CHAIRMAN: Yesterday we completed the first and second parts of our report and now we will continue with Part III.
PARAGRAPHS 1 to 9
PARAGRAPHES 1 à 9
pAraGRAPHES 1 à 9
H. BAEYENS (Belgique): Au paragraphe 3 du texte français, il est dit ceci: "Le Conseil note en outre que, en cherchant à stabiliser les prix à un niveau rémunérateur pour les producteurs et équitables pour les consommateurs, la Commission a également adopté un modèle de contrat à long terme pouvant servir de guide aux divers pays".
Je ne sais pas si c'est une question de tradition, mais il me semble que ce texte français reflète quelque chose qui me paraît étrange. Je me demande si la Commission a vraiment dans son mandat le pouvoir de chercher à stabiliser le prix des denrées. Pourrait-on m'éclairer là-dessus?
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): The point raised by the delegate of Belgium is a point of substance, not merely of drafting. I just spoke to him a little while ago and he did point this out to me: is it within the terms of reference of the Commission to pursue such objectives? Could we then say that "The Council further noted that in pursuing greater price stabilization, the Commission had also adopted" and delete "at prices remunerative to producers and equitable to consumers." This has been done: the Commission had adopted a model long-term contract for the convenience and benefit of those countries who possibly do not have the expertise to deal with such matters, and it has been very clearly stated that this is just a model contract and it is not to be followed in all cases, but simply - as I have said - to those countries who may like to avail themselves of this facility.
H. BAEYENS (Belgique): Il me semble que le but de ce système qui est mis sur pied par la Commission est d'éviter les inconvénients qui résultent de l'instabilité des prix ou des mouvements des prix, pour les pays en voie de développement. Je crois que c'est cette idée qu'il faudrait incorporer dans le texte du paragraphe. Je n'ai pas encore un texte précis à proposer, mais on pourrait peut-être dire: "Le Conseil note en outre que, en cherchant à éviter les inconvénients pour les pays en voie de développement de l'instabilité des prix des engrais, la Commission a également adopté un modèle...".
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): That is a very helpful suggestion. We could go along with that and say something like: "The Council further noted that in attempting to avoid the harmful effects of price fluctuations, the Commission had also adopted" etc., or words to that effect. We could work it out and present it a little later; I accept the idea.
RAMADHAR (India): I would like to suggest an amendment to paragraph 1, just one sentence after the existing paragraph 1, on the following lines: "It was also suggested that Commission should meet more frequently if the situation so warrants." I am suggesting this because I remember very clearly that my delegation made this suggestion, and if I recall correctly there was support for it.
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): It was suggested that this should be done and this is exactly what the delegate of India is asking for, and it says: "It was also suggested", so I do not see any harm in accepting it and I personally feel no reluctance in doing so.
V.S. BLANCO DELGADO (México): Quiero proponer un pequeño cambio en el párrafo 2, en el primer renglón donde dice: "El Consejo elogio la labor realizada por la Comisión, que ha contribuido a asegurar, etc.". Para poder ser un poco mas coherentes con la realidad, ya que los precios aún siguen aumentando, y poder también reconocer la labor que realiza la Comisión, propongo que en lugar de las palabras "que ha contribuido a asegurar", lo pongamos en futuro, porque todavía no se ha llegado a asegurar a los países en desarrollo un abastecimiento suficiente.
Propongo que se diga así: "El Consejo elogió la labor realizada por la Comisión para tratar de asegurar a los países en desarrollo un abastecimiento suficiente de fertilizantes a precios razonables y estables". 0 sea, "para tratar de", esto sería el cambio que yo propongo.
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): I have noted the suggestion made and we could put it in this way: "The Council commended the work of the Commission in endeavouring to ensure adequate supply". "In endeavouring to ensure" would, I think, cover the concern expressed by the delegate of Mexico.
Regarding the suggestion made by the delegate of Belgium, we have the following formulation: "The Council further noted that in order to obviate the disadvantages to developing countries resulting from price fluctuations", and then the paragraph goes on to read as it is, and we delete the words "in pursuing greater price stabilization at prices remunerative to producers and equitable to consumers".
CHAIRMAN: Does the delegate of Belgium agree to the formulation that has just been read out? Yes? Thank you.
If there are no other objections, I take it that the paragraphs 1 to 9 have been approved.
I. MOSKOVITS (Malta): I wish to ask you if you could allow me to go back to paragraph 8. It is one word which I wish to change in paragraph 8.
CHAIRMAN: You want to go back to paragraph 8. Very well.
I. MOSKOVITS (Malta): I would like to propose in the last sentence, "to ensure the continuation of the IFS" it should be "the continuity".
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): I am sorry, that my English is not too good but in any case I do not see the difference between "continuation'' and "continuity" but I would be willing to accept "continuity" in deference to my friend from Malta.
CHAIRMAN: I do not know, perhaps we could ask Mr. Peckham!
A. J. PECKHAM (United Kingdom): I should have to dissociate myself from that suggestion!
CHAIRMAN: This point will be taken and you can sort out what you want.
I. MOSKOVITS (Malta): Of course it was my delegation which made the proposal and of course it is correct that "one delegation proposed" but after the meeting several delegations told me there are others of the opinion, so I am wondering whether it should read as it is or "Some delegations proposed''.
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): The private communications between Member delegations cannot be reflected in the Report, so I would request that it should be allowed to stand as it is.
CHAIRMAN: Malta, do you agree? Yes.
Paragraphs 1 to 9, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 1 à 9, ainsi amendés sont approuvés
Los párrafos 1 a 9, así enmendados, son aprobados
PARAGRAPHS 10 to 53
PARAGRAPHES 10 à 53
PARRAFOS 10 a 53
CHAIRMAN: We go to Item 11, Summary Programme of Work and Budget.
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Antes de presentar algunas enmiendas a varios párrafos de este tema 11, quisiera decir en primer lugar, que expresamos nuestro reconocimiento a la excelente labor hecha por nuestro Presidente del Comité de Redacción y sus colegas. Sin embargo, la delegación de Colombia considera que este tema 11, como usted mismo señor Presidente lo anoto, ha sido el asunto básico de nuestras reuniones. Nos preocupan una serie de ''tomó nota'' que aparecen en la casi totalidad de todos los párrafos iniciales de esta sección, basado en esas consideraciones quisiera hacer la primera propuesta sobre el párrafo 10, y luego me refiriría más adelante a otros párrafos. En el número 10 proponemos que se diga lo siguiente en la primera frase: ''El Consejo acogió con satisfacción la declaración introductoria del Director General y de las presentaciones, etc.
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): Mr Bula Hoyos has had longer experience in the FAO than I have and he has also more experience of drafting. I have never come across this, ''The Council listened with satisfaction''. We could say that ''The Council welcomed the introductory statement of the Director-General'', deleting the word ''noted''. Would that be satisfactory to the delegate of Colombia?
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Sí, yo podría estar contento; pero creo que el Consejo expreso satisfacción por la declaración que se hiciera y casi todas las Delegaciones manifestaron esa satisfacción en sus intervenciones, no obstante acepto la formula del Presidente del Comité de Redacción. Si usted me lo permite, señor Presidente, podría pasar al 11.
CHAIRMAN: Yes, you do.
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): En el párrafo 11 encontramos de nuevo las palabras ''tomó nota''. Yo creo que se trata de una declaración muy importante que se hizo aquí. Deberíamos decir: ''E1 Consejo compartió la declaración del Director General''. Hacemos esta propuesta porque en la segunda frase del párrafo 11, como podemos ver, aparece ya el firme apoyo que a esos puntos ofreció el Comité Plenario de la Asamblea General; sería un poco incomprensible que en un párrafo que se exprese el apoyo a unos órganos de Naciones Unidas, nuestro propio Consejo se limite a tomar nota.
Antes de hacer la propuesta traté de leer con toda atención el contexto total de esta parte del Informe, en el párrafo 50 encontré la afirmación de que ''hubo unanimidad acerca de las estrategias, prioridades '', pero creo que el párrafo 11 no será redundante con el párrafo 50, sino que reforzará ese párrafo.
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee) : I am very grateful to the delegate of Colombia for having suggested this. It does improve the text. I will be very glad to accept it provided the Council also agrees.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, delegate of Colombia have you finished?
