LE PRESIDENT: Je déclare ouverte la séance.
La quinzième séance plénière des travaux de la 99ème session du Conseil va débuter par le parachèvement de l'examen du rapport de la quatrième session de la Commission des ressources phytogénétiques (CL 99/16 et CL 99/LIM/3), qui est la résultante des travaux d'un groupe de travail qu'on peut baptiser "les amis du Président" ou "working group". Les travaux ont été particulièrement intenses par leur qualité et par leur durée. L'honorable représentant de l'Egypte, Monsieur Hamdi, a bien voulu assurer la présidence et le suivi des travaux de ce groupe, ét je lui demanderai d'avoir l'obligeance de venir quelques moments à la tribune pour faire un petit compte rendu des travaux de ce groupe.
I would like to thank Mr Hamdi for his kind intervention in the Working Group, and I also thank all the members of that Group. It will be important for the Council to have an overview of the activities of the Working Group.
Youssef Ali M. HAMDI (Egypt) (Original language Arabic): I would like to thank you yourself, Mr Chairman, for having placed your trust in me, and for having enabled me to work with and cooperate with the other members of the Group. I would like to thank all the members of the Working Group who agreed to me being the Chairman. You all have my thanks for the zeal and the effort you have put into the work in order to enable us to prepare such a recommendation as the one we now have before us.
You will have noticed, Mr Chairman, that the Working Group met for a period of about eight hours - eight hours that we spent in a friendly, sincere and outspoken exchange of views which enabled us to produce the recommendation which you now have before you.
The Working Group hopes that Council will acquaint itself with the work we have done and the fruits thereof. I myself consider this to be a well balanced and well thought out text. You have the result of our work before you.
LE PRESIDENT: Je remercie M. Hamdi pour son exposé. Je voudrais associer aux remerciements que je lui ai adressés les remerciements pour la participation des pays qui ont consacré de nombreuses heures à la mise au point d'un projet de résolution. Comme ce projet de résolution sera transmis par le Conseil à la Conférence, et que c'est la Conférence qui
devra décider concernant ce projet de résolution, je vous demanderai de l'approuver par acclamation, étant entendu que vous aurez l'occasion de l'examiner, de le transmettre dans vos capitales et de prendre une position définitive lorsque vous serez appelés à voter lors de la Conférence. Donc la décision qui est prise par le Conseil actuellement serait d'envoyer le projet de résolution à la Conférence pour décider. Je pense qu'il n'est pas nécessaire d'ouvrir le débat.
Il y a certains petits problèmes de traduction et, à ce sujet, je voudraís donner la parole à M. Esquinas-Alcazar.
J.T. ESQUINAS-ALCAZAR (del Personal de la FAO): Como pueden ustedes observar, hay varios cambios con respecto al original. Se refieren todos ellos a la implementación, por una parte de los derechos del agricultor a través de un fondo internacional y sobre la naturaleza de dicho fondo y, por otra parte, a los problemas relacionados con el acceso, o la disponibilidad, del germoplasma para los países, sean las líneas de mejora de los mejoradores o los materiales del agricultor. Los párrafos fundamentales que han sido modificados se refieren al cuarto párrafo del "Reconociendo", donde dice: "las condiciones de acceso a los recursos fitogenéticos requieren ulterior aclaración".
Esto quedó también reflejado en el párrafo 101 del Informe de la Comisión, donde se sollcita al Secretariado que prepare un documento jurídico con una clarificación de determinados términos legales, como el del libre acceso, el de soberanía nacional o el de acceso previo al acuerdo mutuo.
Fueron también objeto de discusión y acuerdo en principio en la parte de "Suscribe", los siguientes puntos. El punto 2 donde se hace referencia a las líneas de nejoramiento y al material de los agricultores; y el punto 4, sobre el tipo de fondo internacional y la naturaleza que podría tener dicho fondo.
Algunas delegaciones de habla española han llamado la atención sobre dos o tres palabras que sido traducidas erróneamente. El Secretariado lo va a tener en cuenta y va a hacer las oportunas correcciones para que el documento inglés, que fue la base de nuestras negociaciones, quede también perfectamente reflejado con sus mismos conceptos en los documentos franceses y españoles.
Preferiríamos, señor Presidente, que no fueran ahora estas traducciones objeto de debate.
F.C. PRILIEVITZ (Netherlands): A point of clarification, Mr Chairman. You said that we do not adopt the resolution, but it is part of the Report and it will be a resolution before the Conference. That means that we can add something to the resolution during the next few months, or make proposals for it, which will be discussed during the Conference. Is that correct?
LE PRESIDENT: Le projet de résolution devrait figurer en annexe au rapport. Il a fait l'objet de réunions d'un groupe de travail composé d'amis du Président, qui a abouti à un texte sur lequel il s'est mis d'accord et qui est renvoyé à la Conférence pour décision ou non-décision. C'est la Conférence qui se prononcera sur le texte qui figure en annexe du rapport. Donc on ne vous demande pas maintenant un blanc-seing en ce qui concerne la décision qui doit intervenir au moment de la Conférence, mais un accord sur un consensus qui est intervenu pour le renvoi du projet de résolution à la Conférence, étant entendu que le Conseil, compte tenu de la qualité des travaux de ce groupe de travail, a accueilli très favorablement le texte de ce consensus que vous avez sous les yeux et qui figure dans le document CL 99/LIM/3.
Natigor SIAGIAN (Indonesia): Since my delegation is not a member of this "group-of your friends", Mr Chairman, I would be grateful for some clarification as to when we can speak on this draft for the purpose of the verbatim report, and of safeguarding my delegation's position during the Conference. If I may have an opportunity now, I would like to say something on behalf of my delegation.
LE PRESIDENT: Vous pouvez bien sûr intervenir. Je crois que compte tenu de la qualité des travaux au sein du groupe de travail, il n'est pas souhaitable d'ouvrir un débat sur une formule de compromis qui constitue un premier pas dans la bonne direction. Au cours des travaux de la Commission I de la Conférence, tous les pays auront l'occasion de présenter leur point de vue et il serait utile que vos spécialistes dans vos capitales respectives se penchent sur ce texte de compromis de façon à l'étudier et à préparer les travaux de la Conférence.
Je proposerai donc que l'on marque un premier accord sur ce texte de compromis en le renvoyant à la Conférence, et que par applaudissements vous puissiez marquer votre accord aux travaux du Comité restreint auquel ont participé les principaux pays intéressés - je ne dirai pas tous les pays intéressés loin de là mais nous avons institué ce groupe de travail en tenant compte d'un équilibre.
Je vous donne lecture de la composition de ce groupe: Etats-Unis du Mexique, Inde, Egypte, Maroc, Brésil, l'éminente spécialiste, Ambassadeur, Vice-présidente du Conseil et représentante du Venezuela, le Canada qui a participé en son nom et au nom des Etats-Unis d'Amérique, la Suède qui avait elle aussi un spécialiste qui a été très actif au cours des travaux de ce groupe, ainsi que l'Allemagne.
Je donne la parole à la France, mais je vous demanderai de ne pas rouvrir le débat parce que je ne pense pas que ce soit tellement utile.
