CHAIRMAN: We will begin the 18th meeting of Commission II. We have the whole of today for consideration of the report prepared by the Drafting Committee.
There are two documents which have to be discussed now, and we hope two more will be available for discussion in the afternoon. You may recall that the Drafting Committee is headed by Mr. Glistrup of Denmark and has as its membership delegates from Algeria, Bulgaria, Canada, Colombia, Cuba, France, Ivory Coast, Kenya, New Zealand, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and Sudan. I shall now request Mr. Glistrup to introduce the document and indicate the process of its preparation.
J. GLISTRUP (Chairman, Drafting Committee): I am very pleased to report to you that the Drafting Committee which was nominated by Commission II has worked for sixteen hours in the preparation of the report from the Commission. We have had excellent cooperation from the Secretariat and the work has been conducted in a spirit of cooperation.
For your information, the Drafting Committee has confined itself to reflecting the discussions which have taken place in this Commission and we have not considered the texts of any of the resolutions which have been passed on from the Commission, so they are unedited.
DRAFT REPORT OF COMMISSION II - PART 1
PROJET DE RAPPORT DE LA COMMISSION II - PARTIE I
PROYECTO DE INFORME DE LA COMISION II - PARTE 1
Paragraphs 1 to 6 approved
Les paragraphes 1 à 6 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 1 al 6 son aprobados
Paragraphs 7 to 8 approved
Les paragraphes 7 à 8 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 7 a 8 son aprobados
Paragraphs 9 to 10 approved
Les paragraphes 9 à 10 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 9 a 10 son aprobados
PARAGRAPHS 12 to 16
PARAGRAPHES 12 à 16
PARRAFOS 12 a 16
P. HALIMI (France): Il m'a été signalé ce matin qu'en ce qui concerne les semences le terme employé dans le rapport ne correspond pas à l'intitulé exact du programme qui est: "Programme d'amélioration et de développement des semences".
Je pense qu'il serait préférable d'employer le terme exact puisque nous parlons de "Programmes d'action spéciaux".
CHAIRMAN: Mr. West says that we will incorporate the correct terminology.
Paragraphs 12 to 16 approved
Les paragraphes 12 à 16 approuves
Los párrafos 12 a 16 aprobados
PARAGRAPHS 17 to 20
PARAGRAPHES 17 à 20
PARRAFOS 17 a 20
E. M. WEST (Director (ADG), Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): I promised I would keep you up to date with the question of the budget total as adjusted for the currency rate. The rate of opening on the official Italian market in Milan this morning was 819. The consequence of 819 would be to change the chapter totals again and to produce a total budget of 319. 18 less Chapter 8 of 40. 32, reducing the effective working level to $278. 86 million and this is what we shall submit in an amended Appropriations Resolution at the time of the adoption of the Plenary unless there is a dramatic change between now and then, which I hope will not be the case. The rate has in fact been fluctuating between 818 and 821 something, or 822 roughly over the last few days, so I do not expect a dramatic change.
I could read the Chapter totals but do not think there is any point at this stage. I think what members are interested in is the equivalent of the budget level we have been talking about so far, so I repeat at the moment that is $278. 86 million.
CHAIRMAN:Paragraphs 17 to 20 approved
Les paragraphes 17 à 20 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 17 a 20 son aprobados
Paragraphs 21 to 23 approved
Les paragraphes 21 à 23 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 21 a 23 son aprobados
PARAGRAPHS 24 to 95
PARAGRAPHES 24 à 95
PARRAFOS 24 a 95
M. BUENO GOMEZ (España): Nuestra delegación propondría añadir un punto (4) al párrafo 25 que hace referencia a los temas de importancia que se tuvieron en cuenta durante el debate.
A nuestro juicio, ese párrafo (4) podría decir, después de "la Conferencia quiso poner de relieve. . . . . " en lugar de "tres temas", poner "cuatro temas". Este punto sería: 4) El problema del empleo en las zonas rurales.
Creo que el problema del empleo se ha debatido en nuestra Comisión. Es un problema importante junto con los tres que figuran aquí de energía, del problema de los campesinos pobres y de las mujeres y el problema de la producción. Creemos que el empleo debe de señalarse en este Informe.
C. BENJAMIN (United States of America): It seems to me that perhaps the concern of Spain is included really in sub-paragraph (2)· We could include the wording "employment" in the paragraph perhaps, if that would be helpful.
CHAIRMAN: The suggestion of the delegate from the United States is under the second theme in para-graph 25, "the special plight of several relatively less advantaged target groups including poor farmers, low income workers, and rural women. " It is not clear to me where he will add "employment" here, unless we qualify "special plight". . . The suggestion of the delegate of Spain is to add an item (4) which could be worded something like this, "(4) the generation of opportunities for gain-ful employment in rural areas. " Does the delegate from Spain agree to this wording?
M. BUENO GOMEZ (Eepaña): Exactamente, señor Presidente, creo que ha captado precisamente la idea que queríamos proponer.
CHAIRMAN: I also feel that the problem is sufficiently important to be separately spelled out. Tf this is acceptable to you we will add in paragraph 25 an item (4) "generation of opportunities for gainful employment in rural areas", and the paragraph will start, "Four themes had emerged. . . " instead of "Three themes. . . ", if this is acceptable.
