Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page


14. Financial Matters, including: (continued)
14. Questions financières, notamment: (suite)
14. Asuntos financieros, en particular: (continuación)

14.2 Audited Accounts (continued)
14.2 Comptes vérifiés (suite)
14.2 Cuentas comprobadas (continuación)

a) Regular Programme, 1982-83 (continued)
a) Programme ordinaire, 1982-83 (suite)
a) Programa Ordinario, 1982-83 (continuación)

b) UNDP, 1982-83 (continued)
b) PNUD, 1982-83 (suite)
b) PNUD, 1982-83 (continuación)

c) World Food Programme, 1982-83 (continued)
c) Programme alimentaire mondial, 1982-83 (suite)
c) Programa Mundial de Alimentos, 1982-83 (continuación)

CHAIRMAN: We may recall that when we considered Item 14.2 yesterday, we had completed the discussion on all aspects of this item except the limited issue of considering the draft Conference resolution contained in paragraph 2.44 of the report of the Fifty-fourth Session of the Finance Committee, document CL 86/6. While considering this draft Conference resolution, we agreed to set up a contact group with the following membership: Canada, Colombia, Congo, Federal Republic of Germany, India, Norway, Philippines, Saudi Arabia and the United States of America. We requested this nine-member contact group to recommend to us this morning an agreed draft Conference resolution.

I give the floor to India, who kindly served as the Chairman of this contact group.

H.J.H. TALEYARKHAN (India): I have a very pleasant announcement to make and a very pleasant duty to perform. As a result of your setting up this contact group and giving me the privilege of being its Chairman, thanks to the spirit of cooperation and accommodation shown by all members, we were able to arrive at unanimity and a consensus in our deliberations in a comparatively short time, as a result of which there will be no necessity for any further discussion on Item 14.2 by the statement which I will be reading immediately for the acceptance of the House and which has been accepted by members from all sides who helped me so much in arriving at this happy solution. I will read now the statement which we have prepared for the acceptance of the Council.

"The Conference, having considered the Report of the Eighty-sixth Session of the Council, having examined the following audited accounts and the External Auditors report thereon, Regular Programme 1982/83(C 85/5,) UNDP 1982-83(C 85/6,) World Food Programme 1982-83(C 85/7,) noting the issues raised in the representation of financial statements of WFP, by the Director of the Financial Services Division and the External Auditors comments thereon, and the reports of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions ACABQ, and the Eighteenth Session of the Committee on Food Aid, Policies and Programmes noting further that the External Auditors have drawn attention to matters affecting the WFP accounts, adopts the above audited accounts."

This is the statement which we have unanimously arrived at and I reiterate my thanks for the cooperation and spirit of accommodation shown by all members in arriving at this happy solution which one and all the members of the contact group have completely agreed to, as a result of which I feel, there will be no necessity for any further discussion on this point.

CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much Ambassador of India. You have heard the draft resolution proposed by the contact group.

A.M. QURESHI (Pakistan): It was at the suggestion of Pakistan that the formation of the contact group was established yesterday, and my delegation feels a deep sense of satisfaction that the tradition of universal consensus of this house has been upheld. I would like to congratulate all those who worked very hard on the contact group, and I think I would like to congratulate this house because we have really done very well.

CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, distinguished delegate of Pakistan, both for suggesting this solution which has worked out as the best one under the circumstances, and also for your statement.

I see universal nods of approval to the recommendation of the contact group so I take it we will unanimously approve it, and the Drafting Committee will incorporate it in our report. May I thank once again all the members of the contact group and its chairman, and we are very grateful to all the members of the Council and the distinguished delegate of Pakistan who proposed the setting up of the contact group.

H.J.H. TALEYARKHAN (India): I thank you very much for your kind indulgence. May I take this happy augury to make another happy statement. It will be recalled that Mr Rajiv Gandhi, the Prime Minister of India and Chairman of the Non-Aligned Movement, issued an appeal to the world community last week urging all nations to go to the aid of the famine stricken people of Africa. He had referred movingly to the collossal human suffering on the continent and particularly to the hard lot of the aged and the young.

He had also said that he was in touch with other non-aligned countries in order to plan for short and long-term assistance to the affected countries, and had said that India would be willing to send grain, medicine and teams of doctors to assist the suffering people of the affected countries. The Prime Minister added that India had always believed that hunger knows no political or geographical barriers, and as Prime Minister Mrs Indira Gandhi always used to say, India has always traditionally shared the skills with the people of fellow developing countries. In this spirit Mr Rajiv Gandhi, the Prime Minister, has announced, I am very happy to say, a contribution of 100 000 tons of wheat free of cost to help needy African countries, and has authorized me this morning to make this statement in the Council of the FAO today.

I am desired to add that this donation is a token of India's sympathy and fraternity with the people of Africa, and our readiness always to assist to the extent that we can the countries which are in such dire distress.

CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much distinguished Ambassador of India for this announcement of an additional 100 000 tons to the affected people. We are very grateful to you for this statement.

DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: First I think it would be right for me to say on behalf of the Director-General that we are very happy to hear the announcement just made. It is not only worthy in itself, but also it is a source of encouragement that a country which, in the past when I first came to FAO, was a recipient of food aid is now a donor of food aid to other countries in dire need.

Before you pass on, I just wanted to obtain your guidance for the report stage. It is my understanding that part of the consensus which was just announced is also that there should be no discussion of differing views in the draft report. The Council will simply say in effect that it considered agenda item so and so and adopted the following resolution. I hope this is clear.

A.M. QURESHI (Pakistan): Sorry for taking the floor again. Actually in regard to document CL 86/6 I thought I would like to put a little bit of the record straight. Shakespeare said "What is in a name", but there is something in a name I believe. I am neither Shakespeare nor Hamlet, the Prince of Denmark, but if you refer to paragraph 1.2 my name has been spelled as "A.J. Qureshi". I would appreciate it if the Secretariat could put the record straight. I would be grateful.

S. AHMED (Deputy Executive Director, World Food Programme): I take this opportunity to say a few words, if you permit me to do so, on behalf of the World Food Programme and on behalf of the Executive Director. I most heartily welcome this very substantial offer of assistance by the Government of India to the famine stricken people in Africa. If called upon, the Programme will do its very best to assist the Government of India in carrying out this objective of assistance effectively and with spirit. As was said a little while ago by Mr West, the offer not only reflects the great achievements of India in achieving self-reliance in food, but also its abiding concern for fellow citizens elsewhere in the world.

13. Revised Calendar of 1984-85 Sessions of the Council and of those bodies which report to the Council
13. Calendrier révisé des sessions de 1984-85 du Conseil et des organes qui lui font rapport
13. Calendario revisado para 1984-85 de las reuniones del Consejo y de los órganos que le rinden informes

CHAIRMAN: Are there any delegations who want to speak on this item? Otherwise may I take this revised calendar of 1984-85 sessions of the Council as approved? According to this our next Council meeting will be from 17 to 28 June 1985 when the Programme of Work and Budget for the next biennium will be the most important item. Thank you very much for approving the revised calendar.


18. Date and Place of the Eighty-seventh Session of the Council
18. Date et lieu de la quatre-vingt-septième session du Conseil
18. Fecha y lugar del 87° período de sesiones del Consejo

CHAIRMAN: The place is I suppose in FAO Headquarters in the Red Room and the dates are given here - 17 to 28 June, 1985.

19. Any Other Business, including:
19. Autres questions, notamment:
19. Otros asuntos, en particular:

19.1 Appointment of Representatives of Member Governments to the FAO Staff Pension Committee
19.1 Nomination des représentants des Etats Membres au Comité des pensions du personnel de la FAO
19.1 Nombramiento de representantes de los Estados Miembros en el Comité de Pensiones del Personal de la FAO

LE SECRETAIRE GENERAL: C'est une question tout à fait récurrente dans l’ordre du jour du Conseil et qui n'appelle pas une longue présentation d’autant plus que le document CL 86/18 explique fort bien la situation. Nous avons deux membres suppléants qui ont quitté Rome et qu’il faut done remplacer pour la durée de leur mandat qui reste à accomplir, c’est-à-dire jusqu'à la fin de l’année 1985. Le Conseil doit maintenant procéder à ces nominations.

CHAIRMAN: Well you have heard the Secretary-General. Paragraph 4 mentions that His Excellency El-Huraibi of the Yemen Arab Republic and His Excellency A. Martosuwiryo of Indonesia, have both left Rome. Are there proposals?

J. GLISTRUP (Observer for Denmark): I was elected representative by a previous Council meeting and it appears that this extra load of work put on to us, nobody is very keen to take over, but I think it is a very important Committee and I would like to propose that the representatives of the governments of the alternate members who have taken over the duties.from the people who have left Rome would take over that duty for the rest of this term of office.

CHAIRMAN: There is a proposal that we request Indonesia and the Yemen Arab Republic to continue on the Committee. Is this acceptable? Indonesia is willing.

Yemen Arab Republic, is there someone from there? Well then we request these two countries to continue on the Committee.

19.2 Amendment to Staff Regulations
19.2 Amendement au Statut du personnel
19.2 Enmienda al Estatuto del Personal

D.K. CROWTHER (Assistant Director-General, Administration and Finance Department): Associate experts are an important part of the total expert force and FAO's field programme. However, due to rising costs their numbers in FAO have decreased from about 400 in 1980 and 1981 to slightly more than 300 at the present time. In order to accommodate the wishes of certain donors for a significant reduction in the cost of their associate experts, the UNDP in late 1983 agreed to changes in their conditions of employment. Following UNDP's decision, the donor countries requested other UN agencies to entertain similar reductions in entitlements as those accepted by the UNDP, so as not to have different schemes within the UN family. At the initiative of FAO an informal meeting among some of the major technical UN agencies was therefore organized. The agencies agreed in principle to reduce entitlements of associate experts. In April of this year the FAO donors met in Rome and it was agreed that associate experts would remain full staff members but that revised conditions with respect to certain entitlements would apply. In future they would be referred to as Associate Professional Officers.

