ADOPTION OF REPORT
ADOPTION DU RAPPORT
APROBACION DEL INFORME

This brings me to the next point, which is a procedural one, and it is just to make sure there is no misunderstanding, because we would not let this part of the discussion slip past without explaining that our position is that any nation can have a footnote to a text without having to seek the approval of Member States. We do not feel that any footnote we have made is subject to the approval of the delegate of the Congo or any other delegate. I would like to make this point strongly.

On the question of whether we have the text as amended or the original text we are quite relaxed; ,, our preference would be for the original text.

Michel MOMBOULI (Congo): Nous ne voulons pas retarder les travaux de la plénière mais, puisque la délégation du Royaume-Uni insiste, je propose d'ajouter une deuxième note de bas de page - une contre-note de bas de page - qui se lirait de la façon suivante:

"La délégation congolaise a fait valoir que les réserves émises par certaines délégations à propos de ce paragraphe 24 devraient trouver place dans le chapitre des "Considérations et avis généraux" de la Conférence."

Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): No tenemos el ánimo de retardar sus trabajos, pero deseamos que conste en las actas nuestro firme apoyo a los puntos de principio que viene planteando la Delegación de Congo.

Creemos que cada Delegación tiene derecho a hacer sus reservas, pero sin tratar de involucrar a otros países y sin que el texto que se presente pueda ofender la dignidad , la soberanía y el respeto que merecen los Estados soberanos.

Leopoldo ARIZA HIDALGO (Cuba): De la misma forma en que no queremos utilizar el tiempo que usted quiere guardar celosamente para hacer una buena gestión, nos vemos de todas maneras impelidos a hablar.

Nosotros queremos apoyar en todas sus partes la propuesta del Congo, que en ninguna forma limita el derecho soberano del Reino Unido a hacer su nota. Sin embargo, también el derecho soberano de los países a calificar los criterios quo so dan, porque esto es una posición de principio quo dobo constar. Por lo tanto, opinamos que la reserva emitida por el Reino Unido debe aparecer en el capí­tulo de opiniones de la Conferencia.

Sra. Mercedes FERMIN-GOMEZ (Venezuela): Solamente para hacer constar que Venezuela apoya y se asocia a la posición del Congo en este punto.

CHAIRMAN: Congo wished to add a footnote and if there is no objection to that, the Conference approves it. I see no objection to that. We will add your footnote as you have asked.

Omoefe James OYAIDE (Nigeria): I think we have to exercise a little caution here, that if we are going to go on with so many footnotes we may find that at the end there may be more than two or three or four divergent points of view. Looking at the text of the footnotes, the view of the United Kingdom, it is not strictly a dissenting opinion from paragraph 24. That is why I thought the amendment which the delegates from United Kingdom proposed of saying that that text ought to have been added to paragraph 24 should be what we are considering and if we accept the substance of that footnote then we clearly incorporate it as part of paragraph 24. I would suggest that that should be a better approach than several footnotes as have been proposed now, a counter footnote to the original footnote. I do not think that is the way we should proceed.

CHAIRMAN: I think the delegate from Congo is only asking for his rights and I think the Conference is not raising objections.

Georges EGAL (France): La delegation française s'étonne de toute cette procédure sur un sujet très largement débattu au Comité de rédaction. Je me suis laissé dire que la chose est tout à fait inhabituelle et nous éloigne du consensus que l'on recherche toujours ici, à la FAO.

Horacio CARANDANG (Philippines): I should just like to put on record my views regarding these footnotes. I believe that every delegation has the right to put a footnote and he is the supreme authority in what he wants to put in the footnote. It is just a mere reservation on the text that is indicated in the paragraph to which the footnote is attached. But there are many footnotes here that are not really reservations. They are just as much a part of the Report as the paragraphs themselves so I was wondering whether some of them could be incorporated in the text and then they would be introduced with "some delegations" or "one delegation" or "this delegation felt" such as in paragraph 24, but I am entirely in your hands. In a text like this I think it is as much a part of the report then it should be subject to the examination of the Body. I just want to put that on record, that if a footnote is just not a reservation but a pretext to introduce another idea into the report, which is just as much a part of the report as the preceding paragraphs, then I think it should be subject to the ruling of the Body.

CHAIRMAN: Again, if there is no objection on the Congo proposal to put a footnote then the Chair thinks you are in agreement and it is therefore decided. Paragraph 24 is therefore adopted.

Antonio GAYOSO (United States of America): I must express my concern with a bit of the procedure you have just followed in terms of footnotes. It seems to me that the Congo Delegation has the perfect right to introduce a footnote into this report and that that footnote need not be subject, need not be subject, to the acquiescence of the Body. So we do not have to decide on the Congo footnote, it is their right and we will defend it all the way.

Paragraphs 18 to 24 as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 18 à 24 ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 18 a 24 así enmendados, son aprobados

Paragraphs 25 to 28 approved
Les paragraphes 25 à 28 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 25 a 28 son aprobados

PARAGRAPHS 29 to 43
PARAGRAPHES 29 à 43
PÁRRAFOS 29 a 43

LE SECRETAIRE GENERAL: Il y a eu dans la version anglaise du document C 87/REP/I une erreur maté­rielle à la quatrième ligne du paragraphe 41. Il y est dit par erreur: "the FAO Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean"; en fait, on devrait lire: "the Regional Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean".

Les textes français et espagnol disent correctement "le Bureau de la région Amérique latine/ Caraïbes".

Il s'agit d'un bureau au Siège et non pas du Bureau régional qui se trouve à Santiago.

CHAIRMAN: I thank the Secretary General for his remarks on paragraph 41.

Ian BUIST (United Kingdom): In order to take up the point which was made previously by the delegation from Colombia and others I wish to amend the second footnote on this page, which as it stands talks about the views of some countries, and I wish to alter it as follows, "'The Delegation of the United Kingdom" then cut out those next four words, "expressed concern", etc. and then at the beginning of the next sentence instead of "These countries believe", "It believed".

George Henry MUSGROVE (Canada): As we indicated previously, as members of the Drafting Committee we support the Draft with the exception of those small portions that had not been subject to purview and completion by the Drafting Committee, as it is with respect to paragraph 43 which is one of those paragraphs which was not discussed in the Drafting Committee. Our delegation has some concern about that paragraph and would have wished to address it more fully both in the Drafting Committee or in Commission II yesterday. Because this was not possible we should like to enter a footnote to para­graph 43 and this would be perhaps footnote No. 3 insofar as there are two pre-existing footnotes. The footnote would read as follows, "The Delegation of Canada did not feel that this paragraph took sufficient note of the concerns expressed by a number of delegations on the operation and management of the Technical Cooperation Programme".

DIRECTOR-GENERAL: I think it is only fair to mention which are the "several, delegations". My remark is also valid for the first footnote of the United Kingdom: "...drew attention to the statement by a number of developing countries..." We should like to know which are the developing countries. The representative Canada also mentioned "several countries" and we should like to know which are those countries. This information will enable us to follow the matter better.

Antonio GAYOSO (United States of America): I wanted to reassociate myself with the footnote, but in view of what is happening I will yield.

Antoine SAINTRAINT (Belgique): Je n'ai pas l'intention de demander une note en bas de page, mais je voudrais quand mêmo faire une remarque. Nous avons signalé au cours dos débats que? nous apportions notre appui au Programme de coopération technique qui nous paraît important. Le but de ce Programme est de répondre à un certain nombre de demandes à court terme et à des situations d'urgence impré­visibles.

Je voudrais simplement que l'on en fasse mention en bas de page. Il me paraît difficile de parler de programmation préalable d'événements imprévisibles.

Antonio R. PIRES (Cap-Vert); La délégation cap-verdienne est, elle aussi, étonnée de lire "plusieurs pays en développement" ... concernant la note de bas de page de la délégation du Royaume-Uni.

J'ai personnellement suivi les travaux de cette Commission avec beaucoup de sagesse, de dynamisme et de présence et je ne me souviens pas que "plusieurs pays en voie de développement" aient dit cela.

Concernant le PCT, je soutiens ce qu'a dit l'honorable délégué Ambassadeur de Belgique, car je pense, en ce qui concerne le PCT, ses objectifs, ses actions et son caractère spécifique, que le débat a été très animé.

Harald HØSTMARK (Norway): This is a slightly different point to that under discussion at the moment so if you prefer to continue with the present matter and give me the floor before you approve the Report - I am in your hands.

