CHAIRMAN: As you can see on our agenda, we are still on the morning items, and my hope is that we will now quickly move faster and go through at least what we should have done in the morning, in which case, then, the afternoon items can spill over into tomorrow morning.
I would like to read out to you those who have asked for the floor so far: India, Columbia, Brazil, Pakistan, Argentina, Federal Republic of Germany, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Malta and Uganda. We shall add on Thailand and we will add on as we go.
D.R. BHUMBLA (India): The Government of India has been taking an active part in the deliberations of the Committee on World Food Security Programme. The representative of India was elected chairman of the Committee in 1978 and presided over the Third Session.
We are in agreement with the recommendations of the Committee as given in paragraph 17 of the document 74/10. We have already expressed our views on some of these items. Increase in food production, decrease in food losses during storage and appropriate post-harvest technology are important components of all World Food Security programmes.
We note with satisfaction the stress on rice production and commend the desision of FAO in setting up an inter-departmental task force on rice to identify ways in which FAO could effectively use its existing resources to help accelerate rice production. India, as one of the major rice-producing countries, recognizes the importance of water management for rice production, both under irrigation and rainfed conditions. This would require major investments in land shaping and drainage.
We agree with the recommendations of the Committee that major grain exporting and importing countries should define and adopt national stock policies and report on the measures.
In so far as India is concerned, it is neither a major importer nor a major exporter, but I would still give the information. We have already adopted sound stocking policies in line with the objectives of the undertaking. The Government of India has fixed its buffer stock target at 12 million tons of cereals. This will be in addition to the operational stock needed for the public distribution system, which is approximately 1 million tons every month. The total physical stocks with the Government at the present time are estimated at around 18 million tons. Further, we have undertaken crash programmes for the construction of additional storage capacity of 3.6 million tons during the next four years or so.
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): En general la delegación de Colombia apoya las recomendaciones y peticiones que se hacen en el resumen que aparece al principio del documento CL 74/10. En particular, queremos destacar la recomendación contenida en el Apartado I sobre la necesidad urgente de ayudar a los países en desarrollo que padecen déficits alimentarios.
En el Apartado II del Capítulo A se trata de un asunto que aparece reflejado en el párrafo 12 del Informe. Hace relación a la posible reducción de la producción de cereales en un importante país productor. Esta mañana, cuando el señor Islam hizo la presentación del tema se refirió solamente a la segunda parte del párrafo 12, a la explicación que había dado en el Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria
Mundial el Representante de ese país; pero el señor Islam no hizo referencia a la preocupación que en ese Comité expresaron varios delegados sobre ese hecho tal como aparece en la primera frase del párrafo 12. Nosotros quisiéramos creer en las seguridades que dio el representante de esa distinguida nación, allá en el Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria Mundial y que seguramente reiterará en este Consejo. Sin embargo, el párrafo 10 del documento nos previene en el sentido de que no podemos hacernos ilusiones.
La experiencia de 1972/73, cuando las reservas alimentarias mundiales descendieron al más bajo nivel en los últimos 20 años debe preocuparnos. Por ello, la delegación de Colombia piensa que este Consejo debe ser más enfático que el Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria Mundial. Debemos pedir, encarecer, urgir a ese país para que no ponga en práctica ese propósito, para que se abstenga de reducir la producción cuyos efectos han sido tan negativos en el pasado. Pensamos que no es humanamente aceptable que en un país tan poderoso se subsidie a los agricultores, se les pague a los agricultores para que no produzcan mientras que en el mundo en desarrollo aumentan las personas desnutridas. El ejemplo de Bangladesh, de la fruta con la corteza dura rodeada de los pájaros es aplicable a esta situación.
Sin duda, las causas principales de la crisis alimentaria entre 1972 y 1976 fueron la congelación de áreas de cultivos en países desarrollados, y las grandes transacciones comerciales entre las más conocidas potencias del mundo.
Ahora, abrigamos la esperanza de que las políticas internas de esos países desarrollados no se reflejen nuevamente en disminución de las reservas que pongan en peligro la población de diversas regiones del mundo en desarrollo.
En el Apartado A del Epígrafe III del párrafo 1 del Capítulo A, se afirma que los países en desarrollo deben prestar especial atención al incremento de la producción y los ingresos de los pequeños agricultores. Pensamos que estos aspectos deben subrayarse en nuestro informe. En Colombia, el nuevo gobierno está ofreciendo particular atención al aumento de la producción dirigido a beneficiar a los pequeños y medianos agricultores.
El párrafo 35 del documento CL 74/10 sintetiza bien los principales obstáculos que se vienen oponiendo a la buena voluntad y a los esfuerzos que venimos haciendo en los países en desarrollo: escasez de fondos, producción nacional insuficiente, ayuda alimentaria reducida, carencia de almacenamiento adecuado e infraestructura en general, falta de personal preparado, ineficaces sistemas de programación, etc. En estos puntos concretos, el Consejo deberá demandar la asistencia de los organismos internacionales y de los países desarrollados para que avuden a los países en desarrollo a ir fortaleciendo sus reservas.
B. de AZEVEDO BRITO (Brazil): My delegation would like at this stage to make a few brief observations in connection with the report of the Third Session of the Committee on World Food Security. We continue to believe that food security can only be seen in the context of food production. In our view, to promote food security in the developing countries must necessarily mean to support production efforts and all those measures directly or indirectly related to production. We continue to feel that reserve schemes must be planned and operated in full conformity with production policies if the incentives to producers are to be avoided. Production policies and stock policies are closely interlinked, and in fact we would suggest that the real challenge lies in making both sets of policies compatible and mutually supportive. This is probably an area of policy which our organization should look into in the future so as to elicit interactions between price support policies and other incentives, levels of carry-over and commercial stocks and security reserves. A better undestanding of the production marketing cycle might be a fundamental contribution, in our opinion, to an effective and dynamic concept of food security.
In the light of all that I must say that it is with a certain apprehension that we see schenes in which stock policies and programmes seem to be construed in isolation from production policies.
May I also add a point which my delegation has already made a few times, that in our opinion, the basic policies to ensure adequate food supply are essentially national in character. It is hardly a matter that can lend itself to a complete international approach. For all those reasons, my delegation continues to have doubts and misgivings about the manner in which the issue of food security has been dealt with by the international community since the World Food Conference of 1974. That does not mean, of course, that we do not favour the basic objectives of food security in terms of guaranteed food supplies; not at all. In that spirit, we certainly concur wholeheartedly with all recommendations conceived with the aim of supporting production efforts in the developing countries so that each of them can become self-reliant in food and nutrition. In that same spirit, we must warmly welcome the calls for substantially increased aid for all those in need. We feel in particular that the new International Grains Agreement must be concluded as soon as possible, taking fully into account the interests and requirements of the developing countries. We feel that a new Food Aid Convention must be urgently agreed upon; that international emergency food reserves must reach the target level of 500 000 tons, and be kept at that level through replenishments; and finally, that the resources of the IEFR must be made fully available to the WFP as an added dimension to the WFP's own emergency allocations.
From a purely national perspective, Brazil is developing as an absolute priority its agriculture and food production so as to improve the nutritional and food standards of its people - we already have about 150 million in population - and to improve the position on a permanent basis. We feel there could hardly be a better way to contribute to the call for food security - not with words but with food.
S.A. PERVEZ (Pakistan): The subject of World Food Security is a matter of close and continuing interest to the developing countries of the world. In my own country we are presently having a somewhat difficult food situation. Last year's wheat crop was affected by rust and adverse weather, resulting in a significant shortfall in production.
Our case highlights, in a sense, the dilemma of many developing countries. Just as we were on the verge of self-sufficiency, certain unforeseen factors like natural calamities, attack of disease, etc. negated all we had done. We have now to make an even greater effort than before. However, we are not despondent. We will continue to strive until we achieve self-sufficiency in food and to achieve an important export surplus on a stable and permanent basis. Coming to CL 74/10, I will restrict myself to the Summary of Recommendations. While generally agreeing to the various Recommendations, we would specifically support the recommendation in (i) of paragraph 1. As regards the recommendation in (ii) of this paragraph, we recognize this is an internal policy matter of the major grain producing countries. We would, however, take this opportunity of stressing that methods adopted should not result in prices going beyond the reach of developing countries. We are confident that this situation will not arise. Nevertheless we must guard against such an eventuality.
Linked closely with this is the question of concentration of stocks in one particular region. As has been explained by the Secretariat, this is another matter which deserves close attention. We agree that long-term food security lies in increasing food production by a combined effort of developed and developing countries, as outlined in (iii) of paragraph 1. On our part we are fully committed to strengthening policies to ensure adequate incentives to producers and to provide them with necessary resources and institutional support.
Just to mention a few steps we have taken in this direction, we recently raised the procurement price of wheat from 37 rupees to 42 rupees. Farmers have been exempted from the payment of water charges for the additional areas which they bring under cultivation. The subsidies on fertilizers have been increased. A bag of urea weighing 50 kilogrammes now costs 63 rupees instead of 68. The subsidy on the recently installed tubers has been doubled.
We hope there will be a similar response from aid-giving countries and international institutions to give an added impetus to our efforts.
As regards (iv) of paragraph 1 we support the recommendation, and in addition would press for particularly attaining the pledging target of $950 million for the World Food Programme and the channelling of an increasing amount of food aid through multinational channels. We would also like to agree on the setting up of guidelines for food aid.
We support the recommendations in paragraphs (v) and (vi). Pakistan has already adopted the undertaking and decided to maintain a minimum level of wheat reserves at 500 000 tons which we propose to revise upwards in the near future. We are also taking steps to improve our storage capacity, and a master plan is being drawn up with Canadian assistance, for which we are grateful to the Government of Canada.
I do not know if it is worthwhile speaking on paragraph (x), as the negotiations have been adjourned indefinitely. To say the least, we are disappointed, and hope that talks will be reconvened in the near future, and in case they are, we would support paragaphs (a), (b), particularly (c), and (d), (e) and (f) .
D. RICHTER (Germany, Federal Republic of): From the very beginning, my Government has taken an active part in the work of the Committee on World Food Security and supported its activities. This Committee merits special attention because its mandate comprises all aspects of the International Undertaking on World Food Security. This Undertaking provides, as is well known, a sound basis for the necessary measures for World Food Security.
In conformity with the principles of the Undertaking, the Committee stresses in its recommendations the urgent need for measures to ensure an adequate supply at the national level. First, emphasis is given to the responsibility of the individual governments to effect the necessary measures and investments for increasing production and building up stocks. Then an appeal is made to the international community to assist developing countries in these measures, and to promote above all the food security and stock-holding programmes of the poorer countries.
