ADOPTION OF REPORT
ADOPTION DU RAPFQRT
APROBACION DEL INFORME

DRAFT REPORT - PART I
PROJET DE RAPPORT - PARTIE I
PROYECTO DE INFORME - PARTE I

PARAGRAPHS 1 to 5
PARAGRAPHES 1 à 5
PARRAFOS 1 a 5

Paragraphs 1 and 2 approved
Les paragraphes 1 et 2 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 1 y 2 son aprobados

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

Paragraph 5 aproved
Le paragraphe 5 est approuve
El párrafo 5 es aprobado

PARAGRAPHS 6 to 18
PARAGRAPHES 6 à 18
PARRAFOS 6 a 18

T. AHMAD (Pakistan) : Only a small question of formulation in paragraph 6 : the last sentence reads, ''on the low-income developing countries". Perhaps they don't want to say countries which are developing low income, they want to say "developing countries". I would suggest that here we can delete ''low income'' and also say "the developing countries".

CHAIRMAN : Chairman of the Drafting Committee, is there any difficulty with that ?

RAMADHAR (Chairman, Drafting Committee) : I have no problem with that.

CHAIRMAN : If members agree, then the proposal made by Pakistan will be taken into consideration.

C. BATAULT (France): Je ne veux pas du tout m'opposer à la suggestion de mon ami du Pakistan, mais il me semble que si l'on a parlé des "pays en développement à faible revenu", c'était dans un but précis. En effet, les perspectives qui s'ouvrent à l'économie mondiale ne sont pas bonnes. On pourrait donc simplement dire: "Il a fait sienne l'opinion générale selon laquelle les perspectives qui s'ouvrent à l'économie mondiale ne sont pas bonnes" parce que malheureusement elles ne sont pas meilleures pour les pays développés que pour les pays en développement. Les perspectives en question concernent tout le monde.

CHAIRMAN: Pakistan, would you withdraw your suggestion in the light of what France said?

T. AHMAD (Pakistan): My problem was only the formulation in the English text. If you say "low-income", then you have to have a comma here and then go on to "developing countries" so I was suggesting that instead of having "low-income, developing countries", you may delete, the "low-income" and iust say "developing countries"; but if France has a problem with that we can retain the "low-income" but then you have a comma there.

RAMADHAR (Chairman, Drafting Committee): This comma might create some problem, because we have been using these terms in many of the texts and reports without a comma, and this is an accepted terminology "low-income developing countries" without a comma.

P.A. MORALES CARBALLO (Cuba): Yo quería asociarme a lo que ha expresado nuestro colega de Pakistan en el sentido de eliminar las palabras "de bai os ingresos"; esto daría una idea más clara ya que creemos que precisamente la grave situación económica que existera quien más afecta es a los países en desarrollo. Repito, apoyo lo que dice el delegado de Pakistán de eliminar la frase final de "baios ingresos".

S. HAGRAS (Egypt) (interpretation from Arabic): I think that the text we have is perfectly reasonable, we must say "particularly on the low-income developing countries" because there are developing countries which have very high incomes such as the oil-producing countries, therefore we should clearly define which are the countries which are suffering from this difficult economic situation. They are the low-income developing countries precisely, and that is why my delegation supports the text as it stands in this first part of the report.

CHAIRMAN: I do not think we should hold ourselves up on this. Pakistan has already withdrawn his proposal, therefore we leave the sentence as it is. That approves paragraphs 6 to 8. Any comments on the paragraphs '9-12?

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Queremos referirnos por ahora a la primera frase del párrafo 11, en la cual se usa en los tres idiomas el término de "que los resultados logrados en la producción de alimentos eran impresionantes". Nos parece que esto podría estar en contraste con otros apartados de esta misma sección del Informe, especialmente con el párrafo 8 y, por lo tanto, creemos que esa expresión es un poco exagerada.

Proponemos cambiar esa expresión por la siguiente: "habían mejorado relativamente" o sea: habían mejorado relativamente. El Consejo reconoció que los resultados logrados en la producción de alimentos por los países en desarrollo en conjunto en los años setenta habían mejorado relativamente, en vez de "eran impresionantes".

Ya que estoy en el uso de la palabra y siempre sobre el párrafo 11, en la penúltima línea, en el texto español dice: "sobre en Africa". Creo que hay que poner: sobre todo en Africa, ya que en el texto inglés se dice particularly. Así que,repito, propongo: sobre todo en Africa.

Tengo otras observaciones pero será conveniente, señor Presidente que usted resuelva esta primero.

CHAIRMAN: Thank you, delegate of Colombia. Is there are any reaction to the proposal made by the delegate of Colombia?

W.A.F.GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of): The citing of that figure stems from our statement. We had said that the developing countries should be commended for having achieved that. We are happy that this has been taken into consideration in the report, but we can very well go along with the proposals just made by Colombia. They do not change the sense.

CHAIRMAN: If there are no more comments, the proposal by Colombia is accepted. Will you continue, Colombia?

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Recuerdo a la Secretaría la adición que deben hacer al final del párrafo 11,

o sea, agregar la palabra: "todo".

Sobre el párrafo 12 queremos referirnos a la última frase del párrafo. Nuestra intención es siempre, puede que alguna vez nos equivoquemos, tratar de hacer más afirmativo el Informe. La última frase del párrafo 12: "el Consejo tomó nota del llamamiento hecho por muchos delegados", podríamos decir: el Consejo apoyó el llamamiento.

RAMADHAR (Chairman, Drafting Committee): I have no problem with that.

A.E. GUROFF (United States of America): My problems are two-fold, one is understanding the wording, with the word "tonnages" in paragraph 11. I do not see it in the English text, so I do not understand its addition in Spanish.

I have a proposal on paragraph 12 relating to the IFS which was discussed at some length in theDrafting Committee, and what we have here reflects the best consensus we could come out with.

CHAIRMAN: I think the word you referred to was just a Spanish correction or something, but I do not think it is adding anything. In any case, I will ask the Secretariat to comment.

RAMADHAR (Chairman, Drafting Committee): You are right, Mr. Chairman. The only problem Colombia had was with regard to the Spanish translation the word "particularly" without anything else, so I do not think that should cause any problem to anyone.

CHAIRMAN: What about the second comment made by the United States delegate?

RAMADHAR (Chairman, Drafting Committee): Actually we discussed this matter in the Drafting Committee, and the formulation that we have now was the result of discussions in that Committee, but as I said, it is for this Council to decide whether it is adopting or supporting that. I have nothing to say on that. As far as I am concerned both are suitable.

CHAIRMAN: Are there any comments on the two proposals from Colombia and the United States? The Colombian delegate proposed an amendment to the word "noted", but the United States delegate does not agree.

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Yo no había pedido la palabra, pero ya que me la concede, señor Presidente, quiero insistir en mi enmienda.

CHAIRMAN: Can we have any more inputs?

K.R. HIGHAM (Canada): The work of the Drafting Committee strikes me at first reading as being quite outstanding, we have very little problem here. The sentence as it has been prepared by the Committee concerning the use of the IFS suits us very well. The change proposed by Colombia would in fact give my delegation some difficulty. We are not yet in a position to be able to support; however, we are interested in and have taken good note of the appeal made by the Commission.

T. AHMAD (Pakistan): I would go along with the amendment as proposed by the delegate of Colombia, and I see no difficulty as far as the delegates of the United States and Canada are concerned, because what is suggested is the Council supported the appeal. It is still an appeal which has been supported by the Council, and it is not changing the basic substantive text of the paragraph. It is up to the countries whether they take the appeal or not, but the appeal was put.

J. TCHICAYA (Congo): Je veux simplement dire que ma délégation appuie la proposition du délégué de Colombie, parce qu'effectivement, lors du débat sur cette question, nous avions appuyé cette proposition. Donc, comme elle n'avait pas été contestée, je pense que le Conseil a effectivement "appuyé" la proposition.

M. W. MOORE-WILTON (Australia): We take the view that on our recollection of the discussion in the Council, which of course this report is supposed to reflect, in your summing up there was no direct reference to the Council supporting this appeal. Certainly some reference was made to it.

We could, of course, debate the subject now and reopen the item, but this is not the purpose of our meeting this morning, our purpose is to reflect what actually happened. That is that some delegates supported it and some did not speak on it and some did not support it. It would be correct, in my opinion, to say the Council supported it. I have to associate my delegation with the delegations of the United States and Canada.

CHAIRMAN: Since we are considering a report, and you put alternative formulations, Australia or United States or Canada, we would get nowhere here without any further proposals. How do you want it put, United States?

A.E. GUROFF (United States of America): As I have already indicated, I thought it was put quite well. I am just a little troubled because I have been through this particular debate probably half a dozen or more times in the couple of years I have been here. We have a fairly well-established record of the difference in views here and the way to accomodate them. I do not quite understand why we have to re-read the record here to get back to the point with which we always wind up. I think the report reflects exactly as far as we can go and still be a consensus on this subject.

I would like to have any changes anyone wants and just put a reservation on it, but frankly I am weary of the debate.

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Como apenas estamos empezando la discusión del proyecto de informe, la delegación de Colombia desea sentar alguna cuestión de principio.

En primer lugar, creemos que ésta es la función esencial del Consejo, preservar por que el informe refleje las opiniones de nuestros debates; el Comité de Redacción ha hecho un buen trabajo, pero debe ser complementado por nuestras intervenciones; esto es lógico y no puede evitarse.

En segundo lugar, estoy de acuerdo con usted, señor Presidente, en que debiéramos terminar antes de la una, pero no debemos descuidar por esto el texto del informe. Para no complicarle más la vida a usted y evitar la reacción que se ha producido, la delegación de Colombia propone las siguientes alternativas, que espera no ofrezcan dificultad:

En vez de "El Consejo apoyo el llamamiento" podríamos decir: "Varias delegaciones apoyaron el llamamiento".

C. BATAULT (France): Je pense que pour une fois je suis d'accord avec M. Bula Hoyos et je m'en réjouis beaucoup.

CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, we will now go on. Are there any comments about paras. 9-12?

A. NAGA (Japan): My delegation associates itself with the opinions from the United States of America, Canada and Australia.

CHAIRMAN: We will finish this item here. Paragraphs 9 to 12, as amended, are approved. Any comments on the paragraphs 13 - 15?

P.A. MORALES CARBALLO (Cuba): Párrafo 13; del español línea sexta. Aquí se habla de la meta anual de diez millones de toneladas, pero realmente le ponemos el nombre pero no el apellido: Creo que debe ser "toneladas de cereales". Creo que en el texto inglés sería lo mismo; pienso que es algo para aclarar el texto y no trae dificultad alguna.

RAMADHAR (Chairman, Drafting Committee): The delegate of Cuba is right. It should say "the annual target of 10 million tons of cereals". "Cereals" is the word we have been using in English and the corresponding change will be made in the other languages.

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Espero que pueda ser aceptada nuestra enmienda sobre la cuarta frase, la frase central del párrafo 13 que comienza por las palabras "A este respecto, muchas delegaciones subrayaron'. Yo creo que no hay duda de que todos los miembros del Consejo deseamos que se reanuden las negociaciones para que se considere la posibilidad de concluir un convenio efectivo sobre el comercio del trigo que, además, creo que se han reanudado ya. ¿Por qué no decir, entonces; "A este respecto, el Consejo subrayo que debían reanudarse"? Creo que no ofrece dificultad y hace más afirmativo nuestro informe.

