CHAIRMAN: I would like to open the 21st and last meeting of Commission II. This morning we approved paragraph 26 of document C 81/II/REP/1. Now we go on with paragraph 27.
PARAGRAPH 27 INCLUDING DRAFT RESOLUTION
PARAGRAPHE 27 Y COMPRIS LE PROJET DE RESOLUTION
PARRAFO 27 INCLUIDO EL PROYECTO DE RESOLUCION
F. MARTINEZ GOMEZ (México): Lamentamos que el modo en que queda reflejado el debate que tuvo lugar desde la presentación del Proyecto de Resolución hasta su adopción, que se realizó esta mañana, no queda reflejada en el párrafo 27 del documento C 81/II/REP/1.
Por tal motivo, Sr. Presidente, y con su autorización, nuestra delegación ha preparado un párrafo de enmienda que estimamos que refleja mejor lo acontecido durar.te los debates.
La enmienda sería como sigue: ‘Se presentó por parte de la delegación de México un Proyecto de Resolución para la creación de un banco internacional de Recursos Fitogenéticos de interés agrícola, bajo los auspicios de la FAO.
“La propuesta fue unánimemente apoyada por todos los países latinoamericanos; también los países de otras regiones apoyaron fuertemente los propósitos que encierra esta propuesta.
“Todos los países coincidieron en destacar la importancia de establecer medidas que aseguren el libre intercambio de estos recursos, en irtud de que los recursos fitogenéticos son elementos indispensa-bles para el mejoramiento genético.
“Los países en desarrollo destacaron la necesidad de establecer un banco internacional de recursos fitogenéticos bajo los auspicios de la FAO como una medida que garantizaría el libre intercambio de estos recursos.
“La Conferencia - o en su caso, la Comisión - adoptó la propuesta de résolución presentada por México en los términos señalados en la propia résolución.”
En la résolución se pide al Director General que examine y prepare los elementos de un proyecto de convenio internacional que incluya disposiciones jurídicas encaminadas a asegurar que los recursos fitogenéticos mundiales de interés agrícola sean conservados y utilizados en beneficio de todos los seres humanos, de la presente generación y futuras, sin prácticas restrictivas, sea cual fuere la fuente de tales prácticas. También se pide al Director General, en este contexto, que prepare un estu-dio sobre el establecimiento de dicho Banco. Ambos estudios, se consideró, están interrelacionados. A este respecto, los países destacaron que el acuerdo internacional tendrá en cuenta el estudio sobre el establecimiento de dicho Banco.
CHAIRMAN: I thank the distinguished delegate of Mexico for his elaborate statement on that subject, but by virtue of the time limits imposed upon us, v-e have to proceed rather differently than we would have proceeded normally. We had the Resolution debate yesterday and we went yesterday evening in a long evening session and I think this morning we happily were winding up, that was the core, that was the heart of the matter, as Graham Greene would have said, and the Resolution has been adopted. We have had the Resolution as the second item that morning for approval and now we are trying to get the frame around in the report. It should not be too difficult, I would hope, and it should also be possible, if I can address myself to the Chairman of the drafting Committee, in a concise manner that would be acceptable to the drafting Committee. With such a plea, I would hope, that we can come briefly
and quickly to a text that would be an embracing introduction to the Resolution which we have already approved this morning.
M. TRKULJA (Yugoslavia): Mr. Chairman, as you perfectly well know, I spent a number of hours on this very important issue and since the Resolution has already been approved this morning, I am wondering whether we need such a long introduction to it and even a text which is along similar lines, using here and there even similar words or the same words to describe the content of the Resolution. I appeal to my Mexican friend to agree to shorten the introduction to the Resolution to the maximum possible extent because I think that the Resolution itself is self-evident and I cannot see any need to explain again what was intended and what was contained in the Resolution. I am more or less satisfied with the present paragraph 27. We could have: “Acting on the initiative of the Mexican delegation, the Conference approved the following Resolution” and then just the Resolution as already approved.
A.E. GUROFF (United States of America): I am concerned not only about the length, but some of the text proposed sounds to us on first reading to be opening up a number of contentious questions which we certainly hoped we had put to rest with our discussions in the Contact Group last night in the adoption of the Resolution. I strongly advise that we take up Yugoslavian suggestion. We find paragraph 27 acceptable as it stands and we have no problem with handing particular credit to Mexico for having led us down this road, but going along that can keep us here a long time and may pull apart the consensus we have arrived at.
Miss C. McASKIE (Canada): I would like to add my voice to that of the delegate of the United States in supporting the proposal made by the delegation of Yugoslavia, and to add one point: it is my understanding that it is not the practice in the Report to actually name delegations by name.
Mile M. MUSSO (France): Je voulais moi aussi soutenir la délégué de la Yougoslavie, je pense comme lui que nous avans suffisament débattu sur ce point et que nous pouvons conserver le texte en l’état, cela vaudrait mieux.