We recommend this for the consideration of the Council. It is one of those items that must come up, before the appropriate changes can be made. We think it is an appropriate thing for the Council to consider, and the Director-General supports this.

CHAIRMAN: Does any delegation want to speak on this Item? Then I take it that we approve of the proposal contained in the last paragraph of the document. Thank you very much, Mr Crowther.

The meeting was suspended from 10.10 hours to 10.30 hours.
La séance est suspendue de 10 h 10 à 10 h 30.
Se suspende la sesión de las 10.10 a las 10.30 horas.


CHAIRMAN: The Council will recall that the Drafting Committee Chairman is the distinguished delegate of Pakistan, Mr Musharraf, but he has not arrived yet, so I will ask Mr Qureshi to fill in until the Chairman arrives. The members of the Drafting Committee are Argentina, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Canada, Italy, Lebanon, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Phillipines, Sierra Leone and Tunisia.

A.M. QURESHI (Pakistan): Since I am Chairman by proxy, I do not know what really happened in the Drafting Committee, so I would prefer to wait until the Chairman returns. When he comes in I am sure he will wish to make some introductory remarks.

CHAIRMAN: We are grateful to the Chairman and the Members of the Committee for the many hours of work that they have done.

F.G. POULIDES (Cyprus): I have a general remark. I see that the word "agreed" in certain paragraphs is underlined and in other paragraphs is not underlined. Has it anything to do with the meaning, or is it a clerical typing error?

B. LINLEY (Secretary, Drafting Committee): The Committee worked very fast sometimes, and occasionally underlinings were omitted so sometimes those that should have been there were not, but the final Report will be cleaned up.


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

Paragraph 3 approved
Le paragraphe 3 est approuvé
El párrafo 3 es aprobado

Paragraphs 4 and 5 approved
Les paragraphes 4 et 5 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 4 y 5 son aprobados


G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Somos conscientes de que estos párrafos, como usted lo ha dicho, señor Presidente, se refieren a la declaración del Director General. No es nuestra intención tratar de cambiarlos; nos abstenemos siempre también de hacer correcciones de orden lingüístico que no tengan trascendencia, sin embargo quisiéramos llamar la atención particularmente al señor Linley, Secretario del Comité de Redacción, sobre el párrafo 7, la segunda frase del párrafo 7 que termina en español diciendo "y que sin embargo ahora debían llevarse a la práctica". En francás está bien, hemos comprobado el texto francés; y en inglés aparece ese "sin embargo" que en español debe suprimirse. O sea, que se suprima en español las palabras "sin embargo" y que quede "y que ahora debían llevarse a la práctica". Esto correspondería al texto francés y debería ajustarse al inglés.

H.J.H. TALEYARKHAN (India): In the course of the deliberations which took place in the Council, many compliments and congratulations were paid to the Director-General for his Statement and for the work of FAO, but there appears to be no reference to that in the Draft Report and I do feel that a sentence or two should be added in appreciation of the work of FAO and the Director-General, as repeatedly stated by members who spoke, almost all of us who participated in the discussion. This is only a summary and, of course, the summary has to be short as to what the Director-General has said, but there should be some reference to the appreciation and the congratulatory references made to him for the work he has done and which FAO has done.

CHAIRMAN: I am happy to welcome the Chairman of the Drafting Committee. Referring to what has been said by the distinguished Ambassador of India, if I understand him correctly a sentence may be added after paragraph 10. Obviously it has to be a separate paragraph indicating the appreciation of the Council of the statement of the Director-General.

J. MUSHARRAF (Chairman, Drafting Committee): We will accept that.

CHAIRMAN: Thank you. A suitable sentence will be added at the end of this statement.

Paragraphs 6 to 10, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 6 à 10, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 6 a 10, así enmendados, son aprobados

PARRAFOS 11 a 29

A.M. QURESHI (Pakistan): I have a small suggestion. The word "generally" in the last sentence of paragraph 11 should be deleted because the Council endorsed the analysis and assessment of the situation, and I believe there was a unanimous endorsement of that, the echoes of which can be heard in paragraph 19 where "the Council expressed appreciation for the attention given in the document to a description and analysis of the food situation since the world food crisis of the early 1970s". So I thought the word "generally" could be deleted.

W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of): I wonder whether all delegations can endorse every word in the two important documents we have on the food and agricultural situation. I do not know whether this has been discussed in the Drafting Committee. Personally, I would prefer that it be left because maybe there were some diverging views on some of the issues in the document. I do not want to specify one or two of these issues, but if it does not make difficulties for other delegations, we would prefer that the word be kept and I hope very much that the distinguished delegate of Pakistan will have no problem.

I have another point on that paragraph. First of all my delegation wishes to commend the Drafting Committee on its good work and for the fact that it has worked so expeditiously. We have the results before us today. Having said that, I would like to say that the review of the food and agricultural situation and the analysis of it which went into the mini-SOFA and afterwards into the SOFA was one of the FAO documents most appreciated in my country, in particular the short analysis and description of the latest food situation. Therefore, we request the Council to consider moving the paragraphs in this part. We would prefer that the information given in paragraphs 16 and 19 should follow paragraph 11, so that at the beginning when the reader comes to that point he immediately sees what are the latest developments in food production and in the food situation. This would entail only a small change, with no change in what is already spelt out. We would be glad if this could be done because if the State of Food and Agriculture as described can immediately be seen, this would be most welcome; then one comes to the latest situation in production, and then one goes on with the other parts. But, of course, the Council may decide that once it has passed paragraphs 16 and 19, this would facilitate the work.

CHAIRMAN: On paragraph 11, the distinguished delegate of the Federal Republic of Germany has proposed that paragraph 11 should follow paragraphs 16 and 19. We will take this up when we come to paragraphs 16 and 19.

H.J.H. TALEYARKHAN (India): I have to say that I support the suggestion made by the distinguished delegate of Pakistan that the word "generally" in the third line should be omitted. There was no difference of opinion at all. "Generally" might mean there was some difference about the endorsement of the analysis and assessment of the situation, whereas in fact there was none at all. There was entire consensus about it; so I suggest that the. sentence is retained as it stands without the word "generally".

A.M. QURESHI (Pakistan): Having heard what the distinguished Ambassador of India has said, I do not want to say anything more unless the distinguished delegate of the Federal Republic of Germany has any problem because the word "generally" has a nuance and when you think of nuance, you think perhaps there have been some words which indicate that the assessment of the world food situation was not unanimous. There was unanimous endorsement of the state of the world food situation; that is what we understood, so here there is a kind of lukewarm support when in fact there was unanimous endorsement.

CHAIRMAN: There are two aspects of this analysis and assessment, as a study of the verbatim records will show. In the analytical part there were variations. I will leave this matter to the Council. The proposal is that the sentence reads "The Council endorsed the analysis and assessment of the situation". The distinguished delegate of the Federal Republic of Germany prefers the statement to stand as it is drafted by the Drafting Committee.

W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of): I do not want to be difficult, but I do recall, for example, that the delegation of Argentina and some others made some points referring to the analysis; another point has been the question of financial assistance given to agriculture, and yet another viewpoint arose on the subject of food security. I think there were some issues on which there was no complete agreement and perhaps it is not possible to have complete agreement on them, but we do not want to be difficult. Perhaps there are other views which delegations might have. We will not oppose a consensus, but feel that if we have the analysis as it is here, and the assessment, then perhaps we will have to divide these two issues, although we would prefer that the sentence be kept as is proposed by the Drafting Committee.

M. GIFFORD (Canada): Just to make the observation that many delegations put in much congratulation to the Secretariat for what most of us regarded as an extremely professional and very good analysis. But having said that, obviously even amongst professionals there are nuances of interpretation and I think the two points should be kept separate. It was unambiguous that many delegations thought this was an extremely professional job, and they congratulated the Secretariat accordingly, but not necessarily endorsing 100 percent everything concluded from the analysis.

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Creo que hay que apoyar la propuesta de Pakistán que fue apoyada por India porque, en realidad, en este primer párrafo, que es el primer párrafo del tema, puede aparecer esta expresión y luego, como se puede observar, en los párrafos siguientes aparecen los matices, las diversas opiniones.

S.J. KAO (Lesotho): I merely want to make a brief remark which maybe will help us along, so that we do not have a long debate over one word. There was general agreement, as others will recall, and acceptance of the paper, but there were also a few points of difference on the qualification of the word "generally", these were expressed precisely without any innuendoes or any real difference. For that reason I support the representations made by the distinguished delegate of the Federal Republic of Germany and suggest that we could speedily resolve this point by leaving the word "generally" as it is there. It is just one word, and I make the plea to the Council that we should not take too long on one word which does not make a very big difference to the meaning, but carries the general spirit of the Council.

J. MUSHARRAF (Chairman, Drafting Committee): I can only recall what we did in the Drafting Committee. We did not discuss this word "generally", because we basically accepted the inclusion of the word "generally" and I think everyone had noted this word in his own mind, and since there was no discussion, I assumed that we felt it should be retained for the reasons that have been stated.

W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of): My delegation was amongst those which appreciated the analysis, and perhaps it could be helpful if we could say "The Council welcomed" because the analysis was welcomed by everybody "and generally endorsed the analysis" and so on. I wonder whether this would be helpful to other delegations.

CHAIRMAN: Of course, we are talking about the report, it is just a reflection of our procedures here. The verbatim records have always mentioned, and my own suggestion would be let us leave it as recommended by the Drafting Committee and go on, because if one reads the verbatim reports you will find that is a much more correct statement of what happened.

A.M. QURESHI (Pakistan): I have a difficulty, because if you read this with paragraph 19, it has to be consistent with it. You see, if we say that "Council appreciated the analysis and assessment of the situation" which is reverberated in paragraph 19 and the following, in order to make it consistent, but if the majority is in agreement I have no objections, I mean we can move on.

H.J.H. TALEYARKHAN (India): Since it is your view, Mr Chairman, I am certainly fully prepared to respect it. I only wanted to point out that expression of suggestions of what should be done, does not mean that there was not a complete endorsement of the analysis and assessment of the situation. It does not deviate at all from what we want to express, that there was no doubt about it and there was unanimity and consensus about it. However, if it is your wish, by all means I will respect it.

