CHAIRMAN: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. First, we need a drafting committee, and after consultations I recommend the following members: as Chairman, Mr. Dag ULNES from Norway, and as members the following countries: Belgium, Indonesia, Jordan, Liberia, Syria, Thailand, the United States of America, Venezuela, Zambia. We are still waiting for a second country from Latin America to be proposed and I would appreciate it if this proposal could come preferably during this morning.
T. HAYAKAWA (Japan): Japan would like to be a member of the drafting committee. I wonder if it would be possible to include Japan in that committee?
CHAIRMAN: Regarding the question put by the delegate of Japan, consultations have been undertaken regarding the composition of the drafting committee with every Region, and each Region has been asked to appoint two members to the drafting committee; so if there are problems for Japan, I would recommend that he take the matter up in the Region.
P.J. SKOUFIS (Assistant Director-General: Administrative and Finance Department): The documents relevant to Agenda Item 23, Audited Accounts, are, first, C 79/5, Financial Report and Statements, 1976-1977; document C 79/6 and C 79/6(a), UNDP Financial Report and Statement for 1977 and 1978; document C 79/7 and C 79/7(a), Financial Report and Statements for 1977 and 1978; Conference document C 79/LIM/22, Audited Accounts - this is the extract from the 76th Session of the Council - and finally, documents C 79/LIM/31 the third report of the Resolutions Committee, Commission III.
In accordance with Article 20 (b) of the General Rules of the Organization, the Conference adopts the final accounts of the Organization for the preceding fiscal period after having considered the report of the Council thereon. At its 74th and 76th Sessions the Council reviewed the accounts and took note of the external auditor's comments and the actions taken by the Organization in regard to these. The Council has therefore recommended that the Conference adopt these accounts and a draft resolution for this purpose in contained in document C 79/LIM/2. This resolution has been examined and found receivable by the Resolutions Committee per document C 79/LIM/31.
CHAIRMAN: Are there any comments on this Item? In that case, I take it the Commission has approved it.
P. J. SKOUFIS (Assistant Director-General: Administrative and Finance Department): The document relevant, to Agenda Item 24, scale of contributions, are C 79/LIM/8, Scale of Contributions; C 79/LIM/31, Third Report of the Resolutions Committee, Commission III, and C 79/LIM/33, Scale of Contributions, 1980/81.
Document C 79/LIM/8 provides an extract from the Report of the 76th Session of the Council and you will note that it contains a proposal for a Conference Resolution which the Resolution Committee examined and found receivable, subject to drawing attention to the need to adjust the Appendix to this draft as a consequence of the addition of new Member nations.
As will be seen from document C 79/LIM/33 the Council has recommended that the FAO scale for 1980/81 be derived directly from the 1980/82 United Nations scale. The United Nations scale of assessments for 1980/82 as adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 34/36 (a) on 25 October 1979 is based on the most recent and complete evaluation of Member nations' capacity to pay. I wish to note that the Appendix to document C 79/LIM/33 is a provisional proposed scale of contributions determined in accordance with the foregoing and reflects the admission to membership in the Organization, not only of Dominicana and Samoa, but also the likely admission of St. Lucia on which the Conference is expected to vote on Monday, 26 November.
Should it transpire that St. Lucia is not admitted to Membership in the Organization prior to the adoption by Commission III of its report, the proposed scale to be attached to that Report would be amended accordingly.
MRS. P.F.M. VAN DER TOGT (Netherlands): The Director-General when introducing the Programme of Work and Budget stated that the budget rate would be less for countries like the Netherlands because the guilder has been re-evaluated viz-a-vie the dollar since the last biennium, In fact there was hardly any re-evaluation but now it is proposed to raise our assessment by two per cent, which means a 12 per cent rise in our contribution. This means an enormous extra burden for the Netherlands-budget.
The Netherlands delegation, in the Fifth Committee of the United Nations General Assembly, has criticized in principle the way the scale of assessment has been calculated and the delegation did not vots in favour of it. Nevertheless my delegation accepts the principle for FAO to follow the United Nations scale of assessment, therefore I can support the proposed scale for FAO. We would, however, place on record the above mentioned observations and request to include them in the Conference report.
