo estuvieron de acuerdo en que debía de tener reunión anual y, asimismo, contemplar la posibilidad de la institucionalización.

Igualmente, el Consejo reconoció la labor que viene desarrollando el Sr. D. Virgilio Blanco como Presidente de esa Comisión, a la cual yo me adhiero, en nombre de todos ustedes, con mi reconocimiento por su cooperación para la discusión de este Tema 6.

B. de AZEVEDO BRITO (Brazil): In order to be clear, in the light of your summing up, Mr. President, I understand that the Council is endorsing the request made by the Commission to the Director-General to further develop the option proposal in cooperation with interested parties with a view to possible implementation of the system once commitments by fertilizer producers amounting to 10 percent of estimated nitrogen fertilizer import requirements of the MSA's have been obtained. That was a specific request of fhe Commission which I understand the Council is endorsing.

EL PRESIDENTE: Espero que el distinguido colega de Brasil entienda que con el resumen tan breve que trato de hacer no puedo entrar en todo detalle, pero lo que el ha dicho pasará al Comité de Redacción.

Si no hay ningún otro comentario por parte de los miembros del Consejo podemos concluir el tema 6 y, de acuerdo con la modificación que habíamos introducido esta mañana en el calendario, pasamos ahora al tema 10.


V. PROGRAMME, BUDGETARY, FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
V. QUESTIONS CONCERNANT LE PROGRAMME, LE BUDGET, LES FINANCES ET L'ADMINISTRATION
V. ASUNTOS DEL PROGRAMA Y ASUNTOS PRESUPUESTARIOS, FINANCIEROS Y ADMINISTRATIVOS

10. Programme of Work and Budget, 1978-79 (C 77/3)
10. Programme de travail et budget, 1978-79 (C 77/3)
10. Programa de Labores y Presupuesto para 1978-79 (C 77/3)

DIRECTEUR GENERAL: Merci M. le Président. Le but de mon intervention est de vous proposer, ainsi qu'aux distingués délégués, de discuter maintenant le niveau du budget, puisque nous sommes à la veille de notre Conférence, qui commence samedi. Comme vous le comprendrez, j'ai dû attendre jusqu'à la dernière minute pour suivre l'évolution du taux de change du dollar avant de faire, à ce propos, une proposition formelle à la Conférence, par l'intermédiaire du Conseil.

Je n'ai rien à ajouter en ce qui concerne le Programme, sinon pour me féliciter que le Comité du Pro-gramme, ainsi que le Conseil aient approuvé mon programme de travail. A cet égard, je voudrais me référer en particulier au rapport du Conseil de juin dernier, dont le paragraphe 129 dit que "Le Conseil appuie pleinement les grandes lignes des propositions de programme", et le paragraphe 130 que "Le Conseil confirme aussi bien les orientations politiques que les priorités du programme indiquées dans le Sommaire de programme de travail et budget, en particulier le programme de coopération technique…" Tel était l'avis de votre Conseil au mois de juin sur le Sommaire de Programme de travail et budget.

Toujours en ce qui concerne les décisions du Conseil de juin, le paragraphe 158 dit que: "Le Conseil approuve sans réserve la façon dont le Directeur général conçoit la mise au point d'un ensemble de programmes réalistes et équilibrés, etc."

Quant au Comité du Programme, il s'est réuni, comme vous le savez, fin septembre/début octobre. Il a eu l'occasion d'examiner non plus le Sommaire de Programme de Travail et Budget, mais le programme lui-même, ce gros document que vous avez tous reçu et qui sera encore l'objet d'un examen minutieux par la Conférence et, en particulier, par sa Commission II. Je suis heureux de constater que le Comité du Programme, au paragraphe 2.4 de son rapport, "confirme sa recommandation précédente et réitère son appui au programme proposé par le Directeur général".

J'ai été heureux d'écouter ce matin la très importante déclaration faite par le Président du Groupe des 77. Je sais que cette déclaration reçoit l'appui de tous les membres des 77, puisque j'ai appris qu'elle avait été discutée dans une réunion plénière de ce Groupe. Je me réjouis de constater que le Groupe des 77 approuve également les grandes lignes du programme de travail et, de ce fait, se trouve en parfait accord avec la session du Conseil de juin dernier et avec le Comité du Programme.

