Previous Page Table of Contents


Paragraphs 1 to 6 approved
Les paragraphes 1 à 6 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 1 a 6 son aprobados


CHAIRMAN: No comments on paragraphs 7 and 8? Paragraph 9?

G. H. MUSGROVE (Canada): I raised my sign for paragraph 9 but, bearing in mind the injunction by the chairman of the Drafting Committee, I quickly scanned this section as a whole to look for balance. I do appreciate the work that the Drafting Committee has done, but I must intervene to say that I do not find that this report reflects the discussion on the Technical Cooperation Programme. It does not include in these brief paragraphs a good many points which were raised by my delegation and by others-points which we believed were put forward in a thoughtful and reasonably constructive way. We do not feel that they are the views of a single delegation, and the point has I think been raised a couple of times in the last few minutes that single countries, whether talking about transnational cooperation or technical cooperation programmes, should not have their views recorded in reports. That is my first point.

The second is specifically in respect to paragraph 9. I find the views expressed in fact familiar, although I do not think they came from the floor of this Council. In particular, I think I recognize the last sentence in that paragraph as eminating from the Secretariat at the close of debate, and if I am not wrong, by the Deputy Director-General, Mr West. It-was of great interest to us when Mr West asked for the floor after an extended debate which showed some considerable divergence of views. We had hoped-and indeed expected-that when he asked for the floor he would be exercising his considerable responsibilities as a member of the Secretariat serving the Member Countries in total, to propose some compromise or consensual approach that might bridge some of those divergencies, and I had perhaps wishfully, thought he might be suggesting that the figure of $400 000 was perhaps a little excessive and as there was no urgency, some compromise may be found. Or perhaps he was going to say that the Secretariat has listened hard to the suggestions made and would certainly take them on board for further thought and perhaps in one or two cases, such as in overview or in management, that the Secretariat would certainly give this consideration and see what could be done. I know it was not his intention to be partisan nor to participate in debate on behalf of one side or the other, but the way his remarks did come out, it seemed to be just that. I know that Mr West is not devoid of his own views, and certainly can express themr but we usually count on the Secretariat to clarify things or to provide us with evidence of fact and we found this intervention in particular a little partisan. It did not contribute to any consensus or any bridging of the divergence of views, but plumped heavily on one side. I know it might well be his somewhat misguided sense of British justice, that he felt the argument was being lost, not in terms of numbers but in terms of its quality, and had to intervene on one side or the other.

My third point is-and it was a matter of some concern yesterday-"The Council decided to endorse.... ", while within the paragraphs of the report itself it does indicate that there were some differences of view on this particular matter. We regret now that we did not call for a vote on this issue, because we feel that there really are only two ways of reaching decisions like this,

particularly monetary matters; by consensus-and there was no disposition either in the Council or by the Secretariat to search for consensus-or by vote. While the practice is "let us have short cuts from time to time", and when the results are obvious we dispense with it and reach conclusions, there are times when perhaps it should be resorted to.

I would dearly like to submit improved drafts for this section but, bearing in mind our time and the patience of my colleagues, I shall content myself with having made those remarks, and not propose any changes.

Joachim WINKEL(Germany, Federal Republic of): I do feel, like the distinguished delegate of Canada, that paragraph 9 does not really reflect what has come from the floor here. As a matter of fact we do not feel it is balanced enough. As my Canadian colleague mentioned before, there were a couple of countries which had rather a constricted critical approach to the TCPs, and I would have liked to find this mentioned in at least one or two sentences. In order not to prolong the session here and to come to consensus, I would only like to mention this now and I do not ask for a change of the text.

Mrs Millicent H. FENWICK (United States of America): We are now, I believe, discussing paragraph 9, and I am wondering whether I should perhaps wait until paragraph 11, where the matter of expense is concerned, because on the Programme Committee my Government did indeed endorse and heartily commend the nature of the programme, the practicality, and the speed with which it can operate, and our objection came in another matter so I shall wait until paragraph 11.

CHAIRMAN: Paragraph 9? Paragraph 10? Paragraph 11?

Mrs Millicent H. FENWICK (United States of America): I am sorry to say we did feel that there was a difference of opinion as to increasing the size of the possible projects, because that would necessarily limit the number of projects that could be made; and, since 80 percent of all the projects are under US$100 000, we thought that keeping the limit at US$250 000 would be wise in view of the widespread effort that we hope to see.

In addition, I did mention in the Programme. Committee-and it is in the report of the Programme Committee-my Government's concern about the rise in the assessed budget, since TCP derives most of its funds from the assessed budget. If this could be included in the reports of this session, I would be grateful.

CHAIRMAN: The first point comes in the first sentence of paragraph 12 "Some countries did not support the proposed increase in the maximum size of projects. In their view, the present average size of projects, which was well below... "

Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): No sé si la distinguida Embajadora de los Estados Unidos hizo o no alguna propuesta sobre el párrafo 11 pero quisiera preguntarle a los...

CHAIRMAN: She has only made her comments in the record of today's discussion.

Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Bien, señor Presidente. Entonces puedo aprovechar mi intervención para referirme a las observaciones planteadas por Canadá.

Nosotros lamentamos mucho que se insista en perpetuar una tendencia mediante la cual algunos distinguidos colegas se obsesionan cada vez que no pueden imponer unilateralmente sus puntos de vista. Nosotros no podemos aceptar, señor Presidente, el tratamiento desobligante que se ha dado al señor West, al decir que él no fue responsable cuando no trató de presentar puntos de vista que correspondieran a todos los Estados Miembros. Creemos que, por el contrario, el Sr. West hizo una declaración muy respetable y por lo tanto, reiteramos nuestro pleno respaldo al Director General Adjunto.

Ya que estamos en el uso de la palabra, quisiéramos preguntarle al colega de Canadá si él y su país reconocen o no el párrafo 12, el próximo párrafo que está encabezado, por cierto, por "Algunos países".

CHAIRMAN: I do not think we can have cross questioning and cross-debate. Everyone can make their point. I would also request members not to refer to other members or to people in the Secretariat, or to Mr West, because the draft which we have before us is the responsibility of the Drafting Committee-it has come to us from the Drafting Committee which we set up, and therefore it would be better to refrain from attributing any statement to anyone. It is a Drafting Committee's report which we shall accept or modify-that is for us, but it is our Drafting Commit tee which has given us the report.

José Ramón LOPEZ PORTILLO ROMANO (México): Ya que usted ha hecho esta declaración, yo me atengo a ella. Pero haré una referencia positiva a una delegación diciendo que me uno plenamente a lo que ha dicho y planteado el Dr. Bula Hoyos en nombre de la delegación de Colombia.

CHAIRMAN: Shall we go on to paragraph 12? Paragraph 13? Paragraph 14? Paragraph 15? Paragraph 16: I give the floor to the Chairman of the Drafting Committee.

David R. GREGORY (Chairman, Drafting Committee): I think the reference at the end of paragraph 16 should be "paragraph 13" and not "paragraph 7".

CHAIRMAN: I hope you heard the Chairman of the Drafting Committee that there is a correction to paragraph 16. "... subject to what has been stated in paragraph 13", and not "7". Please make the change.

Ajmal Mahmood QURESHI (Pakistan): I believe we have come to the close of this chapter, item 8, and I would suggest that what has just been referred to by the distinguished delegate of Canada with regard to the Deputy Director-General should be deleted from the verbatim record.

CHAIRMAN: As the Pakistan delegate has suggested, do you want to withdraw your remarks? It is a verbatim record and we have to record what people have said.

G. H. MUSGROVE (Canada): No. What I have said prudently or imprudently is for the record, and as I recall and in my very brief time in the Council there have certainly been a good many things in the record that perhaps should not have been there, intemperate remarks or others. I did not deliver anything I said with any degree of malevolence; it was an observation that I felt strongly I should make, and rather than take the Council's time in attempting to redraft or suggest we draft paragraph by paragraph, I have made those remarks for the record and should like them to remain there.

José Ramón LOPEZ PORTILLO ROMANO (México ) : Ya que me ha dado usted la palabra, Sr. Presidente, : aprovecho para decir que si bien estamos aprobando aquí en el Informe expresiones que se salen del contexto y que ofenden a personalidades que han cumplido con un trabajo eficiente y honesto en todos los sentidos, creemos que estas expresiones no son necesarias y deberían suprimirse. Nos parece que esto es honesto, pero si un delegado insiste en mantener esas expresiones que podemos considerar ofensivas, tiene pleno derecho a hacerlo, Confiamos en su honestidad intelectual y en el respeto a todos los funcionarios tanto de la FAO como de los Estados Miembros que esperamos comportarnos de una manera elegante.

CHAIRMAN: I will review this suggestion with the distinguished delegate of Canada. Personally if I make a statement and it finds a place in the record I would be looking at it as a privilege. If Mr West or whoever made a statement, and in the wisdom of the Drafting Committee and the Council they have adopted it and put in their own report, this is a tribute to the person's remarks rather than derogatory remarks... so I would like to read it again. If you agree I will sit with Mr Musgrove and we will go through the verbatim record and if there is any point derogatory to Mr West we will certainly modify it.