CHAIRMAN: This shall be done.
R. H. ROBERTSON (Australia): I find myself in very much the same position as the representative of the Netherlands who has just spoken. I am obliged to make a very, very short statement for the record although I can, like the Netherlands, accept the resolution that has been put before us. I can do so because my delegation is firmly of the opinion that in appropriate cases common issues within the United Nations family should be faced in a common way and that the scale of contributions, in particular, devised by the Committee on Contributions in New York should be applied with appropriate modifications for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Nevertheless, as my colleague, the Permanent Representative of Australia to the United Nations, said last month in New York, "There has been, in our belief, an error in the base used for the determination of Australia's contribution" and this has had the effect of quite significantly increasing our percentage contribution, not only to the budget of the United Nations but also to the budget of FAO. Australia will be making every effort to have this rectified for future United Nations and other assessments.
T. HAYAKAWA (Japon): Nous n'avons pas l'intention de nous opposer au projet de résolution sur le barème des contributions qui nous a été soumis. Pourtant, nous devons remarquer que ce projet de résolution est une exception â la résolution N. 42/55, qui a été adoptée â la huitième conférence de la FAO et qui reste en vigueur.Nous comprenons que cette résolution de la huitième Conférence de la FAO que je viens de citer continuera de rester en vigueur. Nous espérons que cette observation sera mentionnée dans le rapport.
G. DE BARROS CARVALHO DE MELLO MOURAO (Brazil): My delegation does not support the proposed scale of contributions for the biennium 1980-81 and I want to make a declaration on it in this sense; I will try to make a very concise and explicit intervention on this item, which is of great concern for my country.
First of all I want to make clear here that the Brazilian delegation strongly supports the budget as proposed by the Director-General for the acceptance of our Conference. We strongly support it in the understanding that it is the minimum acceptable for our Organization to enable it to continue to fulfill its important role in the promotion of the development of the rural sector of the developing countries. That was what we did in the sessions of the Council and of the Programme Committee in which we participated and that was what we did in the session of the Commission I of this Conference. We cannot, howver, as I said, support these proposed scales of contributions for the biennium 1980-81.
We completely agree with the considerandum of this draft resolution which, taking into account the United Nations scale of assessments for 1980-82 appeals to the member nations capacity to pay. This appeal, howver, does not look like being heard and this is the position already expressed by the Brazilian Delegation at the General Assembly of the United Nations. Indeed, our delegation in New York is only one more among several of the developing countries which are asking for a change in the present ways of evaluation of the capacity to pay of member states. It is because we believe that the present formula of evaluation is really creating new and harder obligations to several developing countries, among which is Brazil.
Sometimes numbers speak better than words and I will bring to you a few numbers in order the better to explain the position of my country. In the scale for 1978-79 the percentage due by Brazil was of 1.29 per cent, already superior to that of eight developed countries. In the scale proposed for 1980-81 our contribution will be of 1.55.per cent, surprisingly superior this time to that of no more eight, but ten developed countries, among which there are several OECD countries, which as we all know occupy the top level of income distribution among the countries of the world, countries which we hardly accept have a capacity to pay which would be smaller than that for a developing country like Brazil. You see, the proposed scale of contributions will signify to Brazil an increase in its contribution of more than 25 per cent and this in nominal terms because, as you know, my country has to pay its contributions in dollars. This contingency, for a country that has presently an annual inflation much higher than that of developed countries, and particular problems with its balace of payments. This contingency multiplies enormously the real incresse of our contribution.
Brazil firmly believes that our Organzation cannot impose upon its developing member nations a burden as heavy as the one it is imposing now on my country. The General Assembly adopted a scale of contribution by which Brazil would be responsible for a percentage of 1.27 of the budget of the United Nations. We agree with the procedure of deriving the FAO scale from that of the United Nations and we are aware of the fact that not all United Nations members are also members of our Organization and that their percentage must be distributed among FAO members. We do not understand, however, how this redistribution can cause a developing country to be placed in a position of having to pay 25 per cent more than its previous contributions, in nominal terms, and more than 50 per cent in real terms.
