A. ECHEVARRIA ZUNO (México): Nuestra intervención al principio de esta sesión es para dejar constancia de nuestro agradecimiento en la tarea que nos fue encomendada para realizar consultas. Ha sido una satisfacción para nuestra delegación haber podido, con carácter de absoluta neutralidad, presentar una propuesta que haya permitido llegar a una conclusión satisfactoria como usted, señor Presidente, lo acaba de anunciar.
Esta muestra de confianza para nuestra delegación mucho nos honra y nos compromete.
Como usted sabe señor Presidente, hay un acuerdo tácito para que sea nuestro amigo, el señor Embajador de Francia, quien haga la presentación.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, delegate of Mexico, for the initiative which you personnally embarked upon to resolve this problem.
C. BATAULT (France): Je suis très heureux de pouvoir dire à tous ceux qui sont ici que nous avons aujourd'hui un nouvel exemple de l'esprit de conciliation qui préside aux travaux de notre Organisation et qui lui permet d'atteindre une efficacité remarquable dans une atmosphère de coopération et d'amitié à laquelle je crois que nous pouvons tous rendre hommage.
Grâce à l'initiative du représentant du Mexique, que nous devons tous remercier très chaleureusement, une négociation a pu être menée à bien et, ayant servi si je puis dire, d'honnête courtier entre les deux parties, on a bien voulu me prier de lire le texte du compromis auquel nous sommes arrivés et qui, je crois, est, très honnêtement et en toute franchise, satisfaisant pour tout le monde. Si vous le permettez, je vais d'abord, puisque je suis le délégué de la France, vous en lire la traduction française, ensuite vous lire en anglais le texte original qui a été rédigé dans cette langue.
Voici d'abord la traduction française: "Examen d'une étude exhaustive préparée par le Directeur général sur les activités et le fonctionnement du bureau régional de la FAO pour le Proche-Orient, prenant en considération les opinions exprimées au cours de la soixante-quinzième session du Conseil, par certaines délégations, y compris l'examen de son emplacement".
Maintenant, je vais vous lire le texte authentique en anglais sur lequel un compromis a pu être réalisé: "Examination of a comprehensive study prepared by the Director-General on the activities and functioning of the FAO Regional Office for the Near East, taking into account the views expressed during the Seventy-fifth Session of the Council by some delegations, including the examination of its location".
Voilà, Monsieur le Président, le texte sur lequel nous nous sommes mis d'accord.
LE DIRECTEUR GENERAL (interprétation de l'arabe): Monsieur le Président, il va de soi que 'ai suivi avec la plus grande attention le débat qui s'est déroulé hier et aujourd 'hui. La question débattue est en effet d'une importance capitale tant pour la FAO que pour les pays de la région du Proche-Orient. Par définition, le secrétariat est neutre. Il l'est resté au cours du débat sur cette affaire, et il le restera en toutes circonstances. Il agira en fonction des instructions que le Conseil lui donnera et, si on le lui demande, il ne manquera pas de préparer un rapport détaillé comportant tous les éléments et tous les aspects qui permettront à la Conférence de prendre toute décision qu'elle estimera appropriée.
Monsieur le Président, je voudrais, en terminant, vous assurer que ce qui importe avant tout, à mes collègues du secrétariat et à moi-même, est de préserver l'intérêt général et celui des pays de la région, et de maintenir l'efficacité des activités régionales.
A.Y. BUKHARI (Saudi Arabia)(Interpretation from Arabic): First of all, I would like to express my thanks to our colleague who is head of the Mexican delegation, since he has been the key that has opened the door of democratic dialogue. Furthermore, in expressing my deep gratitude I wish to thank the Ambassador of France who has followed on this way of dipolomatic dialogue. As we have already said, this is an issue of utmost importance, this is an issue of great technical importance, and after having heard the working of this proposal as read by the Ambassador of France and having listened with great attention to what has been said by the Director-General of this Oranization, on behalf of the Group I represent I cannot but express my agreement to what has been stated and presented by the Director-General of this Organization.
We all place trust in the Director-General, and he will certainly prepare this study which we expect from him. However, there is one request I would like to make, that we reach an agreement, and that the words expressed by the Director-General of FAO appear in the report of our Council.
Y. WALI (Egypt) (Interpretation from Arabic): I wish to thank the Chairman of the Council and all the delegates present, and the Director-General, for the exchange of the opinions and the discussions which led us to come to this proposal which is satisfactory for the delegate of Egypt.
CHAIRMAN: We have now found a solution acceptable to all parties, and I am sure Council Members will also accept the text read out by the delegate of France, together with the explanation given by the Director-General - which of course will form part of our Report.
I would like to thank everybody for this cooperation, because it has not been easy. Yesterday it looked as if the FAO Council would fall apart, because I have never seen the Council divide so many times in one day. But good sense has prevailed, and we are back to our normal good relations and good cooperation and give and take, and this matter has been resolved without a vote. I would like to thank you all for this, and especially the two sides who have been good enough to see each other's point of view and compromise. I thank you all for this.
This concludes Item 10.1 We have already done 10.2, and we will proceed with the rest of our Order of the Day, which is the Adoption of the Report.
ADOPTION OF REPORT
ADOPTION DU RAPPORT
APROBACION DEL INFORME
DRAFT REPORT OF PLENARY - PART 1
PROJET DE RAPPORT DE LA PLENIERE - PARTIE 1
PROYECTO DE INFORME DE LA PLENARIA - PARTE 1
Members have had several Revs, now, 1 - 4. Rev. 1 and 2 were circulated a very long time ago, then Rev. 3 and 4 today, so that we have plenty of work to do. I would now like to start on this particular part of our work. Perhaps we should wait for the Chairman of the Drafting Committee to take his seat.
We will start with Rev.1, Introduction, paragraph 1, and first of all I would like to give the floor to the Chairman of the Drafting Committee.
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): I have the pleasure and the honour to present the Draft Report in the form in which it has been circulated to all Members of this Council. It has been in circulation for some time now, and I am sure all of you have had the opportunity of going through it.
All I would like to say at this stage is that this is not my Report only, it is the Report of the Drafting Group, and I would like to express my gratitude to all the Members who helped me in drafting this Report. In that sense, it is not my Report, it is the Report of the Drafting Group.
CHAIRMAN: We will now go back to the Report, and in Introduction, we have Items 1 and 2, and I put to you paragraph 1 - 6 on the first page.
PARAGRAPH 1
PARAGRAPHE 1
PARRAFO 1
S. AIDARA (Sénégal): Je voudrais émettre une proposition afin de faciliter nos débats. Il s'agit du rapport dont nous avons pris connaissance, c'est-à-dire l'ensemble de la première et seconde partie. La troisième et la quatrième partie ont été distribuées ce matin. En ce qui concerne la première partie, je suggérerais,pour gagner du temps, étant donné que les pages 1 et 2 concernent les questions de procédure et qu'à partir de la page 3 il s'agit de la déclaration du Directeur général, que l'on adopte globalement la première partie du rapport, si cela est possible.
CHAIRMAN: Is this supported by Members?
CO. KELLER SARMIENTO (Argentina): Yo creo que nuestro Consejo ha trabajado bien; tenemos una larga tradición de analizar cuidadosamente cada uno de los temas que nos han sido sometidos durante sus sesiones y creo que sería más razonable continuar con el mismo procedimiento que hemos seguido hasta ahora de tratar párrafo por párrafo, sin perjuicio de que cuando usted, señor Presidente, lo estime podamos juntar tres o cuatro párrafos que traten sobre el mismo tema.
CHAIRMAN: If this is the consensus, then we will go back to the first page and take paragraphs 1 - 6 and over to paragraph 7 on page 2. If there are no comments on this, these paragraphs are adopted.
Paragraph 1 approved
Le paragraphe 1 est approuvé
El párrafo 1 es aprobado
Paragraph 2 approved
Le paragraphe 2 est approuvé
El párrafo 2 es aprobado
Paragraphs 3 to 7 approved
Les paragraphes 3 a7 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 3 a 7 son aprobados
Paragraphs 8 and 10 approved
Les paragraphes 8 1 10 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 8 a 10 son aprobados
PARAGRAPHS 11 to 27
PARAGRAPHES 11 à 27
PARRAFOS 11 a 27
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): En le párrafo 11 deseamos sugerir una enmienda al final de este párrafo 11.
En las últimas dos líneas se diría como sigue: "para la evaluación de los esfuerzos realizados hacia la consecución de los objectivos del Nuevo Orden Economico e Internacional".
En esencia, proponemos que se diga "esfuerzos realizados" en vez de "progresos registrados" porque creemos que todos estamos de acuerdo en que no se ha obtenido ningún progreso.
P. MASUD (Chairman Drafting Committee): If I understood the proposed amendment correctly, it would read: "for assessing the efforts made towards the objectives of a New International Economic Order." I would still prefer my original formulation, or the formulation of the Drafting Group: "for assessing progress towards the objectives of a new International Economic Order". The delegate of Colombia said there had been no progress. We are not saying that there has been any progress; it is just assessing the progress. If there has been no progress, then we will state later on that there has been no progress.
Therefore, under those circumstances, I do not see the necessity for amending this at this stage.
