PARAGRAPHS 35 to 41 (continued)
PARAGRAPHES 35 à 41 (suite)
PARRAFOS 35 a 41 (continuación)
M. SALAMEH (Syria) (original language Arabic): My comment is on the Arabic text of paragraph 39. I do not have anything to say concerning the English text. In the Arabic text there are two words, the word which means "influence" and I suggest that we should say "emphasize" so it is not "the influence" on the employment but "the emphasis" on the employment. Then concerning the "close cooperation" we say "on" in Arabic. It is again concerning the Arabic text.
CHAIRMAN: Could you please make the observation again?
M. SALAMEH (Syria) (original language Arabic): The two words I would like to replace in
the Arabic text are the words "tathir" which would become TAKID in the Arabic text, i.e. "emphasis"
instead of "influence".
And then there is the word "Ala altawunial wathiq" i.e. in "close cooperation", not "cooperation". That concerns the Arabic text, it is a correction of the Arabic text only.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. That has been taken note of and it will be dealt with. Any comments on paragraph 39? The paragraph is approved. Paragraph 40?
C. VIDALI CARBAJAL (México): Es una observación de estilo, fundamentalmente. Dice el párrafo: "La Conferencia apoyó la asistencia a las instituciones nacionales que se ocupan del fomento de la carne y de la leche". Aquí lo que quisiéramos agregar es: "el fomento de la producción de carne y de leche". Puede ser que esto sea nada más válido para el español porque en inglés se entiende la idea, pero es la "producción de carne y de leche".
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. The Secretariat has noted that. Any more observations? None. The paragraph is approved. Paragraph 41? Approved.
Paragraphs 35 to 41, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 35 à 41, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 35 a 41, así enmendados, son aprobados
PARAGRAPHS 42 to 48
PARAGRAPHES 42 à 48
PARRAFOS 42 a 48
M. SALAMEH (Syria) (original language Arabic): In paragraph 43 I think we should add the pollution of food after the pollution of air and water, because food is part of the environment, so we should say the pollution of food, water and air.
M. MOMBOULI (Congo): J'approuve la rédaction du texte anglais, mais j'éprouve quelques difficultés à comprendre, dans le texte français, l'expression "les pluies acides". Peut-être serait-il bon d'expliquer ce terme par toute une phrase et j'en appelle au Secrétariat.
M. B. SY (Sénégal): Je ne reviens pas sur l'expression "pluies acides" mais je pense qu'il y a
dans la première phrase, une erreur de dactylographie. Il est dit en effet: "... dans les programmes
concernant l'agriculture, les forêts et les pêches aussi bien que dans les programmes et activités
de développement rural" et je pense qu'il aurait été préférable de dire: "ainsi que dans les programmes"
sinon je ne comprends pas la phrase.
CHAIRMAN: I have been promised by the Secretariat that that can be taken care of, but there are two technical explanations that have to be made here: first, concerning pollution and, the suggestion by Syria also to add food to the environmental degradation; and of course, the question of acid rain from the Congo.
V.J. SHAH (Director, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): First, on the question of including food pollution in this paragraph: as the Commission will have noted, this paragraph deals with environmental pollution and hence we are talking about the Programmes dealing with soil erosion, forest depletion, desertification etc. I do not think that food pollution would come in too well in this paragraph. Of course, the distinguished delegate is right in drawing attention to the problems of food pollution, but these are dealt with under a different programme, the nutrition programmes.
With regard to the question raised by the delegate of the Congo concerning acid rain, the term acid rain is, I am told, a technically correct one. It refers to precipitation affected by environmental pollution which has struck particularly certain countries in Western Europe and also in Eastern Europe, The Federal Republic of Germany, Poland and some other countries have in fact recognized the importance of this phenomenon in their countries and the damage it causes, particularly to their forests. The term of course covers the pollution due to industrial emissions, industrials pollution as it then affects precipitation. The translation into French, "les pluies acides", is, I am told, also the correct terminology. And with that, if the distinguished delegate can be satisfied with our explanation, I think we should leave the text as it is.
CHAIRMAN: Is the delegate of the Congo satisfied with the explanation on the meaning of acid rain?
M. MOMBOULI (Congo): Je remercie M. Shah de l'explication qu'il vient de donner; c'est une information que j'ignorais.
F.H. JAWHAR HAYAT (Kuwait) : I agree with Mr Shah that heré there does not come in anything about pollution of food. We would rather have that later when we discuss food and nutrition. It is clear in Arabic and in English and exactly gives the idea which we were intending to explain in this paragraph.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
Paragraphs 42 to 48, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 42 à 48, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 42 a 48, asi enmendados,son aprobados
PARAGRAPHS 49 to 56
PARAGRAPHES 49 à 56
PARRAFOS 49 a 56
M. B. SY (Sénégal): Dans le paragraphe 52, certaines expressions me gênent. On parle notamment: "d'étudier la dynamique de la pauvreté rurale". Puis de "la confrontation des expériences entre pays".
Je pense que puisqu'on dit: "il importe d'identifier des groupes cibles parmi les ruraux pauvres", on aurait simplement dû dire au lieu de "la dynamique de la pauvreté rurale", "la dynamique de leur pauvreté".
Et au lieu de la "confrontation des expériences entre pays", je suggère de dire "l'importance qui est attachée à la diffusion des informations et à l'échange d'expériences entre pays".
F.H. JAWHAR HAYAT (Kuwait): I am sorry, Sir, to take you back to paragraph 50. It ís only a matter for clarification. In the Arabic version the words(istitane El Aradi) which in English are called land settlement, we would rather just keep it (islah al zirai wal istitane)and drop "El Aradi". Then the meaning will be clear for us: instead of land settlement we have a word for settlement only, that means land settlement.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
M. MOMBOULI (Congo): Excusez-moi, avant d'adopter le 52 je voudrais revenir en arrière pour une remarque d'ordre général valable pour le reste du texte. Jusqu'ici, dans les différentes rubriques nous commencions par "la Conférence" et à la suite on mettait "elle" ou "la Conférence". A la dernière phrase du 52 on lit: "on s'est félicité". Je voudrais que l'on convienne une fois pour toutes de ce qu'il y a lieu de mettre. Dans certains comités de rédaction, quand nous mettions "on", cela avait un caractère plus ou moins restrictif et sous-entendait que tous les participants n'étaient pas d'accord. Est-ce que cette règle est de rigueur ici? A-t-on adopté une autre stratégie? J'aimerais savoir s'il ne vaudrait pas mieux mettre "la Conférence" et continuer avec "elle" ou remettre "la Conférence", au lieu de mettre "on" qui est un peu trop vague étant un pronom indéfini. Par la suite lorsqu'il y a des "on" je voudrais savoir si c'est dans un sens restrictif ou si cela tient à d'autres raisons.
La question s'adresse au groupe de rédaction qui doit nous dire si quand il met "on" cela veut dire qu'il n'y a pas eu consensus, ou si cela veut dire autre chose.
F. BREWSTER (Chairman, Drafting Committee): The matter of whether we used "the Conference" or "it" was discussed as well. At some stage in the Drafting Committee we thought that as we were working towards having a Conference document, a consensus document, we should at all times wherever possible lead with the introduction "the Conference" and we thought when we had sufficiently established we were speaking of the Conference we could then go into the indefinite "it" with part. I think there was no other explanation for "it" and "the Conference" is an alternative in other places.
M. MOMBOULI (Congo): C'est mon point de vue, peut-être les autres pensent-ils autre chose. Nous estimons pour notre part que dans le cas Où le consensus"a été obtenu il vaudrait mieux utiliser "la Conférence" ou "elle" au lieu de mettre "on" qui pourrait donner lieu à confusion.
G. CAMELARIS (Cyprus): I would like to confirm what the Chairman of the Drafting Committee said just before. As a member of the Drafting Committee, as I recall, there has been a consensus that whenever a new paragraph started we agreed to start it with "the Conference" but the second sentence, for example, if there was again need to refer to the Conference, we could mention "it" so as far as I recall there was a consensus on how to phrase the paragraphs.
O. BILBEISI (Jordan): It is a matter only of a suggestion for the second sentence in paragraph 53. I would suggest to add the following, "it endorsed the proposed increase of resources to stimulate the participation of women in production and marketing of agricultural produce through extension education." Because after all these women have to be taught about the modern practices through extension education.
S. ABOUJAOUDE (Lebanon): It is true that women have to be helped through extension but this question also was probably dealt with and we thought that probably there would be something else rather than extension to help the women be educated with, so this is why we left the sentence as it is and we propose to keep it as such.
T.E.C. PALMER (Sierra Leone): I just want to endorse what my colleague from Lebanon has said. If we are to accept the amendment to this paragraph we probably might run the risk of excluding all the channels of stimulating the participation of women.
CHAIRMAN: Any further 'observations? The amendment is not taken.
Paragraphs 49 to 56, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 49 à 56, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 49 a 56, así enmendados, son aprobados
PARAGRAPHS 57 to 59
PARAGRAPHES 57 à 59
PARRAFOS 57 a 59
M. SALAMEH (Syria) (original language Arabic): In the end of paragraph 59 we should add the following expression "the Conference noted that in order to meet the necessity of applying the enlarged concept of food security as it is suggested, we should adopt the food considerations by all those who work in this field, such as the programmes of the Organization, FAO, the World Food Programme, and that these considerations should be taken into account in the work and resolutions of the World Food Council and the evaluations of the Consultative Group on Agricultural Research and its international centres".
M. MOMBOULI (Congo): Tout à l'heure j'ai fait une objection et il m’a été répondu que, dans la mesure du possible, chaque paragraphe commençait par "la Conférence", que dans le corps du paragraphe on avait la latitude d'écrire "on" ou "elle", mais ici, au paragraphe 59, je crois que c'est une exception, on commence par "on". A moins qu'il y ait d'autres raisons que j'ignore je pense que l'on devrait commencer par "la Conférence s'est félicitée de ce que la FAO ... " pour rester conforme à la règle qui m'a été donnée.
C. VIDALI CARBAJAL (México): Yo creo que nuestra Delegación no tienen inconveniente en apoyar la sugerencia del distinguido Delegado del Congo. Ahora bien, por lo que se refiere a la proposición del distinguido Delegado de Siria, realmente lo que pensamos es que las ideas que él expreso no corresponden al texto del párrafo 59. En todo caso, debería ser un párrafo distinto que se incorporara posiblemente en alguna otra parte del informe, pero no en ésta que trata de los problemas de nutrición, porque se está queriendo incorporar también por un lado el concepto de seguridad alimentaria, y por el otro, al Consejo Mundial de la Alimentación, el Programa Mundial de Alimentos.