My country, as you may see in document C 79/LIM/7 had not been able to pay until the beginning of this month 61 per cent of its 1979 assessment. This is not because we do not want to pay our share or because we do not want FAO to do its job. On the contrary, we will certainly pay and Brazil is one of the countries that strongly insists, in all meetings of the Organization, that FAO has a most noble mission to accomplish; to help developing countries and among them Brazil, to develop their rural sector. What we cannot accept is that, being one of the characteristics of developing countries, the lack of financial resouces, the scale of contributions penalize some of these developing countries with hard and unfair obligations, hard and unfair because the severe increase in the percentage of those countries are particularly due to factors upon which we, developing countries, do not have control or responsibilities; hard and unfair because that increase will certainly impede the efforts of countries toward social and economic development, which finally is the ultimate object of FAO itself.
I would like to express the conviction of my country that the next conference of FAO will adopt a scale of contributions which will reflect the desire already expressed in the United Nations Assembly by the developing countries that the scale of contributions does reflect realistically the capacity to pay of its members.
Finally I will come to a concrete proposal, I would like to ask the Secretariat through you to provide written detailed information on the criteria that actually guides the redistribution among FAO members of the percentage that falls upon United Nations members which are not members of our Organization. Such information should be provided, if not, for reasons of economy, to every member, at least to the Council members, as it is the Council that recommends the scale to the Conference.
CHAIRMAN: Are there any more comments? To Brazil I would say that we respect his position. The information he is asking for will be fully given to him by the Secretariat.
G. DE BARROS CARVALHO DE MELLO MOURAO (Brazil): I do not want the information to be given to my delegation but to member nations of FAO, among which several of them are not member nations of the United Nations and are not expected to know how this evaluation works.
CHAIRMAN: The Secretariat has taken note of your request. As it seems that the majority of this Commission has supported the draft resolution I take it that it is agreed upon.
P.J. SKOUFIS (Assistant Director-General, Adminstration and Finance Department): The document related to 25.1 Working Funds are C 79/LIM/3, Working Capital Fund, Extract from report of the Council; C 79/LIM/21 Working Capital Fund and C 79/LIM/31 Third Report of the Resolutions Committee Commission III. Under the provisions of the Conference Resolution 17/69, as amended by Conference Resolution 33/75 the Director-General in 1978 authorized a withdrawal of $350, 000 from the Working Capital Fund for emergency action against desert locusts in the Red Sea area. In addition the Director-General mobilized substantial funds from other sources to help the countries which suffered most seriously from the plague.
The countries which were assisted with the funds withdrawn from the Working Capital Fund are all included in the category of least developed countries. It is therefore unrealistic to expect that these countries will be in a position to reimburse the funds spent for this emergency action.
Under financial regulation 6.5(b) the Conference determines by what method the Working Capital Fund shall be reimbursed. The Council at its last session endorsed the Director-General's proposal that the Working Capital Fund be reimbursed from the cash surplus expected in the 78-79 biennum.
The Conference and this Commission may wish to adopt the draft resolution which appears in document C 79/LIM/21 and which the Resolutions Committee examined and found receivable as per their document C 79/LIM/31.
CHAIRMAN: Are there any comments on this item? If not, I take it that the draft resolution is adopted by the Commission.
P. J. SKOUFIS (Assistant Director-General, Adminstration and Finance Department): The documents which refer to agenda Item 25.2, Funding of Special Reserve Account, are C 79/LIM/20, Funding of Special Reserve Account, and C 79/LIM/31, Third Report of the Resolutions Committee, Commission III.
The Conference will recall that at its Nineteenth Session it established a special reserve account amounting to US $5 million. The purpose of this account is to assist in protecting the Organization's programme of work against the effects of adverse currency fluctuations and unbudgeted inflationary trends. Because of the weakening of the US dollar substantial unbudgeted costs have been incurred in 1978-79. It now seems likely that such costs will amount to about US $3.5 million for the biennium. When these costs have been debited to the special account only about US $1.5 million will be left and carried forward into the next biennum, 1980-81.
When the Conference established the Special Reserve Account it also decided that if the balance in this account at the end of the biennium would not amount to 2.5 percent of the effective working budget for 1980-81, proposals should be submitted through the Finance Committee and Council on ways and means of bringing the account up to that level.
