PARAGRAPH 1, INCLUDING RESOLUTION
LE PARAGRAPHE 1, Y COMPRIS LA RESOLUTION
EL PARRAFO 1, INCLUIDA LA RESOLUCION
LE PRESIDENT: Je voudrais demander au délégué de la France s’il a quelque chose à préciser sur le projet de résolution qui se trouve dans le document C 81/II/REP/5. M. de Mèredieu va répéter les corrections qui devraient être prises en considération lors du débat.
J. de MEREDIEU (Sous-directeur général, Département du Développement): La première correction est celle que M. West a déjà mentionnée au debut de vos débats qui consiste à supprimer,aux sixième et septième lignes du texte français du paragraphe 4 du dispositif, les mots: “de manière à atteindre le niveau initialement envisage”. Cette même correction se trouve à la cinquième ligne du texte anglais.
D’autre part, à l’avant-dernier considérant, à la deuxième ligne - et je crois que la faute est la même dans les deux langues - il convient, bien entendu, de lire: “les organisations multilatérales de financement, dont le Programme des Nations Unies pour le développement” et non pas “le Fonds des Nations Unies pour le développement”. La même erreur existe dans le texte anglais et peut-être dans le texte espagnol, mais je n’ai pas vérifié.
CHAIRMAN: Could I invite the distinguished delegate of Yugoslavia to give us the view, the gist of what he found was the outcome of the Committee that kindly helped to prepare the terrain and make it easier for the Commission here now.
M. TRKULJA (Yugoslavia): I am really very grateful first of all to you for having given me the privilege to chair the Committee Group, and the final result of our work is in the document that you quote which appeared a while ago. I want to be very brief indeed to say on behalf of the group that we worked in a very constructive atmosphere with an obvious attempt on the part of all to arrive at a consensus text that could be made with the full consensus of the Conference. I think that our collective wisdom proved to be the correct one and with a couple of clarifications and a number of
small changes mostly of a trivial nature were able to present you with a text that we hope strongly will meet with full approval. I want to assure you and through you the whole Commission that we studied very carefully the whole text, that we clarified a number of points and that no single word escaped our scrutiny. In particular, the operative part of the resolution remains which I hope is now fully acceptable to all because we had in mind, and we seriously considered all interventions and all views that were expressed yesterday afternoon. The last word is a sort of appeal to all to refrain from making further, especially substantive, changes because it would be then I think difficult to reopen the whole debate and I am not thinking only in the time frame but I am also afraid that if we reopen the debate on the substance it would then be very difficult for this very large body to arrive at a full consensus.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much delegate of Yugoslavia and I would also like to thank the members of that Working Group and particularly Mr. West and Mr. de Mérédieu for their assistance. I would suggest we move through the resolution, paragraph by paragraph and I start with the first preamble of the paragraph of the resolution entitled “Resources for food production and agricultural development”. I see no flags up. The delegate of Yugoslavia has the floor.
M. TRKULJA (Yugoslavia): It is quite natural that I am not going to propose any amendment. Can I suggest that we take the resolution for consideration as a whole, not go paragraph by paragraph because I hope it would be agreeable as a whole.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for that proposal. We take the resolution as a whole.
G. IJIGU (Ethiopia): I am not trying to cause any debates but before we do adopt the whole thing as a package, in the preamble there is one insertion which I think ought to be made. The fourth paragraph where it says: “noting further the priority assigned to food and agriculture” and so on, it lists the Heads of State like at the Ottawa Melbourne and Cancún meetings. I should think that the Lagos meeting should also be included there because the Lagos plan was adopted at an extraordinary session of the Heads of State in Lagos in April 1980. I just wanted to remind the Chair of that.
CHAIRMAN: The proposal by the delegate of Ethiopia would imply that we had, in order to be in the time sequence, Lagos first.
G. IJIGU (Ethiopia): That is correct.
CHAIRMAN: If the delegates agree I would like to finish one proposed amendment off before going to the next. Can we take it that the proposal by the Ethiopian delegate is being carried by the Commission? If that is the case, we amend preambular paragraph 4 accordingly.
R. GARCELL (Cuba): Estamos de acuerdo en ir a una aprobación de conjunto de la resolución.
En ese mismo párrafo a que ha hecho referenda el distinguido delegado de Etiopía, pensamos que en el texto español debe eliminarse “los”, que está delante de “jefes”, y dejar solo “jefes de estado”.
En vez de decirse “los jefes de estado”, decir “jefes de estado”, porque no estuvieron todos los jefes de estado. En Cancún no estuvieron todos los que debieron estar.
CHAIRMAN: I think the amendment seems to be clear and would be carried.
J. DE MEREDIEU (Sous-directeur général, Département du Développement): Ceci s’appliquerait également au français, au lieu de dire “deux” Chefs d’Etat, dire “des” Chefs d’Etat. Il n’y a pas de changement en anglais.
CHAIRMAN: We have to take this into account in the Spanish and French texts. The English text is right.