Je voudrais maintenant en venir au problème du niveau du budget, qui constitue la question principale que je me propose de discuter avec vous ce matin et au sujet de laquelle j'ai une proposition formelle à vous faire. Il me semble qu'il s'agit là, et de loin, de la question la plus importante en ce qui concerne le programme de travail et budget, bien que d'autres questions, importantes elles aussi, soient destinées à être discutées plus tard. Vous avez sans doute lu le rapport du Comité du Programme qui vous est soumis. Vous avez donc noté que le Comité du Programme et le Comité financier, à leur session conjointe, ont approuvé ma proposition d'augmenter le Budget de 1 200 000 dollars, pour faire face aux dépenses dérivant de l'organisation de la Conférence mondiale sur la réforme agraire et le développement rural. Je n'ai pas besoin de parler plus en détail de cela, puisque vous trouverez tous les détails dans le rapport et puisque les Présidents du Comité du Programme et du Comité financier sont là pour vous éclairer davantage s'il en était besoin. Je suis heureux de constater que le Groupe des 77 appuie aussi cette proposition.

Comme vous le savez, le budget que j'avais proposé au mois de juin s'élevait à 206 877 000 dollars. Ce budget avait été préparé en octobre 1976, à la fin des conférences régionales qui avaient eu lieu pendant cette année.

Il était normal pour moi d'attendre que ces cinq conférences régionales se terminent, de façon à pouvoir étudier dans le détail les recommandations formulées par les gouvernements. J'ai donc préparé ce budget en octobre 1976 et proposé un chiffre de 206 millions, sur la base de 900 lires par dollar. Nous sommes maintenant en novembre 1977 et ce budget est destiné au biennium 1978-79! Dans de telles circonstances, personne ne peut faire de pronostics certains en ce qui concerne les changes, même pas le fonds monétaire international!


Or il se fait que le taux du dollar aujourd'hui n'est plus de 900, chiffre de base utilisé jusqu'ici comme référence; et j'avais bien précisé que ce chiffre devrait être révisé par le Conseil et la Conférence, mais le plus tard possible, à cause, justement, des fluctuations du change. Aujourd'hui, le dollar est à 879 lires.

Il en résulte que le même programme de travail sur lequel tout le monde était d'accord coûte plus cher aujourd'hui. A titre d'information, les conférences de 1973 et 1975 avaient toutes deux adopté le cours du jour comme taux de change du dollar. Ce taux était de 582 en 1973 et c'est ce taux qui avait été adopté, en 1975, il était de 670, et ce taux avait aussi été adopté; aujourd'hui, à la veille de la Conférence, le taux est de 879.

J'avais déjà informé le Comité financier et le Comité du Programme de ce qu'un taux de 880 conduirait à une augmentation de 3 200 000 dollars (page 31, paragraphe 3.8 du texte français de leur rapport).

Je pense que vous recevrez, au début de l'après-midi, un projet de résolution soumis à la Conférence pour l'ouverture d'un crédit de 211 350 000 dollars.

Je voudrais indiquer que le Comité financier et le Comité du Programme ont clairement approuvé un budget de 208 millions de dollars, soit, au taux de 900 lires par dollar, 1 200 000 dollars de plus que les 206, 8 millions que j'avais demandés à l'origine. Ce faisant, le Comité du Programme et le Comité financier ont donc implicitement approuvé le budget de 211 millions de dollars au taux de 879 lires, puisqu'ils ont répété, tout au long de leur rapport, qu'il ne fallait pas que le Programme soit altéré du fait du taux de change.

Je suis également satisfait de noter que le Groupe des 77 a, lui aussi, appuyé ce niveau du budget.