The Council at its last session therefore recommended that such portion of the remaining cash surplus as is required to raise the level of the Special Reserve Account as at 31 December 1979 to 2.5 percent of the effective 1980-81 working budget be withheld and credited to the Special Reserve Account.
In the circumstances the Commission and the Conference may wish to adopt the draft resolution which appeared in C 70/LIM/20 which, as I have said, the Resolutions Committee examined and found receivable in its Third Report, document C 79/LIM/31.
CHAIRMAN: Are there any interventions on this item? If not, I take it that the resolution is accepted by the Commission.
F.E.K. CHANDLER (Canada): The Canadian delegation considers that by using the full budget concept FAO does not require a reserve account to cover inflation. Accordingly we believe that while the Special Reserve Account can be used to compensate where necessary and appropriate for adverse currency fluctuations it should not be used to cover unbudgeted costs due to inflation. I would like this to be put in the record.
CHAIRMAN: It will be in the record.
W.YOUNG (United States of America): I would like to raise a point of information. I believe that in passing this resolution to provide for a Special Reserve Account at 2.5 peroent of the Regular Budget we have increased the size of the Special Reserve Account. Would Mr. Skoufis please enlighten me if I am correct and by how much is it increased?
P.J.SKÖUFIS (Assistant Director-General Administrative and Finance Department): I am afraid I cannot provide any precise figures for the delegate of the United States of America, since the budget level has not yet been established by the Conference. It can only be after the Conference has made its decision as to the budget level and the rate of exchange to be used that we will be able to get a figure. But in response to the delegate of the United States of America, it is true that the percentage would go up if the budget level goes up.
CHAIRMAN: Is this satisfactory to the United States of America?
W.YOUNG (United States of America): Yes.
P.J.SKDUFIS (Assistant Director-General Administrative and Finance Department): On Item 25.3, Allocation of Cash Surplus, there is no document, since this particular item was related to the previous items, 25.1 and 25.2. Since the resolution is going forward for adoption with regard to the cash surplus as well as the resolution concerning the Working Capital Fund and the Special Reserve Account, there are no comments that I can make on this particular heading. The matter has been dealt with in the two previous items.
CHAIRMAN: Are there any comments?
W.YOUNG (United States of America): I know that the accounts have not yet been closed, but perhaps the Secretariat could give us an estimate of what the total surplus was expected to be.
P.J.SKOUFIS (Assistant Director-General Administration and Finance Department): As I say, I will not be able to give a precise answer on that. I prefer to defer a reply on that until I can get some figures together. Of course a lot depends on the rate of contributions between now and the end of the fiscal year and also the influence of the rate of exchange between now and the end of the year. I will be happy to supply that information as soon as I can.
J.M.SCOULAR (United Kingdom): Just a point for information. I take it that the cash surplus will be redistributed to Member Nations after the clearance of the two previous items. Am I correct on this?
P.J.SKOUFIS (Assistant Director-General Administration and Finance Department): I wonder if we could defer responding to these particular questions, since they do relate to the budget, and Mr. West, who is in charge of the budget formulation and Programme of Work and Budget, will be here very shortly to address himself to those particular questions.
CHAIRMAN: In the meantime, while we are waiting for Mr. West, I take it that anyhow we have concluded this item but we will come back to it with information when we have Mr. West here.
P.J.SKOUFIS (Assistant Director-General Administration and Finance Department): With regard to agenda Item 25.4, Status of Contributions, I refer to document C 79/LIM/7. This is an information item and there is no resolution. The report of the Seventy-sixth Session of the Council contains in paragraphs 75 - 83 comments on the status of contributions as at 6 November 1979. With regard to the amounts of contributions outstanding at 6 November, as set out in the Appendix to document C 79/LIM/7, I should mention that the following contributions have been received in the interim.
These contributions are as follows and they are the receipts up till today, 22 November: Brazil, $446 189; Guyana, $13 640; Haiti, $13 950; Republic of Korea, $155 839; Malaysia, $107 592; Uganda, $8 487? these remittances since the report before you total $745 697.