P.A. MORALES CARBALLO (Cuba): Nosotros tenemos una enmienda o aclaración en los párrafos 11, 12 y 13, pero por ahora como estamos en el párrafo 11 tal vez nosotros , que estamos muy cerca de nuestro colega de Colombia, teníamos precisamente, una propuesta muy similar a la de el; es decir la propuesta del delegado de Colombia la hacemos nuestra y la apoyamos porque consideramos que lo que estamos evaluando son los esfuerzos, no los progresos, que no dudamos que pueda haber alguno; si los hubiera habido pudieran ser resultados precisamente de ese esfuerzo del análisis que pretendemos hacer. La delegación de Cuba apoya la enmienda hecha por el distinguido delegado de Colombia.
Q.H. RAQUE (Bangladesh): We feel that the present formulation would be in the right perspective. After all, we are not going to assess efforts; we are going to just state the progress in concrete terms| whether negative or positive, to see whether there has been any progress either in positive terms or in negative terms. Let me give a concrete example: the resource flow for agriculture has increased from 4 billion to 5 billion, or decreased to 3 billion. We are not going to assess what efforts have been made by the countries concerned to increase or decrease it. What we are concerned with in fact is progress.
The present formulation is in the right perspective. If we are going to assess efforts made by various countries or organizations, we are at a loss. We are not concerned with efforts but with concrete results, I therefore agree with the best wisdom of the very able Chairman of the Drafting Committee: the present formulation will be in the right perspective, and I hope the delegates of Colombia and Cuba will see that we are in fact going to assess the progress, whether it is negative or positive, and not the efforts made.
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): It has just been brought to my notice that in the Spanish version it reads "for assessing progress made towards the objectives of a New International Economic Order" whereas in the English version it says "for assessing progress". The word "made" is not included in the English. I therefore hope that with that explanation, and bringing the Spanish text into line with the English text, there will be no problems,
G. BULA HOTOS (Colombia): Creo que la aclaración que acaba de hacer el señor Presidente del Comité de Redacción y la intervención de nuestro distinguido colega de Bangladesh aclaran el asunto y propondríamos que la redacción de esa frase dijera así: "para la evaluación de los posibles progresos, de los posibles progresos hacia el logro etc",
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): I am sorry, but that suggestion does not help things at all. In fact, it takes us a step backward: "for assessing possible progress". What possible progress oould you assess? The targets are there, as has been very ably explained by the delegate of Bangladesh, We see that progress we have made as against those targets, and this is what we are trying to do here. I hope the delegate of Colombia will reconsider his suggestion.
Q.H. HAQUE (Bangladesh): The word "possible'1 will prejudge the issue. Everything is possible; 3 billion or anything is possible, so "possible" would really not fit in. I hope the delegate of Colombia will see that and agree to the present formulation.
O. BULA HOTOS (Colombia): Habíamos recogido el término "posibles" justamente porque esa palabra fue sugerida per el colega de Bangladesh pero en aras de la conciliación no tenemos inconveniente en que se ajuste el texto español al texto inglés, o sea, que se diga solamente "progresos", eliminando la palabra "registrados".
CHAIRMAN: We adopt paragraph 11.
P.A.MORALES CARBALLO (Cuba): He estado leyendo el texto en inglés del punto 12 y también el texto en /?/ Nos parece que en el texto español la primera frase se leería mejor si nosotros ponemos las palabras que están en la tercera línea, "los países en desarrollo" ponerlo al final de la frase como está en inglés; es decir, en el párrafo español voy a leer lo que dice: "el Consejo estimó que, pese a la mejora de los suministros mundiales de alimentos, gracias a las cosechas generalmente buenas de 1978, la situación alimentaria en los países en desarrollo seguía siendo incierta, si no frágil". Nosotros proponemos, tal y como está en el texto inglés, que la idea está más clara que en el /?/ , las palabras "la situación alimentaria de los países en desarrollo" vaya al final de la frase.
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): The suggestion is well taken. If the delegate of Cuba so desires, we could read out the Spanish which could be brought in line with the English text. We have the amendment here but it is entirely up to him. He can rest assured it will be done.
P.A. MORALES GARBALLO) (Cuba): Párrafo 13. Nosotros, igualmente, queremos referirnos al texto inglés. Eh el texto inglés en la línea quinta dice "it strongly endorsed"; en el texto en español dice "El Consejo corroboró sin reservas". Nos parece que lo que dice el texto en español y el texto inglés no guarda relación ninguna; es mejor seguir lo que dice el texto inglés y decir: "El Consejo respaldó firmemente", que nos parece que sería una traducción correcta al español de lo que aquí aparece en inglés.
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): The delegate of Cuba is right. The amendment will be made and the Spanish text brought in line with the English text.
P.A. MORALES CARBALLO (Cuba): Perdone, señor Presidente, si lo hago trabajar macho.
Nosotros queríamos ir al párrafo 14. Aquí se dice en la línea tercera que había sido "de un tres por ciento aproximado". Nos parece que el número correcto es 2.9, que es como se señala en la página número 2 del estudio exhaustivo realizado por la FAO. Nos parece que seríamos más exactos si hacemos la referencia exacta a lo que plantea el estudio de la FAO.
Eso en primer lugar. Además, en la línea 10 del texto en español dice "no iba a alcanzarse". Nosotros, al menos en español, pensamos que debe decir, como igualmente dice el estudio de la FAO, "que no so alcanzará", y nos parece objetivo porque han transcurrido casi 102 meses del Segundo decenio y nos quedan solamente 18 meses por concluir el Segundo decenio y es muy difícil que en el resto de loo meses que nos quedan se vaya a alcanzar una tasa de crecimiento de más del 5 por ciento. O sea, nos parecse, por tanto, que en la línea décima en lugar de decir "no iba a alcanzarse" debe decir "no so alcansará".
CHAIRMAN: These points you made will be taken care of and corrected as you have asked.
Q. H. HAQUE (Bangladesh): A small point in paragraph 16, in the fifth line, could we say that "the World Food Programme for 1979/80 was still about a quarter below the target of US $950 million".
THE CHAIRMAN: That will be taken care of.
C.O. KELLER SARMIENTO (Argentina): Eh el párrafo 22 después de la primera línea: "caneaba preocupación también el resurgimiento del proteccionismo para los productos elaborados", entre la palabra "proteccionismo" y "para los productos elaborados", propongo agregar "no sólo para los productos agropecuarios sino para los productos elaborados" por ser este un tema que se expresó en el Consejo y no es solamente la preocupación por los productos elaborados sino también por el proteccionismo en los productos primarios agropecuarios.
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): I did not quite get the amendment but I did get the intent. If the Council has no objection to that, I personally would have no objection.
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Sobre el mismo párrafo 22, proponemos que las primeras tres palabras de ese párrafo que dice: "causaba preocupación también" se diga "el Consejo condenó el resurgimiento del proteccionismo..."
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): To the best of my recollection nobody condemned this and therefore it will be a little difficult for me to include this condemnation at this point. Of course, concern was expressed, and very deep concern, for this resurgance of protectionism, but I frankly do not recall it being condemned by anybody.
CHAIRMAN: I do not know why the Columbian delegate is so militant today! We do not condemn things, really, do we. No.
Srta. C. DOMINGUEZ D. (Panamá): Eh el párrafo 22, en la segunda oración que se inicia en la línea cuarta del texto en español, donde dice "se hizo hincapié en la necesidad de una mejora del acceso", se incluyan "de los productos provenientes de paìses en desarrollo" y continuaría "a los mercados", y se incluye "de los países desarrollados" y seguiría entonces "Como requisito previo para el logro del Nuevo Orden Económico Internacional".
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): It would be very ungallant for me not to accept this suggestion, therefore I personally would have no hesitation in accepting the suggestion.
CHAIRMAN: If Council also accepts it, this proposal by Panama will be included.
F. GERBASI (Venezuela) : Una pequeña enmienda en el párrafo 22 además de la ya incluida de Argentina. En la segunda línea de ese párrafo 22 dice: "para los productos elaborados y semi elaborados de los países desarrollados". Debe decir "en los países desarrollados" porque el proteccionismo sabemos donde está dirigido.
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): Venezuela is not bilingual but trilingual, he speaks French also, so if I draw the attention to the English text he will find what he is saying is reflected in the English text. It is only a problem between the Spanish and the English text and the Spanish text will be brought in line with the English text.
CHAIRMAN: Venezuela, do you agree?
F. GERBASI (Venezuela): Escuché parte de lo que dijo el Presidente del Comité de Redacción, pero ayer mismo en el Comité de Redacción le indicábamos que existía una falta de coincidencia en muchas partes de la versión final del informe entre el texto inglés y español. Tal es el caso que estamos comprobándolo aquí por una serie de intervenciones. Quizá valiera la pena que la Secretaría hiciera una revisión exacta de las traducciones del inglés a las versiones a los otros idiomas.
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): That will be done. I can assure the delegate of Venezuela that a note has already been made of this and careful attention will be paid to the fact that both texts ara in line with one another.