Paragraphs 7 to 16, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 7 à 16, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 7 a 16, así enmendados, son aprobados

Paragraphs 17 to 23 approved
Les paragraphes 17 à 23 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 17 a 23 son aprobados

Draft Report of Plenary, Part II, as amended, was adopted
Projet de rapport de la plénière, Ile partie, ainsi amendée, est adoptée
El proyecto de informe de la Plenaria, Parte II, asíenmendado, es aprobado


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

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

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

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

Paragraphs 6 to 9 approved
Les paragraphes 6 à 9 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 6 a 9 son approbados

Paragraphe 10 approved
Le paragraphe 10 est approuvé
El párrafo 10 es aprobado

PARRAFOS 11 a 13

David R. GREGORY (Chairman, Drafting Committee): It is on this REP, Chairman, paragraph 13. 1 just want to attempt to correct an understanding I have that there is an inclusion in this at the request of one member of the Drafting Committee. It is not a contentious issue. It is in paragraph 13, after the word "regularize" there were included some additional words, at least according to my draft. The words that I had included after that word were "in accordance with the regulations of the Organization" after the word "regularize", but perhaps other members of the Drafting Committee who disagree with this would say so. This was raised to satisfy one member of the Drafting Committee. It does not apparently appear in the draft, Mr Chairman. Can I repeat that? After the word "regularize" in paragraph 13 should appear the inclusion "in accordance with the regulations of the Organization". I would welcome the advice of any other members of the Drafting Committee if they feel that was subsequently deleted.

CHAIRMAN: Is there any objection to the inclusion of the few words-that is "to regularize in accordance with the regulations of the Organization their positions" ? Thank you.

Paragraphs 11 to 13, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 11 à 13, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 11 a 13, asi enmendados son aprobados

Paragraphs 14 and 15 approved
Les paragraphes 14 et 15 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 14 y 15 son aprobados

Paragraphs 16 and 17, including Resolution, adopted
Les paragraphes 16 et 17, y comprise la résolution, sont adoptés
Los párrafos 16 y 17, incluido la Resolución son aprobados

Paragraph 18 approved
Le paragraphe 18 est approuvé
El párrafo 18 es aprobado

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

The meeting was suspended from 16. 40 to 18. 15 hours
La séance est suspendue de 16 h 40 à 18 h 15
Se suspende la sesión de las 16. 40 a Lis 18. 15 horas


CHAIRMAN: While document CL 88/REP/5 is being distributed and examined I will go through document CL 88/REP/4.

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

Paragraphs 2 to 11 approved
Les paragraphes 2 à 11 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 2 a 11 son aprobados

- 213 -

Draft Report of Plenary, Part IV, was adopted
Projet de rapport de la planiere, IVe partie, est adoptée
El proyecto de informe de la plenaria, Parte IV, es aprobado



Gonzalo BULA HOYOS 'Colombia): Recordarán ustedes que cuando tratamos este tema, propusimos que se recogieran enei Informe elementos comunes que aparecían en los párrafos dispositivos uno, dos y cuatro del Proyecto de Resolución, en los cuales se pedía no solamente que se tratara de cumplir el objetivo sino que se superara.

Es así como propongo lo siguiente, señor Presidente. Al final de la penultima frase del párrafo 3, donde dice: "tanto en efectivo como en productos", agregar simplemente las siguientes palabras: "y tratarán de superarlo". Eso está en el Informe del CPA y también en los párrafos dispositivos del Proyecto de Resolución.

Mrs Millicent H. FENWICK (United States of America): I am sorry to put a discordant note. I certainly agree with my colleague from Colombia. There were many countries who said that they hoped that it could be exceeded but I do not see the proper notice here that several countries said that they could not make their pledges divided in cash and commodities because of the problems connected with the making of their own budgets and preferred that the pledge be in monetary terms. So regardless of the cost, whether buying from their farmers, as Canada and the United States have to do, if the price goes up it will cost more in the tonnage. Therefore it is the total that we would like to have rather than have it divided. That is not reflected. The only thing that faintly reflects it is "the possibility of still pledging in monetary terms". That is not an adequate description of "considerable donors". Australia is another that simply cannot pledge under that system. It is difficult for them to pledge under the separating system of commodities and cash.

David R. GREGORY (Chairman, Drafting Committee): According to my notes here the phrase referred to by the Ambassador of the United States was added during the drafting process. Unfortunately a word has been eliminated. I do not know if it helps at all, but after the end of the sentence the word "only" should be included.

Mrs Millicent H. FENWICK (United States of America): That helps a lot. Would it be possible, "the difficulty of pledging in commodities and cash and the possibility of still pledging in monetary terms only".

Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Yo creo que la Embajadora de los Estados Unidos tiene razón. En realidad, ellos han planteado ese punto en el CPA. De manera que si el Presidente del Comité de Redacción logra una redacción satisfactoria aproximada de la que ha propuesto la Embajadora Fenwick, tal vez esto no ofrezca dificultades.

CHAIRMAN: Is the formulation suggested by the United States acceptable: "noted the difficulties of pledging in commodities and cash and the possibility of still pledging in monetary terms only"?

Mrs Millicent H. FENWICK (United States of America): Thank you.

CHAIRMAN: Could we add before the "possibility" the words "we also note the difficulty of some countries in pledging"? Mr Gregory, would you do that?

David R. GREGORY (Chairman, Drafting Committee): Yes.

CHAIRMAN: So we add "to endeavour to exceed it" as well as "noted the difficulties of some countries in pledging both in cash and commodities and further noted".

Paragraphs 1 to 3, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 1 à 3, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 1 a 3, así enmendados, son aprobados


Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Les ruego que me perdonen, pero hay un punto de menor importancia en el párrafo 4. Dice, al menos en el texto castellano, dice: "El Consejo aprobó unánimemente el objetivo". Creo que la función del Consejo no es aprobar sino recomendar. Es decir, "El Consejo recomendó unánimemente", porque la Conferencia será la que tome la decisión final.

CHAIRMAN: The English text says, "the Council unanimously supported". "Approved" is wrong. I hope the Spanish text can be corrected. Now we have the resolution which we have already approved.

Paragraph 4, including Resolution, approved
Le paragraphe 4, y compris la résolution, est approuvé
El párrafo 4, incluida la Resolución, es aprobado


Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Al final del párrafo 7, espero que no sea controverti do e l propósito de recoger una propuesta de México que mereció el apoyo del Consejo o que por lo menos nadie se manifestó en contra. Podíamos usar la forma neutra y decir lo siguiente. Al final del párrafo 7, una frase que diría: "Se sugirió que el Manifiesto fuera adoptado mediante una Resolución". Esto lo propuso México y muchas delegaciones lo apoyaron.

CHAIRMAN: Colombia has suggested the addition of the sentence which you have heard:. "It was suggested that the Manifesto be adopted through a resolution" because it says here "the Twenty-third Session of the FAO Conference for its consideration and approval".

Ajmal Mahmood QURESHI (Pakistan): We could say that it decided to refer the Manifesto to the forthcoming Twenty-third Session of the FAO Conference for its adoption by a resolution".

CHAIRMAN: Is that all right-"for its adoption by a resolution"? Right. I presume that the concerned countries will prepare the resolution and put it up in the usual way.

Paragraphs_5 to 10, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 5 à 10, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 5 a 10, así enmendados, son aprobados

PÁRRAFOS 11 a 18

G. H. MUSGROVE (Canada): I hope we are not entering into troubled waters here. But I very much prefer the conclusive summing up which you yourself had made during our debate on this, and if I am correct, I have a couple of small suggested changes here that I think would reflect that summing up. Perhaps I can read the sentence as it might be amended: "in conclusion the Council on the whole agreed to give its support. " Thus deleting the word "full", with the remainder of the sentence to proceed as written.

I think this would reflect not only your summing up, but in fact, the debate in the sense that you had explained that use of the term "on the whole" carries with it the Council's decision, while at the same time giving the indication that some members of the Council disagreed, and the use of the word "full" in this sentence seemed to imply unanimity which I do not think was evident in the debate. I would commend those suggested amendments to the Council.

David R. GREGORY (Chairman, Drafting Committee): To some extent I must disappoint you but in fact there was no discussion on paragraph 18. This discussion was on paragraphs 16 and 17 which does reflect what I think is a very useful balance of views that reflects the cooperation that existed in the Committee and I would strongly urge that we could leave those as they are. Unfortunately I cannot assist you with paragraph 18 as it was not discussed.

Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Nuestro colega y amigo Gregory, quien ha hecho una excelente tarea como Presidente del Comité de Redacción, nos habló hoy sobre el equilibrio que existía en este proyecto de informe y, en realidad, podemos observar que en el párrafo 16 aparece la opinión de un grupo de países y en el 17 la de otros países. Sin embargo, con ánimo de conciliar un poco nuestras discusiones y de avanzar en nuestros trabajos, tal vez podríamos proponer una transacción al colega del Canadá en el sentido de aceptar la primera parte de su propuesta: "por ultimo, el Consejo en general" pero le diría que nos deje el término "pleno", porque agregar las palabras "en general" quiere decir que los que quedamos a la luz de lo que se dice en el párrafo 17 ofrecimos pleno apoyo al presupuesto.

Este es un tema importante, se trata del documento más importante para la vida de la Organización. Creemos que de esa forma podríamos lograr un compromiso.

CHAIRMAN: The formulation I used was "as a whole". The United Kingdom, the masters of the English language, have the floor.