CHAIRMAN: No, no, my wish is only that the report is a report of the Council which will just reflect what happened here in the House, that is all.

Shall we then omit the word "generally"? Is there any serious objection to omitting the word "generally", as proposed by Pakistan and seconded by India and supported by Colombia? We. will then simply have it as "Council endorsed the analysis and assessment of the situation". The alternative proposal of Germany is "The Council welcomed and generally endorsed the analysis and assessment of the situation". Which formulation do you prefer?

S.J. KAO (Lesotho): We would like to accept the latter formulation if it is any help, but really, we believe that the word "generally" should not be left out. It is a true reflection by qualifying that adoption with the word "generally".

CHAIRMAN: Lesotho also feels that "The Council welcomed and generally endorsed the analysis and assessment of the situation" is more appropriate. Is this acceptable to all of you? We move on to paragraph 12.

REAZ RAHMAN (Bangladesh): A very simple addition: I think in the last line of paragraph 12, we would like to insert the word "net" before "exporters", "which had turned them into net exporters of capital". I think the reasons are obvious.

H.J.H. TALEYARKHAN (India): Only a small phraseological change, not even a phraseological change, a change of one word in line 4: "While economic developments 'have had' a modest positive" instead of "had had"; presumably a typographical error.

J. THICAYA (Congo): Je voudrais tout d'abord féliciter le Comité de rédaction pour le travail qu'il a fait et que nous apprécions amplement.

Nous voudrions nous référer à la troisième phrase qui commence par "Ces tendances économiques..." et nous proposons que cette phrase soit modifiée de la façon suivante: "Ces tendances économiques, en raison de leur effet positif modeste sur les recettes d'exportation de quelques pays en développement, n'ont que très partiellement compensé les pertes antérieures".

CHAIRMAN: There are these three proposals before you: one, the Indian Ambassador proposed "While economic development have had"; then Bangladesh suggested the last sentence, "which had turned them into net exporters of capital to creditor industrialized countries", and the third, Congo has reformulated the sentence starting with "While economic developments" in order to say that they were able to compensate for earlier losses only to a very small extent, that is, the intent is to say it is a very small extent so he has reformulated the sentence.

Are these three changes acceptable to you? I see nods around.

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Yo estoy de acuerdo con esas tres modificaciones, pero tengo dos pequeñas propuestas sobre el mismo párrafo 12. De manera que le ruego que ested termine primero con esas tres, y luego me conceda la palabra sobre el mismo párrafo.

Bien. Entonces en la quinta frase del párrafo 12, quinta frase que empieza por "El Consejo reiteró la necesidad de una mejor estructura", debería agregarse: "El Consejo reiteró la necesidad de una mejor y más justa estructura"; o sea, "mejor y más justa estructura".

Y ya que estoy en el uso de la palabra, si usted considera conveniente, puedo también presentar mi otra propuesta que espero no ofrezca ninguna dificultad. Se refiere a la ultima frase del párrafo 12, que hago notar empieza por las palabras "Muchos miembros"; dice en esa frase que "podía observarse en el gran endeudamiento exterior". Nosotros creemos que no es solamente el endeudamiento sino otros factores también. Entonces, proponemos que se diga, después de las palabras "lo que podía observarse", se diga "lo que podía observarse - entre otros hechos -". Añadir "- entre otros hechos -".

CHAIRMAN: You have heard the two proposals of the Ambassador of Congo and the Ambassador of Colombia, "The Council reiterated the need for a better structure of economic relations between developed and developing countries", add the "fairer" along with "better", "better and fairer structure".

Next is "this was seen" in the last sentence, "among other factors in the high level of foreign debt". I think the Ambassador's idea is to say not only the foreign debt but there are other factors involved

L. ARIZA HIDALGO (Cuba): Queremos primero saludar y agradecer al Comité de Redacción, y especialmente a su Presidente y a todos los Miembros.

En este punto, específicamente nosotros queremos intervenir para apoyar las tres primeras soluciones, y en especial, estas dos, sobre todo la que hace referencia a la mas justa estructura, porque en ese sentido se intervino con bastante insistencia aquí en el Consejo. Creo que es necesario mantener eso.

CHAIRMAN: Has the Chairman of the Drafting Committee any comments on these suggestions?

J. MUSHARRAF (Chairman, Drafting Committee): I can only add my personal comments, but the Drafting Committee did not find it necessary to discuss this particular phrase, we accepted it as it is. When we say "better", it includes "fairer". "Better" means anything which is an improvement of the situation and "fairer" is covered by the term "better". But this was not discussed in our Committee and we accepted this draft as it is without much discussion.

H.J.H. TALEYARKHAN (India): There is a difference between "better" and "fairer". It can be better without necessarily being fairer, and so I am sure the Chairman of the Drafting Committee will agree to the suggestion it could be both better and fairer in the interests of the countries concerned. Something could be better and it may not necessarily be equitable or sufficiently fair, and that is why I am appealing to him if he could kindly see his way to agree to it. I support the proposal of Colombia.

J.R. LOPEZ PORTILLO (Mexico): Muy rápidamente. En primer lugar, para felicitar a la Secretaría y al Comité de Redacción por el magnífico trabajo que realizaron. Y en segundo lugar, para expresarle que estamos totalmente de acuerdo con las cinco modificaciones propuestas, en particular con que se incluya el término "mas justa estructura", porque así lo recalcamos varias delegaciones. Esperemos que con esto, podamos seguir adelante.

Mrs. M. FENWICK (United States of America): I would just like to say a word in the defence of the Chairman. When the day comes that we can say it is better but more unjust, we are really troubling with language. "Better" has got to include some sense of justice and equity, and I think to say it can be better and still more unjust is simply a contradiction in terms.

J. MUSHARRAF (Chairman, Drafting Committee): As far as words go, I would agree with India, that something may be better without being fairer, but when something is fairer it would be better, whereas I have said "better" includes "fairer". "Fairer" does not include "better". However, as I said, I am in no position to argue this point, as the Drafting Committee has always only to reflect what in fact had transpired in the Council. The Council in its wisdom now can override us, say no, this is what we have said or in fact can modify what we have said. I am in no position really to have the authority to choose the word but I wanted to say that in the Drafting Committee, this is what we have felt the Council thought. That is all.

CHAIRMAN: If there are no serious objections, can we keep it as suggested by Colombia, although according to some, it is better and fairer. Thank you very much, it is very kind of you.

Shall we move on to paragraph 13.

J. TCHICAYA (Congo) : Je n'ai pas de modifications majeures à proposer en ce qui conceme ce paragraphe 13 mais je pense sincèrement, compte tenu des débats qui ont eu lieu ici, à moins que ce ne soit le texte français qui soit mal libellé, qu'aux deuxième et troisième phrases on devrait plutôt mettre "il" parce que je crois savoir que c'est le Conseil qui "a appelé l'attention sur la persistence paradoxale ..." et que c'est le Conseil qui "a noté en particulier la crise alimentaire qui frappe de vastes zones d'Afrique ...". En français on a mis "on a", "on a". Je pense qu'il est mieux de reporter le texte en mettant "le Conseil" ou, comme nous avons déjà "le Conseil" en début de paragraphe, "il" et "il".

H.J.H. TALEYARKHAN (India): I have a suggestion for the second last line: "The food emergency in large portions". I would prefer those two words to be changed from "large portions" to " many areas of Africa". That would read better. To my mind, "portions" gives the impression as if it is a piece of steak or something like that.

CHAIRMAN: There were two suggestions. One is the methodology of presentation, the other was a replacement. Are they acceptable to you?

J. MUSHARRAF (Chairman, Drafting Committee): I just want to clarify. In fact, I apologize that I was not in time because I would have liked to say certain things in clarification.

Coming to the point, I entirely agree that these would be improvements. I certainly feel so because if the first sentence is in the active voice, placing the second sentence in the passive voice is an unnecessary deviation, so I would agree that if the paragraph starts in the active voice, let it continue in the active voice as well.

As regards the word "portions", of course I entirely agree "portions" is not the appropriate word, it can be "parts"or "areas" or whatever.

The point of clarification I want to make is that any suggestions for improvements in the draft are most welcome to us, because unfortunately - and that is what I wanted to say if I had come earlier -because of the shortage of time we really unfortunately did not go into language improvements except in a few places. We made the conscious decision while we were meeting that we had no time, and let us finish the substantive modifications first and if later on we have time, we will come to the improvements in language. Unfortunately, in many of the drafts we could not do that, so that we ourselves are absolutely unsatisfied or not very satisfied with the words in some of the paragraphs and would accept some modifications.

CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Shall we go on to paragraph 14? Anybody wanting to intervene on paragraph 14? Paragraph 14 is approved.

Shall we go to paragraph 15?

Mrs M. FENWICK (United States of America): I am concerned with the second sentence: "It was agreed that the decrease in financing for development" or rather with the first sentence to which I object even more, "the value of development assistance for agriculture". Now, in paragraph 171 of the Report, document CL 86/2, it speaks very clearly of the increase of the multinational lending institutions to agriculture going up from $ 4. 8 to $ 7.1 billion. Now, that is lending institutions, and in the first sentence where it says "the value of development assistance for agriculture", we are talking about agriculture, as indeed was paragraph 171, specifically lending institutions to agriculture, but in addition to these lending institutions, there has been from one country three billion, three thousand million, from one country for agricultural aid and development.

Now, this is not a drop. There have been increases from two other countries, and I can mention those because they are not my own but I mention Canada and Australia which have increased their bilateral donations to agriculture, so I think to speak of concern over the decline in funding of development assistance is a mistake. It has not declined, it has increased both by multilateral lending institutions and by the bilateral countries, and when I mentioned Canada and Australia with some soft loans of US $ 3 billion, I am leaving out a number of countries, Norway, Belgium, Netherlands, the Federal Republic of Germany, one after another, with bilateral assistance to agriculture. I have not those figures to hand but we cannot say that it has decreased, and I think that it is not encouraging to go on talking like this as though everything were in decline. We are not apparently doing exactly the right things with all this money, but the money has come in and it is not decreasing in volume of aid. I really hope very much that we could clean that up and reflect more what is accurate according to the report of FAO itself, as I say in paragraph 171, and to what I know about my own country's contributions and those of other countries.