Pour conclure, je voudrais mentionner un élément qui n'est pas très connu: Il s'agit du fait que les pays membres n'auront pas, en réalité, à débourser 211 millions de dollars. En effet, nous avons effectué près de 2 millions d' économies en 1976-77, qui ne sont pas mentionnés au document qui est devant vous. De plus, nos revenus divers ont dépassé les prévisions de 5 millions de dollars en 1976-77, essentiellement sous forme d'intérêt sur des fonds que nous avions en banque. Ceci représente donc un montant total, relativement élevé, de 7 millions, qui vient s'ajouter aux 3 800 000 dollars de revenus divers, provenant également de l'intérêt de nos dépôts bancaires, mentionnés au document qui vous est soumis.

Les gouvernements auront donc 10 800 000 dollars en moins à payer sur les 211 millions que j'ai mentionnés. S'il y avait la moindre question à ce sujet, mon collègue, M. West, pourrait vous donner plus tard davantage d'informations.

Je n'ai pas besoin de dire qu'en tant que Directeur général, je ne puis prendre la responsabilité de commencer l'année 1978 avec un budget entaché d'un déficit initial de 1, 2 ou même 3 millions de dollars. Le programme de travail que je vous ai soumis coûte aujourd'hui 211 millions de dollars, dans lesquels entrent 1 200 000 dollars pour la Conférence mondiale sur la réforme agraire et le développement rural.

En conclusion, je voudrais remercier encore une fois les membres du Groupe des 77 de leur appui au budget que j'ai proposé et je voudrais suggérer à Messieurs les délégués de discuter séparément ce niveau, car, s'il devait être discuté avec l'ensemble des autres points - évaluation d'AGRIS etc. - cela ne serait pas possible.

Le projet de résolution, que l'on est en train d'imprimer et qui vous sera distribué, ne diffère du texte précédent que par le total qui, au lieu d'être de 206, 877 millions, sera de 211 millions 350 mille, puisqu'il y aura 1 200 000 dollars de frais additionnels pour la Conférence et que le taux du dollar n'est pas de 900 lires, comme supposé jusqu'ici, mais de 879. C'est là toute la différence.

J'estime donc que la distribution du document ne devrait pas empêcher Messieurs les délégués de discuter dès maintenant ce point très important du niveau du budget et j'espère qu'il y aura un consensus à ce sujet, évitant ainsi la sorte de débats que nous connaissons trop bien à la Commission II. Je vous remercie.

EL PRESIDENTE: Han oído ustedes la propuesta del señor Director General de que sobre el tema 10 iniciemos nuestras discusiones en forma separada, limitadas al nivel de Presupuesto a la luz de la posición oficial definitiva que el Dr. Saouma acaba de expresar. ¿Están de acuerdo los miembros del Consejo en que se proceda así? Si no hay ningún comentario, entiendo que todos estamos de acuerdo con la propuesta del Director General, y se abre el debate sobre el nivel de presupuesto solamente.


J. BAKER (United States of America): These new figures about the budget have been available to us just this morning and with all due respect I think my delegation would like to have the opportunity to examine the budget, perhaps with the aid of Mr. West, exactly what is the significance of some of these calculations before we take a position on the level which you have suggested.

EL PRESIDENTE: Han oído ustedes la declaración que acaba de hacer el distinguido delegado de los Estados Unidos quien propone que se conceda un poco de tiempo a los miembros del Consejo.

F. SHEFRIN (Canada): We appreciate very much the information provided by the Director-General but he has a bit of an advantage, he is working with the figures day in and day out and he has the staff with him. We have only just been given these figures. We have another problem. We have arrived with instructions on $206.8 million. I am under obligation to consult my government in Ottawa and consult them before I come along and say we agree or disagree and therefore we would like to have more information. We have two ways of doing it, we can say 'yes' automatically, which does not mean anything because I am not authorized. I appreciate the lire has dropped 11 points but by the time the Conference meets we might be in the unfortunate position of facing another drop, say down to 850, so there is a kind of principle. We have to go back to our people and say "The Director-General has made amendments on the basis of currency changes he has no control of. We have to have more information than that. This is very fast and I did not have a chance to follow the quick arithmetic; I am a slow thinker and I also want to send back the information to Ottawa as well. It is not possible to get an answer by this afternoon so I suggest the Director-General gives us time to consult our colleagues and so by the time the head of delegation arrives at the end of this week we will have been briefed in Ottawa on the problems the Director-General faces. All we can do is ask for clarification but we are not in a position to discuss. It is a new budget and $10 million increase is a fair amount of money so our plea is give us a chance to consult as a delegation and give us a chance to get in touch with our governments. As I say, I am not prejudging the Canadian position on the new budget total.

THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL: I wish to react immediately to the comments made by the delegate of Canada, because all delegates here - and there are forty-two - could say the same thing: namely, that they have no instructions and have been taken by surprise. I believe that the exchange rate of the dollar is as well known in Ottawa as in Rome, and it has always been decided that the exchange rate to be applied would be that prevailing at the time of approval of the budget. This is stated in the report of the 71st Session of the Council and in the reports of the last Programme and Finance Committees. It should not, therefore, be a surprise to anybody when I now propose that the exchange rate in force today should be the one to be considered by the Council and the Conference.

I fully agree with the delegate of Canada that, if this exchange rate were to change suddenly at the time of the adoption of the resolution, we should have to apply the rate prevailing on that day; but what we cannot do is to maintain the exchange rate which I proposed in June 1977 as part of a budget formulated in 1976. Now. we have to come closer, and the closest rate we can use is that of today. The Conference is starting on Saturday and it is my duty to propose an exchange rate for the dollar four days in advance; so I am now recommending formally and exchange rate of 879 lire to the dollar, on the understanding that it will be confirmed and finalised when the resolution is adopted by the Conference.

Concerning the $1 million 200 thousand which I have requested, to enable me to organize better the World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development, I should like to state that this subject was brought to the notice of the Programme and Finance Committees and that it was mentioned, therefore, in their reports, which have been received by the Governments, at least within these last four or five days. Accordingly, delegates could have telephoned Canada, or anywhere else, to obtain information on this published document. Thus members of the Group of 77, without making any contact with their cabinets, have decided to support this increase of $1 million 200 thousand for adoption by the Conference.

Still concerning the World Conference, I should like to point out that we must organise it in an efficient manner and that the amount I am asking will be the lowest one for such a purpose in the UN system during the past four years. Originally, I had budgeted only $450, 000 for this Conference; at present, with the proposed addition, the total will reach $1, 650, 000, and many delegates have told me that even this amount may not be sufficient.


Looking at the cost for other conferences of the same scope and importance, I would quote a few figures. The Conference on Habitat, held in Vancouver, Canada, cost the UN $4, 000, 000 and Canada a great deal more, since the Government of that country were very generous hosts. The Conference on Education cost $2, 000, 000; the Conference on Science and Technology for Development, to be held in July 1979 - that is to say, at the same time as our World Conference - will cost $9, 000, 000, of which $5, 000, 000 has already been included in the budget of the UN. Finally, I would also mention the Conference to be held in the USSR in September 1978, the budget of which is estimated at $6, 000, 000.

I regret I have been obliged to intervene a second time, Mr. Chairman, but I have done so to avoid any misunderstanding and to answer in advance other delegates who might argue in the same way as Canada and claim that my proposals had come as a surprise and a shock. It was in order to moderate that surprise and litigate the disappointment of delegates who do not welcome a budget increase, even if the reasons for it are beyond my control, that I mentioned that we should have such a large miscellaneous income in 1976/77. As well as telling you that I had been obliged to increase the budget level by $4.5 million, I wanted also to say that we could expect a great deal of unforeseen income, so that the final bill will be less than you expected and less bitter for certain countries.

S. JUM'A (Jordan) (Interpretation from Arabic): The Chairman of the Group of 77 spoke this morning and I would like to state we do not disagree with him, that is to say, the Group of 77 does give its support to the final or semi-final forecast made for the budget for the next two years. I believe that the Council has not taken a final decision on the matter; it will simply have to present a recommendation to the Conference so between now and the Conference we still have some time, especially if we take into account the day on which we will have to approve the final budget, and surely each delegate can contact authorities in his own country in order to find out what they feel about the new situation. I believe we have enough time to establish these contacts.

