Ms Turid KONGSVIK (Norway): I am afraid I will have to start by deploring the very late arrival of this document. As far as I understand, it arrived in our pigeon holes yesterday and I got it this morning, so we have not really been able to study it thoroughly enough, and we have not been able either to discuss it with the various actors involved at home in UN emergency activities. We would still like to make a few comments on the document.
I would like to underline that Norway, like the other Nordic countries, is very much engaged in strengthening in general the UN system and its integrated response to emergencies, and we have been pushing for this Resolution, which was approved in the ECOSOC. The goal is of course to address weaknesses and shortcomings in the present set-up of the system, both at the agency level and in the system as such.
This exercise has a value per se because it allows the various actors, the UN agencies and organizations involved in this sort of activities, to demonstrate their ability to reorient themselves towards a more cooperative and integrated approach to cooperating in the UN system, and to get away from the sometime plagues of the various UN organizations in terms of wanting to go it alone, to suffering more or less from a complex of superiority towards their sister organizations and from the inability to see that the UN System's credibility now more than ever depends upon the ability of the system as such to work together.
Having said this, I find the document interesting in the description it gives of the FAO Secretariat's perceptions of its roles, functions and performance in relation to emergencies. I cannot agree with the US that the document is excellent because I think it has quite a few weaknesses.
First of all, in the description of its role and its operational responsibilities, it is very much taking as a point of departure its mandate, which is important, of course, but with the competitive climate prevailing now, it is not enough to be able to show only the mandate. It is also necessary to have a record to refer to.
The description concentrates very much on FAO as an actor almost in splendid isolation, instead of taking as a point of departure FAO as one actor in a system-wide effort.
You could be forgiven for believing that this paper was answering a question on how we became perfect, because there are very few references to any shortcomings and weaknesses here, and that was actually the point of departure. There are some problems, also at the system level ~ gaps in functions which are not clearly defined as being in the purview of any organization. There is a lack of cooperative mechanisms: various other issues which pertain to these problems should have been addressed and they are not really addressed in this paper. For example, I think the problem which the paper addresses specifically is resource mobilization. Here the paper recognizes that there is a problem. That is in paragraph 30. The Secretariat correctly points to the fact that donors more easily provide food than inputs such as seeds, agricultural inputs, and so on. That is certainly true and that is a problem, but FAO seems to put all the blame on the donors, and I would like to come back with a question: Could it be that FAO itself could do more? I must say that in my direct contact with FAO in this respect, I have found that those who are involved in the emergency activities are very much penalized by being in a more sedate environment, a long-term normative
culture, and are not so used to the rapid-response alertness which has to be a prevailing character of this sort of activity.
To the extent that we get requests-- and here I must open a parenthesis (On various occasions, we have gone to FAO and asked "Do you need funds for this or that?"; they have never asked us. It has also arrived that other UN organizations have come to us and said "Could you give FAO resources for this or that activity?", which we have not been asked for. ) -- when we get requests, they are often in the same form as correspondence we have with other Ministries and other officers in our administration which is more related to long-term activities. Those who deal with emergencies are very busy people, they need pinpointed information, easily accessible and very open. You have to read 60 pages to know what the main issues are when you get these requests from FAO.
So I think that, on this particular point, FAO has got something to learn from the other UN Agencies, which are more operational in their total activities, and they should perhaps see whether they can learn something from them.
By the way, I also would like to recognize, of course, that FAO, in many areas related to emergencies, does an excellent job. That is, of course, true for the early warning functions. We rejoice together with the Secretariat at the universal recognition given to FAO for the excellent work done in this field. We do it all the more so since this is one of the endeavours, the common endeavours, together with other UN organizations, that seems to go on in perfect harmony and with a very good end result in conjunction with the World Food Programme.
We were happy to note that FAO has had very high marks for what they have done on the Relief Web. I can see here that the Organization's input has been cited as an example to follow by other agencies. This is very appreciable and we congratúlate FAO on this but, again, we think in other areas improvements are possible.
I would also like to address an issue relating to resource mobilization, which is taken up in point 46 of this paper: that is, the question of establishing a multi-donor revolving fund to be replenished. The idea at the outset is surely a good one: it is not clear whether this is again solely an FAO initiative or if this is something which you discussed with the rest of the UN system and that you will do in cooperation.
I think it is proper to draw attention to the fact that the number of true multilateral donors to the UN system in general, and to emergencies in particular, is vanishing. I think it is more or less the Nordic countries and the Netherlands which are giving non-earmarked contributions to emergencies, and I think it is not possible to expect that these countries continue to bear the multilateral burden, so to speak, while all the rest of the world earmarks their contribution.
So, in terms of pragmatism, the possibility of FAO exploring earmarked funds should be looked into in order to get more.
I would also like to ask whether the Secretariat could be more specific on the results of the Netherlands' evaluation of the FAO Special Relief Operation, which is referred to in paragraph 34. This is mentioned here but there is no indication of the result of the evaluation. Perhaps the Secretariat could go into this, and possibly it could be supplemented by information form the Netherlands if they would be so kind as to share their experience with us in this regard.
Aidan O'DRISCOLL (Ireland): Firstly, I would like to agree with Norway in relation to the late arrival of the document. The combination of the late arrival of the document and the moving forward of this session, in fact, has caused us quite a few difficulties. We are not in a position to give a very detailed consideration of this document.
Nevertheless, Ireland would wish to welcome the report, however late it has arrived. The timely and effective provision of emergency humanitarian assistance is one of the most important challenges facing the international community. This also involves, of course, preventing humanitarian disasters, including a long-term development perspective in response to emergencies, even at an early stage.
Our central objective is to ensure a timely, coherent and coordinated response from the international community to humanitarian emergencies. We and our partners in the European Union welcomed the Secretary-General's report of the 1996 Substantive Session of ECOSOC, on implementation of Resolution 1995/96 and, in particular, the establishment of an Inter-Agency Task Force to follow up the issues raised in the Resolution.
The report before us today is a useful summary of FAO's own response to the recommendations made in the Resolution.
Ireland would wish to highlight the importance of two important elements in the report.
In respect of prevention of humanitarian disasters, it is important that FAO develop, to the greatest extent possible, a comprehensive programme to address the underlying structural causes of humanitarian crisis through, inter alia, human resource development and institution building.
Secondly, and very importantly, agricultural emergency activities operated by the Special Relief Operations Service (TCOR) should involve full coordination with UN agencies and others on the ground, as well as with donors.
We wish to stress, Chairman, the critical importance of a full UN system-wide coordinated response to deal effectively with humanitarian crises.
Subject to these points, Chairman, Ireland welcomes the report before Council and urges full and rigorous implementation of the operational priorities outlined in it.
Ralph BRESLER (United States of America): I found Norway's remarks interesting and provocative. I would like to state that, in our case, I am not aware of any shortcomings in FAO's work on emergencies.
I also would note that Norway talked about the need to coordinate efforts in the lead of reforming the UN system. It appears to us, however, that there is also an issue of duplication of effort. The question is, should FAO mount a major effort to get into operational activities in emergency relief? I am not a specialist in the fíeld but my opinion would be that this would not be wise, that a part of UN reform is avoiding duplication of effort, having organizations do what they do best and not try to duplicate each other. I would argue that, in the case of FAO, a very key role is early warning in which, I think all of us agree, they have done a wonderful job, and I think they will continue to do so in the future.
As far as contributions to emergency efforts, the United States continues to be a leading donor in this area. Fortunately, the problems we have with the Congress so far have not extended to emergency work where, I think, we can still be proud of our efforts. Whether our funds are armarked or not is not terribly important, I would argüe. I think that, by its very nature, contributions for emergency work will have to be country-specific and ad hoc. I would question hether revolving funds would be able to attract donor interest. I think, unfortunately, the way things work, most donors will be giving to specific emergencies, not putting money up front for the next one -- things just do not seem to work that way
Nils-Arne KATSBERG (Observador de Suecia): Como los oradores anteriores, lamentamos que este documento nos llegara tarde. Un tema de esta dignidad, merece una más amplia preparación e incluso un proceso de consultas previas con otros colegas.
Habiendo dicho esto, paso al inglés, (continues in English)
Sweden appreciates that the FAO Secretariat is following up this decision by ECOSOC. The intention is that each board of relevant organizations of the UN system, that each of the boards clarifies the role of each organization, the role that they have in response to various humanitarian situations, and establishes the extent of operational responsibility that their respective organization should assume. The idea is basically that it should not be a CNN-type effect that responds, but that there is an extent of operational responsibility in trying, within the framework of the mandate of different organizations, to ensure an initial response to many humanitarian situations.
On this basis of a definition of the role and operational responsibility, the issue of capacity, whether that relates to human or financial resources, can be discussed.
This decision by ECOSOC also places responsibility on Member Nations to follow up these issues, in a coherent and coordinated manner, in the relevant boards of the UN system organizations.
Turning to the role of FAO, the work of FAO in the prevention areas is well-known and well- established. The Global Early Warning Information system, as my Norwegian colleague and others have mentioned, with its reports, provides a valuable contribution to the UN System Early Warning Information and Analysis. FAO also has a clear role with regard to prevention and control of pest and disease emergencies.
In complex humanitarian emergencies, a number of agencies are involved in providing humanitarian assistance. However, the FAO role in these types of situations, and its relationship with the main humanitarian agencies, need considerable further development in the document presented by FAO. Our colleague from the US was just raising the issue of duplication of work. We have actually many agencies which purchase seed but do not necessarily have the expertise or technical knowledge to know what is the right type of seed that needs to be purchased. That technical knowledge exists within FAO. How can there be a communication link between the technical knowledge in this Organization and those that are involved in the immediate response?
Therefore, the FAO document provides a description of its present activities in the broad spectrum - - from prevention through humanitarian assistance to rehabilitation and development - but it does not describe the interface between FAO technical guidance and the UN operational agencies, such as UNHCR, UNICEF and WFP.
We would recommend that these issues that have been raised in the ECOSOC Resolution be dealt with in greater detail. The difficulty we have, in terms of when the board here could deal with this, is that the Secretary-General has been requested to present, by the summer of 1997, a report that identifies and tries to define the operational responsibilities of different agencies, as identified by the respective boards, and the types of measures that are required within each of the organizations to strengthen their capacities. Therefore we may have to have some dialogue with the FAO Secretariat to see how we could arrive at some good input into the Secretary-General's report with regard to FAO's input into that report.
One of the areas therefore that needs to be worked upon by FAO is the question of the relationship between FAO and agencies such as UNHCR, UNICEF and the World Food Programme, on what I would call borderline issues - the issues that fall between chairs. This, as the US colleague was saying, to avoid duplication, and as my Norwegian colleague was saying, in order to ensure a system-wide coordinated response.
So, there are issues related to that. What is the staffing and financial capacity of FAO to provide immediate technical guidance on seed purchase, to take one example? Are there memoranda of understanding detailing the respective responsibilities and cooperation modalities between these agencies and FAO and their active development, or could such a process be speeded up?
A second area relates to options on the FAO role and capacity to contribute to agricultural rehabilitation, as soon as possible after an emergency. How could we avoid long lead periods? Immediately after the emergency, we need a response but, as was also raised by a previous speaker, we need to avoid the long lead periods that are inherent in normal long-term development work. Other possibilities and options are using global resources from the regular budget to be combined with, as suggested, some type of revolving fund provided voluntarily by donors.
What is the role of FAO on environmental damage assessment? In many humanitarian situations, a major impact on the environment is caused by the lack of the provision of fuel for refugees or internally-displaced persons. What are the options in that area? Who could assume greater responsibilities in that area? They do not need to be responsibilities of FAO, they could be of other agencies, but FAO may point out the problem or a deficiency in the way the international community responds to the emergency situations affecting Member Nations.
Therefore, to summarize, we believe that, in these areas that we and other colleagues have outlined, FAO may need some further thinking. We should find forms of dialogue and some form of endorsement, in conjunction with the Council in June, that would enable us to provide a significant and substantive input to the Secretary-General's report on how the system-wide response to humanitarian emergencies should be redressed to avoid duplication of efforts and, at the same time, a coordinated and quick response, ensuring that the options on financial capacity include suggestions on the use of regular budget resources and not only voluntarily-funded trust funds.
EL PRESIDENTE: Sus dotes políglotas son verdaderamente excepcionales y le agradezco por haberse referido al principio en español.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: First, I wish to apologise for the late distribution of the document. I personally will take the responsibility for that. I simply could not get it cleared in a timely fashion, so I apologise.
I appreciate very much the comments that have been made about the global information and early warning system as has been reported to the Council by a number of Members. That system is well established. It continúes to be improved but, in fact, already plays an extremely important role in connection with humanitarian assistance.
The outputs from the joint FAO/WFP missions to countries where there are difficult situations is used in the Consolidated inter-agency appeals. In every case, the Organization has the responsibility for clearing the food supply information that is provided to all donors. The reason it can do that, is that over the last 20 years, the methodology, the guidelines, the approach have been widely discussed with experts from Member Nations with relevant experience.
