Previous Page Table of Contents


CHAIRMAN: I call the afternoon session to order. The Ambassador of Cuba is not yet here, so we will go on to CL 87/REP/2, Report of the Tenth Session of the Committee on World Food Security.



W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of): It is the feeling of my delegation that the conclusion in paragraph 1 is not in line with some of the wording which we find later on in paragraphs 9 and 14 and in some of the other paragraphs. Therefore, taking this into account, in this section views of members should be expressed which have been dealt with in the CFS report and repeated here.

It is the view of my delegation that this part could read, "The Council expressed" and so on, "and generally endorsed its conclusions and recommendations". If this view is not supported by other delegations, an alternative could be, "and endorsed its conclusions and recommendations as approved in the report". This would then take account of the views which are in that report. I think the report of the CFS contains some views, for example, about the eventual increase of the IEFR target or the paragraph 14 de-linking between the International Wheat Agreement, and the Food Aid Convention. We have to bring these two things in line, our report with that of CFS.

CHAIRMAN: You have heard the suggestion of the Federal Republic of Germany - "The Council expressed its appreciation for the Report of the Tenth Session of the Committee on World Food Security ... and endorsed the conclusions and recommendations as contained in that report".

H. CARANDANG (Philippines): I find paragraph 1 factual because the matters referred to in the paragraph mentioned by the previous delegation are not conclusions or recommendations. One can well say that this was one of the things discussed but this was not a conclusion or a firm recommendation of the Committee. We are talking about this in respect of the IEFR and there is no firm recommendation in this regard, neither was there any firm conclusion in this regard. We say here we endorse the conclusions, but this was not a conclusion. I hope that meets the requirement of the Federal Republic of Germany.

CHAIRMAN: May I recommend to Mr Grabisch that the paragraph only says what it says. By adding the words "once again as contained in the report" is really saying it all once again. The paragraph says, "endorsed its conclusions and recommendations" which really means only the once in the report. So if you do not insist we will go ahead.

W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of): Having heard the explanation of the delegate of the Philippines, and having made my point - and the others also feel it would be covered and no misunderstanding could stem therefrom - I have no problem in going along with the text as it stands.

J.D. AITKEN (United Kingdom): We think it is rather important that the Council document presents a balanced view of the considerations that the Committee went through and therefore we suggest that in picking up only the comments in paragraph 30 of the CFS report, CL 87/10, the Council's Draft Report omits an important qualification in paragraph 32 of the CFS report to which my delegation, amongst others, attaches particular importance. This is the potential danger of structural food aid. I would like to see this covered in the Council report. We have all listened to many delegates from countries with food deficit problems who welcome food aid, but who also stress the need to see it is in the context of increasing production, and not producing the wrong sort of dependency.

Therefore, I suggest the addition of a new sentence in paragraph 6 as follows:

"It noted that some members had drawn the Committee's attention to the potential dangers of structural food aid, and that the Committee had stressed the need for higher priority to rural development."

Council will recognize that this is very much the wording used in paragraph 32 of CL 87/10.

R.D. KAUZLARICH (United States of America): I would like to support the addition proposed by the delegate of the United Kingdom.

J. TCHICAYA (President, Comité de rédaction): Je n'ai pas bien compris ce que vous proposez, mais ce dont je suis certain c'est que ce qui figure à ce paragraphe 6 est ce que nous avons discuté et par conséquent nous, Comité de rédaction, retenons que l'on doit accepter ce qui figure à ce paragraphe 6.

L'ajout fait par le Royaume-Uni est un ajout sur lequel nous n'avons pas décidé quoi que ce soit. Il appartient donc au Conseil d'examiner cet amendement et de voir si on peut l'ajouter à la fin de ce paragraphe.

Je voudrais avoir l'avis des membres du Conseil, dans la mesure où cela n'a pas été décidé au niveau de notre Comité, et je n'ose donc pas me prononcer à la place des membres du Conseil.

H. CARADANG (Philippines): I know the words being proposed by the delegation of the United Kingdom are verbatim in the report of the Committee on World Food Security. the only thing I do not remember is whether attention was called to this in the debate on this matter. If it was, it could be added to the report.

R.C. SERSALE' DI CERISANO (Argentina): No tenemos nada en particular contra este agregado, pero por lo menos parece que cuando se dijo esa cuestión en el Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria Mundial se dijo en un contexto que no era exactamente el mismo al del párrafo 6 que estamos analizando., En todo caso podríamos poner todo el párrafo 32 como nuevo, pero preferiríamos que el párrafo 6 quede como está porque es un llamado a los aportes en ayuda alimentaria.

Hay una cuestión que nos damos cuenta ahora. Se dice: una ayuda alimentaria estructural, al menos en español. Preferiríamos la palabra "institucional"; pero no tenemos ningún problema en que se acepte. El párrafo 6 desearíamos dejarlo como está.

CHAIRMAN: I tend to agree with the delegate of Argentina. Some of the sentence does not fit in exactly with what is immediately following so it could be a separate enclave as the delegate of Argentina suggests.

R.D. KAUZLARICH (United States of America): This is an example of the danger of lifting words out of context in a document, as was done with the paragraph as it stands. Obviously this was quite important for some delegations, but we now have a selective rendition put into this context and changed a little and it comes out a bit differently as a result. The point that the delegate of the United Kingdom was making was that if we are to have essentially an observation word-for-word out of one document we should put the whole thing in, otherwise we should come up with a different formulation.

CHAIRMAN: Let us not spend too much time on drafting since the emphasis on rural development, the need for higher priority on rural development, seems to be something on which everybody is in agreement, so let us leave it there as it was in the original reporto So paragraph 6 as amended is approved.

R.D. KAUZLARICH (United States of America): In the English version I have found one of those rare occasions when there is a typographical error in a Secretariat documento If you look at the last word on page 3 it ought to be corrected.

CHAIRMAN: "Achene" is a botanical word, it is the fruit of a plant. Paragraph 9, with the correction is approved.

R.D. KAUZLARICH (United States of America;: Paragraph 12 is a more substantial question. I tried to review my notes and the excellent note that the Secretariat made available, and I have not been able to identify where in the discussion tne issue of the Cereal Financing Facility came up. Pernaps it was there, but if the need for liberalization was stressed, I think that would be something that would have to be stressed by several delegations rather than being just a blanket endorsement by the Council.

J. TCHICAYA (Président, Comité de rédaction): Nous n!avons pas eu de problème à adopter ce paragraphe 12. Par conséquent, je propose qu'il soit adopté en l'état.

CHAIRMAN: Since the United States is also a member of the Drafting Committee, would you leave it as it is?

R.Do KAUZLARICH (United States of America): The United States will have to take a reservation on this paragraph for the reasons that we cited when this issue was discussed. We believe that this subject is inappropriate for the FAO Council to consider and, therefore, we must reserve on paragraph 15.

J. TCHICAYA (Président, Comité de rédaction): Lorsque j'ai présenté cette question ce matin, j'ai clairement indiqué que tout le Comité de rédaction n'était pas d'accord sur cet aspect de la question, mais que nous avions également autorisé les Etats-Unis à intervenir au cours de la pléniére pour faire prévaloir leur point de vue. C'est ce que j'ai dit ce matin et cela reste.

Maintenant, il vous appartient à vous de décider si oui ou non on doit faire ce que les Etats-Unis proposent.

L. ARIZA HIDALGO (Cuba): Otra reserva, señor Presidente, nosotros queremos preguntar cuáles son las razones de este tema. Aquí no se trata de ningún tema específico, se está recogiendo en un informe del Consejo lo expresado por más de nueve países que consideraron qua el embargo comercial contra Nicaragua era una limitación a la seguridad alimentaria. En función de eso, soberanamente nueve países han expresado eso y se recoge en el párrafo. Esto no es un tema político, es un tema económico ya que lo que llevan los barcos no son problemas políticos, superficiales, lo que llevan los barcos es comida. Es un problema económico utilizado como arma política, y eso es distinto y creemos que este párrafo está más suavizado que lo que se expresó en esta Sala referente a la cuestión numero 2 del SELA. Creo que es un párrafo bastante de compromiso. Aquí se dice: "Que algunos Miembros manifestaron su preocupación". Ese embargo está impuesto por razones políticas y creo que la forma en que se expresó la representante de Estados Unidos garantiza que es un problema político, ya que no hay otra razón para impedir que lleguen estos productos.

M. MOMBOULI (Congo): Nous sommes en train de nous poser la question de savoir où se situe la difficulté.

La première phrase commence par: "Certains membres ...".

La deuxième phrase commence par: "Certains autres ...".

Je ne sais pas exactement ce qu'on veut que nous fassions. Nous nous souvenons qu'en séance plénière la question avait été évoquée et effectivement il n'y avait pas eu consensus. Les appréciations de la question ont été divergentes. Il me semble que le paragraphe 15 reprend bien cette divergence dans la mesure où il est dit: un groupe de pays a dit ceci, un autre groupe a dit autre chose. Je ne vois pas ce qu'on peut faire de mieux - je crois comprendre que la délégation qui demande que l'on fasse la réserve est comprise dans les "certains autres" - à moins que l'on ne veuille remplacer "certains autres" par le nombre exact des pays qui font cette réserve, mais il faudrait faire alors également une liste des pays qui se sont déclarés préoccupés. Est-ce que nous sommes prêts à faire deux listes pour ce paragraphe dont l'une comprendrait trente délégations? Il faut que l'on se comprenne.

CHAIRMAN: I would like to remind the Council members that this report to the Council derives its authority from the verbatim proceedings of the Council. It has to be a faithful record of what happened in the Council.

J.R. LOPEZ PORTILLO (México): El máximo órgano de la FAO ha consagrado un principio: el de no usar los alimentos como instrumento de presión política. A ese principio nueve países hemos hecho referencia y subrayado una situación que agrava, de manera quizás incontrolada, la circunstancia de la inseguridad alimentaria en la region Centroamericana, particularmente contra Nicaragua.

Esas delegaciones hicimos expresión de ese principio y México, entre otras, de la necesidad de resolver esos problemas en el diálogo, en el respeto y con el proposito de la paz. Ahora una delegación se opone a un párrafo negociado sin ver quizás que al oponerse mediante reserva entra en contradicción consigo misma y con el contenido de su reserva porque este párrafo dice en su última oración: "Otros Miembros lamentaron la introducción de factores políticos en los debates técnicos del Consejo". Si la razón de la reserva es precisamente subrayar lo que ya se dice en el párrafo, lo contradice y tenemos dos posibilidades: una, eliminar la última oración de este párrafo y aceptar la reserva de esa delegación; o, dos, que se conforme de acuerdo a lo pactado en el Comité de Redacción al texto que este párrafo describe y que debemos entender a todos debe satisfacer, porque lo único que hace es reproducir el debate.

Por tanto, señor Presidente, la delegación de México insiste en que este párrafo, negociado con todo cuidado, y que es una respuesta a un principio, sea respetado por todas las delegaciones.

R.D. KAUZLARICH (United States of America): It was precisely to avoid this sort of debate that I proposed that we place a reservation on this paragraph. It is the subject matter, Mr Chairman, the issue. It is not a word, it is not a phrase, it is the issue. We simply do not believe that this issue belongs in this hall. That is why I have taken the step that I have taken in an attempt to avoid this debate.

W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of): Mr Chairman, I take the floor on this matter reluctantly. We had hoped that there would not be too many difficulties for delegations with the wish of one delegation to put its reserve on paragraph 15. We had hoped that we would not go into this subject, particularly with regard to the latter part of the first sentence where a Resolution is being quoted. Unfortunately, in that case my delegation would also have to put a reserve because 19 members did put a reserve on that Resolution when it was adopted by the General Assembly. We very much hope that the wish of one delegation will be taken into consideration and that we can continue with the adoption of the report.

A.Y. BUKHARI (Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of): I now hesitate to put forward my opinion after hearing the comments of the Federal Republic of Germany and the United States. In fact, 19 members out of 156 is not enough. I was going to suggest the deletion from this paragraph of "for political reasons" in the first sentence. I would hope that this would please everybody, including the United States and that they would remove their reservation.

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): En primer lugar, queremos confirmar la adhesión del Gobierno de Colombia a los principios que fueron enunciados por nuestro colega de México en el sentido de que no aceptamos que los alimentos se usen como arma de presión política.

Seguramente fue ese principio el que llevo a la gran mayoría de los países de América Latina y el Caribe a adoptar la decisión del Sistema Económico Latino Ameiicano, cuyos términos esenciales presentamos a este Consejo. Lo hicimos con alto sentido de responsabilidad y seguimos empeñados en no prolongar este debate ni intensificar sus características.

La reciente propuesta de nuestro colega y amigo el Embajador Bukhari, de Arabia Saudita, nos ha estimulado a presentar un texto que ojalá pueda lograr el acuerdo del Consejo, texto que presentaremos bajo la sola responsabilidad de la Delegación de Colombia, un poco en contra de mi propia voluntad y tampoco muy seguro de que interprete el sentimiento de los otros compañeros de la región. Sin embargo, estamos tratando de evitar reservas y de que avancemos en nuestro trabajo.

En primer lugar podríamos adoptar la propuesta del distinguido colega el Embajador de Arabia Saudita y suprimir las cuatro palabras "impuesto por razones políticas". Luego al final de la primera fase del párrafo 15 se pondría una coma donde dice "Naciones Unidas", y se agregaría "tal como fue adoptada". Esa expresión se adoptó en el Consejo Mundial de la Alimentación en la ultima reunión en París y significa garantía para aquellos países que no suscribieron esa Resolución.

Y luego la última frase debería modificar obviamente al eliminar las razones políticas y diría de la siguiente manera: "otros miembros lamentaron la introducción de este asunto en los debates del Consejo".

Hemos hecho, señor Presidente, sinceramente un máximo esfuerzo que en cierta medida contraría nuestra condición política que es muy definida, pero queremos contribuir a que un debate como éste no se prolongue y se logre un acuerdo.

CHAIRMAN: I hope that members are clear on what is now under discussion and what the Ambassador of Saudi Arabia has proposed. If you agree with the Ambassador of Saudi Arabia and the Ambassador of Colombia, the paragraph would read as follows: "Some members expressed their concern at the fact that the trade embargo against Nicaragua affected the food security of that country, and in this connection they stressed the concepts embodied in Resolution 39/210 of the General Assembly of the United Nations", and also of the one adopted at the last meeting of the World Food Council. "Some other members regretted the introduction of this matter into the discussions of the Council." I may not however have understood the translation correctly - perhaps you would repeat what you said about the World Food Council.

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Señor Presidente, usted ha transcrito casi textualmente mi texto, pe-o fue mi culpa porque después de la propuesta hice una explicación que tal vez no fue oportuna en ese momento. Se trata, después de "Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas" poner una coma y agregar las palabras "tal como fue adoptada". Esto es lo único que proponemos, y dije que esa fórmula fue adoptada en París en el Consejo Mundial y tal vez eso fue lo que le confundió a usted, Dero fue mío el error. Obviamente, se pondrá solamente "tal como fue adoptada".

CHAIRMAN: May I have the views of the United States on this matter please.

R.D. KAUZLARICH (United States of America): I appreciate the efforts which some delegations have made to try to change the language here, but, as I indicated earlier, it was not a question of language but a question of issue. I too do not want to prolong the debate - I too do not wish to heat up the debate; I must therefore return to my original proposition which was that the United States would take a reservation on this particular paragraph.

J.R. LOPEZ PORTILLO (Mexico): La delegación de Mexico aprecia en todo lo que vale la propuesta de enmienda de la delegación de Arabia Saudita y de Colombia porque consideramos que así se resolvía un problema que tenía una delegación para aceptar este párrafo, ya de por sí equilibrado, ya de por sí sensato. Pero vemos que tampoco estos esfuerzos le permiten a esa delegación aceptar el párrafo, aunque sigue incurriendo en una contradicción de principio. Pero, en fin, si. la delegación correspondiente desea insistir en la reserva tendremos que eliminar la última oración porque de otra manera lo que dije es contradictorio con la oración última y en nuestro entender termina el texto "tal como fue acordado" o sin "tal como fue acordado" y poner la reserva de la delegación de Estados Unidos.

Entonces, suplicamos, señor Presidente,someta usted a consideración del Consejo el que se deje este párrafo pero sin la última oración porque ya se está haciendo una reserva sobre lo que dice la última oración.

CHAIRMAN: You have heard the counter proposal of Mexico, that the paragraph ends with "the United Nations has adopted", and the reservation of the United States in the last sentence is then deleted.

R.C. SERSALE DI CERISANO (Argentina): Lamentamos tener que intervenir en este tema ya que lo hicimos repetidas veces y en la reunión del Consejo Mundial de Alimentación de París se produjo un desgaste muy grande.

Nosotros, ya lo hemos dicho al tratar ese tema durante el Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria Mundial, deplorábamos este tipo de hechos y dábamos apoyo a este párrafo de Nicaragua o a cualquier otro donde se destacaba esta cuestión. En relación a la propuesta de México consideramos que es la mejor manera de salir de esta situación en que nos encontramos y entonces diríamos que la frase terminará en "tal como fue adoptada", de manera que, entonces, así se salvaría a los países que votaron en contra de la Resolución 39/210 en la Asamblea General.

Para no repetir aquí discusiones que ya tuvimos en el Consejo Mundial de la Alimentación queremos recordar que aunque hayan votado en contra de la Resolución, ésta es válida, esa Resolución fue aprobada por más de dos tercios de los Países Miembros en la Asamblea General durante el último período de sesiones. Por tanto, consideramos el argumento por qué votaron en contra, se oponen, eso no es ni siquiera jurídicamente válido desde el punto de vista del Derecho Público Internacional.

Además del significado en sí de la Resolución es por lo que nosotros creemos que la mejor manera de salir adelante es terminar la frase "tal como fue adoptada", sacar la frase que dice "Otros miembros" y quienes quieran puedan hacer la reserva que así lo entiendan, eso corre por cuenta de ellos.

M. FRANCISCI di BASCHI (Italie): Mon pays est un de ceux qui n'ont pas approuvé la résolution 39/210. C'est pour cette raison que nous nous sommes réservés à l'occasion de la session du Conseil mondial de l'alimentation à Paris. Toutefois, je pense que l'Italie pourrait accepter les amendements présentés ensemble finalement par le délégué de la Colombie. Mais naturellement nous ne sommes pas prêts du tout à accepter qu'on biffe la dernière phrase parce que pour nous elle va essentiellement dans le sens où moi-même, lorsque je dirigeais les discussions du Conseil sur ce point de l'Ordre du jour, j'ai insisté pour que ce thème soit ignoré, traité de la façon la plus douce, la plus suave possible.

La position de certains pays, dont l'Italie,est reflétée dans le rapport et cette réflexion est contenue dans la phrase finale du par. 15. Certains autres pays ont regretté l'introduction de ce thème dans les discussions techniques du Conseil. Finalement, je remercie même la délégation colombienne pour sa proposition que je suis prêt à accepter à la condition que la dernière phrase ne soit pas biffée.

LE DIRECTEUR GENERAL: J'hésite à intervenir dans cette affaire qui est très délicate. Je crois que chaque pays ici présent a le droit de faire des réserves. On ne peut pas empêcher un pays de faire des réserves, mais dans le cas actuel la réserve est contradictoire,comme l'a dit l'Ambassadeur du Mexique,parce qu'elle porte sur les deux parties du paragraphe. Je crois que la réserve concerne essentiellement la première partie du paragraphe. Je crois que la réserve concerne aussi la seconde partie.

Je demande aux délégués, parce que je dois partir et dire quelques mots, c'est dans mon intérêt, qu'on en termine avec ce texte. La réserve des Etats-Unis, pour certains et pour moi aussi, comporte une ambiguïté. Pour les Etats-Unis, s'ils sont satisfaits ainsi, qu'ils le fassent.

J. TCHICAYA (Président, Comité de rédaction): En introduisant cette quest ion,nous avons perdu beaucoup de temps pour aboutir au fait qu'il fallait laisser les Etats-Unis agir en plénière comme ils l'entendaient. Par conséquent, nous pensons pouvoir accepter leurs réserves mais je dois avouer que ces réserves sont quelque peu entachées par le fait qu'on garde la dernière phrase du paragraphe, parce que je pense que les réserves des Etats-Unis portent essentiellement sur la première phrase et je ne pense pas qu'elles puissent porter sur la seconde puisque ceux-là qui ont voté en faveur de la résolution des Etats-Unis font partie de leurs amis. Je crois qu'on ne peut pas laisser la phrase

en l'état et accepter ensuite les réserves, ce serait contradictoire. La logique voudrait qu ' on biffe la dernière phrase parce qu'elle a été rédigée dans un sens de compromis que tout le monde pourrait accepter, les Etats-Unis et ceux qui se sont opposés, à l'Assemblée générale, à cette résolution. Mais si les Etats-Unis maintiennent leurs réserves, je crois que logiquement on devrait biffer la dernière phrase et je signale qu'en fait au CMA on a adopté un paragraphe similaire, même peut-être plus fort que celui-ci.

Enfin, je crois que tous ces éléments ont été portés à l'attention des membres du Comité pour les amener à décider.

CHAIRMAN: May I just point out that the last sentence begins "Some other members...". It is more than one: if it was one member then the question arises. Some of the others have said they do not agree to it, so it is in the plural here - it is not one country. We must remember that it says that it requires the concurrence of all of them, not just one. Can we adopt the Director-General's suggestion that we just retain the paragraph as it is, with the reservation of the United States?

L. ARIZA HIDALGO (Cuba): Por mi parte podemos aceptar el párrafo tal como está. No quiero seguir discutiendo. Creo que podíamos intervenir después de que se pongan de acuerdo ellos, que son los que están en contradicción. Nosotros no vamos a entrar en si hay reservas o no hay reservas. Para nosotros el párrafo, tal como está, es totalmente correcto.

CHAIRMAN: Would you like to maintain the reservation, United States?

R.D. KAUZLARICH (United States of America): Mr Chairman, just to repeat now, for the third time, so that we can end the discussion on the state of my mind, whether logical or otherwise. My opposition, sir, is not to the words. I think I said that two times previously and I will say it again. Our opposition is not to the words, but to the concept, and whether these words were introduced in a spirit of compromise or not, the last sentence I leave to others to decide. I was under the impression that the Report was to be an accurate reflection of the discussion.

DIRECTOR-GENERAL: If you could kindly give us the text of the reservation; what is the wording exactly?

R.D. KAUZLARICH (United States of America): I assume we are talking about a footnote.


CHAIRMAN: What the Director-General is asking is in what language would you like the reservation to be expressed in the report.

R.D. KAUZLARICH (United States of America): "The delegation of the United States expressed its reservation on this paragraph because it represented the introduction of an unappropriate issue into the proceedings of the FAO Council".

CHAIRMAN: Well you have heard the reservation expressed by the United States. "The delegation of the United States of America takes a reservation on this paragraph - that is paragraph 15 -because it represents the introduction of an inappropriate issue in the proceedings of the FAO Council".

J. POSIER (France): Merci Monsieur le Président, je m'excuse de revenir au paragraphe 15, mais nous ne savons pas quel texte a été adopté. Est-ce le texte tel que prévu dans le projet de rapport au paragraphe 15, ou est-ce le texte, compte tenu de amendements, des modifications qui ont été proposées par M. l'Ambassadeur de l'Arabie Saoudite et par M. l'Ambassadeur Bula Hoyos? En effet il y a eu deux propositions auxquelles je rends hommage, qui ont été faites dans un esprit constructif et dans un esprit de compromis et il serait dommage qu'il n'en soit pas tenu compte.

C'est la question que je pose: en est-il tenu compte, ou est-ce que nous adoptons le paragraphe en l'état avec, en plus, la réserve des Etats-Unis?

CHAIRMAN: The paragraph is intact because the suggestions of the Ambassadors of Saudi Arabia and Colombia were to find a method by which the United States could withdraw its reservation. Since the US delegate has clearly stated it has nothing to do with the basic issue therefore the paragraph as drafted by the Drafting Committee stands with the reservation expressed by the delegate from the United States of America. This is my understanding.

J. POSIER (France): Sur ce point, en ce qui concerne la délégation française,elle aurait souhaité ne pas intervenir dans ce débat, mais je réitère le propos que je viens de tenir. En ce qui nous concerne - je pense que nous ne devons pas être les seuls - nous souhaiterions qu'il soit tenu compte des propositions d'amendements énoncées par le représentant de l'Arabie Saoudite et par M. Bula Hoyos, à savoir: supprimer le terme "décider", pour des raisons politiques et ensuite, ajouter après: "de l'Assemblée générale des Nations Unies": "telle qu'elle a été adoptée". Je ne vois pas qui pourrait s'opposer à cet amendement par la Colombie, par M. Bula Hoyos.

L. ARIZA HIDALGO (Cuba): Yo comprendo realmente a la distinguida representación de Francia, que inteligentemente trata de salvar una situación, pero que no se logró salvar y es lo que nosotros apuntamos. Si se ponen de acuerdo los miembros que lamentaron la introducción de la parte política, nosotros lo aceptamos, pero si no se ponen de acuerdo, hay que aceptar totalmente las reservas soberanas que Estados Unidos ha hecho sobre el párrafo completo. No podemos aceptar una cosa u otra y pararnos en si Francia lo acepta aparte de los Estados Unidos. Eso sería una variante que podría interesar.

M. MOMBOULI (Congo): Nous regrettons d'avoir à reprendre la parole sur cette question car, comme l'a dit notre Président du Comité de rédaction, nous avons dû passer beaucoup de temps là-dessus. Nous avions pensé qu'il s'agissait d'un problème rédactionnel. On nous a donné la certitude qu'en fait, c'est une position de principe sur laquelle il n'est pas possible de négocier. C'est pour cela que nous pensons qu'il ne faut pas, comme dit souvent notre ami Bula Hoyos, recourir à cette politique du "salami" que l'on veut couper et recouper, en demandant que l'on prenne soit le quart soit le tiers.

Je crois que les Etats-Unis se sont exprimés de façon claire et, par conséquent, ne cherchons pas, puisque nous ne pouvons pas arriver à un compromis, à modifier. Je crois qu'il faut accepter le texte proposé par le Secrétariat, encore qu'il soit déséquilibré, parce qu'après discussion, je pense que ce texte aurait dû être modifié ainsi: "plusieurs Membres se sont déclarés préoccupés", la seconde phrase pouvant rester en l'état: "certains autres Membres ...". Ce serait plus juste. Pour me résumer, je pense qu'il faudrait mettre: "Plusieurs Membres" au début de la phrase, garder le texte en l'état en ce qui concerne la deuxième phrase et accepter la position de principe des Etats-Unis qui se traduirait par une note en bas de page comme quoi, par principe, les Etats-Unis n'ont pas accepté le principe retenu dans ce paragraphe 15.

J. POSIER (France): Pour ne pas éterniser les débats je voudrais simplement dire que nous comprenons les différents points de vue en présence et que finalement nous n'avons pas d'objections majeures à ce que l'on maintienne le texte du paragraphe 15. Simplement, je pensais qu'il aurait été possible de retenir les deux excellentes suggestions faites par l'Arabie Saoudite et par la Colombie. Si ces suggestions ne recueillent pas un agrément, nous considérons la chose comme étant réglée.

CHAIRMAN: Would this be agreeable to everyone, that we leave the paragraph as it is, with the reservation of the United States.

