CHAIRMAN: Good morning. I hope you have all had a good rest because as the delegate of Czechoslovakia said, we are always wiser in the morning than at night. I hope all delegations have the new text on paragraph 5 contained in document CL 95/LIM/2 which is printed in English. French and Spanish. I hope you have all had time to go through it. It is a very short text in which we have done our best to reflect the results of Council's consideration last night. Are there any general comments on that text?
Ilja HULINSKY (Czechoslovakia): I will come directly to the point. The first thing that came to my mind when reading the text prepared by the Legal Counsel was that the text is concerned with the status of the EEC. The text says "...organization such as the EEC that would be commensurate with its status...". My delegation is concerned with the constitution of FAO. Therefore, why not replace the two words "its status" with another three words "this FAO constitution"?
LEGAL COUHSEL: I would like to point out that, of course, there will be implications of a constitutional nature that will arise during the exploration of the options. I was wondering whether it might not be appropriate to reflect this in the second part of the sentence and to say "as well as the full financial, constitutional, legal and other implications for the Organization". This may perhaps take into account the point made by the delegate of Czechoslovakia.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Legal Counsel. May I ask the Delegate of Czechoslovakia, is he satisfied with that proposal?
Ilja HULINSKY (Czechoslovakia): Well, to be frank, to say "satisfied" I would go too far. But if other members of the Council are not against such a possibility, I may go along, but I will register my position after all of the debate.
Angel BARBERO MARTIN (Espaňa): Muchas gracias, señor Presidente, por darme de nuevo la palabra, después de mi intervención de ayer, que creo que desencadenó una serie de declaraciones interesantísimas, y yo estoy por asegurar que para los miembros de la Comunidad que estamos en este Consejo fueron altamente enriquecedoras. Por eso creo que el texto que se nos ha presentado por la Secretaría recoge fielmente los deseos y las propuestas que se hicieron en su momento.
Nosotros-y sigo hablando en nombre de la Comunidad, especialmente en el de los seis miembros del Consejo que pertenecen a ella-creemos que el nuevo texto recoge, como digo, estas propuestas, quizas satisface las inquietudes que expresaron muchos de los delegados; inquietudes, por otro lado muy legítimas, porque nosotros reconocemos que la cuestión tiene unos aspectos jurídicos, constitucionales, etcétera, muy difíciles. Por ello nos gustaría también aclarar algunas cuestiones, pues ayer tuvimos la sensación de que muchas delegaciones habían contemplado este texto con una visión quizás mas complicada de lo que en realidad entendemos nosotros que posee. Lo que nuestra Delegación, en nombre de la Comunidad, había propuesto es muy sencillo; tan sencillo como que otras delegaciones expresaron su deseo de consultar a sus gobiernos, puesto que entendían que las implicaciones, como acabo de decir, pueden ser tan numerosas y tan importantes.
Esa es nuestra situación. Entendemos que esto tiene unas repercusiones tan importantes, tan profundas, que necesitamos tiempo, y queremos dar tiempo, tanto a la FAO como a nosotros mismos, para encontrar, recoger, analizar y, como dice el texto, "explorar" todas estas implicaciones; es decir, recoger todos los datos posibles que nos puedan llevar después a proponer decisiones mucho mejor basadas y que a la FAO la puedan también guiar y darle luz a la hora de escucharnos y, a su vez, de proponer a todas las delegaciones que componen no solo el Consejo, sino la Conferencia, una cuestión perfectamente estudiada, en la que todos los puntos se esclarezcan al máximo posible y en la que-todos-podamos entonces adoptar las acciones políticas que entendamos son las pertinentes.
No es más que eso, tan simple como eso: darnos tiempo a todos para estudiar este tema y poder tomar después otras decisiones. Yo quisiera llevar al ánimo de todos el que esta propuesta que se hace al Director General no tiene implicaciones políticas previas. Dos equipos de técnicos, de expertos legales y constitucionales de ambas partes, van a estudiar este asunto y van a proporcionar después el máximo de datos posible para tomar esas decisiones. No es nada más que eso.
Por otro lado, creo que el texto lo podemos aceptar. Esta enmienda propuesta por el Sr. Moore, de añadir, como he querido entender, entre las repercusiones financieras y jurídicas, las constitucionales, la aceptamos también, puesto que completa el amplio abanico de las repercusiones. Unidamente en el texto inglés, si me permite, señor Presidente, querría hacer una pequeña indicación, exclusivamente gramatical, y es que cuando dice "for a form of membership in FAO", quizás-y esto los delegados de habla inglesa lo sabrán mejor que yo-podríamos sustituir "in" por "of".
C. Srinivasa SASTRY (India): We have three points to make, one substantive and two of a minor drafting nature. To deal with the substantive point first, in the letter dated 26 April 1989, the word "status" in relation to the EEC appears twice. On both occasions it relates to the status of the EEC in relation to FAO, not the status of the EEC as an Organization. Similarly, if you go to the agenda note at the end of the document placed before us, all the times that the word "status" is used-it is used twice-on all the occasions it is used in relation to the status of the EEC vis-à-vis FAO. In this context, we would think that requesting the Director-General "to explore a form of membership of the FAO of a Regional Organization like the EEC that would be commensurate with the status of the Organization outside the FAO" may not be quite appropriate. Keeping that in view, we would suggest that the second point in this Resolution should not, in our view, be related to an individual regional organization, but could be applicable to a wider number of regional organizations which are now emerging all over the world. Keeping that in view, we would suggest including the two verbal corrections we would like to suggest. Drafting suggestions are: one, we would prefer 5(b) line one, instead of "to request the Director-General", to "invite the Director-General". The second drafting suggestion is in sub-paragraph 5(b)i line three. Instead of the words "as well as," "along with" would be better. If our suggestions are accepted, this paragraph will read as follows: "To explore the options for a form of membership of FAO of regional organizations such as the EEC, along with the full financial, legal, and constitutional implications." Thereafter, there is no change. We would submit this for your consideration, through you to the Council.
CHAIRMAN: I would like to ask Mr. Moore. I hope you got the Indian suggestion down. Could you read that again?
LEGAL COUNSEL: Certainly, Sir. As I understand it, the Indian suggestion was that in the first line the word "request" should be replaced with "invite." In sub-paragraph 1, the word in the first line "in" should be replaced with "of", and in the second and third lines, the words "that would be commensurate with its status," "as well as" should be deleted, and the words "along with" should be substituted therefor.
C. Srinivasa SASTRY (India): There are two other constitutional amendments. In line one, after "FAO of," "a" is deleted. In the second line, "regional organization" should read as "regional organizations", plural.
CHAIRMAN: I hope you all got these amendments down. May I now ask the Council Members, invite the Council Members, to comment on that or if we are already focused so that I could venture to put the question before you, is this version acceptable? I am in your hands. There is no reaction? Then I would rule that we have adopted paragraph 5(b) as amended, and I am very happy to say that this brings us no, I recognize the Delegate of Spain.
Angel BARBERO MARTIN (España): Señor Presidente, yo le pediría un pequeño momento antes de aceptar esto, para poder consultar con los otros miembros y poder decirle nuestra opinión sobre ello. Si puede entonces retrasar dos minutos la Resolución, por favor.
CHAIRMAN: Distinguished delegates, you have heard the demand of the Spanish Delegation. If you are agreeable we can suspend this session for fifteen minutes.
Atif Y. BUKHARI (Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of): In actual fact, Sir, I think we could move to the next item on our agenda. I do not think we need to ajourn. Why do we have to adjourn for fifteen minutes? Fifteen minutes? It will be half an hour, perhaps more than half an hour, so I would advise the Council to continue taking the other agenda item.
CHAIRMAN: I thank you, Distinguished Delegate of Saudi Arabia. You are a very experienced man and thinking realistically. That is O.K. In this case, the Council would have to reopen after this consultation amongst the EEC members, the discussion on this point. I already have a number of speakers. Maybe we should, really, in order to save time-it is our last day-continue today with the agenda while the EEC countries are consulting and then, as I said, we have to reopen the discussion for, hopefully, the final decision on this point. Is the Council agreeable? I am informed that the delegates from Czechoslovakia and Japan have asked for the floor. Is that on the procedure we have to follow, or the substance?
Masayuki KOMATSU (Japan): Mr Chairman, can we speak on the substance?
CHAIRMAN: Would you prefer to speak after we have heard what the EEC member countries have resolved on the text proposed.
Masaynki KOMATSU (Japan): I would prefer later if I am allowed. CHAIRMAN: Well, you are always allowed, distinguished delegate of Japan.
Distinguished delegates, I would propose that we now continue with the item 19. I will leave this chair and as soon as we have exhausted the substantial points of the agenda still to be taken care of, we will take up item 20.3 to finalize this item as well. If you are in agreement please remain in your seats. I see nobody wishing to speak so it is so decided. Thank you.
Lassaad Ben Osman, Independent Chairman of the Council, took the chair
Lassaad Ben Osman, Président indépendant du Conseil, assume la présidence
Ocupa la presidencia Lassaad Ben Osman, Presidente Independiente del Consejo
LE PRESIDENT: Nous allons prendre l'étude du point 19 de notre ordre du jour intitulé: Rapport de la cinquante-deuxième session du Comité des questions constitutionnelles et juridiques (CL 95/5 et CL 95/5 Sup.1). Ce point sera présenté par le Président du Comité des questions constitutionnelles et juridiques.
Afin de faciliter la discussion du Conseil, je propose de diviser ce point en trois parties. La première partie comprendrait le point 19.1: Procédure d'élection du Président et des membres du Comité du Programme et du Comité financier. La seconde partie concernerait les points 19.2, 19.3 et 19.4. Enfin, la troisième partie concernerait le point 19.5 relatif aux questions d'immunité de juridiction de l'Organisation.
Au préalable, je signale à l'attention du Conseil que, sur demande du Comité de rédaction, on émette le voeu que le Conseil puisse terminer ses travaux aussi rapidement que possible de facon à laisser le maximum de temps au Comité de rédaction, pour que nous puissions consacrer toute la journée de demain à l'adoption du rapport. Je vous propose de bien vouloir tenir compte de cette contrainte de temps et terminer rapidement l'examen de toutes les questions avant la fin de la séance pour laisser le temps matériel au Comité de rédaction de faire son travail.
A la fin du point 19, nous reviendrons au point 20.3 pour prendre une position définitive sur ce point 20.3.
Je donne la parole à Monsieur l'Ambassadeur Poulides, Président du Comité des questions constitutionnelles et juridiques.
Fotis G. POULIDES (Chairman, Committee on Constitutional and Legal Matters): Mr. Chairman, Distinguished Delegates, as Chairman of the Committee on Constitutional and Legal Matters, it is my pleasure to introduce the Report of the Fifty-second Session of the CCLM which took place in Rome from 2 to A May 1989. The various matters which the CCLM considered constitute Item 19 of your Agenda. In order to facilitate the discussion, the five sub-items could be grouped as follows:
1st, Item 19.1, Procedure for the Election of the Chairman and Members of the Programme and Finance Committees;
2nd, Item 19.2 concerning the proposed Indian Ocean Tuna Commission, and Item 19.3 on CIDIE and Item 19.4 concerning UNIDO;
Finally, Item 19.5, Other Matters.
Item 19.1: Procedure for the Election of the Chairman and Members of the Programme and Finance Committees: The Council will recall that the question of the procedure for the election of the Chairman and members of the Programme and Finance Committees arose first at its 89th Session in 1985 when the members of the Finance Committee were elected. Since that time the matter has been considered on several occasions by both the CCLM and the Council. Finally, at its Twenty-fourth Session in 1987, the Conference adopted a Resolution calling on Members of the Council to bear in mind certain criteria when electing members of these Committees. Nevertheless, a similar problem arose at the Ninety-third Session of the Council in November 1987 following election of the members of the Programme Committee.
At the last Session of the Council in November 1988, the Council requested the CCLM to review the matter once again and to report on it.
In so doing, the Council underlined that the basis for reaching an effective solution was that of regional understandings. Care had to be taken to give due regard to the consequences which any proposals might entail for other bodies of FAO. Finally, the CCLM should seek the most effective and desirable means of achieving the objective of just and equitable representation, taking full account of the various views expressed by the Council, without prejudice to the type of solution which the CCLM might recommend.
The CCLM explored three possible orientations which would ensure conformity with Council Resolution 11/87 and, in particular, with the following criteria set out therein:
(1) the need for just and equitable representation of the various regions on the Programme Committee and the Finance Committee;
(2) that the essential element of such representation is that all regions that so wish are in fact represented on the Committees; and
(3) that members of the Council should bear the above in mind, as well as the importance of securing equitable rotation among the countries constituting each region, when electing the Chairmen and members of the two Committees in accordance with Rules XXVI.3 and XXVII.3 respectively.
As you will see from the Report of the CCLM, in particular paragraphs 6 to 12, the three orientations were considered in detail, in particular the second orientation which envisaged the establishment of a pre-election and nomination procedure for achieving regional understandings. However, the Committee recognized that each of the three orientations would appear to meet the criteria set forth in the Conference Resolution as well as those contained in the guidance which the Council gave at its 94th Session in November 1988.
As the various proposals are set out in the Report, I think that it will not be necessary for me to repeat them. Naturally, should the Council Members have any questions, I should be most pleased to reply to their queries.
LEGAL COUNSEL: Thank you Mr. Chairman. The Director-General has asked me to convey to the Council his views on the suggestions put forward by the CCLM with respect to procedures for the election of the Chairman and members of the Programme and Finance Committees. The Director-General has noted that three possible orientations have been put forward by the CCLM. The first orientation as described by Ambassador Poulides, the Chairman of the CCLM, would consist in expanding the criteria set out in the existing Conference Resolution, that is Conference Resolution 11/87, to reflect the need for substantial representation for regions that are priority areas for development assistance. Adopting this approach would entail the adoption of a further Conference Resolution calling on Council members to take this into account in addition to the other considerations set out in Conference Resolution 11/87.
The second orientation would be to establish a more formal pre-election or nomination procedure for implementing regional understandings among and within regions with respect to the election of the Chairman and members of the Programme and Finance Committees.
The third orientation would be to introduce a formal procedure entailing separate elections for each region seeking representation on the Committees according to a fixed and precise allocation of seats among the regions. This third orientation would, of course, require an amendment of the General Rules of the Organization.
