James AITKEN (United Kingdom): We would oppose this proposal and seek to take the Report through either paragraph by paragraph or chapter by chapter. The reason for our opposition is that we consider that there are serious omissions in the Draft as it now stands. We also believe from reading the Draft that it is in fact unfinished. We are also very concerned at the situation we find ourselves in where we had a very unproductive discussion yesterday afternoon and we now find ourselves being brought under pressure to agree to something as a result of this. We consider that this is a very dangerous principle to sanction.
As far as the substance is concerned, we are very concerned there is no mention in the Report of the subsidy of US $11.5 million from the Regular Programme towards the delivery costs of the Trust Funds in a situation where the Organization must look for all the income it can. We are also concerned that there is no mention that countries considered it was unrealistic to propose an increase in the level of the budget when so many countries are in arrears and also there is no mention that many of the countries who indicated, they were in favour of the budget are in arrears. We also think that the treatment of the question of field representation has not been satisfactory and fails both to deal with the outright opposition of many countries to an increase of this but also fails to take up the point made in other documents.
Finally, we are very unhappy with the paragraph as it stands on Trust Funds. As I said, we oppose this motion and we would like to call for a roll call vote on it. If is passed we do reserve our right to add footnotes to the Report giving the United Kingdom's comments on it and to return to these issues when the Report of this Commission is considered in Plenary.
CHAIRMAN: If wecan, the Chair will assure wo will come back to your points. Wehave a couple of other member countries which have sought recognition, we will come back to it. There is on the record a request for a roll call vote. The Rules provide that when one country calls for a roll call vote there must be a roll call vote.
Antoine SAINTRAINT (Belgique): En tant quo membre du Bureau,voudrais faire un appel pressant à tous les délégués; un maximum de bonne volonté et d'esprit de conciliation régnent dans l'enceinte de la Commission II.
Les différents groupes géographiques se sont réunis pour trouver une formule qui est peut-être de compromis, mais qui permettait d'accélérer les travaux, de poursuivre des discussions; et des contacts particulièrement importants ont été pris sur des sujets importants.
Je viens d'écouter avec beaucoup d'attention le représentant du Royaume-Uni; et je me permets de faire un appel pressant à nos collègues britanniques pour leur demander s'ils ne donneraient pas leur accord à une formule d'adoption en bloc avec, éventuellement, le dépôt d'une note explicative concernant leur position; cela permettrait de mener nos travaux à bonne fin ce matin et à la Commission IIde poursuivre ses activités. Est-ce que nos amis britanniques ne pourraient pas, en annexe du rapport, déposer une note reflétant le point de vue de leur pays? En effet, i 1 y a un large consensus, en tous cas du groupe Europe pour une adoption en bloc du rapport.
Tous les rapports, vous le savez mieux que personne, Monsieur le Président, sont imparfaits; on peut en discuter à l'infini. Nous avons eu une discussion; il nous faut accélérer le rythme de nos travaux dans le cadre de cette Conférence et je fais un appel pressant pour qu'il y ait une véritable volonté de conciliation permettant de réunir les différents points de vue.
Et si un seul pays ne marque pas son accord, peut-être pourrait-il accepter la formule d'une note additionnelle au rapport.
Carlos DI MOTTOI-Á BALESTRA (Costa Rica): Sr. Presidente, en nombre del Grupo Latinoamericano apoyo la propuesta del Secretario General, con el entendimiento de que antes de pasar a la votaci termine el examen del párrafo 3, que ayer dejó suspendido. Al terminarse esto, pienso que se podría proceder a una votación sobre lo que queda del Informe, en bloque.
Las delegaciones que tienen reservas, como es de costumbr en la FAO podrían presentar estas reservas sin ninguna discusión o debate al respecto, después de la votación.
Hago un llamado para que esta propuesta sea aceptada, porque eso nos ayudaría a proceder más brevemente en nuestro trabajo. El tiempo ya está bastante avanzado.
CHAIRMAN: We will try to complete the list of speakers who requested attention, before coming back for clarification. Costa Rica, for your thought in the meantime, as we come back to you, the motion put was different from how you stated it and we will have to come back and ask you to give some thought as to whether -you are putting an amendment to the motion as put.
Philippe PIOTET (France): La France a participé avec d'autres pays aux travaux du Comité de Rédaction. Nous avons beaucoup travaillé sur ce rapport, qui, bien sûr, n'est pas parfait; mais nous avons le sentiment qu'il représente l'équilibre que l'on pouvait souhaiter entre les points de vue des différents pays.
Ainsi donc, je m'associe à l'appel lancé par mon collègue l'Ambassadeur de Belgique pour que ce rapport soit adopté en bloc; il constitue un ensemble, et d'autres paragraphes que le paragraphe 3 - je pense au paragraphe 22 - contiennent des dispositions qui apportent un équilibre entre les positions des différents pays.
Si on considero ce rapport dans son ensemble, et compte tenu du travail du Comité de rédaction, il me semble qu'il pourrait être accepté en l'état.
Horacio CARANDANG (Philippines): As Chairman of the Asia Group I would indicate that the Asia Group agrees to adopt the Report en bloc. As you indicated before we broke up this morning, there had been regional consul tat ions, and Iwas wondering whether a roll call would be necessary if the Regional Chairmen would indicate to you that there is indeed agreement to adopt the Report en bloc. That does not prevent you, however, from accepting the reservations of the few countries that would not be in full agreement.
CHAIRMAN: Since you put a question to the Chair I will answer it at this time. If there was that kind of consensus that could be done but the Rules provide that if a member requests a roll call vote it must be granted. It is not within the power of the Chair to decide times in which it agrees or disagrees with a request from a member country for a roll call vote. That is the right of every sovereign country in this body. The Chair cannot in any way overturn that or modify it.
George Henry MUSCROVE (Canada): As a member of the Drafting Committee are loathe to intervene in the debate on this particular Draft and do have sympathy for the proposal that has been put that it be adopted en bloc. Our country participated in the Drafting Group and can agree with the observations that were made by our colleague from France, that there was a full discussion, in a large part the Report reflects accurately that discussion. However, some members may not be aware, members of the Commission here, that in fact this Draft was not completed in the Drafting Committee and I do not wish to pre-empt any explanation that might be given by the Chairman of the Drafting Committee but I would draw attention to members that at least with respect to paragraph 8, paragraphs 41, 42 and 43, there was not time to complete the Committee's deliberations on those paragraphs and it was agreed that they in fact would be completed, consideration of those paragraphs would be completed in the Commission itself. That being the case we do not have a complete Draft in front of us that has been given full treatment by the Drafting Committee but there are some incomplete portions that have not been given full complete consideration. Having said that, as so often happens in a Draft, there are obviously omissions. Even when one participates in a Drafting Committee it is not possible to get everything that one would wish into the draft but with respect to those paragraphs, they need special treatment, apart from en bloc adoptions.
Ton A.J.M. OOMEN (Netherlands): The Netherlands was also a Member of the Drafting Committee and to our reconciliation the Chairman of the Drafting Group concluded at the end of the drafting session to continue discussions on these paragraphs which have not been discussed completely, so we support the opinion of the Canadian delegate just expressed to the extent that the paragraphs which should be completed will be discussed before the Report can be adopted.
V.K. SIBAL (India): We are exploring the art of the possible. We lost a lot of time yesterday and some of it perhaps could have been saved. We are totally in sympathy to adopt this en bloc. It is not a perfect Report and I am sure that if the debate were thrown open a lot of countries would have a lot of things to say but still, the Drafting Committee has worked hard on it and they have balanced it and we would like to respect their judgement. While saying so we would like to say in paragraph 8 there is a square bracket and possibly there is a need for this to be taken separately also.