R. SALLERY (Canada): I also wanted to express appreciation to the Ambassadors of Saudi Arabia and Colombia for their important and constructive suggestions for the rest of us on this issue. We were prepared to accept the Colombian proposal, in fact we had the intention ourselves of adding the two words "as adopted" because we were one of the 19 who on Resolution 39/210 had reserved.

We could not agree with the deletion of the last sentence as someone has proposed, and that said, even though we have excellent relationships with Nicaragua, our concern is with the introduction of political factors. When my good friend, Ambassador Bukhari of Saudi Arabia says 19 out of 156 is not enough, the Director-General is right, one is enough. If one country feels strongly enough then that country is entitled to put in its reservation, and I do not think we should have an abnormal concern with a consensus.

I would like to see if there are other members who would be at least willing to leave in the words that have been suggested by Colombia, and I think Ambassador Posier of France is very correct in pursuing that for the rest of us.

J.D. AITKEN (United Kingdom): I too echo the welcome that we feel we can give to the formulation that was proposed by Saudi Arabia and Colombia. Like other countries we wish to see the second sentence in the paragraph retained and we welcome the adroitness in which the Saudi Arabian delegation and the Colombian delegation sought to obtain a suitable compromise.

M. FRANCISCI di BASCHI (Italie): Nous avons adopté la même position que la France et le Canada et même maintenant celle du Royaume-Uni depuis que je viens de l'écouter.

Je pense que les modifications suggérées par l' Arabie Saoudite et la Colombie sont excellentes et que l'on pourrait approuver ce texte avec ces modifications.

Je tiens surtout à la modification après les mots "Nations Unies": "telle qu'elle a été adoptée". Je tiens au moins à cette modification.

O.R. da SILVA NEVES (Brazil): I share the view of the representative of France in that the suggestion made by Saudi Arabia which is supported and expanded by Colombia, made a good deal of sense, and I would support this first intervention of the French delegate. I am prepared as well to support his second intervention when he said he would be prepared not to press if that would not solve anything, but I would really think that he was quite right in his first intervention. In fact I think that the Colombian suggestion has improved the paragraph, a paragraph that, each time we discuss it, appears to have less meaning. In fact I am not even sure about the exact meaning of the last sentence in paragraph 15. If I am not mistaken and as far as I can recollect, during the discussions here it was pointed out, and the Chairman at that time, the Italian Ambassador, rightly pointed out to us that he felt that it was not desirable for the introduction of political elements into the discussions unless we would consider the matter in a very discreet manner, and I think that that was the way discussions were held at that time.

I may be mistaken, but I cannot really recollect some members regretting the introduction of these so-called political factors into the technical discussions of the Council. As far as I can recollect, that was a mention made by the Chairman at that time.

J.R. LOPEZ PORTILLO (México): Señor Presidente: este asunto ya estaba resuelto una vez que se determinó que, a pesar de los buenos oficios de las delegaciones de Arabia Saudita y Colombia, la delegación de Estados Unidos mantenía sus reservas a pesar de las contradicciones de principio y lo que ello implicaba. En consecuencia, usted ya había puesto a consideración de ese Consejo el párrafo tal como está expresado aquí en el texto, con las reservas de los Estados Unidos.

La delegación de México, y pensamos que con nosotros otras que hablaron también respecto de esto, no estamos dispuestos ya a negociar lo que nosotros dijimos y que se expone aquí a nombre nuestro o a título nuestro. Se dice aquí que algunos miembros manifestaron por qué las delegaciones que no hablaron quieren a lo mejor un texto que fue propuesto como un término de transacción por parte de las delegaciones de Arabia Saudita y Colombia. Nosotros consideramos que el texto ya como está es suficiente y ha sido reducido a su mínima expresión. Nosotros hablamos de muchas otras cosas, señor Presidente. Solicitamos, por tanto, que vuelva a pedir a este Consejo que acepte ya este párrafo que después de largas horas de discusión se llevó al Comité de Redacción con las reservas de los Estados Unidos; que pasemos a otro punto y permitamos que el Director General nos dirija algunas palabras.

W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of): My delegation wishes first to thank the Director-General for his intervention, because he has always shown great interest that we in our Organization concentrate on our proper and great work which we have to do. Having said that, we could go along with the paragraph as it stands, of course leaving every delegation to make its reservations. But we do feel that the proposal made by Colombia, namely to insert after "United Nations" the words "as adopted", was a good proposal and it could not meet with great opposition, because this is the normal procedure of the United Nations. But we do not like to create any problems.

LE DIRECTEUR GENERAL: Je dois prendre l'avion à cinq heures. Mon intervention va peut-être aider certains pays à ne pas insister pour empêcher les Etats Membres d'exprimer leur point de vue sous forme de réserve.

Je vais intervenir maintenant auprès des autres pays. J'estime qu'il n'est pas logique qu'un groupe de pays puisse obliger d'autres pays à s'exprimer de la façon qu'ils le souhaitent.

Je me demande si L'Arabie Saoudite et la Colombie maintiennent leur proposition de changer le début du paragraphe 15. Ils avaient émis cette suggestion dans l'idée de convaincre les Etats-Unis de ne pas insister sur leur réserve. Maintenant les Etats-Unis ont émis leur réserve et il faut être juste. Il faut laisser certains pays membres exprimer ce qu'ils veulent... On a peut-être donné plus de place à cette affaire que certains auraient souhaité le faire... d'autres en sont peut-être contents mais je crois que le texte est très mesuré maintenant et qu'il a même été renforcé. Les Etats-Unis ont exprimé leur point de vue et les mots qu'ils ont employés vont être inclus. C'est le droit de chaque Etat de faire des réserves. Je présume que l'Arabie Saoudite et la Colombie voudront retirer leurs amendements qu'ils avaient proposés seulement en vue de trouver un compromis. Et maintenant, si vous le permettez, comme je pense que vous allez tomber d'accord sur ce paragraphe 15, je voudrais dire quelques mots avant de vous quitter. Monsieur le Président, permettez-moi de dire quelques mots à la fin, ou presque, de ce Conseil. J'aurais aimé être avec vous jusqu'à la clôture de cette session. Malheureusement, je dois partir, dans quelques instants, pour le Mexique où je participerai, avec le Président de la République, à l'inauguration du Congrès Forestier Mondial. D'ailleurs plusieurs d'entre vous vont aussi partir et quitter Rome ce soir ou demain.

J'ai assisté à vos délibérations autant que mes autres obligations me l'ont permis, car je dois quand même continuer à diriger cette organisation, pendant que le Conseil délibère. De plus, j'ai rencontré individuellement un grand nombre d'entre vous, qui ont souhaité me voir dans mon bureau. J'ai eu le plaisir de les rencontrer, de les écouter et d'essayer de répondre à leurs désirs.

Chacun a pu librement exprimer ici son point de vue dans la tolérance et le respect mutuels comme il convient à ce type de rencontre. Pourtant, la tache n'était pas facile. Vous aviez à traiter de sujets importants et délicats. Mais vous avez su préparer la voie d'une Conférence, je l'espère, fructueuse, que des chefs d'Etat prestigieux honoreront de leur présence à l'occasion du 40ème anniversaire de la FAO.

Permettez-moi de citer quelques-uns des principaux points que vous avez traités. Tout d'abord, le projet de Pacte mondial de sécurité alimentaire. La sécurité alimentaire doit être notre obsession. La Conférence alimentaire mondiale en 1974, et l'Assemblée Générale qui a suivi, ont confié la responsabilité de ce sujet à la FAO et au seul comité qui s'en occupe, le Comité de la sécurité alimentaire.

Depuis quelques années, cette notion a énormément progressé dans la conscience collective. Le Manifeste des Prix Nobel s'y est référé. Plusieurs Parlements nationaux en ont débattu. Des mouvements d'opinion s'en sont saisi.

Je suis content de constater que les travaux de la FAO ont largement contribué à cette prise de conscience. Et le temps est certainement venu de donner forme à ce concept de sécurité alimentaire, de couler dans un texte simple, mais solennel, les principes de base sur lesquels toutes les bonnes volontés peuvent se rassembler.

C'est l'objet de ce Pacte mondial de sécurité alimentaire, déclaration de portée morale et de valeur universelle. Tranchant sur le cynisme ambiant, il est l'expression éthique d'une aspiration élémentaire: le droit de se nourrir.

Pour parodier une réplique célèbre, je dirais que la FAO n'a pas de régiments, mais qu'elle a des

principes. L'activité humaine, sans référence morale, a trop vite tendance à dégénérer en égoïsme.

Ne sous-estimons donc pas la portée de ce texte qui est, avant tout, un acte de foi dans un avenir meilleur.

Un autre texte important dont vous avez délibéré est le Code de conduite sur la distribution et l'utilisation des pesticides.

L'utilisation des intrants est la clef d'une haute productivité agricole. Les pesticides ont, dès lors, un rôle important à jouer. Il importe d'assurer que la production, les pratiques commerciales, l'utilisation de ces pesticides se fassent dans les meilleures conditions. Les dérèglements que l'on connaît parfois aujourd'hui ne peuvent se perpétuer. Le drame de Bhophal nous rappelle qu'il y a des précautions à prendre. Les écologistes ont raison d'être vigilants. Ce Code sera donc une protection pour tous, pour les producteurs que le marché ne sera pas faussé, pour les utilisateurs, surtout dans les pays en voie de développement, que leur sécurité sera sauvegardée.

C'est pour cela que j'ai pris l'initiative de présenter ce Code. Ce Code répond à un besoin du moment. La FAO a fait oeuvre de pionnier en l'occurrence et nous pouvons tous nous en féliciter.

D'ailleurs, le Pacte mondial de sécurité alimentaire répond aussi à un besoin du moment. L'actualité mondiale demandait que la FAO puisse formuler un code de principes sur la sécurité alimentaire. Après dix ans que ce Comité de la sécurité alimentaire existe, nous sommes allés avec notre temps en vous proposant ce document. Je suis content que votre Conseil l'ait approuvé, et j'espère que la Conférence le ratifiera.

Monsieur le Président, je voudrais remercier les pays membres de l'organisation pour leur appui à ma proposition d'utiliser jusqu'à 15 millions de dollars d'économies au financement de projets de relance agricole en Afrique. Je suis persuadé que les pays africains concernés apprécient ce geste. L'Afrique, en tout cas, va rester au centre de nos préoccupations. Pour ma part, je vais saisir deux occasions toutes proches pour plaider encore en sa faveur. Je me réfère au Sommet de l'OUA qui va avoir lieu à Addis-Abeba à la mi-juillet et à l'ECOSOC qui consacrera la dernière semaine de sa session à ce continent.

Par ailleurs, j'ai noté avec appréciation les remarques positives du Conseil concernant la mise en oeuvre des décisions de l'Equipe spéciale Nations Unies/FAO sur le PAM. Le Directeur exécutif et moi-même estimons que cette mise en oeuvre progresse bien. Nous pouvons donc légitimement nous attendre à l'appui de tous les Etats Membres, sans exception.

Monsieur le Président, un dernier mot enfin concernant le budget. J'ai déjà souligné dans d'autres interventions les justifications techniques, économiques et sur le plan de l'assistance qui militent en faveur des propositions soumises à votre considération.

Je rappellerai seulement ici dans quelles perspectives budgétaires il convient de les considérer.

Avec un budget pratiquement en croissance zéro en termes réels, le biennium 1984/85 a coûté aux Etats Membres, par rapport à 1982/83 quelque 40 millions de dollars de plus. Voilà ce qu'a coûté le budget croissance zéro 1984/85.

En 1986/87, avec une croissance nette de programme de 1,4 pour cent (même pas 1,5), mais surtout de 3,8 pour cent pour ce qui concerne les programmes techniques et économiques, le budget 1986/87, paradoxalement, coûtera cependant moins cher en dollars pour les Etats Membres que le budget 1984/85.

A l'adresse des pays tenants de la croissance zéro, et il y en a, je voudrais dire que ceci n'avait peut-être pas été clairement perçu dans vos capitales au moment où vos instructions ont été préparées. Le budget que je propose est en croissance budgétaire zéro, croissance contribution zéro. Il devrait donc vous satisfaire, car je n'ai jamais entendu personne se faire l'avocat d'une croissance zéro de programme et j'espère que ce ne sera pas le cas.

Je suis persuadé qu'à votre retour, après les éclaircissements que je viens de donner, il sera plus facile à vos gouvernements de se joindre au consensus qui, je l'espère, sera total et entier à la Conférence.

C'est dans la perspective d'un moindre déboursement pour un programme en croissance que mes propositions doivent être considérées. J'ai confiance qu'en dernière analyse, elles recueilleront l'adhésion de la Conférence tout entière, par un consensus que j'appelle de mes voeux.

Monsieur le Président, distingués Délégués et Observateurs, le temps pour moi est venu de vous laisser. Je remercie toutes les délégations pour leur participation active à nos travaux. A ceux qui viennent des capitales, je souhaite un retour sans encombre et vous donne rendez-vous à tous et à toutes en novembre prochain.


CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. We wish you a very pleasant journey to Mexico. We will now continue our discussion. Have we agreed that paragraph 15 remains as it is with the reservation put in by the delegation of the United States?

R. SALLERY (Canada): I am not certain whether the Colombian and the Saudi Arabian amendments have been withdrawn or not, as suggested by the Director-General. As I indicated in my first intervention, we also were about to make that one simple addition of "as adopted" following "United Nations". It is quite a simple, straight forward procedure followed in United Nations bodies. So if the Colombian proposal is withdrawn, I am proposing for the consideration of Council we add those two simple words.

J. GLISTRUP (Denmark): I did not participate in the debate because I thought we could have found a solution to this. We, for one, and I believe many other delegations, would like to keep political issues out of this. What we are embarking on here is to make a report of what took place in the Council. Indeed, I was very grateful to the delegations of Saudi Arabia and Colombia for their proposals. I believe these are now withdrawn because of the United States reservations, so I also suggest that the words "as adopted" after "United Nations" should remain in the text, which would be only normal practice.

J. R, LOPEZ PORTILLO (México): Por última vez, señor Presidente, volvemos a reiterar que nosotros entendíamos y entendemos las propuestas de Arabia Saudita y Colombia, que fueron de buena fe y de transacción y solamente para evitar que una delegación estableciera sus reservas; sin embargo, le pedimos a aquella delegación que está incluida dentro de la segunda parte de este párrafo que habla de otros Miembros, que respeten lo que algunos Miembros dijeron, porque no vamos a hacer más consideraciones y modificaciones sobre lo que ellos dijeron.

Sobre la segunda parte del párrafo solicito que respeten algunas delegaciones, recogidas en la primera parte del párrafo y que no insistan más en modificar este párrafo y que se acepte tal cual. En última instancia, si no les parece bien, que expongan sus reservas y pasemos a otro punto.

M. FRANCISCI di BASCHI (Italie): Je viens d'écouter le représentant du Mexique. Je crois que si on se limite à demander simplement que l'on ajoute "as adopted" ou "telle qu'elle a été adoptée", cela ne change pas du tout le sens de la première ou de la deuxième partie du paragraphe 15. Donc, je pense que le meilleur système pour sortir de cette discussion serait d'adopter ce paragraphe tel qu'il nous est proposé dans le texte du Comité de rédaction, en ajoutant simplement: "telle qu'elle a été adoptée". Ensuite, nous pourrions continuer nos débats.

R. C. SERSALE di CERISANO (Argentina): Si a usted le parece, señor Presidente, haríamos la propuesta

como creemos que podría ser aceptada. En el párrafo 15 terminaríamos diciendo: "la Resolución 39/210

de la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas, tal como fue adoptada". Allí terminaría la frase y

en ese párrafo constaría la reserva de los Estados Unidos.

Creemos que esa es la mejor solución ya que es sobre lo que hemos estado hablando en estos últimos veinte o treinta minutos sin ponernos de acuerdo.

La frase podría quedar, diciendo: "Resolución 39/210 tal como fue adoptada", y se eliminaría la última frase que es "otros Miembros", porque ésos son los que hacen reservas, y hasta ahora tenemos uno solo.

L. ARIZA HIDALGO (Cuba): Me parece que con la intervención que ha hecho la distinguida representación de Dinamarca y la que ha aclarado la Argentina, podemos terminar el párrafo respetando los criterios, y si no hemos podido lograr que la delegación, la única que tiene reservas, lo retire, dejamos el párrafo tal como se ha expresado por la representación de Dinamarca, como fue adoptado, punto, y el párrafo final con la reserva de un miembro.

R. SALLERY (Canada): I think we are very close. There are two separate issues here. First, when we had "as adopted", that accounted for the 19 or so reservations which appear on Resolution 39/210 of the General Assembly which, after all, is the correct place for that debate to be held. The fact is that some of us regard the introduction of this matter into this Council session as a separate matter, and therefore, it would be important to leave the second sentence in there. If I can ask our Argentinian colleagues and others to allow that, there are two separate points at issue.

M. FRANCISCI di BASCHI (Italie): J'interviens dans le sens de notre collègue canadien.

Je voudrais savoir de mon collègue de l'Argentine pourquoi souligner un événement qui s'est déroulé dans certaines conditions et dans des contextes tout à fait différents.

M. MOMBOULI (Congo): Je crois que nous devons nous inspirer de l'invitation qu'a bien voulu nous faire le Directeur général avant son départ. Nous devons essayer d'être justes, même si nous avons des questions de principe. Au-dessus de tout, il faut que nous soyons justes. Il y a des propositions qui ont été faites en espérant que nous nous y rallierons, mais nous nous rendons compte que nous n'arrivons pas à nous mettre d'accord. Ne forçons pas les choses. La première phrase exprime l'opinion d'une catégorie de gens parmi lesquels figure notre délégation. Nous pensons qu'on ne peut pas nous obliger à dire d'une autre façon ce que nous avons envie de dire. Cette première phrase est très claire. Certaines délégations souhaitent que l'on ajoute: "Telle qu'elle a été adoptée". Nous sommes prêts à faire cet effort, mais nous ne pouvons pas faire plus. Selon nous la seule façon de s'en sortir est d'accepter la proposition de l'Argentine qui est, après avoir fait cet effort qui consiste à ajouter après la première phrase les mots "telle qu'elle a été adoptée", de mettre un renvoi en bas de page contenant la réserve des Etats-Unis. Mais on ne peut pas nous demander de nous exprimer dans des termes qui ne sont pas les nôtres et ensuite d'accepter que ceux qui ont la possibilité de s'exprimer s'expriment deux fois par rapport à nous.. Ce n'est pas -juste. Il faut avoir de la mesure dans ses desiderata. Tous nous avons des désirs, mais il faut savoir se contenter. Je pense que vous devez pouvoir trancher, et vite, car nous avons perdu assez de temps.

H. NAKAGAWA (Japan): Just to clarify the position of my delegation. If the second sentence in this paragraph is to be deleted as proposed by the delegate of Argentina, then my delegation is obliged also to put in a reservation. In this connection, I support the proposal made by the delegate of Canada and seconded by my Italian colleague.

R.C. SERSALE di CERISANO (Argentina): No hay ninguna novedad en que Japón quiera hacer una reserva a este párrafo, ya lo dijo en París.

Queremos decir acá y respecto a las dudas de Canadá e Italia en cuanto a lo que quizá podríamos negociar, y aquí venimos a hablar en nombre de quienes han propuesto este párrafo, es cambiar la última frase, sacaríamos la última frase las que sigue a Nicaragua, es decir las palabras "impuesto por razones políticas". Así no queda la palabra "política" en ningún lugar del párrafo y aquí podríamos quizá ampliar y explicar el porqué decimos esto.

Creemos que aquí no estamos tratando una cuestión de carácter político, sino una medida económica que tiene efectos políticos; pero en las medidas económicas, hablamos del hecho de un embargo comercial, no de una invasión ni nada por el estilo, de un embargo comercial; no estamos hablando de cuestiones políticas; y además en este mismo foro los mismos países que se oponen, como se ha dicho antes, han apoyado este mismo concepto; por eso no creemos que ello sea un problema. Sugerimos en concreto; sacar la frase última pero ofrecemos a cambio el que se saque "impuesto por razones políticas".

J.D. AITKEN (United Kingdom): Our preferred formulation would be one in which the first sentence of the paragraph finished with "as adopted" where it refers to Resolution 39/210. We would not like to see the second sentence deleted as in this form it is not an expression of regret and the introduction of this matter reflects what we felt to be the feeling of some members of the Council.

M.J. BLAMEY (Australia): We sha re the position of the delegation of Japan and some others, and would like to see the second sentence retained. If it is not, we also would have to have a reservation.

CHAIRMAN: In view of the fact that there is no agreement on the revised formulation I will have to take a consensus by a show of hands. There is a proposal that paragraph 15 remains as it is with a reservation by the delegation of the United States. There is a difference of view on the second sentence and it has been suggested that the United States withdraw its reservation, so there will be a show of hands as to whether we retain this paragraph as it is with the reservation of the United States entered into it, and if any other country wants to enter a reservation it is entitled to do so. It is agreed by majority. Please indicate if you do.

R. SALLERY (Canada): Perhaps I misunderstood you, Mr Chairman. Are we retaining the last sentence?

CHAIRMAN: We are retaining the paragraph as presented to us with no change at all. Paragraph 15 remains as it is with the statement made by the delegate of the United States who has a reservation on the paragraph because it represents an introduction of an inappropriate issue in the proceedings of the Council of FAO.

Paragraphs 1 to 16 approved with reservation
Les paragraphes l à 16 sont approuvés avec des réserves
párrafos 1 a 16 son aprobados con reservas

PARRAFOS 17 a 27

J.D. AITKEN (United Kingdom): We have a slight difficulty with the English language in paragraph 2.3 with the use of the word "monitor". We are very much in spirit with the essence of the proposal in this paragraph, but in English "monitor" can be taken to imply some continuing process requiring the establishment of a permanent administrative machine. As this is a voluntary Code and lacking a legal basis this could prove difficult in our administration.

We very much wish to participate in the observance of the Code and to collaborate with the Secretariat and the Secretary-General in compliance with their spirit. Therefore, wo suggest as an alternative form of words, "The Council emphasized the need for member governments, in collaboration with FAO, to consider the observance of the Code". Alternatively, we could say "to keep under review the observance of the Code", if it is felt that that holds the feeling of the sentence. This point also occurs further on in the Draft under operative paragraph 3 of the proposed Draft Resolution where it says "Request governments to monitor the observance of the Code".

I suggest that there should be some harmony between the drafting. We again propose "keep under review the observance of the Code".

CHAIRMAN: The delegate of the United Kingdom has proposed that in paragraph 23 the word "monitor" be replaced by the words "to keep under review", as he feels that the word "monitor" implies an administrative burden.

J. POSIER (France): Je voudrais proposer un mot en français un peu plus faible que "contrôler" et plus fort que "suivre" et qui serait "veiller à". Je pense que cela se situe entre les deux et pourrait être acceptable.

M. MOMBOULI (Congo): La proposition de la France est la bienvenue. Nous avons discuté au Comité de rédaction et je suggérerais au Président de passer la parole au Président du Comité de rédaction pour qu'il explique la situation que nous avons vécue à ce Comité où nous avons beaucoup débattu de ladite question.

R.D. KAUZLARICH (United States of America): I think this is largely a linguistic problem because I do not think that it was the intention of the drafter of the Code that governments should set up separate machinery or elaborate administrative machinery to deal with this Code. I think that the English translation of the French would probably be the best way of handling this, or something along the line that the delegation of the United Kingdom has suggested.

J. TCHICAYA (Président, Comité de rédaction): Comme on vient de le dire,nous avons passé suffisamment de temps sur ce paragraphe et effectivement je crois qu'il s'est agi beaucoup plus d'un problème de mots exacts qu'il fallait placer là et parce qu'il semblait que les mots, dans les différentes langues, ne correspondaient pas exactement à ce que nous voulions dire. Mais je pense que la proposition que vient de faire la France peut, en tout cas en français, être acceptée par notre Conseil. En débattant de la question, nous nous sommes aperçus qu'il s'agissait bien d'un problème de vocabulaire beaucoup plus que d'un problème de fond.

CHAIRMAN: Shall we adopt the French suggestion and its English expression?

H. CARANDANG (Philippines): I was wondering how it would read in English.

CHAIRMAN: My understanding is that it is more or less close to "keep under continuous review".

H. CARANDANG (Philippines): We did spend a long time with this paragraph and the Drafting Committee thought that the word "monitor" was more or less a word which is acceptable in many situations, and that probably this would be one of them. I do not precisely understand the difficulty with the word "monitor". To "keep under review" might mean something much less than what we should expect out of the Code, because to sit down here and to talk about it is in a way keeping under review. Perhaps more words are needed than "keep under review". On the other hand, "monitor" means that you follow the developments that are taking place in the observance of the conduct of the Code on Pesticides.

J.D. AITKEN (United Kingdom): I think that probably we have got the meaning that the delegate of the Philippines refers to, because what we are talking about is keeping under review the observance of the Code. I think that this takes up his point, and also I think takes the point made in the French language text by my French colleague about the need to get the right balance of language so that we are not implying something of very heavy administration. So I think we have two points of meaning that the Philippine delegate desires about the use of the word "observance".

H. CARANDANG (Philippines): If we sit down in a room such as this with a piece of paper before us and talk, how do we know what has been going on in the different countries? How do we know what is happening with the observance of the various points of the Code in the different countries unless somebody follows these developments in the observance or non-observance of the rules of the Code? I thought that the word "monitor" was the standard word that was being used for this matter.

R. SALLERY (Canada): Our delegation believes very strongly that the Code has been one of the major achievements of the FAO in the past few years, both in terms of its substantive content and in terms of how it was achieved. It is an important Code and we hope that it will form the baseline for many national codes over time.

I have considerable sympathy with the points being made by the delegate of the Philippines. We want

something with a bit more teeth in it than just an observance which has no time limit. Perhaps we

could say "review regularly", or something like that. I certainly have a lot of sympathy with the delegate of the Philippines in terms of the word "monitor".

CHAIRMAN: Shall we retain the word "monitor" since that seems to capture in English what is said here?

J.D. AITKEN (United Kingdom): I think the way out of this may be the literal translation of the French, which I do not think would give us the word "monitor". Everyone seems to have accepted this. Alternatively, we would be very happy with the Canadian formulation.

CHAIRMAN: The Canadian formulation is what I said earlier, to "keep it under continuous review".

SUHARYO HUSEN (Indonesia): My delegation would go along with the suggestion made by the Philippine delegation. In that way we would keep the word "monitor", because as it was explained by the Philippine delegation, it is very clear. That is why we support the Philippine proposal to keep the word "monitor".

J. POSIER (France): Personnellement j'ai proposé le terme "veiller à" pour essayer de trouver une solution transactionnelle, un compromis. Je n'y tiens pas absolument mais cela me semble être mieux approprié et personnellement le terme "contrôler" me gêne. Je ne m'y oppose pas (je ne veux pas que le débat s'éternise) parce qu'on se pose immédiatement la question: qui va contrôler? Sinon c'est un terme abstrait qui ne recouvre aucune réalité. Je veux bien qu'on le conserve mais j'attire l'attention sur le fait qu'il serait dépourvu de sanctions réelles et de moyens réels de contrôle.