The Director-General has noted that the Committee has decided to pursue in more detail the second orientation. On this point the Director-General has some concerns regarding the possible effects of such an approach which he wishes to share with the Council. These concerns are based on two fundamental concepts. The first is that it is up to the regions themselves to determine how they should adopt their own consultation and coordination, and that it would not be commensurate with this idea for the Conference in any way to give instructions, however vaguely formulated, to the regions on these matters.
The second concern is that the orientation proposed, in his view, is unlikely to provide a proper solution to the problem of equitable representation, but is almost certain to have the effect of creating unnecessary divisions and differences within the regions themselves, and in particular within those such as Africa, Asia, and Latin America which have a more numerous membership.
The present system provides a safety valve and is conducive to working out consensus among and within the regions. Informal consultations take place regarding the allocation of seats among the various regions in each group and regarding the representation of a particular region on the Programme Committee and Finance Committee. Where, however, it is impossible to reach consensus the final decision is left to the Council Members themselves.
Under the proposed orientation this safety valve will be removed and the pressure of any divisions or divergencies of opinion would be internalized within those regions and the positions of individual countries may tend to become crystalized. The Director-General therefore believes that this orientation might well tend to exacerbate divisions and thus complicate matters further rather than to provide a workable solution.
In practice the Director-General believes that the problems regarding equitable representation on the Programme and Finance Committees are more apparent then they are real. In practice the present system and procedures for election of Members of the Committees have worked well over the last forty years in his opinion. The lapses in the existing system, which occurred in 1985 with respect to the Finance Committee, and in 1987 with respect to the Programme Committee, are in his view isolated instances that should be viewed against the long history of successful practice.
There is every reason to believe that the particular problem of non-representation of a region that desires to be represented on the Committees has been settled by the Conference Resolution 11/87.
João Angusto DE MEDICIS (Brazil): The views of my delegation on this issue have been aired more than once during the Council Sessions since 1986 and in Commission III of the 24th Conference. Our opinion remains unchanged.
We consider that in the current framework Resolution 11/87 adopted by the 24th Conference is perfectly satisfactory, and we are sure that coordination within and among regions can guarantee the principle of just and equitable representation with this safeguard.
We therefore cannot in any way support the conclusions of the CCLM as contained in paragraphs 10 and 11 of its Report, in particular the pre-election system proposed for selections and nominations of candidates.
My delegation has, however, on many occasions challenged the efficacy of geographic distribution prevailing in FAO, which in our opinion does not conform to the usual grouping in the UN system. This same point was raised by the Indian delegation during the 94th Session of the Council.
I move that the issue before us is actually the current geographical distribution in FAO, and therefore that consideration should be given to review it and conform it to the UN system. The CCLM could be entrusted with that review and report to us before the 26th Session of the Conference on the measures needed to render the grouping less artificial. We are convinced that no satisfactory solution for the principle of equitable representation will be found if we do not tackle this basic issue.
Gonzalo BUIA HOTOS (Colombia): Los representantes de Colombia apoyamos plenamente la declaración que acaba de hacer el Embajador De Medicis, de Brasil.
Roberto E. DALTON (Argentina): Nostros también, Señor Presidente, tenemos preocupaciones con respecto a la propuesta del Comité de Asuntos Constitucionales y Jurídicos, particularmente consideramos que los Grupos Regionales son un eficaz instrumento para llevar adelante el trabajo de nuestra Organización, y de todo el trabajo de la familia de las Naciones Unidas; pero debo decir, Señor Presidente, que coincidimos con lo que acaba de exponer el señor representante del Brasil sobre este particular.
Los Grupos Regionales, Señor Presidente, no son sino foros de discusión y debate, no tienen ellos convenio constitutivo y los miembros no han hecho delegación alguna en favor de ellos. A nuestro entender, Señor Presidente, la propuesta del Comité de Asuntos Constitucionales y Jurídicos crearía una progresión en las decisiones que dejaría a la decisión de los propios Estados en el escalón más bajo. No podemos respaldar por tanto,Señor Presidente, esa posición.
Paul R. BRYDEN (Australia): Could I say that we would be very reluctant to agree with the suggestions from our neighbours that the CCLM look at the whole question of the geographic basis of our regional system. It seems to my delegation that the system has served FAO well for 44 years and that it would be a retrograde step to move away from groupings of countries with similar agricultural problems and issues.
In the case of my country we are a Southwest Pacific country and we share many of the interests of our South Pacific neighbours and very different ecosystems and farming systems to that of our North American and European neighbours.
We would be very reluctant to see a process whereby FAO moved into the UN system with Western European groups, Group 77s, and so on.
I wonder whether, with regard to the CCLM's recommendation, it might be possible that where a geographic region does have a problem which becomes a problem of the whole Council who have to vote among friends, it might be possible to ask the Secretariat's assistance in arranging for a ballot to take place without necessarily recommendations from the Council or changes to the Constitution, a rather informal approach with the Secretariat assisting that region to come to a decision.
Atif Y. BUKHARI (Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of) (Original language Arabic): At the beginning we would like to extend our heartfelt congratulations to Ambassador Poulides for the great efforts of the CCLM. I believe that the activities of this Committee are worthy of all praise.
I believe that understanding within regions and among regions is a necessity. Resolution 11/87 has helped us to solve many misunderstandings. We all know that there has never been a problem related to regional distribution and regional understandings with the exception of very few cases.
We do fully support what has been said by the representative of Brazil, and I hope that we will follow his suggestion.
Ilja HULINSKY (Czechoslovakia): I would like to thank the Chairman of the Committee on Consitutional and Legal Matters, Ambassador Poulides, for his clear and precise introduction to the report.
On the question of the procedure for election of the Chairman and Members of the Programme and Finance Committees, I have to start with a general remark of deep concern. Speaking not only as the representative of my country of Czechoslovakia but as well in my capacity as Chairman of the East European Group of States, I feel obliged to draw your attention to the fact that not one representative of our group has, at least to my knowledge, ever been elected to the Programme or to the Finance Committee. Let me express my doubt that it has been due only to the fact that the candidates of our country were less qualified.
The Czechoslovak delegation therefore strongly supports the notion that there is an urgent need for drafting the most effective and desirable means to achieve the objective of just representation of all the various regions on the Programme Committee and the Finance Committee, and that of equitable representation among the countries constituting each region when electing the Chairman and Members of the two Committees.
Among the possible orientations that could be adopted by the Council and Conference in this respect, as explored by the CCLM, my delegation would favor the third one outlined in paragraph 8 of document CL 95/5, that of introducing a formal procedure for reaching regional understandings. Such an approach could ensure that each region and subregion would have a fixed number of seats. Such an approach would correspond more closely to the practice generally adopted in the united Nations. However, I have to add that my delegation would have nò difficulty in supporting the suggestion just made by the delegate of Brazil.
At the same time I have to admit that my delegation understands the position of those who are pointing at specifics in the FAO that have been formed over years. That is why my delegation sees a certain merit in the second orientation outlined in paragraph 7 of CL 95/5 that of introducing a greater degree of formality into the procedures by establishing a pre-election and nomination procedure for achieving such regional understandings among the various regions.
My delegation's position to the 25th Conference will be flexible, especially if a formula could be found in a new Conference Resolution or in a gentlemen's agreement that would ensure just and equitable rotation among the subgroups and countries considered in each region referred to in Rules XXVI.3 (c) and XXVII. 3 (c) of the General Rules of the Organization.
Joseph TCHICAYA (Congo): Je voudrais avant tout féliciter l’Ambassadeur Fotis Poulides de Chypre pour le travail effectué par le CQCJ. Nous estimons effectivement que ce comité a accompli une tâche ardue car sa mission, dès le départ, n'était pas du tout facile. Elle n'était pas facile parce que, comme on le sait, il est toujours difficile d'améliorer ce qui existe déjà et qui a été expérimenté pendant près de 45 ans. Nous estimons, pour notre part, qu'il convient de prendre beaucoup de précautions avant d'engager toute procédure visant à modifier ce qui, à notre avis, est un acquis-et un acquis qui n'est pas si mal.
Bien sûr, il y a eu quelques bavures, mais je crois qu'une bavure ici et là ne devrait pas entraîner de bouleversements. Voilà pourquoi je pense qu'il convient d'inviter le Conseil à ratifier la position exprimée ici par l'Ambassadeur du Brésil. Nous pensons qu'il s'agit là d'une position sage et qu'il convient de ne pas nous lancer dans des modifications du Règlement général de la FAO.
Bashir EL MABROUK SAID (Libya): First of all, I would like to join all those who have expressed thanks to Mr. Fotis Poulides for his efforts in preparing this Report.
When this matter was first taken up in past meetings, we felt that it was really quite useless and unwarranted. We thought that the decision of the Conference (Resolution 11/87) was wise and that this matter was not to be tabled again. However, calls for an equitable rotation of posts among the different regions have been made. That is quite fair-every one should be represented equitably in the Programme and Finance Committees. We share this view, but there is one point which we should not overlook.
There are different criteria and parameters to be taken into account when selecting the members for the Programme and Finance Committees. I have already said that the delegates who are members of the Programme and Finance Committees do not represent their countries: they represent Council. Therefore, one is selecting an individual, not a country. It is Council which selects the members of the two committees and therefore the decision of the General Conference (Resolution 11/87) is a fair and equitable decision.
It is of course the role of the regions to review and examine all these parameters before submitting nominations. By way of example I shall take the Near East. For the past 20 or 30 years we have really had no problems in our Near East Region, because we always reached prior agreement and we only propose the number of candidates which is equal to the number of available seats. However, I must say that the choice of members is a personal choice. It is a choice ad personam. It has been stated at a number of meetings that Africa is only represented by one person, but I must say that in fact two members represent Africa, and the Group of Seventy-seven must, among themselves, try to resolve these difficulties.
I must apologise to the Ambassador of Czechoslovakia if I raise this point, but the distinguished representative from Czechoslovakia has said that it is a long time since the Eastern European Region has been represented. I recall that Ambassador Trkulja was a member of the Programme Committee for ten years. Therefore this really is a problem which is internal to the regions, and this point must not be raised time and again before Council.
Some regions call for a just and equitable distribution, but we must distinguish between regions in which there are 52 countries, like Africa, and others where there are only five or six countries. How can representation be truly just and equitable?
I think it wiser not to belabour this point, but to concentrate on Resolution 11/87. We would like to support Brazil.
Steven D. HILL (United States of America): In regard to the proposal made this morning by the distinguished representative of Brazil, my delegation supports the comments made by the distinguished representative of Australia. The system of regional representation has worked well, and the proposal which has been made would necessitate changes in rules which the FAO has been using since its foundation. The system of regional groupings, set out in the FAO rules, has worked well for FAO, and it would be unreasonable to ask the Organization to change this now. This is FAO, and we have no need to conform to other procedures used in the United Nations system. I would ask Council to consider this carefully.
Assefa YILALA (Ethiopia): The Ethiopian delegation would like to thank the Committee on Constitutional and Legal Matters, and Ambassador Poulides for the very good introduction which he gave. We have examined the document, and have found it to be sound and balanced.
Part II of the document, referring to Procedure for the Election of the Chairman and Members of the Programme and Finance Committees, was of particular interest to our delegation because we felt that the outcome of this consultation would solve some of the problems that have prevailed during the election of members of these two committees. Even so, the second alternative could have been written differently regarding election of members to these two committees. We do not necessarily see significant differences from the conventional understanding that prevailed during previous years, that the regional distribution of members in these two committees was unacceptable. We still feel that the arrangement indicated in the document might not solve the problem faced in 1985 and 1987. In fact, to our understanding the procedure used was similar to that outlined in the second recommendation, apart from the fact that it is here in written form. We do however understand that this is a recommendation based on a practical difficulty and it may have been difficult to go further than the proposal in the second alternative.
Our delegation therefore supports it, even though we might have wished that the Committee on Constitutional and Legal Matters had gone a little further in this recommendation, preferably along the lines of the third alternative indicated in the document before us. Furthermore, our delegation feels that this recommendation will serve as a springboard towards the next move, if we happen to face similar problems to those encountered in 1985 and 1987, by applying the recommendations that we have before us.
We would therefore like to see the Resolution in this regard presented to the Conference, while at the same time endorsing the recommendation for consideration by the Conference.
Daniel D.C. DON NANJIRA (Kenya): I too would like to thank the Ambassador of Cyprus for his introductory statement, and to thank the Legal Counsel for the explanations given.
This is an important procedural question. However, I do not see enough reasons advanced, at least in the documentation, as to the need to change the system which has been applied up to now. Perhaps we need more information to justify any contemplated changes. However, I intend to speak on the existing principles within the UN system-and of course, FAO is a UN system organization. Therefore, if there is any intention to regard FAO as a completely different organization which is not required to do what is done within the UN system, I would find difficulty in accepting that, because there are many other agencies which are similar to FAO, and if you want to change FAO from what is done and applied by all the other agencies of the UN system, then you are setting a precedent, and I think we have always wanted to avoid procedures that consume a lot of our time. We are supposed to be discussing substance in the UN system.
Needless to say, the responsibility for deciding at the regional level what is good for that region, what is in the interests of that region, and how they can be presented to the international communities, rests solely with that region. Matters may start at the sub-regional level, but it is the region which starts, and that is the case even within the Group of Seventy-seven. We have regions in that Group, they originate their own concerns, their own interests, and they bring them to the Group of Seventy-seven for discussion. It is after long discussions within the Group of Seventy-seven that we have a Group of Seventy-seven position.
We cannot reverse things. If we reverse things, we are looking for trouble. Therefore, the system of consultation at the sub-regional and regional level is sacrosanct, and the region must be the master of its own interests and must retain the sole responsibility of telling the international community what its requirements are.
It is only when there is no consensus that we can refer matters to higher authorities like Council, Conference or the General Assembly of the united Nations, but we cannot let the General Assembly decide things and impose them on nations. It should be the other way round. I hope there is no attempt in this gathering to change that system. If it is a fact that the proposals to change the system are important, we need to know reasons'why that is going to be the case. So far even a good report does not give us the reasons. This leads me to my next point, the question of transparency-information sharing.
It is important that we know what is going on within these Committees that we set up. It is only when we have access to information, when we have everything required, that we can give proper guidance to these committees. So if the Legal Committee has some reason as to why things must be changed, let us hear about them. If there is nothing to substantiate this I strongly recommend we do not entertain any changes at this level until such time as we are convinced that it is necessary, and even if it is necessary to refer this matter back to the Committee, to instruct it to come up with more information, we should do so, but we cannot jeopardise this. We do not have a duty to create precedents that will imprison us in the future.
