ADOPTION OF REPORT
ADOPTION DU RAPPORT
APROBACION DEL INFORME

Je crois que, comme à l'accoutumée, nous avons appliqué les règles en vigueur au sein de notre Organisation. On a donc accepté le texte qui est le fruit du voeu de la majorité, mais à la demande de la minorité nous avons autorisé cette minorité à s'exprimer en séance plénière. Il appartient à la plénière de pouvoir juger de ses amendements éventuels qui pourraient être apportés à tel ou tel point. C'est cela que je voulais dire. Il appartiendra de toute façon ici, à la plénière de pouvoir juger du bien-fondé de tel ou tel amendement.

CHAIRMAN: We will now proceed with the consideration of the report.

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

Paragraph 1 approved
Le paragraphe 1 est approuvé
El párrafo 1 es aprobado

Paragraph 2 approved
Le paragraphe 2 est approuvé
El párrafo 2 es aprobado

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

Paragraphs 5 to 12 approved
Les paragraphes 5 à 12 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 5 a 12 son aprobados

PARAGRAPHS 13 to 28
PARAGRAPHES 13 à 28
PARRAFOS 13 a 28

R.D. KAUZLARICH (United States of America):A question for the Chairman of the Drafting Committee on this point. It is somewhat unclear since paragraph 16 begins "The Council noted", and paragraph 17 begins "There was a belief". Are we saying that the Council believed, or that some delegations believed?

H.J.H. TALEYARKHAN (India): Only a small addition I would like to propose. Instead of just saying "there was a belief", can you say "there was a strong belief"?

CHAIRMAN: The Chairman of the Drafting Committee has explained that after a good deal of discussion, they arrived at this formulation. Do you want to add anything, Ambassador Tchicaya?

J. TCHICAYA (Président Comité de rédaction): Je crois que nous avons un style habituel dans la rédaction de nos rapports lorsqu'il y a une grande majorité qui s'est exprimée favorablement sur un point de vue et qu'il y a une minorité très faible. Alors nous avons préféré mettre cela au passif. Je crois que c'est la formule que nous adoptons habituellement. On le fait pour ne pas faire croire que c'est tout le Conseil unanimement qui a adopté ce point de vue. Voilà l'explication que je voulais donner à ce sujet.

R.G. PETTITT (United Kingdom): Mr Chairman, in our view the draft of paragraph 20 does not reflect observation made by many countries referring to inappropriate policies in the agricultural field and the pricing field, and we would like to see added in the fourth line in the English text after "feature," the words "inappropriate policies,".

J. TCHICAYA (Président, Comité de rédaction): Je crois que lorsque l'on donne une formule au passif c'est qu'il y a une discussion autour dé la question et je propose à mon ami de l'Inde de pouvoir laisser les choses en l'état. Je crois qu'à la lumière des discussions que nous avons eues précédemment au Comité de rédaction dans les facteurs internes nous notons qu'il y a aussi les aspects politiques. Je ne sais pas vraiment si c'est le Royaumes-Uni qui tient à cet amendement. Nous n'avons pas discuté d'un tel amendement mais si le Conseil veut le considérer nous sommes prêts à examiner cela avec tout le Conseil, mais nous pensons que dans "les facteurs internes" il y avait les aspects politiques. Ils ne sont peut être pas toujours appropriés.

M. MOMBOULI (Congo): Nous pensons effectivement que certainement ce que dit le délégué du Royaume-Uni est peut être fondé mais nous pensons également que nous ici nous sommes en train d'examiner un document de notre Conseil qui a une grande portée qui va être lu par beaucoup de gens et tout au long de nos travaux nous avons fait en sorte que nous ne choquions pas outre mesure les parties en présence. C'est ainsi que, concernant ce point précis, nous avons pensé qu'en mettant "en reconnaissant que les facteurs internes des effets négatifs sur la situation qui prévaut en Afrique" nous avons cru comprendre dans cette formule la responsabilité des politiques internes des états concernés, notamment des états africains qui n'ont pas été, semble-t-il, sans défaillance et nous pensons que la formule utilisée à savoir "reconnaître que les facteurs internes imputables aux politiques de ces pays" reconnaît la préocupation du Royaume Uni et nous souhaitons que le Royaume-Uni nous comprenne dans ce sens et que nous n'ayons pas à ouvrir un débat là dessus.

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Ya el Embajador Tchicaya, distinguido Presidente del Comité de Redacción, quien cumplió una excelente tarea, ha explicado muy bien que en ese Comité de Redacción, donde participamos, al adoptar estos términos consideramos que esa expresión "amplias" ya incluía las referencias que se habían hecho respecto al punto que ha suscitado el distinguido colega del Reino Unido.

Pensamos, además, que agregar la expresión, bastante desapacible, de "políticas inadecuadas" podría contrarrestar con el concepto unánime de la responsabilidad de la seria preocupación con que los gobiernos africanos están afrontando la crisis.

Por todo ello apoyamos al Congo y pedimos al Reino Unido que no insista y proponemos que el párrafo quede tal como está.

M.J. BLAMEY (Australia): I am reluctant to intervene, since I understand that this matter was discussed to some extent in the Drafting Committee. Whether all these points were raised I am not sure. It does strike me that the delegate of the United Kingdom has an important and substantive point. The danger as I see it is that if we use words like "internal factors" there is a possibility that far from shocking anyone the point will simply go unrecognized. Governments familiar with policies are familiar with appropriate policies and inappropriate policies, and it seems to me that if we believe, as I think we do as a Council, that in some cases there are inappropriate policies and that these are the cause of some of the problems that we face in a global sense, then it is important for us to put in words along those lines.

L. ARIZA HIDALGO (Cuba): Nosotros realmente tenemos que agradecer a la representación del Reino Unido el habernos llamado la atención sobre este párrafo porque independientemente de que consideramos que tiene razón la Presidencia del Comité de Redacción de que debe quedar el párrafo como está, sin embargo nos ha llamado la atención una palabra, en la cual no vamos a hacer problema pero sí vamos a expresar nuestro criterio. No vamos a hacer problema porque estamos de acuerdo con nuestro amigo el Presidente del Comité de Redacción, pero en el quinto renglón de la versión española cuando dice después de "adoptar técnicas mejores y la escasa utilización", nos parece que la palabra justa aquí no es "utilización", porque la escasa utilización de insumos no es el problema fundamental; es la escasa disponibilidad de insumos lo que hace que ellos no puedan usarlos. Si hubiéramos constatado los informes que hay durante el año de la situación del comercio y la imposibilidad de adquirir los productos, los problemas fundamentales han sido la "disponibilidad" no la "utilización" porque si hubieran llegado se hubieran utilizado.

Ese es nuestro criterio aunque no vamos a hacer problema para que el Presidente del Comité de Redacción pueda seguir adelante con su avance.

W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of): This delegation feels that the suggestion put forward by the United Kingdom is very pertinent, because under the term "internal factors" one can understand many things. However, if serious problems did arise to change the text here in paragraph 20, my delegation would suggest that this wording be included under paragraph 40, which we have still to come to, and where the different elements of difficulties which African countries had been facing are spelt out.

P. ALLEYNE (Trinidad and Tobago): Quite clearly, the best arrangement would be if the text could be left as it is and we move on. But as we see it there are concerns of varying kinds and we want to make a possible suggestion for consideration. Apparently there is not total disagreement that in some situations policies may be inappropriate, but obviously that wording would create some difficulty. I wonder therefore if in the English text - and we are down to somewhere between the 4th. and the 5th lines - we could not use "inappropriate" but say "pricing and marketing policies in some instances", listing the amount of these under consideration. That is simply for the consideration of the Drafting Committee.

REAZ RAHMAN (Bangladesh): Just to support that we leave the text as it is. In paragraphs 22, 24, 25 and 28 we spell out the type of remedial actions that are needed and that is implicit in the nature of the policies.

A.M. QURESHI (Pakistan): I have a feeling, with great respect to the delegate of the United Kingdom and others, that what the delegate of the United Kingdom is trying to say by the addition of "inappropriate policies" is that the slowness of adopting improved techniques and the low use of inputs are the symptoms of inappropriate policies, even if you do not say that these are the results of inappropriate policies. So perhaps he can happily go along with the text as it is.

R.G. PETTITT (United Kingdom): We have now been told that my suggestion is already there in two different parts. I regret I had not noted the reference to "internal factors" as a coded reference to this and I would not wish to introduce contentious language into this if our views are so similar. So I withdraw my proposal, on the understanding that I may revert to this idea at later stages, where I see some possible commission of this, and I would wish to reintroduce the concept of "appropriate policies" rather than "inappropriate policies" at a particular time. I have in mind paragraph 22.

CHAIRMAN: So shall we leave paragraph 20 as it is? As the delegate of Bangladesh pointed out, reference to pricing and marketing comes in paragraph 22.

R.G. PETTITT (United Kingdom): This follows from my last remark. In the fifth line of paragraph 22 the sentence beginning "Remunerative prices" I think one could put in before then "Appropriate policies". That would meet my previous point.

R. D. KAUZLARICH (United States of America): That has the advantage of putting it in a positive way dealing with the problem that Congo raised, not being a shocking concept but very much a positive concept. I think that is a very nice formulation.