S. RAJASEKAR (New Zealand): As a member of the General Committee and having discussed the proposals at hand within the Region our preference would be to see the Draft Report discussed on a chapter by chapter basis to resolve any particular differences. But if there is a general consensus for adoption of the Report en bloc our region would be prepared to go along with that consensus.
Bashir EL Mabrouk SAID (Libya) (original language Arabic): Despite the fact that we have some difficulty in accepting some of the paragraphs in the Draft Report the members of the Near East Region whom I have the honour of representing, after having consulted among themselves and in a spirit of constructive cooperation have decided to accept the proposal put before the Committee, namely to accept the Report en bloc.
Harald HØSTMARK (Norway): Norway was a member of the drafting group and therefore will stand behind the text that the drafting group which have already been mentioned. In addition, there is another sentence. I stand behind the text of the drafting group. I also think that delegations who have substantive comments to make should have the chance to have those discussed. At the same time I am very conscious of the need to speed up the adoption of the report. Therefore, as we have to consider those paragraphs anyway I do not see how we can adopt en bloc paragraphs that have not been discussed. Therefore, could we not adopt the rest of the report en bloc excluding the paragraphs that were not discussed, that were in square brackets or those to which any delegation has indicated there should be substantive amendment? Listening to the distinguished representative from the United Kingdom it did not seem to me that his proposals concern too many paragraphs. I think it would be only a small number of paragraphs which would be left for adoption en bloc and we could still have a fairly good chance of getting the report passed through today.
Vaclav DOBES (Czcchoslavakia): My delegation fully shares the view, and supports the proposal of the distinguished delegate from Costa Rica because the last sentence in paragraph 3 is absolutely unacceptable to my country.
Antonio GAYOSO (United States of America): As a member of the General Committee I support the general proposition for adopting the programme en bloc. I said at the meeting I was concerned about paragraphs that had not been discussed before, and the substantive concerns that were expressed by my delegation and. others. I share completely the thoughts presented by the delegate of Norway as a means of getting put of this dilemma. Perhaps as a compromise, as there is no consensus of appro-val en bloc, we could approve those paragraphs and chapters with which there are no substantive problems and then proceed to deal rapidly with those to which there are significant additions or suggestions.
Antonio R. PIRES (Cap-Vert): Le Cap-Vert a assisté ce matin à la réunion du Bureau et a ensuite consulté le groupe africain. Nous nous rallions à la proposition faite par l'Ambassadeur du Costa Rica.
CHAIRMAN: That is the end of the list of countries which have indicated a preference to speak. In a spirit of trying to get things moving the Chair would like to exercise its prerogative under the rules which includes occasionally suggesting a possible compromise. It would observe that in the discussions some countries have mentioned the report is not complete. The Chair would suggest that maybe what we could do to get out of this situation would be to have the motion to adopt en bloc all paragraphs except for the four which have not been completed. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that they are paras. 8, 41, 42 and 43. We are literally four minutes past our deadline today,
we have a few minutes more to go, not too many. The Chair would suggest in the interest of recovering lost ground and achieving some results, that we adopt the report in toto as it was agreed to by the Drafting Committee. That would mean it would be the adoption of all paragraphs except paragraphs 8, 41, 42 and 43. The Chair would further suggest that there would be an understanding as part of that resolution that any country which wishes to express its views on any other paragraph would be able to have its remarks delivered and included in the verbatim records. The Chairman of the Drafting Committee would like to make a comment at this point.
Joseph TCIIICAYA (Président, Comité de rédaction): Je voudrais apporter un rectificatif à ce que vous venez de dire - et en cela vous n'êtes pas fautif s'il s'agit de ce qu'ont dit certains Membres du Comité de Rédaction.
Pour être clair, au sujet du paragraphe 8, seule la dernière phrase est concernée, et il s'agit de savoir si on la laisse ou si on la met ailleurs. Je crois que c'était le seul problème concernant le paragraphe 8.
Ensuite, les paragraphes qui n'ont pas été examinés par le Comité de Rédaction sont les paragraphes 41 et 43. Le paragraphe 42 a été adopté.
En tant que Président du Comité de Rédaction, je pensais pour ma part que compte tenu des débats d'hier, nous avions déjà commencé par mettre aux voix une partie de ce qui a constitué le conflit d'hier. Et je croyais qu'il était entendu qu'on devait également mettre la dernière phrase aux voix et dire si on était pour ou contre le maintien de cette phrase.
Je pense pour ce qui me concerne qu'il convient d'apporter un règlement définitif au paragraphe 3, notamment pour sa dernière phrase, et de faire des observations au niveau des paragraphes 41 et 43 s'il y en a.
Je crois qu'il convient effectivement de laisser les gens s'exprimer; et j'avais même autorisé les Membres du Comité de Rédaction à pouvoir intervenir pour ce qui concerne les paragraphes 41 et 43.
CHAIRMAN: The Chair would respond by trying to make this situation more flexible and smooth matters along. I mentioned the paragraphs as I wrote them down when one Member Country named them. When I phrased that I suggested that we amend it so that we could adopt the work of the Drafting Committe as it was completed - you are correct with regard to paragraph 8, it was exactly as you said it, all was completed but one sentence. Let me make it clear that the Chair was proposing that we adopt entirely what the Drafting Committee had agreed to and that those areas which the Drafting Committee did not agree to, or had not finished its work on, we would continue to take up. It would mean exactly as you stated it on paragraph 8. The Chair would caution that the General Committee in its meeting this morning did not recommend what you have just said. You were not there so you would not be aware of that. What was put before the body as their suggestion was to adopt en bloc not to go back and resurrect some of yesterday's discussions and proceed on them. The Chair would say that that could well lead to a situation which will be right back to where we were yesterday, which is what we are trying to avoid.
Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Sr. Presidente, sin duda el distinguido Embajador de Argelia tuvo razón cuando hizo alguna referencia a la situación difícil en que se puede encontrar no sólo usted, sino cualquier presidente cuando uno debe ser juez y parte. Por eso nos extraña que usted haya propuesto incluir entre los párrafos que van a adoptarse en bloque, el párrafo 3 después de que dos representantes de regiones más Checoslovaquia han dicho que ese párrafo 3 no debe ser incluido en la adopción en bloque.
No queremos prolongar la discusión, pero recordamos que usted ayer había dicho que los vicepresidentes estaban ausentes. De manera muy gentil y atenta me permito informarle que en el sitio de Libia está uno de los vicepresidentes, el Embajador Bashir Said. Usted ha hablado mucho, debe estar cansado, ha trabajado intensamente, podríamos desearle felices navidades y volverle a ver a principios de 1988.
CHAIRMAN: The Chair is glad that the representative of Colombia is feeling better today, and assures him that the Chair always feels good and up to it. Î appreciate your "Merry Christinas" and hope, that you do not repeat it here while we are still working at Christmas. The Chair was trying to point out that the Chair came from a meeting in which a number of member Countries participated and we have a report of that General Committee. The decision taken there was that the General Committee should recommend that this draft report be reported en bloc by the Commission without further delay. You are right that the Chair yesterday stated some personal disagreement with the phrasing of that, I am trying to follow what the General Committee has recommended in suggesting a way which would address the concerns of those countries which seem to agree with all of it except the parts which have not been agreed to.
Sra. Monica DEREGIBUS (Argentina): Sr. Presidente, la delegación de Argentina cree que la situación en este momento es muy clara. Tenemos una propuesta del Comité General que fue leída por el Sr. Savary y que fue contest aria por el Reino Unido. Tenemos una enmienda a dicha propuesta efectuada por el Embajador de Costa Rica y que fue apoyada por el Embajador de Cabo Verde y por el Representante de Checoslovaquia. Esta es la situación. Yo creo que debemos analizar las propuestas en el orden en que fueron planteadas y salir de estqdebate que no nos va a hevar a ningún lado.