M. BEL HADJ AMOR (Tunisie): Il s’agit du dispositif No. 6. La traduction de la dernière phrase dans le texte français ne correspond pas tout à fait à la phrase du texte anglais. Je crois qu’il faudrait rectifier cela car il existe une nuance et que cette nuance a soulevé des discussions ce matin.
CHAIRMAN: I understand that the English wording is all right. With the French wording the necessary adjustments will be made.
M. BEL HADJ AMOR (Tunisie): Oui, j’accepte ce texte.
Mile M. MUSSO (France): Pourrais-je demander au Secrétariat de bien vouloir répéter la modification que l’on doit apporter? Je ne vois pas très bien...
J. DE MEREDIEU (Sous-directeur général, Département du Développement): Je précise que la modification proposée consiste à remplacer les mots “une appréciation aussi exacte que possible” par “son meilleur jugement”. Je vois que le délégué de la Tunisie n’est pas d’accord. C’était done une autre modification que la Tunisie avait à l’esprit... Le délégué de la Tunisie a la parole.
M. BEL HADJ AMOR (Tunisie): En ce qui concerne “appréciation aussi exacte que possible”, j’estime que le texte français est meilleur que le texte anglais. En ce qui concerne la correction en anglais “taking into account the views of all Member Nations on their needs and constraints”.
En français on nous dit “tenant compte des points de vue et des besoins de tous les Etats Membres et des contraintes qui pèsent sur eux”, alors qu’en réalité ce serait “tenant compte des points de vue concernant les besoins de tous les Etats Membres et des contraintes qui pèsent sur eux”.
M. J. DE MEREDIEU (Sous-directeur général, Département du Développement): Je pense que le délégué de la Tunisie sera d’accord pour que nous disions “tenant compte des points de vue de tous les Etats Membres sur leurs besoins et sur les contraintes qui pèsent sur eux”.
PRESIDENT: Est-ce acceptable de la part du délégué de la Tunisie?
M. BEL HADJ AMOR (Tunisie): Oui, je suis d’accord. Merci.
CHAIRMAN: That shows the marvellous work the Ad Hoc Group has done this morning.
Y. KUROKOCHI (Japan): I feel that there is one difficulty in understanding operative paragraph 4, the last line - this relates only to the English text. The fourth word from the beginning, “as well... for WFP and IFAD”. Would it not be better to put “as” after “well” so that the sentence may be understandable?
CHAIRMAN: Yes, that seems to be fine.
I take it that as no further comments are being made or amendments proposed, the draft Resolution as we have it now meets with the approval of the Commission? I take it that is the case, and the draft Resolution on Resources for Food Production and Agricultural Development is approved with the amendments proposed by a number of delegates: Ethiopia, Cuba, Tunisia and Japan.
Well, it may surprise you, but that brings us to the end of the work of the Commission.
W.A.F. GRABISH (Germany, Federal Republic of ) (Original language - German): Of course we do not wish to detain the Commission; nevertheless, since my delegation did not object to the consensus on the draft Resolution, operative paragraph 4, we would like to make the following statement.
We understand the wording of this paragraph concerning the UNDP according to the meaning of Resolution 80/30 of the UNDP Governing Board of 26 June 1980, more specifically paragraph 1 (a), which reads: “For the purposes of forward planning and assumed overall average annual growth of voluntary contributions and other programme resources of at least 14 percent on a cumulative basis from the target level established for 1977-81, calculated in accordance with the corresponding figures given in the Note by the Administrator (DP/496 and Corr. 1, Table 2) subject to the review referred to in paragraph 7 below, each nation thereby determining its own contributions.”
CHAIRMAN: I take it that will be recorded in the verbatim record.
J.L.F. BUIST (United Kingdom): As we adopt this important Resolution, I, too, should like to make a brief statement, on paragraph 4. We wish to recall that decisions to replenish the resources of each separate institution are juridical matters for the governing bodies of those institutions, to recall the nature of the targets mentioned in this paragraph and, on behalf of the member states of the European Economic Community, to re-state the Community’s view that responsibility in relation to those targets is shared by all Members of the United Nations, including countries which are not Members of this Organization.
I ask for these points to be included, accordingly, as an interpretative footnote to the text.
A.E. GUROFF (United States of America): I would simply like to have the United States associated with the footnote suggested by the United Kingdom.
CHAIRMAN: Do the delegates of the United Kingdom and the United States insist on a footnote, or would they be satisfied that their statements will appear in the verbatim record?
A.E. GUROFF (United States of America): Our preference would be very strongly to have it as a footnote. We feel that if the point is worth making it should go where this Resolution goes. The verbatim record is useful as a basis but it is not really referred to when we are talking about implementing the Resolution.
M. TRKULJA (Yugoslavia): My intervention is purely procedural. I think in such cases, though I stand to be corrected of course, this should not be part of the Resolution itself but there should be added a next paragraph to the report explaining the interpretative note. I think that is the only correct procedural way of dealing with such notes. It should not be, definitely, part of the Resolution, only an official reservation.
