PARAGRAPHS 1 to 16
PARAGRAPHES 1 à 16
PARRAFOS 1 a 16
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Vamos a referirnos al párrafo 1. En el párrafo 1 se hace referencia a las negociaciones globales. Espero que lo que voy a proponer no ofrezca dificultades, pues supongo que todo el Consejo estuvo de acuerdo en expresar por lo menos la esperanza de que se iniciaran esas negociaciones globales, y esto no aparece en el párrafo 1.
Entonces, al final del párrafo 1, después de donde dice "diálogo provechoso entre el Norte y el Sur" se pondría coma, y se agregaría la siguiente frase: "..., a fin de contribuir a la iniciación de esas negociaciones globales". 0 sea, que todo diría "facilitara el establecimiento de un diálogo provechoso entre el Norte y el Sur, a fin de contribuir a la iniciación de esas negociaciones globales".
CHAIRMAN: I do not think this proposal should cause great problems. I wonder whether all of you have got the text. If that is the case, then I think we can accept paragraph 1.
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Sobre el párrafo 2, siempre en relación con las negociaciones globales, a la mitad del párrafo, en la segunda frase se dice: "Se expresó la opinión de que, aunque las negociaciones globales se detuviesen,". Nosotros pensamos que esas negociaciones globales no se pueden detener porque no han empezado. Yo propongo: aunque las negociaciones globales no se iniciasen.
CHAIRMAN: Would there be any objections to this amendment? I cannot actually see any myself. I think the proposal would improve the text.
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): En el párrafo 3 deseamos proponer una pequeña enmienda que está dirigida solamente a reforzar el texto. En la frase final del párrafo 3 se empieza con las palabras: "El Consejo", y eso está bien, pero más adelante se dice: "y algunos miembros estimaron que el Director General"; creo que esto quedaría mejor: "y estimó que el Director General". 0 sea, suprimir las dos palabras "algunos Miembros" y decir: y estimó que el Director General debería tener la flexibilidad y la libertad.
Creo que esto hace más fuerte el texto y creo también que nadie se opone a ello.
A.G. NGONGI NAMANGA (Chairman, Drafting Committee): I am not objecting to the amendment but I just want to point out that this section of the report was discussed to some extent, and we agreed for the text to "members", not "some". We went over it for quite some time, and we felt that in the spirit of harmony we should include "members".
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Entiendo muy bien la explicación de nuestro hábil y competente Presidente del Comité de Redacción pero, repito, la intención de nuestra propuesta es reforzar el texto. Si los Miembros del Consejo están de acuerdo, y si resulta aceptable, opino que esto mejoraría el texto; pero si no, no insistiré.
CHAIRMAN: I put the question to the Council as to what preference you would give. I see here a slight difference between the English and the other texts.
There seems to be no objection so let us adopt the proposal made by Colombia.
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Una pequeña adición en el párrafo 5. Aquí se trata de la acción que viene tomando el Director General en favor de algunas medidas que están dirigidas a favorecer ciertas situaciones justificadas en los países en desarrollo. Creo que ya esto en otra ocasión lo hemos aprobado y que se trata no solamente de decir que el Director General está procediendo bien en ese sentido, sino apoyarle para que continúe por este buen camino.
Proponemos que al final del párrafo 5, donde dice: "que había tomado a ese respecto", se coloque una coma y se agregue la siguiente frase: solicitándole que intensificara su acción a este respecto.
0 sea, quedaría así: felicitó al Director General por las medidas que había tomado a ese respecto, solicitándole que intensificara su acción a este respecto. Me parece que hay dos "a este respecto", así que se podría cambiar y decir: se intensificara su acción en este campo.
Espero que esto no ofrezca dificultad, pero si no están de acuerdo tampoco voy a insistir.
CHAIRMAN: Now, you heard the proposal made by Colombia. Could it cause any problems? I wonder whether perhaps instead of "requesting" we should rather say "encouraging the Director-General" because, after all, you yourself, Colombia, said how much the Director-General has been doing in this field, so perhaps "encouraging", if this would also meet with your approval.
No further comment? Adopted.
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): El Sr. West, quien está a su derecha Sr. Presidente, sabe que yo le aprecio personalmente y por eso me opongo a que se adopte el párrafo 9 tal como está, ya que en español se degrada al Sr. West. Se dice "Subdirector General"; en inglés esto está bien pues se dice Deputy Director-General; pero subdirectores generales hay varios en la Organización y Director General Adjunto es uno solo.
Si intervengo en este punto no es por robar a la Secretaría algunos minutos, sino porque este párrafo nos hace recordar a algunos compañeros además del Sr. West, con quienes compartimos las sesiones del Consejo y de otros organismos en el pasado, como el Sr. Phillips, de los Estados Unidos, el Sr. Shefrin, del Canadá y el Sr. Moskovits, de Malta, quienes decían que a través de estos Informes se escribe la historia de la FAO, y es la verdad, porque mañana algunos de nosotros nos vamos del Consejo y vienen otros Miembros. Hoy sabemos que el Sr. West es Director General Adjunto, pero mañana otros podrían desconocerlo. Por estas razones es mejor poner en este párrafo: el Consejo observó con satisfacción que el Sr. E. West, Director General Adjunto de la FAO, y continuar la frase como sigue.
CHAIRMAN: I think there would not be any objection as far as the Members of the Council are concerned. I think I should turn to Mr. West. No?
Paragraphs 1 to 16, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 1 à 16, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 1 a 16, asf enmendados, son aprobados
Paragraphs 17 to 33, approved
Les paragraphes 17 â 33 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 17 a 33, son aprobados
Paragraphs 34 to 36, including Appendix, approved
Les paragraphes 34 à 36, y compris l’annexe, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 34 a 36, incluido el Apéndice, son aprobados
Draft Report of Plenary, Part 4, as amended, was adopted
Le projet de rapport de la plénière, 4ème partie, ainsi amendé, est adopté
El proyecto de informe de la Plenaria, Parte 4, así enmendado, es aprobado
DRAFT REPORT - PART V
PROJET DE RAPPORT - PARTIE V
INFORME PROVISIONAL - PARTE V
Paragraphs 1 to 6 approved
Les paragraphes 1 à 6 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 1 a 6 son aprobados
PARAGRAPHS 7 to 10
PARAGRAPHES 7 à 10
PARRAFOS 7 a 10
E. SCHROEDER: (Germany, Federal Republic of): My delegation has some difficulties with paragraph 9. We feel this paragraph does not exactly reflect the course of the debate. As you may recall, my delegation has spoken in favour of retaining Appendix C of the current Frogramme of Work and Budget document, because it does give an overall view of posts and gradings.
While welcoming the new aggregate figures on posts, we hold the view that such an overall view is necessary. In this context, I should like to recall also that the Chairman of the Finance Committee in his answer to the statements of delegations said he had nothing against retaining these tables. The Secretariat also has not spoken against it. Therefore, I should like to propose to insert at the end of the first phrase the following words: after the words "discussion time" "...It decided nevertheless to retain Appendix C."
CHAIRMAN: I hope all delegates have heard the proposal made, namely to insert after the third sentence the sentence which would read: "It decided, nevertheless, to retain the tables in Appendix C". That is the proposal which is put before you.
C.R. BENJAMIN (United States of America): Where do you say this goes, Mr. Chairman? Would you read it again?
CHAIRMAN: I think the delegate of the Federal Republic of Germany proposed it should come after the first sentence in paragraph 9, and that it should read: "It decided, nevertheless, that the tables contained in the current Programme of Work and Budget in Appendix C should be retained".
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: The Secretariat did not speak on that item, simply because the majority were supporting the reports of the Programme and Finance Committees which agreed with the deletion of these tables. There were four pages of extremely small type giving details of posts which nobody has ever discussed. That is why the Programme and Finance Committees decided that they could be dispensed with. Because people were supporting this, the Secretariat said nothing at the timeo
CHAIRMAN: I thank the Deputy Director-General for the clarification. The Council members are still free to give their views as to whether they consider such an overview on the number and gradings of posts should be inserted or not on these four .pages in the Programme of Work and Budget.
I am in full agreement with Mr. West that the tables are horrible to read, because they have such small numbers that it is rather difficult to do it.
T. AHMAD (Pakistan): I do appreciate the proposal of the German delegation, but that was not really what transpired during the debate. I agree with Mr. West that by and large the Council approved the suggestion of the Programme and Finance Committees as contained in document CL 82/11, and there is no mention of retaining these tables.
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Tengo la fortuna de que mi colega de Pakistán siempre anticipa lo que yo quiero decir. Creo que la interpretación que ha dado el señor West es correcta, pero, al igual que el colega de Pakistán, no tenemos objeción en que se mantenga ese apéndice C. Creemos que se trata del apéndice donde aparecen los cargos, los grados. A lo sumo, para estimular a los delegados podríamos pedir a la Secretaría que aumentara el tamaño de los números y de las letras.
C.R. BENJAMIN (United States of America): It seems to me that the issue did come up, supportive of the tables. Was it not the German delegation which made some mention of this in the discussion from the floor? I do not know that anybody opposed it. We certainly supported it, although we did not say so. I do not think there was any opposition, so in my view at least I have no problem in retaining that particular table.
CHAIRMAN: Yes, I recall the delegate of the Federal Republic of Germany made this proposal, and the Council supported it without explicitly doing so.
I actually saw no objection here against the proposal for the insertion just made by the Federal Republic of Germany, and the additional request of Colombia to make the figures a bit bigger, but this would be difficult because some more pages would be needed and the document would become bigger.
May I have your reactions? Would you agree with the Federal Republic of Germany, Colombia and the United States of America? Actually there were no speakers against.
I thank Pakistan also for having said they could accept it.
T. AHMAD (Pakistan): I do not want to belabour the point, but I did not agree with the German delegation. I said during the debate by and large all members of the Council supported the proposal contained in document CL 82/11 which had come between the Programme and Finance Committees, and in accepting the proposal I did not ask for the retention of those tables, but the United States delegate said that the German delegation specifically made a proposal. I do not recollect that, but I do recollect during the Council debate that members of the Council agreed with the proposals of the Programme and Finance Committees as contained in this document, but that does not say the retention of these tables.
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Quiero insistir en que la interpretación que ofrece el colega de Pakistán es correcta, pero no creo que hay dificultades ni problemas y dentro del espíritu de conciliación en que estamos trabajando podemos decidir que se mantenga este apéndice C que puede ser útil para algunas delegaciones.
P. GOSSELIN (Canada): If my memory serves me correctly I believe the Chairman of the Finance Committee, in summing up and in response tO the intervention of the delegate from thè Federal Republic of Germany, did indicate he saw no difficulty in retaining the tables.
CHAIRMAN: Are there any other speakers on this subject? If there are none, could I assume the Council would accept that the proposal made by the Federal Republic of Germany is carried?