Realmente creemos que la idea del distinguido Delegado de Siria habría que ubicarla en alguna otra parte del documento. Pero lo que sugiero como método es que con la sugerencia del Congo se apruebe ex párrafo 59 y que se procure entonces buscarle una ubicación a la idea que está planteando el distinguido Delegado de Siria.
V.J. SHAH (Director, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): I am addressing myself only to the proposal just made by the Representative of Syria. While I fully respect his important views I think there are three considerations to bear in mind here. Firstly, this part of the Report is dealing, as you know, with Programme of Work and Budget and the discussion which took place on that subject in this Commission. This particular section of the Report deals in particular with the Programme 216 which concerns the nutrition programmes of FAO under the Regular Programme. For this reason I do not very clearly see how it would be possible to reflect his important views in this part of the Report.
Secondly, it is a question for the Commission itself to consider that it is not the validity of a view at this stage which would warrant its inclusion in the Report but whether that view was really aired and discussed during the debate that the Commission had on this item. I do not recall that such a discussion took place but, of course, I would bow to the wisdom and to the memory of the Commission.
Thirdly, the subject that he has raised in this proposal was of course a subject which was considered in our sister Commission, Commission I, when it dealt with the subject of world food security and the enlarged concept of food security. For this reason the delegates might wish to consider the appropriateness of such a proposal being included in the relevant part of the Conference Report rather than in this particular draft Report.
CHAIRMAN: Syria, would you like to reconsider the inclusion of this amendment in paragraph 59?
M. SALAMEH (Syria) (original language Arabic): On what has already been said on paragraph 59 on the Codex Alimentarius, I think that what I put forward could still apply, because this does refer to the broadened concept of world food security, especially as we thought it was a good idea to refer to the Codex Alimentarius Commission.
CHAIRMAN: Would you perhaps consider introducing that at some later stage when we are dealing with food security? Thank you very much. We approve paragraph 59 as it stands.
Paragraphs 57 to 59 approved
Les paragraphes 57 à 59 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 57 a 59 son aprobados
Paragraphs 60 to 64 approved
les paragraphes 60 à 64 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 60 a 64 son aprobados
PARAGRAPHS 65 to 71
PARAGRAPHES 65 à 71
PARRAFOS 65 a 71
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Deseamos proponer que al final del actual párrafo 70, que termina con las palabras "determinados productos", se coloque allí una coma y se agregue lo siguiente: "así como la asistencia y el apoyo de la FAO a las reuniones sobre el CEPD del Grupo de los 77".
F. BREWSTER (Chairman, Drafting Committee): I was just checking my notes on the discussion that went on and I do not think we had any difficulty with this paragraph. While I appreciate the suggestion made by Colombia, I have no reason to think that we should not stay with what we have here, but certainly I am in the hands of the Commission in this regard.
CHAIRMAN: In other words, what you are saying is you do not remember it being mentioned in this sense?
F. BREWSTER (Chairman, Drafting Committee): That is correct, Mr Chairman. I do not think there was any discussion at all on this.
J. SAULT (Australia): I cannot recali this point being raised in the Commission. It certainly was not raised in the Drafting Committee.
T. AHMAD (Pakistan): We wish to support the amendment proposed by Colombia. We personally feel that there should be no difficulty because the paragraph is dealing with ECDC, but if there is any problem we can suggest a slight modification which we hope Colombia would accept. We could say "as well as FAO's assistance and support for meetings on ECDC", and we do not have to make any reference to the Group of 77. That would fit into the paragraph because it is talking of ECDC as such.
CHAIRMAN: Are there any further observations?
S. ABOUJAOUDE (Lebanon): We see no objective to the proposal of Colombia, but as a matter of principle, because our Chairman of the Drafting Committee and other people, especially Australia, mentioned that this issue was not raised in the Draining Committee we would like to stick with what we have at the moment.
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Yo admiro sinceramente y profundamente el celo a veces excesivo de quienes tuvieron el privilegio de participar en el Comité de Redacción sobre la insistencia en conservar este texto, pero espero que también esos colegas reconozcan el derecho que tenemos nosotros a reflejar aquí asuntos que no sólo fueron planteados por nuestra delegación en esta Comisión,, sino por varios ministros y representantes de delegaciones en las sesiones plenarias, como los ministros de México y de Colombia, que se refirieron al Programa de Labores y Presupuesto de la FAO, a actividades de la FAO, a la necesidad de que la FAO apoyara la cooperación económica entre los países en desarrollo. Creo que este es un hecho que no ofrece ninguna controversia y que nuestra adición debe ser adoptada por esta Comisión.
Sra. M.E. BONDANZA de FILIPPO (Argentina): Mi delegación quiere expresar su apoyo a lo que acaba de decir el señor Embajador de Colombia. Hubo muchas delegaciones, inclusive nuestro propio ministro, que se han referido en múltiples ocasiones a la importancia del CEPD. Creemos que el párrafo que la delegación sugiere que se añada va a enriquecer el texto y concuerda perfectamente con lo que se ha dicho acá en la Conferencia. Lo que sí aceptamos es que se suprima esa referencia al Grupo de los 77, que levantó alguna objeción.
A, SALGADO SANTOS (Brazil): The Brazilian delegation would also like to support the proposal made by Colombia, as we have not been part of the Drafting Committee, but as the Drafting Committee would . not really mind if we made these amendments. I think that the proposed amendment made by Colombia would have to be inserted in paragraph 70.
M. NIETO Y LARA (Cuba): Sólo quisiera referirme para apoyar la proposición del distinguido delegado de Colombia. Creemos que esta adición se enmarca perfectamente dentro de lo que se ha discutido aquí, es decir, se le ha prestado un gran apoyo en las muchas opiniones sobre la cooperación entre países en desarrollo y creo que esto refuerza la labor de FAO y se hace un más categórico planteamiento.
B.H. DJIBRIL (Bénin): Ma délégation n'a aucune difficulté à appuyer la proposition de la délégation de Colombie. Il semble bien en effet qu'au cours de la plénière l'accent a été mis sur cette idée. Nous soutenons donc cette proposition.
CHAIRMAN: If there are no objections we will approve the paragraph with amendment but without reference to the Group of 77.
Paragraphs 65 to 71, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 65 à 71, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 65 a 71, así enmendados, son aprobados
PARAGRAPHS 72 to 81
PARAGRAPHES 72 à 81
PARRAFOS 72 a 81
M.E. BONDANZA de FILIPPO (Argentina): Respecto al párrafo 74, la delegación de mi país solicita que se supriman tres palabras en el cuarto renglón, según la versión española: "las consiguientes responsabilidades"Consideramos que esta mención no es procedente en este párrafo, que se refiere a las oportunidades de los Estados Ribereños, según el nuevo régimen de los océanos, sobre todo porque así este párrafo va a quedar concordante con los términos que se han utilizado en el Comité de Pesca.Podríamos citar especialmente el párrafo 9 y también los párrafos 51, 52, 53, 54 y 68. Así va a quedar concordante, repito.
P. OLMOS MORALES (Uruguay): Mi delegación comparte la sugerencia hecha por la distinguida delegada de Argentina, a los efectos de que este documento quede coherente con lo acordado en la reciente reunión del Comité de Pesca.
R. GUADARRAMA SISTOS (México) Para apoyar la sugerencia hecha por la delegación de Argentina. Completaríamos la propuesta sugiriendo una modificación al término "oceános" por "mares", que sería más precisa.
CHAIRMAN: If there are no objections we shall approve paragraph 74 as amended.
M. TRKULJA (Yugoslavia): On paragraph 80: first may I state that we have carefully read the whole document, not necessarily the first part of it. Secondly, I think a small editorial change to "The Conference commended". I would suggest that we say simply "noted", just not to give the impression that we are complimenting ourselves. It is a fine difference. I am just suggesting instead of "commended" just include "noted".
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Entiendo muy bien la intención de la propuesta que ha hecho nuestro amigo el delegado de Yugoslavia, pero por principio no nos gusta el término "tomar nota"Creo que sería mejor decir "La Conferencia destacó los resultados".
E. HERAZO DE VITI (Panamá): Solamente para reiterar nuestro apoyo al distinguido delegado de Colombia cuando dice : "La Conferencia destacó".
CHAIRMAN: If there are no objections we will adopt the paragraph 80 as amended.
Paragraphs 72 to 81, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 72 à 81, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 72 a 81, así enmendados, son aprobados
Paragraphs 82 to 89 approved
Les paragraphes 82 à 89 sont approuvés
Los párrafo 82 a 89 son aprobados
Paragraphs 90 to 94 approved
Les paragraphes 90 à 94 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 90 a 94 son aprobados
PARAGRAPHS 95 to 98
PARAGRAPHES 95 à 98
PARRAFOS 95 a 98
H.J. ARBUTHNOTT (United Kingdom): On paragraph 98 can I propose that the words "should be" be inserted between "complementarity" and "ensured". The wording does not convey any comment on whether or not there is complementarity or duplication at the moment. It merely would say, that there should be this exhortation or advice as desirable, so that if anybody is duplicating at the moment they should stop, and if they are not duplicating so much for the better. It seems to me better to have an exhortation rather than just a statement which does not convey anything very much.
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Yo creo que este párrafo 98 refleja el resultado de los debates a través de los cuales quedo claramento establecido que había complementariedad y que no había duplicación entre las funciones de las Oficinas Regionales y los Representantes de la FAO; de manera que tal vez es más conveniente dejar este párrafo en su forma actual.
T. AHMAD (Pakistan): I feel diffident to talk about the English language when the distinguished delegate of the United Kingdom has spoken on the subject, but the fact is that if you include "should be" that precludes the fact that already there is complementarity, and by saying that "was ensured" is also an advice, but also recognition of the fact that there is complementarity. So I think we will have to be happy with the language as it is, because this reflects the factual position, and also the trend of the debate in the Commission.
J. ZIMMERMAN (Denmark): I would like to support the points of view expressed by the United Kingdom. I recall that several members, or some members, including my own, dealt with the three elements of the decentralization i.e. the FAO Representatives at the country offices and the Regional Offices, and we asked some questions, and received some answers. Our intervention later expressed that those answers did not give information on the background of the increased budget for FAO representatives. We did not have anything against the budget as such, we just wanted information. We did not receive that. So in our minds, in our hearts, there is still a little doubt about whether there is a duplication or not and, therefore, I would like to support the points of view expressed by the United Kingdom delegation.