CHAIRMAN: Let me make one thing clear that follows from the date of the approval of the report. We have in C 81/II/REP/1 dealt with agenda items 9 and 10. These items end with paragraph 109. Then follows the Resolution on the World Soil Charter.
Paragraph 110 would be just an introductory sentence: “The Conference adopted the following Resolution:l’, then follows the Resources Resolution as we approved it just now.
Then we could add in the report as paragraph 111 the comments just made by the delegates of the United Kingdom and the United States of America.
J.L.F. BUIST (United Kingdom): As usual, we rely on the wisdom of our friends from Yugoslavia and on your own wisdom, Mr.Chairman. We are content with that solution here.
CHAIRMAN: Could we have the precise wording, please: Maybe you could pass it to the Secretariat but perhaps read it out again, please.
J.L.F. BUIST (United Kingdom): “As we adopt this important Resolution, I, too, should like to make a brief statement on paragraph 4. We wish to recall that decisions to replenish the resources of each separate institution are, of course, juridically matters for the governing bodies of those institutions, to recall the nature of the targets mentioned in this paragraph and, on behalf of the Member States of the European Economic Community, to re-state the Community’s view that responsibility in relation to these targets is shared by all Members of the United Nations, including countries which are not Members of this Organization.”
E.M. WEST (Assistant Director-General, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): We cannot begin the paragraph by saying, “As we adopt this important Resolution, I, too, should like to make a brief statement...” I think the Chairman is asking how this paragraph would be worded. The substance is clear, but how will it begin?
J.L.F. BUIST (United Kingdom): “On the adoption of this Resolution, several delegates recalled” - the question is whether or not it is the form to mention them. If so, of course, they will be spelled out and there will have to be a different recollection of which those delegations were when we come to the passage about the Community. Otherwise, I shall continue without mentioning names at the moment. The Secretariat will insert them if that is the right procedure. “... several delegates recalled, in relation to paragraph 4, that decisions to implement the resources of each multilateral funding institution were matters for the governing bodies of those institutions; to recall the nature of the targets mentioned in that paragraph;” - here we have a slight problem, because I then wish to express the views of the Community and all Member States of the Community, but let us continue - “... and re-stated their view that responsibility in relation to these targets was shared by all Members of the United Nations, including countries not Members of the Organization”.
M.E. WEST (Assistant Director-General, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): I do not see any need to mention that they are members of the Community, especially as the United States of America wishes to associate itself with it. The verbatim record will show that the statement was made on behalf of the European Economic Community.
M. BEL HADJ AMOR (Tunisie): Je suis désolé de prendre la parole à cette heure tardive, mais je voudrais poser une question. La Commission a eu des difficultés à adopter le premier projet de résolution, même par consensus. On a suggéré - je ne veux pas préciser qui - de constituer un groupe de contact. Or, à mon avis, un groupe de contact est destiné à arrondir les angles et surtout à trouver un terrain d’entente.
J’avais l’impression ce matin, après quatre heures de débat, que ce groupe de contact était effectivement arrivé à un consensus. Or, j’ai l’impression que l’on repart à zéro.
Je suis tout à fait d’accord sur le fait qu’on doit respecter les opinions de tous les délégués. Vous devrez convenir avec moi, M. le Président, et je doute fort que M. Trkulja puisse s’opposer à cette opinion, à savoir que le par. que vous allez maintenant faire figurer dans le rapport enlève toute son importance et toute sa substance à cette résolution. Pourquoi avoir fait un groupe de contact alors que l’on va remettre toute la résolution sur le tapis et repartir à zéro? Il faut tout de même un minimum de sérieux. On a fait un groupe de contact, on a discuté cette résolution à cinq ou six personnes concernées par ce texte; on a essayé de trouver un consensus, et j’ai l’impression qu’il n’y en a aucun car le projet de paragraphe qui va figurer dans le rapport s’oppose catégorlquement à la résolution. Il faut quand même être un peu plus conséquent avec soi-même. D’ailleurs l’idée de groupe de travail émane de ces pays mêmes qui maintenant contestent ce libellé d’une manière directe ou indirecte. Il vous appartient M. le Président de le déterminer. Je vous dis franchement que je ne suis pas très chaud pour inclure ce paragraphe dans le rapport, après avoir passé toute une matinée à discuter ce projet de résolution. J’ai pris la parole parce que la Tunisie est l’un de ses co-auteurs.
RAMADHAR (India): My problem is very similar to that of the delegate for Tunisia, because, like him, I spent four hours this morning in the Contact Group, and as we left that Contact Group there was no indication given that after we had agreed on this Resolution in the Contact Group there would be a number of footnotes or interpretative statements. Now we are confronted with all these interpretative statements. Therefore I agree with the Delegate for Tunisia that, looking at it now on the whole, the work of the Contact Group now seems to be futile. In the Contact Group we made many concessions in order to reach a consensus, and the text which emerged out of that Contact Group was an agreed text. Now we find that there are so many interpretative statements that we have serious difficulties with the whole procedure.