Attention is drawn particularly to paragraph 81 of LIM/7, wherein the Council suggested to the Conference that it make a special appeal to those Member Nations with outstanding arrears and/or current assessments to liquidate their obligations as soon as possible and to all Member Nations to arrange for early payment of assessments in 1980 and 1981.
With your agreement, Mr. Chairman, language to this effect should be included ih your Draft Report.
CHAIRMAN: I think that this will be noted by the Drafting Committee. Are there any comments on this item? If not, I take it this item is concluded.
P.J.SKCXJFIS (Assistant Director-Cenerai Administration and Finance Department): As the Commission has noted, there is no paper on this item, 25.5, Headquarters Accommodation. This is in the nature of a progress report to the Conference and Commission and with your permission I would like to call on Mr. Oeorgiadis, the Director, Administrative Services Division, to present a report on this heading.
A.G.GEOEGIADIS (Director, Administrative Services Division): Headquarters Accommodation has been under continuous review by the Finance Committee for a long time, and the subject has been regularly covered in the Committee's reports to the Council. The present situation is that at the current rate of progress in the restructuring of Building D, the four upper floors should be ready for occupation next January, while the remaining three floors would probably be finished in March or April. This should enable us to start evacuating Building G by the end of March 1980 and stop paying rent for that building shortly thereafter, probably from end of May or end of June 1980. However, even after the occupation of Building D and the release of Building G, the Organization would still have to continue occupying Building F. Apart from the inconvenience and operational difficulties arising from the Secretariat being spread in two locations, annual rent for Building F currently exceeds Lit.500 million, which is approximately $600 000, and is subject to annual increases of approximately 10 percent.
The Organization is grateful to the Government of Italy for having made available a special voluntary contribution of Lit.300 million a year for the years 1971 to 1977 inclusive. The distinguished representative of the host country has recently informed the Director-General that a similar sum will be paid for each of the years 1978 and 1979. Thus, the total sum which will have been contributed to this date, including interest earned, is the equivalent of approximately $4.2 million. On the other hand, the Organization will have paid the equivalent of approximately $8.7 million from the time it started paying rent for office accommodation outside its main headquarters building to the end of 1979. As will be seen, this still means a global deficit to date of approximately $4.5 million for the whole period.
As I have just stated, the need to continue paying rent for Building F is costing the Organization Lit. 500 million a year, subject to annual increases of about 10 percent. Therefore, even after we occupy Building D, and even after the Government of Italy continues its generous voluntary contribution of Lit.300 million a year, we shall still have an annual deficit of Lit.200 million, approximately $250 000, which will be growing yearly by the net increase in rent payable.
The Council reviewed this matter at its last session two weeks ago, and its views are summarized in its report, which is based on the report of the last session of the Finance Committee. It will be noted that the Council agreed on the need for the Director-General to pursue his efforts to find a permanent solution to the Headquarters accommodation problem.
It should also be noted that the distinguished representative of the host country announced during that same Council session two weeks ago that a report on positive steps being taken by the Government would be made at the next session of the Finance Committee next May. It is therefore hoped that the joint Government of Italy/FAO Working Group on the new building complex proposed by the Director-General will resume its work soon so that real progress may be reported at the next session of the Finance Committee. The construction of a new building complex seems to be the only permanent solution to the problem.
O.R. BORIN (Italie): Je voudrais remercier M. Georgiadis qui, au nom du Secrétariat, a fait un exposé très objectif et très intéressant du problème. Mais pour l'information de la Commission, j'aimerais ajouter trois points:
Le Gouvernement italien croit avoir satisfait à ses obligations juridiques en mettant à la disposition de l'Organisation les bâtiments qu'elle occupe déjà et, en plus, le bâtiment D qui sera prochainement disponible. Nous sommes heureux d'avoir mis à la disposition de l'Organisation une contribution spéciale pour la couverture des dépenses effectives que la FAO assuma en louant des bâtiments en dehors du Siège. Mais, comme je l'ai déjà dit au Conseil, il ne s'agit pas là d'une obligation juridique. Nous allons toutefois examiner le problème puisque nous sommes conscients qu'il faut trouver une solution définitive au problème des locaux du Siège. De ce point de vue, nous étudierons encore la question de la continuation de la contribution spéciale qui sera apportée, même s'il ne s'agit que d'un acte indépendant et de libéralité unilatérale.
