CHAIRMAN: Before we proceed with the opening of the day's session, the Secretary has some announcements
Ms. Kay KILLINGSWORTH (Secretary, Commission II): With regard to C 87/LIM/29 which came out this morning, it contains the Resolution announced yesterday proposed by the Group of Latin American and Caribbean and Near East.countries and other developing countries. It is going tò the Resolutions Committee this morning but in the stress of translation I am afraid the various language versions do not entirely correspond and I would like to announce a few corrections to the English and the French versions of C 87/LIM/29.
With regard to the English version the title should read Draft Conference Resolution Co-sponsored by the Groups of Latin American and the Caribbean and Near East Countries and other Developing Countries. With regard to the second preambular paragraph in the English version the words "continuous" and "intensive" should be deleted. The paragraph should therefore read "Noting also the efforts made to adapt FAO programmes to the changing needs of Member Nations...".
In the first operative paragraph in the same page "Decides: A) ii)" at the very bottom of the page the paragraph should read "The role of FAO in advising on the formulation of food and agriculture policies at global, regional and national levels and its function as catalyst and purveyor of assistance", insert the words 'purveyor of assistance.
With regard to the French version the two corrections are on page 2 of the French version of C 87/LIM/29. The first is at the top in small paragraph (ii). In the third line the text should read "sa fonction catalytique et d'assistance".
In the middle of the page there is a paragraph which should be deleted which was inserted by mistake in the printing, after paragraph (C), the small indented paragraph which begins "Les conclusions et reommandations"; that entire paragraph should be deleted. You will see that it is repeated at the very end of the Resolution.
CHAIRMAN: As we indicated late yesterday afternoon we have to move as quickly as possible to Item 13 on the agenda but we have four countries which had requested to speak and were not able to have the opportunity yesterday. We indicated that we would like to proceed this morning with those four countries and then suspend discussion on Item 12 and then after we meet our deadline on Item..13, return to Item 12 and take it up for further consideration.
John GLISTRUP (Denmark): Since this is the first time my delegation has taken the floor, I wish to congratulate you on your nomination as Chairman of this Commission.
For almost four years Denmark, together with the other Nordic countries, in a number of FAO meetings have expressed our view that it was time to conduct an open review of FAO's future role and priorities. I need not add how happy we are now finally to have on our agenda an item specifically dealing with this matter which is giving us an opportunity to discuss openly and formally with other Members our view on this issue. All through these four years we have shared our views with the Secretariat and a number of other Members and since we have now formally submitted a document of the Conference together with the other Nordic countries I need not explain in detail our viewpoints and can merely point to this document in front of us, the Draft Resolution and the statements by my Minister in Plenary on Tuesday and by Norway and Sweden in this Commission earlier in our debate.
We have listened to the debate and have been concerned but not as the Colombian delegate said, frustrated. We have been concerned because at times delegates have focused more on reforms rather than as we would have preferred on open review. It is correct as the delegates of Argentina and India (together with many others) have stated that the documents in front of us contain a number of varied viewpoints. This is why we think that the Conference cannot tackle the issue in detail at this point and that we should request a high-level group to digest the matter first.
Also many delegates are linking the present cash flow problems with a review. In our opinion these two are distinct and different problems and I should like to remind the delegates that when we first brought up our wish for a review we did not have a cash flow problem. Perhaps I could add that we may perhaps not have had such a strong cash flow problem had we started debating openly on the review somewhat earlier.
In our view the issues for the Conference to decide on are in fact two problems: one is the need for a review and the other is the mechanism for such a review. In connection with the first problem we have noted with satisfaction that most Member States support the basic idea of such a review, to mention a few:- Cameroon, Australia, Turkey, China and Trinidad and Tobago. A few Member States have stated that they are against. To those who have requested justification for a review I can give a 'very clear reply. My delegation is concerned about the general decreasing support for multilateral cooperation and open review and debate concerning efforts to improve the system, in our opinion, could restore confidence in multilateral cooperation.