J. D. AITKEN (United Kingdom): Being a Scot I would not claim any particular mastery of the English language. But I was going to say that we found that the Canadian formulation, which was based on your own formulation, to be very acceptable. My memory always seems to fail me at FAO meetings, whether it is the joy of being in Rome, I sometimes forget the full details in Council debates. I always had the impression that it tended to note the budget and approved the Programme of Work. I think probably the formulation the Canadians have suggested would be acceptable as a reflection of the actual debate. Again as Mr Bula Hoyos has pointed out there is the question of the balance in the text and it does seem to us that the formulation suggested by the Canadians maintained this balance because paragraphs 16 and 17 cannot really be logically followed by a suggestion that it was full support. I suggest we take the Canadian suggestion.

Joseph TCHICÁYA (Congo): Nous aussi nous sommes sensibles à l'amendement proposé par notre ami du Canada, nous pensons qu'il faut que le rapport que nous adoptons puisse refléter tous les points de vue qui ont été exprimés, et nous croyons nous aussi qu'en enlevant le mot "pleinement" et en ajoutant "dans son ensemble", on crée un petit déséquilibre; et je crois pour ma part que nous pourrions accepter la proposition faite par notre ami l'Ambassadeur Bula Hoyos de Colombie: ou bien nous disons que le Conseil "dans son ensemble", et cela reprend les conclusions que vous-mêmes aviez tirées à la fin de ce débat; ou bien nous laissons comme cela, c'est-à-dire que nous ne mettons pas "dans son ensemble" et le texte en l'état nous convient parfaitement.

Mais je ne pense pas que l'on puisse ajouter "dans son ensemble" et enlever "pleinement"; ou bien on ajoute "dans son ensemble" et dans ces conditions-là on conserve "pleinement"; ou bien on n'ajoute rien sur ce texte qui nous paraît parfaitement équilibré.

Je crois qu'on peut parfaitement ajouter "dans son ensemble" et laisser le mot "pleinement", qui à notre avis reflète les débats qui se sont déroulés ici.

CHAIRMAN: Would this be agreeable to Canada "as a whole" and keep the rest of the sentence as it is, because that will be consistent, because those who have supported have "fully supported". I would suggest we leave it in the way Ambassador Bula Hoyos has suggested, that is it will read: "in conclusion the Council as a whole agreed to give its full support to the proposed Programme", because the other viewpoints are there in the preceding paragraphs.

G. H. MUSGROVE (Canada): I do not wish to stand alone in obstructing the Council's progress but I would prefer if you would agree that we use the term "on the whole" as opposed to "as a whole". It is, perhaps, my colonial use of English...

CHAIRMAN: The suggestion of Canada is we simply say "in conclusion the Council on the whole agreed to give its full support".

G. H. MUSGROVE (Canada): I am sorry, did you agree to my suggestion as to "on the whole". I will respond to the "full" after I have heard clarification on that.

José Ramón LOPEZ PORTILLO ROMANO (México): No tenemos la traducción española de esa diferencia y, por tanto, no podemos evaluarlo. Suplicamos una apreciación del significado "on the whole" y "as a whole", ya que no sabemos lo que significa en español.

LE SECRETAIRE GENERAL: Je ne puis pas parler avec autorité pour ce qui est de l'espagnol, mais quant aux deux expressions en langue anglaise "as a whole" et "on the whole", je dirais qu'on les rendrait en français de la façon suivante: dans le premier cas, en disant que le Conseil "dans son ensemble", c'est-à-dire pratiquement la quasi-totalité de ses Membres, a approuvé, etc. ; tandis que "on the whole" veut dire que "dans l'ensemble" le Conseil a approuvé, etc. ; c'est-à-dirè, d'une façon générale, à quelques nuances près, et non pas à quelques membres près... Voilà comment je comprends pour ma part la nuance entre "on the whole" et "as a whole".

Joachim WINKEL (Germany, Federal Republic of): I would give my full support to Canada.

Ajmal Mahmood QURESHI (Pakistan): I think there is a small nuance between "on the whole" and "as a whole". What has actually happened is that the Council "as a whole" has agreed to lend full support because "on the whole" would dilute the word "full" support, because it is a body, as a whole, the Council as a whole, the great majority agrees that it should be. This is how I look at it. I think it should be "as a whole" rather than "on the whole" otherwise it will contradict the word "full".

Octavio Rainha da SILVA NEVES (Brazil): I am quite in agreement with what has just been said by the representative of Pakistan. I believe that if we want to try to make some sort of effort to arrive at an understanding about this paragraph I believe that "as a whole" as it has been rightly pointed out by Pakistan is the best expression, coupled with "full" support. As far as clarifications are concerned I believe that the position is well clarified as far as paragraphs 16 and 17 are concerned. So, I would be in agreement with this if we would have "as a whole" and "as well".

CHAIRMAN: That is the formulation I used and I thought there was general agreement yesterday, but now since it has come in a different form we have to enter into this debate once again.

Mame Balla SY (Sénégal): Je suis particulièrement perplexe de constater que nous avons ici des difficultés. Je le suis d'autant plus que dans les deux paragraphes qui précèdent, la position de certains Membres a été clairement exprimée: ils n'appuyaient pas le Programme. Dans le paragraphe 17 il est dit que "la plupart" d'entre eux... donc on sait qu'il n'y a pas équilibre. Je conteste d'ailleurs le mot "équilibre". Il y avait une majorité qui s'est, dégagée manifestement au niveau du paragraphe 17. En foi de quoi, ici, au paragraphe 18, le Conseil, qui a des règles d'adoption des mesures, prend une décision; l'autre partie, bien qu'ayant manifesté sa position, ne devrait pas, en réalité, tenter de remettre en cause une décision qui a été prise suivant les normes bien établies qui régissent notre Organisation. Donc, il est dangereux d'introduire des nuances comme: "de façon générale", "dans son ensemble"; tout cela n'est pas nécessaire car il est certain que ceux qui ne sont pas concernés par le paragraphe 18, le sont au paragraphe 16. Une décision est prise sous une forme bien déterminée, c'est pourquoi ma délégation aurait souhaité, comme cela a été fait au niveau du Comité de rédaction, qu'on accepte le paragraphe 18 tel qu'il est, sinon nous nous engagerons dans des procédures qui ne nous mèneront pas à une bonne fin, en tous cas dans un bref délai.

Amin ABDEL-MALEK (Liban) (langue originale arabe): La délégation libanaise ne peut qu'appuyer ce qui vient d'être avancé par le délégué du Sénégal, à savoir, ou bien on laisse tel quel le paragraphe 18, ou bien, en cas d'amendement, on dirait: "le Conseil dans sa totalité est convenu d'appuyer pleinement le Programme de travail... ".

J. D. AITKEN (United Kingdom): I hope I shall be able to make a suggestion which will not prolong this debate. I think that my delegation is one of those referred to in paragraph 16, and it quite clearly cannot go along with the conclusion which is referred to in paragraph 18. The formula that we would have preferred, and which we think would have more accurately reflected the events which took place during this debate, was one in which it was recognized that Council muted the budget-that is all it could do-but gave its full support to the proposed Programme of Work and Budget. If this formula is not acceptable to the meeting then we are quite happy for paragraph 18 to remain as it stands, and we would simply like the addition of a footnote to paragraph 18 which would read as follows: "The delegation of the United Kingdom was not associated with this conclusion. "

To sum up my statement: We would prefer a formula in paragraph 18 which would avoid a footnote and which would also accurately reflect the debate within Council. If this is not acceptable and it is the view of the meeting that paragraph 18 must remain as it is, then I would be grateful if the footnote which I have just quoted could be added to the record.

G. H. MUSGROVE (Canada): To save the Council's time and to avoid going over and over the same old problems at meeting after meeting: We would have preferred a search for consensus on this, but there seems to be no such disposition. We would like to be associated with the footnote which was just read by the United Kingdom.

Joseph TCHICAYA (Congo): Nous sommes déjà intervenus sur la question et nous pensons effectivement qu'il faut faire preuve de beaucoup de coopération afin de ne pas perdre du temps sur une question qui en fait ne devait pas nous diviser. Je pense que nous travaillons sur les Textes de base au niveau de notre Organisation et par conséquent tout pays membre est obligé d'appliquer ces Textes ou de les faire respecter. Je crois que les paragraphes 16, 17 et 18 s'inscrivent dans ce cadre. Nous estimons, comme l'ont dit les délégués du Sénégal et du Liban, que l'on peut accepter le mot "dans son ensemble" afin d'éviter la discussion; mais cela ne signifie pas que là nous appliquions exactement les Textes; et si on applique les Textes de notre Organisation, on n'a même pas à mettre "en général" ou "dans son ensemble": c'est le Conseil, et c'est un problème de majorité. Dans ce cas, le problème est de savoir combien de pays ont dit cela; cela a été exprimé aux paragraphes 16 et 17; et ici il s'agit d'une conclusion et les conclusions ne peuvent être tirées que par rapport à l'opinion de la majorité. Si la majorité a rejeté ceci, cela doit être dit clairement.

Ici, nous n'avons pas à faire de concessions; "dans son ensemble", nous l'avons accepté tout à l'heure dans un esprit de coopération et de compromis; mais, là, je pense que cela ne vaut même pas la peine que l'on introduise cette notion et je voudrais par cette occasion rendre hommage au Comité de rédaction qui a pu mettre au point ces trois paragraphes, qui, à notre avis, reflètent exactement les débats qui ont eu lieu dans cette salle.