Nous allons entreprendre l'étude de la construction de cet ensemble d'immeubles qui devrait apporter une solution définitive au problème du Siège de l'Organisation, toute comme à celui du Fonds international de développement agricole, du Conseil mondial de l'alimentation ainsi que des autres organisations qui s'occupent d'agriculture et qui ont leur Siège à Rome. Nous espérons que sera trouvée une solution définitive et satisfaisante, soit pour le gouvernement italien, soit pour l'Organisation.
CHAIRMAN: If there are no more interventions, we have noted the very generous position of Italy which has been prevailing, and we thank Italy for that. I take it that this item is concluded.
Before we go to the next item, there is a short announcement which concerns the composition of the Drafting Committee. We have been informed that Thailand has withdrawn its membership in the Drafting Committee in favour of Japan.
CHAIRMAN: Distinguished delegates, we go on with Item 22.2, Change of Title of the FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Far East, and of the Regional Conference for Asia and the Far East, and I give the floor to the Legal Counsel who will introduce the item.
LEGAL COUNSEL: The Document before the Conference on this item is C 79/LIM/2. It contains an extract from the Report of the 75th Session of the Council which was held last June, and reflects the Council's discussion on this subject.
In paragraph 204 of its Report, the Council agreed that the title of the Regional Conference be changed to FAO Regional Conference for Asia and Pacific and that the title of the Regional Office be changed to Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific. The Council invited the Conference to endorse these changes in title.
I believe it would be appropriate for me to give the Conference some background information on how this matter arose.
It was raised first at the 13th Regional Conference for Asia and the Far East in 1976 when a number of Member Nations in that Region supported these changes in title, but nevertheless agreed that the matter should be referred to the Governing bodies of FAO. The matter was raised again at the 14th Regional Conference for Asia and the Far East in 1978, and was then referred to the Council at its 75th Session.
As the Council was informed, the Member Nations in the Asia and Far East Region recommended the changes in title for the Regional Office and for the Conference because they considered that such action would reflect appropriately the fact that the Regional Office serviced, and the Regional Conference included as full members, an increasing number of Member Nations that were situated in the vast area covered by the Pacific Ocean. In addition, such changes in title would correspond to the nomenclature of other regional bodies with similar coverage; in particular, the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) which had originally been called the Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East (ECAFE).
From a constitutional point of view, it should be noted that there are no provisions in the Basic Texts which make any particular nomemclature mandatory for either Regional Offices or Regional Conferences and that these proposed changes of title would in no way affect the existing distribution of Member Nations by Region for the purposes of receiving services from the Regional Office or their participation in the Regional Conference concerned.
It also goes without saying that the proposed changes of title would not have any effect whatever on the distribution of Member Nations for the purpose of Council elections.
Dr. Beringer, the Director of the Field Programme Development Division of the Development Department, is here to answer any questions on the technical and policy side of the proposed change of title; and I of course am at your disposal in the event that any legal questions should be raised.
H. CARANDANG (Philippines): I wish to support the recommendations of the Council to the Conference that names of the Regional Office and the Region of Asia be changed to Regional Office of Asia and the Pacific, and Regional Conference for Asia and the Pacific, as proposed.
DATUK ARSHAD BIN AYUB (Malaysia): Malaysia would like to support the proposed change in the title of the FAO Regional Office and of the Regional Conference. We believe that these changes totally reflect the realities of the situation in the region of the world where Malaysia is located and also the aspirations of the peoples of the island nations of the Pacific, to be identified in name as well as in fact in the Regional Office which provides them with the agricultural development advice and services.