CHAIRMAN: Do we accept the proposal? I see the delegate of the United States does not

A.E. GUROFF (United States of America): I am not sure exactly where it comes in the text, but clearly, from the substance, the United States would not be able to accept it.

CHAIRMAN: I think I will ask the delegate of Colombia to read out the whole sentence so that everybody can hear it.

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Está en la mitad, más o menos del párrafo 13. Empieza por las palabras: "A este respecto". Dice: "A este respecto muchas delegaciones subrayaron que debían reanudarse etc.". Yo propongo que se diga: "A este respecto, el Consejo subrayo que debían reanudarse las negociaciones en un futuro proximo a fin de poder concluir un convenio efectivo sobre el comercio del trigo."

Creo que ningún miembro del Consejo no desea que se reanuden esas conversaciones que, además, ya están en curso.

C. BATAULT (France): Je suis de nouveau d'accord avec M. Bula Hoyos et je soutiens sa proposition.

CHAIRMAN: Having now heard the whole sentence, do you agree?

P. S. McLEAN (United Kingdom): I have no particular difficulties as United Kingdom delegate with the proposal by Colombia but once again I understand it causes difficulties for some delegations. My recollection is that the debate as it stood on this would be more faithfully reflected by the wording in the draft and I would therefore urge that we keep to that text.

CHAIRMAN: I shall ask the Chairman of the Drafting Committee whether the Council knew that the negotiations had started or were going to start at the time. In what context did the debate take place?

RAMADHAR (Chairman, Drafting Committee): This amendment was suggested by our French colleague in the Drafting Committee and we put it in this way because we thought the negotiations had started, actually, because the International Wheat Council meeting was currently in session in Madrid and the main idea of this meeting was to find a way out of the stalemate which had been holding up the resumption of negotiations. Personally I feel there should not be any objections because, what problem could there be to agreeing to a resumption of the negotiations? Of course there could be some problem regarding details, wording, clauses of negotiations, but the principle of resuming the negotiations of which this Sentence speaks, I do not think could give rise to any major problem.

S. HAGRAS (Egypt) (Interpretation from Arabic): The Arabic text is a perfectly faithful reflection of the discussion as we heard it. It reads as follows: "In this connexion many delegations stressed that negotiations should be resumed in the near future in order that an effective Wheat Trade Agreement might be concluded." I fully agree that this is the right text and that we should maintain it.

M. TRKULJA (Yugoslavia): Just to remind the Council that paragraph 26 deals with the same issue and expresses quite faithfully the position of one delegation. In that light I would suggest that, to save time in such cases, we apply the usual formula and say: "In this connexion it was also stressed", which indicates a large consensus of the Council but not necessarily a full one. I am therefore suggesting that we say: "It was also stressed."

CHAIRMAN: Would this meet with the agreement of the delegate of Colombia?

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Sí, señor Presidente; con ánimo de transacción, aunque no entiendo que todavía haya miembros del Consejo que puedan oponerse a que se reanuden unas negociaciones que ya se han reanudado.

CHAIRMAN: Will the United States and United Kingdom delegates also agree with this formula, ''It was stressed"?

A. E. GUROFF (United States of America): My reading of that formulation unfortunately still gives the implication that there is a consensus, unanimity, what have you. We would still have trouble with that.

CHAIRMAN: Any suggestions?

M. W. MOORE-WILTON (Australia): It is perhaps unusual but I should like to ask the United States delegation to consider the words in the light of the way in which the delegate of Yugoslavia expressed them; it is a sanitized and neutral formulation and it does not imply the full Council I do take the point of the delegate of Yugoslavia that the United States views are recorded faithfully in a later paragraph. Certainly my delegation has no illusions about the resumption of negotiations in this regard, since I have led our delegation to most of those meetings; but we would accept this text.

CHAIRMAN: Thank you, delegate of Australia. Can we accept this Yugoslavian formulation and proceed?

A. E. GUROFF (United States of America) : Let me make an alternative suggestion, since the delegate of Yugoslavia has rightly pointed out that this is thoroughly covered in paragraph 26, perhaps in such a way that the two paragraphs might be inconsistent. I therefore suggest that we simply drop this sentence from paragraph 13 entirely.

RAMADHAR (Chairman, Drafting Committee): As I indicated earlier, this paragraph was suggested by the French delegation in the Drafting Committee and the Committee found that this was a good sentence here, so perhaps you might like to listen to the French delegate.

C. BATAULT (France): Je suis désolé de ne pas être d'accord avec le délégué des Etats-Unis mais il s'agit d'un sujet spécial et d'un point, tandis que dans le paragraphe 26 il s'agit du rapport concernant la sécurité alimentaire. Ce sont deux questions distinctes et en ce qui me concerne je suis prêt à me rallier au délégué de la Yougoslavie, ainsi que l'a suggéré le délégué de l'Australie.

CHAIRMAN: Thank you, France. I think we have to reflect in the report what went on in the Council and therefore the majority of people do not want this thing standing as it is, but feel it should be changed in the way the Yugoslavian delegate suggested. We shall therefore go on and see if there are any other amendments on paragraphs 13, 14 and 15. I assume then, with the amendment to paragraph 13, the three paragraphs are approved.

A. E. GUROFF (United States of America): I am sorry but I thought I had made myself clear - perhaps I did not - that the United States would not accept that amendment, and if this is to be adopted in this way, then I would reserve the right to submit a footnote indicating our reservation.

CHAIRMAN: You have the right to do that. In the meantime this could stand as amended by the delegate of Yugoslavia, and if you want a footnote, that can be done. Paragraphs 13 to 15, as amended, are approved.

Any comments on paragraphs 16 to 18 ?

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): en el párrafo 17, en la primera frase, creemos que no corresponde a la realidad de lo que dijimos aquí. Allí se afirma que "el Consejo tomó nota de las dificultades que encontraban los países en desarrollo". Creo que por lo menos había que decir: "El Consejo manifestó su preocupación por las dificultades que encontraban los países en desarrollo".

Tenemos otra enmienda sobre el párrafo 17, pero conviene esperar primero el resultado de esta.

RAMADHAR (Chairman, Drafting Committee); There is no doubt that many delegates in the Council made reference to these difficulties from the developing countries and in the Drafting Committee when this question came up whether some developed countries were also facing this difficulty, the next sentence was put in "Reference was also made to similar difficulties faced by exporters of agricultural products from other countries." So there could be no problem in accepting the amendment suggested by Colombia.

CHAIRMAN: Anybody against the Colombian suggestion?

M.W. MOORE-WILTON (Australia): I would like to raise a more general point on the suggestion, I have no real problem in supporting the Colombian suggestion but it does seem to me that if the delegation of Colombia is going to go through this report and on every occasion where the Council notes a particular thing suggests that the language be strengthened then we have wasted our time in the Drafting Committee because the Drafting Committee has discussed this at length. My delegation for one can support this change but I would like to appeal to the delegate of Colombia that if he continues to ask that "noted" be changed on every occasion my delegation will not support changes.

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Lamento mucho tener que rechazar de manera muy enfática y categórica la reciente declaración del distinguido delegado de Australia, quien tuvo el privilegio de hacer parte del Comité de Redacción, lo cual no correspondióla Colombia. Si aceptáramos su criterio, ¿para qué nos reunimos esta mañana? Hubiera podido salir del Comité y haber enviado el texto, y allá lo hubieran impreso y devueltoa nosotros. Yo quiero hacer reformar el Proyecto de Informe porque es mi derecho como representante de un país soberano.

CHAIRMAN: Colombia, Australia actually agreed with your suggestion so there is no need to expect something different now.

P.A. MORALES CARBALLO (Cuba): Si se acepta la propuesta de Colombia, no tengo que decir nada porque nosotros teníamos algo similar que cambiar en ese mismo sentido.

CHAIRMAN: The proposal by Colombia is accepted.

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Me había permitido manifestar que teníamos una segunda propuesta sobre el párrafo 17 esta mañana.

Decía que habíamos estado muy complacidos y muy honrados por el reiterado apoyo del distinguido Embajador de Francia. Esperamos seguir contando con ese apoyo.

En la mitad del párrafo 17, se habla del delicado problema del proteccionismo. Usted conoce no sólo la posición de nuestra delegación en esta materia, sino también la de Australia y muchas otras delegaciones. Somos conscientes de que más adelante, en el párrafo 22, pero sobre otro tema, se habla ya del proteccionismo, en la última frase del párrafo 22. Sin embargo, creemos que la referencia que se hace al proteccionismo aquí en el párrafo 17 es muy vacío, muy débil. Cuando se dice solamente sobre esta cuestión del proteccionismo: "Se informó al Consejo de que, de conformidad con la Resolución 2/79 de la Conferencia ...", quisiéramos agregar una adición inocua, ingenua, pero que refleja lo que dijimos muchas delegaciones, incluida Australia y Colombia. Proponemos que en este párrafo 17 se diga lo siguiente, en la frase que empieza por las palabras: "Sobre esta cuestión del proteccionismo", se diga: "El Consejo manifestó su preocupación por el proteccionismo sobre el cual se informó que, de conformidad con la Resolución 2/79 ...", la frase seguiría tal como está hasta el final.

Creemos que esto es lo menos que se debía decir porque aquí muchas delegaciones criticamos el proteccionismo. Está bien registrado en el párrafo 22, pero este tema es más importante en este campo, ya que el documento sobre seguridad alimentaria mundial tiene una sección sobre comercio internacional.

C. BATAULT (France): Cette fois-ci je ne suis pas d'accord avec M. Bula Hoyos parce que si l'on commence à ajouter quoi que ce soit à certains paragraphes qui reflètent exactement les débuts tels qu'ils ont été et si l'on veut ajouter au paragraphe 17 des choses qui sont dans le paragraphe 22, si on se livre à ce jeu tout le long du rapport ce n'est pas à une heure ce soir que les délégués pourront partir mais après-demain. Je crois qu'il faut laisser le texte du paragraphe 17 complété par le paragraphe 22; tel qu'il est,il reflète parfaitement ce qui a été dit au Conseil, et ce n'est pas la peine d'en ajouter si-non ma délégation fera les plus expresses réserves.

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Ahora la delegación de Colombia está de acuerdo con la de Francia. Aceptamos que quede el texto como está.

CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, delegate of Colombia, for reciprocating the French gesture.

Paragraphs 6 to 18, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 6 à 18, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 6 a 18, así enmendados, son aprobados

PARAGRAPHS 19 to 26
PARAGRAPHES 19 à 26
PARRAFOS 19 a 26

W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of): On paragraph 23, it is my delegation's feeling that perhaps we could here improve the text slightly and also by shortening it because in the middle where it speaks of a decision taken by the International Monetary Fund the same issue has been taken up already in paragraph 14. For this reason my delegation would like to suggest that in this sentence "It also appreciated" about the IMF and so on, after "IMF" we insert "as outlined in paragraph 14" and then take out the two lines until "cereal imports" and go on "was fully in line with the Plan of Action". This is a suggestion but, of course, if others feel it should be left as it stands we have no problems.

RAMADHAR (Chairman, Drafting Committee): It is true that this has been mentioned in paragraph 14 and it would hardly make any difference, with the portion suggested by the Federal Republic of Germany's delegate.

CHAIRMAN: If this is agreed then the proposal by the Federal Republic of Germany is accepted. Paragraphs 22 to 24, as amended, are approved. Any comments on paragraphs 25 and 26?