J. CLISTRUP (Chairman, Drafting Committee): I think we spent quite some time in the Drafting Committee trying to specify the themes, and if there is a general agreement of the Committee that special mention should he desirable Τ certainly go along with your proposal.
CHAIRMAN: So we amend to this extent as suggested by the distinguished delegate of Spain. Any comments on paragraphs 27 to 30?
P. MASUD (Pakistan): Regarding paragraph 27, I should like to draw your attention to paragraph 30 also which speaks partially of the same subject. That talks about improvement of water management at the farm level. You will recall that my delegation had particularly emphasized this, and I thought that there was considerable support for it, but while paragraph 27 says "the Conference supported the work on rehabilitation of existing irrigation and drainage schemes", it omits to mention the improve-ment of water management at the farm level, and in paragraph 30 it simply says "It further emphasized
Τ should he grateful if this concept of improvement of water management could he reflected in paragraph 27 and not in paragraph 30.
CHAJFMAN: As I understand it, your proposal is that paragraph 27 should read "The Conference supported the work on rehabilitation of existing irrigation and drainage schemes, the extension of irrigation areas where required, and the improvement of water management at the farm level. "
H. FARAJ (Maroc): Monsieur le Président, je me demande si la mention du texte français pour le paragraphe 27 "le cas échéant" reflète bien le contenu de nos débats, parce que "le cas échéant" semblerait affaiblir un petit peu les programmes d'extension des périmètres irrigués.
CHAIRMAN: The suggestion of the delegate of Morocco is that we delete the words "where required", and I agree with him because obviously it will only be done where possible and where required.
Now the paragraph, following the two amendments by Pakistan and Morocco, will read "The Conference supported the work on rehabilitation of existing irrigation and drainage schemes, the extension of irrigation areas, and the improvement of water management at the farm level. "
Mr. West suggests that we delete "irrigation studies and improvement of water management at the farm level from paragraph 30, so that paragraph 30 will now read "It further emphasized the importance of soil conservation, and the more effective use of fertilizers, and endorsed further efforts to re-plenish the resources of the International Fertilizer Supply Scheme.
The Chairman of the Drafting Committee concurs with the proposed changes. Shall we then incorporate them? Paragraph 27, as amended, is approved. Paragraphs 28 and 29 are approved. We are now on paragraph 30.
P. MASÜD (Pakistan): I am not quite clear what is meant by "and endorsed further efforts to re-plenish the resources of the International Fertilizer Supply Scheme. " This is a voluntary scheme, and voluntary contributions are made to the scheme. We can call upon donors to ensure that the scheme is reactivated to the level at which it was previously, so I do not understand this "endorsed further efforts to replenish. " If a word of explanation could be given, I should be grateful.
J. GLISTRUP (Chairman, Drafting Committee): I think the point made by the delegate of Pakistan is well taken, and I am sure we can find appropriate words to reflect this.
CHAIRMAN: If I understand correctly, I think the delegate of Pakistan would like it to read that we should urge donors to augment the resources of the International Fertilizer Supply Scheme. I see the delegate of Pakistan agrees, so that now paragraph 30 would read. "It further emphasized the importance of soil conservation and the more effective use of fertilizers, and urges donors to augment the resources of the International Fertilizer Supply Scheme. Paragraphs 31, 32 and 33 are approved. Any comments on paragraphs 34?
P. MASUD (Pakistan): Paragraph 34 says "it emphasized Seed Production and welcomed the support given to this activity by the Committee-of-the-Whole of the UH General Assembly, " I am not mistaken, the Committee-of-the-Whole of the UN General Assembly also supported the call for a $20 million fund for this purpose, and I think it would be appropriate to mention that also. I do not have the document which was issued after the Committee-of-the-Whole met, but I do recall a reference heing made to it and I think it would be right to mention this also.
E. M. WEST (Director (ADG), Office of Programme. Budget and Evaluation): The delegate of Pakistan is right. The Committee-of-the-Whole did support contributions to the fund, but it is for the Commission to decide, of course, whether to put it in.
CHAIRMAN: Should we mention this figure of $20 million? I see no objection, so we will incorporate the suggestion of the delegate of Pakistan. Paragraph 34 will not read "In particular, it emphasized Seed Production and welcomed the support given to this activity by the Committee of the Whole of the UN General Assembly. . . . " and I think an appropriate sentence could be added to indicate the figure. Mr. West will propose a suitable addition. Any comments on paragraph 35?
K. M. KHUDHEIR (Iraq) (interpretation from Arabic): I suggest that we should add "cash crops or industrial crops" in that paragraph: "it also emphasized that increased priority should be given to cash crops or industrial crops, food crops and horticulture. " Whether it should come after "food crops" and before "horticulture" is perhaps not important, but I think it should be included.