Earl W. WEYBRECHT (Canada): We appreciate the document provided under this Agenda item and the introductions given earlier. The proposal put forward by the Committee on Constitutional and Legal Matters will constitute an improvement on the present procedure and add an additional degree of predictability. It means that our approval providing the existing system of regions and regional membership is maintained.
We believe the existing system of regions in FAO has worked well and, like the delegates of Australia and the United States, we would not wish to see the system of regional distribution opened at this time.
Ibrahim ΚΑΒΑ (Guinée): Nous serons très brefs. La délégation gulnéenne, tout en appréciant le travail de recherche et d'amélioration effectué par le CQCJ, sous la présidence de Son Excellence l'Ambassadeur Poulides, continue à penser que la méthode de consultation interne au sein des régions pour la désignation des candidats reste valable.
Par ailleurs, à notre avis, la particularité de notre Organisation justifie pleinement la répartition régionale que nous connaissons et qui donne entière satisfaction. C'est pourquoi nous adhérons à la proposition de la délégation brésilienne.
Istvàn DOBOCZKY (Hungary): We are very pleased with the presentation of this paper on this delicate question. Listening to the debate, I am of the opinion that there should be an Eastern European member in the Programme Committee or the Finance Committee, but not necessarily by changing the procedure for election. This could be solved by consultation and consensus among the European countries.
Pedro Agostinho KANGA (ANGOLA): Ma délégation voudrait joindre sa voix aux délégations qui l'ont précédée pour féliciter en premier lieu le Président du Comité des questions constitutionnelles et juridiques et le Conseiller juridique.
Nous serons très brefs. Je crois que la méthode utilisée de consultation interne reste toujours valable et ma délégation appuie la proposition faite par l'Honorable Ambassadeur du Brésil.
Yousef Ali Mahmoud HAMDI (Egypt) (Original language Arabic): First of all I would like to extend my thanks to His Excellency Ambassador Poulides for introducing the Report of the CCLM. I wish to pay tribute to all the members of the Committee for the efforts made to draw up the report on this agenda item. We believe that the pre-election period in which all regions can reach agreement on the candidate for their region is a procedure which is adopted in all the consultations within regional groupings. They are conducive to the selection of one candidate, whose name is submitted during the elections. The difference between the proposal of the CCLM and the one I have just mentioned is that this consultation system becomes uncoded and formalized and we do not need formalization of this procedure. For over forty-five years we have had a method which has been satisfactory, and this is why I cannot agree to any amendment or change to such a procedure.
Igor MARINCEK (Switzerland): I will be brief. We acknowledge that there are some imperfections in the present system, but think that the regional distribution has a very delicate balance and there exists virtually no perfect solution. Therefore, we think we should be careful not to touch the regional distribution.
Another point is that within the regions we should encourage rotation. I would like also to stress the point raised by the delegate of Libya. This is the kind of election which goes to a person and in the beginning there is a possibility of changing that person. We should aim at having well qualified people, which is the main point I wish to stress. These people have a difficult task so the most important criterion is to elect people who can do a good job because they are well qualified and have the time to devote to it.
LE PRESIDENT: Il se dégage de ce débat que le Conseil a lieu d'être satisfait des procédures actuellement en vigueur. Il s'agit du principe d'entente régionale, ce principe sacro-saint, comme l'ont dit plusieurs délégués. Il faut lui laisser le maximum de souplesse pour ne pas créer de rigidité dont on pourrait ne pas être satisfaits après coup. Donc, si le Conseil en convient, il faut peut-être laisser les choses en l'état et faire appel aux régions pour qu'à l'intérieur des régions on puisse organiser, selon des méthodes propres, un consensus et venir au Conseil avec des propositions qui auront obtenu le consensus interne, sans que nous ayons à modifier la résolution qui a été prise par la dernière conférence générale de 1987.
Nous pourrions donc retenir cette option et passer aux questions suivantes de l'ordre du jour.
Le point 20.3 est resté en suspens. Je crois savoir que les représentants de la CEE avaient demandé à se consulter. Nous pourrions donc continuer le point 19 et laisser aux délégués le temps de réfléchir.
Nous passons au point 19.2: Projet d'accord portant création de la Commission des thons de l'océan Indien; au point 19.3: Projet d'accord entre l'OAA et l'ONUDI, et au point 19.4: Proposition de signature de la déclaration concernant les politiques de l'environnement et les procédures relatives au développement économique.
Je demanderai à Monsieur Poulides de bien vouloir nous exposer ces trois questions.
Fotis G. POULIDES (Chairman, Committee on Constitutional and Legal Matters): We will continue with Item 19.2 Draft Agreement on the Establishment of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission, which has been submitted to the CCLM for information since the conference held in Rome in April 1981 to consider a draft consensus on a final text. Thus, the conference adopted a report which would serve as a basis for further consultations and ultimately a new conference. The CCLM took note of the draft agreement, the report of that conference, and in particular of the fact that the question of whether a new commission should be established under Article XIV of the FAO Constitution or outside the framework of FAO was still under consideration. As a result, no action by the Council would seem to be required at this stage.
Item 19.3, Draft Agreement between the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the United Nations Industrial Development Organization-it will be recalled that both the Council and the Conference have already expressed themselves in favour of the possibility of the conclusion of the final agreement between FAO and UNIDO. Working relations have existed between these organizations since 1969, following the conclusion of an agreement setting out guidelines for cooperation between FAO and UNIDO in the field of industrial development.
The CCLM reviewed the text of the draft agreement and concluded it was consistent with the basic text of the Organization, in particular with Section M, Cooperation with Intergovernmental Organizations and Section N, Guidelines Regarding Relationship Agreements between FAO and Intergovernmental Organizations. It should be recalled that pursuant to Article XIII of the FAO Constitution, paragraph 1;
"In order to provide for close cooperation between the Organization and other international organizations with related responsibilities, the Conference may enter into agreements with the competent authorities of such organizations, defining the distribution of responsibilities and methods of cooperation".
Thus, the Council is being asked to take a decision whether to enter into the agreement with UNIDO and to submit the agreement to Conference for confirmation.
Item 19.4, Proposed Signature of the Declaration of Environmental Policies and Procedures Related to Economic Development, CIDIE-and the proposed participation of FAO.
The item concerns the possibility that FAO participate in the Committee of International Development Institutions for the Environment, CIDIE, and that the Director-General sign the Declaration of Environmental Policies and Procedures Relating to Economic Development on behalf of FAO. The Declaration of Environmental Policies and Procedures Relating to Economic Development was signed on 1 February 1988 by eleven international development institutions. The signatories set up an inter-secretarial body, the Committee of International Development Institutions for the Environment, referred to as the CIDIE, with a view to constitute an appropriate forum for periodic review and appraisal of problems encountered and progress achieved in the implementation of the Declaration. The text of the Declaration and information concerning the membership of CIDIE has been made available to you in document CL 95/5 Supplement 1. The Director-General examined carefully the possibility of FAO's participation in CIDIE in view of the increasing attention paid by the Organization to environmental issues related to agricultural and rural development in each programme and field project and the constant need to ensure coordination with the other major agencies concerned. He then referred the matter to the CCLM in order to have its view on the participation of FAO. The CCLM concluded that FAO's participation in CIDIE and the signature of the Declaration would be consistent with the Basic Texts of the Organization, in particular the preamble and Article I of the FAO Constitution and Rule XXXVII.2(k) of the General Rules of the Organization as well as the Mandate of FAO in the field of the environment. In so doing, the CCLM noted that the conceptual impact of such participation in future activities of FAO was a matter for consideration by the FAO governing bodies.
LEGAL COUNSEL: My comments relate only to agenda item 19.3, the Draft Agreement between FAO and UNIDO. Some queries were raised by the Distinguished Delegate of Switzerland some three days ago. He asked that replies be given to these queries. I would therefore like to give some supplementary information regarding the proposed Agreement.
First of all, the origins of the Agreement. The proposed conclusion of the Agreement has been occasioned by the attainment by UNIDO of the status of a U.N. Specialized Agency in 1985. The General Conference of UNIDO at its first session in 1985 called for the conclusion of relationship agreements with all other international intergovernmental organizations of the U.N. System. So this really was the reason for the new Agreement. The intention to conclude a formal relationship agreement with UNIDO has been reported to the Council and to the Conference in 1987, as the Chairman of the CCLM has pointed out. At its twenty-fourth session in 1987, the Conference, and I quote, "noted with satisfaction that a formal relationship agreement between the two Organizations would be concluded in 1988/89." The text of the Draft Agreement was finalized by an exchange of letters in 1988 between the Directors-General of FAO and UNIDO. The Agreement proposed is a formal framework relationship agreement, and it follows the lines of the other relationship agreements in the U.N. System. It therefore deals only in general terms with the division of competence between FAO and UNIDO. This is a point on which a query was raised by the Distinguished Delegate of Switzerland three days ago. Detailed provisions regarding the division of competence between FAO and UNIDO are set out in a separate Agreement, the Memorandum of Understanding between the Director-General of FAO and the Executive Director of UNIDO, then an integral part of the U.N., which was concluded in 1969. The provisions of this Agreement setting out the detailed division of competence are continued in force by Article I.2 of the new Agreement. I hope this resolves some of the queries that were raised by Switzerland.
Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Nuestro distinguido colega y amigo Poulides, Embajador de Chipre, sabe como le queremos y cuanto apreciamos su trabajo como Presidente del Comité de Asuntos Constitucionales y Jurídicos.
Sobre el 19.3, los representantes de Colombia estamos agradecidos al colega Marincek, de Suiza, quien planteó aclaraciones que han sido suministradas, a nuestro juicio satisfactoriamente, y que nos permite apoyar el acuerdo FAO/ONUDI, sobre todo porque el Gobierno de Colombia considera esencial que todos los organismos internacionales sumen sus esfuerzos y recursos en favor de los países en desarrollo.
Sobre el 19.4, estamos de acuerdo también en que la FAO firme esa declaración. Se trata de integrar medidas ambientales. No es un tratado multilateral con obligaciones jurídicas, està dirigida simplemente a que la FAO siga ciertas políticas, y ademàs no implica ninguna obligación financiera.
Mrs. Marasee SURAKUL (Thailand): Thank you Mr. Chairman. First of all I would like to commend Ambassador Poulides for the lucid introduction of the document before us.
Mr. Chairman, my delegation wishes to make comment on sub-item 19.2, Draft Agreement on the Establishment of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission, as follows.
Mr. Chairman, Thailand has a great interest in the rational utilization of tuna resources in the Indian Ocean and has followed closely the development with respect to a new tuna management body for the Indian Ocean. We have participated in the two IOFC Government consultations on Long-term Institutional Arrangements for the Management of Indian Ocean Tuna held in Rome in May 1987 and in Bangkok in March 1988 and also in the Conference for the Adoption of a Draft Agreement for the Establishment of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission held in Rome last April.
My delegation agrees that there is a need to manage Indian Ocean tuna resources. However, we would also like to underline the need for the new body, if established, to promote the development of the fishing capacity of developing coastal States.
My delegation believes that it would be to the best interest of the countries in the region if the proposed establishment of this new tuna body in the Indian Ocean is carefully planned in close consultation with the coastal States. In the meantime, the existing mechanism, the IOFC Committee for the Management of Indian Ocean Tuna, should be used to the fullest extent in the mutual efforts to effect the sustained development of tuna resources in the Indian Ocean.
Paul R. BRYDEN (Australia): With regard to item 19.2, the Indian Ocean Tuna Agreement, Australia awaits the revised Draft Agreement to be developed by Legal Counsel and assures Council Members that the Draft will be studied most carefully by the relevant Australian Authorities, the Australian Fisheries Service in this case. Australia supports the idea of a further International Conference to discuss and adopt the revised Draft. Australia would reiterate its position that southern bluefin tuna should be accorded special status in any future management regime.
Turning to item 19.4, the Declaration of Environmental Policies and so on, Australia supports FAO's signature of the Declaration of Environmental Policies and Procedures relating to Economic Development and its participation in CIDIE. The Declaration draws together the common interests of a large number of bodies concerned with the environment and development, and we see value in FAO being part of such institutional integration.
Steven D. HILL (united States of America): On item 19.3, my delegation supports the proposed FAO/UNIDO Agreement.
On item 19.4, we support FAO's signing of the Declaration of Environmental Policies and Procedures Relating to Economic Development and endorse FAO's membership in the Committee of International Development Institutions on the Environment. We believe that participation in the Committee should not entail additional financial obligations for FAO other than those inherent in attendance at or hosting of meetings. We expect these nominal costs will be covered by currently proposed budget levels.
Angel BARBERO MARTIN (España): Me voy a referir, Señor Presidente, al Punto 19.2 para trasmitirle el deseo del Representante de la Comunidad de tomar la palabra sobre este punto y hacer una declaración en nombre de la Comunidad. Dejo a su entender, Señor Presidente, si tiene usted la bondad de darle la palabra, aprovechando mi turno, o si encuentra mas conveniente que lo haga después en el turno de los observadores. Le repito, Señor Presidente, que habla en nombre de la Comunidad.
Igor MARINCEK (Suisse): Ma délégation a posé il y a trois jours des questions au sujet de l'accord entre la FAO et l'ONUDI. Je veux remercier le Conseiller juridique pour ses explications très utiles à ce sujet. Donc ce que je retiens c'est que l'accord devrait mettre la coopération entre la FAO et l'ONUDI sur de nouvelles bases, mais surtout pour tenir compte du fait que l'ONUDI est devenue une agence spécialisée. D'autre part je voudrais quand même rappeler le fait que notre organisation se trouve actuellement dans un exercice d'examen et la coopération et la division de travail dans le système multilatéral est une des questions abordées lors de cet examen. De l'avis de notre délégation la modification des relations de travail entre la FAO et l'ONUDI devrait être abordée à la lumière des conclusions de cet examen. Pour ma délégation l'intérêt le plus grand c'est la division du travail et la coordination entre ces deux agences.