The second point concerning the mechanisms appears to be more controversial. We have suggested one method in our draft Resolution. As Norway and Sweden said earlier we are prepared to discuss the type of mechanism which should be applied. Some delegates have stated that we should use the established systems in FAO through the Programme Committee. In this connection I should like to refer to the
viewpoints already expressed by the Danish delegation at the 19th Session of the Council this summer where we had to note with concern that in spite of the clear signals given already during our last Conference, the Programme Committee had not even briefly dealt with the problems during the entire present biennium. As a responsible representative of Member Governments it is our role to give clear signals to FAO's management concerning the role we wish our Organization to play now and certainly also in the future. Unfortunately, this debate has not done this. Not because there are great and unsolvable differences of opinion concerning our review, but mainly because there is a different attitude to the mechanisms to be used.
The Danish delegation prefers a high-level body as stipulated in our draft Nordic Resolution. However, I shall reiterate that we are prepared to discuss this proposal in order to obtain a consensus.
May I conclude by referring to the concluding remarks made yesterday by the UK delegate referring to remarks about the need for review heard outside this room. The Danish delegation wishes to state here in this room that an open review, in our opinion, is now getting very urgent.
Ton A.J.M. OOMEN (Netherlands): My delegation feels honoured to address this Commission on this very important item under your guidance and we should like to congratulate you on your election. As our Minister Braks stated in Plenary yesterday several sweeping changes are taking place in the worldwide economy and financial situation and especially in agriculture during the last couple of years.
World market prices for agricultural products declined, surplus productions in some regions of the world are to be cut and several developing countries started to become exporters and needed better access to import markets. In short, very important and far-reaching developments are influencing agriculture both in the developed and developing world.
Trade problems and surplus production have serious effects on the agricultural sector in their countries. Since agriculture in so many developing countries functions as the engine for overall economic development, it is completely clear that decision-making processes on these matters determine the economic and social future of so many people in the Third World countries. In the international agricultural decision-making processes FAO should participate fully on the basis of its knowledge and experience. The reasons for a review, re-orientation and restructuring of FAO lay mainly in development outside of FAO but which can, and will, force FAO to adjust its goals, its rate of operations and priority setting. As other delegations have said, FAO should not feel ashamed to decide to undertake a major review. During the first 40 years FAO passed through several other adjustments. I will put it more strongly. If we together cannot reach consensus on the goals of reform towards getting FAO involved in this international process of economic (and therefore also agricultural) re-orientation and adjustments, within a decade FAO will find itself completely on the sideline of important developments.
This needs action within and outside FAO, action on a high-level to ensure that such bodies as the World Bank, IMF, GATT as well as the total UN system will become committed to the role that FAO should play.
Of course, the starting point will remain FAO's basic mandate and mission as laid down in its Constitution, namely, to contribute to the effort of countries and people to eliminate hunger, malnutrition and poverty and also to the efforts of the UN and other international organizations and bodies.
From this starting point, and our delegation is grateful for the opening the Director-General gave in Plenary, FAO should be reinforced to participate on the basis of its knowledge and experience in the intergovernmental decision-making processes. FAO should be the main policy consultant towards governments and international multilateral financial institutions in the field of agriculture and rural development, as it is its mandate. In this respect, I mention especially the structural adjustment programmes of the World Bank and IMF. The formulation and implementation of these structural adjustment programmes in the field of agriculture and rural development should be based mainly on analysis and policy advice of FAO.
FAO can offer on a structural base these contributions to World Bank and IMF in a continuing flow of information and advice related to the needs of both developing countries and financial institutions. In this way, FAO can contribute in the most effective way as a broker in consultative groups of the World Bank, assisting and advising both governments and the World Bank. In this way, FAO should avoid possible negative consequences of the structural adjustments and also assist to safeguard the needed action.