P. HALIMI (France): J'ai souvenir du fait que de nombreuses délégations sont intervenues pour qu'une priorité accrue soit accordée aux cultures vivriéres, à l'horticulture, aux cultures maraîohères. Je ne sais pas si nous pouvons mettre dans notre rapport que la Conférence a insisté pour tenir compte d'une priorité accrue aux cultures industrielles. Là je suis très sceptique.
E. M. WEST (Director (ADG), Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): I was about to comment on the same points. If I may make a suggestion, I think the paragraph should begin "The Conference emphasized that increased priority should be given to food crops and horticulture. . . " etc. , because that was the emphasis of the whole Conference on Food Production, not necessarily one type of food crop but a number of food crops including horticulture. Then, if the Commission wishes to add a reference to industrial and cash crops. I would suggest that it comes better as an additional sentence: "It was also proposed" - or "suggested", whichever you prefer - "that attention should also be paid to industrial and cash crops. "
H. FARAJ (Maroc): Je pense que si on cite dans le même paragraphe, au titre des priorités, les cultures vivriéres, les cultures industrielles, et l'horticulture, il n'y a plus de priorité, ou la nation de priorité diminue fortement.
CHAIRMAN: Is it your wish it should stand as it is now and we should not add "industrial and cash crops. " Morocco says if we put crops in the same sentence 'increased priority' loses its significance.
K. M. KHUDHEIR (Iraq) (interpretation from Arabic): I would like to support the proposal made by Mr. West that we add a sentence saying that the Conference also attached importance to cash crops and industrial crops.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. West proposed for paragraph 35 "the Conference also emphasized that increased priority should be given to food crops and horticulture, and to activities involving increased production and improved quality of both rainfed and irrigated rice. It felt that work on other grains as well as tuber crops should not however be neglected. It also suggested that industrial and cash crops should receive adequate attention. " Would this be acceptable to Morocco?
R. B. SINGH (Nepal): I think following the suggestion of Mr. West, if we adopt in the last sentence of the paragraph "It felt that work on other grains as well as tuber crops in improving cash and industrial crops. . . " then I think this would carry the meaning.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I think the logic is that the first part rightly places emphasis on sources of calories and nutrition for the people. The second part, a separate sentence, places emphasis also on income, market economy, cash and industrial crops. I think it is better not to lump them together. Will this be acceptable to Nepal to keep it separate? That is agreed. The Chairman of the drafting Committee also agrees.
P. D. TANOE (Côte-d'Ivoire): Nous ne savons pas si la formule proposée est: "Elle suggère également. . . ", c'est-à-dire la Conférence, ou bien si c'est: "Il a été également suggéré que. . . ". Notre délégation opterait pour la formule: "Il a également été suggéré que. . . ", bien que notre pays soit intéressé par les cultures industrielles; mais si nous devions, dans un rapport, refléter le résultat des travaux qui ont eu lieu, il ne faudrait pas rouvrir le débat et refléter vraiment ce qui a été dit dans notre Commission. Et ce qui a été dit dans notre Commission signifiait bien qu'il fallait mettre l'accent sur la culture vivrière. C'est ce que la Conférence a fait; c'est ce que la
Conférence a voulu signifier. Si certaines délégations tiennent à ce que nous fassions aussi une mention particulière des cultures industrielles et de l' apport, pas de problème. Mais alors, il faudrait que nous retenions la formule: "Il a également été suggéré que. . . . "
Z. GHOSHEH (Jordan) (interpretation from Arabic): I think there is really quite a lot of hesitation in paragraph 35· It is also suggested that increased priority should be given to food crops, market gardening and horticulture, because we are placing greater emphasis on tuber crops, grains, rainfed and irrigated rice. There is too much reference to too many crops in this paragraph.
P. Η ALIMI (Prance): Je serai bref. J' appuie la proposition qui a été faite par le représentant de la Côte-d' Ivoire et qui reflète bien mieux nos débats que les propositions qui ont été faites par d'autres délégations.
CHAIRMAN: The Ivory Coast delegate proposed "it is also suggested". Let me read out what was proposed so that there is no ambiguity. Paragraph 35 starts "The Conference also emphasized that increased priority should be given to food crops and horticulture, and to activities involving increased production and improved quality of both rainfed and irrigated rice. It felt that work on other grains as well as tuber crops should not however be neglected. It was also suggested that industrial and cash crops should receive adequate attention". This is the proposal. I think it meets with what the Ivory Coast had in mind and also France.
K. M. KHUDHEIR (Iraq) (interpretation from Arabic): No problem with us.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Glistrup, Chairman of the Drafting Committee, agrees. Paragraph 36? no comment. Paragraph 37? no comment. Paragraphs 38 and 39? no comment. Paragraphs 40 to 45? no comment. Paragraphs 46 to 50? no comments. Paragraph 51?
E. M. WEST (Director (ADG), Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): I just spotted in the English text something which might cause confusion. I think it would be better if it said ". . . recognized the relevance of programme 2. 1. 4. " to make it clear we are talking about the whole pro-gramme of research support and not just about CARIS.