Donc, à notre avis, nous avons deux possibilités. L'une c'est de renvoyer la question jusqu'à la fin des conclusions de la réforme, l'autre, je pense surtout à la lumière des explications juridiques, c'est peut-être celle-ci qu'il faudrait choisir, c'est que notre Conseil décide ou suggère que le "memorandum of understanding" (je ne connais pas l'expression en français) qui définit déjà aujourd'hui la division du travail et la coopération entre la FAO et l'ONUDI, qu'il est entendu que ce "memorandum of understanding" devra être modifié à la lumière des conclusions des débats sur la réforme et que l'accord dont il est question maintenant, qui donne en quelque sorte le "chapeau" si je comprends bien, ne devrait pas préjuger les conclusions de la Conférence à ce sujet.
Mohammad Saleem KHAN (Pakistan): I would like to thank Ambassador Poulides for his excellent presentation of the CCLM report. My delegation has generally no problem with either of the three items under discussion, and we support them. I have just taken the floor to seek one clarification either from the Legal Counsel or from the Chairman. On item 19.2, the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission, at the end of paragraph 14 it is said that a report has been adopted which will serve as a basis for further consultation, whether the word "basis" implies a framework or just implies that it is a starting point and further consultations will continue.
Masayuki KOMATSU (Japan): Thank you Mr. Chairman. I would like to touch upon three items-19.2, 19.3, and 19.4. First of all I would like to speak on 19.2, the Draft Agreement on the Establishment of Indian Ocean Tuna Commission. Japan, as a fishing nation for Tuna in the Indian Ocean has participated in the conference for the adoption of a draft agreement for the establishment of the Indian Ocean Tuna, and we are of the view that the new framework for establishing the management of the Indian Ocean Tuna is indispensable because Japan doubts the existing body, such as IOFC, has no management function, and the recent increased necessity for the management for the Tuna is recognized strongly.
The management body which we are discussing for the new establishment should have the most effective functions for achieving the objectives of the body. In this sense the Japanese delegation believes that not only all coastal countries but also all fishing nations should participate in, and should be allowed to participate in the newly established body. Therefore we are of the view that the Soviet Union and the EEC should participate in this body to the fullest extent for the effective functioning of the body.
It seems to our delegation that FAO Article XIV is the desirable body to deal with the Indian Ocean Tuna management body for the reason that FAO is the most competent body in this region, and Article XIV could accommodate the full support of the FAO to this management body through various functions such as back-stopping from FAO Headquarters.
On the other hand, if the FAO Article XIV at this stage cannot accommodate the full participation of the EEC, we think that the possibility of establishing such a body outside of the FAO framework should be positively sought, and the foundation of such a body should be allowed to have the participation of any fishing nations and the EEC, and to have the technical support from FAO Headquarters.
The same significance can be referred to the participation of the coastal countries in the Indian Ocean area. As our delegation strongly stressed in the Conference in April, the exclusion of any exclusive economic zone will be detrimental in achieving the objectives of this management body.
Finally Mr. Chairman, as far as this item is concerned, the Japanese delegation would like to urge the early correspondence to the participating nations and the distribution of the documents by the FAO Secretariat, to allow us to have careful deep consideration by our home government to prepare for the coming meeting where we hope the draft agreement will be finalized with a full consensus in the Conference to be held in the later stage of this year.
Secondly I would like to touch upon 19.3-Draft Agreement between FAO and UNIDO. As we have mentioned already in Agenda Item 11, Japan fully supports the positive efforts and draft agreement by FAO and UNIDO to promote further consideration and coordination between them. Therefore such an agreement will be welcomed as a basis for cooperation. Moreover, as stated in the article in this draft agreement quoting that the Director-General of FAO and UNIDO may enter such arrangements for the implementation of the agreement as may be found desirable in the light of the operating experience of the two organizations, we also hope that such an arrangement will be finalized through mutual understanding and due consideration with a view to facilitating their cooperation in practical activities.
Finally I would like to touch upon 19.4. The Japanese delegation would like to express our full support to the proposed signature of the Declaration of Environmental Policies and Procedures related to Economic Development. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Daniel D.C. DON NANJIRA (Kenya): Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. I shall limit my intervention to sub-item 19.2 on the Draft Agreement for the Establishment of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission, which is section III of the report contained in CL 95/5.
This does not mean Mr. Chairman, that other sections of the report are unimportant to the Kenya delegation. They are of course important issues, and it is our hope that the Council will reach an early consensus on them.
On the Draft Agreement, Mr. Chairman, we know that it is important. Kenya is a coastal state. We believe that this agreement should be reached as soon as possible and put into practice. This would normalize on a global basis the management and conservation of Tuna fish. Our view is that the Convention on the Law of the Sea contains clear stipulations to which all members of the international community should adhere.
The Tuna Commission, once established, should protect and promote the fishing rights of the coastal nations of the Indian Ocean. The 200 mile exclusive economic zone should be respected and the benefits for the coastal states of the Indian Ocean should be acknowledged and assured. The distant fishing states should, of course, be accommodated in the new commission in the area of conservation and management of Tuna. The distant fishing states should assist in the development, strengthening and expansion of the capacities of the fishing fleets of the Indian Ocean countries, and of these countries' research capacities in marine fisheries as well as in the protection of their exclusive economic zones.
Fishing under the 200 mile zone should hence be prohibited unless agreement has been reached on a bilateral government to government basis which would involve compensation for example. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Sra. Graflia SOTO CARRERO (Cuba): A estas alturas, seremos sumemente breves en nuestra intervención. La Delegación de Cuba quiere agradecer a nuestro amigo el Embajador Poulides por el magnífico trabajo hecho en el Comité de Asuntos Constitucionales y Jurídicos. Este agradecimiento lo hacemos extensivo a sus colegas de dicho Comité. Nuestra Delegación no tiene problemas en apoyar los tres temas que estén sujetos a la consideración del Consejo en este momento.
En especial queremos referirnos al apoyo de la Delegación de Cuba al acuerdo entre la FAO y la ONUDI. Consideramos que se trata de una magnífica muestra de la cooperación que debe existir entre las organizaciones del Sistema de Naciones Unidas. Esta compiementación, sin lugar a dudas, repercutiré favorablemente en las acciones de ambos organismos en nuestros países.
S. BILL (EEC): Thank you Mr. Chairman. I would like to speak on behalf of the European Community simply on item 19.2. That is the question of the Draft Agreement on the Establishment of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission.
As its representatives have stated during all previous discussions on this matter, the European Community has exclusive competence in respect of the management and conservation of fisheries resources.
Consequently, the Community-and not as was stated in the report of the Committee on Constitutional and Legal Matters, the Commission of the European Communities which is merely the executive arm of the European Community-the European Community wishes to become a full member in any future fisheries management body set up in the Indian Ocean in order to ensure that it is in a position to implement any management measures proposed by such a body, and thus avoid the possibility that those measures would not be binding upon Community vessels operating within the region and that the Organization would therefore lose much of its effectiveness.
Since the Community cannot for the time being at least join a fisheries management body set up within the framework of the FAO constitution, it has favoured the establishment of an independent organization in which it could play a full role. However, the Community fully recognizes that the technical and administrative support that the FAO could offer to a new organization would be invaluable, particularly in the early stages. For that reason the Community has consistently suggested that a relationship agreement could be drawn between the FAO and a new independent body under which the FAO would provide appropriate technical and secretarial support.
Such a possibility appears to be envisaged in FAO Conference resolution 47/57. The Community is convinced that a solution along these lines should meet the wish expressed in the report of the Conference that met here in Rome in April of this year that every effort should be made to find an arrangement or a mechanism that would allow for the technical support of FAO to be made available, while at the same time enabling active participation by the EEC in the new fisheries commission.
If we proceed along the lines that I have suggested, we should be able to obtain the objective of establishing an effective and stable tuna management body in the Indian Ocean, which I believe is the wish of all here present, and we should be able to achieve this in the very near future.
Michael McGILL (United Kingdom): The United Kingdom delegation has noted with some regret that the recent Conference to consider the establishment of an Indian Ocean Tuna Commission failed to identify an appropriate legal structure to permit the membership of the EEC, as well as Member States of the FAO.
The United Kingdom is of the opinion that the work of the Indian Ocean Tuna Comission will be adversely affected if the EEC is not able to participate as a full member in view of its competence for European fishing fleets, which are well established in the tuna fisheries of the Indian Ocean.
As a coastal state with rights of full membership, the United Kingdom delegation calls upon the FAO to continue efforts to establish an Indian Ocean Tuna Commission with all relevant bodies fully represented in the membership.
Atif Y. BUKHARI (Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of) (original language Arabic): I should like to begin by referring to the Draft Agreement for the establishment of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission. I wholeheartedly support what was said by the delegate of Kenya on this subject.
We support the view of the CCLM as expressed in paragraph 5 of this document. We agree that this Commission should be set up in accordance with Article XIV of the FAO Constitution because the Commission would have full competence in the subject.
Eduardo PESQUEIRA OLEA (México): En primer término, quisiera aprovechar esta oportunidad para felicitar muy calurosamente al señor Embajador Poulides, por su trabajo al frente de la Comisión de Asuntos Constitucionales y Jurídicos y por su presentación de los temas que nos ocupan.
En cuanto al tema 19.2, quiero expresar el apoyo de la Delegación mexicana a lo expresado aquí por la Delegación de Kenya y recientemente apoyado por la Delegación de Arabia Saudita; y en cuanto al punto 19.3, el apoyo de la Delegación Mexicana para que la FAO proceda a la suscripción del acuerdo con la ONUDI.
LEGAL COUNSEL: We have taken careful note of all the comments that have been made during the course of this interesting discussion, and we will certainly do what is required. On item 19.2 there were two specific questions raised in regard to the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission Agreement. The first regards the circulation of the report of the Conference and of the annexed Draft Agreement. I can confirm that these will be circulated during the month of July.
A second point was raised by the delegate of Pakistan regarding the meaning of the last part of paragraph 14 of the CCLM Report, "... the Conference had adopted a report which would serve as a basis for further consultations and ultimately a new Conference".
I should confirm that the meaning of that, as I understand it, is that the report will be used as a starting point for the further consultations and ultimately a new Conference, and in fact consultations will be taking place very shortly with the countries concerned.
The final point raised by the delegate of Switzerland relates to the UNIDO agreement and the need not to prejudge the results of the review. I would like to make a comment on that.
The action of the Council at this Session in approving the relationship Agreement is subject to confirmation by the Conference. The Conference itself will have an opportunity to look at the Agreement during its Session, and I believe that will be after the discussion on the review has taken place. So I think that issue is already covered by this sequence of events.
Of course, when any consequential agreement or subsidary arrangements are worked out with UNIDO they will take into account all the dictates of the Council and of the Conference.
A.H. LINDQUIST (Assistant Director-General, Fisheries Department): I have some additional information. The Director-General is very keen to find a solution for the management of the Indian Ocean Tuna, and as we have heard there are different possibilities.
I will go next week on a mission to some of the countries in the Indian Ocean to have discussions in more detail on what is possible. I would also like to add that the result of those discussions and the views that have been received in the meantime will be discussed during the next meeting of the Indian Ocean Fisheries Commission, which will be held in the beginning of October this year.
LE PRESIDENT: Je crois que, d'une manière générale, le Conseil donne son agrément au projet d'accord entre la FAO et l'Organisation des Nations Unies pour le développement industriel (ONUDI), qui respecte les procédures réglementaires en vigueur, se félicite de la participation de la FAO au Comité des institutions de développement international pour l'environnement (CIDIE) et donne son agrément au projet d'accord portant création de la Commission des thons de l'océan Indien. Les questions qui ont été posées au sujet de la structure de cette Commission seront examinées par le Secrétariat en vue de la prochaine Conférence.
Cela étant, avec votre accord, nous allons entreprendre l'examen du point 19.5. Je vais tout d'abord donner la parole à l'Ambassadeur Poulides en soulignant que le Conseil le félicite ainsi que le Comité des questions constitutionnelles et juridiques pour le travail remarquable qu'ils ont accompli.
Fotis G. POULIDES (Président du Comité des questione constitutionnelles et juridiques): Je vous remercie et je le fais aussi de la part de mes collègues qui ont vraiment travaillé d'une manière constructive.
(continues in English)
With regard to the immunity of the Organization from legal process in Italy, the CCLM was informed that two lawsuits against the Organization were now pending before the Italian courts. The first case was brought by a former Italian General Service staff member who alleged that the immunity of the Organization did not extend to the staff member's employment relationship with the Organization. The details of the claim have been described in paragraph 20 of the CCLM Report.
A second legal action has also been brought against FAO by the former official removers of the Organization. The CCLM discussed at some length the consequences of these legal actions.
As we have seen in paragraph 21 of its report, the CCLM expressed its deep concern over the possibility that the Italian courts might not recognize the immunity of the Organization, in particular cases brought against it by staff members.
The CCLM recommended that the Organization should do everything possible to settle the matter in consultation with the Government of the host country in accordance with provisions of the Headquarters Agreement in order to avoid the matter being adjudicated in the courts.
(suite en français)
J'ai terminé avec ce rapport, Monsieur le Président, mais je voudrais vous prier de donner la parole. à M. Moore afin qu'il complète l'examen de ce point.
LEGAL COUNSEL I should like to give the Council some further information on one of the legal actions referred to by the Chairman of the CCLM.
As the Chairman has said, the case involves an attempt by an ex-member of the General Service staff to get the Italian courts to apply Italian labour legislation to her employment relationship with FAO. The staff member concerned was separated from the Organization at the end of a fixed contract.
She claims that under Italian law a fixed-term contract is automatically converted into a contract of indeterminate length, and that she should thus be reinstated.
One of the objectives of the legal action will be to allow General Service staff to pick and choose the best from the FAO employment package and that provided by Italian labour legislation.
I cannot over-emphasize the importance of this case and the consequences for the Organization, should the final judgement go against it.
For the Italian courts to take jurisdiction in this case and to apply Italian labour legislation to the employment relationship between FAO and its staff would undermine the basic concept of the independence and integrity of the International Civil Service by subjecting that Service to the over-riding requirements of a single national government. It is a fundamental concept of all international organizations, including those of the UN system, that the employment relationship between the organizations and their staff members should be independent from any interference by any independent government, and should be subject only to the internal law of the Organization as laid down by its Member Nations through its Governing Bodies, taking into account the UN common system on terms and conditions of service. Should the court apply Italian law to this employment relationship it would also undermine the whole system of international adjudication of disputes through our own internal appeals procedures and the ILO Administrative Tribunal. In short, it would place the Organization in an untenable situation.