A.G. NGONGI NAMANGA (Cameroon): I hesitate to go into a lengthy discussion on this matter, because I do think that we have before us something which may keep us here until tomorrow morning. As you will recall, I did say yesterday evening that the idea of creating the Contact Group was a good one, but we did not give the Contact Group a mandate to make any substantial changes. Therefore, if there were real changes needed to this Resolution, we would have to debate it at length, because I do not think that all the countries which share the views contained in this Resolution are happy with the exact definitions - some delegations may have gone even further than that, but I shall not go into that.
First of all, we supported the creation of the Contact Group, and it is my understanding that the Contact Group reached an agreement which was acceptable to all parties. We have now had time to read this Resolution, and we are satisfied that the Resolution has not been changed in substance. There have been some improvements made to accommodate the opinions of some members who may find themselves unable to support the Resolution today. I do not think that was sufficient accommodation, since yesterday it was actually very plain that the Resolution had a lot of support. To come now, at this time, to have this lengthy footnote or footnotes, saying that these decisions have to depend on the governing bodies or other bodies - I do not think anyone will contest that - I do not. But if so, we can also spell out what it is, and what other groups want to see in the International Food Reserve - we can spell out a lot of these things if that is the intention of the delegates for the
United Kingdom or the EEC or the USA ---- then I shall be willing to consult with the rest of my own Group and we will come out with our own footnotes. I feel that if this is going to be withdrawn or some further paragraphs inserted -- otherwise we shall be here all night.
A.E. GUROFF (United States of America): I would like to recall where we have come from in this discussion. This Resolution was first discussed yesterday morning. A number of delegations indicated at that point considerable discomfort with the lack of time to review it, the lack of guidance from capitals, the inability to really come to terms with some of the issues - but despite that a number of us also participated in a lengthy discussion this morning, trying, I think with good will, to come
together to a resolution. I think all of us are in fact endorsing this Resolution, but somehow we are now being led to believe that we have shown bad faith by this exercise. I think it is important to recall that there was considerable discomfort with the whole exercise from the beginning, but we did push through and try to cooperate. I am not at all pleased to hear these kinds of indications now -it makes us even more uncomfortable with the exercise.
A. RODRIGUES PIRES (Cap-Vert): Ma delegation veut se joindre à celles de la Tunisie, de l’Inde et du Cameroun, et fait appel à la compréhension de nos partenaires et amis. Il ne faut pas s’éterniser sur cette question. Le groupe de contact a fait son travail et il ne s’agit pas toujours de renvoyer au lendemain les problèmes de la faim.
M. TRKULJA (Yugoslavia): I wanted to speak immediately, to explain what happened in the Contact Group, and now I must start with a personal note, that I very rarely disagree with my friends from Tunisia, India, Cameroon and Cape Verde, but now I have to say that I do not share their views.
First of all, to be fair, I have to say that the point was raised in the Contact Group - that is, the second point in the interpretative note - by the United Kingdom on behalf of the EEC, and I myself suggested to them to enter into an interpretative note, simply stating the fact that some members of UN are not at the same time members of FAO. I think it is a very innocent statement. If they wish, I do not see very much reason for it, but if they want to insert an interpretative note to this effect, I do not see anything strange or unacceptable.
Secondly, with regard to the interpretative note relating to paragraph 4, they wanted just to make sure that what we said on the UNDP resources, especially on the target agreed in UNDP, should correspond exactly with the decision of the UNDP Governing Council. I do not see any grounds for not agreeing with them, to make sure that we are referring to the same thing. It was very difficult indeed to find a simple language which reflects a fairly complicated fact, but the substance is absolutely the same: as far as I am able to see, there is no disagreement in substance whatsoever.
What I have some difficulty in understanding is the first part of the United Kingdom intervention, which brings up an idea which is not itself contestible but is still a little strange to my mind: why the problem of replenishment in each case is a matter for Governing Bodies or Boards of such organizations to deal with. Though this is technically speaking true, I do not see why such a statement is necessary as an interpretative note.
What is important here is that the Resolution has been approved, the consensus is fully approved, and interpretative notes, if they are not dealing with the substance - as I feel they are not - would only go on to explain the position of a country and not alter the substance.
Believe me, I would be the first to very seriously contest any interventions which were intended to alter the substance. As I am personally aware that they are not going to do that, I can go along with the second part of the intervention by the United Kingdom and the whole of the intervention by Germany. But, as I have indicated, I have some difficulty in understanding why the first part of the United Kingdom’s intervention is really important, to be interpretated formally in our Report.
S. AIDARA (Sénégal): Je dois avouer très franchement que je ne comprends pas la nouvelle procédure que l’on a tendance à vouloir introduire dans nos travaux. Nous avons créé un groupe de contact; ce groupe de contact a eu la possibilité de se réunir et de nous soumettre un projet de résolution, projet de résolution qui a fait l’objet d’un large débat. Il reflète les diverses opinions exprimées, et il aboutit également à un consensus, consensus qui a toujours caractérisé nos débats.