H. CARANDANG (Philippines): I was wondering whether we could have the facts straight. I was wondering whether the Secretariat could help us out in this regard, because certainly if we refer to document CL 86/2 we can find here the conclusions of the decrease in all the aid to agriculture which is very clearly stated. You can find this in paragraph 18 but I would request the Secretariat to give us further clarification in this regard.

N. ISLAM (Assistant Director-General, Economic and Social Policy Department): In paragraph 15 the first sentence refers to the recent years, 1981, 1982 and 1983, and this is a fact for the last two years; there is a decline in the volume of development assistance for agriculture. The distinguished representative for the United States was referring to a longer period, for the whole decade, but this particular paragraph refers to the recent last two years, and it is a fact that there has been a decline in all countries taken together, not for one or two countries; - the total volume of development assistance of donor countries to the agriculture sector, and the hardening of the terms refer to a rising ratio of non-concessional assistance to concessional assistance, so both these are facts as indicated in the document.

J. TCHICAYA (Congo) : Après les éclaircissements de M. Islam nous sommes tentés d'abandonner la parole parce que nous estimons qu'il vient d'apporter des éclaircissements importants. Je crois que ce n'est pas seulement ce qu'il vient de dire mais cela se voit à travers les institutions de financement du développement agricole qui existent, nous voyons cela au niveau du FIDA, et je crois que cela se passe de commentaires, pour reconnaître qu'il y a effectivement un fléchissement. C'est

donc pour cette raison que pour notre part, nous pensons que la phrase telle qu'elle est libellée devrait être maintenue parce qu'il s'agit là de faits, et nous ne pouvons pas aller contre les faits. En même temps nous voudrions rendre hommage, s'il y a des pays qui ont développé leur aide et qui l'ont accrue; cela est une bonne chose mais malheureusement, dans l'ensemble nous constatons qu'il y a eu fléchissement au cours des dix dernières années.

J.D. AITKEN (United Kingdom): Like our colleagues in the United States we too have difficulties with this paragraph and the first and second sentences thereon. After what we have heard from the Secretariat I would suggest initially that the first sentence is modified to make it clear exactly which period it is referring to and to make the circumstances clearer.

As regards the second sentence, this does cause some difficulties for my delegation with the language that has been used. The second sentence begins "It was agreed that the decrease in financing for development was one of the factors". I am afraid that we do not recall it being agreed, and I have checked back as far as I can in the verbatim record and again I cannot place where this was agreed, so may I suggest to avoid difficulties with this that we just change one word here and say "It was observed." I think this perhaps makes it clearer.

Mrs M. FENWICK:(United States of America): I am grateful to our distinguished colleague for bringing to my attention page 5 of document CL 86/2, in which the years are compared. Now we take it total multilateral sources have gone up from $ 7 billion to $ 7.3 billion. The bilateral sources for 1982 are not mentioned. The bilateral sources go up from $4.9 to $5.083.

The only thing where I can see at all a drop is in the bilateral sources of official concessional commitments. But then we get to official non-concessional commitments and we go up from 3.5 to 4 for 1982, and for 1980/81 it goes from 417 in bilateral to 466. In other words it depends which column you are reading I suppose, but all I know is that when we look at the report, it is quite clear what has happened, and we are not considering what is being also given by those countries that make grants as well as concessional loans themselves.

H. HØSTMARK (Norway): As a member of the Drafting Committee I of course stand by the text as we have agreed it here. We have under our Chairman been very careful, as careful as we could, to reflect what took place in the Council. We had guiding instructions from the Chairman the whole time before us and tried to give a faithful rendering of this body's reflections.

I am a little disturbed about the discussion that is now taking place. The facts are one thing. I do not think there should be any quarrelling about the facts but also, at the same time, we are now giving the Council's expression upon the fabts, it could of course be that the Drafting Committee in spite of trying its hardest to express the members' points of view and recalling what was said on points - could have made a mistake. That is possible; it was late nights, late hours, hard work. If members here clearly do not put that interpretation on the facts that we thought they did, then of course it must be their right to say so, and then it would be difficult to say that the Council expressed it, but could it be right to say "concern was expressed" without stating it was the Council's.

N. ISLAM (Assistant Director-General, Economic and Social Policy Department): Since there is some uncertainty about the facts maybe I should repeat and clarify. If you look at this Supplement to the original document, Supplement 1, CL 86/2 the divisions of total assistance by bilateral and multilateral resources is given there. The table on page 5 of the main document does not give year to year figures; it gives three years moving averages. So this is not the reflection of what is happening from year to year. The more relevant table will be in the Supplement, page 14.

Secondly, the total commitments in this table are given for 1983 compared to 1982 and 1981 for multilateral sources. For bilateral sources there is no figure, but if you look at the multilateral figures they have declined in 1983 compared to 1982 total commitments, and whatever figures we have until now for bilateral assistance, it leads us to believe that the bilateral assistance combined with multilateral would not be higher than in 1982.

That was the reason for this statement that there is a decline in 1983 compared to 1982 in total commitments of official assistance.

We have given here the figures for 1983 only for multilateral sources. For bilateral we did not have the final figure when this document was prepared. Now as of now, what figures we have, they are not still finalized, but what it shows is that the bilateral sources would not more than offset the decline in multilateral sources.

Mrs M. FENWICK (United States of America): But surely if the United States - and now I will be less modest - provided $ 3 billion in bilateral, then you would have to add that for 1983, and then you would count the enormously generous gifts of Canada and Australia and all the other countries. How we would not get above $3.1 I cannot see, because $3 billion is right there with the United States 1983, so you only have $154 million to go.

N. ISLAM (Assistant Director General, Economic and Social Policy Department): We do not have a figure for 1984, we only have a figure for 1983. Is the distinguished Ambassador referring to 1983 figures?

Mrs M.FENWICK (United States of America): I asked for that information from my mission and that is the information I have been given. Now all I can say is it is discouraging if countries have made efforts. Certainly they fall short of the estimates that might be needed, and if you look carefully you will find that is where it is. IDA did not go down; it did not go up to 12 as it was hoped but it went from $8.1 to $ 9 billion. Now that is a rise. It is not, according to the estimate, as to what might be needed, but that is very different if you are planning on what other people are going to give and call that falling short when they do not meet it. The question is we are talking about a rise or not a rise.

I would just like to say that I can only operate on the basis of the information that I get, and from these documents it does not seem to be entirely carried out, because the document where it speaks here of "the internationally agreed estimate of annual requirements", yes, perhaps there is, a fall, but that is an estimate of what may be required, as indeed they had hoped with IDA that you would get $12 billion instead of $ 8.1. It went up to $9 billion.

J.R. LOPEZ PORTILLO (México): Aquí lo que estamos reflejando, señor Presidente, son los debates que tuvieron lugar en la Plenaria y en la Plenaria se recogieron las interpretaciones de las delegaciones que nos pronunciamos al respecto. Insistimos en que lamentamos que hubiera habido esta reducción en el financiamiento internacional. Nadie nos aclara que las cifras fueran distintas y tampoco hemos comprobado que así lo sean. Nuestros análisis se basaron en ello y en cuanto debatimos, y no hubo oposición a que así se interpretara.

Esperamos que nos ahorremos tiempo y dejemos este tema ya que esta discusión sobre si este financiamiento ha disminuido o se ha incrementado y en qué sentido ha disminuido o incrementado, serfa cuestion de estudiarla en una próxima ocasión. Lo que se discutió en la Plenaria, y como dijo el representante de Noruega, es lo que se debe respetar, y si la delegación de Estados Unidos o cualquier ctra, tiene alguna declaración que hacer que la haga en una próxima ocasión, cuando las cifras y su interpretación estén a la mano.

Sugerimos cerrar este punto y que el párrafo se quede tal cual y pasar al 16.

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Después de oír, señor Presidente, a nuestro colega y amigo el Embajador López Portillo, de México, casi es innecesaria nuestra intervención. Sin embargo queremos observar que hemos escuchado con mucha atención la referencia entusiasta y emocionada que se ha hecho sobre el aumento de las ayudas, justamente cuando se considera este párrafo 15, en el cual figuran dos ejemplos, el FIDA y la AIF. De manera que en realidad no sabemos que esas referencias puedan corresponder exactamente a estos dos ejemplos.

Yo creo que el procedimiento es sencillo, la Secretaría elaboró el documento con los datos conocidos, el Consejo se pronunció al respecto y por eso aparece allí esta redacción. Corresponde a la Secretaría tomar nota de las referencias que se han hecho a la contribución, comprobarlas e incluirlas en el próximo estado mundial de la agricultura, que el Consejo estudiaría el año entrante.

Tampoco podemos observar, o aceptar la modificación que se propone para la segunda frase; o sea cambiar el término "convino" , por "observó", porque aquí no venimos a observar, aquí los miembros del Consejo hemos participado activamente y hemos llegado a conclusiones. De manera que apoyamos plenamente la actitud de México.

W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of): I hesitate to take part in this deliberation on paragraph 15 but I think we should be quite clear. One point is the availability of the volume available to official and bilateral assistance. Another point is how much of that overall volume is being used for food and agriculture.

The last point depends entirely on the countries who wish to be assisted by the international agencies. Of course there is one exception and that is IFAD. IFAD is explicitly giving assistance only to agriculture and I think we should be quite clear on that, that it is not a question only that refers to what the so-called donor countries offer but it is also a reflection of what the recipient countries wish to get from such official assistance. So I think we should try to be as unbiased as possible.

I wonder if it could be helpful if we could say in the third line "both the decline 1981 and 1982". I think this is what the Secretariat referred to in the use of development assistance for agriculture and the hardening in its terms.