T. AHMED (Chairman Drafting Committee): I am sure that most of the delegates attending Commission II are deeply appreciative of the Mexican initiative in bringing up this Resolution. But if, as proposed by the delegate of Mexico, we have this lengthy introduction we shall then have to incorporate both sides of the argument and that would become much longer. So I would suggest to the Mexican delegate that as suggested by the delegate of Yugoslavia, the original paragraph is incorporated in paragraph 27 with the addition that on the initiative of Mexico the Resolution was adopted and that this would be adequate and would meet all the requirements. Failing that, we would be more or less opening up what one might call a Pandora’s Box again and we would get into a very lengthy and substantive debate on the formulation of this paragraph.
CHAIRMAN: I strongly appeal to the Mexican delegate to consider what has now been said by various delegates. I think the proposal of Mexico was well taken care of in the Resolution. That is now a well-matured resolution and I think it would be perfectly correct, if in addition to all the statements that have been made, including those by the delegate of Mexico that can be found in the verbatim record, we come to a concise paragraph related to the Resolution; and here we have in paragraph 27 a pattern that possibly could be slightly modified. But. we should try to stick to it to a great extent. I make that appeal to the delegate of Mexico.
F. MARTINEZ GOMEZ (Mexico): Desde luego, la intención nuestra no es en ninguna forma reabrir este debate. Somos conscientes del trabajo que se ha realizado por parte de todas las delegaciones para lie-gar al consenso con la adopción de esta propuesta. Por tal motivo seguimos su sugerencia y en todo caso con mucho gusto facilitaremos esta información al Presidente del Comité de Redacción para que la considere y sin ningún compromiso la analice e incluya aquellas partes que crea que no generen o pro-duzcan ningún debate al respecto.
CHAIRMAN: I thank the delegate of Mexico for the huge amount of confidence placed in the Secretariat which is fully justified. On the other hand, we have to move on. We cannot leave work open to the Secretariat at its discretion. I think all the delegates would like to know what the wording of paragraph 27 is going to be. I would like to ask delegates now whether they would like to make additional brief amendments to paragraph 27 or whether we should stick to the text as we have it today, fully respecting the statement made by the delegate of Mexico that we find in the verbatim record.
S. AIDARA (Sénégal): Je crois que la proposition de la Yougoslavie nous permettrait certainement d’avancer, il suffirait simplement de tenir compte des points qui n’ont pas fait en tout cas l’objet de controverse et de présenter des amendements mineurs au paragraphe 27; je crois que cela ne nécessite pas un travail de fond, le secrétariat pourrait d’ores et déjà se pencher sur quelques modifications mineures du paragraphe 27 et nous, nous continuerions pendant ce temps. Mais êtant donné que le fond du paragraphe 27 est accepté normalement, ces amendements ne devraient pas non plus poser de problèmes.
CHAIRMAN: What we have taken from the delegate of Yugoslavia was a sentence to follow the present paragraph 27. It reads:
“On the initiative of the Mexican delegation the Conference adopted the following resolution” and then the text of the Resolution will follow; but I see that the naming of one individual country may again be rejected by certain delegates.
I see nobody objecting to that proposal. Can I take it that we can amend that paragraph in this sense? I take it that that has been accepted and paragraph 2/, as amended, has been approved.
Paragraph 27, including draft resolution, as amended, approved
Le paragraphe 27, y compris le projet de résolution, ainsi amendé, est approuvé
El párrafo 27, incluido el proyecto de resolución, así enmendado, es aprobado
PARAGRAPHS 28 to 96
PARAGRAPHES 28 à 96
PARRAFOS 28 a 96
F. d’ALMEIDA (Bénin): Je pense que le paragraphe 28 est assez équivoque et je voudrais apporter les amendements suivants à partir de la seconde phrase; ce paragraphe pourrait se lire ainsi: “La Conférence a noté avec satisfaction l’assistance croissante de la FAO pour accroître la productivité des céréales...”. Le changement commence ici: “Elle a souligné la nécessité de porter une attention particulière à l’amélioration des plantes à racines et à tubercules dans les pays où ces plantes constituent la base de l’alimentation.”
CHAIRMAN: There is the proposal of the delegate of Benin. Is that proposed amendment carried? I give the floor to the delegate of Senegal.
S. AIDARA (Sénégal): Une question tout simplement: je n’ai pas d’objection majeure à l’amendement du Benin. Je voudrais simplement savoir si le reste de la phrase initiale saute. Puisque nous avons l’amendement du Bénin, le reste de la phrase ne devrait done plus figurer dans ce texte initial. Est-ce bien cela?
F. D’ALMEIDA (Bénin): La partie “une mécanisation appropriée” ne sauterait pas si on pouvait ajouter quelque part une suggestion concernant la culture attelée.
LE PRESIDENT: Merci au délégué du Bénin. Est-ce une clarification pour le déléguë du Sénégal?