CHAIRMAN: Would the Chairman of the Drafting Committee respond to the suggestion that this fourth sentence reads "Appropriate policies, remunerative prices and the wide availability of basic consumer goods in rural areas were important parts of the overall incentive structure"?

J. TCHICAYA (Président, Comité de rédaction): Je ne pense pas que cela puisse poser de problèmes majeurs au Comité de rédaction. "Des politiques de prix rémunérateurs" ou "des politiques adéquates". On cite des choses ou on parle plutôt des politiques des prix, des politiques adéquates? Des prix rémunérateurs?...

Compte tenu de nos discussions je suis en faveur qu'on dise "des politiques adéquates et des politiques de prix", ou si on veut ajouter "adéquates" on peut l'ajouter, mais je ne suis pas tellement en faveur de la citation "politiques adéquates" parce que les prix rémunérateurs c'est une politique. C'est pour cette raison que l'on pourrait mettre "des politiques de prix adéquates ...". Je ne sais pas ce qu'en pensent les autres membres du Conseil.

W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of): Of course, agricultural policies are composed of various elements to give incentives to production. One is the question of giving remunerative prices or not. Another possibility is to include in such a policy to subsidize inputs or to give special credit to marketing, which is a very important issue. So I think the situation as it is now, at least in our view, does make sense and I hope it will not cause many difficulties. The distinguished Chairman of the Drafting Committee has already said he felt also this should not create difficulties.

CHAIRMAN: If you all agree. The Chairman of the Drafting Committee mentioned that "appropriate policies" involved so many things - rural infrastructure, rural roads, there are many items apart from remunerative prices which are important for helping farmers. Have you any objection to "as appropriate policies, renumerative prices... > to the end of the sentence?

H.M. MBALE (Malawi): I thought perhaps the sentence could read "appropriate policies including". That would take care of the two positions.

CHAIRMAN: Is that all right, Mr Tchicaya?

J. TCHICAYA (Président, Comité de rédaction): J'estime que "les prix rémunérateurs" font partie de la politique agricole. En effet, je crois que c'est mieux présenté comme cela.

CHAIRMAN: The delegate of the United Kingdom suggested "appropriate policies including remunerative prices ..." etc. Is that agreed? Paragraph 22 as amended is therefore approved.

M.J.H. TALEYARKHAN (India): In the first line of paragraph 23 we read, "The Council emphasized the importance of the availability and prices of inputs". We should make it a little more positive by saying, "The Council emphasized the importance of the sufficient availability and fair prices of inputs". That requires to be qualified to make it quite certain that the positive aspect is emphasized. Merely to say, "... the importance of the availability and prices ..." is not sufficient. This would make it more effective.

Then, in the fifth line at the end where it reads, "... to achieve self-reliance in food and food security", the Chairman of the Fertilizer Commission, I recall, had distinctly added that in addition to expressing concern a call should be made for greater efforts in this direction. So something to that effect will require to be added as a sentence after the words "food security" and before "It endorsed".

J. TCHICAYA (Président, Comité de rédaction): Pouvez-vous répéter votre deuxième amendement Monsieur Taleyarkhan?

H.J.H. TALEYARKHAN (India): I will repeat the second amendment. I am proposing at the end of the sentence ending with the word "security" in the fifth line we should add, "A call for additional efforts therefore was made for increasing the growth rate of fertilizer use." As I pointed out earlier, merely the expression of concern would not be sufficient to make sure of what available steps are to be taken.

CHAIRMAN: The next sentence reads, "It endorsed the Commission's call ..." and so on.

J.H. TALEYARKHAN (India): This relates only to greater fertilizer aid. In the second sentence it says, "... present growth rate of fertilizer use ..." I would like to emphasize it to a greater extent. It can be worded as is thought fit.

J. TCHICAYA (President, Comité de rédaction): M. Le Président, nous n'avons pas discuté de cela, mais je pense qu'il n'y aurait pas de problème si l'on adoptait cet amendement.

R.G. PETTITT (United Kingdom): In this paragraph I would like to see reference to the idea of the importance of optional use of inputs and fertilizers. I have no exact formulation, but it could be at the end of the first sentence after "fertilizers" - "as well as their optimal use". Perhaps a farmer might have a better wording.

CHAIRMAN: The first sentence therefore will read, "The Council emphasized the importance of the optimal availability and use and fair prices of inputs, particularly fertilizers". The word "optimal" will take care of both use and availability. Then it goes on as in the draft report. Is that acceptable?

H.J.H. TALEYARKHAN (India): After "security" I suggested, "A call for additional efforts therefore was made to increase the growth rate in the use of fertilizers", in addition to the mere expression of concern. The Chairman of the Drafting Committee has accepted that.

CHAIRMAN: The proposal of the delegate of India goes before the sentence beginning "It endorsed".

A.M. QURESHI (Pakistan): I think that what the delegate of India is saying perhaps is implied in the first sentence, because that says, "The Council emphasized the importance of the optimal availability and fair prices of inputs", and so on. When he says "emphasized the importance of optimal availability", what he is trying to say is implied. However, I have no objection if another section is put in. I believe we can leave it at that.

CHAIRMAN: With the addition of the words "optimal availability" would you like another sentence? The delegate of Pakistan has raised this question.

H.J.H. TALEYARKHAN (India): He has no objection to this sentence.

CHAIRMAN: Paragraph 23 as amended, is approved.

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Señor Presidente: Creo que el Presidente del Comité de Redacción y la Secretaría nos darán razón en el sentido de que en el Comité de Redacción cambiamos el término que aparece en la primera frase del párrafo 27, que dice "embarazosos excedentes". No sé si en los otros idiomas se ha conservado (no he tenido tiempo de controlarlo), pero en español se ha mantenido ese término, que ya habíamos cambiado en el Comité.

J. TCHICAYA (Président, Comité de rédaction): C'est exact, je crois que le thème a été modifié dans la version espagnole. Je pense donc qu'il faudrait adapter la version espagnole à la version française ou anglaise.

CHAIRMAN: We will amend the Spanish version, paragraph 27 is therefore approved.

W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of): My delegation wishes to propose a small amendment in the fourth line of paragraph 28 at the end where we would like to change the words "were needed" into "should continue". The reason is that I cannot think of any developed countries where no policy changes already take place. So the whole sentence should read, "There was a widespread consensus among developed countries that policy changes should continue".

H.J.H. TALEYARKHAN (India) : If the delegate of Germany agrees, we could say, "were needed and should continue". It will fit in.

W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of): I would not like to disagree with my neighbour on my right, with whom I have so much in common. But I wonder if it is really necessary to add that. Perhaps some other members of the Council also have feelings about that.

J. POSIER (France): Simplement quelque mots pour dire que la délégation française estime qu'effecti-vement on pourrait très bien s'en tenir à la proposition de la République fédérale d'Allemagne.

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Señor Presidente: Con todo respeto por nuestros colegas de los países desarrollados, yo creo que, tal como lo dijo el distinguido Embajador de la India, en la forma en que él lo propuso, esa frase contendría los dos aspectos fundamentales y pienso por ello que debe dar satisfacción a los países desarrollados; es decir, estamos pidiendo que cambien sus políticas y a la vez, en la versión de la India, reconoceríamos que ya esos cambios están en marcha y pedimos que se aceleren. Yo creo que eso, pues, puede ser aceptable para todos, como ha propuesto el Embajador de la India.

CHAIRMAN: The suggestion is that the sentence should read, "There was a widespread consensus among developed countries that policy changes were needed and should continue".

R.G. PETTITT (United Kingdom): I certainly prefer the formulation which does not involve the words "were needed". It is implicit. Any other wording, I think, is liable to cause offence gratuitously. Personally I did jump a little when I saw the first sentence about the serious difficulty being the disproportionate amount of agriculture and so on, when I thought of my own country. But I have been persuaded not to object to this sentence. The third one I think certainly should refer only to policy changes continuing.

R. KAUZLARICH (United States of America): We have no problem with the change that the Ambassador of the Federal Republic of Germany has suggested.

CHAIRMAN: Should we then retain "There was a widespread consensus among developed countries that policy changes should continue"?

H.J.H. TALEYARKHAN (India): I have suggested a very plausible compromise, which is supported by the delegate of Colombia. I would appeal to my good friend, the Ambassador of the Federal Republic of Germany, to consider that it improves his proposal. I do not see what objection there could be when the principle of "should continue" is accepted. It also necessarily includes the word "needed". Therefore, what is the objection on the part of our good friends from the developed countries to allow "and should continue" to stand. I am not suggesting that "should continue" should not be there; it may remain. I am suggesting that the word "needed" in the original draft remain and "should continue" be added. I appeal to them to be good enough to accept it.

W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of): As others also feel that our suggestion was not inappropriate, I would like to ask my distinguished neighbour to the right perhaps to consider that this paragraph already is quite strongly expressed. When I read the first sentence in this paragraph I wondered what people might feel when they read it. Taking the whole context of that paragraph, I would very much hope that the proposal which we have put forward should not create further difficulties, and it is hoped that it will be accepted.

L. ARIZA HIDALGO (Cuba): Hemos estado analizando la discusión y consideramos que la distinguida representación de la India al hacer su proposición incluye la intención que ha planteado la representación de Alemania. Por tanto aprobamos la proposición que ha hecho el representante de la India.

