CHAIRMAN: We are now going to continue with our draft report. Yesterday we went through Part 1 with the exception of item 24, which I suggest that we start with this morning.
PARAGRAPHS 20 TO 24 (continued)
LES PARAGRAPHES 20 A 24 (suite)
LOS PARRAFOS 20 A 24 (continuación)
D.M. ULNES (Chairman, Drafting Committee): As will he remembered from yesterday afternoon's proceedings, we were to make an attempt to reach an agreement or a consensus on what was then paragraph 23 his and which is now correctly new paragraph 25 as it appears in the Supplement. We have continued our efforts to try to reflect truly what I, as Chairman of the Drafting Committee, considered to be. very important, the statements which delegations have made in the Commission. Also, on the other hand we have attempted to take into account the need to have a report which is well balanced and edited in such a way that it gives the right sense. Having said that, I must admit that after consultation we have reached what I consider to be a good compromise and I am extremely grateful to the delegate of Brazil for his cooperation in working with me to arrive at that compromise. After this lengthy explanation, I will read out the new language which has come out of my consultations. I will read it through quickly and then more slowly. "One member, in expressing opposition to the draft resolution, explained that in the view of his country, being a developing one, the proposed Scale of Contributions, as derived directly from the United Nations Scale of Assessments, and consequently redistributed among the Member Nations of FAO did not fully reflect the capacity to pay of Member Nations. The delegation noted with concern that the new scale would result in its country's 1980-81 contribution being increased by more than 50 percent of its previous contribution."
This, as I said, was the subject of good consultations and cooperation with the delegate of Brazil and, once again, I would like to express my thanks for his cooperation.
G. De MELLO MQURAO (Brazil): As you may well suppose we fully agree with this text. I am just taking the floor to thank very warmly the Chairman of our Drafting Committee for the great efforts he made to try to solve this problem - a problem which, my delegation repeats, still surprises it.
CHAIRMAN: If there are no objections, I think that this paragraph should be approved.
M.NAKAMURA (Japan): I have to say about the proposal made by the Delegation of Japan: according to the Chairman of the Working Group, in the 25th paragraph, which was submitted by Brazil, the last phrase namely "in national currency terms" are deleted. But as far as I understand Brazil's new contribution which is now 1.56, the actual scale of contribution is one-twenty ninth. I think "50 percent of its previous contribution" is rather m;isleading. So I think it is better to add the phrase "in national currency terms" to avoid these misunderstandings.
G. DE MELLO MOURAO (Brazil): I really see no problem in accepting the proposition of Japan. I will only try to remind the delegation of Japan that this is not a proposition of the Brazilian delegation -that was another one - but we can go along with this one and with the proposition of Japan very well.
CHAIRMAN: With this addition paragraph 25 is approved.
M. NAKAMURA (Japan): With your permission I would like to come back again to paragraph 23 which is "Another member, in supporting the Resolution recalled that Resolution 42/45 ….." The words "in supporting the Resolution" - I would like to delete these four words. In fact this paragraph is proposed by my delegation and my delegation has no intention of opposing this Resolution. With the spirit of cooperation, we have no intention of raising any problems but in supporting the Resolution this is against our intention, so we propose to delete these words "in supporting the Resolution" so the sentence should read: "Another member recalled that Resolution 42/55 of the Eighth FAO Conference, " and so on.
D.K. ULMES (Chairman, Drafting Committee): I understand the Japanese Delegate would want to strike out in the 1st line "in supporting the Resolution" because in actual fact during the Session he did not express his support. I wonder as a compromise if we could use the language that the Japanese Delegate in fact used during the Session, namely that they did not oppose the Resolution. Could I suggest then that the wording would be: "Another member, while not opposing the Resolution recalled that" and so on.
M. NAKAMURA (Japan): The new proposal made by the Chairman of the Working Group - I am not quite satisfied with it because here in this paragraph I would like only to mention that we "recalled that Resolution 42/55 …."
