F. BREWSTER (Chairman, Drafting Committee): Just by way of a brief introduction, I should say that the Drafting Committee met on three occasions, one a very extensive all-day meeting, to consider the material which is finally placed before you. The discussions on certain aspects of the Report were quite extensive and the Drafting Committee went into an in-depth study of the issue and we feel that the Reports which you have before you for consideration reflect the real consensus and feeling of what came out in the discussions in the Commission on these particular topics. The Drafting Committee hopes that you will find its work satisfactory and give it your approval.
K. KILLINGSWORTH (Secretary, Commission II): The changes only concern the English text. Paragraph 7 in the third line: "at the core of FAO's activities in promoting agricultural and rural development" — not "in promotion", but "in promoting".
Then paragraph 11 in the fourth line: "TCP had helped to contain some of the harmful effects", not "farmful".
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Let us now proceed with the consideration of the document paragraph by paragraph.
PARAGRAPHS 1 to 6
PARAGRAPHES 1 à 6
PARRAFOS 1 a 6
M. ZJALIC (Yugoslavia): In connection with paragraphs 4 and 5 my delegation has a proposal, first to combine those two paragraphs in one paragraph — paragraph 5 seems too short — and then existing paragraph 5 reads according to our proposal, the last sentence of paragraph 4, to change words after "for more coverage", insert "of the FAO support to TCDC activities" and delete the word "networks". It would then read as follows: "The Conference stressed the need for more coverage of the FAO support to TCDC activities".
L.J. EAKIN (Australia): On the grammar of the proposal by Yugoslavia would it not be better to say "FAO support for TCDC programmes" rather than "support to" as I think the delegate of Yugoslavia suggested?
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Do you agree, Yugoslavia? Then if there are no further observations the para‐graphs will be approved as amended.
Paragraphs 1 to 6, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 1 à 6, ainsi amendes, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 1 a 6, así enmendados, son aprobados
PARAGRAPHS 7 to 16
PARAGRAPHES 7 à 16
PARRAFOS 7 a 16
B. VAN HEMELDONCK (Belgique): Ma délégation n'était pas intervenue dans la discussion du rapport No 1 concernant le Programme de travail et de budget 1984-85 pour exprimer le désir de voir inclure les données principales concernant les fonds extra-budgétaires pour le biennium 1982-83. En effet, nous avions espéré trouver une référence dans le rapport sur les programmes de terrain. Le lien étroit qui existe entre le Programme ordinaire et les programmes de terrain n'est pas évoqué non plus, quoique le rapport No 1 y fasse allusion. Je ne veux pas insister pour que ce point soit explicitement incorporé dans le rapport, mais, néanmoins, nous faisons confiance au secrétariat et je suis convaincue que le secrétariat tiendra compte de ce désir et de cette inquiétude de notre part. Nous pensons que cette proposition sera probablement appuyée par d'autres collègues.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Even though no specific amendment is suggested, the Secretariat will take note of that.
F. ROHNER (Suisse): Je voudrais proposer une petite modification en ce qui concerne le paragraphe 8 et la référence aux donateurs.
A la septième ligne, il est dit: "La Conférence a insisté sur la nécessité pour tous les donateurs de faire le maximum d'efforts...". J'aimerais remplacer le mot "donateurs", parce qu'il me semble qu'on a trop tendance ici à se référer aux donateurs traditionnels, par "tous les gouvernements". En anglais, on pourrait dire éventuellement: "governments in a position to do so". En français, cela provoquerait une répétition du mot "faire" et je demanderai au secrétariat de trouver une formule.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I think what you have suggested is quite understandable in English, but could you say how it should read in French?
F. ROHNER (Suisse): Je voudrais vraiment que le secrétariat fasse un effort. La formule en anglais paraît tout à fait acceptable. On doit pouvoir la traduire en français. Il faudrait éviter de répéter le mot "faire". On pourrait tourner la phrase différemment et dire: "pour que tous les pays redoublent leurs efforts" ou "que tous les pays capables de le faire redoublent leurs efforts". Il s'agit de trouver une formule.
M. B. SY (Sénégal): On pourrait peut-être dire: "donateurs potentiels". Cela pourrait résoudre le problème.
C.R.BENJAMIN (United States of America): I can support the language of "governments in a position to do so" in the English text. I also had a small change to make in the final sentence of that paragraph. I think that the word "alarm" is very melodramatic and might better be replaced by "concern".