CHAIRMAN: It is the equal of what is intended in English. The proposal of the Philippine delegation is that the word "monitor" captures the same spirit as in the French. One is to monitor the progress, continuously watching over the other. The suggestion is to keep it under continuous review. Let us come to a quick conclusion.

W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of): This concerns words of languages other than my mother tongue, but we feel that we would give preference "to keep under review".

CHAIRMAN: Shall we accept the formulation of Canada: "The Council emphasized the need for member governments, in collaboration with FAO, to continuously keep under review the observance of the Code and agreed that further improvements to the Code, following its adoption by the Conference, could be considered in the light of practical experience gained from its use''?

J. POSIER (France): On a traduit "suivre" en français. L'interprétation a traduit "suivre". Le terme français, qui est quand même plus fort, est le terme "veiller à".

R. SALLERY (Canada): "The Council" that is, we, "emphasized the need for member governments, in collaboration with FAO, to keep under continuous review". In other words, when national governments seek the assistance of FAO, FAO will help. It is important to give it more than just "another-piece-of-paper" treatment.

CHAIRMAN: We will keep the suggestion of the French Ambassador.

DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: Since you have said that we will keep it, I do not know if it is appropriate for me to speak. It is a voluntary Code and it is addressed to more than one party. So I do not see why there is this concern about being forced to set up a vast administrative machinery. But if it helps the adoption of the Code to say "to keep under continuous review", and it is acceptable to the Council, I have nothing more to say, except that in my mind it means the same as to monitor. What worries me is the French as I am not sure that "veiller à" is the same as "to keep under continuous review".

SUHARYO HUSEN (Indonesia): I am sorry that I have to take the floor. I am grateful for the explanation by Mr West. If "to monitor" and "to keep under review" has the same meaning, I think I prefer to keep it as it is.

CHAIRMAN: Shall we leave it as it stands, as suggested? The intention is now not to impose any new administration etc. The delegates know the strong feelings we have.

R.G. PETTITT (United Kingdom): I can only repeat that this was the interpretation which immediately came to us, that there is a requirement for monitoring machinery. If another wording means the same thing, I would prefer that wording which does not mean and imply that.

CHAIRMAN: To keep under continuous review means that you must have somebody to keep it under review! So let us keep it as "monitor", and go ahead to paragraph 24.

M. FRANCISCI DI BASCHI (Italie): Je voulais faire une observation au nom des pays de la communauté.

Vous vous rappellerez qu'il y a eu une déclaration du représentant de la communauté européenne pour présenter, au nom des dix membres de la communauté européenne, une série d'observations dans un souci de clarification et de coopérâtion.

Si je lis rapidement les paragraphes successifs du rapport, je vois que bien des amendements ou des observations qui ont été présentés par la communauté ne sont pas repris. Je voudrais vous suggérer, pour faciliter vos travaux, un petit amendement au paragraphe 24. A la toute dernière ligne, on dit: "les principaux amendements sont les suivants..."• ne pourrait-on pas ajouter le mot "notamment", ce qui donnerait "les principaux amendements sont notamment les suivants".

Ensuite, je voudrais faire une recommandation au Directeur général et au Secrétariat pour qu'ils tiennent compte, pour la préparation de la présentation de la Conférence, des amendements qui ne sont pas cités dans le rapport.

J. TCHICAYA (Président, Comité de rédaction): Je ne pense pas vraiment que tous les amendements ont été recensés dans ces quelques paragraphes. Il y en a une multitude. Il est entendu que, parmi ces amendements, il y en aura peut-être dont le Directeur général pourra tenir compte. C'est pour cette raison que, pour ma part, je ne vois aucun inconvénient à ce que l'on ajoute ce mot "notamment".

DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: I agree with the Chairman of the Drafting Committee. It is clearly envisaged in the second sentence of paragraph 24 that there are other amendments which will be considered, but in a certain sense, because the sense is given at the end of the paragraph, and whether or not you insert "in particular", all the amendments submitted will be considered in the sense of the second sentence of the paragraph. So I don't think the words are necessary, because the last sentence says "Among the principal amendments were the following:". These are not even all the principal amendments, let alone the minor ones - but if again it helps people to accept this, let us put "in particular". I think the Council is losing its time at the moment with these inessential amendments.

H. CARANDANG (Philippines): After the words of Mr West, I have nothing more to say - that was exactly what I was going to say. You have "Among" here: that means that there are others.

J. TCHICAYA (Président, Comité de rédaction): Je crois que M. West a raison. J'ai regardé le texte anglais. Effectivement le mot "parmi" figure. Or, s'il y a le mot "parmi", je ne pense pas qu'il soit utile d'ajouter le mot "notamment". Je crois que cet amendement est valable pour le texte français dans lequel il n'y avait pas ce mot-là. Il convient donc d'ajuster le texte français au texte anglais.

W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of): I do not like to prolong our proceedings on this, but I think the point made by the distinguished delegate of Italy is a good one. I must, however, say that we do have here two classes of amendment: those which are principal ones, which are in the context, and then there are others which the Secretariat will I am sure be taking into consideration. If this is quite clear, then I think we will not insist that some of those amendments which were also of principal nature, which were put forward by the EEC representative in the name of the Member States, are included here - but I very much hope that this is being taken into consideration by the Secretariat.

CHAIRMAN: I think that is very clearly stated here.

J. POSIER (France): C'est simplement pour m'assurer, M. le Président, que la rédaction de la dernière phrase du paragraphe 24 est bien la suivante dans le texte français: "les principaux amendements sont notamment les suivants..."

CHAIRMAN: That is correct. Shall we move on to paragraph 25? 26? 27 -the Draft Resolution for the Conference? These are now approved?

Paragraphs 17 to 27, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 17 à 27, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
párrafos 17 a 27, así enmendados, son aprobados

Draft Report of Plenary, Part II, as amended, was adopted
Projet de rapport de la plenière, II partie, ainsi amendé , est adopté
El proyecto de informe de
1a Plenaria, Part II,asi enmendado,es a probado


CHAIRMAN: We will now move on to CL 87/REP/3 - Item 13 of the Agenda, Preparation for the Twenty-third Session of the FAO Conference.


W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of): In paragraph 3 it says "The Council also agreed...", and it continues to say that the issue of the Plant Genetic Resources follow-up should be taken up by Commission II. We have some problems with that. I wonder whether we could say "The Council also decided!'.

J. TCHICAYA (Président, Comité de redaction): M. le Président je crois que vous aviez vous-même tranché sur cette question après un certain nombre d'interventions. Il faut tenir compte du fait que tout le monde, en s'exprimant en séance plénière, n'était pas d'accord, mais qu'une décision a été prise à la majorité. Par conséquent puisque c'est la majorité qui a pris la décision, nous avons pensé qu'il fallait mettre: "le Conseil a décidé". Je crois que c'est ce que nous avons mis, tout en exprimant le point de vue de la minorité, mais c'est le Conseil qui prend la décision. Je pense que c'est ce que reflète ce rapport.

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): El distinguido colega y amigo Grabisch, de la República Federal de Alemania, tiene mala memoria, pero yo sé que no lo hace a proposito, sino que seguramente es cuestión de olvido. Al menos así yo lo espero. En cambio, ya el Embajador Tchicaya recordó a usted la conclusion que usted mismo, señor Presidente, hizo ante este Consejo cuando 16 miembros, 16 miembros, repito, estuvieron en favor de la propuesta de México y 8 miembros se opusieron. Entonces este párrafo refleja exactamente la conclusion de ese debate y en la parte siguiente se expresa la opinion de que algunos miembros consideraron que ese punto debería mantenerse en la Comisión I. Esto es exacto. Estos colegas aquí no deben insistir más. Les queda aún una opción en la Conferencia cuando allá se discuta el tema 3 de la Conferencia, que es la adopción del Programa, pero que por favor aquí no insista en debates que fueron sencilla y claramente ya definidos por el Consejo. Creemos que hay que actuar con seriedad y respeto por las decisiones que usted mismo propuso y que el Consejo todo acepto.

R.D. KAUZLARICH (United States of America): I think the distinguished delegate of the Federal Republic of Germany has a point here. If you look at paragraph 2 that says "The Council agreed to add to the Provisional Agenda ..." a certain item. That was clear - "The Council agreed" - but to use the same English word for what happened in paragraph 3 is not correct, and I believe that even the distinguished Chairman of the Drafting Committee - at least in the English translation of the French - used the word "decide". That is something different to "agreed" because there is no agreement on the issue discussed in paragraph 2 - there was a decision of the majority of the Council but there is no agreement.

W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of): I very much hope at least that the word "agreed" could be changed to "decide". If my memory does not betray me, I think that at the end of the discussion on this subject my delegation at least had the feeling that the issue would be taken up again, maybe even before the Conference - that is to say, at the next Council session so that this matter could be looked into again. But I have of course no hesitation in saying that it will be the Conference which decides finally to which Commission the different agenda items will be allocated.

CHAIRMAN: Before I allow the next speaker to take the floor, I will repeat the suggestion made by the United States of America and supported by the Federal Republic of Germany. It is that paragraph 3 should commence "The Council also decided that item 7.4 'Code of Conduct ...' ". That would replace the word "agreed".

J.R. LOPEZ PORTILLO (México): En primer lugar agradecemos al señor Presidente del Comité de Redacción, Embajador Tchicaya, por el recuerdo que hizo de lo que ocurrió en la Plenaria. Asimismo a nuestro querido amigo Embajador de Colombia Gonzalo Bula Hoyos porque recordó aquí la forma en que se expresaron las distintas delegaciones, pero por lo que nos han dicho las delegaciones de Estados Unidos y Alemania en esta última intervención, parece que el problema es tan sólo en el inglés, en donde se usa la misma palabra que en el párrafo 2, palabra que no coincide, según ellos, con el resultado de la posición de la minoría.

Por tanto, señor Presidente, si es un problema del inglés, que se corrija en ese idioma. En español nos parece que es correcto.

Sra. M. FERMIN GOMEZ (Venezuela): No quería intervenir en el debate porque considero que estas son cuestiones de ortografía y semántica, pero no veo por que va a ser difícil admitir este párrafo en español. El verbo "decidir" es perfectamente correcto. De manera que no veo por qué nos empeñamos en usar la palabra "acordó" si "decidió" es una acción en definitiva que está aceptada en el otro idioma. Nada más para eso.

CHAIRMAN: Is that agreed, "the Council decided"? Thank you.

Paragraphs 1 to 4, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 1 à 4, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
párrafos 1 a 4, así enmendados, son aprobados

Paragraph 5 approved
Le paragraphe 5 est approuvé
párrafo 5 es aprobado

Paragraphs 6 and 7 approved
Les paragraphes 6 et 7 sont approuvés
párrafos 6 y 7 son aprobados

Paragraph 8 approved
Le paragraphe 8 est approuvé
párrafo 8 es aprobado


W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of): Mr Chairman, I would like to suggest to add at the end of paragraph 10 the following: "This decision shoul however riot be considered as a precedent for the future". That is one sentence I suggest you add. I have another one, but perhaps you would like first to clear up that suggestion.

CHAIRMAN: You heard the proposal of Germany that the sentence, "This decision should however not be considered as a precedent for the future" should be added.

R. SALLERY (Canada): I have no problem with the suggestion of the Federal Republic of Germany, I do have some other comments though which I will make after this issue is settled.

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Yo creo sinceramente que se está cometiendo una acción irresponsable contra la marcha de los trabajos del Consejo. Salvo que me equivoque, nadie ha dicho nada de esa propuesta que acaba de presentar el colega Grabisch; además la acaba de presentar en una forma anónima y sibilina.

Yo conocí al colega Grabisch a mediados de la mitad de los años 60. Era un muchacho simpático, joven, inteligente, positivo. Le gustaba el baile, como él mismo decía; después", la evolución de los tiempos, señor Presidente, pero que por favor que sea serio, que no insista y que nos deje trabajar.

CHAIRMAN: The Federal Republic of Germany and the distinguished delegate of Colombia, have pointed our that this was not raised on the floor of the Council, and as I have repeatedly said, this is a report of what happens in the house and has to be authenticated by the verbatim records.

W.A.F. GRABISCH (República Federal de Alemania): Por intermedio de Usted, Señor Presidente, puedo asegurar al distinguido representante de Colombia que a la persona que estaba mencionando le sigue gustando el bai le.

R. SALLERY (Canada): We did specifically mention in our intervention that it should not be a precedent for the future. The comments that I wish to make or suggest is one of two things. Either that paragraph 10 begins "The Council in general noted", or that down at the end of line 5 after "agriculture in Africa." a sentence to the effect - let me read it quickly first to get the idea, -"that some members requested that the issue be reexamined to determine whether the TCP was indeed the most effective delivery channel for these funds". A number of us made that suggestion because of the criteria of TCP as we understand it. In other words, if we have a limit of US$250 000 for each project, you may have a situation where a project requires quite a bit more, and since there was some US$21 million in the TCP at the time of the Finance Committee which was unobligated we saw no particular reason for delaying it.

J. TCHICAYA (Président, Comité de rédaction): Je n'ai pas beaucoup de commentaires à faire. Quant à la proposition faite à la fin de ce paragraphe, je ne sais pas si M. Grabisch l'a retirée. Ce qu'a proposé le Canada, nous n'en avons pas discuté au Comité de rédaction. S'il insiste au sein de notre Conseil pour ajouter ce membre de phrase, et cela a été dit par quelques délégués, je ne pense pas que cela puisse poser des problèmes majeurs dans la mesure où cela a été accepté. Mais d'une façon générale nous pensons que le libellé de la première phrase ne doit pas être modifié. Nous devons dire: "le Conseil a également noté avec satisfaction ..." mais si on ajoute le membre de phrase proposé par le représentant du Canada, je ne pense pas que cela puisse poser des problèmes.

M. MOMBOULI (Congo): Moi aussi je me pose la question de savoir ce qu'est devenue la proposition. Il faut qu'on tranche la question. Si j'était membre du Comité financier, je pourrais trouver, dans l'observation faite par le représentant de la RFA, une sorte de blâme au Comité financier. Il n'est pas tellement de bon aloi de s'adresser en ces termes à un Comité qui se montre suffisamment prudent. Cela veut dire qu'on ne partage pas les préoccupations de ce Comité. Mais si l'on a quelque chose à dire, il faut le dire clairement et non pas en termes voilés. J'espère donc que la RFA va retirer sa proposition.

CHAIRMAN: Since this question has been raised, my impression has been that Dr Grabisch did not press for it.

W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of): I just wish to recall that my delegation did make the point by stating, "my delegation considers this step a valuable contribution of the Organization in an extraordinary emergency situation which requires exceptional regulations". This would imply of course, Mr Chairman, that this decision was not to be taken as a precedent, but if other delegations have great difficulties in accepting that, as it was just stated by us, I do not insist in putting in the sentence which I have suggested.

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Creo que debemos mantenernos fieles a los debates que celebramos aquí. Por ello quiero recordar que el distinguido Jefe de la delegación de los Estados Unidos de América, Sr. Kauzlarich, hizo una intervención a este respecto que motivó una reacción mía a la cual el Jefe de la delegación de los Estados Unidos respondió en términos positivos cuando explicó cual era su inquietud y dijo que le preocupaba esencialmente que el límite a que estaban sometidos estos proyectos del PCP afectaran a algunos proyectos que tendrían que ser o podrían ser de mayor magnitud para algunos países africanos. Creo que en ese sencido el Sr Kauzlarich está de acuerdo conmigo. Podríamos proponer una frase que aceptáramos porque, repito, entendimos, y el mismo colega norteamericano lo aclaró, que su intención era positiva.

R.D. KAUZLARICH (United States of America): I intervene to support the Canadian proposal because I wanted to make precisely that point, that concern here is not to reverse a decision of the Finance Committee, not at all, but I think we have to be practical about this, and I think it needs to be reflected here that some delegations did express a concern that at some point in the future, one could hope fairly early on, the Finance Committee could look again to see if there are bottlenecks developing because of the criteria that TCP, by its regulations, imposes. That is my only point. Then the Finance Committee needs to make another decision and my impression of what the Canadian delegation's suggestion was , was to make precisely that point.

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Quisiera rogarle al colega del Canadá que leyera lentamente su propuesta. Mientras tanto y ya que tenemos el uso de la palabra, deseo hacer observar a la Secretaría que tanto en el párrafo 9 como en el párrafo 10 se dice en castellano: "El Comité" y en ambos párrafos debe decirse: el Consejo.

CHAIRMAN: That is only the problem of the Spanish version. Canada, will you kindly repeat the insertion for the. Chairman of the Drafting Committee. "The Council noted", but you wanted an alternative sentence in between. Can you kindly read it?

R. SALLERY (Canada): Mr Chairman, I haven't given much time to the drafting of a sentence. I am sure Mr Bula Hoyos or anyone else, Ambassador Tchicaya - could come up with a formulation, the intent of which is "some members requested that the issue be reexaminied by the Finance Committee to determine whether TCP was indeed the most effective delivery channel for these funds". Now that could be modified by saying "to determine whether the criteria of the TCP were adequate to facilitate delivery" or something like that.

R.D. KAUZLARICH (United States of America): I think, as read out the first time, that was precisely the thought that I at least wanted to get across in my intervention to determine whether TCP was the most effective delivery channel for these funds.

V.J. SHAH (Director, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): I am going by the Verbatim Record PV/12, and also from my recollection of the discussion the next day, because although I do not have the Verbatim Record in front of me, if my memory serves me right the delegate of the United States raised this question on 25 June.

I think what we have to remember is that what is reflected in paragraph 10 is the result of the Council's consideration of this matter when it considered item 15.2. If any members of the Council wish to change the text as stated in that paragraph that is of course up to you, Sir. But what is now proposed to be introduced would seem to me an additional point which was indeed made by the delegate of the United States the next day, but it was made after the discussion on this item had been concluded, and I believe that there were also some responses from other members of the Council to indicate that they did not wish to pursue the situation. So I find it rather difficult to see how the extract of this report could now reflect a discussion which took place after the item had been considered by the Council and a suggestion on which there did not emerge any clear follow-up decision.

R.D. KAUZLARICH. (United States of America): What Mr Shah has just recorded is basically what happened with one exception. First, the documents say that there was a move for closure of this debate. I believe I was on the list of speakers and unsuccessfully tried to get in at that time. Therefore I took the opportunity of agenda item 17 to raise the point. The difference between Ambassador Bula Hoyos and myself was one of lack of clarity on my part, because he was assuming that I was trying to reverse the decision that the Finance Committee had taken as is described here in the section. I believe that after my explanation, when I made clear that that was not the case,there were no objections, at least I am not aware of any. So I think we have a bit of a problem because of the truncated fashion in which this matter was dealt with. I cannot speak for the delegate of Canada, who suggested this change, as to where he would like to put it. I do not care particularly what part of the record it ends up in, but I think it ought to show up somewhere.

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): El distinguido colega y amigo Sallery, del Canadá, me ha estimulado cuando dijo que a lo mejor yo podría proponer una redacción aceptable. Si les parece podríamos adoptar la siguiente redacción:

"Algunos miembros solicitaron que el Comité de Finanzas podría volverse a ocupar de este asunto a fin de que esta transferencia cumpla eficazmente sus objetivos."

Creo que esto fue lo que quiso decir el colega de los Estados Unidos, salvo que él crea que yo no le interpreto adecuadamente.

CHAIRMAN: Since the Canadian delegation asked for this formulation from Colombia, are you happy with the suggestion of Ambassador Bula Hoyos?

R. SALLERY (Canada): I knew I was right when I suggested that he could do it.

CHAIRMAN: The delegate of the United States also agrees?

A.Y. BUKHARI (Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of) (original language Arabic): It is rather difficult to talk in an exhaustive manner on this matter, especially as this proposal has come from my colleague, his Excellency the Ambassador of Colombia. This Council should be cautious when taking such a decision. We have to bear in mind that members of the Finance Committee were elected from this Council. It is not one single State, two or three States which elected the members of the Finance Committee, but all the members of the Council. This means that the Council has given full authority, full confidence and trust to the Finance Committee. Therefore when the Finance Committee was requested to take such steps this would mean one of two things. First, that some of the members of this Council do not have enough confidence and trust in this Committee. Why am I saying this? It is because when the Finance Committee has given its backing and support to the transfer operation, and I myself being a member have endorsed such a step Mr Chairman, I think that you are wise enough to know Mr Chairman, that our adoption and our endorsement of this transfer was not something done spontaneously or in a haphazard manner, but rather it was the outcome of very long hours of deliberations and discussions. During these hours we raised various questions to the various officers of this Organization, in addition to the fact that the delegates of Australia, Canada and Germany had some direct contacts with Mr Shah and they had enough information, or even more information than that we received as members of the Committee. So that is to say that our decision was based on various contacts, studies and information we received, because we know that we represent the Council and we are not the representatives of the Director-General or Mr West or Mr Shah. Therefore we. think that we should enjoy the trust of this Council. To my mind, the amendment proposed would have a nefarious effect on the Finance Committee,

Secondly, when something is requested from the Finance Committee, this should be done by the approval of the majority of the members of the Council and not only by one or two delegations. The majority of the members of the Council should accept and endorse such a step in order for the Finance Committee to take up such a decision. So the Finance Committee will not accept the proposal and I as a member of the Committee will not accept it unless it comes from the majority of the members of this Council. I would like to hear that the majority of the members of the Council approve this amendment. If this amendment is accepted 1 wish to hear all the Members of the Council endorse it.

CHAIRMAN: Let me formulate what I consider to be the issue. I think nobody is reopening the issue of the US$15 million. The Finance Committee's decision on this matter has been aidorsed and supported. The question raised is whether the guidelines of the TCP are unduly restrictive in achieving the purposes of the African Rehabilitation Programme, are they adequate or too restrictive? This is what we would like the Finance Committee to examine, how to use this money to the best advantage to achieve the objectives of the African Rehabilitation Programme.

A.Y. BUKHARI ( Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of): I was speaking about that. I know that the transfer of the US$15 million has been approved. I am speaking about the TCP.

H. CARANDANG (Philippines): I thought we were addressing ourselves to the amendment we proposed here, and of course that is in relation to what you have referred to earlier. I think whether we put this here or not, the Finance Committee is going to review the implementation of these projects anyway. I thought that this was uncalled for because, as the delegate of Saudi Arabia pointed out, it is something like a reprimand to the Finance Committee. But if the objective is just to let the Finance Committee review it, they are going to review it anyway. The report of the expenditure on this will come to the Finance Committee. They will see it and make their own judgment whether it is fulfilling its objectives or not. These additional words would not add anything, except something which is probably undesirable.

M. MOMBOULI (Congo): Je dois dire que le libellé de la proposition nous a donné la même impression que celle qu'a eue la délégation de l'Arabie Saoudite, et je pense que la meilleure façon de faire est peut-être de demander à M. Bula Hoyos,qui est l'auteur de cette proposition, de mieux s'expliciter car nous-mêmes sommes plus ou moins surpris par cette proposition qui apparaît comme une sorte de blâme à l'égard du Comité financier en qui nous avons confiance.

Entre-temps, en aparté, nous échangions nos points de vue et il semble que ce que. M. Bula Hoyos veut faire passer ne passe pas à travers le libellé. 11 a peut-être une autre idée que celle que transmet ce libellé. Je suggère donc qu'on lui donne la parole pour éviter qu'on ait trop à discuter.

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Señor Presidente, usted y mis distinguidos colegas comprenderán que me siento un poco incómodo; me ha abandonado hasta mi vecino de la derecha.

Quiero decir, en primer lugar, que siento grande y sincero respeto por el Embajador Bukhari, de Arabia Saudita, miembro muy competente del Comité de Finanzas, y estoy seguro de que él y todos los demás miembros de ese Comité, que ha sido elegido por nosotros, siguen contando con la plena confianza del Consejo.

Yo creo que ya usted, señor Presidente, con la competencia que le caracteriza, adelantó las explicaciones que podrían facilitar el objetivo de mi propuesta.

Yo creo que está muy claro. Usted lo dijo, señor Presidente y el amigo Kauslarich lo ha repetido. No se trata de pedir que el Comité de Finanzas revoque una decisión que tomó en plena legalidad basado en su Reglamento Financiero. Se trata, simplemente, y también el colega Carandang, de Filipinas lo dijo, que, como es natural, al informársele a este Comité el uso que se ha hecho de esas transferencias entonces el Comité de Finanzas debe tratar de que en realidad los proyectos para la rehabilitación de la agricultura en Africa resultaran eficaces, sobre todo a la luz del límite de 250 mil dólares que se aplican a los proyectos del PCT. Esa es la intención que yo he captado de parte de los colegas, y veo que asiente el Jefe de la delegación de los Estados Unidos.

Mi propuesta, al menos en castellaño, mi pobre lengua materna, es clara. Estamos pidiendo al Comité de Finanzas, entre otras cosas, o no interpreté a algún miembro, e hice esa redacción porque creo que hay que terminar el debate esta noche, no podemos seguir oponiéndonos a lo que dice uno o dos miembros, sean de un lado o de otro; hice esa propuesta porque se trata que el Comité al ir a ocuparse de este asunto de nuevo pueda constatar si en realidad son eficaces esos proyectos; esto es positivo para los países de Africa. ¿Por qué? Porque si alguno de esos proyectos, dada la limitación del PCT no ha cumplido el objetivo, el Comité de Finanzas puede proponer que se usen nuevos fondos para que esos proyectos sean eficaces y yo creo que esto es positivo y creo que mis compañeros del Tercer Mondo nunca creerán que yo hago una propuesta que pueda ir en contra de las aspiraciones y de los derechos de los países africanos.

Quisiera pedir al representante de Arabia Saudita,- con el respeto, la admiración y afecto que siento por él, que ahora, a la luz de mi explicación, considerara su actuación, y si él insiste yo acataría su punto de vista y retiraría mi propuesta.

R.D. KAUZLARICH (United States of America): 1 can endorse every word I have just heard from the delegate of Colombia. 1 do not know if that is the first time during this Council session or not, but that is precisely my view. It is simply because we do have the respect we have for the Finance Committee that we are suggesting this. It is not to blame anyone or to question their competence, but it is an important enough issue. There is urgency in spending this money and if there are problems with the approach that the Finance Committee decided on in the abstract, and experience shows that that money will not be dispensed as fast as it needs to be, then 1 can only suggest, as did the delegate of Colombia, that the Finance Committee examine that question again to make sure the transfer meets the objectives it was intended for. It is with the deepest respect for the work of the Finance Committee that 1 make that suggestion.

A.M. QURESHI (Pakistan): 1 have indeed a great respect for our great Ambassador Bula Hoyos, but 1 think there are two ways of looking at this formulation which has been suggested.

In the first place we are trying to say that the Finance Committee reopen the issue. 1 believe it is like opening Pandora's Box. Also this suggestion is directed at the competence and credibility of the Finance Committee. It was duly competent to take the decision to authorize the Director-General to transfer up to US$ 15 million to support small-scale quick action projects for the rehabilitation of agriculture in Africa as stated in lines 5 and 6 of paragraph 10. By saying that the Committee should take up the question again, we are also raising doubts with regard to the effectiveness of TCP as an institution to give quick relief for the small-scale projects. There are no two arguments with regard to the institution of TCP as an effective delivery system.