In principle the Organization should be in a strong legal position. The FAO Headquarters Agreement plainly guarantees the immunity of FAO from every form of legal process-wording, incidentally which is clearer in the English version of the Agreement than in the Italian. The Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies has similar wording, and the Italian Government has strengthened the position of the Organization by acceding to this Convention without reservations in 1985, and by concluding an exchange of letters with FAO reaffirming the Organization's immunity in 1986. The Italian courts on the other hand have tended to take a restrictive view of the immunity of the Organization.
In view of its possible significance, the Director-General has reported on this case to both the CCLM and to the Joint Session of the Programme and Finance Committees. Both of these bodies have expressed their deep concern over the possibility that the Italian courts might not fully recognize the immunity of the Organization. Both, while expressing their support for the measures we are now taking, have urged the Director-General to meet with the host government to ensure that it will take the necessary action to guarantee the full immunity of the Organization.
I am now informed that the Director-General met three weeks ago with the Secretary-General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Director-General referred to this in his statement last week. The discussions were very constructive. In particular, the Secretary-General has agreed that we should review the provisions of the Headquarters Agreement dealing with the immunity of the Organization, so that we might either ammend them or conclude an agreement regarding their interpretation in order to remove any possible ambiguity. An amended Headquarters Agreement, or an agreed interpretation, would be presented to Parliament for approval and enactment as a law of the Italian Republic.
In the meantime, the Director-General, in accordance with the mandate given to him by the Conference in 1987, has called upon the services of the Italian Avvocatura Generale dello Stato to defend the Organization's immunity in court.
This then is the case which causes us a good deal of concern. We look forward to hearing your comments on this case, and the action which you feel the Organization should be taking.
LE RESIDENT: Je remercie le Conseil juridique pour sa communication, ainsi que l'Ambassadeur Poulides qui a introduit cette question importante. J'ouvre le débat sur cette question.
Carlos di MOTTOLA (Observador de Costa Rica): Señor Presidente le agradezco por darme el uso de la palabra, aun siendo observador, sobre este tema que mi delegación conoce a fondo por haberlo tenido a la vista durante muchos años ya que ha pertenecido al Comité de Asuntos Constitucionales y Jurídicos. También conoce la transcendencia de este tema porque en ese momento cubrimos el cargo de Copresidente de la Comisión de Apelaciones y nos damos cuenta de la transcendencia que tendría el aplicar dos tipos de reglamentos y de leyes a los funcionarios de acuerdo con su nacionalidad. Yo creo que no hay ninguna duda, que en este momento el Gobierno de Italia se ha dado cuenta de la enorme gravedad de la situación, porque estamos frente a una situación que podría también llegar a imponer el traslado de la FAO a otra sede, por lo tanto el problema hoy día, frente al que se encuentra, sea el Director de la FAO, sea el Gobierno italiano es: cómo eliminar una jurisprudencia, que desgraciadamente se ha creado en Italia y contradice completamente las obligaciones del Tratado de Sede. Yo creo que el problema de renegociar el Tratado de Sede sería peligrosísimo. El Tratado de Sede esta extremamente bien hecho y prevé para la FAO una inmunidad completa. El Artículo 8 del Tratado de Sede es auténtico, como también el Tratado de Sede es auténtico en sus dos textos: el texto inglés y el texto italiano. El Artículo 8 del Tratado de Sede en inglés es exhaustivo y absolutamente no prevé ninguna posibilidad de una interpretación diferente de su parte literal. En inglés se dice que la FAO "enjoys inmunity from every form of legal jurisdiction". Yo no veo como esto se puede interpretar en una manera restrictiva. Se puede, sí, interpretar en una manera restrictiva el texto italiano que dice simplemente: "es inmune de la jurisdicción" pero debido a que también el Tratado de Sede es auténtico hay una obligación de aplicar lo que esta más claro: lo que protege la FAO. Renegociar ahora esto que esta tan claro a mí me parece que sea absurdo. Hay un sistema clasico que se usa en diplomacia y se usa en la redacción de los tratados, ya sea para eliminar lo que hizo erróneamente la "Cassazione delle Corti Riunite", aunque sea la màxima autoridad. Es suficiente un intercambio de cartas de interpretación. Lo que hay que llevar a cabo no es un cambio en la jurisdicción sino un cambio en la jurisprudencia italiana, porque la ley es clarísima. Es clarísimo que el Tratado de Sede protege completamente la inmunidad de la FAO. Sobre esto no hay duda. El cambio de jurisprudencia se hace con un intercambio de cartas entre el Director General de la FAO y el Ministro de Relaciones, ratificadas por la Asamblea. Esto de dirigirse a la "Cassazione" para una nueva interpretación sería otro error, porque el Artículo 18 es clarísimo. El cumplimiento del Tratado de Sede es una obligación del Gobierno italiano, no es una obligación de la FAO o de los países miembros. Si el Gobierno italiano se ve en la imposibilidad de cumplir con el Tratado de Sede tiene que recurrir al medio que jurídicamente se usa y que internacionalmente es reconocido como valido, o sea, simplemente, un intercambio de cartas interpretativas. Yo recomiendo que se proceda en ese sentido.
John YENNIMATAS (Greece): I wish to join previous speakers in congratulating Ambassador Poulides for the work done by the Committee on Constitutional and Legal Matters under his Chairmanship.
I would refer to the statement made by the Director-General on page 15, a passage which has been referred to in slightly different terms by the Legal Service: "The Government of the host country is prepared to negotiate any amendment to the Headquarters Agreement which may prove necessary in this respect"· May I ask if any decision has been taken in regard to opening negotiations?
Amin ABDEL MALER (Liban) (langue originale arabe): Je vous remercie, M. le Président. Je pense que cette question a été amplement discutée et je crois que nous pouvons considérer que le débat à ce sujet est clos d'autant que le Directeur général a rencontré le Secrétaire général du Ministère des affaires étrangères italien qui a promis que le gouvernement présentera un projet de loi qui garantira à l'Organisation toutes les immunités nécessaires. Je pense également que mon ami l’Ambassadeur Valenza fera tout pour aboutir à cet objectif. Si vous le permettez donc, et si le Conseil est de cet avis, nous pouvons, vu le peu de temps qui nous reste, considérer le débat clos et laisser le soin au Gouvernement italien de prendre les mesures nécessaires à cet égard.
Paul R. BRYDEN (Australia): I would like to assure the Legal Counsel that my delegation is fully aware of the significance of this case, and that we look forward to a speedy and hopefully successful resolution.
Steven D. HILL (United States of America): The united States is also a member of the CCLM, and recognizes the importance of this issue. We fully share the concern expressed in the Committee's Report that FAO's immunity be respected.
Gonzalo BUIA HOTOS (Colombia): Los representantes de Colombia deseamos apoyar la declaración que ha hecho nuestro colega y amigo Abdel Malek del Líbano. Creo que a estas alturas sólo corresponde al Consejo apoyar y respaldar las gestiones que viene adelantando el Director General en favor de la conservación y el mantenimiento de los privilegios de la Organización y pedir al Gobierno de Italia que proceda de conformidad.
LE PRESIDENT: Nous pouvons dire que le Conseil appuie les efforts du Directeur général pour préserver l'immunité diplomatique de l'Organisation et fait confiance au pays hôte pour aider à une solution heureuse de cette question.
La parole est au Conseiller juridique qui répondra à une question posée par le délégué de la Grèce.
LEGAL COUNSEL: Just to respond to the question from the delegate of Greece. Yes indeed, the decision has been taken in principle at the meeting between the Director-General, and the Secretary-General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the very near future-in fact, I am already in contact with the Legal Adviser of that Ministry and the Ambassador of Italy regarding these matters, and in particular looking into whether it is desirable to have an amendment to the Agreement or merely an interpretative agreement. In either case we must make sure that this agreement is ratified by the Italian Parliament because we need it to have the force of law if it is the overturn the jurisprudence already set by the Corte di Cassazione.
LE PRESIDENT: En votre nom je remercie l'Ambassadeur Poulides pour l'excellent travail de sa Commission.
Nous passons au point 20.3, qui était resté en suspens. Je vais demander à Monsieur Moore de bien vouloir lire le texte du document CL 95/LIM/2, sur lequel nous devons prendre position.
LEGAL COUNSEL: The text in English reads as follows:
"5(b) To invite the Director-General
(i) to explore the options for a form of membership of FAO of a regional organization such as EEC along with the full financial, constitutional, legal and other implications for the Organization of such options, keeping the Finance Committee and the CCLM fully informed of the progress thereof, and
(ii) to report thereon to the 98th Session of the Council in November 1990".
Delegates have the text in French.
LE PRESIDENT: Nous ouvrons le débat sur cette question et je passe la parole à l'Australie.
Paul R. BRYDEN (Australia): I thought that our Indian colleague proposed amendments which were quite significant even if they were only concerned with one letter or so. I do not think I heard that read through. I recall that the amendment was for a form of membership in FAO of regional organizations in the plural, which is acceptable to me.
LEGAL COUNSEL: May I request clarification of this?-because I had a note that this change had been withdrawn. Does it still remain?
C. Srinivasa SASTRY (India): I thought in the Council we were resuming discussion where we left it. When we left it, this is how the wording was.
LE PRESIDENT: "Organisations régionales" au pluriel.
C. Srinivasa SASTRY (India): When we stopped the discussion, the draft before us did not have "a" in the last word of line one and had "s" after "Organization". We are resuming at that stage.
Angel BARBERO MARTIN (España): Creo que nosotros, si se acepta esta versión, no estamos de acuerdo. Creíamos que se había acordado un texto en el que el plural de organizaciones regionales se había suprimido. Si ese texto se mantiene nosotros discrepamos. Por otro lado nos gustaría tener también la versión en español del documento.
Eduardo PESQUEIRA OLEA (México): Simplemente para apoyar lo recientemente dicho por España. Los plurales, los singulares, los condicionales y los participios tienen efectos distintos en los distintos idiomas. Yo sí solicitaría, en representación de la delegación de México que se nos dé a conocer el texto formal en castellano para poder opinar sobre el particular.
LE PRESIDENT: C'est clair et légitime. Nous allons donc demander au Secrétariat de bien vouloir traduire dans toutes les langues officielles de l'Organisation le paragraphe tout entier du document CL 95/LIM/2, ceci afin de respecter la forme. Donc il sera traduit en arabe, chinois, français et en espagnol. Je demande au Secrétariat de présenter un texte formel à tout le monde afin que tout le monde puisse le lire.
Atif Y. BUKHARI (Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of) (Original language Arabic): We have a document in Arabic, but the amendments which have just been read by Mr Sastry do not appear in the text in Arabic, but I do not think they are essential amendments in the Arabic text. We are not specialists in the English language, but the Arabic reads: "to explore the options for a form of accession of a regional organization such as the EEC". Of course, this is the text we had in Arabic before the amendment. Does this mean that this exploration, this study, must also apply to other regional organizations, or does it apply only to the EEC? Could Mr Moore clarify this point?
C. Srinivasa SASTRY (India): Mr Chairman, with your permission I would like to give personal clarification. The amendment suggested as read out by me, omitting "a" and adding "s", was the formulation before the Council when the discussion was adjourned. My understanding was that the adjournment was to facilitate discussion by members of the EEC among themselves outside the room as to whether this formulation was acceptable to them. Following their discussion they invited me to a consultation outside, when it was mentioned to me that from their point of view, deletion of "a" at the end of line 1 and the addition of "s" after "Organization" would not be in consonance with their expectations.
After discussion of the two formulations which will be "of FAO of regional organizations" or "of FAO of a regional organization such as EEC". I felt the difference between them was not much. In one the implication was implicit and in the other it was explicit, so I said that from my point of view I could see no difficulty in supporting the change. Obviously, this was communicated to the Legal Counsel. He possibly thought that was the basis on which the statement was made.
I thought I should give that personal clarification so that everybody is clear as to what is being discussed.
LE PRESIDENT: Avant tout j'ai une demande à formuler. Lea délégués de l'Espagne et du Mexique ont demandé le texte en espagnol. Je ne veux pas continuer la discussion s'ils n'ont pas reçu ce texte. Qu'en pense le Mexique? Si vous voulez qu'on arrête la réunion, on vous donne le texte en espagnol.
Eduardo PESQUEIRA OLKA (México): To no tengo la pretensión, Señor Presidente, de que se suspenda la discusión. Simplemente para poder expresar nuestra opinión quisiera tener el texto en español.
Joto Augusto DE MEDICIS (Brasil): To no soy de habla española, Señor Presidente, pero el texto lo tenemos aquí. No creo que haya dificultades; las enmiendas se Iárn presentando.
LE PRESIDENT: Peut-on transcender les difficultés de langue et nous prononcer sur le texte final? L'Inde a bien voulu dire qu'elle acceptait la formulation présentée. Pouvons-nous accepter cette formulation? Pas de problèmes?
Atif T. ΒUKΗΑRY (Saudi Arabia, Kingdom) (Original language Arabic): I do not think I got an answer to my question. I asked the following. Be it "Organization" or "Organizations", will this exploration include a review of all regional organizations, or will it just concern the EEC?
LE PRESIDER: Je m'excuse de ne pas avoir posé la question au Conseil juridique. Il faut éclaircir.
LEGAL COUNSEL: I do not think it would make too much difference, because in practice I understand there is only one organisation to which competence has been transferred by the Member Nations to enter into treaties on matters of agriculture, etc., and that is the EEC. Therefore, I think that if ve say "regional organisations" or if we say "a regional organization" in practica it would not make any difference so far as the exploratory talks are concerned".
Atif T. BUKHARI (Saudi Arabia. Kingdom of) (Original language Arabic): I have understood from the explanation that the study, the exploration, will only concern the request submitted by the EEC. This is what I have understood. But I believe that this is not fair if the Council adopted such a decision because there are other regional intergovernmental organisations, and if we give this privilege to the EEC, these other organizations must benefit from the very same treatment. So I would like to ask that this study, this exploration, also include all regional organizations without making special reference to the EEC or any other specific organization and therefore that we explore all the negative or positive effects of such a membership. So we would like to ask and stress that this be a global study, a global exploration, and not be confined to one given organisation.