CHAIRMAN: With Mr. West's amendment, I hope you agree, paragraph 51 reads "The Conference recognized the relevance of programme 2. 1. 4. to the follow-up of the UN Conference on Science and Technology for Development (UNCSTD) and noted with satisfaction that the Director-General had established an Ad Hoc Working Group to advise him on follow-up action. " Paragraph 52? no comment. Paragraph 53.
C. BENJAMIN (United States of America): In line 1 of paragraph 53 after "Declaration of Principles and Programme of Action" I would like to insert the word "as".
K. M. KHUDHEIR (Iraq) (interpretation from Arabic): I would like to suggest we should after "the crucial role of FAO" add "and the other international agencies in these objectives".
CHAIRMAN: The delegate of Iraq suggested "There was unanimous support for the crucial role of FAO and other international agencies in these objectives. "
E. M. WEST (Director (ADG), Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): I think that the debate clearly shows that the delegates stressed the crucial role of FAO, and the important word is "crucial". It is true that other international agencies, not all of them, but others, are concerned with the follow-up of these objectives, but it is FAO's role which, after all, concerns 80 percent of the problem of the rural areas which is crucial. I am not suggesting that you do not refer to other international organizations if you want to, but I would suggest in that case that the reference should be "there was support for the role of the UN System, with particular emphasis on the crucial role of FAO". I think this is important.
P. MASUD (Pakistan): If you would please look at paragraph 55, Sir, it states "The Conference welcomed the designation in the WCARRD Programme of Action of FAO as the lead agency within the United Nations System to provide follow-up to the World Conference". I think the concern has already been catered to, in the sense it does state quite clearly that the FAO would be the lead agency, and the implication is that the other agencies would naturally be involved. Therefore, I would suggest, paragraph 53 be allowed to stand as it is.
CHAIRMAN: Delegate of Iraq, do you agree with the suggestion of the delegate of Pakistan?
K. M. KHUDHEIR (Iraq) (interpretation from Arabic): I have no objection, thank you Mr. Chairman.
W. A. F. GRABISCH (Germany, Fed. Rep. of) (interpretation from German): I have a short proposal I would like to make. There is something I think has been missed out, and that is that one of the objectives of the Conference was to improve the food situation, and that is why I would like to suggest that in the third line, after "international policies" we might add, "international policies to improve nutrition, to eradicate rural poverty", and so on. If you would like me to I can repeat my proposal.
CHAIRMAN: Your proposal is very clear. The suggestion of the delegate from Germany - let me read it out with incorportation of the two suggestions, one from the United States and another from Germany. "The Conference agreed that the Declaration of Principles and Programme of Action as adopted by the World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development provided a framework for national and international policies to improve nutrition, to eradicate rural poverty, to attain growth with equity and achieve a greater degree of people's participation in development. There was unanimous support for the crucial role of FAO in these objectives. " Is that all right? I see nods everywhere, so we take it that we adopt it as amended by the delegates of the United States and Germany. Paragraph 54? no comment. Paragraph 55? no comment. Paragraph 56?
E. M. WEST (Director (ADG), Office of Programme Budget and Evaluation): I have beer advised Sir, that there has been a slight omission here. We should refer, first of all, to the formal establishment of one centre, that is the centre in Asia and the Pacific. So-"establishment of the Centre on Integrated Rural Development for Asia and the Pacific". Then we should go on to refer to other centres -"and moves to establish similar centres for Africa, Latin America and the Near East regions. "
CHAIRMAN: Is the suggestion of Mr. West all right because there is only one centre that has been established so far. "The formal establishment of the centre on integrated Rural Development for Asia and the Pacific and moves to establish similar centres for Africa, Latin America and the Near East regions and stressed that FAO should provide the technical assistance required by these centres and their associated national centres to enable them to function effectively". Is this acceptable?
Paragraph 56, as amended is approved. Paragraph 57?
M. A. OROZCO DEZA (México): Le pido disculpas por regresar al párrafo 57, en el que quisiéramos proponer un añadido a la segunda línea, después de las palabras "y créditos" y ubicar ahí "y tecnología adecuada". Nada más.
CHAIRMAN: The suggestion of the delegate of Mexico is paragraph 57, "The Conference emphasized the need for adequate services, adequate technology, marketing and credit, particularly for small farmers, and the crucial importance of training".
P. MASUD (Pakistan): Could we say "appropriate technology" instead of "adequate technology"? There may be some problems with the translation from Spanish to English but in English it would be better to say "appropriate technology".
CHAIRMAN: Is that acceptable "appropriate technology" instead of "adequate technology"? So paragraph 57 will be, "The Conference emphasized the need for adequate services, appropriate technology, marketing and credit, particularly for small farmers, and the crucial importance of training. "
C. BENJAMIN (United States of America): It seems to me that the "adequate" that goes before "services" applies also to marketing and credit. I would think if we are going to put in "appropriate technology", it might be better to put it before the "adequate services".
CHAIRMAN: In other words, as amended by the delegate of the United States, paragraph 57 will read "The Conference emphasized the need for appropriate technology, adequate services, marketing and credit, particularly for small farmers, and the crucial importance of training. " Is that all right? Paragraph 57, as amended, is approved. Paragraph 58?
