LE PRESIDENT: J'ouvre la quatrième séance de la Commission III.

Nous avons suspendu vendredi soir le point 21.3 de l'ordre du jour: Etat des contributions. Pendant le week-end,il y a eu des consultations à la suite du début de débat que nous avons eu vendredi. Il en est résulté un nouveau texte qui va remplacer celui que nous avons discuté vendredi sur le C 83/LIM/22. Ce nouveau texte va être distribué dans le courant de l'après-midi et je vous propose donc de suspendre maintenant le débat sur ce point de l'ordre du jour jusqu'à ce que nous ayons ce texte. Entre-temps, nous pouvons prendre le point suivant, c'est-à-dire le point 21.4. Amendement du Règlement financier; et nous allons commencer par l'adoption de la première et de la deuxième partie du rapport.

S'il n'y a pas d'objections à cette manière de procéder nous passons au point 21.4 de l'ordre du jour et je prie M. Crowther de nous le présenter. M. Crowther vous avez la parole.

D.K. CROWTHER (Assistant Director-General, Administration and Finance Department): The item under consideration is a proposal to amend the Additional Terms of Reference Governing External Audit which are included in Annex 1 to the Financial Regulations. As stipulated in Financial Regulation 15.2, such amendments require the approval of the Conference in the same manner as provided for amendments of the General Rules of the Organization.

The amendments are proposed by the Panel of External Auditors to the United Nations and Specialized Agencies. The aim of the proposed amendments is to more adequately reflect modern auditing practices.

With regard to the Auditor's opinion of the financial statements, the amendments have been reviewed by the Finance Committee at its Fifty-second session and by the Council at its Eighty-fourth session..

For your information, the United Nations General Assembly has adopted the same amendments to its Financial Regulations. A draft resolution is contained in document C 83/LIM/19 for consideration and adoption by the Conference.

While there are a number of changes in the opinion to be expressed by the External Auditor that are included in the Terms of Reference, the most important one for consideration is the expression of the Auditor's opinion concerning his certification that the financial statements are correct. That has been the old language. The new language that has been proposed is that the External Auditor shall express and sign his opinion on the financial statements which includes a statement that the financial statements present fairly the financial position. Now, as I imagine, there are some other changes but that is most probably the most critical change of substance and it has been adopted by the General Assembly as amendments to its Financial Regulations.

LE PRESIDENT: Merci M. Crowther. Y a-t-il des commentaires sur ce sujet qui a été clairement présenté par M. Crowther?

Si tel n'est pas le cas, je constate que la résolution contenue dans le document C 83/LIM/12 est approuvée.

Nous pouvons ainsi passer à l'adoption du rapport et je prie le Président du Groupe de rédaction de nous rejoindre.

Le Groupe de rédaction a fait un travail dur et long. Vous avez le résultat devant vous. Nous commençons avec le document C 83/III/REP/1, débat du 18 novembre 1983: Projet de rapport de la Commission III, première partie.

Paragraphs 1 to 2 approved
Les paragraphes 1 à 2 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 1 a 2 son aprobados

PARAGRAPHS 4-6
PARAGRAPHES 4-6
PARRAFOS 4-6

I.P. ALVARENGA ( El Salvador): Le ruego encarecidamente, señor Presidente, me disculpe, pero por razones que usted seguramente comprenderá, no pude estar presente al inicio de esta discusión. Quería preguntar si el párrafo cuarto qued tal como está propuesto o se sugirió alguna modificación.

Nuestra delegación en el curso de la reunión hizo la observación de que, de alguna forma, quedase constancia de que el hecho de que la Región Latinoamericana hubiese aumentado sus miembros hacía necesario que en un futuro próximo se considerase la posibilidad de aumentar el número de miembros de la Región dentro del Consejo. Creo recordar que, aparte de la Región Latinoamericana, algunas, delegaciones apoyaron también estas observaciones. Yo pienso, señor Presidente, si no sería posible dejar constancia de ello en el informe, ya que, como digo, tengo la impresión, no sé si me equivoco, de que otras delegaciones apoyaron esas observaciones. No sé si usted, señor Presidente, tendrá a bien considerar esta cuestión o si la da por superada; en cualquier caso yo acepto su dictamen.

LE PRESIDENT: Vous avez parfaitement raison, le point a été soutenu. Ce qui n'est pas tout à fait Correct c'est de revenir sur ce point, mais si tout lemonde en est d'accord, exceptionnellement, nous pouvons le faire.

Le secrétariat pourrait-il nous proposer un texte dans le sens décrit par le délégué de El Salvador ?

D.C. McLEAN (Secretary,Commission III):I do not know whether the delegate from El Salvador has a proposed suggestion. Perhaps we could insert there, if he wishes, a text along the following lines: "It was suggested that the distribution of Council seats for the Latin America and the Caribbean Region should be consistent with the increased membership of the region."

LE PRESIDENT: Je vois que le délégué de El Salvador donne son accord sur ce texte. Je ne vois pas d'autres réactions... La délégation des Etats-Unis a la parole.

M. D. METELITS ( United States of America): Frankly, I must express a small degree of confusion about this proposed change because the agenda item we are discussing is the change in the title of a region. The agenda item is not about the composition of governing bodies. Although the statement was made, and there was even some agreement to it, it is not really relevant to this section of the Report that we are considering.

LE PRESIDENT: Merci. Y a-t-il d'autres points de vue? Nous avons une opinion pour et une opinion contre; j'ai besoin d'autres opinions!

I. P. ALVARENGA (El Salvador): Yo creo que, como en tantas oportunidades se ha señalado, el Informe debe recoger lo que sucedió dentro de la reunion. Nuestra Delegación entiende que fue apoyada por otras delegaciones, que dimos nuestra aceptación al cambio de nombre porque reflejaba la realidad de que nuevos miembros se han introducido en la Región; pero que ese hecho no creíamos lesionase la proporción que debe existir entre miembros de la Región y miembros en el Consejo. Pedíamos que en la primera oportunidad, aunque probablemente ese momento no era el más oportuno para plantearlo, los organismos competentes de la FAO tomasen medidas para adecuar el número de miembros de la Región con el número de miembros que le corresponde en el Consejo.

Nosotros quisiéramos que se añadiera una frase, en el momento oportuno, si la delegación de Estados Unidos está de acuerdo.

R.A. SUAREZ MELO (Colombia): Nuestra delegación desea apoyar al delegado de El Salvador, Como usted bien lo dijo, la propuesta es que se diga lo que se trató en la reunión. Por lo tanto, nosotros no tenemos ningún inconveniente en que ese párrafo se añada a la numeral 4.

R.R. FAJEYISAN (Nigeria): I think I would support the view expressed by the representative of the United States . What we have on the agenda is a change of title of the region, which was what was considered at the meeting.

P.S. McLEAN (United Kingdom): I believe the United States delegate is fundamentally right, as my colleague from Nigeria has just stated. Although this matter was raised under item 18.1, and there is no denying that, it was perhaps only a very indirect contribution to what was a very formal item to change a title. Nevertheless, I think this does happen; we recognize that various contributions are made to debate which may not necessarily reflect the item under discussion. The problem, I think, is that in order to meet the point made by the representative of El Salvador it would be very difficult to find a place in the report to reflect the point of view they expressed during the discussion of this item, which was supported by some other delegates. I do not know whether it would help my colleagues from the United States and Nigeria if a slight qualifying phrase was inserted at the beginning of the sentence that the Secretary proposed in order to indicate that it was not entirely appropriate for this to be discussed under the item - a phrase such as "in this connexion". I do not feel that therefore we need spend too much time on it, if the Secretariat would agree that there is no other place in the report that it could reasonably be included.

CHAIRMAN: Before I give the floor to other speakers, may I ask the Secretary to read again the text as it is now suggested by the United Kingdom .

D.C. McLEAN (Secretary, Commission III): The text which I read out would now begin: "In this connexion it was suggested that the distribution of Council seats for the Latin America and the Caribbean Region should be consistent with the increased membership of the region."

CHAIRMAN: Now before I give the floor to Panama and to the Netherlands , I give the floor to the Deputy Director-General, Mr West.

DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: With regard where this could go, I think the only other place it could be included would be in relation to Council votes that are taking place today, or under item 26 of the Conference, Any Other Business. Personally I think that both of those possibilities are less desirable than what has just been suggested.

A. ACUÑA HUMPHRIES (Panamá): Fiel a los antecedentes, señor Presidente, nosotros somos partidarios de que en el Informe se recoja lo tratado en los debates. Por tanto, apoyamos la propuesta de El Salvador en el sentido de que se recoja lo que señalaron varias delegaciones.

J. HEIDSMA (Netherlands): My delegation entirely agrees with what the United States indicated, that perhaps that this is the wrong agenda item for this issue. Nevertheless, it is a fact that this was debated under this agenda item. What we try to do here is not to improve the debate but to reflect the debate. Therefore, I think it would be appropriate to include the sentence here, and the addition proposed by the United Kingdom would put this sentence in a somewhat better perspective. I could support that also.

H.D. METELITS ( United States of America): In the interest of expediting our deliberations here I would like to say that I made the point only to indicate an apparent inconsistency. However, I would not want to stress this point, and I simply would say that I have no objection to the inclusion as long it is recognized that it is a bit inconsistent with the agenda item with which it is being reported.

M.B. SY (Senegal): Je crois qu'un rapport doit refléter les points de vue discutés mais il n'est pas dit que tous les points de vue doivent être recensas, sinon chaque délégation pourrait demander que l'on reflète ce qu'elle a dit, ce qui n'est pas l'objet d'un rapport qui doit, en fait, ne s'attarder que sur les accords et les points principaux qui ont directement un lien avec l'ordre du jour.