Jacques WARIN (France): Monsieur le Président, je ne compte pas rouvrir le débat, je veux simplement vous exprimer ma position qui sera très claire, comme vous souhaitez souvent qu'elle le soit, à savoir que nous sommes parfaitement d'accord pour transmettre ce texte à la Conférence, mais nous n'estimons pas que ce texte ait fait l'objet d'un consensus. Il l'a
peut-être fait au niveau du groupe des amis du Président, mais il ne l'a pas fait au niveau du Conseil et nous souhaiterons en rediscuter à la Conférence.
LE PRESIDENT: Ce que nous demandons par vos applaudissements c'est l'autorisation de transmission à la Conférence où le débat aura lieu sur le fond de ce projet de résolution. Est-ce que vous marquez votre accord à cette procédure?
Natigor SIAGIAN (Indonesia): Again for the purpose of the verbatim report, my delegation would like to say that we are very appreciative of the efforts of the Working Group, and that we will go along with your suggestion that the Council supports the presentation of this document to the Conference.
We will take note of this, and consult our home government on the wording, and also connotations of the relationships with international laws and national regulations on this matter. I would, however, ask that our Government not be bound in this matter until the Minister speaks during the Conference.
LE PRESIDENT: Je voudrais être clair une fois de plus. Suite aux interventions qui ont eu lieu, je voudrais qu'il n'y ait pas de débat pour savoir si on va rouvrir un débat parce que cela nous prendrait autant de temps de débattre sur la réouverture ou la non-réouverture du débat que d'avoir le débat. Il est clair que lors des travaux de la Commission qui doit en référer et remettre son rapport à la séance plénière de la Conférence, il sera loisible d'améliorer le projet de résolution ou éventuellement de le rendre plus mauvais. Il incombera aux pays participant aux travaux d'apporter tous les éléments de modification qu'ils souhaiteraient apporter, soit dans le bon sens soit, nous ne le souhaitons certainement pas, dans le mauvais sens, mais la liberté des pays reste complète.
Vous avez maintenant, en transmettant avec l'accord du Conseil ce projet à la Conférence, l'occasion d'en référer aux spécialistes de vos capitales pour discuter de la position que vos gouvernements prendront concernant ce projet de résolution qui ne vous lie pas tant qu'il n'a pas été voté par la Conférence. Je crois que l'on peut difficilement être plus clair.
Je crois qu'il ne serait pas souhaitable d'en arriver à débattre sur le point de savoir si on va débattre ou non, d'autant plus qu'il y a une troisième possibilité. Il est possible également à la Conférence de décider que le projet de résolution ne sera pas soumis à un vote s'il n'y a pas accord à la Commission I qui normalement sera appelée à traiter de ce projet de résolution, soit pour le rendre meilleur, soit pour le rendre plus mauvais. Il y a une troisième alternative qui est que la Commission n'aboutissant pas à un accord, le projet ne soit pas soumis au vote de la Conférence. Donc il y a trois alternatives.
Sauf objection, je proposerai par vos applaudissements de marquer accord au renvoi de ce projet de résolution à la Conférence.
F.C. PRILLEVITZ (Netherlands): I do not disagree vith your proposal, Mr Chairman, but I would like to say that at this very moment we are trying to contact our experts. It may be that we can approve the draft resolution, but we will bring it up during the adoption of the report.
LE PRESIDENT: Je crois que j'ai été suffisamment clair pour expliquer que le projet de résolution figurerait en annexe du rapport comme projet de résolution à soumettre à la Conférence. Ou nous ouvrons le débat et nous n'aboutissons pas, ou la majorité du Conseil décide la procédure qui avait été soumise à votre agrément et sur laquelle vous avez marqué un accord.
Si on respecte cette procédure, je voudrais que tous ceux qui désirent le renvoi du projet de résolution à la Conférence marquent leur accord par applaudissements.
Sra. Mónica DEREGIBUS (Argentina): Permítame que reflexione con usted un minuto. Este proyecto de resolución fue conocido por mi delegación en el día de ayer por la tarde. Lamentablemente, aún cuando yo he podido poner en un facsímil el texto, las autoridades de mi Cancillería y de mi Miniaterio de Agricultura no lo han podido ver todavía, puesto que en Buenos Aires son las 6 de la mañana. Yo no sé si es lo lógico proceder a decidir sobre esta cuestión en el día de hoy, puesto que este problema es el que están señalando, por ejemplo, los Países Bajos, o si conviene que lo dejemos pendiente hasta el viernes, porque para el viernes algunas delegaciones habrán tenido la posibilidad de consultar a sus gobiernos. No entiendo por qué tenemos que apurarnos tanto.
LE PRESIDENT: Si nous estimons devoir demander l'inscription de ce point à l'ordre du jour, c'est pour faciliter la tâche du Comité de rédaction. Comme il ne s'agit pas d'une question de fond mais d'une question de procédure sur laquelle nous nous étions mis d'accord, nous ne demandons pas que vos spécialistes examinent le fond du problème, nous demandons simplement l'autorisation de soumettre le problème à la Confèrence où tous les spécialistes auront l'occasion de faire valoir leurs points de vue.
Je crois qu'il faudrait quand même que l'on détermine clairement quels sont les pays qui sont d'accord pour le renvoi du projet, sans préjuger le moins du monde du fond, à la Conférence et quels sont les pays qui ne sont pas d'accord sur le renvoi de ce projet à la Conférence.
Mustapha-Menouar SINACEUR (Maroc): Pour notre part, nous avons participé au groupe de travail et nous sommes arrivés au même titre que les autres pays qui composaient le groupe à ce consensus qui a permis de produire ce document LIM/3. J'aimerais juste préciser que pour notre part nous souhaiterions que dans les minutes du débat du Conseil il soit - vous l'avez sûrement dit - clairement dit que ce qui va faire l'objet ou ce qui
pourrait faire l’objet de discussions par la suite, ce sont les points qui étaient restés en suspens et entre parenthèses et que le groupe de travail a essayé d’éluder. Je suppose que le projet de resolution en lui-même n’a pas de raison d’etre remis en cause. Je pense que nous nous étions réunis pour essayer de résoudre ces points pour lesquels il n’y avait pas eu consensus au niveau de la Quatrième Commission et je pense que pour la Conference il faut que les choses soient claires. Si l’on venait à reprendre tout le projet, cela compliquerait un peu la tâche de la Commission qui aurait la charge de s’occuper de ce point.
LE PRESIDENT: Il va de soi que tout ce que nous disons et tout ce que vous dites est repris in extenso dans le verbatim. Je crois que nous avons été suffisamment clairs.
Applause
Applaudissements
Aplausos
C’était le seul point reserve concernant le rapport de la quatrième session de la Commission des ressources phytogénétiques qui pourra faire l’objet d’un rapport circonstancié du Comité de redaction.
Michel MOMBOULI (Congo): Notre délégation a examiné avec toute l’attention qu’ils méritaient les différents documents relatifs aux points 24.2 et 24.3 de notre ordre du jour. Nous aimerions saisir cette occasion pour remercier et féliciter le Secretariat de la FAO, et en particulier son département juridique, pour s’être acquitté à temps, même si c’est par experts extérieurs interposes, de la tâche que nous lui avons prescrite, à savoir
réaliser l’etude des organisations d’integration économique et régionale, etude dont l’origine remonte à la CEE dont l’attachement aux activités de l’Organisation l’a conduite à demander la possibilité de devenir organisation membre de la FAO.