S. AIDARA (Sénégal): Oui merci. Je sais que le texte du paragraphe 28 avait fait déjà l’objet d’un certain nombre de commentaires au niveau du Comité de rédaction. J’avoue que personnellement, je ne vois pas d’inconvenients à inclure l’mendement du Benin. Mais je ne voudrais pas que cet amendement puisse poser des problèmes à d’autres délégations qui avaient insisté sur la nécessité de maintenir la phrase sur les racines et tubercules qui son des cultures vivrières de premiere importance pour les petits paysans et pour d’utres entreprises agricoles et habitants des zones rurales”. II y a des délégues qui ont tenu à ce que ce membre de phrase figure dans le texte. Si ces délégations n’insistent pas, tant mieux; on pourrait ainsi adopter l’amendement du Bénin. Si tel n’est pas le cas nous risquons de voir encore le débat ouvert à nouveau. C’est la crainte que j’ai. Voilà pourquoi je voudrais attirer votre attention sur ce point particulier.
W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of) (original language German): On this point perhaps it would be useful if the Secretary could read out once again the paragraph as it now stands with the Benin amendment.
D. WRIGHT (Secretary Commission II): The first sentence remains unchanged. The second sentence as it stands would be deleted and replaced by the following: “It stressed the need to give specific attention to improving roots and tubers in those countries where these plants were food staples.” The last sentence would also remain unchanged.
J.L.F. BUIST (United Kingdom): As a matter of fact our Senegalese colleague and friend has already asked the question which I was going to ask and made the same comment and it was not in fact my delegation or the countries that I represent which wanted to see this passage in. But I believe all of us were convinced in the Drafting Group that the reflection in the text as it stood before the extra words, and I think they made up extra words, suggested by Benin were proposed did cover a pretty wide spectrum of views within the grcup but perhaps it is for the Chairman of the Group rather than myself to pursue this point.
A.G. NGONGI NAMANGA (Cameroon): This paragraph represents some exchange of views which took place during the Drafting Committee. As you know root and tuber crops have a lot more other potentials behind them. They are crops which you can hardly identify except in many countries for which they constitute the basic food crops but they are important in many ways and I think the phrasing as it is left covers, makes it wider and is of greater acceptance to a lot of other countries where these crops are not exactly what you can call very important basic food crops.
T. AHMED (Chairman, Drafting Committee): As was mentioned by my other colleagues of the Drafting Committee this paragraph was discussed at length and if I recall properly the sentence as it stands now was actually a result of suggestions to expand the sentence because it originally only covered small farmers and then on the suggestion of members of the Drafting Committee we added other farm enterprises and people in the rural areas. The sentence as it stands now covers a much wider spectrum than the one suggested by Benin and the concern of Benin is also included within the sentence when it says “placed on roots and tubers which were major food crops”. If we only refer to staple food then we are restricting them to those countries where they are only staple food whereas the sentence now gives a much wider range and perhaps would more reflect the debate as it took place more truely than the Benin amendment, so that I would request Benin to reconsider the amendment.
F. d’ALMEIDA (Bénin): Je ne voudrais pas allonger le débat, mais lorsqu’on dit que quelque chose est la base de l’alimentation, c’est ‘‘d’une première importance’’, donc je ne pense pas que j’enlève au par. 28 le fait que les tubercules soient considérées comme de première importance, mais si cela doit poser des problèmes, je préfère retirer ce que j’ai proposé parce que je pense effectivement que dire ‘‘de première importance’’ ne veut pas dire que c’est pour l’alimentation; j’introduis une nouvelle notion en parlant de l’alimentation de base par rapport à la notion de premiere importance, mais si cela doit poser des problèmes, je retirerai ce que j’ai dit.
Le PRESIDENT: Je pense, comme le Comité de rédaction, que la formule que nous avons devant nous est suffisamment large pour traduire ce que vous venez d’exprimer et venez de préciser. Je suis content que vous ayez bien voulu subordonner vos considerations de façon rationnelle dans cette Commission.
R. GARCELL (Cuba): Agradecemos al distinguido delegado de Benin aceptar el texto que ampliamente había sido discutido en el Comité de Redacción.
Sin embargo, señor Presidente, nos ha preocupado que los intérpretes hayan informado que hay otras oraciones adicionales en los textos inglés y francés. Supongo que sobra o que se trate de un error de tipografía o acaso que sea una interpretación de los señores intérpretes.
CHAIRMAN: The Cuban delegate is right. The last sentence in the Spanish text is missing, the sentence that reads in English: ‘‘Appropriate mechanization was considered...’’ I hope he can accept that this will be included in the Spanish text.
D. AMBOULOU (Congo): Le Congo est justement un de ces pays où les racines et tubercules constituent justement des plantes qui sont la base de l’alimentation. Mais la proposition du Bénin nous satisfait dans une large mesure. Mais étant donné qu’elle a prêté à des discussions, nous suivons le texte du Bénin qui a déposé l’amendement, mais nous aimerions savoir ce qu’entend, dans le paragraphe du rapport, le Comité de rédaction pai ‘‘d’autres entreprises agricoles’’. On aimerait avoir un peu plus de clarification sur ces termes.
T. AHMED (Chairman, Drafting Committee): As I was mentioning earlier, the original sentence was much shorter and these words were added subsequently to give it a broader perspective. Originally it only said “small farmers” but it was the opinion of delegates that that does not cover the importance of food crops and there are other small farming enterprises which could mean cooperatives and other such things which would be interested in this sort of thing. That is how the word was intended.