Les deux questions que je voudrais poser à la lumière de ce qui vient d'être dit et qui pourraient intéresser l'Afrique sont: Est-ce que dans l'Organisation de la FAO il n'y a pas un acte ou un règlement qui traite de la proportionnalité des sièges par rapport au nombre de membres d'une région? Si oui comment peut-on introduire une modification de ce règlement?

Deuxième question: En réalité à quoi servirait, d'une manière objective, cet amendement dans le cadre du point de vue ainsi examiné?

LE PRESIDENT: Merci au délégué du Sénégal. J'aimerais tout de suite dire que nous ne voulons pas du tout ouvrir un débat sur la composition du Conseil. Je crois que la phrase proposée ne va pas dans cette direction non plus. Il s'agit uniquement d'un désir qui a été exprimé par plusieurs pays: Comment et où, plus tard, cela pourrait-il être étudié? Cela ne nous concerne pas ici, pour le moment. Je crois qu'il ne faut pas brûler les étapes.

M. B. SY (Sénégal): Je pense que vous ne m'avez pas compris; je fais bien ce que vous avez dit; c'est un manque d'informations et je pense qu'une délégation peut demander des informations: est-ce que pour la composition des membres du Conseil il y a un règlement qui fait que, pour telle raison, pour tel nombre de pays, il y a tant de sièges, auquel cas la modification n'inclut nullement le changement du nombre de sièges? C'est simplement une question; si la question est inopportune j'y renonce.

LE PRESIDENT: Certainement, il y a un règlement, mais je trouve que nous dévions un peu de notre ordre du jour; cependant, je crois que c'est assez simple et je peux peut-être demander à M. Roche de nous éclaircir brièvement cette question car cela pourrait nous aider.

LEGAL COUNSEL: This is covered by the Regulations. Rule XXII of the General Rules of the Organization, paragraph 3, sets out certain criteria which are applicable in the election of the Council. In addition, there are so many seats for each region, and it is precisely on this basis that in Plenary Session this morning - and I think still this afternoon - certain seats have been and are being filled. The problem which has been raised is one which has arisen on a number of occasions. In fact, the number of Council members laid down in the Constitution has from time to time been amended in order to make it possible for the increased membership of the Organization to be reflected in the Council, and at such times as these amendments are introduced it is indicated how the balance should be distributed amongst the regions because in the past, for instance, there has been a very considerable increase in the number of Member Nations of the FAO in Africa, and in proportion to that the overall number of seats has been increased and the allocation has been made equitably to the various regions.

KWANG-HEE KIM ( Korea, Republic of): I agree that the Report should reflect as correctly as possible that which has been discussed in the debate, but I do not think everything should be reflected in the Report. If that were the case, all the comments on the scale of contributions should be reflected in the Report too.

I.P. ALVARENGA ( El Salvador): Yo creo que hay consenso en un punto y es que el informe debe recoger lo que se debatió. Ahora bien, no se debe recoger lo que diga una delegación simplemente, o lo que representa solamente una opinion aislada.

Aquí tenemos en este informe el párrafo 13, en el que se dice: "Algunos miembros expresaron ..., etc.," ejemplos los podemos encontrar por todos los lados.

Para ser coherentes, sugeriríamos que se dijera lo siguiente: "A este respecto algunos países propusieron que en el momento y la forma oportunos, ... etc." y después seguiría el texto propuesto por el Reino Unido.

Creo que así se refleja lo que se dijo en la reunión y no se daña a nadie.

D.C. McLEAN (Secretary, Commission III): The saggested revision is:

"In this connection, some countries proposed that in due course the distribution of Council seats for Latin America and the Caribbean Region should be consistent with the increased membership of the Region."

LE PRESIDENT: Je vois qu'il y a accord, nous allons donc modifier le paragraphe 4 dans le sens que vient de nous le lire le Secrétaire général. Avec cette modification, le paragraphe 4 est approuvé pour la seconde et j'spère dernière fois.

Paragraphs 3 to 6 as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 3 à 6 ainsi amendés sont approuvés
Los párrafos 3 a 6 así enmendados son aprobados

Paragraph 7, including resolution as amended, approved
Le paragraphe 7, y compris la résolution ainsi amendée, est approuvé
El párrafo 7, incluida la resolución así enmendada, es aprobado

Paragraphs 8 to 9 approved
Les paragraphes 8 à 9 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 8 a 9 son aprobados

Paragraph 10, including resolution, approved
Le paragraphe 10, y compris la résolution, est approuvé
El párrafo 10, incluida la resolución, aprobado

PARAGRAPHS 11-14
PARAGRAPHES 11-14
PARRAFOS 11-14

N. SALTAS ( Greece): In paragraph 13 of the Report, on the third line, where it says "economic conditions of many developing countries", I propose that the word "developing" be deleted so the paragraph will then read:

"Several members expressed serious reservations on the criteria on which the current UN scale had been based because they felt that it was not correlated with the present economic conditions of many countries."

LE PRESIDENT: Il est proposé de supprimer à la troisième ligne du texte français, à la fin de la première phrase: "en développement".

Je ne vois pas d'objection. Le paragraphe 13 avec l'amendement proposé par la Grèce est donc approuvé.

Paragraphs 11-14, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 11-14, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 11-14, así enmendados, son aprobados

Draft Report of Commission III, Part 1, was adopted
Le projet de rapport de la Commission III, première partie, est adopté
El proyecto de informe de la Comisión III, Parte 1, es aprobado

LE PRESIDENT: Passons maintenant à la deuxième partie du rapport C 83/III/REP/2.

Le premier titre est le suivant: "Autres questions administratives et financières"

Paragraphs 1 to 5 approved
Les paragraphes 1 à 5 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 1 a 5 son aprobados

PARAGRAPHS 6-9
PARAGRAPHES 6-9
PARRAFOS 6-9

D.C. McLEAN (Secretary, Commission III): In the first line there is a reference to the decision of the Corte di Cassazione, and we say "in October 1982". We think that the word "October" should be deleted. The decision was made earlier in the year although released in October, so it would be easier to say "in 1982".

LE PRESIDENT: Le paragraphe 6 avec la modification consistant à enlever le mot "octobre" dans la première phrase est approuvé.

D.C. McLEAN (Secretary, Commission III): This paragraph came in rather late on Friday evening, and we only took it in the French language. It has been retranslated, but we would like to suggest one or two modifications to improve the English. I will read the paragraph:

"7. The Representative of the host country explained that the principle of immunity as conceived by the Italian Court of Cassation reflected a doctrine and jurisprudence well known in the courts of this country and in some judicial fora of countries with a similar legal tradition. He added that it was difficult to imagine a modification or adaption of Italian law which could guarantee more explicitly the immunity of States or intergovernmental organizations since the Court of Cassation would uphold that doctrine in any interpretation which it would be called on to give of an internal law or of an international treaty designed to vary or clarify the scope of immunity. With regard to possible measures of execution, the Representative of the host country renewed his Government's assurances that such measures would not be enforced."

M.D. METELITS ( United States of America): My delegation has no problem with these clarifications by the Secretariat, and would ask if it would be possible if, instead of this rather inelegant phrase of reference to the Italian Court of Cassation, we could just refer as we did in paragraph 6 to the Corte di Cassazione.

CHAIRMAN: Since there are no other comments, is paragraph 7 approved in the version read by the Secretary, with the modification proposed by the United States of America ?

Paragraphs 6-9, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 6-9, ainsi amendes, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 6-9, así enmendados, son aprobados

PARAGRAPHS 10-20
PARAGRAPHES 10-20
PARRAFOS 10-20

H. FADHLI NAJEB ( Iraq): I note in paragraph 17 of the Annex that once again there is a reference to the judgment of the Corte di Cassazione as being in October 1982. As we had decided to delete "October", I feel that we should not delete "October" here, I repeat, we should not delete "October" here but rather mention it also in paragraph 17, i.e. we should mention the exact months. That is to say in paragraphs 17 and 6 we mention the exact month rather than October. We could leave a blank until we know exactly what the month was.

CHAIRMAN: It is a little bit complicated because the two paragraphs you mentioned do not say exactly the same thing; in one it says that the judgment became available and before it says that the Corte di Cassazione had decided. May I ask the Legal Counsel to advise us on this problem?

LEGAL COUNSEL: The fact of the situation is that the judgment itself is dated 1 April 1982. However, the judgment became available in its full text only in October. So the first time we mentioned it, in paragraph 6, I think it would be enough to say that the decision was taken in 1982. Then in the Annex we refer to when it became available and then October is rather relevant, because it shows that it became available in October just after the Finance Committee and the CCLM had their autumn sessions, just before the Council.

H. FADHLI NAJEB ( Iraq) (original language Arabic): I am looking at the Arabic text of course, and in paragraph 6 of the Arabic text it says that the Corte di Cassazione took its decision in October, and not that it became enforceable in that month. So according to my text the decision was taken in October.

CHAIRMAN: In that case the Arabic text seems to be wrong. In the English and French texts we took October out because it says that the Corte di Cassazione decided - and then we just leave the year 1982 without specifying the month. Could we leave it to the translators to make sure that the Arabic text corresponds exactly to the English, French, Spanish and Chinese? Thank you.

Then I think we have finished the adoption of parts 1 and 2 of the Report. I would very much like to thank the Chairman of the Drafting Committee and the whole Drafting Committee for the excellent job they have done. The fact that we did not even have to ask any enquiry of the Chairman of the Drafting Committee proves that the work was so clear that it caused us no problem at all. Actually I think we did quite well timewise in adopting it. So thank you very much, Chairman of the Drafting Committee and the whole of the Drafting Committee.