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Tengo otros puntos todavía, sobre los párrafos 13 y 14. Como se han suprimido de los párrafos anteriores lo términos, "tomó nota'', en el párrafo 13 podríamos dejar en esta ocasión el "tomó nota'', pero suprimiendo la palabra "también". El Consejo tomó nota, suprimiendo la palabra "también''. Después me refiriré al párrafo 14.
CHAIRMAN: Yes, go on.
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): En el párrafo 14, también dentro del mismo espíritu afirmativo, podríamos decir: "El Consejo estuvo de acuerdo con el informe de su período de sesiones conjunto de los Comités del Programa y de Finanzas sobre la conclusion, etc.".
En realidad todos manifestaron satisfacción por los trabajos que han hechos esos dos Comités y estuvimos de acuerdo con sus conclusiones.
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): If I have the amendment as proposed correctly, paragraph 14 would read "The Counci1 agreed that the conclusion in the Report of the Joint Session of the Programme and Finance Committees concluded that the Summary Programme of Work and Budget had followed the approved format" etc
R.C. BREWIN (United States of America): I refer to paragraph 14, the last line in which the sentence begins "The consensus of the Committees had been to recommend", after the word "Committees" I would like to insert a comma, then to insert the words which appear in the Report of the Joint Committees, and I quote "That one Member dissociating himself" then continue "Had been to recommend" etc. This brings this Council Report into conformity with the text of the Joint Report of the Committees on Finance and Programming.
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): This point was raised by the delegate of the United States of America when we were drafting this Report and if you note, at the end of this paragraph there is a footnote which says CL 75/4, paragraph 1.2 - 1.5, which is the Report of the Joint Sessions of the Programme and Finance Committees, where the position as stated by the delegate of the United States of America is included. This is in conjunction with it, so that this matter is put in its correct perspective, this paragraph reads along with the Reports of the Joint Sessions. So the position of the United States of America is fully covered. However, this proposal which is made would need the deletion of this footnote. It is a fact that the United States did reserve its position in the Joint Session of the Programme and Finance Committees. But in his intervention during the Council he did not state it so categorioally as he had done in the Joint Session of the two Committees. It was because of this reason that we have added the footnote. I have the Verbatim before me and if you like I can read out the relevant portion, but I am sure he already has them.
CHAIRMAN: I do not think it is necessary to read the Verbatim bat on the points you made I will now give the floor to the United States again.
R.C. BREWIN (United States of America): I take the point of the Chairman of the Drafting Committee but would observe here that the footnote as it appears does not explain what it is that is textually contained in the footnote. The footnote for the reader could refer to anything at all with respect to this paragraph. The reader would not know whether it is a footnote that refers to dissociation, or an association, or a reservation, or whatever. My very strong preference is merely to make explicit in this paragraph what was explicit in the Report of the Committees on Programme and Finance, meeting jointly, so that the reader of the Council Report will then have before him the whole of the proceedings in that Committee, then deleting the footnote as the Chairman points out as being no longer necessary.
CHAIRMAN: I do not think there should be any difficulty, after all, it is in the Joint Report, to reflect it here also.
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): In view of the insistence of the United States delegation this sentenoe would then read "The consensus of the Committees, with one Member dissociating himself, had been to recommend" and we would delete the footnote. I hope this meets with his approval.
RAMADHAR (India): I wanted to speak on the amendment suggested by the United States but if you have already agreed to adopt paragraph 14 I should refrain from it.
CHAIRMAN: No, we have finished with that new. There is no need to go back to that.
RAMADHAR (India): Then I would like to suggest a question of procedure. I think it would be appropriate if something is suggested by a Member, before you ask the Chairman of the Drafting Committee, I think you should ask the other Members before that. I think it would help in the discussion.
P. HALIMI (France): Je vous remercie. Il s'agit toujours du paragraphe 14. Je suis d'accord avec le Président du Comité de rédaction lorsqu'il a accepté l'amendement des Etats-Unis demandant de mentionner le fait qu'un membre du Comité s'était dissocié des conclusions de ce Comité. Mais alors je demande ce que signifie l'amendement proposé par la Colombie, amendement qui dit que le Conseil est d'accord avec les conclusions. De quelles conclusions s'agit-il? Les conclusions de la majorité ou les conclusions d'un membre qui s'était dissocié de l'ensemble? Je crois qu'il vaut mieux en revenir au texte. Nous avons eu une discussion sur ce paragraphe et je pense qu'il serait préférable de revenir à l'ancienne rédaction.
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): We are talking about two different matters. In the first part we talk about the Council and in the second part we talk about the Committees. I would suggest that this be allowed to stand as it is.
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): A la atinada explicación de nuestro Presidente del Comité de Redacción quisiera agregar algo más para el delegado de Francia. La primera frase del párrafo 14 se refiere al hecho de que el Consejo estuvo de acuerdo con los Comités del Programa y Finanzas sobre el hecho de que el resumen se ajustaba al formato aprobado, era claro y conciso. La parte final del párrafo 14 se refiere al nivel del presupuesto.
H. CARANDANG (Philippines): I was just going to say the same thing, that the first sentence referred to the former, whereas the consensus referred to the level of the budget. So these are two different things. There can be complete agreement on the first and a dissenting voice on the second.
CHAIRMAN: With these amendments we adopt paragraphs 10 to 14. We now come to paragraphs 15 to 19.
A.J. PECKHAM (United Kingdom): I was a little mystified about the first sentence of paragraph 15. It may be necessary, but it strikes me in view of the discussion on the last paragraph that paragraph 15 might start more satisfactorily with the agreement noted in the second sentence. In other words, I doubt whether we need the first sentence of paragraph 15.
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): I would be willing to go along with that and start paragraph 15 with "The Council agreed that the Summary Programme of Work and Budget ....." but the delegate of India may like to say something on this because he did request earlier that the floor should be given first to members.
CHAIRMAN: I give the floor to members when I see their flags, but I did not see any flag.
RAMADHAR (India): Since I was a member of the Drafting Committee and the Chairman of the Drafting Committee knows my views on this, that is why he referred to that. There is special significance in the first sentence. It shows that there was a very detailed and comprehensive discussion on the subject, it was not discussed by two or three members, but almost all the members participated in the discussion, they applied their mind to the whole subject. With that in view I request the delegate of the United Kingdom to agree to allow this to remain.
H. CARANDANG (Philippines): I would propose that the words of the delegate of India begin with "There was a thorough discussion on the subject and all but two participated in the discussion". That would be a more positive way of putting it.
A.J. PECKHAM (United Kingdom): I think the representative of the Philippines has made my point. "All but two" would reduce the effectiveness of the paragraph. I still adhere to my view that if the Council agreed that is the decision of the Council. I think it diminishes the effect of what you have to say if you condition it by "all but two" or something to that effect.
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): I will try to put together all the proposals that have been made. Could we say "After a thorough discussion, in which all but two members of the Council participated, the Council agreed that the Summary Programme of Work and Budget "? If that meets
with the approval of the House I would be quite happy.
CHAIRMAN: United Kingdom, would that be all right?
A.J. PECKHAM (United Kingdom): Yes.
S. AIDARA (Sénégal): Je voudrais présenter non pas un amendement de fond, mais un amendement de forme au paragraphe 15.
Dans la deuxième phrase de ce paragraphe, il est dit: "Le Conseil convient que le Sommaire du programme de travail et budget pour 1980-81 est la pierre angulaire de toutes les activités de la FAO, est bien preparé, bref, clair " Je voudrais scinder la phrase et mettre un point, ce qui donnerait:
"Le Conseil convient que le Sommaire du programme de travail et budget pour 1980-81 est la pierre angulaire de toutes les activités de la FAO. Il est bien préparé, bref, clair "
Il s'agit donc simplement d'un amendement de forme dans le texte français. Le fond demeure.
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): This is indeed a valid reaction and I find it perfectly acceptable. What Senegal is suggesting is that in paragraph 5 the long sentence should be split into two, and then it would read "The Council agreed that the Summary Programme of Work, and Budget 1980-81 was the cornerstone of all of FAO's activities. It was well planned, brief, clear and to the point," etc. I have no problem with it.
RAMADHAR (India): If we accept the amendment of Senegal, the sense of the whole sentence is completely changed. The sentence as it is says that "The Council agreed that the Summary Programme of Work and Budget 1980-81 was the cornerstone of all of FAO's activities, and Council also agreed that it was well planned, brief, clear and to the point." There is an agreement of the Council that the Summary Programme of Work and Budget was well planned, brief and clear. If we accept the amendment it means that it is not the view of the Council but the document is of course well planned, clear and to the point, but Council is not saying that.