T.E.C. PALMER (Sierra Leone): I share the view expressed by my colleague from Pakistan. In fact, one is a statement of fact, and that is what we have right now in front of us in the prescribed text and the amendment more or less is relatively advisory. My delegation does not see any harm in that, but that we would like recognition to be taken of what actually is, in fact, the case. That means that "The Conference recognizes that complimentarity was ensured". If there is a suggestion for an advisory note, maybe the Conference might wish to adopt that, but we want acceptance of the fact that complementarity was ensured. Thank you very much.
B.H. DJIBRIL (Bénin): Lorsque la question est venue en discussion, les partisans de la thèse que soutiennent nos amis se sont exprimés; mais d'une manière générale il avait été reconnu une certaine complémentarité entre les bureaux régionaux et les représentants de la FAO dans les pays. C'est lfidée qui a prévalu. Il serait bon que le consensus qui a alors été réalisé se reflète dans la rédaction de ce paragraphe.
H.J. ARBUTHNOTT (United Kingdom): Then what about "should continue to be"?
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Con ánimo de compromiso aceptamos la propuesta alternativa que ha hecho la delegación del Reino Unido. Podríamos decir "La Conferencia reconoció que estaba y debía mantenerse la complementariedad".
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for your cooperation. Is the proposal by the United Kingdom accepted by all?
T. AHMAD (Pakistan): Could you kindly read the paragraph as amended, so that we can see it in the full context.
K. KILLINGSWORTH (Secretary, Commission II): Paragraph 98 would now read "The Conference recognized that complementarity should continue to be ensured and duplication avoided between the Regional Offices and FAO Representatives and expressed its continued support to the activities of the Regional Offices," The next sentence would then remain unchanged
M. TRKULJA (Yugoslavia): I am certain it is quite obvious that I am not an arbiter on the English language, but it does not sound, at least to my English, that the Conference could recognize that the complementarity should continue to be, I would rather assume that it should be, "the Conference emphasized that the complementarity should continue to be ensured", something like that.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. If there are no further observations after that improvement, then paragraph 98 is approved.
Paragraphs 95 to 98, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 95 à 98, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 95 a 98, así enmendados, son aprobados
PARAGRAPHS 99 to 102
PARAGRAPHES 99 à 102
PARRAFOS 99 a 102
J. ZIMMERMAN (Denmark): To our mind the balance of the text of 99 is not weighted correctly. In fact some members expressed their feelings about the share of the budget for the TCP as a part of the overall budget, and at least the Danish delegation, supported by a few others, expressed that they felt that the share of the TCP in the overall budget should not exceed the present levels, and I would like to propose as, for instance, a new paragraph 100, a very short text saying "Some members felt that the share of the TCP in the overall budget should not exceed the present level".
T. AHMAD (Pakistan): May I take the liberty of explaining that these three paragraphs 99 to 102 were worked out in great detail in the Drafting Committee. That does not preclude the Commission from re-looking at them but, Mr Chairman, an attempt was made to bring out a balance between different opinions expressed on the subject, and at the beginning of paragraph 100 you have one set of opinions and subsequently another set of opinions. As far as the share of the TCP in the total budget is concerned, I believe you will recall that the Pakistan delegation very specifically suggested that in the Summary Programme of Work and Budget 13.5 percent was anticipated, whereas in the actual Programme it is not 13.5, and we said it was not adequate.
Despite the fact that we wanted that idea to be incorporated, as a means of compromise we left it to be reflected as it is done in 102 about the level of the budget. So we think, if you try and disturb the balance now then we would also insist that our opinions, supported by various members and delegations, are also incorporated, because we feel very strongly about TCP and we also feel that it sould have been 13.5 percent of the total budget.
CHAIRMAN: Denmark, do you still want to insist in the light of that explanation?
J. ZIMMERMAN (Denmark): Yes, I think I have to. It is not because Denmark has anything against the TCP. We recognize the TCP and appreciate its role, but as you will recall from the discussion, we have in fact raised one question for information, and the question was that we were wondering about training which has taken up one-third of the programme of the TCP, and we did not get an answer which was satisfactory for us. So it is in this context that we express that we have a little doubt about the future increase or the future share of the budget of the TCP, and I hope that other countries will support it, because there were in fact as far as I can remember four or five countries which dealt with our point.
A.R. PIRES (Cap-Vert): Il conviendrait de savoir ce que la majorité des pays qui ont bénéficié du PCT pensent de ce programme. Je crois que ces pays seraient pour l'augmentation du PCT. C'estpourquoi je ne suis pas d'accord pour qu'on modifie le texte.
B.H. DJIBRIL (Bénin): Ma délégation appuie le point do vue du délégué du Cap-Vert. D'après le consensus qui s'est dégagé, il était prévu que le PCT irait vers une augmentation dans les années à venir, et je m'étonne du texte qu'on nous propose maintenant.
W. HERMKES (Germany, Federal Republic of) (original language German): My delegation supports the proposal put forward by the Danish delegation. We have an extensive and basic approach. We took up a clearcut stance with the TCP, and with respect to the overall budget it was our feeling that is now being proposed by the Danish delegate as an additional text. Could I perhaps also recall that we put forward this view and this position as a basic one which follows from our multilateral policy of cooperation in development. This position of ours is an essential part and was an essential part of our statement, and therefore we value it that this position be also reflected as it was worded in the report.
M. NIETO Y LARA (Cuba): En el párrafo 99, segundo renglón, quisiéramos hacer un señalamiento. Dice: "Tomó nota" y sugerimos que se utilice la palabra "destacó”.
Quiero, por otra parte, sumarme a lo señalado por los delegados de Benin y de Cabo Verde en el sentido de que la mayoría de los países se expresaron en la Comisión para fomentar y tal vez aumentar en los períodos venideros la participación del PCT;. por lo tanto, de alguna manera debiera quedar reflejado esto en el documento; es nuestra opinión.
CHAIRMAN: Now Denmark was suggesting a new paragraph 100. Does anybody have anything against paragraph 99?
M.F. ROHNER (Suisse) : Non, je n' ai rien contre le paragraphe 99, mais je suggère que le complément proposé par la délégation danoise figure â la fin de ce paragraphe.
T. YOSHIKAWA (Japan): Concerning the TCP, we expressed our concern also on the level of TCP. We stated at this Commission that it would be desirable to set up certain upper limits at the TCP level and we cannot agree unlimited increase of TCP more than its present level. We observe that not only my delegation but also some other delegates expressed the same position to us, and therefore we wish to refer to this position in the report, and we would like to associate ourselves with what the Switzerland delegate just expressed and we would like to put the sentence which the Danish delegate expressed at the end of this paragraph 100.
CHAIRMAN: Distinguished delegates, I think we want to be very clear on what we are debating here. The distinguished delegate from Denmark suggested a new paragraph 100. Now we are on paragraph 99 and nobody has anything against it, and I feel that if you have nothing against it we should adopt it and then bring up new ideas outside the framework of 99. Agreed. 99 is approved.
Now, Denmark, can you please table your proposal of 100?
J. ZIMMERMAN (Denmark): Well I'm trying to be helpful and I think it was Cyprus which expressed that many members have had another point of view about the share of the TCP, i.e. that they have great sympathy with the increased share of the TCP in respect of the overall budget, and this is in fact true. I recall that many members had this point of view, so in order to be helpful Mr Chairman I would propose that we also incorporate in the new paragraph 100 this point of view saying, "Many members had a great sympathy with the increased share of the TCP in the overall budget". That is a sentence in itself, and then comes my proposal saying that "some members felt that the share of the TCP in the overall budget should not exceed the present level". I think this is clearcut and expresses the meaning of the several points ov view.
CHAIRMAN: Before we go on with the debate I would like to ask the Secretary to read the new paragraph as suggested.
K. KILLINGSWORTH (Secretary, Commission II) It would read "Many members have great sympathy with the share of TCP in the overall budget. Some members felt that the share of TCP in the overall budget should not exceed the present level".
H. MENDS (Ghana): I really thought that amendment was not necessary but we are very grateful for the spirit of compromise that the Danish delegation has shown. I would rather go for something like "while the majority of the members advocated for an increased share of the TCP allocation", because that is exactly what happened, at least all the delegations from the developing countries that took the floor, including my own, advocated and in fact decried the diminishing portion of it as compared with the size of the job that must be done in the field. So we can see while the majority of the members advocated for an increased share in the TCP allocation in the regular budget, some members felt that the share of the TCP should not exceed its present level. I think we could go along with that if it was necessary at all.
J. ZIMMERMAN (Denmark): I think it is a very good idea, this last proposal.
CHAIRMAN: Now Cyprus, Cuba, Pakistan and Germany, do you still want to speak in the light of the agreement between Ghana and Denmark?
G. CAMELARIS (Cyprus): It is not on that point but on the matter on which the delegate of Denmark made with respect to Cyprus. I did not understand very well to which intervention he refers, the distinguished delegate from Denmark. If it is on the discussion in Commission II my intervention was meant precisely, expressing the appreciation of my delegation to the TCP and requesting actually increased assistance from the TCP programme. In no way and no occasion have I ever intervened to state there should not be any more resources. No. So probably the distinguished delegate may be referring to the intervention from some other state.
At the same time I would like to say that I took part in the discussion in the Drafting Committee on these four paragraphs and it was an issue which consumed a lot of time and we reached this agreement to this formulation after a long discussion. There are also many members of the Drafting Committee including myself, who expressed appreciation of the TCP and looked to increased assistance from ito
M. NIETO Y LARA (Cuba): Permítame que me refiera al párrafo 102 toda vez que casi todo está en un conjunto.
El párrafo 102 se refiere a la asignación correspondiente a la del Presupuesto; es decir, se explica que hay correspondencia proporcional a la amplitud de necesidades experimentadas por los Estados Miembros.
Quisiéramos agregar a este párrafo la frase siguiente: "Sin embargo, la mayoría de las Delegaciones se pronunciaron a favor de que los recursos asignados al PCT sean incrementados en los años venideros, mientras que algunos miembros expresaron su preocupación por este aumento."