M. KRIESBERG (United States of America): Paragraph 2.3 is a little confusing as to whether we are talking about TCDC or ECDC and in the middle of it, where we have referred to the Director-General's convening a technical consultation, there I know that to be TCDC and I think that maybe that is all that is needed for clarification.
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): It is a technical consultation on ECDC, Economic Cooperation among Developing Countries. It is reflected correctly.
A. J. PECKHAM (United Kingdom): I really put up my flag to ask for some clarification on paragraph 22. I was not quite sure of the English text of the Panamanian amendment to the second sentence. Could I have that again please?
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): I will read it out for you. This would be the second sentence in paragraph 22 "In this context, the need for improved access to products coming from developing countries to markets of developed countries was stressed as a prerequisite," etc.
CHAIRMAN: Is that all right?
A. J. PECKHAM (United Kingdom): No. I was a little surprised. I could follow the first part of the amendment but 1 was not quite clear why in respect of markets, it was limited to developed countries. I thought there were very good expanding markets in the developing countries and I cannot see really why those three words should be included.
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): It would take a long time to explain why this was necessary but I am sure Mr. Peckham knows why it is necessary, but nonetheless it was a suggestion made by the delegate of Panama and I thought it would contribute to the text in the sense that it would make it more comprehensive and it was in that spirit in which it was accepted.
A. J. PECKHAM (United Kingdom): I think that is just why I was a little concerned about this because I think we all know perfectly well the problem of protectionism and we all know well the need for improved access for products from developing countries, but what I cannot follow is that such improved access, if you have an expanding market in perhaps a relatively rich country, why that should be limited. It is a matter of categorizing countries. I should have thought the openness of markets and the avoidance of protectionnism was far more important than just restricting this to the developed countries.
CHAIRMAN: Are you opposing the suggestion of the Panamanian delegation?
A. J. PECKHAM (United Kingdom): I am suggesting that after the word "markets" at the top of page 7 of the English text the additional words, "access to the markets of developed countries" are not necessary.
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): I do not wish to get into a debate with Mr. Peckham but he would realize that there are very few developing countries which have protectionist tendencies and therefore it is in that context, and you would see this sentence starts with "in this context" and therefore the suggestion made by the delegate, of Panama becomes relevant. There are developing market economies by all means there are, there is not dispute about that, but very few. I personally know of none who have these protectionist tendencies and therefore it is not worth while mentioning it here.
CHAIRMAN: I see lots of flags. I hope we do not start another long debate. United Kingdom, will you drop the point? Thank you very much. The United Kingdom has dropped the point and therefore we go on with Colombia.
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Sobre la enmienda que habíamos propuesto a la primera frase del párrafo 22, con todo el respeto que yo siento por el distinguido Presidente del Comité de Redacción, puedo remitirlo a las Actas para que vea la intervención de la delegación de Colombia. Dijimos enfáticamente, con toda claridad, como lo hacemos siempre, que condenábamos el proteccionismo. En igual sentido se expresaron varias delegaciones. Podríamos poner "varias delegaciones condenaron el resurgimiento del proteccionismo". Esto corresponde a los hechos y puede constatarse en las Actas.
CHAIRMAN: If you just wanted to make the point, or you want to insist on the "condemned" - you are not insisting.
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Yo insisto en que si no es aceptable nuestra propuesta original, que se diga entonces "varias delegaciones" porque lo hicimos varias delegaciones, condenamos el resurgimiento del proteccionismo.
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): The delegate of Colombia has referred to the minutes and he has said that while speaking he condemned - I could count one, but he has referred to several. I wonder which other countries did that. I know a lot of countries expressed general concern, but condemning it is an entirely different matter. It is in that context that I say we should stick to the existing text.
CHAIRMAN: I do not think the delegate of Colombia will go into a long argument on this.
P.A. MORALES CARVALLO (Cuba): Quería referirme al párrafo 23. Realmente con respecto al párrafo 23 no tengo ninguna enmienda y ninguna propuesta, pero al igual que una delegación que nos precedió en el uso de la palabra sobre este mismo párrafo, si no lo entendí mal, aquí se habla por ejemplo de que "El Consejo señaló que en el quinto período de sesiones de la UNCTAD se habían logrado algunos progresos en ciertos sectores" y continúa. Ni delegación no conoce todavía los resultados de la V UNCTAD celebrada en Manila. Es muy difícil para mí, en particular, sumame precisamente a todas las aseveraciones que aquí se expresan. No dudo de que sea así, pero mi delegación no tiene instrucciones de mi Gobierno, y soy franco al expresar esto. Es muy difícil aceptar este paquete completo de cosas con respecto a la V UNCTAD que repito, no quiere decir que lo ponga en duda. No dudo de que haya sido así, pero como estamos nosotros discutiendo cosas concretas, mi delegación no se ha referido a esto, ha oído pocas delegaciones y no puedo hacerlo mío este párrafo, del que no dudo. Esa era la idea que quería expresar.
Q.H. HAQUE (Bangladesh): I see a lot of logic in what the delegate of Cuba says. In fact I recall that in introducing the subject Professor Nour Islam said it was rather too early to assess the outcome of UNCTAD V and if there has been any progress it has been rather limited. On that I think the point made by Cuba is very valid.
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): Could we say then, "The Council noted that at the Fifth Session of UNCTAD little progress had been made", or "limited progress" as pointed out by the delegate of Bangladesh, which would be in line with the introduction to this subject by Professor Islam.
Q.H. HAQUE (Bangladesh): We accept that it could be said that the Council noted that it was a little too early to assese the outcome of UNCTAD V and according to a preliminary assessment very limited progress has been made. We could accept a sentence like that.
CHAIRMAN: I think this is an editorial question now. The points made by Bangladesh and Cuba are taken.
P. ELMANOWSKY (France): J'ai l'impression que beaucoup de délégués n'étaient pas à Manille. Personnellement, j'étais à cette conférence. Je dois dire qu'en ce qui concerne le paragraphe qui dit: "En ce qui concerne le protectionnisme (je lis le texte français), la GNUCED V a abouti à un accord sur un programme d'action en vue d'ajustements structurels, etc.". Ce texte est repris intégralement de la résolution qui a été adoptée par cette conférence. Cette résolution est entre les mains du secrétariat et il peut vous en être donné lecture certainement.
D'autre part, il y a eu des divergences fondamentales entre pays développés et pays en voie de développement qui ont donné lieu à deux déclarations distinctes concernant le résultat de négociations commerciales multilatérales. Quant au protectionnisme et à l'ajustement structurel, la résolution a été adoptée par les uns et par les autres et il serait tout de même excessif de dire que dans ce domaine peu de progrès ont été réalisés. Ces progrès existent. Evidemment,chacun peut avoir une appréciation différente, mais il convient de reprendre ce qui est exactement dans la résolution sur le protectionnisme et l'ajustement structurel. Encore une fois, les lignes: "la CNUCED V a abouti à un accord sur un programme d'action, etc.", c'est exactement le texte de Manille.
D'autre part, je dois dire que la discussion a ouvert à nouveau un peu le débat sur l'amélioration de l'accès aux marchés des produits des pays en voie de développement vers les pays développés et, comme certains l'ont dit, au contraire cela s'appliquerait à tout le monde. C'est une réouverture des débats qui a eu lieu à Manille.
Je ne pense donc pas que nous puissions ici, à Rome, arriver à des conclusions différentes que certains pourraient trouver meilleures que celles auxquelles nous avons abouti à Manille et je crois qu'il faut laisser le texte comme il est.
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): I will attempt a compromise and suggest that we should say, "The Council noted that while it was too early to assess the outcome of UNCTAD V, a preliminary assessment indicated that little progress had been made in a number of fields'», and then the paragraph goes on to read as it is.
CHAIRMAN: Is that generally acceptable? Good.
G. BULA HOYOS (COLOMBIA): Sobre lo que pasó en la UNCTAD, creo que el colega de Francia puede tener razón, y no nos opondríamos a que se transcriban los textos originales de Manila, pero en cuanto a lo que pasó aquí en el Consejo, creo que podría arreglarse la situación encabezando el párrafo 23 de la siguiente manera: "el Consejo fue informado". El Consejo fue informado en el 5° período de sesiones, y seguir igual. Me parece que ésta es la situación real.
CHAIRMAN: I thought we had come to a consensus on what the Chairman of the Drafting Committee read out on this particular issue.
H. MOKHTARI (Algérie): Je viens d'écouter le distingué représentant de la France. Dans la deuxième partie de son exposé, il a demandé que le par. 22 reste tel quel et qu'on ne tienne pas compte de l'amendement de la distinguée représentante de Panama.
Je ne sais pas si ce paragraphe est remis en question ou s'il est maintenu avec l'amendement qui a été proposé.
CHAIRMAN: Paragraph 22, the point was raised by the United Kingdom against the Panama intervention and the United Kingdom does not insist on the point made, so paragraph 22 is all right. The delegate of Prance spoke on paragraph 23 and when I asked the House Members if they agreed to the amendment read out by the Chairman of the Drafting Committee in line with what Bangladesh and Colombia said there was no argument about that either. So we have now settled paragraph 22 and 23.
P.A. MORALES CARBALLO (Cuba): Quería referirme al párrafo 23. A mi delegación le satisface la propuesta hecha por el delegado de Colombia en el sentido de agregar la palabra: "fue informado". Nos parece una solución adecuada.