Nous avons le temps, nous sommes là pour cela. A mon avis, il faudrait reprendre le débat à zéro, en donnant la possibilité à tout le monde de s’exprimer, mais il ne me semble pas que ce soit là une procédure à adopter. Nous avons donné mandat à un groupe de contact qui nous a fourni le résultat de son travail, et à mon avis, la Commission devrait s’en tenir là, devrait s’en tenir au fruit des consultations qui ont eu lieu au niveau du groupe de contact.
Voilà pourquoi ma délégation est d’avis qu’il faut s’en tenir strictement au projet de résolution tel qu’il nous a été présenté après les consultations qui ont eu lieu au niveau du groupe de contact. Je n’ai pas besoin de reprendre ici les propos des délégués de la Tunisie, de l’Inde et du Cameroun que ma délégation partage entièrement. Je voudrais tout simplement demander fermement au niveau de la
Commission que l’on examine avec beaucoup plus de sagesse ce projet de résolution, sinon nous risquons de rester ici jusque tard dans la soiree et peut-être de reprendre nos travaux demain. De toute façon ma délégation est prête. Nous sommes là, nous sommes d’avis que s’il faut reprendre le travail, il faut le reprendre, mais ma délégation reste également ouverte à tout esprit de dialogue constructif et nous ne ménagerons aucun effort pour que ce projet de résolution, qui reflète les débats qui ont eu lieu, soit adopté par consensus.
M. TRKULJA (Yugoslavia): Again procedurally, Mr. Chairman, in the light of the debate here, though I still want to reiterate what I said, I am almost positive that just to solve the problems, because I do not think we are dealing with substance here, I am almost positive that perhaps the UK and US would consider their interpretative notes appear only in the bottom of the report, because as they themselves emphasize the intention was not to alter the substance to any degree. So I think it would be a way out - I am trying to appeal to them and suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, for your consideration that kind of procedural approach.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, delegate of Yugoslavia. I very strongly feel along that line, that we should really try to get those remarks and those positions that the delegates may have towards the Resolution into the verbatim notes. But I would like to address myself to the delegate of Yugoslavia, as he was mentioning an interpretative note by the Federal Republic of Germany. I am not aware of any, at least one made here in the Commission, so the remark that he made yesterday afternoon was just for the record.
K. CHOUERI (Liban) (Langue originale arabe): J’aurais voulu parler plus tôt parce qu’en fait, j’avais demande la parole il y a déjà un assez long moment. Mais je voudrais appuyer les déclarations des délégués de la Tunisie, de l’Inde, du Cameroun et du Sénégal. M. le Président, permettez-moi de poser la question suivante: quelle est la situation? En fait, nous avons résolu le problème dans le cadre du groupe de contact et le délégué du Royaume-Uni a accepté le projet de résolution dans sa version adoptée par ce groupe. Mais en fait que s’est-il passé au cours des réunions de ce groupe de contact? En réalité nous avons fait des concessions et nous avons, à la suite de ces concessions, accepté ce projet de résolution. Ensuite de quoi nous avons présenté ce projet de résolution qui a été adopté dans le cadre de cette Commission et, par conséquent, nous sommes désolés de voir ces prises de position s’exprimer à cette dernière phase de nos discussions.
Mile Z. PAPADOPOULOU (Grèce): Nous prenons la parole pour dire que nous avons adopté, comme toutes les délégations, cette résolution et nous avons l’impression qu’un additif quel qu’il soit changerait d’une certaine manière la résolution et nous n’avons pas les éléments nécessaires pour dire dans une note en bas de page si cela convient ou pas. Nous avons l’impression qu’il faudrait en revoir la forme et, personnellement, j’ai suivi la traduction en français de la déclaration du délégué du Royaume-Uni. Cette traduction était excellente, mais malheureusement, il y avait des interférences en anglais. Si cela pouvait être mis par écrit et envoyé aux délégations, ce serait une bonne manière de procéder.
J.L.F. BUIST (United Kingdom): Thank you, Chairman. I am grateful to have the chance to try and dispel some of the clouds that seem to have suddenly gathered around this. Let us first be clear, and I want to assure all delegations of this, that we have unanimously, I think, and I think that word should go into the introduction before the Resolution, we have unanimously adopted this important Resolution without reservation, without reservation and without alteration to the substance. That, I think, is perfectly plain.
Secondly, since there is still misunderstanding on this point, we are not now discussing a footnote to the text. What we are discussing is the paragraph which completes our own report, which completes the report of what happened during, or after, the Resolution was adopted. Now, in that case, we are solely recording as we go along what we are now saying and doing in this meeting, and I think given those two points, I think that the Yugoslav delegate, who gave me with long experience some guidance on how to approach this problem which we did not want to complicate the text of the Resolution itself, has, indeed, the right, and I would like to say that since I believe that it will help this meeting to reach an accommodation on what should purely be the record of this discussion now, I would be happy
to take up his suggestion on the way in which this would be worded, that is to say, not to mention the fact that decisions for each regional bank or whatever are matters for the governing bodies. I am quite content to drop that. And then we will confirm the statement of what was said, which is in no way a reservation, I do repeat this, it is in no way a reservation, solely to the two points which the Yugoslav delegate mentioned. In other words it would say “some delegations”, and again only “some delegations” “record the nature of the targets mentioned in paragraph 4, and some” because it has to be a different group, “restated their view” etc. In that way I really think that all of the difficulties which some people seem to find in this now would be dealt with. I do appeal to you for at least the confirmation that we have unanimously adopted the Resolution without any reservations.