H. FARAJ (Maroc): Mon intervention se réfère uniquement à la formulation du texte français. Lorsque l'on dit que les ruraux sont "des éléments de la chaîne de commercialisation et de traitement", il serait peut-être opportun d'adopter une formulation plus appropriée et moins péjorative, si vous me permettez l'expression.
CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Killingsworth says this difference in translation can be sorted out later. Thank you for pointing it out.
Sra. Doña M. SPEELMANS ARENAS (Venezuela): Tal vez en el punto 58, en la versión en español, la palabra "vital", cuando se dice "la importancia vital de la mujer" en la primera línea, suena un poco fuerte. Creo que se podría mejor expresar como "la importancia crucial de la mujer", es decir, "crucial de la mujer".
CHAIRMAN: Shall we accept the suggestion of the delegate of Venezuela that instead of "vital importance" we insert "crucial importance"? Paragraph 58 as amended, is approved. Paragraph 59? Approved. Paragraph 60?
C. BENJAMIN (United States of America): In order to be a little more specific so that we show that the Conference approved the exercise of discretion by the Director-General, I think it might be useful to put in after the words "Director-General", "within existing FAO rules". I do not know that that is not implicit, but I think it might be useful to put it explicitly.
E. M. WEST (Director (ADG), Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): I have no objection to the insertion of the words. I think they are redundant because the Director-General always follows the rules. The important thing here is that this makes it clear that when and if he comes in due course to the Programme and Finance Committees in the Council with programme and budgetary changes, the United States will not say "why have you made changes in a budget which we approved only last November?"
CHAIRMAN: Would the delegate of the United States still like his amendment after Mr. West's explanation?
C. BENJAMIN (United States of America): If you do not feel it is necessary, I will not insist upon it. It just seemed to me that this might be a little more specific. If Mr. West has no objection to it, why do we not leave it in?
P. MASUD (Pakistan): Rules are there to be followed and you exercise discretion in all your decisions. I think it would appear to be over-emphasizing or reiterating a fact which does not really need to be mentioned at all. You do not say after every rule, "We expect that you will follow this, " everybody understands that if there are rules and regulations one has to follow them.
CHAIRMAN: I see some difficulty about what the United States has in mind, "the Conference approved the exercise. . . " The delegate of Pakistan says that discretion will be necessary many times, so can we say, "the Conference recognized the need for the exercise of discretion"? In other words, there is no need for prior approval, one does recognize that this would be necessary as one goes along. If this is agreed, paragraph 60 is now amended to read, "The Conference recognized the need for the exercise of discretion by the Director-General in making any necessary readjustments to ensure adequate flexibility in pursuing the mandate of WCARRD. " Paragraph 60, as amended, is approved. Paragraph 61?
P. MASUD (Pakistan): Paragraph 61 states ". . . noted that resources were proposed to allow for a larger-scale response to country requests for assistance, especially those directed towards rural development. . . " Requests for nutrition cannot bring about rural development, although it can improve one of the factors which can contribute to rural development. Therefore, by allowing resources for nutrition, I fail to see how you can improve or contribute to rural development but not bring about rural development. I thought somebody might like to clarify this.
J. GLISTRUP (Chairman, Drafting Committee): The paragraph is to me at least fairly clear, it says that the Conference approved the increased emphasis given to this Programme which reflected a higher priority for nutrition and noted that resources were proposed to allow for a larger-scale response to requests received from countries for assistance, especially those - and "requests" is understood -directed towards rural development. In other words, to me it means requests for nutritional activities directed to rural development. That is how I understand the paragraph and I think it is fairly clear. I hope the delegate of Pakistan agrees with me.
CHAIRMAN: If I understood it correctly, the suggestion of the delegate of Pakistan was that the sen-tence should say, "to allow for a larger-scale response to country requests for assistance toward the formulation and implementation of national nutrition policies and programmes. " In other words "especially those directed towards rural development" may be left out.
P. MASUD (Pakistan): I am very grateful to you for putting it better than I did, that is exactly what I wanted. However, since the feeling appears to be that everybody understands what this means, I will not insist upon my amendment. However, I feel it does not carry any meaning.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Glistrup says that he does not mind if the other one makes better sense, that we need more support toward the formulation and implementation of national nutrition policies and programmes, and "especially those directed towards rural development" could be omitted, particularly since in para. 60 WCARRD is specifically mentioned.
Paragraph 61, as amended, approved. Paragraphs 62, 63, 64, 65 and 66 are approved. Any comments on paragraph 67?
P. MASUD (Pakistan): Paragraph 67 notes the point which was made by my delegation when speaking on the subject that this was one of the mandatory activities of the Organization. I would also suggest that this information would be beneficial for end-users because just churning out information which is not beneficial to end-users is sometimes a wasteful expenditure of money. So I would be grateful if that idea could be reflected.
E. M. WEST (Director (ADG), Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): I think that could come in paragraph 68 where it says 'the collection and analysis of statistics and other data'. It is all very important and we could say after the words 'food production and distribution' 'directed towards the requirements of Member Countries' and that would make it clear.