My Government fully supports these statements. External assistance must primarily reach those countries which suffer continuously from food shortages in order to remove short-term bottlenecks and take long-term measures for an ensured supply. This applies, for instance, to the Sahel countries whose critical situation the Committee emphasized at the beginning of its recommendations. Immediately we heard about the crisis situation which occurred in that region, my Government granted emergency aid and has channelled by now 47 000 tons of cereals under the Food Aid Convention. At the same time, it has initiated several long-term measures of aid. For more than two years we have been working with the governments of these and other countries on the implementation of food security programmes. Planning and orientation of these measures are coordinated in close consultation with the Food Security Assistance Scheme of FAO and other donors. Our programmes aim at building up stocks from domestic production. They comprise purchases of basic foodstuffs from local production, the establishment and maintenance of cereal stocks, the employment of advisers and the provision of means of transport. For such measures, my Government provides each year an amount of DM25 million. It is intended to increase these funds next year by 20 percent. In addition my Government contributes technical and financial aid to large-scale projects for long-term food security, for example the opening up of the Senegal Basin. By this, 300 000 hectares of agricultural land will be reclaimed.
The Committee reviewed the Food Security Assistance Scheme of FAO and commended it unanimously. Apart from its own programme and project activities, the FAO Scheme has further developed its function as a catalyser, coordinator, and information centre. My Government will also in future closely cooperate with the Scheme and coordinate its activities with it.
The international emergency reserve of 500 000 tons of cereals which was set up as a temporary measure is now being transformed into a permanent reserve as recommended by the World Food Council. The Committee on Food Aid Policies and Programmes has already adjusted the procedures for this reserve. Thus the World Food Programme will in future be in a position to grant emergency aid in an even more efficient way. Since 1976 my Government has made an annual contribution to this reserve of between 30 000 and 40 000 tons of cereals.
We note with satisfaction the statement of the Committee, on World Food Security that 82 countries meanwhile pursue stockholding policies and practices in conformity with the Undertaking. The common agricultural policy of the European Economic Community includes arrangements for adequate stockholding to ensure internal supplies, for meeting all international commitments, including food aid, and for requests for aid in emergency situations and disasters, without formulating a special stockholding policy in an isolated way. This policy in fact fully meets the objectives of the Undertaking, and takes the guidelines into account, as mentioned in Part II of the Undertaking as far as they are addressed to the developed countries.
Finally, let me say this: my Government supports the view expressed by the Committee that the Committee and also the Committee on Agriculture should give in future greater attention, apart from cereals, also to other basic foodstuffs.
S. PADMANAGARA (Indonesia): The Committee on World Food Security in its session in April this year already discussed at length the various issues relating to the International Undertaking on World Food Security. In the opinion of my delegation the report, document CL 74/10, clearly reflects the findings of the Committee and accordingly I will confine myself to a few comments only.
Allow me to refer to paragraph 31 of the report dealing with the establishment within FAO of an Interdepartmental Task Force on Rice with the objective of identifying ways in which FAO could effectively use its existing resources to help accelerate rice production.
We have taken note of paragraph 26 of the report, ih which there is a statement that according to FAO projections to 1985, rice production would continue to lag behind the growth in demand in the Far East even to maintain the present inadequate per caput level of consumption.
My delegation would clearly appreciate it if FAO could make available further information on the Interdepartmental Task Force on Rice. In the opinion of my delegation greater attention than heretofore should be devoted to rice, which is the staple food of hundreds of millions of people in the Far East. Its growing significance should be recognized.
Md. FAISAL (Bangladesh): On behalf of my Government and the delegation I would like to express our sincere thanks and appreciation for the excellent work done by the committee which has drawn up the paper. We are in full agreement with the recommendations contained in the working paper. However, I would like to make a few points which are of far-reaching consequences unless immediate action is taken to redress the problems. The problems in brief are as follows. First, FAO's efforts in terms of solving food security problems are highly commendable. However, I find that FAO is trying to redress these problems in a most isolated manner. The solution of food security problems essentially requires a system approach ranging from production to distribution, including food aid and distribution of income. Unless these problems are tackled in totality with a comprehensive approach the solution of food security problems and programmes would remain in practice an elusive goal which will never be achieved.
Secondly, the achievement of most of the food security programmes (say procurement of foodgrains) is faced with serious budgetary constraints both from the local source of the public sector and external sources. These constraints will remain more acute, particularly in less developed countries, in years to come, unless a substantial portion of these responsibilities, contained in the objectives, are channelled through the private sector which of course requires certain provisions, like adequate credit and sufficient marketing margins to the farmer cooperatives or to the traders. FAO should make an all-out effort to inject sufficient incentives to dynamise the private sector.
Thirdly, the realization of the objectives of the Food Security Programme depends essentially on the drawing up of a viable investment programme, and a viable investment programme depends not only on the provision of software, but more so on the availability of hardware, which most developing countries are lacking. We have found that most of the United Nations Organizations provide nearly 75 to 80 percent of their assistance in software, where most of the LDC countries at present attain considerable expertise. I do not intend to go into details of the issues involved in the questions here, since there is an appropriate forum for this. Consequently I request FAO, and particularly the Director-General, to take appropriate action in this regard.
Fourthly, I found that the food security problems and associated issues have created, either willingly or unwillingly, a widespread sense of distrust between the developed and the developing countries from which nobody in this world would benefit. From now on I would like to request the developed and developing countries to approach these problems on the vital issues with mutual trust and respect and to make more concessions in order to enable us to achieve a better, healthy and peaceful world.
Finally, I would like to assure you, Mr. Chairman, that my country is making an all-out effort in respect of food security programmes on the lines suggested by FAO both in respect of building up stocks and providing incentives to the farmers.
I. MOSKOVITS (Malta): Mr. Chairman, undoubtedly the Committee on World Food Security became in a very short time one of the most important standing committees of the Organization. This is shown by the increasing number of its members, by the particularly significant problems with which it is dealing, and the excellent work of the global information and early warning system which is connected with it.
This delegation wishes to pay particular tribute to the very efficient and highly valuable work of this relatively new unit of the Commodities Division of FAO. The work of the Committee is of great importance to our member countries,, in particular the developing countries, especially to those which, like Malta, have to import a considerable part of their food requirements. It is therefore obvious that FAOfs work on food security is among the most important in this new FAO activity which is also shared by the World Food Programme. Malta was among the first of the member countries of the Committee to adopt at an early time the International Undertaking on World Food Security. We were, of course, represented at the third session of the Committee and were present when its report was adopted, to which we fully subscribe. Nonetheless, in view of considerable discussion which has been taking place, except by the intervention of the delegate of Zaire who intervened on the same subject and under a separate item of our Agenda, a particular point has hot yet been mentioned, and we wish to draw this to the attention of the Committee and to your attention, Mr. Chairman. From the inception of the debate on food reserves there were two aspects in the forefront as regards physical arrangements to be made. On the one hand, national stocks or similar arrangements were advocated, and on the other, the so-called regional food reserves were preferred. According to this latter arrangement emergency reserves were to be placed in strategic food deficient areas or near to countries which have food shortages and nutrition difficulties. As you will see from the report, it has been underlined by the Committee that in some cases neighbouring countries are making arrangements to help one or other with reserves which they have and which are lacking in neighbouring countries. This is particularly significant as a form of regional reserves which we also advocate. Regional stocks are also important because they give the possibility that food can quickly be supplied to disaster areas without bureaucratic complications. In addition it enables more countries to participate in food security schemes, the creation of national reserves, the building of the necessary warehouses, the necessary handling charges and the replenishing of the reserves, which is in general rather costly and burdensome to small countries.
This delegation would therefore be grateful if in the report of the Council both principles, the national reserves and at the same time the setting up of regional reserves, could be stressed.
A.K. OSUBAN (Uganda): The Uganda delegation endorses the recommendations set out in paragraph 17 of document CL 74/10. On the question of non-cereal foods in the food security position of developing countries, the delegation wishes to ask that research should be carried out in the processing, preservation and storage of starchy roots and tubers, as they constitute the most important sources of energy next to cereals in these countries.
The delegation notes with disappointment that a negotiating conference on a new international grains agreement has broken down. We hope that there will be an early resumption of talks and a conclusion of an agreement including both trade convention and food aid convention.
On the food security scheme our delegation notes with satisfaction that 16.9 million dollars out of a total cumulative cash contribution of 28 million dollars were committed to projects in the most seriously affected countries. We further welcome the scheme's future emphasis on
(1) development of storage and related infrastructure and stocking operations and
(2) strengthening of programming finances. As a firm condition of establishing long-term security lies in increasing food production our delegation realizes the responsibilities of developing countries to adopt and strengthen policies geared towards increased food production. I might add here that Uganda is in the process of formulating and defining such policies. Needless to say, our resources are meagre and any help that we receive is greatly welcomed. I would also take this opportunity of thanking the donor nations and the international organizations, particularly FAO, which have acted as our benefactors in this respect.
K. DEVAHASTIN (Thailand): The Thai delegation would like to join with previous speakers in congratulating Professor Islam for his clear and concise introductory presentation of the report of the Committee on World Food Security. It is apparent that now there is good opportunity to build food reserves so as to ensure against a repetition of the food crisis experienced in the very recent past. However, many developing countries, including Thailand, have not been able to take maximum advantage of good crops in building national food reserves, due to difficulties - technical as well as financial - relative to the problems of storage and transport facilities. Evidently, effective and timely assistance from external sources is required. Statements of representatives from some donor countries indicating their intentions to provide increased financial and technical assistance in this regard are very heartening and gratefully welcomed.
My delegation subscribes to the views expressed in the document including the recommendations contained therein. However, I wish to stress one point, that in the formulation of production policies for the 1979 crops, Thailand, as one of the major food producing countries, needs to consider now and in the future the effects on world food security of the production adjustments already made in 1977/78, and the need to maintain adequate supplies and stocks of basic foodstuffs, as envisaged in the international undertaking. In addition, Thailand did adopt in principle both national and regional stock policies and objectives in conformity with the undertaking.
In conclusion, my delegation shares the sentiments expressed by several speakers regretting that the negotiating conference on the International Grains Agreement recently held in Geneva was suspended for the second time, and we wish to express our full agreement to the proposal that the participating countries in the negotiation see to it that the session be reviewed as soon as possible.