CHAIRMAN: If there are no other objections I think we can go along with the proposal by Japan and that we approve paragraph 23.
D.M.ULNES (Chairman, Drafting Committee): Going back to paragraph 25 I had some concern in putting in, again on the proposal of Japan, "in national currency terms" because really there are more things which need to be said in order to put this accurately. It is not only in national currency terms but also in real terms and I would suggest that we leave it at what we agreed before Japan made its proposal of inserting once again "in national currency terms". It is pointed out that what I really should have said is that the sentence montions the contribution, not the rate of contribution.
CHAIRMAN: If there are no objections to that - Brazil seems to be in agreement - then paragraph 25 is approved. The whole of item 24 is approved.
Paragraphs 20 to 23, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 20 a 23, ainsi amendes, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 20 a 23, asi enmendados, son aprobados
Paragraph 24, including draft resolution, as amended, approved
Le paragraphe 24, y compris le projet de résolution ainsi amendée, est approuve
El párrafo 24, incluido el proyecto de resolución así enmendada, es aprobado
Draft Report of Commission III - Part I, as amended, was adopted
Le projet de rapport de la Commission III - première partie, ainsi amendé, est adopté
El proyecto de informe de la Comisión III - Parte I, así enmendado, es aprobado
PARAGRAPHS 1 to 6
PARAGRAPHES 1 à 6
PARRAFOS 1 a 6
K. JONES (Australia): In the penultimate sentence of paragraph 2 I think there is a typographical error. I think the 2nd word "differences" should in fact read "difficulties".
CHAIRMAN: You are quite right.
G. DE MELLO MOURAO (Brazil): I am sorry, may I comment on paragraph 5? The last sentence of this paragraph reads "The Conference considered that the provisions of Article IX should be interpreted as precluding the parties from attempting to settle their dispute through diplomatic or other channels." I think this is a rather negative statement. It would be preferable to say something like: "The provisions of Article IX should be interpreted in the sense that parties should attempt to settle their disputes through diplomatic or other channels before making use of the mechanism described in the Article." This would be the amendment I propose. As put here I think it is perhaps a rather negative position. It is up to you and the Chairman of the Drafting Committee to decide.
CHAIRMAN: I think that the more positive approach you made to this sentence would be accceptable but we have to look at the proper wording of it.
LEGAL COUNSEL: This Article IX has been discussed a good deal. The reason for the wording which now appears in the last sentence of paragraph 5 is due to the wording of the Article itself. Article IX paragraph 1 says that "if there is any dispute regarding the interpretation or application of this Convention or if a contracting party considers any action by another contracting party to be in conflict with the obligations … under Articles V and VI, … The government or governments concerned may request the Director-General to appoint a Committee to consider the question in dispute". So in fact the procedure for a settlement of dispute envisaged by Article IX is the one of the appointment of a Committee by the Director-General. The last part of the resolution will give an interpretation which this Conference attaches to this settlement of dispute clause and I think that goes a long way in the direction that has just been suggested but I do not think it can be said that the wording itself of Article IX suggests any other mode of settlement of dispute. Nevertheless, in order to avoid the word "precluding" which was found to be perhaps a little too negative we could say "as discouraging the parties from" if that would be acceptable.
G. DE MELLO MOURAO (Brazil): I am rather surprised. You were not in discussion of this item in Commission III but we said there implicitly in the Article IX that the first way of settlement of disputes was the diplomatic way, and this was also said in the Commission and I think that it should be reflected here.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you Brazil. We just have to remember that we are dealing with a convention which has been working for a long time already and now certain revisions have been approved to be made to this convention. Now this sentence is just dealing with how the Conference is looking at the means of interpreting one Article of it.
LEGAL COUNSEL: Mr. Chairman, the term "implicit" was used by the Acting Chairman and I did say that he had used it and I thereby may have indirectly confirmed it. Perhaps we could go one step further. We could say "The Conference considered that the provisions of Article IX could be interpreted … as implying that the parties should attempt to settle their dispute through diplomatic or other channels".