So, the only related matter to that part of our role that I would mention, is Relief Web. Relief Web is taking the Global Information and Early Warning System output, as an input into its broader early warning system that covers things other than food supplies. I would point out that most of the work of the global information and early warning system is funded from the Regular Programme. Very little of it is extra-budgetary. We have had some support from Non-Governmental Organizations for the system but almost all of the activities of the Global Information and Early Warning System are from the Regular Programme.
I want now to turn to the second of the three major legs of our humanitarian activities: Agricultural Relief and Rehabilitation and then, I will come to the longer term rehabilitation to get back on the path of development.
Agricultural Relief and Rehabilitation, as has been mentioned, is the area where we have great difficulty in obtaining the resources needed for the producers of food to move quickly in the aftermath of an emergency to produce food. It is widely known, among the donors and certainly within the UN system, that this is the most cost-effective work that can possibly be undertaken. A bag of seed returns many bags of food and, therefore, makes it possible to minimise the food aid needs in the subsequent year. As I say it is a most cost-effective activity.
Nevertheless, in the present climate we hardly ever are able to obtain the resources needed for agricultural relief and immediate recovery in the aftermath of a disaster. We seek to provide the same service on assessing agricultural relief and immediate needs, as we do for the community, at large, with respect to food supplies. I will not say that we are there yet, but it is clear that there is nobody else in the system that is doing comprehensive agricultural relief needs assessments. We do one, at every occasion, before a decision is taken on what we could do with our own resources or in connection with appeals.
I would point out that in the Consolidated Inter-agency appeals, the project profíles that are prepared by FAO are based upon an assessment in country. You will notice, if you are familiar with those appeals, that the only appeals for agricultural relief and rehabilitation are made by FAO. The others, UNHCR, World Food Programme, UNICEF, do not appeal in the Consolidated appeals for agricultural seeds or fertilizer or other essential inputs, or vaccines for animals and so forth.
In the early stages of DHA you did in fact see some others appealing but DHA monitors this. Now, that does not mean, that FAO is the only agency that is providing agricultural relief and rehabilitation at the country level. In the normal situation we are not even the major player. At the present time, the country receives assistance on a bilateral basis or it receives assistance from donors through Non-Governmental organizations, or from the International Committee of the Red Cross, and from the UN system.
Turning now to coordination, at the global level, in my view, this is arranged in a better fashion than anything else that we are involved in. The Inter-Agency Standing Committee, a Committee at the Under-Secretary General level, was established in response to the General Assembly Resolution in 1991.
FAO has been a Member ever since then but the clear advantage that this Committee has is that it includes the International Committee of the Red Cross and Red Crescént Societies, as well as the IMO and other NGOs. The Non-Governmental community has increasingly been represented on the Committee. So, it is a very broad-based Committee, that operates within the context of the UN system. It gives us an opportunity to have continuous dialogue with our main partners.
FAO's specific role on Agricultural Relief and Rehabilitation has been alluded to by the observer from Sweden. We have an advantage in that we do have a technical capability, and as the document indicates, we do provide procurement services and we offer procurement services to others that are participating in the process, including the Non-Governmental Organizations. That service is available. In any case, anything that this Organization is involved in is checked for the technical standards with the technical units and technical officers of the Organization, be it animal health or plant production.
In complex emergency situations, as distinct from response to a flood or cyclone, we normally use TCP resources, in other words, Regular Programme resources, to provide a coordinating mechanism in the country. This system at the local level provides the opportunity, working closely
with the government, to collaborate on the coordination and implementation of the agricultural relief and the rehabilitation efforts.
The point was made by the representative from Cameroon about the need for lead agency. This is a topic that continues to be discussed. In general the lead agency for food aid tends to be, either, UNHCR or the World Food Programme, depending upon the situation. If they are refugees, its the UNHCR. Otherwise its the World Food Programme. We, as I say, tend to be within the UN system the lead agency for agricultural relief and rehabilitation.
Just a note on the revolving fund. I wanted to make sure that the representative from the United States understood that the proposal is for a revolving fund; its purpose is to be able to move more quickly in response to an emergency. Its not visualized as something that will augment the total resources. We have to do that through convincing people that this is a high pay-off activity.
Finally, I wanted to express appreciation to the Netherlands for financing the review that is referenced in the document. I must say this was very helpful to us, in having a comprehensive review of the activities, particularly the agricultural relief and rehabilitation work. They gave us good recommendations on how to strengthen that work. We have already implemented some of the recommendations and the Netherlands offered to utilise the last four or five days of the consultant's time to help us prepare a mission statement for humanitarian activities and we are appreciative of that.
The final point, there was a question about the assessment of environmental needs. These are covered in the document with respect to the longer-term rehabilitation missions that go into the country when an emergency activity is underway.
EL PRESIDENTE: Muchas gracias, señor Hjort, por esta exhaustiva y comprensiva respuesta a las diversas preguntas y planteamientos. Si no hay otro delegado que desee tomar la palabra, me voy a permitir muy brevemente resumir los debates sobre el Tema 9 de la siguiente manera.
El Consejo acogió con beneplácito el informe contenido en el documento CL 111/16, y el Consejo felicitó a la FAO por su trabajo en la realización de la ayuda alimentaria de urgencia, socorro, rehabilitación y desarrollo. Se le felicitó por su excelente labor en proveer servicios de alerta temprana; se indicó que esos servicios se habían aumentado en sofisticación y que se habían acumulado experiencias importantes en el esfuerzo de prevenir catástrofes. Se destacó, en ese sentido, que era importante continuar actuando en la prevención de crisis.
Se subrayó también, la función de asesoramiento de la FAO a países, para evitar tragedias y la coordinación de emergencias. Estos servicios, se indicó, debían potenciarse. Aunque se reconoció que había problemas, entre otros, de tipo operativo y de coordinación, se destacó la importante labor que tiene la FAO en el contexto de Naciones Unidas en materia de ayuda alimentaria, emergencia, rehabilitación y desarrollo.
Se indicó también la voluntad de varios países de continuar apoyando el financiamiento de estos servicios de ayuda y se insistió en la importancia de la evaluación apropiada para atraer una mayor asistencia de donantes, especialmente, la evaluación del alto costo de estos servicios que atienden emergencias en lugares remotos.
La importancia también de disponer de información más oportuna y completa de situaciones precarias en países que requieren de ayuda.
Se insistió en la necesidad de una mayor coordinación de la FAO con otras agencias, como el PMA, PNUD, UNICEF y otras del sistema de las Naciones Unidas; entre otras cosas con el propósito de evitar duplicaciones.
Al referirse a que todos los organismos de las Naciones Unidas tienen que identificar su responsabilidad operativa en lo referente a este tema, se destacó que era importante determinar el papel concreto de la FAO en la coordinación de las acciones de ayuda. Entre otras cosas, esta identificación del "actor principal" permitiría ayudar a desatar y coordinar las acciones de Organismos No Gubernamentales que también participan.
Se hicieron finalmente propuestas respecto a la posible utilidad de un fondo revolvente que permitiría reaccionar más rápidamente a urgencias.
Distinguidos delegados, hubo otras cuestiones aquí planteadas, el Comité de Redacción las tomará en cuenta. Con esto concluyo el tema 9 y si no hubiese otra observación, voy a permitir de inmediato pasar al tema 5. El Consejo le da la bienvenida y agradece al Director General por su presencia en esta ocasión. Con esto subraya la enorme importancia que tiene este tema y me voy a permitir, señor Director, pasarle de inmediato la palabra.
LE DIRECTEUR GENERAL: Je vous remercie M. le Président pour vos propos tres aimables et pour m'avoir accueilli á cette session du Conseil. J'ai cru devoir venir personnellement lors de l'examen de ce point de l'ordre du jour pour indiquer l'importance, qu'en tant que Directeur général, je me devais d'attacher á cette question, et vous rappeler que la Conférence de la FAO a décidé, á l'unanimité, la convocation, pour la premiére fois en cinquante ans de son histoire, d'une réunion de Chefs d'Etats et de gouvernements pour parler du probléme de la faim et de l'alimentation dans le monde; rappeler que depuis deux ans avec votre coopération et votre collaboration nous avons pu progresser et avons aujourd'hui toutes les indications que ce Sommet devrait étre un succés. Plus d'une centaine de Chefs d'Etats et de gouvernements ont déjá confirmé leur participation. Nous avons réussi á tenir dans de tres bonnes conditions nos cinq conférences régionales; cette fois, il y en a même eu six, puisque nous avons eu le plaisir de constater que l'Amérique du Nord avait organisé sa conférence régionale. Nous avons aussi bénéficié d'une participation extrêmement efficace des organisations non-gouvernementales. Aujourd'hui les contacts pris permettent aussi d'être assurés que les activités paralléles vont connaÎtre un succès. Les parlementaires du monde, lors de la réunion de l'union inter-parlementaire, à Istanbul, ont demandé à leurs membres de faire partie des délégations de leur pays qui vont venir au Sommet mondial de l'alimentation. En outre, il y a deux semaines, à leur réunion de Beijing, les parlementaires ont aussi adopté une résolution soutenant le Sommet mondial de l'alimentation et soutenant les actions pour assurer l'alimentation des 800 millions de personnes qui, à travers le monde, n'ont pas un accès adéquat à la nourriture, et aussi préconisant des mesures susceptibles d'assurer l'alimentation d'une population mondiale qui va atteindre 9 milliards de personnes en l'an 2030 contre les 5, 7 milliards d'aujourd'hui. Les jeunes aussi ont été associés à ce processus, et la plupart de vos pays ont organisé des concours dans des lycées qui ont permis de sensibiliser les jeunes aux problémes
alimentaires; des lauréats ont été sélectionnés et ils devraient venir à Rome pour débattre de ees problèmes, qui seront essentiellement les leurs en 2030. Nous avons obtenu un soutien extrémement important des Etats Membres dont les contributions volontaires ont dépassé de plusieurs fois les sommes mises en oeuvre dans le cadre du budget ordinaire de l'Organisation, ce qui est aussi une indication de l'engagement des pays à faire de ce Sommet un succès.
II nous reste aujourd'hui deux points fondamentaux: la Déclaration de politique générale et le Plan d'Action. Dans le programme qui était initialement envisagé, on avait prévu que ees documents seraient adoptés par le Comité de sécurité alimentaire en sa séance qui aurait dû se terminer vendredi, et qui s'est en réalité terminée le lundi. Malgré des succès réels puisque nous partions d'environ 800 crochets qui étaient indicatifs des divergences des différentes délégations nous avons pu arriver aux alentours de 200 crochets. Mais ce n'était pas cela l'objectif; l'objectif, c'était d'arriver á des textes approuvés, des textes de consensus que nous puissions envoyer à nos différents Etats Membres pour qu'avant leur arrivéeàRome, les Chefs d'Etats et de Gouvernements aient eu l'occasion de faire étudier ees documents au niveau national et d'être en mesure de les signer lors du Sommet. II faut done que nous prenions les dispositions nécessaires pour pouvoir faire terminer le travail inachevé. Et pour cela il faut que nous ayons des occasions de rencontre, de concertation, de dialogue, de discussion afin de pouvoir rapprocher les points de vue et d'arriver à un document de consensus. Je voudrais done demander à ce Conseil, qui avait fixé les dates de réunion du Comité de sécurité alimentaire, de bien vouloir prendre les décisions appropriées pour que de nouvelles occasions de concertation puissent permettre de faire avancer le travail. C'est le dernier obstacle, si je peux utiliser ce terme, qui se trouve sur le chemin du succès de ce Sommet sur lequel, vous et nous, avons travaillé avec beaucoup d'abnégation, avec beaucoup de conviction pendant deux ans, et qui devrait voir son couronnement au cours du mois prochain. Je suis naturellement à votre disposition pour apporter les éclaircissements qui pourraient se révéler útiles sur les modalités de telles rencontres et sur la contribution que le Secrétariat pourrait apporter en vue du succès de telles rencontres. Je vous remercie Monsieur le Président.
EL PRESIDENTE: Muchas gracias señor Director por esta importante declaración que estoy seguro guiará los debates del Consejo en esta segunda fase del tema 5 de la Orden del Día. Como había yo manifestado al principio de nuestros trabajos, este Consejo creo que debe tomar nota con preocupación del estado en que han quedado las cosas en el Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria que ha interrumpido sus trabajos y que, si bien ha tenido, como ustedes lo han expresado, avances muy importantes, no los ha concluido como esta previsto, con el propósito de animar una Cumbre Mundial con textos preparados que los Jefes de Estado tuvieran ante sí para firmarlos, pero además de todo, les recuerdo que este Consejo tiene que vigilar el cumplimiento de las resoluciones y los mandatos de la Conferencia. Entre otras cosas, la Conferencia dictó a Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria y le invistió con la responsabilidad de presentar dos textos, una declaración, otro Plan de Acción para que los Jefes de Estado en la Cumbre Mundial los pudieran firmar. Además, de cubrir otros aspectos de la preparación de dicha Cumbre. El Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria está investido con esa alta responsabilidad y ningún otro órgano de esta Organización tiene esa responsabilidad, sólo el Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria. El Comité tiene que concluir conforme el mandato de la Conferencia con sus trabajos. Espero que este Consejo haga un llamado enérgico al Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria para que a la brevedad posible concluya con su alta responsabilidad.