DEPUTY DIRECTOR- GENERAL: We will, of course, respect your decision, Mr. Chairman. I just want to point out two things. One is to confirm what you said. If you were to make, the figures larger, they would become six pages and not four. Secondly, I hope it will be recognized and accepted that the figures in Appendix C in these four pages will not be the same, and cannot be compared with the new table for overall staffing because they are compiled on a different basis.
Provided you are prepared for all the confusion that will arise, there is no difficulty.
CHAIRMAN: I thank the Deputy Director-General for his clarification but I also recall - and we have this in the valuable report of the Finance Committee - that we are still looking forward to having a fully reliable computerised system on the personnel situation of the Organization. And I feel once this is in operation and gives the figures desired by Member nations and figures which can also be very useful for the work of the Secretariat, then of course perhaps the issue would be reconsidered. If there are no further comments, then paragraph 9 is adopted, with this little amendment.
Paragraphs 7 to 10, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 7 à 10, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 7 a 10, así enmendados, son aprobados
Paragraphs 11 to 18 approved
Les paragraphes 11 à 18 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 11 a 18 son aprobados
Draft Report of Plenary - Part 5, as amended, was adopted
Le projet de rapport de la pionière, 5ème partie, ainsi amendé, est adopté
El proyecto de informe de la Plenaria - Parte 5, así enmendado, es aprobado
DRAFT REPORT - PART VI
PROJET DE RAPPORT - PARTIE VI
PROYECTO DE INFORME - PARTE VI
PARAGRAPHS 1 to 35
PARAGRAPHES 1 à 35
PARRAFOS 1 a 35
CHAIRMAN: Is there any comment on the first item - Review of Programmes, paragraphs 1 - 9? If delegates agree we adopt these paragraphs.
The next item is: World Conference on Fisheries Management and Development, paragraphs 10 - 14.
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Deseamos referirnos al párrafo 12. La ultima frase del párrafo 12 dice: "Muchos miembros expresaron el deseo de que la CEE pudiera participar plenamente en la Conferencia".
La delegación de Colombia se opone a esta frase y propone la siguiente: "El Consejo expresó el deseo de que la CEE pudiera participar plenamente en la Conferencia".
Decimos esto, primero porque corresponde a nuestra intención, aunque a veces fastidiemos algún colega, reforzar el texto del Informe; y segundo, porque ningún miembro del Consejo se ha opuesto a que la CEE participe en esa Conferencia. Estamos convencidos que se trata de una organización o de un grupo de países respetables que tiene mucha importancia y cuya participación en esa Conferencia puede ser de interés para los países. Es mucho mejor decir "El Consejo" y no "Muchos miembros".
M. ZJALlfi (Yugoslavia): I agree with this proposal but I have difficulty with the second part. What is meant by 'participate fully'? We have no rules of procedure, we have no terms of reference of this conference. In the first sentence we say that the conference itself should be open to all states members of FAO or of the United Nations. The second one speaks about full participation. Is the EEC going to participate on an equal footing like any sovereign state?
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Podría compartir la preocupación de Yugoslavia; tal vez podríamos decir "pudiera participar adecuadamente en la Conferencia", "adecuadamente en la Conferencia".
P. ELMANOWSKY (France): Si cette phrase a été introduite c'est parce que, d'une part, elle reconnaissait ce que nous avions dit et, d'autre part, que nous avions été appuyés par, je crois, l'ensemble de la Conférence, comme l'a suggéré M. Bula Hoyos. On s'interroge maintenant sur la deuxième partie de la phrase "participer pleinement à la Conférence" et M. le délégué de la Yougoslavie a demandé si la Communauté serait traitée absolument comme un Etat Membre: je peux repondre tout de suite "Non". Par exemple, il n'est pas question que la Communauté ait le droit de vote. Les votes sont assurés par des Etats et non par des Organisations. Donc, s'il y a à voter sur tel ou tel point, ce sont les Etats Membres de la CEE qui voteront. Mais quand nous avions" dit "participer pleinement" ou, comme l'a dit également notre collègue M. Bula Hoyos "d'une manière adéquate", c'est simplement que nous souhaitions qu'au cours des débats, lorsqu'une question sera traitée et qu'elle concernera véritablement la politique commune des pêches de la Communauté, le représentant de la Communauté, que ce soit d'ailleurs le président en exercice du Conseil des ministres de la Communauté, ou que ce soit le représentant de la Commission de la Communauté économique européenne, puisse intervenir directement dans le débat au même titre que les Etats Membres pour éviter que si un point nécessite des interventions rapides, il ne parle qu'après tout le monde, en observateur. Voilà ce que nous entendions par "participer pleinement à la Conférence". Mais si on veut mettre "de manière adéquate" cela reprend exactement la même idée.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: I have no objection about 'adequately' or anything like that, but I think in order to meet the point made by Yugoslavia, which is a valid one, and to avoid any misunderstanding, we should say "participate adequately in the discussions of the Conference". This will avoid the impression that we are suggesting that they should vote.
L. ARIZA HIDALGO (Cuba): No tenemos ninguna objeción a lo que se ha discutido en cuanto a la participación de la Comunidad ni a las palabras "adecuadamente" o "plenamente", lo que me parece que la proposición del estimado Gonzalo de quitar "Muchos" y poner "El Consejo" está bien, pero entonces no debe ser "El Consejo expreso el deseo", sino "El Consejo estuvo de acuerdo".
Parece que eso expresa mas realmento la situación. "El Consejo estuvo de acuerdo que la Comunidad pudiera participar plena, o adecuadamente", como sea.
B.N. SEQUEIRA (Angola): I think we all will gain if the EEC participates. However, my understanding is that the Representative of the EEC will participate as an observer. Am I correct?
P. ELMANOWSKY (France): Je pense que le représentant de la Communauté, c'est-à-dire de la Commission siégera au banc des observateurs mais que dans les débats pour des questions concernant la politique commune des pêches de la Communauté il pourra intervenir dans le débat en même temps que les Etats Membres, de manière à ce que si une question exige des positions rapides il ne parle pas après tout le monde. Voilà comment nous concevons la chose.
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Yo creo que debemos ser conscientes que estamos en el Consejo y no todavía en los preparativos del Reglamento y del funcionamiento de esa Conferencia; por eso propusimos el término "adecuadamente" porque es un término amplio que da muchas posibilidades, que puede ir concretamente más adelante. No creo que esto resta dificultades. Si usted, señor Presidente, me lo permite, voy a leer la frase tal como quedaría con todas las enmiendas que creo son aceptables para todos los miembros, y pasaríamos al párrafo siguiente. Diría así: "El Consejo estuvo de acuerdo en que la CEE pudiera participar adecuadamente en los debates de la Conferencia".
Adoptemos el párrafo así y sigamos con el otro, señor Presidente.
CHAIRMAN: You have heard the proposal of the delegate of Colombia and we had previously listened to other clarifications given. Prior to that I saw Yugoslavia nodding, so may I assume that this satisfies members of the Council? I see no objection. Thank you. Then paragraph 12 with these amendments is adopted.
We now pass on to the next item: Use of Consultants, paragraphs 15 and 16.
T. AHMAD (Pakistan): I have a brief suggestion on paragraph 15. The first sentence of the paragraph says that "the Council fully endorsed the views of the Programme and Finance Committee" so I do not think it is necessary to say in the second sentence, that it "shared' the concern" etc. I would therefore suggest that the second sentence should read as follows: "The Council expressed concern at the concentration of recruitment" instead of saying that it "shared": "The Council expressed concern" etc.
CHAIRMAN: You have heard the proposal of Pakistan on paragraph 15. Does anyone wish to give his view on this proposal? I see none, then I think we can consider it meets the wish of the Council members. Paragraph 15 is adopted with the amendment made by Pakistan.
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia); Una pequeña enmienda que esperamos no ofrezca dificultad. Si mis recuerdos son adecuados, creo que en varias ocasiones ya los Comités del Programa y de Finanzas y el Consejo también, se han manifestado en favor del concepto de discriminación positiva a que se refiere el párrafo 16. Entonces, en la primera frase del párrafo 16, en vez de decir "el Consejo apoyo en particular", podríamos decir "el Consejo reiteró su apoyo"; "reiteró su apoyo" porque esto ya lo habíamos hecho en el pasado. Espero que esto no ofrezca dificultades.
CHAIRMAN: The proposal made by Colombia would strengthen the text. I wonder whether everybody would go along with the proposal. I see no objections so with this amendment "The Council reiterates its support of the concept of positive discrimination." Paragraph 16 is adopted.
Any comment on Actuarial Review of Separation Payments Scheme, paragraphs 17-19? If there is none we consider these paragraphs as adopted. We now have to consider the item: Personnel Matters, paragraphs 20-31. Any remarks? Paragraphs 20-31 are adopted. The last item is on Import Licences for Equipment for Official Use, paragraphs 32-35.
S.S. BALANZINO (Italy): Concerning paragraph 34 I propose an addition to the first line that reads as follows: "The delegate of the Host Government stressed the fact that delays had sometimes occurred in cases of sizeable requests submitted by the Organization under a general labelling whereas the customs authorities requested a detailed breakdown of the same period" and then it goes on "He also informed the Council of further steps taken recently" etc., etc.
CHAIRMAN: Is there any objection to the proposal of the delegate of Italy? Everybody agrees? Then we adopt this amendment of paragraph 34.
L. ARIZA HIDALGO (Cuba): No me voy a referir a lo propuesto por la delegación de Italia. Quería antes de pasar al otro documento, hacer una confesión. Nosotros participamos en el Comité de Redacción; sin embargo, tenemos que confesar que a veces los arboles no nos dejan ver el bosque. Y mirando el conjunto de este documento REP/6 me ha sorprendido la cantidad de veces que hemos puesto, o que lo pusimos en el Comité de Redacción, indudablemente "tomar nota". Tomar nota...., el Consejo examina, refrenda, conviene, aprueba, pero cuando toma nota me preocupa, porque queda un poco vago el futuro. Toma nota, ¿para que?; ¿para qué toma nota? ¿Para informarse simplemente, toma nota para accionar, en qué forma? Nos parece que queda un poco el futuro de forma vaga, y son doce veces en este documento sólo las que aparecen. Confieso mi parte de culpa, pues participé ert el Comité de Redacción y no lo noté, pero me parece que podría buscarse alguna fórmula. Hay algunos apartados de éstos que son realmente para información y se toma nota para conocer simplemente. Pero me parece que quedan un poco vagas algunas cuestiones solamente tomando nota el Consejo.
A.F.M. DE FREITAS (Brazil): I must apologize, I must have left the room. Have we already gone through item 15 of this REP/6 ?
CHAIRMAN: Yes.
A.F.M. DE FREITAS (Brazil): May I ask your permission? I have some remarks on that item. If the Council is kind enough to allow me to make some remarks on that item I would appreciate it very much.
CHAIRMAN: Well, Council Members, you heard the wish expressed by Brazil who was not present when we adopted REP/6. I see no objection if comments are to be made. Please go ahead.
A.F.M. DE FREITAS (Brazil): Paragraph 6, page 3, my delegation suggests instead of "A few members appreciated the intent" we should change it to "Many members appreciated the intent". May I go on with all the amendments I have?