J.A. BAKER (United States of America): On behalf of the United States delegation I can say that we endorse the recommendations of the report before us and that we appreciate the useful introduction to it provided us by Mr. Islam. I should like to comment on particular paragraphs of the report, as briefly as I can.
With regard to paragraph 17(i) concerning food aid for countries facing severe food shortages, we would like to note that during fiscal year 1978 the United States provided about 150 000 metric tons of commodities to Sahelian zone countries. In addition, the United States provided 125 000 metric tons for emergencies in other parts of the world. We stand ready to assist in food emergency situations and encourage other donor countries to give assistance to the degree they can and as generously as they can, to this purpose.
In regard to paragraph 17 (ii) concerning production policies and their effects on world food security, our delegation feels that we have taken into full account the need to maintain world supplies and stocks of basic foodstuffs when the United States had adjusted its production policies. We believe it should be noted that the United States has established a reserve stocks programme for food and feed grains. These reserves areto be owned largely by producers. For food grains, 10 or 11 million metric tons of wheat, 360 000 metric tons of rice are targeted. The wheat target for producer-owned reserves has been achieved. Feed grain reserve targets have been set at 17 to 19 million tons. We believe that this target is now just about reached. It is current United States policy to adjust production to meet reserve stock and total carry over objectives.
In this regard I should like to offer a clarification in the light of certain references to United States food reserves in the FAO's supplemental report on the world food situation. First, the United States food reserves, now and for many years before, have contributed to world food security and market stability for the world's producers and consumers. United States food reserves help all nations'market economies - socialist countries, and developing countries - many of whom, including some of those who have commented here on the United States set-aside programme, also manage their production in the light of the market situation.
Secondly, the United States Government will have reserves to meet its concessional food aid commitments: our bilateral food aid under Public Law 480, and our multilateral contributions to the World Food Programme. And the United States reserves will also help meet any shortfalls in production in countries that are or may be commercial purchasers.
Thirdly, we all know that if there are widespread shortfalls in production and more countries come into the market to buy more grain than they customarily do, prices will tend to rise. This is what happened in 1972 and 1973. All United States grain reserves - both those held by farmers and those held by the United States Government - will become available to moderate such prices should the need occui again. At this time our reserves hold grain off the market, so producers in the United States and in other countries as well will be encouraged to continue high levels of production. It is through sustained high levels of production in both developed and developing countries that we attain real food security for all.
With regard to paragraph 17 (iii) concerning increasing food production in developing countries, the United States fully supports these recommendations. With regard to the subsequent sub-paragraph of paragraph 17 concerning food aid levels, the United States continues to support the minimum target of 10 million metric tons of food aid in grains. In this regard the United States has pledged almost 4.5 million metric tons of grain under a new Food Aid Convention and has agreed to provide 125 000 metric tons to the World Food Programme's 500 000 tons International Emergency Food Reserve. The United States encourages other donor and potential donor countries to contribute to this reserve in order to reach these food aid goals.
With regard to paragraphs 43-51 concerning negotiations for an international wheat agreement, I can state that the United States was also disappointed that full agreement could not be reached during the current negotiating session. We nevertheless believe that important progress was made at the meeting; most of the text of a wheat trade convention, of a consultative arrangement on coarse grains and of a new food aid convention were completed. The current meeting showed a continuing < commitment by all delegations to finalize a new agreement to provide greater stability in world trade in wheat and to create a better basis for future world food security. It is now anticipated that an interim committee of six countries will meet during the week of December 11th to reconcile the remaining differences. We are hopeful that there will be an early and successful conclusion to these negotiations.
Concerning the financing of reserve stock obligations for the developing countries under a new international wheat agreement, it is the United States' position that in cases of legitimate need for financial assistance, the United States, working together with other donor countries, will make every effort within its own bilateral programmes and within multilateral institutions to provide such assistance.
With respect to paragraphs 51 to 59 of the report concerning the activities of the Food Security Assistance Scheme; the United States supports the objectives of this scheme. We view it as a catalyst primarily in promoting internal developing country food security policies, as a coordinator of food security assistance and as a source of technical expertise for the formulation of food security programmes. The United States is not now in a position to make direct contributions to the scheme; however, we are ready to cooperate with the Food Security Assistance Scheme by coordinating bilateral activities with the FSAS projects as appropriate.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. As I said before, we eagerly awaited your statement on this matter and, as it turned out, it has been very encouraging. I hope that the United States Government will assist in the way that you have outlined.
M.A. PAPAGEORGIOU (Greece): First of all, I should like to say that we fully agree with the recommendations and request contained in the report of the third session of the Committee on World Food Security. On examining this report we note that the present situation of world food security is quite fragile, as we pointed out today in our earlier intervention. In fact, although the stocks have been increased, little progress has been made in achieving the target set by the World Food Conference to eliminate hunger and malnutrition by 1985. We fully recognize the efforts made by the developing countries in increasing food production and we realize the obstacles they are facing. Nevertheless we think that efforts must be intensified in order to achieve greater mobilization of small farmers and to assure increased funds for agricultural development by the states concerned as well as by international organizations. We recognize the effectiveness of FAO's programmes and other activities towards these contributions. In addition the special initiatives of FAO, such as the Programme for the Prevention of Food Losses and the Food Security Assistance Scheme and the Technical Cooperation Programme will in our view contribute positively in increasing food security in developing countries.
We further consider that the implementation of the appropriate food security policies by all member countries is of great importance. Developing countries must be assisted to supplement those policies by providing them with greater financial and technical assistance.
We also agree with the proposition of the German delegation that the Committee should pay attention also to other foodstuffs. This Food Security Scheme aims at helping developing countries to develop food resources capable of meeting all emergencies.
Further, we agree with the creation of resources at strategic locations to permit the geographical availability of foods. As the delegate of Malta indicated a few moments ago, we think that this will encourage the efforts which have been made towards establishing an effective international food security scheme and will consolidate the results.
As regards the International Wheat Agreement we are convinced that the recommendations of paragraph 46 of the Report of the Committee on World Food Security will contribute positively to its conclusion and we endorse therefore this recommendation.
E. DIAZ BUSTABAD (Cuba): Deseamos expresar en el seno de este período de sesiones del Consejo de la FAO el apoyo de nuestra delegación en líneas generales a la recomendación que se formula en el informe del tercer período de sesiones del Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria, documento CL 74/10 y en espe*-cial llamar la atención de los miembros del Consejo sobre los siguientes aspectos:
La necesidad de que los gobiernos pongan en práctica las decisiones políticas necesarias para mejorar su situación y sus políticas de seguridad alimentaria apoyándose en un aumento sustancial y sostenido de la producción de alimentos; apoyo a dicha política y programas de los países en desarrollo por parte de los desarrollados y organismos internacionales a fin de aumentar la asistencia financiera, tecnica y material para incrementar la producción de alimentos en los países en desarrollo, principalmente en los más gravemente afectados, a fin de mejorar su nivel nutricional y reducir su dependencia en la importación de alimentos; continuar la exploración de posibilidades de planes regionales e incluso de asistencia mutua promoviendo la cooperación técnica entre países en desarrollo, partiendo de decisiones adoptadas por la pasada Conferencia celebrada en Argentina, si bien es cierto que el aumento de la producción de alimentos es la base de una verdadera seguridad alimentaria; es necesario reconocer el papel que está jugando la ayuda alimentaria para cubrir los déficits hasta que sean suficientes los niveles de producción de alimentos en los países en desarrollo, por lo que los países desarrollados deben tomar medidas para alcanzar en 1978 el objetivo mínimo de 10 millones de toneladas de ayuda alimentaria en cereales y 500 000 para la reserva alimentaria internacional de emergencia; establecer a través del programa de acción una ayuda sistemática a los países más vulnerables amenazados de perder sus cosechas de manera sistemática, como el caso de la zona del Sahel; que los principales países productores de cereales tomen en cuenta los efectos que han tenido los reajustes en la producción ya efectuados, tomando en consideración el valor del excedente de producción para el incremento de la ayuda alimentaria, teniendo presente los miles de personas que resultarían beneficiadas.
Por último, instamos a los países participantes a que concluyan lo antes posible la negociación para un nuevo convenio internacional del trigo, en el cual entran en consideración intereses de los países en desarrollo.
Recomendamos que los países miembros del Consejo no adopten decisiones a este respecto que puedan interferir estas negociaciones y lo más loable es solicitar a estos países que reanuden las conversaciones en Ginebra sobre el nuevo Convenio Internacional del Trigo.
P. ELMANOVSKY (France): Monsieur le Président, vous ne serez pas surpris que la délégation française approuve le rapport du Comité de la sécurité alimentaire mondiale et les recommandations qui sont formulées dans ce document. Nous sommes en effet l'un des pays qui ont contribué à la mise au point de ce texte après de longues discussions.
Nous sommes donc d'accord sur les recommandations et tout particulièrement celles que nous voyons au début du rapport, sur le point A.
A cette occasion, j'aimerais indiquer que sous le point i qui traite du Sahel en particulier, mon gouvernement a déjà mis en oeuvre les actions souhaitées dans ce texte.
C'est ainsi que pour 1978, au titre de l'aide alimentaire, et rien que pour les actions d'urgence, la France fournit, sur sa part nationale de l'aide alimentaire, 40 000 tonnes de céréales aux pays du Sahel dont la valeur peut être estimée à 30 millions de francs, auxquels il faut ajouter 20 millions pour le transport des produits, et 5 millions d'aides d'urgence diverses, ce qui donne un total de 55 millions.
Par ailleurs, comme vous le savez, la Communauté a également fait des actions sur ces mêmes territoires, et la France y contribue financièrement à concurrence de 25 pour cent du total des dépenses, ce qui doit donc encore, pour apprécier l'effort fait par notre gouvernement, être pris en considération.
D'autre part, au titre du b) du point iii) on insiste sur le fait que les pays donateurs doivent augmenter leur aide financière, technique et matérielle pour accroître la production alimentaire dans les pays en développement. Egalement dans le cadre du Sahel, nous avons été amenés à faire des investissements importants, tout particulièrement en matière d'irrigation et d'aménagement des bassins fluviaux de la région. C'est ainsi, par exemple, que sur le fleuve Sénégal l'aide française a joué un rôle déterminant pour la mise au point du projet du barrage de Diama. Sur le Niger, le barrage de Silingui sera opérationnel en 1980. A tous ces projets, qui supposaient des moyens financiers très élevés, notre gouvernement a participé.