CHAIRMAN: It is only the French text, and that will be put righto
CHAIRMAN: Are there any more interventions on paragraphs 15 to 19? Then these paragraphs are adopted. Now we go to paragraphs 20 to 27.
A. Y. BUKHARI (Saudi Arabia) (interpretation from Arabic): With regard to paragraph 21, it is said that the Council think that consideration should be given to increase delegation of authority to Country Offices and to Regional Offices, while others stressed that no further increases should be provided to Regional Offices. I think this paragraph does not reflect the ideas, which were to increase the authority of the Regional Offices, and it was proposed that such an increase of authority should be studied. Therefore I think that this paragraph is not very clear and that we should make it clear that some felt that the authority of the Regional Offices should not be increased.
As to paragraph 22, it is stated that the Council welcomed the fact. We have a term in the Arabic text which I think is not adequate. "The Council welcomed the fact that the need for new posts had been rigorously evaluated and that in most cases proposals have been accepted for only the highest priority needs...". The text is not clear either in the Arabic or the English. How can we not accept the proposal for high priority needs? I think we should say that new posts should be rigorously evaluated before being created.
V.S. BLANCO DELGADO (Me'xico) : Solamente un pequeño cambio que afecta únicamente al español y es en el párrafo 25, en el segundo renglón, segunda palabra: cambiar la letra "p" por la letra "m", es decir que en vez de decir "podesto" se diga "modesto''.
CHAIRMAN: I give the floor to the Chairman of the Drafting Committee on the points raised by Saudi Arabia.
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): As regards the point raised on paragraph 21, instead of saying "Others stressed that in their opinion...", we could say "Others, however, were of a contrary opinion", simply that, and delete the rest of the sentence. This would mean that it was suggested in this connexion that there should be increased delegation of authority; others, however, felt differently. This is my suggestion regarding paragraph 21.
As regards paragraph 22 I feel that as it is drafted in English it is quite clear that new posts had been rigorously evaluated and the proposals had been accepted only where they were absolutely essential and that was done by diminishing posts in a lower priority area, with the result that only four additional posts were proposed for Headquarters. So, as far as paragraph 22 is concerned, I would request that it be allowed to stand.
Regarding paragraph 25, there is admittedly a misprint in the Spanish text which will be corrected.
CHAIRMAN: Is the delegate of Saudi Arabia satisfied? Good.
W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of): We would prefer this last sentence of paragraph 21 to be left as it is. If we accepted the proposed change it would mean that there were others also against the delegation of authority to Country Offices, and that is not the truth. I think we should keep this separate as it stands. Some of those who spoke were only against an increase being provided to Regional Offices. I would prefer not to mix the two things up and to leave the text as it stands, if this could be accepted by the delegate of Saudi Arabia.
H. CARANDANG (Philippines): I think there is much reason in what the delegate of Germany said. Two things are referred to in the previous sentence and I very much doubt that the opinion expressed in the last sentence referred also to Regional Offices and whether they were referring to increases in the budget or increases in the delegation of authority. I would like clarification on this matter.
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): Could we then say "Others, while supporting increased delegation to Country Offices, were of the opinion that no further increase should be provided to Regional Offices"? This would clarify that you support increased delegation to Country Offices.
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Nuestra delegación podría aceptar la redacción formulada por el Presidente del Comité de Redacción, pero si nuestro recuerdo es acertado tenemos la impresión de que no se insistió mucho sobre la inconveniencia de aumentar las atribuciones también para las Oficinas regionales. Si eso es así, ¿no sería mejor suprimir totalmente la última frase del párrafo 21?
W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of): I would have difficulty in accepting that, but I am very happy with the wording proposed by the Chairman of the Drafting Committee.
CHAIRMAN: I think we will accept the last formulation by the Chairman of the Drafting Committee. We have now adopted paragraphs 20 to 27. We go on to paragraphs 28 to 36.
Mrs. A. BERGQVIST (Sweden): My delegation would like to suggest an amendment to paragraph 29. We would like to add a sentence which I will read out. "A request was also made that there should be a review of the number of country offices, taking into account, inter alia, the possible coverage of such offices of two or more countries". This point was raised by my delegation in the general intervention and it has also been raised in the Programme Committee.
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): Sir, this, as pointed out by Sweden, is a request from one country and we could see no objection in it being reported, although personally, I feel it is a little premature to start reviewing when we are already setting up. In any case, it is entirely in your hands.
H. BAEYENS (Belgique). Je voudrais simplement dire que la Belgique a fait également la même observation.
O.H. HAOUE (Bangladesh): We feel that this question of a review of the country offices at this stage is very premature. This is a formative stage, and in our intervention we said that the additional offices that we are thinking of for the next biennium would be inadequate, in our view, and in that context we feel that it is premature to think of a review of the country offices. We could think of it in the next biennium. At this stage it is certainly premature when it is being built up.
CHAIRMAN: Perhaps Sweden did not mean a review as such but a review of the policy to accredit one man in more than one country.
R.C. BREWIN (United States of America): I believe my recollection is correct when I say that the U.S. delegation in the proceedings here also associated itself with the view expressed by Sweden, as concurred in by Belgium, and I would like to record here my concurrence also with the proposed language addition suggested by Sweden.
Q.H. HAQUE (Bangladesh): To think of accrediting a representative to more than one country and to have thinking like that I believe is something which cannot be said, because you never know whether it is possible or not; even for the countries to be accredited is sometimes difficult. If you leave out the last part of the sentence, only a question of review, "a request was made for a review of the country offices'', that is all, period, but not the second part.
RAMADHAR (India): I think this word "review" means also some thought of evaluation. I remember that in the Drafting Committee this point was raised, and the Director-General or his representative was kind enough to explain that in some cases the Organization itself was examining whether one representative should be accredited to more than one country, and I think in some cases it was being done, so I do not know that it would be appropriate to put it here in that way, but for the delegates who have raised this question we can say "The decision was made regarding the possibility of accrediting one country's representative to more than one country".
A.J. PECKHAM (United Kingdom): I would just like to observe that this wording of the proposal by Sweden is very mild. I do deplore that at this our final stage of acceptance of the report we enter into discussion of substance. It seems to me that this is a perfectly reasonable suggestion on the part of Sweden which has support. I cannot really see why we should open the debate if we cannot make further progress.
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): Two contrary views have been expressed, one suggesting that there should be a review with a possibility of examining whether one office could cover two countries, and the contrary view is that it is premature and that this had already been explained in the Programme Committee by the representative of the Director-General.
I would personally be inclined to find a wording which would be acceptable to both those countries which would like to have this inserted and those countries which would like it left out, but before I do that I would like to have a little time so that I can work on this thing.
H. CARANDANG (Philippines): The Philippines during the discussion of this item mentioned that this could be left to the discretion of the Director-General for the time being. Therefore, we want if possible for this to be reflected in the sentence that would be at the end of paragraph 29.
K. R. HIGHAM (Canada): I would like to speak in support of what our colleague from the United Kingdom has said. All we have got from Sweden is a request that a point that it made during the debate be recorded in the report of that debate, that is all. Whether it is right or whether we agree is almost beside the point. They are asking that the point they made during that debate be recorded. I do not see how we can question it.
CHAIRMAN: I do not think there is very much controversy on this, really, to take our time like this. This can be recorded. If Council agrees, we will go ahead.
P.A. MORALES CARBALLO (Cuba): Quiero referirme al párrafo 39. El párrafo 39 dice "El Consejo acogió con gran satisfacción y ratifico la prioridad concedida al desarrollo rural"; nosotros consideramos que sería más adecuado decir "ratifico la prioridad concedida a la Reforma Agraria y al Desarrollo Rural" y pensamos que hay un argumento solido y es que la Conferencia Mundial será sobre Reforma Agraria y Desarrollo Rural. Cualquier opinion en contrario será prejuzgar los resultados de la propria conferencia. Vamos a reunimos para hablar de esto y concentrar la atención aquí, desde el punto del Consejo en uno de esos aspectos, me parece que es un poco prejuzgar los resultados de la propria conferencia. Nuestra propuesta sería pues "a la Reforma Agraria y al Desarrollo Rural".
P.A. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): There is a lot of logic in what Cuba has said because the Conference would be dealing both with agrarian reform and rural development. It therefore should state both these aspects and the sentence could then read, Sir, "The Council strongly welcomed and endorsed the priority given to agrarian reform and rural development expecting that this priority", etc.