Miss C. McASKIE (Canada): The delegate of the United Kingdom has in fact answered the question which I was about to pose to you, as I too was a little confused as to the way in which the discussion was going and had, in fact, understood that the question of the footnote was no longer on the table before us. As it is clear now that we are merely discussing a paragraph in the report I would merely just like to add the voice of my delegation in support of the addition of this paragraph to the report of Commission II.
M. BEL HADJ AMOR (Tunisie): Mon intention est de dissiper tout malentendu car on a employé l’expression, à un certain moment, de “mauvaise foi”. Je tiens à préciser que dans les interventions qui ont eu lieu cet après-midi en faveur de cette résolution, nous refusons toute adjonction de paragraphes, il n’a jamais été question de taxer qui que ce soit de mauvaise foi et je n’accepte pas du tout l’emploi de cette expression.
Je donne encore plus d’éclaircissements sur ma proposition. Je dis qu’il y a eu un groupe de contact. Or, on aurait pu ce matin - et si le temps n’était pas assez long - on aurait pu continuer cet après-midi à discuter ce texte et voir toutes les nuances; même s’il y avait adjonction de paragraphe, on aurait pu le discuter dans ce petit groupe de contact, d’autant plus, et je tiens à le préciser, que les délégués qui veulent ajouter un paragraphe, ce matin, avaient la partie belle étant donné que ceux qui avaient proposé cette résolution sur les six pays, seulement deux étaient représentés, alors que ceux qui voulaient discuter les nuances et les details étaient vraiment en force. Il n’y avait même pas un équilibre et il y avait ainsi toutes les chances que l’on arrive à un compromis sans attendre la discussion du groupe de contact et j’insiste sur ce point. On aurait ainsi évité toutes les remarques sur les paragraphes à ajouter ou à enlever.
Voilà ce qui va se passer et je parle par expérience. On va indiscutablement ajouter un paragraphe et demain, lorsqu’on verra le libellé écrit, d’autres délégués diront: “cela ne me plaît pas, moi aussi je veux ajouter un paragraphe”; ainsi toute la résolution va être noyée par des adjonctions de paragraphes, car je m’attends à ce que d’autres pays veuillent aussi ajouter des paragraphes car chacun peut interpréter une résolution comme il l’entend. Evitons ces notes consécutives à des interprétations, ces notes explicatives, car cela ne servira à rien. Le délégué du Royaume-Uni a dit qu’il ne faisait aucune réserve pour l’adoption de cette résolution. Alors, qu’on l’adopte comme il l’a déclaré lui-même et qu’on néen parle plus.
Je tiens à préciser que je néai jamais taxé qui que ce soit de mauvaise foi. Je respecte toutes les opinions et il est tout à fait normal que, lorsqu’un délégué vient en réunion, il exprime son point de vue.
A. G. NGONGI NAMANCA (Cameroon): I do think we are finally arriving at some form of a solution because maybe it was the lateness of the hour which made us all believe, or at least I believe, that we were going to put this as a footnote. We are glad to hear that it is not supposed to be a footnote, so that takes away part of our problems. We are also happy to see that the distinguished delegate of the UK, - it being a compromise - has taken away the first part of this proposal which was found to be, well, not to be very conducive to enter in the report referring to governing bodies and the rest. I think that is more or less understood. And that is acceptable to some delegations. In that manner I do not think that anybody is willing to question the good faith of the members who participated in the working group. My delegation will not Find much of a problem to have this as one paragraph in the report saying that some delegations - I do not have the exact formulation of the UK, but as long as the governing bodies are not mentioned, from the second item say to recall the nature of these targets set in this paragraph and restated their views that responsibility of these targets rested with all members of the UN, some of whom are not members of this Organization. I think that is perfectly right, so, except that I misunderstoood him, on the basis of what I have understood my delegation is willing to go along.
E.M. WEST (Assistant Director-General, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): I was hoping to make this point before the delegate of Cameroon spoke as to what the delegate of the United Kingdom said. He stressed that this was not a reservation or a footnote, that he had no objection to saying that the Conference unanimously adopted the Resolution. In that case, in order to avoid the misapprehension and misunderstanding which may still be present in the minds of a number of delegations which may prolong the debate,: I would suggest to you in the circumstances described by the delegate of the United Kingdom, that it would be more correct and logical to place the paragraph not after the adoption of the Resolution, but before it, and to begin the report of all with the title, as you have done in other cases. The title would be: Resources for Food Production and Agricultural Development, which is the title of the Resolution, and then you would say:
“The Conference discussed a Resolution concerning resources for food production and agricultural development. While supporting the Resolution some delegations recalled the nature of the targets mentioned in paragraph 4;” (I am using the words proposed by the United Kingdom)” and some restated their view that responsibility in relation to those targets was shared by all members of the UN including countries which were not members of this Organization.