Let us not forget, either, that the Director-General has not asked for new activities to be included in the programme of work of the organization, but he has to revise the figures because of financial instability or the rate of exchange between dollars and lire. Therefore, the forecasts which have been made in the past are not realistic and hence need to be revised. This is apart from the fact that the forecasts made by the Secretariat with regard to the World Conference on Agrarian Reform were not realistic, and this is because the original figure was a very low one indeed and it is not possible for this organization to take responsibility for a Conference of this scope and level. You know that this is a Conference which is not is not merely a scientific conference, it is a conference which has very many different aspects, and it is therefore necessary and it is natural that the Director-General should ask for a increase of the budget for this particular conference and the expenditure which will be incurred for the conference,

We therefore arrive at the conclusion that this request for an increase is justified and I personally am convinced that all countries may not have been informed about these forecasts; some countries knew it because they have got members in the Programme Committee or the Finance Committee - I myself am a member of the Programme Committee - but other Council members or other members of the organization who may not have heard officially about this financial instability and were not aware of the fact that there might have been unforeseen fluctuations, may be surprised, but it is a surprise not only for the delegates of the United States or Canada, it has been a surprise for practically everybody. However, I do believe we have enough time as from today up to the final adoption of the budget for the Conference to establish several contacts with the authorities in our countries in order to get their agreement to this level of the budget.

Of course, we know that at present we are not really discussing anything except the level of the budget and all we have to do is to make a recommendation to the Conference. We take no final decision for the budget for the next biennium.

G. DE BARKER (Netherlands): I have understood very well that it is a good fact that the dollar/lire exchange rate has stood at 880 instead of going down further to 900. I would say that is a good thing for all Italians and for all people that live here that the inflation rate has come, not to a stop, but it is better than it was before, and when that must cost some extra money to the organization because you first calculate it on the basis of 900, I do not think that would give great concern to our governments, but I would say that the budget as it was presented with the 900 already gave some concern to our government, anyway, because there is a general trend in the whole United Nations organization and also here that the increase, in spite of the efforts of the Director-General, that I know he made, is still going up further and more than our financial people feel is justified in view of our own obligations we have at home with so many other commitments.


So I was instructed to say here that we feel concern about the rate of increase, about the percentage. I would like, therefore, to get if possible on paper what the Director-General just told us about that extra miscellaneous income you had last year, and apparently you expect more miscellaneous income this year than you had already budgeted in the document here. If it leads to the fact I understood from your explanations that instead of the governments coming up in total with $211, 000, 000, instead of that come up with $200, 000, 000, if we can get a report of that to our governments today or tomorrow when you have a sheet of paper with the new information, I expect that the concern I was instructed to express would be of bit lighter tone than I would have done in the Conference without that information, and therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Director-General if possible that we receive today or tomorrow this new information, and also because we are not all financial wizards, whether this really means that our governments altogether have to pay not 211 but 200 next year, the difference between total expenditures and the total income and also the miscellaneous extra income of last year. It that were the case, I feel that it may help a bit to overcome the problems our financial people have at home, and that is my request, Mr. Chairman: If possible, before we make a final budget or a final consensus decision on the budget that we could receive that extra information that the Director-General just read to us.

E.M. WEST (Assistant Director-General, Office of Programme and Budget): I wonder if it is necessary, really, to have a piece of paper, because in three lines one can say exactly what the figures are. We repeat in effect what the Director-General said with a very brief explanation. I will do it very slowly so notes can be made. On page 17 of the English version of the Programme of Work and Budget, which I think you all have…this is at the end of the Director-General's personal introduction….there is a draft resolution for adoption by the Conference on budgetary appropriations for 1978/79. This is now being amended by a new draft resolution which the Director-General just announced was being processed.