A.Y. BUKHARI (Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of) (original language Arabic): As regards the proposal by the Ambassador of the Federal Republic of Germany and the proposal of the Ambassador of India, we agree with both of them. However, we find that the Indian proposal is more appropriate. The proposal submitted by the Ambassador of India is reasonable for one reason: in the previous paragraphs we criticized the weakness of the agricultural policies in developing countries, or in some developing countries. Therefore, this criticism would mean that there are agricultural policies which are not followed, and these policies are imperative as a matter of fact. Therefore, it would be appropriate if this paragraph said that these policies are needed and should be continued, as the Ambassador of India has said. As I said, we do not have any difficulty with either of the proposals. However, we do find that the Indian proposal is much more appropriate and that it would be in line with previous paragraphs.

W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of): I have listened very carefully to all of the arguments put forward. Perhaps it is because English is not my mother tongue that the word "needed" seems to be a rather strong wording from my point of view. Mr Chairman, why do I say that? As far as my country is concerned agricultural adjustment has been taking place strongly since the 1950s. At that time we had about one million more agricultural producers than we now have. There are, of course, certain economic and social reasons why this policy needs very carefully to be pursued. I very much hope that many difficulties would not be created if the sentence were left as I suggested.

CHAIRMAN: The sentence reads "widespread consensus among developed countries". It depends upon what consensus was reached among developed countries about this matter.

A.M. QURESHI (Pakistan): We have great respect for all of the viewpoints expressed. I, like the Ambassador of Saudi Arabia, would agree with both points of view. As a compromise I would

suggest putting it this way so that the viewpoints may be married: "There was a widespread consensus among developed countries that needed policy changes should continue". I think that would make it more positive. When we say "that policy changes were needed and should continue", that perhaps means that the policy changes needed were not taking place. If we say "the needed policy changes should continue", that perhaps would be more appropriate. It depends on the Ambassador of the Federal Republic of Germany.

R.C. SERSALE di CERISANO (Argentina): No habíamos querido intervenir, señor Presidente, porque habíamos aprobado este texto en el Grupo de Redacción. Entendemos que los argumentos de la representación de Alemania no dan idea de lo que sugiere el Embajador de la India, ya que para continuar sus políticas es necesario estar convencidos. De ahí que la palabra "necesario" pensamos que podría existir al principio de la frase: "el amplio consenso entre los países desarrollados en cuanto a la necesidad de cambiar las políticas". Eso podría incluirse en un sentido amplio por la cuestión de la necesidad con el fin de no continuar. Ya está el concepto: todos los países industrializados deben revertir esta cuestión y, repito, creo que con este concepto es suficiente.

Como transacción aceptaríamos lo que sugiere el distinguido representante de Alemania.

P. ALLEYNE (Trinidad and Tobago): I speak only to attempt to put some levelling influence into t situation.

There is no doubt that there is a certain amount of agreement among the developing countries, but I think that we should take a cue from your own words in settling this matter, at least from one point of view. The sentence states "widespread consensus among developed countries". Put that in the report and the other aspect could be dealt with otherwise.

M.J. BLAMEY (Australia): To help with the consensus among developed countries, we have no difficulty with the proposal of the delegate of the Federal Republic of Germany.

M. MOMBOULI (Congo): Pour notre part, nous aurions été satisfaits de voir retenue la proposition de l'Inde qui combine les préoccupations des uns et des autres. Mais, devant les propositions des pays développés, nous pensons qu'il faut trouver un moyen de nous tirer d'affaire, et la proposition faite par le Pakistan est un peu plus souple que celle de l'Inde, qui reste quand même à peu près au juste milieu.

Pour résoudre la question, nous suggérons que les uns et les autres nous nous rapprochions de la proposition du Pakistan, qui serait un bon consensus.

D. HUTTON (Canada): My delegation could go along with the proposal from the Federal Republic of Germany, but perhaps in order to come to some conclusion I would suggest that in the first sentence we add the word "some" before the word "developed", so that it would read "by some developed countries". Then perhaps accept the proposal from Pakistan of "some needed policy changes", or something along that line. It is then restricted to whatever country it is appropriate to.

K. SHIOZAWA (Japan): Japan as one of the developed countries would support the proposal made by the Ambassador of the Federal Republic of Germany.

H.J.H. TALEYARKHAN (India): If my friend finds the word "needed" too strong, though I do not share his view, we can compromise by using the word "necessary" instead of "needed", with the added words "should continue". That will end the blockade in this situation. It would then read "that policy changes were necessary and should continue".

W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of): I regret that the suggestion which I put forward, which concerns developed countries, has encountered so many difficulties. I do not like to disappoint those who feel that my first wording was quite appropriate, but I will make another suggestion. Perhaps we could say "There was a widespread consensus among developed countries that further policy changes should be pursued". I hope that this might be helpful, but I would not like to have any of the other suggestions.

CHAIRMAN: The proposal of the Ambassador of the Federal Republic of Germany is: "There was a widespread consensus among developed countries that further policy changes should be pursued". Since it is a matter of consensus among developed countries, I suggest that they will have to express in what way their consensus exists, and if this is acceptable to other developed countries.

H.J.H. TALEYARKHAN (India): That makes it even weaker than it was, that is, "the policies to be pursued".

CHAIRMAN: It is a consensus among developed countries; it is not binding on developing countries. If the developed countries agree, that is the way in which it has to be. It is a consensus among developed countries and it is up to them to formulate a sentence which represents their consensus.

H.M. MBALE (Malawi): Quite frankly, I am very surprised that words which have a very thin line between them are causing unnecessary problems. If we are talking of policies that were needed, if they were needed, surely they should continue. I do not see the problem with the proposal by the Ambassador of the Federal Republic of Germany; I think there is no difficulty with that. I think the developed countries should agree, as you have said. We are just talking about semantics here.

Paragraphs 13 to 28, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 13 à 28, ainsi amendés, sont approuves
Los párrafos 13 a 28, así enmendados, son aprobados

PARAGRAPHS 29 TO 45, INCLUDING DRAFT RESOLUTION
LES PARAGRAPHES 29 A 45, Y COMPRIS LE PROJET DE RESOLUTION
LOS PARRAFOS 29 A 45, INCLUIDO EL PROYECTO DE RESOLUCION

A.Y. BUKHARI (Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of) (original language Arabic): I would like to raise a query on paragraph 29, if I may. I think there is a mistake in the Arabic text. Has the FAO sounded the alert on the deteriorating food situation since 1973, or since 1976? Which is the right date?

CHAIRMAN: The English text says that it is 1976.

J. TCHICAYA (Président, Comité de rédaction): Je crois qu'il s'agit bien de 1976. C'est ce qui était marqué dans le rapport de la FAO.

CHAIRMAN: Is that acceptable? - Thank you.

R.G. PETTITT (United Kingdom): I said I would come back from time to time with reference to agricultural policy. I would like to see inserted in the second sentence of paragraph 40 after the semi-colon which follows "sector", "agricultural policy factors;", or some other polite language.

CHAIRMAN: The United Kingdom delegate has proposed that we add "agricultural policy factors;" -"The Council felt that the major causes of Africa's food crisis could be identified in lagging agricultural sector; inadequate resources, including external resources; low levels of technology, including the very limited use made of improved seeds and fertilizers; weak and ineffective research and extension; inadequate supplies of essential inputs; lack of facilities for the provision of credit to farmers and marketing of agricultural produce; rapid population growth; high rates of urbanization; changes in urban food habits and transport constraints and other policy factors." -The addition at the end of "and other policy factors".

J. TCHICAYA (Président, Comité de rédaction): Nous n'avons pas eu de problème pour ce paragraphe au niveau du Comité de rédaction, mais si l'on veut ajouter quelque chose il faudrait mettre: "et autres facteurs de politiques agricoles". Il est difficile de citer tous les facteurs de . politique agricole. Il faut donc mettre "et autres facteurs de politiques agricoles", parce que ce qui est dit dans le paragraphe fait déjà partie des politiques agricoles.

CHAIRMAN: Is that acceptable to the United Kingdom delegate, that we add at the end "and other agricultural policy factors"? The United Kingdom delegate agrees - thank you. Paragraph 40 is adopted as amended.

D. HUTTON (Canada): My intervention relates to both paragraphs 42 and 44, but before I begin let me reassure the Council that it is not going to change the substantive element of those two paragraphs. I believe that in reading those two paragraphs the uninformed reader may have some confusion, since they duplicate the same message in a slightly different way. For example, in paragraph 42, it is the proposal from the Programme Committee which is referred to concerning the US$15 million, whereas it is the proposal from the Director-General in paragraph 44, so it could be interpreted as two separate proposals when in fact it is only one.

In order to correct that, I suggest the following re-ordering of paragraph 44: In the first sentence after the words "in dealing with", I would add "the need for emergency and rehabilitation actions", and I would put a fullstop there and delete the rest of that sentence. So to repeat, paragraph 44 would read: "The Council commended the repeated efforts of the Director-General in drawing attention to the Africa food crisis and in dealing with the need for emergency and rehabilitation actions. It also welcomed the cooperation of FAO....".

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

J. TCHICAYA (Président, Comité de redaction): Il faudra peut-être poser la question aux autres membres du Comité de rédaction.