Pedro Alfonso MEDRANO ROJAS (Chile): Quisiera informar a este Consejo respecto de la situación de los trabajos del Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria en cumplimiento del mandato que recibió por parte de la Conferencia general de la FAO. Quisiera señalar señor Presidente que, efectivamente, el Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria no ha concluido su trabajo. El día viernes 27 era el día estimado y previsto para que el Comité pudiera finalizar la preparación de la declaración política y el Plan de Acción. Lamentablemente, a pesar de los esfuerzos y del trabajo realizado, el Comité no pudo en esa oportunidad concluir sus labores, prolongó sus reuniones para el día sábado y el día lunes. El lunes, a medianoche, el Comité suspendió sus labores en vista de que aún
quedaban aproximadamente 200 textos entre corchetes y que el tiempo que se nos había destinado no nos permitía presentarle a este Consejo el informe del Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria con los textos debidamente finalizados.
Quisiera señalar, señor Presidente, que a lo largo de todo el proceso preparatorio, el Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria estableció reuniones para un grupo interseccional el cual se reunió en cuatro oportunidades. Estas reuniones permitieron conocer las posiciones de los países y asimismo las contribuciones de los Organismos No Gubernamentales y de las agencias del sistema de Naciones Unidas. A lo largo de todo este esfuerzo hemos procurado siempre, por lo menos, desde el punto de vista del Bureau del Comité, que igualmente presidió el Comité Intersecesional o grupo de trabajo interseccional, actuar sobre la base del consenso de consultas y en general de guiar nuestro trabajo de acuerdo con procedimientos y criterios comúnmente aceptados. Al término de la jornada del día lunes, el Comité examinó distintas alternativas respecto de la forma de poder concluir con su trabajo y existió, yo diría, consenso en buscar por parte de este Consejo indicaciones claras o criterios que nos permitieran continuar con nuestro trabajo, antes de suspender la reunión. El presidente del Comité que les habla, señaló que como Presidente del Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria me permitiría proponer al Consejo el que este pudiera destinar parte de sus días de sesiones al Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria a fin de que pudiera terminar su trabajo y finalizar los textos y por supuesto antes del término de las sesiones de este Consejo informarle respecto de los resultados alcanzados y de lo posible de presentarles a todos ustedes los textos finalizados de la declaración política y el Plan de Acción. Las razones, señor Presidente, por las cuales la presidencia del Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria le plantea al Consejo esta petición, yo diría que tienen, básicamente dos aspectos: en primer lugar, estamos a siete semanas de la Cumbre Mundial y creo sinceramente que debemos aprovechar el tiempo disponible de la mejor forma posible para finalizar los textos; en segundo lugar, señor Presidente, es porque estoy firmemente convencido de que resulta imprescindible tener preparado los textos con la suficiente antelación a fin de posibilitar su conocimiento por parte de los Jefes de Estado y de Gobiernos que asistirán a la Cumbre. Pero en este último argumento, señor Presidente, lo que más me motiva a hacer este llamado es el hecho de que muchas delegaciones han indicado que la asistencia de los Jefes de Estado y de Gobiernos estará condicionada en gran medida por el contenido que tengan estos documentos y en tal sentido, resulta de la mayor urgencia el que ellos puedan conocerlos con la debida antelación porque no me parece a mi, que sea apropiado, entregarle los textos a Jefes de Estado y de Gobiernos, 24 horas antes de su venida a la Cumbre, en circunstancias de que su propia participación, en algunos casos, estaría determinada en gran medida por el contenido de estos documentos. En síntesis señor Presidente, y reitero, ésta es una petición que formula el Presidente en atención a que el Comité mismo no pudo concordar el criterio al respecto y en atención a las razones expuestas, es que creo que es extraordinariamente importante que este Comité pueda aprovechar las posibilidades que tiene actualmente en el marco de los arreglos y apoyos que tiene el Consejo de la FAO, creo que en tal sentido el Comité debería reiniciar sus tareas a la mayor brevedad posible a fin de cumplir con el mandato que le ha dado la Conferencia.
Esto es lo que quería informarle, señor Presidente, y para completar mi información en otro plano quisiera comunicarle igualmente que el Comité sí pudo finalizar el Reglamento de Procedimiento, lo cual creo que es importante destacar, ya que este fue materia de consultas y de discusiones que en definitiva permitieron una aprobación unánime del mismo.
EL PRESIDENTE: El Consejo ha tomado nota de su informe sobre el estado que guarda las negociaciones sobre la preparación de la Cumbre Mundial. Toma nota con beneplácito el que haya concluido con el Reglamento de Procedimiento y con preocupación que, a pesar de los avances logrados no hayan concluido con sus trabajos. Usted además de informarnos nos ha hecho una propuesta que, claro, debemos considerar, los miembros del Consejo deben tomar nota también de que los trabajos, por circunstancias muy particulares, se han acelerado en este Consejo y de que, este Consejo podría ofrecer, eventualmente, tiempo a disponibilidad del Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria para que si así lo determinen continúen con sus trabajos, con la fórmula que ustedes
propongan. Asimismo destaco la importancia de que, como usted lo ha mencionado, muchos Jefes de Estado determinarán su venida a la Cumbre en función de la disponibilidad de los textos de la Declaración y del Plan de Acción y por eso se hace todavía más urgente, imperativo, que el Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria acelere sus trabajos en la primera ocasión posible.
Fernando GERBASI (Venezuela): Hablo en nombre del Grupo de los 77 que me honro en presidir. Señor Presidente, para nosotros es sumamente grato constatar la presencia del Director General en el debate y en el tratamiento del tema 5 de nuestra agenda porque confirma, sin lugar a dudas, lo importante y transcendental del tema y de las decisiones que hoy podamos tomar. Nos complace también al escuchar su intervención, cuán avanzados van los preparativos para la Cumbre y cuántas posibilidades de éxito tenemos frente a los compromisos que otros han tomado en favor de esta Cumbre, pero también, los compromisos que él ha señalado, nuestros gobiernos a lo largo de estos dos años han puesto en vigor. Pero nos preocupa profundamente que quizás, los dos elementos esenciales para el éxito de la Cumbre aún están inconclusos, me refiero a la Declaración y al Plan de Acción.
Los países del Grupo de los 77, señor Presidente, a lo largo de todo este proceso, nos hemos preparado con una gran dedicación, con gran voluntad, convencidos de la importancia y la trascendencia de la Cumbre. Creo que nuestras reuniones regionales, conferencias regionales, al igual que la de las otras regiones, se vieron realzadas por la presencia de nuestros ministros que les dieron un pleno y total respaldo a las posiciones que ahí fueron adoptadas, y también ha sido arduo e intenso el trabajo de los representantes permanentes en Roma para tales fines. Aunque del 20 al 30 de septiembre avanzamos mucho, aunque logramos eliminar un importante número de corchetes, quizás dos tercios de ellos, yo creo que la cuestión no es tanto si nos quedan 10, 200 o tenemos 400 menos, lo grave es que aún no hemos cumplido con la responsabilidad como Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria que nos impuso la Conferencia.
Y el sentido de urgencia que señaló el Presidente del Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria Mundial, lo compartimos totalmente. Es difícil pensar, es inimaginable pensar, que un jefe de estado, que un jefe de gobierno pueda presentarse a Roma el día 13 de noviembre sin saber que es lo que va a adoptar. Y aquí, ahora abro una cifra, señor Presidente, no es que estemos a siete o a seis semanas, estamos a cuarenta días de que comience la Cumbre Mundial de la Alimentación. El tiempo es muy corto, pero además el conocer esos documentos no es importante solamente a los presidentes y jefes de gobierno, es importante a nuestros gobiernos, es importante a otros sectores de la sociedad. En muchos de nuestros países, se han creado comités nacionales preparatorios de la Cumbre, se han nombrado secretarías técnicas, se han involucrado diferentes actores y, la intención es que todos ellos sepan que es lo que Cumbre va a adoptar y va a hacer.
Además, esta Cumbre tiene una característica muy particular; indiscutiblemente el hecho de que sea a nivel de jefes de estado y gobierno ya le da una especificidad, pero es una Cumbre muy corta, de cinco días que no permite ningún proceso negociador como en otras cumbres se hizo, en algunos casos lo han citado como ejemplo. Aquí estamos en circunstancias totalmente distintas y diversas. Por eso nosotros, señor Presidente, en el Grupo de los 77 consideramos necesario, esencial, el concluir nuestro proceso de negociación, de consultas y tenemos la mejor buena disposición y la mejor buena voluntad de llevarlo adelante. Estamos convencidos que los documentos que se adopten tienen que ser documentos de consenso, documentos que nos involucren a todos, no simplemente para su adopción sino, fundamentalmente para su aplicación, que no sean simplemente un poco de tinta escrita sobre un papel, sino que sean realmente un Plan de Acción en favor de nuestros pueblos.
Por estos motivos señor Presidente, nosotros al igual que lo hicimos el lunes 30 de septiembre, apoyamos plenamente la propuesta del Presidente del Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria Mundial, y la apoyamos con más convicción porque hemos constatado que usted, a través de una labor tesonera y eficiente, ha hecho avanzar los temas del Consejo y tenemos la impresión, que es más que una
impresión, una certitud, de que usted estará en capacidad de darnos un par de días para llevar adelante esas negociaciones. Lo único que requerimos en este momento, señor Presidente, es buena voluntad por parte de todos. El Grupo de los 77 lo ha demostrado a lo largo de este proceso y está dispuesto a hacerlo también. Creemos que esto es esencial y hacemos un llamado a todos para que concurramos como lo hemos hecho en el pasado y podamos concluir con esa responsabilidad que nos dio la Conferencia.
EL PRESIDENTE: Muchas gracias señor Representante de Venezuela quien ha hablado a nombre del Grupo de los 77, me congratulo de que haya confirmado la voluntad de su grupo de continuar con las negociaciones a la brevedad posible. Yo estoy seguro que no hay ningún delegado u observador en este Consejo que no tenga igualmente esa inquietud porque es parte de su responsabilidad en cuanto que se ha comprometido como miembro del Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria a negociar estos documentos y el proceso preparatorio hasta el final.
Me congratulo por tanto de la aceptación que, a nombre del Grupo, ha hecho de la propuesta del Presidente del Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria.
Alvaro Gurgel DE ALENCAR (Brazil): I would like to thank you and the distinguished Director- General for your introductory words to this very important item. I have taken the floor in my capacity as Coordinator for the Latin American and Caribbean group of countries for FAO subjects in general and for the preparation of the Summit in particular.
I would like, on behalf of that group, to support the proposal made by the Chairman of the CFS and fully endorse the words of the distinguished Ambassador of Venezuela speaking for the Group of 77. He has given very clear reasons why we must continue the preparatory work. It is obvious, it is evident, to one and all that we cannot possibly allow the document to remain so incomplete until the eve of the Summit.
I think the Council, as the main body of FAO in between Conferences, has the responsibility, as you indicated at the beginning, to make a very, very strong appeal to the CFS to proceed with this work and as soon as possible. I am glad to see that it is possible to do it very soon because the Council would be prepared to yield facilities, services and time to the CFS for that purpose. I have no doubt in supporting very, very firmly the proposal.
EL PRESIDENTE: Muchas gracias por la declaración que ha hecho usted a nombre del Grupo Latinoamericano y el Caribe y por unirse a la propuesta del Presidente del Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria y respaldada inmediatamente por el Presidente del Grupo de los 77.
Adel Mahmoud ABOUL-NAGA (Egypt) (Original language Arabic): I would like, first of all, to welcome the Director-General who has honoured us with his presence today as we debate this important item on our agenda. This confirms the great importance that we all attach to this matter and, in particular, the importance which our Heads of State and Government attach to the World Food Summit. I would like to restate, quite categorically, that developing countries feel that this World Food Summit is an initiative of capital importance.
The Summit is intended to ensure world food security for all our peoples and, in particular, food security for those people all over the world who are hungry, who do not have enough food and who cannot meet their essential basic needs. So, I would like to support most warmly what has just been said by His Excellency, the Ambassador of Venezuela, speaking as Chairman of the Group of 77. Speaking on behalf of the Near East Group, I wish to reaffirm the great importance of this matter and reassure you that the CFS can successfully conclude its preparatory work and produce documents which can be adopted by consensus. This should be done in the shortest possible time so that we may submit these documents, these consensus documents to our Heads of State and
Government in good time so that they may familiarize themselves with the documents before hey come to the Summit.
I fully support the proposal from the Ambassador of Chile, Chairman of the CFS. I stress that you have yourself said that it is not really possible to agree on the text of these arguments at the last minute because there will be no time, and our Heads of State and Government will find difficulties in deciding whether or not to come to the Summit unless they know, well in advance, what the texts to be discussed are. They cannot come and sign documents if they have not been agreed upon.
Once again, I give my fiill support and that of my group to the Chairman of the Group of 77. Let us take this unique opportunity that we have before us, the fact that the Council Session can be dealt with expeditiously so we may have some time to deal with the outstanding documents. We have made considerable progress but these documents must be agreed upon in the shortest possible time. Our Governments attach considerable importance to this matter and I am sure that we shall have a consensus together with all our partners.