CHAIRMAN: Please excuse me, delegate of Brazil. I thought that you wanted to make some remarks on these paragraphs. I did not realize that you wanted to make amendments now on the paragraphs which we have already adopted so this is a different issue now. I think we would first have to know what the Council Members say. I have sympathy with what you have expressed already and perhaps there might be some other very useful amendments to the paragraphs but I wonder how we can arrange now for inserting them after we have already adopted the report. That I think I have to leave to the Council Members.
B.N, SEQUEIRA (Angola): I think that there is a precedent. Yesterday when we had already adopted paragraph 17 a delegate asked to go back to that paragraph so to the best of my knowledge it would appear that that sets a precedence and therefore we could allow the Brazilian delegate to go ahead with his proposal.
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Creo que con buena voluntad y con espíritu de cooperación y de entendimiento, podemos oir al colega de Brasil.
T. AHMAD (Pakistan): Though in content I may differ with the delegate from Brazil I do wish to recognize his right and we think we should give him the courtesy of making his amendments and listen to what he is going to say.
CHAIRMAN: I thank Council Members and please go ahead delegate of Brazil on REP/6.
A.F.M. DE FREITAS (Brazil): I thank Council Members for their kindness. I propose to read all the amendments I have to this paragraph 15 so instead of "A few members", "Many members". This is the factual situation, I have the PV in front of me and I understood very accurately the delegation that made the intervention on that topic. On paragraph 7, the third line, "The majority of members concluded that the present procedures" so on and so forth should also be changed to "Many members concluded" as a matter of fact. This is the factual situation. It was not the majority that concluded, there were many members who spoke on it. The following sentence of the same paragraph 7, it starts with the expression "They recognized that while the Programme Committee" so on and so forth, this was a point I think raised by my colleague from Pakistan, that neither the Council nor the Programme Committee has any authority to suggest the reallocation of resources. In fact that question was not raised in my intervention and I do not recall any other members proposing that we should reduce the approved Budget. So I think this sentence is either useless or it should be qualified. Instead of saying "They recognized that while the Programme Committee" and so on, I suggest we should say "A few members recalled that the Programme Committee" so there is no question about that, so we are introducing a non-existent element in our debate. That is for page 3. If you would allow me, we will go on to page 4. Shall I proceed or wait for reaction?
CHAIRMAN: Does the delegate of Pakistan wish to speak on a point of order or does he want to give his views?
T. AHMAD (Pakistan): It is not really a point of order; it is more a point of procedure. It would be more convenient if we could go step by step instead of taking all of it together, because we may forget what has been said. So I suggest that we go paragraph by paragraph on the amendments suggested by Brazil.
CHAIRMAN: There are two possibilities. The first is to see the whole package; it might be a big one or a small one. I understand there are a few more amendments, but not many. I would first ask the Council if it agrees to the amendments to paragraph 6 to change 'a few members' to 'many members'.
T. AHMAD (Pakistan): That is the difficulty. We do not agree with this amendment of paragraph 6 as suggested by Brazil. We feel that when you say 'many' you are at least going above the level of half the members of the Council. 'Many' is much more than 'few'. If you change this from 'few' you have to go upwards. We would agree to 'some members' instead of 'few'. That should satisfy Brazil, because it was some members. But we have objections to 'many' because it was not many members.
R.A. SORENSON (united States of America): We thought the word 'many' was quite appropriate because in the next paragraph Brazil suggested the same change to indicate that it was less than the majority. So his understanding and my understanding of the word 'many' is that it is less than a majority. I think the word is quite appropriate in both cases.
A.G. NGONGI NAMANGA (Chairman, Drafting Committee): I take the floor to give some clarification of what went on in the Drafting Committee, The Drafting Committee considered this paragraph and perhaps it is more a problem of drafting. It has been divided into several paragraphs reflecting views which could be tied down to some specific view. The first one is paragraph 5, which gives one point of view. Then there is paragraph 6, which gives another point of view. Then paragraph 7 is supposed to reflect the views of the majority of the Council. So if we have to maintain the three paragraphs, paragraph 6 is correctly written and probably reflects the reality, but it could probably be changed to 'some members'. If you add paragraphs 5 and 6 together you may say 'many members'. But as it has been divided in the report, perhaps a drafting fault, if you add paragraphs 5 and 6 together 'many' could work, but I think as it is 'some members' would probably be satisfactory.
CHAIRMAN: Now we have two proposals. One is to change into 'many members', as proposed by Brazil and supported by the United States of America. Others, particularly Pakistan, thought that 'some members' would read better. Do others want to speak on that issue?
A.F.M. DE FREITAS (Brazil): Since Pakistan was so kind as to allow me to come back to this item I have no difficulty in accepting his change - instead of 'many' the word 'some'. But on paragraph 7 it is factually incorrect to say that the majority of members concluded. So in this case we should say 'many', because there are exactly 11 and in the Council 36 people spoke on this point. So it is not a majority. It should be 'many members' in paragraph 7. It is a question of fact.
CHAIRMAN: May I take it that paragraph 6 is fine with everybody to change 'a few members' into 'some members'? I see no objection. Paragraph 6 is adopted. We now come to paragraph 7.
R.A. SORENSON (United States of America): It would seem, in the same way that that previous paragraph was changed from 'many' to 'some', that for this also - since 11 members was the total of those that concluded - as the paragraph reads, it would be more appropriate to say 'some members concluded', as it was not really 'many'.
M. ZJALIC (Yugoslavia): My concern is not with counting how many delegates spoke, but with the consequence of such a statement. If many members or some members of the Council concluded that the present procedure gave full and ample opportunity, and so on, my understanding is that the majority is for the change in the Rules of Procedure. The only next step would be initiative to change the Constitution of the Organization's General Rules of Procedure. I invite you to make a roll call on this issue.
CHAIRMAN: I hope the Council does not need to go as far as that.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: There is no need to make a roll call, I hope. I am sorry to disagree with the United States of America, but the Secretary kept a careful record of the views expressed, and 16, which was a majority of those who spoke, supported this point.
J. TCHICAYA (Congo): J'appuie entièrement ce que vient de dire le Directeur général adjoint parce que c'est dans ce sens que je voudrais m'exprimer. Je pense qu'au sein de ce Conseil, il n'est pas possible de tenir compte de ceux qui ne s'expriment pas sur une question. Je crois que l'on doit pouvoir tenir compte de ceux qui s'expriment et faire la différence entre ceux qui sont pour et ceux qui sont contre, sur une question donnée. A mon avis, tels que nous nous sommes exprimés sur cette question, les termes qui sont utilisés dans le document nous donnent entièrement satisfaction. C'est pour cela que j'appuie le texte, que nous avons déjà adopté d'ailleurs.
CHAIRMAN: It might be convenient, before I give the floor to the next speaker, to get a clarification from the Chairman of the Drafting Committee.
A.G. NGONGI NAMANGA (Chairman, Drafting Committee): Perhaps my explanation was not complete. If you look at this paragraph you will see that it was divided. Paragraph 5 reflects one set of views. Paragraph 6 reflects another set of views. Paragraph 7 reflects what the Drafting Committee felt was the majority view of the Council. Paragraph 8 reflects what was given as information from the Secretariat, and paragraph 9 reflects the conclusion which we felt was reached by the Council. If you look at it carefully, you will see that there has been some attempt to balance the discussions as they took place. There were a lot of speeches on this subject and there is some difficulty for some of you perhaps to find in these paragraphs where you belong. But it was an attempt of the Drafting Committee to balance all the views that were expressed. So paragraphs 5 to 8 reflect the various positions and paragraph 9 is our understanding of the decision of the Council, except of course that Council Members changed the decision.
T. AHMAD (Pakistan): After the explanations of the Deputy Director-General and the Chairman of the Drafting Committee I have very little more to say, except that I would, with due deference, say to the Chairman of the Drafting Committee that it does not balance. The one view has two paragraphs and the majority view has only one paragraph. Paragraph 6 is one view and paragraph 7 the other and that is a majority view. So we strongly want to retain paragraph 7 as it now stands, purely on a question of quantification. If you want a count it is the majority, and again because of the content of the paragraph it was a majority view. Unless, as Yugoslavia suggested, if you consider this to be a minority view, then you cannot reach the conclusion that you have reached. So we strongly suggest that this paragraph be retained in the text as it is.
L. ARIZA HIDALGO (Cuba): Nosotros creemos que en la redacción se trato de expresar el sentido de la discusión y el resultado de la misma. Se hizo, a nuestro juicio, en términos bastante objetivos y con bastante tacto para evitar que trascendieran otras cuestiones. Pensamos que si empezamos a jugar con cifras no puede ser saludable para nuestro trabajo.
Primeramente consideramos que en el párrafo 7, cuando se habla de "mayoría" se refiere a la mayoría que se expreso o que concluyó con los procedimientos y prácticas del Comité del Programa que ofrecían plena y amplia oportunidad con respecto a una minoría. El número puede buscarse.
Podríamos modificar esto. Yo pondría analizar, ya que creo que esa fue la discusión. Nos parece que el precedente que tenemos también es peligroso; es un precedente que tenemos que cuidar si vamos a discutir el número o vamos a discutir el consenso y la situación que nos lleve a ponernos realmente de acuerdo en una situación.
CHAIRMAN: I agree with you, Cuba, that quite often it is a question whether the glass is half empty or half full.
H. CARANDANG (Philippines): I just wanted to know what would be the difference if you had the "majority" there or "many". Now I am saying this because the suggestions in paragraph 5, which is the view of "many" or "some", merited some study in a constructive spirit.
If we say "majority", does it mean that now the decision is that this thing is all right, you do not need to study it any more, it needs no more improvement because it is already perfect? If you say "many", well, it leaves a little door open that probably next year we might study it again because you know the views in 5 and 6 do not propose any concrete change, they are just saying it merits that we should study this matter and probably we could approach it in a more constructive spirit in the future.
I want some clarification on this before I give my own extreme opinion regarding this matter. I hope I am clear.
CHAIRMAN: As it looks to me, it is also a question of some members of the Council wondering whether at this stage it was possible or appropriate for the Programme and Finance Committees to give some more advice for the shaping of the forthcoming Programme of Work and Budget. As I recall it, we heard the clarifications given on that procedure for the benefit of all Council Members by the Director-General, and we also heard that the purpose of the Programme Committee in this particular case is to review certain sectors of the current Programme of Work and Budget, the results of which are in the report of the Programme Committee. It will be taken into consideration quite surely once the Programme Committee itself and Council members consider the proposals of the Director-General for the forthcoming Programme of Work and Budget.