Pour répondre aux besoins de ces Etats du Sahel, il a été prévu, dans le cadre du budget actuellement en discussion davant le Parlement et qui devrait être effectif pour l'année 1979, un crédit individualisé de 100 millions de francs pour les pays les plus défavorisés, et tout particulièrement ceux du Sahel.
Enfin, une dotation exceptionnelle de 100 millions dé francs destinés à lutter contre la sécheresse -et ceci en fait se relie à l'amélioration de la production agricole - a été prévue pour les seuls Etats du Sahel.
F. SHEFRIN (Canada): Since our delegation participated actively in the Committee on Food Security third session we do not feel that we need to make any comments on the report itself, since we had a hand in writing the report and though it is true we did not agree with everything one hundred percent we were able to accept the report, but we would like to make some general comments.
As a major food exporter and cereal stock holder Canada has always worked hard to improve the world food security situation. My Government has participated actively in the past and continues to participate now in the various proposals put forward within the United Nations system to improve food production. We support the efforts to assist the food priority countries in meeting their food production, nutrition and the development of national food plans. I know that some of these activities are highly encouraged and supported by the World Food Council and I might take the opportunity now to say that we are very pleased that the World Food Council will be meeting in Canada in 1979. I do not carry with me any tourist brochures but I am sure these can be made available to all our friends who will be visiting Canada in September.
Through our International Development Assistance Programmes we help countries to improve their food production and marketing. We try to focus our development assistance of more than $1 billion on the most needy of the developing countries. Canada is at present involved in about 200 agricultural projects among the developing countries.
On the question of world food security Canada subscribed to the principles of the International Undertaking. My country had the privilege of participating in the meeting in which the principles of this International Undertaking were formulated and agreed to.
We contributed to the 500 000 ton international general emergency food reserve. We support the proposal for this emergency food reserve to be made a permanent type of programme
Canada continues to be the second largest contributor to the World Food Programme and will continue actively to support the activities of the World Food Programme. In addition we also operate on a large scale in respect of bilateral food aid and make contributions to a large number of countries.
We are in agreement with the objectives of the Food Security Assistance Scheme. However, at present we are not in a position to make a direct contribution. We have, however, from time to time assisted through our bilateral programme; one country as an example of this type of assistance, is Tanzania.
With respect to the International Wheat Agreement, Canada also regrets the delay in the completion of the new International Grains Agreement. we believe, however,, that there are possibilities that this grain agreement can ultimately be agreed to and we believe there should be the widest possible participation in this type of agreement. My Government will continue to work actively towards reaching this agreement. I should point out that at an earlier session of the Grains Agreement Conference Canada was one of only two countries who announced a commitment to the new Food Aid Convention and it was a 50 percent increase over our previous Food Aid Convention. The total amounts to 750 000 tons once the new agreement goes into effect.
K. ARROWSMITH (Observer for European Economic Community) : I wish to say that the European Economic Community, which participated in the third session of the Committee on World Food Security, supports the recommendations contained in the Report of that session.
With regard to references made to the negotiationg conference for a new International Wheat Agreement I should like to say, as representative of the European Economic Community, that the Community shares the regret that has been expressed by other speakers at the suspension of the negotiating conference last Friday. Nevertheless, in view of the substantial progress that has been achieved, we are hopeful that following the reconvening of the interim committee and thereafter of the negotiating conference itself, a successful conclusion will be reached in the not distant future.
CHAIRMAN: Before we conclude this item and before I call on Professor Islam, we have received written comments from the delegation of Jamaica, the Observers, which we have and which we note.
I would now like to call on Professor Islam to respond quickly to some of these points which are all straight-forward and not very difficult.
N. ISLAM (Assistant Director-General, Economic and Social Policy Department): I would just like to respond to one or two questions raised by a number of delegates: first, the question of an Interdepartmental Task Force set up by FAO on rice production which has been referred to in the Report of the Committee on World Food Security, and also we have been asked to report recent progress.
The Task Force is completing its report, which is a comprehensive examination of all aspects, economic and technical, of increased rice production in Southeast Asia. It has examined the role which FAO could play in coordination with other agencies and institutions to promote increased rice production in Asia. It presents a number of proposals which are now under examination by the Director-General in the context especially of the new Programme of Work and Budget for 1980-81.
Second, reference has been made to not only national food reserves but also regional food reserves and located in strategic places. We in the Secretariat are fully conscious of the potential advantages to be gained by some such reserve to be located and used regionally, although past experience with the attempts to set up such reserves in certain regions involving a number of countries have shown that there are indeed practical problems in promoting such reserves. However, we are persevering with this project, and as recently requested, the Director-General has agreed to carry out a feasibility study of regional reserves in the Sahel region, which could be coordinated with national stock policies. The study will be initiated early next year.
The Secretariat welcomes the positive statement made by the United States on the Food Security Assistance Scheme and its willingness to coordinate with the Food Security Scheme of FAO projects for the future. The Secretariat would like to follow this up through a better exchange of information and other ways as proposed by the Director-General in his letter.
CHAIRMAN: The Committee has done a very good job, and this has made our work very much easier. We do not hear any adverse criticism of the report and the recommendations have been accepted, but one thing that has come out constantly is the national nature of food security. The basis of food security that has come out of these talks must be national, but to do this for each country to be secure in its food needs, it is necessary for the developed countries to assist in investing in agriculture, and therefore, the objective of full security can only be attained through combined effort between the developing and the developed countries. This has come out quite clearly and I am sure that the developed as well as the developing countries will go ahead and implement those recommendations which are so useful.
Questions have been raised on things which are outside our competence, like the agreements on wheat and so on, which I am sure the Secretariat will follow up with the appropriate bodies to make sure that the views of this Council are made now and heard.
With these brief remarks I would like to close this item, unless members have last thoughts about it. If not, then this item is closed.
J. WEBSTER (Jamaica): My delegation would like to make a few brief comments on this subject. Those of us who have been following discussions in other fora like the GATT and UNCTAD on matters pertaining to food and agriculture, are quite concerned over the breakdown of the recent wheat talks in Geneva. As a small developing country which has to import wheat because we cannot grow this ourselves, we had hoped that an agreement would have been possible. We would not like to think that "protectionism" is spreading to other areas and that the use of the large world stocks for the establishment of the system of reserves, envisaged in the International Undertaking on World Food Security, is still a far way off.
Jamaica, however, takes hope in FAO's Food Security Assistance Scheme and is heartened by the pledges which have been announced. This Scheme has shown that it has great potential for further expansion and my delegation would like to ask the major grain producing countries to pledge a greater share of their resources whether bilaterally or multilaterally, for the implementation of food security projects. 1/
CHAIRMAN: We will now go on with our agenda. The next item is Item 6, Report of the Twelfth Session of the Committee on Fisheries, document CL 74/7.
However, before we go on, I would like to call on the Deputy Director-General, Dr. Phillips, for an announcement.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Council, it was the Director-General's intention to say a word of introduction to the next speaker , but since he is not here I will say a brief word on his behalf.
Mr. Kenneth Lucas was recently appointed as Assistant Director-General of the Fisheries Department. He is, I think, exactly in his fourth working day, so he is new to the job, and this is also his first appearance before the Council.
For the past five and a half years he has been Senior Assistant Deputy Minister in charge of the Fisheries and Marine Programme in the Department of Fisheries and Environment in Canada. I will not go back over his history beyond that point, but he has vast experience in the fisheries field and we are indeed pleased to have him aboard, Mr. Chairman, and he will introduce the.Report of the Twelfth Session of the Committee on Fisheries.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Lucas, can you stand up so everybody can see you?
Applause
App1audissèment s
Aplausos
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Lucas has been thrown in at the deep end so I will now call on him to introduce this subject.
K. LUCAS (Assistant Director-General, Fisheries Department): Thank you, Dr. Phillips, for the introduction and the warning to the delegates that my experience is not very great right now in the work of the Council. It is my pleasurable duty, though, to introduce the item on the Report of the Twelfth Session of the Committee on Fisheries, which was held here in Rome June 12-16, 1978. My remarks will be very brief.
In accordance with past practice, the Report of the Twelfth Session of the Committee on Fisheries, CL 74/7, which I hope you all have on your desks before you, is preceded by a summary indicating which matters warrant special attention by the Council. Three of these matters are listed as requiring a decision by the Council, and I should like to report briefly on recent developments directly related to these matters which will be beyond the information provided in the report. There are also another five items noted for the information of Council and I would wish to just draw your attention to one of those items at the end of my remarks.
The first of the items for decision is a proposal to create a Fishery Commission for the Near East, which is covered in paragraph 57 of the Report. So far, ten of the countries serviced by the FAO Regional Office for the Near East have replied to the questionnaire sent by the Director-General some time ago at the request of the Committee on Fisheries to solicit their views on the method of financing the proposed Commission and the ways in which its work should be coordinated with the activities of the General Fisheries Council for the Mediterranean and also the Indian Ocean Fisheries Commission. These ten countries who responded are in favour of the proposed Commission or at least would not object to its establishment. But their views vary somewhat regarding its functions and its funding. We are still awaiting a reply from the remaining fourteen countries serviced by the Regional Office for the Near East and we have recently sent them another reminder so that the Council can have a full picture when all countries respond.
Concerning the same subject, I should also report on two meetings which have discussed the proposed Commission since the last meeting on Fisheries. Firstly, at its Fourteenth Session held last month the General Fisheries Council for the Mediterranean felt that the establishment of a Commission for the Near East could assist in solving the fishery problems of some of the countries serviced by the Regional Office for the Near East. The Council, which consists of the states of the Near East and of North Africa bordering on the Mediterranean, expressed concern, however, over the risk of duplicating effort which certain functions of the proposed Commission would entail. It recommended, therefore -strongly recommended, as I recall- that the mandate of the Commission should include no reference as far as the Mediterranean is concerned to its conservation, management and development function under the 1949 agreement which created that Mediterranean Council. In other words, it was really requesting that consideration be given to exempting the mention of the Mediterranean concerning fisheries in such a Near East Commission.
A second meeting at the end of September last of the coastal countries of the gulfs lying between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula considered the intergovernmental participation required to ensure continued cooperation in fishery management and development upon completion of the joint UNDP-FAO project in the area next year. They reached the conclusion that, in view of the delay in setting up a Fishery Commission for the Near East and the need to take action in good time before the termination of the development project, the most practical solution was to use for the time being an existing Committee within the Indian Ocean Commission for Coordination.