R.C. SERSALE DI CERISANO (Argentina): En realidad no hemos entendido bien porqué dice el representante de Canadá que esto no cambia mucho. Parecería que el Consejo solicita que se transfieran los 15 millones de dolares, ese sería el pequeño cambio. Creemos que no; que esta supresión de que el Consejo incluye su propuesta de transferir los 15 millones de dolares, debe quedar tal como está, porque si lo dejamos en el párrafo 42, es que muchos Miembros apoyan la Recomendación, y como tenemos una Resolución que vamos a discutir, no seríamos coherentes con la transferencia. En todo caso podríamos pasar el párrafo 42 al 43, el 43 al 42, invirtiendo los términos. Así quedaría con un orden más lógico y sería más fácil la confección de esta Resolución.

MAME BALLA SY (Sénégal): La délégation de l'Argentine a essentiellement exprimé la position que j'avais à l'esprit.

Je voudrais peut-être demander une précision., Est-ce-que c'est la dernière phrase que l'on veut supprimer ou un autre membre de phrase, parce que c'est à la dernière phrase seulement qu'on a parlé d'une "satisfaction de la coopération entre la FAO ... et les autres organisations du système".

Si c'est le membre de phrase qui concerne le transfert de 15 millions, je crois que la refonte entre les paragraphes 42 et 44 devrait être expliquée, parce qu'il s'agit d'un avis général au paragraphe 42, alors qu'au paragraphe 44 il s'agit d'une décision. Il faut que le Comité décide, parce qu'il s'agirait d'un changement de fond très important que nous ne pourrions pas accepter.

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Los colegas Sersale, de Argentina y Baila Sy, de Senegal explicaron muy bien la situación. Creemos que estos párrafos deben mantenerse tal como fueron adoptados por el Comité de Redacción.

D. HUTTON (Canada): I regret there has been a misunderstanding about my proposal. I did not change any of the wording in paragraph 42, which says that the budget committee decided and then, as was pointed out, we will decide as well later on in the resolution. But I did change paragraph 44 -the verb in that paragraphs is that the Council "commended" his proposal to transfer. It does not affect the decision in any way - it is just that there could be confusion for some readers, who might assume that there were two proposals.

CHAIRMAN: There is now the suggestion from Argentina that we should consider that paragraph 43 becomes 42 and the present 42 becomes 43 - as has been pointed out, there is a difference. If you agree to this change, the present paragraph 43 will begin "Support was also given by many members...". But paragraph 44 says "The Council" - that is the difference between the two.

On the other hand the Canadian delegate has pointed out that in one case it is the decision made by the Programme Committee and the Finance Committee; in the next paragraph it says "including his proposal". One way may be "including the proposal" - that means that it is the Director-General, the Finance Committee, the Programme Committee and so on, if this is going to create confusion.

DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: If there is a confusion, I think it could be cured in paragraph 44 by saying "including his initiative as approved by the Programme and Finance Committees to ... ". That would make it quite clear that you are endorsing a decision by the Programme and Finance Committees, as the same proposal is in paragraph 43 - and if anybody has any doubt as to whether we are trying to transfer yet a further fifteen million, making thirty in all - I can assure you that that is not the case! Then one could say, in brackets, "(as proposed in paragraph 43 above)", or "(as described in paragraph 43 above)" - the new 43. So you would be quite clear that it is a decision on an initiative taken by the Director-General, which he is being commended for - and it is the same one as is referred to by many members in the previous paragraph.

CHAIRMAN: May I now summarize the proposal. Paragraph 43 becomes 42; paragraph 42 becomes 43; and the present paragraph 44 will read as follows, as suggested by Mr West: "The Council commended the repeated efforts of the Director-General in drawing attention to the Africa food crisis and in dealing with emergency and rehabilitation, including his initiative to transfer US$15 million of savings approved by the Programme and Finance Committees and to refocus ...".

MAME BALLA SY (Senegal): Le délégué du Canada a fait une intervention positive. Je pense que l'on

pourrait dire "a notamment appuyé la décision du Comité financier l'autorisant à transférer 15

millions de dollars et à en réorienter 5, etc.". Je pense qu'il n'y aurait plus de confusion et la décision serait tout à fait claire.

R. KAUZLARICH (United States of America) : I recognize what the delegate of Senegal is saying. However, isn't there further on in the report a discussion of the Council's action concerning the Finance and Programme Committees' Report. I wonder how many times one needs to repeat that. I think a reference back to paragraph 43 would avoid the confusion that I too agree is apparent by having the thing mentioned twice but I think if we start by repeating language that will appear later it will make it even more difficult.

D. BUTTON (Canada): Mr Chairman-, I think the best solution was the one that you proposed, just change the word to "the" instead of "his".

CHAIRMAN: To avoid this confusion, one possibility is "including the proposal to transfer US$15 milllion".

G. BULA HOYOS: (Colombia): Creo que hay que tener un poco de cuidado porque al principio del párrafo 44 se habla de los esfuerzos del Director General y esa propuesta es del Director General.

CHAIRMAN: So I think what we are aiming at is clear. The one way is Mr West's formulation, "including his initiative as approved by the Programme and Finance Committees to transfer", so it is clear that the initiative has come from the Director-General.

R.C. SERSALE di CERISANO (Argentina): Creo que la solución dada por el señor West es la más clara porque se habla de una iniciativa que si bien fue propuesta por el Director General es aprobada por el Comité de Finanzas, y en esta primera frase del párrafo 44 queda clarísimo tal cual sugirió el Doctor West.

H.J.H. TALEYARKHAN (India): We would go along with the suggestion made by Mr West, and that would be the best solution. It is very sound, and clarifies the points and removes the confusion.

CHAIRMAN: If Canada has no objection we will keep it as such.

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Estaba esperando, señor Presidente, que usted, sabiamente, como lo hace siempre, resolviera esta cuestión para plantear algo que sólo se refiera al texto castellano, pero que es importante y por eso lo hacemos.

Se trata de la primera frase del párrafo 42 en el texto español que dice: "Muchos Miembros apoyaron también la recomendación". Como el Presidente Tchikaya puede confirmarlo, esto lo cambiamos en el Comité de Redacción y noto que el texto francés' dice "decisión".

CHAIRMAN: I hope the Spanish text will reflect what is in the French and English versions. The paragraphs 42 and 44 are therefore adopted as amended. The Resolution itself on paragraph 45 is in CL 87/REP/1-Sup.1, The Food Situation in Africa Resolution, the Resolution was submitted by the Delegations of Colombia, Congo, Cuba, Lebanon, Senegal and Sao Tome and Principe. Are there comments on this Resolution?

D. HUTTON (Canada): I would like to discuss paragraph 6 of the Resolution if possible, and I do accept that we are approving the transfer of the US$15 million. I do accept that, Mr Chairman. But the wording of that transfer does cause my delegation some difficulties and I would like to explain why, although I will not propose additional wording except that I would suggest we change the word "endorse" to "approve" in this instance, since I believe that is what the Council is required to do.

The problem I think relates to the issue of the transfer of savings and the explanations which were given to us by the Secretariat on this issue when it was under discussion, and I have had the chance since that presentation to review the Resolution, it is Resolution 27/77 on the establishment of the Special Reserve Account. It is the view of my delegation, Mr Chairman, as it says in that Resolution that the savings on staff costs should be deposited in the Special Reserve Account, and the issue here is one of definitition for the Secretariat -- their interpretation -- and I am sure this is the correct one from their point of view, but it is an auditing question. Staff costs, post adjustments, those kind of things are not taken as staff costs. It would have been the strong preference of my delegation, Mr Chairman, if this decision had been taken, the funds would have been deposited in the Special Reserve Account and then drawn out of that.

I will add in closing that this is a very two-edged sword; that although it is working to the advantage of the Council now because of the exchange movements, the situation could easily occur within the next two years that the reverse would happen, and I say that we will recall and we will remember the decision that this Council takes when that anticipated situation does arise.

W. A. F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of): I have another point, and this concerns the first operative paragraph. I wonder if this should not read "To request... something like ... the whole Organization" instead of "To request the Director-General". I have no strong feelings about it; it is just what I would like to flag.

My second point is in the same first line. We would prefer if it were to be spelt out something like: "to continue assisting the concerned African countries", because African countries are already assisted by the Organization, and this is also of course under the principles of the Harare Declaration.

The third operative paragraph we would perhaps like to see in the first line after the words "in particular", some sort of "potential donor countries" should be included.

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Señor Presidente, hubiera sido muy deseable para conservar el ritmo constructivo de nuestras discusiones que se hubiera esperado la solución de la primera propuesta de Canadá. Sin embargo, ya que se han hecho otras dos propuestas, nuestra Delegación va a referirse a las tres en el orden en que aparecen en el texto del Proyecto de Resolución.

Sobre el punto 1 en la parte dispositiva, quisiéramos decirle al colega Grabisch, de la República Federal de Alemania, que no haga esas demostraciones de cierta excesiva sensibilidad, porque todos sabemos que esta Organización tiene un Jefe ejecutivo que es el guía, el responsable de los programas y de la política, y por eso nos dirigimos a él; y esto lo hacemos con muchísima frecuencia, y no es un caso excepcional; pero sí estamos de acuerdo con nuestro colega Grabisch para complacerlo en parte,

de que se puede decir: "Decide: primero, pedir al Director General que siga intensificando su ayuda a los países africanos", porque como el señor Grabisch lo dijo ya el Director General lo viene haciendo.