B. VAN HEMELDONCK (Belgique): Je voudrais proposer une modification de la dernière phrase du paragraphe 8 qui se lirait comme suit: "La Conférence s'est aussi déclarée inquiète du recal de la part de l'agriculture dans les chiffres de planification du PNUD et,de ce fait, du recul de la part du PNUD qui est consacrée à des projets à exécuter par la FAO".
M. ZJALIC (Yugoslavia): In this Organization, and in other international fora, we are used to using the language along the line of the proposal made by the distinguished delegate of Senegal. I would suggest "the Conference stressed the necessity for all governments, of donor countries and of countries in a position to do so.
R. SALLERY (Canada): I hope this will be helpful. I would tend to support the suggestion of the United States delegate, i.e. that we use "the necessity for all governments in a position to do so". I think if we follow the suggestion made by Yugoslavia we are just repeating ourselves. Donor governments, and governments in a position to do so, this is the same thing. I would also agree with the US delegate's use of the word "concern" in the last line, "the Conference expressed its concern at the fall". Given those two points I would like to return to the first sentence, which does not seem to read quite properly, and I suggest perhaps that we should use wording which suggests, "The Conference emphasized its deep concern at the decline in the real volume of FAO's overall field programmes" or "expressed its deep concern at the negative repercussions of the decline in resources", or something like that. Right now it sounds like the actual ongoing programmes have negative developments, and if that is true that is one thing. If we are talking about volume it is a separate issue.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Yugoslavia, would you have any difficulty accepting the versions as suggested by the United States and Canada? No. Thank you very much.
C. BERINGER (Director, Field Programme Development Division): Just one factual comment on the first sentence. This was discussed in the Drafting Committee, and we explained on that occasion that the sentence refers to the total volume of field programme delivery in real terms from all sources, and there has been a negative development. In other words the decline in UNDP resources going to FAO's field programmes could not be compensated by increases from other sources. This is what this sentence says.
While I have the floor, with respect to the last sentence, and the proposal made by the distinguished delegate of Belgium, I should like to say this, that the issue of measuring the agricultural contribution of UNDP resources has always been a very controversial issue, because they are multisectoral projects which have an agricultural component, some of which may be executed by the World Bank or by OPEC. Therefore, the statement that the share of UNDP resources executed by FAO as the major organization for agriculture in the UN system is very clear, and it is factual. Any statement with respect to agriculture in the total UNDP volume is much more difficult to verify, and much more difficult to ascertain.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. First of all, Canada, how do you feel about the explanations regarding the first sentence?
R. SALLERY (Canada): Yes, that is fine for the first sentence, thank you. We will let it stand.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.
F. ROHNER (Suisse): Je voudrais intervenir sur la phrase à propos de laquelle M. Beringer a fait un commentaire.
J'estime que malgré tout une référence au chiffre indicatif de planification est utile dans ce contexte. Vous vous souvenez peut-être que dans notre intervention nous avions mentionné que l'une des raisons pour lesquelles la proportion réservée aux projets de la FAO avait diminué était aussi une question de priorité fixée par les gouvernements bénéficiaires. Donc, il serait utile à mon avis de mentionner ici le chiffre indicatif de planification. Nous devrions donc dire: "... de la part des ressources du PNUD consacrées dans le cadre du chiffre indicatif de planification...". Il faudrait voir où nous inclurions cela, mais j'aimerais que cette référence soit ajoutée.
C. BERINGER (Director, Field Programme Development Division): This suggestion is very easy to accommodate and is, in fact, correct. It would simply read, "had occurred in the share of UNDP's IPF resources devoted to projects executed by FAO." If I may make the suggestion. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: Switzerland, are you happy with that?
F. ROHNER (Switzerland): Yes, I can live with it, understanding that IPF is clear to everybody, what it is.
E. MARTENS (Belgique): La délégation belge préférerait que soit ajoutée la première proposition qui a été faite. Cela va d'ailleurs dans le même sens qu'a donné M". Lignon après la discussion sur l'examen des programmes de terrain, une sorte de résumé ou de synthèse.
C. BERINGER (Director, Field Programme Development Division): In order to accomodate the suggestion of the distinguished delegate of Belgium one may say in the last sentence, "then expressed its concern at the fall which had occurred in the share of UNDP's IPF resources devoted to agriculture, and in particular to projects executed by FAO", if that is acceptable.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Belgium, can you live with that? Thank you very much. Any other observations on paragraph 8? Australia.