RAMADHAR (Chairman, Drafting Committee): There is one correction here which was agreed to in the Drafting Committee but unfortunately could not be mentioned in the corrigendum. It is with regard to paragraph 25, the last line in the English text, after "the FAO Food Security Assistance Scheme" we deleted the whole "and other development assistance activities aimed at enhancing food security." That was agreed to be deleted because we added something in the middle, "bilateral and multilateral assistance programmes" that was added after discussion in the Drafting Committee and this portion was deleted so the agreement was we should delete this "and other development assistance activities aimed at enhancing food security.^p, and the programme will end after "Food Security Assistance Scheme."

P.A. MORALES CARBALLO (Cuba): En el párrafo 25, en el texto en español, tercera línea, donde se dice: "También se destaco la necesidad de prestar ayuda para evitar pérdidas después de la cosecha", nosotro pensamos que esta ayuda se está prestando. Tal vez, la idea podría ser, o la idea fue otra, y se pudiera decir: "también se destaco la necesidad de incrementar la ayuda para evitar pérdidas después de la cosecha". Porque realmente como está puesto, refleja lo que se está haciendo, y la preocupación que tuvimos en el Consejo es que esa ayuda para evitar más pérdidas en la cosecha se incremente.

RAMADHAR (Chairman, Drafting Committee): Yes, that improves the text. If we say "The need for increased assistance in the provision of post-harvest losses was also stressed".

C. BATAULT (France): Je crois, pour préciser encore la pensée du délégué de Cuba, avec lequel je suis d'accord, qu'il faudrait mettre "poursuivre et accroître", puisqu'elle existe déjà il faut la poursuivre et on souhaite l'accroître.

CHAIRMAN : Paragraphs 25 and 26, as amended, are approved

Paragraphs 19 to 26, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 19 á 26, ainsi amendés sont approuvés
Los párrafos 19 a 26, así enmendados, son aprobados

PARAGRAPHS 27 to 34
PARAGRAPHES 27 à 34
PARRAFOS 27 a 34

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): La última frase des párrafo 29 dice: "Esto no va a ser fácil tarea, y condición indispensable para conseguirlo será la de un aumento sustancial en la ayuda a los países en desarollo". Nosotros preferimos que se diga: "en la asistencia de los países en desarollo". No nos gusta el término "ayuda", y preferimos cambiarlo por "asistencia".

CHAIRMAN: Is that any problem? No? Good. Then if there are no interventions the paragraphs are approved, as amended in the Spanish text. Paragraph 27 to 29, as amended, approved. Any comments on paragraphs 30 - 34?

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Queremos referirnos al párrafo 30, sobre la Resolución 35/81 de las Naciones Unidas. Encontramos perfecto el contenido de este párrafo, pero si podemos mejorarlo y nuestra opinión en esta ocasión no es firme, solamente es un deseo de contribución, podíamos proceder de la siguiente manera. Al final del párrafo 30 se habla de los informes del Comité de Programa y del Comité de Finanzas. Se citan los párrafos de esos Informes y todos sabemos que esos informes están contenidos en un documento CL 79/4, que es un documento para el Consejo. Documento 4 que no hará parte de la documentación para la Conferencia. Y entonces pudiera ser que muchos que no hayan asistido al Consejo y que no sean miembros de esos Comités, no sepan exactamente de qué se trata. Podríamos, tal vez, siempre con este ánimo, si hay dificultades retiramos nuestra propuesta, agregar al párrafo 30 al final de la última frase que aparece, el párrafo 2.210 del Comité del Programa y podríamos decir simplemente: "El Consejo subrayó una vez más que los órganos de la FAO eran los únicos responsables y competentes para juzgar la utilización de la totalidad de las actividades de la FAO". En resumen, dar una idea a quienes no estuvieron en el Consejo de qué trata la parte esencial, las recomendaciones de esos Comités. Repito, si esto crea problemas, no insistiremos.

RAMADHAR (Chairman, Drafting Committee): I have no problem with this.

CHAIRMAN: Are there any objections or interventions? Then the Colombian proposal is accepted and paragraphs 30 - 34 are approved, as amended.

Paragraphs 27 to 34, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 27 à 34, ainsi amendés, sont .approuves
Los párrafos 27 a 34, así enmendados, son aprobados

PARAGRAPHS 35 to 39
PARAGRAPHES 35 à 39
PARRAFOS 35 a 39

RAMADHAR (Chairman, Drafting Committee): A very small correction: in paragraph 35 in the third line of the English text the Drafting Committee agreed to delete the word 'considerable'.

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Al final de esta sección, deseamos agregar un nuevo y breve párrafo cuyo texto así como las demás enmiendas nuestras, entregamos esta mañana muy temprano al señor de Caprone en la Secretaría. Se trata de que, señor Presidente, usted recordará que nuestra delegación y otras delegaciones, y también el Director General en su declaración introductoria, aquí la tengo, se refirió dos veces a la reposición de los recursos del FIDA. Igualmente, el Comité del Programa se refiere también a la reposición de los recursos del FIDA. Queremos agregar un simple párrafo que podría ser el 34 bis para no alterar el orden de los párrafos, que diría simplemente así: "El Consejo expresó la esperanza de que la reposición de los recursos del FIDA se logre pronto y en forma satisfactoria". Yo creo que todos los miembros del Consejo comparten esta esperanza que no implica ninguna calificación, que no entra en el fondo de la reposición sino simplemente auspiciar la reposición.

CHAIRMAN : I think we should settle the Colombian proposal first.

RAMADHAR (Chairman, Drafting Committee) : Expressing hope is always welcome; so I do not have any problem with that.

CHAIRMAN : Are there any objections to this ? Then the Colombian suggestion is accepted.

P.A. MORALES CARBALLO (Cuba) : En matemáticas se dice que el orden de factores no altera el producto, pero pienso que en la redacción sí.

En el párrafo 38 del texto español se dice : "a fin de presentar candidatas más calificadas". Nosotros proponemos que este "más" se cambie y se diga: a fin de presentar más candidatas más calificadas. Creo que esto lo aclara, ya que lo que buscamos en más candidatas calificadas, no candidatas más calificadas.

RAMADHAR (Chairman, Drafting Committee) : The English text seems to be all right. The problem may be in the Spanish. The English says ''to present more qualified female candidates" - more in number. So it is all right. Perhaps the Spanish text can be changed accordingly.

CHAIRMAN : So that the Spanish text can be brought in line with the English.

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia) : En el párrafo 39, al final, se dice : "estudiado por el Director General teniendo en cuenta las consecuencias financieras". Creo que aquí dijimos también que era necesario tener en cuenta que no se menoscabara la eficacia del trabajo de la Organización por implantar nuestro sistema de medio tiempo. Para completar la idea podríamos decir: teniendo en cuenta la necesaria eficacia y las consecuencias financieras, ya que no se trata solamente de saber si una jornada a medio tiempo cuesta más o menos a la Organización, si en realidad afecta o no al trabajo de la Organización,

S. DE MARE (Sweden): My intervention concerns paragraph 38. We still think that the English text could be misunderstood with the word "more" and we would like to propose the insertion of the words "to present a greater number of qualified female candidates".

CHAIRMAN: You are going back to the point raised by Cuba which in English it said is all right. Can we take the Colombian suggestion and finish with it and then you can come back to yours? Colombia is speaking on paragraph 39.

RAMADHAR (Chairman, Drafting Committee): Can we accept that - "financial consequences and need for efficiency", or something on that line in paragraph 39?

CHAIRMAN: If there is no objection to including "efficiency", then the Secretariat will put this in an appropriate manner as well as "financial consequences".

P.S. McLEAN (United Kingdom): If that is agreed, I have no problem. I want to come to paragraph 38 and the point raised by Sweden. I believe the point could be quite easily got over, because my recollection is that both the question of numbers and the question of qualifications were raised, and the sentence could easily read: "more and better qualified female candidates". Would that be acceptable?

CHAIRMAN: So the United Kingdom proposal, which says: "more and better qualified female candidates". If this is accepted, then paragraphs 35 - 39 are amended as approved.

Paragraphs 35 to 39, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 35 à 39, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 35 a 39, asi enmendados, son aprobados

PARAGRAPHS 40 and 41
PaPAGRAPHES 40 et 41
PARRAFOS 40 y 41

Paragraph 40 approved
Le paragraphe 40 est approuve
El párrafo 40 es aprobado

Paragraph 41 approved
Le paragraphe 41 est approuve
El párrafo 41 es aprobado

PARAGRAPHS 42 to 45
PARAGRAPHES 42 à 45
PARRAFOS 42 a 45

P.A. MORALES CARBALLO (Cuba): En el texto en español del párrafo 43 se dice: "para seleccionar nombres de personas". La sugerencia nuestra es decir: para conocer de las candidaturas con miras al nombramiento de Presidente de la Conferencia y Presidentes de las Comisiones I, II y III, en lugar de decir: "seleccionar nombres de personas".

RAMADHAR (Chairman, Drafting Committee): This problem can be met by putting "in order to designate the candidates".

CHAIRMAN: Yes. The Cuban proposal is acceptable to you? Any problems? Then paragraph 43 is approved, as amended.

Paragraphs 42 to 45, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 42 à 45, ainsi amendes, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 42 a 45, así enmendados, son aprobados

PARAGRAPH 46, INCLUDING RESOLUTION
PARAGRAPHE 46, Y COMPRIS LA RESOLUTION
PARRAFO 46, INCLUIDA LA RESOLUCION

T.C. RAJAONA . (Madagascar): Je voudrais faire changer l'expression: "..... période ultérieure", dans la traduction française, et la remplacer par "une nouvelle période".

RAMADHAR (Chairman, Drafting Committee): It is a question of translation only, I think.

CHAIRMAN: Yes. The French text is being changed. If there is no objection and if there are no other comments, then paragraph 46 and the Resolution are adopted as amended.

Paragraph 46 and the Resolution approved as amended.
Paragraph 46, including Resolution as amended, adopted
Le paragraphe 46, y compris la résolution ainsi amendée, est adopté

El párrafo 46, incluida la Resolución así enmendada, es aprobado

PARAGRAPHS 47 to 55
PARAGRAPHES 47 à 55
PARRAFOS 47 a 55

P.S. McLEAN (United Kingdom): I have a small suggestion on 54. I think it might be appropriate for the Report to recognize a point that was, I believe, made in the presentation of this matter, and that is in respect of the External Auditor, who of course, has special and specific responsibility under his duties, and I think it might be worth recording simply at the end of the paragraph something to the effect that the Council was informed that the FAO External Auditor saw no objection.

RAMADHAR (Chairman, Drafting Committee): I have no objection to it.

CHAIRMAN: My objection to the United Kingdom proposal? No. Then in that case paragraph 54 is approved with the United Kingdom amendment.

Paragraphs 47 to 55, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 47 à 55, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 47 a 55, así enmendados, son aprobados

PARAGRAPHS 56 to 59
PARAGRAPHES 56 à 59
PARRAFOS 56 a 59

Paragraph 56, including draft resolution, approved
Le paragraphe 56, y compris le projet de résolution, est approuvé
El párrafo 56, incluido el proyecto de resolución, es aprobado

Paragraphs 57 and 58 approved
Les paragraphes 57 et 58 sont approuves
Los párrafos 57 y 58 son aprobados

Paragraph 59 approved
Le paragraphe 59 est approuvé
El párrafo 59 es aprobado

Draft Report - Part I, as amended, was adopted
Projet de rapport premie partie, ainsi amendé, est adopté
El proyecto de informe - Parte I, así enmendado, es aprobado.