Eduardo PESQUEIRA OLEA (México): To, Señor Presidente, quisiera apoyar lo dicho por el Representante de Arabia Saudita. Creo que si hay diferencias si el texto se refiere a una Organización en particular o varias organizaciones en general.
La delegación de México da la bienvenida a que se analicen las reformas correspondientes para el ingreso de la Comunidad Económica Europea, pero considera que esas reformas también pueden abrir la puerta para que otras de tipo semejante puedan ser analizadas en su incorporación en condiciones iguales o parecidas a nuestra Organización. To pienso, que si lo único que vamos a resolver en este problema va a ser atender las modificaciones financieras y jurídicas relacionadas con la Comunidad Económica Europea, incluso sale sobrando toda la frase que dice: de una Organización Regional, para analizar opciones para una forma de admisión como miembro de la FAO de la Comunidad Económica Europea. Si vamos a hablar exclusivamente de la Comunidad Económica Europea, vamos diciendolo as y si vamos a analizar las posibilidades de ingreso de organizaciones multinacionales vamos diciéndolo así, en plural.
Amin ABDEL MALEK (Liban) (langue originale arabe): Merci, M. le Préaident. Pour être bref, je voudrais appuyer la proposition formulée par l'Arable saoudite et que S.E. l'Ambassadeur du Mexique a également fait sienne.
Ibrahim ΚΑRΑ (Guinée): La délégation guiñéense appuie la proposition faite par le distingué délégué de l'Arabie Saoudite, car nous considérons que le cas de la CEE constitue pour nous un précédent. A partir de cela nous sommes invités è un travail de réflexion collectif tant au niveau de la FAO, de
la direction de la FAO, qu'au niveau des Membres de la FAO. Nous ne pouvons pas revoir le statut de la FAO uniquement á la dimension de la CEE. Nous devrions prévoir les cas éventuels. C'est pourquoi nous appuyons la proposition de l'Arable Saoudite.
Rashir EL MABROUK SAID (Libya) (Original language Arabic): I wish to support all the delegates that have spoken before ne. I, too, think the amendment should be "to explore the possible opticas of membership for regional organizations such as the EEC and other organizations that would be commensurate with their status." et cetera, et cetera.
Aagel BARBERO MARTIN (ESpana): Sólo quería Intervenir, Señor Presidente, a este respecto, diciendo que estamos abiertos, evidentemente, a que los estudios puedan ser de otro tipo, pero quería aclarar que la petición que se ha hecho por parte de la Comunidad ha sido basada en su especial Estatuto que permite a los Estados Miembros ceder sus competencias a un Ente como es la Comunidad. Los problemas se han creado en virtud de este Estatuto, por tanto la petición se ha dirigido así, lo cual no obsta para que otras instituciones, si hubiera otras instituciones, con estas mismas característica y su concesión de su soberanía a una entidad como la Comunidad, naturalmente que entraría dentro de este estudio. Otro estudio de otro tipo de organizaciones, también se pueden hacer, lógicamente, pero la exploración que se pide en esta opción, se refiere exclusivamente a los problemas que ha creado el Estatuto de la Comunidad Económica Europea.
Sra. Graflia SOTO CARRERO (Cuba): La delegación de Cuba quiere hacer, Señor Presidente, una breve intervención en este largo debate. En primer término quisieramos apoyar la propuesta hecha por el distinguido Embajador de Arabia Saudita y ampliadas por el Embajador de México. Aceptamos el análisis que se pretende hacer para el ingreso de la Comunidad Económica Europea como miembro pleno de esta Organización, pero consideramos que sería injusto imponer al Consejo un nuevo análisis si otra Organización Regional pide su ingreso a la FAO. En tal sentido, ratificamos nuestro apoyo a la propuesta de que se consideren Organizaciones Regionales.
Igor MARIDCEK (Switzerland): I do not know if the explanations given some time ago by Mr. Moore would not lead to a way out of this problem. He addressed the specific authority of EEC to enter into arrangements. I do not know if in the sentence we are examining now, if one could not Introduce some reference to explore also what kind of nature an organization should be in order to be able to apply for FAO membership, something along this line. Rut I would leave the phrasing to the Secretariat.
Jacques WARIN (France): J'interviendrai briévement pour appuyer ce que vient de dire mon collègue espagnol au nom de la CEE. Je voudrais faire deux remarques. La première c'est que ce point de l'ordre du jour a été inscrit sur la base d'une communication du Gouvernement espagnol, qui concernait le problème spécifique de la CEE. Il parait donc bien naturel que le Conseil tâche de répondre à ce voeu qui, pour le moment, n'a été formulé que par la CEE. La seconde remarque c'est que se lancer dans une étude juridique qui s'intéresse à toutes les organisations impliquerait un travail qui me parait d'une ampleur et d'un coût considérables et dans lequel j'aurai scrupule á demander d l'organisation de se lancer maintenant.
Je voudrais avoir une solution relativement rapide, quoiqu'elle prendra forcément une année et peut-être deux. Voilà les deux raisons qui me paraissent aller dans le sens de prendre la solution la plus restrictive, qui consiste à lancer á l'heure actuelle ces études et á les concentrer sur le seul cas de la Communauté Européenne.
J'ai entendu les arguments développés par les Ambassadeurs de l'Arable Saoudite et du Mexique. Je n'ai pas compris qu'ils étalent tous leS deux sur le même plan car mon honorable collègue Pesqueira a fait une proposition que je suis, je crois, en mesure de prouver, avec tous les membres de la CEE, c'est-à-dire étudier les modalités possibles de l'adhésion de la CEF á un Statut de membre de la FAO. Si on pouvait en arriver lá, on supprimerait toute référence á\ "Organisations Régionales". Je pense que cela nous conviendrait. Mais je n'aimerais surtout pas qu'on laisse dériver cette décision vers la possibilité d'Impliquer toutes les Organisations Régionales. Cela me paraît á la fols dangereux, trop long et trop coûteux pour l'Organisation.
Atif T. BUKHARI (Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of) (Original language Arabic): I am faced with a problem. I have listened to my Spanish colleague, and I have listened to the Arabic, and then I have listened to the English translation of French, and when Mexico spoke, I did not hear the end of his statement. Otherwise, I would have been against the last point he raised. I must say that we are not opposed to the entry of the EEC into FAO as a full-fledged member, but this would be a precedent, and we must be ready, FAO must be in a position to deal with such matters. As the colleague from Cuba said, it would be unfair and illogical to ask FAO to proceed to a new study every time a regional organization submits such a request. This is not logical. Perhaps tomorrow another regional organization will submit a similar request, and will this particular case require an independent study? We just ask that this study be global and exhaustive and also open. And if so, as to allow us to solve problems which might arise in the future, and we would not like FAO and the Council to waste time everytime such requests are made. This was the purpose of our statement. As I said, this must be a comprehensive, exhaustive study, and not deal only with the EEC. Of course the EEC is mentioned as having special competence. Well, other regional organizations might have the very same status, and therefore if the EEC believes that its status is special, other organizations might claim the very same. So we do not really know what the special status of the EEC is.
Angel BARBERO MARTIN (España): Vamos a intentarlo; vamos a intentar que se conciten todas las opiniones que se han declarado aquí. Efectivamente, otra organización que sea de integración económica regional entraría en este estudio. Yo propondría, entonces, suprimir la alusión concreta a la Comunidad Económica Europea y dejarlo en una "organización de integración económica regional", con lo cual queda abierto a otra organización que sea así, de integración económica regional.
Joseph TCEICAYA (Congo): Je dois dire que notre ami de l'Espagne vient de me prendre les mots car j'allais dire moi-même que nous pensons nécessaire, si l'on doit mener une étude, que celle-ci puisse être ouverte à d'autres possibilités; mais nous savons également que l'on ne peut pas faire une étude qui concerne toutes les organisations régionales existantes. C'est pour cette raison qu'à mon sens, il convient de délimiter le champ de cette étude.
Ce que l'on vient de nous proposer nous convient parfaitement. Il faut que l'on sache exactement quelles sont les organisations qui pourraient être concernées par une telle étude. Cela se fera évidemment ã partir d'une base, la CEE, qui est l'organisation qui demande cette intégration. A partir de cela, 11 est possible qu'après la CEE d'autres organisations qui poursuivent le même objectif puissent être acceptées au sein de l'Organisation.
Voilà ce que je voulais dire et je crois que cela rejoint ce que le délégué de la Suisse a dit tout à l'heure. Il me semble qu'à partir de cela nous pouvons avancer et je lance un appel à tous les membres du Conseil pour qu'ils se rallient à cette position.
João Angusto DE MEDICIS (Brazil): Chairman, thank you for giving me the floor. I was going to announce that we are prepared to accept and support what has been proposed by Spain and Congo.
John YENNIHATAS (Grèce): Je voudrais simplement soutenir l'argumentation de notre collègue français. En effet, c'est la CEE qui a fait une demande pour ouvrir une discussion exploratoire. Je crois donc que le Conseil doit se prononcer sur cette demande particulière.
Eduardo PESQUEIRA OLEA (México): Para apoyar lo dicho por España, señor Presidente.
Antoine SAINTRAINT (Observateur de Belgique): Bien qu'observateur, je voudrais quand même intervenir pour que nous sortions du débat dans lequel nous sommes enfoncés pour le moment. Je crois que la proposition de l'Ambassadeur Tchicaya est raisonnable; c'est une proposition de compromis. En fait, il appuie la proposition de compromis de notre collègue espagnol. Il me semble que la solution la plus sage est de retenir cette formule, qui est une formule large et souple et qui est de nature à obtenir le consensus.
Il est absolument inutile de vouloirtout prix trouver la perfection. En ce qui me concerne, je dois dire que la formule telle que présentée par l'Ambassadeur du Congo est de nature à sátisfaire entièrement mon pays.
LEGAL COUNSEL: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I was just going to draw the attention of the Council to some formulas that have been used in various International agreements and to see whether they may provide a useful way of defining what kind of regional economic organization we may be talking about.
The agreement establishing the Common Fund for Commodities refers to: "Any inter-governmental organization of regional economic integration which exercises competence in fields of activity of the Fund". Again in the Law of the Sea Convention the words used are: "International Organizations shall mean international inter-governmental organizations constituted by states, to which states members of such organizations have transferred competence over matters governed by this Convention". I.think this kind of formula is repeated in most of the agreements. It comprises two elements;(1) the element of regional economic integration organization, and (2) the element of the member states having transferred competence in matters governed by the organization. Maybe these examples may be a way of getting out of this particular dilemma.
LE PRESIDENT: Il s'agit d'une proposition formulée par le délégué de l'Espagne en sa qualité de Président actuel de la Communauté économique européenne visant à retirer les roots "telle que la CEE" et á trouver une formule faisant référence à l'intégration économique. Il y a une autre possibilité: celle de maintenir la référence à la CEE ou á d'autres organisations en laissant le soin á la FAO de conclure dans son étude que seules les organisations qui ont l'intégration économique peuvent espérer être admises á la FAO. Les deux possibilités existent. C'est au Conseil de décider s'il est d'accord sur la proposition relative à l'intégration économique. Cela permettrait de voir s'il y a d'autres organisations-l'UMA et d'autres-qui vont dans cette direction et d'orienter l'avenir, comme l'a dit le délégué de l'Arable Saoudite.
Il.y a donc deux hypothèses: le Conseil peut accepter la proposition de l'Espagne ou, s'il veut une.option plus ouverte, il peut laisser le soin á l'Organisation de faire une recommandation, à la.suite de l'étude qu'elle aura effectuée, à savoir que les organisations qui n'ont pas l'intégration.économique ne sont pas éllgibles.
LEGAL COUNSEL: I think we would appreciate clear guidelines for the kind of study that you wish us to do. My feeling on this was that the formula which I had mentioned, as drawn from international agreements, was in fact a refinement of what had already been talked about, with respect to regional economic integration organizations. I think that there are two elements; economic integration organization and transfer of competence. But I am in your hands, the hands of the Council, as to the instructions you wish to give us.
LE PRESIDENT: Le Conseil est-il d'accord sur cette option de l'intégration économique? Y a-t-il un consensus pour enlever les mots "telle que la CEE" et les remplacer par "á intégration économique"?
Joseph TCHICAYA (Congo): En intervenant sur cette question, j'ai indiqué qu'il fallait tenir compte au moins de deux éléments. Le premier est l'intégration économique, mais le deuxième est tout aussi important: c'est q\u'il faut qu'il y ait un transfert de pouvoir de ses Etats membres à cette organisation. Si ces deux éléments ne sont pas là, nous risquons d'avoir mille organisations dans ce cas.
Ilja HDLIMSKT (Czechoslovakia): I raise my flag just to remind you that I would like to make my statement after agreement is reached.
LE PRESIDENT: Le Conseil est-il d'accord pour que, dans ce paragraphe 5 b), il soit fait mention explicite du transfert effectif de compétence dans le cadre de l'intégration économique?
Daniel D.C. DON NANJIRA (Kenya): Thank you, Mr Chairman. Could you read the entire sub-paragraph as it will then be?
LEGAL COUNSEL: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I will try to read it and compose it at the same time. I think it will read as follows: "5.b. To invite the Director-General (i) to explore the options for a form of membership of FAO of a regional economic integration organization to which the members have transferred competence in the fields of activity of FAO, along with the full financial constitutional, legal and other implications for the Organization of such options, keeping the Finance Committee and the CCLM fully informed of the progress thereof, and (ii) to report thereon to the 98th Session of the Council in November 1990". Is that satisfactory?
C. Srinivasa SASTRY (India): Mr. Chairman, in our view the Council must be clear whether the study is to be exclusively only for the EEC or whether it should cover other organizations also. If we are clear, as the formulation now seems to be, that only the EEC requests this study, I think it would be much more straightforward to say: "to explore the options for a form of membership of FAO of the EEC along with" and add a proviso saying that similar studies should be conducted should other organizations also approach the FAO, because the concern that was expressed was are we going to make an addition only in relation to the EEC?
Daniel D.C. DON NANJIRA (Kenya): I started to take down the paragraph as read by the Legal Counsel but was unable to do so. However, if the entire Council has understood what the Legal Counsel has said, of course the Kenya delegation would have no problem.
The problem we are having is that this paragraph is so long, and unless we have it to read, these apprehensions, for example, such as the Indian delegate has raised, are bound to continue. I think that before we adopt this text we need to see the exact language so that fears such as those raised by the Indian delegation do not continue to arise. We must be clear in what we want.