CHAIRMAN: The Chair agrees with you, but the Chair made clear we would come back to that, and if you were listening you would have heard the Chair state to the representative of Costa Rica that the Chair interpreted it precisely as you have just stated it, that that would be a motion. It then indicated we would try to proceed so we could give everybody the opportunity to speak on this issue which concerns us ail, and then come back to an orderly resolution of it which, you are correct, will include voting on the amendments first - if there was a demand for a vote on them.
Rainer PRESTIEN (Germany, Federal Republic of) (orginal language German): In regard to the adoption of this report onthe Programme of Work and Budget - I do not want to prolong the discussion - I agree that we should adopt the proposal which was suggested by the General Committee of the Conference. However, in Report Iof Commission II we notice at paragraph 37 there is a representation of facts which is out of place in any report on item 13. It is the second sentence which refers to the consolidation of the food security activities as undertaken by the Secretariat of the FAO.
It is surely under item 14 that we mentioned this, and not under item 13 which is the subject of this Report and therefore we would prefer the second sentence of paragraph 37 be struck out of this Report because it is out of place.
James AITKEN (United Kingdom): We would like to help you and the Secretariat here in the difficulties that we seem to be in. As is often the case we were particularly struck by the sound common sense which we heard coining from the distinguished delegate of Norway and also we could understand why Costa Rica and Czechoslovakia had some difficulties with a particular part of the text. We do not have these difficulties but we would be the first country to stand up for their right to see an amendment. In these circumstances, as I understand it we have a motion before us which has been
amended - an amendment proposed by Costa Rica - to the effect that paragraph 3 should be discussed and then the Report taken en bloc. Following the Norwegian suggestion and listening to our German colleagues I would like to suggest that we amend this to make it paragraphs 3, 8, new paragraph 24 bis, 26, 28, 37, 42 and 43. This would certainly take account of our problems and I hope it will speed the discussion.
CHAIRMAN: We have the United Kingdom which has exercised its right to rephrase its own amendment. Let us state for the purpose of clarity that the unfolding of the debate is!s was represented a couple of moments ago by Argentina, there was a motionon that, but further than that there was also aneed for clarification on the points made by Canada, joined in by the Netherlands as to whether that was a motion to exclude those enumerated paragraphs or not. In addition to that, we just had a view expressed by the Federal Republic of Germany on something that it would prefer to be able to discuss here. We then had the United Kingdom alter its motion to provide that it include all of those paragraphs. We now finda difficult parliamentary item in that the motion advanced by Costa Rica has been concurred in by the United Kingdom so they have accepted your alteration of their motion. The United Kingdom has accepted and has incorporated
James AITKENited Kingdom): Could I perhaps make my proposals clearer for the benefit of the meeting? What the United Kingdom proposed was a modification to the proposal made by Costa Rica. If you recall, Costa Rica proposed that there should be an amendment which would permit discussion of paragraph 3. We proposed an amendment which would permit discussion of other paragraphs which I named
CHAIRMAN: That is clear. We have an amendment. We have a resolution. We have an amendment and we have an amendment to the amendment. It is perfectly normal and in the order of business the rules provide that you must vote in what is reverse order. You must vote first on the amendment to the amendment. The first vote - if we had a vote - would be on the amendment to the Costa Rican amendment. Then you could have possibly - you may or may not have - a vote on the Costa Rican amendment.
José Ramón LOPEZ-RTTLLO ROMANO (México): Moción de orden en el siguiente sentido: que someta a votación propuesta por Costa Rica y que para hacerlo se asista uted del Asesor Legal.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your suggestion Mexico, but the facts are that you have an amendment to an amendment and you must vote in that order. Those are the rules. I cannot change that.
Bashir El Mabrouk SAID (Libya) (original language Arabic): I support the proposal raised by the Mexican delegation: I think we should vote first on the Costa Rican motion.
CHAIRMAN: The Chair has had two suggestions - those are not points of order, those are suggestions - and the suggestions are that the Chair not follow the Chair now is going to yield to the Legal Counsel. The Chair is going to ask the Legal Counsel to rule on the order of voting on what is now before us.
Bashir El Mabrouk SAID (Libya) (original language Arabic): You have just said that the proposal of the United Kingdom should be put to the vote first, butin fact in time the Costa Rican proposal pre-dated the amendment of the United Kingdom which is why I think that the Costa Rican proposal should in fact pass first in voting order because that was the one that was raised first in time.
CHAIRMAN: The Chair notes your opinion. The Chair recognizes the Legal Counsel. Please state the order and the rules.
LEGAL COUNSEL: The basic proposal was to adopt all the Draft Report en bloc. To that an amendment was proposed by Costa Rica and supported by Czechoslovakia. A further amendment was proposed by the United Kingdom. Now the procedure is that you vote on the amendment which is furthest removed from the original proposal. This is quite clearly the United Kingdom's amendment. If the United Kingdom's proposal is not upheld, then you will proceed to vote on the Costa Rican one. And of course, in this particular case rejection of the United Kingdom proposal does not affect at all the proposal made by Costa Rica, since both delegations made their reservation on paragraph 3. So I think the orderly way of proceeding is: you vote first on the most remote proposal as compared with the original proposal and then you work back and if both the amendments are defeated you go back to the original proposal which was to approve the draft report en bloc, with the understanding which was explained by the Secretary-General that those governments who had statements to make could make them after the vote.
CHAIRMAN: Isn't that what the Chair said? We now move a vote.
James AITKEN (United Kingdom): The United Kingdom would like to call lor a roll-call vote on both this amendment - our amendment - and on the Costa Rican amendment. That is in addition to our call for a roll-call vote on the original motion.
CHAIRMAN: There will be a roll-call vote on the United Kingdom's amendment to the,CostaRican amendment. That is the first order of business. The Chair must warn you that the Secretary has said that the interpreters will be here for five more minutes. We beg your indulgence while the Chair asks the Secretariat what they normally do under such circumstances. We shall now proceed with the vote on the United Kingdom's amendment to the Costa Rican amendment. United Kingdom, so that everyone clearly understands what is being voted on, please state your amendment. The Chair would caution we are not into another discussion of the amendment. This is simply a repetition statement of it for the purpose of clarity. State your amendment. Following your statement of your amendment the body will vote.
James AITKEN (United Kingdom): The United Kingdom proposal was that the motion of Costa Rica - the amendment proposed by Costa Rica - should be amended so as to read: "That in addition to paragraph 3, paragraph 8, new paragraph 24 b, paragraph 26, 28, 37, 42 and 43 should also be considered."
CHAIRMAN: The United Kingdom amendment to the Costa Rica amendment has been rejected.
We now proceed to the next order of business, which is the amendment of Costa Rica. At this point the Chair asks - this is not for discussion, we have already gone through that - that prior to the vote the country making the motion, Costa Rica, now state the motion.
Carlos DI MOTTOLA BALESTRA (Costa Rica): Mí enmienda se basa eu el hecho de que ayer hemos aceptado sólo una parte del párrafo 3. Quedó sin discutir la última frase porque usted, muy apuradamente, cerróla Sesión. A estas alturas, yo creo que deberíamos discutir la última frase, si es necesario someterla a votación y, en lo sucesivo estoy de acuerdo en que se proceda como ha propuesto el Sr. Savary. Mi propuesta es de que la aprobación en bloque del Informe no incluya la última frase del párrafo 3. La considero extremadamente importante, y creo que deberíamos terminar un trabajo iniciado ayer, y que fue, contra la costumbre, suspendido por razones de horario o no sé cuáles otras razones.
CHAIRMAN: For a point of information, Costa Rica, that would have been the first order of business to discuss today. The Chair did not adjourn discussion on that next sentence. We are in a vote. A point of order on the vote is in order. A point of order on other than the vote is not in order.