Sobre la otra propuesta del colega Grabisch acerca del párrafo 3, creemos que en realidad no agrega nada al término "potenciales" que él propone agregar porque aquellos países donantes que no sean potenciales, que no estén en condiciones de hacerlo, pues no atenderán ese llamado, pero si eso facilita el consenso no tendríamos objeción en que se aceptara.

En relación con el párrafo 6, notamos que algunos colegas siguen alérgicos a la cifra de 15 millones. Un miembro del Consejo, que por cierto es miembro del Comité de Finanzas, reiteró aquí - un poco fuera de orden, diría yo, porque ya no estamos tratando el fondo de la cuestión - algunas opiniones financieras que debió expresar en el Comité de Finanzas.

No entendí la conclusión de ese distinguido colega; creo que propuso simplemente cambiar, al princi pio del párrafo 6, la palabra "suscribir" por "aprobar"; no sé si eso fue lo que propuso; en caso de que eso fuera, habría que notar que, en cuanto a los 5 millones de dólares de la reorientación, ya fue aprobado por el Consejo en su período anterior mediante la Resolución 1/86.

Y en cuanto a la transferencia de 15 millones de dólares, convendría también recordar, y él debe saberlo como miembro del Comité de Finanzas, que según el Reglamento Financiero el Comité de Finanzas puede tomar esa decisión; la ha tomado y no necesita aprobación del Consejo, pero, siempre inclinado al consenso, si ésa es la única propuesta de Canadá que él cree que tiene excesiva importancia, tampoco nos opondríamos.

M. MOMBOULI (Congo): Nous ne voulons pas blâmer qui que ce soit, mais nous pensons que pour des questions de méthodes mieux vaudrait que nous continuions sur la même procédure que celle que nous avons déjà entamée, notamment que nous allions paragraphe par paragraphe ou par série de paragraphes, parce que nous avons écouté quelques délégations seulement qui se sont exprimées, mais sur l'ensemble des différents points,et nous risquons d'avoir à intervenir dans le désordre. Je souhaite donc qu'on revienne au paragraphe par paragraphe ou qu'on regarde les considérants et qu'on voie le dispositif après. Si nous devons intervenir d'une façon éparpillée, on ne pourra plus s'entendre.

CHAIRMAN: May I say that the suggestions received so far are: paragraph 1 "to request the Director-General to continue to assist" or "to continue to intensify assisting", I think Germany proposed "to continue to assist"; paragraph 3 "in particular potential donor countries"; and paragraph 6 to "approve" instead of "endorse".

MAME BALLA SY (Sénégal): Concernant la première proposition dans l'ordre chronologique de notre document je dois dire qu'elle ne pose aucune difficulté pour la délégation de la RFA puisqu'en réalité c'est la même chose que de demander au Directeur général et à l'Organisation puisque quand on demande on va concrètement s'adresser à quelqu'un donc au responsable moral. Donc aucun problème et je pense également qu'on devrait préciser qu'il doit continuer parce qu'il le fait déjà. Donc aucun problème,à part le verbe "continuer", je crois que le reste peut rester sans changement.

Je suis un peu gêne par le verbe chapeau, parce que là nous lisons que le Conseil "décide de demander..." moi,cela me gêne. Ce n'est pas très concret. On peut décider de demander sans jamais le faire. Ce verbe chapeau est vraiment uniquement pratique pour la rédaction; on demande, on exhorte, on invite, mais décider de demander, décider d'exhorter, c'est bien beau, mais on n'est pas tenu de le faire.

Sur le troisième point soulevé par la République fédérale d'Allemagne, je pense que cela ne fait pas de mal de préciser qu'il s'agit des pays donateurs. Puisque l'on réservera une autre précision pour les pays donateurs exceptionnels ou par circonstance.

Pour le paragraphe 6, je crois que l'amendement de la délégation colombienne est acceptable; cela ne gêne pas en effet que l'on dise "approuver". Cela fait que nous devons entériner, en réalité, compte tenu des dispositions du règlement financier, parce que nous ne pouvons pas normalement réformer une décision, en tous cas pas pour maintenant; pour l'avenir peut-être.

Voilà M. le Président ce que je tenais à dire sur ces différentes propositions. Mais je suis toujours gêné par le verbe "décide". J'insiste, cela me gêne particulièrement.

DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: On that last point, you could say "decides", and that would resolve the question. I would like to make a couple of comments and then ask you, Mr Chairman, to allow Mr Shah to speak. The word "potential" bothered me, because it could be interpreted as meaning not the whole international community but only those who have not so far been donors, and I do not think that is what the paragraph says at the moment. It appeals to the whole community, in particular donors, whoever they are. But "in particular potential donors" would mean those who have not donated anything. I know there is a story behind that, but there is a difference. I would like Mr Shah to clear up one question which has thrown doubt on the legality of the Finance Committee's decision, if you will permit him, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRMAN: Not at this stage. I will take it up later.

H. NAKAGAWA (Japan): With regard to paragraph 6 of the draft Resolution my delegation would like to support the amendment proposed by our colleague of Canada. When the discussion took place at the Plenary on agenda item 15.2 my delegation expressed its concern about the transfer of this amount, up to US$15 million, because of the lack of sufficient information, even by the Secretariat. The discussion was suspended by a point of order, which my delegation was not quite happy about. So with these circumstances in mind my delegation prefers the wording by our Canadian colleague. As to the proposal made by the Federal Republic of Germany, my delegation is more than happy to support that.

D. HUTTON (Canada): I have two points to make. Although I appreciate what has just been said by Japan, I did benefit by the intervention from Colombia, and I am persuaded now, and as the procedure should be I would certainly go along with that. As to any confusion which may have arisen from the other part of my statement, I apologise for that. I certainly was not questioning the legality of anything. What I said was that these are questions of definitions and those definitions are correct, but people have different definitions.

CHAIRMAN: For the sake of the subsequent discussion may I summarize where we have reached. Paragraph 1 of the operative part: "To request the Director-General to continue to assist". Paragraph: 3 we retain as it is, because it is the whole international community. Paragraph 6 to retain "endorse" in view of the clarification given that the decision has been made by the Finance. Committee, which is a competent Committee, so we do not have to approve, but only endorse. So paragraph 6 remains as it is.

H.J.H. TALEYARKHAN (India): We agree with paragraph 1 of the Resolution, "To request the Director-General to continue to assist".

In paragraph 3 I would suggest to overcome the impasse, "To appeal to the international community, in particular donor countries, and to potential donors". That would meet a very valid point made by Mr West. I go along with the suggestion that paragraph 6 should be retained as it is; having already been approved it should be endorsed.

M.J. BLAMEY (Australia): I am speaking in support of the suggestion made by the Federal Republic of Germany as regards paragraph 1 of the effective part of the Resolution. The suggestion he made about the words "Director-General" raised some interesting problems to me, and some other issues raised by some other delegations, including the words "resolve" and "request" also raises interesting questions about the relationship between the Council and the Director-General etc.

It strikes me as curious for the Council to request the Director-General. It raises the possibility of the Director-General not agreeing, although that is unlikely, and I suppose the possibility is that "request" is the practice and the folklore of the Organization. It seems to me that the whole first paragraph would be stronger if we picked up Mr West's suggestion and the suggestion of the Federal Republic of Germany and simply said that the Council decided that the Organization should continue to assist concerned African countries. I agree that this is a case where the Organization as a whole is involved and where the Council really is deciding what the Organization should do.

M. MOMBOULI (Congo): Je pense que sur toutes ces questions, notre Président du Comité de rédaction est sûrement en mesure d'expliquer la situation, mais s'il s'abstient pour le moment c'est parce qu'il souhaitait que les délégations puissent avoir la possibilité de discuter entre elles. Cependant, en tant que membre du Comité de rédaction, nous pouvons également apporter quelques explications.

En ce qui concerne le verbe chapeau. Nous en avons discuté au Comité de rédaction, et celui-ci était pour que le verbe "décider" soit supprimé et laisse place à un dispositif qui commençerait par les verbes conjugués au présent. Donc, "décide" serait supprimé et l'on mettrait: "1. demande; 2. exhorte;" et ainsi de suite.

Au niveau du Comité de rédaction, nous avons dû nous départir en demandant au Secrétariat de nous dire ce que nous avions mis dans la résolution de la dernière session du Conseil, c'est-à-dire la Résolution 1/86, et le Secrétariat a constaté que le verbe chapeau était bien: "décide". Donc, devant ce rappel, nous avons été obligés d'accepter que le verbe "décide" reste.

Voilà en ce qui concerne le premier verbe chapeau.

En ce qui concerne le choix entre "demander au Directeur général" ou "demander à l'organisation", voilà notre position: nous pensons, pour notre part, que lorsque nous confions des missions, nous envisageons la possibilité d'en contrôler l'exécution et comme nous savons que dans toute organisation il y a un premier responsable qui doit rendre compte, on doit bien dire: "de demander au Directeur général de continuer..." parce que le jour où nous aurons à demander des comptes, nous saurons à qui nous aurons à les demander; c'est au Directeur général, ce n'est pas à tous les membres que nous demanderons des conseils. Nous pensons donc que les mots "Directeur général" doivent rester.