LE PRESIDENT: Je propose au Conseil que cet après-midils heures-parce que nous ne pourrons pas terminer ce matin-le Secrétariat nous communique le texte définitif tel qu'amendé afin que tout le monde puisse se prononcer en pleine connaissance de cause.
Nous revenons à notre ordre du jour, á savoir le point 18-Calendrier révisé des sessions 1988-89 du Conseil et des organes qui relèvent du Conseil (CL 95/16)-et le point 21-Date et lieu de la quatre-vingt-seizième session du Conseil (CL 95/16). Pouvons-nous entreprendre l'examen de ces points?
Gonzalo BULA HOTOS (Colombia): Como usted ha dicho los puntos 18 y 21 estén vinculados. Vamos a referimos al documento CL 95/16, parte posterior, en la cual aparecen para el 968 período de sesiones del Consejo de noviembre las fechas del 7 al 9, que son martes a jueves. Nosotros proponemos que se extienda ese período del lunes 6 al viernes 10.
Los representantes de Colombia atribuimos gran importancia a la función del Consejo de noviembre en relación con este examen. Pensamos que si en ese Consejo se lleva a cabo un debate amplio, profundo y serio que posiblemente nos permita lograr el consenso, esto facilitaría la labor de la Conferencia. No se necesita tener gran experiencia para saber de antemano cuáles son los puntos de la Agenda del Consejo de noviembre. Por eso proponemos desde ahora que, preferiblemente, hasta donde sea posible, los tres primeros días de las sesiones del Consejo de noviembre se dediquen a este punto. No creemos que el tema del examen deba figurar al final del calendario de la reunión de noviembre. Pensamos que si se hace ese examen en los tres primeros días, podríamos acaso utilizar los dos días restantes para solucionar cualquier problema que surja a través de consultas o de pequeños grupos. Hacemos esta propuesta basados sólo en nuestro buen y sincero propósito de contribuir a que ese examen sea realizado de manera cuidadosa, como pensamos que debe ser hecho. No vamos a revivir ninguna polémica ni ningún debate, pero tenemos la obligación de decir que al hacer esta declaración nos basamos en un principio que los delegados de Colombia sostenemos firmemente, no sólo en la FAO sino en todas las organizaciones internacionales: la relación entre la Secretaría y los representantes de los Gobiernos. La Secretaría representa a la administración y debe ofrecer el apoyo necesario a los representantes de los Gobiernos, que somos los responsables de las decisiones. Naturalmente, esa relación debe adelantarse de manera mutuamente constructiva y con pleno entendimiento, pero para nosotros, los términos de esa relación no deben nunca alterarse y muchos menos invertirse. A la luz de estas consideraciones, nosotros pensamos que si esta propuesta concreta recibe apoyo del Consejo, debería reflejarse en el Informe de manera flexible, de manera indicativa, como sugestión. No quiere esto decir que los representantes de Colombia estemos desde ahora preparando ya el Calendario Provisional que le corresponde adelantar a usted y a la Secretaría. Pero si nadie apoya esta proposición nosotros no vamos a insistir. No somos propietarios del dogma de la infalibilidad, ni tampoco hacemos de esto una cuestión de prestigio, pero, eso sí, nosotros procederemos a la luz de la decisión del Consejo y no en base a una negativa anticipada de la Secretaría.
LE PRESIDENT: Il y a une proposition de la Colombie qui tend à ce que le Conseil de novembre ait lieu du lundi 6 au vendredi 10 novembre 1989, au lieu du 7 au 9 novembre, comme cela avait été inscrit dans l'ordre du jour.
De toute façon, nous sommes en train d'étudier la question du calendrier des sessions et non pas de l'ordre du jour des sessions.
Bashir EL MABROUK SAID (Libya) (Orignal language Arabie): Generally speaking I always agree with my friend, Ambassador Bula Hoyas, but this time I think that I have to differ because we are talking about the work of the next Session of the Council according to the documents that have been presented to us.
The agenda items referred to by the delegate from Colombia should be discussed at a later stage as we are talking about the dates and not about the timetable.
Atif Y-BUKHARI (Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of) (Original language Arabic): Are we discussing now the proposal made by the delegate from Colombia paragraph by paragraph or as a proposal, because it falls into two parts?
LE PRESIDENT: Nous discutons actuellement du calendrier des sessions (CL 95/16), nous ne discutons pas de l'ordre du jour du prochain Conseil qui sera discuté par le prochain Conseil, lors de sa première séance. On sait que le premier point de l'ordre du jour du Conseil est de fixer l'ordre du jour.
Atif Y. BuKARI (Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of) (Original language Arabic): If we are talking about the period during which the Council will be held, we propose that it should be Monday, 6 November through 9 November, in order that we may leave aside 10 November for the meeting of the Committee to review the other matters.
Igor MARINCEK (Suisse): Comme la question du calendrier est un peu liée à l'ordre du jour, nous devrions voir les deux questions ensemble.
Ma délégation appuie la proposition de la Colombie, à savoir que notre Conseil consacrerait les 6, 7 et 8 novembre à l'examen de la FAO. Nous commencerions donc plus tôt. Nous pensons que c'est à nous, membres du Conseil, qu'il appartient de prévoir dès maintenant le temps que nous voulons consacrer à l'examen de la FAO, pour être en mesure de le traiter calmement et éviter de le traiter sous pression durant la dernière partie du Conseil.
Nous appuyons également la proposition de l'Ambassadeur Bula Hoyos-qui l'avait déjà faite, si je me souviens bien, dans le contexte de notre débat du point 13 de l'ordre du jour-de mettre sur pied le Comité des candidatures dès le 6 novembre.
En résumé, la session du Conseil durerait du 6 au 10 octobre.
Paul R. BRYDEN (Australia): May I also lend my support to the proposals of the delegate from Colombia. It seems to my delegation that after two years of intensive discussions in various Committees with group of experts we really owe it to ourselves and to the broader membership to ensure that we bring the fruits of that in the best possible shape to the Conference in order to allow for a discussion in Commission II.
With regard to the length of time, Monday, 6 November to Friday, 10 November would seem appropriate to us.
With regard to the actual allocation of the agenda and the distribution of items, that is totally up to the Council at that time. But could I please plead with the Secretariat to give us more than five minutes to look at the timetable. This discussion we are now having should help with drafting the timetable.
Joseph TCHICAYA (Congo): Je voudrais intervenir sur les propositions faites par mon collègue et ami, l'Ambassadeur Bula Hoyos.
Je n'ai aucune peine à accepter le calendrier qu'il a proposé, c'est-à-dire du 6 au 10 novembre. Je pense aussi que, si la session peut se terminer le 9, cela pourra n'en être que mieux pour nous et nous pourrons mieux nous préparer à la Conférence.
Mais que l'on donne 3 ou 5 jours au Conseil, je ne crois pas que le Conseil sera en mesure de terminer ce débat. Je crois que la Commission II est très indiquée pour pouvoir mener ce débat et peut-être sera-t-on obligé d'avoir recours à tel ou tel groupe de contact.
Pour cette raison, il serait souhaitable de permettre au Secrétariat de s'exprimer sur cette question, pour savoir si la réunion peut s'inscrire du 6 au 10 novembre sans inconvénient pour la préparation de la Conférence, ou du 6 au 9 novembre, car je suis souple sur ce point.
Quant à l'ordre du jour de la réunion, nous connaissons les points mais il ne nous appartient pas ici de décider quel point sera débattu avant tel autre. Je crois qu'il convient, comme l'a dit le Représentant de l'Australie, de laisser le soin au Conseil de pouvoir délibérer sur le calendrier et de voir quels sont les points qu'il estime nécessaire de débattre avant d'autres.
Voilà ma contribution à ce sujet.
Atif T. BUTHARI (Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of) (Original language Arabic) This is not just the floor talking. You have not given me the chance to tackle the agenda of the Council during its coming Session.
We have no particular objection to either calendar, the 6-9 or 6-10· We believe that the Secretariat should inform us which they think is the better.
Regarding the agenda, during the forthcoming Session when there is discussion on the agenda, any member can then propose a change or a re-ordering of the the agenda items. I do not think we need waste time on it now, as it can be discussed at the beginning of the next Session, when, as we know, you, Mr. Chairman, will call for the adoption of the agenda. If there are proposals by members concerning re-ordering of the items, these can be dealt with then.
I would like to support fully what has been said by the distinguished Ambassador of Congo. I would also like to draw to the attention of all an important point: the Programme of Work and Budget is the most important item in the view of government members of this Organization. We have sought the adoption of this Programme by consensus, and this adoption should be effected during the next meeting of the Council. This Programme is the blood that circulates the body of this Organization-not the Review. I do not think consideration of the,Review will be completed during the next meeting, but the Conference will of course also consider it. It is therefore my personal view-and here I express only my personal view-that the Programme of Work and Budget should have priority during the deliberations of the next Council.
John G. COOK (United States of America): The Council should be held from 6-10 November. I recall that last November, when debating the revised agenda of this Council, we had to add on a day or two, and I would hate to think of the situation we would have been in if we had not done so.
I will not now address the agenda, in the hope that other Members will follow my example. We should at this point concentrate on the question of dates, and address the agenda later.
V.J. SHAH (AssiStant Director-General, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): I hope that the Council will be reassured, not only by the tone of my clarification, but also by its content as to what I have to say on behalf of the Director-General. The Council will of course decide the dates of the Session, and the Secretariat will serve it-we always do. However, may I pursue a point which you, Mr. Chairman, alluded to-that there are three aspects involved here.
First of all, regarding the dates of the Session: this is the matter before you now, and there have been two possibilities mentioned. One is to have the Session from Monday 6 to Friday 10;the other is to have the Session from Monday 6, to Thursday 9. The Secretariat will serve you in whichever of those dates you decide to adopt, whether it be the Monday to the Thursday or the Monday to the Friday. One point which has been mentioned by the distinguished Ambassador of Saudi Arabia is that the Friday before the Conference begins is a day when Member Nations involved in the Nominations Committee have certain important responsibilities in preparation for the Conference. With all respect, I suggest that you may wish to bear this in mind. There is also the possibility of deciding on the Monday to Thursday dates, with the possibility of the Council continuing on Friday if that was necessary.
As regards the provisional agenda, I am very pleased to see that, although interest in the Provisional Agenda is great, I think the distinguished Members do realise that the Provisional Agenda will be circulated to you according to the general rule, 60 days in advance of the Council Session, and this Provisional Agenda will be prepared as normal, in consultation with you, Mr. Chairman. I think that that takes care of the Provisional Agenda.
As regards the timetable, that would be adopted by yourselves at the outset of the Session.
I hope these clarifications have been of assistance.
Eduardo PESQUEIRA OLEA (México): En los términos del Orden del Día lo que tenemos a discusión es el Calendario y la fecha y lugar para el próximo periodo de sesiones. La delegación de México apoya que la fecha sea del 6 al 9 o del 6 al 10, preferimos del 6 al 9 y que el lugar sea Roma. Ese es el punto único que tenemos que discutir, esa es la posición de México. Después trataremos los otros puntos.
Bashir EL MABROUK SAID (Libya) (Original language Arabic): I would like to thank Mr. Shah for his clarifications regarding the calendar. He referred to the fact that Friday will be the meeting of the Nominations Committee. There is another point: Those residing here in Rome representing their
countries need to have one day in which to receive our Ministers coming from our capitals. The delegations are not large, and that day is most helpful to us.
I would therefore support the distinguished delegate of Mexico, that the Council should meet from the sixth to the ninth.
Mohammad Saleem KHAN (Pakistan): In view of the clarifications which have just been given by Mr. Shah and the statements just made by the distinguished representatives of Mexico and Libya, my delegation fully agrees with the proposal that we should have the Session from the sixth to the ninth. As Mr. Shah explained, we could then perhaps extend to the tenth if necessary, but we would prefer that the tenth be kept clear for consideration of the Nominations Committee, and to allow members of smaller delegations to organize themselves and make arrangements for the Conference.
We do not intend to comment on either the agenda or the timetable, as we consider that premature at this stage.
Igor MARINCEK (Suisse): Je voudrais faire un petit rappel concernant la procédure.
Ma délégation avait demandé la parole avant Monsieur Shah. Elle n'était pas d'accord sur le fait que le Secrétariat intervienne à ce stade des débats. Mais peut-être, Monsieur le Président, ne l'avez-vous pas vu ?
LE PRESIDENT: Il est d'usage avant toute question qu'il y ait une introduction du Secrétariat. Il y a un équilibre entre le Secrétariat et les délégués. On donne la parole au Secrétariat.
Je vous remercie de votre remarque mais je me devais de vous répondre.
Igor MARINCEK (Suisse): Je croyais que Monsieur Shah se référait à la proposition de Monsieur Bula Hoyos.
En ce qui concerne la question des dates et de la longueur et de l'organisation des travaux du Conseil ce n'est pas l'affaire du Secrétariat mais du Conseil. Le Secrétariat est là pour nous servir. Les explications de Monsieur Shah à ce sujet allaient dans ce sens. Pour ce qui est des dates dont on a parlé, le Comité des candidatures pourrait commencer dès le 6. Dans ce contexte, le délégué de l'Arable Saoudite a suggéré que l'on discute du Programme de travail et du budget. Je rappelle qu'on va aussi en discuter lors de la Conférence. Il n'y a pas à notre avis un problème quant à la proposition de tenir une session du 6 au 10.
Sra. Laurie CORDUA CRUZ (Nicaragua): Mi delegación quiere en primer lugar agradecer la aclaración que nos ha ofrecido el señor Shah que ha sido muy oportuna, y reiterar que en el tema que nos ocupa estamos discutiendo, aprobando el Calendario revisado, y estamos hablando de la fecha y lugar del Consejo. Cualquier discusión sobre la Agenda es improcedente, ya que es el Consejo el que decide, pero decidir en el primer día de iniciar el Consejo de noviembre la Agenda.
Respecto a la fecha del Consejo apoyamos que sea del seis al nueve de noviembre, como lo han expresado las delegaciones de México, Pakistán y Libia.
Michael McGILL (United Kingdom): We welcome the proposed dates of 6-10 November for the Ninety-sixth Session of the Council. This gives us time to discuss the Review of our Organization; it is at that point that we will be able to assess the implications of the Review. One cannot know what the implications are before November.