De l’analyse des documents sus-cites, nous avons entre autres conclusions retenu principalement que dans le contexte actuel et conformément aux critères initiaux que nous avons nous-mêmes définis, de toutes les organisations d’integration économique régionale existantes, seule la CEE a des chances d’etre eligible au statut d’organisation membre.
Je voudrais m’arrêter un moment et dire à l’attention de la CEE et de sa commission que notre gouvernement ne nourrit que des sentiments de sympathie et de consideration en vertu de la cooperation qui existe entre cette organisation et notre Etat, à travers plusieurs accords.
Cette situation où seule la CEE serait eligible, situation qui risquerait de durer longtemps, ne serait pas une solution juste vis-à-vis des autres organisations de même nature. Cela étant, et partant du principe qu’il est loisible à l’organe qui a decide des critères originaux d’éligibilité, en l’occurrence notre Conseil, de réajuster sa position, nous suggérons ce qui suit:
Premièrement pour permettre à la plupart des organisations d’integration économique régionale qui le désirent et le demandent d’accéder au statut d’organisation membre, nous suggérons que le Secretariat soit invite à étudier la possibilité d’une adhesion plus accessible, quitte à assouplir les critères d’éligibilité de base. Nous savons que cela constitue une decision politique relevant de la competence de nos gouvernements ici représentés. Cet assoupplissement de critères pourrait porter sur la nature et le champ des competences desdites organisations.
Deuxièmement, nous suggérons qu’en attendant que les dossiers soient entièrement bouclés à la satisfaction de la majorité et pour prévenir toute erreur, on sursoit à toute admission pour le moment.
Troisièmement, nous suggérons que l’on exige que toute adhesion soit subordonnée à une demande officielle explicite et ne soit pas par consequent automatique. Ceci bien sûr pour ceux qui ne se sont pas manifestés.
Quatrièmement, nous suggérons que le CQCJ soit invité, en collaboration avec le département juridique de la FAO, à poursuivre l’amelioration des propositions déjà faites en tenant compte des avis de la présente session du Conseil et d’en faire rapport aux organes directeurs de l’Organisation ainsi qu’à la vingt-sixième session de la Conference, ceci pour competence.
Concernant l’assouplissement des critères d’éligibilité au statut d’organisation membre, nous suggérons que l’on sollicite également la position des autres organisations d’integration économique régionale des pays en développement, pour lesquels les critères actuels ne permetteñt pas l’admission.
Enfin, nous osons espérer que ce dossier sera bientôt bouclé et que la CEE, comme elle le souhaite, pourra devenir organisation membre de la FAO, de même que les autrés organisations de même nature, ceci bien sûr lorsque nous serons arrives au terme de notre examen.
LE PRESIDENT: Iln’y a bien sûr pas d’acceptation sans demande officielle. II y a en fait un double problème, tout d’abord un problème de possibilité par l’ adaptation des textes, mais même si les textes sont adaptés, il est clair qu’il faut une demande et que l’instance supreme, en l’occurrence la Conference, est appelée à se prononcer sur la demande en execution des textes tels qu’ils auraient été modifies.
Mahmoud Ahmed Samir SAMY (Egypt) (Original language Arabic): Before pointing to my country’s position concerning this item on our agenda, I wish to refer to what has been said yesterday in the afternoon discussion; namely that, all delegates focused on the many aspects of this issue. Therefore, our review of this issue would be limited in scope. My country does not oppose the principle of the EEC membership in the FAO. On the contrary, we do believe that the EEC membership would bring further support to our Organization.
Secondly, allow me to reiterate some principles underlying to the membership of the EEC in FAO. These principles are the following: the membership would not affect in any way the chances of this group of countries in voting rights. Furthermore, since FAO would set a precedent to the other international organizations, it would be appropriate that FAO undertakes further consultations with the United Nations organizations in general and some other international agencies in particular. We believe that such a consultation is highly valuable.
Thirdly, I would like to join the previous speakers and request further details concerning the competences to be enjoyed by such groups in order to identify more specifically the rights and obligations of these organizations as compared to the Member Nations. We do hope that this should be clarified in order to avoid any future problems. We do believe that the membership of the EEC in this Organization hinges on the position to be adopted by the Member Nations constituting such a grouping or organization.
Finally, I would like to refer to the content of document 99/21, the survey related to the regional economic integration organizations. This document referred to some criteria laid down as regards the classification and the assessment of the different regional economic integration organizations. In this set of criteria, one might conclude that these criteria are geared to set up specific standards ruling the eligibility of these organizations for submitting membership requests. Hence as regards this document, we deem it necessary to further scrutinize and study the details contained therein.
LE PRESIDENT: Avant de donner la parole au Représentant du Liban, je voudrais saluer la presence parmi nous du Président du Comité des questions constitutionnelles et juridiques, mon collègue et ami l’Ambassadeur Poulides, ainsi que celle de l’eminent President du Comité financier, l’Ambassadeur di Mottola Balestra.
Amin ABDEL MALEK (Liban) (langue originale arabe): Ma délégation aimerait dire qu’elle serait satisfaite de l’adhesion de la CEE à la FAO. Nous espérons sincèrement que cette adhesion nous perraettra d’envisager un avenir plus brillant pour nos deux organisations.
Ma délégation est d’avis que ce qui est dit entre parentheses dans ce document devrait être renvoyé au CQCJ afin que ce comité puisse présenter son rapport au Conseil, lors de sa prochaine session.
Rachmat RANUDIWIJAYA (Indonesia): Since it is for the first time that my delegation is taking the floor, I would like to express my delegation’s appreciation to the Chairman of the CCLM for preparing a very informative and well-updated document. After having heard the previous speakers yesterday afternoon and this morning, my delegation also finds that we do not have any objections to the wish of the EEC to be a member of FAO. But since this matter is very complex and involves legal as well as political considerations, my delegation would also like to join with other speakers in requesting a further detailed study or further verifications on some elements of the issue, so it will pave the way for us to productively contribute in the deliberations on the issues at the next Council meeting.
My delegation would also like to join the suggestions put forward by other delegations. It is the hope of my delegation also that any provisions of this draft should not close the door to the possibility that other regional economic organizations may join the FAO.
Samuel FERNANDEZ ILLANES (Observador de Chile): Mi delegación ha analizado cuidadosamente los documentos relativos al tema en debate. De este análisisss nos resulta evidente que se ha priorizado una solución política y práctica sobre un criterio estrictamente juridico. No estimamos del caso profundizar por ahora al respecto. Sin embargo, no podemos eludir las consecuencias que el ingreso de la Comunidad a la FAO traeria, no solo para nuestra Organización, sino como precedente para los demás organismos del Sistema, en especial al ejercerse alternadamente los derechos y obligaciones de Estado Miembro y de organismo de integración regional económica. Estamos en presencia, como lo señalara la distinguida delegación del Brasil, de un ingreso sui generis para una organización regional también sui generis y en continua evolución, ya que la Comunidad no resulta asimilable a una organización en que simplemente los Estados han transferido el todo o parte de sus derechos soberanos a un órgano supranacional.
Hemos escuchado con interés lo expresado por numerosas delegaciones. Sería innecesario repetir dichos argumentos. Destacamos, por ejemplo, la conveniencia de mayores precisiones respecto del ejercicio alternativo de competencias mixtas, pero estimamos no presentan problemas insuperables. Chile, en ningún caso, se opone al ingreso de la Comunidad a la FAO. Por el contrario, lo apoya; no dudamos que su aporte se veria acentuado a través de una acción centralizada de sus doce Estados Miembros. Reconocemos y agradecemos los antecedentes proporcionados por la Comunidad, pero seria sumamente esclarecedor conocer con mayor precision la acción que desarrollará la Comunidad en la FAO y, en particular, sobre la política agricola común frente a los requerimientos de los paises en desarrollo.