S.I. ALMANNAI (Kuwait) (interpretation from Arabic): There is a mistake in the numbering of the paragraphs in the Arabic document, because paragraph 43 comes after 35 and it should have come at the end of page 8. I just wanted to point it out.
CHAIRMAN: I have been assured by the Secretariat that this kind of editorial mistake will be adjusted and corrected.
A.J. PECKHAM (United Kingdom): A small point: I think that paragraph 47 would read a little better if it came before 46. Indeed, the two might be put together so that paragraph 46 would start by the Council welcoming "the greater emphasis given to rural community development within the forestry programme" and continuing with "and agreed", etc.
CHAIRMAN: I think that is a logical point.
R.C. BREWIN (United States of America): My point relates to paragraph 51. If one reads that paragraph, one notes that we have been speaking there throughout the paragraph of "some members", "these members", "a few countries". Now, with this in mind and to make the rendition of what I am about to say faithful to what a few countries said, I would propose the following change in the last line of paragraph 51. Where we say the words "would have preferred", I would propose the following language by way of substitution: "coutinued to advocate", then continuing on with the rest of the paragraph as it is.
CHAIRMAN: Unless the others want to speak on this point, we would like to clear this with the Drafting Committee.
RAMADHAR (India): I am not very clear; if you could ask the U.S.A. to repeat the amendment, because he put it in such a way that it was not clear to me.
R.C. BREWIN (United States of America) In paragraph 51, the last line, on page 8, instead of the words "would have preferred", at the end of that line I would propose deleting those words and substituting in there these words, and I quote: "continued to advocate", the balance of the paragraph remaining unchanged.
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): I am just going to check in my own notes to see whether there was the expression of this view. I agree that this paragraph is attributed to a number of countries, and the only problem I would have is to find whether this was actually said. If the delegate of the United States could help me by referring me to his verbatim, where he stated this, I would be extremely grateful so that we could adopt this and carry on.
R.C. BREWIN (United States of America): I cannot find this verbatim text for the precise words "continued to advocate." I am searching for the language which would characterize the position taken by perhaps five Members of the Council during the debate which would characterize their position on the Summary Programme of Work and Budget.
The language we agreed to me suggests that, having agreed, one drops one's objections and participates in the whole of the consensus. I do not think the verbatim transcript would support this. It supports the proposition that five countries used the words "reserved position", "undecided", and the general posture assumed by them is characterized by the words "continued to advocate."
I am proposing here simple phraseology which would characterize those countries who were reserved at the end of the debate on the Summary Programme of Work and Budget when the consensus was invited and taken. These reservations were still in the record.
I. TAKI (Japan): I feel that according to how our delegation spoke at the Plenary Meeting this part does not exactly reflect the defects. I do not want to make a new proposal, but I feel that the amendment made by the delegate of the United States maybe more in line with what we would like to propose about the correction of this part.
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): La delegación de Colombia considera que en los párrafos 51 y 52 se han reflejado muy adecuadamente las tendencias que se manifestaron en nuestros debates sobre el nivel del presupuesto. Creemos que no sería constructivo ahora abrir un debate, sobre todo por quienes han sido miembros del Comité de Redacción. Esto pondría en dificultad a los demás miembros del Consejo. Por tanto, proponemos que el párrafo 51 conserve su redacción actual.
CHAIRMAN: What we are trying to do is to find a formulation rather than go back to debates. This is what the United States said.
K. R. HIGHAM (Canada): Just to speak in support of the United States amendment, as seconded by Japan, ''continued to advocate'' does in fact reflect our position as well.
I see in the Verbatim Record, and I will read it: "We have suggested a figure of 2 percent per annum," and that would fit the wording here which we are proposing, and which suggests a reduction from the budget proposal.
RAMADHAR (India) : I agree with the delegate from Colombia that paragraph 51 fully reflects the trend of discussions. There would be one problem in accepting the amendment suggested by the United States. When he said ''continued to advocate'' this means these countries had advocated this in some forum, and are again continuing to advocate the same. I do not know if it was Canada in the Finance Committee or the United States in the Programme Committee where they advocated this. These two countries probably did advocate this earlier.
This word ''continued'' would definitely have this kind of implication, so we have to be very careful about that.
DIRECTOR-GENERAL: I think the delegate of India has said what I want to say, "Continued to advocate" or ''advocated''? I do not know when this advocacy started, but we would have no problem in accepting the amendment of the United States delegation. Although that delegation did not use exactly this wording, it does characterize their position, which is well known to us.
For the sake of accuracy, however, maybe it should be ''advocated'' instead of ''continued to advocate.''
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Director-General, this solves the problem very nicely. We shall now give the floor to Saudi Arabia for another matter, not this particular one.
A. Y. BUKHARI (Saudi Arabia) (interpretation from Arabic): Paragraph 48, Mr Chairman. I believe this has been repeated in 52 and 59, and I do not know whether it would be appropriate to put it here in this position because the other paragraphs deal with matters which do not have anything in relation with paragraph 48.
I do not know whether we could delete this paragraph 48, because the same thing has been repeated in 52 and 59.
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): I have gone through paragraph 52 and it does not refer to or have any bearing on paragraph 48 at all.
Paragraph 59, however, does mention IFAD and formulation of Funds-Initiâted Projects. Here you are discussing another subject, and therefore while discussing two subjects you may come across the same thing.
A. Y. BUKHARI (Saudi Arabia)(interpretation from Arabic): I believe that paragraph 48 in the Arabic text is as follows: "The Council expressed satisfaction about the continuing growth in investment activities and the fruitful cooperation between the Investment Centre and financing agencies, including IFAD...'' etc. This is the Investment Centre which is the same subject referred to by the paragraph starting at 54.
H. CARANDANG (Philippines): Of course there could be a repetition in these two paragraphs which have been referred to by the delegate of Saudi Arabia. However, I should like to point out that during the general discussion of the Budget, there was indeed a mention of the priorities in the different fields.
There was a mention about the priority in Forestry, there was a mention about the priority in Fisheries. If you mention the priority in Investment here, it would seeme during the general discussion of the Bugdet there was no expression regarding the priority which should be given to Investment.
For the purpose of recording, my delegation would prefer to retain paragraph 48, since this is a record of what actually happened during the debate.
CHAIRMAN: Delegate of Saudi Arabia, do you wish to insist?
A. Y. BUKHARI (Saudi Arabia) (interpretation from Arabic): Paragraph 48 does not refer to priorities. There is no reference whatsoever in paragraph 48 to the Council expressing satisfaction about priorities, there is only reference to the fruitful cooperation between the Investment Centre and the financing agencies. That is all the paragraph is about, I do not find any reference in paragraph 48 to priorities.
I am not against retaining the paragraph, but wish to avoid repetition.
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): I think the delegate from Saudi Arabia has agreed that both paragraphs should be allowed to stand.
K. R. HIGHAM (Canada): A small point - paragraph 43 in the English text, the last line of the paragraph -I would like to suggest that this should be changed. ''Strong support was given to the Director-General's initiatives to assist countries in taking full advantage of their Exclusive Economic Zones''. Ï would like to make more of this,drop the word ''their'' and replace it with the words ''Fisheries in their Exclusive Economic Zones''.
CHAIRMAN: Does the Chairman of the Drafting Committee wish to add anything to this?
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): No, thank you.
Q. H. HAQUE (Bangladesh): In paragraph 52, the last but one word, the last ''a" to be replaced by the words "an absolute'', because ''absolute'' is the word used by all delegates who expressed their preference for the higher budget level. ''... as an absolute minimum'' - the word ''a'' to be replaced by the words ''an absolute''.
V. S. BLANCO DELGADO (México): Creo que el párrafo 43, en su ultima frase, donde dice: Se apoyo decididamente la iniciativa del Director General de apoyar a los países plenamente sus zonas económicas exclusivas, queda reflejado exactamente como sucedió en el debate, porque nosotros hablamos de un aprovechamiento pleno de las zonas económicas exclusivas.
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): I will have to consult my notes on this, but we do talk about world demand for fish protein and limited exploitation or over-exploitation, and in that context perhaps what was suggested by the delegate of Canada was appropriate. But now a new dimension is being added to this by what has just been said by the delegate of Mexico, so if I could just check my notes regarding what Mexico said, then I will be in a position to give you a reply.