G. DE MELLO MOURAO (Brazil): Thank you Mr. Chairman, I think I can go along perfectly well with that recommendation and proposal of Legal Counsel and change the first word "could" by "should". As we see it the Conference will interpret in a sense this paragraph and we think "should" be interpreted.
J. INURRIETA RIGORES (Cuba): Estarno s analizando este párrafo y coincidimos con lo que ha planteado la delegación de Brasil. Sin embargo, la interpretación con la explioaciòn que da el asesor Jurídico, nos ha convencido un poco, ya que en realidad en el texto original de la Convenciòn prácticamente se decía que se debía resolver a través de los Comités que debe crear el Director General. Sin embargo, en la forma en que está redactado lo que hace es decir que tal párrafo no debe ser interpretado así.
Creemos que no es un problema básico ponerlo en forma positiva o negativa. Nosotros aceptaríamos cualquier proposición en este sentido siempre y cuando se reflejara lo que se discutió en el debate.
L. CORNET d'ELZIUS (Belgique): Je propose une formulation assez simple: "La Conférence estime que les dispositions de l'article IX acceptent que les parties règlent leurs différends par des voies diplomatiques ou autres.11 Et je supprimerais la dernière partie, à savoir: "qui ne doivent pas être interprétées dans ce sens".
CHAIRMAN: Thank you Belgium, that sounds a good solution.
P. ELMANOWSKY (Prance): L'une ou l'autre formule, celle du Conseiller juridique ou celle de la Belgique, peut être acceptable, mais il me semble que, de toute manière, le dernier membre de phrase doit être supprimé, car ce serait en contradiction avec la formule du Conseiller juridique qui dit: "devraient être interprétées comme signifiant, etc."
Si on retient la formule de la Belgique: "Les dispositions de l'article IX autorisent ou admettent, etc.", il faut également supprimer: "et qu'elles ne doivent pas être interprétées dans ce sens".
CHAIRMAN: Could I ask Belgium to repeat his formulation ?
L. CORNET d'ELZIUS (Belgique): Je répète ma proposition: "La Conférence estime que les dispositions de l'article IX acceptent que les parties règlent leurs différends par des voies diplomatiques ou autres." Je propose du supprimer les mots "ne s'opposent pas", l'on met "acceptent que les parties règlent leurs différends par des voies diplomatiques ou autres" et on barre la dernière prase: "et qu'elles ne doivent pas être interprétées dans ce sens".
J. IÑRRIETA RIGORES (Cuba): Apoyo la proposición de la delegación de Bélgica, que nos parece muy buena.
À. OTARTE (México): To creo que visto todo lo que se ha comentado respecto a este Artículo IX, debemos, efectivamente tener en cuenta que él no habla de la soluciòn a la que puedan llegar bilateralmente los afectados. Creo, entonces, que es necesario para dejar exactamente pulido el concepto, hablar de complemento. Es decir: La Conferencia estimó necesario como complemento del Artículo IX, recomendar, etc. etc.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you Mexico. Now I think that we should avoid re-entering subject matter discussion. I would now ask if the amendment made by Belgium, and was supported by Cuba, will be acceptable.
M.A. SABBAGH (Syria) (interpretation from Arabic): Thank you Mr. Chairman. I wish to support the proposal of Belgium provided that we say "the parties should not be" or "the parties should".
CHAIRMAN: I think that the wording put forward by Belgium included the word "allowed", would that be acceptable? If so, thank you very much. Now we go to paragraph 6, including the Resolution. Any interventions? There will be an announcement from the Assistant Secretary about a few wordings in the French text.
LE SECRETAIRE ADJOINT: Les délégations d'expression française auront certainement relevé le fait que le texte français de la résolution figurant au paragraphe 6 du document REP.2 reproduit par erreur le texte du document DC/3. Le texte français a en effet subi trois modifications mineures apportées par le Comité des résolutions qui ont été reflétées dans le texte figurant au document LIM/44. Pour plus de certitude, je répète ces trois modifications, qui ne manqueront pas d'être incorporées au rapport définitif de cette Commission.