L. ELIZONDO (Nicaragua): Quisiera hacer un señalamiento en lo que respecta a la traducción en el texto de español en la primera línea. Dice textualmente “la Conferencia se congratuló del incremento de la asistencia prestada por la FAO”. A mí me parece que “congratuló” no es la palabra más adecuada; pues, cambiando impresiones con los compañeros que tienen sus textos en inglés y en francés, pensamos que sería más conveniente que esta frase se leyera en español así: “la Conferencia acogió con satisfacción el incremento de la asistencia prestada...”
CHAIRMAN: Thank you delegate of Nicaragua. Can we do away with this amendment immediately? Can the Spanish speaking community in the meeting room agree and the whole Commission of course? I take it that is the case.
Mile M. MUSSO (France): Personnellement, je trouvais l’amendement du Bénin tout à fait satisfaisant parce que je pensais qu’au moins en français il rendait la phrase un peu plus claire et meilleure. A mon avis, il n’y aurait pas de problèmes à joindre l’amendement du Bénin tout en gardant la phrase du paragraphe 28; on pourrait effectivement dire: “Elle a souligné la nécessité de porter une attention particulière sur les plantes à racines et à tubercules dans les pays où ces plantes constituent
la base de l’alimentation et qui sont en outre des cultures vivrières de première importance pour les petits paysans”. On pourrait garder la fin de la phrase, ce qui, je pense, couvrirait les avis des deux parties.
D’autre part, je voulais dire une petite chose sur la première phrase qui n’est pas très bonne en français. J’avoue que “l’assistance croissante de la FAO pour accroítre la productivité des céréales”, cela me paraît un peu bizarre. J’aurais préféré “l’assistance croissante de la FAO aux pays en développement en vue de l’accroissement de la productivité des céréales”. Mais la FAO qui accroît directement la productivité, en français du moins, c’est un peu étonnant.
L. VROONEN (Belgique): Personnellement, également, je soutiens la proposition du Benin parce qu’il me semble que le texte en français est tout de même assez difficile à comprendre. On parle d’abord de petits paysans, puis d’autres entreprises. Cela veut dire que les premières entreprises sont les petits paysans et ensuite on parle d’habitants des zones rurales et les petits paysans ne sont-ils pas les habitants des zones rurales? Vraiment, je pense que la suggestion faite par le Bénin est tout de même beaucoup plus claire, en français en tous les cas.
CHAIRMAN: Would the delegate of Benin be happier if to the text now in front of us were added the words “especially in developing countries where roots and tubers are major staple commodities” or “major food crops”, then the sentence to continue?
F. d’AMEIDA (Bénin): Je pense que la déléguée de la France a bien exprimé les deux tendances. Je pense qu’il faut d’abord mettre la premiere proposition que j’ai faite et la compléter par la partie où l’on dit: “cultures vivrières de première importance à travers les petits paysans et autres.” Je pense que c’est plus logique comme construction de phrase.
CHAIRMAN: I would like to suggest that Mr. Wright should read the text and I hope it meets with your approval.
D. WRIGHT (Secretary, Commission II): At the beginning of the second sentence, the proposal of the delegate of Benin would be:
“It stressed the need to give special attention to improving roots and tubers in those countries where these plants were food staples and also where they were major food crops for small farmers.
L. VROONEN (Belgique): Permettez-moi de vous dire que cela ne va pas du tout. Pourquoi considérer les petits paysans comme appartenant à une catégorie, puis les habitants de zones rurales à une autre catégorie. Ces habitants des zones rurales, qui sont-ce? Ce sont de petits paysans. On ne peut pas répéter, ou alors on s’en tient aux petits paysans et j’admets les entreprises agricoles. Mais on ne peut pas dire les petits paysans et les habitants ruraux.
T. AHMED (Chairman, Drafting Committee): May I invite the delegate from Belgium to the rural areas in Pakistan, where he will find that besides small farmers there are landless labourers and other people living who have nothing to do with the land directly. There are lots of categories of people living in rural areas who are not necessarily farmers, and this is true of Latin America, Asia, Africa - everywhere - and that is why it was stressed; other people living in the rural areas who were not necessarily farmers.
F. D’ALMEIDA (Bénin): Le délégué de la France a fait une rectification à la première ligne du paragraphe 28. En a-t-on tenu compte?
LE PRESIDENT: J’ai été informé. Nous l’avons.
F. D’ALMEIDA (Bénin): Je voudrais qu’on relise entièrement le paragraphe 28 pour le Comité de rédaction, aussi bien concernant la première phrase que les autres.
K. KILLINGS WORTH (Secretaire adjoint, Commission II): PARAGRAPHE 28: La Conférence a noté avec satisfaction l’assistance croissante de la FAO aux pays en développement en vue de l’accroissement de la productivité des céréales. Elle a souligné la nécessité de porter une attention particulière à l’amélioration des plantes à racines et à tubercules dans les pays où ces plantes constituent la base de l’alimentation et qui sont en outre des cultures vivrières de première importance. Excusez-moi... “et dans les pays où elles sont en outre des cultures vivrières”, et puis on reprendrait “de première importance pour les petits paysans et pour d’autres entreprises agricoles et habitants des zones rurales.”