While I am saying this I will also try to explain what, in our opinion, this means for the Organization. First of all, we (our Organization) need a highly qualified group. It is not important what we call it - a high-level group or independent task force - the importance of this group will be its terms of reference and I wish to stress this point - an intensive cooperation/collaboration with the FAO Secretariat. Therefore with this spirit we should find the right mechanism to formulate and recommend how a structural review and structural re-orientation has to be implemented.
The Director-General finds himself in the strongest position to recognize the importance of our recommendation. It will reinforce the position of FAO by showing the political will in the reconsideration of FAO’s goalsand methods of operation. If not, then the Netherlands fear serious escalation which will lead to a disintegration of FAO in the multilateral mechanism. I should like to be more explicit by giving an example of what, in our opinion, should be arranged inside the FAO Organization. The attention that FAO staff at this moment is able to pay to more policy advice seems to us relatively small. So much work and backstopping the field programme activities lays a major burden on the Organization which is financed from the regular budget. Therefore, we think it is very useful, and in our opinion necessary, to examine how the situation can be improved without damaging field programme activities at all and also to offer more room, that is to say, staff and financial resources within the programme for this highly needed reinforced role of FAO as a policy consultant. This means not only some internal reorganization of FAO on a managerial level, but for sure a strengthening of FAO in the international decision-making process. Therefore, we endorse the content of the Resolution proposed by the Nordics. We think that we should reach consensus on the goals of our intention for reform and reorientation of FAO. We are looking at it in a pragmatic way because it is most important that we should reach consensus amongst ourselves. As you will know consensus for us is a way of major importance for decision-making in this Organization as we explained in our contribution in document C 87/30. We invite especially those who are interested and who who want to discuss the proposals in an open and constructive manner in the papers 1 - 9 as they are submitted in the above mentioned document.
S. RAJASEKAR (New Zealand): May I, at the outset join the other delegates in congratulating you on your election to the Chairmanship of this Commission. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to say a few words on this important subject of reform. We believe that this subject must be approached in a positive and constructive frame of mind. New Zealand is a firm believer and supporter of the charter and basic objectives of FAO.
New Zealand's support for reform is based on its acceptance of the significant benefits of reappraisal and external evaluation. This conviction is derived not the least from New Zealand's own experience in recent years. In his address to the Conference our Minister of Agriculture highlighted the fundamental reforms that we have initiated over the last three years. In addition to implementing a major economic reform the New Zealand Government has also initiated comprehensive reviews of many of its statutory organizations and state trading enterprises. Some of the arguments that have been advanced against a review of FAO have a familiar ring for us in New Zealand. Calls for critical examination of various institutions and accepted criteria of efficiency, transparency and accountability have not been without opposition but I would say that even the most ardent critics of our Government's policies have come to recognize the benefits that these reviews have achieved.
We believe that FAO, as an organization would only stand to gain from a review of its functions and operations. We recognize the fact FAO may well have had a programme of on-going assessment of its operations but we believe that such ad hoc exercises are not substitutes for a carefully designed and independent review of its operations against a clearly defined set of criteria. Over the years FAO has no doubt adapted to changing needs and demands but we believe that a number of questions may well be asked on such diverse issues as staffing levels (including the relative distribution of field and support staff), transparency and accountability in the decision making process, the role of FAO vis-à-vis other development agencies, its role and efficacy in the sphere of policy advice. This last is an area of particular interest and concern to New Zealand. We believe that FAO is eminently qualified to play a leading role in the formulation and promotion of rational agricultural policies - a subject that was the theme of the World Bank's 1986 World Development Report.
We are living in a period of enormous change - times of phenomenal technological progress, economic pressures and challenges. As one of the leading development agencies in the agricultural arena the FAO has clearly a major role to play in shaping the future. The review process should help it to meet these challenges.