If we read between the lines, there is no necessity for introducing this formulation into this paragraph. It is hazardous. 1 believe my colleagues would agree. 1 agree with the delegate of Saudi Arabia that indeed there is no need for this formulation, no need for an addition. That is how 1 look at it. 1 agree with the delegate of Saudi Arabia, and with my apologies to the distinguished Ambassador Bula Hoyos 1 hope he will go along with us.

J. TCHICAYA (Président, Comité de rédaction): Je note que ce paragraphe, pour notre part au niveau du Comité de rédaction, ne nous a pas pris autant de temps qu'ici en plénière. Je crois qu'il y a deux choses: ou bien nous adoptons le paragraphe en l'état et ce serait ma première proposition, ou bien, à la lumière des discussions, je proposerais une autre formule. Je ne sais pas si elle recueillera l'assentiment de tout le monde ici. Mais on pourrait dire:

"Certains membres ont demandé que le Comité financier suive de près la mise en oeuvre des projets financés par ce biais pour s'assurer que ce transfert permette d'atteindre de manière efficiente son objectif."

Je crois qu'ainsi aucun grief n'est lancé contre le Comité financier, que nous respectons tous je pense, et nous ne faisons que confirmer ici son travail qui consiste à suivre de près l'utilisation des fonds de notre Organisation. 11 n'y a rien là, je crois, qui puisse choquer. Je ne sais pas ce que les membres de notre Conseil en pensent.,

CHAIRMAN: Sometimes it is difficult to carry on in an ordinary way because we find a particular solution to the problem. The Chairman of the Drafting Committee gave a formulation so we have something to comment on.

R. SALLERY (Canada): We have been trying to join the three. Cs on this side of the room - Colombia, Congo and Cuba. We came extremely close until I heard the response of the delegate of Congo to the formulation of Ambassador Bula Hoyos. There are two issues at stake for me. One is that it is the responsibility of a report to reflect what happened in a debate. These issues were raised by a number of members, so theoretically they should find some formulation in the text of the report.

Secondly, there is no suggestion at all in the comments that I have heard from others that were undervaluing, under-estimating, or showing disrespect for the Finance Committee. On the contrary. This Council can endorse a suggestion, if that would make people happier; the Council has requested that often, but there is no suggestion at all that we have lost confidence in the Finance Committee We are trying to make sure that this money set aside for African rehabilitation achieves its goal. It is as simple as that.

A.M. QURESHI (Pakistan): I think we are taking too long, but my humble understanding is that it is a very dangerous sentence we are trying to introduce at the end of paragraph 10. My apprehension is that this is a kind of directive from the Finance Committee to the Council to take on a prerogative of the Programme Committee to see that the criteria and projects which are to be funded through TCP should be vouched for by the Finance Committee. We are trying to reopen the whole issue. There is complete agreement. I think what we are trying to say at the end of paragraph 1.0 negates whatever we say in the entire paragraph 10 now. We are saying that all that is done and endorsed in the previous report is not correct. Personally, I feel that my delegation would not agree to the addition of anything beyond paragraph 10 as it is.

R.M. MUPAWOSE (Zimbabwe): I may be at a loss to follow this because we are going round and round in circles on this issue. If the delegations who want a modification on this consider that this is innocuous one questions why they wanted it to reflect the views indicated. Anything we put in is not necessarily reflecting every view put forward in the discussion. If we have a Finance Committee, a Programme Committee and a Council, and members of the Council who are going to benefit from this TCP, and we are saying here we should ensure there is a review to ensure that these funds are properly used to benefit and assist those people, there is a sentiment of paternalism in this. My delegation would find it difficult to understand what we are asking the Finance Committee to do which no Finance Committee would normally do. Are we not ourselves trying to impugn that they would not do exactly what they are supposed to do? I find it difficult to associate myself with this version.

DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: 1 would like to express a point which 1 think is very important. I did not hear any reference during the discussion or during the subsequent reopening of the discussion to the criteria of the TCP except in one sense, which was maybe the limitation of US $250 000 per project was too little. If that is the only problem, why does not Council adopt a. report saying that for this particular US$15 million the limitation per project we agree should be US$1 million or US$2 million?

That proposition was not put forward, and Council cannot do it now, because it was not put forward. But I must say that unless the amendment were to refer specifically to that issue, to that issue alone, it would carry with it the dangers referred to by the last two speakers. The

reference to criteria and effectiveness calls into question the whole of the TCP criteria and its administration.

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Creía que estaba actuando con toda buena voluntad, señor Presidente, pero a la luz del curso que ha tomado el debate, creo que no debo seguir participando.

S.M. MATIUR RAHMAN (Bangladesh): My intervention has been made easier by Mr Shah, Director of the office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation, as there is a lot of significance in this paragraph, as he has explained. I think this paragraph is very good, well-balanced, and it does not need any addition or deletion. I entirely agree with this paragraph as it stands and with the delegation of Pakistan.

R.D. KAUZLARICH (United States of America): I would like to thank the Ambassador of Colombia for his efforts to find a way of reflecting the concern that I had, and I should also like to thank the Chairman of the Drafting Committee.

I must say that I deeply resent the implications of certain speakers that somehow, despite my clear statement to the contrary and my reiteration of that statement, we were impugning the integrity of the Finance Committee by making our statement. I find that totally unacceptable, whether it comes from governments or from the Secretariat. I made my position and the reasons for that position quite clear. I regret that I have had to intervene to make this point.

CHAIRMAN: Can we go on? We are on the formulation of this additional sentence proposed by the Chairman of the Drafting Committee.

A.Y. BUKHARI (Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of): I am still not entirely convinced even after hearing the Chairman of the Drafting Committee and the suggestion he has put before us. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding. I believe that the TCP is not a Programme that has been established only last year or two years ago. I think that the TCP was established a long time ago. I have been in the Council seven years, and on the Finance Committee. I have never heard a delegate from a developing country state that he is not satisfied with the TCP. All of the delegates from the developing countries ask that the activities of the TCP be increased. As I said, I believe that there is a misunderstanding, but I would still insist that we not add an additional paragraph to this.

CHAIRMAN: Shall we proceed or is there insistence that we must add a sentence?

A.M. QURESHI (Pakistan): I propose that we proceed to paragraph 11 and adopt paragraph 10 as it stands.

CHAIRMAN: Shall we proceed?

W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of): I have another small point on paragraph 10. Yesterday when discussing the CCLM report we learned that the minority view of the delegate of Algeria had not been embodied in the CCLM report in its last session. We were surprised to learn that, and we had full sympathy with the delegate of Algeria.

When discussing the agenda item before us, 15.2, on 24 June, last week, it surfaced that the Finance Committee seemed to have had a similar problem. We have raised this issue with the Chairman of the Finance Committee and we have spoken also on the subject during the debate. There is no reflection of that in the text before us. I have drafted a paragraph which would take care of that, but in order not to delay our proceedings I will refrain from proposing it.

Mr Chairman, we would like once again to urge the Committee of the Council to appropriately and in a businesslike manner adopt reports and not to consider terminating sessions unless they have done so. In case of disagreement they would have to report to the Council. Otherwise, Mr Chairman, it would be rather difficult - I do not like to use a stronger word - for the Director-General as well as for the Council to understand where the matter stands.

R. SALLERY (Canada): We endorse word-for-word the statement just made by Dr Grabisch.

SUHARYO HUSEN (Indonesia): Since our delegation is not a member of the Drafting Committee, that means that we must look to the Drafting Committee for guidance.

We appreciate very much the work done by the Drafting Committee to formulate paragraph 10 as it is. We fully appreciate, as stated by the Ambassador of Saudi Arabia, that this is very important and very useful for a developing country such as Indonesia. That is why we support the statement made by the Ambassador of Saudi Arabia.

M. FRANCISCI di BRASCHI (Italie): Peut-être que les remarques qui ont été faites par M. Grabisch sont correctes pour les questions qui nous préoccupent, mais concernant l'initiative algérienne, il s'agissait de toute autre chose. Il s'agissait d'amender un rapport qui avait été déjà approuvé dans le passé; il s'agissait de le changer dans un contexte qui n'était pas fondé.

R.G. PETTITT (United Kingdom): I wish to record my regret that it has not been found possible to include an innocent and helpful suggestion from a member of this Council in our report. If the proposers wish to drop it, fine, but I do regret. No criticism whatsoever is intended of anybody. It is an idea which has come historically subsequent to the decision. If it is rejected by the Finance Committee, fine, but I would much prefer that there was a reference to that in the report.

A.Y. BUKHARI (Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of) (original language Arabic): I am the only member of the Finance Committee who also is a member of the Council, and I think that the delegate of the United Kingdom refers to the Finance Committee. As I seem to be representing the Finance Committee, I can say that I find that extraordinary because the Finance Committee includes nine members, and it is a point of honour for me. All I am doing is defending the terms of reference of the Finance Committee; I am not defending myself.

We are not against this amendment or this possible additional sentence, but it is prejudicial to the term of reference of the Finance Committee. For several years we have been considering the TCP, and I do not believe that the Committee needs recommendation from one, two or more members for that Committee to consider the TCP. we consider it because we feel responsible, and we feel that this Council has entrusted this to us and we wish to deserve that trust. This is why every year we review the TCP and its objectives.

As I have said, no delegate from any country which benefits from the TCP has ever criticised this programme, neither have they requested that its terms of reference be restricted. They have done quite the opposite; they have all asked that the terms of reference of that programme be extended, and they have stressed the importance of that programme.

We are not against any idea that might be raised. As everybody knows, my delegation respects the views of everyone and we have friendly relations with most, if not all, the members of the Council. This is why I wanted to say that this amendment could be misinterpreted. There is no reason for adding anything to that paragraph.

R.G. PETTITT (United Kingdom): May I make one last attempt to formulate words which would avoid this totally unintentional situation. This may not be historically correct, but we could say that "The Council noted that the Finance Committee would consider whether the mechanism of TCP was adequate for the delivery of these resources should unacceptable restraints be identified by the Secretariat".

CHAIRMAN: We have one more proposal. I suggest that we adjourn for ten minutes while the members with various proposals get together with the Chairman of the Drafting Committee.

The meeting was suspended from 17.45 to 18 hours
La séance est suspendue de 17 h 45 à 18 heures
Se suspende la
sesión de las 17.45 a las 18 horas

CHAIRMAN: After this adjournment we hope that all who have consulted together will be able to develop a consensus statement.

A.M. QURESHI (Pakistan): I believe that the formula which would come at the end of paragraph 10, to which we have all agreed, should read: "Some members suggested that at its next session the Finance Committee review progress in implementation and consider if a waiver of the limitation of US$ 250 000 for each TCP project was required in respect of this transfer in order to ensure full and speedy implementation."

Paragraphs 9 to 10, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 9 à 10, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
párrafos 9 a 10, así enmendados, son aprobados

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Deseamos apoyar esta propuesta que viene de un distinguido colega y amigo, miembro del Comité de Finanzas. Pero no intervengo sólo para eso, ya que creo que esa sería la opinión unánime del Consejo, sino para utilizar este acuerdo que se ha logrado y proponer una adopción que pueda permitirnos avanzar satisfactoriamente. Proponemos que el resto del REP/3, que se ocupa simplemente de asuntos financieros, cifras, cuadros, etc., sea adoptado en bloque y que también el REP/4 que contiene el resumen del Programa de Labores y Presupuesto, que en el Comité de Redacción nos ocupó larguísimo tiempo, y que representa un equilibrio aceptado por todos, pueda ser igualmente aceptado en bloque.

CHAIRMAN: Paragraph 17 of REP/3 has to be considered.

R.C. GUPTA (India): We have restrained ourselves from participating the whole of this afternoon, but I do wish to make an observation. Mr Chairman, this august body, this Council, constituted a Drafting Committee consisting of thirteen members of this Council. I believe that this group had some kind of authority or mandate to consider the Secretariat draft of the report, and give our views, try to modify it, so as to bring it in line with the discussion as we perceived it, and to hope that this will find satisfaction. Mr Chairman, this group of 13 persons, I say with all humility, has worked diligently and conscientiously and with the best of their abilities devoted more than 20 hours to this task, and after all that those people who had reposed confidence in this Committee are questioning almost every major paragraph of this report.

This raises a very serious question whether we have not reached a stage where the Drafting Committee business has become a useless futile exercise, and in future the draft as prepared by the Secretariat should be put up to the Plenary of any Conference and we do away with Drafting Committee business altogether, but if this is not considered so, then one could reasonably logically hope that the members of this august body would kindly take into consideration the fact that their own representatives have spent so much time so ably on this drafting, and they have considered the various viewpoints. This drafting represents the various compromises, various concessions on both sides, and if we are trying to raise the same problems as were raised in the drafting group, we are giving scant regard to some of our own colleagues. I am not saying this personally; I just wanted to sound this note of disappointment and frustration and I hope this will have some effect on the discussions we are to engage in just now.

Y.A. HAMDI (Egypt) (original language Arabic): I should like to endorse the views of Mr Gupta because in fact I would have liked to make the same query, because if the Drafting Committee does not have the trust and confidence and appreciation of the Council - and here I should like to correct the number of hours worked. In fact this Drafting Committee has worked for 40 hours, of which only 10 hours were allocated to REP/4. Therefore I should like to endorse the ideas proposed by Mr Bula Hoyos.

L. ARIZA HIDALGO (Cuba): Nosotros también queremos unirnos a la proposición que ha hecho la representación de Colombia referente a adoptar estos Documentos en bloque. Creemos que las observaciones que ha hecho el Sr. Qureshi aducen bastantes razones para esto y el Comité de Redacción ha presentado textos que son de compromiso después de las discusiones dentro del Comité de Redacción, y si son textos de compromiso creo que si nos ponemos a agregar palabras lo que estaremos creando es una dificultad para terminar. Son situaciones que van a ser discutidas en la Conferencia y no creemos que aquí de fondo haya nada que pueda afectar a ninguna de las partes.

R.G. PETTITT (United Kingdom): I have some considerable sympathy with the suggestions of the last speakers and particularly I have admiration for the work of the Drafting Committee and the suggestions are probably or possibly perfectly sound, but these rules have to be established from the start. Had we known that we would have adopted without further comment the proposals of the Drafting Committee of which the United Kingdom is not a member, we would have established more specific liaison with the representatives in it, so I think we can hardly change the rules just at this stage. I just hope we can go on, but I will restrict to the minimum my own suggestions for changes.

R.D. KAUZLARICH (United States of America): Just to support the United Kingdom's statement. Having established a rule I think we should stick with it and I think we should proceed rather quickly.

CHAIRMAN: Now if we are going to take the role of the Drafting Committee and so on, I suggest we defer it to the end, otherwise we will be unable to complete this report. I entirely agree with the Drafting Committee members but if you are going to take up the fundamental question today, the role of the Drafting Committee and the role of the Council, in its Plenary, after all every member of the Council who is not represented on the Drafting Committee can offer comments. It is the report of the Drafting Committee that is coming for consideration. But if you want to establish some criteria for subsequent meetings, let us not do it now, otherwise this evening we will not be able to do anything except to discuss the roles and the responsibilities of the Council, the Drafting Committee and so on.

R.C. GUPTA (India): I want to make myself very clear. What I said was not at all intended to shut off discussion or even to suggest that anything should be adopted en bloc. I only wanted to say that this thought should be borne in mind.

I. DIAZ YUBERO (España): Yo también, igual que el delegado de la India, pretendo que no se apruebe en bloque; pero también pretendo que no se bloquee.

R. SALLERY (Canada): I share many of the views that Mr Gupta has put forward. With all due respect for the Drafting Committee - I have served on dozens of them in the past three years - but not to let the idea drop. I will be willing to work with anybody, any other delegation in this room, prior to Conference to perhaps look at how we approach meetings and how we work on drafting groups and so on. I think it is a very good and sensible suggestion.

CHAIRMAN: Certainly at midnight we will have some time for this item. It is all. a question of how we conduct ourselves. Shall we go on now and adopt the Colombian resolution except where there are some factual points.

PARRAFOS 11 a 22

- 519 -

D.K. CROWTHER (Assistant Director-General, Administration and Finance Department): I would like to draw the Council's attention to paragraph 17 relating to voting rights problems. The report, as currently drafted, states that the Islamic Republic of Iran had remitted an amount of US$ 1 760 000 to the Organization which, upon receipt, would ensure the right of the government to vote at the Conference. I am happy to say that this amount was received yesterday. The Permanent Representative has requested that reference to Iran therefore be deleted from the list of those having a voting rights problem as set out in the Council's report. I would propose that the Secretariat be authorized to make the appropriate adjustment in the schedules to reflect this payment.

Also, a payment of US$ 19 819 was also received yesterday from Burundi, thus ensuring its right to vote at the Conference. I suggest therefore that its name should also be deleted from the listing in paragraph 17.

Finally, Mr Chairman, the last change that would be required would be at the bottom of paragraph 17 following the quote, "The statement that now appears in REP/3 about the Islamic Republic of Iran should also be deleted".

CHAIRMAN: I am very happy to hear this piece of information, that two Member Nations - Burundi and Iran, will go out of this list.

Paragraphs 11 to 22, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 11 à 22, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
párrafos 11 a 22, así enmendados, son aprobados

PARRAFOS 23 a 27

A.F. de SA BARBUDA (Brazil): I have just one point to raise on paragraph 25 which does not seem to reflect what happened because the delegations that intervened on this point did not express reservations. They were opposed to the use of the UN Scale and that is the point I would like to be changed.

CHAIRMAN: Brazil has proposed "several members were opposed to the use of the UN Scale".

Sra. M. RUIZ ZAPATA (México): Estoy totalmente de acuerdo con la propuesta hecha por Brasil.

CHAIRMAN: Since it reflects what they say, shall we adopt "opposed"? Thank you very much.

Paragraphs 25 to 27, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 23 à 27, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
párrafos 23 a 27, así enmendados, son aprobados

Draft Report of Plenary, Part III, as amended, was adopted
Projet de rapport de la plénière, 3ème partie, ainsi amendée, est adoptée
proyecto de informe de la Plenaria,Parte III,así enmendado, es aprobado


CHAIRMAN: The suggestion of the Colombian Ambassador is that we adopt this as a whole, but let me at least go page by page in case there is any important point.

Paragraphs 1 to 5 approved
Les paragraphes 1 a 5 sont approuves
Los párrafos 1 a 5 son aprobados


R.G. PETTITT (United Kingdom): Two points in the section 6 to 9. We would like to see a reference to the particular - I am not sure whether it is a minority but the particular points of view put forward by some governments for suggestions of improvement in presentation or suggestions for improvements, and I would suggest a new paragraph or sentence which reads, "Some delegations proposed certain improvements in the presentation of information to member countries including concrete and costed programme options, comments on effectiveness of programmes in achieving objectives, and requested that these be taken into account in the preparation of the final budget for the Conference."

J. TCHICAYA (Président, Comité de rédaction):; Pour nous, en tant que Comité de rédaction, le paragraphe 6 nous paraît bien équilibré et devrait être adopté en l'état. Je pense qu'il n'est pas vraiment utile que cet amendement figure ici.

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Creo que no debe seguirse la práctica de que cada punto de vista que exprese uno, dos o tres delegaciones se incluya en el Informe porque así haríamos este texto


El párrafo 7 en su forma habitual nos parece aceptable completamente, de manera que tampoco sabemos dónde ha propuesto al Reino Unido que se agregue esa frase, que nosotros rechazamos y no vamos a aceptar de ninguna manera.

R.G. PETTITT (United Kingdom): I am trying to record a historic event, the suggestions by the United Kingdom, and Japan I seem to recall, and possibly others, Australia, and there is nothing in any of the paragraphs which reflects this. This sentence could be a new paragraph after paragraph 7, but I would wish to insist on this.

M.J. BLAMEY (Australia): I recall the discussion on this item. There were a number of delegations who made an attempt to suggest some systematic changes in the way that information on the budget was presented. My recollection is that the United Kingdom delegate made some what seemed to me reasonably sound proposals. I am not sure that, despite Mr Shah's excellent presentation, we got a complete answer to those proposals. Certainly they were sufficiently detailed and well thought out by the. United Kingdom, and I think Japan as well, to deserve some mention.

H. NAKAGAWA (Japan): During the debate my delegation expressed its opinion that the Summary Programme of Work and Budget should be improved to some extent. My delegation also proposed some concrete suggestions. So in this connection I would like to support the amendment made by the United Kingdom delegate.

R.D. KAUZLARICH (United States of America): To reply to the delegate of Colombia, I think it is important, and I believe the rules of this House allow it, for minority views to be expressed, and I think this is perfectly acceptable.

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Señor Presidente, creo que usted debe imponer su autoridad porque, como ya se ha dicho, el Comité de Redacción hizo un trabajo excelente. Australia y Estados Unidos, miembros de ese Comité, ya participaron activamente en todo esto, debilitaron los textos como quisieron para que pudiéramos obtener el consenso y ahora aquí esas mismas dos delegaciones insisten en puntos de vista que nosotros creemos que es improcedente y no podemos seguir aceptándolo. Esa es una actuación desleal e incorrecta, señor Presidente.

CHAIRMAN: I think every member of the Council is entitled to express a view.

J. TCHICAYA (Président, Comité de rédaction) : Ils ont la liberté de faire connaître leur point de vue, c'est exact, mais, nous l'avons dit, la discussion a été suffisamment longue sur tous les points que nous vous avons soumis et nous avons nous-mêmes,en introduisant,rappelé qu'il y avait un certain nombre de points sur lesquels il y avait divergence et nous les avons rappelés brièvement; or, nous ne pensons pas qu'au niveau de ce point il y ait eu divergence parce que j'ai noté tous les points et il faut avouer que nous étions en Comité de rédaction, nous avons travaillé dans une atmosphère à mon avis sereine et il n'est pas bon que les membres du Comité de rédaction soient les premiers à introduire des amendements et autres ou appuyer des amendements qui vont à l'encontre du document que nous avons accepté. Bien sûr, il y a la liberté pour les membres de ce Conseil de s'exprimer aussi mais il y a également un certain nombre de principes que nous devons respecter. Je crois que cela est normal.

D. HUTTON (Canada): Certainly my delegation has full respect for the work that was done by the Drafting Committee and there are issues here that we recognize have a delicate balance to them. The US$15 million proposal was certainly that kind of an item. But this is different. My delegation also was going to propose wording, although we can certainly accept the United Kingdom wording, because this is an ommission which the Drafting Committee did not take up. Therefore we think it is a positive constructive suggestion, and not one that should involve the kind of policy debate that it seems to have done.

M. MOMBOULI (Congo): Nous sommes de ces délégations qui ne sont pas très nombreuses et qui, pour comble de malheur, ont dû se départager pour assister à plusieurs séances du Comité de rédaction et en plénière actuellement. Ce n'est pas pour vous dire que nous opterions pour cela pour des solutions de facilité mais je pense qu'il faut garder aussi à l'esprit l'observation faite par la délégation de l'Espagne qui nous a dit qu'effectivement nous avions commencé l'analyse des rapports suivant une certaine procédure et qu'il ne fallait pas s'arrêter. Mais il ne s'agit pas non plus de bloquer le rapport. Tout au long de ce débat nous avons essayé d'expliquer aux uns et aux autres, en tant que membres du Comité de rédaction, combien nous avons dû prendre du temps pour passer au peigne fin chaque question afin d'essayer de recueillir le consensus et on s'était mis d'accord pour ce qui concerne les questions qui faisaient l'objet de divergence, de donner mandat à notre Président pour que celui-ci fasse état de cela afin que les interventions des délégations qui n'auraient pas été comprises au niveau du Comité de rédaction ne soient pas interprétées comme un signe d'indiscipline. Mais malgré tout nous nous rendons compte qu'il y a indiscipline dans la mesure où les membres du Comité de rédaction évoquent des questions sur lesquelles nous n'avons pas eu de problèmes et c'est la raison pour laquelle sincèrement nous sommes très inquiets et nous nous posons la question de savoir où nous allons en venir.

Cela approche la question que j'avais évoquée tantôt, notamment que les mêmes délégations qui étaient au Comité de rédaction, parlant au nom de leur pays, disent : moi-même, je n'étais pas au Comité de rédaction. Moi j'étais au Comité, nous sommes convenus d'une certaine rédaction. Il faut aussi une certaine discipline sinon il n'y a plus d'organisation.

CHAIRMAN: Regarding this last point of members of the Drafting Committee themselves raising issues, one would expect the others who were not in the Drafting Committee to raise issues. But I hope we can continue in a spirit of cooperation and trust.

R.G. PETTITT (United Kingdom): The United Kingdom is not a member of the Drafting Committee. I was reluctant to quote the "Rule Book" because I was uncertain whether in making these mere suggestions I was a minority opinion, but it would seem from the discussion that the Council deems that one or two of us are a minority opinion. Therefore I would like to insist on our rights, as set out at page 111 of the Basic Texts, Rule VI, which says: "The Director-General shall communicate ... a report ... including, when requested, a statement of minority views" etc. This I think entitles us to have our minority view recorded.

CHAIRMAN: There is no doubt at all about minority views being expressed, that is what we are doing all the time, but what the Chairman of the Drafting Committee is saying is that some of these issues were discussed, there was a consensus, and they devoted a lot of time, forty hours, and if we reopen

this it becomes an almost impossible task. So it is only a plea that those issues which have been discussed in the Drafting Committee we do not reopen here. That will be very helpful in our progress towards adopting the report. So I suggest that we accept what the Chairman of the Drafting Committee says and leave it as it is here. The Verbatim Record will show the views. But if you insist...

R.G. PETTITT (United Kingdom): Yes.

CHAIRMAN: The United Kingdom delegate would like to see the sentence he read out inserted as a separate paragraph after paragraph 7.

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Es muy curiosa y acomodaticia la forma como algunos colegas interpretan el derecho de las minorías, porque si cada vez que las minorías expresan sus puntos de vista, y lo han hecho en más de 500 intervenciones, todo eso debe reflejarse en el Informe, entonces no sabemos donde vamos a llegar.

Yo he hecho un esfuerzo, he redactado sólo una página entera, nada más; entonces le pido a usted, señor Presidente, que aceptemos la propuesta del Reino Unido y luego me dé la palabra para hacer las propuestas nuestras de la gran mayoría de los miembros del Consejo y así terminaremos con el resto del Informe. Sólo he redactado una página pero puedo redactar tres o cuatro más.

W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of): The delegate of the United Kingdom made a point, and apparently this point was also made by the delegate of Japan, and both felt that the views expressed by their delegations were not reflected in the report, but they have to be respected. With regard to the last proposal, I think the delegate of Columbia did participate in the Drafting Committee.

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Es cierto que participé en el Comité de Redacción y por eso soy coherente, defiendo este texto que aprobé en la Sala de México, de manera que es infundado el argumento del señor Grabisch, de la República Federal de Alemania.

Estoy redactando ahora las otras tres páginas de nuestra declaración, pero mientras tanto quisiera hacer una propuesta alternativa para ver si logramos obtener seriedad en nuestros trabajos. Podríamos en el párrafo 7 decir: "El Comité convino en general, repito "en general", y allí ya está reflejado la opinion de aquellos que no compartieron la información y los temas, de lo contrario le ruego que se lea al texto del Reino Unido y luego me dé la palabra para leer mis cuatro páginas.

CHAIRMAN: Colombia has made a decision, the Council agreed in general to take account of the fact that it is not everybody's view. I would suggest that we adopt the proposal of Colombia and get on.