Having said this, I would like to say that in the second sentence my delegation would also prefer to have "observed" instead of "agreed".

CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

J.D. AITKEN (United Kingdom): Our intervention was designed to achieve a very similar effect to the intervention of the delegate of the Federal Republic of Germany. We would suggest deleting in that sentence from "continuing concern over both the decline in the volume of development assistance", to delete from "over both the decline in the volume" and to substitute "inadequate". It would then read, "the Council expressed continuing concern over the inadequate volume of development assistance for agriculture". I put this as an alternative suggestion to the suggestion made by Germany. I can now say that we sould be equally happy to accept his proposed text.

CHAIRMAN: May I offer a suggestion, because it is a question of interpretation of facts here. What is being questioned is about data and its interpretation. Perhaps you would like these two sentences referred back to the Drafting Committee to sit with the Secretariat and analyse the facts and come forward with the formulations. Otherwise we may formulate it now and get a statement with which some people differ. We have not been working in that way. We have been trying to develop agreed formulations. In that spirit I would like to suggest to you that on these two sentences of this paragraph we ask the Drafting Committee to work with Professor Islam.

L. ARIZA HIDALGO (Cuba): Nosotros, en vista de la forma en que se ha desarrollado esta discusión en estos momentos, quereraos volver a felicitar al Comité de Redacción, volverlo a felicitar porque creemos que este párrafo fue un ejemplo de búsqueda de suavizar los conceptos que se expresaron aquí en la sala. Este párrafo tiene una serie de palabras, sobre todo en español, que son muy musicales, que nos demuestran que hicieron un esfuerzo extraordinario por no reflejar exactamente lo que se dijo aquí, porque si nosotros vamos a repetir lo que se dijo sobre esta situación aquí, creemos que este párrafo no podríamos aceptarlo pero lo aceptamos en todas sus partes porque creemos que fue un esfuerzo sobrehumano el que hicieron.

Nosotros nos preguntamos por qué se quiere esconder la verdad. Estas fueron verdades expresadas aquí. ¿Con qué intención se trata de esconder la realidad?. ¿Se olvida la discusión que tuvimos sobre Africa, se olvida que nos hemos convertido en exportadores netos de capitales por esa ayuda bilateral que han dado? ¿Y las tasas de intereses?. Aquí no se dijo nada y en la Plenaria se expresó nuestro criterio sobre estas altas tasas de interés y no se habla nada de eso; se dice el carácter oneroso, para no decir injusto, de las condiciones. Sin embargo, creemos que ese párrafo si se vuelve a mandar al Comité de Redacción puede desencadenar una discusión de otra índole porque es un párrafo largo, párrafo que pudo haberse dividído en dos etapas, pero es un párrafo que al final exhorta, después de una discusión difícil, a que no se puede negar que en estos momentos la coyuntura económica y financiera es dramática para muchos países, y lo hemos reconocido en dos o tres ocasiones dentro de este Consejo y al final, sencillamente, humildemente, lo que hacemos es exhortar a que se proporcione una asistencia mayor. ¿Qué se quiere entonces?; ¿qué no exhortemos?. Entonces vamos a proponer otra palabra cuando se discuta el párrafo.

H.J.H. TALEYARKHAN (India): I have a great personal regard for the charming Ambassador of the United States, Mrs Fenwick, but I cannot be tempted on this occasion to agree with her observations, particularly in the light of the facts pointed out by the Ambassador of Mexico and the facts which have been pointed out and stated by the Assistant Director-General, Professor Islam. I do not think it leaves any room for doubt. To try to redraft it might lead to further complications. I am sure that Ambassador Fenwick can be persuaded to agree to let it stand as it is in the light of the documents to which Professor Islam has referred and which are beyond question. He pointed out how the 1983/84 figures show a decline. What was a statement of fact and what was discussed in the Plenary has been reflected in the Drafting Committee report, supported by what the Secretariat has stated.

As I am on paragraph 15, I would like to make one addition. In the third line from the bottom I would like to be more specific. I propose the addition of this sentence there, because it is a precarious situation for IDA and IFAD, particularly IFAD, which is in danger of collapse if a solution is not found. I propose after the word "replenishment" should be added "These replenishments require to be brought up to their targets immediately with the cooperation of all concerned if their planned programmes of assistance to developing countries are to be sustained, even in 1985." They are in great danger of being curtailed by the great shortage of funds to which they are subjected. I mentioned this in the Plenary, which does not appear to have been reflected here. I consider this to be a very serious and vital point. May I therefore crave the indulgence of the Council to have this sentence incorporated in the draft of paragraph 15?

J. POSIER (France): La délégation française n'est pas tout à fait d'accord elle non plus sur le libellé du paragraphe 15. Elle pourrait contester la terminologie employée concernant la reduction du volume de l'aide au développement; et il lui serait très difficile d'accepter la seconde phrase qui commence par "on s'est accordé à reconnaître"; elle préfère de beaucoup la formule: "on a observé".

La délégation française voudrait se rendre à la suggestion que vous avez formulée de reporter ce problème, cette difficulté, devant le Comité de rédaction pour qu'il puisse réfléchir à une nouvelle formulation.

A. RODRIGUES PIRES (Cap-Vert): Je voudrais moi-même abonder dans le même sens que l'ambassadeur de l'Inde. Nous ne voulons pas dire qu'un effort n'a pas été fait pour aider; nous voulons dire quelle est la situation réelle, et tout simplement qu'il y a des efforts supplémentaires à faire. Par consequent, nous appuyons ce qui a été dit par le Mexique: il est inutile d'envoyer cela à nouveau devant le Comité de rédaction.

J. MUSHARRAF (Chairman, Drafting Committee): I would like to say something as Chairman of the Drafting Committee and then as the delegate of Pakistan.

As Chairman of the Drafting Committee I would like to record that this is a paragraph over which we spent quite a lot of time in our discussions. In fact, the second sentence, which is now the subject of discussion, was not in the original draft; we added it after long discussion between the representatives of the various countries. As Chairman, I want to record that fact. We have gone through each and every item in this paragraph in some detail and come to this agreement. This is how we saw the sense of the Council. However, if the Council wishes us to redraft it, it is entirely for the Council.

As delegate of Pakistan I would like to say that here two types of fact have to be verified, first the fact of whether there was an increase or a decrease in assistance. That is a question for economic statistics and that is a fact to be verified from the data with the Secretariat. The second point is what happened on the floor of the Council. That can be verified from the verbatim records. But perhaps at this stage we cannot open that second fact, it is for the adoption of the draft report and not for the Council opening the debate. So I agree with Mexico that that second fact we are not in a position to verify.

J. TCHICAYA (Congo): J'avoue que les délégations qui m'ont précéde ont déjà dit ce que je voulais dire, notamment le Mexique, Cuba et le Président du Comité de rédaction lui-même.

Je pense sincèrement que compte tenu de la déclaration que vient de faire le Président du Comité de rédaction, à savoir que ce paragraphe a occupé assez largement le temps des membres du Comité de rédaction, je pense que dans ces conditions il n'est pas logique de leur redonner à nouveau ce paragraphe. Ils risquent de s'éterniser dessus et compte tenu du fait qu'ils ont encore assez de travail à faire, nous estimons qu'il n'est pas possible de renvoyer ceci au Comité de rédactión. Nous pensons donc, comme nous l'avons toujours fait lorsqu'un paragraphe de ce genre a nécessité beaucoup de temps, nous pensons donc que son aboutissement est un compromis, un consensus et que pour cette raison il ne faudrait pas en changer un seul mot mais l'adopter tel quel. Nous estimons qu'il ne faut pas perdre de temps parce que ce qui est reflété dans le paragraphe est ce qui a été dit ici, et avec les informations dont nous disposions. Il est clair que les autres informations qui viennent après ne peuvent pas être prises en compte dans la mesure où effectivement nous ne pouvons pas les vérifier. Pour cette raison, je pense moi aussi qu'il convient d'adopter ce paragraphe tel qu'il est.

W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of): I am in full agreement with the delegate of Congo that what we want to take home here is to reflect what has taken place in our session. But it is always a question of how we express it. Here I very much hope that members of the Council should not have great difficulties. A little change in the first sentence could read in the second part "expressed continuing concern over the inadequate development assistance for agriculture and the hardening of its terms." This says almost the same as is in that sentence but it is a little different because it leaves it open whether according to what the recipient wishes to get out of the overall offer for development assistance or whether in a given place it was because there was not enough given by a donor. Perhaps this new formulation could be considered as enabling us to go ahead. I will repeat: "over the inadequate development assistance for agriculture and the hardening of its terms." Then in the second sentence I feel that what was proposed by the United Kingdom, the change from "agreed" to "observed" and supported by Conference would still reflect what has been said in the Council.

M. GIFFORD (Canada): Just to echo the words of the Chairman of the Drafting Committee that the Drafting Committee did obtain clarification from the Secretariat as to the perspective that should be put on these words as was explained in the first sentence. The perspective was the point of time 1983 relative to 1982 and 1981. Therefore I suggest that we keep the words in the existing sentence and simply add "in 1983 relative to 1982 and 1981".

CHAIRMAN: Canada has proposed that we leave the draft as it is, except that we add "in 1983 relative to 1982 and 1981".

J. R. LOPEZ PORTILLO (México): La aclaración que está proponiendo Canadá quizá contribuya a resolver los problemas planteados. Sí queremos, sin embargo, afirmar que no podemos estar de acuerdo con la propuesta de la delegación de Alemania porque no solamente hace un pequeño sino un gran cambio en el concepto. No nos estábamos refiriendo cuando aludimos a ese tema si la asistencia internacional era adecuada o no era adecuada, sino nada más lo que tiene que ver con la cantidad, con la forma, los objetivos, etc.

Aquí lo que atestiguamos fue que se había reducido el volumen de la asistencia y eso fue lo que afirmamos, pero la aclaración de Canadá nos parece pertinente y podríamos estar de acuerdo con ella siempre y cuando quede el resto del párrafo tal como está escrito.