Mi delegación, a este respecto, se encuentra en una situación de desventaja y tampoco hemos recibido instrucciones de nuestro Gobierno.
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): We could say, "The Council was informed that at the Fifth Session of UNCTAD little progress had been made in a number of fields and many basic issues still remained to be resolved", instead of the earlier suggestion. If that is not acceptable, then either of the two. But I must point out that we are now discussing basic matters and not matters purely relating to drafting.
CHAIRMAN: Would you repeat the first formulation that you read after the intervention of Bangladesh?
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): "The Council noted that while it was too early to assess the outcome of UNCTAD V, a preliminary assessment indicated that little progress had been made in a number of fields and many basic issues still remained to be resolved".
P. ELMANOWSKY (France): Cette formule ne correspond absolument pas à ce que nous avons été amenés à débattre, et en tout cas cette formule n'a jamais été envisagée au Comité de rédaction.
Il y a une chose que l'on a su ici au cours des débats, ne serait-ce que par l'exposé du secrétariat sur les événements récents, qui a mis le Conseil au courant des travaux de la cinquième ONUCED et de ses résultats. Cela est noté dans le procès-verbal préparé par le secrétariat: "Le Conseil a noté qu'à la cinquième session de la CNUCED quelques progrès ont été faits dans un certain nombre de do- maines". On ne précise pas exactement quels sont ces domaines, mais je suis bien obligé de dire, que I ce soit par exemple dans le domaine des transports maritimes, que ce soit dans le domaine du fonds commun où il y a eu de nouveaux progrès, que ce soit dans le domaine du protectionnisme et de l'amé nagement structurels, il y a eu des progrès, et donc ce qu'on a dit ici est exact: "La cinquième CNUCED a avancé dans plusieurs domaines". Et puis, on ajoute: "Mais de nombreux problèmes fonda mentaux restent à résoudre". On en mentionne un certain nombre, c'est-à-dire le protectionnisme, la coopération entre les pays en voie de développement, les produits de base, les pays les moins avancés, tout cela présente de l'intérêt pour le secteur alimentaire. Il y a certainement des problèmes et des progrès à faire, et cela est bien dit dans le rapport. Puis on revient sur le protectionnisme et l'on utilise une formule qui reprend mot pour mot ce qui se trouve dans la résolution sur le protectionnisme.
Je peux accepter l'amendement de la Colombie: "Le Conseil a été informé..." car il y a des informa- tions sur tous ces points. Mais le reste du texte ne doit pas être modifié.
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): I have a slight advantage over Prance because I have the introductory statement by Professor Nour Islam here, and he said, "The Conference will be aware" - and I am reading from his statement - "that the Fifth Session of UNCTAD has just concluded in Manila. It is too early for a full assessment of its outcome", and this is exactly what we are endeavouring to reflect in the amendment that I have just proposed. I see absolutely no reason why there should be objection to a statement of fact, and therefore I would once again request that the proposal that I made be accepted, Sir.
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Si he entendido bien la propuesta del Comité de Redacción representa una aceptación por parte del Consejo de una evaluación aunque sea preliminar. La delegación de Colombia no puede aceptar esa fórmula porque aquí no se ha hecho ninguna evaluación ni definitiva ni preliminar. Podemos aceptar el texto presentado por Francia, pero solamente que se diga que el Consejo fue informado, porque ésta es la realidad.
A.J. PECKHAM (United Kingdom): I can agree with the last speaker, but the point I wanted to make is that I am hoping that at this stage of taking the report we were not going to go over the whole discussion which took place in Manila. It seemed to me that rediscussing this was a waste of time. There are views either with the preamble just stated, but I cannot agree that the word "some" in the first line should be replaced by the word "little". That is not my understanding nor that of my Government.
W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of): We would prefer to leave the text as it stands and we congratulate and commend the Drafting Group for having done such an excellent job to try to reflect accurately the outcome of our proceedings, but we could equally accept the proposal and say that the Council was informed and so on but the changing of "some progress" into "little progress", this we would not like very much.
I must also say that we do not think that the access to markets is an issue which only concerns developed countries, that is, I am referring to paragraph 22. We do feel that it also concerns trade amongst and between developing countries if my understanding of the New International Economic Crder is correct.
CHAIRMAN: I do not think we should go back into debates, as the United Kingdom said. The Drafting Committee spent many hours on this and I am sure that all language groups were represented.
Q.H. HAQUE (Bangladesh) : On paragraph 23 1 see Colombia's point that we can say "The Council was informed." Then let us take from the statement made by Professor Islamd, "It is too early" and it is not "some" or "little". The word he used is "limited". He used the words "limited progress".
Saying "The Council was informed" and then say "It was too early to assess the outcome of UNCTAD V, but according to preliminary assessment, limited progress has been made in some fields, although many basic issues still remain to be resolved," and we start with "The Council was informed", I feel will reflect it correctly, and I feel this will be more acceptable to Colombia, France, Germany and the United Kingdom.
CHAIRMAN: Now, with this then we have accepted paragraphs 18-23, and we go over the page to paragraphs 24 to 27.
A.J. PECKHAM (United Kingdom): 1 did not intend to intervene on the earlier paragraph, but on paragraph 24 I do have a point. In the third sentence there is a reference to IPS, and the sentence reads, "It urged donor countries to substantially their contributions to IFS", etc. As it reads, this is an appeal to those countries that are contributing to IFS and I do not think that was intended. I think the appeal was a general appeal to all doners, so I think the wording at the moment is a little defective ano 1 think it could be improved by simply making this, "The Council urged donor countries to contribute to IFS and expand their fertilizer aid'', etc., but that is the point. I think this is too limited at the moment, I think this is a purely textual thing in the previous sentence , the sentence reading, ''It not.ed with concern that although phosphate fertilizer prices had tended to decline in recent months, those of nitrogen and potash were rising." I think if you have a semi-colon and then say, "and moreover, that the contributions", etc. it is just a little improvement.
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): 1 am very grateful to the United Kingdom for the first amendment. It does improve the whole sentence.
As regards the second point would it be satisfactory to him if we say "all donor countries"? This would mean all and not simply donor countries. It would enlarge the scope of the donor countries.
CHAIRMAN: These are acceptable then.
C.S. RANGACHARI (India): I have a slight problem with the second sentence of paragraph 24. I believe there is a factual inaccuracy here which needs to be corrected. India had pointed this out at the Drafting Committee but we were reassured that this was factually correct. I refer to the sentence starting with "It noted with concern that although phosphate fertilizer prices had tended to decline in recent months". I submit this is not correct. The position is that the prices of all three fertilizers, that is, phosphate, nitrogen and potash have been rising, and I feel that the sentence should be redrafted to read, "It noted with concern that the prices of all major fertilizers were rising and that", etc. I have checked up the position this morning with the Secretariat and I have been told that this would be in order, Mr. Chairman.
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): The Secretariat was present when we were drafting this also. I wonder why they did not point it out at that time. It would have been more appropriate had they done so, but apparently India checked up his facts and figures and we can take his word for it and say that all prices of three major fertilizers are rising. I have no problem with that.
CHAIRMAN: May I say that the Secretariat will check and put the correct thing because it is better to be factual and this is a matter of just fact. Are there any more?
M. KRIESBERG (United States of America): I have a question in connection with paragraph 24. The last sentence where it refers to "It urged'', and then it goes on to say "so as to reach an annual level of 1 million tons of nutrients called for by the Seventh Special Session of the UN General Assembly," I do not recall a specific reference to the Council taking a decision with that particular target.
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): This was mentioned by a number of delegations including my own. We specifically referred to the target called for by the Seventh Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly, and we heard no contrary views to this and therefore it was presumed that the Council has accepted this point of view.
M. KRIESBERG (United States of America): I accept your explanation. My concern was, however, that at no time had it been posed as something which the Council was asked to reach a decision on.
P.A. MORALES CARBALLO (Cuba): Serñor Presidente, usted me perdonará, pero no he podido seguir su velocidad; tenía una pequeña pregunta en el párrafo 25; a usted le sorprenderá, pero su velocidad es mayor que la mía, no sé si es posible que haga uso de la palabra.
En el párrafo 25 se dice: "el Consejo señaló que los compromisos oficiales de asistencia externa para la agricultura y la alimentación habían aumentado apreciablemente en 1977 y era probable que siguieran aumentando en 1976". Es decir, "y era probable que se siguieran aumentado en 1978". 1978 ya pasó; se podría decir que "es probable que hayan aumentado en 1978'', al menos en el texto español tiene más sentido porque el ano 1978 ya pasó.
P. MASUD (Chairman Drafting Committee): Could we say "and were likely to have risen in 1978"? - I get the point - "and were likely to have risen".
P. ELMANOWSKY (France): Il y a un point que j'aurais dû noter, et que nous aurions dû tous noter au Comité de rédaction, ce point se trouve au par. 25. On lit dans la dernière phrase qu'il faudrait que les "besoins annuels d'aide alimentaire, estimés à 8 300 000 000 dollars." ... Mais si je me souviens bien il ne s'agit pas de l'aide alimentaire mais de l'aide à l'agriculture en général car l'on n'a jamais parlé de ce chiffre pour l'aide alimentaire elle-même. Il y a quelque chose qui est à revoir.