Fotis G. POULIDES (Cyprus): Our delegation wishes to support the declaration made by the delegation of Belgium concerning TCP. We consider TCP indispensable for the developing countries.

Sami SUNAA (Jordan) (original language Arabic): In Commission II we all approved the Technical Cooperation Programme and many points were raised concerning this programme. They were also approved. We also discussed the need to make available all the necessary resources for this programme. There­fore, we believe that certain comments should be amended. We also approve all the previous footnotes. We believe that it is the right of each and every country to express its opinion in a footnote and it is possible for various countries to have their opinions expressed in a footnote to preserve their sovereignty.

Leopoldo AJRIZA HIDALGO (Cuba): Queremos, en primer lugar, adherirnos a la preocupación de Bélgica, en cuanto a que debemos conocer quiénes son ios países en desarrollo que han expresado su preocupa­ción por el PCT. Hemos sido testigos de la discusión del ataque al PCT por lo que constituye el PCT de multilatéralismo. Hemos sido testigos en cinco años de los ataques. Por lo tanto, sabemos como se han expresado estas cuestiones, pero nos extraña no haber oído hasta ahora, como dicen algunas delegaciones, un ataque directo hecho por un país en desarrollo.

Queremos unirnos también a la propuesta que hizo la distinguida representación de Bélgica, y por lo tanto, apoyar este párrafo. Específicamente, sobre el párrafo tenemos una propuesta que posible­mente contradiga lo que vino del Comité de Redacción, pero vamos a seguir repitiendo lo que han dicho muchos delegados: Esta Plenaria es soberana.

En la tercera línea en español, donde se expresa, después de "historial de asistencia directa y oportuna a los países beneficiarios" dice: "algunos miembros lamentaron". Propongo eliminar "algunos miembros" y "lamentaron que no hubiera sido posible aumentar en términos reales la asignación". Porque no conocemos que sean "algunos"'. La discusión de la Comisión fue bastante unánime por parte de los países en desarrollo a la necesidad de aumentar los fondos para ésta, o por lo menos, para no afectar los fondos de este programa. Por lo tanto, repito, creo que sería muy interesante saber cuáles son las.insatisfacciones de algunos miembros de países no en desarrollo. Apoyamos la propo­sición de Bélgica, y apoyamos en todas sus partes este Capítulo Cuarto: Programa de Cooperación Técnica (PCT). Por lo tanto, lamentamos nosotros que haya una nota de pie de página, que sencilla­mente repite los ataques que se vienen haciendo desde hace mucho tiempo, y que no creo que tengan mucha fuerza.

Sumiji NAKAZAWA (Japan): With regard to paragraph 43, I should like to point out that Japan expressed its concern about the management of TCP in Commission II and this is not duly reflected in the Report. In the spirit of cooperation I do not intend to ask that our position should be spelt out in a footnote or elsewhere. However, I hope that the Conference takes note of the fact that Japan expressed such a concern in Commission II.

Bashir El Mabrouk SAID (Libya) (original language Arabic): At the outset I should like to make a general remark, namely that some countries were accustomed to expressing the points of view of other countries and at this stage we should like to express our concern about this trend. It should not be the practice at all that any country should express the point of view of another country. This is totally unacceptable.

My second point has also been referred to by a number of previous speakers and concerns TCP. I have attended the meetings of Commission il. All members of developing countries in Commission II expressed their full support for TCP. This is a programme which deals directly with the problems of agricultural development in developing countries and therefore it is strange to find reference here to the fact that TCP does not do its duty as we wish, and this is unrealistic.

Temei ISKIT (Turkey): Turkey was a member of the Drafting Committee, so we refrained until this point to take the floor. However, in view of the present discussion we have certain points to make. First, I should like to thank the delegation of the United Kingdom for their consistency. In view of the remarks we have made concerning the first footnote that they have on page 3 they admitted that they should change the second footnote on page 14 since the remark concerned reference to some other countries. May I invite the same delegation to be consistent - it is an invitation to them, of course, I do not deny their right - and to reconsider their first footnote in view of the fact that this footnote also makes references to other countries and commits other countries. Perhaps the United Kingdom delegation may consider this matter.

My second point concerns TCP. My delegation was one of trhe delegations which supported TCP and which underlined its emergency nature and the fact it could not be preplanned. Therefore my delegation fully associates with the declaration made by Belgium.

Mapela NGA-MA (Zaïre): Je voulais aussi appuyer la délégation de la Belgique et, en second lieu, faire remarquer que, lorsqu'on a parlé des bureaux régionaux en Piénière au moment où la question a été discutée, il a bien été souligné qu'en ce qui concerne cette question de bureaux régionaux dans le pays, il arrive parfois que les représentants de la FAO soient placés dans le même bâtiment que le Ministère de l'agriculture, et si nous tenons compte de la note de bas de page du Royaume-Uni, ceci signifie simplement qu'on demande aux pays en développement de construire des bâtiments à étages pour abriter des services.

Je demanderai donc, comme l'a fait le délégué de la Turquie, que le Royaume-Uni considère un peu ce problème. Nous ne pensons pas que ce serait là une façon de faire des économies, mais comme il s'agit là d'une note de bas de page demandée par un pays souverain, en l'occurrence le Royaume-Uni, et afin que nous soyons en bons termes avec nos gouvernements en particulier, nous, pays en développement qui sommes ici concernés, il faudrait peut-être, si le Royaume-Uni insiste, qu'il cite le nom de ces pnys qui veulent regrouper les services de la FAO avec d'autres ensembles. Ainsi, quand nous rentrerons dans nos villes respectives, nous serons en paix avec nos gouvernements.

Ian BUIST {United Kingdom): It seems to me that the fairly extended discussion we are having on this paragraph demonstrates yet again the inadequacy of the arrangements for preparing a Report on the work of the Commission and the procedures which have led to the present discussion.

The second point is, of course, that I am grateful to the distinguished delegation from Turkey for recognizing that we had in fact, already amended the second footnote which I think would otherwise have caused yet more debate.

But on the first, I must say that I was somewhat surprised at the intervention of the Director-General in this, not only because I supposed the servant of the Organization is there to help us when we ask questions of him rather than the other way round, but because of course the papers and the views which my delegation referred to in the discussion had been circulated by the Director-General to the Conference some time ago. He has asked for the names of the countries which are mentioned in this footnote, and I will read them out, and I want to underline that it is not a matter of my Government committing any of these governements to what they say. It is simply to underline that they themselves have committed themselves to this statement. You will find this particular reference on page A61 of C 87/30, and the developing countries which are responsible for that paper are the following: Mexico, Congo, Cuba, India, Nicaragua, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Yugoslavia.

George Henry MUSGROVE (Canada): I was prompted to intervene to ask for your guidance in clarifying what it is we are discussing. At various times we were disussing one of two or three footnotes. Other inter­ventions have suggested changes in the Draft itself, and quite a number of delegations have been speaking to the substance of the Technical Cooperation Programme as to its merits and demerits. I think the debate on the substance is long past us. What we are talking about is the Draft and it is the Draft Report that is in front of us. We, a few minutes ago, entertained or proposed a reservation in the name of our delegation and it was pointed out, and I had anticipated it may be pointed out by others, that we had used the term: "by a number of delegations" when in fact we should perhaps have put the reservation forward in our own name and by ourselves. The use of the term "by a number of delegations" I guess was a spin-off of the sentence we would have proposed in Drafting Committee for the Report and it was in this sense we had suggested it in the footnote. We will, however, amend our reservation by the removal of that term "by a number of countries" so that it reads in the sense by Canada itself.

We were interested in the intervention by the Director-General and would have welcomed him in Commission II, and indeed in the Drafting Committees, to discuss and assist us with our work.

Perhaps I could finally plead that we confine ourselves to this Draft and not to substance. We, like other delegates, do find the Technical Cooperation Programme to be an extremely useful one - one that is very popular. We have expressed concerns repeatedly over the years as to its management and the style of its operation, and it is a matter that is of concern to us and will be pursued in the future.

- 470 -

CHAIRMAN: Before I give the floor to the next speaker, the Director- Genera I has asked to intervene at this point.