CHAIRMAN: So the proposal is that paragraph 67 should be left as it is and paragraph 68 would read as follows: 'It was felt that the collection and analysis of statistics and other data on commodities, public expenditure and price supports in agriculture, food production and distribution, directed towards the requirements of Member Countries, inter-alia was, however, vital to the successful conduct of the Organization's activities. The Conference supported the proposals to strengthen the Global Information and Early Warning System. '
Does this meet with your needs? The delegate of Pakistan agrees with this proposal of Mr. West. Any comments on paragraphs 69-73?
D. BETI (Suisse): L'étude Agriculture: Horizon 2000 a été effectivement mentionnée à plusieurs reprises dans cette Commission, mais, au fond, nous n'en avons pas discuté à proprement parlé; la Commission I, par contre, a eu l'occasion de s'exprimer de façon exhaustive sur la valeur de cette étude. Il nous semblerait dès lors plus opportun de laisser à la Commission I le soin de donner un avis autorisé sur l'importance de cette étude. Nous pensons qu'il serait préférable que la Commission II s'abstienne de se prononcer sur son importance, mais évidemment nous souhaiterions entendre d'autres avis de délégués ici présents, à ce sujet.
K. CHOUERI (Liban) (interprétation de l'Arabe): Il a été fait à maintes reprises référence à l'étude Agriculture: Horizon 2000 dans cette même salle, et étant donné que nous parlons ici des politiques alimentaires et agricoles de la FAO, nous ne pouvons que faire référence à l'étude Agriculture: Horizon 2000.
C. BENJAMIN (United States of America): It seems to me that where we are talking of the Programme, that we ought to include things that were supported in the discussion. I know that our country and others referred tc At: 200( at the time and gave it considerable support. I think this probably correctly reflects the discussion by including it.
M. ZJALIC (Yugoslavia): I think that this paragraph reflects the discussion in this Commission, and we would just mention that we consider this document to be highly valuable in the formulation of FAO policies. We have not formulated FAO policies, assistance and so on as yet. We suggest it is a valuable formulation and a valuable ground for future work.
CHAIRMAN: I think the delegations of the United States, the Netherlands and Yugoslavia feel that in as much as these minutes reflect what was discussed here, paragraph 70 should stand as such, and I personally do not see, unless there is going to be a conflict between the recommendations of Commission I and II, and unless there is going to be some contradiction, why this could not stand as it is.
P. MASUD (Pakistan): I too feel that this paragraph should be allowed to stand. I had the privilege of chairing the Drafting Group in Commission I when this matter was dealt with at length, and there is no difference between what this report has stated and what was stated in Commission I.
D. BETI (Suisse): Nous n'avons pas fait exprès de proposition de suppression de ce paragraphe, n'étant pas tout à fait surs nous-mêmes; nous voulions justement entendre quelques avis dans la salle; nous les avons entendus, et en ce qui nous concerne nous ne proposons pas la suppression.
CHAIRMAN: So we retain the paragraph as it is, particularly as the Chairman of the Drafting Group of Commission I has confirmed that what is down here is also the sense of the other Commission.
C. BENJAMIN (United States of America): May I go back to paragraph 70 or At: 2000. I find that we would like to add a sentence to that since this refers to the Conference and not strictly to this Commission. I would like to add a sentence to the end of that paragraph which would read. "The Conference also indicated the need for changes in the final report'-.
E. M. WEST (Director (ADG), Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): Mr. Chairman, a question; was it changes or was it additions and adjustments?
P. MASUD (Pakistan): No changes were suggested. It was pointed out that this is an interim study and it would be revised, and with that everybody was satisfied. Since it is an interim study and since it is going to be revised, changes of course would occur. In that sense I think again the feeling of Commission I was that we should accept the position as it is.
J. BERTELING(Netherlands): Would it be helpful if we make cross references to the other paragraphs in the final report, and then probably it is all solved.
H. CARANDANG (Philippines): In paragraph 70 you have a general statement about the value of At: 2000, but the details of this have not been discussed in this Commission, so I think the report snould be very general. This Commission does not know what has been adopted on the other side, so I think we should just make a general statement as it is.
CHAIRMAN: The suggestion of the Netherlands delegation is that we should give a cross reference here to the point made by the delegate for Pakistan, namely that Commission I had taken note of the fact that the document is of an interim nature and therefore may undergo changes. If we give a cross reference will that be satisfactory?
Ε. M. WEST (Director (ADG), Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): To make matters clear, when the final report is prepared - I mean the printed book - there is no Commission I, Commission II, and Commission III; it is all Conference, and what is normal practice in such circumstances is simply to insert in parenthesis saying 'See paragraph so and so, so and so', and that in effect gives everybody's view, as recorded somewhere else in the report, recognition. So you do not need any further explanation. You simply leave the sentence as it is and put in brackets 'See paragraph so and so' and that draws attention to the paragraphs elsewhere in the report which covers everybody else's point of view.