EL PRESIDENTE: Muchas gracias distinguido delegado de Egipto que en nombre del Cercano Oriente ha respaldado la propuesta del Presidente del Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria y de la declaración del Presidente del Grupo de los 77.
Mame BALLA SY (Observateur du Sénégal): Monsieur le Président, quand on parle des problémes de la faim et de la sécurité alimentaire, je crois que les regards se tournent essentiellement vers une direction et si vous suivez ees regards naturellement, vous aboutissez à un continent qui est l'Afrique, le plus menacé, le plus concerné par ees problémes. C'est pourquoi je suis d'accord avec le Directeur général que lorsque la Conférence de la FAO adoptait á l'unanimité cette décision, le message politique devait étre adressé par tous les Etats Membres qui avaient pris cette décision. Ce message, nous sommes persuadés qu'il est au centre des préoccupations de toutes les délégations ici présentes et Membres de la FAO. Les efforts qui ont été consentis, et je puis en témoigner pour y avoir activement pris part lors des travaux suspendus du Comité pour la sécurité alimentaire (CSA), témoignent de la volonté et de la détermination de toutes les délégations de faire en sorte que cette décision prise á l'unanimité se traduise par un geste politique hautement significatif, afín d'exprimer notre solidarité commune á ceux qui souffrent de ce fléau. Je crois que ne pas achever cet effort serait extrémement malheureux et je suis certain qu'aucun pays ni aucun groupe n'acceptera de prendre cette responsabilité devant rhumanité, au point qu'il s'agit simplement de s'entendre maintenant sur la maniere de parachever cet effort. Attendre le dernier moment, je crains aussi que personne n'osera effectivement le soutenir. Parce qu'il n'est pas raisonnable et aucun pays ni aucun responsable au monde n'accepterait de se déplacer vers une conférence sachant bien qu'il n'aura pas la possibilité d'y négocier et sachant bien également que les textes sur lesquels il doit prendre un engagement ne sont pas prêts.
Ce qu'il nous reste á faire est de nous entendre afín d'étre préts suffisamment á l'avance. C'est pourquoi nous soutenons fermement en notre double qualité de Vice-président du CSA et de Représentant ou Coordonnateur du Groupe Africain la proposition, d'abord du Président du CSA qui est tres raisonnable, et, ensuite, nous associer pleinement á la déclaration du Président du Groupe des 77 qui constitue un groupe d'Etats dont la taille numérique est assez prouvée mais dont la volonté a toujours été constatée tout au long de ce processus et je crois que, par respect pour un si grand nombre d'Etats dont les populations sont les plus meurtries par ce phénoméne et qui sollicitent la solidarité de la Communauté internationale, il serait quand même justice de tenir compte de toutes ces considérations et de poursuivre cet élan qui nous a tous en tout cas guidé durant ces deux derniers jours pour parachever un travail appréciable déjà accompli.
EL PRESIDENTE: Muchas gracias distinguido observador por Senegal por su importante declaración a nombre del Grupo Africano y por el apoyo que ha dado a la propuesta del Presidente
del Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria y la asociación de su grupo a la declaración hecha por el Presidente del Grupo de los 77.
TANG ZHENGPING (China) (Original language Chinese): I should like to thank you, Sir, for putting this matter before us this afternoon and we are happy to see the Director-General of FAO here with us on this occasion; this shows the importance of the matter we are discussing.
The Delegation of China most fully and entirely supports the idea that we should get down to this matter, to complete it successfully as soon as possible, as stated by the Director-General. We entirely agree with the Chairman of the CFS, as was also expressed by the Chairman of the Group of 77, that we should devote as much time as possible, as soon as possible, during the time allotted for this Council Session, to the continuation of the Session of the Committee of the World Food Security which was suspended on 30 September.
The Summit has been convened and all the Member Nations of this Organization wish it to be a success. We all voted on this at the last Conference Session; unanimously, we are all committed to the process and to the Summit and to the success of the Summit. Therefore, we must leave no stone unturned in preparing documents, the texts which are necessary for its success. As we all know, all we have is forty or so days before us, before the Summit takes place. We made tremendous efforts throughout last week and quite substantial progress but still we have not yet completed a consensus document. We still have over 200 square brackets in the relevant text, so we must really get down to the very hard task of removing those square brackets and completing a clean text in good time for our capitals, for our governments, to analyze the document carefully and submit it to the Summit.
If we want the Summit to be a success, my delegation urges all countries and the Delegations concerned to take most seriously and to accept the proposal made by the Chairman of the CFS and supported by the Chairman of the Group of 77. In other words, we will resume the suspended CFS Session as soon as possible in order to complete the text of our document on a consensus basis.
EL PRESIDENTE: Muchas gracias, distinguido delegado de China, por su importante declaración y su respaldo a la propuesta del Presidente del Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria y su asociación con la declaración del Presidente del Grupo de los 77.
YUN SU CHANG (Observer for the Democratic People's Republic of Korea): I am happy to see the presence of the Director-General when we discussed the important Item on this subject. Thank you very much, Director-General, for your speech on the importance of the Summit Item. As Chairman of the Asian group, I would like to speak on their behalf. Member Nations discussed this Item before we held this meeting and we Asian and Oriental countries fully support the proposal made by the Chairman of the CFS and the Chairman of the Group of 77. In Asia it is our real hope, also our real wish that Asian and all other countries, are willing to adopt the clean document as soon as possible, at an early stage, before the end of October. Also this clean document has to be sent to all the capitals, all the countries before 31 October. All the Heads of State of the delegations, people coming to this World Summit should consider this clean document. This is our, all the Asia countries' position. This document must be clean with the unanimous agreement of the whole country.
EL PRESIDENTE: Muchas gracias, distinguido observador de la República Democrática de Corea, por su asociación con la propuesta del Presidente del Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria y la del Presidente del Grupo de los 77, y por indicarnos que, a nombre del Grupo Asiático, desea que se comiencen los trabajos a la mayor brevedad posible.
David BEEHAN (Ireland): Thank you for giving us the opportunity to have this discussion on how we plan our work in preparing for the Summit. Our enthusiasm is such that we had hoped we could have had this discussion earlier this week, despite the bureau working us extremely hard last week.
We wish to extend a warm welcome to the Director-General to this debate.
I noted with interest the reference to the Conference Resolution and the role of the CFS and I would be grateful for some elaboration on this point from the Secretariat, if it was possible, specifically with regard to if the Resolution imposes the onus on the CFS to actually have a clean text prepared in advanee of the Summit.
I noted carefully what the Chairman of the Committee on World Food Security said in relation to the attendance of Heads of State and Governments being conditioned on the contents of the text of the Declaration and the Plan of Action. However, I would like to make one or two comments on this aspect.
Firstly, if, for instance Heads of State and Governments have the text a week or ten days in advance of the Summit and there are some of the contents they are not particularly happy with, will it endanger their participation at the Summit? For some Member States we must be aware that we have a small number of, what we might call, sensitive issues and issues that will take a considerable amount of effort to resolve. If Members concede on some of these points in advance of the Summit - a week or ten days in advance of the Summit - there is a political risk for them, whereas if such a concession is in the spirit of compromise nearer to the Summit, there is easier justification for giving a concession.
With regard to the proposal of the Chairman of the CFS, we in the European Union are not at all pessimistic. In actual fact we are quite optimistic and we are very encouraged by the work that took place over the last ten or twelve days. As you said --or the Director-General maybe at the outset --we succeeded in doing, I think, about 75 percent of the work when we deleted 600 of the 800 brackets and I think that has to be looked on very optimistically. In our view, the text which we now have is surprisingly clean and in the process over the last ten or twelve days we have visited the text, all of the text, and the dilemma now for many Delegations is that they need time to consider what we have to reflect and for consultation. In our view, revisiting the text next week would not achieve what we would hope for and we consider that at this stage it is not a question of time, it is a question of preparedness, of being in a position to take decisions when we do negotiate and to ensure that we make progress.
If we accept this, then we believe that we should plan in a way that is most practical, that is cost- effective, that is time-effective, that will ensure a successful finalization of the text and ensure a very successful Summit.
There would be a question for us, in revisiting the text too soon, that we would have major doubts; that, rather than making progress, we could even complicate things as we saw when we had gone so far at the closing Sessions on Monday evening when we went in reverse.
I can assure you that of the goodwill of the European Union in ensuring that we do reach a successful conclusion and we will be prepared to make a major input into that to be well-prepared when we think it is appropriate and people are in a position to take decisions.
EL PRESIDENTE: Muchas gracias, distinguido delegado de Irlanda, por sus importantes comentarios y por su declaración a nombre de la Unión Europea. Creo que hay una palabra clave en lo que usted ha dicho, que es importante destacar, y esta es "mantener la buena voluntad". Creo que ese es el espíritu en el que deben continuar trabajando. La buena voluntad, desde luego, es lo que debe prevalecer.
Respecto a las preguntas que usted ha hecho, yo creo que no es posible que ninguno aquí las respondamos, sino quizás, cada delegación, sobre todo en lo que se refiere a la vinculación de texto y venida del Jefe de Estado. De todas maneras este Consejo ha tomado nota de su posición.
Yo desearía que se manifestaran otras delegaciones que no han sido vinculadas a las declaraciones hasta ahora hechas por representantes de grupos.
Thomas Austin FORBORD (United State of America): The United States is prepared to continue our work on the Summit text as soon as possible if everyone is prepared to negotiate seriously and with goodwill. However, we did not always have goodwill last week and I am not convinced that I see a difference yet.
This proposal to continue the process that we were in will only work if there is, in fact, some change in attitude. Last week we had regional groups and countries that refused to allow sub- groups to meet in order to negotiate, and we lost a lot of time. We had groups insist on language that they knew was, at best, inaccurate, misleading. We had groups bring back proposals, after they had agreed to drop them, in exchange for concessions from other groups and that lack of goodwill really slowed down our work.
In the comments I have heard to date I hear pledges of continued goodwill but I have not heard any indication that a process next week has any new elements. Are there other proposals lurking out here that we have not heard about yet? Are there some other mechanisms that might help us progress?
It will also be extremely difficult, I really should say it will be impossible, for us to bring back senior negotiators only a few days after they left. What can we do to get capitals involved in this? Can we get early proposals so that we have an opportunity to get capital reaction to those in time for a meeting next week? If we start on Monday or Tuesday or Wednesday and simply have on the table what we had Monday night, I am not yet convinced that that would be very useful.
We are prepared to meet as soon as possible and as soon as is useful. I think I would still need to hear some reasons why next week is going to be more useful than the first day of this week was.
EL PRESIDENTE: Muchas gracias por su declaración y por apoyar la voluntad de su país en continuar las negociaciones a la brevedad posible y, en particular, por destacar la importancia de mantener la voluntad política en las negociaciones.
E. KITAHARA (Japan): Thank you Mr Chairman and the Honourable Director-General for giving me the floor.
I have listened carefully to the proposal made by the Chairman of the CFS and comments made by other delegates. Japan has actively participated in the whole process of the CFS. We would like to continue our efforts towards the success of the World Food Summit in a positive manner. I think, we all need to refresh our spirits and readdress the remaining issues, in order to make substantial progress.
In this regard, Mr Chairman, I am not in favour of the idea to hold the next meeting within the time framework of the Council. At this stage, I feel it is reasonable to try to have a certain period of time for reflection, both in our capitals and here in Rome, in order to prepare for the final conclusion of our work.
Ronald ROSE (Canada): Mr Chairman, let me begin by reassuring this meeting and my colleagues that Canada is in fact committed to a successful outcome of the World Food Summit. We have already invested a considerable amount of time and resources to make a successful Summit. We
started our investment with the meeting in Quebec City, almost one year ago. We are willing to do whatever it takes to make sure that this will be a successful Summit and that the political Declaration and the Plan of Action can be completed.
We are certainly willing to participate next week if the Council gives the facilities to the Committee on Food Security to continue next week.
Nevertheless, Mr Chairman, we have some serious doubts about the possibility of completing our work next week. Some of our colleagues have discussed the need for a period of reflection, the need for time to consult. Last week, in fact for the last ten days, many of our delegations have had senior officials from capitals, who came; with the help of those senior officials we were in fact able to remove a number of brackets.
My delegation, Mr Chairman, will not be able to bring back those senior officials for discussions next week. I remain ready to negotiate next week but I must admit that I am sceptical that we will in fact be able to complete our task by meeting for two or three days next week. Nevertheless, as I said Mr Chairman, we are willing to particípate.
Cengiz AYSUN (Turkey): Mr Chairman, first of all I would like to thank the Director-General for his presence. Like all other Member Nations, Turkey wishes the success of the Rome Summit. To this end, the draft Declaration and draft Plan of Action to be submitted for approval to the heads of delegations who will particípate in the Rome Summit should be bereft of brackets.
Since we cannot expect the distinguished Heads of States or Heads of Governments, working upon likely discussions on this point, accordingly, my Delegation supports and will support all endeavours aiming at reaching a consensus and we, on our part, will display such an attitude. I will add, Mr Chairman, that goodwill is essential.