CHAIRMAN: We are now on paragraph 29. I take it that the paragraph is approved?
Paragraph 30: I see no amendments are offered and I take it that the paragraph is approved?
Mr. West will now give a number of indications on the draft Resolution on resources for food production and agricultural development, which is now available in the working languages.
E. M. WEST (Assistant Director-General, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): The draft Resolution as it emerged from the working group is in fact ready for circulation. It is C 81/II/REP/5. I just want to say that, when you receive it, will you please delete certain words from operative paragraph 4 which have inadvertently not been deleted from the draft which went for processing. The words are those which, in the English text, read: “to the levels originally envisaged.” This is a pure drafting amendment; it has no substantive quantity. When you have the text we will repeat this when you come to consider it. I just wanted to mention this amendment so that people did not get worried when they found these words still there.
CHAIRMAN: I have been informed that the text will now be distributed.
We have completed the approval of the report with regard to Programme 2.1.2 - Crops.
I have now a suggestion. Could we proceed to the approval of the report in terms of headings? The next heading is “Livestock”. Could we take the whole section on livestock, paragraphs 31 to 34 inclusive, and offer them for approval? I see a number of positive reactions and I take it that it is the desire of the Commission that we proceed in this manner.
Open for approval are the paragraphs under the heading “Programme 2.1.3 - Livestock”. Are there any comments, suggestions or amendments proposed? That is not the case, so we have approved paragraphs 31 to 34.
We come now to “Programme 2.1.4 - Research Support”, paragraphs 35 to 38. Are there any comments or amendments? I see there are none, so we have approved paragraphs 35 to 38.
Now “Programme 2.1.5 - Rural Development”, paragraphs 39 to 45.
R. GARCELL (Cuba): Nos referimos al contenido de la mitad del párrafo 43 del documento C 81/II/REP/1.
Debería hacerse todo lo posible para que se estableciera un sistema de comunicación en una doble dirección.
Nuestra idea es que se diga “los pequeños agricultores y otros tipos de empresas agrícolas se beneficiarán plenamente de los adelantos tecnológicos.”
Es decir, sustituir “las organizaciones de productores” por “otros tipos de empresas agrícolas”, que fue el sentir de los pronunciamientos en el Comité de Redacción.
CHAIRMAN: I think that would be consistent with wording we have used before. This amendment has been suggested by the delegate of Cuba.
D. WRIGHT (Secretary, Commission II): The Cuban amendment would be as follows: In paragraph 43, in the middle of the third line, delete the words “producers’ organizations” and substitute “other types of agricultural enterprises”.
P. OLMOS MORALES (Uruguay): Esta delegación considera conveniente y atendible la enmienda que propone el distinguido delegado de Cuba en el sentido de que se agrege “otro tipo de empresas agrícolas”; pero estimamos que tales palabras no tienen por qué excluir el concepto “las organizaciones de productores”.
A nosotros nos parece importante que no se omita la referencia a “las organizaciones de productores”, sin perjuicio de que se incluya también el concepto propuesto por la distinguida delegación de Cuba de “otro tipo de empresas agrícolas”.
R. GARCELL (Cuba): Quizá no haya entendido perfectamente la propuesta del distinguido delegado de Uruguay. Si lo que desea es que se mantengan los dos conceptos - las organizaciones de productores y otro tipo de empresas agrícolas, -, no tenemos ningún inconveniente en aceptarlo.
P. OLMOS MORALES (Uruguay): Efectivamente nos parece oportuno mantener los dos conceptos: las organizaciones de productores y otro tipo de empresas agrícolas.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you - that tabulated amendment has now been accepted. May I take it that there are no further amendments proposed to Programme 2.1.5 - Rural Development, from paragraph 39 to paragraph 45?
AMIDJONO MARTOSUWIRYO (Indonesia): I would like to refer to the second line of paragraph 44. I have a problem with the phrase “people’s organizations”: it might be more correct if we were to insert “rural organizations”.
CHAIRMAN: That is the proposal by the Delegate for Indonesia - is this acceptable? I take it that the suggestion was to insert “rural organizations”. I see that there appears to be agreement to that and acceptance of that proposal - thank you.
Are there any further amendments proposed to paragraphs 39 to 45? If this is not the case, paras 39 to 45 have been approved.
We now come to Programme 2.1.6 - Nutrition, paragraphs 46 to 50.
H. CARANDANG (Philippines): I have tried to compare the Draft Report in paragraphs 46 to 50 with Document C 81/3, and I find that there are very substantial ommissions in the Programme. Nevertheless, going through the discussions on this point, I find that the delegates have in substance supported the programmes as indicated in Document C 81/3. For example, I read in the Verbatim Report that in general they say, on nutrition, that there is support for the Programme, which is felt to be adequately shaped and better geared to FAO field activities. We have heard the delegations supporting, more or less, these Programmes; no one has contradicted this, and I am now wondering why, in the Draft Report, substantial items - as for instance in paragraph 5 of Document 2.1.6.1 concerning the formulation of appropriate strategies for the framework of food self-sufficiency, or in paragraph 8, which indicates assistance to countries in the formulation of national nutrition strategies, and so forth - are omitted from this Draft Report. I cannot understand this, since the delegations supported C 81/3. I wish that the substantial items could be reintroduced.