As the Director-General said on Tuesday, the Commissions of the Conference will set their own agendas, and we can expect the Ninety-sixth Session of the Council to offer useful advice in the light of their discussions.
Karl W. WEYBRECHT (Canada): I would also like to express my support of the proposal originally put forward by the distinguished delegate of Colombia, that the dates for the next Council Session be set in the period November 6-10. There may be a possibility that deliberations could be completed earlier, but we believe that sufficient time should be made available to the Council to complete discussion of its agenda.
I would also support the point made earlier about the circulation of the agenda and timetable to Member Nations being as far in advance as possible of the Session.
Paul R. BRYDEN (Australia): In the light of the new information introduced into our debate by the Secretariat-namely, the meeting of the Nominations Committee on the Friday-I would like to say that I am sure that if my delegation were a member of the Nominations Committee we would have no wish to stand in the way of serious deliberations by Council at such an important moment. I have the impression that the deliberations of the Nominations Committee are generally not controversial. and that most of the work has been pre-negotiated or discussed informally. Arrangements perhaps could be made for that Committee to meet between one o'clock and three o'clock, or nine o'clock and eleven o'clock, or something like that, if necessary.
I observe that my delegation would not regard the Nominations Committee as important as the Council.
Another point made was with reference to the Ministers reconvening on a Friday. In fact, many Ministers, mainly the Commonwealth, probably arrive on Thursday because there is a Commonwealth meeting on the Friday, so if we are worrying about some ministers arriving on Tuesday, some on Wednesday and so on, delegations simply have to try to cope with the situation.
Masayuki KOMATSU (Japan): The Japanese delegation also prefers to have the 96th Session of Council from 6-10 November because we made our decision clear on several occasions when discussing other agenda items. My delegation is really keen to know about the report on the review and would like to examine carefully the result of the review.
We made our position clear with regard to the coming 1990/91 budget in that we need information and analysis of the review. Without that, we cannot take up a position relevant to the other important issues, so we need as much time as possible to discuss the review issues. Therefore, my delegation prefers the next Council session to be held from 6-10 November.
Joseph TCHIGAYA (Congo): Je reprends la parole afin d'essayer de donner le point de vue de mon Gouvernement sur un point qui a été soulevé ici. Je souhaite au nom de mon Gouvernement que l'on ne fasse pas de lien possible entre le Programme d'adoption ou la discussion du Programme de travail et du budget, son approbation, et les résultats de l'examen de la FAO. Nous pensons qu'il s'agit là de deux points différents qui seront discutés certainement lors de la Conférence, mais que la priorité ne doit pas conditionner l'un et l'autre. Je pense que cela méritait d'être dit.
Ensuite je voudrais dire également que pour ce qui concerne les dates je crois qu'il y a des points qui ont été soulevés. Certes ces points ne concernent pas tous les Etats Membres, comme l'arrivée des Ministres le 10... Le Comité de candidatures devrait se réunir à ce moment-là. Je crois que ce sont des problèmes qui concernent beaucoup de pays en développement, qui très souvent n'ont pas le nombre des délégués qu'ont les pays développés.
Je crois qu'il faut que le Conseil en tienne compte afin d'arrêter les dates de son prochain Conseil. Mais comme je l'ai dit je ne pense pas que le problème de l'examen de la FAO sera réglé uniquement parce qu'on aura deux, trois ou quatre jours de plus de discussion, au niveau du Conseil, je crois que la Commission II y consacrera tout son temps. Je suis d'accord avec ceux qui pensent qu'il faut que nous ayons les documents à temps pour nous permettre de bien les examiner afin que les débats de la Commission II puissent être plus nourris.
C'est pour cette raison qu'il conviendrait peut-être d'arrêter les dates du 6 au 9 pour que le 10 le Comité des candidatures se réunisse. Certains ont besoin de le savoir pour donner un point de vue définitif au niveau du Comité de candidature. Il faut que l'ensemble des délégués des pays soit ensemble ici à Rome. Ceci est important, il faut en tenir compte.
Yousef Ali Mahmomd HAMDI (Egypt) (Original language Arabic): It is clear that there is a need to increase the time allotted for the coming Council session, and that it should be more than the period from 7-9 November to cope with an agenda that has so many items. There is a difficulty in
that the Council will convene from 6-10 November, but we support the proposal that the next Council session should be from 6-9 November 1989.
Roberto E. DALTON (Argentina): Notamos que hay un consenso en el Consejo de ampliar la duración del 96°. Período de Sesiones. Las hipótesis que han manejado las distintas delegaciones nos parecen aceptables; sea del seis al nueve, o del seis al diez. No obstante nos inclinamos por la hipótesis más flexible avanzada por la delegación de Mexico y aceptada por otras delegaciones, es decir, del seis al nueve con la previsión de tener abierto el viernes 10 para continuar las tareas.
Finalmente, Señor Presidente, permítame decir que nos hemos limitado a la consideración del tema que tenemos específicamente en la Agenda y entendemos que todas las consideraciones que se han hecho sobre examen, programa y presupuesto, etc. no tienen cabida bajo el Tema 21 de nuestra Agenda.
Hannu HALINEN (Finland): On behalf of the Nordic countries, ve support the proposal that the dates of the next Council session should be 6-10 November 1989, on the understanding that the Council can always finish earlier when the work is done.
Bernd von SYDOW (Germany, Federal Republic of): With reference to the task before us at the next session of Council, we suggest that we should make arrangements for the five days. 6-10 November. If it is possible to finish earlier, so much the better.
Atif T. BUKHARI (Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of) (Original language Arabic): We would prefer that the meeting should be convened from 6-9 November. I believe that I have heard some voices saying that we might finish earlier than that, but if we need one more day, which is the Friday, we can make use of it. There is a balance between both dates. We much prefer 6-9 November. Why cannot we say that if we need one more day we can make use of the Friday?We should not differ from that.
LE PRESIDENT: Nous n'aimerions pas qu'il y ait deux réunions concomitantes. Est-ce que le Conseil accepte que l'on termine le 9 à midi? Donc le 9 à midi.
D.K. CROWTHER (Assistant Director-General, Administration and Finance Department): The Staff Pension Committee has a vacancy for a position normally appointed by the Conference. The Conference has delegated authority to Council to appoint a delegate when an individual has either resigned or been transferred. In this case, the transfer of Mr. Weygandt, who had been a member of the Staff Pension Committee representing the Conference, creates a vacancy. I am informed that Mrs Astrid Bergquist, the Permanent Representative to FAO of Sweden has agreed to serve in this capacity during the remainder of the term through 31 December 1989.
If that is acceptable to Council, this creates an additional vacancy because Mrs. Bergquist has very kindly been serving as an Alternate. The proposal is that she be named to fill the regular membership post, and then as Alternate we would propose that Mr. Steven Hill, the Alternate Permanent Representative to FAO from the United States be named as the Alternate member through the unexpired term to 31 December. We need the approval of Council on both of these points.
It was so decided
Il en est ainsi decide
Así se acuerda
Paul R. BRYDEN (Australia): In the documents before the last Conference regarding the review process, my country put forward some ideas about drafting committees. We are currently serving on the Drafting Committee, and have had the privilege of serving on many such committees. All who serve on them feel there should be some way of revitalising the process. Through you, Mr. Chairman. could I ask the Secretariat if they could provide, without going into too much detail or making too much effort, and perhaps by the next Council, a simple piece of paper which might indicate the way other United Nations organizations go about their drafting, so we can reflect on it.
Igor MARINCEK (Suisse): Je voudrais seulement appuyer la proposition du délégué de l'Australie. En tant que membre du Comité de rédaction, nous comprenons très bien ce souhait.
Sra. Monica DEREGIBUS (Argentina): Ya que estamos en otros asuntos, la Delegación Argentina quisiera recordar que en el 948 período de sesiones del Consejo se aprobó una resolución que indicaba que los Comités principales de la FAO debían poner en las agendas de sus próximos períodos de sesiones el tema referido a la mujer en el desarrollo agrícola y rural. Pero como muchas de las reuniones de estos Comités no estaban programadas y había poco tiempo, en su momento ni el Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria ni el Comité de Agricultura ni el Comité de Pesca pusieron la cuestión en sus agendas, cosa que harán para sus próximos períodos de sesiones. No obstante, es nuestra opinión que el Comité de Montes, que se debe reunir el afio próximo, sí tendrá tiempo suficiente como para poner el tema en su agenda y preparar la correspondiente documentación, en cumplimiento de la resolución 1/94 del Consejo. Y quisiéramos, pues, que quedara constancia de esta circunstancia, de que el Consejo recordó que había tomado esta decisión en una anterior oportunidad.
V.J. SHAH (Assistant Director-General, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): To take the questions in the order in which they were raised, the Delegate of Australia raised the matter of the practice of other organizations regarding drafting committees. I take it from the nature of the question that he is seeking whatever information we have. This is not a question of undertaking a major study and I believe the Delegate of Australia sees the point because, after all, your membership in other organizations also enables each government to assess what the practices are in those in which they participate.
But I would say on behalf of my colleagues that whatever information we can readily get, we could make available without making it a formal document of the Council.
Secondly, on the question raised by the Distinguished Representative of Argentina, in fact, as you will recall, since your Resolution 1/94 requests the Director-General to present a report on progress in fulfilling this Resolution to the 96th Session of the Council, the Council will receive a document which will inter alia cover the points she has raised about the extent to which the request for inclusion of this subject in the agenda of technical bodies has been or has not been covered yet and what the intentions are with regard to the future meetings fo these bodies.
LE PRESIDENT: Je remercie M. Shah. J'espère que ses explications ont été claires.
Il reste une question de notre ordre du jour qui n'a pas été épuisé, le point 20.3 relatif à la CEE. Nous avons convenu que le Secrétariat présenterait le texte, cet après-midi, afin que nous puissions en discuter en séance plénière. C'est en effet une question très importante qui doit être discutée en séance plénière.
Il y a un chevauchement de notre horaire et de celui du Comité de rédaction. Le Président du Comité de rédaction a demandé la parole; je la lui donne.
Hannu HALINEN (Chairman Drafting Committee): In the interest of the proceedings of this session, I would like to submit through you to Council the following. The Drafting Committee Session has been called to order at 2.30 p.m. this afternoon. We are informed through the Secretariat that there is only one set of Conference services available.In this situation, we have considerable work still ahead in the Drafting Committee. I would suggest, without in any way contradicting what I did mention yesterday about the mandate and role of this Drafting Committee as I see it. that realising that the Legal Counsel is attempting to find a text which would correspond to the discussion taken place before in the one item still open, that the Drafting Committee could have a look at the text on the basis of the findings of the Legal Counsel and try to attempt to reflect the discussion
directly in our draft. Then the final approval of the text could take place in the Plenary tomorrow when the report of the Drafting Committee will be discussed.
Ilja HULINSKY (Czechoslovakia): That leaves me with a certain difficulty. As you know, I wanted to make my statement afterwards, if the agreement would be reached. But I am ready to make my statement just now, while understanding that we are going to reach a consensus.
Joseph TCHICAYA (Congo): En fait, ce que je voulais dire a été dit par le Président du Comité de rédaction. Pour ma part, je ne pense pas qu'il soit utile que nous revenions ici à 15 heures pour examiner ce projet de texte. Je crois, en effet, que les grandes lignes de ce qui doit figurer dans ce texte ont été dégagées ici et que M. Moore aura préparé un texte conforme à notre discussion. Ce texte devra être transmis au Comité de rédaction qui en débattra et nous l'examinerons en séance plénière au moment opportun.
Masayuki KCMATSU (Japan): My delegation also has the same concern as expressed by the Distinguished Delegate of Czechoslovakia. After some consensus is made about the EEC and the Inter-economic Organization, or whatever it is called-EEC and FAO-our delegation would like to make a statement.
The second point is that for the coming Council and Conference, since Japan is located far away from here, and although we are forced to speak in English, our kind of labours and elaborations to prepare for the attendance at those important meetings needs certain time. However, these days we see that the documentation to be sent before us to be reached in Tokyo is always late, and the delegation cannot prepare well in order to participate in these very important debates. So we ask the Secretariat-although I understand this kind of request is frequently made these days-that the Secretariat will, in advance, send the documents to each member of the Council and the coming Conference, please.
Daniel D.C DON NANJIRA (Kenya): Maybe you will tell us how long we are going to be here. We are hungry. We are discussing food problems, and our stomachs are empty. We need access to food, Sir, this afternoon.
LE PRESIDENT: Nous allons bientôt finir. Moins vous parlerez et plus tôt nous finirons. Il faut quand même écouter les délégués et voir quelle est la réaction du Conseil.
Daniel D.C. DON NANJIRA (Kenya): I am not saying I am hungry, but I was saying we need to go to eat very soon, so I suggest that we support the idea that the draft text, as the Ambassador of Congo said, can be looked into perhaps tomorrow, and that when we finish now we close for the day and we go to eat so that we can come back tomorrow morning, whatever the time was going to be, because we should not reconvene just for the sake of having a look at that text alone. This is what I wanted to say, and now the other delegate has the floor.
Igor MARINCKK (Suisse): Très brièvement, à propos du point 20.3, je me demande si une solution pour le délégué de la Tchécoslovaquie ne pourrait pas être la suivante: le texte sera communiqué au Comité de rédaction, qui en débattra, et demain, juste avant l'adoption du rapport, nous consacrerons une très brève séance plénière à ce point, ce qui donnera la possibilité au délégué de la Tchécoslovaquie de faire sa déclaration. Ensuite, nous passerons immédiatement à l'adoption du rapport.
Ilja HULINSKY (Czechoslovakia): I am ready to go along with the suggestion.
LE PRESIDENT: J'accepte, à une condition: que cela ne retarde par le reste de nos travaux car il faut une journée au Comité de rédaction. Si ce point-là nous demande trop de temps, je préfère le laisser pour la fin. S'il existe un consensus et que l'on peut procéder rapidement, je suis d'accord; autrement, je devrai laisser ce point pour la fin pour ne pas bloquer tout le travail du Comité de rédaction. Si vous n'y voyez pas d'objection, pour ne pas arrêter la machine, le délégué de la Tchécoslovaquie et celui du Japon prendront la parole lorsque nous arriverons à ce point 20.3.
Meeting rose at 13.45 h.
La séance est levée à 13 h 45.
Se levanta la sesión a las 13.45 horas.