P. MASUD (Chairman of the Drafting Committee): In the English text, it says "external assistance". It is a typographical error in the French text where it says "food assistance".
Paragraphs 11 to 27, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 11 à 27, ainsi amendés sont approuvés
Los párrafos 11 a 27, así enmendados, son aprobados
Paragraphs 28 and 29 approved
Les paragraphes 28 et 29 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 28 y 29 son aprobados
Paragraphs 30 and 31 approved
Les paragraphes 30 et 31 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 30 y 31 son aprobados
Draft Report of Plenary - Part I, as amended, was adopted
Projet de rapport de la plénière,première partie, ainsi amendée, est adoptée
El proyecto de informe de la Plenaria - Parte I, así enmendado, es aprobado
DRAFT REPORT OF PLENARY - PART II
PROJET DE RAPPORT DE LA PLENIERE - DEUXIEME PARTIE
PROYECTO DE INFORME DE LA PLENARIA - PARTE II
PARAGRAPHS 1 to 12
PARAGRAPHES 1 à 12
PARRRAFOS 1 a 12
C.O. KELLER SARMIENTO (Argentina): En el párrafo 2, al final de la tercera frase, del texto en español, correspondiente a la novena línea donde dice "no sustituía al nuevo acuerdo internacional sobre los cereales que incluiría disposiciones adecuadas", acaso yo agregaría: "y jurídicamente vinculantes sobre reservas, precios, ayuda y seguridad alimentaria".
Para la frase siguiente me parece que hay una contradicción. Yo creo que lo que se dijo por parte de algunas delegaciones al discutir el Plan de Acción es que algunos elementos del Plan de Acción podrían ser fácilmente utilizados por la Conferencia de Negociación; pero si decimos como dice el texto español que "servirían de complemento al nuevo acuerdo internacional" creo que nos apartamos de lo que se dijo en el curso de las deliberaciones.
Por lo tanto la propuesta de mi delegación es que en lugar de "El consejo" se diga: "Algunas delegaciones hicieron notar", por que eso es exactamente lo que sucedió.
P. MASUD (Chairman of the Drafting Committee): I did not get the first amendment quite clearly, but the second one which is stated in the English version "The Council noted that the Plan included certain elements which would be complementary to a new International Grains Arrangement ...." and so on. To the best of my information, the Council did say this, and it would be difficult for me to change "The Council" into "A few delegates".
If I could have the first amendment a little more slowly, I could comment on that.
C.O. KELLER SARMIENTO (Argentina): La frase anterior a esta en el texto español, la frase que comienza: "El Consejo compartía la opinión del Comité en el sentido de que el Plan de Acción, que tenía carácter voluntario, no sustituía al nuevo acuerdo internacional sobre cereales que incluiría disposiciones adecuadas", hasta acá es todo igual; ahora yo agregaría "...y jurídicamente vinculantes sobre reservas, precios, ayuda y seguridad alimentaria". En esta última parte sólo se agrega la palabra "seguridad".
Con respecto a lo que acaba de señalar el distinguido representante de Pakistán y Presidente del Comité de redacción yo recuerdo perfectamente, y he revisado las actas de las sesiones, y ha habido muchas delegaciones, o varias, o lo que el quiera descifrar, que se han expresado en el sentido de que el Plan pueda servir como complemento, pero no hay en ningún caso ninguna decisión de que el Consejo haya adoptado que el Plan sirva como complemento. Eso es una cuestión que no ha sido establecida por el Consejo y no debe figurar de esa manera.
De todas formas, señor Presidente, estoy dispuesto a cualquier comentario que haya sobre el particular.
P. ELMANOWSKY (France): C'est bien parce que j'avais eu cette impression que j'approuve ce que vient de développer le délégué de l'Argentine. Au Comité de rédaction j'avais proposé une formule plus neutre et permettant de garder le mot "le Conseil". J'avais dit: "le Conseil a noté que le Plan comprend certains éléments qui pourraient servir de complément." Malheureusement cette suggestion n'a pas été retenue, (j'étais en minorité, et j'ai dû m'incliner.) Je continue cependant à penser que d'une part ce n'est pas le Conseil unanime qui a noté ce fait et que de toute façon certains de ces éléments peuvent servir de complément mais ne serviront pas obligatoirement de complément.
C.O. KELLER SARMIENTO (Argentina): Me parece que es adecuada la observación formulada por el distinguido representante de Francia y estoy dispuesto a aceptar que "el Consejo tomó nota" siempre que en lugar de poner "servirían" que significa prácticamente una implicación, se diga "podrían servir". Sería muy difícil para el Consejo prejuzgar sobre lo que se decida en la Conferencia de Negociación. Si se pone "podrían servir" no tengo ningún inconveniente en aceptar la formulación de que es el Consejo el que hizo notar esto.
N.M. MAPELA (Zaïre): Je tiens à préciser qu'en fait nous nous sommes déjà exprimés en Plénière sur ce texte. Ce texte reflète donc les débats. Si donc l'on veut changer le texte, j'aimerais poser une question. Plusieurs délégations, de nombreuses délégations, se sont déclarées d'accord sur ce texte: "Certains éléments qui serviraient de complément au Plan". Y-a-t-il une seule délégation qui s'y était opposée? Il n'y en a pas eu. Je suggère donc qu'on laisse le texte tel qu'il est.
P. MASUD (Chairman of the Drafting Committee): With reference to the first amendment proposed by the delegate of Argentina, regarding adequate stocks, price and food security provisions, there can be no problem, this is perfectly acceptable.
As regards the second, the Council noted that the Plan included certain elements which would be complementary. As has been pointed out by the delegate of France, there has been lengthy deliberation on this. There is one provision which would be complementary: tor instance, building up stocks would be complementary to the international grains arrangement and complementary to the Five-Point Plan of Action. There are numerous others also which I could quote, therefore why should we say "might".
I think this has been stated by the delegate of Zaire, and this has been corrected accordingly.
P. ELMANOWSKY (France): Dans un débat sur un sujet de cette nature, il faut faire bien attention aux choses. Certains délégués disent, effectivement, "telles mesures serviront de complément" ou "serviraient de complément". D'autres qui étaient intervenus précédemment ne vont pas réintervenir pour citer ce que Monsieur Untel a dit, ou non; auparavant ils ont fait part de leurs conceptions générales du Plan et de ses rapports avec le futur Accord sur les céréales et donc ils ont aussi exposé leur position qui, forcément, n'était pas véritablement la même que celle des autres délégués. Ils ont bien dit qu'ils étaient favorables au Plan sur la sécurité alimentaire. On ne peut à partir de là dire que, parce que trois ou plusieurs, même dix ou vingt, ont déclaré que tels éléments serviraient de complément, en conclure que le Conseil tout entier dit "cela doit servir de complément". Lorsque nous disons que cela "peut servir de complément", c'est juste par rapport à l'ensemble des opinions exprimées.
On a parlé, je crois que c'est vous ou le Président du Comité de rédaction, de la constitution du stock pouvant être un complément à l'Accord. C'est vrai et c'est faux à la fois. C'est vrai dans la mesure où des pays qui ne seraient pas liés par la Convention seraient amenés à constituer des stocks. Mais, pour les principaux pays exportateurs et en définitive c'est sur eux que repose la question de la sécurité alimentaire au point de vue des céréales, de par l'accord qui sera négocié, ils seront amenés et obligés juridiquement à constituer des stocks. A ce moment-là le Plan d'action, n'aura pas été un complément, il ne serait un complément que pour ceux qui ne seraient pas liés par la Convention mais pour les autres c'est la Convention qui fait foi.
CHAIRMAN: I would like to appeal to Members, especially Members of the Drafting Committee, not to bring back their former arguments. Our task is to adopt the Report which is submitted to us, and therefore Members should make short amendments or insertions' or inclusions rather than go back to the argument pro and con of why this was in and so on. This would keep us here until next week.
I appeal to Argentina now to make a concrete proposal for the second part, as he has done for the first part which has been accepted - a concrete proposal which can then be debated, and we can proceed.
CO. KELLER SARMIENTO (Argentina): Señor Presidente, tenga la plena seguridad que la intención de mi delegación es colaborar a tratar de obtener un texto que sea lo más ajustado posible y tratar de ir en busca de un consenso; por eso no tenemos ningún inconveniente en que quede que: "El Consejo tomo nota", pero de que el Consejo tomó nota de que el Plan incluía algunos elementos que "podrían servir", porque no está dicho que van a servir; tal vez algunos elementos sirvan y otros no sirvan; dejemos que la negociación sea la que disponga si sirven los elementos que complementarían, pero no vamos a prejuzgar sobre lo que va a determinar la Conferencia de Negociaciones.
Por otra parte, en ultimo caso, no es cierto que el Consejo tomo nota de que ha habido muchas delegaciones; y en cuanto a lo que dijo nuestra delegación de que algunas delegaciones dijeron y otras no contestaron no es exacto porque en el curso del Consejo, como claramente lo dice el párrafo 8, ha habido otras posiciones.