V.K. SIBAL (India): I think we could save some time if we have had a show of hands at this stage because when we asked for a roll call, this is the previous amendment.
CHAIRMAN: You are mistaken. The United Kingdom very clearly stated that it requested a roll call vote on this. That is in the verbatim report. That is a clear statement. The Rules provide that there must be a roll call vote when any member country requests it.
George Henry MUSGKOVR (Canada): I have both a point of order and seeking a point of clarification. I would be pleased for your ruling as Lo whether it is in fact a point of order before 1 proceed.
With respect to the Rules, when a motion is put and a division is called the motion may have two speakers in favour and two speakers may speak against the motion. If that is so, I should seek permission from the Chair to speak against the motion that has been put.
Secondly, I seek a point of clarification. The clarification that I seek is this, that at one stage I had thought that the amendment being put forward by the delegate of Costa Rica was to the Chair's suggestion that the report be adopted en bloc with the exception of those portions of the report that have not been considered in the Drafting Committee. I see heads shaking at the table. There were indeed three speakers who spoke on the fact that there were portions of the report not considered and Î thought I heard the Chair sum up that the rest of the report might be considered for approval en bloc with the exception of those sections. What happened to that particular motion? Should the present motion of Costa Rica be adopted, do we then only have the right to consider paragraph 3? That is the point of clarification.
I shall speak to the point of order, Mr Chairman, subject to your approval.
CHAIRMAN: The Chair will rule on that. As you will have observed, the Chair is very careful in amendments in requiring that the person making the amendment state the amendment. The Chair has never stated an amendment for the body to vote on. Earlier the Chair made an informal flexible suggestion on what it thought might be a way out, but it was called to our attention by Argentina, quite correctly, that under the Rules that we had developing an order of votes, and their interpretation of the Rules which they asked to be enforced at that time is correct. Then the United Kingdom subsequent to that made an amendment to the amendment. We then had suggest ions that, we should not do that and the Legal Counsel confirmed that the Chairman's interpretation of the Rules was correct. We then proceeded to the Costa Rica amendment. The United Kingdom amendment was rejected. The next order of business must then be to proceed to Costa Rica's amendment which is what they were amending. The Chair asked the delegate of Cost Rica to state its amendment. The delegate of Costa Rica has not stated it as you interpret it. You cannot vote on what you think he meant to say: you must vote on what he said. What he said was that Costa Rica feels that we ought to adopt the report in toto with the exception of the portion of paragraph 3 that we did not reach in our discussion yesterday.
If Canada's question is, does that mean that if that motion carries this body will concur in the unfinished work of those enumerated paragraphs, the answer is yes. It would mean that you are giving approval to work which has not been completed. That is a correct interpretation. He did not exclude anything other than that.
George Henry MUSCROVE (Canada): Thank you for the point of clarification, Mr Chairman have I your on to proceed now on the point of order?
CHAIRMAN: As I understand your point of order, and that the Chair had said that the discussion had taken place and you are pressing that under the Rules you can have a division of two for and two against, the Rules are as you state them. You are correct. The Chair backs off from its attempt to have a rapid vote on this, and since that point of order is pressed, Canada has the right to speak for or against and has the floor and then the Rules provide if you speak for there can be but one other country that can bo recognized for the purpose of speaking for. If you speak against there be but one other country that can be recognized for the purpose of speaking against; and there can be two on the other side. That is what the rules say. Let us finish with Canada's point of order first. Does Canada wish to do this?
V.K. SIBAL (India): We would be grateful if you could tell us which rule is being quoted for supporting this proposition. We are trying to find it. We are not able to find it.
LEGAL COUNSEL: Rule XII-18 provides that parts of a proposal or of an amendment shall be voted on separately if a delegate or representative requests such division, provided that if objection is made the question of division shall be decided upon by the Conference or the Council. In addition to the delegate or representative requesting the division, two delegates or two representatives may speak for and two against the motion for division. The motion for division has been clearly accepted by this Commission. That is why you have already reached the point at which you were about to proceed to a vote. From a purely practical point of view and on a strict interpretation of the Rule the delegates who wanted to speak against should have spoken immediately after Costa Rica. Costa Rica was supported by Czechoslovakia and subsequently you went on to consider the sub-amendment that has now been voted on. So to apply the Rule strictly Canada is perhaps speaking too late in the proceedings and should have spoken immediately after the original proposal was made.
George Henry MUSGROVE (Canada): I shal propose to ignore the last few "sentences that have been said and address myself to the motion put forward by the delegate of Costa Rica. Do I have the floor, Mr Chairman?
CHAIRMAN: India has a point of order.
V.K. SIBAL (India): When we asked the question earlier it was precisely because we felt that there was no rule under which this intervention could be made now. The intervention is only possible on • the subject of voting the parts separately, and we are long past that stage. So I think the advice of the. Legal Counsel is absolutely clear and we would like you now to confirm that the situation is what the Legal Counsel has stated.
CHAIRMAN: The Chair is going to take a recess of five minutes and we will consult with the Legal Counsel.
The meeting was suspended from 13.30 to 13.35 hours
La séance est suspendue de 13 h 30 à 13 h 35
Se suspende la sesion de las 13.30 à las 13.35 horas
CHAIRMAN: I am sorry for the recess We have what is called in some parts of the world 'a sticky wicket', because the Chair could take a very strict interpretation and sustain India. The Chair has been in a long meeting this morning talking with other members about trying to be perhaps a little more flexible. We are trying to do that. The Chair would point out that it has recognized just recently two countries on Points of Order and permitted them to speak on their Point of Order knowing full well that their Point of Order was not remotely a Point of Order and could be ruled out of order because it was not a Point of Order but we let it go by. Canada may have been trying to get the Chair's attention .earlier and wasn't seen at that point but on consultation with the Legal staff and different interpretations up here the Chair and the delegate of India have discussed that India would be willing to withdraw its objection if Canada would make a brief, I believe he underscored the word 'brief ', statement and then we would proceed to Costa Rica being re-recognized for the purpose of stating its motion so that it will be fresh in your minds immediately before the vote. Thank you India. Canada, you have the floor for the purpose of making a very brief statement.
George Henry MUSCROVE (Canada): As far as I was concerned I was the first delegate recognized from the floor following the clear statement of motion put forward by the delegate of Costa Rica. It was on those grounds that I sought leave to speak against this motion, as one of the two speakers allowed to do so under the Rules.
I would like through you, Mr Chairman, to assure the delegate of Costa Rica that I have no argument in terms of substance with the last sentence of paragraph 3 and I would really welcome him his opportunity to put his comments on that statement. We carry no brief for that particular sentence, nor for that paragraph and indeed, it could have the justice of some better drafting. However, I should like, Mr Chairman, through you, to appeal to him to withdraw his motion and for the following reasons, that what he is seeking is his right to comment on a particular portion of this Report whilst suggesting that ail others be deprived from their right to do so. If each of us were to
demand and insist on our right to comment on what is in this Report with which we do not agree then we would be very much back in the situation we have had yesterday. I think, if I could appeal, to his democratic sense, and perhaps to the sense of those who support his motion, it is in effect depriving delegates here, including our own delegation¿from completing our comments on certain portions of this Report that have not otherwise been discussed. It also deprives the right of members of this Commission who were not participants in the Drafting Committee from making their commentson particular paragraphs.