A.Y. BUKHARI (Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of): I fully support the proposal of the Ambassador of Colombia.

R.G. PETTITT (United Kingdom): I am grateful for the suggestion, but I do not think this really meets our concern. I simply wish these views to be recorded in the report. They can be described as "A country" or "A number of countries made..." I have no commitment to the specific wording. If Canada has a better one I would be happy to consider that, but I do wish to have this minority view put in the report.

A.M. QURESHI (Pakistan): I would request the delegate of the United Kingdom to please read slowly what he has suggested.

R.G. PETTITT (United Kingdom): It would be a new paragraph, after paragraph 7, and would read: "Some delegations proposed certain improvements in the presentation of information to member countries including concrete and costed programme options, comments on the effectiveness of programmes in achieving objectives and requested that these be taken into account in the preparation of the final budget for the Conference".

A.Y. BUKHARI (Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of): Although it is hard for me to accept this, and especially

to put it in a separate paragraph, we can modify this proposal from the United Kingdom and insert it in paragraph 7. We can do that after the presentation of the document. Then we can say, "Some delegations proposed", and put a few words in that if necessary.

R.C. SERSALE di CERISANO (Argentina): Tengo alguna duda. Por ejemplo, quién está capacitado para decir de antemano que lo que se van a introducir van a ser mejoras. Debía ser el mismo Comité, como resultado de estas propuestas y recomendaciones, el que después debería decidir si son mejoras o no. No nos parece prudente. En todo caso podría hacerse otra formulación, pero esto no nos parece prudente.

CHAIRMAN: Will the delegate of the United Kingdom give some consideration to this suggestion? We will come back to it. Let us move on to paragraph 10.

R.G. PETTITT (United Kingdom): I had not exhausted my comments on paragraphs 6 to 9. This is paragraph 8. In our view the Council did not support the view that the proposal for the next biennium merited full endorsement by the Council, because several countries were unable, as is said later in paragraph 39, to support the proposed budget level. We think that paragraph 8 as it now stands would mislead the Conference. I would make two alternative suggestions. One is to omit the words "merited its full endorsement" or, if this were not acceptable to others, add at the end of paragraph 8 "subject to the reservations made by several members on the proposed level of the budget".

J. TCHICAYA: (Président, Comité de rédaction): Peut-être pourrait-on supprimer les mots "sans réserve", et mettre simplement: "et méritent son approbation", tout court. Il est inutile d'ajouter ce que propose le Royaume-Uni. Je ne sais pas ce qu'il en pense...

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Quiero observarle al colega del Reino Unido que, a partir del marco financiero, párrafo 35, todo lo que él está tratando de anticipar ya está incluido allí. Que por favor no trate de cambiar el trabajo que nosotros hemos hecho en una labor seria y responsable.

R.G. PETTITT (United Kingdom): I think paragraph 39 and the related paragraphs actually do cover this point, but what is required is a sort of cross reference to that, which is what I was suggesting, because as read, paragraph 8 is misleading. Certainly the point is our endorsement so far as the strategy, plans and other things are concerned but I do not think it can be described as meriting full endorsement if there are reservations on the budget level. That is my main point.

CHAIRMAN: The Chairman of the Drafting Committee suggested "merited its endorsement". Does that take care of it?

R.G. PETTITT (United Kingdom): I realise that is intended to be helpful, but it does not actually meet the specific point I made.

M. MOMBOULI (Congo): A force de vouloir être patients, nous risquons de manquer de patience. Il ne faut pas trop compliquer les choses: les renvois croisés, comme si l'on devait s'adresser à des satellites qui devraient renvoyer des reflets, cela devient compliqué! Il faut simplifier les choses. Nous trouvons qu'il y a une sorte de contradiction dans le raisonnement que l'on nous tient: On nous dit que l'idée qu'ils veulent exprimer est reprise dans les paragraphes 39 et suivants. Il faut comprendre les autres. Il ne faut pas qu'à chaque paragraphe, nous assistions à une sorte de confrontation. Cela ne peut pas durer comme cela! Nous sommes en train d'accumuler des presssions. Ce n'est pas possible, il faut faire un effort de part et d'autre, et lorsque l'idée est déjà reprise quelque part dans le rapport, ce n'est pas la peine d'y insister outre mesure, puisqu'après tout, lorsqu'on lit un rapport, on retient les conclusions principales et si dans ces conclusions, l'idée que l'on veut exprimer se retrouve, ce n'est pas la peine d'insister.

J'appelle l'attention de tout le monde pour que, de part et d'autres,des efforts soient faits afin de faciliter notre tâche à tous, parce qu'à cette allure-là nous avons l'impression d'assister à un comité de rédaction; nous risquons de quitter la salle mardi!

Monsieur le Président, il faudrait peut-être reprendre les choses en mains et essayer d'accélérer!

G. BULA HOYOS :(Colombia): Quiero observar al colega del Reino Unido también que el párrafo 8 concluye con la expresión "constituía una base satisfactoria, una base satisfactoria". Este es un término amplio, señor Presidente. Luego es un hecho que las propuestas sobre prioridades, programas y políticas fueron aceptadas unánimemente por el Consejo. Hubo opiniones diferentes por parte de unas pocas delegaciones sobre los cálculos presupuestarios, y esto se refleja en el párrafo 42, largamente discutido en el Comité para lograr el consenso. Luego, en el párrafo 39, está la opinión de la minoría redactado por el representante de Australia con toda la amplitud y con todo lo que quiso incluir el señor Presidente, pero si ahora también, antes de que lleguemos a esos párrafos, se va a tratar de repetir esos mismos argumentos, creemos, señor Presidente, que esa actitud no es procedente.

A.M. QURESHI (Pakistan): Just a brief comment. I am indeed lost. English is a difficult language, even for those who were born into the milieu but I am afraid even if we take the word "full" before "endorsement", it does not make much difference to my understanding because there is no half endorsement, there is no quarter endorsement, there is no three-quarter endorsement - it is an endorsement. I think I go along with the delegate of the United Kingdom if he lets us proceed further. We might as well agree with "merited its endorsement" because we are going round and round and coming back. He might wish to review my observations.

M.J. BLAMEY (Australia): Not to make a substantive point as this stage, but just to comment on something that the delegate of Colombia said. He may have left the Council with the impression that Australia had somehow drafted the last section of this report and was completely happy with the last section of it. I am sure that the Chairman of the Drafting Committee can confirm that that was not the case. I think he mentioned at the outset that there were some problems with the final paragraph of this text that arose in the Drafting Committee.

Y.A. HAMDI (Egypt) (original language Arabic): Paragraph 8 as it stands at present is an evaluation of the work of the Finance and Programme Committees by the Council. We consider that the comments made by the delegate of the United Kingdom are reflected in other paragraphs when we come to the budget. Therefore we are of the view that we should keep paragraph 8 as it stands.

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Quiero aclararle al colega de Australia. Tal vez la traducción le llegó mal. Dije el párrafo 39, no todos los párrafos. El Presidente del Comité de Redacción podrá dar testimonio de que este párrafo lo aceptamos íntegramente como lo presentó Australia, con la condición, ingenua de mi parte, de que luego la conclusión sería inmodificable. Nos fallaron más adelante, pero a ello estamos acostumbrados, pero pedí la palabra para solicitar muy cordialmente del Reino Unido que lea el párrafo 42 detalladamente. Allí se le pide al Director General que prepare el texto definitivo del Programa de Labores y Presupuesto, basándose en estas propuestas del resumen, y, en la medida de lo posible, en el debate sobre este tema en el Consejo. Si el Reino Unido y otras delegaciones expresaron opiniones de que ya se tiene constancia, el Director General, también a la luz de este párrafo, las tendrá en cuenta. Por favor, permítanos avanzar.

CHAIRMAN: I agree the conclusion here is very clear. It clearly states and expresses the hope that a full consensus can be reached. It means that in many matters a full consensus has yet to be achieved. Therefore, I point out to members that if you put the verbatim records together so that every point of view is to be covered in a Council it would be very difficult and one could go on arguing. As the delegate of Colombia said, if you give him one page he can give three so we get nowhere at all. So I request the Delegate of the United Kingdom to drop his proposal so we can move on.

R.G. PETTITT (United Kingdom): I have indeed read paragraph 42 and I am afraid I have some proposals for amendments there. I am also afraid that I cannot drop my proposal. If it is necessary, I will make a reservation if this is the only way of going forward.

CHAIRMAN: Will you kindly formulate a sentence, and the delegate of the United Kingdom will have it as a reservation.

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): ¿Cuáles van a ser las reservas del Reino Unido?, porque yo quiero dejar mis reservas sobre las reservas de él. Que lea su texto y yo leeré el mío.

CHAIRMAN: When he formulates his reservation, we will come back to this. Meanwhile, shall we adopt the remainder of the report.

PARAGRAPHS 6 to 9 not concluded PARAGRAPHES 6 à 9 sont en suspens PARRAFOS 6 a 9 quedan pendientes

Paragraphs 10 to 13 approved

Les paragraphes 10 à 13 sont approuvés

Los párrafos 10 a 13 son aprobados


R.G. PETTITT (United Kingdom): I have a last comment on which I do not place much emphasis. I refer to paragraph 15, and it arises due to the fact that the United Kingdom is a member of the Governing Council of UNDP.

The UNDP representative made it clear that sectoral allocation of UNDP resources is almost entirely for the governments of recipient countries. That is not in the record at paragraph 15. The fact that the share of agriculture is falling is a reflection of the priorities adopted by recipient governments, and in the circumstances we think it would be more appropriate if paragraph 15 read as follows: "It was noted that the share of food and agriculture products in technical assistance country programmes financed by UNDP was falling, and invited the governments of recipient governments to consider whether action was required to reverse this trend".

CHAIRMAN: I suggest that you do not press this because it clearly states that it is for the governments to do. It is very clear that one could reformulate the paragraph, but if you do not insist we will move on.

The United Kingdom has accepted the paragraph as it stands.

Paragraphs 14 to 17; approved
Les paragraphes 14 à 17 sont approuvés
párrafos 14 a 17 son aprobados

PARRAFOS 18 a 27

CHAIRMAN: Paragraphs 26 and 27 should precede Programme Activities on page 5.

J. GLISTRUP (Denmark): I just wish to state that we agree with your proposal that paragraph 27 belongs before Programme Activities, but there are also some words missing in the latter part of the English text, which does not make sense. Reading from the middle of the third line after "FAO", it is stated "so that the limited resources". The words "could be utilized" have to be added. Those words are missing in the English text.

CHAIRMAN: Thank you for pointing that out. The sentence would then read, "so that limited resources could be utilized for the maximum benefit of all Member Nations, and in particular the developing countries".

Sra. D. RUIZ ZAPATA (Mexico): En el párrafo 22 hay una frase que no está correcta en español. Me da pena recalcarlo aquí, quitándole su tiempo, pero es verdaderamente muy importante que se apegue la traducción a la versión del inglés, que es correcta.

CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. I hope that can be rectified.

A.F. de SA BARBUDA (Brazil): I have one small point at paragraph 21 at the end of the paragraph. There is a reference to the European region, which seems to me superfluous because it states, "adequate attention would be paid to requirements and programmes in other regions". That covers all of the regions. Either we mention all of the other regions, such as Asia, Latin America and the Near East, or we drop the reference to the European region.

CHAIRMAN: Does the Chairman of the Drafting Committee agree to the deletion of "including the European region"?

J. TCHICAYA (Président, Comité de rédaction): Nous n'avons pas d'objection majeure sur cette question.

CHAIRMAN: I agree that we should not single out one region.

D. HUTTON (Canada): I have a small point on paragraph 26, which I do not think is controversial. I would suggest the addition of another sentence at the end of that, which would read as follows: "in particular, a suggestion was made that FAO should join the ICC in order to participate in its expanding network for electronic mail. That is a purely practical proposal and one which I think might clarify it to the reader.

CHAIRMAN: I thought that had been answered.

DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: My memory was that one delegation suggested this and it was answered, so it is up to the Council.

D. HUTTON (Canada): That is exactly correct. Obviously, I would not. insist on something like that, but I do think that it would be a positive contribution to the dissemination of information.

Paragraphs 18 to 27, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 18 à 27, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
párrafos 18 a 27, asi enmendados, son aprobados

PARRAFOS 28 a 34

R.G. PETTITT (United Kingdom): I have a query with regard to paragraph 31. I was not able to identify the point or the purpose of the last sentence, "This emphasis should also apply to FAO commodity work". What does it mean? To what are we lending our support?

CHAIRMAN: The delegate of the United Kingdom is asking the meaning of "This emphasis should also apply to FAO commodity work".

J. TCHICAYA (Président, Comité de rédaction): Comme nous n'avons pas beaucoup discuté la question, j'étais en train de voir dans quel contexte cela a été écrit.

R.C. GUPTA (India): Our understanding of this sentence was that these minor or secondary crops should receive attention in the work of the Commodities and Trade Division also, which has the intergovernmental groups, trade matters, and so on. These secondary crops should receive adequate attention. That was the purpose of putting in this sentence.

CHAIRMAN: Mr West agrees with the delegate of India.

R.G. PETTITT (United Kingdom): I personally would prefer something which was not discussed in this meeting, the implications of which are not absolutely clear to me, and I suspect not clear to some others, not to be included unless its omission fails to do justice to the essential parts there.

J. TCHICAYA (Président, Comité de rédaction): Si les autres membres du Conseil sont d'accord, je ne pense pas moi non plus que ce soit vraiment fondamental,

CHAIRMAN: Let us accept that view and move on.

Paragraphs 28 to 34 approved
Les paragraphes 28 à 34 sont approuvés
párrafos 28 a 34 son aprobados

Paragraphs 35 to 37 approved
Les paragraphes 35 à 37 sont approuvés
párrafos 35 a 37 son aprobados

PARRAFOS 38 a 41

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Antes de que las delegaciones se ocupen de esta parte de nuestro Informe, quisiera indicar de manera muy objetiva y sinceramente consciente que se tenga en cuenta el siguiente hecho. Esta fue una parte del Informe que nos ocupó largo tiempo y sobre la cual logramos el consenso, la unanimidad de los miembros del Comité de Redacción, basados en los siguientes hechos.

En el párrafo 38 aparece la opinión de "la gran mayoría de los miembros del Consejo"; en el párrafo 39 aparece la opinión de la minoría de los miembros del Consejo y, repito, este párrafo lo redactaron los representantes de la minoría en los términos en que quisieron. En el párrafo 40 aparece la posición de aquellos países que tenían una posición intermedia y que también aceptaron esta redacción. El resto pertenece a las conclusiones que se desprenden del equilibrio que se refleja en estos tres párrafos.

Espero que esto ayude para que el Comité permita que se adopte sin mayor dificultad.

M. J. BLAMEY (Australia): I appreciate the comments from the delegate of Colombia. However, it should also be noted that while Australia and the United States participated in the drafting of some of these paragraphs, other countries did not. I would assume that they have rights to revise or to suggest revisions if they wish to do so. For our own part we had a major difficulty in the Drafting Committee. I think that was mentioned before. A major point in our view was that we felt - we made this statement quite clearly in the Plenary - that if governments were seriously to consider the proposal for 1.4 percent growth, particularly those governments which rightly or wrongly were attracted to the idea of zero growth, there would need to be some sort of clear definition of what was being discussed. With that in mind, it might be recalled that we asked the Director-General to provide an information paper to the Conference outlining some options for the work programme under the zero real growth constraint. As explained, the idea was to enable, certainly, our Government and possible other governments to make some real judgments about what was happening at the margin. As the Director-General and others have said, also we are talking here about a marginal increase and we must define that margin as well as possible.

With that in mind we have proposed some wording, bearing in mind the Director-General's willingness to provide additional information. Our proposed words would read something like this: "In response to the Director-General's agreement to provide additional information, one delegate requested an information paper for the Conference outlining some options for the work programme under the zero real growth constraint." There may have been other delegations who also made the request, but certainly we made that quite explicitly. We are proposing those words be included at the end of paragraph 41.

J. TCHICAYA (Président, Comité de rédaction): Comme je l'ai dit en introduisant ce rapport, nous avons travaillé avec un certain esprit et je dois dire que tout le rapport que nous avons présenté a été adopté presque à l'unanimité sauf deux ou trois points. L'un d'eux a déjà été évoqué, il s'agissait des Etats-Unis et du Nicaragua. Le second point est celui que vient de soulever l'Australie.

L'Australie voulait, au niveau du paragraphe 41, ajouter ce qu'elle vient de nous dire, et les autres membres du Comité interrogés sur la question ont refusé d'admettre que l'Australie puisse introduire cet amendement. Mais puisqu'il faut tenir compte de toutes les interventions des membres du Comité de rédaction, nous avons demandé à l'Australie d'intervenir en séance plénière pour faire état de son amendement. C'est ce que l'Australie vient de faire. Il appartient au Conseil d'en juger.

DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: A point of clarification: the Director-General did refer to providing more information, which is normal in the final Programme of Work and Budget. He did not of course agree to this proposal that options should be provided for zero growth. On the subject of the Programme of Work and Budget I have nothing to add, and could not add anything to what has been said this afternoon. I am not suggesting that the distinguished delegate of Australia has alleged anything to the contrary - I just want to clarify that, when promising further information, he did not agree to this particular proposal.

M. J. BLAMEY (Australia): He certainly did not agree to the proposal - there is no doubt about that. But the words of the Director- General - and let me read them - are perfectly clear in the text and quite accurate. He said "If you want information, tell us and we will provide it". That is what he said. I want some information; I am asking for it; I hope he will provide it.

H. NAKAGAWA (Japan): I would like to propose the adding of one very short sentence at the very end of this paragraph, 39, which reads: "In their view, this approach could be taken without affecting the content and level of the priority areas." During discussion this view was stressed, not only by my delegation but also by many other members of the Council, and I think that this is one of the very important points because we are not proposing real zero growth for its own sake, but we believe that this should be done without jeopardizing the important activities of FAO in the priority areas.

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Lo que ha propuesto Australia ya aparece en la parte final, en la ultima frase del párrafo 39. Eso se lo explicamos allá reiteradamente al Sr. Gregory, en el Comité de Redacción. Nosotros pensamos, señor Presidente, sinceramente, que este Consejo integrado por 49 Estados Miembros tiene que ofrecer respeto por igual sin distinción a cada uno de esos Estados Miembros. Creo que no es aceptable que una delegación haga una propuesta y pretenda que a base de esa sola intervención, el Director General vaya a destruir este Programa de Labores y Presupuesto y a presentar uno nuevo completamente, porque la delegación de Australia así lo desea.

Yo creo que en realidad no se está actuando con seriedad y que se está cumpliendo una labor de obstrucción y de actitud permanentemente negativa; pero esta vez sí voy a ser muy serio y si la delegación de. Australia insiste en su punto de vista yo comienzo a redactar algunas páginas de mi discurso, que por cierto fueron muchos, y pediré que se incluyan en el Informe.

M. MOMBOULI (Congo): Nous confirmons la déclaration de l'Ambassadeur Bula Hoyos, à savoir qu'en rédigeant les derniers paragraphes de cette partie du rapport nous avons essayé d'obtenir un certain équilibre en faisant en sorte qu'au paragraphe 38 l'avis de la majorité soit exprimé, qu'au para-granhe 39 l'avis d'un certain nombre de délégations soit exprimé et qu'au paragraphe 40 l'avis de ceux qui avaient une position intermédiaire soit exprimé, enfin que la conclusion soit en l'état où elle se trouve.

Nous reconnaissons que la délégation de l'Australie,qui était présente au Comité de rédaction, avait présenté la proposition qui vient d'être lue. Malgré cette présentation, nous n'avons pas accepté d'insérer cet amendement parce que, d'après nous, l'équilibre s'en trouverait affecté. Cette insertion amènerait à ajouter davantage d'arguments à la position mentionnée au paragraphe 39, dont la dernière phrase notamment est assez explicite, et nous pensions que la proposition de la délégation de l'Australie était couverte par cette dernière phrase du paragraphe 39.

Nous avons donc dit que si l'Australie voulait absolument insister, elle n'avait qu'à présenter sa requête à la séance plénière. Elle vient de le faire. Malheureusement, notre position n'a pas changé. Nous continuons à croire que le paragraphe 39 reprend l'idée de l'Australie et nous demandons que le texte soit maintenu en l'état.

R. C. SERSALE di CERISANO (Argentina): Nos toca hablar en un momento difícil porque vamos a quedar entre dos fuegos, pero creo que quizá, y siendo realistas, podríamos empezar a trabajar sobre la idea de que la idea de Australia propuesta para el párrafo 41 creemos que no va, ya que se habla de ideas apoyadas en general. Podría ser expresada en el párrafo 39, que es el párrafo donde la minoría expresa sus opiniones. En ese sentido el párrafo 39, tal como está, le seguiría la idea de Japón y posteriormente la idea de Australia para ir en orden decreciente. Se va de "algún Miembro" hasta que se llega a "una delegación".

Decimos esto con sentido realista y porque sabemos que es un punto crucial; lo hemos visto en el Grupo de Redacción y sabemos que tiene dificultades. Creemos que lo más sabio es que dejen reflejada su posición en un solo párrafo, que es el 39.

Después de hacer este tipo de solicitudes, vayan o no progresando, que es una cosa que ya no depende de nosotros, nuestra idea sería que si Australia acepta trabajar sobre la idea de incluir estas cues tiones que considero son muy importantes, en el párrafo 39, podríamos dar un gran avance a estas cuestiones.

R.D. KAUZLARICH (United States of America): Some of what has just been said by the delegate of Argentina had been crossing my mind as we went over this. These are rather special paragraphs in this document, because they do not purport to reflect the view of the Council - indeed, they only purport to reflect the view of some members who have taken a certain position on the issue of budget. So it is not the sort of thing where you can talk about balance in the traditional sense

of negotiating a document in the way to which we are used in this House and perhaps in others. Therefore 1 think we have to look at these particular paragraphs with a very flexible attitude and, if there are points, such as the one made by the delegate of Japan, which obviously caused no problem to us, since we said the same thing - it does no more than represent the view of some governments who supported this particular option, but it in no way undercuts the views of other members of the Council - the views of the majority. But it does 1 think reflect the views of those who take that point of view. 1 leave it to the delegate of Australia to decide where best he may put his paragraph - but again 1 would see that in much the same vein.

CHAIRMAN: In order to move forward, would the delegates of Argentina, the United States, Australia and Japan, like to formulate a sentence which could be added at the end of paragraph 39 which reflects the views of some members, in regard to the suggestion by the delegate of Argentina. They could draft a sentence and we could take it up when they are ready. Would this be acceptable?

M.J. BLAMEY (Australia): As far as we are concerned, this is quite a serious request. It is something that will quite seriously enable us to make a more careful assessment of what we are talking about, which is the margin of growth and what effect either the absence of the presence of that growth will have on particular programmes. That is the way our Government tends to look at things and it has been very difficult to date, frankly, in the Council and in the paperwork to come to grips with that sort of detail.

1 take your suggestion and the suggestion of the delegate of Argentina and with that in mind, and on re-reading paragraph 39, there is a possibility that some words could accomodate our position, perhaps, as some have suggested, in a more balanced way. Could 1 suggest that it might be done by inserting the following words in the second last line of paragraph 39: after the words "final proposals" insert the words "including some programme options". That is simply in order to put some more definition into it. 1 must of course add that these are the views of some delegates, a minority. We cannot be sure that those ideals will be taken up, but that would accomodate our position in a minimal kind of way.

CHAIRMAN: I think you have heard Australia's proposal. The last sentence in paragraph 39, he suggests, should read: "... by reducing administrative and support costs to produce final proposals including some programme options to achieve ...". The rest remains the same; the addition is including "some programme options", and it reflects the minority viewpoint. Are you agreed? -Thank you.

H. NAKAGAWA (Japan): Can you read the sentence which I proposed once again?

CHAIRMAN: The last sentence in paragraph 39 will read: "They urged the Director-General in formulating his final proposals to continue to pursue opportunities for reallocating resources, in particular, by reducing administrative and support costs to produce final proposals including some programme options to achieve zero-net programme growth in real terms."

H. NAKAGAWA (Japan): How do you deal with the proposal which I read out?

CHAIRMAN: Will you repeat your proposal please?

H. NAKAGAWA (Japan): My proposal is as follows - that this sentence comes at the end of the present sentence in paragraph 39: "In their view this approach could be taken without affecting the content and level of the priority areas."

W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of): My delegation would like to support the suggestion put forward by Japan. We had made a similar point in our statement but I refrain from repeating the text.

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Señor Presidente, se que voy a tomar una actitud drástica, pero realmente creo que no hay otra alternativa.

La delegación de Colombia propone que se cierre el debate y a la luz de esta moción que dos delegaciones, si lo desean, se opongan a mi propuesta y someta a la consideración del Consejo la adopción del párrafo 39 tal como está.

CIIAIRMAN:The Colombian delegation has proposed a closure and suggests that paragraph 39 remains as it is. According to the rules two delegations can speak opposing the motion.

M.J. BLAMEY (Australia): I find this a very difficult situation. It is an interesting tactical approach that we are seeing here but these are minor modifications, I think, certainly from the point of view of Colombia to these words in paragraph 39. I am afraid if we do not get some satisfaction in this area it will be a matter of reserving on this area, possibly along with the United Kingdom and possibly even others if this sort of tactic is persisted with. I certainly oppose the motion.

H. NAKAGAWA (Japan): Only to express our opposition to the motion made by the Ambassador for Colombia.

CHAIRMAN: According to the Rules I should ask for a show of hands, The Australian delegation has given

notice that they will insert a reservation which they are entitled to. Those in favour of the Colombian motion, will you please raise your hands. Those opposed. The motion is carried by a majority, so the Australian delegation and any others who want to express a reservation should kindly formulate it.

Motion carried on a show of hands
La proposition est
adoptée par un vote à mains levees
Se adoptó la propuesta por votación a mano alzada

PARAGRAPHS 38 to 41 not concluded
PARAGRAPHES 39 à 41 sont en suspens
PARRAFOS 38 a 41 quedan pendientes


R.G. PETTITT (United Kindgom): We have difficulty in the wording in the fourth line which asks the Director-General to prepare his full Programme insofar as possible taking into account the discussion of the Council. In our view, the wording should read "and taking full account of comments made during the discussion of the Council".

J. TCHICAYA (Président, Comité de rédaction): Ce paragraphe a fait l'objet de discussions et si on a pu mettre "dans la mesure du possible" c'était pour obtenir justement un compromis. Donc "la mesure du possible" est un compromis que je voudrais voir accepté par les membres du Conseil.

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Ya el Presidente del Comité de Redacción expresó muy bien el origen de esa expresión. Está aquí en esta sala el representante de los Estados Unidos quien dijo de manera muy acertada que todos los 49 miembros del Consejo habían hecho propuestas sobre el Programa de Labores y Presupuesto. Entonces, hemos adoptado esta frase "en la medida de lo posible", justamente para dar al Director General la oportunidad de que pueda seleccionar entre esas propuestas y no pedirle que incluya allí todo lo que han propuesto los 49 miembros del Consejo. Este párrafo fue aceptado como compromiso unánimemente, unánimemente, por el Comité de Redacción.