Tratamos de obtener un texto que sea aceptable para todos.
Q.H. HAQUE (Bangladesh): I find myself in a difficult situation. I really see the point being made by the delegates of France and Argentina but I think there is a misunderstanding. We are not thinking of this Plan as being integrated into the Grains Arrangement; we are thinking of this Plan as independent of the Grains Arrangement, not as being a substitute for it. There are certain elements in this Plan which are in fact complementary to the gambit of discussion for the International Grains Agreement, and we all know what this gambit is. The Chairman of the Drafting Committee was fortunate enough to be representing the country in his negotiations and it is rightly said that stock-building and the IMF, and mainly the point on collective self-reliance of the developing countries themselves, as we emphasize, are complementary elements. If that is so, how is it going to prejudge? The arrangements have their gambit of discussion. How is it prejudging, if we have elements there which are complementary? What is the difficulty in saying that? May I bring home this point, if the delegate of Argentina agrees: we are not prejudging the gambit in any way. Like the fifth point, we correctly emphasize it is complementary.
Therefore, in that sense, if it is acceptable to the delegates of France and Germany, we would be happy. It is factually correct and we know the gambit of discussion of the International Grains Arrangement, and these elements are not there. I do not know if I have been able to convince my very good friend from Argentina and my colleague from France.
S. AIDARA (Sénégal): Monsieur le président, dans votre commentaire après l'intervention du représentant de la France, je me suis rendu compte que vous m'avez coupe l'herbe sous le pied. Effectivement, je pense qu'il ne faut pas reouvir ici le débat su cette question. Le texte tel qu'il est libellé n'a pas un caractère obligatoire. Le délégué de la France a dit tout à l'heure - et je respecte son opinion - que certains éléments pouvaient et que d'autres ne pouvaient pas servir de complément au nouvel arrangement. Le texte tel qu'il est libellé n'est pas libellé au futur mais au conditionnel, on dit bien "serviraient". Par conséquent, je pense que ceci répond au souci de la France. "Le Conseil a noté (il n'a fait que noter, il n'a pas pris de décision) que le plan comprend certains éléments qui serviraient de complément à un nouvel arrangement". Il n'a pas dit "qui serviront". Je voudrais en appeler à la sagesse du délégué de la France et du délégué de l'Argentine pour qu'on puisse avancer dans nos travaux.
A.J. PECKHAM (United Kingdom): I would not wish to enter into the substance of the matter. It does occur to me that a possible way out would be simply to change the word "would" into "could". There is a subtle distinction between a conditional "would" and a more conditional "might". If we just change one letter at the beginning of that word and made a "would" into a "could", it might save a lot of problems.
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): Mr. Peckham has made it sound very easy, but "would" and "could", to the best of my recollection, mean entirely different things in a different context, and therefore I would still request that the sentence be retained as it is. I had the good fortune - or I would say the bad fortune - of being one of the negotiators at Geneva. A question was raised there, for instance: how much would the developing countries stock, how much would they hold, under the International Grains Arrangement? Various countries gave various figures and the total came to a somewhat insignificant amount. If this Plan were adopted and countries started holding stocks under this Plan, would it not help the International Grains Arrangement, when it met again, in that the developing countries would then be in a position to say: look here, now we have got more stocking facilities and we will be able to hold more. In that case it would thus be complementary to the International Grains Arrangement, and, as has been pointed out by the delegate of Bangladesh, this in no way prejudges the negotiations. It is in no way a substitute for the negotiations and, most of all, it is a voluntary Plan. The distinction has been brought out by the delegate of Argentina himself where he speaks about "legally binding stock, price and food aid provisions".
There is therefore no overlap in the two; they are different and that must be understood. In that context I would again request that this be allowed to stand' as it is. I would make a special plea to my colleague from France who so ably helped me in the Drafting Group, who so ably assisted me with this, and not go on to say "might'' and "would'' and so forth.
P. ELMANOWSKY (France): Je ne veux pas insister, mais je peux formuler une proposition qui tiendra compte du point de vue des uns et des autres. Ne peut-on pas dire: "Le Conseil a noté que le Plan comprend différents éléments (au lieu de certains éléments) qui, selon le cas, pourraient servir (ou serviraient) de complément à un nouvel arrangement international". Car vous avez des éléments qui peuvent servir dans le cadre du nouvel Accord et puis vous en avez d'autres; par exemple on a noté l'appel lancé au FMI; ce sera là un élément nouveau qui servira véritablement de complément. Mais par contre le stockage lui-même en général - je ne dis pas le stockage pratiqué par les pays en voie de développement - est effectivement un véritable élément complémentaire qui servirait; par contre, les politiques de stockage déployées dans le cadre de l'arrangement par les pays en développement ne peut servir de complément. Vous voyez la nuance.
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): The key word of the whole sentence is "certain" elements. We are not talking about all elements, not even specific elements; we are just saying "certain elements". There may be just one or two; two have already been quoted by the delegate of France. I would therefore suggest that the text be allowed to stand as it is. I am sorry to insist on this matter but we did work very hard on this and I feel quite strongly about it.
CHAIRMAN: Will the delegate of France agree?
P. ELMANOWSKY (France): La proposition que je viens de faire est pourtant très claire, elle ne supprime pas les mots "certains éléments", elle dit: "différents éléments". Ces différents éléments dans certains cas peuvent servir de complément, enfin certains peuvent servir de complément, alors que d'autres servent véritablement de complément. A ce moment-là, je crois que tout le monde a satisfaction et je ne vois vraiment pas en quoi je complique la position, je tiens compte des situations des uns et des autres.
CO. KELLER SARMIENTO (Argentina): Apoyo totalmente lo que acaba de decir el distinguido representante de Francia y me inclino también por agradecer al señor Peckham, representante del Reino Unido por la traducción ai inglés de la enmienda que yo había propuesto inicialmente, que era simplemente reemplazar la palabra "servirían" por "podrían servir". Este es un elemento condicional que es de extrema importancia Les países productores, los países exportadores han aceptado cualquier tipo de compromiso con tal de llegar al Plan de Seguridad Alimentaria Mundial, con tal de apoyar todo lo que sea cualquier medida tendiente a reforzar la seguridad alimentaria, que comprendemos perfectamente, pero que, de ahí a obtener que un consenso sea expresado sobre un tema del que ha habido consenso, mi delegación no escá, de acuerdo. Debo señalar que hay una diferencia de matiz entre el idioma inglés y el español, /?/ en español se dice que "servirían de complemento", se está prácticamente hablando como de un nuevo instrumento; en cambio en el inglés es bastante más suelto el texto donde dice "which would be complementary to a new international Grain Arrangement". Por eso yo creo que si bien estaría dispuesto a aceptar una formulación como la expresada por el delegado de Francia, también estaría dispuesto a ir hasta un poco más allá si me pudieran poner en lugar de "servirían" "podrían servir de complemento" perque es una cuestión que va a ser la negociación y esto no impide sino que ayuda a que sirvan.
Q.M. RAQUE (Bangladesh): I am sorry if I seem to be a little obstructive. It is very difficult to argue with a friend, and particularly a good friend. I always tell Mr. Peckham that we have been learning English from Mr. Peckham for 230 years, and I am still learning! And the replacement of the word "would" by "could", I think, in this context - as the Chairman of the Drafting Committee said correctly - would change the meaning substantially. The delegate of France himself agreed that there are certain elements in the Plan which would be complementary. I heard the translation in English; would be complementary. But his objections is to the word "certain" elements. He wants the word "different" elements. If that is the problem, I think we could accommodate that and still retain the word "would". I would really be sorry to see the word "would" replaced by the word "could" because it is complementary, "certain elements".
If, to accommodate the delegate of France, the word "certain" could be replaced by a more appropriate word, we could go along with that, but certainly not replacing the word "would" by "could".
A.J. PECKHAM (United Kingdom): I do not often say very much, and when I do say something I try to keep it as short as possible. But I must express my dissent about being 230 years or more old! There is an English expression about teaching grandmother to suck eggs. I do not think I have ever attempted to do so in this assembly, and if I may just make it abundantly clear, I did say I was not entering the substance of the matter; I made a suggestion and it is for the Council to consider it. If it does not think the suggestion is workable, fine. It was a perfectly neutral offer, but I hope Mr. Haque does not feel I am too inhibited from time to time, even with my advanced age, to contribute occasionally!
CHAIRMAN: I think the points you made are well taken.
D. VUJIVIC (Observer for Yugoslavia): I really do not like to interfere in this matter as an Observer. I have tried my best to keep out of the discussion and give every chance to the members of the Council to solve the problem, but here I feel it is really necessary to say that I fully agree with the Chairman of the Drafting Committee about the significance of this matter. If we just quickly read through the Plan of Action, we find at least seven points the new International Grains Arrangement has nothing to do with, and those are supplementary and complementary elements. I think it should be recognized also in the report by the Council.
For example, we see IMF provision, the International Emergency Food Reserve provision which is quite specific and has nothing to do with the Grains Arrangement; then, Food Security Assistance Scheme which is an FAO scheme; then the whole Chapter V, with four elements.