The term Far East is not only out of context in the present political scheme but it is also a nebulous term conjecturing an undefined region and, I believe, a romantic concept of that part of the world. But we know that the Far East ends at the Bering Straits. Similarly, we also know that this is the tip of the continent of Asia. For a long time now the peoples of Asia have tolerated a misnomer, so it is time that the error be corrected. The Far East exists only in the imagination of the intrepid, colonial-minded navigators of bygone days. For us it is Asia and the Pacific and we are very proud of it and, as explained by the Legal Adviser, a number of names have already been coined such as Indo-Pacific Fishery Council, Asia and Pacific Forestry Commission, Asia and Pacific Plant Protection Commission, Centre of Integrated Rural Developement of Asia and the Pacific and - last but not least - one of the United Nations agencies mentioned by the Legal Adviser, ESCAP which was formally known as ECAFE.
In this light it is not the intention, as far as we are concerned, to go across the international date-line for the proposed definition. I think we would be more satisfied if the definition were to be confined only to this side of the international date-line.
I therefore strongly support the resolution as moved by the delegate of the Philippines, to change this name.
K. DEVAHASTIN (Thailand): Thailand, being the host country of this particular Regional Office, wishes to record once again its support for the change of the titles of both the FAO Regional Office and the Regional Conference as proposed, in order to reflect truly the geographical reality of the region and the actual membership of the governments in the Regional Conference and particularly to correspond with those regional bodies, as already described by the delegate of Malaysia.
J. MORA (Chile): Mi delegación, a título de contribución a este cambio de nombre formulado por el Consejo de la FAO, quisiera sugerir a la asamblea que se agregara luego, en el término Pácífico, una especificación más real con el área a que se refiere esta Oficina Regional para Asia y el Lejano Oriente.
Nosotros quisiéramos sugerir que se incluyera Pacífico Occidental en relación con la Costa del Pácifico Oriental, a que pertenecen todos los demás países del continente americano.
T. HAYAKAWA (Japon): Je voudrais simplement dire que la nouvelle appellation proposée pour le bureau régional et la Conférence de notre région reflètent bien la réalité de cette région. Nous appuyons la proposition.
P. BUNE (Fiji): I take the floor to support the various delegations who have spoken from the Asian Group in respect of this proposal, Fiji particularly, having come from the Pacific, is very appreciative of the considerations and the unanimous support by the Asian Group to ask the Conference for this change. As the Legal Council has stated, this is simply to reflect the true reality of the geographical situation which the Asian Office serves in our area. It is not in any way to be interpreted as reflecting any separatist tendencies within the Group. In fact, it goes towards strengthening the resolve of the region to serve all parts of the Asian and Pacific regions.
We have had to change many of our regional institutions to reflect the situation and the most recent one concerned the ECAFE which is now called the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific and which used to be called the Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East. This has now been changed to be renamed Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific.
I therefore do hope that this item will not cause any controversy and that this Commission will give it its unanimous support.
Mo DIB (Syria) (interpretation from Arabic): We believe that the change of name of the Regional Office and the Regional Conference is a matter that is of interest to the countries of that region; and since the countries of that region have agreed to this, we support the change fully.
H. VIZCAINO LEAL (Guatemala): Yo quisiera unirme al ruego del colega de Chile, para rogar al Grupo Regional de la FAO para Asia y el Pacífico, que se digne aceptar su propuesta de que se refieran al Pacífico sudoccidental, porque todos los países situados en América, desde el Cabo de Hornos hasta el Cabo de Bering, tienen costas en el Pacífico, y entonces podría darse lugar a equívoco.
Además, el día de mañana podrían surgir nuevas regiones. No sabemos qué va a suceder, ni qué va a ocurrir en la FAO, y debemos estar prevenidos para cualquier modificación o cambio en este aspecto, para no estar constantemente con variaciones.
DATUK ARSHAD BIN AYUB (Malaysia): Because of the vastness of the Pacific Ocean, perhaps there are other countries that maybe worried as to how to interpret the inclusion of coastal states bordering on the Pacific Ocean. In supporting the change, we know that all countries in that region are closely and clearly listed. I therefore think the change should not worry us too much.
Furthermore, the United Nations itself has agreed to one of its agencies being called ESCAP. If this proposal has raised strong objection from the countries which border the Pacific Ocean, then I add a footnote to define the countries of Asia and Pacific. This would probably be easier. As I mentioned earlier it is never the intention to include countries other than those in the present group of Asia and Far East. To us it is clear that when in the FAO or elsewhere nations are mentioned as being in Asia and the Pacific we mean the countries which are in the South-Western Pacific.