CHAIRMAN: May I request subsequent speakers specifically to comment whether they agree or not that we leave paragraph 15 as it is? The Chairman of the Drafting Committee has explained that they debated all these points. The delegate of Norway and the delegate of Canada have said that they accept, since we are only dealing with facts, "hardening of its terms in 1983 as compared with 1982". Perhaps Professor Islam considers that is a correct statement of fact.

The Indian Ambassador has suggested another sentence for insertion before the last but one sentence. Do you insist that it should be added? What is the feeling of other members? Would you like to read that sentence out once again?

H. J. H. TALEYARKHAN (India): I have suggested that after the sentence in the third line from the bottom ending with the word "replenishment" the following should be added "These replenishments require to be brought up to their targets immediately with the cooperation of all concerned if their planned programmes of assistance to developing countries are to be sustained, even in 1985".

CHAIRMAN: Has the Chairman of the Drafting Committee any comments?

J. MUSHARRAF (Chairman, Drafting Committee): I think as Chairman I have no right to comment on this. Personally I would agree that this sort of thing should be included. That is my own individual view.

J. R. LOPEZ PORTILLO (México): Nosotros reconocemos la buena voluntad que siempre ha confirmado el distinguido Embajador de la India. Lo hemos reconocido en cada una de sus intervenciones. Nos ha permitido armonizar nuestras posiciones y conciliar contrapuntos.

En este caso, la afirmación puede ser útil. Varias delegaciones insistimos en que los problemas relativos a la segunda reposición debían resolverse a la brevedad. La oración, en sí misma, no crea confusión al respecto. Podría incluirse; es un buen propósito. Estaríamos de acuerdo.

CHAIRMAN: Unless I hear views to the contrary, shall we incorporate the last but one sentence with the addition proposed by the distinguished Ambassador of India, and the modification proposed by the distinguished delegate of Canada? Can we accept this paragraph?

J. POSIER (France): Je voudrais demander un éclaircissement sur la phrase qui commence dans le texte français, au paragraphe 15, par "On s'est accordé à reconnaître ..." où nous avions proposé de substituer "accordé" par le mot "observé"; je voudrais savoir ce qu'il en est. Est-ce le mot "accordé" qui est maintenu dans le texte ou lui a-t-on substitué le mot "observé"?

CHAIRMAN: My understanding is that it stands as it is, and it is agreed.

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Estamos de acuerdo con usted, Señor Presidente. El colega de México aclaró muy bien que aceptaba la propuesta de Canadá a condición de que el resto del párrafo permaneciera tal como está.

J. D. AITKEN (United Kigdom): If I may return to this point, it causes some difficulty if we use the word "agreed", when the whole discussion about this paragraph has been to try to restrict it to factual statements of agreement. Certainly in the English text I think it does not cover the factual situation as it evolved in the discussions, and therefore I am afraid I must return to my original point about preferring language nearer to the events as they actually occurred, and again, I would put the idea of "observed" before you.

J. POSIER (France): Je crois que dans la phrase qui retient actuellement notre attention il y a deux propositions, deux affirmations. Il y a l'affirmation, c'est la diminution des fonds affectés au développement. C'est un fait qui peut être vérifié et, effectivement,en 1983 il y a eu diminution des fonds affectés. S'il ne s'agissait que de cette proposition, de cette affirmation , je serais d'accord pour dire que "on s'est accordé à reconnaître". Effectivement tout le monde reconnaît qu'il y a diminution en 1983 des fonds affectés au développement, mais il y a le deuxième membre de la phrase, en français "et que la paix ainsi que la sécurité internationale s'en trouvaient compromises". Là je pose la question, est-ce que vraiment il y a eu'un accord de toutes les délégations pour reconnaître que la paix était compromise par cette diminution? Je ne le pense pas. On s'est accordé sur le point de la diminution des fonds mais je ne pense pas qu'on puisse dire qu'on s'est accordé pour dire que la paix est menacée.

Mrs M. FENWICK (United States of America): I am sorry to do this, but the amendment to this paragraph 15 we feel is unfortunate. But if the amendment concerning IDA and IFAD as suggested by the distinguished Ambassador of India, with whom I so rarely disagree, is included, the United States will have to take a reservation on this paragraph.

CHAIRMAN: I would like to seek your comments on the issues which have been made.

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): En primer lugar, voy a referirme a la última declaración del distinguido Embajador de Francia. Ha sido relativamente positiva esa declaración en el sentido de que aceptaría la primera parte de la segunda frase del párrafo 15. Yo me permito hacer notar que en esa segunda frase se dice "era uno de los factores que contribuían"; "que contribuían". Luego entonces, para atender un poco la inquietud del colega de Francia, podríamos, al final de esa frase, después de las palabras "existente entre Norte y Sur", poner una coma, y decir ", que podría afectar así a la paz y seguridad internacionales", "que podría afectar así". Espero que esto pueda acoger la inquietud de Francia, y en esa forma, la segunda frase podría merecer el consenso del Consejo.

No puedo evitar referirme a la reciente declaración de la distinguida Embajadora de los Estados Unidos. Yo creo sinceramente que la reserva que ella acaba de manifestar contrasta con lo que había dicho ella hace poco, hacia del contenido del mismo párrafo quince. ¿Y cómo es posible que haya algún país que se oponga a un deseo, a una buena intención de que se repongan los recursos del FIDA, y que luego, en Plenaria, en el tema 4, justamente sobre este tema hayan dicho que están complacidos de los progresos, y que ahora se opongan a esa propuesta de la India que es lo mínimo al respecto?

CHAIRMAN: If I might just recapitulate what the distinguished Ambassador of Colombia said, "existing imbalance between North and South, which might affect peace and international security".

J. POSIER (France): Je remercie vivement le délégué de la Colombie qui, comme toujours, s'efforce de proposer des solutions constructives et je considère, encore que cela ne me satisfait pas entièrement, que la formule qu'il a bien voulu proposer est acceptable en ce qui me concerne.

H.J.H. TALEYARKHAN (India): I thought the additional sentence which I proposed had already been accepted by the Council, so. the question of any further reservations does not arise. I am sure the distinguished Ambassador of the United States of America will appreciate it in the light of what the distinguished delegate of Colombia quite rightly argued, and I do not see that there is any bone of contention in this very necessary sentence being added . I consider on a point not exactly of order but of clarification that has already been accepted by your own declaration when you consulted the Council. As to the wording suggested by the distinguished delegate of France, "which might affect peace", I would only like to suggest but not insist that the word "may" might be substituted.

J.R. LOPEZ PORTILLO (México): Yo no sé si hemos leído la segunda oración a profundidad. Por lo menos, en español, después de leerla varias veces, vuelvo a coincidir en que el Comité de Redacción hizo un magnífico trabajo. La afirmación que se está haciendo aquí no se refiere necesariamente a lo que ha ocurrido en esto's tres últimos años.

La oración simple y llanamente dice que "Se convino en que la disminución de la financiación para el desarrollo era uno de los factores...", cualquiera que sea cuando ocurra esa disminución, "... era uno de los factores que contribuían al aumento del desequilibrio existente entre Norte y Sur". No se estaba diciendo que la disminución entre tales y tales años estaba contribuyendo a un desequilibrio mayor entre el Norte y el Sur. Fue una afirmación general, que es válida ahora, dentro de cinco años, dentro de veinte años, o cuando sea; y que efectivamente esto afecta la paz y la seguridad internacionales. Evidentemente, toda disminución del desarrollo genera problemas tanto sociales como políticos, que lo hemos comprobado una y otra vez a lo largo de la historia de la humanidad, atentan contra la paz y la seguridad internacional. Eso es una afirmación general. Ujalá leamos la oración y permitamos quede tal cual, porque no se está haciendo una afirmación en contra de lo que ocurrió en estos últimos años. Es una expresión, casi lo podemos decir así, de buena voluntad.

Respecto de la oración que propuso la delegación de la India, tampoco creo que afecte en nada a las negociaciones que se estén llevando ahora a cabo para el incremento de la reposición al FIDA y a otras instituciones. Al contrario, son buenos deseos que han sido expresados por todos. No vemos por qué alguna delegación puede observar reservas al respecto, por lo que recomendamos otra vez que, releyendo la segunda oración, se deje tal cual, y se acepte el párrafo con la inclusión realizada por la India y la propuesta hecha originalmente por Canadá.

J. TCHICAYA (Congo): J'avoue que je suis un peu embarrassé après l'intervention du représentant de la Colombie. Je crois moi aussi, comme vient de le dire l'Ambassadeur du Mexique, que nous ne voyons pas très bien ce qui peut prêter à équivoque dans cette phrase. Je crois effectivement que nous étions d'accord, ce n'est pas sur les faits actuels, mais nous pensons que la phrase telle qu'elle est libellée parle du général et, par conséquent, je ne vois pas pourquoi on pourrait changer, je crois que ce qu'a proposé mon collègue de Colombie n'est pas bienvenu, sa proposition est sincère mais, pour moi, la phrase est bien équilibrée et le Comité de rédaction a très bien fait son travail. Je demande une nouvelle fois que nous puissions vraiment revenir sur ce paragraphe en disant que c'est un paragraphe bien étudié , bien équilibré et que nous pourrions l'adopter tel quel, évidemment avec l'adjunction que vient de proposer notre ami de l'Inde. Nous pensons que cette adjonction est bienvenue et ne comprenons pas pourquoi nous pourrions émettre des réserves étant donné que je crois que la bonne volonté anime toutes les délégations ici présentes, qui sont membres du FIDA et souhaitent que celui-ci puisse reconstituer le plus vite possible ses ressources.

J.D. AITKEN (United Kingdom): I will simply address myself to the point of the second sentence and, like our distinguished colleague from France, confirm that we also can accept the formulation proposed by the distinguished delegate of Colombia.

H.J.H. TALEYARKHAN (India): Will it assist if we find a compromise, such as, "may well affect peace and international security", if not the original? Personally, I would be in favour of the original, but if a compromise is to be found between the original and what the distinguished delegate of Colombia has suggested, can we not say, "may well affect peace and international security"? I propose that.