L.J. EAKIN (Australia): I would just like the paragraph read out by the Secretary, if we could have that, please? The paragraph as it now reads.
K. KILLINGSWORTH (Secretary, Commission II): The first and second sentences of Paragraph 8 would remain unchanged. The third sentence, which begins, "Strongly deploring", in the second clause it would read, "the Conference stressed the necessity for all governments in a position to do so to make every effort to reverse these trends". And we will try to find an appropriate French translation. In the fourth sentence, "In this same connection, the Conference expressed its concern at the fall which had occurred in the share of UNDP's IPF resources devoted to agriculture, and in particular to projects executed by FAO."
A. EL SARKY (Egypt) (original language Arabic): I should like to refer to the first line. I would like to amend it as follows, "The Conference emphasized its deep concern for the negative develop‐ments in the real volume of FAO's overall field programmes". This amendment concerns the Arabic text, and corrects the drafting from the grammatical point of view.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Egypt, but what you have just said in English leaves out "during the biennium". Is that what you intended?
A. EL SARKY (Egypt) (original language Arabic): No, I would just like to change the words used . to express concern in Arabic. I would like to use another word in Arabic, leaving the sentence as it is until the end.
L.J. EAKIN (Australia): Given that it is a fairly wide audience that will read this report ultimately, I think that we should spell out IPF, rather than just having an acronym there, if you do not mind.
CHAIRMAN: If there are no further observations on paragraph 8 then we approve that as amended.
M. ZJALIC (Yugoslavia): I would like to suggest to change in the first line of paragraph 16, the last word "interventions" with "programme approach", "change in FAO's field programme approach from technical assistance towards technical cooperation", and so on.
C. BERINGER (Director, Field Programme Development Division): I understand fully what the distinguished delegate from Yugoslavia is trying to say, but I would suggest perhaps "field programme orientation" rather than "approach" because a lot of our field programmes are, in fact, in response to requests, rather than on the direct initiative of FAO.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much and I see that is acceptable to the distinghished delegate of Yugoslavia.
M. MOMBOULI (Congo): Mon observation porte sur le paragraphe 14 et sur l'expression: "Concept révisé élargi de sécurité alimentaire..." Je suggère de supprimer le mot "révisé" car dans les autres documents ne figure que l'expression "concept élargi...".
F. BREWSTER (Chairman, Drafting Committee): This is one of the points that took quite some discussion in the Drafting Committee and we thought that the rendition of "revised and broadened" would have been used to cover all the discussions, not only within this Committee but in other committees where the matter of food security was being raised. So I think that at least from the English viewpoint we need to retain "revised and broadened" to meet all the discussions that have gone on so far in all the committees. I cannot say for the French, but certainly in the English we would have thought that "revised and broadened" would need to be retained.
CHAIRMAN: Before I give the floor to Pakistan I want to indicate that I am advised it has to be in all languages.
T. AHMAD (Pakistan): This sentence refers to the particular revised and broadened concept which the Director-General had brought before the Committee on World Food Security and was subsequently endorsed by the Council and the countries, and that concept contains both. It is a revised concept and a broadened concept. It now contains three components which the earlier concept we were using did not. So this is a more accurate formulation of the term, at least in English. I do not now know how it has to be in French but it has to be that it was a "revised and broadened concept".
CHAIRMAN: Congo, in the light of the explanation that the wording in all languages has to be the same, are you willing to accept the inclusion of "revised"?
M. MOMBOULI (Congo): Jusqu'ici nous avons toujours employé l'expression "concept élargi". Si on veut maintenant ajouter une nouvelle notion, il s'agira d'une nouvelle terminologie.
CHAIRMAN: Evidently something new has been added and so we will have to leave it at that.
Paragraphs 7 to 16, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 7 à 16, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 7 a 16, asi enmendados, son aprobados
Draft Report of Commission II, Part 2, as amended, was adopted
Projet de Rapport de la Commission II, deuxième partie, ainsi amendée, est adoptée
El proyecto de informe de la Comisión II, parte 2, así enmendado, es aprobado
DRAFT REPORT OF COMMISSION II - PART 3
PROJET DE RAPPORT DE LA COMMISSION II - TROISIEME PARTIE
PROYECTO DE INFORME DE LA COMISION II - PARTE 3
PARAGRAPHS 1 TO 12
PARAGRAPHES 1 A 12
PARRAFOS 1 A 12
M. MOMBOULI (Congo): J'invite le Secrétariat à vérifier au paragraphe 9, dans la version française, le terme "contribuants". Ce terme ne me semble pas convenir; on pourrait sans doute en trouver un meilleur.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. The Secretariat has promised they will try and find a better word.