Paragraphs 10 to 20 as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 10 à 20, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 10 a 20, así enmendados, son aprobados

Draft Report of Commission III, Part 2 was adopted
Le projet de rapport de la Commission III, deuxième partie, est adopté
El proyecto de informe de la Comisión III, Parte 2, es aprobado

CHAIRMAN: We come back on our agenda to item 21.3 Status of Contributions. As I said at the beginning of this afternoon's session, various consultations have taken place over the week-end and the Deputy Director-General has some news for us. Mr West, may I give you the floor please?

DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: As you said, Mr Chairman, during the week-end there was reflection on the debate which had taken place on the various points that were made and consultations on ways in which certain concerns which I had attempted to deal with orally in my introduction could be introduced into the draft resolution. Of course, one cannot introduce every possible contingency into a legal text, particularly as we cannot forecast in advance the exact amounts of contributions that might or might not be received by the time the Council meets in November 1984.

Some could certainly be introduced so as to reassure those who were concerned lest the cash surplus be tapped, even if it were not necessary. We have no intention of doing that, but we looked at the resolution to see if those concerns and others could be met. Accordingly, the Director-General has substituted a revised text which is now circulated to the Commission and I would like to explain the main changes in the revised text.

The first change is in the new operative paragraph 2. This is designed to make it clear that the use of the cash surplus will not be resorted to as the first thing to be done. It makes it clear that the Council will have before it full reports on the whole situation as regards income and expenditure and will first examine thé extent to which the Working Capital Fund and the Special Reserve Account could be drawn on to meet the foreseen situation. Only then, and I repeat, only then, would it go on to consider whether or not to exercise the authority referred to in paragraph 3 which would be delegated to the Council by the Conference.

Here I have to repeat that unless the Conference delegates this authority specifically concerning suspension of Financial Regulation 6.1(b), the cash surplus cannot be touched under any circumstances. So there has to be this specific delegation if the cash surplus is to be used in any way. But it is not an obligation, it is purely permissive, to allow the Council to decide if it sees fit and not otherwise.

Now in paragraph 3 we have introduced a layer of safety nets, so to speak, to ensure that the cash surplus will either not be used, or will only be used to a certain extent, or would be used in full if necessary, but that, if it is used to any extent, the possibility will be provided, for the amount which is used temporarily to provide enough to maintain the cash flow to be subsequently redistributed to Member Nations if and when contributions are paid up during the biennium, or even subsequently. The mechanism will be to put the cash surplus in a special account and to hold that in suspense so that it can be used up or replenished as and when contributions are available. So if all went well the only governments who would lose anything would be those still in arrears from 1982-83 and previous biennia. But it would not affect those who were delaying their contributions during 1984 for reasons of whatever kind, either economic hardship or legislative difficulties.

Now the safety nets, as you see, are provided in sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c). There is a reference in (a) to 76 percent. The reason for this figure is that over the last five years, on average, at this time of year, in November, we have usually received 75.91 percent of total contributions. In earlier consultations I did mention the figure 75 percent to a number of delegations and, as far as we are concerned, it can be 75 percent; so it can be 75 percent if people prefer to knock off that 0.91 percent and make it just a round figure. But as you see, 75 percent means that 25 percent is missing. But over the last five years 25 percent has been missing at that stage and we have not had any cash surplus on which we can draw. We are saying if the situation is ''normal" - in other words, 25 percent only missing - we will not be able to touch the cash surplus under any circumstances. It is only if the contributions are below 75 percent that we should be able to come on to the provision in (b).

Now (b) is not a final provision, it is a further layer, because here we say that if at that time the contributions are between 64% and 75%, then at least US$ 15 million of the cash surplus will still be distributed, and only the remainder of this cash surplus retained for possible use. I underline "possible use"o The reason for the 64 percent is a little delicate, but I suggest you refer to the percentages of the three main contributors and see how they add up.I think that will give you a clue as to why it is 64 percent.

The other thing I can mention in that connection is that if it were only 63.5 percent, we would, in the worst case, have US$ 20 million missing still, which would be more or less most of the Special Reserve Account and Working Capital Fund on normal assumptions. Therefore, we think we have to take some action below 64 percent of the contributions received. Even so under (b), there would be US $15 million already distributed immediately on 1 January 1985.

Then under (c) we have the final and full provision for the really bad situation in which the amounts received are less than 64 percent - what I have just been talking about is between 64 percent and 76 percent; (c) deals with below 64 percent. In that case the whole of the cash surplus would be set aside and used to cover expenditure, but as and when contributions came in they would be put back into the Special Reserve Account and would be available to the Council for subsequent distribution. You could even have a situation in which all of the cash surplus was first used up, but then distributed because contributions did after all arrive, even though somewhat late. That is provided for in the provisions of (e); after (d) (i) (ii) (iii) you get (e) in brackets and it is provided there.

In (d) you will see that those who under case (b) and (c), i.e. the 64 to 75 percent situation, or the below 64 percent situation - those who have paid all their contributions would be given their full share and under (ii) those who had paid some of their contributions would get a proportionate share. Finally, those who paid up would get their full share.

Paragraph 4 would still leave the Authority to Borrow untouched, so if we got a really catastrophic situation that would still remain; but as I have emphasized both here and in consultations that would be a really catastrophic case. We would much prefer not to have to use it.

Finally, in 5 there is an attempt to persuade the people - again - not to put us in this position.

This is not basically different from what was proposed before, insofar as it is envisaged that in certain circumstances - the very worst situation - the cash surplus could be tapped if the Council so desired. But it is better, insofar as it does provide safeguards that it will not be tapped unless the contributions situation can really be shown as such that requires this action; and furthermore it provides that the cash surplus would not be lost forever, but would eventually be distributed. So in that respect it is a better provision than the previous one, as well, I think, as answering most of the objections which were raised the other day. I very much hope, therefore, that this new proposal can receive the agreement of all or most Member Nations, in recognition of the fact that we had a unanimous vote for the Programme of Work and Budget, and everybody would obviously like to see that the Programme is implemented in full.

CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr West. I have a short announcement to make; it seems that upstairs in the Plenary they do not have a quorum; the voting is still going on and they have asked those delegations who have not voted to please do so now. I have some procedural problems. We interrupted the debate on the current item on Friday evening with a rather long list of speakers. I think that the introduction of the new paper which you have just heard from Mr West has created a somewhat new situation, so I wonder whether it would make much sense just to continue with the list of speakers which were left on Friday afternoon. I would rather suggest, if you agree, that we start again and debate that new paper now. There is of course an additional difficulty; this paper has just been distributed, and I do not know if you have had time to read it carefully.

You have had the explanation from Mr West, but it may very well be that some delegations need more time, so I would like to announce now that we do have the possibility of continuing the discussion on this item when we meet tomorrow morning; but, since we must also have a report on the whole thing, the Drafting Committee has to meet again and we do not have very much time. Therefore, I suggest that we now initiate the debate, that we go as far as we can, and then, if we cannot conclude tonight, we will conclude it in the meeting tomorrow morning, which I hope will then be very short.

I now open the floor for discussion of the new paper C 83/LIM/22 Sup.l.

H. LAUBE ( Austria)(original language German): As this new text includes all the wishes expressed by my delegation, I am able to adopt it.

B.F. DADA ( Nigeria): My delegation welcomes the presentation of this document before us, which explains the status of contributions vis-à-vis the financial position of the Organization. The Deputy Director-General, Mr West, has eloquently clarified the situation in which the Director-General may find himself in the next biennium if some countries fail to make their full contributions to FAO.

It is my delegation's understanding that the primary purpose of document C 83/LIM/22 and the supplement is to ensure that the Organization will be able to fully implement the Programme of Work and Budget for 1984-85. It is true that the global economic recession has created financial problems for many countries, including my own. One can therefore appreciate the apprehension concerning possible shortage of funds expressed in the paper. It is our wish that such a situation should not be allowed to arise, considering that the budgetary operation was approved unanimously by the Conference only a few days ago. However, we cannot ignore the hypothesis put forward in this document. Because of the magnitude of the cash deficit foreseen, we would agree that appropriate steps should be taken to forestall the type of financial crisis that may halt the full activity of FAO. This is in view of the deteriorating food situation which we have all lamented in this Conference.

We would like to commend the financial prudence of the Director-General which has led to the accumulation of a cash surplus of about US$30 million. Naturally, my delegation would have liked to have had a percentage of this fund to offset part of our future contributions, having regard for the financial stringency which has necessitated the introduction of austerity measures in my country.

Having given careful consideration for circumstances described in the document we are of the opinion that the proposal to set aside the cash surplus as a possible source of funds to finance approved expenditure in accordance with the approved budget, has merits. We would however like to seek a qualification: that is, that the funds which are withdrawn from the cash surplus be treated as a loan and the various countries credited with their entitlement as soon as the financial division approves.

We notice that in the new supplementary paper which was just circulated, there is a typographical error in paragraph 6 - there is a reference to the "Twenty-third session in 1965": that of course should be 1985, I presume.

Subject to the foregoing observations and qualification, my delegation would support the Director-General's proposal, as well as the draft resolution as revised, for financing the 1984-85 budgetary appropriation.

As this is the first time we have had an opportunity to congratulate you, I would like to give you, and the Vice-Chairmen our hearty support.

J.D.L. RICHARDS ( New Zealand): The text before us is a great improvement upon the paper which we looked at on Friday, which my delegation would have had to oppose. It is a great improvement -but to say that is not to say that it is good or even, in our view, necessary. At least, this text does not reward countries which do not pay their contributions on time and in effect imposes financial levies on those that do. But I am not sure that the new text may not have the effect of encouraging late payment or even a short period of arrears. Its language certainly seems deficient in places to my delegation.