En ce qui concerne le paragraphe 3, au Comité de rédaction, nous avons discuté de ce problème. D'aucuns ont pensé qu'il fallait garder les mots "communauté internationale", d'autres ont pensé qu'il fallait mettre "les donateurs habituels plus d'autres donateurs éventuels y compris les pays en développement", mais après débats, nous avons dû nous mettre d'accord en acceptant que les mots "communauté internationale" soient retenus pour couvrir l'ensemble des préoccupations de toutes les tendances.

Le Comité de rédaction a donc discuté de la question et c'est là un compromis qui est le résultat de débats qui ont duré pas moins de trois heures.

En ce qui concerne le paragraphe 6, la question qui se posait était de savoir s'il fallait mettre "entériner" ou "approuver".

Nous pensons pour notre part, qu'il doit y avoir une suite dans nos façons d'agir. Quelles sont ces façons d'agir? Jusqu'à présent, nous avons autorisé le Directeur général à opérer des transferts jusqu'à un certain niveau. C'est ce qu'il a fait. Il a demandé que 5 millions de dollars du Programme ordinaire soient affectés en faveur de l'Afrique. Il a également demandé que les 15 millions de dollars économisés sur le budget 1984-85 soient transférés aussi en faveur de l'Afrique. Nous pensons qu'il a agi là dans le cadre de la délégation de pouvoir que nous lui avons faite et nous ne pouvons qu'entériner, puisque ce n'est pas une action extraordinaire. C'est dans le cadre de ses prérogatives habituelles et nous ne pouvons ainsi qu'entériner.

Nous pensons que l'on devrait laisser le mot "entériner" plutôt que "approuver".

CHAIRMAN: Canada has already agreed to the retention of "endorse"; so I would be grateful if you did not take up that paragraph again unless somebody has a new suggestion.

R.D. KAUZLARICH (United States of America): As to the issue of "decides" versus "resolves"

unless I do not understand French all that well the French word for "decides" and the English

ought to be the same and would get over the difficulty that was pointed out by the delegate of Senegal, so Mr West's suggestion would be a good one.

On paragraph 1, I am in one of those in-between moods. We might want to fall back on what is the practice in other United Nations Organizations, for example in UNDP where the Governing Body usually requests the administrator. I am not sure what is the practice in other organizations, ... but I can go either way on that.

I think the point that we need to deal with paragraph 3 in some way is a good one. Again, we might want to look at the possibility of what is standard UN practice in such situations. Quite often there is reference to "all countries in a position to do so" which might help overcome that, although the suggestion made by the delegate of India would be acceptable too.

J. TCHICAYA (Président, Comité de rédaction): Je me suis abstenu de parler jusqu'à présent de ce sujet, parce que j'estime que nous avons mis suffisamment de temps Dour mettre au point cette résolution et je pensais pour ma part qu'elle ne poserait aucun problème en séance plénière.

Je crois que l'on s'accroche sur des petits mots. Prenons l'exemple du paragraphe 8: "de demander au Directeur général de continuer..." En ce qui concerne le Directeur général, à d'autres occasions, nous avons discuté au sein du Comité de cette question et je sais nue le représentant de l'Allemagne fédérale avait déjà souscrit à ce mot "Directeur général". Je suis quelque peu surpris pour l'Australie, parce que sur un autre point, lorsqu'on parlait de demander à la FAO, l'Australie au sein du Comité a dit: on ne peut pas demander à la FAO, car la FAO c'est nous, les pays membres, et nous ne pouvons pas demander à nous-mêmes; il s'agit donc de demander plutôt au Directeur général ou au Secrétariat.

Sur ce point, il n'y a pas de doute, il faut bien que l'on demande à celui qui peut nous rendre compte de la situation. C'est pour cette raison que nous pensons que le mot "Directeur général" est le mot approprié.

Pour "donateurs potentiels" nous n'y voyons aucun inconvénient. Nous n'en avons pas discuté, mais je trouve qu'il n'y a aucun inconvénient.

Au paragraphe 6, on a répondu qu'il s'agit bien d'entériner, parce que la décision a déjà été prise et nous, en tant que Conseil, nous ne faisons qu'entériner.

CHAIRMAN: I have Colombia, Sao Tome and Principe and various other names on my list, but the Chairman of the Drafting Committee has appealed and if you agree to it there should not be so many interventions on whether we retain paragraph 1 accepting the request of the Director-General to continue to assist, and we have added the word "continue". Then paragraph 6 remains as it is. In paragraph 3 one possibility was suggested by the Ambassador of India.

POINT OF ORDER POINT D'ORDRE PUNTO DE ORDEN

A.Y. BUKHARI (Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of): I am sorry to interrupt, especially as the Ambassador of Colombia wants to speak. I apologise to him, with great respect. However, I think we are wasting a lot of time, we are wasting our energy, our brains, our money, discussing this kind of thing. We are here for what? - to assist in two complicated things. I would like to put forward this motion: I am going to endorse your suggestion, let us stop this discussion. Let us take up your suggestion as it is and with great respect to you, Mr Chairman. I appeal to all my friends here not to discuss this matter extensively. I put forward this motion.

M. FRANCISCI di BASCHI(Italie): Oui, je suis d'accord avec la motion d'ordre.

CHAIRMAN: It means, I hope, that everybody has understood that we retain this as it is with only the two changes, to request the Director-General to continue to assist, and in paragraph 3 to appeal to the international community, in particular donor countries including potential donors to continue to give high priority - and the rest remains as it is.

Paragraphs 29 to 45, including draft resolution, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 29 a 45, y compris le projet de résolution, ainsi amendés sont approuvés
Los párrafos 29 a 45, incluido el proyecto de resolución, así enmendados, son aprobados

PARAGRAPHS 46 to 51
PARAGRAPHES 46 à 51
PARRAFOS 46 a 51

L. ARIZA HIDALGO (Cuba): Queremos expresar, señor Presidente, que nos pareció que la solución anterior, expresada por el representante de Arabia Saudita fue muy justa. El parlamentarismo estrecho nos lleva a temas que nos hacen retrasar nuestros trabajos.

En este específico punto se presenta una situación real. Aquí aparece en el Informe las reservas de las delegaciones de Australia, el Canadá y los Estados Unidos de América al Pacto de Seguridad Alimentaria Mundial. Sin embargo, creemos que en el proyecto de Pacto de Seguridad Alimentaria Mundial, que este Consejo ha aprobado enviar para su discusión a la Conferencia, no debe incluirse otra vez esas reservas, porque entendemos que los que se han disociado y que hemos entendido que es su soberana decisión, no deben seguir con su reiteración a este Pacto, después de las discusiones tan profundas en este tema. Queremos expresar esto, porque nosotros seguimos lamentando mucho la actitud que consideramos que va contra la cooperación internacional, y así la calificamos cuando hicimos una reserva a las reservas que ellos hicieron a las once y media de la noche en el Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria Mundial después de participar en el Comité de Redacción y haber flexibilizado durante todo el día en la discusión que hicimos aquí.

Nosotros respetamos y no movimos otra vez el punto de las reservas que era nuestra valorización de esta actitud. Respetamos una decisión, pero sí consideramos que se definió aquí que estas reservas iban al Informe y debía seguir al proyecto.

Solicitamos se elimine del proyecto que se va a discutir y se mantengan las reservas en la forma que está puesto a pie de página, después del párrafo 51.

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Queremos asociarnos plenamente a la declaración que acaba de hacer nuestro distinguido colega y amigo el Embajador Ariza, de Cuba, quien dirigió la única reacción en que estuvimos en condiciones de manifestarnos cuando se nos presentaron unas reservas que nosotros consideramos improcedentes. Luego, siguiendo el buen ejemplo de la democracia suiza, aceptamos retirar nuestras reservas. Más tarde en el Comité de Redacción hubo acuerdo en que esas reservas aparecerían en el texto del Informe, pero no en el texto del Pacto. Esta fue una decisión que tomamos en el Comité de Redacción; en cambio vemos ahora que en el párrafo 50 se dice: "Tres miembros expresaron las reservas". Luego al final de esa página aparecen tres nombres de países, y al final de la primera página del texto del Pacto aparecen las mismas reservas y los tres mismos países.

Pensamos que esto es demasiado. El Consejo tiene 49 miembros y creemos que lo más indicado es que al final del párrafo 50, donde se hace referencia a los tres miembros, y no en el párrafo 51 como aparece, se haga el llamado 1/ que corresponde a la nota a pie de página; pero a partir del párrafo 51 es donde vamos a tomar la decidida voluntad de la gran mayoría de los miembros del Consejo.

Por favor que no vuelvan a aparecer de nuevo esas reservas; es decir, que se supriman las reservas que aparecen en la primera página del texto del Pacto, ya que fue la decisión del Comité de Redacción y es la voluntad de la gran mayoría de los miembros de este Consejo.

J. TCHICAYA (Président, Comité de rédaction): Comme vous le savez, cette question a été controversée aussi bien au niveau de la plénière qu'au niveau du Comité de rédaction. Mais je suis quelque peu surpris de constater que ces réserves figurent également sur le projet de Pacte. Effectivement il était entendu que ces réserves devaient plutôt figurer, comme l'a dit l'Ambassadeur de Colombie, dans le texte du rapport mais non dans le texte du Pacte lui-même. Je crois que c'est cela qui devrait être retenu. Tout au moins c'est ce que nous, Comité de rédaction, proposons.