R. SALLERY (Canada) : In paragraph 11 I wonder if we might not preferably use "The Conference supported the pledging target of US$1.35 million". After all it is the governing body of the World Food Programme, the CFA, which approves.
A. REGNIER (Director, Office for Inter-Agency Affairs): Mr Chairman, I do not think it would be quite appropriate, and I read in the Report of the Conference two years ago "The Conference unanimously endorsed the pledging target". The target has to be agreed upon by both the United Nations General Assembly and the FAO Conference. It is not only taken notice of; it has to be approved.
R. SALLERY (Canada): Yes, I believe Mr Regnier is absolutely correct, and in fact his wording is much better than mine. "Unanimously endorsed" is fine.
CHAIRMAN: Are you suggesting we should use that wording here?
R. SALLERY (Canada): Mr Chairman, I would suggest that we use the wording that we used in the last Conference, i.e. that we endorse the target that was approved by the CFA.
A. REGNIER (Director, Office for Inter-Agency Affairs): If we want to do exactly what we did two years ago, in the narrative we said "the Conference unanimously endorsed the pledging target" and so on, and there was a long explanation and then the last paragraph said, "The Conference unani‐mously adopted the following resolution". So you may have the same here because you have also paragraph 13 which says, "The Conference unanimously adopted the following Resolution" and this should stand because it is necessary for the Conference to approve and for the General Assembly also to approve.
CHAIRMAN: Canada, we will leave the wording as it stands?
R. SALLERY (Canada): If I understand this correctly Mr Chairman, "the Conference unanimously endorsed the pledging target", to be followed up in paragraph 13 by "the Conference unanimously adopted".
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. That looks acceptable.
M. MOMBOULI (Congo): J'interviens sur la deuxième ligne du paragraphe 11 dans la'version française, où il est dit: "Si beaucoup eussent préféré un objectif ..." je suggère de dire: "Bien que beaucoup de délégations eussent préféré un objectif ..." et le reste de la phrase inchangé.
H.P. STRONG (United States of America): I apologise Mr Chairman but I would like to go back to paragraph number 10 in the second line and the second sentence which says 80-percent. The figures that I have seen for 1983 published by the World Food Programme seem to me a bit different. In order to be exactly right on the percentage, I wonder if the Secretariat could check that figure and put in the correct percentage as determined by the World Food Programme.
CHAIRMAN: We will check and adjust.
Paragraphs 1 to 12, as amended, approved
Les Paragraphes 1 à 12, ainsi amendes, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 1 a 12, asi enmendados, son aprobados
Paragraph 13, including draft resolution, approved
Le paragraphe 13, y compris le projet de résolution, est approuvé
El párrafo 13, incluido el proyecto de resolución, es aprobado
PARAGRAPHS 14 TO 30
PARAGRAPHS 14 à 30
PARRAFOS 14 a 30
Jean-Pol NEME (France): Je voudrais rectifier une erreur de traduction dans le texte trancáis du paragraphe 16 où il est dit: "Quelques membres ont signalé que leur pays avait accru ses contributions...". Je préfère que l'on dise: "... avait accru leurs contributions…".
CHAIRMAN: The Secretary agrees. Any more observations on 16? No.
L.J. EAKIN (Australia): On paragraph 18, just a question of the grammar, I think, in the second last and last line where we say "with a view", and I think it should read "to it being concluded". So it would read, "with a view to it being concluded by June 1984".
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, this is agreed.
D. SANCHEZ (Colombia): Para proponer que en el último renglón del párrafo 26 se añada antes de "Colombia" la palabra "Cartagena", que es la ciudad donde se celebraría la reunion. Entonces quedaría: "en las reuniones de CEPD que iban a celebrarse en Bucarest (Rumania) y en Cartagena (Colombia) en 1984".
CHAIRMAN: Yes, thank you very much.
A. BOTHNER (Norway): On paragraph 27 I am not quite happy with the term "traditional donors". Possibly it could be replaced by something else, for instance "those donors that channel only a minor part of their assistance through the UNDP", or something similar.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. I see no objection to that.