T. AHMED (Chairman, Drafting Committee): The Delegate for the Philippines has expressed a very valid concern, but the documents introduced for debate to the Commission are subsequently replaced by the work which actually transpires in the debate, and that comes into the Report. It is not necessary that the whole document be reproduced in the Report of the Group. Some of the issues about which the Delegate for the Philippines has expressed concern have been reflected, although not in the same language as mentioned by the Delegate for the Philippines - for example, in paragraph 50, “The Conference supported assistance in the development of national food control systems and improved food handling”. That is a general sentence which covers most of his concern.
H. CARANDANG (Philippines): If the Chairman of the Drafting Committee is referring to what happened in the Committee, I think that they supported the Programme in C 81/3. If he is going to tell me that food control systems and improved food handling is the same as the formulation of national nutrition strategies - it is something like “formulation of appropriate strategies within the framework of self-sufficiency” - I regret that I cannot agree with him. Therefore, I still insist that the substantive Programmes which have been approved by the Committee should be reintroduced in paragraphs 46 to 50.
CHAIRMAN: Could the Delegate for the Philippines make a concrete proposal of a basis?
H. CARANDANG (Philippines): I cannot make a concrete proposal, but I would suggest that the gist of paragraphs 5 to 10 on page 104 of the Programme of Work and Budget be summarily taken to replace paragraphs 46 to 50.
M.E. WEST (Assistant Director-General, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): Reference has been made to paragraphs 5 to 10 of Programme 2.1.6 on page 104 of the Programme of Work and Budget. That is nearly half a page of print, and I would be at a loss to boil that down to a sentence or two to be put into the Report, except on the lines of a reference to the proposals for food and nutrition assessment in Sub-Programme 2.1.6.1. If that is acceptable to the Conference, it would be one simple sentence: “In this connexion, a number of delegates stressed” - or “referred to” - “the proposals under Sub-Programme 2.1.6.1”.
CHAIRMAN: Is that proposal acceptable to the Delegate for the Philippines?
H. CARANDANG (Philippines): I would agree to something like “The Conference agreed to the proposals in Sub-Programme 2.1.6.1”, and you do not have to copy everything here - although probably we might indicate that there is general agreement with this proposal here, because I see that there is a great discrepancy between what is in the Draft Report and what is in the proposals in C 81/3. Going over the Verbatim Report, I did not see anyone disagreeing with the proposals: on the contrary I see everyone agreeing with the proposals.
CHAIRMAN: The proposal now is that paragraph 46 should read: “The Conference agreed to the proposals in Sub-Programme 2.1.6.1 as contained in the Programme of Work and Budget”, and then the sentence continues “and that increased emphasis should be given...” Would that be acceptable to the Delegate from the Philippines?
H. CARANDANG (Philippines): Yes - provided it refers to the whole Plan of Action on nutrition - that means, Sub-Programmes 2.1.6.1, 2.1.6.2, and 2.1.6.3.
CHAIRMAN: We shall read out the text now.
D. WRIGHT (Secretary, Committee II): The text will now read at the very beginning of paragraph 46 “the Conference agreed with the proposals in this programme and that increased emphasis should be given...”, and so on, as in the present text, to the first three words of line, in paragraph 46 would be deleted, and would be substituted by “the Conference agrees with the proposals in this programme and that increased emphasis should be given...”.
CHAIRMAN: Does this meet with the acceptance of the delegate of the Philippines? I think it has taken into account your concern.
H. CARANDANG (Philippines): It is not clear to me what programme it is referring to.
T. AHMED (Chairman, Drafting Committee): I would like to draw the attention of the distinguished delegate from the Philippines to the fact that in this draft report the format is that Programmes are mentioned, for example, Rural Development Programme 215, and after that sub-programmes are not mentioned. It is a general report which supports the programme and gives the most thrust of the Programme instead of setting down separate programmes. If you start doing that you will have another document which will be a duplicating document 31/C/3. The idea is basically to see if the main thrust of the programme has been spoken of and it has been included in the report or not. If you start going into sub-programmes you will have a very lengthy report of Commission II. I would again invite the Philippines delegate to support paragraph 46 which says that “the Conference agreed increased emphasis should be given to the introduction of etc. etc.”. It is just a generalised way of supporting the programme. If you specify the sub-programme in this, then you will have to specify sub-programmes in all other programmes.