However, paragraph 2 remains the same, and in paragraph 2 there is a reference to a deduction of miscellaneous income in the amount of $3, 820, 000. So already governments are fully aware that out of the previous total of 206.8, the revised total of 211.350, 3.820 is already going to be deducted. In addition, there will be monies accumulating from the current biennium which is not quite finished but we can already estimate fairly safely what this will be. The monies from the current biennium which will be added to this 3.82 in the resolution come from two sources. The first is programme savings. We estimate that by the end of this year the programme savings will amount to $2 million. En passant, Mr. Chairman, I would indicate that these programme savings arise to a very large extent from savings in Chapter III of the Budget and not on the technical and economic programmes, and they are for reasons beyond our control in Rome.

Then there will be an excess of miscellaneous income in 1976/77 over and above what was estimated in the original budget resolution for 1976/77 which appears in the old Programme of Work and Budget, so there is 2 million programme savings, 5 million excess miscellaneous income in 1976/77.

This will all go into the amount which is distributed to Member Governments at the end of 1978; thus, we have figures of 3.8, 2 and 5, making 10.8 million dollars together for the total to be deducted from the total of US$211.350, 000.

The actual programme for 1978/79 would cost approximately US$200 million or just a bit over. Furthermore, I am not taking into account any excess of miscellaneous income which might occur during 1978/79 since governments would not get this back until the following biennium. The US$10.8 million I have mentioned is certain for this coming biennium of 1978/79. I hope this makes it clear.

Once more to summarize: already estimated for deduction in paragraph 2 of the Resolution, $3.820.000; in addition, from 1976/77 programme savings $2 million; excess miscellaneous income 1976/77, $5 million. Total deduction $10.8 million.

B. de AZEVEDO BRITO (Brazil): I am very happy to hear just now the explanations given by Mr. West. I must say that the debate trend perhaps suggested that some qualifications are necessary. As we indicated in the Group of 77 in its intervention, this Council has already approved a certain package, a package which on the estimation of the Council itself was a minimum package. Beyond that we have a new factor, the question of the actual costs of the Conference on a gradual and formidable development.

The reasons for the adjustments are clear and the data which we have before us amply justified the appraisal that the new budgets for that Conference are reasonable. What the Council has to act upon now is simply, as far as the level of the budget is concerned, to make the adjustments of the currency. This fact is simply a consequence of the long process of preparation of the Programme and the Budget.


If we had a much shorter process obviously this adjustment would not be necessary. A fortnight ago we received a proposal which with minimal changes would be the actual proposal to be acted upon. We feel that this Council is, therefore, and should be in a position to act on the proposal for overall levels of the budget. We feel that our Government had in fact all the information in terms of the Programme to be delivered. The consequential changes which all of us know are simply pure logic.

Therefore, we very much hope as we advance in our joint statement that this Council will be in a position to take positive action on this specific proposal. We feel it is the duty of the Council, and we very much hope that as in the past the Council will not fail in its duty on a very important matter.

H. ABDALLAH (Egypt) (Interpretation from Arabic): When the delegate of Brazil spoke on behalf of the resolution of the Group of 77, he expressed the hope we might start this Session with a dialogue and not a confrontation, and I can give full support to what be said. We must study these questions in the •framework of a dialogue so that we can arrive at a consensus on what we want to present to the Conference. I hope that this constructive spirit, which was the spirit of our June meeting and which led us to adopt the proposals made by the Director-General, will again prevail.

The delegate of the Netherlands made a project in regard to savings and here again the Director-General in his first programme showed his goodwill. This led us to believe that we are really on the right lines especially when it is a matter of adopting the programme which he has presented. He has presented a programme for savings. He has saved a number of posts and meetings and also budgets allocated to such and such activities. This is a whole series of major savings which is useful to everybody in developed and developing countries. There have been circumstances which are outside his powers which we have to face.

Of course, I know that the delegate of the United States finds himself in a difficult situation. We all of us are, but after this session we must try to get closer to each other in our points of view so that we can start on the Conference with as unified an attitude as possible.