LE DIRECTEUR GENERAL: Le distingué délégué du Royaume-Uni avait raison, et je n'aurais donc pas dû demander ces détaiis -puisqu'ils figurent dans le texte d'une soixantaine de pages distribué par le Secrétariat. Je suis bien sûr au service do tous les Etats Membres, et pour mieux les servir, la consti­tution permet au Directeur général d'intervenir sur tous les points de l'Ordre du jour en discussion. Quant au fait que je n'ai pu être en Commission. II ou au Comité de rédaction, c'est une question qui relève du Directeur général. J'ai dû recevoir chez moi plus de 80 Ministres de l'Agriculture; mais j'ai été très bien représenté par Monsieur Walton et par tous mes collègues. Je remercie Monsieur Musgrove, délégué du Canada, d'avoir bien voulu changer le texte de sa "foot-note".

Le Directeur général est obligé de tenir compte des points de vue de tous les pays et il doit donc être pleinement informé pour pouvoir servir les Etats Membres.

Ibrahirna KABA (Guinée): La délégation guinéenne soutient fermement les observations faites par le distingué délégué de la Belgique en ce qui concerne le PCT. En effet, ce programme trouve son succès justement dans son caractère d'intervention d'urgence dans un pays où la rigueur de la planification fait encore défaut.

Michel MOMBOULI (Congo): Nous voudrions d'abord dire, concernant le PCT, que nous sommes tout à fait d'accord avec la déclaration faite par la délégation de la Belgique; nous le sommes d'autant plus qu'en Commission II, lorsque, à la suite de la déclaration de la délégation de la Belgique, qui fait d'ailleurs preuve d'une certaine suite dans les idées sur cette question en soutenant le PCT, nous avons indiqué que nous la soutenions totalement. Il est donc tout à fait naturel, en ce qui nous concerne, que nous profitions de cette occasion pour répéter une fois de plus que tout ce qu'il a déclaré recueille notre aval.

Autant je constate que la déclaration de la Belgique est logique et cohérente, autant je ne comprends pas très bien la position de la délégation du Royaume-Uni. Que je sache, le Róyaume-Uni appartient à la catégorie des pays développés et non pas à celle des pays en développement. Dans les notes de bas de page qui précèdent, nous avons constaté qu'elles engagent en fait, jusque-là, les pays de sa catégorie, autrement dit, les pays développés; mais nous constatons maintenant qu'elles engagent la catégorie des pays en développement, qui,d'ailleurs,--sont bien représentés ici et ont toute liberté de s'exprimer.

Nous avons comme l'impression qu'il y a une confusion qui s'instaure. La délégation du Royaume-Uni á eu la gentillesse de nous donner la liste des pays auxquels elle faisait allusion et nous nous sommes rendu compte que le Congo est cité sur cette liste à côté du Mexique et de bien d'autres pays en développement. Au moment où je voua parle, je n'ai pas le document auquel il a fait référence, jnais, que je sache, il y a un document à propos duquel les avis des pays en développement se sont exprimés.

Je dois dire que la position des pays en développement vientmême contrebalancer la position des pays développés et je crois savoir que c'est 9 contre 9, ou 8 contre 9. Il y a eu une certaine balance dans ces termes-là. Mais en tout état de cause, nous pensons que la position des pays en développement doit être exprimée par les pays en développement et non pas par les pays développés; je crois que c'est une position de principe et, sans vouloir nier le droit de chaque délégation de mettre des notes de bas de page, je suis loin de comprendre pourquoi la délégation du Royaume-Uni veut entraîner à la fois le clan des pays développés et celui des pays en développement. Je ne comprends pas que le Royaume-Uni aille jusqu'à englober les pays en développement. J'aimerais avoir plus d'explications au sujet de cette note de bas de page que je ne comprends pas.

Mohammed BENNIS (Maroc): Dorénavant, je me penche avec autant d'attention sur le texte même du rapport que sur les notes de bas de page car on a maintenant tendance à vouloir introduire des idées nouvelles ou à atténuer l'apport d'idées de base mentionnées dans le texte même du rapport. Cette pratique est dangereuse et nous devons être prudents afin de ne pas créer des précédents fâcheux qui deviendraient une règle générale.

Ceci dit, je voudrais m'associer totalement au point de vue exprimé par la Turquie et je voudrais féliciter à ce propos la délégation du Royaume-Uni qui a modifié la rédaction de la deuxième note de bas de page; dans un souci de cohérence, je lui demande de modifier la première note dans le même sens.

Le voudrais dire également qu'il ne faudrait pas que des délégations, à titre individuel, s'érigent en Comité de rédaction. Une délégation a toute latitude pour donner son point de vue à titre indivi­duel et c'est aux délégations qui veulent s'associer à ce point de vue de se manifester et d'adjoindre leur nom à la liste des pays qui expriment ou partagent ce point de vue.

En tout cas, concernant la note 1, nous sommes parmi les pays en développement, et nous ne partageons pas le point de vue exprimé dans cette note.

Sra. Mercedes FERMIN-GOMEZ (Venezuela): Seré muy breve porque solamente quiero expresar aquí que Venezuela ha estado entre les países que apoyan el Programa de Cooperación Técnica; por consecuencia, va a apoyar la declaración de Bélgica y demuestra, asimismo, su incompatibilidad con la nota presentada por el Reino Unido porque consideramos que adolece de la misma falla de la primera nota en que menciona de manera indefinida países asignándoles determinadas ideas o posiciones que no corresponden exactamente a la realidad. Por esa razón nosotros vamos a estar identificados con la posición adoptada por Bélgica en su declaración y por el Congo, que también ha expresado sus ideas muy claras.

Pedro Agostinho KANGA (Angola): Je voudrais tout simplement m'associer aux délégués qui m'ont précédé. Il est vraiment étrange d'avoir une note de bas de page du Royaume-Uni disant que plusieurs pays en développement vont souvent à l'encontre du PCT. Franchement, depuis que nous sommes ici, nous participons très activement aux travaux de la Commission II et nous n'avons jamais entendu de représentant de pays en développement parler du PCT comme le dit le délégué du Royaume-Uni.

Nous avons déjà un porce-parole dans le Groupe des 77. S'il y a un avis à donner, ce n'est pas à un pays comme le Royaume-Uni de parler à notre place. De ce fait, ma délégation appuie entièrement la déclaration du délégué de la Belgique et celle de mon collègue du Congo.

Joseph TCHICAYA (Président, Comité de rédaction): Je dois rappeler, comme nous l'avons fait hier en Commission, qu'effectivement les paragraphes 41 et 43 n'ont pas été discutés au Comité de rédaction et que j'avais moi-même autorisé que les membres de ce Comité puissent intervenir sur ces deux paragraphes à la Commission.

Mais je voudrais profiter du temps qui m'est accordé pour dire également que, tout en approuvant le principe des notes de bas de page, npus pensons qu'il faut être discipliné car, lorsque je lis la note de bas de page 1/, où il est question des pays en développement, je note qu'il y a une discordance entre ce que contient cette note de bas de page et le document auquel on fait allusion ici. Je crois qu'il faut très bien lire ce qui est dit dans notre document par rapport à ce qui est dit ici. Ici, on parle des bureaux et services généraux pour toutes les Organisations. Ce n'est pas ce que les pays en développement auteurs du document C 87/30 ont dit. Ils ont dit qu'il faut que la FAO puisse être dans des bureaux publics, c'est-à-dire que, si les gouvernements ont des bureaux disponibles, ils y installent la FAO pour diminuer les coûts. Cela n'a donc rien à voir avec l'association entre organisations du système des Nations Unies.

DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: I do not know if I am-going to be really all that helpful but I should like to try to summarize as far as I can where we have got and where a consensus appears to be emerging. First, I would point out that footnote 1 on page 14 of the English text does not apply to the Technical Cooperation Programme but to a paragraph dealing with country offices. There may have been some confusion in the debate about that.

I should like, if I may, to say something about the contents of footnote 1, which is the United Kingdom footnote on reducing costs. There is nothing in this footnote with which the Secretariat would disagree in the slightest. What it says is: "Reduce costs through inter alia shared offices and general services with other UN organizations."We have at the moment 15 joint offices shared with UNDP, and whenever a new country office is opened the first option explored is joint premises with UNDP. It is very seldom possible for practical reasons. Therefore, although in the context this may appear to the reader as a controversial statement, in fact it is not-controversial at all. I would think that probably all countries which submitted papers which are reproduced in document C 87/30 would agree to it.

That having been said, it seems to me there is no disagreement within this assembly to paragraph 42, which includes the United Kingdom footnote to which I have just referred. For paragraph 43, which did not go through the Drafting Committee, the basic trouble is that it expresses the majority view but not the minority view; and the minority view has therefore sprung up in the form of footnotes. That is really what has happened, I think.