We are also very doubtful as to whether the resolution is necessary. It has been drafted, as the Deputy Director-General said, with the worst situation in mind. Even if that worst case occurred -it is a most remote possibility - there are adequate means in our view for the Organization to protect itself. However, our delegation might be wrong. Even if we were wrong, and there was in fact a real need for a measure of this sort, we are certain that it would not have arisen within the last 6 days. The proposals we have been looking at involve the suspension of part of the financial rules. To do that in any Organization is something which should be done only with the greatest reluctance and with plenty of notice, so that all implications can be studied. By contrast, this issue was raised and discussed here only after the Programme of Work and Budget had been agreed and the budget voted on and adopted. A number of delegations from smaller countries, believing that matters of financial interest to them were settled, had already left Rome . It does not seem to us that this has been a very well-organized episode.

Having said that, my delegation is prepared to accept the resolution in its present form.

Finally, I am sorry to say that we have been swapping our delegation around a little, and I am not sure whether we have actually intervened in this Commission before. In case we have not, and on my own behalf, may I formally say that it is a pleasure to work under you.

D.J. ABEYAGOONASEKERA ( Sri Lanka): My delegation has been following this debate on this important item which began on Friday.

There are, I think, two aspects on this item on contributions which are inter-connected. In the Report of the Eighty-fourth session of the Council, in paragraphs 90-94, we are told of the disappointing situation in regard to the payment of contributions, which appears to be a steadily deteriorating situation over recent years. I think there is no doubt in anybody's mind that this is a serious situation. One is also reminded of the situation which prevailed in 1981, when, during the Eightieth session of the Council, in the debate which took place prior to the approval of the resolution on the Authority to Borrow, the same fears and concerns were expressed.

Under normal circumstances, any shortfalls in the cash flow arising from delays in the payments of contributions, provided they are not so prolonged, are expected to be met from the Working Capital Fund which has been established at the level which the Director-General considers sufficient to cushion any delays - going purely by experience. Its level was increased from $6.5 million in 1980-81 to $13.2 million in 1982-83. Similarly, the Special Reserve Account has been set up to meet the need for unbudgeted or unforeseen budgetary expenditure; payments arising from changes in the exchange rates. This is now set at 5 percent of the total effective working budget.

The Assistant Director-General, Mr Crowther, in his introduction gave the figures relating to foreseeable shortages in contributions during the forthcoming biennium, his judgement being based, firstly, on the actual payment situation during this biennium and, secondly, on the possible shortfalls if the large contributors continue to pay in the same manner as they did before and, thirdly, if the intended legislation under the Lugar Amendment is actually enacted by the United States Congress, which will lower very considerably the input from the biggest contributor for the 1984-85 budget. He has also given us figures relating to unbudgeted staff costs, such as the amount the Organization would have to pay to meet the increase in pension payments, general service salaries, enhanced contributions to the Pension Fund, post adjustment, some of which have already been recommended by the International Civil Service Commission and approved by the UN, which FAO has to implement. He has also taken into consideration the effects of any variation in the lire-dollar rate fixed during this Conference, which may affect the Organization adversely. The built-in conventional safeguards which the Organization has, such as the Working Capital Fund and the Special Reserve Account (the authority to borrow which has not been used so far) would be adequate if conditions remained normal. We do not think that they are adequate by themselves when we consider the effects during the next twenty-four months of a serious decline in resources consequent upon delayed payments from measures which are currently being contemplated in certain legislation of Member Nations which would make the situation a bit abnormal.

The situation which has been reported to us in the document C 83/LIM/22, paragraphs 1-10, is exactly the situation which was reported to the Finance Committee and Programme Committee, only it was a little more serious then as the original amendment referred to in paragraph 2 would have reduced the level of payment to that prevailing in 1980 and thereafter it would have been progressively reduced each year from 90 percent to 80 percent and then to 70 percent of that level.

I think that the basic reasoning for presenting this resolution is found both in the past history of payments by Member Nations and in the likelihood of measures such as those referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4 being enacted by the biggest contributor.

Let us remind ourselves that we acted very responsibly by unanimously agreeing to a Programme of Work and Budget for 1984-85. The Director-General, to whom the implementation of the Programme of Work and Budget has been entrusted, should be free from management problems created by irregular cash flow and payments if he is to perform his job to our satisfaction. What the resolution is meant for is to provide him with authority to adopt preventive measures, some of which have already been given to him, like the authority to borrow, and these measures, prior to implementation, will be brought to the notice of the Finance Committee and the Council, which have been delegated with the responsibility to scrutinize these measures as the body directly responsible to this growing body, which is ourselves.

There is some concern expressed by a few members regarding the use of the cash surplus. I think one has to again question the reasoning behind the decision asking for this, what one might call the fourth safeguard to ensure the implementation of the Programme. The cash surplus under normal circumstances is reimbursed or redistributed after the accounts of the biennium during which it accumulated have been audited. The 1982-83 cash surplus will become available only in January 1985. It is also precisely at the beginning of the first quarter of 1985 that the Organization is expected to feel the strain of slow or reduced payments and not during the second half of the biennium. This was the case in 1981 when the third leg on which to fall on in the event of reduced cash flow was sought and approved by the Council at its Eighty-first session. The suggestion to withhold the whole or part of any cash surplus which may arise from the 1982-83 biennium and to use it as another source is reasonable because once you use up the Working Capital Fund, the Special Reserve Account, then it is preferable to use the cash surplus to borrowing as the latter implies payment of interest. What is more, the cash surplus arises not only out of savings or under-expenditure but due to economies incurred in the expenditure during the biennium. This implies frugal or good management. Is it not but logic then to make use of the surplus to meet any gaps between income and expenditure rather than borrow and incur added expenditure and thereby eventually burden the Member Nations with additional liability in the biennium to come?

Some delegates have expressed concern that these clauses in the resolution, if approved, could create a bad precedent and would also permeate to other international organizations. We do not feel that this fear is justified because if the anticipated shortfalls do not occur, then it will not be necessary to implement this clause at all, but as long as the threat of a shortfall remains, like the sword of Damocles, it is feasible to provide this as another method of meeting such a situation. I think if we continue to treat the cash surplus as an investment of our contributions in the FAO, we are justified in thinking so insofar as we abide by the rules of the Organization pertaining to payment of contributions. But one could question the ethics of receiving a portion of the surplus at the time it is redistributed if we have not done so. In fact we would go further and say that there ought to be some re-thinking on how to reward more those Member Nations who have stood by the rules steadfastly than to let their sacrifice be another's bonanza.

To conclude, we go along with the resolution for the reasons we have been enumerating so far. We are confident that these proposals are basically preventive measures to be taken in anticipation of future shortfalls in the cash flow of FAO which would inhibit the implementation of the Programme of Work which the Conference has approved. The Director-General has not, and will not act, irresponsibly. We are certain of this. It is we, members of the Organization, who should give him the support he needs and not deny what he seeks.

In conclusion, there should be no illusions as to what would befall the Organization if it is unable to implement its Programme of Work due to delayed contributions or non-payments during the biennium. The greatest danger is complacency. We should not permit this tendency to delude ourselves about the realities of the situation which have been projected in this paper.

M.B. SY (Sénégal); Monsieur le Président, je crois qu'à la lumière des débats de vendredi et à celle du texte présenté aujourd'hui, la délégation sénégalaise ne peut qu'exprimer sa satisfaction et son appui à la résolution. Elle pense quand même que la FAO n'aurait pas dû se donner une peine aussi grande pour envisager certaines hypothèses surtout le D. En effet, le D aurait pu être épargné, mais nous appuyons totalement la résolution telle qu'elle a été présentée cet après-midi.

A. MARTOSUWIRYO ( Indonesia): Having studied document C 83/LIM/22 and read quickly Supplement 1, and listened attentively to the introduction and the declaration made by the Deputy Director-General, I would like to say that the Indonesian delegation regrets the situation which forces the Director-General to propose a draft resolution on financing for 1984-85 budgetary appropriations.

The grounds for the considerations of the proposal by the Director-General and the purpose of the draft resolution are fully understood. Hence, Indonesia does not have any problem in supporting the draft resolution. Nevertheless, I would like to make some brief remarks.

We have discussed the Programme of Work and Budget for 1984-85 and have approved the increase of the 0.5 percent. It appears our expectations have been high in terms of having an expanded Programme of Work and Budget of the Organization. We expected that the approved Programme of Work of the ' Organization would be carried out effectively and without any financial difficulties.

I am of the opinion that operative paragraph 3 is a very appropriate provision, thinking in a positive way, namely hoping the Organization can refrain from borrowing since that would put a new financial burden on the Organization. Hence, we warmly welcome the proposal that borrowing should be used as a last resort, as recognized in the preamble to this draft resolution.

R. RAHMAN (Bangladesh): My delegation has gone through document C 83/LIM/22 and the new draft resolution in Supplement 1 for the Conference to authorize the Council to empower the Director-General to withhold the whole or part of the cash surplus and other measures suggested in the resolution, if ' necessary, to meet the shortfall in cash resources during the biennium 1984-85.

In this connection, I must thank the Deputy Director-General, Mr West, for his introductory remarks on on the subject, with his usual clarity, which I think will help us to come to a satisfactory conclusion on the issue.

My delegation also listened with great interest to the debate that has so far taken place on the issue. In view of the circumstances explained in the document and further clarification given by the Deputy Director-General, my delegation fully agrees with the previous speaker who supported the revised draft resolution for empowering the Council to authorize the Director-General to withhold the whole or part of the cash surplus if the eventual situation demanded it.

The timely initiative of the Director-General in bringing the possible cash resources problem to the notice of the Conference and in submitting the revised draft resolution as a contingency measure speak of his sagacity, far-sightedness and sincerity of purpose. Because it is his bounden duty and sole responsibility to ensure fully the implementation of the Programme of Work and Budget once it is approved by the Conference. My delegation congratulates the Director-General on this timely initiative.