K.R. HIGHAM (Canada): My proposal to include the word "fisheries" was to make sure that we keep the text within the mandate of the FAO, to make sure that we are talking about supporting countries in the food, agriculture and fisheries aspects. In fact, the Mexican comment makes me realize that even better clarification should be possible from that sentence if we include the words "developing countries" in between the words "assist" and "countries". If you permit me to read the sentence: "strong support was given to the Director-General's initiatives to assist developing countries in taking full advantage of fisheries in their exclusive economic zones."
DIRECTOR-GENERAL: I do not want to waste the time of the Committee, but I must point out that our comprehensive programme for assisting the countries to develop their EEZ does encompass all countries. There will be joint ventures; there will be an inter-country approach, etc. So I would think it more accurate to keep to "countries" and not to single out the developing countries.
I also wish to draw to the attention of the distinguished delegate of Mexico the fact that the initiatives I am now going to take next November and, in fact already in October at the Committee on Fisheries (COFI) will be intended to assist in the development in fisheries resources. There are other resources in the exclusive economic zones, but FAO cannot provide assistance for developing other resources, such as mineral resources, for instance. I think, therefore, that the text will be more accurate, if it stands as it is.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Director-General. I think this clarifies the position and the proposal made by Canada. The original one is accepted.
R.C. BREWIN (United States of America): What I am proposing here is a new paragraph 53 which would be a paragraph of one sentence only, with paragraph 53 in the report before us becoming paragraph 54. My proposed new paragraph 53 would read as follows:
"The Council noted that the Director-General had found that the views expressed by the delegations will be very useful in the formulation of the complete Programme of Work and Budget."
That then becomes paragraph 53 in its entirety with paragraph 53 renumbered to be paragraph 54.
CHAIRMAN: You are not advocating the deletion of the present paragraph 53 which now becomes 54? Because we do not want any misunderstanding; you want paragraph 53 to become paragraph 54 and the paragraph you have just read to be 53?
R.C. BREWIN (United States of America): That is correct.
Q.H. HAQUE (Bangladesh): I think we are trying to do something here which has never been done. It is not for the Director-General to understand something; it is for the Council to give directions to the Director-General. We have never done this in the Council, in the report for the Director-General to assume something or to do something. It is for the Council to give directions and advice and instructions to the Director-General. If you read the formulation "the Director-General had found" the Director-General is not supposed to express his views in the reports of the Council, is he? It is the Council which gives advice, instructions, to the Director-General as to what he should do. I would be grateful if the delegate of the United States would clarify this.
R.C. BREWIN (United States of America): I think the transcript will show us that the Director-General addressed himself to the question of the views expressed by the Members on the Summary Programme of Work and Budget, and an adequate phraseology with respect to what he said, summed up in one sentence, would be about what I gave it. I myself find nothing untoward or improper in the Council noting what the Director-General said on this subject as a sort of conclusion of the entire debate. I do not think we have to put in the report all of the Director-General's remarks on this subject. I think it would be useful for the Council to note that the Director-General addressed himself to the point more or less in the terms which I formulated. I do not think it is at all improper.
DIRECTOR-GENERAL: I do not know what the delegate of the United States is driving at in suggesting this sentence. I have no problem in accepting it. I have said this in my summary but, as we say in French, "vous serez déçu"!
CHAIRMAN: I do not think we should pursue this; this is not a drafting matter. The United States of America made this proposal and it is acceptable and I think we should leave it at that.
RAMADHAR (India): I have the same doubts the Director-General has expressed as to the implication of this sentence. The Council has reached a consensus on the Programme and the level of the budget and the strategy. What other things is the Director-General taking into consideration while formulating the detailed proposal? Is he not going to keep them in conformity with the consensus of the Council, or is he going to pay attention to statements made by delegates? I am not very clear about this. By retaining this amendment are we going to help the drafting, or have a compact and neat draft, or ask the Director-General to pay attention to every intervention made by the delegations and then have a detailed proposal for the Conference?
CHAIRMAN: I want to appeal to Members not to start a debate. This proposal made by the United States of America is not in the Drafting Committee's work, and I do not think the United States has any hidden ulterior motives about it. The Director-General accepts it; I do not think we should pursue this any more, if Members agree, please.
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Solo quiero saber cuál es la suerte que va a correr la propuesta de Estados Unidos. ¿Se va a aceptar o no?
CHAIRMAN: Yes, it is accepted.
K.R. HIGHAM: (Canada): I am sorry to be so slow, I was waiting for that other item to clear up. I too have some difficulty with the final paragraphs of this part of the report because I need to be sure they incorporate the reservation that we had. In fact, I think the Chairman or the Drafting Committee in total have done an excellent job in putting together a very sensitive and very difficult part of our report, and it is perhaps a little finicky of me to ask for a little more refinement, but I need to be sure that our position, as well as that of some of the other delegates, I think, is quite clear throughout the paper. I am particularly worried about the new paragraph 54, that is, the old number 53 in our text, and would like to suggest - if I am correct is it this paragraph which is summarizing the closing remarks by the Chairman at the end of the budget? Is that it?
CHAIRMAN: I will give the floor to the Chairman of the Drafting Committee because the Chairman's remarks do not necessarily form part of the report, because the report is the total assessment of what the Council said.
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): Paragraph 54 is the summing up of the various positions as outlined in paragraph 51 which gives the position of some countries. In paragraph 52 it gives the position of an overwhelming majority. In the new paragraph 53 which gives the views of the Director-General, and in paragraph 54, we finally come to the end of the debate, and, in coming to the end of the debate, we have followed your last remarks, Sir, on this subject. I may be a little lengthy, Sir, but you will excuse me because this will probably help in clarifying matters.
You say in your last remarks - I will just quote the relevant portion - "The overwhelming majority thought they wanted a higher budget but they agreed to go along with what had been proposed by the Director-General, and a few reserved their views for later on. Also, one or two wanted a lower level but this was not done simply to bring down the Programme or to criticize the Director-General or the Organization for the way it is conducting its work. No, these hesitations are the result of circumstances beyond the control of delegates which I am sure will be sorted out at home and, when the Ministers come, there will be complete unanimity. What the Council has done" - this is the relevant portion - "is to give the Director-General and his staff by consensus permission to go ahead and prepare a detailed Programme of Work and Budget for 1980-81 to be presented to the Conference, as proposed by the Director-General in the Summary Programme of Work and Budget. I am very glad that the outcome has been what it is and not what it used to be."
After that the Secretary-General took the floor and explained various documents which were to be considered on the following day.
This paragraph 54 is a very careful and considered reflection of the views of the Council, as summed up by you, Sir; I would therefore make a very fervent appeal to all that since we have come such a long way, we have covered 53 paragraphs, there should be no problems with the 54th. I realize that some countries do have problems, but these problems are more than adequately reflected in paragraph 51 and, with the suggestion made by the United States of America which now advocate a reduction or postponement of a certain proposed expenditure, I think all concerns are covered, Sir. This was considered very carefully and closely by the Drafting Committee. They spent a lot of time on this paragraph and I would request that it not be reopened here and let it stand at the moment.
CHAIRMAN: I do not think the purpose of Canada is to reopen another debate.
K.R. HIGHAM (Canada): I will do my best not to open another debate. I agree first of all, that the wording of this paragraph is very close to interpreting the feeling of Council. I am concerned because particularly it is the concluding paragraph and as you said, summarizes what the Chairman said in summary and you read it and it was quite correct I think. Because it is a concluding paragraph and summarizes a summary I am most concerned that it reflects the full content of the Report before us and I wonder if instead of proposing any changes to that paragraph, which I would like to avoid, we add, we lift out a sentence or phrase from the Chairman's summary which would read, it would be the last sentence of that paragraph, "A few reserved their views for later on". That is a direct lift from the Chairman's summary and it would satisfy my purpose entirely.
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): As I explained earlier this does amount to the opening paragraph and it would not be a correct reflection of what was said. The whole idea revolves round the word "consensus". Then you have paragraph 51 which gives one point, but if you have paragraph 52 which gives another point of view, obviously there were two points of view, but paragraph 54, which was previously 53, then sums up what was actually concluded by the Council and this is the conclusion of the Council and if we were to say "a few reserved their decision" then I am sure there would be a lot of reaction from the others and it would just go on and we would go through the same exercise that we have gone through in the Drafting Committee and have the same position as we had in the discussions.