DRAFT REPORT - PART II
PROJET DE RAPPORT - PARTIE II
PROYECTO DE INFORME - PARTE II

PARAGRAPHS 1 to 48
PARAGRAPHES 1 à 48
PARAFOS 1 a 48

P.S. McLEAN (United Kingdon): This a very small point. Something seems to have gone slightly wrong with the English at the end of paragraph 8 where it refers to "the large hungry and malnourished..." the use of those two adjectives together is rather odd. Would it not be simpler in English to say "the acute needs of the many people in the world who are hungry and malnourished".

RAMADHAR (Chairman, Drafting Committee): That is better English. I cannot question Mr. McLean¹ English.

P.A. MORALES CARBALLO (Cuba): Con respecto al párrafo 8 tal vez sea un problema de redacción.

Aquí la segunda parte del párrafo dice: "La gran mayoría de los miembros estimaron que estas dificultades", me refiero a las dificultades económicas que se señalan antes "no pesaban tanto como las agudas necesidades de la gran parte de la población mundial que padecía el hambre y la malnutrición".

Es decir, no veo qué sentido tiene, al menos en español, como los problemas económicos no van a tener implicación en toda esta situación si se trata de un conjunto. Por eso decía que tal vez se trate de un problema de interpretación al español porque leyendo el párrafo no lo veo claro, no sé lo que quiere decir.

RAMADHAR (Chairman, Drafting Committee): The problem is only with the Spanish text, and that will be brought in line with the English text.

CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Then paragraphs 6-10 are approved as amended by the United Kingdom and the Spanish text will be brought in line. Any comments on paragraphs 11 to 13? Also paragraphs 11 to 13 are approved. Paragraphs 14 to 16? No comment, so they are approved. Paragraphs 17 to 22..

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Queremos referirnos, en primer lugar, al párrafo 19. El párrafo 19 está encabezado por la expresión "varias delegaciones". Está bien que se reconozca el derecho de esas varias delegaciones, aunque en realidad fueron unas pocas, pero luego en la segunda frase del párrafo 19 se dice: "También se sugirió que se hiciera una evaluación". Ya esta segunda parte no es aceptable porque se involucra la idea de que el Consejo sugirió esa evaluación. Creo que debía ser: "Esas mismas delegaciones sugirieron que se hiciera una evaluación".

Tengo otras observaciones sobre esos párrafos, pero prefiero esperar a que se resuelva esta.

RAMADHAR (Chairman, Drafting Committee): Regarding the number of delegations, I am not sure whether they were the same delegations, both in the first and second. Maybe Mr. West can clarify that.

E.M. WEST (Assistant Director-General, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): I think the Chairman of the Drafting Committee is correct. There was a group of delegations in the first part, but one or two of them made this point about evaluation.

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Entonces podríamos poner: "Algunas delegaciones sugirieron", en vez de "esas mismas delegaciones". Lo que no queremos es que se involucre el concepto total del Consejo, porque nosotros no queremos que se gaste dinero en esa evaluación, sino que se invierta en otras cosas más útiles. La evaluación la representamos nosotros, los gobiernos que estamos satisfechos con ese sistema de centralización.

Ya que estoy en el uso de la palabra, para no entretener demasiado a usted, señor Presidente, y al Consejo quiero referirme al párrafo 20. Se habla de la Conferencia en 1976; creo que debe ser 1975 porque la Conferencia tiene lugar solamente en los años impares.

E.M. WEST (Assistant Director-General, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): If I can deal with both points, in order to correct the first it would be necessary to say in the second sentence of paragraph 19 "a few delegations", because as I recall, only one or at most two made the point about evaluation. The rest were categorical in saying let's cut them anyway.

As regards the second part, Colombia is correct. What it says is "by the Council in 1976".

S. DE MARE (Sweden): We would prefer the text to be written as it is, with the wording as it is now. As you remember, my delegation made a rather lengthy statement concerning the FAO Representatives and Regional Offices. There were some important aspects that in our view were supported by other delegations and which we do not find reflected in the Draft Report in paragraph 19.

We therefore would like to amend the last sentence of that paragraph with the following words: after the word "FAORs", refer to the following language: "and to the extent to which decision making and execution have been decentralized to the Regional Offices and FAORs".

Then we propose an additional sentence: "The same delegations also referred to relations between the FAORs and the UNDP Representatives". As a consequence of this amendment, the word "and" in the third line of paragraph 19 has to be deleted.

P.A. MORALES CARBALLO (Cuba): Le agradecería mucho que cuando lo estimara oportuno me permitiera hacer dos sugerencias: una al párrafo 13 y otra al 17, que con la velocidad que se lleva esto no pude hacerlas a su tiempo.

T.C. RAJAONA (Madagascar): En ce qui concerne le paragraphe 19, ma délégation voudrait souscrire à l'amendement puisqu'il a eu l'avantage de noter quels sont les pays qui se sont prononcés contre l'extension des nouveaux bureaux de la FAO. Il est bien entendu qu'à partir de deux on peut dire plusieurs.... mais en 1'occurrence.il me semble que "quelques" serait plus adéquat.

J.A. GUEVARA MORAN (El Salvador): A la delegación de El Salvador le preocupa en el segundo párrafo del 19 el aspecto cuando se habla de rentabilidad de las Oficinas Regionales. No sé a qué criterio de rentabilidad se refiere. Nos preocupa mucho porque si es rentabilidad financiera no creo que las Oficinas se puedan evaluar bajo criterio de rentabilidad financiera.

CHAIRMAN: I am sure this will be put right, El Salvador.

M.W. MOORE-WILTON (Australia) : As one of the delegations which supported the idea of making an evaluation, I would agree with the spirit of what Mr. West is suggesting, but I think the use of the diminutive word "few" in English is not something which generally should be used in international meetings. I would prefer "a number of delegations" which is less than several, it can be any number, any more than two, or any more than one. I think "a few" connotes some diminution of the impact of the fact that a number of delegations asked for this to be done: I recall the Nordic delegations and my own delegation - so that is at least four, so I think "a few" is a little unambitious.

CHAIRMAN: This is English juggling with words. "A number" has been suggested now by Australia.

M. TRKULJA (Yugoslavia): In such cases I think the best way out is to use "some" instead of "a number".

CHAIRMAN: Will "some" be acceptable?

E.M. WEST (Assistant Director-General, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): It is for the Council to decide. I personally have no problems about "some" or "few". I have some problem about the rest of the formulation of Sweden, because in this case only one delegation raised these points about extensive decision-making, and that is Sweden, and if you want to include that thought, I think the Director-General would like to be clear that only one delegation raised that.

I also see some difficulty in the formulation on the relations with the UNDP Resident Representatives, as I would have a problem in working out exactly what that meant, even in regard to FAO's representatives. We had the resident coordinators, the General Assembly dealing with it, why FAO should do a separate evaluation of this in addition to what the General Assembly is doing and what the UNDP is doing I do not know, and I do not see what it has to do with the Regional Offices. In that respect, I would have thought the amendments should be read as part of the existing wording, and the amendment should be confined to "some delegates suggested" as it is now.

RAMADHAR (Chairman, Drafting Committee): It is true that only one delegate talked about delegation decision-making, so we can put "one delegation" as we do use a similar formulation elsewhere. I agree with Mr. West talking about the relationship between FAO representatives and UNDP representatives.

CHAIRMAN: Would the delegate of Sweden insist? Would you insist on putting "one delegate," or would you wish to just leave the text of "19" as amended?

S. DE MARE (Sweden): We would go along with "some" in the second sentence, but we would like to insist on "one delegate" and then our amendment. Our last amended sentence could then go out as suggested by Mr. West.

CHAIRMAN: In any case, it is "one", so there is nothing the others can do. These paragraphs up to 22 as amended can be adopted.

W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of): I am sorry to hold you up, but I have a little point on para. 18. We are not quite sure what is meant here, whether the proposed establishment means a total of 79 or is it 74 offices, including the further dual representations? I say this because we took up that point during the debate, and we said in this connexion we understand from the report of the Finance Committee the proposal is "in addition to 12 offices" and not "12 plus 5", and this was not contested by the Secretariat.

We would like to know where we stand so the people at home know where we stand. Perhaps the Secretariat could clarify this, and I could then come in again.

E.M. WEST (Assistant Director-General, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): I thought I had explained this during the debate, Mr. Chairman. The wording is precise: "74 offices plus a further 5 dual representations" in other words, among those 74 offices there will be an additional 5 dual representations. This involves some additional expenditure in the form of visits to a country, etc., but it does not mean 79 offices.

W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of): English is not my mother tongue, but it is my understanding it would be better to say "including" and not "plus", but perhaps we could hear some other views on that.

E.M. WEST (Assistant Director-General, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): Mr. Grabisch's English is very good, as he well knows, but I think he is not making the distinction between an office and a representation. We are talking about a physical office in 74 places, we are talking about one man of those offices being accredited to two governments, so the wording is very precise. In one case it says "offices", and in the other case it says "representation", and I would ask him to accept the difference which is not a question of his English being better than mine or mine being better than his.

C. BATAULT (France): Je me réfère à une question de grammaire. D'après notre texte cela veut dire qu'il faut mettre en français, et je laisse à M. West le texte de la traduction anglaise, que l'on aurait au total 74 missions dont 5 accréditations ce qui ferait un total de 79.

E.M. WEST (Assistant Director-General, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): A final word, Mr. Chairman, we will sort it out in the different languages and the best way of expressing this, but the point is there will be 79 countries who will be able to say they have an FAO Representative, but there will only be 74 establishments. However, we will try to sort this out in the right way for the different languages.

J. TCHICAYA (Congo): D'après l'intervention du délégué de la France, je n'ai plus rien à dire. Je désire également que l'on insère le mot "donc" au lieu de ''plus".

W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of): We have to take the text home and to present it to our colleagues - would it, for example, then be "of which a further 5 dual represenations"? Could Mr. West tell us what the suggestion is in English, because I am taking home the English version.

E.M. WEST (Assistant Director-General, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): We will have to try and write out something and show it to Mr. Grabisch, and if necessary come back to you. I have been trying to simplify things, but within the existing 62 there are also some dual representations, and the 5 does not refer to the 74, the 5 refers to the 12 - the 12 new offices plus 5 new dual representations. I will have to work out something and try to satisfy Mr. Grabisch.

CHAIRMAN: Federal Republic of Germany, I think it is better if Mr. West can work out a formulation which can be looked at, because the numbers are known, it is just the way it is put. Is that all right?

I would like to give the floor back to Cuba, as he wants some other paragraphs.

P.A. MORALES CARBALLO (Cuba): En el párrafo 13 se dice: "Muchas delegaciones hicieron hincapié" en la importancia especial de la nutrición y el desarrollo rural". Nosotros sugerimos que diga: "en la importancia especial de la nutrición, la reforma agraria y el desarrollo rural". Primero, porque así fue mencionado, y segundo porque estaría de acuerdo con la Conferencia que fue de Reforma Agraria y Desarrollo Rural; es de una lógica bastante fuerte, en primer lugar.

Con respecto al párrafo 17, al menos en el texto español, al final dice: "El Consejo respaldó las opiniones de los Comités del Programma y de Finanzas acerca de la necesidad de reponer sus recursos". Nosotros sugerimos que diga: "reponer los recursos para dichos Programas". Creo que la frase quedaría más clara; al menos en el texto español como está no es muy claro.

CHAIRMAN: Yes, the Spanish will be corrected. With regard to paragraph 12, I will give the floor to the Chairman of the Drafting Committee.

RAMADHAR (Chairman, Drafting Committee): I have no objection to the amendments suggested by Cuba.