On the timing of the CFS meeting, our attitude is similar to that of Canada.
Dennis GEBBIE (Australia): It is difficult to argue with the logic we have been presented with here, that we have a lot to do and little time to do it. But if we sit back and reflect on why we are where we now are, it has to be realized, I think, that the reason we are not finished is because a number of very sensitive issues are involved.
If we are to get the necessary flexibility to get around the difficulties we have and to finish our work, we think that capitals must be involved and be given the time to examine where we are. And in doing that we would need to take into account that those involved also have other commitments in the period ahead. If we are to continue next week, I fear that without a period of reflection, we may well be faced with the same blockages on these sensitive issues.
To resume the CFS during this Council Session, Mr Chairman, we think is simply too soon. It is not a matter of commitment but rather of finding an efficient and effective way to ensure that we can conclude our work successfully.
Ms Turid KONGSVIK (Norway): I have not participated in the preparation of any other summits but I have talked with colleagues from Norway who have, and I would like to share with you some of their perceptions.
For us, basically, a Summit is a Summit, whether it is convened by the UN proper or a UN Specialized Agency. The difference with this Summit in time is, as has been pointed out, that this one is a shorter one. That could put it in a somewhat different position, but not that much, I would submit.
Heads of State have not been dissuaded from coming to Cairo, to Beijing, to Copenhagen, well knowing that there was no document ready when they arrived. Actually, it can be argued that this enhances the interest. A Summit whose results are ready weeks ahead, at least in terms of media coverage and the general opinion, might easily be perceived as being without stakes.
I think that a lot of the excitement, the interest, the passion which surrounded the other summits, were due to the fact that the world opinion felt that there were issues at stake. They heard every day that now there were new results, whether it would have been productive, helped or not, what it meant or did not mean. This meant that a lot of people got conscious about issues which they will not be, if we do not have this excitement, which means that the media is interested in the Summit.
So on this account, I think that the Summit, if we have this sort of tension during it, paradoxically perhaps, will raise more interest than otherwise.
Another aspect of this is that you might look at a document having been prepared by bureaucrats weeks ahead, it is a sort of fait accompli, to which you put to your Heads of State and Governments. If they come here, if there are difficult issues remaining, they will be the ones to resolve it. They are the highest decision-makers and they will be easily accessible to us, and they will be the ones who can take the final decisions. We also then will have the pressure of time which will help us.
So, I think it is not really univocal the effect of being ready or not ready. One difficulty is here, that there is some idea of hiding the document. This was not done in Cairo, it was not done in Beijing, it was not done in Copenhagen, and as far as I can see in the Conference decision, there is no decision at the Intergovernmental level of signature. So it seems we are fiilly free to abandon this signature which this document, not being legally binding, is superfluous in any case, I would imagine.
I think perhaps we should place the discussion from another angle. Perhaps, we should rather see how many days more do we need of high officials meeting before the Summit. The idea has been here that we should meet next week for two or three days, apparently there is some belief that if we have three additional days, the document could be ready. Well, then let us discuss whether we should not convene these high officials three days ahead. We would also then have a length which would be very much similar to those of the other summits.
Finally, as has been pointed out by others, to the extent that all key players are not in a position to make compromises already next week. The pragmatic side of it also argues in favour of postponing further discussions on the brackets which, by the way, I have counted in a non-mechanical manner, I have counted them in a substantial manner and, if you take all the "or" alternatives, there are 101.
EL PRESIDENTE: El Consejo ha tomado nota que, de acuerdo con su delegación, no solamente es importante la voluntad política sino también un grado de tensión para hacer exitosa una cumbre. Yo me pregunto, sin embargo, si debemos buscar intencionalmente una mayor tensión de la que ya existe ahora para asegurar el éxito de la Cumbre. Y si, independientemente de la situación que ya prevalece en la preparación de los trabajos, el hecho de que hay 800 millones de seres humanos que mueren de hambre, no es por sí misma, la tensión más alta que puede existir en este momento para la humanidad y, por tanto, la responsabilidad mayor para la comunidad del mundo. Pero, de todas maneras, hemos tomado nota de que la experiencia de otras cumbres es importante y ello -desde luego- podría ser un ejemplo para encontrar una solución en este caso.
Pregunto si hay entre los países de la Europa Centroriental, alguno que desee hacer alguna intervención con respecto a esto, señalando la posición de ese grupo, en relación a las propuestas aquí formuladas.
Kamaruzzaman ALIAS (Malaysia): Mr Chairman, Mr Director-General, distinguished Members and Observers. Malaysia supports and endorses any effort that enjoys consensus in moving forward the negotiation process so as to achieve a clean text for the World Food Summit. The earlier a clean document is produced, the more comfortable it will be for all of us in facing the World Food Summit next month. Undoubtedly, compromise and understanding should rule the day if consensus is to be achieved in a next round of negotiations.
A balanced document, acceptable to all parties, especially the 800 million under-nourished people, should be the desirable outcome. How could one imagine of a win-lose situation in such a noble endeavour of fighting hunger and under-nutrition.
In the past, Malaysia has participated actively in the various stages of the negotiation process and intends to continue to do so in the future. Our deep concern has been the high tendency of some to include in the text, factors or issues we consider as not central to the crucial task of achieving world food security. Although these issues are, in one way or another, related to food security, we hold the view that these issues have been adequately dealt with in other UN fora of the past, may they be Beijing, Copenhagen, Cairo or regional conferences.
We have wasted much valuable time discussing these issues. If certain parties insist on the inclusion of these issues, they could hinder efforts towards achieving consensus as early as possible. In addition, conditionalities and unjustified action also diluted the original bold ideas and initiatives aimed at achieving global food security in the earliest possible time period.
It is also our observation that in the past rounds of negotiations a lot of compromise have been made, especially by those who stand to benefit most from the Summit. We could, therefore, sincerely appeal to other parties who have not done so, to show the same spirit, thus avoiding long and futile rounds of negotiations. A situation which all of us obviously do not want to see occurring.
Mr Chairman, the responsibilities upon us are enormous. Let us move forward, let not the next generation point their fingers at us, in the same fashion, as we are now begging for answers as to what happened to the promised decade envisaged by the architects of the Food Summit of 1974.
Mr Chairman, Malaysia supports the proposal from the Chairman of the CFS.
D. G. YOUDIN (Observateur de la Fédération de Russie): Je n'engagerai que la responsabilité de la délégation russe et je ne parlerai pas bien sür au nom du groupe des pays de TEurope de l'Est centrale puisque nous avons un Président du groupe qui s'exprimera probablement, mais étant un membre actif des le début des préparatifs de cette conférence, nous estimons que l'objectif recherché est, et doit rester, le consensus sur le document qui sera adopté á l'issu de la rencontre de Rome. Ce n'est pas le consensus recherché aujourd'hui, mais nous recherchons un consensus pour la fin de la rencontre, et il me semble que nous avons vu lundi dernier que les positions de certains groupes de pays se heurtent. Nous devons à mon avis laisser calmer les passions que nous avons connues la semaine dernière, prendre un peu de recul afín de reprendre la discussion, la négociation avec la tête froide et avec le désir d'arriver, en fin de compte, à ce consensus recherché.
La situation est grave aujourd'hui vu l'état de préparation des documents, mais pas dramatique, telle est l'appréciation de la délégation de Russie. D'autant plus que si on fait la comparaison avec l'état de préparation des documents des autres grands fora internationaux de ees derniéres années, on peut dire que nous avons quand même pas mal progressé la semaine dernière. La délégation de Russie est toujours disponible pour essayer de progresser encore, mais nous doutons sérieusement de pouvoir effectivement progresser la semaine prochaine. Je ne sais pas si notre mot d'ordre d'aujourd'hui était d'avoir de nouveaux débats, mais nous devons maintenant rechercher les solutions de compromis sur les points qui resten encore en divergence. Je pense que les
délégations qui viennent de rentrer dans nos capitales devront essayer de préparer de nouvelles propositions pour que notre discussion, notre négociation soit vraiment fructueuse.
EL PRESIDENTE: Gracias, distinguido observador de la Federación Rusa, por sus comentarios y la posición de su país en el sentido de que las negociaciones se celebren en el momento que sean más convenientes.
Saeed NOURI-NAEENI (Iran, Islamic Republic of): First, I would like to welcome Mr. Director- General to this very important session of the Council. Then, I would like to refer to a very important point which was raised by the distinguished representative of the European Union, that is, the cost-effectiveness of the negotiations. I think it would be most cost-effective if we started next week, for two important reasons.
Firstly, the prepaid cost of interpretaron and other costs which have been paid for the Council, which can be used for the negotiations.
Secondly, because lots of countries have the negotiators and high officials here. In this way, they can save the travel costs of these groups going back to capitals and coming back, which is very important for most of them. I appeal to the countries to consider this cost aspect which is very important to them.
So, if the goodwill exists, I think I have every reason to support the points which were raised by the Chairman of the CFS, the Chairman of the G77, and the representative of the Near East Group.
EL PRESIDENTE: Muchas gracias, distinguido delegado de la República Islámica de Irán, por su asociación a las propuestas formuladas aquí. Por recordarnos que también, por razones logísticas, muchas de las delegaciones ahora presentes en el Consejo, tienen entre sí a delegados de alto nivel que podrían continuar sus negociaciones y no hacerles venir en un momento futuro.
A. M. M. SHAWKAT ALI (Bangladesh): I understand that it is not a question of whether, but when, the CFS should resume. The fact remains that CFS has some unfinished work to do, and one proposal from the G77 supported by others, was to hold it on Monday. This was not thought feasible by some other delegations on two specific grounds.
One, there is need for time to reflect and that is necessary as was specifically pointed out by one delegation, that there is not enough good will. I am unable to agree with this kind of reasoning, for the precise reason that, at least, we have come to know that out of 800 brackets we have now only 101, not 200. There is enough goodwill, I think, on the part of all the delegations here. It is a question of making that goodwill work.
The second specific augment that was given for deferring this holding of the CFS meeting from Monday, to some other distant date, was the question of access to capital of the countries. The access to the capital, I also think that, is not much of a problem because we have enough technological advances in the telecom field, e-mail, faxes and all that, with which you can easily communicate if it is at all necessary.
Finally, I would say that the proposal of the Group of 77 be considered by all the delegations present here. At least, we can start the work and complete it in time.
EL PRESIDENTE: Muchas gracias, distinguido delegado de Bangladesh, por su asociación a las propuestas y por recordarnos que existen medios a disposición para continuar negociando.
Mihail DOBRE (Roumania): I have to make very clear that I am speaking just in a national capacity. We are not a leader of the Central and Eastern European Group at this time but Romanía
and Estonia are the only Eastern and Central European countries representated within the FAO Council. We are not the carrier of a common position or common standing from the Central and Eastern European countries because we did not discuss that.
Therefore, I would like to stress in a national capacity, that for Romanía, it is extremely important that the work on the preparation for the policy statement and the plan of action, be completed successfully.
In the view of my Delegation it is extremely important to have the political will necessary to find the appropriate consensus. Romania will support the negotiating process which is devoted to the accomplishment of this document, whenever the key player will be ready to come back to the negotiating table for this purpose.
Mario MOYA FALENCIA (México): Agradecemos la presencia del señor Director General, la presentación que ha hecho usted del problema, y la propuesta del señor Presidente del Comité y las que después han hecho el Grupo de los 77 y los demás grupos regionales.
A través del distinguido representante del Grupo Latinoamericano y del Caribe nuestra posición, en este debate, está ya fijada a favor de la propuesta del Grupo de los 77 y, por otra parte, la habíamos dejado inequívocamente clara en el seno del propio Comité la noche del lunes pasado.
Lo que nos preocupa, señor Presidente, es encontrar los medios para que el comité realice el mandato que le dio la Conferencia y que sólo él puede realizar. No se trata de transferir a otro órgano o a otro grupo de personalidades o a la propia cumbre, el mandato de presentar estos textos a la cumbre que sólo y únicamente tiene el Comité.
Tenemos que encontrar la forma -y una, es aprovechar ciertos días de los designados a este Consejo- para que, con el menor esfuerzo y el menor gasto como se ha dicho aquí, se puedan continuar las negociaciones.
Algunos de los comentarios que aquí se han vertido nos hacen pesar sobre si este es un buen momento para interrumpir en el mundo el diálogo político. Porque en el fondo, este que parece un pequeño incidente procesual, se siente que no es sólo eso.
Es evidente que existen muchos focos de tensiones entre los países y dentro de la humanidad, como usted ha recordado, que implican la necesidad de que cada vez haya más contacto entre los distintos grupos y naciones, y que los muchos y graves problemas que padecemos los veamos con un espíritu superior e intentemos resolverlos en común.
En la medida que se cierren, frente a esas realidades, puertas de diálogo y de negociación -que eso es lo que significan los organismos multilaterales, aparte de las relaciones bilaterales-, en esa misma medida se pueden abrir otras formas de conflicto que deseamos se superen, pero que todavía están encendidas en todos los horizontes de la tierra.