M. TRKULJA (Yugoslavia): I will seek first your advice. I thought the intervention was on paragraph 100 which, as I see it - perhaps I am wrong - would read: "While appreciating fully this role and value of TCP, some members felt that the share of TCP should not exceed the present level" or words to that effect. Then they also emphasize "the need for additional information on its implementation", and hen we come to the majority view along the same lines. Perhaps I was wrong but I think it is the most logical way to reflect the views of the minority and the majority. But now, on the substance, we have to be aware that, at least to a certain degree, to fix any share or to fix the present share implies a play with figures. You will hear the delegate of Pakistan after me and my friend Tanwir Ahmad will then advise you that the TCP share in fact dropped as compared with the increase in the Programme. Originally it was 13.5 at the Summary stage, while now in the present biennium it is 12.7 but it was 13.5. So let us be serious about the figures that we want to refer to.
CHAIRMAN: Once more, delegates, I think we have to be clear about what we are debating. The delegate of Denmark has suggested a new paragraph dealing with views on the level of the TCP. Of the remaining paragraphs, the only one that is closest to that idea is 102 and therefore I would suggest that we proceed with 101 and then when we come to 102 we can see how we can best fit that proposal into the Report.
T.E.C. PALMER (Sierra Leone): I must confess that I am not with the. group in this proposed new paragraph. First of all, if you ask me personally, I would like for this new paragraph to be deleted completely from the document. Secondly, I do not think it is a good idea to include any amendment to paragraph 102. We have different views expressed about TCP, the large majority, a few members, some members. This has been taken care of in paragraph 100; by this I mean the present paragraph 100, not the proposed paragraph 100. I do not think it is wise for us to go into paragraph 102 which is a clear reflection of the Conference decision. Now we are going to introduce some element of doubt and controversy if we allow the proposal to be attached or appended to paragraph 102. I do not share that view and I am sure it might be misleading to the Conference and even to any other person reading the Report.
W. HERMKES (Germany, Federal Republic of) (original language German): I wish to address myself to paragraph 100 as it was proposed by the Danish delegation and read out by the Secretary. This proposed text was amended by way of a proposal by the delegate of Ghana. My delegation feels that this wording gives a very balanced description of the various views that are held by the majority of the delegates and a small minority. We therefore feel that this proposal of the Ghana delegate can be fully supported by us and we propose that this proposal be read out once more by the Secretary, in order that the entire Commission can have a fresh and updated version of it.
K. KILLINGSWORTH (Secretary, Commission II): This would be a paragraph 100 before the paragraph 100 in the present text and, as amended, I believe it would read as follows: "While the majority of members advocated an increase in the share of TCP in the overall budget, some members felt that the share of TCP should not exceed its present level".
P. GOSSELIN (Canada): We support that formulation. Later on I would like to come back to a point that was raised by the delegate of Yugoslavia.
J. SAULT (Australia): This issue did take up a considerable amount of time in the Drafting Committee. I would just like to point out to members the structure of this section of the Report. In paragraph 99 we talk about the TCP in general; in paragraph 100 we talk about the differing views that are expressed, first of all, by a small group of countries - some members - and then the views of the majority of members. Then we go on to paragraph 101, and in 102 and we end up that although there were differing views expressed, there was, I think, unanimity on the question of the level of the TCP in this particular Programme of Work and Budget.
I have no difficulty with the formulation of paragraph 100. I do doubt whether the amendment is necessary if you consider the totality of these four paragraphs. I am inclined to agree with the delegate from Sierra Leone and also of Yugoslavia who, I think, was of the view that if we do want to expand the views of some members, then this could be done within the context of the existing paragraph 100, rather than having a new and separate paragraph again recording differing views.
C.R. BENJAMIN (United States of America): Although we did not speak to the issue of the level of the TCP, we realise that it was spoken to and think it should be reflected somewhere here in the report of it. I tend to agree that if we do not want it as a new paragraph 100, then it could be combined either with the old paragraph 100 or perhaps added to paragraph 102, although I rather concur with the delegate of Sierra Leone that that would dilute that paragraph somewhat. In any case I think that the reflection of the discussion on this point ought to be included somewhere.
M. MOMBOULI (Congo): J'ai suivi ceux qui m'ont précédé, nous ne revenons pas sur le paragraphe 99 mais il est difficile, au stade actuel, de ne pas tenir compte de la structure du texte. J'ai essayé de lire attentivement les quatre derniers paragraphes de ce rapport; à mon avis, la suggestion qui est faite ne trouve pas sa place au niveau du paragraphe 100, parce que là où on parle un peu de niveau, c'est au paragraphe 102, mais nous pensons qu'en ajoutant la proposition faite au paragraphe 102 cela lui enlèverait de sa valeur et voudrait dire qu'en définitive il n'y a pas de place pour cette proposition. Je crois que le paragraphe 100 est suffisamment explicite, il tient compte des avis des uns et des autres, de ceux de la minorité et de ceux de la majorité; on ne peut pas, là, tout de suite, aborder la question des niveaux des budgets. A la limite, c'est au paragraphe 102 que l'on pourrait envisager la possibilité de discuter de cette adjonction mais pas avant.
J. GAZZO F.D. (Perú): Yo creo que algunos delegados quizá no conocen bien para qué sirve el PCT. Por lo menos recojo esta impresión porque el PCT es un fondo que tiene gran flexibilidad y sirve también para solucionar problemas de emergencia que surgen a veces inesperadamente. Es el caso que algunas veces para acciones urgentes, una desgracia, se usa el fondo del PCT. Por consiguiente, el decir que los fondos no deberían crecer, quiere decir que si hubiera muchas de estas desgracias, digamos, el PCT no tendría fondos.
Hay otra cosa fundamental, el PCT es lo único que ha salvado la ejecución de algunos proyectos que se quedaron sin fondos por parte del PNUD; habría proyectos que se hubieran perdido si es que el PCT no hubiera surgido como un fondo salvador que ha permitido que éstos trabajen. Además yo creo que si hay alguien que tiene autoridad para decir si los fondos del PCT son suficientes, somos los usuarios y nosotros los usuarios tenemos conciencia de que el PCT es un fondo muy ágil, un fondo que trabaja con gran serenidad y que es un catalizador de otros proyectos de mayor envergadura.
Por consiguiente, el PCT está cumpliendo una serie de funciones crecientes y yo creo que lo que hemos acordado es que en este Presupuesto los fondos deben darse al PCT. Y debemos conocer en realidad para qué sirve el PCT; cortar fondos significa prejuzgar que no va a haber situaciones de emergencia, las cuales hoy el PCT ha atendido porque ha tenido un fondo de regular cuantía.
Por consiguiente, yo dejaría todo como está y quizá no en el artículo 100 sino en algún otro artículo; el 102 podría pasar al 103 y quizá podría hacerse un 102 en el cual se vuelque en cierta forma lo que quieren decir algunos delegados, pero el fondo fuese para lo que está sirviendo el PCT, para una serie de acciones que hoy no se pueden hacer con ningún otro tipo de fondos porque han disminuido mucho.
T. AHMAD (Pakistan): As the delegate from Australia pointed out we have looked at the structure of these paragraphs and as the structure stands now the paragraph 100 in the Draft Report speaks about the two different points of view on the TCP but particularly on the subject of whether or not there is a need for additional information on the TCP projects, so as far as a paragraph or any modification of the level is concerned that does not fit in structurally, the way the report is structured. If it can go in anywhere it can only go in paragraph 102 which is talking of the level and here it is saying that the TCP is considered to be commensurate with the extent of certain requirements of member countries.
I would beg your indulgence but I would perhaps after I finish, request the Chairman of the Drafting Committee to explain that it was yesterday, while we were approving this, looking at this Draft Report, we, in particular the delegation for Pakistan, very forcibly stressed that this paragraph 102 does not reflect the debate, because we had "the majority of members stressed an increased share of TCP in the overall budget". We had repeatedly stressed that and it was only out of a compromise that we agreed with this text in paragraph 102. As far as the level of this TCP is concerned, as the Chairman of the Programme Committee just mentioned, and I have been mentioning here, in the Summary Programme of Work and Budget there was an anticipated share of 13.5, the present proposed Programme of Work and Budget has 12.7 and the last biennium I think, if my memory does not fail me it was 12.9. So as far as that is concerned there is only the fall in the TCP share in the percentage of the overall Programme of Work and Budget and that was what we were expressing our concern on throughout, not only in Commission II, also in the Plenary and in the Drafting Committee. So we accept the text of 102 as a compromise saying that it is commensurate with the Budget. Actually the majority of the developing countries feel that it is not commensurate, it should be even more and the volume should not only be more, the share of TCP in the overall budget should be more and I do not want to elaborate how effective TCP is, how flexible it is, how it meets the requirements of the needs of developing countries and how appreciative the developing countries have been in the short term intervention of TCP, where the developing countries also mobilise their own resources to match the funds which the TCP provides. It would perhaps reopen the debate and that is what we are trying to do here. What we are trying to do is to develop the debate and as paragraph 102 stands now it is a compromise of what the actual content of the debate was. We would have wanted to strengthen paragraph 102 to say that it is not commensurate and it should be increased, so we would suggest that this text, though it is a compromise, it should be retained as it is, as worked out by the Drafting Committee, because it reflects all the shades of the opinions expressed during the debate and we strongly urge that it be left as it is.
CHAIRMAN: Before we go on to the debate, if this report is to reflect the debate, specially in the Commission, I believe it is an indisputable fact that there was a majority of opinion in support of increased resources of the TCP but there were registered very articulately resolutions about the further growth of the TCP. In order words, delegations that indicated otherwise pointed out that they hoped that TCP resources would not go beyond the point at which they were reflected in the budget. Now it seems to me that those two points of view which, however during the debate were not necessarily completed, ought to be reflected and the best way in which they have been put together. is in this proposed paragraph 100. Now the question is between the four remaining paragraphs we have to decide where to reflect those two points of view because those were expressed very clearly during the Commission debate and they are not reflected on any of the remaining paragraphs, at least in the clear manner in which they were stated.
J. ZIMMERMAN (Denmark): Allow me to make apologies to the Cyprus delegation because before I referred to an intervention of the Cyprus delegation, an intervention which in fact did not take place. I misunderstood who was talking and I think the Cyprus point of view is very clear and mentioned in the verbatim of the Third Meeting.