R.D. KAUZLARICH (United States of America): While l personally did not participate in the Drafting Committee, it was my understanding that this report and the context of the Compact were adopted en bloc. That is the way the document appeared. 1 believe all members of the Council will recall that the United States specifically requested - specifically requested - that the name of the United States of America appear in the text that would be published on the World Food Security Compact, as disassociating itself from the draft text of the World Food Security Compact. I did not see what is surprising about that, unless the Council is saying we have not right to make that request.

M.J. BLAMEY (Australia): As one of the countries involved, although in the discussion on this item we did not make the specific request made by the United States, we now do so. We wish to see our name associated with Canada and the United States, and we wish it to be included in the footnote in the text.

D. HUTTON (Canada): 1 had not realized that this had become an issue, but 1 certainly would agree with my colleagues from Australia and the United States. 1 believe that the reasons for this are twofold. The most important one is that it has been requested; secondly, 1 think that when this document goes before the Conference in November it will be discussed in different ways and the Compact will be a separate document. For the benefit of those at the Conference 1 think the information contained in it is important. 1 do not have particularly strong feelings about the continuation of the footnote on page 11, which is the one associated with paragraph 51. If it is in the text, 1 think once is perfectly adequate, but would insist that it be associated with the Compact itself.

M. MOMBOULl (Congo): Nous ne sommes pas surpris de la position des pays qui viennent de parler. Ce dont nous sommes surpris, c'est de la ventilation qui a été faite de leurs réserves. On met ces réserves au paragraphe 50, on les met au paragraphe 51 et on les met dans le Pacte. D'après les procès-verbaux de nos débats, ces pays, dans leur première intervention, avaient demandé que leurs réserves soient ventilées partout où l'on pouvait, mais après débat, nous avions dit que nous n'acceptions pas que ces réserves figurent dans le texte du Pacte. Nous avons accepté que ces réserves figurent au paragraphe 50.

Au Comité de rédaction nous avons dû encore discuter de cette question pour rappeler, alors qu'ils continuaient à demander que l'on mette ces réserves partout où cela est possible, qu'en séance plénière, après les premières interventions des pays concernés, le Conseil avait accepté d'enregistrer leurs réserves mais dans le corps du rapport et non dans le Pacte.

Pour cette raison nous sommes surpris, non pas de leur position de fond, mais de la façon dont ces réserves ont été ventilées. Pour notre part, nous pensions que nous étions d'accord, aussi bien en plénière qu'au Comité de rédaction, pour que ces réserves soient enregistrées au titre du paragraphe 50 et pas ailleurs. De toute façon, quand ces documents seront lus, lorsqu'on arrivera au paragraphe 50, on verra que pour le Pacte il y a eu les réserves de ces trois pays. Donc ce n'est pas la peine de les afficher partout.

H.M. MBALE (Malawi): As a member of the Drafting Committee 1 would like to endorse what the last speaker has said, including what the Chairman of the Drafting Committee said. Quite frankly, 1 am surprised that paragraph 51 is included in the body of the document. We discussed this fully, and Australia and the United States, who were representing the views of the minority in this matter, did undertake that we would not include this in the body of the document itself. In any case, paragraphs 48 to 50 indicate that this document is voluntary. Therefore, 1 really do not see the need for naming these countries as we have done here. 1 think we should reconsider the whole idea. This is not the intention surely.

R.D. KAUZLARICH (United States of America): Perhaps in order to diffuse at least part of this issue 1 will state that we do not need to see it scattered throughout the document. If it is desired to discard the footnote on page 11, that is no problem.

Again, 1 must recall that we did make a very specific request in Plenary, which is point one. Point 2 is that unless someone can contradict me, the Drafting Committee did indeed adopt this section and the Compact en bloc.

1. DIAZ YUBERO (España): Yo creo que toda esta discusión es inútil y me parece que sería mucho más fácil preguntar a estos países dónde quieren que figure su nombre, y asunto concluido. Si quieren que figure en el Informe, o si quieren que figure en el Pacto, y si no en los dos sitios. Pienso que no tiene ningún sentido esta discusión.

R.G. PETTITT (United Kingdom): I think no-one is suggesting that the footnote is part of the text of the Compact which emerges finally from the Conference. It is a matter of the Conference where reservations, if any, are shown. The proposal, which seems to be an eminently reasonable one, is that the draft sent forward by us in the form of an approval, does have this footnote there. The request was made and it was not contradicted, and I would support the American proposal.

H.J.H. TALEYARKHAK (India) : I recall very well as a member of the Drafting Committee of the last CFA that the same good friends of some of the countries which have spoken were vehemently opposed to the mentioning of the name of any country in the report. I recall that there was quite an argument on that issue. Now the position seems to have been slightly reversed, but even so there can be a compromise by allowing the names to be retained as they desire in the report but not in the Compact. That would solve the problem, I am not suggesting that they should adhere to the same position taken in the CFA when they did not want the name of any country to be mentioned. In any case, they have a right to express their reservation but mentioning their reservation in one place would be enough. I would like to appeal to them to consider that in view of the fact that it is not obligatory and not binding, it is more or less a guideline. We have discussed this previously in the Council and we are again discussing it. Therefore, I would suggest that some way could be found by our good friends to agree. If they insist on the inclusion, it should be mentioned one time in the report itself and certainly not where it is now indicated in paragraph 51.

M.J. BLAMEY (Australia): Although I was not at the Drafting Committee, my understanding was that the text of the Compact as presented to the Drafting Committee did contain the footnote on the first page, and the text of the compact and, as I understand it, some other parts of the report too, which was accepted en bloc. However, we have no difficulty with the deletion of the footnote on page 11.

M.FRANCISCI DI BASCHI (Italie): Je pense que le problème essentiel est de citer ces réserves seulement une fois.

D'autre part, je dois noter que le Pacte mondial de sécurité alimentaire est à l'état de projet. C'est la Conférence qui doit l'approuver. Donc je ne vois pas pourquoi on fait des difficultés sur un document qui n'a encore que le caractère de projet. Je suis totalement indifférent au fait que l'Australie, le Canada et les Etats-Unis préfèrent avoir cette note dans le projet de Pacte ou dans le rapport.

M. MOMBOULI (Congo): Nous sommes désolés d'avoir à reprendre la parole après nos travaux au Comité de rédaction. Nous aurions bien voulu écouter ceux qui n'ont pas été avec nous mais, malheureusement après audition de certaines délégations, nous nous voyons dans l'obligation de le faire pour essayer de remettre les choses en ordre. Nous sommes un peu surpris de l'argument que certaines délégations emploient en disant "Moi, je n'étais pas au Comité de rédaction, c'était mon ami". Mais ils disent quand même "Nous sommes au courant qu'au Comité de rédaction le texte a été adopté en bloc". Cela ne va pas, il faut être un peu sérieux. Si nous sommes cinq dans la délégation d'un pays, lorsque nous sommes représentés au Comité de rédaction, cela suppose que notre pays est représenté. C'est pour cela que nous pensons que ces pays, notamment les Etats-Unis d'Amérique et l'Australie qui ont travaillé avec nous d'arrache-pied au Comité de rédaction,ne peuvent pas se permettre de dire, lorsqu'un de leurs membres parle au Comité de rédaction, je n'étais pas moi au Comité rédaction. Il ne faudrait plus que l'on revienne sur cet argument. Ceci étant, je voudrais dire au Comité de rédaction comme ils l'ont dit effectivement "Nous avons adopté ce texte en bloc en spécifiant bien qu'en ce qui concerne la réserve émise par les trois pays nous la mettrions dans le cours du rapport et non pas dans le Pacte". Nous étions clairs. Ils sont au courant que l'on a adopté le Pacte en bloc. Ceux qui en ont rendu compte ont sûrement ajouté cette mention parce que nous l'avons faite pendant nos travaux.

J. POSIER (France): Je dois dire que je commence à éprouver quelques vives inquiétudes quant à l'issue de cette session parce qu'on se demande quand on va la terminer. En ce qui concerne le point dont nous débattons, je crois qu'une proposition, qui à la délégation française pour le moins paraît constructive, c'est celle qu'a faite le représentant du Royaume-Uni et qui a été reprise un peu dans le même sens par le représentant de l'Italie. Ne pourrait-on pas trouver un consensus sur la base de cette proposition?

R.D. KAUZLARICH (United States of America): To take up the comment of the delegate of Congo, my point in formulating my response as I did was to be quite clear that I personally was not there. That was the only point I was trying to make.

Secondly, I do not wish to take up the valuable time of this Council by reading again precisely what Ambassador Fenwick said on this point during the Plenary discussion, but I will read the last sentence of her statement : "We request that our expression of disassociation be shown in the FAO Council report and that it also appear in the published Compact itself".

CHAIRMAN: The three countries concerned have suggested that they have no objection to deletion of the footnote under item 51: "The Council approved the World Food Security Compact as set out below and recommended it to the Conference for adoption". But they insist that it should appear in the Compact.