New Zealand endorses the call for reform and sees merit in the establishment of a high level group comprising independent and suitably qualified people to review its operations and recommend ways of promoting improvements. New Zealand does not see this issue in North/South terms and attempts to portray it in that light would, we believe, only serve to detract from the real issues of operational efficiency and transparency. Our sole interest is to see the emergence of an even stronger FAO that is able to lead world agriculture into the twenty-first century.
CHAIRMAN: At this point we are going to have to make a judgement about how to proceed. We yesterday, late in the day, mentioned we had four countries who did not have the opportunity to speak at the time that the discussion was supposed to close under our schedule. Those countries were Nicaragua, Denmark, Netherlands and New Zealand. Denmark, Netherlands and New Zealand have had the opportunity this morning. At this point, however, we also have a number of requests to prolong this issue and not get on to the issue that we were supposed to start at 9.30 this morning - item 13. We have requests from Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Egypt, Samoa, Switzerland, Norway and France. The Chair would observe that three of those countries - Switzerland, Norway and France - have already spoken, and that if we proceed to go into a second round of speeches - if the opportunity is given to any country to speak for a second time, and certainly in all fairness the Chair would have to give that opportunity to every other country that has already spoken - and we would also observe that we had indicated that there is a serious deadline that faces us on item 13. We must complete our work on item 13 tomorrow if we are going to proceed orderly our discussion on item 13 tomorrow so that we can have the Drafting Committee meet its deadline of Monday, so that we can have our report on Tuesday, so that we do not run a risk of inconveniencing others here at this important conference. The Chair would respectfully request that Switzerland, Norway and France waive their request on the grounds that they have already spoken and we would ask that Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Samoa be first in line for when we do come back to this. We would as soon as we complete item 13 return to a discussion of this issue. We would also in the interim - the Chair would - as we already have commenced discussions with some delegations and some groups of delegations, the G 77 and OECD countries - attempt to reach some kind of an agreement on a contact group that can be working behind the scenes and in concert with these activities. At this point we do not have a consensus view on a contact group - that is going to take some time - and that is something that if it develops a little more smoothly in the next hours, or in the next day, we can certainly suspend item 13 for a brief discussion of the contact group if we can resolve it. But it would seem to the Chair from its observations - observing discussions and participating in some - that today, this moment, is not the right time and if we get into a discussion of that we are going to simply subtract valuable time from item 13. We would not however deny the opportunity to Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Egypt or Samoa to speak at that time. But if each one of them would be willing it would facilitate the work of this body if we simply proceeded now and then assure them that they will be the very first in line when we do return to this discussion. I have an indication from Saudi Arabia that this is acceptable to them. We have the same from Tunisia, from Egypt and from Samoa and I would presume that since these countries have not had the chance, we would certainly have the same indication from those countries which have already spoken. We do. Costa Rica is requesting the floor. The Chair cannot grant you recognition to speak at this point, unless it is a point of order, on precisely the grounds that we just stated. Each one of these countries, some of which have not spoken, have decided to wait their turn. Costa Rica has already spoken. We would certainly ask that you do the same unless it is a point of order. Would you state, is it a point of order?
POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN
Carlos DI MOTTOLA BALESTRA (Costa Rica): Moción de orden. Como moción de orden voy a decir que no estoy de acuerdo en que el debate sea interrumpido en este momento; hay un problema de procedimiento, de orden extremadamente importante. Se han celebrado muchas reuniones entre las delegaciones presentes en esta Conferencia y hay la voluntad de crear el grupo de contacto. Yo estoy convencido que usted, Sr Presidente, debería declarar que el grupo de contacto se constituye. Debería declarar el número de personas que lo han de integrar y escoger una presidencia para el grupo de contacto con el acuerdo de la Conferencia.
A estas alturas los presidentes de los grupos regionales, no se han reunido para celebrar las consultas a fin de indicar los miembros del grupo de contacto, que son escogidos por ellos, no se puede dejar todo en el aire porque los días pasan y durante el weekend puede haber consultas muy provechosas para constituir el grupo de contacto. El grupo que tengo el honor de presidir está completamente...