CHAIRMAN: May I read out the relevant Rule XXXVII. Under the functions of the Director-General this led to the preparation of the Draft Programme of Work and Budget so it is relevant to what we are discussing and one of his functions is: "Prepare (i) in the light of guidance given by the Conference and Council at previous sessions and by regional or technical conferences, commissions or committees, a summary Programme of Work and Budget for consideration by the Programme and Finance Committees, other appropriate organs of the Organization, and the Council, and (ii) in the light of the observations by the aforementioned Committees,[ that is the Programme and Finance Committees ] and by the Council, a draft Programme of Work and Budget for submission to the Conference. So that in the functions of the Director-General himself, it is clearly stated that he will take into consideration the views expressed in the Programme and Finance Committees and the Council before he submits the draft Programme of Work and Budget to the Council.

H. CARANDANG (Philippines): According to democratic procedures there is a system by which you determine whether a decision has been made or no decision has been made. Now, the formulation here really indicates that when you say you will take into account as far as possible the discussion of the Council, that means that you are really in the back of your mind making a distinction between those proposals that have received, let us say the support of the Council, and therefore have to be taken into full account by the Director-General in making his proposals, to use an expression, and there are those proposals which are not on the same level and did not receive a full measure of support by the Council. And therefore all the proposals that have been made during the Council are not on the same level.

Now when you say "insofar as possible" you are not obliging the Director-General to follow all those suggestions that, after all, did not receive the full support of the Council. If you say a full account, I think, Mr Chairman, this is probably saying a little bit too much. When you say the discussion in the Council, that means you will take the discussion of the Council in its proper context. You will scan all the decisions that have been taken, and I am sure the officer in change, Dr Shah, will see which are the proposals that have to be followed and those that are, I would say recommendatory, and those which have not received any support at all. I think we should be fair and we should indicate exactly this decision, how the decision that is written here exactly indicates this procedure, and I therefore fully support the formulation as indicated here because that is indeed according to the rules of procedure, according to the democratic procedures that we have adopted in the Council. The other one gives cause for confusion.

CHAIRMAN: I think what the Philippine delegate has explained is what is really practicable. Somebody might expand officially and considerably and where are the funds? So whatever is practicable or possible is what is implied here, so I would request the United Kingdom delegate not to press. Let. us adopt this formulation which has been considered by the Drafting Committee in great detail.

R.G. PETTITT (United Kingdom): I am afraid I did read into this the implication that a substantial amount of the comments were impractical and were ruled out from the start. But if this is not what it means, I withdraw my objection.

D. HUTTON (Canada): If the United Kingdom has withdrawn its proposal, I was only going to suggest and to thank you for reading out the amendment. If we use the word in the regulation - I did not get the exact reference - so I cannot read it back to you, but it was in the light of, or something like that, and that in fact might be the best way of all to proceed.

Paragraph 42 approved
Le paragraphe 42 est approuvé
El párrafo 42 es aprobado

M. MAHDI (Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of) (original language Arabic): I am sorry, Mr Chairman, but I would like an issue to be clarified. Does this mean we have adopted paragraph 7 - that is before we go on to the next part of the draft report.

CHAIRMAN: Yes, as it is. We now move on to Part V.

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


Paragraphs 1 to 51 approved
Les paragraphes 1 à 51 sont approuvés
párrafos 1 a 51 son aprobados

PARRAFOS 52 a 65

M.G. PETTITT (United Kingdom): I have three points on REP/5. In paragraph 58, second line, I would prefer it to read: "Concern was expressed by a number of countries about the small amounts channelled through the IFS..." I think this was either a minority view, or certainly not the view of a large number of countries, as expressed.

CHAIRMAN: Paragraph 58 of REP/5, as the United Kingdom delegate has said: "Concern was expressed by some countries about the small amounts channelled through the IFS."

J. TCHICAYA (Président, Comité de rédaction): M. le Président, je crois que nous avons discuté de ce paragraphe et que nous sommes arrivés à sa formulation justement pour tenir compte qu'il y a des gens qui ne pensent pas comme cela. C'est pour cela que l'on a dit cette phrase au Dassif. Je ne sais pas comment c'est libellé en anglais, mais en français c'est libellé au passif "on", c'est pour dire que ce n'est pas le Conseil.

Nous avons discuté sur la question et nous avons tenu compte des observations faites par le représentant du Royaume-Uni.

J. POSIER (France): Je voudrais intervenir dans le même sens que le Président du Comité de rédaction. C'est une formule, je crois, consacrée. Quand il n'y a pas unanimité, quand il y a quelques délégations ou un certain nombre de délégations, on dit "on a". C'est un point de détail qui ne mérite pas que l'on s'y attarde trop longtemps.

CHAIRMAN: I hope this satisfies the United Kingdom delegate. Will you take up your next item?

R. G. PETTITT (United Kingdom): This is paragraph 62 where, though there is some acknowledgement of the point made by the United Kingdom, Venezuela and others who spoke of caution in the over-use of fertilizers, I think it would be better if the last line but one would read: "and the need for judicious extension of fertilizer use and increasing their efficiency on rainfed crops".

CHAIRMAN: The suggestion of the United Kingdom delegate is that the last sentence in paragraph 62 should read: "The Council also agreed with the importance of increasing food production in rainfed areas and the need for judicious extension of fertilizer use and increasing their efficiency on rainfed crops". I think that is all right.

Paragraphs 52 to 65, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 52 à 65, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
párrafos 52 a 65, asi enmendados, son aprobados

Paragraphs 66 to 81 approved
Les paragraphes 66 à 81 sont approuvés

Los p'arrafos 66 a 81 son aprobados

PARRAFOS 82 a 96

R. G. PETTITT (United Kingdom): My last point is on paragraph 85, a quite different subject. This is the reference to: "A few members referred to the deliberations of the CFA and requested the Director-General to similarly provide the Council and/or the Conference with an interim progress report..." I think historically it was a few members, but I do not think it was necessarily a minority view. I would prefer that it referred to the Director-General offering a further report in due time. It could read: "The Council welcomed the agreement by the Director-General to provide the Conference with an interim report..."

DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL : I do not like the words "welcomed the agreement by the Director-General". The Director-General had already announced that he was going to do it. It makes it sound as if there was a reluctance that the Council overcame.

CHAIRMAN: Let us leave it as it is here. Are there any other comments on REP/5? The report is adopted.

Draft Report of Plenary, Part V, as amended, was adopted
Projet de rapport de la plénière, V partie, ainsi amendée, est adoptée
proyecto de informe de la Plenaria, Parte V, así enmendado, es aprobado



R. G. PETTITT (United Kingdom): On paragraph 6, What is the significance of pointing out that there was a certain imbalance in the distribution of funds among the geographic areas? I cannot recall this discussion.

DEB MENASVETA (Secretariat): Regarding paragraph 6, the imbalance of funds in the Programmes of Action, it is indicating the funds that we received for some projects such as agriculture are more than for others, like fishery management, policy and planning, and so on. So this depends on the donors. We cannot adjust these funds, and at the same time between geographic areas.

CHAIRMAN: I think it is very clear. Are there any other comments on fisheries? Thank you.

Paragraphs 1 to 13 approved
Les paragraphes l à 13 sont approuvés
párrafos 1 a 13 son aprobados

PARRAFOS 14 a 21

R. G. PETTITT (United Kingdom): I would suggest that paragraph 20 should read from the third line "the Council expressed the wish that UNDP continue to use the competence of FAO in accrodance with the agreed consultation procedures". This is a matter which is normally discussed in the UNDP Governing Council, and the criticisms which are mentioned here are not made there.

CHAIRMAN: I hope you have heard the United Kingdom proposals. Let me read it out. Paragraph 20, third line: "the Council expressed the wish that UNDP continues to use the competence of FAO for the execution of projects involving food and agriculture in accordance with the agreed consultation procedures".

MAME BALLA SY (Sénégal): Cette proposition semble un peu dénaturer l'esprit visé dans ce paragraphe. Je crois que dans cette phrase, l'objectif essentiellement visé et qui a été fidèlement reproduit par le Comité de rédaction c'est qu'il y a plus ou moins une certaine défaillance constatée et que l'on exhorte en tout cas à utiliser au maximum la compétence de la FAO dans un domaine assez spécifique. La proposition qui nous est faite, non seulement remet en cause cette défaillance constatée, mais ajoute même une limite restrictive en disant: "conformément à ce qui est établi". Donc là, en fait, il vaudrait mieux se passer de la phrase. Or la phrase a son sens. Je pense, que nous aurions dû laisser la phrase telle qu'elle était proposée, afin de lui garder tout son sens.

J. TCHICAYA (Président, Comité de rédaction): Je crois que le délégué du Sénégal a raison. Tout d'abord le Comité de rédaction a discuté de ce point et je crois que la version qui est proposée ici a été un compromis que nous avons réussi à obtenir, parce que le paragraphe original était beaucoup plus long et beaucoup plus explicite pour montrer comment cela se passe.

Je vous rappelle qu'à la 86ème session de notre Conseil nous avons adopté un paragraphe beaucoup plus consistant que celui qui est là, à notre avis, mais, compte tenu du fait qu'il y a eu beaucoup de discussions au sein du Comité de rédaction, on a accepté qu'il soit assoupli de cette manière.

C'est pour cette raison que je voudrais lancer un rappel au représentant du Royaume-Uni pour que l'on accepte le texte tel qu'il est libellé, car il est le résjultat d'un compromis auquel nous sommes parvenus après de longues discussions.

M. FERMIN GOMEZ (Venezuela): Agradezco mucho al Presidente del Comité de Redacción su explicación porque yo iba a decir que en el texto español no dice "establecidos" sino "convenidos", que es más flexible. Estamos de acuerdo con él: "procedimientos convenidos de consulta". Me parece que es correcto.

D. HUTTON (Canada): I would only like to support the proposal put forward by the delegate of the United Kingdom. They raised this issue of UNDP, which is in our report in two other instances, and I did not speak to it then, though I seriously considered it. I had the pleasure of serving on the Governing Council of UNDP for four years and I think it is important that this Council understands and recognizes that it is the sovereign governments who determine what they will do with IFS resources that are provided through the system, and equally they are the ones who determine the executing government's agencies. This sentence would be totally inconsistent with my own position in UNDP and therefore here.

R. G. PETTITT (United Kingdom): I do admit that there was not a full debate on this subject. It was touched upon. Had I regarded it as a peripheral issue and expected a decision of this Council I would have participated. But certainly as a member of the Governing Council of UNDP I could not go along with this formulation as it stands.

DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: I do not know whether or not there is a misunderstanding but, as Senegal pointed out, there are two separate ideas here. The comment of Canada might apply to the first idea that the UNDP use to the maximum extent possible the competence of FAO but what we are really talking about is OPE, and there the Administrator of UNDP has a certain freedom of choice, except he is supposed to consult specialized agencies before deciding to offer the services of OPE to governments. If he does not consult us properly, or at all, and offers the services of OPE to governments, they are not necessarily going to be in a position to know, especially if the services are not offered to the Minister of Agriculture but somewhere else, that FAO is competent to carry out this exercise. So we are not saying we are taking away the sovereign rights of governments. There has been a long debate about this in the past and there are much fatter reports which are much stronger than this.

R.C. SERSALE DI CERISANO (Argentina): Quería referirme un poco a lo que dijo el Sr. West respecto a las delegaciones que se preocupan de los acuerdos que ya existen entre el PNUD y la FAO. No es así. Se trata de reflejar de la mejor manera posible los acuerdos que ya existen entre la FAO y el PNUD y que se lleven adelante de la mejor manera posible. No se trata de indicarle entonces al PNUD de la FAO qué es lo que tiene que hacer, sino que acaso nos estamos refiriendo a la imp lamentación de mecanismos de acuerdo y de participación en proyectos conjuntos que existen ya entre el PNUD y la FAO. Esa es la explicación que nos dio ayer en la redacción de este párrafo, que tardamos aproximadamente dos horas para hacerlo.

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): En su primera declaración el colega del Reino Unido dijo: "Esto es lo que hemos discutido en el PNUD," y luego, en otra intervención, dijo que él reconoció que no había habido debate al respecto, porque si hubiera existido ese debate él habría intervenido. Yo creo que está claro, hay que dejar el párrafo como está y el distinguido colega y amigo del Reino Unido ya podrá, en la Conferencia de la FAO, insistir sobre esos puntos de vista que no se trataron aquí.

R.G. PETTITT (United Kingdom): I still consider that the appropriate thing to do, which would give this Council stature or would conform to its stature,is not to express a view on a subject which in this Council and on this particular occasion has not been thoroughly worked out. I can see we would all learn much if we had studied and discussed it, but in my view we have not reached this conclusion as a result of our deliberations and I cannot subscribe to this. I would counsel the inclusion of the rather more neutral language which I suggested. If it goes through in this form, I reserve.

W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of): The wording as it stands now seems to us to go a little far. We have no special amendment to put forward, although perhaps one could say, "makes in as far as possible more use of the competence of FAO" - something like that. But perhaps the delegate of the United Kingdom could repeat his proposal.

MAME BALLA SY (Sénégal): Je pense que nous sommes en train de discuter sur un problème qui n'en vaut pas la peine. Ce Conseil peut exprimer un voeu sans aller à l'encontre des décisions établies au niveau de l'Organisation en cause. Le PNUD peut décider quelque chose, mais le Conseil peut exprimer un voeu. Quand on exprime un voeu on n'oblige personne, mais on signale un fait en espérant qu'on en tiendra compte. Je ne vois pas où est la difficulté.

Le délégué de la République fédérale d'Allemagne vient de présenter une amélioration que nous pourrions accepter. Cela ne poserait pas un grand problème. Mais dans l'esprit de cet article je ne vois pas ce qui est gênant parce que le Conseil peut toujours demander ce qu'il veut, même l'impossible. Je ne vois pas la difficulté.

R.D. KAUZLARICH (United States): I must say my major concern with this particular issue is to ensure that these two agencies in the UN family work most closely and effectively together. I must say I was particularly struck by the extremely positive tone of the Representative of FAO in his presentation to the UNDP Governing Council last week or the week before, I am not sure exactly when it was. I think perhaps our United Kingdom colleague identified a possible problem. We who have been extremely sensitive within the UN family about the relationship between the Council, the Finance Committee and other bodies, ought to take the same sort of care and concern that by expressing our desire we are not somehow introducing an element of contention in a relationship that I think on the Secretariat side and the Member Government side we want to see work well and improve. We ought to look at these formulations in that sense. Perhaps the suggestion that our United Kingdom colleague has introduced may help us get a formulation that will not in itself be an additional cause of friction between these two Organizations.

L. ARIZA HIDALGO (Cuba) Nuestra intervención va a ser muy rápida. Considero que realmente se está discutiendo una cosa improcedente. Por lo tanto, apoyo a las delegaciones de Colombia y Senegal para que quede el párrafo como está.

M. MOMBOULI (Congo): Nous aussi nous avions l'intention de rappeler ce qui s'est passé, mais étant donné l'atmosphère nous préférons nous prononcer en disant que nous souhaitons que le texte soit retenu tel qu'il est. Ce n'est pas la peine que nous nous expliquions davantage.

D. HUTTON (Canada): I have to state that my delegation and my country undertakes to have a consistent policy throughout the United Nations System, which involves a lot of travel and a lot of meetings. I would strongly urge the Council to accept the United Kingdom wording. If it deems it cannot, we would certainly reserve our position on that paragraph as well.

R.C. GUPTA (India): If I understood correctly, my distinguished neighbour Dr Grabisch has made a

suggestion that we could modify the sentence to read, "The Council expressed the wish that UNDP made

better use of the competence of FAO", if that could solve the problem. This is a very positive suggestion and perhaps can help in overcoming the problem.

DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: The Secretariat certainly wishes to pursue the same line as it did in the governing body, but I think the way out lies more with Germany than with United Kingdom in this case. I would suggest if it meets the views at least of the United States and Germany we might consider that the text should say, "The Council expressed the wish that the maximum possible use be made by UNDP of the competence of FAO" etc. So you express the wish of the governing body but do not urge them. This is what the United Kingdom is so sensitive about. It meets the point and if not, I hope it at least meets the point of the Federal Republic of Germany and the United States.

CHAIRMAN: "The Council expressed the wish that the maximum possible use by UNDP of the competence of FAO should be made in the execution of projects involving food and agriculture". That is what Mr West has said.

D. HUTTON (Canada): My first reaction is that it virtually uses the same words and says the same thing. It would be preferable in fact if it read "Some Members" or "a few members", or whatever. This was not a substantive issue in this meeting.

CHAIRMAN: The other way is to use the passive, as the Chairman of the Drafting Committee says.

J. TCHICAYA (Président, Comité de rédaction): Je crois que les membres du Conseil doivent être conséquents avec eux-mêmes. En novembre dernier, nous avons adopté une attitude beaucoup plus ferme que celle qui est contenue dans ce paragraphe. Est-ce qu'entre-temps la situation a changé? Est-ce que le Secrétariat peut nous donner des éléments qui nous amènent à croire que la situation a changé pour que nous puissions nous aussi modifier notre point de vue? Cela est important. Il faut que l'on nous dise si la situation a favorablement évolué depuis novembre dernier et que l'on nous donne des éléments d'appréciation pour nous permettre de modifier le contenu de ce paragraphe. Je pense qu'on ne devrait pas mettre cela à la forme passive.

R.I). KAUZLARICH (United States): The more this discussion goes on, the more trouble I seem to be in because it raises issues that have been bothering me throughout, and there are degrees of attention that this Council gave to issues. I, for one, recall the only discussion that took place with respect to UNDP was a discussion between UNDP, the Secretariat and one, perhaps two other members of the Council. Yet the way in which we put this document together means that if someone who had not participated in this meeting came to read it he would assume there was major discussion on that as with all the other points. On reflection and bearing in mind the points that our United Kingdom colleague made, the discussion that took place is quite different from the one that took place on the Summary Programme of Work and Budget.

DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: I think 1 have said enough. I mentioned before we had stronger wording. I will ask Mr Régnier to read out the wording of the Council on the last occasion.

A. REGNIER (Director, Office for Inter-Agency Affairs): The Council during the November 1984 session in its paragraph 144 adopted che following language. It is quite a long paragraph but I will read it fully.

"In connection with the report on the Office for Projects Execution (OPE) of the UNDP (JIU/REP/83/9), the Council fully agreed with the concern expressed by both Committees. The operations of the OPE currently accounted for around 7 percent of total UNDP delivery but were mainly carried out by subcontracting and little training was involved. The Council was particularly concerned that the guidelines which had been developed by UNDP jointly with the agencies of the UN System prescribing prior consultation on projects executed by OPE in the areas of competence of the specialized agencies were not being consistently followed and that frequently, FAO was informed only after a decision had been taken to resort to OPE execution of a project involving food and agriculture.

The Council accordingly urged that these agreed consultation procedures between UNDP and specialized agencies such as FAO be consistently followed."

R.G. PETTIT (United Kingdom): There is obviously very clear language in some of our earlier decisions. I would not suggest that we try to recreate hose decisions, but I see no reason why we should repeat them since we have not had a definitive discussion on this subject. I suggest that this opinion of the Council last year simply be left as the opinion of the Council last year and that no reference whatsoever be made in this report in the light of the small amount of discussion and our failure to take account of the very definitive discussion of this issue in last year's Governing Council of the UNDP.

MAME BALLA SY (Senegal): Notre delegation s'inquiète de ce qui se passe actuellement. En effet, le développement de nos débats a de quoi inquiéter parce que dire nous n'avons pas eu de débat assez approfondi sur cette question pour trouver une raison de ne pas écrire la phrase telle qu'elle se présente, c'est assez grave.

Je vais demander au Secrétariat de reprendre le document qu'il nous avait soumis pour relire ce qui a été écrit dans ce document. On oublie souvent que l'on nous donne des documents de travail des mois avant notre réunion, nous les étudions et lorsque nous arrivons en séance plénière, si personne ne dément une affirmation contenue dans ce document, le Conseil doit en tirer la conclusion qu'il y a eu un débat tacite sur ce qui a été rédigé par le Secrétariat. Donc, si personne n'a relevé les affirmations présentées dans ce document, le Secrétariat le présente au Conseil. Par contre, s'il y a une lacune, il est normal qu'elle soit signalée. Mais si personne ne s'est levé pour dire qu'une affirmation est gratuite, cela veut dire qu'elle est acceptée.

Je crois que l'amélioration du texte présenté par la République fédérale d'Allemagne devrait nous tirer d'affaire. Cette phrase pourrait laisser entendre que nous avons discuté de ce problème, ce qui est curieux, parce que cette phrase n'avait pas attiré l'attention de ma délégation. C'est maintenant qu'on en discute. Or, un lecteur ordinaire ne peut pas lui attacher une importance plus grande qu'à tout le contenu du paragraphe.

CHAIRMAN: There is a concrete proposal from the delegate of Senegal that we adopt the formulation of the Ambassador of the Republic of Germany that the UNDP make greater use of the competence of FAO for the execution of projects involving food and agriculture. In other words, express the wish that the UNDP makes greater use of the FAO.

SUHARYO HUSEN (Indonesia): On behalf of the Indonesian delegation I would like to support the proposal of Senegal.

CHAIRMAN: It is the proposal of Senegal and the Federal Republic of Germany.

R.C. SERSALE di CERISANO (Argentina): Nosotros también queremos apoyar la propuesta de Alemania. Creemos que se ha avanzado respecto a cuando empezamos a discutir, pero las delegaciones que se oponen ya no están discutiendo sobre lo que se dice aquí, sino en qué cantidad, cuantitativamente. Este tema fue poco discutido aquí y en mérito de eso fue incluido en esta parte del Programa, lo cual supone que ha habido acuerdo con lo que se dice. Por tanto creemos que la primera cuestión está zanjada.

Respecto a la segunda cuestión sí fue discutida, y lamento que se vuelva a hablar de ella cuando es un tema que se discutió en el Comité de Redacción y son algunos miembros de este Comité los que vuelven a insistir sobre esto. Yo puedo decir a la Secretaría que se hablo más de las relaciones FAO/PNUD, que de la ONUDI. Se hablo de problemas sustanciales del Grupo de Acción sobre Desarrollo Rural. Así que bien está el mérito de incluir esta cuestión aquí.

M. MOMBOULI (Congo): Nous appuyons la proposition du Sénégal et de la République fédérale d'Allemagne pour essayer de nous sortir d'affaire. Mais je pense que nous devons en profiter pour éclaircir un certain nombre de choses qui peuvent servir à l'avenir.

En effet, nous avons entendu qu'il n'y a pas eu de véritable débat. Est-ce que le débat devient véritable suivant l'importance de celui qui parle, ou est-ce qu'il y a une autre explication? Selon nous, la question a été évoquée ici par trois fois. La première fois, c'était le matin, le Congo est intervenu, l'Inde est intervenue, le représentant du PNUD est intervenu et a demandé à rencontrer les différentes délégations. Ils se sont retrouvés et le représentant du PNUD est revenu en séance plénière, en disant qu'on n'avait pas été capable de lui donner des exemples précis. C'est ce qu'on appelle un débat. C'était l'occasion pour les délégations qui avaient une autre opinion de s'exprimer. C'est l'aspect de la formation qui a suscité la question. On a dit que les organes en qui on avait confiance donnaient en sous-traitance les projets qui négligeaient l'aspect formation. C'est ce qui a suscité le débat.

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Compartimos la opinión de los últimos colegas que han intervenido y le rogamos a usted que imponga su autoridad. La propuesta de la República Federal de Alemania está generalmente aceptada, y no permita que se siga obstruyendo la labor del Consejo.

M. MAHDI (Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of; (original language Arabic): After the long time that we have spent on this paragraph I would like to say that I support the proposal made by the Ambassador of Colombia and that of the delegation of Indonesia, and all of those who supported the proposal by the Ambassador of the Federal Republic of Germany.

R.D. KAUZLARICH (United States of America): I indicated my concern about the procedure and the difficulty I have in understanding the relationship of the Council urging that agreed consultation procedures in this respect between UNDP and specialized agencies such as FAO be consistently followed. That implies a discussion of some time. I am just wondering when we took that. Again, this is a more general problem than just this particular language.

H. CARANDANG (Philippines): Perhaps the report on the Personnel Matters, which we have already approved on page 15, will give us an example. It is the question about reimbursement of expenses to member delegates and the manner in which this question was discussed. We have a very detailed description of the debate and the decisions taken in paragraphs 88 and 83, which is probably longer than the verbatim record of how the decision was taken. The debate on the matter probably took about five minutes. There were three delegations which spoke, and the matter was decided. It really does not depend on how much time or how long the debate lasted. It is a question of how the matter has been dealt with. I thought that this matter was something which was discussed in the past, which was agreed upon in the past, and which was referred to during the debate. I thought that there was no problem in that regard. A decision is taken not because one hundred speakers took the floor, but because the matter was sufficiently touched upon, and whether, according to the view of the Council, the decision was taken.

CHAIRMAN: I know that there has been a history in the last few years, as Mr Régnier said, and some who have not attended the previous discussions might feel that it is abrupt. But it is a continuation of the Council's views from last November.

I would like to say that we accept the reformulation of the sentence by the delegate of the Republic of Germany that UNDP make greater use of the competence of FAO, and so on.

R.G. PETTITT (United Kingdom): I am afraid that I cannot be associated with that. I will make a reservation or ask for a minority view to be included.

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Prefiero que hable primero Canada, porque una reserva más o una menos es lo mismo. Dele la palabra, señor Presidente, a Canadá y luego yo intervendré.

DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: I am left in the dark. If the United Kingdom makes a reservation, well and good. That is not the same as expressing a minority view. If he expresses a minority view, it has to be spoken out loud here. 1 understand the conclusion to be that he is going to make a footnote reservation.

D. HUTTON (Canada): My delegation will make a reservation as well.

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Para ganar tiempo yo quiero desde ahora anunciarle a usted, señor Presidente, y a la Secretaría que debajo de cada una de las reservas que se hagan usted agregue una contrarreserva de la delegación de Colombia, y le digo el texto: "La delegación de Colombia opinaron que la reserva es inaceptable". Esto queda ya como posición definitiva nuestra y así arreglamos todas las cuestiones pendientes.

CHAIRMAN: We will add what the Ambassador of Colombia has said.

L. ARIZA HIDALGO (Cuba): Me uno a las reservas de la distinguida delegación de Colombia, a todas.

CHAIRMAN: All right we shall put the Colombia and Cuba reservations in the Report.

Paragraphs 14 to 21, not concluded
Les paragraphes 14 à 21. sont en suspens
párrafos 14 a 21, quedan pendientes

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



M. FRANCISCI di BASCHI (Italie): J'ai seulement deux observations à faire sur le REP/7. La première est sur le par. 3, surtout sur la deuxième phrase "le Comité interministériel estime qu'il pourrait être nécessaire de promulguer une nouvelle loi pour le financement de la construction..." D'abord ce Comité interministériel n'existe pas; ensuite il est curieux de noter que ce Comité - ou bien le gouvernement italien - pense qu'il soit nécessaire d'avoir des plans détaillés pour exécuter un projet. C'est une chose qui se passe partout. De même pour une loi parce que c'est toujours le Parlement, dans n'importe quel pays, qui décide des dépenses publiques. Donc si personne n'a d'objection, je voudrais proposer de biffer la deuxième phrase du par. 3 qui s'arrêterait après la première phrase. "Le Conseil a toutefois été informé que plusieurs problèmes juridiques administratifs et financiers restent à résoudre avant que la construction puisse commencer." C'est ma première observation. La deuxième est plus importante.