C. BATAULT (France): Il faudrait faire la même chose dans le texte français au sujet du paragraphe 17.

CHAIRMAN: Paragraph 17, with the amendments of Cuba, will be accepted. Sweden is to submit a formulation to the Secretariat on the point he wants inserted as regards paragraph 19.

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Sólo desearíamos estar seguros de que, de acuerdo con nuestra observación, complementada por el señor West, en el párrafo 20, segunda línea, en vez de "por la Conferencia en 1976" se diga "por el Consejo en 1976". Cambiar "Conferencia" por "Consejo", que es lo adecuado.

W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of): I am sorry, just as the delegate of Colombia took up that point again about the Conference in paragraph 20, I have the feeling that perhaps it would be better to say instead of "established", "initiated" or something like that "by the Council", of course it was the Conference which made the pertinent decision, but I have no problem if others feel it should be left as it is.

E.M. WEST (Assistant Director-General, Office of Programme Budget and Evaluation): To be foramlistic about it, one could say "established by the Council with the authority of the Conference" or "established with the authority of the Conference by the Council, 1976" because what happened was in the Conference of 1975 it gave the Council power to decide - which it did.

M. TRKULJA (Yugoslavia): I just want to say the same.

CHAIRMAN: Can you agree Mr. Grabisch?

K.R. HIGHAM (Canada): I realize that I am putting my hand in a hornet's nest with paragraph 24, but I have done it before. I am concerned, in fact, that the content of paragraph 24 as it stands suggests ideas that are contrary to the positions taken by the delegations of the same Member Countries who are Members of the Council, and of the UNDP Governing Council. I think that the decision made in UNDP concerning the 13 percent support costs was made on the understanding that is the best approximation, or a better approximation, of what exactly the support costs are. If we use in paragraph 24 that sentence

the way it is written now, we are in fact saying or suggesting that our UNDP delegations made a wrong decision. In the interest of consistency I would suggest we simply remove that paragraph. I am not sure that it contributes anything in any case.

RAMADHAR (Chairman, Drafting Committee): As I look at this paragraph there should be no problem because what the paragraph says is that the Council "notes with concern". It is merely noting with concern that the development programme will be reduced correspondingly and with a reduction in support costs part of them will have to be borne by the Regular Programme. To that extent it will be reduced. I personally do not see any problem with this. Perhaps the Chairman would like to call Mr. West to explain it.

E.M. WEST (Assistant Director-General, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): This is a reference to a certain paragraph of the Report of the Programme and Finance Committees, and it is up to you. The subject of support costs is due to come before the Conference based on the Council's report of its last Session and therefore I have not any more to say than that. You could either delete it or you can change it to refer that the Council noted with concern the points made in the report of the Programme Committee on this subject.

K.R. HIGHAM (Canada): Perhaps an adjustment to make it less categorical, that is, not to anticipate the results of the forthcoming study, would be satisfactory to the Members of the Council. If we change, in the second line, after "January 1982" the word "would", which is quite categorical about the consequences which we still have to investigate, to read "may" or "could" result, something along these lines.

CHAIRMAN: Mr. West said "might". The microphone was not on but the word "might" would do, yes.

T.C. RAJAONA (Madagascar): Au paragraphe 23, seulement une remarque de vocabulaire. I me semble que "programmes de terrain finances sur ressources extérieures" est préférable à "financés de source extérieure".

CHAIRMAN: This will be corrected in the French text. Paragraphs 23 to 26 are approved with the amendment to paragraph 24. Paragraph 27 is approved. Paragraph 28, 29 and 30 are approved. Paragraphs 31 to 34 are approved, and now the discussion is on 35, 36 and 37.

P.S. McLEAN (United Kingdom): I am sorry that I must ask to make a change, or suggest a change, the first sentence of paragraph 35. I think there has been a misunderstanding. My intervention on this point about the method of calculation was not, in fact, related to exchange rates at all. Indeed, Mr. West rightly told me both the answer to my point and the fact that there were two quite tenable methods of calculating the real increase in the Programme, which came to roughly 8 percent. Without belabouring the point, I think it would be covered by simply taking out the words "Lire-Dollar rates" and saying: "if the revised rate base were calculated at current prices".

CHAIRMAN: Thank you, United Kingdom. Mr. West has no problem, the Drafting Committee has no problem. Then, if Members agree the words "Lire-Dollar rates'' will be taken out of paragraph 35. Yes, then that is agreed. Then paragraphs 35, 36 and 37 are approved as amended. Paragraphs 38 -40.

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Queremos referirnos al párrafo 40. La primera frase del párrafo 40 se refiere a la mayor parte de los miembros que estuvimos en contra del criterio del crecimiento cero, y al final de esa primera frase del párrafo 40, se dice: "siendo inaceptable en principio" El término

"en principio" da la idea de que más adelante podríamos cambiar de opinion, y como ése no es nuestro caso, creemos que deben suprimirse las palabras "en principio", y dejar la primera frase solamente hasta donde dice "siendo inaceptable".

RAMADHAR (Chairman, Drafting Committee): There would be no problem with this.

CHAIRMAN: Are there any objections to the Colombian suggestion? I see none. Then paragraphs 38, 39 and 40 are approved, as amended. Paragraphs 41 - 44.

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Una adición que consideramos podría mejorar el texto, al final de la primera frase del párrafo 44. Dice: "debido a la gran prioridad que concedían a la agricultura y a la FAO". Tal vez sería más adecuado decir: "debido a la gran prioridad que concedían a la agricultura y a los trabajos de la FAO".

RAMADHAR (Chairman, Drafting Committee): In that case, can we say "high priority be accorded to agriculture and to the FAO's work"?

CHAIRMAN: Yes, I think this is a matter of language and if Members agree to this then it will be put in the proper English and other languages. If there are no more comments, then paragraphs 41 to 44 are approved with the slight amendment. Paragraphs 45 to 47.

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): En el breve párrafo 46, al final se dice: "fines humanitarios como los de la FAO". Se da la impresión de que la FAO es una organización de beneficiencia. Nosotros creemos que la FAO es una agencia de desarrollo. Debemos decir: "y los destinados a fines...", si queremos podemos conservar "humanitarios" y añadir "y de desarrollo, como los de la FAO".

RAMADHAR (Chairman, Drafting Committee): That is an improvement of the text and we would accept that.

CHAIRMAN: Any objections? I see none, and in that case paragraphs 45, 46 and 47 are approved.

R.A. SORENSON (United States of America): My delegation regrets that upon reflection it appears to us the report does not adequately express the concern that we and other countries have with respect to the level of the budget. In this connexion I would note that in 1977 my Government, together with seven other major contributors, withheld their support for this Organisation's budget. In 1979 governments representing over 50 percent of the assessed contributions were unable to give their support to the budget. In this Council, nine governments, representing over 70 percent of the assessed contributions to FAO, have withheld their support. We are all serious people here. We expressed serious views with respect to the present economic situation and the need for restraint in budgetary growth. We expect our views to be taken seriously and we are profoundly disappointed that the views and expressions of concern of my Government and a number of other governments over a period of years have been totally ignored. Indeed, in your summing up, Mr. Chairman, you said that although the major contributors always complain about the.budget, they always pay in the end. This view presumes too much. We cannot accept that international organizations need not accommodate the fundamental concerns of major supporters of their programmes. We therefore request that the following footnote be inserted in paragraph 48, following the second comma, or after the word "stage" at the beginning of the third line:

"The delegation of the United States believed that the report was deficient in that it did not recall that nine countries, which collectively pay over 70 percent of the assessed budget of the FAO, did not support at the Council the level of the budget as proposed."

C. BATAULT (France): Il est bien entendu que la déclaration des Etats-Unis d'Amérique doit figurer en bas de page et ce n'est pas de cela dont je veux parler mais d'une question de grammaire. Dans la deuxième phrase du texte français il faudrait mettre "les gouvernements de certains pays membres qui ne peuvent pas approuver à ce stade le montant du budget"; "qui peuvent ne pas approuver" ne veut rien dire en français. C'est purement une question grammaticale.

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Cuando iniciamos nuestra sesión de esta mañana, nuestro distinguido Presidente del Comité de Redacción dijo que el Comité de Redacción que él había presidido había adoptado por unanimidad el texto que ahora estamos discutiendo. Como el distinguido representante de los Estados Unidos hizo parte de ese Comité de Redacción, quisiéramos preguntarle al Relator o al distinguido representante de los Estados Unidos, si él aceptó ese texto allá, y ahora, extemporáneamente presenta esa reserva aquí.

El Gobierno de Colombia, por principio,no puede aceptar y rechaza enfáticamente el principio del imperio del dinero. Nosotros encontramos inadecuado que se nos diga aquí, en esta Organización, que es democrática, que está integrada por Estados Miembros, que todos son iguales y soberanos, que nueve países representan el 67 por ciento del presupuesto. Los 141 países de la FAO representamos la Comunidad Internacional. Además, quisiéramos saber si el delegado de Estados Unidos, porque no lo dijo, habló debidamente autorizado por los nueve países a quien se refiere, porque entendemos que es más flexible y constructiva la propuesta de Francia.

RAMADHAR (Chairman, Drafting Committee): I fully appreciate the position of the United States and this paragraph was thrashed out after a great deal of discussion in the Drafting Committee. I have been here for three years and I have attended many Drafting Committees and many meetings, and this is for the first time that a member of the Drafting Committee is questioning the report and wants to say that the report is defective so I think we will first have to go into that question, whether the report should be questioned by a member of the Drafting Committee, or for that, matter by a member of the Council.

The second question is to have this motion of major contributors and minor contributors. We had discussed this matter in the Drafting Committee and it was agreed that any question of major contributor or minor contributor should not be brought into the report; that was completely repugnant to the whole sense of member cooperation and the sense of equality of member countries and I do confirm that this was a unanimously agreed paragraph after much discussion in the Drafting Committee.

R.A. SORENSON (United States of America): As the Chairman of the Drafting Committee realises, I think, this part of the report was discussed at some length and it is true that the United States member finally acceded to the pressure that he was under to agree to the draft in the report. However, this does not stop a member government from expressing its views in a footnote and we are not asking for the paragraph to be changed, we are asking for our views to be expressed in a footnote and that is provided for in the Regulations and Procedures adopted by this Council to govern its work. So we are not asking for the paragraph itself to be changed, we are simply asking for the views of the United States government to be reflected in a footnote at the bottom of the page as we have a perfect right to do so and we are a member of the international community as much as anyone alse in this Conference.

J. TCHICAYA (Congo): Rassurez-vous, je n'interviens pas pour entrer dans la polémique qui vient de s'instaurer,encore que j'approuve totalement la position du Président du Comité de Rédaction sur ce point. Mais je voudrais faire une remarque sur le paragraphe 48. Je souhaiterais qu'on supprime le membre de phrase ''qui peuvent ne pas approuver à ce stade le montant du budget".. Je trouve que ce membre de phrase n'ajoute rien au sens de la phrase. Je pense que l'on peut dire: ''Compte tenu des vues exprimées, mais sans préjuger de la position définitive qu'adopteront à la Conférence les gouvernements de certains pays membres, le Conseil décide ...''. Le membre de phrase que j'ai cité est à mon avis superflu, celui qui va de ''qui peuvent" à ''le montant du budget'"

P.S. MCLEAN (United Kingdom): Having listened very carefully to the statement made by the United States delegate at the beginning of this little debate my delegation finds itself in considerable sympathy with the points expressed, both in terms of the balance of the report and indeed, the questions of the views that were expressed by the delegates during the debate on the budget. I am, like many delegates, very appreciative of the draft that has been produced from the drafting group but nevertheless I find myself at this stage in such agreement with the views expressed by my colleague from the United States that I now wish to associate myself on behalf of the delegation of the United Kingdom with the footnote that has been proposed by the United States, leaving the paragraph unamended but having the footnote which would now include the United States and the United Kingdom.