J. BELGRAVE (New Zealand): As a member of the Drafting Committee, I am a little diffident in departing from the text that the Committee agreed upon. I think it is a fairly important principle that where possible members of the Drafting Committee should stand with the text, but nevertheless I think the suggestion by the distinguished delegate of Canada at the end of the third line for me takes care of the problem there. As usual, the distinguished delegate of Colombia is trying to find a formulation which takes care of the problems which one or two members are facing, so I tend also to support that.

I think that grammatically the sentence could be split after the word "south", and we could put in another sentence to take care of the thought suggested by the distinguished delegate of Colombia. Perhaps the Secretariat can look at a form of words which can be read back to us to see if it is generally acceptable.

CHAIRMAN: There will not be very much time for that, so I think we should agree on a formulation here. We have before us a proposal by the distinguished delegate of Colombia, supported by the distinguished delegates of Mexico and Congo. Can I ask everyone to accept the proposal made by the distinguished delegate of Colombia so that we can get on?

J. TCHICAYA (Congo): Je crois que nous n'avons pas l'habitude de nous opposer à notre collègue de Colombie et généralement nous avons les mêmes points de vue, mais je crois qu'en ce qui concerne cette phrase j'ai sincèrement beaucoup de difficulté à accepter sa proposition. Je crois que la phrase, telle qu'elle est libellée, nous convient parfaitement et je voulais dire ce que j'ai dit tout à l'heure, qu'il fallait adopter le paragraphe 15 tel qu'il est. Mais j'avoue que la proposition faite tout à l'heure par le Canada nous satisfait entièrement. En ajoutant cette précision, nous n'avons aucune peine à pouvoir l'accepter mais je crois que la phrase qui commence par "On s'est accordé" devrait rester en l'état.

J. POSIER (France): Je ne voudrais pas éterniser les débats et voudrais simplement faire remarquer que l'obstination de certains à vouloir maintenir la phrase telle qu'elle est montre bien que ce n'est pas une phrase innocente, une phrase gratuite, qu'elle a une signification précise et que certains Etats sont divisés. Quand on me dit qu'il faut replacer cela dans un contexte général, je ne suis pas tout à fait d'accord. II y a là une signification précise. Je ne veux pas éterniser les débats mais exprimer clairement la position française. Ou bien on change le mot "accordé" par "observé" et à ce moment là c'est une solution parfaitement acceptable pour la France, ou bien on indique, comme l'a proposé S.E. l'Ambassadeur de l'Inde, la formule "que la paix pourrait bien s'en trouver comprimise". Si une de ces deux solutions n'était pas approuvée la délégation française serait obligée d'émettre une réserve sur ce paragraphe.

CHAIRMAN: I request that we accept the proposal of the distinguished delegate of Colombia supported by others; otherwise it appears that some delegations will have to express their reservations.

J.R. LOPEZ PORTILLO (México): Solamente para pedirle que la vuelva a leer, por favor.

CHAIRMAN: You have heard the proposal of the distinguished delegate of Canada to add "1983 relative to 1982 and 1981", and then the second sentence should read, "It was agreed that the decrease in financing for development was one of the factors which contributed to a deterioration in the existing imbalance between North and South, which may well affect peace and international security". I ask Council Members if this is the formulation which has wide acceptance.

Mrs M. FENWICK (United States of America): I give up.

CHAIRMAN: Then the other question remains about India's additional sentence starting with "these replenishments require to be brought up to the target level immediately" and so on, to which the United States had taken exception.

Mrs M. FENWICK (United States of America): The United States retains its reservation if the Indian sentence is adopted.

CHAIRMAN: May I then ask the sense of the House, shall we leave the Drafting Committee's report as it is with these two small changes?

H.J.H. TALEYARKHAN (India): May I make one renewed appeal to the delegate of the United States, that this is quite an unexpected reservation from her when she has always been so expressive in her constructive suggestions and creative formulations, and as she has expressed no particular reason for the reservation, I am sure I may be able to persuade her not to insist on her reservation in the light of the fact that the entire Council has given consent to its inclusion.

It is only what she herself mentioned the other day, that America's own contribution to IFAD would be as much as $150 million, and this shows USA's desire to assist in the fulfilment of the target of replenishment of IFAD.

So I would suggest that in the light of what she herself has maintained and the consideration she has always shown for the necessities and requirements of developing countries, she would be good enough to reconsider the position and withdraw this reservation, because as Mexico has stated and also Colombia, Cuba and Congo, that this is merely an expression of goodwill and good heart towards the desire of one and all of us irrespective from what side we come to assist in this Programme.

Mrs M.FENWICK (United States of America): It is very difficult to resist our distinguished colleague from India, but this whole paragraph, I think, leads in a direction which is dangerous. Enormous sums have been poured out and the cry is only it is not enough. There are many highly concerned and dedicated people who are beginning to worry that this is not always wise, that some of this is doing harm rather than good, and I am not alone, there have been articles, some indeed by Africans.

The whole paragraph leads in a direction to suggest that if only we had more, everything would be all right. You could set a target, it could have been 15 instead of 12 and then require that the target be met. How do you require? How do we adopt such language? We can hope if we have good plans for using it properly, if it can be shown that these Programmes do something, but you read the Club du Sahel's Report of a year ago, and in many cases it is worse.

We are not on the right track and we will not admit it, and all we want is more money to keep on faster and faster on a track that is not working. There is the root of my concern. If we really care about these people, we ought to listen to somebody like President Kountche the other day. There is where the hope and the wisdom lie in what he says; we are not interested in these big programmes, what we need are small things in the village, echoed by Sierra Leone, Mr Palmer, who was here last year, a wonderful man. What we need is a vivid demonstration in the village of something that works.

So all of this comes together in my objection to this paragraph. It is pushing us in the same direction with more power, more full steam ahead, and I think we must consider what we are doing to human beings if we really care about them. I think that the reservation that I am expressing is a mild expression of what I have felt. I do not always speak and I can see I made a mistake in not speaking in the Plenaries far more often than I did, but I do not like to impose my voice too often on my colleagues who are so patient.

But we really are going to have to concern ourselves a little differently here in this great Organization which has such an important role in the world, so I am afraid I will have to keep my reservation and I regret it, dear colleagues.

CHAIRMAN: I have many speakers on my list, but I would request that you only confine yourselves to this one question of the sentence proposed by India.

W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of): The section on recent developments within the United Nations system which we are going to have to take up at a later stage does, if I am not wrong, contain a sentence which asks or urges for replenishment for IFAD, or something like that. Therefore, I wonder whether we need to have it here, and I wonder whether it would be helpful to both delegations which have shown so much interest in that issue whether we would perhaps consider not putting that in here and just wait until we have seen that proposal, and this perhaps would cover the interest of both delegations.

L. ARIZA HIDALGO (Cuba): Nosotros queremos solamente salir de una duda. No entendemos la expresión que ha hecho la Sra. Embaiadora de los Estados Unidos. Nos dicen en este momento que la reserva era sobre el párrafo completo; yo creía que había hecho una reserva a lo propuesto específicamente por el representante de la India en cuanto al FIDA.

Ouisiera saber si es sobre el párrafo completo o es sobre el FIDA. Unicamente quería hacer esa pregunta.

CHAIRMAN: Will the United States Ambassador clarify.

Mrs M. FENWICK (United States of America): Yes, the question is would we keep a reservation if the Indian sentence were removed, and with some regret but with respect for my colleagues I will say yes. I think the Indian sentence increases the thrust and pressure which I have described at too great length I am afraid, I feel, but if that is deleted, we will not keep to our reservation.

H.J.H. TALEYARKHAN (India): The Ambassador of the United States has referred to an over-funding, inclination of over-funding. May I point out that she is slightly mistaken. For example, IFAD's original target was US$ one thousand million for the Second Replenishment. It got reduced to US$ 800 million as the target. At least that has got to be fulfilled. IFAD has not even got US$ 100 million left for its Programmes for 1985, and they have got a targeted programme and projects of over US$ .400 million for 1985, so unless the Replenishment is forth-coming with immediate effect, it will have an adverse effect on its programme. It is in great and precarious danger, this Organization which has rendered excellent service.

I do hate to defer from Ambassador Fenwick, but there can be no denial of the fact that IFAD has proved by its years of service to developing countries, by the projects which it has promoted, that it has succeeded well, so there should be no apprehension or anxiety in her mind that the funds do not go the proper way.

I would agree that certainly, there should be proper checking, proper monitoring of the progress of the projects, and all I have stated merely is as will be agreed by one and all, that this Replenishment requires to be brought up to the target proposed. It has been pointed out in the report of the draft, that IDA, has received US $ 90.0 instead of US $ 1 200 million, and there is no amount arrived at whatsoever for IFAD, no agreement at all so far in spite of repeated efforts made in Rome as well as in Paris and which will have to be renewed here. This will further strengthen its hands, and in which I am sure the United States would also like to contribute along with other donor countries to try and see that the target is reached. So I see no difficulty at all, and I am sure my colleagues will appreciate my insistence on the retention of the sentence in the interests of developing countries, which I feel the donor countries may also like to support.

A.M. OURESHI (Pakistan): I am just trving to suggest a way out of the woods. With great deference to the proposal of India, I believe what he is trying to say with this additional sentence is already implied in the last sentence: "The Council urged that increased and more dependable support be provided to the multilateral agencies which were placing priority on concessional financing to assist low-income countries in increasing food production".

So if we would request him, and if he does not insist on it, we could proceed on to the next paragraph by adopting the paragraph with the Canadian amendment. I just wanted to suggest that if there is no serious objection to that.

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): En primer lugar queremos referirnos al punto planteado por el colega Grabisch, de la República Federal de Alemania. Entendemos que el Comité de Redacción todavía no se ha ocupado de la parte referente al tema 9 y que sólo lo hará esta tarde. De manera que la decisión que el Comité de Redacción tome más adelante debe estar en relación con lo que se decida aquí.