Y cuando se habla de un problema tan serio como el hambre, la desnutrición, la inseguridad alimentaria, que está de hecho conectado a todos los demás fenómenos sociales y económicos, pues el asunto es muy preocupante.
Como miembros de un organismo como la FAO, no podemos admitir que después de que todos los países miembros de la Conferencia decidieron convocar esta cumbre como un instante estelar del diálogo político internacional, ahora no encontremos fórmulas para realizarla y para cumplir los mandatos que otros órganos derivados de la Conferencia y del Consejo tienen, me refiero específicamente al Comité, para preparar la documentación relativa.
Pienso que es a nosotros los delegados, a los gobiernos de nuestros países, no a los jefes de estado, a los que nos corresponde hacer nuestro trabajo y hacerlo bien para presentarlo en la Cumbre; y que debemos tomar todas las decisiones administrativas, estatutarias y procesuales para llevarlo a cabo.
Estimo, señor Presidente, que sólo demostrando voluntad política podemos sacar adelante esas tareas que son verdaderamente ingentes. Es posible que en 3 o 4 días que el Consejo ponga a disposición del Comité, pudiera no limpiarse totalmente los documentos, pudiera haber instancias en algunos asuntos delicados, come se ha dicho aquí, que dejaran todavía algunas cuestiones sin resolver; pero todavía el Comité puede seguir trabajando durante otras semanas posteriores durante el mes de octubre para continuar esa labor y dejar asegurado, lo más pronto posible, ese acerbo documento que es necesidad imperiosa dentro de la Cumbre.
Porque sino la Cumbre corre peligro, e independientemente de ello, si se llegara a realizar, como espero que todos deseamos, le faltaría una sustancia, una médula, una declaración oficial, un programa de los países; de tal manera, que pudiera ser un elemento de persuasión, de convencimiento, de difusión ante la opinión pública del mundo para que todos colaboremos en la medida de nuestras posibilidades a abatir ese tremendo flagelo que es la inseguridad alimentaria, y a incorporar, aunque sea paulatinamente, a 800 millones de hombres, de mujeres y de niños al goce de ese derecho fundamental que es la alimentación.
Por tanto, reitero en nombre de mi país, nuestro apoyo a la propuesta del Grupo de los 77 y otros grupos regionales para que se convoque a la brevedad posible, dentro de los días designados para las labores del Consejo, al Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria para que continúe sus trabajos. Si hay, como se ha dicho aquí, buena voluntad algo avanzaremos. Sino continuaremos después, pero es el Comité, y no otro órgano, el que tiene que llevar a cabo esas tareas.
EL PRESIDENTE: Muchas gracias, distinguido delegado de México, por su declaración, por su asociación a las propuestas del Presidente del CSA, por recordarnos que el único que está investido con la responsabilidad de concluir los trabajos es el CSA y no otro órgano, y por destacar la necesidad del diálogo internacional como fórmula para evitar conflictos y penas, que de otra manera tendríamos que pagar por otras vías.
Pedro Alfonso MEDRANO ROJAS (Chile): En el transcurso del debate se han hecho algunas afirmaciones que me parece tengo el deber, en algunos casos, de precisar.
En relación a la propuesta que he formulado, y la he hecho en mi calidad de Presidente del Comité, he creído seguir una lógica y una interpretación adecuada en la resolución de la Conferencia. Porque la Conferencia le dio el mandato a este Comité y el mismo, interpretando la resolución de la Conferencia, organizó su trabajo a lo largo del año con vistas a presentarle su informe al Consejo y, por supuesto, a la Cumbre. Y es por eso que nos organizamos desde un comienzo, y con consenso de todos, para tener una primera reunión en marzo, una segunda reunión en mayo, una tercera reunión en junio, una cuarta y última reunión en julio. Y todo esto con el fin de cumplir el mandato de la Conferencia y del Comité y, por supuesto, con el propósito de entregarle al Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria la posibilidad de examinar un informe de su grupo de trabajo.
La lógica ha sido siempre el poder avanzar en el tratamiento de la discusión de los textos con anticipación, porque si la lógica hubiera sido distinta, entonces nos hubiéramos organizado para colocar las negociaciones inmediatamente antes de la Cumbre. Era justamente eso lo que queríamos evitar: tener que llegar 2 ó 3 días antes de la Cumbre recién negociando un texto.
Yo no quiero discutir como se han organizado otras Conferencias. Somos respetuosos de otros procedimientos y de otras prácticas, pero en esta Organización nosotros acordamos, en la Conferencia, preparar los trabajos de manera tal de poderlos finalizar en septiembre, y por eso
hicimos el esfuerzo en marzo, mayo, junio y julio, e incluso más. Cuando en julio vimos el tremendo esfuerzo que tenía que hacer el Comité propusimos otros mecanismos, y estos eran: tratemos de adelantar el trabajo porque el Comité va a tener una tremenda responsabilidad. Y apelamos a todas las partes en el Comité, que por favor nos pusiéramos a trabajar con la mayor antelación posible porque, de lo contrario, el Comité no iba a poder terminar su trabajo.
No quiero decir porque no fue posible, pero, lo que es claro, es que no pudimos trabajar en agosto ni en septiembre, y solamente lo pudimos hacer dos días antes del Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria.
De ahí la urgencia de que nosotros podamos completar ese trabajo. Me parece ilógico que usemos argumentos que no estaban en la base de nuestra decisión, porque no estuvimos discutiendo en ningún momento, motivos que hicieron más "excitante" la Cumbre. En ningún momento estuvimos buscando argumentos que hicieran que la opinión pública se concentrara en la Cumbre, porque creíamos que lo esencial era que la Cumbre se concentrara en los problemas esenciales del hambre y la malnutrición, y no, si estábamos discutiendo sobre medidas anticonceptivas o de población, o de otros aspectos que estaban resueltos en otra forma.
La lógica de la presentación que he hecho es justamente tratando de interpretar, de la mejor forma posible, el espíritu del acuerdo de la Conferencia; en ningún momento en la Conferencia, y nosotros la aprobamos, dijimos que teníamos que llegar una semana antes de la Cumbre a negociar. En ningún momento se previó, incluso en el proceso preparatorio, que hubiera una reunión del Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria inmediatamente antes de la Cumbre, porque, si así hubiera sido, entonces lo lógico habría sido haber colocado una reunión del Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria inmediatamente antes de la Cumbre, y le habríamos dicho anticipadamente a los jefes de estado y de gobierno: señores presidentes, señores jefes de gobierno, vengan ustedes, en la última parte, a negociar los textos.
En consecuencia, la lógica de la argumentación y de la propuesta está motivada por un sentido de cumplimiento de los acuerdos de la Conferencia, de terminar nuestro trabajo a la mayor brevedad posible, porque hay la voluntad política para hacerlo; y si la voluntad política y la buena voluntad que hemos escuchado es, justamente, la de avanzar, entonces la única forma de medirla es en la práctica cuando se reune a trabajar. Y es ahí entonces, donde yo haría un llamado, en el sentido de que, si vamos a empezar a trabajar el lunes, el martes o el miércoles, es con el propósito de eliminar corchetes y no agregarlos, y tratar de cumplir lo antes posible nuestro trabajo.
Se han señalado elementos que podrían condicionar el trabajo: de mayor eficiencia, mayor voluntad, utilidad, etc. Creo que todos esos elementos los podemos resolver nosotros mismos; está en nosotros resolver si están dadas las condiciones o no y si queremos hacerlo o no.
Para ser más concretos, creo, señor presidente, que al tratar esta propuesta -repito que lo hago responsablemente como Presidente del Comité- y además avalado en el hecho -y son todos testigos- que hemos hecho todos los esfuerzos posibles a lo largo de este proceso para completar el trabajo. En consecuencia, lo que estoy planteando es: cómo podemos en lo posible aprovechar el mecanismo del Consejo para avanzar el trabajo. Ahora, si hay otras razones creo que lo lógico es decir cuáles son, expresar cuáles son los motivos, pero no creo que sea posible estar en este momento discutiendo sobre los mecanismos que pueden hacer más "excitantes" o no una Cumbre, o si los argumentos que estamos dando no tienen una base legal, porque creo que en la interpretación, incluso, del mandato legal de la Conferencia hay una voluntad política de cumplirlos adecuadamente y en su espíritu original.
En relación a una observación que se ha hecho respecto a la asistencia o no de jefes de estado, quiero señalar simplemente que eso lo recogí de algunas delegaciones y que eso me preocupaba, y que si era argumento incluso de algunas delegaciones para participar en la Cumbre, lo lógico era
pensar que teníamos que hacer el mayor de los esfuerzos a la mayor brevedad posible, y ojalá, con todas las condiciones que nos permitan avanzar en el proceso negociador.
EL PRESIDENTE: Muchas gracias, distinguido Presidente del Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria, por esta vehemente declaración que yo me atrevería a suscribir e inclusive, a nombre del Consejo, confirmar que la lógica del procedimiento era precisamente la que usted ha ahora descrito.
DIRECTOR-GENERAL: Mr Chairman, there are some clarifications, I think, that the Director- General needs to provide.
The Secretariat of the Organization tries always to be neutral, but neutrality means that it is able to say what is the truth, to say what is right, and to say what is wrong. And when somebody has been elected by 174 countries, when some very important issues come, he has to take the responsibility of saying what he thinks.
First, there was a question on the issue of when were the documents to be ready. I would like to read the Report of the 108th Session of the Council, which said: "The Council considered that the Committee on World Food Security should play the role of focal point during 1996 for the discussion by Members of the proposed policy document and the plan of action. It suggested that, in addition to its already scheduled January Session, a second Session of the CFS in 1996 could be held, possibly in September, to synthesize the conclusions of the Regional Conferences and prepare a Consolidated text for submission to the Summit".
On the basis of that indication, with a view to ensuring that the Consolidated text be ready by September, we wrote to all your countries, following the results of the July inter-sessional meeting of the CFS, to ask that your delegation be led by high officials who are plenipotentiaries, who have the authority to commit their Governments, so that we could finalize the negotiation of the Policy and Plan of Action and be able to send the document in time to the different Governments, so that Governments would have the time and the opportunity to study those documents so as to sign them at the Summit. All your Governments have received that letter.
I therefore think that the issue is clear. It has never been anybody's intention to wait until a few days before the Summit to agree on a document.
The second point which needs clarification is that there is a tendency to make confusion. First, there are a number of meetings that are called summits but which were not meetings of Heads of State and Government. Cairo was not a meeting of Heads of State and Government. The meeting of Habitat was not a meeting of Heads of State and Government. Beijing was not a meeting of Heads of State and Government. We therefore should not refer to what was done in those meetings and say, by extensión, that we do the same in the meeting of Heads of State and Government. Meetings of Heads of State and Government were held in Rio de Janeiro for the Earth Summit and in Copenhagen for the Social Summit. In all these meetings, the delegations had between four and two weeks to discuss and negotiate and it was, ahead of time, agreed that the negotiations would take place there, and therefore adequate time was given.
The CFS last week adopted the rules of procedure for the five days of the Summit -- five days -- and concluded that the Head of Delegation of each Member Nation would have only seven minutes to make a statement, and that the Representative of an observer country would have only four minutes. Despite those limitations, we would have to have night sessions every day, excluding the Saturday, when we are expecting a reception from the Head of State of Italy.
How, under those conditions, can we imagine that we will find the time to discuss the text of the Policy Document and Plan of Action? This is not realistic. And it has to be said.
I believe that if there is an opportunity to correct the failure --because it is a failure -- to finish the document in September as was planned and as clearly indicated as a goal to each Member Country of the Organization, if we see that failure, we should make every effort at the earliest possible time to try to arrive at a document that is agreed upon. And I do not think, under these circumstances, it is right to prejudge that we will fail and to assume from the beginning, before even having tried, that we will fail. I believe that, when an opportunity to exchange views exists, when an opportunity to negotiate in an Organization, which is based on the spirit of dialogue and the spirit of give and take, when an opportunity arises, whatever may be the concern of one or the other or the scepticism of one or the other, we should give chance to dialogue. We see around the world situations that are more difficult, far more difficult, far more tragic - and the events of these days have given us examples - yet people are talking and discussing to fiind solutions.
I think that when it comes to the issue of feeding 800 million hungry people, we should be ready to give chance to dialogue.
I believe that giving a chance to dialogue does not mean that if, after having tried we arrive at the conclusion that we have not succeeded, it should not give us another opportunity at another time and then allow whatever consultation - bilateral, multilateral - would facilitate the process. I think that is what is the spirit of the United Nations and the spirit of dialogue among nations and among countries.