Mi país lo ha expresado reiteradamente; por ejemplo, en la Ronda Uruguay del GATT. Desea politicas claras, no discriminatorias, en el comercio de productos agricolas. Estimamos acertadas y pertinentes las sugerencias planteadas por el distinguido Embajador de Colombia, en cuanto a que se hace necesaria la búsqueda de soluciones aceptables para todos; las que podrían encontrarse, por ejemplo, en un grupo de trabajo que deberia abordar este tema desde y para el punto de vista de la FAO. Asimismo, seria sumamente importante despejar las dudas existentes en sus aspectos juridicos institucionales prácticos, por el precedente, como ya lo mencionaba, que esto implica para otros organismos.
Finalmente, mi delegación desea destacar que el ingreso de la Comunidad a la FAO abriria el camino a otras organizaciones regionales de integración que alcancen una evolución igualmente acelerada. Por lo tanto, es indispensable llegar a un acuerdo sobre los criterios générales que regulen estos ingresos de manera global, no excluyente, sin que se refieran solo a casos especificos o a un solo caso en particular. No dudamos que tanto nuestra Organización como otras del Sistema podrian verse beneficiadas por el ingreso de organizaciones de integración regional, como la Comunidad u otras en el futuro.
Sra. Mireya DURAN ROSALES (Observador de Bolivia): Al igual que otras delegaciones, mi pais quiere expresar su complacencia por el deseo de la Comunidad de ser miembro de la FAO, deseo al cual mi delegación no se opone. Sin embargo, consideramos que las gestiones realizadas hasta el momento y las enmiendas que tenemos prësentan dudas en cuanto a precedentes que podrian surgir posteriormente. Por lo indicado, seria positivo que el CACJ continuara estudiando la posibilidad de adhesion de la CEE, tomando en cuenta otras opiniones de organismos especializados, especialmente de la Comisión de Derecho Internacional de Naciones Unidas (Nueva York).
Por otra parte, compartimos la posición de la distinguida delegación del Brasil y otras, en el sentido de que el carácter de adhesion de la Comunidad sea sui generis y que dicha adhesión se concrete mediante la firma de un protocolo especial entre la FAO y la CEE.
LE PRESIDENT: Je voudrais faire une proposition en ce qui concerne le suivi de nos travaux. Je vais demander au Conseiller juridique de l’Organisation, M. Moore, de répondre aux questions qui ont été posées. Je voudrais ensuite que, par l’ intermédiaire de la delegation des Pays-Bas, les spécialistes de la Communauté économique européenne répondent aux questions qui leur ont été adressées de façon à dissiper ou à tenter de dissiper, dans la mesure du possible, les zones d’ombre qui existent. Nous ferons ensuite les propositions adéquates au Conseil pour le suivi des travaux.
LEGAL COUNSEL: It is rather difficult to do justice to what has been a very, very rich debate, extremely interesting with some extremely fascinating points that have arisen. Yesterday I was asked to be as complete as possible in my reply. I trust that I can be more complete today.
Having had the evening to think about it, many of the questions or issues really group around a few main themes. First of all, I would like to deal with some of those main themes and then go on to answer individual questions raised by individual delegations.
The first question was a question not aimed at me, I think, but aimed at the EEC. That is the question of the declaration of competence. This is a question that I think the EEC itself will be responding to, but I would like to make some comments on this.
It is obvious from the discussions here that a number of delegations wish to see a clearer statement of competence. I understand the difficulty of a number of the delegates, and I also understand some of the difficulties of the EEC in trying to make a general statement of competence. I understand from our discussions that they have a difficulty in choosing between making a rather general statement of competence and going into so much detail as listing all the legal directives and regulations issued on the subject.
The reason why I am commenting on this, although it is a matter for the EEC, is to make a suggestion that I have raised informally with the EEC. That is possibly taking a new track on this and giving some indication not only of the subject matters that are within the competence of the EEC, or concurrent competence, but giving some indication of how it would work functionally. I think a lot of delegates have been saying that they want to know how it will work.
Therefore, I would ask the EEC whether it is possible for them to say that for some of the committees, for example, the Committee on Fisheries, we would be the ones who might be taking the lead - I do not want to put words into their mouths - but for some of the other committees it might be somebody else taking the lead. I am just wondering if we could approach this from a functional point of view, because we are dealing with a dynamic organization, and say in this kind of meeting who would be speaking for the main part on all of these issues. In this kind of meeting who is it who would be speaking? It is a slightly different track. It may be difficult, obviously, for them to do it today, but maybe this is something that might help to make matters more clear to the people who actually have to deal with each individual meeting so that they would know who they are going to deal with at that meeting.
This is just one suggestion that I throw out as a possibility for advancing matters.
The second point I would like to make regards the alternative nature of the exercise of memberships rights. One thing that I was very encouraged to hear yesterday and today is this general principle, which is basic to the whole concept of what the CCLM have been putting forward, appears to be accepted by everybody. I think that everybody is arguing that, yes, this is the kind of concept that should be underlying our proposals; it is a good general working concept. I think that the only criticisms we have had today and yesterday is whether we have been following the concept all the way through. Should we allow any kind of exceptions to it or should we take it as a pure concept that should always be applied? The concept is that we are dealing with a single bundle of membership rights that should never change,
should never get larger, never get smaller, but which are exercised alternatively either by a Member Organization or its Member States according to which has competence. So that is one thing I was encouraged about.
I was also encouraged by support given to the concept of the institutional life of the Organization, and that Member Organizations would not normally be involved in the institutional life of the Organization or committees dealing with the institutional life of the Organization, but more in technical matters. This is again something which is basic to our propos and I think was accepted by most countries.
Another point which was emphasized by many is the sui generis nature of the membership that the CCLM is proposing for Member Organizations, and I think that almost everybody has stressed the sui generis form of this type of membership. It is certainly not the same as membership of Member Nations; it is far different. There are many things; I will not go into all the details - no election in their own right, they only exercise the member states’ rights; no election to office; no participation in certain committees, etc. - whatever it is, it is a very different horse from full membership as it is available to member states.
So I think everybody accepts this, but I think the point was made by a number of delegations that this needs to be slightly better reflected in the Constitution and in the draft amendments that we have put forward, and this is a point that we have looked at, and having talked to a number of Member Nations and members of the Council over the last few weeks, we have come to the same conclusion. We would suggest in support of the suggestion made I think by Brazil, and supported by Argentina and a number of other countries, that perhaps we should have a separate paragraph in Article II dealing with admission of Member Organizations as opposed to Member Nations. This would mean that in Article II.2 you could have a provision saying the Conference can admit by two-thirds majority, etc., additional members - nations as additional members - and you can have another Article II.3 saying that the Conference by two-thirds majority can admit as members Regional Economic Integration Organizations. So this is a point that maybe we can put to the Working Group this afternoon and perhaps, if there is a Working Group set up, perhaps some movement can be seen on this.