Some of the delegates have stated that no such serious cash resources shortage would occur and hence the measure proposed in the draft resolution was not necessary. Let us hope that the cash resources position will improve through timely payment of all contributions and the method proposed in the draft resolution will not be necessary, even though it is approved by Conference. In this connection the sentiments of some of the major contributing countries are quite reassuring and encouraging. But nobody knows what will actually happen during the next two years before the Conference holds its next session.

It will probably be very prudent for the Conference to adopt the new draft resolution as a contingency measure. The draft resolution if adopted will also encourage the member countries to pay their contributions timely.

In this connection it may also be pointed out that in the past the Director-General was authorized by the Council to borrow if necessary. But the Director-General did not borrow as the necessity did not arise. In the future also my delegation is confident that even if the Conference empowers the Council and the Council authorizes the Director-General to withhold the cash surplus he will not use this power unless it is absolutely necessary. Moreover, before empowering the Director-General to withhold the cash surplus, the Council and the Finance Committee, which are also representative bodies of the Member Nations, will fully evaluate the situation. In view of this, my delegation fully supports the new Draft Resolution as a measure of last resort.

Finally, my delegation wishes the Director-General very much success in his relentless fight against hunger and malnutrition through full implementation of the Programme of Work and Budget in the next biennium.

S. ABOUJAOUDE ( Lebanon): My delegation shall not elaborate further on this since the distinguished delegates who preceded me have so ably and eloquently expressed the points of view with which we agree. However, I would like to point out that we are gathered here to ensure that our unity is always preserved, and that our aims are always upheld. And the main concern of each and every delegation is to safeguard the interests of the Organization, to further its aim and use all possible means to prevent endangering its fair name.

If we all agree that this amended proposal will ensure that the fair name of the Organization will not be endangered, and since there is a consensus to accept it, then please count our vote as a supporting one for this proposal.

C. di NOTTOLA BALESTRA ( Costa Rica): Señor Presidente, mi delegación está completamente de acuerdo con la propuesta que se nos acaba de someter. Estaba de acuerdo también con la propuesta del viernes, porque pensamos que las medidas que hay actualmente para enfrentarse a la crisis de déficit de liquidez son totalmente insuficientes. El fondo de operaciones y la cuenta especial de reserva sirven para otras tareas. El fondo de operaciones sirve para enfermedades, para acontecimientos de carácter monetario, etc. Entonces, puede haber otras razones de deficit de liquidez. Lo que le gusta a mi delegación de esta propuesta es que el recurso a prestamos pasa después del uso del superávit; o sea, que el superávit se empieza a utilizar antes y se nombra antes, y los préstamos - en estos momentos carísimos - vuelven as a ser verdaderamente el último recurso.

En ese sentido, esta propuesta es mejor que la del viernes.

KWANG-HEE KIM ( Korea, Republic of): My comment will be on the delegation of power by the Conference to the Council. We do not like the idea of delegating the authority of the Conference to the Council. If the worst situation should arise, could not the other Conference empower the Director-General? However, if the resolution before us is warranted for prudent financial management for the FAO, we can go along with the revised text even though we do not like the delegation of power to the Council.

A. EL SARKY ( Egypt) (original language Arabic): My country's delegation does not wish to dwell at length on this subject. However, after having listened carefully to the debate on this matter and after having expressed our own view on the matter, we wish to welcome the new wording of the resolution as it is clearly an improvement on the former wording.

We congratulate Mr West on the statement he has just made. My country's delegation is fully prepared to approve this draft resolution.

I wish to express my hope that the Director-General will succeed in his efforts to combat hunger and to implement the new budget without difficulty.

P.S. McLEAN ( United Kingdom): I will try to respect the wish for brevity which you expressed at our previous Session. Like others, we accept that it is the Director-General's responsibility to carry out the Programme of Work and Budget so far as possible. We recognize also that sound financial management requires farsighted financial planning. But we continue to have misgivings about the proposal put before us as we continue to have serious doubts as to whether the case for its introduction has been made.

The representative of the United States at our previous session has already spoken vigorously about the overemphasis in the original paper regarding the US contribution, or rather the conditionality of the US contribution to the United Nations and some Specialized Agencies. Even if this amendment becomes law, there is still no indication as to how the US administration would apply it or what it would mean in terms of payment to the FAO. Similarly, the representative of the Federal Republic of Germany has demonstrated to my satisfaction that it was quite unjustified for the Secretariat to doubt payment of its full contribution during 1984-85.

What of the other elements on unbudgeted costs in the biennium? This has been a feature of UN Agency budgets for some time and instruments have been devised to cope with this. As to the possible fall in the value of the dollar, financial analysts have been forecasting this for some time, especially if the US current account deficit continues to increase. But a fall requiring such a large drawing on the Special Reserve Account as we have seen forecast seems to me most unlikely.

In short, like others we are not satisfied that the case has been made. Like them we remain unconvinced that there is a need to adopt a resolution with such a far-reaching solution to what is still a hypothetical situation. Nevertheless, I listened very carefully to the further arguments and qualifications which Mr West gave this afternoon in connection with the revised text. I am prepared so far as my delegation is concerned to give some further reconsideration to this matter, but I have to say that I would like a little further time to do so and I would hope therefore that the debate will not be closed tonight and can be continued tomorrow.

MoEo BONDANZA de FILIPPO (Argentina): La delegación de mi país ya había expresado el viernes pasado que apoyaba el anterior proyecto y dijo que lo hacía con cierta resistencia . Ese malestar derivaba más que de los textos de los proyectos, de la situación financiera que se le plantea a la FAO, porque hay algunos Estados Miembros que no pagan puntualmente sus contribuciones; pero, en fin, la situación es esa y hay que aceptarla y hay que prever todos los mecanismos hábiles para poder seguir operando.

Por lo tanto, examinando el nuevo proyecto, nosotros consideramos, lo mismo que casi la totalidad de las delegaciones que se han expresado, que mejora en mucho el anterior y que sale al paso de muchas inquietudes que se habían planteado.

Así, pues, agradeciendo también las explicaciones del Sr. West, que nos han dado mucho valor, damos nuestro apoyo a este nuevo proyecto. Además, nos tranquiliza saber que es siempre el Consejo el que tendrá que apreciar siempre la situación y decidir en su momento si se ponen en práctica los nuevos • mecanismos que se preven.

A. ACUÑA HUMPHRIES (Panamá): Muy concretamente, creemos que el párrafo 3, con sus cláusulas de previsión, acercan las posturas e interpretaciones opuestas que se dieron en el debate del viernes de la semana pasada.

La distinguida delegación de Sri Lanka ha abundado en argumentos, a nuestro juicio de mucho peso y valor. Es por lo que esta delegación no tiene dificultades en dar su apoyo a la resolución revisada, y ello porque creemos en primer lugar que se trata realmente de una medida de precaución plenamente justificada por principios administrativos, y en segundo lugar señor Presidente, porque consideramos que es deber ineludible de todos los Estados Miembros de esta Organización garantizar la ejecución del Programa de Labores y Presupuesto de 1984-85, que esta Conferencia aprobó la semana pasada.

H. MOHAMAD I ( Sudan): As this is the first time I have asked for the floor I would like to express our thanks to Mr Crowther for introducing the subject and thank Mr West for his clear explanation of the current situation of contributions and future budgetary possibilities. We also thank him for seeking those constructive proposals which will guarantee that the Organization will continue to implement its sacred duty and to reduce hunger and poverty, if not to eradicate them. I would also like to thank Mr West for the additional clarification he provided in which he answered some of the questions raised by delegates. I also thank him for the explanations of the amended version of the resolution.

We were fully satisfied when we heard some of the reassuring clarifications provided a few days ago indicating that some countries did not seek to freeze the level of their contributions or even to reduce them. We are further pleased that this was reflected in the preamble of this new draft resolution. Despite all this, the Sudanese delegation supports the idea calling for the need to find permanent solutions to any budgetary deficits of the Organization arising out of failure of countries to pay fully their contributions. However, at the same time we believe that because of all the circumstances and reasons given, these will still lead to a failure to fulfill commitment and pay in contributions in due time by some developing countries.

The failure of some countries to attend this session of the Conference or to participate in the voting procedures is due to special circumstances. This is not an appropriate time or place to go into the reasons behind such problems.

Today we are facing an emergency situation. I do not think I need to stress here the basic facts that were indicated in the document or in the discussion which took place, these indicated the possibility of a budgetary deficit due to circumstances which go beyond the abilities of this Organization.

The Director-General may be unable to implement the budget for the next biennium. However, we must congratulate him for all his efforts. The proposed solution in the draft resolution submitted today is a very careful solution which will only be used as a last resort. We should like to thank the Director-General for the care which he has taken in drafting this proposal. We should also like to draw attention to the fact that the authorization to borrow has not previously been resorted to. Therefore, I find there is no scope to entertain those doubts raised by some delegations about the proposals before us.

We should like to reaffirm our confidence in the Council and the delegation of authority to the Council. Although some countries believe that no fear need be entertained as to the failure to

fulfil contributions, nevertheless the Council will be able to assess the situation. We also need to take some precautionary measures in the interim period between the convening of the various sessions of the Conference.

My delegation therefore supports the new draft resolution which takes into account all the points to which I have just referred.

A. BENADI (Algérie): Les explications données dans l'excellente présentation du document par M. West me semblent convaincantes. L'Algérie appuie pleinement le projet de résolution présenté puisque le compte de réserve mentionné dans cette résolution ne serait utilisé qu'en cas de besoin et que le Directeur général et le Conseil de la FAO ont toute notre confiance pour prendre les décisions les plus appropriées dans le sens de l'intérêt de notre Organisation.