The Secretariat is ready to help. The Secretariat is ready even to move beyond what it has done so far, which has been to ensure that all your meetings were held with the appropriate documents, with the appropriate information; we have compiled a Glossary to give you elements to facilitate your work. We are ready now even to give you texts because we believe that it is quite surprising, and I must say to be honest to you, shocking, that today we are blocked not on the issue of how to produce more food, not the issue of how to access food, not on the issue of quality of food, not the issue of how certain countries should produce better, with greater access to technology; with all those things we have no problem. We are having problems on things that have been the subject of an entire or several summits or meetings. We are not here to reinvent the wheel. We are not here to reopen negotiations that have been held. We are all agreed that population is important but there was an entire conference on population. Why should we come here and block the whole negotiation on food, on the issue of population? We all know there has been a Conference on Human Rights. Why should we come here and block the whole Summit on human rights? We know that for years our member countries have negotiated, in the Uruguay Round, trade issues leading to the agreement of Marrakesh and there will be very soon a meeting in Singapore to take up those matters. Now why are we being blocked on trade? We know that there have been several meetings that also took up the question of good governance. Why should good governance come and block our negotiations?
If we accept the principie that all those issues - and I am not saying they are not important, I am not saying they are not vital - have been dealt with or are being dealt with in the appropriate forum, if you member countries have created a specialized agency for food and agriculture, and created other bodies of the UN system to deal with other issues, why should you bring here, as a stumbling block, issues that are to be dealt with somewhere else? The United Nations are often criticized, but you, Member Nations are responsible for most of these problems.
Well, let's be honest. Who is creating all this - is it the Secretariat? We in the Secretariat are ready to participate with you, we have even written what we consider texts on some aspects that we believe should allow us to arrive at a consensus because these texts are texts you all agreed to in previous meetings of the UN and in previous Conferences. And we are ready to take the risk of giving you those texts. And we believe these would be new elements that you will have if you start your meeting next week because you have not had those elements before and, may be, that would allow you to advance. We even have other documents that we could provide to you but at this stage
we did not, because we thought we had to be carefiil and start with the texts based on solid ground; because we can tell you from which document, at which Conference, when and where you approved certain texts.
I therefore believe that we should keep the spirit of give and take. Keeping the spirit of give and take means we don't come and say: "This is what we want, everybody should agree to it". That is not negotiation. That is diktat. We therefore should ensure that, if there is a possibility of discussing within the framework offered by this Council, at a time when we have the Secretariat, we have the interpreters, we have everything and we have people who have flown here from the capitals, we should try; but at the same time, if we do not succeed, we should also be open to another meeting, when some countries would have had the opportunity to consult with each other, to discuss also, on a bilateral and multilateral basis, so as to be able, maybe, to come with solutions that we may not be able to find during the meeting of next week. That's a balanced way to approach things.
I am sorry if I have been a little too passionate, and have spoken frankly out of my heart what I believe in, but you elected me to guide the destinies of this Organization and we are taking responsibility before humanity and before our member countries of calling, for the first time in fifty years, our Heads of State and Government, who are the highest officials of our Governments, and I really think that when this is the issue at stake and the challenge, we have to get the courage of saying what we think, and I am sorry if I have done so in a way that might have not pleased some of you. I am sorry, that was not my intention.
EL PRESIDENTE: Muchas gracias, señor Director General. Usted tiene todo el derecho de ser apasionado cuando tiene usted y esta Organización, la gran responsabilidad de llevar a cabo una Cumbre Mundial exitosa. Yo no voy a repetir ni a resumir lo que usted ha dicho, lo que es claro y contundente ha puesto usted los dedos en la llagas, en la llagas no solo de un procedimiento que se quiere quizá distorsionar y en las llagas también del problema principal que sufre el mundo y que es el hambre y la necesidad de superarle. Yo creo que pronto debemos cerrar nuestros debates y llegar a decisiones.
Reconozco algunas banderas que se alzan para intervenir. Les suplico que sean breves porque este consejo después de este debate, lo que tiene que hacer es tomar decisiones.
Fernando GERBASI (Venezuela): Quisiera agradecer al Director General su intervención, reconocer en él su responsabilidad, su preocupación es simplemente prueba de su responsabilidad como director de los destinos de esta Organización, y tiene razón en el decir que él tiene que responder a esa responsabilidad frente a nosotros que fuimos los que lo elegimos y se la dimos.
Señor Presidente, usted me ha pedido ser breve, y voy a tratar de serlo. He escuchado con sumo interés el Director General sobre todo porque ha dicho algo que puede ser útil en una toma de decisiones. Ha indicado que la Secretaría estaría en capacidad de ofrecernos algunas alternativas que podrían ser analizadas en los próximos días, incluso habló de una posible segunda reunión. Yo tengo aquí en mis notas la declaración del señor representante de Irlanda en nombre de la Unión Europea, de los Estados Unidos, de Japón, Canadá, Turquía, etc. Todos ellos hablaron de la buena voluntad incluso y, para mi gran sorpresa y lo debo confesar así también, pero también para mi satisfacción, el Representante de Irlanda habló de optimismo. Yo espero que ese optimismo que él tiene se traduzca en hechos concretos, porque yo no quisiera recordar el pasado reciente en cuanto este proceso negociador porque no es la hora de culpabilizar, es la hora de mirar hacia adelante y ver cómo avanzamos.
Pues bien, señor Presidente, encontré en todas las declaraciones, una disposición a negociar, la mejor buena voluntad, sin embargo siempre dijeron pero necesitamos reflexionar, pero tenemos que consultar, pero, peros.
Señor Presidente, yo quisiera hacer una sugerencia muy concreta y sin haber tenido tiempo de consultar a mi Grupo, pero asumiendo también una responsabilidad como Presidente de ese Grupo. Decidamos reunirnos los primeros días de la semana próxima, revisemos lo que nos propone la Secretaría de la FAO, veamos si eso nos puede servir, incluso me atrevo a decir, ad referendum para tomar decisiones sobre esos temas que nos han trasladado de otras conferencias porque tiene toda la razón el Director General, lo que es fundamental para la FAO, está casi resuelto en su cien por ciento, pero pongámonos de acuerdo simultáneamente, señor Presidente, en una segunda reunión definitiva, que tiene que ser a más tardar en la segunda quincena de octubre, para que podamos negociar y dejar en claro los textos. Yo creo que ya terminó la hora de argucias y argumentos que no vienen al caso. Si alguien no sabe interpretar las resoluciones de la Conferencia de la FAO, que por favor se las lea de nuevo, pero que no vengan a hacer preguntas que están fuera de lugar, porque sino significa que el proceso que emprendimos en marzo, como dijo el Presidente del Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria Mundial, no tenía ninguna razón de ser. Yo creo que el Director General de la FAO respondió perfectamente.
Señor Presidente, esto sería una prueba más de flexibilidad del Grupo de los 77, nosotros estamos convencidos de que hay posibilidad de llegar a un acuerdo, nosotros sí somos optimistas porque creemos en lo que estamos haciendo, somos optimistas porque nos hemos preparado para esto, y somos optimistas también porque hemos sido flexibles y podemos serlo también en el futuro siempre y cuando otros sean flexibles.
Entonces, la propuesta mía señor Presidente es: reunámonos lunes y martes o martes y miércoles, como quieran, y hagamos una revisión de lo que nos propone la Secretaría, veamos de qué nos sirve, pero decidamos también desde ya una segunda reunión en la segunda quincena de octubre.
Adel Mahmoud ABOUL-NAGA (Egypt): I fully endorse the statement of the Ambassador of Venezuela, even if he did not consult us, but he takes the spirit of all the Group of 77.
Everybody has good will, that is good. Some of us are optimistic, some of us pessimistic, you understand that. Some of us ask what is the new element we have? I think that the Director-General has provided us with a good element. With this good offer of having the Secretariat provide us with a document which takes care of those which we agreed upon in some other forum of the Conference, then we have got a good element, which can help us in doing that, and I fully agree with Ambassador Gerbasi and the Director-General. Let us make some progress.
We do not say that we conclude everything in this triial. We have the facilities, we have the time, we have already paid costs for the interpreters, let us use them for a trial, to see how much we will progress. The new element, this document which is proposed by the DG, is most welcome. I have on so many occasions asked for the Secretariat to have a more active role as a catalyst to our association.
Yes, the thing is in our hands but we need their help, we need their facilitators. They are here to do that so I welcome very much this initiative and I think now we have a new element to work with.
A. M. M. SHAWKAT ALI (Bangladesh): I think the meeting of the CFS should resume, as has been proposed by G77. In addition, in order to avoid further confusion of the text I would propose, on the basis of the statement given by the Director-General, which should be taken as a guide, that the issues like trade, good governance, reproductive services, human rights which have been settled in other fora should not be re-opened here.
Finally, the primary duty of the next meeting of the CFS should be to remove the existing brackets on the basis of the discussions that we had here in the Council.
Mame BALLA SY (Observateur du Sénégal): Monsieur le Président, je crois que le Groupe des 77 prouve son état d'esprit comme l'a souligné l'Egypte. Sans consultation, nous sommes au moins toujours d'accord sur la maniere positive de faire avancer l'objectif du Sommet. Je suis d'autant plus heureux de la proposition faite par le Directeur général que souvent peut-être nous évitons ou nous manquons de regarder les textes qui devraient nous guider. Si nous reprenons le texte de la Résolution qui a convoqué ce Sommet, à l'introduction au paragraphe 49, il est dit que la Conférence est convenue que, fondamentalement, le Sommet de l'alimentation devrait tenir compte du consensus auquel sont déjà parvenues d'autres conférences internationales sur des questions ayant une incidence sur la sécurité alimentaire, sans ouvrir à nouveau les débats y relatifs.
Je crois que cette proposition mérite d'ê'tre vue, ce qui nous permettra, comme il l'a si bien dit, de comprendre pourquoi nous nous heurtons sur certaines questions. J'ajouterai même que le dernier paragraphe de cette résolution nous donne un début de solution de compromis sur une question très vitale car on demande que le Comité de sécurité alimentaire (CSA) fasse rapport, par l'intermédiaire du Conseil et de la Conférence en 1997, sur tous les aspects du Sommet mondial et de son suivi. C'est pour dire que nous avons vraiment des prémices, des possibilités de nous mettre rapidement d'accord sur la proposition du Groupe des 77. C'est pourquoi je voudrais vous proposer une chose: que vous posiez la question suivante au lieu de poursuivre le débat. Est-ce qu'il y a une délégation qui s'oppose à cette proposition de se réunir la semaine prochaine pour essayer de voir ce qui est proposé, ce que cela peut nous rapporter, et de nous mettre d'accord aujourd'hui sur une date où le CSA pourrait reprendre au cours de la deuxième semaine d'octobre ?
Je crois que c'est très concret, tres réaliste et conforme à ce que nous devons faire. Je pense qu'il suffit maintenant de prendre une décision parce que l'état général est que nous sommes déterminés à poursuivre les négociations dans les meilleures conditions possibles. II faudrait être très concret. Je vous remercie.
EL PRESIDENTE: Quizá la respuesta a su pregunta de si alguien se opone a que haya una reunión, por lo menos preliminar, la próxima semana la tendremos en algunos momentos. Por otra parte una reunión posterior, quizá, el momento no sea hoy para determinarla sino a raíz de esas consultas que se podrían sostener la próxima semana y que serían, entonces, informadas al Consejo más adelante.
David BEEHAN (Ireland): I would like, just to make a few comments on some of the interventions already made. Firstly, in reference to the contribution from the representative from Mexico. In our view, we are not facing a political problem as he suggested. We are, at this stage, looking for the most appropriate timing for finalizing the documents that will be adopted by the Summit and I think the political will can not be put at stake in this process.
There is no link between finalizing a document, two weeks or one week, before the Summit and the problem of 800 million people suffering from hunger. What is before us is to do it right and to have it ready at the appropriate time. A re-commitment to eradication poverty and hunger, does not depend on a date a document is ready.
I noted the Director-General's contribution and I acknowledged the passion, interest and belief he has in the fight against hunger and that he has in ensuring that this is a successful Summit. However, I think we should not be pessimistic at this stage.
He did refer to other conferences and summits and that only two of them were for Heads of State and Government. I was at neither but as we stand now, at the state of preparedness that we are in, we have a text which has been considerably cleaned. We do know, that between now and the Summit, we will revisit that text to make it cleaner and we would hope that by the time the high level officials meet that the issues may be down to a number in very low, single figures. But, the reality is there are a few important, sensitive issues which we think will need resolution by high
level officials. But, we should be encouraged that in the process which we are now in, in my view and my member's views, there is no danger to the Summit, if we walk within the right framework. I think that when we revisit the text we will clean it to the extent that by the time the Summit opens, on the thirteenth of November, we will have a clean text. I think that would be a major achievement.
I would like to, unfortunately, refer to a comment by the representative of the G77 and I must say that I am disappointed that he questions the good will of the European Union. I am also disappointed that he saw fit to single out one group. We, I can assure you, are committed and the preparatory process in which we have gone, to date, and the time and money and effort by the National Experts in this preparatory process, should demonstrate the commitment on our part.
With regard to the meeting next week, as I said before, we are not talking about a question of time and by putting people into rooms will not solve the problems. We have to be in a position that we can take decisions.
I would like to refer back to the Norwegian intervention when they talked about tension would be heightened by the Summit and you referred to frustrations. I think we have to distinguish between frustration and tension towards the end of a very long negotiating period which ended on Tuesday morning. There were frustrations but we must acknowledge that we are all human, that we all put in a lot of work overload from the Friday, week before-hand. The Secretariat put in a lot of work. The Bureau. But you can only take a thing so far in one long, long step in which that was. But having said that, we achieved a lot.