So you have at least seven elements and it is sufficient to say several, or some, or various, or whatever you like, to replace that word but the word "would" I think must be in, if not then it is a failure of the Council to recognize the effect. How could the grains arrangement as it is said here "as envisaged in the negotiating conference" solve the problem, all these measures, self-reliance of developing countries or Food Security Scheme or similar things. So we have just to recognize a fact.
CHAIRMAN: Of course it is not usual for observers to intervene but we thank you for the explanations.
S. AIDERA (Sénégal): Je crois que la proposition du délégué du Bangladesh est acceptable et je voudrais l'appuyer. On remplacerait donc le terme "certains" par "différents" et je crois que le délégué de la France y trouvera satisfaction dans la mesure où la restriction dont il parle sera incluse dans "différents". On aura par conséquent: "Le Conseil a noté que le Plan comprend différents éléments qui serviraient de complément au nouvel arrangement" et on maintiendrait le terme "serviraient" toujours au conditionnel.
M. HAMDOON (Iraq) (interpretation from Arabic) : It may be that the Arabic text could help you to solve the problem. In the Arabic text the sentence reads as follows: "The Council rioted that the plan included certain elements which could be considered as complementary to a new international grains arrangement." You could say that the Council noted that the plan included certain elements which would serve as compliments to a new international grains arrangement. I think we would have to establish and try to make certain that the Arabic and French texts are equal. This is not a substitute to the new international grains arragement but it is a substitute solution we use until the new international grains arrangement is established. So that I would suggest "The Council noted that the plan that certain elements which are considered as complementary to the new international grains arrangement...''
CHAIRMAN: I think we have more or less exhausted all the ideas coming on this and I would like to ask the Chairman of the Drafting Committee to sum up and perhaps put a final version which we can adopt.
CO. KELLER SARMIENTO (Argentina): Lamento mucho abusar de la confianza suya sobre este tema, pero es un tema muy delicado e importante para mi país. Por lo tanto, quisiera que no quede ninguna duda sobre la posición del mismo; si yo acepto que "el Consejo tomó nota de que el Plan serviría de complemento al Nuevo Acuerdo Internacional" yo no estaría cumpliendo con las instrucciones que tengo de mi Gobierno, Pero, en aras de tratar de encontrar una formula de compromiso, me pregunto si sería aceptable que en el texto inglés donde dice "which would be complementary", se pusiera "which would possibly be complementary". Eso sería el máximo hacia el cual podría andar y si eso es aceptable, no hablaré más sobre este tema.
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee : As regards the first one about "certain" and "different", we can drop both of them. We can say "The Council noted that the plan included elements which" and here comes the problem. Now the delegate of Argentina has said that it should read "which would possibly be complementary '' to a new international grains arrangement''. On the one hand we have his suggestion, on the other hand you have just heard the observer from Yugoslavia listing a number of elements which are complementary. Now what do we do? Do we, in order to accommodate a certain point of view, distort reality, or do we just go on record as having stated what should be stated and under those circumstances I would be constrained to be of the view that "The Council noted that the plan included elements which would be complementary to a new international grains arrangement as envisaged'' etc.
K.R. HICHAM (Canada): I wonder if we might not get over this hurdle by going back to what I think was an original. Argentinian proposal which would accommodate members of the Council who believed or had in fact stated that the plan could, that the plan would, that the plan might or did not say anything, simply by leaving the sentence the way it is in the original and starting it off with "some Members of the Council". I do not think that we would bind anybody to the conditional or not conditional, or to being party to the statement.
H. CARANDANG (Philippines): I have listened with attention to the various interventions made on this sentence and I was just wondering whether the inclusion of some words between "which" and "would" would solve the question. And this would be "The Council noted that the plan included certain elements which in the view of the majority would be complementary''. I was just wondering whether this could be a compromise solution.
C.O. KELLER SARMIENTO (Argentina): Simplemente deseo ejercer el derecho de respuesta a lo que acaba de expresar el representante de Pakistán y Presidente del Comité de Redacción sobre la observación formulada por Yugoslavia. Los siete elementos mencionados por el observador de Yugoslavia forman parte, a juicio de los países que negocian un acuerdo internacional de cereales, de un paquete total y no debe separarse. Digo esto para que no haya duda sobre la posición de nuestro país en mantener aspectos que pueden ser objeto de negociación internacional dentro de su contexto.
Con respecto a la enmienda propuesta por el representante de Filipinas, mi delegación acepta cualquier tipo de modificación que sea constructiva, pero que tenga en cuenta la posición de mi delegación. En principio la apoyamos.
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): As regards what the Philippines has said, it would be a contradiction in terms. In the first place we say "The. Council noted..." and then we go on to say "The majority". Well, if the majority is of the view, then the Council is of that view and normally that is so. But I would again appeal to my colleague from Argentina to relent a little here because, as I have explained earlier, this in no way hinges upon future negotiations and it does not in any way hinder anybody from taking a position in the negotiations because this plan, as it has been stated so many times, is voluntary. It is not a substitute for the international grains arrangement. Therefore, it should be kept apart, the two should be kept apart. It is just coincidental that certain elements of this plan, the grains arrangement, have a bearing on one another but the two are separate and different and they should be construed as such,
CHAIRMAN: I think the essential point is that the two are different. Now if in any way this can be brought out clearly then all this argument and counter-argument would really not arise. If in the mind of certain delegations the two are linked by saying certain elements are complementery, etc., then I think a way should be found of not linking them so that there is no mistake about it.
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): La delegación de Colombia apoya la propuesta de Filipinas y consideramos que esto sería aceptable para todos, así podríamos pasar a los párrafos siguientes.
O.H. HAQUE (Bangladesh): It is difficult to speak at this juncture, whether the elements are complementary or not is factual. To bring in the element of majority or minority would not be appropriate because it is factual. In that context I would say that it is better to accept the last suggestion of Argentina than to say majority, which would possibly give room for pre-judging. The delegate listed several elements which are complementary and you have not really said the views of the majority or the minority, the minority did not say that they were not complementary, so that that element would not be appropriate to bring in here. But if my colleague from Pakistan, who is now the Chairman of the Drafting Committee, agrees, with his permission we can agree on the strict construction of my friend from Argentina. I do not know if my colleague from Pakistan has any other formulation.
W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of): Actually we had not intended to intervene on that paragraph but we could possibly go along with what was suggested by Argentina. We could also go along with "in the view of the majority". I had another proposal to make before. I was just thinking perhaps it could help us if we could for a moment leave this paragraph and go through the rest of the paragraphs because in the next paragraphs we would see some clarification about the different positions that have been taken in our discussions. But as the matter stands we could go along very much with the proposal made by Argentina.
CHAIRMAN: We are discussing paragraphs 1 - 4 so any of those paragraphs can be taken.
P. MASUD (Chairman of the Drafting Committee): I have tried to accommodate all points of view and I will continue to endeavour to do so. Could we say that "The Council noted that the plan included certain elements which were possibly complementary to a new international grains arrangement as envisaged in the negotiating conference which had been adjourned" etc. etc.
CHAIRMAN: Right. I think this probably has done it. I see that Argentina and everybody agree.
P.A. MORALES CARBALLO (Cuba): Usted dijo, señor Presidente, que la discusión estaba abierta del párrafo 1 al 4. Yo quisiera hacer una pequeña enmienda al párrafo 3. La última palabra de este párrafo 3, dice: "objetivos". En inglés aparece con la palabra "targets". A nosotros nos parece que es mejor, que quedaría mas claro si ponemos en lugar de "objetivos", "metas".
Si no hay inconveniente sugeriríamos: "metas convenidas".
P. MASUD (Chairman of the Drafting Committee): If I have the amendment right Cuba is proposing "International assistance was still falling short of requirements and agreed targets." This was debated during the course of the meeting of the Drafting Group and it was felt that there are two types of targets, those which are agreed and those which are not agreed. So if we were simply to say targets it would be a wider term and cover more than agreed targets, because there are a few agreed targets but there is a large number of targets. I could quote one or two, which might raise problems, therefore I will not. For instance, the target of the Manila Comuniqué on the World Food Council is not agreed to by some parties but it is a target nonetheless.
P.A. MORALES CARBALLO (Cuba): Estamos de acuerdo en que queda la palabra "metas". Con respecto al apellido, dadas las dificultades no insistimos.
M. HAMDOON (Iraq) (interpretation from Arabic): Half way down paragraph 3 we have some difficulty with the the Arabic text, it is not very clear. We have a false start in the second sentence, which was divided in two. But this has only to do with the Arabic text. Then at the start when we read, "The Council expressed its preoccupation" the text in Arabic is not right. I think that should be taken care of so that it has the same meaning as the other texts. I think that the first sentence should continue after "developing countries'' and not have a full stop there.
CHAIRMAN: That will be taken care of.
Paragraphs 1 to 11, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 1 i 11, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 1 a 11, asì enmendados, son aprobados
Paragraph 12, including Resolution, adopted
Le paragraphe 12, y compris la résolution, est adopté
El párrafo 12, incluida la Resolución, es aprobado
PARAGRAPHS 13 to 37 PARAGRAPHES 13 a 37 PARRAFOS 13 a 37
A. J. PECKHAM (United Kingdom): I found a little difficulty following the last clause of the first sentence of paragraph 14. This says, "The Council stressed the importance of FAO's role in promoting agricultural and rural development at the international level... '' It is the words "and the need for more responsibility and capacity" which cause me a little difficulty. As they stand they are a little vague. I do not know whether we could have some clarification on whether they are necessary.