“The Conference unanimously adopted the following Resolution......”
I think that will avoid any misunderstanding.
A. RODRIGUEZ PIRES (Cap-Vert): Je m’excuse de reprendre encore la parole, mais je veux parler exactement dans le même sens, avec les mêmes mots prononcés par le délégué de la Tunisie et ajouter quelque chose. Ce que nous souhaitons en effet, c’est de mettre tous ces points dans le verbatim et jamais dans le rapport ou la résolution.
S. AIDARA (Sénégal): Je prend la parole uniquement pour marquer l’accord de ma délégation à la proposition faite par le Secrétariat, c’est-à-dire par M. West, à la lumière des débats qui ont eu lieu.
A.E. GUROFF (United States of America): Just to say that with the exception of one word, the United States supports Mr. West’s formulation, but at the risk of bringing a small cloud back in here, I really think that the use of the word “unanimously” would be a departure from our usual procedure and would suggest that we had a show of hands, a vote, or what have you, and I would ask that we simply use “adopted” and let people understand that for what it is without the word “unanimously.”
CHAIRMAN: Before I give the floor to the delegate of the United Kingdom and then to the delegate of Senegal, I should like to appeal again to the delegates of the United Kingdom and the United States to accept that their points be recorded faithfully in the verbatim record and the resolution stays as it is. I think we are going to have and endless debate now and have, after all, a very unpleasant taste left after a very constructive morning in the group.
S. AIDARA (Sénégal): Je suis désolé de devoir reprendre la parole. J’ai heaucoup de respect pour le délégué des USA, mais je crois que l’expression “la Conférence a adopté a l’unanimité” fait bien partie de notre procédure car on pourrait bien adopter une résolution à l’unanimité; le Secrétariat pourrait être consulté et nous dire ce qu’il en est; mais je suis persuadé que cette formule fait, bien partie des procédures de la FAO. Je pense qu’on pourrait adopter à l’unanimité la résolution.
J.L.F. BUIST (United Kingdom): I listen to the views of everyone in these meetings and do my best to meet them and I am grateful to those who have recognized the weight of our own suggestions and the limits of what we are trying to do here. It seems to me personally that Mr. West’s suggestion has the demerit of attempting to reflect a discussion which took place yesterday before the adoption of the Resolution, and the Secretariat have always been very careful to remind us, as you yourself have, Mr. Chairman, that what we are doing here is to reflect the discussion in its proper order as it took place. So I personally, if faced with the suggestion that Mr. West has made, would prefer to put
that aside and to rely on the verbatim records. For myself, I believe that if there is no other way of solving the problem, this is what we will have to do, but if we take this solution then we will, of course, have with us also the extracts from the verbatim record ourselves and draw them to the attention of other people as required.
I offer this concession, so far as I am concerned (but my colleagues may still have problem over this), because I would like to reach a constructive and quick solution to this problem and not keep delegates here all afternoon. Our point has been made. It is in the verbatim record and I think a simple introduction without the phrase which Mr. West has proposed would be best.
E.M. WEST (Assistant Director-General, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): I would like to make it absolutely clear that my intervention was intended only to avoid a long and controversial debate on the resolutions which have been adopted unanimously or by consensus, whichever you want to call it, or adopted, which would have occurred if the United Kingdom and others had insisted on including a paragraph. Naturally, if those concerned are ready to have their remarks recorded in the verbatim record, as was the Federal Republic of Germany, about this statement, then I withdraw completely my suggestion because it was only a pis-aller. It was not intended as something better than a verbatim record. On the contrary, if the Secretariat was asked to comment it would say that it is better to include the remarks in the verbatim record. The record will in fact show the whole of this debate including what the delegate of the United Kingdom has just said and what I have said, so that will explain to all concerned why these remarks are in the verbatim record and not anything else.
M. TRKULJA (Yugoslavia): I have nothing to say except that I am very glad that the delegation of the United Kingdom has again demonstrated what I was sure of, that its intervention was not intended to water down the Resolution or to take away any small part of the consensus already reached. So I am very happy and I think it is the very best result. The views will be recorded in the verbatim record. I have nothing else to add except that we should stop the debate, which now seems to be totally unnecessary.
G. IJIGU (Ethiopia): If the idea of footnotes has been changed to one of settling for the verbatim record, I have nothing more to say other than to express thanks for the concession.
CHAIRMAN: I take it that all the remarks made and suggested by the delegates of the United Kingdom and the United States of America will appear in the verbatim record and that the resolution as we have it will go into the report as paragraph 110.
A.E. GUROFF (United States of America): Two things: one is that I just wanted to clarify for the record that our interest was to associate ourselves with the point being made by the United Kingdom delegation wherever that might appear, or if the decision is to put it in the verbatim record, that is acceptable. The other is to clarify for the record that with the withdrawal of Mr. West’s proposal, the withdrawal of the word “unanimously” has also been accomplished. Can we have clarification on that?