A. HURT (Belgique): Concernant le paragraphe 70, je pense que tout le monde pourrait être mis d'accord, à condition que l'on dise: 'la Conférence reconnaît que l'étude provisoire Agriculture: Horizon 2000. ' A partir de ce moment là, il n'y a plus d'objection à considérer dans ce paragraphe, elle est reconnue comme provisoire et on porte un jugement simplement sur la notion de ' étude provisoire'.
E. M. WEST (Director (ADG), Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): 1 think the suggestion of parenthesis covers that. I sympathize with what the delegate of Belgium says but this is not about the provisional study; this is about what it is proposed to do in 1980/81, which will be the final study. So I think the parenthesis is essential to convey everybody's point of view, whether for or against, about the final study.
H. CARANDANG (Philippines): Is it understood that we have no change in the paragraph unless we make cross references to the corresponding report of Commission I? Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: It is the suggestion of Mr. West also that a proper reference will be made in parenthesis. I think we can accept this and move on. Any comments on paragraph 74?
M. A. OROZCO DEZA (México): Yo quisiera hacer únicamente una observación aclaratoria a la versión en español, en la que considero que, de acuerdo con las palabras que hemos venido usando en los comités de Pesca en el Consejo, no debe citarse como "Gran Programa", sino como "Programa Global". Es exclusivamente para el texto en español, repito.
E. M. WEST (Director (ADG), Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): The title does not refer to the EEZ; it refers to the programme for fisheries in the budget, and the terminology for the structure of the budget is Major Programmes, Programmes, Sub-programmes. As long as the Spanish text is consistent with what we have used in the past to describe major programmes, and the French text too which says "grandesprogrammes", it does not refer to EEZ; it refers to the whole programme of fisheries purely in budgetary terms. Every other programme in the budget is under "Major Programmes".
CHAIRMAN: With these comments paragraph 74 is approved. Any comments on paragraphs 75 to 77? If not, they are approved. Paragraph 78?
P. MASUD (Pakistan): Unfortunately, this paragraph gives a somewhat misleading impression. "In order to develop inland fisheries and aquaculture", the impression one gathers is that this activity should be limited to those countries which do not have marine fisheries. Actually, the contrary is true. A large number of countries have stressed the need for developing inland fisheries, and it would only be fair if it were reflected in this paragraph. I think the paragraph should be redrafted, because under the present circumstances it gives the impression that the only countries which do not have marine fisheries. This would be contrary to the impression that my delegation had.
CHAIRMAN: The delegate of Pakistan has made an important point. I would suggest for your consideration the following amendment: "The Conference agreed that special efforts should be made in order to develop inland fisheries and aquaculture. Those countries which did not have the opportunity for marine fisheries should in particular develop inland fisheries within their overall rural development programmes". In other words, we are not discouraging those who have marine fisheries from taking an interest in inland fisheries but only saying that those who do not have an opportunity for marine fisheries should be paid particular attention.
Is that satisfactory to the delegate of Pakistan?
P. MASUD (Pakistan): Could we say that those countries which did not have the opportunity for marine fisheries should be helped in developing inland fisheries? The impression is that those countries need more help than the other ones. We have no objection to that as long as the concept of inland fisheries and aqaculture in all developing countries is recognized.
CHAIRMAN: The sentence will now read as follows, as suggested by the delegate of Pakistan. We shall put a full stop after "aquaculture", and the second sentence of paragraph 78 will read "Those countries which did not have the opportunity for marine fisheries should be helped in developing inland fisheries within their overall rural development programmes. " Is that satisfactory?
P. D. TANOE (Côte-d'Ivoire): Dans le texte français, on pourrait penser, si la rédaction devait demeurer en état, que pour les pays ayant une zone maritime, ils devraient seuls pouvoir fournir un effort particulier pour développer leur pêche continentale et l’aquaculture ce qui ne semble pas être le cas. Est-ce que l'on ne pourrait pas faire mention tout simplement d'une assitance particulière pour les autres pays afin d'inclure aussi l'assistance des pays maritimes?
CHAIRMAN: I think there should be no objection to the suggestion by the Ivory Coast that we add "Those countries which did not have the opportunity for marine fisheries should in particular be helped in de-veloping inland fisheries. " Paragraph 78, as amended, is approved. Paragraph 79. Mr. Wright says there is one word which should be inserted here: "The Conference recognized that the establishment of EEZ required increased cooperation amongst nations in managing and developing fisheries, because of shared fish stocks…. . " The word "shared" has to be inserted before "fish stocks". . . . . "and the scarcity of human and financial resources in the developing countries" Paragraph 79, as amended, is approved.
K. M. KHUDHEIR (Iraq) (interpretation from Arabic): There is an error in the Arabic text, because we say that countries with a coastline would have responsibility, they would be responsible for conservation. I think this amendment only concerns the arabic text. I suggest that we add also "Developing countries ought to be guaranteed against interference from multinationals. "
P. D. TANOE (Côte-d'Ivoire): Dans le texte français, je comprends que les pays côtiers seraient responsables d'assurer le développement de leur pêche continentale, on pourrait peut-être dire: "Les pays cÔtiers seraient responsables de la conservation, de l'aménagement, etc. ".