CHAIRMAN: Please state your point of order. You are out of order. You have the floor for the purpose of stating a point of order. You are not stating a point of order, you are introducing a discussion of a new item. Colombia has a point of order. State your point of order.
POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN
Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Sr Presidente, con profundo pesar tengo que decir que la delegación de Colombia reclama y exige una actitud más democrática y libre en usted como presidente. Usted es Embajador de un gran país, pero en esta Comisión estamos presentes igualmente embajadores de países humildes y pequeños pero que merecemos respeto y dignidad.
CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, please. We must follow an orderly proceeding. You are recognized for the purpose of stating a point of order, not for stating an opinion. They are different. And under the rules you are recognized for a point of order. On the order of business I will recognize you for a point of order - I just so indicated - but I recognized you for the purpose of stating a point of order and you did not state a point of order. Now the order of business and schedule for which we are here to work is a schedule that has a discussion on item 12 that was to go until yesterday at 5.30. We then reached past that point and we tried to come to an agreement to move orderly on to item 13. The Chair does not mind if we go on with this issue for a long, long time - we simply caution that if we do so and do not allow sufficient time for item 13 we will then reach the point where our failure to follow an orderly schedule will cause serious inconvenience, not just to ourselves but to others here. And it is for that purpose that the Chair is attempting to have meetings start as near on time as possible to try to follow the agenda which we must operate on. Colombia you have a point of order now, state your point of order.
Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Sr Presidente, nos extraña que usted siga haciendo uso de la presión sobre el límite de tiempo cuando ha sido usted mismo quien ha hecho perder demasiado tiempo a esta Comisión. Mi punto de orden consiste en lo siguiente: en pedir a usted por favor que no sólo ahora con el Embajador de Costa Rica, sino en adelante, respete a cada miembro de la Comisión. La Delegación de Colombia le pide, Señor Presidente, que conceda la palabra a Costa Rica.
CHAIRMAN: I believe that the Chair could assist you in what you want to achieve and the Chair would like to do so. The Chair of course can cause a member not to speak because if one country goes ahead of other countries we must have respect for every country and if a country that has already spoken speaks to an issue and other countries have waived that right that is an inconvenience to those countries. The Chair has to try to be cognizent of the right of all countries and to try to achieve an equal opportunity for every country to speak. That is why the Chair suggested that countries that have already spoken should please not speak, out of respect for those countries that have not yet had the chance. The Chair has tried to accommodate Nicaragua so that its remarks could be put into the record.
I have the floor; I have not finished making my suggestion to you. I would suggest that if you want to have a Motion that we continue discussing this item now, that is perfectly in order.
José Ramón LOPEZ-PORTILLO ROMANO (México): Mi moción es por lo siguiente. Usted, Señor Presidente, había dictaminado que se interrumpieran los trabajos. Apeló Costa Rica con una moción de orden indicando que no debían interrumpirse y que no debía usted, Señor Presidente, quitarle el derecho a las Delegaciones de intervenir. Por tanto, Señor Presidente, y conforme a los Textos Básicos, está obligada esta Asamblea a decidir respeto de su dictamen sobre la oposición de Colombia.
CHAIRMAN: I will tell the gentleman from Colombia that is not a point of order. We must follow orderly rules. If you are going to be recognized for a point of order you must state it or you are wasting time. The Chair would suggest that it would be perfectly in order for any delegate to suggest an alternative. If someone puts forward a Motion that we should continue to discuss this, that is in order.
José Ramón LOPEZ-PORTILLO ROMANO (México): No sabemos, Señor Presidente si estamos votando o está considerando usted nuestras opiniones. Si está usted considerando nuestras opiniones, deseamos que continúe el debate.