Our delegation supports the Draft that has been considered by the Drafting Committee in line with the regular rules. We also support the suggestion put forward by the General Committee through the Secretary-General to adopt those portions of the Report en bloc by having given due consideration. However, the motion that is in front of us for vote, I think is tantamount to accepting en bloc everything, except that portion which the delegate of Costa Rica insists in addressing. I should therefore like to speak against this motion and to appeal to that delegate to withdraw it.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you Canada. Canada, the reason there is what 1 call a 'sticky wicket' is because you would normally be correct, you were the first speaker to be recognized after the statement of it. However, the Chair clearly recalls stating earlier as we were going through the procedure that it interpreted Costa Rica's statement as a motion at that time. Now, you may not have heard that and then we laid out the more informal order for the procedure, we said we would proceed with all the speakers and then come back and take them up in order but the Chair clearly identified Costa Rica as an amendment at that time.
Now, the Chair would also take, under advice, your remarks to intervene with Costa Rica and point out that the Costa Rica amendment as stated at that time is somewhat different from the Costa Rica amendment now stated most recently and for clarification the Chair would ask that before we commence a vote that Costa Rica may be clear. Do you wish to close everything except the portion of paragraph 3 which was not reached yesterday or do you wish to do that, plus those other items that the Drafting Committee did not complete its work on with the understanding that all countries who wish to address their concerns about any point have the right to do so by submitting the document that would be included in the Verbatim? I think it would facilitate the operations here if Costa Rica would, very carefully now, state its motion, not in the form of an explanation or why you came to want that motion, but rather state what the motion is.
Carlos DI MOTTOLA BALESTRA (Costa Rica): No puedo retirar mi moción, sin embargo no pido la votación nominai sino la votación por levantamiento de mano; entonces la resolución puede ser tomada durante los próximos tres minutos. Mi moción se refiere a un punto de fondo, tal vez el punto más importante de este documento y no puedo retirar la moción.
CHAIRMAN: Costa Rica, please could you state your motion. The Chair well recognizes that you did not request a roil call vote and that is true and accurate. However, another country did and the Rules say if any country requests a roll call vote, there must be a roll call vote, but before we proceed to that we must have your amendment clear and I think the members need to know what they are voting on. Could you please state the wording of your resolution? Please state what it says.
Carlos DI MOTTOLA BALESTRA (Costa Rica): El texto exacto de mi moción es que se termine el examen del párrafo 3 que ayer ha sido dejado sin terminar y por lo tanto que haya debate sobre la última frase del parafo 3. Por lo demás, estoy de acuerdo con su propuesta, Sr.Presidente.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for the clarification. That point of clarification is very important because had we proceeded to vote otherwise the Chair would have had to rule that the body had voted . not to take up the other paragraphs, but you have made it very clear. The Chair will recognize your Point of Order in order but the Chair also believes that Czechoslovakia seconded your motion, Czechoslovakia is it your understanding that you seconded that motion? Could you so indicate.
Vaclav DOBES (Czechoslovakia): Yes, yes.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN
John CLISTRUP (Denmark): My Point of Order is that I am totally confused on what we are going to vote on because as I have got the interpretation of Costa Rica, Î have had three different versions. The last one we had now was not the one we had before and the original one was the third variation.
CHAIRMAN: Your Point of Order is well taken and the situation is as exactly as you said it and that is why we have, before the vote, we have the motion stated. You are voting on the motion that they just stated. Because of the request of the United Kingdom for a roll call vote we will now proceed on the roll call vote. Costa Rica, if you have a Point of Order what is your point?
POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN
Carlos DIMOTTOLA BALESTRA (Costa Rica): sr.Voy a leer mi propuesta en inglésy así tal vez no haya confusión: adopt the whole report, except the last sentence of paragraph 3.
CHAIRMAN: Let us try to get some work done. The Chair would like to be of assistance, if we vote on that language we have total confusion. I will attempt, on behalf of all Member Countries, to state what we believe has developed from your Resolution. Our understanding is that Costa Rica concurs with the recommendation of the General Committee to adopt the report in toto, except that Costa Rica feels that the items in paragraph that were not discussed at yesterday's proceedings would be open for discussion. I am sorry, the last sentence of paragraph 3 is the part that was not discussed. Let me start again and please do not interrupt until 1 finish. Let us try to make it clear. From what has been said at various points in the discussion the Chair interprets Costa Rica's resolution as follows - that Costa Rica moves: that this body hereby agree to the proposal ofthe GneralCommittee thathe report ofthe Drafting Committee be adopted by this Commission in toto, except however that the final sentence of paragraph 3 shall remain open for discussion before this Comission. Furthermore, that the paragraphs on which the Drafting Committee has not completed its work shall be open to discussion and that Member Countries... Please have order.
The previous time that the representative of Costa Rica took the floor he said – I cannot quote him exactly – “and your recommendations”. He used that phrase. It will be in the verbatim. That is why there was wide discussion this morning on whether or nor we concur with the paragraphs that have not Been completed. As we now seem to be going back once again to saying that you would concur with Paragraphs that have not been completed, that is a departure from what you stated earlier. Furthermore, we need a clarification on the point concerning whether or not countries which have not had the Opportunity to speak on matters on which they might wish to speak, should have the opportunity to Express their thoughts on any item in the verbatim. That was something which countries spoke about. Costa Rica, the Chair has tried to clarify that and took your previous remarks to include that, It Is not my role to say what is in your motion, but simply to observe that your motion has gone through four different forms and it is somewhat unclear. The Chair has to now ask Costa Rica to please take five minutes to write out your resolution and read it. We will then take up a vote on it. Until you do that we will recess – five minutes.
The meeting was suspended from 13.50 to 14.15 hours
La seance est suspendue de 13 h 50 à 14 h 15
Se suspende lasesión de las 3.50 a las 14.15 horas
CHAIRMAN: We will try to proceed. Costa Rica do you seek the attention of the Chair?
Carlos DI MOTTOLA BALESTRA (Costa Rica): Sr Sr. Presidente, después de consultar, me ha convencido de que l mejor contribución al consenso es el retiro de mi moción.
Los países latinoamericanos y del Caribe nos limitaremos a formular una breve y muy general reserva a pie de página sobre el párrafo 3. Nada más, Sr. Presidente.
Applause
Applaudissements
Aplausos
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. The Chair believes that, those countries which have such footnotes will be granted them, there being no objection to the footnotes being put into the place where requested. Costa Rica, the Chair would like to thank you for taking the time and consulting with friends and advisers so as to reach a solution. We will now proceed with the main motion. As the Chair interprets it, what is wished to be done is that we hereby concur in the recommendation of the General Committee and that the Draft Report be approved en bloc without further debate, that member countries which wish to state their points on any item be permitted to do so and they will be inserted into the Verbatim Record at the appropriate spot; and that the interpretation of che phrase "the Draft Report" is the Draft Report work as completed. There is no misinterpretation that the Body is concurring in conclusions where conclusions have not yet been made.
If I might have the indulgence of the United Kingdom for a moment, let me try to phrase this clearly; Does the Body agree that this Commission hereby adopts the completed work of the Draft Committee; that any member country which has a point to make on paragraphs or points will be entitled to do so by submitting a record to the Secretary for insertion into the Verbatim at the appropriate spot, as determined by the Secretary?
James AITKEN (United Kingdom): On a point of clarification on what you have said, our position was that we requested an opportunity for Costa Rica to put footnotes into the actual Report of the Commission and notjust the Verbatim Record of the debate. Perhaps you could confirm that is correct. When you refer to Verbatim we always take it as the Verbatim Record of our debates.
CHAIRMAN: I believe I was careful to phrase my remarks to indicate that those who wished to put in footnotes were entitled to do so as they requested. Is that motion clearly understood? 1 gather from the general sense of relief here that we have a consensus on that. Does any country object ?
Paul Richard BRYDEN (Australia): On another point of clarification, which part of the work was not completed? In other words, which part of the work have we yet to complete in this Commission?