L. ARIZA HIDALGO (Cuba): Hemos oído la discusión sobre nuestra proposición. Queremos expresar que repetimos que tuvimos una actitud constructiva, que el Embajador Bula Hoyos lo había recordado; queremos recordarle aquí a este Consejo y a algunos miembros de las delegaciones que no asistieron al Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria que a las once y media de la noche del día final del Comité la delegación de Estados Unidos de Norteamérica, que no le gusta que se la mente pero tenemos que mentarla, y si quiere pedir el punto de orden yo le doy el tiempo y después continuaré, a esa hora quedo totalmente aislada porque la contrarreserva que nosotros hicimos fue en función de considerar que había sido una actitud negativa, una actitud negativa que fue la misma que se adopto ahora en la discusión de este Consejo, y ahora nosotros hicimos la misma observación porque en este Consejo la representación de Estados Unidos desde el primer momento expresó su negativa y su deseo de desasociarse del Pacto; perfecto, tiene toda la razón, tiene toda la soberanía para hacer eso, pero en el Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria no; en el Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria participó todo el tiempo en el Comité de Redacción tratando de cambiar los términos del Pacto. Regresamos a la discusión del Informe y a las once y media de la noche había hecho seis intervenciones tratando de cambiar los términos del Pacto; todo su esfuerzo por cambiar los términos del Pacto fue por no aceptar la palabra "moral", no sé qué temor le tiene a la "moral". En estos momentos, cuando va a cerrarse el debate la representación de Estados Unidos, después de estar dos días en esas funciones, siendo miembro del Comité de Redacción inclusive, plantea que se reserva totalmente. En aquel momento consideramos que era una actitud negativa.

CHAIRMAN: We cannot have the Drafting Committee now.

R.D. KAUZLARICH (United States of America): Can we discuss the issue at hand, rather than the previous meeting?.

CHAIRMAN: The issue at hand is the deletion of the reference to the delegations of Australia, Canada and the United States from two different places. The suggestion is that it can be deleted in paragraph 51 but retained in the World Food Security Compact; alternatively, that it be deleted in the World Food Security Compact and retained in paragraph 51. These are the two alternatives.

L. ARIZA HIDALGO (Cuba): Señor Presidente, permítame continuar. Para nosotros la historia tiene valor, por lo tanto nosotros sí nos atenemos a la historia y eso fue historia, que podrán ahora con todos sus poderes eliminarlo de las Actas, pero no podrán borrarlo de la historia de que se pasaron un día entero tratando de eliminar eso, y esa eliminación la valoramos como negativa.

R.D. KAUZLARICH (United States of America): That is not what we are discussing now. We are dis cussing the issues as you pose them. We have made very clear what happened at that meeting in our statement. We were doing so to try to speed the work of this Council. Again, I did not repeat the statement but I think we should stick with the issue on hand. We cannot go back - or I could go back to some meeting held five years ago and show that it is relevant.

M. ARIZA HIDALGO (Cuba): Nosotros queremos terminar diciendo lo siguiente: No aceptamos que se utilice el Informe de un Embajador aquí porque entonces habría que utilizar el Informe de todos los Embajadores, que tenemos el mismo derecho. No aceptamos a nadie por encima de nadie y en ese concepto habría que poner lo que nosotros expresamos en nuestra intervención y ponerlo con nombres y apellidos. Nosotros expresamos que consideramos que su actitud es negativa ante la cooperación internacional; esa fue la reserva, si no se acepta eliminar del pacto la reserva y dejarlo solamente en el Informe, Cuba entonces solicita a motu propio que se incluya en el Informe la valoración que Cuba da de esa actitud como una reserva, y soberanamente pide que se ponga con nombres y apellidos; Cuba no tiene miedo, lo valora como una actitud negativa ante la cooperación internacional. Esa es su última palabra. En esos términos habrá que incluir nuestro informe aquí en este foro.

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

J. TCHICAYA (President, Comité de redaction): Je n'ai pas de commentaires à faire, je suis les discussions. Je crois qu'il revient aux membres de notre Conseil de trancher cette question qui désormais en ce point du débat dépasse le Comité de rédaction.

W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of): I did not intend to intervene on this issue, but I do feel that our report needs to reflect what has taken place. It is for those countries who could not go along with the World Food Security Compact to make clear how they wish their views to be reflected. I have great sympathy with what has been said by other delegations, who of course also have a right to put any reservations on any texts, which are before us.

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Queremos decir en primer lugar que el colega y amigo Embajador Ariza Hidalgo, de Cuba, estaba refiriéndose a la reunion del Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria Mundial que ha producido este Informe, que es el documento básico del debate. De manera que estaba perfectamente en su derecho.

Segundo: nosotros también compartimos con el colega de Cuba un principio que es defendido inflexiblemente por los representantes de Colombia en todos los foros: Todos los países somos;iguales.

El hecho de que se nos cite en las Actas la delegación de un país que es muy importante, y muy respetable, no puede condicionar la decisión de un órgano como éste, integrado por 49 Estados Miembros todos igualmente soberanos.

El Comité de Redacción, ya lo confirmó nuestro Presidente, tomó la decisión de que la reserva de esos países apareciera en el texto del Informe pero no en el texto del Pacto, ese es un hecho, señor Presidente.

Sin embargo, como ya lo hicimos al principio cuando apoyamos a Cuba, podríamos aceptar que se incluyera solamente en la primera parte, o sea en relación con el llamado al final del párrafo 50, y aceptamos esto no obstante que, como lo ha dicho el distinguido Embajador Taleyarkhan de la India, dos de esos tres países parece que proceden con doble moral porque fueron los mismos que en el CPA se opusieron a que el nombre de mi país figurara en un párrafo que era inocente y de carácter positivo.

SUHARYO HUSEN (Indonesia): I do not wish to enter into this discussion, but my delegation suggests that, as it is now almost 12.30, we move on to the next paragraph and continue this discussion later or alternatively that we adjourn the meeting now, because we feel that outside of the meeting will be the best place to reach a solution or a compromise.

D. HUTTON (Canada): I think the question before us is a very simple one. It is a procedural question: it is a question of whether, in the work of this Council, governments have the right to place reservations on any part of the document or the text within this document. There is nobody in this room who disagrees with that. It seems to me eminently logical, coming out of that, that they should have the right to put that reservation where they think it fit to do so. I think that is the issue, and that is the issue we are discussing. If any one is challenging that, I would find them on extremely weak ground. The issues raised as to names of delegates, I think took place in a totally different context, and is not relevant to this debate.

R.D. KAUZLARICH (United States of America): I would like to support the suggestion by the delegate of Cuba - if he does want to include his own footnote somewhere in the body of page 11, I think that is quite all right. We are not insisting, by any stretch of the imagination, that we somehow have a right that is not available to other countries - so again, to try to keep to the basic issues, let us get that clear now - I am quite prepared, if he wants that there, to go along with it.

L. ARIZA HIDALGO (Cuba): Yo no contaba con su aprobación, señor Presidente, no cuento, no necesito la aprobación de la delegación de Estados Unidos para yo incluir un párrafo aquí en la FAO. Primero - por favor, señora respete, yo la respeto a usted - yo quería expresar, que iba en función de lo expresado por el delegado de Canadá, que tiene toda la razón, en el nombre de mi país pasarle a la Secretaría la valoración que doy a esa reserva y que se incluya en el Informe; yo no quiero que

vaya como tarjeta de presentación al Proyecto. El Proyecto lo discutiremos después, pero que vaya en el Informe porque, repito, al Proyecto le fortalece el que se le pongan esos términos. Nosotros vamos a hacer una contrarreserva en las mismas condiciones que lo hicimos cuando el Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria Mundial, que es una historia viva y que existe aunque quiera negarse la historia.

J. GLISTRUP (Denmark): I did not want to participate in this discussion, but I do believe that the longer we allow it to go on, the longer it will delay the Compact before us. So may I move a motion? It has long been clear to me that the governments who wish to have reservations did not insist on having them in paragraph 51, in the context of the World Food Security Compact; in my book this is a sovereign right. So may I propose that we approve the total text of paragraph 51 as it stands, with the only amendment that the footnote on page 11 is removed and is maintained on the next page.

M.J. BLAMEY (Australia): Just to say, Mr Chairman, that I agree with the delegate of the United States and the delegate of Cuba, and we seem to have found a way out of this problem. It seems to me perfectly proper for a country delegate to make a statement and to seek to have that statement inserted in a report, particularly on a matter which is so fundamental as this is.

CHAIRMAN: Since the Ambassador of Cuba has indicated he will formulate a sentence, shall we keep this pending at the moment?

Paragraphs 46-51 not concluded
Les paragraphes 46-51 sont en ""suspens
Los párrafos 46-51 quedan pendientes

Paragraphs 52 to 53
Paragraphes 52 à 53
Párrafos 52 a 53

CHAIRMAN: Shall we approve paragraphs 52 and 53, Application for Membership in the Organization? Thank you very much.

Paragraphs 52 and 53 approved
Les paragraphes 52 et 53 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 52 y 53 son aprobados

Draft Report of Plenary, Part I not concluded
Projet de rapport de la plénière, partie I est en suspens
Proyecto de informe de la Plenaria, Parte I queda pendiente

The meeting rose at 12.30 hours
La séance est levée à 12 h 30
Se levanta la sesión a las 12.30 horas