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): I am very grateful to the delegate of the United Kingdom for having pointed this out. We could simply say "The Council stressed the importance of FAO's role in promoting agricultural and rural development and the need for more responsibility and capacity at the international level". Would that be satisfactory?
A. J. PECKHAM (United Kingdom): No, I think that does not really answer the point. I am not quite sure what is meant by "more responsibility and capacity". If it was a financial capacity, that I could understand. But as it stands at the moment, the need for more responsibility and capacity, that is a nice general statement and we would all agree every time that there is a need for greater responsibility at international level and every other level. But as it stands that is a woolly statement. I think we should either clarify it and make it clear or drop those words.
CHAIRMAN: The suggestion is to drop the words.
M. KRIESBERG (United States of America): I too noted the ambiguity of the second phase there. Hence I wonder if we could just have a period after "at the international level". There are many other things that Council noted and agreed to. I am not sure that adds much to it.
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): If that is the wish, I have absolutely no objection to that. I defer to that suggestion.
MRS. A. BERGQVIST (Sweden): My delegation would like to suggest a reshuffling of the wording in paragraph 17, the last sentence. We suggest that it should read ''The Council also suggested that FAO establish training centres for post-harvest technology, including simple field and home technologies with special emphasis in the training of women''. The present sentence gives the impression that women are just to be trained in simple field and home technologies, and this is not the case I am sure.
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): I totally agree with that. The proposal of the delegate from Sweden is totally acceptable to us.
C.O. KELLER SARMIENTO (Argentina): En el párrafo 18 en la segunda frase se dice lo siguiente: ''Asimismo, insto a la FAO a intensificar aún más sus esfuerzos en favor del desarrollo rural, en particular... " y aquí viene mi enmienda ''...teniendo en cuenta las recomendaciones que adopte la próxima Conferencia Mundial sobre Reforma Agraria y Desarrollo Rural''.
De esta manera me parece que es más adecuado al lenguaje teniendo en cuenta que la Conferencia Rural aún no ha tomado ni adoptado ninguna recomendación.
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): I seem to be at loggerheads with my colleague for Argentina on almost all matters. To the best of my recollection this was not said. ''Taking into account'' is the same as "following up''; I see no difference at all. We said, ''It urged FAO to further intensify its efforts in favour of rural development, particularly in following up relevant recommendations of the forthcoming World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development''. What has been proposed is, ''particularly taking into account relevant recommendations of the forthcoming World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development''. I am sorry about this, but we seem to have got out of the wrong side of the bed today, Sir, we seem to be disagreeing with each other all the time.
C. O KELLER SARMIENTO (Argentina): Yo creo que lo que se dijo en el Consejo es instar a la FAO a intensificar sus esfuerzos en favor del desarrollo rural.
Eso es lo importante, pero es mucho más apropiado decir ''que teniendo en cuenta la recomendación que adopte la próxima Conferencia Mundial sobre Reforma Agraria y Desarrollo Rural'' a una especie de imposición a la FAO a cumplir recomendaciones pertinentes, que es un lenguaje mucho más duro; es un lenguaje que no corresponde, pero si el representante de Pakistán prefiere ese lenguaje no tengo inconveniente en aceptarlo.
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): It has just been brought to my notice that in the Spanish text it says "implementing the relevant recommendations" whereas in English it says "following up" which are two entirely different things. So the Spanish text will be brought into line with the English text and I am sure that this will satisfy the delegate of Argentina.
P. ELMANOWSKY (France): En ce qui concerne ce dernier point, il faudrait également harmoniser le texte français avec le texte anglais, car là aussi on parle de "mise en oeuvre".
CHAIRMAN: I am sure this will be done. We now come to paragraphs 23 to 26.
A.J. PECKHAM (United Kingdom): I am glad we are taking these paragraphs together, because my point is whether it is necessary to include the second part of the first sentence of paragraph 25, which concerns a recommendation to include nutrition in the agenda of COAG in 1979. I find this just a little difficult to believe, when in fact the previous paragraphs refer to the decision taken at COAG and agreed by the Council in paragraph 24 that nutrition should form part of the standing responsibility of COAG. I think there is probably a typing error. At least at first sight I cannot see why we need the words "and had recommended to include nutrition" down to the end of that sentence.
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): Paragraph 24 is a little different from paragraph 25 in the sense that in paragraph 25 we are endorsing the views of the Programme Committee and in paragraph 24 the Council agreed that food and nutrition should be a standing item on the agenda. Therefore in that way duplication has apparently occurred, but since the Council did endorse the views of the Programme Committee we have to endorse it so.
A.J. PECKHAM (United Kingdom): I quite follow that explanation but I think it is rather muddling to have it there and it has been overtaken by paragraph 24. I think it would be better just to leave out that part of the sentence.
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): I am afraid I do not agree with that. We can switch paragraphs, make paragraph 25 paragraph 24 and make paragraph 24 paragraph 25, which would cover all concerned.
M. KRIESBERG (United States of America): I did not quite keep up. Let me just check with you with the simple expedient of putting paragraph 24 after paragraph 25 and then see whether this is related as it might be to paragraph 26. I guess it would now be 24; we are really referring to the Council endorsing the Committee's views and then the rest follows after that.
CHAIRMAN: Yes. We now go on to 27 to 31. If there are no comments, adopted. Paragraphs 32 to 37.
I. MOSKOVITS (Malta): We are agreed that COAG is a very important Committee, and we would like to strengthen it, and therefore I would like to add at the end of paragraph 37 a sentence which would read as follows: "It was further suggested that COAG should encompass its complete term of reference." It means that COAG should cover all fields of activity of the Organization which are in its terms of reference.
CHAIRMAN: Well, this is not related to the work of the Drafting Committee, but is this accepted by members?
K.R. HIGHAM (Canada): I think I understand what Malta is driving at. I was in and out of the COAG meeting but I recall our delegation working in fact with the delegation of Malta on several points amongst those which are covered in paragraph 37 to try and strengthen, form up a little better the COAG Committee, and I would like to support his proposal.
CHAIRMAN: The Chairman of the Drafting Committee will make a small addition as suggested by Malta in a language that will merge with the rest.
Paragraphs 13 to 37, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 13 à 37, ainsi amendes, sont approuves
Los párrafos 13 a 37, así enmendados, son aprobados
PARAGRAPHS 38 to 44
PARAGRAPHES 38 à 44
PARRAFOS 38 a 44
M. KRIESBERG (United States of America): Just a minor note: I believe in paragraph 38 the reference to "covering the period" should mean covering a period which is a year, since this is the Fourth Annual Report. I suspect that the month of October should be April. In other words it would be the date April 1978 to the date May 1979.
CHAIRMAN: This will be checked and put right.
Paragraphs 38 to 43, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 38 à 43, ainsi amendes sont approuves Los párrafos 38 a 43, asì enmendados, son aprobados
Paragraph 44, including Resolution, adopted
Le paragraphe 44, y compris la résolution, est adopté El párrafo 44, incluida la Resolución, es aprobado
Paragraph 44, including draft resolution, approved
Le paragraphe 44, y compris le projet de resolution, est approuvé El párrafo 44, incluido el proyecto de resolución, es aprobado
PARAGRAPHS 45 to 49
PARAGRAPHES 45 à 49
PARRAFOS 45 a 49
L. V. BORGES DA FONSECA (Brazil): We would like to suggest an amendment to paragraph 48 consisting in adding a new phrase after the "FAO programmes" in the fourth line of the English text. That new phrase would read as follows: "a more active role of FAO's Country Representatives in giving complete information to local authorities in order to help increase the participation of developing countries in technical meetings."
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): I have not exactly got where this is to be inserted, Sir. If it is to be inserted in the first sentence, "The Council endorsed the measures taken by the Director- General to intensify efforts to promote TCDC namely: the establishment of a focal point in DDF, the inclusion of TCDC in various parts of the Programme of Work and Budget for 1980-81 improved use of country capabilities in FAO programmes", and if the insertion is to come over here, then we shall I have to have a semi-colon and then "a more active role of FAO's Country Representatives in giving complete information to local authorities in order to help increase the participation of developing countries in technical meetings" and then "and the promotion of TCDC at the Regional and Country level". Am I correct, Sir?
CHAIRMAN: Yes.
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): There is actually a typographical error on page 21 of the English text in the fourth line. It should read "governments concerned" and not "concerned governments".
CHAIRMAN:Paragraphs 45 to 49, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 45 à 49, ainsi amendés,, sont approuvés Los párrafos 45 a 49, asi enmendados, son aprobados"
Draft Report of Plenary - Part II, as amended, was adopted
Projet de rapport de la plénière - Partie II, ainsi amendée, est adoptée
El proyecto de informe de la Plenaria - Parte II, así enmendado, es aprobado
The meeting rose at 17.25 hours
La séance est levée à 17 h 25
Se levanta la .sesión a las horas 17.25