CHAIRMAN: The Chair would suggest that we have language which says "work completed as determined by the Chairman of the Drafting Committee" and leave to his discretion those items that the Drafting Committee did not get to. We have a Drafting Committee from many countries: it has a Chairman. The Chair is not suggesting in its suggested motion making any conclusions on what was not arrived at. The Chair is suggesting that obviously you can only concur in conclusions that have been concluded. Therefore some parts of the Drafting Committee's work were not concluded and we suggest what was inconclusive at that point should be determined by the Chairman of the Drafting Committee so that it would be for him to state which sentence or paragraph was still to be reached. Those things would then be open.
V.K. SIBAL (India): Í just wanted to observe that it is true that some parts of the Draft Report were not scrutinized by the Drafting Committee, but that is a draft which was put up by them and it is now before us. In the interests of completing this work quickly for this Body, of which the Drafting Committee is a part, if we feel that what is in these paragraphs is okay I think it is open to us to take the view that this is also okay and can be passed as part of the en bloc resolution which we are proposing to pass.
CHAIRMAN: That is perfectly possible; or an alternative could be that the Body could delegate to the Drafting Committee the responsibility for completing that work.
Joseph TCHICAYA (President, Comité de rédaction): J'ai déjà indiqué que le Comité de rédaction a travaillé sur l'ensemble du rapport, moins les paragraphes 41 et 43. Nous avions néanmoins un projet de texte pour les paragraphes 41 et 43; mais nous n'avons pas eu le temps matériel de les examiner et d'y apporter éventuellement les amendements qui s'imposaient.
Et nous avons indiqué, au sein du Comité de rédaction que ceci serait le travail de la Commission.
Nous estimions que le Comité de rédaction avait accompli son travail et -comme nous n'avions pas eu le temps matériel de le terminer -que le travail se ferait au sein de la Commission. Nous sommes ici, maintenant, devant la Commission. Elle est souveraine. Il y a devant nous un projet de rédaction des paragraphes 41 et 43. Il appartient maintenant à la Commission de dire si elle est d'accord ou pas avec le texte présenté; et si, comme il semble se dégager, le texte est adopté en bloc, j'avais cru comprendre que le bureau nous invitait adopter tout le texte devant nous, y comprisles paragraphes 41 et 43.
Nous estimions qualerniti? de rédaction ne devait plus revenir sur cette question; c'est à la Commission à décider si la rédaction lui semble appropriée. Personnellement, je pense que l'on n'a plus à demander au Comité de rédaction de se réunir à nouveau pour examiner ce texte; en tout-cas, le Comité de rédaction n'avait pas envisagé après discussion devant la Commission de se retrouver à nouveau pour achever ce travail. Nous estimions que le travail devait se faire ici, en Commission, et si la Commission estime que le projet qui lui est présenté lui conviant, c'est à elled'en décider de manière souveraine.
Voilà ce que je tenais à dire sur cette question; je reconnais que nous n'avons pas examiné les deux paragraphes indiqués, mais je reconnais également que nous avions dit que c'était à la Commission à le faire.
CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken. The Chair would suggest, if we may beg your indulgence for a second, that the best course might be simply to have a vote on adopting the entire Report. The Chair felt that there were a number of questions about certain paragraphs remaining. We could adopt ail the Report that was gotten to and take up separately the part that was not; that was one option. We could adopt the entire Report. We could go through it paragraph by paragraph and see whether there were any objections. That would take a very long time. The Chair would suggest that it might be bast to have an up or down vote on adoption of the Report as it is before the Body.
That would be a motion, if someone wishes to make it and second it, that would then be open to discussion. It would be open to amendment, but it would get us going I hope fairly rapidly.
POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN
James AITKEN (United Kingdom): The point of order is this. I believe that at the beginning of this debate we had before us a recommendation from the General Committee that the report should be voted en bloc as it stands. Certainly 1 had the same interpretation as the Chairman of the Drafting Committee as to the implications of that. This is why we then called for a roil call vote. My point of order is that Î suggest we now proceed to a roll call vote on the basis of the recommandation of the General Committee.
CHAIRMAN: India, you .have a point of order. Please state it.
POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN
V.K. SIBAL (India): My point of order is that we are in agreement with what you have just said but there is a problem with the sentence in square brackets in paragraph 8. If that could be deleted we could go on to the roll call.
CHAIRMAN: We have other points of order, and that is not a point of order. You have a disagreement with part of the text. The motion is to adopt the text as it is.
José Ramón LOPEZ-PORTILLO ROMANO (México): Sí,la moción de orden es que se había establecido ya un procedimiento, como lo había indicado el asesor legal, y tenemos que seguir ese procedimiento; de manera que ahora le corresponde votar a esta Asamblea la moción presentada por el Comité General.
CHAIRMAN: The Chair has been suggesting that we have an up or down vote on it, which is what we are at. We have had to recognize points of order. At this point we have before us a motion, let us clearly establish that. Does any country here so move that the report be adopted en bloc?
POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN
Waliur RAHMAN (Bangladesh): I am a bit confused. My understanding of the interpretation that you gave was that you are referring to the recommendation made by the General Committee this morning that we adopt this report en bloc and that is the recommendation as has been read out by the Secretary-General of the Conference and we can proceed with the process of voting in the context of the clarification given by the Legal Counsel. I do not see any need to ask for any delegate from the floor to make a motion on this.
CHAIRMAN: The Chair was under the impression that some countries were going to signal their support for it. I stand corrected. The motion is before the Body. The motion is by roll call. There has been a roll call vote requested by the United Kingdom. Is the Chair correct or incorrect in stating this?
CHAIRMAN: The Recommendation is approved. The Chair declares that the motion has been approved.
Ms Kay KILLINGSWORTH (Secretary, Commission II): Thank you Mr Chairman. At your request I would like to explain the proposals for slight modification of the Commission's schedule following the adoption of the Report. Remaining before the Commission at the moment is item 15, on which discussion had commenced. The next item was item 16, Review of Field Programmes. it is proposed that the Commission may, instead of considering these two items later on this afternoon, pass directly to items 17, which is the Implementation of the Strategy and Programmes of Action approved by the 1984 FAO World Conference on Fisheries Management and Development: following that the Commission might pass to item 18, Follow-up to the Tropical Forestry Action Plan and the International Conference on Trees and Forests. This proposal is made because we have been informed that a number of delegations have technical specialists in Rome for the consideration of these items and who were planning to depart over the weekend. The proposal, therefore, would be to take up these two items first and as soon as the Commission has completed its consideration of these two items to return to item 15 and item 16 and then to the rest of this agenda.
CHAIRMAN: Is there any objection to that, trying to reschedule ourselves a little bit for the convenience of some of our member countries who have persons in town for this purpose?
JoãoAugusto DE MEDICIS (Brazil): I regret to say that we arein a different position, we are expecting to have the item on Forestry to be discussed later on so that I do not know whether we can make a compromise, have the item on Fisheries, then the Review of the Field Programme and then go to Forests.
CHAIRMAN: Well, the Chair would have to point out that under such circumstances, under normal circumstances like that, the Government of Brazil clearly is right and that here we have the presumption that the Organization would follow the schedule, it is a presumption that the member countries ought to be able to assume is valid and the Chair would suggest that may be it would be best informally to discuss it if we could.
POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN
James AITKEN (United Kingdom): We have a number of footnotes to the text and we would like your advice on the process, normally we would read through these footnotes and the paragraph numbers and then we would give the text to the Secretariat.
CHAIRMAN: The Chair's understanding in informal discussions is that you could work that out with the Secretary and that your points will be put in at the proper place.
James AITKEN (United Kingdom): There is one point here, while we do not object with this procedure you have outlined, the difficulty is that there may be some countries who would wish to associate themselves with our footnotes and equally we may find there are some countries with footnotes with which we would like to associate. So that under those circumstances the normal procedure is that there is an oral statement of the footnotes.