They also agreed that if and when a Fishery Commission for the Near East is established they would review the situation and consider whether the Committee should remain a subsidiary body of the Indian Ocean Commission or become a subsidiary body of the proposed new Commission. That is the end of my supplementary comment on that first item for decision.
The second point is a bit shorter. I turn to the second question, the statement concerning the Eastern Central Atlantic southern boundary in paragraph 58 of the Committee's Report. As requested by the last session of the Committee on Fisheries, the Director-General has addressed a letter to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Angola and to the President of the United Nations Council for Namibia regarding a possible extension southwards of the boundary for the Fishery Committee for the Eastern Central Atlantic. That Committee covers the area between the Straits of Gibraita and most of the Congo and Zaire River.
Neither of these have indicated their views yet.
Regarding the status of the Economic Community within FAO Regional Fisheries bodies - this is the third matter submitted to you for decision referred to in paragraph 29 of the Committee's Report -I would like to say the following: This is a matter which is not limited to the Fisheries sector. Furthermore, the participation of the Community as a Member of the Regional Fisheries bodies would require changes to the Basic Texts of the Organization. Articles 6 and 14 of the Constitution under which our fisheries bodies are established only provide for membership by States. I should like to note, however, that in practice observers and representatives of regional and international organizations are allowed to participate fully in the deliberations of our fisheries commissions. I trust the representative of the Community will agree with me.
As indicated in the Summary preceding the Report of the Committee on Fisheries, a number of other matters are submitted to the special attention of the Council, even though they do not require a decision at this stage. Nevertheless, some of these matters are of considerable significance. For me, as the new ADG of Fisheries within FAO, none is more important than the comprehensive programme being formulated by the Director-General to assist the developing coastal states in formulating and taking the greatest possible advantage of fisheries development in their new extended economic zones. The Committee's recommendations regarding this programme which the Conference of FAO itself regards as a challenge to the community in the creation of a new economic order are to be found in paragraphs 6 to 18 and paragraphs 39 to 47 in the Report in front of you. The Committee recognized the need for special financial effort from the UNDP and other agencies in addition to support from the FAO regular budget. In this connexion, I am pleased to report, at the recent FAO Regional Conference for Europe held in Lisbon, several delegations indicated they would give their support to the programme.
We are particularly grateful to the Government of Norway who have stated their willingness to provide financial assistance at an early date. We also appreciate the desire expressed by the European Economic Community to be associated with the implementation of the Director-General's programme, and we are looking forward to cooperating with them.
I would be most interested to hear the views of delegations on this most important programme.
CHAIRMAN: I would now like to open discussion on the Report which is before us, which is the Report of the Committee on Fisheries.
B. DE AZEVEDO BRITO (Brazil): I would like to start my very brief remarks on this particular agenda item by indicating the satisfaction of my Government in seeing Mr. Lucas at the helm of the Fisheries Department. We feel his expertise and experience, as well as his youth, is a good indication of the dynamic contribution of FAO in support of developing countries to enable them to develop their fisheries resources.
My Government feels the Committee on Fisheries did very good work at its last session. We are particularly pleased to see that assistance to developing coastal states in managing and developing fisheries in their economic zones is receiving the highest priority in the Organization's programmes. We believe the Council should fully endorse this.
As far as the specific issues for the Council's decision are concerned, we would like to make the following comments: first, with respect to the Fisheries Committee for the Eastern Central Atlantic (CECAF) we fully support the extension southwards of the southern boundary of CECAF to include the waters of Angola and Namibia, on the assumption, naturally, that this is the wish of the countries concerned. It is our hope that membership by those countries in CECAF will help those countries of Angola and Namibia to develop their fishery resorces as an important contribution to nutrition and overall development.
The second point refers to the status of the European Economic Community within certain regional fishery boundaries. We are of the opinion, which we understand to be in line with the observations made by Mr. Lucas, that the participation of the EEC as an observer is more in line with the constitutional provisions of regional fishery bodies.
May I add also that in our view the composition of the regional fishery bodies should be determined by the countries of the regions concerned. Such a project seems to us particularly crucial when developing coastal states for the benefit of the economic zone of 200 miles.
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): En el párrafo 29 se plantea el caso de la Comunidad Economica Europea sobre cual debe ser la condición jurídica de esa Comunidad en determinados órganos regionales de pesca. En la presentación de este tema el Sr. Lucas, nuevo Subdirector General para Pesca, a quien felicitamos y damos la bienvenida, explico muy bien las dificultades de orden jurídico que se oponen al planteamiento hecho por el vocero de la Comunidad Económica en el Comité de Pesca. Por esas razones y por motivos de otros órdenes, la delegación de Colombia no está en favor del planteamiento hecho por el señor vocero de la CEE y somos partidarios de que la participación de los Países Miembros de la Comunidad Económica Europea se haga país por país a través de sus propios representantes.
La delegación de Colombia apoya el párrafo 14 del Informe de que hay que estimular la cooperación entre países en desarrollo en materia de pesquería con intercambio de experiencia y tecnología.
La delegación de Colombia destaca el párrafo 30 en el cual se dice que el representante del Sistema Económico Latinoamericano (SELA) informó de la constitución del Comité de Acción de Productos del Mar y de Agua Dulce integrado por 13 países latinoamericanos. Reconocemos y agradecemos la participación de la FAO en estas actividades. Está bien que la FAO siga colaborando con el SELA. El SELA es un importante sistema economico para nuestros países de América Latina y desearíamos que en el Informe del Consejo conste nuestro proposito y deseo de que la FAO continúe y estreche su colaboración con este Organismo.
Finalmente la delegación de Colombia apoya al Comité en el sentido de que debe seguir siendo un Comité permanente del Consejo en virtud del Artículo V de la Constitución, con su mandato actual revisado oportunamente.
R. TANABE (Japan): I congratulate Mr. Lucas on having been nominated as the ADG for the Fisheries Department. I hope his expertise and experience and his leadership will result in better activities in the Department.
Turning to the substance of the report, I would like to make a few comments on the recent developments in the Committee on Fisheries. My delegation participated in the last session of this Committee and joined in the discussion with great interest.
Not only agricultural products are food. Fisheries products are also an important part of human nutrition. My delegation is most concerned about the apparent levelling off of fish production as
a wholePromoting the development of under-exploited and so-called unconventional resources such as krill and others, as well as aquaculture and inland water fisheries are the promising possibilities for solving this problem.
FAO, as shown by its name, is the body most ooncerned with ensuring adequate food supplies for making. I would like to express the wish that FAO, and in particular the Department of Fisheries, continue to carry out their policies from this point of view.
Another factor which could affect fisheries production is the establishment of 200 mile exclusive economic zones. The new ocean regime has given the coastal states the opportunity of developing their fisheries. At the same time, it has also given them the responsibility of ensuring the optimum utilization of resources. FAO's assistance as well as cooperation of other countries is desirable for this purpose and my delegation wishes FAO to help developing countries in a scientific and objective way. In this connexion the role of regional fishery bodies has become increasingly important.
My delegation is not against the decentralization of the FAO regional fishery bodies, however, and as the Programme Committee pointed out in its latest report there are several constitutional, administrative and financial issues which need resolutions before final steps can be taken. On this point my delegation fully shares the views of the Committee. Finally, as to participation of other countries outside of regions in regional fishery bodies, my delegation again concurs with the view expressed by the Programme Committee in its latest report.
S. TAIARITIS (Greece): May I first congratulate Mr. Lucas on his appointment to the position of ADG in the Fisheries Department. I am sure that his valuable experience will be of great help to all of us, especially now in our attempt to tackle the problems that we are facing at this moment.
Greece having had a developed fishing industry naturally follows with great interest the activities of the Committee on Fisheries and participates actively in its work. Like several other countries, Grece is also facing the problem created by the new regime of the oceans as a result of the extension of zones of national jurisdiction by many coastal states. The Greek fish catch has been considerably affected. Its catch from the Atlantic Zone has been reduced to 50% of that of 1968, while the demand on fish supply is continually increasing. This decline in catch has not yet been covered by exploiting other living resources for obvious reasons.
In our opinion one answer to this problem is the conclusion of bilateral agreements with other coastal countries. Furthermore, these arrangements with countries having developing fisheries will be of benefit to them to further develop their fisheries. Greece has adopted this concept and has concluded bilateral agreements and joint ventures with other coastal countries. We believe that FAO's role in encouraging and developing this concept is very important and we fully support it.
Coming to the question of the future of the Committee on Fisheries, we are of the opinion that the Committee should remain as a standing committee of the Council under Article V of the FAO Constitution and recognize the need to improve its structure and method of work so that it will become more efficient and responsive to our expectations.
We agree with the steps taken for the decentralization of servicing of FAO's regional fishery bodies. However, coordination of their activities with other similar bodies concerning marine affairs in their regions should be improved in order (a ) to avoid duplication and (b) to increase efficiency.
A. SRIBHIBHAD (Thailand): First the Thailand delegation would like to join with other delegations in extending our heartfelt congratulations and wishes to Mr. Lucas on his appointment as ADG - Fisheries. We also want to extend the assurance of our full and continuing cooperation and support in his difficult task ahead.
I wish to comment on only one specific matter in the report of the Twelfth Session of the Committee on Fisheries. That is the matter regarding the programme to assist developing coastal states in managing and developing the fishery resources in extended zones of national jurisdiction. Thailand is a country in which fish ranks second only to rice as the principal food for its population. It foresees far-reaching consequences for fisheries in the extension of zones of national jurisdiction. In fact we are perhaps the first country to ask FAO for a mission from the Inter-regional Fisheries Project, namely the Indian Ocean Fisheries Development Programme, to advise our Government on the implication of the extended economic zone on our fisheries, and a national economic development plan.
My delegation would like to express here again our deep appreciation to the Fisheries Department of the Organization for the prompt response and the very effective and meaningful work of the Mission and its follow-up activities. With the experience I have just mentioned, Thailand therefore fully endorses the decision of the Committee on Fisheries with regard to the mandate to be given to its subcommittees on a programme to assist developing coastal states in managing and developing fisheries in their economic zones as contained in document CL 74/7, paragraphs 39 to 42. We have already emphasized at the sessions of the Committee last June that the activities with which such a programme is concerned will not be new but the urgency and the scope will require a prompt and special effort not only technically but also financially.
In addition we stress the importance of cooperation among developing coastal states through mutual technical assistance, such as in introducing or adapting appropriate technologies as well as in joint ventures and inter-industry cooperation. Thailand for its part has initiated and extended the cooperative efforts with all its neighbours in South and Southeast Asia, and expectedly and hopefully, other friends in other parts of the world as well.