Nos llama la atención el hecho de que la Delegación que expresa reservas sea la misma que haya hablado justamente en la discusión del tema 4, que haya concluido esa frase expresando el deseo de que todo llegue a buen fin, y que luego anuncie la contribución de 150 millones de dólares y que ahora asuma esa actitud; pero con todo respeto por el Derecho Soberano de cada país, queremos ayudar a la representacìón de este país y podíamos aceptar su reserva en una frase al final del párrafo 15 que dijera como sigue:

"Un país expresó su reserva a este párrafo y confirmó la intención de mantener su actitud negativa sobre el FIDA".

CHAIRMAN: May I call your attention, as Germany said, to paragraph 49 on page 12 of our draft report, which has a very specific recommendation in relation to IFAD. I will read it out, paragraph 49: "In this connection, the Council urged the timely and adequate replenishment of the resources of the international financial institutions, especially IFAD."

So a point has been made, whether one wants to make the same point twice in two different places.

J. TCHICAYA (Congo) : Nous pensons pour notre part, qu'avec l'intervention de l'Ambassadeur des Etats-Unis, nous nous voyons un peu obligés de parler de ce problème. Nous estimons effectivement que l'Ambassadeur des Etats-Unis est très attachée aux petits projets, et nous partageons son point de vue avec elle, nous aussi. Nous pensons effectivement que le développement devra se faire à partir des paysans et que c'est cela que nous visons tous. Mais je crois que même s'il s'agit des petits paysans, justement, il faut un minimum d'investissements et on ne peut pas accroître la production au niveau des petits paysans sans investir. Lorsque nous parlons du FIDA qui est une institution, qui n'a pour but que d'aider ces petits paysans, nous ne comprenons pas l'hostilité quelque peu paradoxale des Etats-Unis à l'égard du FIDA. Nous estimons que ce serait une bonne chose, compte tenu de la politique des Etats-Unis (ou l'Ambassadeur des Etats-Unis) de tout mettre en oeuvre pour renforcer cette institution qui a pour mandat principal d'aider les petits paysans pauvres (les plus pauvres des pauvres). Je pense pour ma part qu'en ce qui concerne ce qui est dit dans le paragraphe nous ne voyons pas d'inconvénient à ce que l'on puisse retirer, au niveau du paragraphe 15, l'adjonction de l'Ambassadeur de l'Inde, mais nous tenons à repréciser cet aspect des choses pour que l'on ne nous rabâche pas tout le temps cet aspect du problème : "qu'en fait on donne suffisamment de moyens et que ce sont ces moyens qui ne sont pas bien utilisés." Je crois que cela n'est pas juste.

W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of): I have very much sympathy with what has been stated so far on this issue. The only question I raise is: do we really want to say the same thing three times in our Final Report, all the sections of which, of course, we have not seen, but you yourself, Mr Chairman, have drawn our attention that in paragraph 49 there is one section, and I was told that in the part which has not been dealt with, also in the United Nations System Recent Developments there is already another issue which talks about the timely and the necessary replenishment of IFAD. If it is the feeling that this had to be said three times in our report, of course then I will not oppose it, but I think that if we talk about efficiency of the Organization's work, I think we must also try to be efficient here in our dealings. I have no problem as to where it is put, whether it is here or whether it is in some other place, but perhaps I think it would be better if we just had it once.

P.S. McLEAN (United Kingdom): I really only want to say that I really share the views of Germany that no one doubts the good intention of India in asking for an amplified reference to the IFAD problem. However, his wording frankly would give just a little problem even to my delegation in its specific reference to targetry.

But the point really in my recollection is that the item under which most discussion took place was under item 9, and as you, Mr Chairman, have said, there is now a reference also in the text before us to IFAD under paragraph 49. I would hope that we would not in reading this Report in this very important section on the State of Food and Agriculture have to find a reservation expressed on anything, and I believe the United States has indicated that if we could leave out the sentence of amplification on IFAD in this paragraph, she would withdraw the reservation, and I believe that would be the right way to proceed, and through you, Mr Chairman, perhaps I could appeal to our colleagues to adopt that course.

H. CARANDANG (Philippines): Having been in the Drafting Committee, I would just like to say that we spent a long time adopting this paragraph and we are repeating the same discussions in many ways that we had in the Drafting Committee, so I fully respect the views of the various delegations in trying to improve this paragraph, but probably, we will end up with the same paragraph as it is written down here, because I think this is a good compromise of the discussion which took place during the debate.

Mrs M. FENWICK (United States of America): I hope that my dear colleague's remarks about my country were more in humor and not serious. If they are serious, if everybody would express their feeling about IFAD as clearly and unmistakably as the United States, I think it is one of the most important programmes that we do, and insofar as its funds and resources do go to the poorest of the poor there is nothing that could be more desirable, and the 150 million US dollars which the United States has pledged if those conditions are accepted, is certainly an evidence that we are not behind. We are far from hostility. I wish that those who had hostility would express their support in the same terms in relation of course to the size of their country. I tried to feel this was laughable but maybe my colleagues are serious, and maybe they really think there is some hostility when you offer 150 million US dollars, and then are troubled by ever-increasing targets and the requirement that those targets be met. It is that that bothers me.

Also I may say we have had repeated appeals that this paragraph be adopted as drafted, and now I find that that is not the sense of the Plenary when other things arise. I would restate this, not entirely with happiness but I would certainly withdraw the reservation if the paragraph remains as it was with those small changes that have been agreed to, and so I state my case for my country.

REAZ RAHMAN (Bangladesh): I think we are sympathetic to the point that has been raised by the representative of India in suggesting this amendment. There is clearly reference to increase of the replenishment in other paragraphs, but as we take it, the point raised by the Indian Ambassador is that the levels should be reached to sustain and maintain the planned programmes already undertaken which would be cut back as a result of the levels not being reached. I think this is the point that attracts us, that a programme was undertaken in the expectation of levels being reached, and those programmes will be seriously affected.

Now I think the point is to some extent covered in the last sentence of paragraph 15 which says "The Council urged that increased and more dependable support be given". I think if at the end of that sentence we added "and in particular to sustain the planned programmes already made by them" or something to that effect. I think that point could be brought in, but I agree with the reference to increased replenishment already taken in another paragraph, and here the point is that simply some of the programmes which had already been made would lapse as a result of the lack of funds.

CHAIRMAN: I would like to repeat what the Bangladesh delegate has suggested before I give the floor to the distinguished Ambassador of India. He has suggested that the last sentence be "The Council urged that increased and more dependable support be provided to the multilateral agencies which were placing priority on concessional financing to. assist low-income countries in increasing food production in order to enable them to implement their already planned programmes."

H.J.H. TALEYARKHAN (India): I reiterate what I said in the beginning, before this renewal of the debate, that the inclusion of the sentence was already agreed upon, and you were about to pass on to the next item when the question of the reservation came up. Secondly, with reference to what the distinguished delegate from Bangladesh suggested, it surprises me because the last sentence is only by implication, as he himself has admitted. I began my observation, when introducing this sentence, by saying that I wanted to be specific, and this is the right place where it could be made specific as all the distinguished Ambassadors from Mexico, Colombia, Congo and Cuba have also asserted, and this would be the place where, if at all, it should come.

In paragraph 49, to which reference has been made, it is only very mildly stated in the words "especially IFAD". Nothing beyond that, just the last two words. Here we want to be quite positive that the contributions which the various countries have made have to reach their targets, otherwise there would be no necessity for having another meeting for reaching the targets of IFAD at all. Since it has come to a deadlock and a stalemate I think my amendment in the paragraph is very necessary. And I see no objection, because in my informal discussions with the Ambassador of the United States she has certainly shown great sympathy with this. She has rightly pointed out that USA has pledged to contribute US$ 150 million, to the IFAD Second Replenishment. So there is no question of any difference of opinion and I would once again appeal that this should not be the point for any resentment. What the Ambassador of Bangladesh has suggested is to water down the whole effect. It does not help to express the feeling which we have for the work which IFAD has been doing.

As one of the Ambassadors mentioned, the concentration should be on small and marginal farmers. I have been involved with them all my life, but for all this you require some funds, not just the fund of goodwill which we have all round expressed. Along with that we must have the fund in hand. The target has not been increased if I may point this out to Ambassador Fenwick. It has been reduced from $1 000 to $ 800 millions. It might even go further down, and it will require voluntary donations and some contributions even from Category III countries in order to be able to reach the target in the next five years. So I see absolutely nothing wrong with the retention of my proposal. I very rarely insist, Mr Chairman, as you know, but here I feel that along with many other delegates from developing and other countries, it just reflects the feelings of one and all including the developed countries, that the amounts which have been fixed upon, even at reduced targets, require to be reached.

CHAIRMAN: We are about to finish our morning session without much progress.

H.J.H. TALEYARKHAN (India): I would not mind at all if the last two words referenced in paragraph 49 were omitted, provided this is retained here: "especially IFAD" - nothing beyond that. So it may be omitted in paragraph 49. That paragraph would then end with "financial institutions".

CHAIRMAN: I think that the distinguished delegate from India feels this sentence proposed is very important and should be retained, which has been supported by several other delegations. The delegate from the United States has repeated her reservation in case the sentence is included. That is the position. The Council supports the Indian Ambassador's additional sentence in the paragraph with a footnote that the United States has expressed its reservations? I think there is no point in going round and round the mulberry bush; we have to come to hard facts.

L. ARIZA HIDALGO (Cuba): Señor Presidente, una aclaración: no estamos discutiendo el párrafo 49, no estaríamos de acuerdo en hacer modificaciones en el artículo 49.

CHAIRMAN: We are only on paragraph 15 now. I think we will adjourn at this level. We have accepted this paragraph and the only question is the additional sentence proposed. We will take it up for consideration immediately when we meet again.

PARAGRAPHS 11 to 29 - not concluded
PARAGRAPHES 11 à 29 - sont en suspens
PARRAFOS 11 a 29 - quedan pendientes

The meeting rose at 12.45 hours
La séance est levée à 12 h 45
Se levanta la sesión a las 12.45 horas

Previous Page Top of Page Next Page