However, with regard to the clarification of the Philippines, perhaps I could ask the Deputy Director-General to throw some further light on the issue.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: I do not want to reopen the debate, but I think it is important to recall what the debate was about. The debate was about the report of the Programme and Finance Committees concerning the Session in the non-Conference year when it reviewed certain programmes - not all programmes but certain programmes - and it was clear from what was said that to some extent the same question had come up during the Session of the Programme Committee when the Chairman and the majority of the Programme Committee considered that their function was to review those programmes on the correct instruction of the Basic Texts, which referred to reviewing the current activities of the Organization and its long-term objectives, and specifies that the Programme of Work and Budget will only be considered, that is, the question of allocations will only be considered when the draft summary Programme of Work and Budget is presented.
Brazil was suggesting, I understand, that instead of this procedure, the Programme and Finance Committees should in fact review the whole Programme of Work and Budget and suggest changes in the allocations to all chapters and all programmes according to its wishes, and on this I have not had a chance to study the verbatim, but it is very clear from the quick review I made just now that most of his speech - I hope I am not misrepresenting him - was about the importance of correcting distortions in allocations, revising mistakes which might have been made when previous decisions were taken and so forth.
What is less clear to me from a quick review is whether he really meant that it should be done immediately by the Programme Committee in a legal way, so to speak, to revise allocations, or whether he was talking about an input to the next Programme of Work and Budget, but that is not the essential 'point. The essential point is whether at this Session, contrary to the Basic Texts, the Programme and Finance Committees should conduct a review of the Programme of Work and Budget as approved one year before at the Conference or less than one year before, with a view to proposing changes in the allocations whenever they might be effected. That is why the Director-General reacted so strongly and pointed out that this was not the function of the Programme Committee during those Sessions. It is the function of the Programme Committee when considering the summary Programme of Work and Budget but not when it is reviewing some of the programmes conducted in part over a four-year cycle, so that is the issue. It is not an issue of whether or not the Council should have an input to priorities.
As I pointed out in my own statement, the Council has been doing that throughout this Session. It is only in issue whether it should do it in that particular way on that particular occasion.
CHAIRMAN: I have already three speakers more on my list. I do very much hope that we can come to a conclusion on this issue rather soon and not hold up the further proceedings.
A. PINOARGOTE (Ecuador): Yo pienso que el asunto no es de analizar separadamente, ya que los puntos 5, 6, 7, 8 y 9 son un todo concatenado, se parte de una premisa para llegar a una conclusión, puesto que si comenzamos a ver, desde el punto 5 se está hablando, primero de que algunos Miembros estimaron pertinentes determinadas actitudes, luego hablan de que una mayoría está de acuerdo en que no se cambien los procedimientos; después está el punto octavo en el que se dice que "El Consejo tom6 nota de las prioridades y estrategias", y el punto noveno dice que: "El Consejo concluyó que los procedimientos y prácticas actuales no requerían modificación alguna"; es decir que allí no hay ni sorne, few many, ni algunas, ni mayorías, sino que simplemente es el Consejo quien concluye. Yo sí creo que en ese caso debería estar mucho más preciso, porque cuando el punto sexto habla de que estima que esta sugerencia debe de estudiarse con espíritu constructivo, luego el punto 9 no está virtualmente descartando de manera absoluta este tipo de sugerencia. De modo que ésta es la idea que se ha tenido, según lo que acaba de decir el Sr. West, porque incluso tengo la impresión de que él no ha captado bien lo que propuso el delegado del Brasil, ya que según acaba de decir el Dr. West, el delegado de Brasil había propuesto que el Consejo podía introducir modificaciones y hacer reafirmaciones, cuando lo que propuso el Brasil, y que lo apoyé yo, era que el Consejo trate de modo preferente, puesto que la intención es que el Consejo antes de que se reúna la Conferencia le dé preferencia siguiendo el procedimiento que está contemplando en las reglas que rigen a la Organización; pero que le den preferencia a los temas relacionados con los Comités del Programa y de Finanzas.
Yo pienso que esto sí debería ser precisado adecuadamente, porque como digo es un todo concatenado; es una premisa para llegar a una conclusión que desbarata incluso algunas de esas consideraciones previas.
H. CARANDANG (Philippines): I just wanted to know whether my understanding of Mr. West's explanation is correct, because I also understood the proposal in a different manner; I thought that it was not for any moment considered that the Council should change any allocations or appropriations of the Programme of Work and Budget that has already been approved by the Conference. I think it was forward looking. I think it is rather important that it was for the ensuing biennium, as indicated in the third line of paragraph 5.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: I was trying to make it clear and I will try to make it even clearer now. Leaving aside the question of whether it was intended to change or suggest changes in the allocations, and it was certainly a suggestion that allocations should be changed, the essential point is that what was proposed was that the procedure of the Programme Committee and of the Council when dealing with these reviews should be changed, and instead of considering the current activities and the long-term objectives, the Programme Committee and the Council should consider allocations, whether to be changed immediately or in the future, and the point is that the Basic Texts, including the prerogatives given to the Director-General, make it absolutely clear that is not the function of the Programme Committee at this particular stage in its proceedings when dealing with this particular item. It is the function only to review, not to conduct a Programme and Budget review including a discussion of allocations. Otherwise, we will be having a continuous discussion changing the views expressed at the Conference. The Conference decided the allocations in November 1981, the Programme Committee met in the Spring of 1982, so it is suggested that already the Programme Committee should say the Conference was wrong and either now or next time it should be different.
This is the only issue, whether it is correct under the Basic Texts that the functions of the Programme Committee and Council at this particular stage in the Programme Committee's cycle should be changed, and the Basic Texts make it clear that they should not, and it is clearly understood by the majority of the Council that they should not. Otherwise we would have an enormous exercise on our hands that involves changing the Basic Texts, and that was clearly not considered appropriate by the majority of Members.
CHAIRMAN: Allow me just to make one personal remark. My feeling is that the input of the Programme Committee to the forthcoming Programme of Work and Budget is when it starts at its Spring Session reviewing the proposals made by the Director-General who has a mandate to make the proposal for the forthcoming budget in the Basic Texts, and it is then when the Programme Committee checks it against its own understanding of priorities of the Organization, taking into account also, of course, the results of Regional Conferences and the different Committees of the Council and so on and seeing whether they are in accordance with their views and with the proposal put forward by the Director-General .
The Programme Committee then gives its view in its report to the Council. The summary Programme of Work and Budget is being discussed for the first time at the June Session. This is the proceeding so far, and here I must say, if I recall our debate correctly, there were no objections to such a procedure - or, in other words, there were no proposals to change the rules of the procedures as they are.
A.F.M. DE FREITAS (Brazil): I really did not think or intend that we should go back to the debate again, but in fact the understanding by the delegate of Ecuador and the Philippines is correct. I do not understand why the Secretariat keeps insisting on a proposal which I never made. I never said that the Council should meet to revise the allocation of resources, in fact that was a train of thought started by the delegate of Pakistan, who in his intervention mentioned or suggested that this possibility was contemplated in my proposal. In fact, it has nothing to do with my proposal. There is a sort of a straw enemy being built up to be easier to destroy.
This was not contained in my proposal, which was a very clear and simple one. I only mentioned that out of 19 working meetings in this Council, we just had one afternoon meeting to review and discuss the topics, in essence, of the things that matter in this Organization. I was simply proposing that this debate should be enlarged. This is a non-Conference Session. Supposedly we should have more time to discuss the business of the Organization. The Council should take more of its time to discuss the reviews, the proposals, and suggestions related to the Programme.
However, the previous delegations are wrong, I insist on not reopening the debate again. In fact, I had four points to propose as regards amendments, but as now you have given me the chance, Mr. Chairman, I will propose only two of them. If you allow me, I would go back to my original proposal: in paragraph 6, instead of "many" I said "some". In paragraph 7 there was not "a majority of members" suggesting the business procedures. May be they think so, but during the debate they did not say so. 38 people spoke, of which 36 are Members of the Council and two are Observers. Only 18 of those spoke about the Brazilian proposal - 11 against and 7 in favour, so it is not possible to say "a majority" in any circumstances. It is a question of fact, we can say "many Members concluded..." in paragraph 7, and so on, but a majority is not a factual thing that happened.
In the following sentence which starts with the expression "they recognized..." this, that and so on and so forth, I suggested "a few Members recalled..." because while they recognized that the Programme Committee had a function to review the current activities of the Organization, neither it nor the Council had authority to question or suggest the re-allocation of resources, as approved by the Conference.
There is a suggestion that someone was proposing to cancel that. That is not the case. I do not recall anyone proposing a revision of the allocation should be made during this Council or the next.
So if you will allow me, Mr. Chairman, I will repeat the third sentence of paragraph 7 which should read, in the understanding of my delegation, "A few Members recalled" instead of "recognized" - this is point 3 of my suggestion.
Finally, the last point which already some delegates have touched upon and on which I did not have the chance to speak. I would simply suggest the suppression of paragraph 9, which is completely false from the point of view of facts. It does not correspond to anything that happened in the Council, so I suggest the suppression of this paragraph.
Those are the few points of my proposal, and I would appreciate hearing any comments on that, although my delegation is ready to go back to the debate if you so desire.
CHAIRMAN: I now recall our Independent Chairman saying in his summing up: that the initiative put forward by Brazil was welcome; there was nothing against that initiative. He also said he hoped this initiative would contribute to the fact that at the June session of the Council, namely when the Council considers the Summary Programme of Work and Budget for the forthcoming biennium, enough time would be allocated for having discussions. On this there is complete agreement in the Council, and I am quite sure the Independent Chairman himself in discussing and shaping the Agenda and
Timetable for the forthcoming Council session will take due account of that.
With regard to the proposals put before us, I had thought that on paragraph 6 we had already agreed that the change of "a few" to "some" was debated and accepted by all the delegates.
Now on paragraph 7, if there are further speakers, could I just make a proposal for myself and then we can see whether we can overcome our situation here, as I would say in the case of a majority accepting the proposal made by Brazil in the second sentence that "many of the Members concluded..." and then in the next sentence starting "It was also recalled", so that is not connected directly with a majority or a minority or a few or several, or whatever words we put forward here in giving qualifications. This is how I feel we can perhaps overcome paragraph 7.
I do not like to touch right now on the suggestions made for paragraph 9, although I see the connexion, and I am grateful to the delegate of Ecuador.
R.A. SORENSON (United States of America): I just wanted briefly to say that I think the statement by the delegate of Brazil was a concise and accurate analysis of the situation, and that the changes that he made in their entirety would accurately reflect that situation.
However, in the spirit of wanting to see the outcome resolved I would certainly agree to the changes you suggested, Mr. Chairman, for an alternative wording which would be a way around it.
H. CARANDANG (Philippines): Let me start by saying I entirely agree with what you said regarding the conclusions of the Chairman, because I think that was all the intent of the Brazilian intervention, and also the support we have given to the Brazilian delegate. If it intended something else, then we did not support him in that sense.
I think we should really give more time to studying the programmes of the FAO, and they should be given more time, and this thing needs more study. We are not put in strait-jackets by rules and regulations.
As indicated in the item, there should be a separate agenda item on the Report of the Programme and Finance Committees and not only in those items which show it is of enough importance. I agree entirely with your suggestion, and I do not think we need any change in the Regulations for implementing that.