Finally I would like to reiterate our full agreement with the proposal to bring the need for special financial effort to the attention of the funding agency for a separate UNDP as a first immediate step in addition to the support from the FAO Regular Budget, especially in regard to the possible establishment of a fisheries development fund.
S. MALIK (Pakistan): We would like to welcome Mr. Lucas who a few days ago assumed the post of Assistant Director-General. We wish him success in his important assignment.
We have read the report of the Twelfth Session of the Committee on Fisheries with interest. Generally speaking we agree that high priority should be accorded to the efforts to assist developing coastal countries to make full use of opportunities for fishery development and to fulfil their new responsibilities with respect to the management of fisheries and conservation of resources in their economic zones. Clearly, to this end a programme should be designed to increase the national capabilities. This is all the more important as these countries have limited resources and technical know-how. Amongst the matters requiring decision is the proposal to create a fisheries committee for the Near East. As a member of the Near East region we support this proposal.
J. IÑURRIETA RIGORES (Cuba): Ante todo, nuestra delegación desea saludar al Sr. Lucas, por su designación como Subdirector del Departamento de Pesca; estamos seguros de que su experiencia será muy valiosa para el trabajo que despliega la FAO.
Nuestro país participo activamente cuando en el 12° período de sesiones del Comité de Pesca se aprobó el informe que ahora se nos presenta. Continuando la línea de acción mantenida en aquel momento y en la reunión de COPACÓ, de mayo pasado en Panamá, nuestra delegación quiere llamar la atención sobre los siguientes aspectos:
Que el COFI continue estrechamente con la Secretaría de Pesca de la FAO, propiciando la cooperación entre los Estados Miembros y la propia Secretaría de la FAO en función de lograr una mejor utilización de los órganos técnicos con que cuenta la Organización, incluido el propio COFI; el mantenimiento de las coordinaciones necesarias entre los órganos de pesca de FAO con otros órganos que se ocupen de asuntos oceánicos en las respectivas regiones, prestando especial atención a los cambios que se están produciendo en las discusiones sobre régimen de pesca y en las relaciones internacionales que afectan el área oceánica y de la pesca.
En esta coordinación se deberá evitar duplicidades en las actividades de los órganos interesados a nivel de cada región, incrementando su eficacia.
Tomando en cuenta la inmensa riqueza que brindan los mares y los escasos recursos con que cuentan los países ribereños en desarrollo, es necesario que la Organización priorice la ayuda a estos países a fin de que puedan aprovechar plenamente las oportunidades de desarrollo pesquero y cumplir con sus responsabilidades en lo que a ordenación de las pesquerías y conservación de recursos se refiere.
Queremos reiterar aquí la posición mantenida por nuestro país, y compartida por otros, en la reunión de COPACO en Panamá relativa a que la Comunidad Económica Europea no tiene status jurídico para participar como tal en los órganos regionales como el que más arriba mencionamos. Los países que forman la Comunidad Económica Europea pueden participar en la reunión de los órganos regionales portando sus intereses y aportes a título individual de cada país.
Para finalizar, queremos reiterar la opinión expresada ya por nuestro país de que el COFI debe continuar siendo un Comité permanente del Consejo de la FAO.
R. HART (Canada) : My congratulations to the new ADG must be somewhat different from those of other delegates: I am congratulating the man who for many years has been my boss. It has been my pleasure and privilege to work for Mr. Lucas for many years. These have been extremely happy years and very productive and I have learned to admire his administrative skills in the field of fisheries. Canada is honoured by his appointment and my delegation joins in congratulating him on this appointment.
I would like to touch on three points on the Committee on Fisheries. The first one refers to the economic zone. The Canadian delegation appreciates the opportunity to speak in support of the efforts of the Committee on Fisheries to establish a programme designed to assist developing coastal states in the management and development of fisheries in their economic zones. My delegation considers that the work of this Committee will be of crucial importance, in particular to the smaller states which often lack the ability to cope with the problems or to take advantage of the opportunities presented by their declaration of a fishing zone. My delegation is looking forward to receiving a useful and informative document which is being prepared by the Secretariat and it may be presented, I understand, at the next meeting of the Committee on Fisheries. My delegation hopes that the report will not only consider matters relating to increased production of fisheries but also to the social and economic benefits to be gained by the people in these developing countries. Imaginative and creative thinking is needed to make sure that the legitimate interest of the smallest and poorest of the states is protected.
With regard to the future of regional bodies, Canada's position in this regard remains unchanged from that expressed at the Committee on Fisheries meeting in 1978. My delegation is glad to know that FAO wishes to strengthen these regional bodies and to help them move towards a greater degree of autonomy in the conduct of their affairs. Canada wants once again to assure FAO that its policy continues to be in strong support of regional bodies and regionally based activities. We continue to support the approach which calls for regional organizations to be staffed and manned by personnel from the coastal countries in the region.
Finally, Canada fully supports the extension of the southern zone of the CECAF region to include Angola and Namibia, since this is a logical move because all these countries in the region share and exploit the same common stocks.
In conclusion, my delegation wishes to say that it will endeavour to make a useful and constructive contribution to the deliberations of the Committee on Fisheries in all future discussions in this subject.
I. OROZCO GUZMAN (México): Nosotros también deseamos asociarnos a las expresiones de bienvenida al Sr. K. Lucas al ocupar el nuevo puesto de Subdirector General Encargado del Departamento de Pesca y le auguramos una actividad exitosa. En relación con los asuntos que se nos someten a nuestra consideración acerca del 12 período de sesiones del Consejo de Pesca, deseamos referirnos brevemente a algunos de ellos.
Consideramos que la propuesta de crear una Comisión de Pesca para el Cercano Oriente debe ser basada sobre todo de acuerdo con los deseos de los eventuales Estados Miembros: así que apovamos cualquier medida que sea tomada en ese sentido.
Acerca de los límites meridionales, el Comité de Pesca para el Atlántico Centro-oriental, por supuesto que alentamos la incorporación de Angola y Namibia a este Comité y desearíamos que se asegurara, en cuanto a Namibia, la participación en todas sus actividades del Consejo de las Naciones Unidas para Namibia, que ha sido instituido como única autoridad legítima del territorio.
Por lo que se refiere a la cuestión planteada por el representante de la Comunidad Económica Europea respecto de su eventual participación en la Comisión de Pesca para el Atlántico Centro-occidental, deseamos asociarnos a lo que ya ha sido expresado por los colegas latinoamericanos miembros de este Consejo, que a la vez son miembros de dicha Comisión, incluido nuestro país y a ese respecto apoyamos la afirmación, la aseveración del Subdirector General de Pesca que eso requeriría cambios en la Constitución de la FAO que, evidentemente, en el caso concreto de que hablamos no estamos dispuestos a considerar. Pensamos que la composición de la Comisión debe ser competencia única de los propios Estados que la conforman.
En relación con el desarrollo de la pesca en las zonas económicas, deseamos expresar también, como lo han hecho otros oradores nuestro apoyo a las actividades que lleva a cabo la Organización o que están en curso de confeccionar en beneficio de los países en desarrollo que han ampliado su jurisdicción sobre los recursos marinos de sus zonas económicas exclusivas.
A este respecto, cabe indicar que México está actualmente multiplicando rápidamente su capacidad pesquera, y que de acuerdo con los objetivos del plan pesquero actualmente en ejecución, mi país espera obtener para antes de 1982 capturas por 2 millones de toneladas de recursos pesqueros.
Finalmente, en relación con el futuro del Comité de Pesca, consideramos que mientras que no haya ningún nuevo desarrollo en lo que se refiere a las conclusiones de la Conferencia del Mar, tendientes a la confección de un nuevo régimen del mar, el Comité de Pesca debe mantenerse como está, con sus actuales funciones por lo que apoyamos la propuesta que se nos somete en el párrafo 1 del apartado (v) , a consideración del Consejo.
S. PADMANAGARA (Indonesia): First of all I wish to join in congratulating Mr. Lucas, the new Asistant Director-General for Fisheries. I wish to convey the following. Recognizing the merits of the work done so far by the Committee, my delegation endorse the view that the Committee on Fisheries should remain a standing committee of the Council under Article V of the Constitution. It can be expected that fisheries will in the not too distant future play a more important role in the economies of developing coastal states. The reason is that the extensions of national jurisdiction give a new dimension to the countries' work in fisheries development.
My delegation supports the view that high priority should be given to the formulation of a comprehensive programme to assist in an efficient way developing coastal states in managing and developing fisheries in their extended economic zone.
CD. KELLER SARMIENTO (Argentina): Sean mis primeras palabras de bienvenida y felicitación al Sr. Kenneth Lucas; viene rodeado por sus grandes condiciones no solamente personales sino por la intensa actividad que en su país, Canadá, ha efectuado en el sector de la pesca. Le deseamos muchos éxitos en sus funciones.
La delegación argentina apoya plenamente el programa para el desarrollo de las pesquerías en las zonas económicas, como ha sido señalado en los párrafos 6 a 18 y 39 a 42. Pensamos que la FAO debe intervenir activamente en este proceso y debe tratar de procurar que los beneficios de esta actividad emprendida por los estados costeros a raíz de las consecuencias de la Conferencia del Mar deben radicar en beneficio de los pobladores de esos mismos países.
Con respecto a la solicitud presentada por la Comunidad Económica Europea, me inclino a coincidir con la interpretación jurídica del señor Lucas, apoyada por la mayoría de las delegaciones. Quiero señalar, así mismo, y a título informativo que en marzo de 1979 se realizará en la ciudad de Mar del Plata organizada por la FAO y el Gobierno argentino, la primera Reunión Regional de COPESCAL, a la que participarán numerosos países de América Latina.
Apoyamos también, los párrafos del 43 al 52 que implican el reconocimiento de la acción de las partes consultivas del Tratado Antartico en la conservación de los recursos vivos de los mares australes y la colaboración de ambos organismos. Creemos que si algún credito hay que dar a la Reunión del Comité de Pesca a la que tuvimos el honor de participar, es haber coincidido en los objetivos fundamentales de la FAO y de las partes consultivas del Tratado Antártico y la necesidad de una acción mancomunada y concertada en la investigación y conservación de los recursos vivos de los mares australes.
J.A. BAKER (United States of America): Before I make may comments on the report of the COFI and the issues for decisions contained therein and which have been introduced by the new Assistant Director-General, I should like to join others in extending to him a very warm welcome to his important function. There have been among his distinguished predecessors also distinguished Americans, but this is only one of the reasons why my country has always followed the activity of the Fisheries Department with great attention and great interest. We will continue to do so as it progresses under your leadership.