J'ajoute en outre que ceci a déjà été beaucoup plus grave, que le budget 84-85 est en quasi-stagnation depuis le biennium 82-83 et ne manque pas d'être inquiétant pour notre Organisation. J'appuie donc pleinement le texte de la résolution qui a été présenté.

Mohd. YASIN bin AHMAD ( Malaysia): My delegation expressed its support for the draft resolution in the debate on this topic on Friday. After hearing Mr West's clear explanation of the revised text, which is indeed an improvement, my delegation reiterates its support for the draft resolution.

J. HEIDSMA ( Netherlands): My delegation has already spoken in some detail on this issue, on the basis of the original version of the resolution, and at that time, on Friday, we voiced our serious reservations with the proposal. Without being able to give our final views at this stage, since the resolution has been introduced so recently, I should like to say now that in my opinion the new text is much more prudent, balanced and fair. There are still elements with which we are not entirely satisfied, and we have certain doubts as to whether the resolution is necessary at all, but folllowing further consultations I am confident that my delegation will be able to support this proposal tomorrow.

F.H. JAWHAR HAYAT (Kuwait) (original language Arabic): Mr Chairman, I know that you appreciated Malaysia 's brevity, and therefore I shall be even briefer.

The delegation of Kuwait , after having studied document C/83/LIM/22-Sup.l, would like to express its approval of the draft resolution because we think that the delegation of power to the Director-General is a preventive procedural measure, the Organization's foresightedness and its awareness of the negative situation which may arise in the next two years. It is a wise step taken by the Organization to provide for possible difficulties which may occur. I would also like to thank Mr West who has given us a comprehensive view of this new text.

M.D. METELITS ( United States of America): My delegation intervened last Friday, as some may remember, on this agenda item. We have before us a new draft which has been with us for a matter of less than a few hours.

This is a matter of considerable importance, one that could conceivably have repercussions through out the United Nations system. Whether or not the hypothecated authority is used, the precedent would have been set.

My intention is simply to say, first, that we have asked our Government for instructions, which we have not received; and second, we support what the representative of the United Kingdom said when he hoped that the discussion on this item would not be closed this evening.

E.BORTEI-DOKU ( Ghana): My delegation wishes to express its appreciation to all those who, at such short notice, were able to submit this revised draft resolution.

My delegation shares with the Director-General his concern to make sufficient provision to enable him to carry out his Programme of Work. In this regard, I wish to indicate my delegation's support for this revised resolution which, from all indications, represents a consensus view of Member Nations.

M. ABDELHADI (Tunisie): Je serai bref et ne ferai pas un expose détaillé justifiant la position de ma délégation sur le contenu du document soumis à notre examen et dont l'importance a suscité l'intervention d'un grand nombre de rapports.

Compte tenu du peu de temps qui reste pour l'examen et la discussion de ce point d'une part, considérant d'autre part l'importance d'une telle mesure sur le bon fonctionnement de l'organisation, compte tenu par ailleurs des explications très nettes et très claires de M. West, je voudrais ajouter ma voix à celles nombreuses des autres délégations pour appuyer sans réserves le projet de résolution soumis à notre examen.

M.I. MAHDI (Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of) (original language Arabic): The Saudi Arabian delegation has listened to Mr West's explanation very attentively, and we should like to support the Bangladesh delegate in congratulating the Director-General and the Deputy Director-General, Mr West, on this revised draft resolution.

In view of the financial difficulties and problems facing the Organization, we wholeheartedly support the draft resolution, and we hope that those countries who have expressed reservations will review their attitudes, and tomorrow, take a stand satisfactory to us all.

M. TRKULJA ( Yugoslavia): My delegation stated its position on Friday, and I should like to say that for us the original text was even more acceptable than the one which has emerged as a result of the very intensive behind-the-scenes negotiations, to which we were also a party.

The reason why we preferred the original text is really very simple. We felt that the previous text only delegated certain authority to the Council. After all, the Council is composed of almost one third of FAO's membership. Although Yugoslavia is not in the Council at present, and certainly will not be next November, my delegation has no doubt that the Council will very seriously study the whole matter next November and take the appropriate decision. For us originally it was only a problem of formally delegating power to the Council to make the proper decisions. If, in the minds of many delegations here, the present text represents an improvement, we are prepared to go along with it.

Let me also say that we feel the way in which the matter has been procedurally handled has been more than fair. Document CL 83/LIM/22 was announced about seven days ago, and certainly all of us have had sufficient time to consult among ourselves, in certain groups;, and to seek instructions from our capitals.

With regard to the issue of repercussions, I really do not understand the misgivings here about other parts of the United Nations system. I think FAO's case will be very welcome just to provide the necessary essential safeguards throughout the UN system, so I do not see any reason for fear or misgivings in that regard.

Finally, there is one point which we raised on Friday, and perhaps this might also be considered at a certain point, though we are not going to insist. I think Sri Lanka also stated more or less the same thing in another context. It is the question of the time of payments being taken into account in calculating disbursements. Let me only say that, given the high interest rates and the strong likelihood that they will prevail in the months to come, many governments are tempted to delay their contributions. In that case, if the time of payment is taken into account, and it is possible technically speaking, I think it would remove one situation that is likely to arise. As I said, we will not insist on that, but we hope that that point will be taken into account in the near future.

Tesema NEGASH ( Ethiopia): My delegation made its intervention on the item before us last Friday and extended support for the proposal presented then. Here again, we wish to put on record our support for the new proposal. We believe that the new proposal is more balanced and more even-handed and deserves.unanimous support.

G. BULA HOYOS ( Colombia): Ayer escuché con mucha atención la interesante declaración que hizo la distinguida Embajadora de Estados Unidos; creo que conviene irnos poniendo de acuerdo en algunos puntos porque tengo la impresión de que estamos llegando a una feliz solución en este debate. Sin duda sería necesario reconocer la responsabilidad y la manera consciente como el Director General ha estado animado a esta propuesta dirigida sólo por el buen deseo, por la recta intención de asegurar el funcionamiento y eficacia adecuado de nuestra Organización; yo estoy seguro de que a ese deseo y a esta iniciativa todos ofrecemos nuestro apoyo.

El colega de Australia manifestó algo importante, que incluyamos, aunque sea una enésima vez en este Informe, la necesidad de un llamado a todos los Estados Miembros para que a la luz del Reglamento paguen oportunamente sus contribuciones.

Al participar en este debate creemos que el origen de esta propuesta no está dirigido contra ningún país; creemos que es así y proponemos que en la parte del Informe que preceda a este proyecto de resolución se haga simplemente una redacción en términos generales sobre la posible ocurrencia que ha motivado esta propuesta, sin hacer ninguna referencia en ningún sentido a ningún país.

Somos conscientes de que la gran mayoría de los miembros de esta Comisión apoyan esta propuesta y nosotros también lo hacemos; pero la delegación de Colombia piensa que no es conveniente para la Conferencia ni para los Estados Miembros que al final de una Conferencia como ésta en que todos hemos contribuido de una u otra forma al mejor resultado de nuestras labores, una Conferencia en la que el Programa de Labores y Presupuesto fue aprobado por unanimidad, no convendría, repetimos, que se adopte una resolución como ésta porque la mayoría así lo desee, sino que sería mucho más conveniente y saludable que se adoptara una decisión por consenso, por unanimidad entre todos los de esta Comisión. Es así como hemos oído y compartido alguna de las actitudes constructivas que expresaron aquellos representantes de países que tienen todo su derecho a considerar que podrían disponer de tiempo para tomar una decisión definitiva y que se les dé ocasión hasta el día de mañana para que sus países tomen las decisiones respectivas. Creemos que si ellos nos acompañan en este consenso que nosotros solicitamos, podríamos compartir con ellos la confianza, la fe, la esperanza de que no va a ocurrir nada de lo que estamos previendo y que nos vamos a encontrar satisfechos y felices sin nada que lamentar.

P. PASCAL (France): Monsieur le Président, le projet de résolution qui nous est présenté aujourd'hui nous semble traduire de sensibles améliorations par rapport au projet précédemment examiné.

En effet, certaines hypothèses de recouvrement des contributions et en particulier le cas de figure selon lequel une proportion des excédents serait distribuée, conduisent à une moindre pénalisation des Etats qui s'acquittent, dans les délais impartis, de leur cotisation.

Aussi, sous réserve des améliorations techniques, ce projet dans l'ensemble paraît acceptable à la délégation française. Néanmoins, permettez-moi de regretter, Monsieur le Président, que la Conférence n'ait pas été saisie plus tôt du problème important qui nous occupe aujourd'hui et que le temps qui est laissé aux Etats Membres pour se déterminer, notamment certains d'entre eux parmi les plus directement concernés, soit aussi bref.

Sans doute serait-il souhaitable, à cet égard, que l'on accède à la demande de ceux qui souhaitent,une certaine prolongation du délai de réflexion.

Enfin, et sans préjugés aucunement de l'issue des travaux de la Commission sur ce point de l'ordre du jour, j'exprimerai un double souhait: que la non-répartition ou la répartition partielle des excédents ne soit pas un premier recours en cas de crise financière et d'autre part, que les nouvelles dispositions de recouvrement des arriérés de contributions ou de réduction de versement qui pourraient être mises en place ne constituent qu'un palliatif temporaire et ne conduisent pas à une institutionnalisation.

M. FRANCISCI di BASCHI (Italie) : Merci Monsieur le Président. Je voulais simplement dire que nous sommes en présence de cette nouvelle version de projet de résolution, et que nous considérons cette nouvelle version améliorée, plus équilibrée.