Q.H. HAQUE (Bangladesh): The Chairman of the Drafting Committee brought out the Webster Dictionary in the Joint Meeting of the Financial and Programme Committee. I do not have either Webster or Chambers to explain the word "consensus". In the Verbatim in your concluding observations read out by the Chairman of the Drafting Committee, the horse was before the cart. That means a few reserved the position for later on and you say that first and then you came to the conclusion. Your concluding remarks were consensus.
The proposal of Canada is trying to put the cart before the horse. You talk of the consensus and then put the cart before the horse - that would create difficulties. I am afraid it might open a lengthy debate and in fact I feel that after paragraph 51, paragraphs 51 and 52 where you accommodate the views of the overwhelming majority who wanted to see a higher level and for the sake of the consensus they accepted the present level, and then to talk of "some reserved for later on" would be too dangerous and it might reopen the whole debate in this Council, and I would appeal to Canada not to put the cart before the horse at the end. You had rightly done so, putting the horse before the cart, by talking about the views of some, which is accommodated in paragraph 51, and then you talk of the views of the overwhelming majority in paragraph 52: then you came to the consensus rightly putting the cart behind the horse. Let us not change this sequence which will create serious difficulties.
R.C. BREWIN (United States of America): My delegation has tried to be restrained in not insisting within each and every point where the level of the budget is discussed, but words such as dissociation and reservation and opposition and so on be inserted. Nonetheless, in several of the paragraphs which preceded paragraph 54 we have, at appropriate places, noted an advocacy of a different position from the prevailing views and it seems to me perfectly just and fair for the final summing up paragraph, dealing with the whole of the Summary Programme of Work and Budget, to reflect what was earlier said by those five or six delegations who took a different view. I do not think the few words added by the delegate of Canada in any way distort the record of the proceedings. Rather I find it in every sense faithful to what happened. All we are recording here is what happened and what happened is as the delegate of Canada formulated, to wit, "A few reserved their views for later on", later on being quite obviously in the flow of the events in the Organization, action by the Conference. So that I do not find that the sentence suggested by the delegate from Canada is in any way a distortion or an unfaithful rendition of what in fact happened.
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): It is the task of the Drafting Group normally to render as faithfully as possible what happened. After you had summed up there were no reservations to your summing up and that is the crucial matter, and you summed up in a certain way and there were no reservations to that. Had these delegations any reservations to your summing up I am sure that they should have-if they have not done so - stated on the floor of the House that they have reservations to your summing up. Now if we read the paragraph as it stands at the moment it would mean that after you have summed up or after this has been accepted, ''taking into account the views expressed, the Council reached a consensus" - - there are ''views'', but the ''consensus'', puts the paragraph in a wholly different light and which in my mind is not a faithful rendering of what happened.
G. BULA HOYOS: (Colombia): Señor Presidente, si seguimos con atención la declaración ultima hecha por el distinguido colega del Canadá nos pareció entender que a él le preocupaba el solo hecho de que en este informe se consignaran las reservas de aquellas delegaciones que se manifestaron en favor de poder expresar su opinion definitiva en ocasión ulterior. Creo que ese fue el punto esencial del colega del Canadá.
A nuestro juicio, esa preocupación del Canadá está ya contenida en la segunda frase del párrafo 51. Allí se dice: "Esos miembros indicaron que no podían expresar una opinión definitiva hasta que no tuvieran la oportunidad de examinar ... etc". En esas condiciones el párrafo 53 es perfectamente coherente con el párrafo 51. En el párrafo 53 se pide al Director General que siga adelante con la preparación del Programa de Labores y Presupuesto. Cuando esa versión definitiva este terminada, o sea en la Conferencia, las delegaciones que ya expresaron reservas en el párrafo 51 tendrán ocasión de volverse a expresar sobre ese documento.
Creo también que el párrafo 53 refleja exactamente los debates, porque entendemos que todos los miembros del Consejo, inclusive los que hicieron reservas sobre el nivel del presupuesto, estuvieron de acuerdo con las prioridades y con la orientación política y programática del Programa de Labores y Presupuesto; de manera que no consideramos procedente que se debilite la conclusión de un debate tan importante con la reiteración de una reserva que ya está contenida, como fije, en la segunda frase del párrafo 51.
H. CARANDANG (Philippines): I think paragraph 54 would reflect what actually happened because the Chairman summarized the debate exactly by those words and he was not apparently opposed by anybody. I do not see anybody opposing his summation of this and I think it would be inappropriate to make the reservations now when the debate is finished. If nobody opposed the Chairman when he made his summation in this way that we should have the right to oppose it now. After all, if the reservations are made in a general way like this, we think it would be a distortion of what really happened during the debate because the reservations were not made in a very general way, they were made in a particular way and the reservations were made in the way they have been put in paragraph 51 and to repeat it in a general way like this, it would seem there were other reservations than those that have been expressed in paragraph 51. I therefore appeal that paragraph 54 be allowed to remain as it is.
CHAIRMAN: I think Council is beginning to take a fixed position which we used to have long ago. Now when we discussed this everybody had a say. In fact, all members except two spoke and those who were not present were not attending. Therefore, we had a complete record of what everybody said and I listened to everybody very carefully and therefore what we want to do now is to see how the different views are reflected in the report and as pointed out there are certain paragraphs which reflected the views.
Now when we come to paragraph 54 perhaps it may help members to take note of the beginning which says "Taking into account the views expressed". Now, I was not in the Drafting Committee but it would appear that the Drafting Committee must have taken into account differing views and the Director-General has not been told not to prepare the Programme of Work and Budget. It is quite clear that delegations have reserved their position etc. etc. All this has been reflected. He will go ahead and prepare the Programme of Work and Budget. It is still open to those members who wish to change their position, one way or another, to do so, so perhaps Canada may consider and withdraw the amendment proposed so that we can complete this meeting as soon as we can. Otherwise we just go back into strong positions and there will be no solution to it.
DIRECTOR-GENERAL: Thank you for giving me the floor at this juncture, Mr. Chairman. As I see the problem it is as follows: I feel confident that the majority of the members of the Council would have liked me to prepare a full Programme of Work and Budget for 1980-81 with a higher level of budget. However, as a compromise they have requested me to prepare a full Programme of Work and Budget at the same modest level I had proposed, in order to obtain the consensus of those four or five countries who were advocating a lower level. I am ready to accept whatever the Council decides on this matter. But I wanted to explain the background to this consensus, which is that the overwhelming majority found my proposals to represent an absolute minimum. I think that it is as a compromise that to request me to develop a programme at the same level, hoping that, by doing so, the few Member Countries who had not been able now to express a final decision would accept to join with them in requesting me to develop a full Programme of Work and Budget on the basis of the summary, I have presented.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Director-General. Of course, as I have repeatedly said, this is nothing new, this happens at every budget. So if you want a long debate we can go on with it but we know what the outcome will be. Can I appeal to Canada?
K. R. HIGHAM (Canada): You are making it very difficult for me, because you make it sound as though I am being unreasonable. In fact what I am trying to convince you of is that we thought that the Chairman's summing up was a very good summing up. We did not protest it simply because it included those words, and this paragraph 54 does not include those words - "A few reserved their views for later on". I proposed them to incorporate our position, thinking that it was the formula that would be most easily accepted by the Council. There are one or two ways of going about it. What worries me is that the wording in paragraph 54 as it stands suggests participation of my delegation and some others in a consensus to instruct the Director-General to go ahead on the basis of the proposals in his summary and I am not in a position to be able to participate in such a consensus.
Therefore I proposed your words, Mr Chairman, ''A few reserved their views for later on". If it is not agreeable to the Council to incorporate those words, then another formula might be - and it is up to you to decide if it is more easily acceptable - that the first sentence should read "Taking into account the views expressed, Council reached a consensus, with reservations on the part of some countries" or ''one or two countries". But it seems to me that would be more negative than my proposal, which I thought was fairly conciliatory wording.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Canada. You have made a concrete proposal now.
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): I suggest a compromise. Paragraph 51 in the English text, the first line on page 9 should say ''These members were unable to express a firm opinion and reserved their position on the proposed level until such time as they had had an opportunity to review carefully the full Programme of Work and Budget proposals... " and then let the last part stand as it is. I think there could be no better guarantee and no better solution to the problem.
K. R. HIGHAM (Canada): I am in agreement if everyone else is.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, delegate of Canada. I hope other delegates will thank you.