CHAIRMAN: Are we agreed that the appropriate changes can be made?
P. HALIMI (France): Je viens de faire parvenir au Secrétariat une demande de rectification concernant les paragraphes 75 et 79: on emploie le terme "pêcheries" alors qu'en français il faut employer le terme "pêche".
CHAIRMAN: These editorial or translation changes can be incorporated, but there is one substantive suggestion by the delegate of Iraq that we should add in paragraph 80 after the sentence "It urged FAO to respond to the rapidly increasing requests from countries for assistance ranging from stock assessment to surveillance and enforcement. " "The developing countries should be guaranteed or protected from interference by multinationals. " Is that what the delegate of Iraq wants?
K. M. KHUDHEIR (Iraq) (interpretation from Arabic): Yes, it is precisely what I should like.
CHAIRMAN: The Secretary points out that FAO has no possibility of giving any guarantee. You cannot recommend to an Organization something which is beyond its jurisdiction and competence. Would the delegate of Iraq like to word it in a more general way and say that intereference by multinationals should be guarded against, or something of that kind?
K. M. KHUDHEIR (Iraq) (interpretation from Arabic). Yes, Mr. Chairman, I leave it to you to choose the precise wording of the sentence.
CHAIRMAN: Paragraph 80, as amended, is approved. Paragraphs 81 and 82 approved. Paragraph 83. Any comments?
M. A. OROZCO DEZA (México): Yo quisiera proponer una enmienda en la última línea del párrafo 83: Después de la palabra "lejanas" y a partir de ahí, suprimir el resto de la oración y modificarla por el siguiente texto: Después de "lejanas", escribir "respetarían la soberanía de los países en desarrollo ribereños".
Mis argumentos son porque los países en desarrollo que no tienen capacidad potencial pesquera no pueden controlar a las grandes flotas pesqueras. Esto todos lo sabemos. En segundo lugar, porque esas grandes flotas pesqueras vienen de países con potencial y capacidad de pesca, y en tercer lugar, porque en el Programa las economías están orientadas principalmente a apoyar a los países en desarrollo soberanos.
CHAIRMAN: What amendment are you proposing to paragraph 83?
M. A. OROZCO DEZA (México): Después de la palabra "lejanas", en la última línea, diría: "Respetarían las soberanías de los países en desarrollo ribereños".
L. I. J. SILVA (FAO Staff): I can see the point made by the delegate of Mexico, but my difficulty is trying to fit in this particular paragraph. The EEZ programme which is the FAO programme would not guarantee this kind of situation, that roving distant-water fleets would respect the sovereignty of coastal developing nations. The declaration of EEZs and the recognition that coastal states do control zones extending up to 200 miles from their coasts would naturally result in respect for this jurisdiction, this control of the zones by the coastal states. It is a slightly different situation. Maybe if you wish to take this into account you will have to put it right at the start, where the fact of the declaration of the EEZs has resulted in recognition of coastal state jurisdiction over the zones and therefore respect for national coastal sovereignty over those waters, but I would not see it coming in as a result of the consequence of the FAO EEZ programme. That is the point.
CHAIRMAN: It is an important point. What we are discussing are the comments on the programme of FAO, not general issues connected with EEZ implentation, whether FAO's proposals are in accordance with our wishes. Shall we accept the suggestion of Mr. Silva? Is it all right, Mexico?
M. A. OROZCO DEZA (México): Agradezco a la Secretaría la información que nos proporciona, pero yo quisiera insistir en que si este Programa está suponiendo que los países en desarrollo ribereños con dificultades para promover su pesca van a poder controlar a las grandes flotas comerciales pesqueras, estamos suponiendo una ilusión, puesto que pensamos que en este caso también existe la voluntad polí-tica de estas flotas comerciales de respetar una soberanía, y esto está manifiesto en este Programa de zonas económicas exclusivas.
E. M. WEST (Director (ADG), Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): I think the solution to the problem is to break the paragraph into two sentences. The first one would end with "small-scale coastal fishermen". This refers to the beneficiaries of the EEZ programme. We could then have a second sentence which makes a point that Mexico wishes to see inserted, to the effect that large roving commercial fleets from distant waters should respect the sovereignty of governments over their EEZs.
M. A. OROZCO DEZA (México): Sí, señor Presidente, nada más insistir en lo de "las soberanías de los países en desarrollo ribereños".
CHAIRMAN: Paragraph 83 as amended now as suggested by Mexico and Mr. West reads: "The Conference noted with satisfaction that the major beneficiaries of the EEZ programme would be the small-scale coastal fishermen. Large roving commercial fleets from distant waters should respect the sovereignty of coastal developing countries over their EEZs. " Is this alright, Mexico? Agreed Paragraphs 84 to 88 - no comment.
Paragraphs 24-95 not concluded
Les paragraphes 24-95 sont en suspens
Los párrafos 24-95 quedan pendientes
The meeting rose at 12. 00 hours
La seance est levée à 12 heures
Se levanta la sesión a las 12. 00 horas