I do not think that some delegates have understood what the meaning of my intervention was. We have said nothing about the resources channelled to the TCP in absolute figures. In fact we might accept increased resources in absolute figures to the TCP. What we have said something about is the share of the budget and the background is our question whether, as far as we can see, one third of the TCP activities is training and we have the opinion that at least a certain proportion of this training belongs to other programmes. Therefore we propose this sentence that "some members felt that the share of the TCP, in respect to the overall budget", that means we consider the balance of the different programmes. We have said nothing about increased or decreased resources in absolute terms but I think we have a very good proposal which in fact is in two parts, one was this "by the majority advocated" and so on and then I joined it with my proposal and I see there might be difficulties to fit this proposal into the present articles and therefore I propose a new article and I think the text in the new article proposed is in fact subjects which most of the delegates had dealt with, the delegates which had supported my point of view and many delegates which have supported the other point of view and I think this should be reflected in the Report.
CHAIRMAN: Let us get those delegations who would like to suggest where we fit in this idea.
W.E. ADERO (Kenya): It is apparent that instead of wanting to have the debate reflected in the report we are opening up a new debate which in my opinion and in the opinion of my delegation is not of any help to us. I agree with you that both views were expressed during the debate. The majority of delegations that spoke actually wanted the TCP level to be increased and a few delegations expressed that the level was rather high but in the opinion of my delegation the Report as it is, from paragraph 99 up to 102, in our view reflects adequately what was discussed when we were discussing the TCP under the Programme of Work and Budget. In view of this I want to support what had been expressed earlier by quite a few delegations, I can remember Pakistan, Australia and Sierra Leone, that we leave this report as it is and adopt the paragraphs as they are. I do not think we need to include paragraph 100 as has been suggested.
P. GOSSELIN (Canada): I would only once again support the proposal that was put forward by the Danish and Ghanaian colleagues. I had hoped now that the debate had moved further and I could have treated the other point that I was interested in but I will raise it in this point because my colleague from Pakistan has made allusion to it and I would like some clarification from the Secretariat. We are told that at one point we were talking about 13.5 percent in the Summary Programme of Work and Budget and now it is at a figure much less than that. However, if my memory serves me, Mr Shah or Mr West when they introduced the item spoke about when the new exchange rates or the more realistic exchange rate is used the percentage of resources allocated to that Programme will then become approximately 13.5 percent. So if we can get a clarification on that at least we could eliminate that from people's minds as a point of doubt.
CHAIRMAN: I will ask Mr Shah. Denmark, would that be of any help to you?
J. ZIMMERMAN (Denmark): I do not think so. We have not dealt with whether it was one or the other percentages. Our point was as I expressed before that some of the activity taking place in TCP should take place in other programmes and therefore our point: is that the share seems to be too big but we raised the same question about it, the time was short and we did not get a proper answer and therefore it is our point that whilst some activity should be in other programmes, that the share is too high or seems to be but I think the text is rather smooth, it says "some members felt" and if you recall the last Conference we raised the same point. That, of course, should not be taken as valid now but at the last Conference we said that the TCP now must have reached this point.
CHAIRMAN: Canada, do you still insist that the question should be asked even though it will not help Denmark?
P. GOSSELIN (Canada): Our purpose in asking the question was not to help the Danish delegation per se. My point was really that when he made his intervention the delegate of Pakistan indicated that not only was the share not large enough, it was decreasing. So what I am seeking is some clarification from the Secretariat as to whether or not that is a fact.
V.J. SHAH (Director, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): I will reply of course, as you request, to the question raised about the share of the TCP in the total Budget. I gave this information during the debate but not all members who are present now may have been present at the time. The share of the TCP in the Budget for 1982-83 was 12.9 percent. When the Director-General presented his Summary of Programme and Work for 1984-85 in the spring, he made his proposal without including the cost increases as is normal, he was dealing with the Programme proposals. With the Programme addition of $2.3 million for the TCP the share of the TCP in the proposed Budget without cost increases came to 13.5 percent. It was only when the cost increases were presented by Chapter in the document that you have before you, Sir, that with the cost increases of $7.7 million, ali at the rate of 1190 lire to the dollar, the share of the TCP came down to 12.7 percent of the proposed Budget at 1190 lire to the dollar. As I explained, however, Mr Chairman, if you take a lire/dollar rate which is closer to that of today, let us say at 1550 lire to the dollar, the share of the TCP at the same dollar level comes to 13.5 percent. At 1600 lire it comes to 13.6 percent. In providing this clarification I had, if I may repeat, drawn attention to the need to concentrate on the dollar rather than on the percentages.
May I, since you have given me the floor, reply to another aspect which has arisen in the discussion, and that is the reference made by Denmark to the share of the TCP which goes to the category of training. He has referred to it more than once. To this I would only reply that the categories of assistance for which the TCP is directed and used are of course the same categories of assistance established when the TCP was established in 1976. Training, and particularly training at the grass roots level, basic training, was an important category and there is nothing new in this. A second aspect is that as the TCP is unprogrammed there are no percentages in advance marked for the training category, so it would not make sense to say that more or less of the TCP should be used for training or not used for training. As a result of that no forecast can be given for the future. What proportion of the TCP would be used for training depends on the valid requests received, which are justifiable, which can be supported and for which projects would be approved. I hope I have answered for my colleague on my right.
A final point I would mention on the TCP for training is that the Regular Programme funds under other budgetary chapters, under technical and economic programmes and trust fund resources, also undertake a great many training activities and if they did not the requirements for funding under the TCP for training would be even higher.
P.S. McLEAN (United Kingdom): I am not sure that my intervention will now be helpful, because I raised my flag, some time ago really to support the point of view that you were expressing from the floor, Mr Chairman, which as I understood it was to the effect that in relation to the Danish amendment a point of view has been expressed and a contrary point of view has also been expressed which should be reflected in the Report. The issue therefore seems to me simply to revolve around the problem of where it should be placed, and I understand that Yugoslavia at an early stage in this debate suggested that it could be incorporated into paragraph 100. I still believe that it is possible to incorporate into paragraph 100 different views concerning both the role and value, as are contained at present, and the question of level. I would be prepared to make a suggestion as to how this could be done if you believe that it would be helpful at this stage of the debate, as I support the view which you expressed some fifteen minutes ago, Mr Chairman, that it would be right and proper to reflect both the points of view made in this debate on the level in the Report and I believe that it could be done quite simply by adding to paragraph 100.
M. TRKULJA (Yugoslavia): I am trying to be helpful in a technical sense, as I understood your ruling was that differing views should be reflected in paragraph 100. So I would suggest a concrete text as one way out of the situation that we are facing now. I suggest the following: "While appreciating fully this role and the value of TCP, some members felt that the share of the TCP in rural resources" - or Regular Programme Resources, as you wish - "should not exceed the present level. They also underlined the need for additional information" and so on. Then comes the third sentence without any change. I will try to spell out the majority view. "The majority, however" - or the vast majority, as you wish, Mr Chairman - "strongly opposed the view that the TCP share in the Regular Programme resources should not exceed the present level. On the contrary they felt that the Director-General should seriously consider increasing the share of TCP in future biennia", or something along those lines. Then there would be a major technical change in the then third sentence: "They also considered that an independent review of TCP would be unnecessary". Lastly, in the light of the differing views and especially in the light of what Pakistan underlined, paragraph 101 or paragraph 102 should be amended to say: "In conclusion, the Conference supported the role and the record of the Technical Cooperation Programme", full stop, without going any further. That might be a way out.
CHAIRMAN: On the formulation, United Kingdom, did you say you had a suggestion?
P.S. McLEAN (United Kingdom): The suggestions made by my colleague from Yugoslavia are much in accord with what I had been prepared to propose. The views attributed to the member countries who spoke concerning their doubts about the continued growth seemed to be adequately reflected. I believe the views that reflect the majority of members could be slightly shorter than the version that Yugoslavia suggested by making it simply a positive statement that they advocated increase but if the sense of the insertion is acceptable to the Commission perhaps we could look at the wording separately.
M. MOMBOULI (Congo): Je m'excuse de devoir revenir sur ce que j'ai déjà dit. Je pense personnellement que le paragraphe 100 est équilibré. Il parle en effet du role, de l'intérêt et de l'examen du PCT. C'est précis. On nous suggère de parler du niveau des ressources. J'ai déjà suggéré que si discussion il doit y avoir, elle doit être ouverte sur le paragraphe 102. J'ai écouté ce qu'ont dit les membres du Comité de rédaction et ils ont déclaré que ce paragraphe a été rédigé sur la base d'un compromis. C'est également ce que je pressens parce que ce texte ne donne pas satisfaction à la majorité qui souhaite voir augmenter les ressources attribuées au PCT.
Etant donné que nous voulons obtenir un consensus sur cette question, je demande que le paragraphe 102 soit adopté en l'état, sinon je proposerai la suppression de ce paragraphe et une nouvelle rédaction.
Ou on exprime l'avis de la minorité et celui de la majorité en ce qui concerne le niveau des ressources attribuées au PCT et dans ce cas on ouvre la discussion sur le paragraphe 102.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I thought we were closer to some common understanding. May I request the United Kingdom and Yugoslavia to draft the entire paragraph so that we can look at the complete paragraph.
D. SANCHEZ (Colombia): Yo había pedido la palabra antes de que Yugoslavia y el Reino Unido hubieran propuesto el nuevo párrafo, pero de todas maneras nuestra delegación cree que ya los distinguidos delegados de Australia y Pakistán han explicado ampliamente las deliberaciones del Comité de Redacción al respecto y realmente nosotros vemos que entre los párrafos 99 y 102 que nos ocupai. está muy bien explicado lo que se dijo aquí en las deliberaciones por la mayoría de los delegados. Por lo tanto, nuestra delegación no ve porqué se deba añadir algo que no fue lo manifestado por la gran mayoría, y en tal caso si se insiste en alguna modificación pensamos que esta deba ir también en el párrafo 102.
S. ABOUJAOUDE (Lebanon): I think, trying to avoid some redundancy, because we have really debated this question at large, if we go back to the text we feel that there is a sequence of logic in it. First we have 99, that we have already adopted. One hundred is nothing but a continuation and explanation of 99, and it should be adopted without any alteration or change. Then we come to 101 also, that is a continuation and adoption, and 102 here, I will have to come back to that. I think the debate here was the same as we had previously in the Drafting Committee, and the consensus was at that time, because we had a majority, a vast majority, a great majority, as it used to be called, and a minority, who would like to reflect their opinions. Well, the consensus was that instead of showing that much difference between members of this Organization, we felt that as long as we all agree that TCP is a programme that should continue, we have all commended this programme, and feel that it has been doing lots of helpful activities to lots of countries, as my distinguished colleague from Peru tried to explain earlier. We feel that instead of being limited in its budget, and limiting its level of budget, we felt at that time - the majority felt - that it should get increased allocations, and it should have more flexibility to work. In this respect then, we accepted, and only we accepted at that time, as our friend here, the distinguished delegate from Pakistan said, to come up with this paragraph 102, which was the real reflection of what we thought at that time, and it really concurred the views of the majority and minority, and we felt that a programme like that never should be limited with figures or with levels, because by virtue of its flexibility it should be flexible. And I propose that' the three paragraphs here be left as such and be adopted.