CHAIRMAN: The first one is that the Ambassador says that the interministerial Committee does not exist, and therefore that paragraph will have to be omitted or reformulated.

DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: Perhaps he can tell me privately afterwards what it was that I attended the other day - but if I have the title wrong, I apologise. The sentence was included because it was mentioned, but it was included with the intention of helping Ambassador Francisci di Baschi to solve his problem. If he does not want it, fine - let us exclude it.

CHAIRMAN: If he does not want, by all means let us exclude it.

Paragraphs 1 to 6, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes l à 6, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
párrafos 1 a 6, así enmendados, son aprobados

Paragraphs 7 to 10 approved
Les paragraphes 7 à 10 sont approuvés
párrafos 7 a 10 son aprobados

Paragraphs 11 to 13 approved
Les paragraphes 11 à 13 sont approuvés
párrafos 11 a 13 son aprobados

PARRAFOS 14 a 24

M. FRANCISCI DI BASCHI (Italie): Ma deuxième observation: nous donnons une grande importance au problème de la discrétionalité du Directeur général. Je voudrais rappeler au Conseil que le Comité juridique s'est exprimé pour cette discrétionalité accompagnée de certaines conditions. Ensuite il y a eu une discussion au Conseil à laquelle un petit nombre de délégations a participé, mais dans ce petit nombre de déclarations je n'ai pas eu l'impression qu'il y avait une majorité du Conseil désirant confirmer la décision précédente du Conseil. Je voudrais savoir si vraiment le Conseil pense que dans sa majorité il s'est prononcé contre cette discrétionalité à donner au Directeur. C'est une chose assez simple à constater. Il suffit de demander au Conseil si sa majorité a conclu. Je n'ai pas eu l'impression d'une conclusion dans ce sens. Peut être que mon ami et collègue le Vice-Président qui représente ici Cuba pourrait nous aider sur cette question.

J. TCHICAYA (Président, Comité de rédaction): Nous n'avons pas pu avoir un accord avec la représentation italienne qui a participé au Comité de rédaction sur ce point. Il me semble qu'une majorité d'entre nous pensait qu'il fallait laisser le texte en état mais, cempte tenu des réserves assez précises de l'Italie, nous avons estimé qu'il fallait maintenir le texte en état, certes, mais qu'il fallait laisser le soin à la délégation italienne d'intervenir encore une fois au niveau de la plé-nière pour faire valoir son point de vue, parce qu'il semble qu'elle ne partage pas les conclusions au niveau du par. 24.

M. FRANCISCI DI BASCHI (Italie): Je remercie beaucoup le Président du Comité de rédaction, mais il ne s'agit pas de faire prévaloir le point de vue de l'Italie. Il s'agit de savoir si le Conseil a vraiment conclu dans le sens indiqué dans ce paragraphe, c'est tout. Nous n'avons aucune intention d'imposer une volonté au Conseil, mais seulement de connaître celle-ci.

CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the Vice-Chairman, Ambassador Hidalgo would like to comment?

L. ARIZA HIDALGO (Cuba): El párrafo realmente tiene, a mi juicio, algo de más. Creo que tiene dos párrafos que realmente se contradicen y esa contradicción hay que resolver.

Quisiera que el Embajador Francisci di Baschi, de Italia, nos hiciera el favor de explicarnos cuál es su opinion referente al ultimo párrafo que comienza: "En consecuencia, el Consejo decidió no mo-dificar la posición que había adoptado en su 82° período de sesiones". Cuál es su opinion específica y si considera que el Consejo no decidió modificar la posición que se tomó o si considera que esto no se discutió. Quisiera conocer eso, porque realmente el párrafo, a mi juicio, debe redactarse otra vez porque tiene una cuestión contradictoria entre la primera parte del párrafo y la última.

Esta no fue una de las cuestiones más controvertidas de la discusión, porque aquí se planteo especialmente que el Director General debía tener la facultad discrecional de recurrir o no, pero se aclaro que en caso de que lo decidiera era con el único fin de defender su inmunidad, yo recuerdo que esta fue'la discusión fundamental. Entonces, me ayudaría mucho para comprender bien las opiniones del Embajador Francisci di Baschi que me diera su criterio sobre el último párrafo del 24.

CHAIRMAN: Would you like to respond, Ambassador Francisci di Baschi?

M. FRANCISCI DI BASCHI (Italie): Je n'ai pas d'idée à ce propos, je veux simplement connaître celle du Conseil. Peut-être ai-je une mauvaise mémoire mais autant que je me souvienne je n'ai pas eu le sentiment que le Conseil ait conclu pour la position qui est reprise à la dernière phrase. Je voudrais simplement que vous demandiez au Conseil s'il est d'accord, s'il a décidé dans ce sens. Je n'ai pas personnellement d'idée, je veux simplement connaître les idées du Conseil.

LEGAL COUNSEL: At your meeting yesterday this matter was discussed and a number of delegations expressed themselves in favour of the view reflected in the first part of the paragraph, while other delegations supported the view reflected in the second part of this paragraph. It was the impression of the Secretariat when it prepared the draft report and submitted it to the Drafting Committee, that more delegations spoke in favour of the second view - in other words, that there should be no change in the Council's policy as established in the past. The point now raised by Ambassador Francisci di Baschi is that he would like confirmation, or the contrary, from the Council on the question whether the impression gained at least by the Secretariat, was correct.

R.G. PETTITT (United Kingdom): I may have missed something when I was drafting, but the point I was going to make was that my own recollection was that the last sentence of this paragraph did not represent the view of the majority - but that was just the impression I received, and I am simply querying it.

R.C. SERSALE DI CERISANO (Argentina): Sí, nosotros ayer también planteamos esta misma cuestión en el grupo de redacción porque teníamos la misma sensación de Cuba, que en ese momento presidía cuando se discutió en Plenaria, que el último párrafo no se adaptaba muy bien a la realidad.

Solicito disculpas por rediscutir una cuestión de fondo pero mi pregunta es por qué se vuelve a hacer hincapié en una cuestión que era ya una posición del año 82 cuando se presupone que todo lo que debería haberse hecho dentro del Comité de Asuntos Constitucionales y Jurídicos es una evolución respecto a lo que se tenía en el año 82. No soy abogado, pero mi lógica diría que si en 1982 había una postura, la recomendación del último período de sesiones del Comité de Asuntos Constitucionales y Jurídicos suponía una postura. Aquí se considera como que la posición justa era la del año 82 y todo lo que hizo el Comité en estas negociaciones, que tuvieron lugar casi durante tres años lo llevó adelante el Comité, parece que no eran las justas. Solicito explicaciones, nada más que eso.

M. FRANCISCI di BASCHI (Italie): Nous sommes tous vivants, tous présents bien que fatigués. Nous avons le don de la parole. On ne peut pas savoir si dans ce Conseil il y a une majorité dans un sens ou dans l'autre?

Quand au fond du problème je n'ai aucune intention d'ouvrir une discussion là-dessus. Je pense même qu'elle ne serait pas appropriée. Le Conseil a examiné un rapport du Comité juridique dans lequel on exprimait l'opinion de redonner une certaine discrétionalité au Directeur général. Le Conseil a été appelé à se prononcer, au moins à exprimer un jugement sur cette possibilité. C'est tout. Il y a eu une décision en 1982, peut-être est-il souhaitable maintenant de la changer. Si le Conseil ne veut pas la changer, tant mieux ou tant pis.

M. MOMBOULI (Congo): Je pense effectivement que Monsieur l'Ambassadeur d'Italie est très concret dans la proposition qu'il nous fait. En effet le Conseil continue à siéger puisque nous sommes tous vivants corne il nous l'a dit même si nous sommes fatigués. On peut vérifier je crois qu'il est plus pragmatique de demander si nous avons changé de position depuis la dernière session. Nous avons eu l'impression devant les difficultés qu'il valait peut-être mieux opter pour un statu quo. On nous dit que ce n'est pas ça, on peut le vérifier nous sommes encore tous présents.

L. ARIZA HIDALGO (Cuba): Yo quiero hacer una proposición a ver si la representación de Italia la puede aceptar, porque nos parece que inclusive en la conclusión nuestra recogimos que varios miembros habían manifestado la posibilidad de que la Organización defendiera su inmunidad ante los tribunales. Este primer párrafo debe quedar igual. Yo propongo que el párrafo 24 termine en la palabra "inmunidad". Después hay tres párrafos: en el segundo dice: "Sin embargo, la mayoría de los miembros del Consejo llegaron a la conclusión de que no sería conveniente prever la comparecencia de la FAO ante los tribunales italianos, ni siquiera representada por la Avvocatura Generale dello Stato". Eso fue dentro de la discusión una mayoría, "con el único fin de defender su inmunidad".

Si el representante de Italia acepta pensando que los dos párrafos anteriores son reales y quita todo este ultimo párrafo, esta es mi proposición.

R.C. GUPTA (India): The Ambassador of Italy has urged a question of fact and instead of expressing an opinion at this juncture and entering into a fresh discussion, I would suggest that it would be useful to ascertain the views of the Council by posing a question and a show of hands, and then decide whether the majority do really feel that FAO should not appear before the court even to claim immunity. Then decide the paragraph, and I would tend to agree with the Ambassador of Cuba that we could perhaps delete the last sentence. That is my view. We are not all lawyers. We have expressed a view and leave it at that.

R.D. KAUZLARICH (United States of America): I am very uneasy about this whole discussion. While I sat through that entire debate yesterday I must say I did not understand what was going on except what my position paper told me to say.

I must say what this sounds like is that we are running contrary to a recommendation, a decision of the CCLM. Is that not the case, because if I remember correctly, there was a recommendation in that paper that there would be a certain amount of discretion allowed for the Director-General.

We have been very very conscious, and I think correctly so, to protect the integrity of other sub-bodies of this Organization, and yet in this case we are making an exception and in essence being asked to vote up or down on an issue that certainly I do not understand at this stage.

I know we have expressed a view, that view is reflected there, and there have been other delegations around the table that have expressed a view. Those have been there, but I do not know what else we can do besides that, without going back for a little bit more expert legal advice to make a decision.

M. FRANCISCI di BASCHI (Italie): Je regrette beaucoup que l'on ait soumis au Conseil une question qu'il n'est pas à même de trancher parce que, paraît-il, il est incompétent, partiellement ou totalement. Mais ici, il ne s'agit pas d'avoir un débat sur le fond juridique, il s'agit de constater qu'il y a une majorité du Conseil qui appuie cette thèse, qui est énoncée à la fin du paragraphe 24.

C'est très simple, mon collègue de l'Inde l'a dit également, il s'agit de demander au Conseil s'il s'identifie dans cette majorité qui est indiquée dans le paragraphe.

CHAIRMAN: I quite agree that we could take a show of hands and seek a majority or minority but in such issues I think all of us want to help the Organization and the Director-General, so we should take a position which will be in the interest of the Organization, and that is why I did not want to hasten and ask everyone to say yes or no because that is easy to do. I would suggest to the subsequent speakers, Senegal and France, if you will be as brief as possible.

MAME BALLA SY (Sénépal): Je crois que nous n'avons pas de problèmes. Dans la mesure où nous avons ici une proposition de rédaction, je crois qu'il appartiendrait peut-être à ceux qui ne sont pas d'accord avec cette proposition de faire des objections, ou alors on devrait adopter le paragraphe qui nous est proposé - et sûrement pas gratuitement.

Il faudrait que le Conseil juridique maintenant nous aide dans notre décision. En effet, ici, on nous propose un service de "l'Avvocatura Generale dello Stato Italiano" pour plaider l'immunité devant les Tribunaux italiens. Or, il faudrait que le Conseil juridique nous dise, au cas où la FAO serait autorisée par le Conseil à accepter ces services et malgré la plaidoirie de ce service juridique et si les tribunaux condamnent la FAO, si la FAO sera tenue de se conformer à la décision des tribunaux.

En réalité, en matière de droit, si l'on renonce à un certain avantage, on demeure lié par les conséquences, en tous cas, de la décision qui serait prise.

C'est pourquoi, à part cette précision que nous aurions souhaitée de la part du Conseil juridinue, il demeure que la question est très simple. Une décision a été prise par un organe qui ne se trouve pas en-dessous de nous, mais c'est le même organe, et s'il n'y a pas de changement dans la situation, si personne ne s'oppose à ce qui est proposé, je pense que nous pourrions passer sur ce rapport. Par contre, s'il y a maintenant quelqu'un qui s'oppose, au fur et à mesure que ces oppositions se manifesteraient, on saurait s'il y a une majorité ou non. Peut-être sommes-nous d'accord? ... Je pense qu'il y a une décision assez claire à prendre au sein de nos débats.

H. CARANDANG (Philippines): I think the difficulty is that when the debate took place just a few speakers took the floor, and from the number of speakers it was not very easy to determine whether the Council decided really to follow the advice of the CCLM or to hold firm to the old decision that was taken by the Council itself. It will be remembered that the decision of the Council on the basis of the Headquarters Agreement was that FAO was free from immunity according to the exact wordings of the procedure in the English text. There were a few who took the floor who said they favoured the opinion of the recommendation of the CCLM, but it was not all that clear that that was the view of the Council. The view of the Drafting Committee yesterday was that since it was impossible to determine, because there were some who thought that indeed it was the Council who favoured the decision of the CCLM and others thought it was still holding to the old view that was held by the Council before. Now they said let us ask the Council itself and find out whether they really felt one way or other.

CHAIRMAN: I think the time has probably come when we should ascertain. The major question seems to me that the sentence, "that the majority of the Council concluded that it should not be desirable to enter an appearance by FAO before the Italian courts even if represented and so on for the purpose." So the question is whether the majority feel this way or respect the views of the CCLM and keep the matter under review. What should be our position. The United Kingdom, would you like to offer a method of solving this issue.

R.G. PETTITT (United Kingdom): I feel I can perhaps intervene in that my advice was not particularly directed on this and I have no strong views on this. In this case where there is wisdom of doing something, one should not necessarily take a majority view. One should be guided by those people who have very severe reservations about a particular course of legal action. I would suggest therefore that we do not bother to establish the majority or otherwise, that one simply leaves the text as it is but substituting for "majority", "a number of Council members", so that the logic is various people thought it might be a good idea, other people were worried about it, and therefore it was decided not to take action.

CHAIRMAN: We should take action. We give the discretion to the Director-General to come to a decision.

DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: I cannot say on behalf of the Director-General that I am very happy with what the United Kingdom has said, or many other things that the United Kingdom has said for the last hour or hour and a half, but as I understand his proposal the consequences of it would be to keep the status quo, that is the Director-General does not go to the Court. On that basis I think it is all right.

J. POSIER (France): Je voulais simplement rappeler que vous êtes saisi d'une proposition et même d'une demande précise et concrète de l'Ambassadeur Francisci di Baschi qui consiste à vous demander s'il ne serait pas possible de consulter les membres du Conseil pour savoir exactement quel est l'opinion de ce Conseil, parce que, si j'ai bien compris, le représentant de l'Italie n'est pas absolument persuadé qu'il s'agisse de l'opinion majoritaire du Conseil et il demande simplement à ce que l'on procède à une vérification.

CHAIRMAN: I would suggest for saving time and also noting for ourselves that the Ambassador of Cuba made a suggestion that we just delete the last sentence.

L. ARIZA HIDALGO (Cuba): Mantengo mi proposición de cancelar el último párrafo, pero quiero explicar una situación en la que el Embajador Francisci di Baschi creo que debe estar de acuerdo. La discusión llegó a un punto final en que se conoció que, a pesar de diez años de dar una serie de logros satisfactorios hay optimismo en resolver una situación, pero que no estaba terminada la situación. Por lo tanto, este ofrecimiento del Gobierno Italiano que le hace a la Organización, sencillamente, cuando se le ofrecen a la Organización los servicios de la Avvocatura Generale dello Stato para defenderse, es porque está claro que tiene que defender la inmunidad, que no existe, porque si no no le iba a ofrecer esa situación. Esto quedó claro. De hecho se ha ofrecido y se ha ofrecido porque hay que defenderla. Ahora lo que se discutió aquí es que varios miembros sólo plantean darle una facultad discrecional al Director General para recurrir o no. Esa es una de las partes, y la mayoría, a nuestro juicio, planteó que no debía preverse esta participación en los Tribunales Italianos. Esas son las cuestiones que se discutieron. La mayoría planteó, a nuestro juicio, a pesar de la cantidad de delegados que había aquí, que no era muy grande. Fue a últimas horas, en los momentos de terminar el Informe, pero la mayoría planteó que consideraban que no debía asistir. Punto. Por eso hay estas dos diferencias y la primera inmunidad está aceptada, y por eso se lo ofrece la Avvocatura.

CHAIRMAN: We now have Philippines, Venezuela, Italy, and Senegal on my list. Colombia has a point of order.


G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Yo creo que ya es hora de que formalicemos las propuestas que ha hecho el mismo Embajador Francisci de Baschi a los miembros del Consejo. Colombia formaliza una moción de orden. Propone que se cierre el debate, que usted pregunte al Consejo cuál es la opinión.

H. CARANDANG (Philippines): I am opposing, Mr Chairman. The reasons I am opposing: number 1: the Chairman who conducted the proceedings had the impression that indeed it was the majority who wanted to retain the status quo. Number 2: there was a request from the Drafting Committee and it was brought here by Ambassador Francisci di Baschi that we asked the Council to take actually a voting by hands to show what was really the majority or the minority. But from the interventions that we have had here I had the impression that there were some delegations who are really reluctant to pronounce themselves on this matter, and to prove that, only a few delegations took the floor when the matter was debated in the Council. Why are we now going to force them to make this decision. I think that the motion made by the delegate of the United Kingdom is the most wise decision to take. We should decide to leave it because many people do not want to make a decision on this point.

CHAIRMAN: Who are the persons opposing the motion?

Sra. M. FERMIN GOMEZ (Venezuela): Bajo la evidencia de esta discusión, es que nosotros no estamos realmente en disposición de tomar una decisión definitiva en esta Asamblea. El mismo Embajador de Cuba ha propuesto que se elimine la parte final, con lo cual estamos de acuerdo, y en cuanto a esta mayoría de los miembros del Consejo que llegaron a esta conclusión, pues en realidad ha declarado él mismo que no era una mayoría muy fuerte por ser tomada a última hora, como está esta noche, pues no era una mayoría muy definitiva. Por estas razones yo pienso que no sería una decisión muy consciente y muy meditada como lo merece esta decision para ser tomada por una votación, y lo que yo propondría, como para que salga de esta reunión, es que, además de la última parte del párrafo, elimináramos también la oración que comienza por "sin embargo, la mayoría" y dejáramos hasta (me voy a permitir leerlo) sencillamente "podría concederse al Director General una facultad discrecional para que lo hiciera si lo estimara conveniente". En esas circunstancias el Director General tendría la facultad discrecional de recurrir o no a la Avvocatura Generale dello Stato, que terminara allí. Si más adelante, de aquí a la Conferencia, las delegaciones se ponen de acuerdo y el asesor llega a convencerle al Gobierno Italiano o el señor Embajador Francisci di Baschi, que también aporta su contribución de entendimiento, es posible que para la Conferencia se llegara a un acuerdo, pero forzar la aprobación de todo este párrafo en las condiciones en que está, a mí no me parece muy cuerdo que digamos.

De manera que mi proposición es limitar el párrafo hasta donde dice "tendría la facultad discrecional de recurrir o no a la Avvocatura Generale dello Stato" y así el Director General tendría la posibilidad de asesorarse lo mejor posible, incluso con los muchos delegados que están a favor de lo que dice aquí la segunda parte del párrafo.

CHAIRMAN: By the rules I am obliged to take your views by a show of hands. Those in favour of this sentence, "The majority of the Council concluded that it would not be desirable to envisage an appearance before the Italian courts by the Organization, even for the sole purpose of pleading its immunity", kindly show their hands.

H. CARANDANG (Philippines): It is not clear what you are proposing.

CHAIRMAN: I am only ascertaining whether it is a large majority, some majority. The Ambassador of Italy has asked what it means, "the majority of the Council concluded". If the majority concluded, then the next sentence is quite correct - "Consequently". It simply means the majority of the Council concluded that the Director-General should not appear. That is the present position. Are you in favour of what the Ambassador of Venezuela has suggested, leaving the option that in such circumstances the Director-General would have discretion whether or not to avail himself? But first we must know whether this conclusion by the Drafting Committee is correct or not. Senegal, you have a point of order?

MAME BALLA SY (Sénégal): J'avais demandé une précision juridique. Est-ce que cette possibilité de se faire assister par l'Avvocatura Generale dello Stato apporterait par la suite obligation pour la FAO en cas de condamnation, de se plier? Est-ce que cela pourrait constituer jurisprudence ou non? Pour mon pays, cette précision est très importante. Il faudrait que nous ayons l'avis du Conseiller juridique.

LE CONSEILLER JURIDIQUE: Si nous nous faisons assister par un avocat privé ou par l'Avvocatura Generale dello Stato, le résultat sera exactement le même. Si nous perdons le procès et que notre immunité n'est pas respectée, nous serions dans la même situation, que ce soit l'Avvocato Generale dello Stato ou un avocat privé qui n'a pas réussi à faire reconnaître l'immunité de l'Organisation. Et dans ces circonstances les tribunaux italiens pourraient chercher à faire appliquer des mesures d'exécution et ainsi mettre à l'épreuve la Section 17 de l'Accord de siège.

MAME BALLA SY (Sénégal): Dans de telles conditions - je m'y attendais d'ailleurs mais je n'avais aucune qualité pour le dire - mon pays, compte tenu des dispositions de la Convention de Vienne dont on s'inspire pour traiter l'Accord de siège des organisations internationales, ne peut engager l'immunité de l'Organisation comme il ne pourrait pas engager l'immunité de son propre Etat. Pour notre pays la décision est très claire, nous sommes très favorables au maintien du paragraphe actuel.

CHAIRMAN: We cannot reopen the debate. I want to know whether the majority is in favour or not. That is what Italy has asked. How many are in favour of the retention of the sentence as it is here? I would like to know how many are in favour of the retention of this sentence in the report, as it is now.

R.D. KAUZLARICH (United States of America): What is the question?

CHAIRMAN: The question is whether this conclusion given here by the Drafting Committee is one which we all support or not.

The vast majority are in favour of the conclusion as reported by the Drafting Committee, so we adopt it as it is.

Motion carried on a show of hands
La proposition est
adoptée par un vote à main levée
Se adopto la propuesta por votación a mano alzada

Paragraphs 14 to 24 approved
Les paragraphes 14 à 24 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 14 a 24 son aprobados

Draft Report of Plenary, Part VII, as amended, was adopted
Projet de rapport de la plénière, VII partie, ainsi amendée, est adoptée
proyecto de informe de la Plenaria, Parte VII, así enmendado, es aprobado

Now we go to the three or four pending items. The first pending item is Cuba. Cuba, your reservation? It is on the World Food Security Compact. Can you read out your reservation?

DRAFT REPORT - PART I (continued)

PARRAFOS 46 a 51

L. ARIZA HIDALGO (Cuba): Voy a ser muy breve. Nuestra reserva debe ir inmediatamente después de la reserva que ya figura en el Informe. La misma debe decir:

Algunas delegaciones deploraron la reserva de este país por considerarla una actitud negativa a la cooperación internacional.

Digo algunas delegaciones, porque después de haber presentado la reserva, las delegaciones del Congo, Colombia, Panamá, Venezuela y Argentina, nos han dado mandato para unirse a nuestra reserva. Es posible que haya otras delegaciones que quieran unirse; pero ésta es la proposición y esta es mi opinión soberana.

D. HUTTON (Canada): I certainly have no comment to make on the actual wording put forward. However, I do think it is the appropriate procedure that the countries be named. If they are not in a position to name themselves now we accept that they would put it in. But that is the appropriate procedure in a reservation.

CHAIRMAN: This is true, because the earlier reservation says Australia, Canada and United States of America, So if we could have the names - Cuba, Colombia and so on - that would be the proper format. Kindly give the names and we will put it in that way.

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): I just want the name of my country to be included.

L. ARIZA HIDALGO (Cuba): Yo di los nombres: Cuba, Congo, Colombia, Panamá, Venezuela y Argentina, hasta ahora.

CHAIRMAN: So I think we will enter a reservation on behalf of all these countries.

Paragraphs 46 to 51, as amended, approved with reservations
Les paragraphes 46 à 51, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés avec des réserves
párrafos 46 a 51, así enmendados, son aprobados con reservas

Draft Report of Plenary, Part I, as amended, was adopted
Projet de rapport de la plénière, I partie, ainsi amendée, est adoptée
proyecto de informe de la Plenaria, Parte I, así enmendado, es aprobado

CHAIRMAN: We now move on to the reservation of the United Kingdom in Draft Report Part IV.

DRAFT REPORT - PART IV (continued)


R.G. PETTITT (United Kingdom): My reservation on paragraph 8 of REP/4: "The United Kingdom delegation recorded that its association with the endorsement of the proposals for 1986-87 was subject to a reservation on its position for the budgetary level for the biennium".

CHAIRMAN: And the next reservation?

PARAGRAPHS 38 to 41 (continued)
PARAGRAPHES 38 à 41 (suite)
PARRAFOS 38 a kl (continuación)

R.G. PETTITT (United Kingdom): The next reservation is on paragraph 39 of REP/U. "The United Kingdom reserved its position on paragraph 39 of REP/U because it inadequately reflected minority views expressed in the Council and because the United Kingdom delegation was denied an opportunity to express fully its views on this paragraph by a decision of the majority to terminate the discussion before consideration had been completed".

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Sería mejor que el colega del Reino Unido lea la otra reserva porque Cuba y yo tenemos un solo texto para todas tres.

CHAIRMAN: What is the third reservation of the United Kingdom?

R.G. PETTITT (United Kingdom): The third reservation I am sharing with Canada,

D. HUTTON (Canada): I would like to be associated with the reservation on paragraph 39, and that wording is acceptable to my delegation.

BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Para simplificar nuestra posición queremos decirle que debajo de cada reserva que haga Reino Unido y Canadá y todos, se debe poner el siguiente texto:

"Las delegaciones de Colombia y Cuba opinaron que la reserva es inaceptable." Sin debate y sin mayor complicaciones esto se debe poner en todas las reservas debajo de todos los textos.

CHAIRMAN: I hope all of you will give the correct wording to our recorders.

R.D. KAUZLARICH (United States of America): We have a reservation of our own on paragraph 39 of the document. I will read it slowly and then give you the text. "The United States reserved on paragraph 39 of document CL 87/REP/4 because of the abrupt closure of debate on the paragraph. In taking this action the Council denied some members their rights to be heard and to have their views reflected in the report of the Council, even though they be minority views. The action was especially lamentable because substantial agreement had been obtained on revised wording. This use of closure was an unacceptable and highly inappropriate departure from customary procedures".

H. NAKAGAWA (Japan): My delegation also associates itself with delegates of the United Kingdom and Canada in putting a reservation on the same paragraph 39..