As regards the text of paragraph 43 as it stands, one formal amendment was proposed early in the debate, if I remember correctly, that the second sentence would read "Regret was expressed that it had not proved feasible to increase in real terms the level of the TCP appropriation but it was hoped that this would be done in future biennia." This was moved as a formal proposal, as I understood it at the time.

Then there are two footnotes expressing what I would refer to as the minority viewpoint. If paragraph 43 as amended and with the two footnotes could be accepted, I believe the Commission can complete consideration of the textual part of this draft report and proceed to the Resolution.

CHAIRMAN: Thank you. We have some 14 speakers and perhaps the list will grow. Before recognizing the next speaker let me say that if we can consider the proposal put so helpfully by Mr Walton and if we can agree what he has just proposed, we can save ourselves time and speeches. There are speakers on the list already but what I am proposing now is that if Mr Walton's proposal is agreed, shall we again do as we did before: raise hands to agree to it and approve it? There is a point of order, I think.

POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN

Ian BUIST (United Kingdom): My point of order is this. Certain mis-statements or misinterpretations of the United kingdom position have been made. I think it is only fair and right that my country's position should be expressed upon those so as not to leave anyone under misapprehensions. For instance, it was alleged by the delegate for Venezuela that my delegation was opposed to the TCP and that the footnote somehow was opposed to the TCP. That is completely wrong. There was never any such suggestion. Our position is well-known. We have always supported it. If you will permit me, I will make these points later but I wish to ask you to give us the floor in order to make the corrections at the right point.

CHAIRMAN: I think Mr Walton was very clear, again clarifying the misunderstanding or misinterpreta­tion of certain interventions, statements or comments that were made. I thought he made a very constructive proposal and I have asked for approval to be signified, or disapproval to be signified, by the raising of hands, and you have raised your hands in approval of what Mr Walton has proposed. Shall we now raise our hands again? No hands. You do not approve. If there are no points of order we will continue with the list of speakers.

POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN

Zbigniew KARNICKI (Poland): My point of order is that you asked us to raise our hands for approval or disapproval of the Deputy Director-General's proposal. Unfortunately, it was interrupted by a point of order, so you had no time to look carefully at the hands that had been raised. May I ask you kindly to repeat the question and ask us whether we do or do not support the proposal put forward by the Deputy Director-General.

CHAIRMAN: I would remind the Conference that I repeated the request to raise hands in approval or disapproval of what Mr Walton had proposed.

POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN

Temei ISKIT (Turkey): I have a question relating to the proposal by Mr Walton concerning the first footnote on page 14. Did I understand correctly that the first footnote will remain as it is? My question is answered. Thank you.

POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN

Michel MOMBOULI (Congo): Je voudrais que M. Walton répète toute sa proposition avant que nous ne procédions au vote.

CHAIRMAN: We will repeat what Mr Walton has proposed, and then we will vote on it again. May I ask Mr Walton please to repeat it.

DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: The suggestion is that paragraph 42 be adopted with the footnote I which applies to it. On paragraph 43 I have incorporated one change which was suggested from the floor that seems to me quite non-controversial, so that it would read: "The majority of Member Nations reiterated their attachment to the TCP in view of its proven record of direct and timely assistance rendered to beneficiary countries. Regret was expressed that it had not proved feasible to increase in real terms the level of the TCP appropriation, but it was hoped that this would be done in future biennia."

There would then be two footnotes. The first is, so to speak, the property of the United Kingdom: they have altered their wording. The second one, which is in fact footnote 3, has been read out by the delegation of Canada. That would be a Canadian footnote.

Vote by show of hands
Vote à main levée
Votación a mano alzada

CHAIRMAN: I see it is approved by a majority.

Harald HØSTMARK (Norway): After having listened to the whole debate I believe that there has been some demonstration of some practical consequences of adopting reports en bloc when there is not a basis in consensus. For the principles involved and my views upon them I refer to the Nordic statement in Commission II yesterday. May I request that my delegation be associated with footnote 2 on page 2.

Ms Astrid BERGQUIST (Sweden): Just to add my country to the list of countries in footnote 2 on page 2, paragraph 2.

Sra. Mónica DEREGIBUS (Argentina): La delegación Argentina, señor Presidente, quisiera dejar constan­cia en actas que lamenta profundamente que el procedimiento de adopción del Informe sobre este punto de la Agenda en la Comisión II, haya dado como resultado una notable inflación de notas a pié de página. Estimamos que esto es demostrativo de que la Comisión no agotó el proceso de consultas y negociaciones que es inherente, y permítame realzar el término, inherente a todo foro multilateral. Sólo me resta agregar la esperanza de mi delegación de que los Estados Miembros de esta Organización aprendamos de nuestros errores, de modo que se asegure en el futuro que nuestros informes puedan ser la expresión de un trabajo concluido.

Srta. Margarita LIZARRAGA SAUCEDO (México): En vista de que el nombre de mi país ha sido aludido por el Representante del Reino Unido para justificar la inclusión de su pie de página, he querido expre­sar que si bien nuestra delegación expresó la conveniencia de utilizar recursos en términos e insta­laciones, lo ha hecho en un contexto diferente que se ha permitido darse por satisfecho de la inclu­sion del espíritu de su declaración en el párrafo aludido por el Delegado que lo señaló. Y nos reser­vamos nuestro derecho de haberlo traído a este Informe por lo cual no admitimos que se nos invoque para justificar un pie de'página e incluir reservas; por lo cual pedimos que una nota de pié de pági­na se haga en nombre propio y no se aluda a otros.

Paragraphs 29 to 43 as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 29 à 43 ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 29 a 43 así enmendados, son aprobados

- Draft Resolution on Budgetary Appropriations (1988-89) .(Resolution ..../87)
Projet de Résolution sur les ouvertures de crédits 1988-89 (Résolution …./87)
Proyecto de resolución sobre Consignaciones presupuestarias para 1988-89 (Resolución.../87)

CHAIRMAN: I think we have one more item because this is the resolution and this is part of the Report. We can go ahead making our statements, but can we delay them until we have finished with the resolution. We can consider the resolution. I submit it to the vote if it has been read and considered by the delegates. If they do not have substantial objection to it or comments, then I submit it to be voted on, whether agreed or disagreed, on a roll call basis.

POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN

Ian BUTST (United Kingdom): You asked whether we could move straight to a vote on this. My delegation wishes to move an amendment to the draft resolution. If you wish I will proceed with that, since I suppose it is now open for discussion.

It is our understanding' from the Plenary sessions of previous conferences that there is no specific provision in the Basic Text which requires today's conversion rate to be the basis for establishing the budget total. The United Kingdom therefore wishes to move that the draft resolution should be amended by substituting the average daily rate of exchange over the six months ending 31 October for the rate upon which the present figures have been calculated and for revised figures to be accordingly substituted in the draft resolution. The reasons for moving this amendment are as follows:

In the first place it is clear that there are great variations in exchange rates ovet the financial period. We have experienced these in the past, we can expect to experience them in future.

In the second place there have been suggestions in Commission II, which indeed are recorded in the Report which we have just adopted, for using exchange rates other than that which is now put before us, and indeed on one occasion one country suggested using the rate for the present biennium. We would think that that went too far back. But the principle of an average exchange rate over a period of six months up to the last day of the month which precedes the relevant decision is now established in virtually all international financial institutions following suggestions originally made some years ago by France. The present system on which basis we are now asked to approve this resolution leads to great uncertainty in capitals over the provisions which they are to make in their national budgets. Often those budgets will run from 1 January and thus budget planning in such countries is far advanced. Delegates therefore come to the Conference with their positions drawn up on the basis of the documents already circulated and they find themselves on a single day faced with figures which are significantly different.

I would like to emphasize in conclusion that the United Kingdom view remains, as well known, that the Organization should be protected from the effects of exchange rate movements,. and of course discussions in relation to this are proceeding separately in Commission III.

DIRECTOR-GENERAL: Can the Representative of the United Kingdom be more specific? We are proposing the rate of today as has been the case with all previous Conferences so far as I recall. What exactly is the rate being proposed by the delegate of United Kingdom?

CHAIRMAN: The delegate of the United Kingdom is not presenting a specific exchange rate as I understand it. He is presenting a system by which exchange rates can be calculated on a period of time.