Mrs Millicent H. FENWICK (United States of America): My delegation would like to leave paragraph 18 as it is and associate itself in the footnote with the United Kingdom and Canada.

Joachim WINKEL (Germany, Federal Republic of): If paragraph 18 remains unchanged, my delegation would like to enter in that footnote with the United Kingdom.

Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): La Delegación de Colombia considera que dimos muestra de buena voluntad y de espíritu de cooperación cuando tratamos de modificar la propuesta de Canadá; pero consideramos, Señor Presidente, y lo vamos a decir con mucha convicción, que no es correcto que una delegación que hizo parte del Comité de Redacción y que allá aceptó este texto ahora aquí se sume a la reserva. Creemos que esto no es serio, que esto quebranta los mínimos principios éticos de la cooperación internacional.

El párrafo 16, que recoge la opinión de esos países, dice en su frase final inclusive que reservaron su posición acerca del nivel del presupuesto, ¿es esto acaso lo que ellos piensan o no? ¿Por qué ahora, después de que en el párrafo 16 se recoge su opinión van a insistir en dejar reservas? ¡Y pensar que esta actitud la realizan aquellos colegas que tratan de darnos lecciones de moral y de moderación, Señor Presidente!

Creemos que este Consejo no puede seguir trabajando en esas condiciones. Aquí tratan de sacar ventajas, cuando usted hace el resumen van al Comité de Redacción y allí debilitan el texto, aceptan una redacción y luego viene aquí y hacen reserva. Creemos, Señor Presidente, que eso es inaceptable.

Mamoudou FASSASSI (Bénin): La délégation béninoise trouve que le Conseil travaille à partir de textes et ces textes doivent être respectés dans toute leur intégralité, et il se trouve que les paragraphes 16 et 17 expriment très bien la pensée du Conseil. C'est pour cela que la délégation béninoise appuie l'intervention de la délégation sénégalaise. Le paragraphe 18 peut rester tel quel.

K. M. EJAZUL HUQ (Bangladesh): We feel concern that the tradition of consensus in this forum seems to be skating on thin ice. We would like to see a consensus reached rather than just seeing reservations at the Council. Therefore, in order to accomodate the different points of view, we would suggest a recommendation which would read as follows: Paragraph 18: "In conclusion the Council on the whole agreed to give its full support to the proposed Programme of Work and Budget and recommended its unanimous support by the Conference. " We hope-it is our sincere hope-that this formula would be acceptable to all the distinguished delegations.

David R. GREGORY (Chairman, Drafting Committee): Having attended the debate in the Drafting Committee, and listening to the discussion that is going on here, I would just offer a suggestion-and while I expect that it will satisfy neither side, I shall try this as perhaps a compromise just for consideration. If it is not acceptable I do not expect anyone to take it up. My suggested formula on paragraph 18 would be: "Taking into account the views expressed in paragraphs 16 and 17, the Council agreed to give its support... ". I have deleted the words "In conclusion, " and "full".

Amin ABDEL-MALEK (Liban)X langue originale arabe): Nous considérons que le Comité de rédaction est: issu du Conseil, qu'il comporte des membres représentatifs de toutes les tendances au sein du Conseil. Le paragraphe 16 de ce rapport a été avancé pour mettre en évidence la position de certains. Nous avions étudié cette question lors de la réunion de juin. Nous l'étudions aujourd'hui au cours de cette session et nous l'étudierons également prochainement.. Nous n'acceptons donc absolument pas l'amendement du paragraphe 18 car tous ces paragraphes reflètent pleinement toutes les positions.

Kosei SHIOZAWA (Japan): We are now studying the proposal made by the Chairman of the Drafting Committee, and hope to be able to express our position later.

Mame Balla SY (Senegal): Je crois sincèrement que le Président du Comité de rédaction-en tour, cas j'ai omis de le féliciter alors que j'ai travaillé avec lui-vient de montrer ses talents qui ont permis d'aboutir aux résultats que nous espérions vraiment voir passer sans difficulté. Malgré ma première déclaration, je voudrais inviter ceux qui m'avaient manifesté leur amitié à dire en conclusion: "en tenant compte des articles 16 et 17", parce qu'en réalité la conclusion c'est cela: le Conseil était obligé de tenir compte de ses observations et de ses positions mais le Conseil doit décider sous une forme majoritaire. Donc, on pourrait accepter la proposition.

Personnellement, je suis prêt à appuyer dans un esprit de conciliation et d'objectivité la proposition que vient de faire le Président du Comité de rédaction.

CHAIRMAN: I shall repeat what the delegate of Senegal proposes on paragraph 18:

"In conclusion, taking into account the views expressed in paragraphs 16 and 17, the Council agreed to give its full support to the proposed Programme of Work and Budget... ".

David R. GREGORY (Chairman, Drafting Committee): I took out the words "In conclusion" and "full", so it would read: "Taking into account the views expressed in paragraphs 16 and 17, the Council agreed to give its support... ".

Ismael DIAZ YUBERO (España): Primeramente quería decir que no somos partidarios de que se radicalicen las posturas; si el párrafo no se puede modificar y algunos miembros no están de acuerdo tienen perfecto derecho a hacerlo constar. Por otra parte, también es cierto que el Programa no recibió pleno apoyo puesto que hubo algunos países que no estuvieron de acuerdo con el mismo Programa.

Yo desearía que llegásemos a un consenso y al mismo tiempo desearía que se aceptase que algo que se ha dicho en el Comité de Redacción por una delegación posteriormente, y por el mero hecho de que se ha dado cuenta de que hay otra mejor redacción, pueda modificarse sin que merezca ninguna calificación, nada más que simplemente ésa de que se puede mejorar un texto en cualquier momento.

Mrs Millicent H. FENWICK (United States of America): I have another simpler solution. I think that we could well end this section with the words "in full understanding of the factors which have motivated these and in the strong hope that the proposals would be unanimously approved at the Conference". I hoped that we could leave out 18 which seems to be taking us all night. The whole thing is already said "in the strong hope that the proposals would be unanimously approved at the Conference" and there is no need for 18.

Horacio M. CARANDANG (Philippines): I think there is a good spirit in the Council tonight and everybody is saying that they want to arrive at a consensus, and I think that the proposal of the Chairman of the Drafting Group is a possibility that we should take seriously because when you take away the word "full" that means the implication is that it could be not full, and when you indicate at the beginning of the sentence "taking into account the views expressed in paragraphs 16 and 18" you are indicating in the conclusion that indeed there were some that had reservations and that the majority had fully supported it, but the conclusion is there that the Council gave its support to

the Programme of Work and Budget. I think there is no escaping this. So I would therefore recommend to the Council that we support the proposal of the Chairman of the Drafting Committee, of course without the reservations of the footnote because this is, I think, taken care of by the introductory words "Taking into account the views expressed in paragraphs 16 and 18", otherwise I think we will go on and on and on discussing what indeed was the conclusion of this Committee. But in this way we have a clear conclusion and the views of the minority and the majority are recorded.

CHAIRMAN: I think the Philippines' suggestion is that we first ascertain that Senegal has supported the Drafting Committee Chairman. If people support the Drafting Committee Chairman, then withdraw the reservation which has been inserted because it is conditional.

Joachim WINKEL (Germany, Federal Republic of): Yes I could agree with the Chairman of the Drafting Committee's proposals.

J. D. AITKEN (United Kingdom): We thought we had the judgment of a Solomon from the distinguished delegate on my right and we would have been very happy with the proposal to do that with paragraph 18, as we think it is perhaps superfluous. I regret that having looked very carefully at the language of the proposal by the Chairman of the Drafting Committee we feel that it does not protect our position and therefore the situation is that either paragraph 18 remains or a modified version of paragraph 18 is adopted on the lines proposed by the Chairman of the Drafting Committee. We would like our reservation to remain and we hope this will speed up the discussion.

Carlos R. SERSALE DI CERISANO (Argentina): Para retomar la propuesta de Filipinas y Senegal en el sentido de aprobar la propuesta del Comité de redacción; creemos que la propuesta de eliminar el párrafo 18 no es seria, no debería ni ser considerada.

Mame Balla SY (Sénégal): Je pense que certaines délégations avaient, à juste raison, craint une menace consistant hélas à voir s'installer ici un système de veto, alors qu'en réalité le Conseil doit décider, forcément. Nous avons discuté pendant des heures et des heures, aussi bien en pionière qu'au Comité de rédaction, et il est anormal qu'on nous propose après tant d'efforts-surtout pour le Comité de rédaction qui a travaillé hier soir jusqu'à 23 h 30-de dire qu'on ne décide rien. Je pense franchement que le Conseil ne devrait pas s'acheminer dans une telle direction et je suis sûr que nous n'irons pas jusque-là. Je le dis parce que quand on tient compte des articles 16 et 17, on voit qu'au 16 il y a des pays qui ont dit qu'ils n'appuyaient pas le budget. Sur le 17, on dit "plus nombreux", que doit faire le Conseil? C'est comme si on contestait un bon Président élu. Je pense donc qu'on doit maintenir les articles 16 et 17 et, à partir du moment où des membres n'ont pas appuyé, on ne peut pas dire "pleinement". Je pense donc que le problème devrait être réglé. Pour nous, nous nous en tenons, dans un esprit de conciliation, à cela, sans note de bas de page, sinon, nous aboutirons à une situation qui ne pourrait pas être claire.