With regard to some of the matters for decision that have been introduced, I should like to state that on the issue of a Fisheries Commission for the Near East, while the United States is not anxious to see new fishery commissions, we regard this as primarily a matter for action and decision by prospective Member States of such a commission; we believe that this is their decision, both to create and -in our view - to finance such a commission.
With regard to the extension of the southern boundary of the CECAF as we have previously indicated, we would agree with that extension. Again, the decisive factor, in our view, will be the wishes of the two countries concerned.
As for the status of the EEC within certain regional fisheries bodies, we take note of the statement by the Organization that this would require changes to the Basic Texts of the Organization. However, in view of the complexity of this issue we would prefer to withhold any further comments until the EEC has made a position statement and this statement has been given full study.
As for the matter before us for information in the report, we support the view about the importance of assisting developing coastal states in the management and development of fisheries in their economic zone. We support the high priority given to the development of a comprehensive programme to assist these nations. We would emphasize, however, that such a programme needs to be formulated in a precise and comprehensive form with very clearly defined objectives and priorities and must have sufficient flexibility to respond to specific situations. We support the change in the terms of reference of the Sub-Committee on the Development of Fisheries in economic zones elaborated in paragraphs 39 to 41 of the report.
With respect to the future of the FAO regional fisheries bodies, the United States delegation supports the FAO in assisting these bodies to enlarge their competence and to assume broader responsibilities when deemed appropriate by COFI, We would emphasize, however, that the FAO should retain significant technical and coordinating roles, as suggested in paragraphs 20 of its report.
We note that in the report of the 12th session the Committe stated that it was necessary to examine all aspects of the question. We believe this examination should include a continuing assessment on the financial implications of decentralization both for the FAO and for the several commissions.
Furthermore, we think that the change should be evolutionary rather than revolutionary and take place at a proper pace for the particular circumstances of each particular region. We therefore welcome the Director-General's intention expressed yesterday to proceed carefully towards a decentralization which does not prejudice the efficiency or maintenance of basic technical coordinating competence at FAO Headquarters.
W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Fed. Rep. of): My delegation too joins in welcoming Mr. Lucas and congratulating him on his responsible task. We offer him a close collaboration which we enjoyed with his predecessors.
My Government welcomes the intensive efforts of the Committee on Fisheries to promote fisheries of developing countries in their economic zones and to strengthen regional cooperation. The Committee on Fisheries rightly expressed itself in favour of a thorough preparation of an assistance programme to this end. This is a pre-requisite for the necessary support of the suggested activities by bilateral and multilateral donors. We support the view of the Committee on Fisheries that the planned decentralization of servicing of the FAO Regional Fishery bodies should be prepared in a very careful way and implemented only gradually. We see ourselves here in agreement with the Director-General who favoured a very careful consideration and that one should not act hastily. On the one hand, it has to be ensured that through this measure cooperation will be strengthened between the member states in the region concerned and simultaneously the links between the regional bodies and FAO headquarters will be maintained. On the other hand, funding must be ensured. It is hardly to be expected that substantial additional funds will be made available from the budget of the Regular Programme of FAO. Other Sources' of funding have to be opened up. In this connection it has to be kept in mind that cooperation in regional fishery bodies is primarily a matter for the member states concerned and new ways of strengthening cooperation are in the interest of these states. They should therefore consider making budgetary contributions in accordance with the policy they follow in that area. The extension of zones of national jurisdiction and the resultant better utilization of fish stock will increasingly allow these states to assume such commitments.
With regard to the envisaged extension of the mandate of the Fishery Committee for the Eastern Central Atlantic (CECAF) to the south I would like to point out that this area also falls within the competence of the International Commission for the South East Atlantic Fisheries (ICSEAF). The functions of both organizations are identical in important points. The Council should, therefore, support the request of the Committee on Fisheries at its Eleventh Session "that there should be sufficient consultation between members of the Fishery Committee for the Eastern Central Atlantic (CECAF) and of the International Commission for the South East Atlantic Fisheries (ICSEAF) if there was a need to work out the means for avoiding duplication in formulating management measures in areas off the coast of states that belong to both bodies." The Council at its Seventy-First Session was also aware of the problems involved and expressed the view "that if this was done it should be brought about in full consultation with all the parties concerned and every effort should be made to harmonize their activities."
With regard to what has been stated by Mr. Lucas, Brazil, Colombia,Cuba, Mexico and Argentina, about the future participation of the European Economic Community in the work of some FAO regional fishery bodies, I should like to say on behalf of the nine member states of the European Economic Community the following, as stated in paragraph 29 of the Report of the Twelfth Session of the Committee on Fisheries, the representative of the Commission of the European Economic Community has expressed during that meeting the interest of the European Economic Community in taking a more active part in the work of some FAO regional fishery bodies. Since the member states of the European Economic Community have delegated their competence in certain fishery matters to the Community, the Governments of these member states are of the opinion that the European Economic Community itself represented by the Commission, should participate in those regional fishery organizations and in this respect act on behalf of its members. This could, for instance, be achieved through the exercise of rights and duties by the European Economic Community in respect of those member states which are for the time being members of those regional organizations. The Community should also be given the possibility to act in a more active way on behalf of member states within the limits of other regional institutions. The Community and its member states would like to forward these basic considerations to this Session of the Council. They offer their cooperation to explore, together with the Secretariat of FAO, the ways and means to achieve a qualified participation of the Community. We would appreciate if the Secretariat would endeavour to study that matter. The Community will shortly submit concrete proposals to this effect. We hope that the Secretariat will be in a position to suggest to the Council at its next session how this could be put into practice. Having said this we assume that the Member States of FAO are interested that the nine members of the European Economic Community can fully participate also in those areas in the work of FAO where they have delegated their competence to the Community.
H. CLAVERIE RODRIGUEZ (Venezuela) : Trataré de ser muy concreto tal como es su deseo a estas horas de la tarde de hoy. Antes que nada quiero referirme, por supuesto, al Informe del Comité de Pesca - 12° período - y por ello me siento inclinado a felicitar en nombre de mi delegación a la Secretaría por el documento que se nos presento a consideración. En general, lo consideramos un buen documento y estamos de acuerdo en su casi extension. En los puntos en que se requiere decision y en los cuales nuestra delegación tiene alguna opinion particular, la emitiremos a continuación.
No quiero seguir, por supuesto, sin cumplir con un elemental principio de cortesía que es el que más me ha inclinado a intervenir ya casi en el momento de cerrar el debate. Es, por supuesto, el de felicitar en nombre de la delegación de Venezuela al nuevo Subdirector General para el Departamento de Pesca, señor Kenneth Lucas. Para él elevo la felicitación de la delegación y Gobierno de Venezuela. Le auguro el mayor de los éxitos y le planteo la colaboración completa de la delegación de Venezuela ante la FAO. El señor Lucas será testimonio del interés mayor en los últimos tiempos que el Gobierno de Venezuela ha puesto en el sector de la pesca; interés que ha cristalizado en los mayores niveles de colaboración que ha pedido y ha obtenido de esta Casa. Para el señor Lucas, repito, la felicitación sincera de la delegación de Venezuela.
En cuanto a los puntos que el Informe pide la decisión de este Consejo, quisiera tocar concretamente y muy someramente el problema de la creación de la Comisión de Pesca para el Cercano Oriente. Nos sentimos inclinados a coincidir con la opinión del Informe de que éste es un asunto que compete a los propios países de la región y que son ellos los que tienen que decidir.
Otro punto es el de la aprobación que demos a la extensión de las zonas del Atlántico Centro-oriental , lo cual permitiría abarcar a zonas que corresponden a Angola y Namibia. Este principio lo sustentamos en nuestros contextos de respeto internacional por los derechos que conciernen a cada uno de los países del mundo.
En cuanto al problema de interpretación jurídica que ha sido tocado por diversos países de Latinoamérica específicamente, y por el Sr. Lukas en especial, de la intervención de la Comunidad Económica Europea, nuestra delegación se siente inclinada, por supuesto, a aceptar y compartir la interpretación del Sr. Lukas, extendida su interpretación a muchos de los países latinoamericanos. Creemos que la Comisión debe estar formada por países, no por organizaciones y en ese sentido no tenemos ningún reparo a la inclusión en ella de países que por convenio deben por supuesto estar incluidos en sus compromisos. No así aceptamos la inclusión de ningún tipo de organizaciones. Creemos, por otra parte, que es a los propios países de la Comisión a los que les compete el contexto general de las decisiones sobre asuntos de la Comisión.
En cuanto al futuro del Comité de Pesca, nuestra delegación tiene una idea definida de que el mismo debe seguir siendo un órgano permanente del Consejo.
MRS. E.D. SAMSON (Philippines): I would like to make some very brief comments as regard the first item under Matters for Information, specifically paragraph 7, page 1 of document CL 74/7. The Philippine delegation supports the recommendation to prepare a comprehensive programme to assist developing coastal states in managing and developing fishery resources in their economic zones but we would recommend the full participation of the countries concerned as recommended in the Third Report. In the Philippines, for instance, we are now in the process of formulating a programme aimed at strengthening our fishery capabilities. We feel that such a programme is a proper take-off point for the programme envisaged by the Committee. Funding countries should therefore consider granting full support to assessment programmes alongside the identification of projects for investment and for technological transfer.
H. BAEYENS (Belgique): Ma délégation voudrait se joindre à toutes celles qui se sont succédé pour adresser un mot de felicitation à M. Lucas à l'occasion de sa nomination à la Direction du département des Pêches.
Vous savez que depuis déjà deux ans les pays membres de la Communauté économique européenne ont confié à la Communauté en tant que telle certaines responsabilités en matière de pêche. Mon intervention ne portera donc pas sur ces responsabilités mais seulement sur deux points que j'ai relevés plus particulièrement. Il s'agit d'une part de la question de la décentralisation et d'autre part de celle du développement des pêches dans les zones économiques exclusives.
Pour ce qui est de la première question, celle de la décentralisation, M. le Directeur général a mentionné dans son exposé introductif la difficulté des problèmes devant lesquels la FAO se trouve dans ce domaine. Le Comité du Programme avait fait d'ailleurs la même observation. Les problèmes, tant techniques que financiers, doivent encore être étudiés plus à fond et ma délégation pense que toute décision est encore prématurée.