Ian BUIST (United Kingdom): I am proposing a specific rate. I am proposing that the rate which is used should be the average of the exchange rate, the average daily rate over the last six months to 31 October. It should not be difficult to calculate that rate and to bring forward after lunch, If we are going to have a break for lunch, a group of figures which would then be based on that single exchange rate, the average rate over the last six months. This is exactly what is applied in the other institutions that I have mentioned.

DIRECTOR-GENERAL: I wish to explain that the rate which was applied to the Budget of 1986-87 was fixed in November 1985 at the rate of 1 760; today the rate is 1 234. So we have lost about US $ 30 million. If we take the average rate for the last six months it willbe not 1 234 but about 1 310, we do not know. So we would begin the biennium losing several million dollars from the first day. Our intention is that once the rate of 1 234 has been fixed we will (Miter into forward contract to cover the Organization's lira requirements for one year taking into consideration

the exchange rate of today. However if we establish a rate of 1 300, we could already foresee losing approximately US $ 5 million. I just wanted to draw your attention to this material information.

Elio PASCARELLI (Italy): Since my currency is involved, I would like to underline what on more than one occasion I have already proposed in the Finance Committee. I am very far distant from the proposal of the United Kingdom. Nevertheless I do not agree that the crratic rate ot exchange; ot today can benefit the Organization. I see the point that the Director-General made. We could incur in depleting our Special Reserve Account in a matter of months if we adopt a rate much higher than this. So to be more honest my idea was to take into consideration the last 15 days with ups and downs but not over that: otherwise, as Dr Saouma said, we start with á terrible loss. So my suggestion has been made for one week, I could say for two weeks, or you could add a reference point, the starting day of the Conference. It is very clear. The starting day of the Conference was a Saturday.

CHAIRMAN: Distinguised delegates, I have put the resolution to vote and the delegates oí the United Kingdom have come up with an amendment, as he read it or stated it and the delegate from Italy has again proposed another adjusment to what the delegate of! the United Kingdom has proposed. I can consider the amendment presented by the United Kingdom as an amendment to the resolution and we can vote on that.

Ian BUIST (United Kingdom): I think it might be helpful to us since we now have two different suggestions, if there was an adjournment and if the staff could work out what the implications are. The fact is, of course, that rates go up as well as down; they can go down as well as up. It is slightly a matter of chance and I think we would be in a better position to know what the effects might be if we had those figures worked out. So I suggest we might adjourn and then come back when the calculations have been made.

DIRECTOR-GENERAL: I would have thought that the calculation would have been done so that we would know where we stand. Moreover there.is no text with the proposed amendment. There is one resolution before us. There is no other text, or paragraph which indicates what exactly we are going to vote on this afternoon. We will try certainly to find out but if you had done it yourself, you would have helped us.

POINT OF ORDER

POINT D'ORDRE

PUNTO DE ORDEN

Leopoldo ARIZA HIDALGO (Cuba): Perdóneme que la pida como moción de orden, pero la he estado pidiendo hace más de media hora en el punto anterior y no se me ha concedido, lamentablemente. Primeramente queríamos pedirle a Usted que tratara de controlar, para no tener los mismos efectos de la Comisión II. Se lo digo sinceramente. Sr. Presidente, Usted ha permitido que le falte el respeto al Director General un funcionario. Usted ahora me ha dado la moción de orden. Yo quiero expresar lo siguiente: creo que el Director General tiene razones para pedir que cuando se haga en Plenaria una proposición se traigan los elementos y los cálculos. Mientras no veamos una redacción clara de lo que se nos presenta, no podemos aceptar. No creo que podamos, tampoco, dar plazos aquí para empezar a hacer cálculos. Esto tiene su mecanismo, que lo ha cumplido. Los mismos que están plan­teando ahora poner en tela de juicio ese mecanismo, son los que están creando problemas ahora de dilación. Porque éste es un problema de ganar tiempo, de obstaculizar, Sr. Presidente. Dése cuenta de eso y maneje la situación. Porque se le va a ir de las manos la situación.

POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN

Humberto CARRION MCDONOUGH (Nicaragua): También he tratado de llamar su atención para que me concediera la palabra anteriormente. Queremos coincidir con la expresión de Cuba. Creemos sinceramente que aquí estamos tratando tácticas de carácter dilatorio para evitar votar sobre un proyecto de resolu­ción que tenemos ante nosotros. Anteriormente, en otra Conferencia nos sucedió como la que se nos presenta. Creemos que, sencillamente, no es posible ni práctico suspender una sesión como ésta para hacer cálculos que ni siquiera están en este momento planteados claramente. Independientemente de que podamos o nó realizar este tipo de cálculos, el resultado será muy parecido al que tenemos en el Proyecto de resolución en'relación con el tipo de cambio. Por lo tanto, yo le propongo a Usted como moción de orden, que pasemos directamente a cumplir con el procedimiento que hemos utilizado anteriormente en otras conferencias y someter este proyecto de resolución a votación.

POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN

Bashir El Mabrouk SAID (Libya) (original language Arabic): My point of order is in fact indent ici I to the one just raised by Nicaragua. So I am just supporting Nicaragua. This resolution is before us for voting. We know Commission I and Commission II are still going on and they have to meet this afternoon so you cannot adjourn now and come back this afternoon, so I recommend Nicaragua's resolution to you, it is a motion to proceed to the vote.

POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN

Carlos DI MOTTOLA BALESTRA (Costa Rica): Si, Sr. Presidente, para pedir la votación inmediata, siguiendo la costumbre de la FAO y no introduciendo novedades de procedimiento. Son tres días o más que estamos asistiendo a procedimientos obstruccionistas. Estamos un poco hartos. Tenemos mucha confianza. Así que Usted, termine con todo esto.

POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN

Chavaly S. SASTRY (India): I would like to submit the problem of exchange variations which has not been unknown to FAO. It h.as been discussed in detail in many Council meetings and also in the Commission II and also in the earlier Conferences. Secondly, for the last 45 years this Organization has been following a particular convention for voting on the budgetary programme. Thirdly, if the Delegate of the United Kingdom wanted a particular change of procedure to be introduced this year, it would have been more appropriate to have given an indication of this in the discussion that took place in Commission II so that the Secretariat could have got all the information ready, and if need be an alternative resolution read.y. Lastly, since there is no alternative resolution before us I would submit that we go ahead to vote on the resolution which is before us.

POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN

Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): La delegación de Colombia presenta la moción formal de cierre del debate. A la luz del reglamento esto quiere decir, primero, que usted, Sr. Presidente, puede conceder la palabra a dos delegaciones que quieran oponerse a esa moción y luego proceder a votar el proyecto de resolución.

POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN

Antonio GAYOSO (United States of America): I do not want to be accused of not speaking English well. This is a point of order for compromise and in the spirit of the Deputy Director-General who has intervened so effectively in the past, T would like to say that, first, T am surprised at the negative reaction that good ideas have in this forum all the time. Innovation, which is the stock of FAO is not the stock of members. I think that the British Delegation has proposed a good idea. I do not see it as an obstructionism of any kind, but in the spirit of the time we have, and maybe because I am partially hungry, I would like to suggest a compromise solution and that would be that the Secretariat uses the next several weeks to study this suggestion in depth and produces a short report to the next meeting of the Finance Committee to move this idea along and in the meantime we then proceed to the resolution of the budgetary appropriation.

DIRECTOR-GENERAL: I welcome very much this proposal but I want to say that the Secretariat must see what are the financial implications for the Member States since the proposal made by the United Kingdom, to take the average of six months, was not specific. We know that the dollar has been declining for the last six months, and we know that one month ago it was 1 330. This is why I want to see what are the financial implications. We welcome your proposal and we shall study this with the Finance Committee in the future.

CHAIRMAN: I think we have to move on voting this resolution but before we do that there is an amendment being presented by the Delegate of the United Kingdom and there are speakers who want to speak against that. Otherwise we will move on voting again on the amendment, unless the Delegate of the United Kingdom withdraws his amendment and we will vote on the resolution itself.

Ian BUIST (United Kingdom): Well, first let me say that I do not consider that it is necessary for my delegation to be able to tell you exactly what the average rates over the last six months were'. I certainly would expect that the Organization, with its large computer resources would be able t do that very, very quickly. However, I do not want, to press this point. It certainly would have been possible to go ahead in that way.

The second point is that my delegation has been accused of obstructionism; absolutely I reject that. That is untrue and it certainly was not my delegation which spent hours and hours arguing about whether we should have 'as', 'but' or 'by' in Commission II. Indeed, we abstained on the vote in that unintelligeable discussion. However, I do sense the feeling of the meeting that they would wish to proceed with the main resolution and I think therefore that in the intereses of going ahead we will withdraw our amendment as appealed to the United States on the basis that there is a reference of this subject, as the Director-General has indicated there will be, to the instances of the "Organization.