NGA-MA MAPELA (Zaire): Faisant suite à ce que vient de dire le délégué du Liban, ma délégation voudrait rappeler que le programme du PCT est un programme dont les activités s'exercent dans les pays en développement et non dans cette salle. Cela signifie que si on veut réellement augmenter le niveau de l'aide allouée dans le cadre du PCT, c'est que c'est réellement la volonté des gouvernements des pays bénéficiaires qui souhaitent que ce niveau soit augmenté. Nous voyons mal comment d'autres pays peuvent s'y opposer alors qu'ils ne sont pas allés sur place pour voir les réalisations. C'est pourquoi, comme le Liban, nous souhaitons que ce paragraphe soit maintenu tel quel.
CHAIRMAN: There are now two proposals: one to reflect, as was done in the debate, the different views, and the other proposal is to accept the compromise which was arrived at by the Drafting Committee. Could we focus our discussion on those two?
T. AHMAD (Pakistan): I was going to make a suggestion that before we go into that, since the original amendment was proposed by my distinguished friend from Denmark, and it seems that it was the aspect of training within the TCP which was of concern to the Denmark Government, and it has been explained that the component of training from the TCP cannot be shifted to the Regular Programme, and the level of training depends on the amount of requests received from the developing countries, so perhaps my Danish friend was not even talking about the level of the TCP at all, he was only talking of one component of the TCP, which entirely is dependent upon the amount of valid requests received. So I was thinking maybe after that explanation from the Secretariat our distinguished delegate of Denmark does not want to press that any further. Perhaps that could be ascertained, and we would have no problem.
J. ZIMMERMAN (Denmark): It seems now that on our earlier request to receive more information about this programme than we got in the Commission's meeting, but as it was expressed by the Director-General, this record should reflect what is said in the Commission. It might be wrong, it might be right, but I am not able here to change what my colleague in this chair had said in the Commission, and I think that we have dealt with the discussion in an honest way, and had given our points of view in that period. We raised this little point. Others are opposed to that, and I think that one of the compromise proposals quite clearly reflects that there are two points of view. in this respect, and it should be reflected in the Report.
J. MCHECHU (Tanzania): The view of my delegation is to leave 102 as it is, because it is a fair compromise of the two views. If we all agree that the Drafting Committee went through this rigorous debate, and tried to accomodate the two views, and to me this is a fair compromise of the two views, then definitely it would be repetitious to say the same things here again on paragraph 102, or even the old 100. So the view of my delegation is that 102 is a fair compromise of the two views, and let us adopt it as it is.
E.P. ALLEYNE (Trinidad and Tobago): We will be very brief. We understand the explanation which has been given from the rostrum about training, but we have some serious difficulty with accepting that
the section of 102 which reads from "the corresponding allocation" to "member countries" in fact reflects what the majority of the delegations indicated. We feel that whatever we put finally should indicate clearly that there was a desire for an increase if at all possible.
J. LADAN (Nigeria): I think that going through the discussion all over again will not help us to take any decision earlier. If we look at the paragraphs from 99 up to 101, I think they summarized beautifully what had been discussed in the Plenary, and paragraph 102 is also a beautiful paragraph, which if the delegate from Denmark will understand the majority views, probably he may consider his proposal and help us in the debate.
G. CAMELARIS (Cyprus): When I earlier took the floor it was not on the essence of the substance of these three: paragraphs of the Draft Report. It was on another point, for which I thank the distinguished delegate of Denmark for his correction. On these three paragraphs it is true that in Commission II, and I do not want to reopen the discussion, a difference of opinion was expressed as to the nature of the functions of the TCP. These differences of opinion, as I was also on the Drafting Committee, are well reflected in paragraph 100, and that paragraph, together with 101 and 102 have, indeed, taken the Drafting Committee all Saturday afternoon. So the difference of opinion is reflected in paragraph 100.
With respect to the Budget, to the resources of TCP, if we try to fix an amount, or a level, and we reflect that in the Report, which was not the opinion of the majority of the countries, then we defeat the purpose of the TCP, which is to meet unexpected, unforeseen needs, which cannot be determined in advance, and thus set a level of the Budget. It has to meet emergencies which cannot be foreseen. Therefore, having in mind the majority's view, which was expressed in Plenary, that an increased amount of resources should be flown to the TCP, and that was the view held by my own country, and having in mind the different view which was put by a number of countries with respect to the level of resources of the TCP, in the Drafting Committee after prolonged discussion we arrived at the phraseology of’paragraph 102, which we really defended as a compromise of the discussion and the views held in Commission II. I, therefore, urge Commission II that the phrasing of paragraph 102 be adopted as it stands. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
J. ZIMMERMAN (Denmark) : I have listened very carefully to this discussion, and I think that this discussion, has been much more useful than the discussion we have had in the Commission as such. I think that we have made our point clear, and the opposite point has been made very clear. Having made our point clear, and also having said that we have nothing against the TCP as such - we raised some small questions, and this has been the background for our intervention here. But already we have discussed this at great length, and we are satisfied with these discussions, and the points of view expressed. So in order to save time I would withdraw my proposal, and I am ready to adopt the article as it stands in the Report.
M. NIETO Y LARA (Cuba): Quisiera referirme un poco a lo que se debatió en el Plenario en el que se expresaron dos conceptos; uno sobre la vigilancia dé los proyectos, la necesidad en la vigilancia de los proyectos para algunos países, con la cual la mayoría no estuvo muy de acuerdo. Y creo que eso queda claramente expresado en el párrafo 100.
Sin embargo, las cuestiones relativas al Presupuesto muy debatido no queda reflejado muy claramente, por lo menos así lo interpretamos, dentro del tema, de los párrafos que hemos analizado.
Somos de la opinion que en el párrafo 102 debe hacerse una adición de una frase que recoja y refleje los puntos de vista de unos y. otros en el sentido del aumento o reducción de los presupuestos para el PCT.
CHAIRMAN: Distinguished delegates could we do this. The suggestion of Denmark was to create a new paragraph 100. Since that has been withdrawn, can we move on to consider the original paragraph 100. Are there any objections to paragraph 100 as it stands in the report? No objections, therefore it is adopted.
E.J. STONYER (New Zealand): Just a point of clarification from the Drafting Committee. This business of independent review we raised during the Commission session, because of the perceived difficulties that obviously the TCP was running into, and also if in fact there was going to be justification for increased resources into TCP we felt that independent review, independent of the Organization and external to the Organization, was very important indeed. I would just like to ask the Drafting Committee whether "independent review" here does reflect that sort of intention.
F. BREWSTER (Chairman, Drafting Committee): On this particular point the Drafting Committee spent a considerable .time as well. We discussed the need for review and how the review of the TCP were being conducted currently, and I think we finally agreed that it was desirable to have independent reviews in the way the delegate of New Zealand conceives it as well. The desirability of it was expressed as we see here.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. I am going back to paragraph 100.
P. GOSSELIN (Canada): Only to speak to the point that has just been elucidated by the Chairman of the Drafting Committee. We also participated in the Drafting Committee and spoke to the question of external or independent review. At the time that the paragraph 100 was being put together we understood that the word "independent" would be interchangeable with "external", and that is why we did not object to the use of the word "independent".
M. NIETO Y LARA (Cuba): Precisamente en este párrafo quisiéramos sugerir y agregar la frase que no sé si tomó la secretaria.
CHAIRMAN: Cuba, would you like to insist on that even in the light of the explanation of how long the debate was in the Drafting Committee and that this was a compromise between what you want to add and what other views have been? Would you like to insist?
M. NIETO Y LARA (Cuba): Sí quiero insistir por cuanto debiera quedar reflejada de alguna manera realmente lo que se discutió en el debate general con respeto del Comité de Redacción que ha trabajado ampliamente en esto. No sé si habría algún inconveniente en que se agregara lo relativo a que la mayoría de los países se pronunciaran a favor de estos fondos o aumentos, mientras algunas delegaciones expresaron su deseo de que no aumenten estos fondos.
W. HERMKES (Germany, Federal Republic of) (original language German): Mr Chairman, the request on the part of the delegate of Cuba is exactly the same as the original proposal put forward by the delegate of Denmark. My delegation supported that proposal and furthermore it contends that this was a justified proposal. We support the Cuban delegate's proposal and to this we would like to give the following explanation as well. It is not here a matter of having the debate on the principle of TCP being opened up again; this concerns a matter of procedure and procedure alone. We have to establish what this Committee has said about the share of TCP in the overall budget, and here I wish to remind you, Mr Chairman, of what you yourself found and noted, that a majority of delegates spoke in favour of the raise of the TCP level and a minority, to which ray delegation belonged, argued that the percentage of TCP in the oeverall budget should not be raised. This is a totally neutral, impartial statement and finding, and we furthermore appreciate it, as the delegate of Cuba does, that this be reflected" in the same neutral way in the text.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: I was going to intervene before, and now I am not sure whether my intervention will be welcomed by anybody, because I have an alliance between Cuba and Germany here and I do not want either of them to think I am opposing their point of view, but while the report should reflect the debate it does not have to reflect every opinion that was expressed on every subject. It has to reflect the general sense of the debate. Only when people want to introduce something really important, substantive and concrete should we give it a reflection, and if anybody, even one delegation, has an official reservation to express, it should be expressed.
What worries me about this now that you have decided not to amend paragraph 100, is, quite frankly, that you want to amend paragraph 102, and I must say that I like paragraph 102 very much as it is because it ends on a positive note which relates to a provision in this Programme of Work and Budget, and if you start introducing arguments that some felt this and the majority felt that, from my point of view - which is not of course the decision which the members have to take - but from my point of view the paragraph is better as it is as a conclusion to the report on this subject.