There are two points. There is one point which is quite outside the powers of the Director-General and that is the fluctuation of the Exchange rates. The other is the expense for the World Conference on Agrarian Reform. After the excellent explanation given by the Director-General on costs of other similar Conferences, I do not think the Conference on Agrarian Reform is less important than the others the Director-General mentioned and therefore I feel his budget for this Conference is quite balanced and reasonable.

I would like to thank the Chairman of the Council for having asked Mr. West to give his explanations, and I hope that over the lunch hour further information can be made available. I do not know whether the information given by Mr. West now is sufficient for the delegate of the United States, but I certainly am grateful for the very understanding attitude, and I hope the United States delegate will receive sufficient information by the afternoon meeting so that he can be satisfied and we can reach a result.

G.V.K. RAO (India): I am somewhat surprised at the discussion, because the Council has already considered in the past the level of the budget. There has been general agreement on a level of $206 million. Since the June meeting some things have happened beyond the control of anybody, either the Organization or the Director-General, and as the Director-General mentioned, there may be some changes even in the next few days. These developments necessarily bring adjustments and the new level of $211 million represent the adjustments and the comparatively more realistic estimates which have been made.

We feel particularly so far as the World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development is concerned, that it is an extremely important Conference not only for the developing countries but in the interests of the developed countries also. The need for the society which provides for fewer opportunities for development in all the developing countries depends exclusively on proper implementation of agrarian reforms and in getting a proper scheme for rural development.

I find it difficult to agree even with the Director-General when he mentioned that the other Conferences were of equal importance. Personally I think this Conference is of higher importance.


I mentioned yesterday the Group of 77. They have been very concerned in considering the level of expenditure for this Conference. All I think we should mention to the Director-General is the preparation for this Conference should be very thorough and the estimate of expenditure should go up. This Conference will have far reaching effects and it should be attended well at the highest level possible. It should lead to the structural changes necessary for getting this society.

I will therefore plead with all the force at my command that the level of the budget is modest and has to be supported. I would also suggest that the preparations for the Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development should be given higher priority than what has been given to it up to now.

Sra. J. RIVERA MARIN DE ITURBE (México): Debo entender por lo expuesto por el Sr. West que la cantidad de 10 millones de dólares en fracción que el señor Director General se propone incluir como enmienda en su presupuesto de 1978-79, es producto de ahorros que él ha obtenido en el manejo de la Institución y de los cambios en los tipos monetarios, en las fluctuaciones de carácter monetario, que han ocurrido en el país huésped, Italia, por lo cual el parecer de esta delegación es que la utilización que él desea darle, entre otros objetivos, en la realización de la Conferencia de Reforma Agraria y de Desarrollo Rural, es legítima y que los países en vías de desarrollo que tenemos como instrumento del cambio básicamente el desarrollo rural, sin el cual no podremos llevar adelante nuestros objetivos y nuestras metas de mejoramiento de vida para las grandes masas de las poblaciones es de vital importancia y es necesario que, así como lo ha solicitado el representante de Brasil en el excelente documento que presentó como producto del trabajo del Grupo de los 77, al cual México se siente muy honrado en pertenecer, debemos pedir todo el apoyo solidario de este Consejo para el Director General y dárselo en el sentido de que la Conferencia se pueda realizar utilizando la mayor parte de los recursos que él, por su esfuerzo y su trabajo y por las fluctuaciones monetarias ha logrado obtener.

Creo que el consenso del Consejo se debe de obtener pidiendo la buena voluntad de los distinguidos representantes de los Estados Unidos y del Canadá y que se aboquen a estudiar la forma en que pudieran resolver estas diferencias de tiempo que tienen ellos respecto de la aprobación en este momento o en una aprobación posterior una vez que hayan consultado con sus Gobiernos.

EL PRESIDENTE: Señores es la una de la tarde y tengo todavía tres oradores en la lista. No nos conviene retrasar la sesión, así que continuaremos esta tarde.

Creo que para la tarde estará ya listo el proyecto de resolución a que hizo referencia el Director General.

The meeting rose at 13.00 hours
La sance est levee a 13 h 00
Se levanta la sesión a las 13.00 horas


Previous Page Top of Page Next Page