T. AHMAD (Pakistan): As the delegate of Brazil has very kindly suggested, we do not want to reopen the debate. What we do want to do is to reflect what transpired during the debate, and adopt that in the report. I think paragraph 7 does reflect the debate as it transpired. "The majority of Members concluded that the present procedures and practices of the Programme Committee..." etc. It is the sentence saying the present procedures are adequate. If you recollect, Mr. Chairman, I read from the Basic Texts during the debate from Rule XXVI, and if you desire, it was Rule XXVI-7 and I enumerated under that rule the Programme Committee is required to do two things. One, it is to review the programme, and that was under paragraph 7 (a)(i), the Current Activities of the Organization, and under paragraph 7 (a)(ii) there is more elaborate work the Programme Committee is supposed to do while looking at the Summary Programme of Work and Budget, and as you yourself pointed out, under that it was supposed to look at the content and balance of the programme, having regard to the extension which was proposed, and that "existing activities be extended, reduced, or discontinued, etc." It goes on like that.
With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I quote from page 5 of CL 82/PV/13. It says: "There was even a lively discussion in the Committee even though it was decided that the report would make no mention of such discussions, though discussions were centred on the question of allocation of resources to the different programmes, even though there was no question, of course, of revising the budget. A number of delegations, including my own, expressed concern at the unsatisfactory level of resources allocated to some technical and economic programmes, like natural resources, crops, livestocks and others. When compared to certain other programmes which do not contribute directly to increases in agricultural production..." etc. etc. This is the verbatim report of the delegate of Brazil's intervention on the subject. He is talking about re-allocations when reviewing the programme. That is why we are saying the Programme Committee and the Council have to look into the contents of this programme while looking at the Programme of Work and Budget, not reviewing the cycles going backwards. That is why we are saying paragraph 7 reflects the whole content of the debate, because I answered, and the majority of the members answered on that question, in the way that is contained in paragraph 7, so we strongly feel that paragraph 7 should be retained as it is.
LE SECRETAIRE GENERAL: Ce ne sont pas des clarifications, M. le Président. Je ne veux intervenir dans ce débat ni dans le fond ni dans la forme; je désire simplement attirer votre attention sur quelques précédents, et le précédent fort justement rappelé par le délégué de l'Angola pour appuyer la proposition du Brésil est un fait. Mais, vous vous souviendrez qu'il y a trois ou quatre ans, il y a eu un ou deux cas similaires où le Conseil a autorisé les délégués intéressés à faire leur déclaration sur les points déjà adoptés, déclarations qui ont alors été consignées dans le rapport. Je crains que si des précédents de ce genre se renouvelaient, alors que dans les textes de base il est clairement indiqué que lorsqu'une proposition est adoptée ou rejetée on ne peut l'examiner à nouveau au cours de la même session, je repète, on ne peut la discuter ou la réexaminer au cours de la même session, á moins que le Conseil ne le décide.... c'est ce que vous venez de faire, je crains simplement que des dérogations de ce genre si elle se repètent ne finissent par constituer une sorte de jurisprudence qui pourrait compliquer les travaux du Conseil dans certaines circonstances. C'est la raison pour laquelle j'ai pensé, le précédent d'hier ayant été rappelé, que je me devais de vous rappeler aussi un autre précédent auquel vous pourriez réfléchir pour vous aider â trouver la solution au problème en discussion.
CHAIRMAN: Well, you have heard the Secretary-General. I do hope that we can overcome this little problem.
A.F.M. DE FREITAS (Brazil): I would just reiterate what I remarked before. There was not at any time any majority of members concluding that the present procedures and practices of the Programme Committee and of the Council gave full and ample opportunity to review the current and future programmes of activities. Factually, the majority did not pronounce itself to that effect. It may be that in fact everybody feels that way, but factually only 18 members of the Council dealt with that question, and of those 18, only 11 spoke to that effect. So in no way can we speak of a majority.
CHAIRMAN: Before I give the floor to the delegate of the Philippines I wish to put on record that it is the custom to assume that those who do not take the floor on an issue are in agreement with what is being proposed or is in the document. It is therefore rather difficult to make a counting.
H. CARANDANG (Philippines): With regard to procedure, I think the procedure we are following now is within the terms of reference of the Basic Texts because you asked whether the Council would allow the reopening of this, and the question was, I think, decided in favour of that. I believe it is really a dangerous procedure but it is not for the Council to decide on a case to case basis.
With regard to this paragraph 7, instead of saying - if you cannot accept it - "many" or "a majority", could we not say "a great number"? In that case it is neither many nor a majority, but it is something greater than many. Probably that would meet the concern on both sides because, as you said, those who did not speak are supposed to be in favour of something, but is it in favour of the proposal of Brazil? In fact, that was the proposal and then if you say they have been silent, then we should assume they are in favour of the proposal of Brazil.
CHAIRMAN: Now you have heard another proposal and let me now give you my own view as to how we could overcome the situation and see whether it is acceptable. On paragraph 7 we could, to my mind, accept the proposal which has just been made: "a great number of members concluded" etc. And then start the next sentence with "It was also recalled" etc. I hope you see my point: "It was also recalled" instead of "They recognized". Then, on paragraph 9, because we have already heard what was the idea on paragraph 9, I wonder whether we would enter into a new difficult situation; perhaps members of the Council could agree on something to this effect: "The Council accordingly felt that adequate" or "sufficient time should be allocated at its forthcoming Session for considering the future Programme of Work and Budget". I think this could be accepted by the majority of members and that it would, in particular, be in line with the summing up of our Independent Chairman, who regrets very much not to be present today, as he told you yesterday.
M. ZJALIC (Yugoslavia): Could you kindly repeat your proposal for the second sentence, Mr Chairman?
CHAIRMAN: Instead of saying "they recognized" just to say "it was also recalled". The second sentence would start: "A great number of members" and then the next sentence would start: "It was also recalled" and then on the paragraph 9 we could say: "The Council accordingly felt that sufficient time should be allocated for considering the forthcoming Programme of Work and Budget at its next Session" instead of the text as it now stands.
S. HASAN AHMAD (Bangladesh): I did not have anything to say on the substance of your proposed amendment, Mr Chairman. This was merely on the formulation of "a great number" of people. I thought "a good many members" might sound better.
M. ZJALIÍ (Yugoslavia): First, I insist on the majority of members, for a very simple reason: if every and each delegation takes the floor on every and each paragraph of submitted documents, there would not be sufficient time for us to complete our sessions. Our understanding, my own understanding and, I hope, that of the Council was that if we have a document submitted by a subsidiary body - the Committee on Fisheries or CCP or the Programme Committee - then we discuss this document. We make our comments, we approve it, reject it or amend it. No amendments were adopted. Changes were proposed and those changes have been reflected in paragraphs 5 and 6. So the majority of members concluded in adopting the report of the Programme Committee, that there is no need for a change in the procedure and practices, for the time being at least.
I must emphasize there is always room for improvement, and improvements should be considered; but a formal proposal was not adopted to change procedures and practices. This is my first point.
As for "it was also recalled" it is probably factual. As for paragraph 9, for the same reasons I used in commenting on your proposal, Mr Chairman, or your suggestion, for the second sentence in paragraph 7, we will never have sufficient time to discuss the details of the Programme of Work and Budget if we adopt the practice you suggested in the interpretation of majority, minority supported or adopted; and I am for the sentence as it stands in the draft.
T. AHMAD (Pakistan): To begin with, on the proposal of Bangladesh who says "a good many": if it was "many good members" I would accept that! But as the delegate pointed out, it was the majority and it was factually the majority and even the delegate of Brazil is counting. He said out of 18 who spoke on the subject, 11 supported it. So if you are quantifying from that angle, then out of 18 you have 11 and also the fact that if you were to take a consensus even now the majority of the members are of the opinion that the procedures and practices being followed are adequate. But this sentence only says that the majority concluded that the present procedures are adequate, so I think we should retain the world "majority" here. As for the second sentence where you suggest "It was recalled" I would be happier with the formulation as it stands, but with a spirit of compromise and a great amount of respect for the delegate of Brazil and for you Mr Chairman, we can go along with "recalled".
Coming now to paragraph 9, this has to be retained as it is. I do not see any reason for making any alterations there. In so far as you were referring to the summing up of our Independent Chairman, while summing-up he did say, yes, that during the Spring Session of the Council we would have adequate time to look at the next summary Programme of Work and Budget, but it does not mean that the Council requested there should be some procedural change in the next Council meeting. It was only to recall there would be time and it does not necessarily change the content of paragraph 9. We therefore suggest it should be retained as it is.
J. TCHICAYA (Congo): Je constate que nous perdons beaucoup de temps et je dois avouer que c'est parfois un problème de fond mais c'est aussi parfois uniquement un problème de forme.
Pour le paragraphe 6 je pense que nous sommes tous d'accord avec ce que vous avez proposé. Quant au problème de la majorité, comme l'a rappelé le représentant du Pakistan, le représentant du Brésil nous a fait le décompte des voix et sur 18 délégués qui ont parlé sur la question, lls ont été en défaveur de la proposition du Brésil. 11 voix sur 18 c'est bien la majorité, mais puisqu'il faut en terminer, moi je proposerais qu'on mette plutôt "la plupart de ceux qui se sont exprimés sur la question...". De cette manière je crois que l'on résume bien ce qui a été dit et cela peut recueillir, je le pense, l'adhésion de notre collègue du Brésil...
Quant a l'autre phrase, "on a également rappelé...", je pense que c'est acceptable mais, concernant le paragraphe 9, si nous le prenions tel que vous l'avez proposé, cela sous-entendrait que nous étions d'accord avec la proposition du Brésil. Or, ce n'est pas le cas et je crois qu'on ne peut pas l'accepter telle quelle.
A. RODRIGUES PIRES (Cap-Vert): J'ai l'impression qu'on tourne en rond et si nous continuons on ne finira pas aujourd'hui. Je pense qu'il faut trancher cette discussion une fois pour toutes. Je voulais simplement dire qu'après avoir entendu le délégué de la Yougoslavie et l'Ambassadeur Tchicaya, ma délégation appuie l'intervention de ces deux délégués.
L. ARIZA HIDALGO (Cuba) : Nosotros despue's de seguir oyendo la discusión que la consideramos realmente negativa para el futuro de la Organización porque creemos que cambiar la filosofía de las organizaciones internacionales, de buscar sus consensos dentro de los acercamientos naturales, y trasladarnos al parlamentarismo cuantitativo del voto es peligroso, repito eso. Por lo tanto nosotros, después de ofr unos cuantos, que podrán considerarse mayoría si se cuentan y si no habría que votar, nosotros estamos por mantener los textos como se presentaron por la Secretaría.
CHAIRMAN: It was presented to us by the Drafting Committee.
A.F. BOTHNER (Norway): First, with regard to paragraph 7, the second sentence, I feel it should contain some language to the effect that those that spoke, either the majority or whatever is decided, but all those that spoke. Secondly, I would like to support your own proposal as to paragraph 9, which as you said reflects the independent Chairman's summary.