A further question arose and was stressed by a number of members of the Council, and this is the question of other Regional Economic Integration Organizations, and that these should also be eligible to become Member Organizations. Certainly this is a thought that was clearly in our minds and the minds of the CCLM, I believe, when trying to draw up these amendments, and we were trying to draw general principles that could be applicable to all Regional Economic Integration Organizations. I believe that the general consensus on the concept of the alternative exercise of the membership rights and the question of the institutional life and non-involvement in the institutional life of the Organization, are in fact applicable to all Regional Economic Integration Organizations that meet the criteria set down by the Council.
So really the question I think comes down to this question of were the criteria set down by the Council initially, correct criteria, or do you want to enlarge those criteria and make them more flexible. I think the question boils down to the word “exclusive”. Do you wish to say that it should be restricted to those Regional Economic Integration Organizations to which exclusive competence has been transferred in certain matters, and I think this is really where the crunch of the matter is - the word “exclusive”. To my mind this is, of course, a political decision for Member Nations to make in drawing up the criteria.
I would like to make one observation though in order to assist you in making that decision. It was to our mind the transfer of exclusive competence that made necessary the thought of having a special form of membership for Member Organizations. It was this element that member states have transferred part of their sovereign rights to a Member Organization, and therefore are no longer competent to deal with certain matters, that may be essential to complete the picture as it were, and to bring in the Member Organizations. Because otherwise the Member States are speaking on matters which are outside their competence and on which another body, which is not a member of the Organization, has competence. That was the reason why we also felt that the word “exclusive” might be the essential element that made it necessary to have a new form of membership by Member Organizations. However, this was the thinking behind the initial suggestions. I give it to you for your information in arriving at a political decision, but I recognize that this is a political decision to be taken by Member States.
A point was raised by a number of delegations, particularly by Brazil, I think: would it be a good idea to have a protocol? Instead of trying to put all the rules into General Rules of the Constitution of the Organization, to have a specific protocol setting out all the terms of accession, as it were, specifically made for the EEC. This is, of course, something that was considered in the CCLM. We came to the conclusion that the Council really wanted to set up general rules applicable to all Regional Economic Integration Organizations and not specifically designed only for the EEC, and this really was the reason why we thought it was the wish of the Council that we should not draw up specific rules merely for the EEC. This is the reason why we actually dropped the idea of a protocol, and we wanted to see everything in the Constitution or in the General Rules of the Organization where it is transparent and applicable to all Regional Economic Integration Organizations.
I should make a final point on this. The study by our friends from Cambridge University, does indicate that there are a number of organizations that may very well be meeting these criteria in the future. It is not easy to say, and certainly at the moment they do not meet those criteria, but there are a number of organizations in various parts of the world that could meet it because their basic documents allow for this transfer of exclusive competence. So far it has not yet happened but it may very well happen in the future. How near that future will be I just do not know.
Another point that was raised was regarding increased financial obligations for the Member Nations; are there any increased financial obligations for the Member Nations arising out of the possible accession of the EEC or other Member Organizations. This, of course, is a matter that will have to be formally looked at by the CCLM, I think, at its next session. Our Basic Texts require us to make a recommendation to the Conference as to whether there will be additional financial obligations. My own view of this, as the Secretariat and Legal Adviser of the Organization, is that there will not really be any new financial obligations in that any administrative expenses will be covered by a special contribution to be asked for from new Member Organizations to cover administrative expenses. The criteria for this contribution will need to be worked out by the Finance Committee and actually adopted by the Conference, and this is the idea of doing it. So I would have thought there would not, in fact, be any new financial obligations undertaken by the Member Nations.
Turning to where the crux or the difference of opinion is at the moment. The crux of the problem in these particular proposals as Ambassador Bula Hoyos with his accustomed clarity yesterday has pointed out, is the question of concurrent competence and in particular the exercise of speaking rights in the area of concurrent competence. This is really the only point I think where the CCLM has found difficulty in actually coming to a firm conclusion. I think almost all the other points have been reasonably settled with the exception of that. It is really a question of whether we follow through the principle of alternativity right to the bitter end, or whether we make an exception to the General Rules in the case of speaking rights. It is argued on one side that this would be an exception to the principle of alternativity (alternative exercise of membership rights) and on the other side it is argued that maybe the Council or the Conference, or whatever other body it is, may wish to hear those views.
We have put forward a compromise formula in the supplement to the supplementary report of the Director-General. We have suggested to preserve the principle but allow for a certain flexibility in applying that, and the possibility of an exception, should the meeting so decide. Other delegates have indicated this maybe a little messy, so another suggestion has been made that you might make a difference between rights of either the Community or its Member States, in the case of the EEC, to speak as members, and that others should speak with rights equivalent to those of an observer. This is also a possible way out if it can be acceptable to all parties concerned. Maybe this is something that can be taken up by the Working Group.
Another main point I would like to make is regards Article XIV, and I think almost everybody here has pointed out or implied in their statements that this is a matter that has to be settled, and this leads me to the point that if there is full agreement anyway on Article XIV, I think the Council has to recommend something to the Conference on at least some amendments to the Constitution.
The final general point that I will make relates to the precedent that all of this could set for other organizations in the UN System. We understand that it sets precedence for other organizations in the UN System. However
much we must say, each organization is autonomous, each organization deals with its own matters. Of course, it has implications, and this is the reason why we have consulted very closely with other organizations in the UN System, and in fact not just recently but we have been keeping them fully informed right from the beginning, right from two years ago, and every time we have something new we share it with the organizations and we ask their views. So far their views have been very supportive and very positive. So far they have said that from their point of view they feel that what we are doing is going in the right direction. So that is the point I want to make.
I will here break into a specific question because Japan asked for some information on the meeting we were supposed to have held on the 3rd of May of all the Legal Advisers of the UN System, and for further details on this meeting. In fact the meeting was postponed because of the Gulf crisis at the time, and the UN Legal Counsel had to call off that meeting. So we had to continue our discussions with the UN Legal Counsel over the phone and by fax. I talked to them in January about the whole matter, and we settled the matter by conversations on the phone and by fax. But I went to Geneva and talked with all the UN Geneva-based organizations and we talked in Vienna with the all Vienna-based organizations.
We will be having a new meeting of the Legal Advisers of the United Nations Legal System in the near future and I hope before the next Session of the CCLM, and we will bring this matter up again. I hope this will satisfy Council. Certainly our desire is to consult closely with our colleagues, and the one thing I want to bring out is that so far we have our colleagues behind us and everyone feels it is a reasonable approach.
I would just like to make a point on the suggestion that this is a decision which needs to be taken at UN level, in the United Nations itself, as it were. The point, as has been made by the Chairman, is that all the organizations are legal and autonomous. There is no mechanism for taking any decision which applies throughout the UN System. We have consulted the Secretariats and Member Nations represented here today that are also represented throughout the United Nations system. In any case the EC does not have competence in most of the things dealt with in the UN System, while the Common Agricultural Policy is so close to what FAO does all the time.
Now I turn to specific questions, because some specific questions have been raised and I have some answers. One question was raised in particular by the United States of America. Here, I think it is better if I go through the answer to this and read it out.
I have been asked to give an opinion on two questions. One, whether membership of FAO by a Member Organization would entitle that Member Organization also to participate in the joint subsidiary bodies of FAO such as the Codex Alimentarius Commission (a joint FAO/WHO body) and the CFA (a joint UN/FAO subsidiary body).