Horacio M. CARANDANG (Philippines): If the reservations are going to stay 1 think we should go back to the former wording that has been proposed by the Drafting Committee. After all, it is clear that these delegations want themselves singled out that they are not following the majority. So, Mr Chairman, I think if the reservations are going to remain, even if the proposal of the Chairman of the Drafting Committee were to be adopted, I would think that we should go back to the original proposal of the Drafting Committee. But I still hope that those who make the reservations will consider again that indeed this is a justified way of recording the decisions by the Council, because what are you recording? You are recording a decision of the Council that it is supporting the proposed Programme of Work and Budget. Now the decision is made by the majority. I think nobody quarrels with this. The question is whether the minority views are recorded. I think they are recorded very well in paragraph 16. If they want them again recorded in paragraph 18 then I think we should go to the proposal of the Drafting Committee.

David R. GREGORY (Chairman, Drafting Committee): I am not going to make any other proposal regarding drafting, certainly because the Drafting Committee did not in fact even discuss the proposal I made; it was purely my own. But I would point out that the item in the agenda is for discussion and not decision; the decision must be taken by the vote at the Conference, and that thought was behind the minds of the Drafting Committee when they formulated paragraphs 16 and 17. So in fact the suggestion made by, I think, the distinguished delegate of the United States to delete paragraph 18 is a possibility in the sense that a decision is not required. That is just a comment I make in the hope that it will be helpful, but the item is for discussion and not for decision.

Joseph S. MTENGA (Tanzania): The Drafting Committee adopted paragraph 18 in the dralt that they made. Because of what the Chairman of the Drafting Committee has explained to you, we now agree this is the result of that explanation.

The Drafting Committee adopted it because, if you go through the last few words starting "and expressed the hope that the Conference would approve it unanimously", here you see the Drafting Committee did not make a strong recommendation, or the Council is not making a strong recommendation as we have done elsewhere. It is a hope, and if a hope is something to go by this is the best way to put it because it does not make any specific recommendation to the Conference. The formulation that we have been given by the Chairman of the Drafting Committee is perhaps the best compromise out of this problem because at the same time it would have shown the views of the majority. All the same, for the sake of compromise, and in view of the late hour and the good spirit that has prevailed in the House, I would have supported the Chairman of the Committee having put it the way he put it and perhaps this would have met with the agreement of of those who opposed the paragraph as it was. But if in the end we are not going to get anywhere, and if we want to avoid the possibility of having a footnote-and this is just a question-would those who opposed this, and therefore wanted a footnote to be inserted, agree if we deleted paragraph 18 altogether because this is what we do not know.

CHAIRMAN: I think I would like to formulate two alternatives so that we can come to a decision soon. One is the suggestion by the Chairman of the Drafting Committee: "Taking into account the views expressed in paragraphs 16 and 17, the Council agreed" and so on.

The other is to leave paragraph 18 as it is from the Drafting Committee and allow those delegations... "The delegation of the United Kingdom is not associated with this conclusion. " Canada, United States and Germany also wanted to be associated with the footnote.

Let us now come to some decision on this issue. We can go ahead, retain it as it is and allow those delegations to exercise their authority of expression.

Ajmal Mahmood QURESHI (Pakistan): I have just discussed this and it we read the formulation as' it is, deleting the word "full" we shall have, "In conclusion, the Council as a whole agreed to give its support to the proposed Programme of Work and Budget and expressed the hope that the Conference would approve it unanimously". We think that will be better than having a reservation. We agree to this formulation, and she was agreeable to this formulation.

J. D. AITKEN (United Kingdom): Can you repeat that please as we are confused?

CHAIRMAN: "In conclusion, the Council as a whole agreed to give its support to the proposed Programme of Work and Budget and expressed the hope that the Conference would approve it unanimously".

Joseph TCHICAYA (Congo): Je n'ai peut-être pas bien suivi mon ami du Pakistan, mais il me semble qu'il a repris la proposition du Canada. Je tiens à dire que nous compliquons un peu ce paragraphe; je crois sincèrement que ce paragraphe 18 devrait être modifié en partie, comme l'a proposé le Canada, et en partie comme l'a proposé la Colombie. Je pensais qu'on allait pouvoir sortir de l'impasse vers laquelle on se dirigeait. A mon avis, il n'y a pas plusieurs solutions. Nous connaissons déjà l'atmosphère de cette salle: lorsque l'on commence à proposer les notes de bas de page, il devient vraiment difficile de pouvoir faire changer d'avis à ceux qui les proposent. C'est pour cette raison, et je suis persuadé que cela est vrai, que les pays qui voudraient qu'on les cite dans ce rapport veulent se distinguer dans ce domaine et donc je pense que pour cette raison, au paragraphe 18, au lieu de mettre les notes de bas de page, on pourrait mettre "quelques membres". On citerait alors le nom de ces pays: Canada, Etats-Unis, Royaume-Uni, Allemagne; ils seraient cités au paragraphe 18 pour qu'il n'y ait pas de notes de bas de page; c'est une solution pour permettre de mettre en valeur lesv pays concernés.

G. H. MUSGROVE (Canada): For the information of the Council, we certainly would not prefer to have the footnote, provided our position is not compromised. In the light of the indication that no conclusions or decisions were required on this item I had thought that the suggestion to delete paragraph 18 was a good one. Certainly if that can be accepted by the Council we would not wish to have a footnote in that event.

Ajmal Mahmood QURESHI (Pakistan): We are only endeavouring to reach a consensus without prejudicing or precluding the expression of views of the minority. After discussion with the distinguished Ambassador of the United States of America this formulation would be acceptable to everyone because it goes in without any reservation and expresses the spirit given in paragraphs 16 and 17, because it is agreeable to her. It will read, "In conclusion, the Council as a whole agreed to give its support to the proposed Programme of Work and Budget and expressed the hope that the Conference would approve it unanimously".

Mrs Millicent H. FENWICK (United States of America): The distinguished delegate of Pakistan has expressed it exactly. This is the original Canadian proposal, and I support it.

G. H. MUSGROVE (Canada): I do apologize to my distinguished colleague, the Ambassador of the United States of America. Our proposal is "on the whole", not "as a whole". We take "as a whole" to mean the Council in its entirety whereas we take "on the whole" to mean the Council generally, and that was what we were trying to include in the use of the words "on the whole".

Mame Balla SY (Sénégal): Je pense que tout à l'heure il y a eu une confusion qui s'est introduite dans nos débats. En parlant de ce point je pense qu'il convient de distinguer la décision que le Conseil doit prendre à la suite de ce débat. Avec la décision qui concerne le Programme nous sommes convaincus, et nous le savons, que le budget sera adopté par la Conférence. Mais, quand vous demandez, pour prendre un raisonnement parabolique, qu'un collaborateur vous demande d'étudier un problème, il faut qu'il propose quelque chose. Vous n'êtes pas tenus par la proposition, mais il doit nécessairement vous dire quelle est la conclusion proposée. C'est pourquoi le Conseil est tenu de dire quelque chose à la Conférence, sinon, c'est une discussion qui n'a ni queue ni tête. Je crois que les différentes formulations proposées ne sont pas très graves en l'occurrence, du point de vue de la décision; parce qu'il est certain que les décisions seront appliquées là où il faudra les appliquer. On voulait tout simplement sauver un climat d'entente; car, que l'on dise "dans l'ensemble" ou "d'une façon générale", je pense que les dangers ne sont pas très grands, dans la mesure où il y a l'appui de la majorité qui je l'espère ira en grandissant dans le sens de cet appui.

CHAIRMAN: I appeal to all Council members, who seem to want to prolong my Chairmanship this evening-if you all agree, let us accept the proposal of the distinguished delegate of Pakistan. I will read it. "In conclusion, the Council as a whole agreed to give its support to the proposed Programme of Work and Budget and expressed the hope that the Conference would approve it unanimously", because paragraphs 16 and 17 bring out clearly all the viewpoints and it is only a hope that is being expressed. I am sure that those delegations who have reservations will be able to express them in Commission II of the Conference. So may I appeal to the delegations of the United Kingdom and Canada to agree to this formulation.

J. D. AITKEN (United Kingdom): With considerable sadness and reluctance because of the debate that has taken place, I am afraid I have to reiterate our position, that the use of the words you have suggested in our view does not take account of what happened in the debate, and our reserved position referred to in paragraph 16. If paragraph 18 remains with the formulation, I regret that we still will wish for a footnote to clarify our position. I was attracted to the idea put forward by the distinguished delegate of Tanzania, which was originally put forward by the delegate to my right. The easiest way out of the impasse is to delete paragraph 18 altogether. I am sure this would also meet the desire of the distinguished delegate of Senegal to present something reasonable to the Conference. It is there in paragraphs 16 and 17. Through you, Mr Chairman, I propose that paragraph 18 is deleted.

Mrs Millicent H. FENWICK (United States of America): 1 do not know how long we can take up the time of this body. I am sure that Pakistan, with its ancient history and philosophical background, will perfectly happily accept "on" instead of "as" and return, in other words, to the original suggestion of Canada. That is what I now propose.