Furthermore, just one point to remind everybody, we are not talking about the dollar terms as I think Denmark or somebody else said; we are talking about the proportion of the TCP to the total. Now one way of changing the proportion of the TCP to the total is not to have a zero growth budget but to have a large programme increase going to other programmes, and then the TCP will be a smaller proportion but not necessarily a smaller amount, and it is entirely dependent on how much programme growth is proposed for the next biennium, and how much the cost increases are, and how much the currency rate is, as to what percentage you come up with. So I would conclude that I would prefer, if my preferences have any influence at all and are of any concern to anybody, I would prefer to leave 102 as it is. If you wanted to introduce amendments, the right place to do it was 100 and not 102.
M.E. BONDANZA de FILIPPO (Argentina): La delegación de mi país no había intervenido hasta el momento en este debate. Luego de escuchar todas las expresiones que se han vertido y sobre todo después de escuchar la explicación que nos ha dado el Sr. Director General Adjunto quiero apoyar su parecer en el sentido de que es mejor dejar el párrafo 102 como está. En ese sentido entonces le pediría al Sr.Delegado de Cuba, si no tiene a bien, retirar su propuesta a efectos de que podamos terminar con este punto.
M. NIETO Y LARA (Cuba): Realmente después de escuchar la explicación brindada por el Director General Adjunto y escuchar la propuesta de la distinguida Delegada de Argentina, nosotros retiraremos esta propuesta que habíamos hecho en aras de adelantar el tema.
P.S. McLEAN (United Kingdom): It is really unnecessary now for me to speak except that I have wanted to simply express agreement with the point of view that had been put forward by the Deputy Director-General about the terms of paragraph 102. It is quite clear that this was intended to be a reference to a consensus view by the Conference on the question of the TCP allocation for 1984-85. I would have been prepared to have supported my Cuban and German colleagues with a form of words which would have made it quite clear that we are looking far beyond that period as far as the views being expressed by the two sides, but as my Cuban colleague has now agreed to withdraw I think, perhaps that is the end of that, as they say.
M. MOMBOULI (Congo): Nous sommes de ceux qui souhaitent que les ressources du PCT soient accrues, mais après avoir entendu les différentes explications et admis que le paragraphe 102 était une solution de compromis, pour rester juste nous ne pouvons pas tirer la couverture de notre côté, c'est pourquoi nous souhaitons que ce paragraphe soit adopté en l'état et qu'on n'en discute plus.
Paragraphs 99 to 102, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 99 à 102, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 99 a 102, asi enmendados, son aprobados
Paragraph 103 approved
Le paragraphe 103 est approuvé
El párrafo 103 es aprobado
CHAIRMAN: I thank you all for your cooperation, and I believe it is fair to say that the distinguished delegates were aware that we would have to work late tonight as we had the debate which I think was very very useful. It was informative and educative to many people.
Draft Report of Commission II, Part 1, as amended, was adopted
Projet de Rapport de la Commission II, partie 1, ainsi amendée, est adoptée
El proyecto de informe de la Comisión II, parte 1, así enmendado, es aprobado
A. REGNIER (Directeur, Bureau des affaires interinstitutions): M. le Président, le Directeur général souhaitait très vivement introduire lui-même ce point très important de l'ordre du jour. Le retard dans les délibérations cet après-midi l'en a malheureusement empêché, car il est maitenant retenu par d'autres engagements très pressants. Il m'a.donc chargé de vous lire le texte qu'il avait l'intention de vous présenter en relation avec l'objet du débat de cet après-midi, c'est-à-dire la considération du projet de résolution contenu au document C 83/LIM/18 sur l'objectif des contributions au PAM pour la période 1985-86. Ce texte, que le Directeur général aurait souhaité pouvoir lui-même vous présenter est donc le suivant:
"M. le Président, permettez-moi quelques brèves réflexions, au moment où la Commission va examiner le projet de résolution soumis par le Conseil concernant l'objectif de contribution au PAM pour la période 1985-86.
En tant que coparrain du programme, avec le Secrétaire général des Nations Unies, et en outre investi de responsabilités particulières pour son bon fonctionnement, cette question me tient particulièrement à coeur. Le niveau des ressources conditionne en effet les moyens d'action du Programme. Les objectifs fixés doivent être pris avec le plus grand sérieux et la volonté déterminée de les atteindre. Or, il faut constater que les objectifs fixés pour les périodes 1981-82 et 1983-84 n'ont été atteints jusqu'ici respectivement qu'à concurrence de 85%, et quelque 80%.
Pour la période 1985-86, l'objectif qui vous est proposé est de 1 350 millions de dollars. Ce chiffre apparaît un minimum lorsqu'on considère l'immensité des besoins urgents non couverts et la capacité du Programme à utiliser efficacement des quantités croissantes d'aide alimentaire. En fait, c'est un compromis laborieusement réalisé au sein du Comité des Politiques et Programmes d'aide alimentaire.
Le Secrétaire général des Nations Unies et moi-même avions pour notre part, sur la proposition du Directeur exécutif du PAM, recommandé un objectif de 1,5 milliard de dollars. Le chiffre finalement retenu, et qui a déjà reçu l'aval du Conseil de la FAO et de l'ECOSOC, est donc des plus modestes. Il est en tout cas amplement justifié si l'on considère que le Comité des Politiques et Programmes d'aide alimentaire, à sa session de mai dernier, a retenu que 20 millions de tonnes de céréales constituaient un indicateur utile des besoins en aide alimentaire pour 1985.
Pour gouverne, je rappelerai que l'aide en céréales plafonne présentement aux alentours de 8,7 millions de tonnes.
Début 1984, je convoquerai, conjointement avec le Secrétaire général des Nations Unies, une conférence d'annonce des contributions pour la période 1985-86. J'espère que tous les gouvernements et organisations intéressés, les donateurs traditionnels mais aussi de nouveaux participants, y vien-dront, prêts à annoncer leurs contributions. Je souhaite surtout que celles-ci soient adaptées en fonction de l'objectif que vous aurez fixé. Comme vous le savez, il s'agira d'annoncer deux types de contributions: d'une part pour les ressources régulières du Programme, d'autre part, à la Réserve Alimentaire Internationale d'Urgence.
Lors de la Conférence précédente de 1982, la décision d'inclure dans les annonces les contributions relatives à la Réserve avait été prise au dernier moment, et certains pays n'avaient par eu le temps de prendre toutes les dispositions nécessaires. Ce n'est plus le cas cette fois. J'espère en,conséquence que tous les gouvernements et organisations pourront indiquer leurs intentions à l'égard tant des ressources ordinaires du PAM que de la Réserve. En ce qui concerne cette dernière, certes, on peut être légitimement satisfait de ce qu'elle ait atteint en 1983 son objectif minimum de 500 000 tonnes de céréales. Mais comme je l'ai signalé lors de la dernière session du Comité des Politiques et Programmes d'aide alimentaire, la moitié à peine des ressources sont librement mises à sa disposition sur une base véritablement multilatérale. Le reste est constitué soit de contributions bilatérales, soit de contributions destinées à des opérations spécifiques. La part en espèces est aussi très loin d'atteindre l'objectif fixé de 30%.
En outre, près de 85% des allocations sont consacrés aux réfugiés et aux personnes déplacées. Cette proportion n'a cessé d'augmenter au cours des dernières années, et si la tendance continue, on peut craindre qu'un jour il reste bien peu de ressources disponibles pour répondre aux autres urgences comme celles qui se développent présentement en Afrique.
La dotation de la Réserve reste en fait insuffisante pour faire face à des besoins croissants. Dois-je rappeler que le Sommet des pays non alignés, tenu à la Nouvelle-Delhi au début de cette année, a demandé que les ressources de la Réserve soient progressivement portées à 2 millions de tonnes?
M. le Président, je suis satisfait que le Comité des Politiques et Programmes d'aide alimentaire ait décidé d'inclure à l'ordre du jour de sa prochaine session le problème des contributions en espèces et de leur utilisation. Les règles générales du Programme stipulent qu'un tiers au moins du montant total des contributions devrait être constitué sous forme d'espèces et de services. Cet objectif n'a pratiquement jamais été atteint. Les contributions en espèces et services se situent présentement aux alentours de 24-25%. Elles jouent pourtant un rôle capital, non seulement pour financer les transports, couvrir les frais administratifs ou de supervision des projets, mais aussi pour acheter les vivres nécessaires et encourager les opérations triangulaires. Le Programme en particulier doit pouvoir acheter certaines denrées comme le maïs blanc ou le riz dont il ne dispose pas en quantités suffisantes. S'il ne peut se les procurer faute de.moyens, il risque de dépendre trop largement des seuls produits disponibles dans les pays contributeurs, notamment du blé, avec le risque d'accentuer, dans les pays récipiendaires, l'accoutumance à des denrées qui peuvent être difficilement produites sur place. Ces questions méritent d'être suivies très attentivement.
Enfin, j'ai noté avec intérêt que le Comité des Politiques et Programmes d'aide alimentaire avait recommandé d'accroître dans toute la mesure possible la proportion des projets de développement. Dans un passé récent en effet, la part des projets directement productifs et des projets transformant des infrastructures économiques et sociales a baissé, au profit des programmes de distribution de vivres. Il faut prendre garde à cette tendance, car l'aide alimentaire doit rester avant tout un investissement, un facteur de production. Elle doit en outre être intégrée aussi étroitement que possible dans les plans de développement des pays bénéficiaires et être utilisée comme une composante naturelle des projets de développement financés par diverses sources, tant bilatérales que multilatérales. Il importe donc de faciliter l'intégration des opérations du PAM dans les plans nationaux de développement et d'assurer leur complémentarité avec l'aide bilatérale et celle fournie par le système des Nations Unies, y compris la FAO.
Cela suppose que l'aide alimentaire ne fasse pas seulement l'objet d'opérations ponctuelles mais, dans la mesure du possible, d'une véritable programmation par pays. L'examen que le Comité des Politiques et Programmes d'aide alimentaire a décidé d'entreprendre du cycle des projets devrait l'aider dans ce sens. La FAO, qui a déjà soumis des propositions au PAM à ce sujet, est disposée à lui apporter tout le concours nécessaire dans cet examen.
M. le Président, avec ces quelques mots d'introduction, je soumets le projet de résolution contenu dans le document C 83/LIM/18 à votre considération. Je suis persuadé que vous l'appuierez sans réserve, conscient que l'objectif recommandé est vraiment le minimum indispensable pour maintenir le momentum du Programme."