The second question, if the answer to the first question is “yes”, in other words it would entitle a Member Organization to join the Codex Alimentarius Commission and the CFA, how would this affect the interpretation of the
Vienna clause, and would this mean a Member Organization of FAO would be assimilated to a Member State for the purpose of eligibility for participation in other agreements outside FAO using that clause.
To answer the first question, in my opinion membership by a Member Organization in FAO would entitle that Member Organisation to participate in bodies operated jointly with other organizations such as the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) and the World Food Programme Committee on Food Aid Policies and Programmes (CFA) which is a joint subsidiary body of the UN and FAO. The basic document establishing both of these joint bodies allow for membership by Member Nations or states of one of the parent organizations. The effect of the proposed assimilation clause in the amendments to the FAO Constitution, however, would be to allow regional economic integration organizations that are members of FAO as one of the parent organizations also to be eligible for membership of such bodies. This would be consistent in the case of the CAC with Its status as a joint Commission established under Article VI of the FAO Constitution.
Following the general principle set down in the proposed amendments to the Constitution, Member Organizations would not be eligible for election in their own right to such joint bodies, but would merely exercise the rights of membership of their Member States that are elected, in accordance with the principles of the alternative exercise of membership rights.
The issue of eligibility for election to the Codex Alimentarius Commission does not arise since membership in the Codex is open to all Member Nations, (and hence Member Organizations) that are interested in international food standards and which have notified the Directors-General of the FAO or WHO of their desire to be considered as members.
However, I would point out that the exercise of rights of membership may involve changes in the Rules of Procedure and working methods of such joint bodies. Thus, my opinion would be without prejudice to whatever procedural decisions may be required by the relevant intergovernmental bodies.
Now I turn to the second question. Forgive me for putting all this with some degree of formality, but these are important questions on which it is better to have a clear answer.
I should, perhaps, give a word of explanation about the so-called Vienna clause. This is the clause found at the end of most international agreements which specifies the states that are entitled to become parties to the agreement. The normal wording refers to states that are members of the United Nations, any of the Specialized Agencies, or of the IAEA. The question is, how would the assimilation clause in the proposed amendments to the FAO Constitution, that is the provision that reads, “Except as otherwise expressly provided, any reference to Member Nation in this Constitution shall include any Member Organization”, how does this affect the Vienna clause? More particularly, if the Constitution of FAO indicates references to Member Nations should include Member Organizations, would this mean that the reference to any state that is a member of any specialized agency in the Vienna Clause would automatically include any Member Organization of FAO?
The answer to this is, no. The assimilation clause is merely a drafting technique to avoid having to spell out in the Constitution the words and “Member Organization” in every Article. It does not mean, however, that every member will be equated for all purposes with a Member Nation. Its scope is specifically related to the FAO Constitution itself. It would thus apply only within the framework of the Constitution and to any subsidiary or joint subsidiary body established within that framework from time to time. It would apply to the Codex Alimentarius Commission and the CFA which are joint subsidiary bodies of FAO. The effect of the assimilation clause would not extend beyond the confines of the Constitution and would thus have no effect on the Vienna Clause which would remain limited to states.
I wish to add I have consulted the United Nations Legal Counsel on this matter and the above opinion is shared by him. This Is the reason I am reading it because I have faxed it to him and have his agreement here that this represents a shared opinion of the United Nations and of FAO. I think this also indicates how closely we are cooperating on a day-to-day basis with the United Nations, and the Legal Counsel in particular, on all of these matters to ensure we do not set precedents which are in any way misleading for the United Nations. I hope that will answer fully the question from the United States. I am sorry for the length of time it has taken, but it is an important question and something which needs to be settled.
If I can turn now to some further questions. Japan asked a question about the United Nations Advisers’ Meeting. I think I have answered that. There will be another meeting about September and I hope we will fully discuss all these matters at that meeting.
Zambia asked about the interpretation of the rule on the majority for the admission of new members. A two-thirds majority is required. The Chairman has already answered this. It needs half of the membership present. Half of the FAO membership has to be present at the meeting which takes this decision with a two-thirds majority, I should indicate that the majority of votes cast is defined in the General Rules as meaning a majority of affirmative and negative votes; not counting abstentions or absences.
Nicaragua asked for clarification of the committees that Member Organizations will be entitled to participate in. I think we have clearly stated that they would not be entitled to participate in those committees of the Organization which deal with the institutional life of the Organization - that is, the Programme and Finance Committees, the CCLM, the General Committee of the Conference, and so on, but would be entitled to participate in any other committees - for instance, those dealing with technical and technical policy questions. They would not be additional members, as I think you understand, but they would exercise the rights of their Member States to participate in the discussions in those bodies. It is the opinion of the CCLM, and this appears in their report, that these countries should be entitled to participate in the drafting committees, but on the same basis as they would participate in technical meetings. They would participate in matters within their competence. Basically, wherever they would speak in a technical meeting they would also deal with those matters in the drafting committee. That is a suggestion made by the CCLM.
I hope that answers all of the questions raised, or at least gives a response to them. I am sorry for the length of this intervention, but I would like to make one final point. The very distinguished delegate of Colombia said yesterday he thought we were really not far from reaching a measure of consensus agreement on the main elements of the proposal. I would just say that having listened to the debate, I was encouraged by the fact that broadly speaking there is a considerable measure of agreement. It is an important and exciting moment for the Organization where we are in fact setting the lead for the whole of the United Nations System, and it is good to know that the United Nations System itself feels that fundamentally we are on the right track.
I gain a sense from the meeting that people here do not wish to stop the process at this moment. A number of countries have reservations, and points they wish to see clarified. A number of delegates wished to say that we cannot yet take the final decision; we cannot yet say we agree to everything that is in these amendments, this is not our final political statement. But I have not yet heard anyone who says they wish to stop the process at this point. It seems there is agreement that we should carry on, but we need to identify those particular issues which need to be looked at a little more closely.
A number of those issues - and one I have already mentioned, the question of concurrent competence and speaking rights on matters of concurrent competence - these are matters emminently resolvable. The question is, if we can formulate the questions and indicate the areas where people wish to reserve their position - these need to be looked at more closely. Perhaps the CCLM can look, with the participation of those regions not represented on the CCLM, more closely into these areas and recommend directly to the Conference the various proposals.
LE PRESIDENT: Je crois que vous avez répondu de manière très complete et très claire à une série de questions qui ont été posées. Vos réponses ne sont peut-être pas de nature à satisfaire l’ensemble des intervenants, amis je crois que le problème qui nous est pose n’est pas un problème de fond. Nous avons à nous prononcer sur le fait, et c’est la seule question qui est soumise au Conseil, suivant: faut-il laisser la porte ouverte pour pousser la discussion plus avant au sein des différents organes, c’est-à-dire au sein du Comité des questions constitutionnelles et juridiques qui, normalemëtit, tient sa session formelle en septembre ou octobre, et au sein du prochaln Conseil pour la presentation à la Conference?