M. LENSTRA: (Netherlands): I like the speed with which we are going through the Report but please excuse me if I comment on paragraph 27. something id said there about the discussion about the the analytical assessment . I have listened to that discussion with great interest and 1 remember that the delegates of Australia and Canada made comments on it. And when I read paragraph 27 of this Report I wonder those delegates can live with that text. My mother tongue is not English but if I look at the last sentence of that Paragraph, "the Conference expressed the view that reliable and authoritative assessments should and practically could" etc. Well, it is very difficult to understand for me, so I ask for an explanation of that. The wording seems tome very bad.
R. SALLERY (canada): As you probably know and as our colleague from the Netherlands may not know, we spent many hours on this patitular item in the Drafting Group. We were not altogether happy with it and we think that we will probably live to regret it and indeed so will the FAO. I would have perferred something like "the Conference expressed the view that in most cases reliable and authoritative” etc. There will no doubt be situations when this sector deals with agriculture and focuses on activities. FAO, for example, is most competent but other agencies and this institution is not. Do we leave it solely in their hands to perform this? I would think not, but in any case we are prepared to join the consensus and let it go through.
F. BREWSTER (Chairman, Drafting Committee): Before you gave Canada the floor, that is precisely what I wanted to say: we did spend a lot of time on this Particular area in the Drafting Committee and I think this was the consensus that everyone agreed we could perhaps live with. That is why it came out in this particular form.
T. AHMAD (Pakistan): I have very little to add after what the Chairman of the Drafting Committee said, except to remind that both Australia and Canada were present there and this was a compromise and we were trying to use, as much as possible, the language used in the Council Report earlier on this issue. That is practically the same language as is used here, so I think we can leave the same language.
L. J. EAKIN (Australia): I would simply like to add that it was by way of consensus which caused us to adopt the form of wording that we have before us. As has been explained, there was considerable discussion and I would simply echo Canada's words in that respect.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, that is a very coherent Drafting Committee! Can you live with that, Netherlands?
M. LENSTRA (Netherlands): Thank you, Mr Chairman. I am very satisfied with these explanations.
Paragraphs 14 to 30, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 14 à 30, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 14 a 30, así enmendados, son aprobados
PARAGRAPHS 31 to 44
PARAGRAPHES 31 à 44
PARRAFOS 31 a 44
G. LOPEZ DE MORAL (Colombia): En el párrafo 32, en la cuarta línea del texto español que dice "como quiera que la EID es una directriz para la acción", a la delegación de Colombia le inte‐resaría que allí figuraran las siguientes palabras: "como quiera que la EID tiene una función directriz para la acción".
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. I understand that could be changed as you suggest in Spanish but perhaps I should ask the Secretary to read how that would sound in English.
K. KILLINGSWORTH (Secretary, Commission II): Looking at the two, we think that the English might remain the same and the Spanish might read "tiene una función directriz." The English perhaps could remain unchanged.
CHAIRMAN: If there are no objections from the English-speaking delegate and if there are no further comments, we approve paragraph 32.
H. LOPEZ DE MORAL (Colombia): En el párrafo 43 la delegación de Colombia estaría intere‐sada en la siguiente corrección que creo que se aplica solamente al texto español. Se leería así la primera oración: "No obstante, la Conferencia también destaco que el crecimiento de la producción necesitaría lograrse en una perspectiva más amplía -y aquí viene la corrección- teniendo en cuenta el progreso social con la participación en los beneficios por todos los sectores de la población".
Es solamente una corrección de estilo y tengo la impresión que se aplicaría únicamente al texto español.
Paragraphs 31 to 44, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 31 à 44, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 31 a 44, asi enmendados, son aprobados
Paragraphs 45 to 48 approved
Les paragraphes 45 à 48 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 45 a 48 son aprobados
CHAIRMAN: There being no more observations, document C 83/II/REP/3 is adopted. I congratulate the Drafting Committee and thank the Commission for a very good performance this morning despite the fact that we started late.
Draft Report of Commission II, Part 3, as amended, was adopted
Projet de Rapport de la Commission II, troisième partie ainsi amendée, est adoptée
El proyecto de informe de la Comisión II, parte 3, así enmendado, es aprobado
The meeting rose at 12.45 hours
La séance est levée à 12 h 45
Se levanta la sesión a las 12.45 horas