CHAIRMAN: State your footnotes.
James AITKEN (United Kingdom): I will now continue to state the United Kingdom's reservations. A footnote to paragraph 8: the United Kingdom delegation noted that some delegations expressed the view that the current programme review proceedings did not provide adequate and meaningful opportunities to make their views known during the consideration of the Programme of Work and Budget.
The next footnote would be a new paragraph 24 bis: the delegation of the United Kingdom noted that in identifying potential additional sources of income which could be used to finance operational programmes, two Member States, India and Pakistan, drew attention to the subsidy of US$ 11.5 million from the Regular Programme to meet the cost of delivery of the Trust Funds in 1986. An appeal was made to Trust Fund donors to enter into early discussions with management with a view to meeting the full cost of Trust Fund delivery.
The next footnote is a footnote on paragraph 26: the delegation of the United Kingdom considered that an increase in the budget was unrealistic in view of the level of arrears and the number of Member States to meet their obligations in the current biennium.
Next we have a footnote to paragraph 42: the United Kingdom delegation noted that attention was drawn to the statement by a number of developing countries in document C 87/30 which stated that efforts should be made to reduce costs through inter alia shared offices and general services with other United Nations Organizations.
Finally, on paragraph 43: the United Kingdom noted that some countries expressed concern at the slow rate of spending on TCP and the absence of any pre-programming of funds. These countries believed that these factors made TCP very vulnerable to unplanned cuts at a time when the Organization was under financial pressure.
That concludes our footnotes.
CHAIRMAN: The Chair has a list of speakers we will follow.
Matti HANNULA (Finland): I would like to make an explanation after the vote on behalf of the Nordic countries, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland. The Nordic countries voted for the United Kingdom proposal and against the proposal of the General Committee to vote en bloc for the following reasons; the Nordic countries were prepared to accept the Report of the Drafting Group on the part that had been completed. Because on some paragraphs no consensus had been reached the Nordic countries maintained the view that these paragraphs should have been debated in the Commission. We regret that the Member States have not been able to exercise their basic democratic rights in this matter when the Report C 87/II/REP/1 was defeated by vote in the Commission. We see this as a matter of principle not substance.
Antonio GAYOSO (United States of America): The US delegation would like to express a general reservation namely that the approval of the Draft Report of the Drafting Committee en bloc impeded developed countries, and non-members of the Drafting Committee to offer their views and suggestions for change. Having said that, I should like to join the UK in their suggestion of footnotes for paragraphs 8, 24(bis), 26, 42 and 43.
Michel MOMBOULI (Congo): Ceux qui sont intervenus avant nous ont bien fait de nous faire connaître la teneur des notes de bas de page qu'ils souhaitaient voir figurer, encore qu'ils ne nous aient pas précisé le document où devaient figurer ces notes de bas de page. S'agit-il du rapport ou du procès verbal? C'est une question à laquelle il faut répondre.
Pour notre part, nous pensons que ces délégués ont bien fait de nous faire connaître leurs notes de bas de page, non seulement pour susciter dos adhésions et des souillons, mais égal ornent pour nous permettre, à nous qui ne sommes pas úans le même camp, d'ajouter une contre-note de bas de page.
Voilà en ce qui concerne les notes de bas de page pour lesquelles l'endroit reste à préciser.
Ensuite, je voudrais saisir cette occasion pour dire au Bureau que nous sommes sensibles aux arguments qui ont été évoqués au sujet des propositions d'aménagement du calendrier qui nous a été soumis ce matin. Nous voudrions demander à la présidence que ce genre de modification en pleine séance n'intervienne plus; que l'on nous propose les changements au moins vingt-quatre heures à l'avance parce que, lorsque nous sortons de nos bureaux ou de nos maisons pour venir ici, nous sommes préparés pour traiter d'un certain nombre de questions précises. Or, lorsque vous changez brusquement le programme de séance, cela rend les choses difficiles pour nous car, pour certaines délégations, ce ne sont pas toujours les mêmes personnes qui sont présentes. Nous venons ici en tenant compte du programme du matin et des changements du genre de celui que vous nous avez proposé nous mettent dans d'assez grandes difficultés. Nous voudrions qu'à l'avenir, cela ne se répète pas.
Cela étant dit, je voudrais ajouter que les notes de bas de page dont on nous a donné lecture sont, à notre avis, très longues. Plutôt que des notes de bas de page, ce sont des documents, des protestations. On peut leur donner un autre titre, ce ne sont pas des notes de bas de page. Quand on parle pendant cinq minutes pour annoncer des notes de bas de page qui sont plus longues que les paragraphes auxquels elles se rapportent, on peut vraiment commencer à se poser la question de savoir s'il faut traiter ces choses comme des notes de bas de page ou plutôt d'autres sujets sur lesquels on veut, en quelque sorte, ouvrir le débat.
Je donne ces commentaires à l'appréciation de la présidence.
CHAIRMAN: The Chair must state that your point is very well taken with regard to coming prepared for one subject and the subject being changed by scheduling. That was not as you stated the recommendation of the Chair. That was the suggestion of the Secretariat, and the Chair yielded to the Secretariat to explain that proposal, but it was not adopted - it was a proposal. When Brazil made clear that it had a problem that we knew may well arise, the Chair certainly made it clear that its sympathy lay with the point you have just made, namely, that Member Countries have a right to expect the schedule to be followed. The Chair asked if the Secretariat and Brazil could work that out. I have no idea what decision they have come to, but we will return to that matter.
Atif Y. BUKHARI (Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of) (original language Arabic) : We have the impression that the distinguished delegate of the Congo made a very valid point. We thought that when we were voting on the report of the General Committee that this report would be brought to our attention in its entirety and, in fact, submitted to Conference in this way. We thought that what we would do now would avoid the need for footnotes. However, we seem to be involved in a vicious circle and I believe there will be no end to this. If we open the door to further remarks and footnotes there will be an avalanche of such footnotes. In fact, it will come to much more than we find in the report as it stands. We have no objection to any country's right to make remarks or even introduce footnotes. However, bearing in mind our interest in the work of this Commission and the possibility of achieving a consensus we believe that we should adopt a general policy for the Commission to avoid this situation. I trust that as a result of your experience and wisdom, we can now move as quickly as possible to a solution of this issue concerning footnotes. We shouldike to hear the views of Legal Counsel on the actual amount of footnotes that we could include. I think that this is of great importance in the report on this essential issue that we have been debating.
CHAIRMAN: Legal Counsel advises the Chair that there is no limitation on footnotes.
Francisco MORA (Costa Rica): Señor Presidente: para la siguiente nota a pie de página. Los países de América Latina y el Caribe habríamos preferido que se suprimiera la ltima frase delpárrafo 3.
Ton A.J.M.OOMEN (Netherlands): In fact, the motion we voted on a few minutes ago does not in our opinion agree with the tradition :of FAO because in effect it is neglecting the rights of delegates to speak on items in the report before it is adopted. In our opinion the paragraphs which have not been formulated by the Drafting Committee should have been completed, otherwise we have to accept the proposals in paragraphs 41 and 43 as they have been drafted by the Secretariat, and that is the task of the Drafting Committee. Therefore, we want to associate ourselves with the explanation of the note of Finland on behalf of the Nordic countries, and we wish to associate with the foot onotes on paragraphs 41 and 43 as put forward by the UK.
Rodolphe de POURTALES (Suisse): L'explication de vote de la Suisse rejoint, largement celle des pays nordiques et des Pays-Bas.
En ce qui concerne le contenu du rapport, ma délégation a une remarque à faire au sujet du paragraphe 37, remarque qui rejoint celle faite par la République fédérale d'Allemagne au sujet du PASA. En effet, ce Programme a été discuté beaucoup plus largement au titre d'un autre point de l'ordre du jour et il ne faudrait pas que les deux rapports soient, en contradiction.