Mame Balla SY (Senegal) Je pense que le délégué du Royaume-Uni a quelque peu travesti ma position. J'ai toujours été contre la suppression du paragraphe 18 et j'ai dit que l'on ne peut pas discuter sans proposer une solution. Je tiens à ce que cela soit clair: jamais je ne me rallierai à une telle proposition.

Joseph TCHTCAYA (Congo): je voudrais que nous puissions parler sérieusement de la question. Je pense, pour ma part, que lorsque nous avons écouté notre ami du Pakistan faire sa proposition nous avions dit que la nôtre était la même. Le Congo, comme vous le savez, n'aime pas beaucoup les notes de bas de page. Nous estimons que ce n'est pas une bonne méthode de négociation dans une enceinte comme la nôtre. Dans le passé, nous avions mis des contre-notes de bas de page pour montrer notre opposition aux notes de bas de page. C'est pourquoi, je voudrais me rallier à la proposition faite par le Pakistan et dire: "Le Conseil, dans l'ensemble, est convenu". Je crois que nous pouvons accepter cela sans mettre le mot "pleinement" puisque cela gêne certaines délégations et je crois que cela pourrait rencontrer l'appui de tout le monde.

Victor HJORÏ (Denmark): We have listened carefully to the debate which has taken place, and I will admit that a couple of the proposals put forward were agreeable to our delegation. We recognize that by now the expressions "as a whole" and "on the whole" are rather difficult to interpret in any proper direction. If it is of any help, we would like to offer another proposal, hoping that we can shorten the discussion. Our proposal is that the paragraph should read, "In conclusion, the Council generally agreed to give its support... " etc.

Horacio M. CARANDANG (Philippines): I just want to point out the fact that indeed the Council is supposed to make a recommendation to the Conference regarding the Summary Programme of Work and Budget. This is written in Rule XXIV, Functions of the Council, 2(a) and I shall read it:

"The Council shall consider and make recommendations to the Conference on policy issues regarding the Summary and Draft Programme of Work and Budget and Summary Estimates by the Director-General for the following financial period. " If you have to consider and make recommendations you have to make a decision; a recommendation is a decision to recommend. I would like to refer to Council document CL 88/4 page iv, Matters Requiring Attention by the Council, wherein are recorded the decisions of the Finance and Programme Committees. Here is a way of recording views which can be an example for this Council. In the third paragraph on this page we read: "The Committees recalled that the strategies, priorities and programmes... ", and then in the fourth paragraph on that page we see: "Some Members reiterated their Governments' position pertaining to... programme growth... "

Paragraph five begins:

"The majority of Members of both Committees recalled that they had fully supported the programme increase... "

and then at the end of that paragraph, bearing in mind the views expressed above on that page, we see that the Committees recommended to Council to endorse the proposal of the Director-General. You attribute the decision to the Committee's taking account of the views of the minority and the majority. So it is clear that you can have a minority view recorded in the preceding paragraph and still attribute the decision to the Committee. I could cite ten or twenty examples of this kind, where you attribute the decision to the Committee but that does not mean that there had been no diverging views regarding the conclusions of the Committee. This is just a way of recording, whether you say "the Committee generally" or "the Committee gave its support" or "its full support" I think it is the same, the decision is to recommend to the Council the Programme of Work and Budget. But I think we should consider that when we say "the Committee"., there are many precedents and that there are diverging views and the members who do not agree with this can cite the preceding paragraphs. Therefore I think it is not terribly important that you put "full support" or "gave it support". But I think we are prolonging the debate without very much reason.

CHAIRMAN: Let us now not have a discussion. When I summed up yesterday I knew we had to make a recommendation and we had used the formulation in previous instances when we had a similar position as a whole. It is only on that basis that I used that sentence. "In general" has been suggested. If that is more acceptable to members keep it as it is, if it is the one which is acceptable to the United Kingdom, Canada, etc. Is it acceptable to the United Kingdom?

J. D. AITKEN (United Kingdom): I can confirm that the phrase "The Council in general" would be acceptable to us.

Joachim WINKEL (Federal Republic of Germany): I can confirm that if it would read "The Council in general" Germany would agree.

Joseph S. MTENGA (Tanzania): I only wanted Lo put the record straight that the United Kingdom at the time misunderstood the Tanzanian delegation. Fortunately the United Kingdom delegate said yes, they would go along with it, and therefore withdrew their reservation, for which the Tanzanian delegation is thankful.

The reason I am raising this is that the subject under discussion is of such importance, it is a policy issue and cannot be left hanging in the air. It has never happened before. The Tanzanian delegation would not expect it to happen now. I am very happy with the conclusion that is now reached because it is a logical one, although it still waters down our position in view of the fact that "in general" and "on the whole" would mean the same. But we are prepared to go along with it if that is the consensus.

CHAIRMAN: Then let us conclude with the Denmark solution: "In conclusion the Council agreed", because we are going into the Conference, let us go in a spirit of amicability. If some people insist on the present wording, then the other group will put their names behind.

Joseph TCHICAYA (Congo): J'ai quelque peine à accepter cette transaction qui vient d'être faite. Je crois fermement que le paragraphe tel qu'il est libellé ici tient compte des débats; et c'est pour cette raison que tout à l'heure je disais qu'en principe je suis opposé aux notes de bas de page; mais je crois qu'ici, peut-être, nous devons adopter les notes de bas de page et laisser le texte en l'état. En fait, qu'est-ce qui s'est passé ? Nous pensons que nous faisons ici une recommandation à la Conférence, et à la Conférence, nous aurons un vote sur le budget. Et je crois que, de toute façon, ceux qui auront fait les réserves ici vont voter contre le budget ou peut-être s'abstenir. C'est pour cette raison que je crois qu'il est préférable de laisser le texte en l'état et de demander à ceux qui le désirent de faire des notes de bas de page.

CHAIRMAN: Let us come to a decision. There are two propositions. One is the proposition of Denmark, the same formulation "The Council in general" which is acceptable to the United Kingdom, Canada and so on, and there will be no footnotes. The other is the proposition of Congo to retain the text as it is and allow those countries which would like to do so to express their reservation in the way that the United Kingdom did. So those who are in favour-we will take the views of people. We must have either the Congo proposal or the Denmark proposal. We must come to a conclusion.

Octavio Rainha da SILVA NEVES (Brazil): I tend to favour the Congo position because I do not understand the meaning of the expression "The Council in general". Perhaps if you could clarify this it would help.

DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: I do not think that anybody can give an authoritative definition. It is a question of impression. As someone said earlier about "on the whole", it obviously means that a fair number of the Council did not agree but the majority did. It is more or less the same "as a whole", perhaps even weaker.

CHAIRMAN: Let us then take a decision on this matter. Let us not explain the different viewpoints. Make concrete suggestions. A point of order from Malawi first.


H. M. MBALE (Malawi): I did ask to speak but you bypassed me and I did not understand. I think we are talking about semantics now. My proposal is that we should put it to the vote, as you were proposing earlier.

CHAIRMAN: So those who are in favour of the Congo proposal that we leave paragraph 18 as it is and such countries as would like to put in a reservation-the delegation of the United Kingdom is not associated with this conclusion, also Canada, United States, Germany, and so on. Those who are in favour of the Congo proposal, please raise your hands. Those who are in favour of Denmark's proposal? The majority would like the Congo proposal, it is 17 versus 12.

The Congo amendment was adopted by 17 to 12 votes with 1 abstention.
L'amendement du Congo est adopté par 17 voix contre 12 et 1 abstention.
Por 17 votos contra 12 y 1 abstención queda aprobada la enmienda de Congo.

That means that those countries who wish to express that they are not associated with the conclusion will put a footnote there.

Kosei SHIOZAWA (Japan): We would like to ask that the name of our country should be included in the footnote.

Horacio M. CARANDANG (Philippines): I did not vote on this issue because it is not very clear to me what "in general" modifies. Does it modify the subject or does it modify the verb? If it modifies the verb I cannot agree with it.

CHAIRMAN: The majority have already not agreed.

Horacio M. CARANDANG (Philippines): If "in general" modifies the verb that means that some parts they approve and some parts they did not. But if it modifies the subject that means some did not approve and some approved. Therefore it is ambiguous. That is why I did not take any part in this voting. I did not know whether "in general" modified the verb "support" or the subject "the Council".

CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your comments.

K. M. EJAZUL HUQ (Bangladesh): I had requested the floor but perhaps a wee bit late. Still endeavouring to save the situation of reservation, we suggest the following formulation: "In conclusion, not withstanding some divergence in views", and then the rest remains.

CHAIRMAN: I do not think the Council seems to be in a mood now to consider additional drafting. Let me complete the meeting and I will come back if there is any last minute wonderful idea.

Paragraphs 11 to 18 as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 11 â 18, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 11 a 18, así enmendados, son aprobados

Paragraphs 19 and 20 approved
Les paragraphes 19 et 20 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 19 y 20 son aprobados

PÁRRAFOS 21 a 28

Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Yo creo que es una costumbre desafortunada llenar un informe con la expresión de: "Un miembro del Consejo". Por lo tanto no encuentro ninguna explicación a la última frase del párrafo 21, Proponemos que se suprima la última frase de este párrafo 21.

R. MACINTOSH (Canada): I recall that there were rather a small number of speakers on that item and therefore "One member" may be more than it looks like. The reason for deleting the reference therefore is not self-evident to me.