H. CARANDANG (Philippines): I just wanted to make a little clarification of that. The Brazilian proposal did not involve any procedural change at all, the only procedural change which it proposed was already adopted by the Council, that of listing the Programme Committee as a separate item. The Programme Committee and Finance Committee reports as a separate item and that it should be given a greater attention. There is no question of any procedural text or basic text or rules changed and therefore I do not see the point of any great fuss being created about this. My only fear in making so categorical a question is that it closes any room for suggestion or improvement in the future if you say it gives "full", well then it gives full opportunity, that means it is perfect, it cannot be perfected any more, it cannot be improved. Now I do not know whether this is the intent of the Council and I do not know whether those who spoke or those who did not speak intended this. I think we need a little flexibility here. We are not Wking for any change by what is being asked, just a little emphasis on a certain point which I think concerns the very heart of the Governing Council's meetings and I therefore appeal that the proposal you made be accepted by the Council.
A.G. NGONGI NAMANGA (Chairman, Drafting Committee): I think the Council can understand now why the Drafting Committee had also some difficulty in this section! It appears that the Council itself, even after having reviewed it for so many days, has not arrived at any really clear ideas but maybe as the Chairman of the Drafting Committee. I listened a little bit more carefully and sitting nearest to my colleague from Brazil I think I listened to a great extent to the presentation he made. Just to say, on the basis of the Drafting Committee, I believe there was a proposal from the Brazilian Delegation for a change in procedure because it was that it should be discussed in the Council Session of the non-conference year. In my mind, and I think in the minds of the members of the Drafting Committee there was a change of procedure proposed. At least I hope that one can be clear. At least that is the basis on which we drafted paragraph 9, that there was this proposal in the non-conference years the Council Session should devote a lot of time to discussing the Programme of Work and Budget, the Review. That is I think my understanding and the understanding of the members of the Drafting Committee.
In any case, as a help, if I can give you a few words for paragraph 9 I could suggest "Council accordingly concluded that the present procedures and practices were adequate and did not need to be changed at this time". Maybe that leaves the door open for future discussion. If we keep on going like this I think we might be here until Sunday but if we said they were adequate and they did not need to be changed at this time it leaves the door open for any other future discussions.
P. ELMANOWSKY (France): Je ne suis pas intervenu jusqu'ici car j'avais beaucoup d'hésitations. Mais tout à l'heure, M. le représentant du Congo a fait une suggestion qui me démangeait le bout de la langue depuis quelque temps.
Pour moi, la deuxième phrase du paragraphe 7, pour rendre exactement la vérité des débats, doit se lire: "La majorité des intervenants" - je dis bien "intervenants",; qu'on ne croit surtout pas que je veuille aussi faire intervenir ce qu'on appelle la majorité silencieuse - "ont estimé ..."
A partir de là, la quatrième phrase qui commence: "Ils ont reconnu ..." devrait être modifiée comme suit : "on a également reconnu" ou "on a également rappelé" parce que ceci recouvre non seulement ce qui a été dit dans la phrase précédente: "les intervenants", mais c'est également ce que reconnaissent certains délégués qui avaient fait des propositions.
Personne, à ma connaissance, dans le débat, n'a envisagé de remettre en cause l'affectation des ressources telle qu'approuvée par la Conférence.
Vous avez donc dans la deuxième phrase: "la majorité des intervenants ont estimé" ou "ont convenu..."; troisième phrase: "on a également reconnu" ou "on a également rappelé".
On arrive ensuite au paragraphe 9. Au par. 9, on a trois versions: le texte actuel, le texte que le Président nous a suggéré, et enfin le texte que le président du comité de rédaction vient de nous suggérer, qui consiste à dire: "... il n'y a lieu d'apporter aucune modification aux procédures et pratiques actuelles à ce stade, et un nouvel examen pourra être entrepris ultérieurement".
Ce qui me paraît essentiel pour le paragraphe 9 - et là je me fonde sur la pratique généralement suivie dans des débats de ce genre -, c'est que le président indépendant du Conseil, après chaque point de l'ordre du jour, fait généralement un résumé des débats et des conclusions auxquelles'il parvient. Très généralement aussi, si cette conclusion du Président n'a pas été contredite, elle est souvent reprise - je ne dis pas toujours, mais souvent - comme étant en fait l'expression des vues du Conseil, puisque son Président a reflété ce qui lui a semblé être la position du Conseil.
Je n'ai pas sous les yeux le résumé du Président à la fin du débat en question, mais le Secrétariat l'a très certainement et pourrait nous le dire. Nous pourrions donc nous y référer.
V. ISARANKURA (Thailand): Regarding paragraph 7, my delegation fully agrees with the proposal made by the delegate from the Congo because it is the facts.
CHAIRMAN: I wonder if it would help our proceedings if we could get a clarification from the Deputy Director-General with regard to the summing-up of the Independent Chairman.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: We were, in effect invited to recall what the Chairman of the Council said and I have it in front of me. He referred, first of all, to what the Director-General had said, explaining the process and of the very large number of inputs and he spoke of programme formulation and he said he spoke not just as Independent Chairman of the Council but also as a former Chairman of Commission II and also as one who attended the meetings of the Programme Committee. Then he said what I think is important, that arises from what Brazil has said, is a reminder to the Members of the Council that trext year when the document comes from the Director-General's office to us, to the Programme and Finance Committees, at the general meeting of the Council we should take adequate trouble to study it, etc., etc. I agree with the Director-General and then at the end of his statement he said "It is my firm conviction that the Director-General after all enjoys our confidence. He and his officers should have full freedom because I think we should resist the temptation of causing paralysis by analysis because I have seen it happen frequently. You can analyze a programme so much that it can paralyze an organization. I think that is not what we want. We want a dynamic and active organization and it is here that we are helping". Then he appreciates that the comments that had been offered which show the concern that "The Council should put its adequate input into a careful consideration of the Programme of Work and Budget and the occasion for this will come next year at the June meeting. Meanwhile I think we should wish the Director-General and his staff all the best to implement the one which was approved at the last Conference so that they will be able to give an excellent implementation report next time." That was the conclusion of his remarks so it is quite clear that he was saying this is not the case when you discuss the implementation of the Programme of Work and Budget or the priorities or the allocations. You discuss them next time. In other words, no change in procedure.
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Intervengo a fin de intentar lograr un acuerdo porque creemos compartir la preocupación de algunos Miembros del Consejo en el sentido de que se nos está acabando la posibilidad de concluir.nuestros trabajos al final de esta mañana. For ello la delegación de Colombia desea hacer una propuesta concreta en el sentido de suspender la discusión de este asunto, que entren en contacto algunos Miembros del Consejo, tal vez Brasil y Pakistán, con el Presidente del Comité de Redacción y con el Sr. West y que más tarde nos presenten una solución satisfactoria. Esta es una propuesta que yo someto a la consideración del Consejo porque sé que algunos colegas que no viven en Roma tienen su pasaje preparado para partir.
CHAIRMAN: Distinguished delegates, you have heard the proposal put forward by Colombia. Do you accept the proposal? Or should we have another try before we decide? I ask Colombia if he would agree that we make one further attempt to find a conclusion on the paragraph before us.
T. AHMAD (Pakistan): I have great respect for the delegate of Colombia and I would have agreed with the suggestion, but I feel that we really do not have very many problems. The Deputy Director-General and the Chairman of the Drafting Committee have explained. What we are doing here is adopting a report of what actually transpired during the debate, so it should not be very difficult' to come to an understanding on what happened during the debate. We do not seek to reopen the debate, but just to reflect what happened during the debate.
I will very briefly give you what I think is a constructive suggestion. There was a suggestion from Congo and France to say in the second sentence that it should be a majority of members who spoke. Unfortunately I do not agree with that because that would be unprecedented. We do not usually use that sort of language in any of the reports. Also if you do that in paragraph 7 you will have to change paragraphs 5 and 6 also, which is absolutely unprecedented. So I suggest that though it is a constructive proposal, it does not meet the needs of the Council. Therefore we should retain the second sentence as it is, because even now the people who have taken the floor, the majority have wanted it to be retained as it is. In the subsequent sentence we agree that when you said it was recalled we can agree on that, instead of saying that they recognized. In paragraph 9, with a little reluctance I go along with the formulation of the Drafting Committee to say that the Council accordingly concluded that the present procedures and practices were adequate and did not require any change. When you say that you leave the implication that perhaps subsequently you can come back to them. These, I think, are the true reflections of the debate as it transpired during the Council, and there should perhaps be no difficulty.
N. KISHORE (India): There were two views, for and against, on the question raised by Brazil. The majority of the speakers were against the Brazilian proposal, and as such it is a majority of the Council members who concluded that the present procedures and practices of the Programme Committee and of the Council gave full and ample opportunity at appropriate times for review of the current and future programmes and activities of the Organization. When there is a debate on the question, the majority of the speakers, whether they are against or in favour of the question, becomes the consensus of the forum. In this case the majority was against the Brazilian delegation, and as such the majority of the members of the Council concluded ...
M.H. PAIMAN (Afghanistan): I hear the Chairman of the Drafing Committee and the delegate of Brazil say that as far as paragraph 7 is concerned, 11 spoke. So it means the majority, so there was no need to change. I think 'the majority' is all right here. And the second paragraph is 'recalled'. If we put that it will need some change later in the paragraph. The technical work has been done on this Committee and they know. Moreover, as we speak we do not know because we have not been in that Committee. It is a waste of time just to speak on the words. If anybody likes to bring a change completely or open the debate again, or if they do not, they should give this to the Secretariat and the Secretariat should approve it. But the Council must approve this. I agree with what the delegate of Cuba proposed.
S. HASAN AHMAD (Bangladesh): I have been trying to attract your attention ever since my friend from Pakistan spoke. I would like to get back to the intervention of Pakistan and to say that when I made my alternative formulation of a 'good many' that was in response to your 'great number', and I did say that I did not want to speak on the substantive side of the issue. However, this is a matter of faithfully recording what happened during the meeting itself, at which unfortunately I was not present. If we go by the ruling given by you, then one should conclude that with 11 speakers those who did not speak had signified their affirmation of the proposal. Naturally that has to be taken as the majority of the Council, and the majority means the Council. Therefore the sentence as it is, that they recognized that while the Programme Committee, and so on, I suppose can be retained like that, and so I agree with Pakistan.
As far as paragraph 9 is concerned, the clarification which has just been read out by the Deputy Director-General on the summing-up by the Independent Chairman of what was said in the meeting, should settle the question in favour of retaining the paragraph in the form in which it is now to be found in the draft.
J. TCHICAYA (Congo): Je vous prie de m'excuser de reprendre la parole, mais j'ai l'impression que nous sommes dans une impasse. Il faut absolument que nous en sortions.