Là, je crois que le problème est très clair, et je demanderai maintenant aux membres du Conseil d’intervenir à nouveau, mais je crois qu’il serait plus utile qu’ils puissent intervenir après que le Représentant de la Commission de la communauté économique européenne, ait peut-être fourni des complements de réponses à des questions qui ont été posées. Les questions ont été nombreuses et multiples et je crois que les débats ultérieurs de notre Conseil - c’est la proposition que je peux faire - seraient plus opérationnels si la Communauté avait l’occasion de répondre à un certain nombre de questions concretes, precises et opérationnelles, parce qu’en fait il y a un double problème: comment, dans l’hypothèse où les textes seraient amendés, et dans l’hypothèse, seconde, où la Conférence se
prononcerait sur une demande d’adhesion qui serait introduite par la Communauté, en pratique le système pourrait fonctionner? II y a une autre question, plus politique et qui me parait fondamentale, qui est celle qui a été posée par l’Ambassadeur de Colombie: pourquoi? Je crois qu’il faut répondre à la question politique du pourquoi, mais qu’il faut aussi répondre aux questions pratiques sur lesquelles je crois beaucoup de membres du Conseil souhaiteraient recevoir un certain nombre d’éclaircissements.
F.C. PRILLEVITZ (Netherlands): I can be brief, not only because we have had a full explanation from the Legal Counsel - and I must say that it is rather nice to see a legal officer getting excited: - but also because in my position we have to characterize the situation, which is that there were negotiations between the FAO Secretariat and the EEC Commission. I shall give my impression of the debate which we had yesterday and today, and then indicate certain questions. I shall then ask you to give the floor to the representative of the Commission.
Like Mr Moore, I would like to thank the Council for the very constructive debate on this item. The Community also feels encouraged by this debate, because I noted that it became clear that in the first place there was general support for the idea of the accession of the EEC - or let me say that the political principle of accession is acceptable to everybody in this Council. Secondly, the sui generis type of membership for the EEC was supported, since it was known to this Council that no new membership category is required, and the EEC agrees totally with a sui generis participation. Thirdly, there was general support for the principle of alternative exercise of rights and obligations.
Having said that, I realize that there are still a number of questions awaiting answer. I recognized three categories of questions addressed to the EEC - no, two - the third, relating to different other types of regional economic integration organizations, has already been answered by Mr Moore. The other two were, first, questions with regard to the matter of competences - full and concurrent competences, and the desire, or demand, of the Council to have a list of such competences, and second, questions relating to working mechanisms: Who is going to speak in meetings here? -Who is going to vote in meetings of the FAO?
For the answer to those kinds of questions, and to questions of a more technical nature, I would like to ask you, Mr Chairman, to give the floor to the representative of the Commission.
M.L. BOSSLLI (EEC): Thank you very much for giving us the floor to participate in this absolutely fascinating debate, and to try to answer the numerous questions that have been raised.
Before doing that, I would like to say two things.
First of all, an expression of gratitude and a vote of thanks for the great attention which has been devoted to our demand, our aspiration, to come into this Organization. The number, the quality, of interventions, and especially the homework both in Rome and in the various capitals which went into these interventions, is something which profoundly honours the European Community. I am profoundly grateful for that.
Then, I would like to express humility. Humility, because, in spite of our considerable economic weight we are not - far from it! - a State. We should not pretend we are a state; we shall not pretend we are a state.
Humility, because we are before the unknown. We are building new paths in international law and practice. We do not have criteria for them; we do not have precedents for them. We are - as in the marvellous Spanish poem - like the walker who creates the path by walking - “Caminante, no hay camino, se hace camino al andar”. This is a very important lesson in humility for us.
Humility, thirdly, because I know that I will not be able to answer all the questions satisfactorily.
I very much thank the Legal Counsel of the FAO for having done such great work before I took the floor, and in general I can say at the beginning that we fully agree with what has been said in the name of the Legal Counsel of FAO.
Let us now come onto the details.
The first, and perhaps easiest, question is the one raised by the United States and Canada delegations, and already answered quite fully by the Legal Counsel of FAO. We agree with the basic assumption that there is no automatic projection of the assimilation clause. Perhaps it is a legal nuance; I would not say that it is a matter of drafting technique. I think it is a substantial assimilation within the Statutes of the FAO, but we agree with the substance.
I shall now read you a declaration in this regard: We think that the quality of membership of FAO will not automatically lead the European Community to enter into conferences or conventions the content of which does not fall within its competence. Indeed, the EEC does not expect to avail itself of this new quality to change existing practices, providing for express mention in the final clauses of international legal instruments of EEC accession to them.
As far as the internal bodies of the family of FAO are concerned, I would not like to add much to what has been said by the Legal Counsel. I think that we will certainly contemplate with favour participation in the Codex Alimentarius and in the Committee on Food Aid Policies, provided that this is acceptable to everybody else and that the right modifications and amendments of the appropriate text are made in time.
Mr Chairman, I think you put the basic question to the debate, and I certainly would not like to avoid giving an answer to that. The question is: Why is the European Community asking to accede as a member of the FAO? The answer is both institutional and political. Institutional, because the
bulk of competences transferred to the Community is very important in proportion to the work of the Organization. This transfer is exclusive, and in our thinking, irreversable. We have a duty to exert these competences. We think that the present statute in the Organization, while convenient of the situation we had many years ago, is not sufficient any more to ensure the complete exercise of our competences. Therefore, we thought that we have to apply for a better status, as close as possible to full membership.
Of course, there is a political implication in it. We think that by acceding to FAO, we will certainly promote our international identity, and perhaps, as a whole, be more helpful to the developing world. In this sense we have already - and I shall come back to this - concluded an agreement with FAO for increasing our cooperation with Member States.
Sui generis: As has been said by the Chairman, this is the key phrase of our accession. We think that this is very important, but at the same time we think that it has perhaps been embodied already in the modifications that we have negotiated.
Let me take a very important point made by the Brazilian delegation - for once, it has not been taken up by Mr Moore! The point was that we may be establishing a precedent in the sense that a member of FAO would have twelve votes. To me, there is a slight degree of contradiction in the fact that the Brazilian delegation is rightly asking for a sui generis participation of the Community, and at the same time is suggesting that the European Community would have twelve votes. In fact, these twelve votes do not belong to the European Community - they belong to Member States. If we are setting any precedent in this case, it is for a member having no vote at all. In fact, let us see what the situation is of this new member. It has no vote. Without anticipating its participation, it cannot participate in debates. It has to found its participation on some legal basis and specify by declaring competences why they want to participate and how they want to participate. It cannot be elected to any office. It does not participate in restrictive bodies dealing with the institutional life of FAO. If ever the FAO produces new conventions, conditions have to be imposed to participate, as opposed to Member States that can freely enter into these conventions. So I think that this is a very sui generis picture of membership, and I wonder whether by adding mew conditions we are not having something more comparable to a ghost membership instead of a full membership, instead of a sui generis membership or an alternative membership.
On a point which is very important - and I think, in fact, it is the only outstanding difficult point which we have - concerning the participation whenever there are concurrent competences, I think that we are open to finding the right drafting in the possible new works which are announced. I must say two things. First of all, by preparing ourselves for a possible accession, we have worked out in Brussels a procedure by which we pursue two objectives. The first objective is to have, in all cases of concurrent competences, a common position of the Community and its member states. The second objective is that this common position should be delivered by one spokesman. As I say, these are objectives. Especially the second is completed by the possibility of further interventions aimed at specifying points, completing and giving more details on that position. Therefore, I
think that our work to find the correct drafting should be commanded by two main criteria. One is that we should not apply too rigidly the principle of alternativity, in the sense that we cannot in all cases have just one speaking. We have to allow for the possibility of more speakers taking the floor. The second criterion, a negative one, is that we should never go beyond the present rights. So we have to find a solution which will give us enough rights to express with one voice, perhaps completed by further interventions, our position, but never going beyond the twelve interventions which are now possible.