Nous remercions M. West pour les explications qu'il nous a données ce soir mais nous avons encore des réserves sur le texte. C'est pour cette raison que je voudrais me rallier aux trois délégations qui ont demandé de ne pas clore la discussion ce soir, parce que malgré ses réserves d'aujourd'hui, je pense que l'Italie pourrait faire un effort pour se rallier à la résolution demain. Pour cette raison, je vous prie donc de ne pas clore la session ce soir. Merci Monsieur le Président.

G. STUYCK (Belgique): Merci Monsieur le Président. Ma délégation n'avait pas encore eu l'occasion, depuis l'ouverture de ce débat vendredi dernier, d'intervenir dans les discussionss de ce projet de résoLution. Je ne reviendrai pas sur les raisons pour lesquelles ma délégation a fait de très expresses réserves au sujet du texte initial qui nous avait été soumis par le document C 83/LIM/22. Le texte qui vient de nous être soumis et dont nous remercions vivement M. West, Directeur général

adjoint et ses collaborateurs, nous apparaît également comporter des améliorations sensibles par rapport au texte précédent. Toutefois, ma délégation se trouve, dans la même situation qu'un certain nombre d'autres délégations qui ont pris la parole cet après-midi. Nous ne pouvons pas nous prononcer encore d'une façon définitive sur ce projet, faute d'instructions et je voudrais à mon tour, vous demander de ne pas clore le débat ce soir pour donner à ma délégation le temps nécessaire pour recevoir des instructions. Je vous remercie.

H. TAKASE ( Japan): Our delegation did not speak on Friday, but we were going to oppose the original resolution, C 83/LIM/22. Now the amended text may seem to be an improvement but to our mind there are still some important elements to consider. We have been informed only today about the next text, so we would like to reserve our position and we would like to comment later when we receive our instructions from our government.

R. B. RYANGA ( Kenya): Last Friday the Kenyan delegation fully supported the text of the original resolution. Indeed, the revised resolution before us, in our view, accommodates - and should accommodate - the position of those who perhaps were opposed to, or had reservations on, the former text. We would wish to reiterate and emphasize our full support for the revised text before us.

J. SAULT ( Australia): We spoke on Friday about, and gave our views on, the principle of, and the necessity for, a resolution regarding withholding the cash surplus. We have before us now a new text. It represents some improvements on the original text, in our view, and we have drawn these improvements to the attention of our authorities. They have the matter under consideration. Therefore, we are not in a position, at this stage, to give a final opinion and we would join with those other delegations who have requested that the debate be kept open and that we return to it on Monday.

If I may make a couple of comments, however, I think that, firstly, some of the concerns that we expressed on Friday would be further alleviated if, in the preambular paragraph to point 3, it were made quite plain that it would only be after the examination in paragraph 2 of the existing safety nets, if the Council deemed it necessary, it would give consideration to the use of the cash surplus.

The other point I would like to make is that it seems to me that there might be something missing in the resolution, in that the circumstances are defined in which funds would be set aside from the cash surplus into a special fund. There is also a definition of how these funds, how these special funds, would be utilized, and there is also something about how it might be returned to members, any undistributed balance might be returned to balance. But the resolution does seem to be silent on the question of what happens in terms of subsequent receipts of delayed payments and payments in arrears. Are they paid into this special fund that has been set up? The resolution seems to be silent on this question. I make this point because I think - and I think it was Nigeria who also brought this up - we would like to ensure that, as far as possible, any retention of the cash surplus is only a temporary measure, and in so far as possible, it is eventually returned to member governments.

W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of): We spoke to the original draft on Friday, and we said at that time that we had serious reservations about it. We will certainly admit that this proposal shows considerable improvements on the original draft. It is certainly a more balanced text, although we have not reached a final opinion on all details of it. We wonder whether the emergency situation which is being assumed in this document will actually occur. We have very little time indeed to agree on a very difficult question, and therefore I pray your indulgence if my delegation reserves the right to come back to this problem tomorrow. We would like to discuss this matter when we have got instructions from our Capital.

P. GOSSELIN ( Canada): Given the number of speakers that were heard last Friday, we did not have an opportunity to express ourselves on this very important issue, however academic it might be. Had we had that opportunity we would certainly have argued against the proposal being put forward in C 83/LIM/22, and the reasons for that have been expressed many times. We feel very strongly about shifting the burden of the budget, unfairly in many ways, from those who pay regularly and express their support for the organization through their budgetary-assessed contribution, and those who delay or do not pay at all.

I would like at this point to provide some support for the Australian suggestion for strengthening paragraph 3 to make it absolutely clear that the normal and already-provided-for safeguards of the Working Capital Fund and the Special Reserve Fund would be exhausted, or used to the extent that it is possible, before moving to this extraordinary measure, regardless of what the percentage of paid-in contributions was in 1984. I do not think that is as clear as it might be.

We would also like to support the Australians in their suggestion that perhaps a little more information needs to be given in the resolution as to how the cash surplus fund would be replenished at some later date.

Finally, I, like many others, would like to reserve the possibility of coming back to this tomorrow at the earliest, once we have had an opportunity to get in touch with our authorities and receive some instructions.

CHAIRMAN: You were the last speaker for today, Canada, but I would like to ask Mr West whether he would take up some of the questions asked during the debate.

DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: First of all let me thank the Commission for their consideration of this revised document at such short notice - especially those who have been able to study it and support it. I would like to express my sympathy with the position of those delegations who still need to obtain instructions but feel that subject to this further consultation, they may be able to go along with what is proposed. My only concern is that when we meet and discuss tomorrow, we could have another full debate all over again, and then we would run into time problems. However, obviously some delegations do need time, so I would hope - not for the sake of getting the resolution or not, but simply in order to finish the Conference in good order and not late - that we do not spend too much time - and that includes myself - debating the subject. So what I say now will I hope contribute towards this.

Much has been made of the fact, still, that the worst case may not happen, or probably won't happen. My answer to that, quite frankly, is that it might not happen: we admit this, but in that case, what are people afraid of? The resolution will not come into effect - and this is clearly foreseen now, spelled out in black and white in the resolution. So that seems to be an insubstantial fear.

The point has been made by one or two delegations that they are concerned not only about that, but also about setting a precedent for other Organizations. Of course, we here cannot worry about other Organizations - but I can tell you that in at least one case, that of one of the other Organizations concerned, they already have standard provision for setting off the cash surplus against their budget level. That is standard in that Organization - so in a sense the precedent has already been established a long time ago.

The position in fact is a little firmer than it was when we discussed the matter on Friday, because today we have had confirmation that the United States Congress had adopted an Amendment. This is only part of the problem - I am not singling out the United States at all, except to say that that has happened - but we still do not know whether it has happened in the same way as forecast, or ven worst: the Press Reports are not clear. But certainly one of the contingencies is even firmer chan it was on Friday when you discussed this, and the whole problem about this is that nobody can be sure about what is going to happen or its extent. When the United States representative was referring to the amount of time that you had had available to discuss this resolution he said, "Less than a few hours" - and that is the kind of vague situation in which we are as regards the amount which might be forthcoming. No one can say "It was five hours and 36 minutes" or "It will be so many millions in the kitty" - we just do not know. So this is why we have to foresee - not the worst situation, because now the amendments in the resolution foresee more than one situation - they foresee getting by without doing it, they foresee getting by with doing only half of it, and they foresee the temporary character of the action, insofar as even if we have to go to the worst case, still the contributions will be distributed when the contributions do finally arrive. So all these are big steps towards improving this resolution.

On the points raised by Australia: I do not think there can be any problem about inserting into the second line of paragraph 3 after the words "set forth in sub-paragraphs (a) to (e) below", "that subsequent to consideration of the provisions of section 2 of this resolution". That would make it clear that the Council would first consider section 2 before considering section 3. That is certainly the intention, and there would be no problem in spelling it out, if it is thought that that would make a difference to the views of those governments tomorrow.

As regards spelling out the provisions concerning the special fund, etc., I do not think we can get that into this resolution. I think it is so detailed and so technical that it would be difficult and inappropriate to put it here. Section 3(e), according to the advice we have taken

from the Legal Counsel, gives us all that is necessary to ensure that when contributions are subsequently received, the equivalent amount could be paid back into the special account which will have been established from the cash surplus, and from that can be distributed to member governments, irrespective of time problems. Section (e) guarantees that - but I do not think it would be appropriate or helpful to start expanding that by reference to special funds. The Finance Committee can go into all that; the Council can review all that; but I do not think that you can put it here because, quite frankly, there would have to be another round of consultations with Capitals to ensure that somehow the Secretariat was not again trying to put something over the delegates. We really are not - it is a simple bookkeeping provision to set upa special account, put the cash surplus in it, take the money out, and replace the money when contributions come in. There is no problem there: it is on the record that I have said it and we will do it.

I hope that we will meet the two main problems raised today which are of concern and will I hope overcome the problems we have.

S. ABOUJAOUDE ( Lebanon): We had earnestly proposed that the devised proposal would not raise any controversies since, as has been explained by many delegates, this issue is just a procedural action, proposed as a protective measure against possible shortfalls. I do not think reporting the discussions or trying to postpone it until tomorrow will change opinions. We really sympathize with those delegates who are waiting for instructions, but we feel that, as we have discussed this issue on Friday and today, it is now appropriate to refer it to the Drafting Committee, because we feel that there are representatives of both opinions in the Drafting Committee. It can be discussed at length; it can be modified in certain ways; the Drafting Committee would reflect the opinions of those who discussed it today, and we hope that those delegates who are awaiting instructions will have positive instructions, and can report them to us in the Plenary Session after the drafting has been proposed.

So - as Mr West has explained - we feel that it is appropriate now to refer this issue to the Drafting Committee, and we will then come up with the Report which has already been discussed in the Plenary Session where all the opinions will be explained.