H. CARANDANG (Philippines): I cannot agree with what has just been said by the Chairman of the Drafting Committee when he says that “the Conference agreed increased emphasis should be given to the introduction of nutrition consideration” as equivalent to support for the programme, because support for the programme includes more elements, that is nutrition considerations. I would still go if the sentence began “the Conference agreed with the proposals in the programme”. I would say instead is 2.1.6 nutrition and then the whole thing goes as indicated in this draft report. Although I am still unhappy with the choice of emphasis and I don’t see why there are several emphases on other points which I don’t understand how it came to be there.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you delegate of the Philippines. You may not be very happy, and the Chairman of the Drafting Committee is not very happy. But let us take a compromise and take approval of paragraph 46. Can I take this? Thank you... we move to paragraph 47. The delegate of Benin.
F. d’ALMEIDA (Benin): Je pense aussi qu’au cours de la Commission on a parlé aussi d’un problème de stratégie alimentaire et dans le rapport nous tenons beaucoup à ce qu’on parle de ce que nous avons dit en demandant que la FAO participe et aide à mettre en place les strategies alimentaires, dans les pays en voie de développement. En dehors de ces considerations générales, sur le texte français j’ai des propositions à faire parce que je pense que lorsqu’en français on dit “faire une large place aux considérations nutritionnelles” simplement, ce n’est pas assez, il faut mettre “les considérations alimentaires et nutritionnelles dans les plans de développement” parce que cela n’a pas du tout le même sens quand on met “nutritionnelles”; en français il faudrait mettre “alimentaires et nutritionnelles” et on dirait “par la FAO ainsi que dans les plans et projets de développement agricole au niveau national”.
Donc il y a deux choses que je relève: il faut déjà qufon mette l’accent sur le problème de stratégie alimentaire tel qu’il est actuellement car c’est l’un des besoins actuellement de la politique mondiale et cela ne ressort pas dans le rapport; ensuite, il y a des corrections de français dans le texte du rapport.
LE PRESIDENT: J’ai donc constaté que vous ne voulez pas proposer une formulation précise.
F. d’ALMEIDA (Bénin): Je pense que ce serait trop long et qu’on voudrait pouvoir faire confiance au secrétariat pour ressortir ce chapitre-là parce que la stratégie alimentaire, on en a débattu pendant longtemps, et nous avons dit que nous serions heureux que la FAO participe à cette stratégie au niveau de nos pays et cela ne ressort pas dans le rapport. Donc je pense qu’il faut en parler.
N. ISLAM (Assistant Director-General, Economic and Social Policy Department): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wonder whether paragraph 55 under programme 2.1.8 cannot be slightly adjusted to take into account the considerations of the distinguished delegate of Benin. I would refer it to you Mr. Chairman. The third line of paragraph 55 which refers to the adequate agricultural policy. We could modify it by saying “adequate food and agricultural strategies and policies”, or “strategies and policies”.
LE PRESIDENT: Est-ce que c’est acceptable pour le délégué du Bénin?
F. d’ALMEIDA (Bénin): Je pense qu’à ce niveau cela peut être acceptable, puisq’il s’agit de la politique agricole alimentaire on peut l’accepter également à ce niveau; mais il y a deux corrections au niveau des différents paragraphes en français dans le par. de la nutrition.
CHAIRMAN: Can I invite possible amendments to paragraphs 46 to 50? If this is not the case, we take it that paragraphs 46 to 50 have been approved. We move on to programme 2.1.7 Food and Agricultural Information and Analysis, comprising paragraphs 51 to 54. I see no amendments being offered and I take it that we approve the four paragraphs 51 to 54.
Programme 2.1.8 - Food and Agricultural Policy. Starting from paragraph 55 and ending with paragraph 59. We have had the benefit of the amendment as suggested and annexed by Professor Islam and accepted by the Commission in paragraph 55. I see no amendments being proposed and I take it that we approve paragraphs 55 to 59.
Major Programme - Fisheries. Paragraphs 60 to 66. Everybody seems to be satisfied. Silence confirms it. We approve paragraphs 60 to 66.
Major Programme - Forestry. The delegate of India has the floor.
RAMADHAR (India): I have only one small amendement to suggest which is at the end of paragraph 68 “thus contributing to the conservation of the environment” and then I want to suggest the addition of five words: “and maintenance of ecological balance”.
CHAIRMAN: An amendment to paragraph 68 by the delegate of India: I think that is accepted by the Commission. Are there any further amendments to Forestry? That is not the case. I take it that paragraphs 67 to 71 have been approved.
World Food Aid: paragraphs 72 and 73. This morning we approved the Draft Resolution as contained in REP/3. Are there any amendments proposed to paragraphs 72 and 73?
P. VANDOR (Hungary): My only problem is that my country is neither a rich country nor a poor country but World Food Day received a good attention. I would like to rephrase this paragraph to say “the majority of nations or of member nations” - which gives an opportunity to include all member nations”.
M.E. WEST (Assistant Director-General, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): Does the delegate of Hungary feel the need to refer to a majority here. Could we not say “concentrated the attention of all groups of nations?”.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you for that proposal Mr. West. I notice that meets with the acceptance of the delegate of Hungary and I take it also of the Commission. Can we take it that paragraphs 72 and 73 have been approved? I see this is the case.
We move on to Investment paragraphs 74, 75 and 76. I take it that everyone is in favour of Investment although the level of Investment may not be adequate. Can we take it that these paragraphs have been approved?