I wish at the same time, in case there is any doubt about this, formally to request a roll call vote on the main resolution.

Antoine SAINTRAINT (Belgique): Je partage les avis qui viennent d'être exprimés par le représentant des Etats-Unis mais je souhaiterais que," dans le cadre de l'examen, on étudie la possibilité de

l'apport d'un certain nombre de contributions en devises européennes. Comme vous le savez, un pourcentage relativement important de dépenses de la FAO sont effectuées en lires (40 pour cent au minimum du budget de l'Organisation).

Je crois qu'il serait donc utile d'examiner la possibilité, dans le cadre des relations entre les pays de la Communauté économique européenne, que les principaux contributeurs, qui représentent plus de 35 pour cent des contributions, puissent s'acquitter de leurs contributions soit en écus soit en monnaie européenne. Et je voudrais que ce point puisse être examiné à l'avenir.

CHAIRMAN: So we now call the vote.

LE SECRETAIRE GENERAL: Monsieur le Président, nous arrivons au vote de la résolution portant ouverture de crédits pour l'exercice 1988-89.

L'article XVlll, paragraphe 5 de l'Acte constitutif stipule que "les décisions relatives au montant du budget sont prises à la majorité des 2/3 des suffrages exprimés".

Selon l'article XII, paragraphe 7, alinéa a) du Règlement général, un vote par appel nominal a lieu si une majorité des deux tiers est requise en vertu de l'Acte constitutif.

L'article XII, paragraphe 3, alinéa c) du Règlement général stipule que,lorsqu'en vertu de l'Acte constitutif "une décision doit être prise par la Conférence à la majorité des deux tiers, le nombre total des suffrages exprimés, pour ou contre, doit être supérieur à la moitié du nombre des Etats Membres de l'Organisation". Il faut donc en l'occurrence que le nombre de voix pour et contre qui vont être émises soit d'au moins 80.

Le Secrétariat doit maintenant informer le Président du nombre de délégués présents dans la salle: il y en a au moins 114.

Selon l'article XII, paragraphe 7, alinéa a) du Règlement général, le vote par appel nominal se fait de la manière suivante: "Le vote par appel nominal se fait en appelant dans l'ordre alphabétique anglais les noms de tous les Etats Membres ayant le droit de prendre part au voté", en commençant par un Etat dont le nom est tiré au sort par le Président.

L'Etat qui a le privilège d'être le premier votant est le Luxembourg. Le vote va donc commencer par le Luxembourg. Je précise que le représentant de chaque Etat Membre, à l'appel de son nom, devra répondre par "oui", "non" ou "abstention". A l'issue du vote, il sera procédé à un nouvel appel de tous les Etats Membres dont les délégués ou représentants n'auraient pas répondu au premier appel. Le vote de chaque Etat Membre prenant part à un vote par appel nominal est consigné au procès-verbal.

Vote
Vote
Votación

Draft Report of Plenary, Part I and Part I-Sup.l as amended, were adopted
Le projet de rapport de la plénière, première partie et son supplément ainsi amendés sont approuvés
El proyecto de informe de la Plenaria, Parte I y su suplemento así enmendados son aprobados

CHAIRMAN: I now call on the distingulshed dológate of Mexico, for its explanation of voto.

Srta. Margarita LIZARRAGA SAUCEDO (México): La Delegación mexicana quiere dejar asentado en actas la aclaración sobre su voto de abstención ai presupuesto, toda vez que quiere se vea disociada de otras posiciones. Nuestro Gobierno le da la mayor importancia y confianza a nuestra Organización y a su Director General.y también apoya al Programa en todas y cada una do sus partes, como ya lo hemos señalado reiteradamente.

Desafortunadamente la coyuntura económica actual de nuestro país con la carga del servicio do la segunda deuda más grande, el deterioro de los precios de los productos de exportación en el contexto de un mercado lleno de barreras proteccionistas, el encrudecimiento del problema monetario, en el cual para nuestro país no ha sido suficiente la medida de un deslizamiento diario de nuestra moneda, sino que en el día de ayer ha tenido que sufrir una devaluación adicional de cerca del 40 por ciento, por lo cual se ha requerido tomar medidas de ahorro extremo, particularmente de divisas, razón por la cual no puede contraer compromisos adicionales.

Esta es la única razón de nuestra abstención; pero reiteramos la voluntad política de mi Gobierno de cumplir con sus obligaciones con nuestra Organización.

Augusto DE MÉDICIS (Brazil): The Brazilian delegation wishes to reiterate its wholehearted support for the principles guiding this Organization - its purpose and objectives. We have already also expressed our clear agreement with the Programme of Work. My delegation regrets nevertheless that it was not in a position to endorse the increase in the budget caused by exchange rate fluctuations as it will affect adversely and substantially the amount of our contribution, an amount that we will find extremely difficult to absorb due to the burden of our external debt, the deterioration in the export prices of our commodities in the world, the economic and financial crisis faced by the developing countries. The position of my delegation is consistent with the attitude taken by my Government regarding this issue i ri other multilateral fora. This position should in no way be misconstrued as an endorsement of the zero growth principles or any other negative or obstructionist policy which aim at debilitating our Organization.

Ms Anna-Lisa KORHONEN (Finland): I should like to make an explanation of vote after the vote on the election of the Resolution dealing with the budgetary appropriations for 1988-89 on behalf of the Nordic countries, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland. The Nordic countries would like to place on record their position on the proposed Programme of Work and Budget for 1988-89 as follows. We have voted in favour of the level of the proposed budget. Nevertheless we are most concerned about the uncertainty as regards the possibilities of being able to implement the proposed Programme of Work as a whole. A prerequisite for the budget to be implemented is that all Member Nations meet their financial obligations. Thus we strongly urge that all members of this Organization meet their obligations in a timely and orderly fashion.

We are also about the priority-setting in the programme, as explained in our statements in Commission II, the Nordic countries concur only with some programme priorities of the budget, and would therefore have liked to have a more thorough discussion on the issue of priority-setting in the Commission.

As regards the adoption of the Report in Commission II, our delegation would have liked to state once again our dissatisfaction with the procedure by which the Member States were prevented from exercising their democratic right to express their views on matters which were left open in the Drafting Committee.

Philippe PIOTET (France): J'avais en fait demandé la parole avant lo vote puisque mon pays avait été évoqué dans la déclaration de la Grande-Bretagne. Je n'ai pas insisté pour obtenir la parole car le délégué de la Belgique a tout à fait bien reflété la position de mon pays.

Wolfgang A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of) (original language German): The Federal Republic of Germany welcomes the setting of priorities for the new programme budget 1988-89, as was pointed out by Federal Minister Kiechle here in Plenary on 10 November. But my delegation has not been able to approve the budget, because it does not include in our opinion, the necessary provisions to cope with the financial emergency situation presently faced (by the Organization) and to be expected in the near future. We do hope, however, that these difficulties will be overcome soon.

Guillermo GONZALEZ (Argentina): La Delegación argentina votó favorablemente el Programa de Labores y Presupuesto para el bienio 1988-89 porque comparte y apoya plenamente sus objetivos programáticos y porque reconoce los esfuerzos realizados por el Director General para reducir los costos de apoyo administrativo sin afectar a los programas para el desarollo. Sin embargo, debe dejar constancia de sii preocupación por el impacto financiero en el monto del presupuesto sujeto a cuota del tipo de cambio lira-dólar que se ha establecido. No hay duda que el mismo responde a una realidad; pero su aplicación perjudica doblemente a los países en desarrollo cuyas monedas se han devaluado frente al dólar.

La Delegación argentina reitera que, a su juicio, las diferencias presupuestarias debidas a las fluctuaciónes de cambio deberían ser absorbidas principalmente por aquellos países que se han beneficiado en esta situación. En este sentido estima que el Comité de Finanzas debe estudiar otras alternativas que tiendan a una distribución más equitativa de dichas cargas.

Leo HERTOG (Netherlands): The Netherlands has voted in favour of the Resolution on the budgetary appropriations 1988-89. We wish to explain the reasons which led to this decision. As far as the level of the budget is concerned we would have preferred real zero growth - 0.0 percent - in conformity with our adherence to the principle of zero growth throughout the United Nations System. -However, we accept the 0.25 percent for the following reason: namely, a priority area in Dutch development assistance policy is rural development in which we still consider that FAO has to play a leading role.