Le Directeur général a mentionné aussi les efforts faits par la FAO dans le but d'aider les pays à exploiter leurs zones économiques exclusives et la haute priorité qu'il accorde à ce programme.
Ma délégation a noté avec satisfaction la création d'un Fonds fiduciaire de 3 millions de dollars par la Norvège en vue de ce programme. Elle estime que c'est, en effet, au moyen de contributions, comme celle mentionnée, que ce programme pourra avoir l'impact souhaité, d'autant plus que chacun se plaît à reconnaître la compétence indiscutable de la Norvège en cette matière.
B. MAMADOU (Observateur de la Mauritanie) : Permettez-moi tout d'abord, au nom de ma délégation, de féliciter M. Lucas en tant que nouveau Secrétaire général adjoint chargé du Département des Pêches. Nous sommes convaincus que son expérience permettra de résoudre les nombreux problèmes que connaissent actuellement nos pêcheries.
Mon pays, qui a participé aux travaux de la douzième session du COFI, fait siennes les décisions du présent document en discussion. En sa qualité de Président du Comité des Pêches pour l'Atlantique Centre-Est, le COPACE, mon pays lance un appel à la FAO afin de redynamiser cet organisme. Ce Comité, étant donné qu'il couvre un certain nombre de pays dont les côtes sont particulièrement riches est à même, pour des pays pauvres en céréales parce que frappés par la sécheresse - je cite le cas de mon pays, la Mauritanie - ce Comité est à même d'aider ces pays à profiter réellement de leurs richesses ichtyologiques.
Tout d'abord, le COPACE pourrait nous aider à évaluer nos ressources pour une meilleure exploitation des stocks, pour tout départ d'exploitation rationnelle et aussi pour améliorer les moyens de capture et de traitement des produits de la pêche.
Lors de la sixième session du COPACE, nous avions demandé à la FAO d'africaniser la direction et le secrétariat de cet organisme et, en même tamps, le transfert du secrétariat dans l'un des pays membres du COPACE, c'est-à-dire l'un des pays membres africains, ce qui n'a pas encore été fait malheureusement. Ce qui se passe actuellement au COPACE, c'est qu'il n'y a pas de directeur. Il y a seulement trois personnes qui, semble-t-il, ne disposent d'aucun moyen et ne peuvent rient faire. C'est actuellement un organisme qui hiberne et nous lançons un appel à la FAO au nom de tous les pays membres pour trouver une solution afin de redynamiser ledit organisme.
E. BACIGALUPO (Observador por Chile) : Gracias, Sr.Presidente, por concederme la palabra en mi calidad de Observador.
Siendo mi primera intervención, me permito felicitar a usted, Sr. Presidente, por la habilidad con que ha dirigido el debate, así como a la Secretaría por la clara y precisa exposición que se nos ha hecho respecto al desarrollo y resultado del 12° Comité de Pesca.
Aprovecho la oportunidad para agradecer la excelente exposición que nos hiciera ayer el Sr. Director General, que constituye, sin duda, un importante aporte para las deliberaciones de los Señores Miembros del Consejo y una muy útil información para nuestro Gobierno.
Asimismo felicito al nuevo Director del Departamento de Pesca, Sr. Lucas, y le deseo muy buenos éxitos en su importante gestión, al mismo tiempo que le aseguro la máxima colaboración de parte.de nuestra representación.
Deseo referirme al Programa para ayudar a los países en desarrollo a administrar y desarrollar la pesca en sus zonas económicas, así como a la ampliación del Subcomité para el desarrollo de la pesca en zonas económicas y el informe que éste debe presentar para hacer la recomendación para este Programa en la reunión que se llevará a cabo en la primavera de 1979.
Este tema, que nos ha presentado la Secretaría ha constituido siempre una materia de especial interés para mi país y es por ello que me he permitido pedir la palabra para hacer una breve intervención. Solamente deseo destacar, una vez más, los aspectos a nuestro juicio más importantes que vemos en el Programa de referencia. En primer lugar, la gran importancia que este Programa tiene para los países en desarrollo que han acrecentado sus recursos pesqueros y que no disponen ni de la experiencia, ni de la tecnología ni de los medios financieros necesarios para desarrollar esta riqueza que han consolidado jurídicamente.
Indudablemente la gran mayoría de los países en desarrollo obtendrán mejores condiciones para aumentar el bienestar de sus pueblos y el desarrollo nacional; el rol interesantísimo en el Programa que le corresponde a la FAO respetando la soberana y voluntaria participación de los Estados interesados implementa así una de las más trascendentes resoluciones de la III Conferencia de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Derecho del Mar.
La FAO cuenta con la experiencia suficiente y los técnicos necesarios para llevarla a cabo. Este Programa debiera constituir una de las funciones primordiales de la FAO en el futuro inmediato.
Otro aspecto importante para todas las Naciones del mundo es el hecho de que cuanto más pronto obtenga resultados eficientes este Programa, mayor y más inmediata será su contribución a mejorar la alimentación de la humanidad, y en esta forma disipar las incertidumbres sobre el crecimiento de la producción pesquera mundial. Es por ello que me permito exhortar a los señores Miembros del Consejo a que reflejen en su Informe final la importancia que le asignan a este Programa, reiterando lo acordado por el Comité de Pesca en junio del presente año, en orden a procurar la contribución de las fuentes multi y bilaterales y en especial la ayuda indispensable del Consejo de Administración del Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo.
THE CHAIRMAN: If there are no more delegates who want to take the floor I will call on Mr. Lucas to respond to some of the points made by Members.
K. LUCAS (Assistant Director-General, Fisheries Department): There is actually little controversy among the interventions made by the many delegations who spoke to this agenda item. I would just like to summarize, if I may, the highlights.
If I may first be allowed a personal note, I would like to express my personal thanks for the many expressions of support from all or almost all delegations for me and my new post. I would like to say I have inherited an excellent staff both here at FAO Headquarters and at the FAO Regions in the world, and also I have inherited a high quality programme on fisheries management and development, so it is a pretty easy post to move into in the sense of the momentum that is already there, and a very exciting post, I must say.
The subject which I think received the most attention from the delegations who spoke was the question of the planning of a comprehensive programme of particular assistance for the management and development of the extended economic zones throughout the world. I noted a strong measure of support from every speaker on that subject. I also noted, though, some special emphasis on the great need for cooperation, consultation, the importance of fully involving interested Member States in the planning process. This was particularly flagged by the Philippines, for instance.
Many delegates brought up the issue of the difference between fisheries management and management of the terrestrial resources. They brought up the migratory nature of the reserve in question, of the vagaries of ocean currents and so forth.
I would like to note especially the suggestion made by Thailand concerning the question of assistance for the implementation of a programme for development of fisheries. He raised the hope of seeing national fisheries established perhaps through core interventions by people like UNDP and other Member developed states.
The second issue that attracted a lot of the interventions concerned the decentralization of regional fisheries bodies and the strengthening of these bodies. There seems to be strong support for strengthening of the convenants and the budgets of these bodies, but many delegations drew attention to the remarks made by the Director-General in his opening statement yesterday morning of the need for caution and care in the examination of the organization of the activities at the regional level and of the rate at which this decentralization takes place.
I am grateful for that view, as I would like to look very carefully at that subject in giving my views to the Director-General and the Committee on Fisheries. The subjects which were actually put before the Council for decision were dealt with easily. There was a fair consensus that as far as the establishment of the Near East Commission was concerned the states of that Region are the ones who would really need to take that decision on their own.
On the question of support for the extension of the southern boundary of the CECAF body, there appeared to be support for the initiative and we are waiting for the response of the two countries involved. The only places where there was disagreement was on the status of the European Economic Community, but I am pleased to see the delegate of the EEC in fact commented that the EEC would be forwarding a concrete proposal to the Secretariat and we await that proposal with interest. We note the views of the other delegations and the various interventions.
I would like to take note of the intervention of the delegate of Mauritania regarding CECAF, and I would like to point out that the Secretary of CECAF is presently in Rome and the decentralization of that group would be in the context of the Director's policy.
Senegal is the coordinating zone for the CECAF project which is managed in coordination with the CECAF members.
That covers all the substantial points that were raised during the discussion today.
CHAIRMAN: As you said, Mr. Lucas, this is not a very controversial subject and has been well debated, but on the matters put directly to the Council the consensus is that on the proposal to create a fishery commission for the Near East,the Council does not favour taking the decision first before the countries of the regions themselves have given their comments and consent or proposals. So it is not that the Commission and the Council does not want to take action but we would like to hear the views of the countries concerned; so this matter will have to come back.
Similarly, with regard to the extension of the boundary of CECAF, Namibia and Angola which are the two countries concerned will have to give their consent to it. If they do, the matter will have to come back and be ratified by Council.
The status of the Community, the consensus is quite clear that their are constitutional implications. There is not a very clear cut position on which to take a decision now, and therefore it has to be looked at more closely and brought back. Is this a fair summing up of the things for decision? In the absence of comment this is the line of action we will take for our report for the future.
This, then, brings to an end the discussion on this particular item. When we look at the agenda we are still half way through the morning's work at the end of the day but I think this afternoon we established a business-like rhythm for the debate which if maintained will carry us through much faster than it seemed in the beginning.
LE SECRETAIRE GENERAL: En accord avec le Président du Comité de rédaction, la première réunion de ce Comité est convoquée pour demain matin à 9 heures. Le Comité de rédaction se réunira donc demain à 9 heures dans la salle de la Malaisie, bâtiment B, N° 227.
A cet égard, je voudrais vous rappeler la composition de ce Comité de rédaction et vous donner ensuite le nom des personnes qui ont été désignées par le pays. Il s'agit de la Grèce qui préside, ensuite Cuba, la France, le Ghana, l'Inde, la Lybie, la Nouvelle-Zélande, les Etats-Unis d'Amérique et le Zaïre. Chacun de ces pays a donné les noms suivants:
Cuba, M. Bustabad; France, M. Elmanovsky et un deuxième suppléant, M. Halimi; Ghana, M. Mends; Inde, M. Ramadhar; Libye, M. Zehni; Nouvelle-Zélande, M. Lewr; Etats-Unis, M. Breuain; Zaïre, M. Nga-Ma.
C'est la composition du Comité de rédaction qui commencera sa première réunion demain. C'est une réunion de prise de contact et d'organisation, à la suite de quoi les réunions de travail vont commencer.
The meeting rose at 17.35 hours
La séance est levée à 17 h 35
Se levanta la sesión a las 17.35 horas
__________
1/ Statement inserted in the verbatim records on request.