C.BATAULT (France) : Au Comité de Rédaction, l'article 48 que nous avons sous les yeux résultait d'une proposition transactionnelle de la France, et nous pensons qu'elle permettait à tous les Etats d'accepter cette formule. En ce qui nous concerne nous demandons donc que le paragraphe 48 reste tel qu'il est sans aucune modification.

M. TRKULJA (Yugoslavia): I share the view of the Chairman of the Drafting Committee with regard to the well established practice in this House. I am certainly the last one who wants to contest the right of any country to express any official view, certainly if it is, as I assume it is, a part of the instructions. So I am not speaking about whether we have to accept or not, because the right is quite clear, but what I want to say on behalf of my delegation is that we in general share the view expressed now by the delegate of Colombia, and I am trying to be very moderate in expressing the regret of my delegation that in the text of the footnote proposed the reference was made to the level of contribution because we feel, and we feel strongly, that it is the co-op principle of the United Nations system, it is the co-op system of the charter of the United Nations, that all countries contribute more or less in accordance with their economic capabilities to the Regular Programme throughout the system and we think that the reference to the percentage of any of the contributors in this context is very unfortunate and amounts to a sort of pressure which we regret very much.

B. KOUESSEN (Cameroun): Je voudrais abonder dans le même sens que Monsieur le délégué de la Yougoslavie, ainsi que les autres délégations qui ont parlé sur le même problème.

Nous pensons en effet que, bien que chaque pays ait le droit de faire mentionner dans le procès-verbal définitif toutes les réserves possibles,dans le cas qui nous intéresse il s'agit beaucoup plus de trouver une position moyenne qui puisse concilier toutes les positions.

Si la mention proposée par les Etats-Unis était acceptée, ce serait comme si nous avions engagé un dialogue de sourds. En fait, la délégation des Etats-Unis a défendu la position des grands contributeurs face aux pays moins contributeurs. Presque toutes les délégations des pays en développement avaient fait savoir qu'il s'agissait beaucoup plus d'efforts de contributions que de niveaux de contributions. En réalité chaque pays contribue, d'après la Charte des Nations Unies, selon sa capacité contributive, selon sa richesse. Nous comprenons parfaitement les difficultés économiques qui existent dans le monde entier. Ces difficultés, il faut le noter, n'épargnent pas les pays en développement. L'accroissement du budget n'est pas à la charge des seuls pays riches, et l'effort que doivent soutenir les pays en développement, même si cet effort est perçu comme étant moindre, est aussi lourd pour les pays en développement, sinon plus lourd.

La délégation des Etat-Unis pourrait peut-être coopérer avec nous et admettre que les dispositions de l'article 48, qui ont voulu tenir compte exactement de cette situation, sont acceptables. Ma délégation lui en saurait gré.

O. AWOYEMI (Nigeria): May I please request the exact wording of the footnote? Could the delegate of the United States please repeat.

R.A. S0RENS0N (United States of America): For the time being I would like to respond and read the text to the footnote; "The delegation of the United States believed that the report was deficient in that it did not record that nine countries, which collectively pay over 70 percent of the assessed budget of FAO, did not support at the Council the level of the budget as proposed." Then perhaps I would reserve my right to come back later on.

CHAIRMAN: Now Nigeria, you have the proposed footnote.

O. AWOYEMI (Nigeria): I would just wish to associate myself with the. views expressed, that the idea of a major and minor contributor should not form the basis of discussion or argument in this meeting. The position of any country as a contributor is not static, a minor contributor today may be a major contributor tomorrow and for that reason I think the Council should debate on the basis of the quality of nations.

A.F.M. DE FREITAS (Brazil): As a member of the Drafting Committee I would like to report to the Council that the paragraph was the result of a great effort by the Drafting Committee and it represents what we all on the Drafting Committee believed to be the right balance between the different, notions expressed during the discussion at the Council. So I support the maintenance of paragraph 48 the way it is being presented in this document.

M.W. MOORE-WILTON (Australia): I would like to associate myself with the views expressed by the representative from France in respect to the text of paragraph 48 since as a member of the Drafting Committee my delegation came to accept this wording as being the only compromise which could be negotiated in the Committee at the time. It is not the wording perhaps that we might have preferred but nevertheless it is the wording which my delegates can accept as it is and in that regard I have to say that I could not accept the change suggested, I think by the delegate of the Congo. So with France I would wish paragraph 48 to be left as it is otherwise it would mean quite a major change in the situation.

That being so I do not wish to say anything more about the footnote suggested by the United States and the United Kingdom. I would however say that we fully recognize the right of delegations to have a footnote expressing their view and any delegation in this Council may do that and so we have no objection, of course, since we can have no basis for objection to that footnote. I do recall because of the difficult task facing the Drafting Committee and the Chairman of the Drafting Committee, at least while I was present at some of those discussions, that when other nations had difficulties with part of the text, even though they were members of the Drafting Committee, it was left open to them to raise any difficulties they may have on the floor of this meeting. I believe that that is all the United States and our colleague from the United Kingdom are doing. They have a major problem. Nothing we will say this morning will alter the views of their governments to have that footnote removed and I believe that we ought to pass on.

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Lamento insistir sobre este punto, pero consideramos que es un principio que debe preocuparnos a todos. Como lo dijo el Relator esto no ha ocurrido nunca en la historia de la FAO. El representante de un país, por importante que sea este país, después de haber participado en el Comité de Redacción y de haber aceptado ya un texto, no tiene derecho a venir aquí a decir que acepto ese texto por "presión", presión, esa fue la traducción; es decir que usted, señor Relator, y los demás miembros del Comité forzaron al delegado de los Estados Unidos a que aceptara ese texto?

Yo me inclino a estar de acuerdo con Brasil y Australia que fueron miembros del Comité de Redacción, este texto es el resumen de los acuerdos adoptados y ahora no podemos aceptar que se siente un precedente funesto, como éste del delegado de los Estados Unidos. Si insiste en dejar su nota a pie de página, la delegación de Colombia dejará otra inmediatamente después de la que él vaya a dejar.

C. BATAULT (France): Il y a dans cette question deux problèmes.

D'abord, en ce qui concerne le texte de la note américaine en bas de page, je crois qu'il faudrait ajouter "au stade actuel" pour reproduire exactement la réalité. Nous faisons en effet partie des neuf pays qui ont dit qu'ils ne pouvaient pas approuver le budget, nous avons précisé "au stade actuel", nous avons réservé notre position sur ce sujet. C'est un premier problème.

Pour ce qui concerne les travaux du Comité de rédaction, il est bon de préciser les choses, et je vous demanderai, Monsieur le Président, de donner la parole à M. Elmanowsky qui en faisait partie.

P. ELMANOWSKY (France): Si je prends la parole, c'est pour préciser exactement comment les choses se sont passées et comment les uns et les autres ont accepte la position que nous avons présentée.

Initialement, le texte que nous avons sous les yeux disait: "Compte tenu des vues exprimées, mais sans préjugé de la position définitive qui sera adoptée à la Conférence, le Conseil décide...".

Devant cette situation, un certain nombre de délégations ont fait remarquer que cela ne reflétait pas réellement le débat, que certains gouvernements avaient indiqué qu'ils n'étaient pas en mesure d'accepter le niveau du budget proposé. On a remarqué d'ailleurs que pour certaines délégations on avait précisé que c'était à ce stade qu'on ne pouvait pas l'accepter puisqu'il y avait eu, en quelque sorte, un appel du pied - si je puis m'exprimer ainsi - lancé au Directeur général disant que si certains aménagements étaient faits, les choses pouvaient changer lors de l'adoption du budget au moment de la Conférence.

A la suite de cela, sur la proposition de la délégation française, et en liaison avec le secrétariat qui m'a aidé dans la mise au point de l'amendement, on a utilisé la formule que vous avez actuellement sous les yeux.

A ce moment-là, il y avait encore des difficultés de la part de ceux qu'on appelait les irréductibles à l'intérieur du groupe de rédaction. C'était, d'une part, pour les pays en développement, le Cameroun et la Zambie, et pour les pays développés les Etats-Unis. Nous avons passé trois quarts d'heure à essayer de trouver une formule, et finalement, après un appel que j'ai lancé aux uns et aux autres, ceux-ci ont bien voulu accepter la formule présentée, et c'est ainsi que le Comité, à l'unanimité, a retenu cette formule.

Voilà ce que je voulais dire au point de vue de la mise au point exacte des débats.

K.R. HIGHAM (Canada): Of course we were not members of the Drafting Committee. In fact we are seeing this text footnote for the first time. I wonder if we could not work out a solution along the following lines. I think the principle that we are entitled even as members of the Drafting Committee to make our official position clear in Plenary Session is a long established tradition here. The assignment that the Plenary gives to the Drafting Committee is to work out the best compromise text that they they can put foward and hope that it will be accepted, or at least negotiable in the most efficient manner possible in the Plenary Session. For that reason we owe it to any Member Nation to make its official position clear in Plenary.

Secondly, we are sympathetic to the size of donors complaint principle and I wonder if in recognition of that obviously very sensitive issue the delegation of the United States would agree to alter their footnote by removing the phrase which says after the words 'nine countries' 'which collectively pay 70 percent of the annual budget of the FAO' and leave it as 'nine countries were not able to support at the present time, at this stage', as the French suggested.

RAMADHAR (Chairman, Drafting Committee): I just want to clarify one or two things. One is that I do not dispute the right of a member of the Drafting Committee to speak here. Generally they are not expected to criticize or intervene to make amendments. What I was saying was that it has never happened that a member of the Drafting Committee, or for that matter a member of the Council, calls the report deficient, the report which was prepared with his full cooperation and full participation, and that is what the delegate of the United States proposes to do now, to call the report deficient.

The other point is a question of decision by this Council, whether one or two members can speak in the footnote on behalf of nine countries. Of course any member country can get a footnote reservation on his own behalf, but can two or three member countries get a footnote on behalf of nine countries?

CHAIRMAN: I think it is better to go back to the United States, because some proposals have been made by Canada and by the Chairman of the Drafting Committee, rather than go into another general debate with the list I have.

R.A. SORENSON (United States of America): With respect to the suggestion of the delegate of France that we substitute 'at this time' that would be perfectly acceptable to me. I take it that it is perhaps something defective in the French translation, because when we said did not support at the Council we think that is an honest statement, but if it is more acceptable to say ^!at this time', as far as we are concerned it means the same thing. So we agree to that change.

For the reasons outlined in my intervention at the beginning of this discussion we feel that after a number of years of repeatedly making the point in one way or another that something must be done about the increases in the budget, our voice is not listened to and the views of the other governments who stand with us on this point are simply being ignored. Therefore we think it is important to underscore in a footnote the importance to the FAO of the countries who are making these statements. Therefore with all due respect to my friend from Canada we could not agree to withdraw the phrase 'with respect to the contribution of the countries who could not give their assent to the budget yesterday' or 'during the debate'.