CHAIRMAN: Thank you - that is the first intervention, as far as I can see, which suggests that we should close the debate now. Several delegations have clearly asked not to close the debate today, and there is only one who suggests this now. I see that Pakistan has asked for the floor.

T. AHMAD (Pakistan): We have a similar procedural question to this: if you reopen the debate tomorrow, then (i) we are falling behind time, and (ii) there is the question of the drafting of the report, and then the adoption of the report by Commission III, and then by the Plenary. The general feeling indicated during the debate was that the revised C 83/LIM/22 can be endorsed. Of course some delegations have reservations on which they perhaps wish to obtain instructions from their countries, and return to it.

So we were wondering if procedurally, and if you want to make sure that you do not really consume as much time to prolong the Conference, and as you have had two seconds on this debate, would it be more feasible to send the report to the Drafting Committee and when you are adopting the report, at that time if some delegations have some positions or instructions from their capitals which can be indicated, without reopening the discussion generally, they could be made. Normally when the report is being adopted there are modifications and changes made. That would save some time. That is our suggestion.

F.H. JAWHAR HAYAT (Kuwait): I second what my friend from Lebanon said and my friend from Pakistan . I am not going to go through procedures but exactly what they have said is so clear and at this point I think we should close the subject and not come back to it.

A.R. PIRES (Cap-Vert): Le Cap-Vert se rallie aux délégations du Koweït, du Liban et du Pakistan .

M. TRKULJA ( Yugoslavia): We support the procedural suggestions that have just been made.

M.B. SY (Sénégal); Quand une délégation appuie une résolution, en fait c'est pour se déterminer et l'on' n'appuie pas pour permettre l'ouverture d' un débat. Nous aussi nous sommes partisans que la question soit définitivement réglée aujourd'hui, compte tenu de la majorité qui s'est dégagée.

G. CAMELARIS ( Cyprus ) ¡There has been prolonged discussion on this issue which is indeed very crucial. My delegation feels that the subject has been discussed adequately. It is to be referred to the Drafting Committee and any new point can be brought during the adoption of the report in Commission III or in the Plenary. I therefore suggest the discussion be terminated and the matter referred to the Drafting Committee.

M.D METELITS ( United States of America): I must confess that I am not really sure what this proposal means. Is the proposal that the Drafting Committee is to reach a decision for Commission III on this issue? Because clearly we have not reached a decision. There have been a great many delegations which have expressed a view one way or another. There have also been a large number of delegations which have stated that they are unable to present their views on this new proposal without having first receiving instructions from their capital.

It would seem therefore that the proposal asks the Drafting Committee to take a decision for Commission III. I am not clear on that.

J.D.L. RICHARDS (New Zealand): All I wanted to say was that New Zealand has said that it can accept the resolution as it is. But I have just noted that there are a great many delegations which say they are not in a position to accept it at the moment and it seems to me that it would be quite premature to close the debate at this stage.

J. TCHICAYA ( Congo): I suggest that the Secretariat consults with the group of countries which are awaiting instructions from their capitals and after that report the outcome of the consultations to the Plenary, that is the Commission here, without reopening the debate. Otherwise referring the drafted report which has not been endorsed by so many countries to the Drafting Committee would be very difficult to do successfully.

DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: As I understand the proposal, it would not terminate the possibility of expressing views on the resolution. The idea which was at present in my mind too was we should avoid using up a lot of time tomorrow in an open general debate in which somebody would say something, six others would say something else, and ten others would say something else, then six others would say the first thing again, etc. We should go ahead with the Drafting Committee without making it final. We can say"We have a resolution, we do not like it, we have an amendment." That will not be different from other reports where a draft resolution is debated, it goes to the Resolutions Committee, then to the Drafting Committee and comes back as part of the report for adoption. After all it is the resolution we are talking about and not the draft report itself. This is how I understood the proposal and from my point of view this raises no problem except getting the report out quickly, which we are prepared to do.

S. SCHÜMM (Germany, Federal Republic of): Mr West really took the words out of my month. But if I may I would like to appeal to the logic of this Commission. We do agree that in a report we take up what has been discussed. Now if you have decided - and I think you have - that the discussion is not concluded yet, then this part of the discussion cannot be taken as such and the report would be incomplete, and so to have a discussion on an incomplete report would take longer than if we had a complete report before us. That would be less of a problem.

P. GOSSELIN ( Canada): I, as well, am somewhat surprised by the haste with which some of my colleagues want to close the debate which from their point of view is virtually over. From the point of view of some of us who have yet even to receive instructions from our governments, or have had an opportunity to consider the issue that was put before us just a few hours ago, I find it a little surprising that we want to close the debate and move to the Drafting Committee so that the Drafting Committee can consider and produce a report that does not even reflect the debate that took place. So I would ask

my colleagues to be indulgent of those who still hope that we can be positive, give us some time first to express our views - because if I understand it correctly, the statements one makes at the time the report is being adopted are not recorded in the same way as the statements which are made in Plenary. So some of us feel strongly about this issue and would like to see the views of our governments reflected in the report before a decision is taken.

J. SAULT ( Australia): I also think that we continually stress that our reports reflect the views that are expressed during debate in the Commission. I cannot see how the Drafting Committee can prepare a report unless all those views have been expressed, and there are a number of delegations which have made it plain that they do have further views to express. I think that we should keep the debate open and enable them to express those views then they would be incorporated in the report.

J. HEIDSMA (Netherlands): I can see that the text of the resolution, if what we have discussed today does go through the Drafting Committee, would not be touched by the Drafting Committee because obviously that would not be very useful because a number of delegations have not made up their minds on this issue. If that is the case, and what we discussed today goes to the Drafting Committee, but the draft of the resolution is not touched by the Drafting Committee, how would what the delegations have to say tomorrow on the resolution be reflected in the report? I would like to seek clarification on that matter.

DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: Quite frankly my thought on that today was that it was a number of people saying they are not in favour of this but they might get new instructions. If the new instructions say no, the draft report will be O.K. because it will reflect their negative views. If their instructions are to support the resolution then we can take out some of the negative part which is much easier than putting in negative parts.

So I do not see an enormous problem of views being expressed tomorrow which are going to make the life of the Drafting Committee worse. I thought it would make it better. Even if they get instructions saying "we want to change this part of the resolution", that could also happen at the time of the adoption of the report. Since we have been promised tremendous substantive views tomorrow we had better wait for them. They may even be positive. As far as I am concerned, we had better meet tomorrow morning.

S. ABOUJAOUDE ( Lebanon): Frankly, I disagree with Mr West about delaying this matter until tomorrow because I think our colleagues have not really understood our approach. What we meant is that we would like to know whether they are against the principle or for it. If they are against the principle, nothing is going to change; if they agree with the principle but they do not like the words or some of the sentences, this could be taken care of in the Drafting Committee. When we come back we will not present you with a final decision. We are going to propose, probably bring ideas together in a better way which will make it easier to discuss the matter here. We are now turning in a circle, we are repeating each other; we have redundancy. We are not going to reach a decision. By presenting a draft report which could reflect the opinions of both sides in a very impartial way we could present tomorrow something that would probably make things easier for everybody.

For the sake of finishing this Conference on time we would prefer to refer the matter to the Drafting Committee tonight.

T. AHMAD ( Pakistan): We do not want to belabour the point, but there are two aspects to it. One is the draft report and the other is the text of the resolution itself. The crux of the matter of course is the text of the resolution. A number of delegations may have differing opinions, they may want amendments to some parts of the resolution. However you go about it, at the time of the adoption of the report any Member Nation has the right to propose amendments or changes in the text of the resolution.

What we were suggesting was that instead of going through two rounds you would be saving one round. When we come to the point of adoption of the report, if any Member State wishes an amendment to the text of the resolution that can be offered and it can then be accepted, discussed or rejected by the Commission. That would save time and it would not deny any Member Nation the right to make changes in the text of the resolution.

If, on the other hand, there was a ruling saying that at the time of the adoption of the report, the text of the resolution could not be changed, then perhaps we would understand. But we know that it can be changed. That is why we were suggesting that it would save a round of discussions.

CHAIRMAN: Thank you, my dear friend from Pakistan . I am sorry to say that I strongly disagree with you. I have always felt that if you want to have a clear job done you have to know what you are doing. If you mix up debate and report then you get into a mess. I think it is much better to have the debate and arrive at conclusions; then you report on that debate. When you discuss the report the debate is over; you do not negotiate again. That is done before. I think that what is suggested here would be a mixture of considering a report and still negotiating the matter. I think it is worthwhile to spend a little more time on the debate. Then I would imagine and hope that the report would be straightforward, brief and clear.

The Secretariat has assured me this afternoon that it is technically possible to have a meeting tomorrow morning for the debate. Then the Drafting Committee would have to meet in the afternoon, and it is hoped that later in the afternoon the Commission would meet again and adopt the report.

In that way we can keep within time. I hope that it would be a much clearer procedure. We can of course go on; I am told that the interpreters are available for quite some time. We can go on and discuss this procedural question but we cannot discuss the substance any more because we have to wait for those who need instructions. We have been told that they will have them tomorrow morning. Alternatively, we can close and come back and have what I hope will be a short meeting tomorrow morning. Is that agreeable?

I thought we did quite well today with this meeting but someone, obviously, is not of that opinion. As you will remember, we had our first meeting up in the beautiful Plenary Hall. Now we meet here in the nicely-decorated Red Room. Tomorrow we have to go to the Green Room, but we will have to live with that. Maybe that is another reason to have the meeting short tomorrow morning.

The meeting rose at 18,20 hours
La séance est levée à 18 h 20
Se levanta la sesión a las 18.20 horas