W. A. F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of): First I would like to draw attention to the fact that there is a slight difference in paragraph 53 between the French and the English texts. In the English text it says "and agreed" whereas in the French text it says ''à un consensus" and c'est une différence. I wonder if we could overcome this problem if you just dropped the two words "and agreed", saying "the Council reached a consensus that the Director-General should proceed with the preparation..." and so on. I think perhaps that could be one way of finding a solution.
C. BATAULT (France): Dans un esprit de compromis, qui est en train de devenir une de mes spécialités, j'avais l'intention de faire une proposition; mais, en définitive, je me rallie à la proposition faite par le Président du Comité de rédaction.
Ceci dit, il semble en effet, comme l'a souligné le représentant de l'Allemagne, qu'il y ait une différence de signification entre le texte français et le texte anglais.
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): The French and the Spanish texts will be brought into line with the English text. I request the delegate of Germany that since the delegate of Canada has expressed his satisfaction with the proposal made just now it would be agreeable to him also.
S. AIDARA (Sénégal): Nous ne savons plus où nous en sommes. Les amendements pleuvent d'un peu partout. Le Canada avait accepté, me semble-t-il, la proposition du président du Comité de rédaction. Je vois qu'il y a un nouvel amendement et je ne comprends pas exactement où se situe la modification. Le problème est très important pour nous et nous aimerions savoir où se situent exactement les modifications apportées au paragraphe 51.
CHAIRMAN: I am sorry, I thought you were speaking on something else. Everything is agreed now. The formulation given by the Chairman of the Drafting Committee has been accepted by Canada and everybody, and the delegate of the Federal Republic of Germany has dropped his suggestion. It means that we have now adopted with the amendments and addition paragraphs 43 to 53 of our report.
Paragraphs 10 to 53, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 10 à 53, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 10 a 53, así enmendados, son aprobados
PARAGRAPHS 54 to 93
PARAGRAPHES 54 à 93
PARRAFOS 54 a 93
H. CARANDANG (Philippines): I would like to propose the addition of one sentence after the fourth sentence of paragraph 61. The proposal would refer to the FAO bankers' programme. I will give the exact line after giving the reason for this. The reason that I am giving for the insertion is that in paragraph 54 we say that the Council fully endorsed the views and recommendations of the Programme Committee set out in paragraphs 2.148 to 2.163 of its report. The proposal that I would ask to be included is in paragraph 2.160. Furthermore, the point I would like to make was mentioned by the delegate of India yesterday and no one seems to have opposed him, in PV-11, page 5, in the fifth paragraph, wherein he mentions that point. The sentence I would like to propose is this "In this connexion it was felt that the bankers' programme was in a special position to help developing countries build up this capacity, since two thirds of its members were national development banks, most of which were increasingly being required by their governments to invest in the agricultural sector".
CHAIRMAN: Are there any objections to this?
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): The delegate of the Philippines has read out from a PV, which is a verbatim record, what India said. I will have to consult my notes to see if anybody opposed this idea, but to the best of my recollection nobody did. Under those circumstances and if the Council agrees I have no objections.
CHAIRMAN: I see no objections.
A.J. PECKHAM (United Kingdom): I have a point on paragraph 59. At the end of paragraph 59 the last sentence includes a clause that I take it the Council urged both organizations - that is, FAO and IFAD - to strengthen their cooperation still further. There is, I think, a slight implication in that that things might not be what they should be. Therefore to avoid that implication I would like to suggest that the sentence about FAO and IFAD being natural partners complementing each other should stop there. We should put a fullstop after "complementing each other" and we should reword the rest of the sentence, so that the new sentence reads "The Council urged that this partnership should be consolidated and strengthened" or just "consolidated". It is just to avoid that implication.
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): If I have the amendment right the last sentence of paragraph 59 would read "FAO and IFAD were natural partners, complementing each other. The Council urged that this partnership be consolidated". If that is the amendment I personally have no objection subject to the approval of the Council.
CHAIRMAN: If there are no objections, then the amendments of the United Kingdom and the Philippines are accepted and paragraphs 58 to 62 are adopted with the amendments.
W.A. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of): A little alteration would be necessary to paragraph 64, that "The Council supported FAO's intention". Now the Council is FAO, so I wonder if it should read "The Council supported the Director-General's intention" or "the FAO Secretariat's intention to obtain greater uniformity". I think as it stands it sounds to me, at least, inaccurate.
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee). The suggestion is extremely useful, and we could say "the Council supported the Director General's intention to obtain greater uniformity". I am very grateful to Germany.
G. GAMO-KUBA (Observateur pour le Congo): Je n'oserais pas intervenir sur les décisions du Conseil, mais si j'ai des instructions de mon gouvernement pour dissiper un malentendu, j'espère que vous ne m'en voudrez pas de faire cette déclaration. Depuis le début du Conseil, nous ne sommes pas intervenus bien que les sujets nous intéressaient.
Au paragraphe 72, pour ce qui est des contributions du Congo, je voudrais mentionner que j'ai déjà pris contact avec les autorités compétentes car il s'agissait de dissiper un malentendu. Les recherches ayant été faites, je puis dire que les contributions du Congo ont été versées intégralement, y compris celles de l'année 1979. Ce matin même, j'ai eu mon ministre au téléphone, et je crois que la FAO sera saisie officiellement d'ici à cet après-midi pour dissiper ce malentendu. Je crois que celui-ci est dû au fait que ces contributions ont été remises au représentant de la FAO au Congo qui, lui, a pensé que ces contributions concernaient l'engagement pris par le Congo pour l'établissement de la mission FAO. Ce malentendu devrait être dissipé et un autre chèque est déjà au Trésor congolais. Mon ministre même a contacté le Directeur général à Tunis et lui a donné la certitude que nos contributions étaient épongées depuis un mois. Je voudrais que cela soit consigné et mon ministre le confirmera quand il viendra à Rome.
M. BEL HADJ AMOR (Président du Comité financier): Vous avez bien deviné que ce n'est pas en qualité de délégué de la Tunisie que j'interviens mais en tant que Président du Comité des finances. Je voudrais tranquilliser mon collègue, le délégué du Congo, et lui rappeler que dans son introduction concernant les contributions, le président du Comité des finances a bien attiré l'attention du Conseil sur le paragraphe 7 du document CL 75/LIM. 1 qui concerne le Congo et a bien précisé qu'il est fort possible que des démarches aient été entreprises par certains pays mais qu'en raison du retard des transmissions des avis bancaires l'Organisation n'a peut-être pas reçu la confirmation de ces envois. Je voulais donner cette précision.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Chairman of the Finance Committee. I think the Observer for the Congo has taken note.
Paragraphs 54 to 78, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 54 a 78, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 54 a 78, asi enmendados, son aprobados
Paragraph 79, including draft resolution, approved
Le paragraphe 79, y compris le projet de résolution, est approuvé
El párrafo 79, incluido el proyecto de resolución, es aprobado
Paragraphs 80 to 86 approved
Les paragraphes 80 à 86 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 80 a 86 son aprobados
Paragraph 87, including Resolution, adopted
Le paragraphe 87 y compris la résolution, est adopté
El párrafo 87, incluida la Resolución, es aprobado
Paragraphs 88 and 89 approved
Les paragraphes 88 et 89 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 88 y 89 son aprobados
Paragraph 90 including Resolution adopted
Le paragraphe 90 y compris la résolution est adopté
El párrafo 90 incluida la Resolución,es aprobado
Paragraphs 91 to 93 approved
Les paragraphes 91 à 93 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 91 a 93 son aprobados
Paragraphs 94 and 95 approved
Les paragraphes 94 et 95 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 94 y 95 son aprobados
Paragraph 96 approved
Le paragraphe 96 est approuvé
El párrafo 96 es aprobado
Paragraph 97 approved
Le paragraphe 97 est approuvé
El párrafo 97 es aprobado
Draft Report of Plenary - Part III, as amended, was adopted
Projet de rapport de la plénière, troisième partie, ainsi amendée, est adoptée
El provecto de informe de la Plenaria Parte III, así enmendado, es aprobado
DRAFT REPORT OF PLENARY - PART IV
PROJET DE RAPPORT DE LA PLENIERE - PARTIE IV
PROYECTO DE INFORME DE LA PLENARIA - PARTE IV
PARAGRAPHS 1 to 8
PARAGRAPHES 1 á 8
PARRAFOS 1 a 8
W. A. F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of): This hopefully could be my last intervention, and I just have a little amendment to propose. Perhaps in paragraph 1, one should insert after the words in the second line "in November" the words "for its information". The reason I am proposing this is because the document on the front page said that the document was for the information of the Conference and the Council, and my delegation therefore had no instruction to speak on the subject, so it would just bring this paragraph in line with the documentation which we had before us. I do not think it should cause any difficulty to anyone around the table.