Moreover, I would go back to the point that as the representative of a sovereign government which is a member of this Council we have a right under the rules adopted by this Council to have our views reflected here. Our views reflect a fact, and the fact is that the nine countries withheld their assent for the time being at this Council for the budget. Therefore,we have a perfect right, as long as we are not distorting the facts, to have our views expressed there. Therefore I must ask that the Council grant us what we have a right to have, and I see no purpose in prolonging this debate.

A.P.D. TANOE (Cote-d'Ivoire): Nous aurions bien aimé nous abstenir d'intervenir dans ce débat mais vous comprendrez qu'il me soit difficile d'accepter qu'ici, au sein de notre communauté, l'on insiste pour mettre en avant une question de pouvoirs, d'argent, de montants de niveaux de contribution. Il est évident que nous ne pouvons contester le droit d'aucun Etat Membre d'insister pour faire valoir son point de vue. Mais vous vous souvenez qu'au début de cette réunion, vous avez lancé un appel auquel nous avons été tous sensibles et en effet cette réunion, si elle a pris le tour qu'elle a pris, il est évident qu'elle aurait pu en prendre un autre. Les pays développés ne se rendent pas assez compte de ce que représentent les efforts que nous, pays en développement, nous faisons pour assurer à la communauté que nous représentons, l'aide du développement. Compte tenu de nos faibles capacités de production, nous aurions pu à l'occasion de toutes les réunions, insister pour qu'on mesure ces contributions. Nous ne le faisons pas. Nous savons ce que cela coûte, mais nous n'avons jamais insisté pour que nos parts soient réduites. Il faut que cela soit également pris en compte. Nous allons continuer à répondre à votre appel. C'est pour cela que bien que toutes nos préoccupations n'aient pas été prises en compte dans ce Rapport et même en ce qui concerne la question pertinente, dans un esprit de conciliation, nous sommes prêts à accepter le texte du paragraphe 48 tel que libellé. Nous faisons appel à l'esprit de coopération de la délégation des Etats-Unis pour que, si elle maintenait la note en bas de page, elle nous la rende acceptable à tous.

J.E. AKO-NAI (Ghana): I will not make any long speech, I will just be brief. My delegation would just like to object to the text of the footnote. My delegation concedes to every Member state of FAO the right to express its views in a footnote,but if the text of that footnote attempts to classify the Member nations of FAO into major contributors and minor contributors and for that matter to less important and more important nations or Members, then I think the main aim, the principle of the Members coming together is defeated. My delegation feels that Member nations come together as independent, sovereign nations and as equals to solve major world issues, and that is why my delegation feels that the text of the footnote is unfortunate, and we join in the appeal that that portion of it dealing with the percentage of contributions should be amended.

J. TCHICAYA (Congo): Il y a effectivement longtemps que j'ai demandé à prendre la parole. Je voulais, après un certain nombre d'interventions, dire que je me réjouis que la formule que j'ai proposée, aux dires du délégué de la France, avait d'abord été retenue au sein du Comité, et que seules les difficultés au sein de ce même Comité de rédaction ont entraîné ses membres à retenir la formule qui nous est présentée. Si cette formule a été présentée pour régler un certain nombre de difficultés, ma délégation ne voit aucun inconvénient pour retirer l'amendement qu'elle a proposé. Mais je dois dire que cet amendement, si la note de bas de page des Etats-Unis est maintenue, je pense que cet amendement est plus que jamais d'actualité.

T.C. RAJAONA (Madagascar): La rédaction du paragraphe 48 a donné lieu à des débats et il semblait que nous étions parvenus à une formule acceptable par tous. Nous pensons qu'il serait déplacé de vouloir réanimer les discussions. En d'autres circonstances, ma délégation aurait aimé sans doute user de son droit de faire figurer en bas de page son point de vue, mais si cela doit gêner beaucoup d'autres principes d'user du même droit pour insérer une proposition, nous trouvons déplacé d'insister.

C. BATAULT (France): Je voudrais essayer de proposer une formule. En effet, à la lumière de ce qu'a dit M. Elmanowsky, et qui n'a été contesté par personne, je ne crois pas que l'on puisse le qualifier de Rapport déficient puisqu'il a été accepté par le Comité de rédaction.

Je voudrais suggérer aux Etats-Unis et à la Grande-Bretagne une autre formule qui ne met pas en cause le Comité de rédaction et qui leur permette de conserver leur note de bas de page puisqu'ils y tiennent et qu'ils ont le droit de le faire. Je vais lire le texte suivant très lentement: "Les délégations des Etats-Unis et de la Grande-Bretagne estiment que ce Rapport ne reflète pas pleinement le fait que neuf pays n'ont pas été en mesure d'appuyer à ce stade le niveau de budget proposé". Si ces deux délégations n'acceptent pas la proposition canadienne on pourrait alors après "neuf pays" ajouter 'parmi les principaux contributeurs". Je relis donc la phrase que je propose à mes amis Américains et Britanniques: "Les délégations des Etats-Unis d'Amérique et de la Grande-Bretagne estiment que ce Rapport ne reflète pas pleinement le fait que neuf pays", et on ajouterait "parmi les principaux contributeurs", "n'ont pas été en mesure d'appuyer le niveau du budget proposé". Je crois que rédigée ainsi la note en bas de page serait acceptable pour tout le monde.

CHAIRMAN: Now, there is no doubt that in the discussion, paragraph 48 should stand; even the United States said so. There is no question of amending paragraph 48. The crux of the matter now is that the United States is being appealed to by France and by some others to moderate the footnote, which you have a right to put in, and I now ask the United States if the French suggestion is acceptable.

R.A. SORENSON (United States of America): In fact, I think that we could agree to a formulation somewhat along the lines suggested by our distinguished colleague saying that the delegations of the United States and the United Kingdom believed that the Report did not fully reflect or did not adequately reflect that nine countries which are the major contributors to the FAO budget did not support at this time the level of the budget, as proposed.

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Yo creo que éste es un asunto serio que tenemos que tratar con mucha responsabilidad. Si usted quiere, señor Presidente, reconocer el derecho a que los delegados de Estados Unidos y Reino Unido dejen una reserva tendrá igualmente que reconocer el de nuestra delegación, que también pondrá una nota al pie de la misma página; pero le repito que esto es serio y hay que considerarlo muy responsablemente.

Mi propuesta es la siguiente: que los países interesados entreguen su texto a la Secretaría, al igual que lo hará la delegación de Colombia, para que esta tarde se distribuyan los dos textos y el Consejo pueda saber qué notas está considerando. No podemos proceder a la ligera ni aceptar una nota a pie de página solamente leída sin analizar su contenido. Nosotros tenemos listo el texto de la nuestra y lo vamos a entregar a la Secretaría,

CHAIRMAN: I think the position is this: that France has made a suggestion, along with others, and the United States is willing to go along with it. I do not see any reason why if we get over this particular item we should not finish the remaining Parts 3 and 4 of our Report in half an hour, and therefore I think it is better for us to take this and settle with it now and proceed, if you agree.

R.A. SORENSON (United States of America): If you could simply say in the footnote that the delegations of the United States and the United Kingdom believed that the Report did not fully reflect that nine major contributing countries did not support the level of the budget at this time, as proposed, that that would be adequate for our means.

G.BULA HOYOS (Colombia): La delegación de Colombia no puede aceptar un texto que no conoce perfectamente. Si usted, señor Presidente, insiste en que debatamos ahora el texto, que se lea lentamente y luego nosotros leeremos el nuestro, pero consideramos que es más práctico y constructivo redactar los textos para que los conozcan los miembros del Consejo en detalle.

CHAIRMAN: I think, Colombia, the footnote is made by a country, and therefore the text- will have to» be what that country amended, not the text of another country, so if you want to amend, the United States will read the text of their footnote slowly. This is what we have been doing all this time.

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Solo le pido, entonces, que después de que los Estados Unidos lean su nota nos permita a nosotros leer la nuestra.

CHAIRMAN: You are proposing another footnote of Colombia.

R. A. SORENSON (United States of America): I will read out our footnote at dictation speed then:

"The delegations of the United States and United Kingdom believed that the Report did not fully reflect that nine major contributing countries did not support at this time the level of the budget, as proposed".

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Nuestra nota diría como sigue: "La delegación de Colombia consideró inaceptable la nota a pie de página de los Estados Unidos, la cual no fue propuesta en un momento en que el Comité de Redacción del cual formó parte ese país. Además, el nivel de las contribuciones no debe ser utilizado para estos fines".

Aplicando su teoría, señor Presidente, ésta es la constancia de un delegado tan respetable como el otro y, por lo tanto, nuestro texto debe incluirse también. Hemos hecho esta nota a nombre de la delegación de Colombia, pero si otros miembros del Consejo quieren adherirse son bienvenidos.

R.A. SORENSON (United States of America): I fully support the delegate from Colombia and his right to insert that footnote, and I hope the Council would agree that the footnote would appear.

CHAIRMAN: I have still three people on my list, but if you agree we can close this matter now and have the two footnotes.

B.E. PHIRI (Zambia): My delegation is; disappointed by the developments taking place in the Council. To start with, we are not happy with the spirit in which footnotes are being introduced, because in paragraph 42 there is an open statement to say "Developed country members of this Council drew attention to the serious economic situation confronting them in their countries, which had obliged them to introduce significant and in some cases far-reaching reductions in public expenditures". That paragraph goes on to talk about what the developed countries in this Council stated, and then in the following paragraph "Some of these members believe that organizations in the UN system could not be considered exempt from corrective action, "and it goes on, and you can read those two paragraphs. I am asking the members of this Council to read these two paragraphs.

Now the United States says "The views of the developed countries were fully reflected in this report". I do not know what extra views they expected to be reported here.

The delegate of Colombia would like to propose another footnote. I think they are only doing this out of frustration because views have been expressed, and in the drafting group it was stated to start with that some members drew attention to the fact that this formulation was not accepted because it did not distinguish between the group of countries to which the United States belongs. We agreed finally to say "developed country members" and this includes all the developed countries whether they expressed views or not, and finally it included them.

We are told in this Council their views are not sufficiently reflected in this report. How should it be put in the report that "certain Member Governments¹ views have been fully reflected"? Is this summary of what they said not adequate in paragraphs 42 and 43?

Then we come to paragraph 48, that in view of what we have said about some governments not going along with this budget level, their final position may or may not change in the Conference. In paragraph 48 we decided in the drafting group, without prejudice to the final position or some member governments' position, how much must the final report reflect of the views of the country before they consider their views have been reflected in the report.

T. AHMAD (Pakistan): I am in complete agreement with the delegate from Zambia that the drafting group have done very good work, and the views are to be at this level, but on this issue there were two sides to the argument.

Both sides of the argument have been adequately reflected in the writing of the report, particularly in paragraphs 42 and 43. I am not a member of the drafting group, but I am aware how much time was spent in that group in the drafting of this report.

I feel when all the views have been reflected there is no point in having a footnote. If every country has the right to insert a footnote, if you go on with this you will have many footnotes. Where will that end? The United States wants to have a footnote, Zambia wants to have a footnote, maybe next we will want a footnote. I would, therefore, appeal through you, Sir, to the delegates as the draft report truly and adequately reflects the position of the member countries, that we should not at this stage enter into the question of having further footnotes, particularly as paragraphs 42 and 43 reflect the position of the developed countries and paragraph 48 reflects the position of the developing countries.

P.M. AMUKOA (Kenya): I would like to associate myself with the views expressed by Zambia and Pakistan, and I need not elaborate on that.

B. KOUESSEN (Cameroun) : Je m'associe à l'opinion de la Colombie et je prie donc la délégation de la Colombie de penser que la délégation camerounaise est d'accord pour accepter sa note de bas de page.