On the programme itself, I would remark that the voting on the budget precedes the final discussion on agenda item 12 entitled "Consideration of Review of Certain Aspects of FAO's Goals and Operations, including the Need for Reform in the Programme Budget Process". My country is looking forward with the utmost interest to the outcome of this discussion since, as the Dutch Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries said in his statement to the Conference, the Dutch Government feels that, and I quote: "If FAO is to perform its important task effectively essential reform will be imperative." I should like also to refer to what the Director-General said in a Statement to the Conference on this subject. We all know that today the whole United Nations system is in the process of reorientation. FAO being the largest of the Specialized United Nations Agencies, should not play a passive role in this process, but rather a leading role. Furthermore, speaking about the role of the FAO, we for our part cannot imagine FAO not playing a more protaganistic part as policy adviser, especially in view of the important, ongoing and future structural programmes and the effects of trade liberalization. Therefore, we think that FAO will need an appropriate ranking of., priorities in its Programme of Work to effect, in balance with the available resources, the reorientation advocated. On the assumption that our views will soon be shared by the Organization, we decided to vote in favour of the budget and the programme for 1988-89.

Sumiji NAKAZAWA (Japan): On behalf of my delegation, I should like to make a brief statement regarding the position which Japan has taken on the resolution of the budget. The delegation of Japan has repeatedly expressed its view that the appropriate amount of Members' contributions should be kept at such a level as to avoid any possibility of causing an increase in the arrears, which might put the financial situation of the Organization in the next biennium in difficulty.

While appreciating the efforts made by the Secretariat in reducing the budget level, my delegation cannot but express its concern that at the increase of the total Member Nations' contributions could not be more modest. This is why my delegation has taken a position of abstention in regard to the Resolution. This was indeed a difficult one for my country to reach because the budget level of the next biennium cannot be discussed without considering the impact made by the introduction of the short-term or medium-term financial measures now under consideration by Commission III.

Lastly, I should like to underline the fact that our abstention does not in any way indicate less support on behalf of my Government for FAO. In fact, my Government has been one of the strongest supporters of this Organization, recognizing its key role in the field of food and agriculture in the world.

G. MUSGROVE (Canada): Our country voted against this particular budget and we should like to offer an explanation of that vote. While we have noted the Secretariat's effort in presenting the budget to keep the budget level modest in light of the financial burden it will place on Member States, we nevertheless feel that the budget is somewhat high and represents a sharp increase in assessments for many countries in terms of local currencies, including our own.

We were also disappointed in this proposal that the Programme of Work and Budget did not provide clear instructions from the Organization's Governing Bodies to the Secretariat for priority setting among substantive programmes. "

Finally, we do not feel that the proposal in front of us includes an appropriate contingency plan, nor adequate provision for member input into realigning programme priorities m the possible event or a shortfall in financial resources during the forthcoming biennium. All three of these points have been addressed repeatedly by our delegation over the last 18 months as this Programme of Work and Budget was being formed and developed. We still find the proposal wanting in those particular areas.

We would wish to note, while we have the floor, that countries whose contributions account for 36 percent of the budget have voted against this particular Resolution. Indeed, if we were to consider adding those countries who have abstained, 62 percent of contributors have cast some doubt on the Programme of Work and Budget for our forthcoming biennium. We would not wish this fact to go unnoticed in our future consultations, and particularly in respect of our deliberations and proposals for review and reform within our Organization.

Daniel Gerald NUTTER (Australia): The Australian Government has had to oppose the budget as presented in Council and in Finance Committee. We have consistently made clear our opposition to a budget which fails to take realistic account of income receipts and which fails to contain growth in a responsible manner by clearly identifying programme priorities to enable the rational containment of costs through responsible programme cuts and further streamlining of administrative procedures. Many Member Nations are facing such problems of adjustment and we cannot see why our Organization should ignore them. The Australian Government had hoped that the Organization would see fit to impose a degree of restraint and discipline on this budget for the next biennium that took account of the international economic environment on which multilateral organizations now operate and which is adversely affecting most Member Nations.

Hans POPP (Suisse): La delegation suisse a voté "oui" car nous approuvons le niveau du budget; en effet, la politique de mon pays a toujours été de renforcer cette organisation dans sa noble tache. Nous nous associons à l'explication de vote donnée pour les pays nordiques par la voix de la Finlande.

Nous faisons certai-nes réserves sur le Programme de travail. Je ne répéterai pas ici toutes nos suggestions et propositions à ce sujet et d'ailleurs vous pourrez vous référer aux procès-verbaux, à nos interventions au Conseil et dans la Commission II.

En résumé, nous pensons surtout que la FAO devrait renforcer son rôle et son influence dans le domaine d'une politique agricole efficace pour améliorer la sécurité alimentaire, selon le concept élargi, dans les pays les plus critiquomont touchés.

Nous suivons avec attention les efforts faits pour la réalisation des réformes que le Directeur général nous a promises, et nous l'assurons de notre soutien et de notre collaboration dans la poursuite de ces tâches.

Ian BÜIST (United Kingdom): The United Kingdom has voted against this Resolution because we do not consider that it provides an appropriate solution to the very serious problems which unfortunately face this Organisât ion. Our views were explained in detail in Commission 11 and I will not rehearse them at length here. I will only say that priorities are not properly articulated and ranked, which is an even more urgent necessity in the present financial circumstances, that transparency is lacking, particularly on cash spending and that the budget level is too high, particularly when viewed against the actual programme of US$ 412 million in the current biennium. The severe difficulties encountered by many member countries in meeting their obligations under the current programme illustrate the dangers for the Organization of adding to their burdens to the extent established by this Resolution.

Roberto PONCE (Ecuador): Mi delegación desea dejar en claro que el Ecuador apoya el Programa de Labores de la Organización y reconoce el mérito de sus acciones. La abstención que ha debido hacer en esta votación no debe de interpretarse como una cuestión de respaldo o no a la gestión de la Organización, sino que debe entenderse exclusivamente motivada por la crítica situación económica por la que atraviesa mi país que, no obstante este hecho, hará un esfuerzo para cumplir con las obligaciones financieras asumidas. No deseamos, de ninguna manera que se nos identifique con otros países que, a través de su voto negativo a esta resolución, expresan críticas a la FAO.

Pensamos que al igual que lo manifestado por la delegación argentina, deben buscarse otras fórmulas para solucionar los problemas financieros de la Organización. Nosotros nos sentimos coautores de esa propuesta por el hecho de ser latinoamericanos.

Atif Y. BUKHARI (Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of) (original language Arabic): The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia voted in favour of the Resolution and the budget level for. the next biennium. We also approved the priorities set out in it. This is because of our complete and full conviction and our entire satisfaction with the pioneering and important role being undertaken by this Organization especially in certain developing countries, and in recognition of the immense responsibilities being shouldered by this Organization in seeking to meet the needs and requirements of member countries. We voted in favour of the budget because we are also convinced and confident about the excellent and wise manner in which this Organization is being administered and run. This has proved to us and to everyone else that it is being run properly and appropriately. We supported the budget level, though our contributions under this budget have increased from 1.04 percent to 1.6 percent of the overall budget level. This unfortunately does situate us at the level of many developed countries. This does not reflect at all the reality. We had requested that the United Nation's scale of assessments be reviewed. We wish to affirm to one and all that the management of this Organization, the responsibilities shouldered by this Organization, are a reflection of the entire responsibility assumed towards developing countries, and which we fully support.

Mourad BENCHEIKH (Algérie): Je vous remercie,Monsieur le Président, car la salle est ainsi faite que je suis situé à votre gauche et que j'échappe à votre regard; j'espère qu'il n'y a là aucune interprétation à donner autre que l'absence de votre regard.

En votant en faveur du budget malgré les difficultés économiques qu'elle traverse en raison d'une chute sévère de ses recettes d'exportation, l'Algérie a voulu donner une expression concrète à son attachement à la coopération multilatérale, ainsi que son appui sans réserve aux efforts entrepris par notre Organisation pour faire face aux graves défis de cette fin de siècle et qui sont l'eradication de la faim dans le monde et la pleine réalisation de la sécurité alimentaire mondiale.

Ce faisant, l'Algérie lance un appel à tous les pays qui ne Pont pas fait pour qu'ils règlent au plus tôt leurs arriérés et se conforment sans retard aux dispositions de la résolution qui vient d'être votée.