A la page 3 du texte français, à la cinquième ligne, le mot "adhésion" doit être remplacé par le mot "acceptation". A la huitième ligne, c'est-à-dire la troisième ligne du chapitre I de la résolution, les mots "passage d'un pays à l'autre" seront supprimés et remplacés par l'expression "introduction au-delà des frontières nationales"♦
Dans le chapitre III de cette même résolution, à la troisième ligne à partir du has de la page 3, le mot "justiciable" sera remplacé par le mot "relevant" du paragraphe 1.
CHAIRMAN: Are there any further comments, or is that acceptable?
J. IÑURRIETA RIGORES (Cuba)$ Al referimos al proyecto de Resolución pensamos que en la parte resolutiva número 3, donde se plantea "invita a las partes", nosotros oreemos que para que esté más de acuerdo con lo que acabamos de aceptar propuesto por la delegación de Bélgica, debiéramos poner en vez de "invita", "recomienda".
Esta es nuestra proposición.
CHAIRMAN: Will you read it out, please.
J. IÑURRIETA RIGORES (Cuba): Al leer el informe sobre la Convención Internacional de Protección Fitosanitaria, hemos notado que no aparece la declaración que mi delegación hiciera respecto al artículo 11 y que algunos países expresaron apoyar.
Nosotros hemos confeccionado un párrafo que quisiera se incluyera en el informe. Si Vd. me lo permite, Sr. Presidente, puedo leerlo despacio o se lo puedo hacer llegar a la Secretaría. Como Vd. desee. Procedo a leerlo. Dice así:
"Algunas delegaciones lamentaron que las disposiciones contenidas en el Artículo 11 Aplicación territorial no estuvieran acordes con la resolución 1514 adoptada por la Asamblea General de ONU y la Declaración Final de la Sexta Cumbre del Movimiento de los Países no Alineados, que proclamaban la necesidad de poner fin rápida e incondicionalmente al colonialismo en todas sus formas y manifestaciones."
CHAIRMAN: The Delegate of Cuba suggests that this paragraph he included in the draft resolution. I take it that is approved?
Paragraphs 1 to 5, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 1 - 5, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 1 a 5, asi enmendados, son aprobados
Paragraph 6, including draft resolution, as amended, approved
Le paragraphe 6, y compris le projet de resolution, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
El párrafo 6, incluido el proyecto de resolución, así enmendado es aprobado
Paragraphs 7 to 11 approved
Les paragraphes 7 á 11 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 7 a 11 son aprobados
Paragraph 12, including draft resolution, approved
Le paragraphe 12, y compris le projet de résolution, est approuvé
El párrafo 12, incluido el proyecto de resolución, es aprobado
Paragraph 13 approved
Le paragraphe 13 est approuvé
El párrafo 13 es aprobado
CHAIRMAN: This concludes the work of Commission III. We have had a rather short Session, only 7 meetings, and we dealt with 12 items in all, I want to thank the delegates for the spirit of coopera-tion which has prevailed in this Commission and for the mutual understanding which has led to a consensus on each item. I thank the Vice-Chairmen for their support in the Commission and the Drafting Committee and its Chairman for a job well done. I wish particularly to thank the Secretariat, those who are and have been here in the Commission with us and all those who have been working behind the scenes. Lastly, we have to thank the interpreters, who have done fine work which has facilitated our task.
This means that the work of the Commission is now concluded, and the draft report, as adopted, will be passed to the Plenary Meeting.
Draft Report of Commission III - Part 2, as amended, was adopted
Le projet de rapport de la Commission III - deuxième partie, ainsi amendé, est adopté
El proyecto de informe de la Comisión III - Parte 2, así enmendado, es aprobado
The meeting rose at 11.40 hours
La séance est levée à 11h 40
Se levanta la sesión a las 11.40 horas