Nous sommes un peu déçus par la tournure que prennent les choses parce que, effectivement, ce que nous avons sous les yeux constitue un compromis, étant donné que la composition du Comité de rédaction est faite de telle manière que les opinions les plus diverses peuvent s'y retrouver et qu'on débouche sur un modus vivendi. A partir du moment où plusieurs délégations ayant abandonné une partie de leurs exigences se retrouvent avec ce document et qu'au moment de l'adoption un autre pays reprend ses exigences pour les mettre en bas de page, cela va nous conduire de proche en proche à vouloir que chaque pays fasse de même. On va se retrouver avec un procès-verbal "kilométrique" parce qu'on ne voit pas pourquoi quand un pays au sein du Comité de rédaction a accepté un compromis il reprend ici ses exigences majeures. Pourquoi alors les autres pays n'en feraient-ils pas de même ? Tout ça pour dire que nous estimons que le paragraphe 48 constitue un compromis acceptable pour tout le monde et que le fait pour les Etats-Unis et d'autres délégations de vouloir introduire une note de bas de page pour émettre une réserve particulière remet en cause tout ce qu'on a eu comme discussion au sein du Comité de rédaction; s'il en était ainsi, nous pensons que si la séance était suspendue chaque délégation pourrait demander que toutes les exigences soient reprises à moins d'admettre que ce texte constitue une solution moyenne nous permettant de progresser.

J. TCHIGAYA (Congo) : Je voudrais d'emblée dire que le Congo soutient l'idée ou les idées qui ont été émises ici par un certain nombre de délégations et par conséquent, tout en acceptant que chaque pays membre ait le droit de pouvoir mettre des notes de bas de page lorsqu'il n'est pas d'accord, la délégation de mon pays pense que pour ce qui concerne un pays membre du Comité de rédaction il devrait en aller tout autrement dans la mesure où le Président du Comité de rédaction nous a présenté le rapport en nous disant que tel qu'il était il était présenté à l'unanimité de ses membres.

Nous pensons qu^!effectivement lorque nous avons abordé cette question au cours de nos débats, vous-même, Monsieur le Président, avez tiré des conclusions assez claires qui, à notre avis, sont reflétées dans le rapport tel qu'il nous est présenté.

Cela dit les délégations des Etats-Unis et du Royaume-Uni persistent à maintenir leurs notes de bas de page. Dans ces conditions, la délégation de mon pays s'associe à la note de bas de page proposée par la délégation colombienne.

M. TRKULJA (Yugoslavia) : Very briefly, as I have said, my delegation are not going to contest the right of any country to place whatever it wants officially in the form of a footnote. Nevertheless, we regret very much that it has happened. We fully agree with what my colleague in Zambia has said that the views of all countries were properly expressed in the report, so we do not agree with the meaning implied in the footnote that some views were not properly reflected.

Finally, we do not agree, though we generally share the sentiment expressed in this footnote, that we should associate ourselves with the footnote, as we would then only add our country to a very unfortunate precedent, in our view, and we are satisfied that our views will be fully reflected in the verbatim record.

P. KANGA (Angola) : Ma délégation regrette la tournure que prennent les choses actuellement, puisque le paragraphe a été discuté longuement au Comité de rédaction. Je crois que les membres de ce Conseil ou de toutes les régions y étaient représentés. Ils se sont mis d'accord sur une rédaction et on ne voit pas pourquoi nous devrions insister sur ce point d'autant plus que cette position n'a pas été mentionnée au niveau du Comité de rédaction. Nous ne voulons pas trop insister sur ce problème, nous voulons seulement appuyer ce qui a été dit par le délégué de la Zambie ainsi que par d'autres pays ici présents.

P.A. MORALES CARBALLO (Cuba): Realmente, mi delegación también está bastante sorprendida porque han surgido situaciones inesperadas con respecto a este párrafo 48. Sobre todo después de que el Presidente del Comité de Redacción nos hizo una amplia declaración y nos expresó que al respecto y a la hora de considerar este párrafo, hubo unanimidad en que quedara como está. Nosotros nos queremos asociar con las declaraciones de los colegas de Zambia, de Pakistán y otros, en el sentido de que los párrafos 42, 43 y 44 recogen fielmente y de manera íusta las declaraciones hechas aquí por todas las delegaciones miembros del Conseío.

No obstante, nuestra delegación considera que en el punto en que se encuentran actualmente las cosas, que lo mei or sería que levantáramos la sesión por unos minutos, y que esto serviría un poco para reflexionar y estudiar un poco más detenidamente todo lo que se nos ha propuesto. Creo que sería muy atinado hacer un receso de pocos minutos y volver nuevamente sobre este asunto.

C. BATAULT (France): La délégation française voudrait à ce stade faire un nouvel effort de conciliation. Je voudrais présenter une formule qui me parait propre à éviter toute note en bas de page et qui à mon avis, étant donné que la délégation des Etats-Unis accepte de retirer la mention des 70 pour cent, pourrait être acceptée par tout le monde. Je vais donc vous lire un amendement que je propose au paragraphe 48 qui est d'ailleurs, comme vous le verrez, extrêmement simple et qui reprend un certain nombre des idées exprimées et qui avaient d'ailleurs déjà été exprimées au cours du débat. Je relis donc le paragraphe 48 sous la nouvelle forme que je propose:

"Compte tenu des vues exprimées, mais sans préjuger de la position définitive qu"adopteront à laConférence les gouvernements de certains pays Membres gros contributeurs et qui, à ce stade, nepeuvent approuver le montant du budget, le Conseil décide, etc ", et on reprend la phrase.

Ceci me paraît répondre aux préoccupations des Etats-Unis et de la Grande-Bretagne en reflétant le débat tel qu'il s'est déroulé.

R.A. SORENSON (United States of America): We could accept that; if the Council would agree to substitute the word "nine" for "some". That simply specifies the number. But only under those conditions.

CHAIRMAN: The delegate of the United States has proposed to accept the French formulation, with one condition.

M. TRKULJA (Yugoslavia): I do not think we could go along with what the delegate of France has now proposed. If two countries want to speak on their own behalf or on behalf of some other countries, it is up to them to say so. We could not accept such a proposal, let alone to state the number of countries, in paragraph 48. We could definitely not accept that.

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Reconocemos los esfuerzos constructivos que hace nuestro distinguido colega, Embajador de Francia, Sin embargo, a estas alturas, estamos de acuerdo con el Embajador de Cuba de que será necesario suspender nuestros trabajos y reanudarlos en la tarde para que tengamos algún tiempo de meditación.

A. JUAN MARCOS ISSA (México): Nuestra delegación desea expresar nuestra profunda inquietud por el hecho de que con estas posiciones se están estableciendo precedentes no muy adecuados para el buen funcionamiento de la Organización. Es por ello, que coincidimos con el espíritu presentado por Yugoslavia en el sentido de que México, por el principio de evitar la nota de pie, no puede adherirse a la nota de pie de Colombia. También lamentamos el hecho de que en la proposición de la nota de pie de los Estados Unidos se establezca el principio de distinguir la calidad de los países miembros de la Organización, cosa que consideramos inaceptable para la dignidad de nuestro país.

Sra. M. IVANKOVICH DE AROSEMENA (Panamá): Yo creo que en esta situación, mi delegación considera que debe adherirse a la propuesta del embajador de Cuba en el sentido de que suspendamos la reunión para que podamos reflexionar un poco más sobre lo que esta' sucediendo.

CH. CISSOKHO (Sénégal): Je vous remercie, Monsieur le Président.

Je voudrais également, au nom de ma délégation, exprimer ici mon inquiétude face à dévolution des débats.

Le mérite de notre communauté réside dans la cohésion de ses membres, dans l'amitié et la solidarité entre les peuples. Ce rapport du Comité de rédaction reflète très bien les positions de tous les Etats Membres. Chacun de nous devrait se confondre dans cette communauté, sans identification propre, pour mener à bien l^!oeuvre noble de la FAO.

Je pense que la proposition de la France cherche à nous sortir d'une situation désagréable, mais je pense que cette proposition crée une différence entre les membres de notre communauté, et cette différence devient d'autant plus accusée en indiquant les neuf membres qui sont ici face à l'ensemble des membres de la communauté.

Nous avons tous participé de façon effective aux travaux. Quand on dit: "certains pays membres...", cela veut dire ce que cela veut dire. Je pense qu'on aurait pu s'en tenir là. Mais la proposition du délégué de Cuba me paraît être la plus sage. Il serait souhaitable de suspendre cette séance de travail pendant quelques minutes pour nous permettre de réfléchir et sauver ainsi la cohésion de notre communauté.

En tout cas, la délégation du Sénégal est d'accord sur le libellé actuel de l'article 48 et souhaiterait que l'on n'y apporte aucune modification.

H. JASIOROWSKI (Poland): My delegation cannot support the text presented by the delegate of France. In particular I wish to stress that we cannot agree to putting into an official report the definition of "major contributing countries". It would divide us even more; we are already divided by regions, by different groups of countries, and if we used the term "major contributing countries" it would imply there are minor contributing countries. I would therefore strongly oppose such a term being placed in the report; nor should it be used in the footnote either.

K. CHOUERI (Liban) (interpretation de l'arabe): Nous étions parmi ceux qui ont contribue aux travaux du Comité de rédaction. Nous avons également contribué à la mise au point de ce paragraphe 48. A mon sens, il reflète tout à fait toutes les opinions qui ont été exprimées.

Depuis vingt ans, j'assiste aux réunions de cette Organisation. Jamais au préalable nous n'avons mis de notes en bas de page. Jamais une note en bas de page n'a été ajoutée au résumé des discussions. Le fait de mettre une note en bas de page, lorsqu'une décision a été prise par le Conseil ou la Conférence, est recevable. Il y a des pays qui peuvent approuver des idées ou les rejeter. Nous pouvons donc parfaitement mettre une note en bas de page. Mais actuellement, il ne s'agit pas de prendre une décision, il s'agit de tenir compte de la recommandation du Directeur général pour le programme de travail et budget. Nous adopterons cette décision plus tard. A ce moment-là, nous pourrons peut-être désapprouver ou approuver cette décision et la note en bas de page pourrait être ajoutée.

Par conséquent, la délégation de mon pays voudrait que l'on maintienne le libellé de l'article 48 tel qu'il a été formulé.

G. HOERSTADIUS (Sweden): My delegation wishes to associate itself with the suggestion made that we take a break in our deliberations. In my delegation's view the remaining differences should not be impossible to overcome during that period of adjournment.

C. BATAULT (France): Partageant l'avis exprimé par le délégué du Liban sur les notes en bas de page, j'avais espéré trouver une proposition transactionnelle qui satisfasse tout le monde. Je vois que cette proposition ne satisfait pas tout le monde, bien que je ne comprenne pas très bien certaines objections présentées par la délégation de la Yougoslavie. Mais puisqu'il en est ainsi, puisque l'article 48, tel qu'il est rédigé, satisfait pleinement la délégation française, je retire ma proposition d'amendement et je vous engage vivement, Monsieur le Président, à procéder à une suspension de séance comme l'ont suggéré plusieurs délégués.

CHAIRMAN: Yes, we will adjourn. It is a pity we could not finish on time, but we will return to this particular item after lunch.

Paragraphs 1-48 not concluded
Les paragraphes 1-48 sont en suspens
Los párrafos 1-48 quedan pendientes

The meeting rose at 13.00 hours
La séance est levée à 13 heures
Se levanta la sesión a las 13.00 horas