Now it is our view, that before we are in a position to push forward and delete a large number of brackets further, that a certain process has to take place. We have to be realistic about this by just pushing people and time and effort at it now, will not take away the brackets in the way we would hope. We think that when the process of people having time to consult and reflect a little bit that then, if we reassemble that we can make significant progress.
In summary we would have major doubts that a meeting next week would be a good use of time and would achieve a lot.
EL PRESIDENTE: Efectivamente el ejercicio que estábamos haciendo aquí, es un ejercicio que busca ser útil a un propósito y ese es el que el Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria cumpla con el mandato y la Cumbre sea un éxito. Todos por unanimidad han manifestado su voluntad de continuar con ese proceso y de tener una Cumbre exitosa. No ha habido uno que se haya pronunciado en contra de este propósito. Todos los delegados aquí han manifestado su voluntad de hacerlo y en ese sentido el Consejo y los observadores unánimemente lo han declarado. Si el ejercicio que estamos haciendo debe ser útil, entonces, debemos concretizarlo a propuestas que puedan ser viables. Ha habido una propuesta del Presidente del Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria que ha sido apoyada por una mayoría y que ha sido modalizada de la manera siguiente: se propone, que el Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria, realice consultas, quizá el lunes de la próxima semana, y que pueda reunirse, quizá el martes y miércoles de la próxima semana, con el propósito de estudiar si se puede avanzar conforme a lo que ha expresado el Director General y en virtud de que muchas de las cuestiones que están en tela de juicio se refieren a temas que han sido tratados en otras conferencias, en otras ocasiones y sobre las cuales hay ya una redacción específica, si pueden avanzar para decidir ad referendum en torno a muchos de los corchetes que aún tiene el texto. Reconocemos que hay otros puntos que son más difíciles de resolver en esas condiciones, pero la otra modalidad es, si es útil el ejercicio que se puede realizar la próxima semana, entonces se llamaría un texto a una segunda ocasión después de que, de manera que ad referendum ustedes todos, puedan consultar con sus capitales y en esa otra ocasión más adelante, se pueda estudiar y avanzar en la limpieza del texto. Eso ha sido como lo he entendido yo, una propuesta específica que puede funcionar y que podría ser útil, por lo menos ha sido apoyada por una mayoría aquí.
Distinguidos delegados, como este Consejo tiene que tomar una decisión, debo advertir lo siguiente: en primer lugar, que se ha manifestado la voluntad política de mantener un clima de buena voluntad; en segundo lugar, la voluntad política de concluir con estas negociaciones o avanzar de manera radical para que la Cumbre sea un éxito. Se ha reconocido que es el mandato del Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria, el que tiene la función de concluir con los procedimientos y negociaciones para entregar, entre otras cosas, dos textos a la Cumbre Mundial en noviembre, y que ese mandato es intransferible. Se ha hecho una propuesta modalizada para utilizar el tiempo que, obviamente, puede poner el Consejo a disposición de los miembros del Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria para que estudien a la brevedad la forma más conveniente para avanzar en este proceso y conforme a su responsabilidad. El Consejo tiene tiempo de interpretación y de espacio y de apoyo para que el Comité trabaje en formular, la manera más conveniente para avanzar. Hemos tomado nota de las dificultades que algunos países, o grupos de países, tienen para resolver de inmediato el texto y sus corchetes, pero la fórmula alternativa ha sido propuesta, de decidir ad referendum con miras a una ulterior reunión en octubre. La fecha de dicha reunión en octubre, o en el momento en que el Comité lo considere pertinente, sería una, entre otras cuestiones que el Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria podría estudiar la próxima semana. Yo recojo de los debates que hay una mayoría de países inclusive, y me permito aquí incluir por razones obvias, entre los observadores que desean y están disponibles para continuar debatiendo y reunirse, por lo menos con esta modalidad y estas propuestas la próxima semana. La utilidad del ejercicio lo evaluaremos al final de los trabajos del Consejo, pero creo que no debe este Consejo prejuiciar la posibilidad, la opción que se le abre de avanzar en los trabajos del Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria.
Entonces, distinguidos delegados, al resumir el debate y reconociendo que no hay unanimidad, pero que sí hay una mayoría de países interesados en continuar el diálogo, propongo lo siguiente: el lunes, el Presidente del Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria tendrá ocasión de reunirse y explorar, la forma, las modalidades en las cuales podría ser útil una reunión del Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria para el martes y el miércoles, entre otras cosas, trabajando sobre la base ad referendum, para avanzar en la solución de corchetes, muchos de los cuales se refieren a temas que han sido tratados en otras ocasiones y que no directamente se vinculan con los problemas de la seguridad alimentaria, como están recogidas en el propio Plan de Acción. Asimismo, la reunión que eventualmente se celebraría a raíz de las consultas que llevaría a cabo el Presidente del Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria, tendría como unos objetivos fijar la fecha más conveniente y próxima, para que se reúna dicho Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria y pueda resolver la máxima cantidad de corchetes. La fecha de dicha reunión no está prejuiciada, no la está imponiendo este Consejo, es materia, obviamente, de negociación. El tiempo existe, la interpretación existe, el espacio existe, la voluntad política ha sido aquí manifestada.
Distinguidos delegados, esta propuesta que he hecho entiendo no es apoyada por todos, pero el Consejo deber tomar una decisión, y ésta es por lo menos la decisión que el Presidente del Consejo interpreta de la mayoría de las delegaciones que aquí se han manifestado.
David BEEHAN (Ireland): I regret having to come in at this stage of our debate and discussion and, maybe, for having to come so often and maybe you will have to call on the floor again for other people to come in. I am not too sure. We, as I have said already, Mr Chairman, need time to prepare for serious negotiations. We have lost a number of days, already, this week awaiting this discussion. I am not saying that it is anybody's fault and we do know the spirit in which people are working but the reality is, we have been here for the last few days awaiting this debate, and we could have used the time in examining the text which is coming out of the CFS and preparing ourselves.
This effort which is proposed for next week, will divert us from getting into our process of serious preparation for serious negotiations. It is not a question of time but if we put time, to talking about how we work, we will jeopardise the process. I think, we have to sit back and be a little bit realistic about what is needed, to ensure that we come to a good and timely conclusion to the
negotiations on the text. A stop-start effort of trying to push things for a couple of days next week, without allowing people the time to go home and consult and reconvene when they, then, have mandates.
I have heard many interventions tonight, saying that this process of reflection and consultation is needed before we can advance. We might meet next week for two or three days, we might take off ten or twelve brackets but the reality is where there are issues of reasonable substance. I am never going to try and identify a soft bracket from a hard bracket because the experience has been that the soft brackets are often more harder than the hard brackets.
The reality is, if we are to look at text that has evolved, some of the options within the text now are text, where there are some of our text, there are some of G77 text, there are some of North American text, they are mixtures of text where we all try to make an effort of compromise. We have, where there are brackets within text, the issues have been partially resolved. We need time to look at these, to see if we can bring it a step further and the time that will be used in what is being proposed for next week, will divert many of us from the serious business of preparing for serious negotiation.
I say it from my heart.
EL PRESIDENTE: Distinguido delegado, muchas gracias por su observación. Yo he entendido dos cosas: una, porqué hemos perdido el tiempo en los debates del Consejo antes de estudiar el texto del Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria, no entendí eso; y la segunda cuestión que no entendí es porqué el Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria podría perder el tiempo pensando la forma en que continuaría trabajando, quizá fue un problema de traducción. Pero usted dijo dos cosas: uno que hemos perdido el tiempo esta semana y la segunda cuestión que dijo es que el Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria perdería el tiempo estudiando cómo organizaría su trabajo futuro. De todas maneras, la propuesta concreta es la siguiente: que el Comité lo estudie exactamente, como lo ha hecho en pasado eliminando corchete por corchete. La propuesta es que decida ad referendum de manera que tengan ustedes una oportunidad posterior después de consultar con sus capitales para regresar. Una fórmula que se me ocurre y que ha sido aplicada en otras ocasiones es que el Presidente con la mesa, el Comité haga estas propuestas ad referendum. Ustedes no tienen que sentarse necesariamente a decidir que corchetes blandos van a poner o quitar, simplemente el texto se facilitará para su consulta ulterior.
En fin, hay varias posibilidades, por eso yo proponía el Presidente del Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria pueda explorar el lunes y, evaluar si verdaderamente el martes existen las condiciones para un debate de este tipo conforme a esa modalidad que ha sido apoyada aquí por una mayoría. No sé a qué podemos temerle.
Distinguidos delegados, yo creo que es tiempo de llegar a una decisión.
Thomas Austin FORBORD (United States of America): Your latest version of this proposal is slightly different than what I was hearing earlier and I have a lot more interest in the earlier proposal.
The Director-General had indicated that the Secretariat was preparing some text of agreed language from earlier Conferences. We have advocated several times at the CFS meeting last week the use of agreed language from earlier Conferences as not only the easiest, but probably the best solution, to a number of disagreements we have in the text. We would like to have a chance to see the Secretariat's agreed language, we would like to know when it is going to be ready, we will need to send that to Washington and get their reaction.
If it is ready tonight, we may have a reaction by Monday. That would be very tight but we will need reaction from Washington; others will need reaction from capitals, I am sure, as well.
I do not think consulting on Monday on what we do on Tuesday would be very useful but I think that, as soon as we start getting reactions from capitals on these proposals, consultations among ourselves on whether they do lead us out of a problem may be more useful. Then we could meet on Tuesday and Wednesday to learn reactions from capitals and areas where everybody agrees that the earlier text is still acceptable; we put it into the document and elimínate the brackets.
I do not like the idea of working ad referendum. If language is not agreed, it simply is not agreed. If we agree with advice from capitals that it could be done, I think we do it. To be clear what the status is, I think it has to stay in brackets, but we would be prepared to come here on Tuesday to give you reaction to language if we can get that language very quickly.
EL PRESIDENTE: Me parece muy bien, distinguido delegado de los Estados Unidos. Yo retiro esa modalidad que había propuesto a raíz de alguna intervención.
LE DIRECTEUR GENERAL: Je dois dire que nous avons dèjà préparé un premier texte pour quatre paragraphes. Malheureusement, pour le moment, il n'est qu'en anglais, mais nous sommes en train de le faire traduire et sous réserve des réactions, nous serions prtês á vous proposer d'autres textes. Pour l'instant, nous avons des textes que nous pouvons vous donner immédiatement, pour que vous ayez le temps de les communiquer à vos capitales et de les consulter. Naturellement vous ne serez pas surpris que nous ayons commencé par ce qui nous semblait poser le moins de problme parce que nous étions en terrain beaucoup plus solide et nous étions dans des domaines où nous avions des textes très précis approuvés dans d'autres réunions. Nous sommes prêts, si vous le souhaitez, á continuer le même travail et à vous donner aussi d'autres textes élaborés en tenant compte des formulations qui ont été approuvées à l'occasion d'autres conférences internationales.
EL PRESIDENTE: Muchas gracias, Director General por esta información. Yo creo que los miembros del Consejo y los observadores esperan con cierta ansiedad estos textos que serán distribuidos a la brevedad en todos los idiomas.
Ms Turid KONGSVIK (Norway): I just wanted to make a point on the ways we proceed to make decisions. Up to now we have had some quite difficult issues, also on procedure, during the process but it has always been the attitude of everybody that we should resolve them with consensus. I would regret very much that we go away from that principie and try to impose the majority vote when many groups and countries have difficulties in accepting a majority view. So I hope that Chairman Medrano, who has been very much attached, I know, to this notion of consensus and has solved problems which have come along the way on the consensus basis, I would hope that we can continué to work on that basis also in the future.
Fernando GERBASI (Venezuela): Yo simplemente escuché otra interpretación distinta a la suya en las palabras de la delegada de Noruega. Quisiera decir que el consenso es importante, pero el derecho a veto es muy negativo.
Gilbert DOH-DJANHOUNDY (Observateur de la Côte d'Ivoire): Je voudrais tout particulièrement remercier la présence du Directeur général dans la salle. Depuis le début de ces négociations, nous avons toujours clamé qu'il ne faudrait pas renégocier certains concepts qui ont déjá fait l'objet d'autres conférences et d'autres sommets. C'est pourquoi, je voudrais insister et faire la proposition suivante: que la déclaration du Directeur général, surtout sa dernière déclaration, soit publiée, que cela tienne lieu d'une lanterne pour de futures négociations sur les crochets qui restent, accompagnée bien sür des textes qui nous sont proposés de maniere à ce qu'en les examinant, l'on puisse avoir à l'esprit cette importante déclaration qui peut même fair partie du document de travail qui reste à faire.
EL PRESIDENTE: El lunes se dedicará a hacer las consultas por parte del Director General y del Presidente del Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria; martes y miércoles se reunirá el Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria y establecerá los puntos a tratar en dicha reunión. El Consejo tiene tiempo y se lo ofrece al Comité para estos propósitos.
The meeting rose at 19. 50 hours
La séance est levée à 19 h 50
Se levanta la sesión a las 19. 50 horas