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): I sincerely hope that it will not be the last intervention of the Federal Republic of Germany and that he lives to make many more interventions.
I am in perfect agreement with him and we would insert over here "for information with a supplement bringing it up to date".
Paragraphs 1 to 8, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 1 à 8, ainsi, amendés sont approuvés
Los párrafos 1 a 8, asi enmendados son aprobados
Paragraph 9 approved
Le paragraphe 9 est approuvé
El párrafo 9 es aprobado
Paragraph 10 approved
Le paragraphe 10 est approuvé
El párrafo 10 es aprobado
Paragraphs 11 to 20, including draft resolutions, approved
Les paragraphes 11 á 20, y compris les projets de résolution, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 11 a 20, incluido los proyectos de resolución, son aprobados
Paragraph 21 including Resolution adopted
Le paragraphe 21 y compris la résolution, est adopté
El párrafo 21 incluida la Resolución, es aprobado
Paragraph 22, including draft resolution, approved
Le paragraphe 22, y compris le projet de résolution, est approuvé
El párrafo 22, incluido el proyecto de resolución, es aprobado
Paragraphs 23 to 27 approved
Les paragraphes 23 à 27 sont approuvésLos párrafos 23 a 27 son aprobados
Paragraph 28 approved
Le paragraphe 28 est approuvé
E1 párrafo 28 es aprobado
PARAGRAPHS 29 and 30
PARAGRAPHES 29 et 30
PARRAFOS 29 y 30
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): En el párrafo 29, en la segunda frase, tal vez convenga decir el Director General y el Delegado de Malta, Decano del Cuerpo de Representantes, porque hoy todos sabemos que el colega de Malta es el Decano; pero tal vez estos informes pueden tener importancia informativa para el futuro.
Paragraphs 29 and 30, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 29 et 30, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 29 y 30, así enmendados, son aprobados
Draft Report of Plenary - Part IV, as amended, was adopted
Projet de rapport de la plénière, quatrième partie, ainsi amendée, est adoptée
El proyecto de informe de la Plenaria - Parte IV, así enmendado, es aprobado
DRAFT REPORT OF PLENARY - PART V
PROJET DE RAPPORT - PARTIE V
PROYECTO DE INFORME - PARTE V
Paragraphs 1 and 2 approved
Les paragraphes 1 et 2 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 1 y 2 son aprobados
Draft Report of Plenary - Part V, was adopted
Projet de rapport de la plénière, cinquième partie, est adoptée
El proyecto de informe de la Plenaria - Parte V, es aprobado
LE DIRECTEUR GENERAL: Monsieur le Président, je ne vous retiendrai pas outre mesure et je serai aussi bref que possible. Mais je faillirais á mon devoir et à mes sentiments si je ne vous exprimais pas mon appréciation pour les décisions que vous avez prises, et ma gratitude pour les encouragements que vous m'avez adressés au cours de cette session. Ai-je besoin de vous le dire? Je suis très fier de cette Organisation. En disant cela, je pense surtout aux Gouvernements membres, qui sont responsables de l'esprit qui anime le travail de notre Organisation. C'est cet esprit, si caractéristique de la FAO, qui régit tous nos débats.
Je voudrais mentionner, plus particulièrement, les déclarations sérieuses, responsables et constructives, qui ont été faites par un très grand nombre de délégations de toutes les régions, sur des sujets aussi importants que la Sécurité alimentaire mondiale, les Politiques et programmes d'aide alimentaire, la Coopération technique entre pays en développement, et le Résumé du programme de travail et budget.
Monsieur le Président, je pense également à l'esprit qui a animé les débats et les décisions. Même sur un sujet qui était d'une nature particulièrement émotionnelle pour un certain nombre de pays, le Conseil a amplement démontré son désir d'un dialogue franc et démocratique, sa compréhension envers les positions parfois radicalement différentes, et sa volonté de les rapprocher dans toute la mesure du possible. Je suis extrêmement heureux que l'esprit de conciliation et de concorde ait finalement prévalu. Cet esprit, qui a guidé vos travaux, sera d'un très grand soutien pour mes collègues et pour moi-même, au cours des prochaines semaines qui seront particulièrement chargées.
Monsieur le Président, très bientôt nous serons, en effet, confrontés à l'immense défi politique et logistique que constitue la Conférence mondiale sur la réforme agraire et le développement rural. La Conférence mondiale constitue une tâche écrasante, aussi bien pour vous, Messieurs les délégués, que pour nous. Mais je suis sûr que nous l'affronterons avec sérieux et efficacité. Et nous en sortirons avec un programme d'action bien déterminé, sur la base duquel les gouvernements nationaux et la Communauté internationale pourront s'attaquer à la pauvreté et à la faim dans les zones rurales.
Avant et près la Conférence mondiale, d'autres réunions d'une grande portée internationale se tiendront, et j'aurai le privilège d'y représenter notre Organisation. Il s'agit notamment du Conseil économique et social, et de la Conférence des Nations Unies sur la science et la technologie.
Cela nous amènera à la vingtième session de notre Conférence, dont l'ordre du jour sera particulièrement chargé. Y figureront des questions aussi bien anciennes que nouvelles, notamment celles dérivant de la Conférence mondiale sur la réforme agraire et le développement rural.
Monsieur le Président, Messieurs les délégués, au seuil des deux dernières décennies de ce siècle, prenons la résolution de continuer à donner au monde cet exemple de coopération internationale concrète et efficace. La dernière génération du siècle n'en attend pas moins de nous. Ne la décevons pas!
Monsieur le Président, avant de terminer, permettez-moi de vous exprimer mes remerciements les plus chaleureux pour la patience, la sagesse, la clairvoyance et le tact dont, une fois de plus,vous avez fait preuve tout au long de nos débats. Ces qualités se sont révélées précieuses dans les moments difficiles, pour préserver l'unité, l'unité sacrée du Conseil!
Je voudrais aussi remercier les trois Vice-Présidents pour leur contribution au succès de notre session.
Mes remerciements vont également au Président et aux Membres du Comité de rédaction, dont le travail consciencieux nous a permis d'adopter aussi aisément notre rapport.
Un dernier mot enfin. Je souhaite bon voyage et bon retour dans leurs familles à tous ceux qui sont venus de leurs pays et bonnes vacances à ceux qui auront la possibilité d'en prendre.
Merci, Monsieur le Président.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Director-General.
On behalf of all of you, I would like to thank the Director-General and his colleagues in the Secretariat for making this Council a very pleasant one. Without the wonderful supervision, the documents, brief introductions, all the information that we had, and very efficient secretarial services, we would never have finished this meeting on time, because we did have very heavy items which needed long debates; but because of well-prepared documents, the balancing of views in documents and so on it has been possible for us to complete our work. I would like to thank you and your colleagues for all that,
On behalf of myself and the three Vice-Chairmen I would like to thank all of you for the patience you have shown with us. Sometimes we might have tended to stop you from speaking, both delegates and observers, but what we did was done in the interests of other members, because when you are speaking - I know, having been a delegate myself - you think you are the only one and it is the duty of the Chair to protect other members who are subjected to intolerable conditions. Therefore, whatever we did to stop you from talking, please take it that it was not intended to stop any one particular person but was in the interests of the Council as a whole.
What is perhaps most important to us in the Chair is the manner in which we resolve our problems - the problem of the Budget, the problem of the Director-General's Five-Point Plan of Action, the Food Security Plan, the problem of the Near East Regional Office, and so on. This has shown the Council has continued to be mature and to listen to each others point of view, and to yield to the interests of the Organization as a whole.
I would also like to thank the Chairman and the Members of the Drafting Committee for the wonderful work they have done, because adopting the Report is one of the nightmares of a Chairman. If a report is badly written, then we can spend two days here, but thanks to the very efficient way in which the Committee operated, we were able to adopt it in record time.
I would like to thank you all, and hope you get back home safely, and we will meet again at the next Session.
This Seventy-Fifth Session of our Council is now closed.
The meeting rose at 12.40 hours
La seance est levée à 12 h 40
Se levanta la sesión a las 12.40 horas