Comment la question se pose-t-elle? Si effectivement, comme il semble se dégager de nos débats, nous ne nous mettons pas d'accord sur toutes les propositions qui nous sont faites, avec la meilleure volonté possible, je pense qu'il conviendrait - c'est une proposition que je fais - de mettre aux voix le texte qu'il nous est proposé.
M.I. MAHDI (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) (Original language Arabic): I think I can say that I fully agree with the delegate of Pakistan, because during the Council's debate on this item there was in fact a majority which was against this proposal. My delegation, therefore, would like to keep the text of paragraph 7 as it stands. For paragraph 9 we should also like to keep the text as it was presented originally.
A. PINOARGOTE (Ecuador): Al igual que el delegado de Bangladesh yo debo manifestar mi protesta porque he pedido la palabra hace mucho tiempo.
Considero que el meollo del asunto es el punto número nueve; el punto número nueve tal como está redactado no es el fiel reflejo de lo que se trató; es simplemente un aspecto de lo que realmente se trato, pero estimo también que si sustituimos este texto por el que usted propone estamos incurriendo en un error similar; es decir, aprobaríamos un texto que también es un aspecto parcial de lo que se trató.
Yo estimo que para que el punto número nueve, que es el resumen en definitiva de todo el problema, sea el fiel reflejo de lo tratado debe quedar de la siguiente manera; es decir, el texto tal como está, luego un punto y coma y se le añade lo que usted ha propuesto, porque realmente eso es lo que ocurrió, es decir, que se consideró por parte del Consejo que no había que modificar los procedimientos y las prácticas actuales, pero el Consejo ha considerado y estimado oportuno e importante lo que usted señalo. Yo pienso que es realmente la solución más adecuada.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for your constructive proposal.
S. BELLETE (Ethiopia): In paragraph 7 the second sentence, starting with "The majority of members", was suggested for a change on the grounds that some or few members expressed their views by taking the' floor for or against. In this case at the time of the debate my delegation was among the other delegations who did not speak out one way or the other, basically to save the Council from the monotony of repeating the same things, and with the understanding and concurrence of the idea as expressed in paragraph 7 of this document. If the intention of the amendment, that is of the majority of those who spoke, is as the amendment is expressed here, I would anticipate difficulties, because then it would open the question of expressing the same sort of views in each and every paragraph and on each of the items that we have been discussing so far, and this would open up a dangerous procedure in my opinion, as was expressed by Pakistan. Thus my delegation would give its full support to paragraph 7 and to the full text as presented in the document.
T. SADAKA (Liban) (langue originale arabe): Je m'étonne un peu de voir le délégué du Brésil arriver en retard, et retarder la discussion de cette partie du projet de rapport. Je me demande également quel est le but, l'objectif de la part du délégué du Brésil pour soulever cette question. Il y a là une perte de temps; ces discussions tournent en rond. De toute façon, j'accepte les quelques amendements apportés au par. 6, mais pour ce qui est du par. 7 et du par. 9 je pense que le texte actuel, tel qu'il est, reflète effectivement ce qui s'est passé lors des débats durant le Conseil. Je m'oppose donc à l'amendement de ces deux paragraphes 7 et 9, et je suis d'accord avec ce qu'ont dit les représentants du Pakistan et de l'Arabie Saoudite.
A.F.M. DE FREITAS (Brazil): We have two points. One of them seems to be easy, the other rather more difficult, but apparently the easiest one, which is paragraph 7, seems to be raising a number of questions which are very easy to check because they are factual questions. Anyone who takes the trouble of going to PV/13 and counting the interventions and checking what was said will see that 38 speakers made interventions on that matter. Only 18 of them - I am speaking only of the floor figures, Mr. Chairman - only eighteen of them spoke on the Brazilian proposal, and of course, 11 spoke against and 7 in favour, but I do not think that 18 makes a majority of the Council, so I think it is very easy to check this factually. The majority of Members could not possibly have concluded what has been written in paragraph 7, although on second thoughts on a later occasion, encouraged by a little message that went around the Council all the time, they might have changed their opinions, but this is not really what happened during the debate. During the debate, only 18 people spoke about the Brazilian proposition out of 38 floor speakers, so as a matter of fact, I do not see how we can say the majority of Members concluded this or that. The most we could say is that the majority of those who spoke or something of that sort. Even so it will not be right, because 38 people spoke, as I told you, and not the majority of them spoke on that subject, they spoke about financial contributions, about headquarters accommodations, about personnel matters, about fisheries, but not about the Brazilian proposal, so I think that this is a factual matter and should be settled factually. It was not the majority of the Council at that time.
Now if we reopen the debate now, maybe the majority will express itself in one way or the other, but during the debate this is not what happened. So I would ask you, Mr. Chairman, to settle first this question of paragraph 7 before we go to paragraph 9, because I think that this is an easy question to solve, that one of paragraph 7.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: We are now discussing Council procedures in which I consider I have had quite a lot of experience over the last 19 years. Over the last 19 years I have known occasions when only 3 members have spoken, two in favour, one against, and the decision recorded in the record has been "the Council decided", so if the whole Council can decide on the basis of 3 speeches, how can you not have a majority when there are 11 against 7.
Incidentally, my counting is 13 against 7 on the very strictest interpretation of the speeches made, so I am not entering into the substance on this. I think Members would welcome it if you would now rule Mr. Chairman, but I just want to make sure there is no misunderstanding about the procedures of the Council on future occasions.
L. ARIZA HIDALGO (Cuba): Volvemos a insistir que ademas de las proposiciones que se hicieron el otro día sobre el tema, que creo que está bastante agotado en cuanto a lo que se pretende y a lo que se niega, eso creo que todos en la sala estamos unos con una opinión y otros con otra; ahora lo que está entrando en juego es la filosofía de los mecanismos de la Organización con respecto al consenso.
Nosotros si realmente, aunque no quisiéramos, hemos reabierto el debate otra vez, vamos a votar entonces. Eso es lo que proponemos.
CHAIRMAN: I do not take it at this juncture as a firm proposal. I still hope we can manage to clarify the issues without going to a vote.
A. RODRIGUES PIRES (Cap-Vert): Cela fait 23 minutes que l'ambassadeur Tchicaya, du Congo, propose de passer au vote. Passons au vote. On perd du temps.
CHAIRMAN: I still hope that we can find a solution without the need to go for a vote. You heard the clarifications given by the Deputy Director-General with regard to the procedures and understandings and practice of the Council, and although sometimes Member States may regret not having spoken on an issue they then of course have to accept it if the conclusion of the Council was "the Council decided" and so on, even if they have not spoken on an issue.
Recalling this, I think it would be only fair if we followed these procedures and did not try to change horses in mid-stream, and actually there seems to me to be no need for doing so at this juncture; that either we accept "a great number" or we still continue to have "the majority of the Council". Either one to my mind does not make that much difference, but English is not my mother tongue; others might have some other feelings about it, so "a great number" or "a majority" do not seem to me very different.
As to the second point, I think we had quite a broad acceptance of what I tried to propose and which was also supported by quite a few Members saying that in the third sencence "it was also recalled".
Now, of course if this were to be accepted, we would have to make two further changes in the paragraph, namely, "It was noted" and at the end "the Council expressed full satisfaction".
On paragraph 9, we have many Members who expressed their views and spoke in favour of retaining what the Drafting Committee proposed to us. The Chairman made a further little suggestion in saying "The Council accordingly concluded that the present procedures and practices were adequate and did not ask for a change," or "require any change". Then I think we could make a full stop. If you wish so, the other idea which the Independent Chairman summarized should also be recalled and we could link this to that sentence and say "and the Council felt that adequate time should be allocated for the consideration of the Programme of Work and Budget for the forthcoming biennium at its next Session."
Nobody spoke against this. Ecuador was very firm in proposing that we marry the two issues together and if there were no objections to adding this, Ï think then that this would reflect what did take place. This is what I should like to propose to you, and then I do very much hope that we can come in a spirit of conciliation and compromise to a solution of that problem. I feel that we have spent quite a lot of time on the issue before us, and actually we still have some other parts of the report for adoption before us. Could you agree on this as it now stands?
T.AHMAD (Pakistan): Just specially to elaborate what the Director-General said - if we are to start going into counting numbers now for this particular paragraph, then we have to go on counting numbers for all the paragraphs we are adopting in the report. There are 49 Members in the Council, but on no issue did 49 Members speak. On every issue it is a majority without counting the numbers, so I do not see any reason for going backwards and counting numbers for only this paragraph.
If your ruling, Mr. Chairman, is that the second sentence states that "the majority of Members •••" we are very happy, and we can go along with the comment.
Going to paragraph 9, as the Director-General read out and in the summing-up of the Chairman, this is available to us, but it does not in any way alter the paragraph. The summing-up of the Chairman only said that it is a reminder to the Members of the Council that next year the document will come to us at the June Council. We should take adequate trouble to study it. That was the summing-up of the Chairman, that the Members of the Council should spend adequate time in studying it. You are giving the impression the Council does not have adequate time in its meetings, or the Council does not give adequate notice for the discussion of the subject. That was in the summing-up, that the Members should give adequate time. I think there is no need to change paragraph 9 at all, and it should be retained as it is.
We have to finish the discussion now, and as a matter of compromise I earlier agreed with the Chairman of the Drafting Committee.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: On the first point I have already spoken, and I do not see any point in changing "the majority of the Members". Quite frankly, I believe it is what was said, you were ruling "the majority of members".
On the last point, I certainly did not interpret the suggestion you made as being in any way a diminution of the paragraph 9 sentence. The second sentence means that because of the Council taking this wiew, when it gets to the Programme of Work and Budget it should give plenty of time for it, so maybe the words need to be precise. I do not regard it as a change in the first sentence, but a supplement of it, thoroughly in line with the meaning of the first sentence.
CHAIRMAN: This is exactly the meaning of what the delegate for Ecuador proposed, and it is a warning to the Secretariat that in shaping the timetable for the forthcoming session, enough time has to be allocated. It is not a criticism, it is just a wish that enough time should be given for consideration of the Programme of Work and Budget.
Does the Council feel that this should be left out?
T.AHMAD (Pakistan): I just wanted you to kindly give us the exact text you propose in paragraph 9.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: I am suggesting the wording: "The Council considered that the timetable for the next Session should provide adequate time for discusión of the Summary Programme of Work and Budget". It is the second sentence.
CHAIRMAN: I very much hope that this will be acceptable to the Council.
A.F.M. DE FREITAS (Brazil): Nothing new has been proposed in the text by the Deputy Director-General, because of course the June Session of the Council surely provides adequate time for discussion of the Summary Programme of Work and Budget. This was not the centre of the discussion during this Session of the Council. The proposal was that the next Session of the Council should provide more time to discuss, to make general statements, to analyse, to make general statements on the Programme of Work and Budget, so the June Session of the Conference year was never in question. We always have adequate time to discuss the Summary Programme of Work and Budget, so there is nothing new in that proposition. That was not the subject of the discussion.