J. TCHICAYA (Président, Comité de rédaction): Si je comprends parfaitement la position du Royaume-Uni et du Canada, je comprends moins celle des Etats-Unis qui devrait être celle de défendre le projet de rapport que nous avons fait tous ensemble, à l'exception du point précis où les Etats-Unis avaient émis une réserve. Pour certains des points que l'on signale ici, ce sont les Etats-Unis qui ont parfois aidé à la rédaction. Ce n'est pas honnête qu'au cours de cette session les Etats-Unis se comportent de cette manière. Il est honnête qu'un Comité de rédaction en séance plénière soit solidaire, et essaie de défendre le projet de texte qu'il a adopté, à l'exception des points signalés et sur lesquels nous ne nous sommes pas mis d'accord, le Comité de rédaction lui-même ayant décidé que telle ou telle délégation pouvait faire ses réserves en séance plénière. Cela nous le comprenons. Mais pour les autres points nous le comprenons moins.

Je voulais donc intervenir pour attirer l'attention des membres du Comité de rédaction sur le fait qu'il s'agit là d'un précédent assez dangereux qui risque d'avoir des répercussions dans l'avenir.

M.J. BLAMEY (Australia): I do not wish to enter any debate on any reservation that I have. I presume that will not be the course we follow. But for the record, this is the reservation. Australia reserves its position on document CL 87/REP/4 because it inadequately reflected minority views expressed in the Plenary. In particular, it did not give adequate expression to the following Australian suggestion: "In response to the Director-General's agreement to provide additional information one member requested an information paper for the Conference outlining some options for the work programme under the zero real growth constraint".

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Queremos apoyar plenamente lo que ha dicho con valor y decision el Embajador Tchicaya, Presidente del Comité de Redacción. Creo que aunque a algunos no les guste hay que usar un lenguaje claro y franco para condenar actitudes que son deshonestas porque incurren en inexactitudes y en juicios incorrectos. Nosotros condenamos la actitud de dos países que en el Comité de Redacción con nosotros adoptan un texto y luego aquí en la Plenaria vienen a decir que no se les permitió expresar sus puntos de vista. No queremos prolongar más el debate, pero también debajo de esa reserva Colombia y Cuba desean que se agregue la misma frase, en el mismo sitio después de cada una de las reservas.

R.D. KAUZLARICH (United States of America): First of all, the reply to the distinguished Chairman of the Drafting Committee. Our reservation on this paragraph was not about the language in it, but how suggestions that people who were not members of the Drafting Committee but members of the Council were treated in terms of the 'presentation of their views which were minority views and which, as I read from the Basic Texts, should have the right to be expressed. We were faithful participants in the Drafting Committee and again I find, as I have consistently throughout these two weeks, that our motivations are being questioned at every turn. I think the reservations I have made ought to stand. It is nothing to do with the decisions we took in the Drafting Committee but was in response to the decision of this Council in closed debate not to allow views of members who were not members of that Committee to be reflected in the report of the Council.

W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of): My delegation also wishes to make a reservation on paragraph 39 of document CL 87/REP/4 because the procedure followed for its adoption did not allow its position to be reflected adequately.

Paragraphs 6 to 9, as amended, approved with reservations
Les paragraphes 6 à 9, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés avec dos réserves
Los párrafos 6 a 9, así enmendados;, son aprobados con reservas

Paragraphs 38 to 41 , as amended, approved with reservations
Les paragraphes 38 à 41, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés avec des réserves
párrafos 38 a 41, así enmendados, son aprobados con reservas

Draft Report of Plenary, Part IV, as amended, was adopted
Projet de rapport de la plénière, quatrième partie, ainsi amendée, est adoptée
proyecto de informe de la Plenaria, Parte IV, así enmendado> es aprobado

DRAFT REPORT - PART VI (continued)

PARRAFOS 41 a 21

CHAIRMAN: We now request the delegate of Canada to read his reservation on paragraph 20 of REP/6.

D. HUTTON (Canada): As I said earlier, I would like to put the following reservation, and it does have the concurrence of the delegate of the United Kingdom on paragraph 20.

"The delegations of the United Kingdom and Canada disassociated their Governments from the position of the Council on paragraph 20".

Then the reservation of the delegations of Colombia and Cuba would follow.

-551 -

Paragraphs 14 to 21, as amended, approved with reservations
Les paragraphes 14 à 21, ainsi amendés, sont approuves avec des réserves
párrafos 14 a 21, así enmendados, son aprobados con reservas

Draft Report of Plenary, Part VI, as amended, was adopted
Projet de rapport de la plénière, quatrième partie, ainsi amendée, est adoptée
proyecto de informe de la Plenaria, Parte VI, así enmendado, es aprobado

M. MOMBOULI (Congo): Nous n'avons pas de réserve à faire mais je pense que le principe de recueillir une réserve ne veut pas dire qu'on en profite pour dire n'importe quoi. On nous dit que le rapport ne reflète pas l'avis d'un certain nombre de personnes mises en minorité.

Nous avons eu des débats très démocratiques. Le problème se pose au niveau du rapport. Le Comité de rédaction a estimé que, dans la mesure du possible, on devait avoir le consensus. Si on ne l'a pas, on doit exprimer les positions qui se sont manifestées. Sur certaines questions.

il faut tirer des conclusions. Nous ne pouvons pas par exemple quitter le Conseil et laisser le Directeur général dans l'embarras en disant qu'on ne s'est pas prononcé sur telle question. Il y a une différence entre la façon avec laquelle nous avons travaillé pendant la session et la façon dont ce qui a été déclaré pendant la session a été transcrit dans le rapport. Il faut faire la différence. Donc une certaine honnêteté doit exister. Nous avons eu des débats démocratiques, et au niveau du rapport il y a certainement des choses qui n'ont pas été mentionnées. Mais ce n'est pas la même chose.

CHAIRMAN: It is too late in the day to discuss whether people want to reserve or not. Personally, I am very sorry that so many reservations have to be put down. I think that if people could withdraw all their reservations that would be excellent, but naturally I can see strong view points here. Hence, we have to go according to the Rules and those who want to express reservations have every right to do so.

H. CARANDANG (Philippines): We are all tired; we have been looking at this report since this morning. The members of the Drafting Committee have been working for several nights up to 12 o' clock at night, so I understand that many tempers are short. But we regret that so many reservations have to be made. It would be desirable if such reservations were not made and now that they have been, we wish they could be withdrawn.

The Basic Texts, on page 111, indeed provide for the recording of the minority view. That same page also indicates that the verbatim records are also part of the report. Evidently not all views can be recorded in the report because if all views were to be so recorded, then we could just reproduce the verbatim records and say, "this is our report". But we regret indeed that this procedure has to be taken.

My delegation did not take any part in the voting when the motion for closure of the debate on the issue on which reservations are now being made was called for. We did not believe that that was the best way to resolve reservations. It is also regrettable that we should reach such a state, that for such little things we should enter reservations, and not on the substantive matters.

With reference to the report, Rule VI of the Rules of Procedure of the Council says that we have to indicate our decisions, conventions, resolutions, amendments, agreements, etc., and also the minority views, if requested but I think it should be said that many of those who have made reservations were indeed in the Drafting Committee. I thought it was the duty of the Drafting Committee to defend the report of the Drafting Committee to the best of their ability.

I should like to appeal to everyone to show some moderation in this respect. For example, the request is made for an information paper for Conference outlining some options under zero real growth restraint. That is in response to the agreement to provide information, but this is not just information. When you provide information, it is data you are asking for. If you are asking

for an information paper calling for options, this paper already includes value judgments; it is a whole document. You will have to prepare a whole document under which you have to make value judgments. This is not just simply information. With a little adjustment, the views of these delegations could have been stated, and if not all of their views some could have been stated, in reporting to their own governments that we expressed our opinions, and they could also cite the verbatim record. This is what we said during the debate, but it was not possible to put all of that in the report.

I think we should bear this in mind when we make reports to our governments; we could also refer to the verbatim record, because these also form part of the formal report of the Council.

I just want to express this regret and hope that in the future we will not proceed in the same way as we have proceeded today.

D. HUTTON (Canada): On the point just raised by the Delegate of the Philippines, I have been sitting here during two weeks next to the verbatim reporters and I must say that some of us listen to some of the words, but they have to listen to all of them and they have my full respect. But it does raise the interesting point mentioned by the Delegate of the Philippines. I believe all of us who have participated in this and other meetings can see the system is deteriorating. Our Permanent Representative is in Canada right now with all the other Permanent Representatives we have with the United Nations to discuss this very issue. I suggest we consider - and certainly Canada is more than willing to participate in any group - whether the decision-making process is still adequate for this Council. I even suggest that, having verbatim records, we do away with the report. This is not a reflection on the work of the Drafting Committee but that process seems no longer to serve us. We should rely on decisions of the Council on major issues, and use the verbatim records as the record.

CHAIRMAN: This involves a lot of modification. I would like to complete work on the report first.

A.M. QURESHI (Pakistan): I do not wish to be long. I only wish to add my voice to what the delegate of the Philippines has just said. It would indeed be very unfortunate if the final report of this Council carried so many reservations which would reflect that this House, which has traditionally been following the policy and great tradition of universal consensus, had somehow drifted in its practical approach. At this late hour, when we are all so tired and have been deliberating for so many hours, perhaps we should view the positive framework and reconsider, take another look, and see how we can reach a position where all these reservations would not really become a part of our report. That is all I wish to say.

M.J.E. GEORGE (Trinidad and Tobago): I do not wish to make any comment on the actual reservations, but we are concerned with the number of lamentations we have about the reservations.

I would like it to be known that Trinidad and Tobago did not participate in the debate for closure.

CHAIRMAN: I think we must look to the future. Lessons must be learned, but right now it will not help us in our debate.

DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: I feel that I have to say something on behalf of the Director-General. If he were here, I think that he would perhaps have intervened much earlier.

These matters are essentially matters within the hands of the delegates themselves. I think that he would certainly deplore the fact that reservations have been put necessitating, in the view of some delegations, counter-reservations. At the beginning of the Council he spoke of his desire for consensus. His last intervention was in the direction of appealing for a consensus at the Conference. I would still say that is his objective.

The adoption of reservations is not a very happy thing in that context, and I am sure that he would deplore the fact that they have been made, particularly in the context in which they have been made.

There are some issues which I would touch on except that when you are discussing rights, you have to take into account all the rights. On the one hand the Director-General has always said that minority views should be recorded. On the other hand, the Rules provide for closure. It cannot be said that a motion for closure is of itself undemocratic. In that case, why is it there? Whether the Council adopts the motion is a matter for the Council to decide. Some members may be unhappy with the Council's decision. Once a motion for closure has been made, no one can stop that process. That is how these things happen.

On the subject of drafting committees, I think that perhaps there is a certain amount of exaggeration going on. I think that what we have seen at this Council has been very exceptional. I am referring to the Drafting Committee and to what happened afterwards. On the one hand we have the position of people who were members of the Drafting Committee, and that has been adequately discussed. On the other hand, we have the position of others. If they want to express minority views, they should be able to do so. The question arises whether and when the process has to stop because, as has been pointed out, the verbatim records are a part of the official record in which minority views are expressed. Because one or many delegates are not members of the Drafting Committee they have to set themselves a limit, if they can, as to the number of changes they demand in a report. What I think is most exceptional at this Council is that, having demanded changes and having got them, they make reservations. That is a most extraordinary thing. Reservations seem to be in fashion at this Council. Perhaps the whole situation got too tactical at a certain stage. I have never before experienced a situation like this. I can only say that I think it is unfortunate.

I would certainly add on behalf of the Director-General an appeal for reservations to be withdrawn and that we try to come together as a more happy family at the next Council and at the Conference, particularly have an understanding about the role of the Drafting Committee, and then the role of members who are not on the Drafting Committee.

I leave it to the good sense of the Council to decide who should be on the Drafting Committee. Maybe the people who should be on the: Drafting Committee are the ones who are going to make the most trouble when the report comes to Council, rather than on another basis.

However, I am chiefly concerned that we should put this series of incidents which have now taken place behind us. If the reservations could be withdrawn, that would be much better. If not, I hope that we can go on to a better atmosphere and a better conclusion at the next Council and at the Conference in the spirit that the Director-General put forward.

I want to make just one final brief point because I do not want there to be any misunderstanding.

One of the reservations was linked to an allied statement by the Director-General. Again, when the Director-General was offering more information he was not undertaking to do what one delegate just described as issuing a whole series of other value judgments, because that is what it would be. He would be saying that instead of doing this which I indicated you could, do that which I do not advocate. Those would be value judgments on his part. It is his right to put forward the proposals for work and budget in the way that he wants. It is up to the Council to propose alternatives if they want to do so. It is up to Conference to decide.

With that I am afraid that I must leave my note of clarification that the reservation on this point is not to be misunderstood. The delegate who put it may interpret it as he wishes, but it should not be misunderstood in any quarter.

S.M. MATIUR RAHMAN (Bangladesh): My delegation is also seriously concerned with the way the Council has gone. Although we are late, we are not too late. We might try to adopt some measures which will alleviate the matter. Though it will be a bit late, in the interests of all of us we can try as there is still time.

CHAIRMAN: I think something has happened which has never happened during my years as Chairman. This is my last year. I can see that the mood, unfortunately, has been one of confrontation rather than consensus which has permeated the Council.

I would like to suggest that those who have made reservations might like to think about them overnight and if they do not feel the same way tomorrow morning, please send a slip to the Secretary-General. The reservations will be recorded, because it is your right to have your views recorded. But when a reservation has been used in the manner in which it has been used here, it loses significance. It almost becomes a way of report writing to express the minority view. In my view a reservation to be effective should be used with care and circumspection and used only when absolutely essential.

Therefore, I would like to suggest that delegates think it over. All of the reservations have been recorded. If any member feels that he would like to withdraw his reservation, I shall be very grateful if you could inform the Secretary-General. If we do not hear from you by Monday morning we will know that you have the same views and the report will reflect those views.

As the delegates of Pakistan and Bangladesh have said, I do not think that we now have time to discuss the reservations one by one, why it happened, and so on. If acceptable to you I would make an earnest plea that those who have reservations and counter-reservations might reconsider their views.

M. BALLA SY (Senegal): Je voudrais appuyer la proposition que vous venez de faire d'autant plus qu'en réalite nous ne pouvons que regretter ces réserves dans la mesure où elles semblent se faire d'une manière si automatique que, finalement, le lecteur qui retrouverait les mêmes pays faisant les mêmes réserves et les mêmes pays qui font des contre-réserves pourraient se dire: en fait ces réserves là ne sont en réalité qu'une attitude dogmatique. C'est pourquoi nous avons pu regretter parfois que sur des points où nous aurions pu avoir des accords pour un consensus, des propositions logiques faites mêmes par ces pays qui habituellement font des réserves aient été systématiquement combattues alors qu'il s'agissait de propositions sages. Je crois, comme vous venez de le dire que ces réserves, même si elles étaient maintenues seraient regrettables, mais dans le fond on pourrait se demander logiquement quel est le sens de ces réserves. Je voudrais donc appuyer votre proposition qui procède d'une sagesse que nous devons respecter.

CHAIRMAN: You will recall that in the first week the Ambassador of the Philippines said that two weeks is too long for the Council meeting. After the last two weeks of intensive work it appears to me that we may all feel that the time has not been adequate to consider all issues. This time the agenda was rather heavy, heavier than usual. On the Programme of Work and Budget and on the African situation, as well as on the Compact, we spent a whole day each.

We are at the end of our session and there is no point in saying whether there was sufficient time or not.

A.M. QURESHI (Pakistan): I would wish to hear the delegate of the United Kingdom. Perhaps he is in a mood to withdraw his reservations. I think that would be a happy moment for all of us.

CHAIRMAN: You would like a happy ending to the Council meeting.

H.M. MBALE (Malawi): I would like to go along with my colleague from Pakistan.

M.J. BLAMEY (Australia): I wish to thank you for your forbearance and for your excellent Chairmanship.

R.G. PETTITT (United Kingdom): Personally I would hope to continue this meeting and to start again on the four points in order to try and get a position which will allow us to withdraw our reservations.

More seriously, we have to make a judgment on whether to have a report which is fairly ambitious in delineating the area of agreement. If one is overambitious, one does automatically get a position where disassociations have to come. If one is less ambitious, one can avoid that. Probably we have tried to be too ambitious in the report and thereby have thrown up the areas of our disagreement on certain points. It is not a dramatic event. We have just made a slight error of judgment on this. There is no question of the lack of goodwill or preparedness to compromise.

Sra. M. RUIZ ZAPATA (México): Yo quiero dejar sentado en acta que la delegación de México lamenta muchísimo el clima en el que se ha adoptado el informe del Consejo.

Las posiciones se han polarizado y hemos perdido nuestra capacidad de negociación, lo cual tendrá la sola consecuencia de que las directivas que los Estados Miembros damos a la Organización serán confusas con el evidente perjuicio que eso entraña.

Quisiera unirme a su llamado, a pesar de la ingenuidad que eso significa a estas alturas para hacer un llamado a la reflexión ya que no me queda muy claro a quién benefician las reservas que se han hecho, en algunos casos por simple cuestiones de procedimiento. Ojalá puedan retirarse para que durante la Conferencia el indispensable clima de armonía sea restaurado.

H.M. MBALE (Malawi): I simply wanted to speak after the delegate of the United Kingdom had spoken, because I thought we would be able to look at this matter once again.

I feel that this is a most unfortunate situation, and I feel that we should really avoid having our records mucked up in that manner. Although we are very tired if we could make it possible for these reservations to be withdrawn by having some more time to look at the issues, then I would wish to recommend that we do; because in the final analysis that would be a better record to go away with. I think that the present situation has marred all our efforts which we have put into this since we came here about two weeks ago, and to those of us who have been on the Drafting Committee it is certainly a most discouraging experience and we would not wish to be involved in a similar situation in the future. My delegation is in no way saying that its participation in this Council has all been wasted - on the contrary, we have participated fully and I have got quite a lot out of it. It is just the end of it that is disappointing.

R.G. GUPTA (India): I do not wish to take any more of the time of this Council, but only to place on the record our deep sense of disappointment at the report which has been adopted. I would not like to impute any motives or reasons - this is difficult to say - but nevertheless we would have very much wished that these reservations, these procedural wrangles, could have been avoided.

To conclude, we express our regret at the way in which these proceedings have gone on and the way the report has been adopted.

CHAIRMAN: We all share your view. I would again like to repeat what I said for the honourable delegations who have made reservations to the report, because I know that at one stage the United Kingdom delegate said that some of the portions of the report are not available, and if you would feel inclined to withdraw your reservations, I would be very grateful if you would send a note to the Secretary-General by Monday morning.

R. MARTIN (Observer for Belgium): Rule XXV.9(c) says that any Member Nation not represented on the Council may participate without voting in any discussion - and that is what I would like to do.

LEGAL COUNSEL: If I understand it rightly, the point made by the Observer for Belgium is that an observer may participate not only in the substantive discussion on items on the Council's agenda, but also in procedural motions arising in the course of those discussions. I presume any form of point of order is meant, even, for that matter a motion for the closure of the debate. If I mention for instance a motion for closure of the debate it is because this hypothesis must of itself give the answer. Thus, it would be inconceivable in any parliamentary procedure whether the body be international or national, for a state which is a member of an organization but is participating in an observer capacity actually to intervene, not so much on the substance, but on the way in which the proceedings are being conducted.

If observers may raise points of order, they could propose the closure of the debate - and yet clearly it is a debate that they are observing. Therefore not only from the legal point of view but also from a practical point of view the ruling that your Chairman has I believe given you is entirely correct.

This is in fact the way in which I interpret paragraph 9(c) of Rule XXV. It does admittedly say "... participate without vote in any discussion." - but there must obviously be certain limits to that participation which are common to all parliamentary procedures. There are certain inherent limitations on the role of observers which are, in my view,quite clearly implied in Rule XXV,9(c).

R. MARTIN (Observateur de la Belgique): Je voulais simplement dire que ce "Rule XXV" est très clair et que j'ai donc le droit de parler. D'ailleurs je veux simplement faire quelques remarques générales sur ce qui s'est passé maintenant pendant que vous, les Membres, vous avez décidé des choses et vous avez fait plusieurs démonstrations, ici, devant nous les observateurs.

En tant qu'observateur, je voudrais faire quelques remarques non pas sur la procédure du "n'importe quoi", mais généralement, un peu sur l'atmosphère. Cela doit certainement aussi plaire à quelques-uns.

La délégation belge s'excuse d'ailleurs de prendre la parole à cette heure tardive, mais c'est à la fois la première et la dernière fois qu'elle prend la parole je vous l'assure.

1. La délégation belge s'étonne que l'on ait proposé de changer les attributions des Commissions 1 et 11 après que les présidences de ces commissions aient été établies. Elle se demande ce qui se serait passé si le Président de la Commission 11 avait appartenu à un autre groupe.

2. La délégation belge s'étonne également que dans le rapport, très souvent, les termes "le Conseil est convenu" ou "le Conseil a décidé" aient été employés sans qu'il y ait un consensus ou sans qu'un vote ait eu lieu. Ceci ne semble pas être une procédure qui corresponde aux textes fondamentaux ni, chers collègues, un moyen d'éviter des réserves.

La délégation reviendra activement sur ce problème lors de la Conférence, si cela s'avère nécessaire.

Nous sommes placés devant un nouveau phénomène. Beaucoup l'ont dit, on fait maintenant des réserves et puis des réserves sur les réserves. On pourrait continuer et faire des réserves sur ces contre-réserves .

Mesdames, Messieurs, chers collègues où cela va-t-il nous mener? Chers collègues, de grâce réfléchissons. Comme disait le Directeur général adjoint: "Perhaps the whole situation got too tactical".

Je termine par une remarque tout à fait générale, si une repetition continuelle de certaines manoeuvres peut porter des fruits sur le plan de la tactique de certains, ce n'est pas nécessairement le cas sur le plan stratégique.

D.K. YOMAN (Observateur de la Côte-d'Ivoire): la délégation de Coue-d'Ivoire a bien lu les textes de base et soyez assuré, Monsieur le Président, qu'elle respectera ces textes de base et sa position d'observateur.

Aux termes de ces deux longues semaines de travail nous nous devons, en notre qualité d'observateur de la Côte-d'Ivoire, de vous faire part de notre sentiment de profonde déception pour les conclusions de nos débats et surtout pour l'esprit dans lequel notre Conseil s'est acquitté de sa tâche.

Nous nous posons la question de savoir si, dans les annales de la FAO, il y aura un rapport du Conseil avec autant de réserves et autant de divergences. C'est bien dommage ! Peut-être devons-nous inviter les membres du Conseil à plus de modération, à revoir leur position avant la date de la Conférence, car il serait très malheureux pour l'image de la FAO et surtout pour les populations qui attendent de nous un élan général, de voir que nous sommes divisés sur des questions essentielles comme le PNUD, le Code, le Pacte, etc.

Je voudrais simplement souscrire à votre suggestion pour que demain matin les auteurs des réserves et des contre-réserves réfléchissent davantage et se rallient au consensus qui a toujours caractérisé les débats au sein de cette Organisation. C'est notre voeu.

R.C. SERSALE di CERISANO (Argentina): Voy a ser muy breve. Hacemos uso de la palabra porque se hablo de las contrarreservas. Nosotros somos responsables de una sola contrarreserva. Nosotros, si se levanta la reserva, automáticamente quedaría levantada la contrarreserva argentina.

CHAIRMAN: You have already summarized it very well.

I think with this we will bring this particular session of the Council to a close. If there is no other delegation wishing to speak I would like to formally thank everyone. Before I close the session, is there anybody ese who has an urge to say something urgent? No. Everybody has an urge to go home.

I will not take your time because the more we speak, the interpreters and the verbatim reporters and others who have been working the whole day, their time is prolonged. So I want to thank every one of you, the Council members; the Council is what the Council members make of it, the distinguished three Vice-Chairmen. I am very fortunate to have had all three very experienced Ambassadors as Vice-Chairmen and the very distinguished Ambassador of Congo and the very dedicated group of people on the Drafting Committee who have worked hard to prepare our report. I want to thank all of them. We are also very grateful to His Excellency Mr Lassaad BEN OSMAN, Minister of Agriculture of Tunisia, and also Mr Tomé Dias DA COSTA, Minister of Agriculture and Animal Husbandry of Sao Tome and Principe. They were kind enough to join us in the early stages, and I want to thank them.

I want to thank the Chairmen of both Programme and Finance Committees as well as the Chairman of the CCLM. They are all away but they do a lot or work as they have explained. In all the Chairmen of our various Committees, we are very fortunate. They and their members work for long hours each day. The Director-General had to leave earlier as he said, and we are indebted to him and to Mr West and all his colleagues here and the entire staff of FAO, whether they are messengers or people in charge of keeping the records, helping us in the Secretariat and the Drafting Committee. To save time today, I am going to shorten my vote of thanks but let me say my not including anyone in my "thank you" speech is not an expression of our ingratitude to them. We are most grateful to everyone in this building for their totally dedicated work to help us, whether it is in the Council, or Drafting Committee and so on.

We have the World Forestry Congress starting next week and we have spent a lot of time this week - and rightly so - on issues of food security in Africa. I want to commend to all of you who have not read the latest issue of UNASYLVA, FAO's wonderful publication, a very interesting article written almost 40 years ago, almost at the birth of FAO, by Mr André Marie A. Aubréville who was then the conservator of forests in France. The article is called "The Disappearance of the Tropical Forests of Africa", and was written 38 years ago. I would like everyone of you to read it because there is a certain diagnosis of the problems which are exceedingly pertinent because the problem have really got aggravated over a period of time.

Let me conclude by a poem from Gitanjili by Rabindranath Tagore, because many people said we have wasted time and so on. Tagore says in this poem:

"On many an idle day, have 1 grieved over lost time,

1 was tired and sleeping on my idle bed,

And imagined all work had ceased

In the morning 1 woke up and found

My garden full with wonders of flowers."

I think that our world is being saved by these silent workers, the plants who work night and day. When we are talking they are working, when there is sunlight, they harvest it, and if there is no sunlight they remove the air and purify it for our purpose, absorb the carbon dioxide and give us the oxygen, and I think we are all very privileged to be servants of those plants. What we are trying to do in agriculture is try to help plants grow better, animals to yield more, and therefore I think to work for a cause where there is tireless striving on the part of the silent green plants which keep our world alive is a great privilege. Mahatma Gandhi in my country used to say two things frequently.

He said "The means and the end are both very important. However great and good your end will be if the means are not right, then you have a problem." Similarly, when we work for a great cause some of the greatness falls on us and we also become great. When we talk about serving the cause of the poor and the hungry, the cause is a very great one, and I think a little bit of the shadow of that greatness of serving that cause falls on us. I finally hope it is. "Thank God, it is Friday". I said that last Friday, but not to the Chairman of the Drafting Committee and members. Today many of you must be feeling "Thank God it is Friday", but I hope we will have some introspection and reflection tor the next day or two, and do come to a conclusion that will make this Council meeting really reflect the spirit of comradeship and the spirit of kindness, and the spirit of determination to serve a larger cause which prevails in this room.

I thank you all very much, and for those of you who are going abroad I wish you well, and good night. The session comes to a close.


The meeting rose at 21.50 hours
La seance est
levée à 21 h 50
Se levanta la sesión a las 21.50 horas

Previous Page Top of Page