There is an important point on this which I would like to make. It is the right of information in FAO. Many concurrent competences, especially cooperation with development, environment and so on, are, it seems, where correct information in FAO is essential. I think that by reducing strictly the right of intervention of the European side, the European family, the community of member states, we are possibly reducing this right of information of all the delegations of FAO within these themes.
Let me now go, if you will allow me, to the very touchy problem of the list of competences. I have great sympathy with the request which has been practically made by all delegations for a more detailed declaration on the side of a community. I think we have to give the greatest attention to this point. I am very much impressed by the suggestion which has been made by the Legal Counsel of the FAO, and we certainly want to give thought to it. It is the functional working of this list. I think, in fact, he is right; we cannot perhaps go much further in detailing that list, but we can certainly make an effort to translate that list into what is functionally the case of debates in various committees. We are absolutely ready to do that. Of course, I cannot do it now, but certainly we will try to make the effort in the next few weeks.
I would like now to say a few words on some other points which have been raised by various delegations. The first is, how would the European Community behave in this august body once they are in? It is difficult to know, but there is one thing I would like to say to reassure some delegations. It is that we would certainly behave in a multilateral way. There would be absolutely no division, no discrimination, no privilege towards one or the other region of the world. We would fully play the multilateral game which is played in this room. We would be present through and with the FAO in all the regions of the world. This is also the objective which we pursue with the cooperation agreement which we signed ten days ago. We want to be present with FAO. We want to create a sort of virtuous circle of reciprocal potentiation of work between the European Community and FAO, especially on the spot, especially in the field. As you know, one of the important features of this agreement is the fact that our delegations on the spot, in the field, in the developing countries, and the representative of FAO must consult each other in all projects.
There are some questions which have been answered in the same debate, oddly enough. Some said that perhaps the question of accession of regional integration organizations has not yet been fully explored, it is somewhat premature to find a conclusion, and one should wait for new light to be shed on the problem. It has been very well answered by at least two interventions, one which was made in the name of the Nordic countries,
where it was underscored that it is now two years that we have been working on this. The other, I think it was Ambassador Bula Hoyos from Colombia who also said that we have come very close to an understanding on this matter, and in any case that the problem has been considered for a long time. We also think that we should now try to find a conclusion to this debate. This is not to say that we don’t want to accept new discussions. We are ready to listen to all the points. We are ready to find solutions for all outstanding points, but we do not think that we can really postpone the decision. Therefore, we are very grateful to the Council for proposing to the Conference at the right time the amendment which will render possible this accession.
It is true that we will not participate directly in the financing, in the running budget of FAO for the moment. It is true that we want to participate in the work of the Organization, in the structural work of the Organization. It is true that we want to create synergies with FAO, and it is absolutely true that we certainly do not want to weigh on the costs. So we accepted to participate in the administrative costs, and indeed it will be the Conference which will decide the amount. We will certainly abide by the decision of the Conference.
There is a last point, and it concerns other regional organizations. I think that there is no entity of international law which can really be more clear on this point than ourselves. Since the resolution of the European Council of 16 April 1974, we have decided, as a matter of policy of the European Community, to support and to financially support and to politically support and to economically support all efforts of regional integration in the whole world. Therefore, we think that our accession should not be considered as a unique phenomenon. We are absolutely in favour of other regional integration organizations, be they in Latin America, be they in Africa, be they in Asia, the Maghreb, are absolutely entitled to follow the same path. We would be proud to see other organizations accede to the FAO, and I can assure you, in the name of the European Commission and indeed in the name of the European Community, that we would certainly support their demands for accession.
I think that in the way of conclusion I want to express once again our gratitude to you, to the Legal Counsel and to the Council in general for giving such a great amount of attention to our aspiration.
LE PRESIDENT: Nous avons entendu les réponses fournies par M. Moore. Le débat est loin d’être clos et nous aurons l’occasion de l’examiner sous toutes ses facettes.
Je voudrais vous faire part des sentiments personnels de votre Président, mais je voudrais d’abord vous demander de ne pas commencer le débat sur les réponses qui ont été données maintenant.
Je vous demanderai l’autorisation d’envisager - on en a parlé à diverses reprises - la création d’un groupe, que vous baptiserez groupe de travail ou groupe ouvert, qui examinerait le point en question. II faut être très clair, nous ne decidons rien ni sur la modification des textes qui relève de la competence de la Conference, ni sur la demande éventuelle d’adhésion
de la Communauté économique européenne, qui relève également de la Conference et uniquement de sa competence. Mais nous devons discuter sur le plan juridique pour savoir s’il faut laisser la porte ouverte pour de futurs éclaircissements, discussions, négociations au sein du Comité des questions constitutionnelles et juridiques lors de la lOOème session du Conseil et en fonction de la Conference.
Il est important de dire à propos de ce point de procedure, qui est un point d’ordre juridique parce qu’il faut quand même se mettre d’accord sur un certain nombre d’elements de droit, il est important de dire qu’il est difficile d’en discuter au sein du Conseil. Un certain nombre de membres du Comité des questions constitutionnelles et juridiques sont également membres du Conseil. Certains pays se sont plaints de n’avoir pas pu participer aux travaux d’un important Comité qui est un Comité fermé. Grâce à l’extreme obligeance du President du Comité des questions constitutionnelles et juridiques, il serait intéressant et utile que sous sa présidence un groupe puisse se réunir, groupe qui comprendrait des membres du Comité des questions constitutionnelles et juridiques, élargi à un certain nombre de pays, mais pas trop, qui en cours de débat ont manifesté leur très vif intérêt au point qui nous est actuellement sounds. Je songe notamment au Brésil, je songe au Japon, peut-être à la Malaisie. Les Etats-Unis d’Amérique sont presents au Comité.
On pourrait peut-être réfléchir d’ici 14 h 30 et reprendre notre seance. Deux orateurs ont déjà manifesté le souhait de s’exprimer, le Brésil et l’Argentine. Nous pourrions également écouter notre Conseiller juridique et proposer la reunion de ce groupe ouvert, sur lequel vous allez decider, à 15 heures cet après-midi. Il faudrait done reprendre la seance à 14 h 30 precises et pour 15 heures organiser cette reunion sous la présidence de l’Ambassadeur Fotis Poulides, de façon à savoir si on laisse ou si on ne laisse pas la porte ouverte, également si elle doit être ouverte, ainsi, ainsi ou ainsi, étant entendu qu’à ce stade il n’y a pas de decision à prendre.
Il faudra répondre à un certain nombre de questions posées par certains pays concernant un aspect politique. Mais il ne faut pas discuter de cet aspect politique. La question m’avait été posée par certains: quand on parle de communauté économique, qui, à partir du moment où elle a des competences propres, devient une communauté politique, de quelle communauté politique s’agit-il et quel doit être demain le vrai visage de cette communauté? C’est un débat important que nous devons avoir et nous devons éclaircir encore quelques zones d’ombre.
Je vous proposerais maintenant de lever la seance, de la reprendre à h 30 precises en entendant le Brésil, l’Argentine et les Etats-Unis. Nous adopterions ensuite la formule du Working Group qui se réunirait vers heures sous la présidence de M. Poulides.
The meeting rose at 12.30 hours
La séance est levée à 12 h 30
Se levanta la sesión a las 12.30 horas