CHAIRMAN: I think we should not reopen the issue again, but Mr. West wants to give a further clarification on the issue, and then we must overcome this little problem.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: The suggestion I just made was not to reopen the discussion, which I think has just been reopened. It was to provide a conclusion in accordance with the wishes of the delegates who heard the Chairman's summing-up and also the proposal of the delegate of Ecuador.
J.TCHICAYA (Congo): Comme je l'ai dit tout à l'heure, nous ne parvenons pas à sortir de cette difficulté. Je crois pour ma part que, pour ce qui concerne le paragraphe 7, nous sommes finalement parvenus à un accord puisque le mot "majorité" y figure. Par contre, pour le paragraphe 9 je crois que les ajouts que nous sommes en train de faire ne font que compliquer les choses. A mon avis, je pense qu'il faudrait adopter le paragraphe 9 tel qu'il est libellé, à la rigueur on pourrait accepter ce qui a été proposé par le Comité de rédaction.
L. ARIZA HIDALGO (Cuba): Una pregunta simple. ¿La proposición del señor West era sustituir con su proposición el párrafo 9? Nosotros, en este sentido apoyamos totalmente lo propuesto por la delegación del Congo.
H. CARANDANG (Philippines): Just one question. When you say "In the next Session it should provide adequate time," does that mean in the future sessions it will not provide adequate time for discussion of the Programme of Work and Budget? If that is the case, why not just say "in the future sessions"? Then it means you would provide adequate time for the discussion of the Programme of Work and Budget. The question is this, does the Council provide adequate time to discuss it or not? If there is a feeling, then I think the Council should always have adequate time to discuss the Programme of Work and Budget. If you take away the words "next Session" and add "in future sessions adequate time should be provided" I think this is a more neutral statement and will take care of the ideas of everyone.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: I suggested an amendment to a proposal made by you, Mr. Chairman, based on the proposal of Ecuador, and on the concluding remarks of the Chairman of Council. What has just been suggested is reopening the substance again. The Council is trying to find a conclusion to the debate, which does not reopen the substance. The amendment just suggested reopens the substance, and in that case I would like to withdraw my suggestion, if you are going to debate instead of ruling on it. It should not be made the victim of attempts to reopen the subject. It was meant as a general conclusion to the debate, based on the Chairman's summing-up and the proposal of Ecuador.
M.NAANANI (Maroc): Je crois que nous nous acheminons vers une réouverture du débat sur ce point 9. Il me semble que le paragraphe 9 tel qu'il est rédigé reflète bien les discussions qui ont eu lieu lors du débat sur ce point-là et c'est pourquoi ma délégation appuie la première proposition du Congo, c'est-à-dire maintenir le paragraphe dans sa rédaction actuelle.
R.A. SORENSON (United States of America): I could never agree that paragraph 9 accurately reflects the way the entire Council felt, because certainly it does not reflect the way my delegation felt, and not the way a substantial number of Members felt. If I remember correctly the Chairman of our Drafting Committee at one point suggested "at this time", or words to that effect. As the paragraph stands now it implies we have arrived at the peak of perfection and nothing has ever to be changed to improve it.
With respect to my friends from the Secretariat, one almost gets the feeling they did not want the governing body to discuss the programmes of the Organization. I cannot possibly say that we want to object to the Council leaving itself the opportunity to examine at any session the Programme of Work and Budget.
What should be said here is that no one representing a sovereign government: could possibly object to that. I simply cannot understand it. Having said that, as far as my government is concerned we certainly feel this Council, representing the sovereign states which make up this Organization, should reserve its right to examine the programmes of this Organization, including the Programme of Work and Budget, and I cannot possibly understand why any Member State here can reject that idea.
A. PINOARGOTE (Ecuador): Yo creo que estábamos a punto de terminar el asunto. Más, ahora ocurre que tal vez, por alguna forma que propuso el doctor West, realmente no hay acuerdo. Yo, cuando intervine, me refería a la formula que usted propuso, que no es exactamente la misma, creo. En todo caso, yo considero que lo medular es si el Consejo tiene o no el criterio de que vayan juntos estos dos pensamientos. Luego ya, sobre la redacción exacta, tal vez podríamos dar paso a lo que propuso el delegado de Colombia para darle una forma conveniente. Pero, definitivamente, ése es el punto; o queda tal como está, o se le agrega como se ha dicho, porque se considera fiel reflejo de lo que verdaderamente ocurrió en el Consejo.
CHAIRMAN: In replying to the United States of America, I must say that Council Members have of course at any time the possibility to give their views on the activities of the Organization: but sometimes of course they are structured in such a way that they do not always refer to the current programme. As the procedure now stands, at least as far as my reading of procedures and practices is concerned, so far the Council Members have a possibility of expressing their views on the Programme of Work and Budget. If in the context of the debate which reopened again there were some differing understandings or differing feelings, it was that some Members felt they could not have an input in or an impact on the current programme after it had been adopted by the Conference about a year ago. But they have the possibility to express their views on the issue once they start reviewing the current Programme of Work and Budget, and they have also the possibility to give their views once the forthcoming Programme of Work and Budget is being discussed; first, on the basis of the summary of Programme of Work and Budget discussed by the Programme and Finance Committees, and then by the Council itself at the June Session, and it is there when the input has to be given. Now, it was correct that the Secretariat should be warned and thé Council recalled that enough input and enough time should be allocated for such a discussion at the forthcoming Session, and it is always the June Session which deals with the summary Programme of Work and Budget. Then of course it was the intention here by the Independent Chairman, by myself and by Ecuador to recall just that enough time be allocated to that discussion.
Of course, as the delegate of Brazil is right, that the Council has had time in the past to discuss the Programme of Work and Budget, but on the other hand, we also recall that we had quite often agendas which had many, many items and it was rather difficult to get through it. And this was the intention, but now I think we should try to come to an end on that issue and actually I had no objections myself, but I would like ask the delegate of Ecuador in particular, if the second sentence proposed on 9, namely to express the wish that enough time be allocated to the discussion of the Programme of Work and Budget at forthcoming Council Session, if this idea is given up, because after all what we have said here will be recorded and taken into consideration; and I am quite sure that the Secretariat will recall this in presenting the agenda for the forthcoming Session. So if the delegate of Ecuador could not insist on that - or another delegation - then we could give up this idea.
We think this paragraph 7 is already adopted and as for paragraph 9, my reading of what was proposed by the Chairman of the drafting group was that the Council accordingly concluded that the present procedures and practices were adequate and did not call for a change.
This is how I had taken this, "and that time was adequate", that it was adequate and and did not call for a change at this time. I very much hope that this may be accepted by Council members because otherwise I think we will have to continue and have another debate on it.
A. PINOARGOTE (Ecuador): El que originó esto fue el delegado de Brasil, y hemos dedicado algún tiempo al asunto. Yo considero que esto no es perder el tiempo, pero si luego de estar hablando sobre el asunto, lo dejamos tal como está, ahí sí que realmente hemos perdido el tiempo. Entonces, yo estaba en desacuerdo con esa idea, pero sobre el punto numero 9, en verdad, hay un consenso. Por eso, yo propuse la última vez, que continuemos adelante con otros puntos, pero que se establezca que su redacción sea puesta a consideración al final de esta reunión, en base al criterio de que a lo que existe se le agregue esta idea de que el Consejo dedique en el futuro el tiempo suficiente para el estudio de estos asuntos. Nada más. Yo creo que lo fundamental es el criterio de si se queda como está o se agrega eso. Luego la redacción puede ser un asunto que se elabore en el transcurso de las próximas horas, para que al final, quede ya aprobado definitivamente.
S. HASAN AHMAD (Bangladesh): We have given considerable time to these two paragraphs and if we continue like this, I think most of us will have to miss our flights. We would have very much liked to retain paragraph 9 as it is, but in a spirit of accommodation I think it should be acceptable to all of us. My delegation signifies its complete support for the formulation that you have presented which was given by the Chairman of the drafting committee. I think it should be completely acceptable for the moment.
CHAIRMAN: I would like to ask Ecuador again: do you still feel that we should retain that, or could you also go along with what I expressed, namely that the warning to everybody is given that sufficient time should be dedicated to the discussion and consideration of the Programme of Work and Budget, and that we have full confidence in our Independent Chairman and to the Secretariat, they will allocate sufficient time for the discussion of the Programme of Work and Budget for the coming Session. And of course, if the Programme of Work and Budget is being dealt with, also for the next sessions.
So my question to you is: do you insist? Or could you, in a spirit of consiliation, also accept that we leave out this idea and just take the one sentence, on the understanding that everybody is aware of what also is going to be expected?
A. PINOARGOTE (Ecuador): Aceptando el espíritu que usted invoca, Sr. Presidente, yo siempre lo he tenido, estoy de acuerdo; pero sí es preciso que esta advertencia o esta recomendación no se refiera exclusivamente al próximo período de sesiones, sino a los próximos períodos de sesiones. En todo caso lo importante es que lo que se ha debatido no quede en el aire, sino que en un futuro sea tenido en cuenta. Me parece bien.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, delegate of Ecuador. I said when the Programme of Work and Budget is being discussed, at these sessions. With that, I do hope very much that we can come to an end with this paragraph. Would the formula I read out just novz be acceptable to all of you? Philipppines? Do you really insist? It is up to the Council. I had hoped very much that we had reached the point.
H. CARANDANG (Philippines): I will accept your ruling Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to make one small remark, that in the summing up of the Chairman he commented and I read it ten times and I just wanted to know whether my reading was correct. It said, in the last sentence, that: "I appreciate the comments being offered, the comments which have been initiated by Brazil, which show a concern that the Council should put its adequate input into the careful examination of the Programme" -that is a general statement - "an occasion for this could come next June". That means that the conclusion was that there should be always an' adequate input and the June Session is just an occasion. He did not say there should be adequate input only in June.
Nevertheless, I will follow your ruling, Mr. Chairman. I accept the statement of the Chairman at the present stage that it does not require any change and then probably, at some future stage, the door is not closed; and I will accept your ruling.
CHAIRMAN: The paragraph is adopted.
Now I think we have overcome this little problem on paragraph 9.
S.S. BALANZINO (Italy): If the debate has been so long and we have come to such a late hour, it is certainly not my fault. I would like, however, to avail myself of the right - though perhaps this is a little sadistic at this time. - to go back to paragraph 33. I had the time during this long debate to read PV/13 and I see a discrepancy in figures between what was said here by Mr. Georgiadis and what is mentioned in paragraph 33. Mr. Georgiadis, on page 28 of PV/13, said in the third paragraph: "so far we paid customs duties and demurrage charges totalling $39 000", whereas here it is said in paragraph 33 that: "the organization has incurred expenditure in excess of $110 000". I would therefore like to know how these figures combined.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Georgiadis will give clarification on this point when we resume our meeting this afternoon.
Paragraphs 1-35 Not concluded
Les paragraphes 1-35 sont en suspens
Los párrafos 1-35 quedan pendientes
The meeting rose at 13.00 hours
La séance est levée à 13 heurtes
Se levanta la sesión a las 13.00 horas