David R. GREGORY (Cha irman, Drafting Committee): The only change that took place here in the Drafting Committee was-we were given two paragraphs which are now represented as one paragraph, but there was absolutely no discussion from my recollection on the item.

CHAIRMAN: I think if Canada does not object I would say please do not insist. The views are there in full in the verbatim report and the report should indicate a broad view rather than every single viewpoint which is contained in the verbatim report.

J. D. AITKEN (United Kingdom): We would prefer if possible to see the last sentence remaining in the report. Certainly it reflects our views as well as the views of Canada.

CHAIRMAN: That makes two!

Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): A estas horas hemos de decir cosas agradables. Al principio de nuestros debates de esta tarde el colega del Canadá en sentido muy positivo se refirió a ciertas expresiones inglesas que podrían tener origen colonial. El lo dijo en forma positiva; pero parece que nuestro colega del Reino Unido, quien declaró que cuando viene a Roma lo pasa muy bien y se divierte, se ha contagiado con esa expresión colonialista, pero en sentido contrario. De todas maneras nosotros dijimos muchas cosas sobre este tema y si se mantiene esa frase, ya tengo otra redacción y, si usted me permite, la voy a leer, ya que creemos que no siempre la expresión de: Un miembro o de dos miembros, deba prevalecer dentro de un informe, dentro del cual se expresaron otras muchas opiniones. Usted, Sr. Presidente, toma la decisión, y si me permite leeré la expresión de otros miembros, ya que la delegación de Colombia es tan respetable como cualquier otra.

CHAIRMAN: I think if the Council agrees the first sentence will stop there, because I think generally in report writing we do not refer to one member, although the United Kingdom has said he supports it, but the records usually go by the verbatim records.

R. MACINTOSH (Canada): Not to harp unduly, but I must reiterate the fact that there were very few speakers throughout this entire item. We addressed ourselves to the problem of coordination and to what we thought FAO could productively do in response to that problem and I must say that unless my memory fails me no one in the Council objected to the remark and seeing as how other items on this agenda have been treated in such a way that one or two members have made a remark and seen it reflected, I do not really see a reason why this cannot be reflected.

CHAIRMAN: If Colombia, you do not insist further let us go on and adopt what has come from the Drafting Committee.

Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Yo no me voy a oponer a que eso se exprese, pero, naturalmente, debe aceptarse la siguiente frase adicional para el párrafo 21: "Se opinó que la FÀO ocupa un sitio de prestigio y respeto en las Naciones Unidas y cumple adecuadamente todas sus funciones. " Esto lo dijo mi Delegación, lo dijeron otras y nadie se opuso.

CHAIRMAN: So we shall we add this sentence, "It was stated that FAO enjoyed a position of respect and prestige in the United Nations system and adequately fulfilled all its functions".

Mame BALLA SY (S-énégal): Je n'ai aucune observation sur la seconde et la dernière phrase qui viennent de nous être proposées. Mais si je me souviens bien j'ai été le dernier orateur sur cette question; et je dois dire que j'ai moi-même refusé cet argument en donnant des exemples sur le PNUD et sur l'ONUDI pour dire que l'on ne peut quand même pas nier qu'il y a beaucoup de considération et un effort de la part de la FAO pour encourager une certaine harmonisation et une certaine coordination. Et j'avais même conclu en recommandant que cela se poursuive.

Donc, vraiment cette dernière phrase nous en vaut une autre et peut-être d'autres pays vont encore demander de faire inscrire leurs positions; et nous arriverons à avoir des tonnes de rapports. Et je souhaite sincèrement que d'autres pays ajoutent leurs positions, si vraiment ils le désirent, mais sincèrement cela n'ajoute rien du tout; tout le monde souhaite une harmonisation et une coordination; il y a un effort, il faut le reconnaître et passer là-dessus.

Paragraphs 21 to 28, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 21 à 22 ainsi amendés, sont approuv
Los párrafos 21 a 28, asi enmendados, son aprobados

Paragraphs 29 to 31 approved
Les paragraphes 29 à 31 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 29 a 31 son aprobados

PÁRRAFOS 32 a 36

Horacio M. CARANDANG (Philippines): Just a matter of clarification. I understand when you have to suspend the Rules, you have to give a time allowance of 24 hours, before you can suspend it. Does this report serve as that notice? I would like to ask for clarification.

LEGAL COUNSEL: As the delegate of the Philippines rightly pointed out, the suspension of a Rule does require a 24 hours notice. In this connection various considerations should be taken into account: the unanimous view that this Rule should be suspended; the fact that in addition to the members of the Council, a considerable number of observers from member nations which are not members of the Council have followed its deliberations; the document that will be submitted to the Conference-a LIM document reproducing an extract from this Council Report-can presumably be ready tomorrow and all delegations will find it in their pigeon-holes on Saturday at the opening of the Conference. I consider that in the light of the above the spirit of the notice Rule will certainly be met.

Horacio M. CARANDANG (Philippines): The Philippine delegation has some very strong views on the matter of recording decisions of the Council. I have here a prepared statement by the Philippine Ambassador on this matter, which I am prepared to read now. But, due to the lateness of the hour I shall not do so if nobody objects if I hand it over to you so that it can be included in the verbatim records. (The following statement is inserted on request. )

My "Many" and "Most" Files

Mr Chairman, Distinguished Colleagues, I ask for your indulgence. After going over the Report before us, I am constrained to speak again.

My subject will be the piles of papers in my office, those marked: "Many and Most". These documents, Sir, are compiled FAO Reports, those that are remarkable for their "Many and Most".

The terms "many" and "most" attracted my attention, Mr Chairman. That these terms are difficult to define or delimit is obvious, I believe.

How many is "many"?

How many is "most"?

Do these terms represent a majority or a minority?

These terms could be indicative too of certain conditions in the Council-uncertainties or ambiguities in its functions and objectives. I have been wondering Sir, if the Council is certain about its role. What are its functions? What are its purposes? What is it supposed to do? Is it expected to make recommendations to the Conference?

After my remarks during the 87th session of the Council-my first remarks before an organ of the FAO-certain colleagues came to me, showing great concern, and very kindly said to me: "It is because you are new. "

I was disturbed. Was there something wrong in my remarks?

Today as I ponder the kind words again, I feel happy that I am "new".

Because I am new I do not feel very much bound by the traditions and the generally accepted practices evidently being observed by the Council with reverence. The excitement could be lost the moment one's critical sense has been blunted or conditioned.

I am not against traditions or certain established formalities. But too much reverence to established formalities, practices or traditions could be suffocating. It could hamstring the Council. The deliberations of the Council could degenerate to mere formalities, to a ritual.

In my remarks last Monday, Sir, I congratulated the entire Council. I am impressed by its diligence and patience to come every time for debates-debates which are of the same quality and substances as those of previous ones in other subsidiary bodies of FAO.

The debate on commodity problems, for instance, has been raging for over a decade. Is there anything else that has not been said about protectionism and its related issues?

Have not our predecessors said what we are trying to say here today? It is very likely that our observations here today will be reported in the next Conference.

Mr Chairman, at this point only I mention that after some years delivering speeches in different platforms in my country, I confronted my children with a grievance: that they were not listening to my speeches.

Their defense was: "Father, we have heard you many times over-repeating yourself. "

Because I am new, Mr Chairman, I find it difficult to understand phrases like "a great majority of the members, while recognizing that FAO is not a body in which negotiations can be conducted, agreed on the necessity of sending a signal... ".

I have asked my staff, Mr Chairman, to find out how the idea that FAOis not a body for negotiation came into being, why the insistence on incorporating it, how many times has it been restated and wny it has to be restated over and over again.

Does it indicate what the JIU reports as a tendency to paralyze world organizations, an evidence of the stalling that has frustrated attempts at more decisive action. If this point is of great importance, maybe it should be embodied in an appropriate document not excluding the Charter of the Organization.

What is meant, Mr Chairman, by "sending a signal"? Are we going to send a memorandum, a circular, a cable or any other communication?

"Signal to the international community"? A "to-whom-it-may-concern" type of communication?

In 1979, Sir, the Conference passed Resolution 2/79. Today, the Council is sending a signal. Is the Council not moving backwards? What happened to Conference Resolution 2/79?

This search for answers is only one example of the various difficulties of a new member of the Council, Mr Chairman. And there are many more-many cases like the one above where I find myself entangled.

Does the Report represent the "verbosity" that the Joint Inspection Unit complains of in Document No. JIU/Rep/85/9?

In my remarks here last Monday, Sir, I suggested that paragraphs 4 and 14 of the keynote address of the Director-General to the 55th session of the Committee on Commodity Problems be emphasized. The words of the Director-General are those of a person who is on top of developments in trade on agriculture commodities. Therefore his words carry much greater weight than those of a newcomer like me.

He said:

"Commodity problems have almost always been difficult and controversial. Indeed my decision to address you personally reflects my concern about the serious dimensions of today's problems, characterized by severe declines in prices of many commodities on the one hand and mounting protectionism on the other, bringing the world to the brink of a trade war. I can hardly overemphasize the urgency of taking measures to improve this critical situation. "

"Much of the world agricultural commodity trade, including trade in processed primary products so vitally important to developing countries, is hampered by widespread protectionism. And the situation is getting worse instead of better: the use of export aids by developed countries to dispose of their surpluses in products of export interest to developing countries; stricter limitations on imports of beef and sugar into certain developed country markets; high volatility of international markets for their exports; and further restraints imposed on imports of textiles and clothing from developing countries, all illustrate this. It is therefore not surprising that some developing countries have raised doubts about trade as a reliable basis for their food security and economic progress. Clearly much remains to be done to restore confidence in the international trading system. "

The reaction to my recommendation was something like-"Is it in accordance with established procedures?" I was wishing the reaction to be "Does it make sense?"