Adel Helray EL-SARKI (Egypt) (original language Arabie): Egypt voted in favour of the resolution and the budget on the basis of our support and believes in the purposes of this Organization, and out of faith in international cooperation we urge all member countries to pay up their contributions and to seek to support multilateral cooperation.

Amador VELAZQUEZ GARCIA-MONTERROSO (Perú): Voy a ser lo más rápido posible y, para permitir que el delegado de Italia pueda ser el último como es su deseo. Solamente,el Perú desea adherirse en todo el contenido y al alcance de la explicación de voto positivo que hahecho la hermana Delegación de Argentina.

Elio PASCARELLI (Italy): Thank you, Mr Chairman, for recognizing "do facts" that it is the privilege of the host country to be the last speaker. I will not speak for long. I have no prepared text, but I think it is the duty of the representative of the host government to finish the debate on a rosy note, not a gloomy one. Of course we voted for the budget, but this is not all.

I think among the privileges that I should enjoy is to have all the distinguished collaborators from the booths to know Italian, and I want to quote what my Prime Minister said right here a month ago, if I have the permission of the interpreters. He said: "Nel rinnovare il sentimento di particolare apprezzamento per il ruolo che la FAO svolge, desidero ribadire che noi non le faremo mancare la nostra convinta collaborazione ed il nostro attivo sostegno." Because of that Italy will go beyond the pure approval of PWB and prompt payment of the contributions that como out of the budget that a large majority of this Conference approved, I would say the overwhelming majority. We do more than that. I would just recall what the delegate of Argentina said that the donor countries should at least give in addition what they save by the play of the exchange rates. We have been in the list at an 8 percent advantage. Believe me, FAO will receive from Italy more than 8 percent, not through the ' channel of contribution but through other channels.

It is throe o'clock and I don't want to sound like a demagogue, but I would like to say that I think it is our duty to support this Organization to overcome the difficult timos ahead.

There is a point in the agenda of Commission III at which very modestly I will announce later on , to whoever is interested, what Italy has in mind. But there is no limit to our efforts to keep FAO afloat during the two coming years, because we do foresee very hard moments. I did not put any condition, but it was quite implicit when I approved the Report of Commission II that I wanted to mention a resolution put forward by the Italian delegation.

This is a note of prudence, so that-we are not termed as unrealistic. We want to have the continuous presence of governing bodies in full power to decide what the Director-General will be forced at a certain moment to propose. We do not want to say "the Conference is not on, lot us wait for two years;" because I do not envy him in this very difficult task of "cutting". We hate cutting, and, believe me, we will do our best not to cut anything, especially in the most precious programmes of this Organization.

CHAIRMAN: Thank you, distinguished delegate of Italy, for the spirit that you have shown over this institution.

LE DIRECTEUR GENERAL: Monsieur le Président, je serai bref mais je ne voudrais pas laisser passer cette occasion du vote du budget sans dire quelques mots.

J'accueille en effet avec satisfaction le vote massif du Programme de travail et Budget qui vient d'avoir lieu. Ce budget reflète en réalité les conditions économiques et financières que nous vivons, et les circonstances politiques qui prévalent aujourd'hui dans l'ensemble de la famille des Nations Unies.

En tout état de cause, il est le résultat non d'une imposition mais d'un long processus de consultation au cours duquel les Etats Membres ont eu l'occasion de s'exprimer. Leur avis m'a d'ailleurs amené à apporter divers ajustements à mes propositions initiales.

Le vote que vous venez d'émettre nous encourage à poursuivre nos efforts et nous nous efforçons de faire toujours davantage, môme si c'est en réalité avec moins de ressources.

Je tiens en tout cas à ajouter ceci.

Je comprends les délégations qui auraient aimé une expansion plus vigoureuse de nos programmes plutôt qu'un budget en croissance symbolique et, en pratique, négative.

Je le dis à ceux qui ont parié de la croissance zéro; ce budget est en croissance négative du fait d'une budgétisation volontairement sous-évaluée des coûts. Je suis cependant satisfait que ce Programme de travail et Budget continuera à bénéficier aux pays les plus pauvres par les avis et les aides très variées que la FAO est à même de leur fournir. Cette assistance a un effet catalytique qui ne peut se mesurer en termes quantitatifs. Son effet multiplicateur et d'entraînement est d'ailleurs reconnu de tous.

D'autre part, je respecte tout autant la position des délégations qui n'ont pas pu se rallier à ce budget. J'ai pris note de leur point de vue, et je sais d'ailleurs que je peux compter sur la collaboration de tous les Etats Membres; et je voudrais redire à cette occasion que je reste ouvert à la discussion et au ialogue avec toutes les délégations.

Evidemment,le budget voté, la crise de trésorerie demeure. Et si nous devions adopter la proposition faite tout à l'heure par un délégué dans le but de fixer le taux du dollar sur la base de la moyenne des taux des six derniers mois, nous l'aurions fixé á 1317 (nous sommes rapides avec nos ordinateurs "made in USA") alors que le taux fixé est de 1234. Nous aurions perdu d'ores et déjà quelque 7 millions de dollars.

Je voudrais donc faire appel à tous les Etats Membres pour qu'ils versent leur contribution dans les meilleurs délais, et en particulier aux pays dont la monnaie s'est appréciée par rapport au dollar -et ils sont nombreux - pour qu'ils le fassent dès que possible au début de 1988... peut-être qu'ils auraient à y gagner parce que le dollar pourrait remonter après... Je leur lance cet appel comme les textes de base de l'Organisation en font d'ailleurs une obligation à tous.

Je voudrais remercier sincèrement les pays qui ont accepté de différer le recouvrement de leur part de l'excédent de trésorerie ou d'y renoncer. Je remercie également les pays qui viennent de prendre des dispositions pour le versement de leurs arriérés; le Brésil nous a versé 3 300 000 dollars il y a à peine quelques jours. Je remercie également les pays qui ont annoncé leur intention de fournir des contributions spéciales pour aider l'Organisation, et je pense plus spécialement au Gouvernement italien.

Je remercie aus-si le Japon qui a bien voulu également avancer le paiement de sa contribution de 1988 pour un montant de près de 3 millions de dollars.

Je fais également appel à tous ceux qui ont accumulé des arriérés pour qu'ils s'en acquittent dans les plus brefs délais.

L'action de la FAO est vitale; elle ne peut pas reculer; le nombre de personnes dans les pays en voie de développement qui naissent chaque année est de près de 80 millions, et en six ans, la croissance budgétaire a diminué et n'a pas augmenté mais bien évidemment nous sommes tributaires des circonstances économiques et politiques; par conséquent,je considère le budget que je vous ai présenté comme un budget minimum. Je m'efforcerai de gérer nos ressources avec le maximum de prévoyance et de parcimonie; ne l'ai-je pas démontré quand j'ai distribué 45 millions de dollars qui étaient le surplus du budget 1982/83, et 35 millions de dollars de surplus de ressources non dépensées et accumulées à cause des intérêts des autres ressources provenant du budget 1984/35?

En 1986-87, nous finissons malheureusement avec un déficit, mais j'espère que la situation s'améliorera par la suite.

Je promets donc à tous les Etats Membres de gérer les fonds avec parcimonie, de m'efforcer à assurer un recouvrement aussi rapide que possible des contributions, et de maximiser nos ressources accessoires.

Mais vous savez que la FAO n'a pas prise sur tous les facteurs, que ce soit l'évolution du taux du dollar ou le processus législatif de notre principal pays contributeur.

Si des ajustements de programme se révélaient nécessaires - ce qui dépend de Etats Membres, et ce qui dépendra de l'administration - je ne manquerai pas de consulter à ce sujet le Comité du programme et le Corniti? financier, et de saisir le Conseil de la FAO. Le Conseil de la FAO peut se réunir à la date prévue en novembre 88 ou avant, ou même tenir une session supplémentaire. Il n'y aura donc pas de vide législatif.

Pour terminer, je voudrais remercier les Etats-Membres pour le vote qu'ils viennent d'émettre et les assurer que le Secrétariat mettra tout en oeuvre pour valoriser au maximum les ressources ainsi allouées dans l'intérêt de tous les Etats Membres de l'Organisation, et en particulier des pays qui ont le plus besoin de ses services.

CHAIRMAN: We conclude our meeting this morning.

The meeting rose at 15.00 hours
La séance est levée à 15 heures
Se levanta la sesión a las 15.00 horas