Ainsi se termine le texte de l'intervention du Directeur général qu'il m'a demandé de lire en son nom.
J.C. INGRAM (Executive Director,, World Food Programme) : This is the first time I have spoken to this important body, that is to say the FAO Conference and Commission II in particular, and I welcome the opportunity to do so and my main purpose will be to highlight some of the developments that have taken place in the work of the Programme since the Conference met two years ago, a period corresponding approximately to my tenure of office. But first let me remind delegates that while WFP has an important and often crucial role in providing emergency assistance only about one quarter of available resources is used in this way. Our primary concern is with the use of food aid not as a hand out but as an investment resource to promote rural development and the development of human beings who in the last resort are the foundation of all development. Food aid is provided to assist governments in the developing countries in the implementation of developing projects which they themselves have identified of importance in national development plans and programmes and which they implement. In most of those projects the investments of governments is much larger than that of WFP. It is in their interest therefore to see to it that the projects are well chosen and successfully carried out.
Food aid available through WFP for investment is now a resource of considerable magnitude. Twenty years ago WFP started as an experiment with a target of one hundred million dollars over á three year period. It is now the largest source of development assistance, apart from the World Bank, in the United Nations system and is one of the few multilateral assistance programmes whose resources continue to grow. The Programme's activities are no longer experimental or marginal. Thus at this point of time, that is to say today, WFP is administering over three hundred and forty ongoing development projects valued at more than three billion dollars in some eighty eight countries. Over one billion dollars of these ongoing projects are in Africa south of the Sahara.
The last two years have witnessed a significant expansion in the activities and resources of the Programme. Record levels of shipments and commitments have been reached. Commitments to economic and social development projects for the two years 1982-83 will be about 1.3 billion dollars, 27 percent more than the preceding two years. More than two thirds of these commitments have gone to support agricultural and rural development projects. Over eighty percent of those commitments have been allocated to the priority group of low-income, food-deficit countries. As already noted, the Programme has made a concerted effort to respond to the particularly pressing needs of countries in south-Saharan Africa. Indeed, about one third of its commitments over the past two years has gone to that region.
As delegates will know, WFP uses food aid for development. However, it is not immediately self-evident how food aid is utilized in this way. Certainly, opportunities-for using it directly to promote increased food production are limited. However, it can be - and is - effectively used by WFP to support the rural infrastructure, both physical and institutional, needed for increased food production, marketing and consumption. It is most effective when targeted on very poor people, for example landless labourers who are employed on labour-intensive work and who receive wages wholly partly as food. Among the poor of rural areas food is usually the most sought-after wage good so that provision of the right food in this way can be an entirely appropriate economic response to the problems of rural unemployment and under-employment.
A glance at the list of WFP-assisted projects approved during the two years 1982-83 demonstrates the considerable range and size of the activities supported by the Programme for food and agricultural development in a wide range of countries. These include: irrigation, drainage and flood control works in Bangladesh, China, The Gambia, Mauritius and Sri Lanka; multi-purpose rural development programmes in Benin, the Central African Republic, China, Ecuador, Niger and the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen; cash crop production, including coffee in Angola and gum arabic and tea in the Sudan; rangeland and forage development in Jordan and Kenya; the development of the domestic dairy industry in Bolivia, China, Morocco, Pakistan, Tunisia and Zaïre; small-scale fisheries development in China and Tunisia; the list I think goes well beyond that but it would be tedious to give you all the details. Suffice it to repeat what I said, but a glance at the projects actually approved during the last two years will demonstrate very effectively the range and extent of the Programme support for agriculture and rural development.
Food aid used as an investment resource achieves its aims and effects in a variety of ways, directly and indirectly. Two decades of experience have resulted in the Programme being able to determine what approach to take in relation to particular countries and specific development sectors. Above all, our experience has shown that food aid can be particularly effective if it is associated with other forms of assistance, financial and technical, as part of a total package intended to deal with sectoral or regional development problems in an integrated way. WFP actively cooperates in appropriate ways with other aid organizations both within and outside the United Nations system. As projects become more sophisticated, decisions about the appropriateness of food aid in support of such projects and how to use it in the most cost-effective ways necessarily become more complex. This means that the challenge to WFP to improve project: identification, design and management is growing. We will seek to meet that challenge in closer concert with the governments of the countries concerned and by strengthening cooperation with other aid organizations for the better utilization of their relevant skills. Let me emphasize in that connexion that collaboration with FAO will, of course be especially important.
On a broader level, WFP is increasingly concerned to support the policy objectives of recipient countries in the food, as well as other, sectors as well as processes of structural adjustment. To this end, food aid must be better integrated into the development programmes of recipient countries and provided in forms fully consistent with their overall development objectives. The aim should be to promote their long-term development efforts while ensuring that food aid should not act as a disincentive to local agricultural production nor have adverse effects on the domestic market or international trade. This means that planning and finance ministries of developing countries must clearly perceive the role that food aid can play as an investment resource and ensure that its value in this regard is fully taken into account when assessing the value of inputs needed to implement national and sectoral development plans. In some developing countries, fortunately, this is already the case but in many others it is still seen as peripheral and of concern to individual ministries only.
Given the importance of appropriate national employment, pricing and food production policies and the increasing importance of WFP as a provider of a sizeable investment resource and the utility of food aid as an investment to provide support during the difficult phase of policy transition WFP's role in the policy dialogue with governments is likely to be of increasing importance.
We stand ready to play our part, albeit within a framework which recognizes the ultimate responsibilities of governments for their national policies,
I have concentrated so far on the Programme's main activity-the use of food aid to assist development. This is not to belittle the importance of our work of relieving distress among those who are victims of calamities, whether man-made or natural. In this connection it is sobering to note that most of the emergency assistance channelled through WFP in the last two years has gone to refugees and displaced persons, the victims of man-made disasters. The Programme has an emergency allocation from its regular resources -currently $45 million a year - but the major part of its emergency aid comes from the International Emergency Food Reserve (IEFR), which WFP administers on behalf of the international community. That-standby facility has a current target of 500,000 tons of cereals which has been reached in the past two years. At the request of donors and the afflicted countries, WFP has also assumméd to an increasing extent a coordinating role for food aid in large-scale, international relief operations, an in Kampuchea and along the Thai/Kampuchean border for the African refugees in Pakistan, and refugees in Somalia, the Lebanon, Uganda and Central America.
Total emergency relief resources available to the Programme are, of course, less than one percent of the cereal food imports of developing countries alone. Such an amount clearly cannot make a major contribution to meeting situations of widespread crop failure. Moreover, the IEFR, as supplemented by WFP' s regular resources, must be administered in accordance with specified criteria which in practice means that it can be most readily used to deal with situations where the individual beneficiaries are readily identifiable and where the overriding requirement that food be distributed free to beneficiaries can be met. As it happens, these criteria are particularly applicable to refugee situations although that perhaps was not the expectation when the criteria were established. If, therefore, the IEFR is to become more a important element in the response by the international community to the various types of emergency situations, as well as some enlargement of the Reserve the criteria for its allocation require some re-examinaion. In fact, the CFA at its next session will be doing just this.
In speaking of food aid and emergencies at this time one is mindful of the current, desperate situation of many African countries. Under the Director-General's timely and dynamic leadership, FAO and WFP have, as delegations know, been bringing the essential facts to the attention of the world so that the necessary additional food aid and other inputs will be available in time. I join with the Director-General in urging donor countries to act promptly and generously.
For its part and within the constraints that apply to the IEFR, WFP is assisting to the best of its ability. Thus the total of WFP emergency food aid committed in 1983 for the affected African countries amounts to about 150,000 tons of food commodities. So far in 1983 WFP has delivered to these countries 124,000 tons. Some 62,000 tons more will be delivered between now and January of next year. At the same time a good many new requests are under consideration and will be processed as quickly as possible. As I informed the donors' meeting convened by the Director-General, we fully expect the whole of the IEFR and the WFP resources set aside for emergency operations to be fully utilized in 1983.
In order to accelerate WFP deliveries, to keep donors informed of changing requirements and to enable WFP to play the coordinating role I have just referred to, I have established a special WFP operational task force which will stay in being so long as the emergency continues. Meanwhile we will step up the preparation of development projects for the rehabilitation of drought affected areas.
Finally, let me say a few words about the all-important resources situation of the Programme. For the current biennium (1983-84), total contributions to WFP amount to 968 million dollars, the highest amount ever provided for a biennium, representing 81 percent of the target set of 1.2 billion dollars. The amount contributed is over 170 million dollars more than was pledged at this point in time in the last biennium. But this figure understates the comparative position because of current low commodity prices and the appreciation of the dollar against many other currencies.
The Cash and services pledged so far for 1983-84, amounting to 256 million dollars, are nearly 38 million dollars more that the amount pledged at the same time two years ago. The Programme is thus currently enjoying a healthy cash position, with cash holdings available for programme and administrative costs amounting to over 200 million dollars, an increase of some 30 million dollars since the end of 1982. However, prudent management of the Programme's cash resources remains essential, in view of uncertainties concerning future commodity prices, freight and interest rates and other factors. For these reasons it remains important, in view of uncertainties concerning
future commodity prices, freight and interest rates and other factors. For these reasons it remains important that the cash component of pledges continues to be as close as possible to the stipulated one-third.
As for the next biennium (i.e. 1985-86), as Mr Regnier said a moment ago on behalf of the Director-General, the CFA has approved a pledging target of 1 350 million dollars. This target has been adopted by ECOSOC and the FAO Council. This FAO Conference and the United Nations General Assembly are now invited to endorse the adopted target, as stated in the draft resolution before this Conference.
A joint pledging conference will be held at the United Nations in New York on 6 March 1984 at which donors will be requested to announce their contributions both for the regular resources of WFP and for the IEFR, for the biennium 1985-86. I urge donors , with all the earnestness at my command, to respond generously to ensure the full attainment of the target both for WFP resources and for the IEFR. Announcements made at the pledging conference itself are particularly appreciated because the Programme will thereby be given sufficient time to forward plan the effective use of the ressources that are made available.
CHAIRMAN: I thank the Executive Director of the World Food Programme. As delegates have noted, the Resolution before us is a result of exhaustive discussion in the Committee on Food Aid Policies. It has emerged at the Eighty-first session of the Council at which many of the delegates were represented. We will continue our discussion on this subject tomorrow.
The meeting rose at 18.15 hours
La séance est levée à 18 h 15
Se levanta la sesión a las 18.15 horas