Nous souhaitons également apporter une addition à la fin du rapport, au chapitre 3, et nous allons en remettre le texte au Secrétariat (texte fourni par la délégation de la Suisse): "42 bis - Il a été suggéré que les publications de la FAO fassent l'objet d'un examen quant à leur audience et que celles qui jouissent d'une grande audience sur le terrain, comme par exemple Idées et Actions de la Campagne mondiale contre la faim/Action pour le développement, ne soient pas sacrifiées au bénéfice de publications dont, l'impact serait moindre".
Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Con su venia, Señor Presidente, quisiera hacerle dos preguntas al Señor Savary: primera, si la propuesta que él nos presentó a nombre del Comité General fue hecha en forma unánime por ese Comité y, segundo, si Estados Unidos hace parte del Comité General.
Hacemos estas preguntas Señor Presidente porque nos parece incoherente, para usar un calificativo benévolo, que un Miembro delComitéeneral se asocie a la propuesta que aprobó la Comisión y que luego se adhiera a aquellos que hacen reservas y critique la adopción de la propuesta hecha por el Comité General.
Nos asociamos a los comentarios hechos por Congo y Arabia Saudita sobre la inconveniencia de extensas e inconvenientes reservas, y algunos países procederemos de conformidad.
Dos palabras más, Señor Presidente. Tengo hambre ¿hasta cuándo vamos a seguir trabajando y a qué hora nos volveremos a reunir?
V. K. SIBAL (India): We should like to state that when we voted for the en bloc adoption of the report, we had in view the number of times in FAO that reports have been adopted en bloc. We also had in mind the explanation given by the Chairman of the Drafting Committee that except for two paragraphs the report had been examined by the Drafting Committee, and the Drafting Committee had decided that these two paragraphs should be left to the decision of the Plenary. India went through the two paragraphs carefully and felt that there was nothing objectionable in them.
We also wish for clarification on the footnotes. What has been stated is that a certain delegation noted that certain other countries said this. We felt that the purpose of a footnote was to reflect a particular country's view in case that view did not find reflection in the report. We should like to have clarification whether it is open in giving footnotes to start interpreting the views of others. Perhaps Legal Counsel could also advise on that matter.
CHAIRMAN: Your point is well taken. In a footnote there is a difference between stating your own view and stating the other view. However, it can easily be avoided by saying that you felt that "they said". The Chair would suggest that we could have a quick and easy resolution of that matter if the United Kingdom would be willing to say - 'in its views comma'. Is that acceptable? Yes. Thank you, that was quick.
Philippe PIOTET (France): Je voudrais tout d'abord faire un constat: en tant que membre du comité de rédaction, j'ai passé une vingtaine d'heures dans ce comité pour préparer ce rapport; en tant que membre de la Commission II, j'ai passé 5 à 6 heures à examiner ce rapport, et à entendre un certain nombre de déclarations.
Je constate que, finalement, nous en sommes revenus au rapport du comité de rédaction. Dans ces conditions Monsieur le Président, je suis inquiet pour l'avenir car en effet, nous avons beaucoup de travail à faire, nous sommes amenés à modifier on partie l'ordre du jour de notre comité pour nous occuper de manière approfondie d'un certain nombre de questions techniques pour lesquelles des spécialistes sont venus d'un grand nombre de pays du monde.
Mais au-delà de ce point, un problème de fond me semble très important: c'est que nous recherchons toujours dans cette instance à nous rapprocher le plus possible d'un consensus entre les Etats Membres sur les rapports présentés et discutés. Il me faut constater - et c'est un simple constat -que la formule actuelle d'une part prend beaucoup de temps, et d'autre part laisse un assez grand nombre de pays insatisfaits.
Sur un plan pratique, je voudrais savoir si nous nous orientons vers des formules avec de multiples notes en bas de page qui, si elles éclairent le point de vue d'un certain nombre de délégations, nous conduisent à nous éloigner du consensus, que, pour sa part, la France a toujours recherché avec beaucoup d'ardeur dans cette enceinte.
Paul Richard BRYDEN (Australia): 1 will be brief. Australia respects the right of any member to discuss draft reports. We feel that members of the Drafting Committee should not become involved in debate on the Report or indeed how the broader membership handles that Report. That is why we abstained. However since the Drafting Committee did not consider through lack of time paragraphs 41 and 43 my delegation wishes to be associated with the footnote put forward by the United Kingdom which I would have supported in drafting group had those paragraphs been considered.
R. MACINTOSH (Canada): Like the delegate of Australia we regret very much that the procedures that have been followed have impaired the rights of delegations who were not members of the Drafting Committee to have their minority views represented in the Report. We regret all the more that some delegations seem to wish to eliminate their sovereign rights to have those views reflected in the appropriate footnote. Therefore my delegation wishes to associate itself with the general reservation offered by the distinguished delegate of the United States of America. We would point out that while we are a member of the drafting group and we support the Report, we interpret the reservation of the delegate of the United States of America as one of protest. We fully agree with it and we wish to be associated.
Antonio GAYOSO (United States of America): My delegation really need not answer Colombia's pointed question but will do so in a spirit of solidarity. Indeed the United States of America is a member of the General Committee. Indeed we agreed this morning to seek consensus on a compromise proposal that the Secretary-General announced. There was no consensus. Thus the object of our endeavour was not reached, therefore freeing us and others from the original endeavour. The principle represented by our reservation remains despite our commitment to the spirit of compromise and consensus. Therefore we want that principle to be shown in a footnote to the Report, as is our right of course.
James ALTKENUnited Kingdom): Just for the record to associate the United Kingdom delegation....
CHAIRMAN: Before you continue, I thought the United States of America might have had a point of order there. The Chair is trying to follow a pattern of never going into a second round of discussion until all countries who wish to speak on a topic have spoken. My feeling was that no-one else had indicated but I just wanted to make that absolutely clear before proceeding. If anyone has not spoken who wishes to speak you would be given preference at this point.
James AITKEN (United Kingdom): The delegation of the United Kingdom wishes to associate itself with the footnote proposed by the distinguished delegate of the United States of America and supported by the delegation of Canada. To qualify a point, we certainly intend our footnotes to be part of the Report of the work of this Commission.
Draft Report of Commission II, Part I, as amended, was adopted
Projet de Rapport de la Commission II.partie It ainsi amendée, esc adopté
El proyecto de informe de la Comisión II,parte I así enmendada,es.- aprobado
CHAIRMAN: My friend from Colombia if you are hungry this is the time to go eat. Because of the Secretariat's insistence on speaking you have to wait a moment or two before you eat. After she has completed I will declare the meeting recessed and will try to commence business a five o'clock. 1 would say 4.30, knowing that people would not be here until five o'clock, but in all honesty I would like to try at five o'clock, and why don't we all try at five o'clock and maybe things can move along.
Ms Kay KILLINCSWORTH (Secretary, Commission II): With regard to the question you asked meto investiate earlier, we had had a proposal that items 17 and 18 be taken up earlier, but what I have understood is that the reservation advanced by the Ambassador of Brazil was only for item 18. He would agree to start with item 17, dealing with fisheries, this afternoon when the Commission returns to business. The original timetable of the Commission was that this item was to be taken up this afternoon.
CHAIRMAN: That may be true but it is irrelevant since we haven't followed it.
Ms Kay KILLINGSWORTH (Secretary, Commission II): There will be no Drafting Committee meeting this afternoon for the Commission but there will be a meeting of the Contact Group at 5.45 p.m. in the Malaysia Room.
The meeting rose at 15.20 hours
La séance est levée à 15 heures 20
Se levanta la sesión a las 15.20 horns