CHAIRMAN: I thank the delegate of the United States. Also that remark will be in the verbatim record.
E.M. WEST (Assistant Director General, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): It will not only appear in the verbatim record, but as I understand it, the decision now is to adopt REP/5 exactly as it is printed and as you previously approved it as printed before this discussion started - except, of course, for those amendments which were agreed.
CHAIRMAN: I think that brings us to the end of the debate, not only on the Resolution but on the Resources for Food Production and Agricultural Development, and to the end of the approval of the Report of Commission II.
Paragraph 1 incl. draft resolution, as amended, approved
Le paragraphe 1, y compris le projet de résolution, ainsi amendé, est approuvé
El párrafo 1, incluido el proyecto de resolución, así enmendado, es aprobado
Draft Report of Commission II, Part 5, was adopted
Projet de Rapport de la Commission II, partie 5, est adopté
El proyecto de informe de la Comisión II, parte 5, es aprobado
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Complace mucho a esta delegación, Sr. Presidente, que haya quedado resuelta esta cuestión, porque ello nos permite hacer ahora nuestra declaración, que será menos controvertida y más agradable.
La delegación de Colombia desea expresar a usted, Sr. Presidente, nuestro más profundo y sincero reconocimiento por la forma tan inteligente como ha presidido esta Comisión. Usted ha logrado combinar la firmeza y la flexibilidad, en virtud de las cuales ha permitido, aún en momentos difíciles, la libre expresión de todos los miembros de esta Comisión.
La excelente labor realizada por nuestro dinámico y competente Presidente del Comité de Redacción y sus demás compañeros de Comité nos han facilitado grandemente nuestros trabajos, que van ahora a concluir en forma satisfactoria.
Estoy seguro de que estas manifestaciones de Colombia serán compartidas por muchos de los representantes de América Latina y del Caribe, en ausencia del Presidente de nuestro grupo.
Tuvo usted Sr. Presidente, sobre todo, una gran simpatía y una extraordinaria paciencia, por todo lo cual le expresamos nuestro agradecimiento muy sincero.
Como es muy tarde y parece que ningún otro colega quiere hacer uso de la palabra, terminamos pidiendo a los Miembros de la Comisión que le tributen a usted, Sr. Presidente, un aplauso de agradecimiento.
Applause
Applaudissements
Aplausos
E.M. WEST (Assistant Director-General, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): I dont’t want to jump ahead of anybody else but I have to go to another meeting so I wanted to ask for the floor now if I may. I am sure the Director-General is extremely grateful to you and to your colleagues for the way the work of this Commission has been adopted and completed in time. He will no doubt say so himself at the right time in the right place but at my level and on behalf of all my colleagues and the Secretariat we would like to express our heartfelt thanks to you and to members of the Commission for the patience they have shown with the Secretariat and for the work about which we have reason to feel satisfied and so thank you Mr. Chairman and thank everybody.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much Mr. West and before closing the work of Commission II, I would like to express thanks for their cooperative efforts over the past twenty-one meetings in Commission II. The word “cooperative” has repeatedly come up, I think very truely and in a very justified manner. As a matter of fact we have to cooperate today in every respect and when I start my thanks I would start with the messengers who have been so helpful, sometimes I presume carrying messages which had better not appear in the verbatim. I would also be very grateful and express my thanks to the ladies and the gentlemen that have helped us to get within half a day the verbatim back which I have never experienced in my conference life. Thank you very much for that and I would like to turn back to the colleagues that have helped us to jump over linguistic hurdles very skilfully operating almost like a champion in hurdle running. I would particularly like to thank Mr. Wright and his very able colleagues for assisting with unspared effort virtually round the clock the work of the Commission. We have to’ be very grateful to them. I am also very grateful for the very wise guidance provided by Mr. West, Mr. de Mérédieu, Mr.Yriart who always keeps very much in the background and the other Assistant Director-Generals, and Directors of the Divisions. I think they have provided us with a firm and solid platform on which the debate was able to be carried on. I extend my very hearty greetings and thanks to the Chairman of the Drafting Committee and his colleagues, to the Ad Hoc Working Groups that helped us really to move on expeditiously and I am sure we would not have been at the point where we are now at 6 o’clock today had
not the Ad Hoc Working Group, particularly on the resource resolution, donc an enormous work to speed up the work of the Commission. And I would thank my colleagues, the Vice-Chairman, for assisting me very ably behind the scenes in clearing and moving important matters of the Commission. And last but not least, I would like to extend my thanks to you. I remember very vividly from the very first beginning by the distinguished delegate of Lesotho and he said: “we will cooperate. The success of the Commission depends on all of us”. He was very right from the very onset and I can only confirm that in a spirit of great understanding it was possible to finish the work of the Commission, sometimes a very difficult job, certainly also for you, and that was possible with your active support and your understanding. With these remarks I would like to conclude the work of this meeting and I would also bring to a formal end the work Commission II.
Applause
Applaudissements
Aplausos
The meeting rose at 18.10 hours
La séance est levée à 18 h 10
Se levanta la sesión a las 18.10 horas.