L.H. VALDIVIA AVALOS (Peru): Mi delegación está de acuerdo con el cambio de nombre propuesto, y al mismo tiempo apoya a las delegaciones de Chile y Guatemala en el sentido de que se agregue la expresión "occidental" cuando se utilice el término "Pacífico", a fin de que se especifique a qué zona se refiere, dada la gran amplitud del Océano Pacífico.
P. MASUD (Pakistan): Just fully to support the proposed amendment, and I may add that in the Regional Conference for Asia and the Far East, as it was previously called, the United States of America also attend the Conference, so I frankly see no reason why we should be perturbed over calling it Asia and the Pacific, We all know what countries it constitutes.
R.H. ROBERTSON (Australia): Like other speakers from the region as at present named, Australia warmly welcomes this proposed change of the names of the two entities involved. I very much regret that there should be such a difference between the western and eastern shores of the Pacific area. It is, I think, in geographical terms, perhaps a fully understandable difference of approach. Nevertheless, as I had the opportunity to say earlier this morning, I believe that where members of the United Nations members family are thinking the same sort of problem they should try to adopt the same sort of answer. In the United Nations itself, as various speakers have pointed out, it has been sufficient to talk of the Pacific and we all know what countries that involves.
I believe, as various of my predecessors, particularly the delegate of Malaysia, have said that the ESCAP precedent, The Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, is a safe one for this Organization to hold to, Thus, while I accept the geographical logic of the point that is being made by the delegates of Chile, Peru and Guatemala, I believe that their fears on this ground are not terribly serious.
H.F. NAJIB (Iraq) (interpretation from Arabic): While fully supporting the statement made by previous speakers, members of that region, and while fully recognizing their right as far as this question is concerned, I would like to make the following comment; the Constitution in Article X paragraph 1, entitles the Director-General to establish a sub-regional conference upon approval of the Conference, and the regional office is already there and they have no provisions in the Constitution to have a change in the title of the regional office presented to the Conference.
The question has been submitted to the Council and it was approved there and the countries of the region wish to have this change effective. Therefore I would like the Chairman to give full answers to the following three questions because the question relates to one of the basic principles of the work of this Organization. My first question is, does the process of changing the name of the regional conference or office cost any additional funds to the Organization? The second question is, will the process of changing the name of the regional office and the Conference have the effect of depriving any member state of the present region from the services of the regional office or the Conference? My third question, if we presuppose, for the sake of argument, that the Conference refused for any reason whatsover, any change in the title of the regional office, is it acceptable - and this is a quesion of principle and I would wish to have a direct answer to this point - is it: possible to impose a title on the region which does not correspond to their wishes and desires?
CHIN FENG-CHO (China) (interpretation from Chinese): Our delegation is in total support made by the Council, that is to say to change the title of the FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Far East and of the regional conference for Asia and the Far East. We believe that this proposal has received unanimous support from the member states of this region. Secondly, we have also seen the proposal accepted by the United Nations system.
My third point, according to some member states these titles would provoke some controversy. We believe that there will not be any controversy in this change of title. It will not change the substance of these regional offices.
DARMAWAN ADI (Indonesia): My delegation would just like to support fully the proposal made by the Council. We do not believe that we have to worry about the misunderstanding of using the word Pacific so my delegation support the idea of having the word only Pacific instead of other additional wording.
Finally my delegation fully endorses the opinion given by those who support this proposal.
H. CUEVA EGUIGUREN (Ecuador): Esta delegación quiere apoyar el cambio propuesto, pero al mismo tiempo considera que las observaciones formuladas por las delegaciones de Chile, Perú y Guatemala son justas y tienen su razón de ser. Sin embargo, yo creo que la propuesta hecha por la delegación de Malasia podría evitarnos este problema.
Malasia propuso que al pie de página se denominen los países que integran la región, y de esta forma yo estimo que este asunto queda definitivamente clarificado. Gracias, Sr. Presidente.
The meeting rose at 11.45 hours
La séance est levée à 11 h 45
Se levanta la sesión a las 11.45 horas