Field Programme Planning and Liaison: paragraphs 77 to 80. No amendments are being suggested. I take it that means the approval of paragraphs 77, 78, 79 and 80.
Decentralization: paragraphs 81 to 85. I see that these five paragraphs are being accepted and I take it they are approved.
L. VROONEN (Belgique): Je propose simplement une petite addition pour faire le lien dans le paragraphe 86 avec le suivi de la CMRADR. Donc à la troisième ligne nous pourrions dire “de leurs démarches et par la nécessité capitale, dans l’optique du suivi de la CMRADR...”, et ensuite le texte.
LE PRESIDENT: C’est uniquement une référence à la Conférence mondiale.
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Señor Presidente: los intérpretes al castellano no estuvieron en condiciones de indicarnos cuál es el número ni el lugar donde se va a colocar, aunque entendemos que se trata del párrafo 86. ¿Podría explicarsenos?
CHAIRMAN: I will ask Mr. West to indicate the exact place of the amendment.
D. WRIGHT (Secretary Commission II): Referring to the English text, the insertion would come in paragraph 86 towards the end of the third line after “overwhelming importance”. The new words would be “in the light of the follow-up to WCCARD” following the words “overwhelming importance”.
CHAIRMAN: It is not yet clear in the Spanish text, so they say. Peut-être serait-il plus facile que M. de Mèredieu indique cela en français.
J. de MEREDIEU (sous-directeur général, Département du développement): En français, ajouter à la troisième ligne, après les mots “et par la nécessité capitale”, ajouter “dans l’ptique du suivi de la Conférence mondiale sur la réforme agraire et le développement rural, d’associer les populations des pays tant en voie de développement que développés, etc.” La modification est exactement la même en anglais.
CHAIRMAN: Apparently we have found the place in the Spanish text where this insertion is appropriate. We could point this out to the delegate of Colombia, Is this acceptable?
F. d’ALMEIDA (Bénin): A la dernière phrase, je voudrais qu’on puisse dire ceci: “Les activités de la CMCF/AD ont donc été pleinement appréciées et il convient de les intensifier”; car cette rectification a été demandée ne serait-ce que dans l’intervention de Mme Ghandi.
LE PRESIDENT: Merci au délégué du Bénin. Il y a donc un amendement à la tin du paragraphe 86. (Continue en français).
It would read: “activities under FFHC/AD were therefore fully supported and should be intensified.” Can I take it that this amendment is being approved by the Commission? I think that is the case. Paragraph 86 is now approved as amended.
Technical Cooperation Programme: paragraphs 87 to 93. I see no proposals for amendment so we can take it that paragraphs 87 to 93 have been approved by the Commission.
Support and Common Services: paragraphs 94, 95 and 96. No amendements are being proposed. Hence we can approve those paragraphs.
Paragraphs 28 to 96, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 28 à 96, ainsi amendés, “sont approuvés
Los párrafos 28 a 96, asi enmendados, son aprobados
PARAGRAPH 97 INCLUDING DRAFT RESOLUTION
PARAGRAPHE 97 Y COMPRIS LE PROJET DE RESOLUTION
PARRAFO 97 INCLUIDO EL PROYECTO DE RESOLUCION
Appropriations Resolution: paragraph 97; approved. Mr. West, I hope you do not object?
M.E. WEST (Assistant Director-General, Officer of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): I just want to say that the text of the Resolution will be circulated to the Plenary before the vote, making such adjustment as is necessary. The closing rate today was 1 196.
CHAIRMAN: Hence paragraph 97 is approved.
Paragraph 97, including draft resolution, approved
Le paragraphe 97, y compris le projet de résolution, est approuvé
El párrafo 97, incluido el proyecto de resolución, es aprobado
Paragraphs 98 to 106 approved
Les paragraphes 98 à 106 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 98 a 106 son aprobados
PARAGRAPHS 107 TO 109, INCLUDING DRAFT RESOLUTION
LES PARAGRAPHES 107 A 109, Y COMPRIS LE PROJET DE RESOLUTION
LOS PARRAFOS 107 A 109, INCLUIDO EL PROYECTO DE RESOLUCION
The resolution on the World Soil Charter has already been amended in the debate on that subject and I suggest, with the approval of the Commission, of course, that we may approve the Draft Resolution as a whole rather than going through the preamble and the operative paragraphs. Is that procedure accepted by the Commission? I take it that this is the case. Are any amendments proposed to the Resolutions on the World Soil Charter? This is not the case. I take it that the wording of the Draft Resolution on the World Soil Charter has been approved by Commission II.
That brings us to the end of the approval of document C 81/II/REP.l containing the Agenda items 9 and 10.
Paragraphs 107 to 109, including draft resolution, approved
Les paragraphes 107 à 109, y compris le projet de résolution, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 107 a 109, incluido el proyecto de resolución, son aprobados
Draft Report of Commission II, Part 1, as amended, was adopted
Projet de rapport de la Commission II, partie l, ainsi amendé est adopté
El proyecto de informe de la Comisión II, parte 1,así enmendaco, es aprobado