This wishful thought led me once again to indulge in wishful thinking, which I usually do during deliberations of this Council, imagining that someone was nudging me, and heard him admonishing me: "Sir, what you need is common sense".

I retorted: "I have had enough common sense to read the Charter of the FAO. in the Charter the member nations expressed déterminât ion("being determined")"to promote the common welfare by furthering separate and collective action on their part for the purpose of:

raising levels of nutrition and standards of living of the peoples under their respective jurisdictions;

securing improvements in the efficiency of the production and distribution of all food and agricultural products;

bettering the condition of rural populations;

and thus contributing toward an expanding world economy and ensuring humanity's freedom from hunger".

"The member states furthermore undertook, among other functions, to promote and recommend national and international action pertaining to-"the improvement of the processing, marketing and distribution of food and agricultural products;

"the adoption of international policies with respect to agricultural commodity arrangements;

"the adoption of policies for the provision of adequate agricultural credit, national and international. "

"I have had sense enough to believe that the nations of the world did not intend the FAOand other organizations established by them to be powerless, to be unable to deal with the problems on their agenda, or to be more report-pushers. "

"Any other proof that you have common sense?" the voice asked.

"I have sense enough to know the difficulty of knowing the sense of the Council", I said.


"I do not know. "

"Why?", he insisted.

"I do not know", I replied, irritated.

"Why, because it has no sense?"

"No. The Council has a lot of sense! Many, in fact, if not the most sense. "

"And what makes it difficult to determine the sense of the body?"

"Oh no, perhaps it has not really that many senses; let us see... sense of national interests, sense of community interests, sense of G-77 interests... what else... let us see... do you think that it has the sense of the interests of the peoples of the world too-the vast human community?"

"I also know that the Council is the second highest governing body of FAO " I boasted, "and I believe...

"Believe what?" asked my tormentor.

"Do I have the right to believe?"

"Yes, provided you act according to your beliefs, your beliefs become deeds. "

"That is quite too much", I said. "It should be enough that I believe... " It is an impossible condition that our beliefs be translated to action. Do not impose that condition on us members of the Council, much less on the state members of the FAO. You should be happy that I, or we, at least believe".

And taking the offensive, I asked: "Do you know if all the member states of the different world organizations believe at least in the Charter of these organizations?"

But my tormentor, Mr Chairman was suddenly gone.

Mr Chairman', forgive me for yielding to day-dreaming here. To entertain myself? Not really. Perhaps in search of some ideal political condition under which our Council could carry out its function and great mission.

Sir, undoubtedly we are all aware that this Council is the second highest governing body of FAO. It has this high calling and much is expected of it by the peoples of the world.

Before us, Sir, are serious problems. To cite only a few examples, there is the case of hungry peoples. On commodity trade problems, the Director-General has warned us of an impending trade war.

Sir, I had thought, and now believe, and now urge that the Council be endowed-maybe through your leadership-with a new vision, a new sense of responsibility to the peoples of the world, a new dynamism and courage to act, to break away from existing traditions, conventions and other established practices, if necessary to take the bold decision and actipn expected of the Council-decisions and action befitting itself, its high calling as the second highest governing body of FAO.

Mr Chairman, after these sessions, I will be reporting to my President. My President had been strong in his conviction that UN organizations move beyond rhetorics to vigorous action. And last night I was disturbed by a nightmare: In my dream I was before my President, reporting on my mission.

"How did all those Conferences go?" he asked.

" Well, Mr President, we went over voluminous reports which told us of certain critical conditions in world agriculture and food. "

" We know that already. How many times are you supposed to be told that? or to tell me that? Anything else to justify the attendance of the delegations?"

" Sir, we decided to send signals... "

" To send what?" interrupting me.

" Signals, Sir"


"Yes, Sir, signals!"

"Are you lost or something, or in darkness? This is getting funny. Signals! Flares or sirens?"

I stood quietly as the President picked up a telephone call.

"What happened to that Resolution in 1979, Conference Resolution 2/79?" he continued the interrogation.

"I found the Resolution in the files, Sir, " I regretted my words. Luckily for me the Prime Minister came in and my ordeal was over, at least temporarily.

Mr Chairman, please do not allow the above to take place. It might cost me my job. But this is not the important consideration; it is tlie fact that I have to make an accounting to my President and my people. The Council should, I believe, make an accounting to the peoples of the world who had opted to establish the organizations of their respective nations.

Let me bring you, Mr Chairman to another scenario. Let us imagine a member of our respective families seriously ill. Good parents that we are, we call a team of good doctors-the best doctors. The doctors make their diagnosis, repeat them, repeat them, repeat them.

The doctors' diagnosis comes up finally to confirm that the patient is seriously ill.

Would anyone of us in this Council be happy if the doctors limit themselves to declaring that our beloved one is "indeed ill-and seriously ill" without prescribing the cure and administering the medicine?

Would anyone of us in this Council be satisfied seeing banner headlines in the newspapers that our beloved one is seriously ill?

Mr Chairman, I would not. My purpose in calling doctors is to have my beloved one treated and cured. It is for this reason, Mr. Chairman that I now propose that we send all those documents on issues on our agenda to the FAO Conference with our-the Council's-recommendations.

Consequently, I move that the Council adopt the following:

- That having noted during the Council's deliberations of the U. S. delegation's statement that the U. S. is sceptical of the benefits provided by price-affecting international agreements, and believes that international trade will be most beneficial if it is conducted through free markets... the Council recommends that the statement be conveyed to member governments and appropriate international agencies for their information and consideration;

- hat, in view of the consensus that protectionism has persisted and that its effects have caused undue economic difficulties, member states in the review of their own national as well as regional policies take this consensus into account.

- That, having reviewed the evaluation report on the technical coopérâtion programme, it recommends that the programme be expanded, providing funds therefore from savings of the Organization and reductions of outlays from less urgent programs such as studies.

Mr Chairman, these are only examples of recommendations that the Council can specifically propose. There are others-many others.

The Council, Mr Chairman, is called upon to provide advice to the Conference, to draw attention to specific policy issues and to make recommendations on these or certain policy issues. The Council was conceived as an active organ of FAO. It is not conceived to be solely a forum for debate.

Mr Chairman, lead us to this new reality. Thank you.

Mrs Millicent H. FENWICK (United States of America): I have a suggestion, not for action, only for consideration. I would like to put before my colleagues something that I think would be very helpful. We can refer, if we want to be more legal, to page 39 Item 19 of the Basic Texts which promotes something of this kind although in a less democratic fashion. The other day a great number of countries wanted to vote for closure, another number of countries wanted to speak their piece. We have seen today what happens when there are no limits to discussion. We need not vote now but maybe we would vote ourselves the following procedure: that each delegate representing a country is enabled to speak for five minutes; therefore every view would surely be heard and yet the hours will not be uselessly extended. I think it would facilitate our work. I just toss it on the table and maybe we could think about it. Many parliaments are conducted along these lines and the people find it satisfactory, because everybody has a chance and everything is limited. You do not have to speak for five minutes, you can speak for three minutes but you cannot speak for 20 minutes when there are other people waiting to have their views recorded. Then we could have one afternoon maybe for what might be called "formal speeches" where people could speak for an hour but no action Would be taken, and everybody could go home.

CHAIRMAN: May I suggest that all the Chairmen of the various 77 groups could meet together sometime over a cup of tea and discuss ideas of this kind. Some other ideas have been put at this Council meeting about how to reach consensus. I think it would be very good if all the group Chairmen could meet and have a general discussion.

Paragraphs 32 to. 36 approved
Les paragraphes 3
2 à 36 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 32 a 36 son aprobados

Paragraph 37 approved
Le paragraphe 37 est approuvé
El párrafo 37 es aprobado

Paragraph 38 approved
Le paragraphe 38 est approuvé
El párrafo 38 es aprobado

CHAIRMAN: This brings us to the close of our session. I want to thank you all once again. It is nearly eight o'clock and all the groups have spoken so there is no need for futher speeches. It is my duty to record on behalf of the Council our sincere appreciation to the Chairman, and the members of the Drafting Committee, for the wonderful job they have done. Mr West would like to offer a comment.

DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: On behalf of the Director-General I would like to thank the Council for completing its work. It looked as if it might go on much later today despite having an extra day, and having had a very intensive debate on some items. At any rate, the work of the Council has been successful, you have done your job vis-à-vis the Conference and you have thereby greatly helped the work of the Conference. For this, we in the Secretariat are duly grateful.

CHAIRMAN: I must once again thank my three distinguished Vice-Chairmen. We are very grateful to Senegal and Austria for your suggestions regarding the International Year of the Forest, and also to the distinguished Ambassador for Saudi Arabia, to Mr West and all the officers who are here-and of course to our interpreters who help us to understand each other and cross the language barrier. I want to thank all of them again.

With this the present session of the Council comes to a close.

The meeting rose at 20. 00 hours
La séance est levée à 20 heures
Se levanta la sesión a las 20.
00 horas

Previous Page Top of Page