CHAIRMAN: That is a valid point of order. Would those countries who wish to continue the discussion of item 12 rather than proceed to item 13 so indicate? Mexico has a point of order.
POINT OF.ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN
José Ramon LOPEZ-PORTILLO ROMANO (México): Para una moción aclaratoria Señor Presidente. Solamente deseo preguntar si al no terminar el Tema 12 el Comité de Redacción va a ser capaz de empezar a analizar este aspecto y si en consecuencia vamos a retrasar también los trabajos del Comité de Redacción. Yo como Miembro del Comité de Redacción estoy preocupado al respecto. Le pido a usted, Señor Presidente, que nos aclare si podemos proceder en el Comité de Redacción a tratar ese tema, aunque no se ha terminado.
CHAIRMAN: That is exactly how the Chair interpreted your statement and the Chair stated that was a valid Point of Order. The Chair interpreted your remarks as a request that a Motion that the body should vote on whether or not to continue should be made. That is a Motion before the floor. The Motion is that a decision be made on whether you wish to continue discussion of item 12 rather than move on to item 13 at this point. That is the Motion. it would change the schedule laid down before us by the Secretariat and not to discuss now the issue we are scheduled to discuss today, item 13. Would you please indicate if the Chair is stating this accurately and fairly in your interpretation? The Chair understands that you were asking that the body should continue to discuss item 12 and not at this point proceed to item 13. Is that valid?
The Motion of Mexico is that we should continue to discuss item 12. Is that accurate?
The Secretariat advises me that under normal procedure the answer to your question is no, they would not be able to commence.
POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN
M.M. SIDDIQUE ULLAH (Bangladesh): The latest development in this Commission does not appear to be very congenial to the conclusion of our business, so at this point I think that Costa Rica made a Point of order which remains to be decided. The submission was that a contact group should be established, and because Costa Rica was trying to elaborate on that point with additional observations, you cut the delegate short and the main point has been missed. I think there were several delegations who wanted to speak in the morning, and in order to cut short the session they
have voluntarily withdrawn their requests to speak. That indicates that all the delegates are interested in concluding the discussion on this issues. May I suggest if we proceed with the point made by Costa Rica about establishing a contact group perhaps our work would be shortened and we could come to a conclusion.
CHAIRMAN: The Chair appreciates what has been said by the delegate from Bangladesh. The delegate from Mexico has a motion on the floor and the Chair suggests that perhaps a quick and easy resolution on this would be to have some indication of consensus. If you wish, we can have a full vote. The delegate from Costa Rica has suggested the establishment of a contact group. The Chair's impression is that those activities are already under way. If there is a consensus that a contact group ought to be established, I would ask for a second on that. Then I would wish to give Mexico the opportunity to have a second for its motion.
Bernard LEDUN (France): J'appuie tout à fait l'initiative prise par le représentant du Costa Rica. Un grand nombre des délégations ici présentes souhaitent effectivement la constitution d'un Groupe de contact, préférablement sur une base géographique, ce qui permettrait de rapprocher les thèses en présence et de faire avancer d'une manière positive notre affaire.
CHAIRMAN: The Chair interprets France's remarks seconding the motion made by Costa Rica that a contact group should be established. Would France please confirm that?
Bernard LEDUN (France): Oui, Monsieur le Président.
CHAIRMAN: So at the moment we have before us a motion on the floor by Costa Rica that a contact group be established and France is a second. Are there any objections to establishing a contact group?
James AITKEN (United Kingdom): We have listened to the debate so far with interest and we are considerably taken with the very cogent arguments put forward by the distinguished delegate of Mexico that there is such a degree of interest in this debate that it should continue. We would feel it would be in the best interests of any further developments if in Plenary Session we could hear the views of more Member States before any contact group is established. We would therefore prefer the proposal from Nexico that this debate should continue before we turn to considering the establishment of any contact group.
CHAIRMAN: The Chair would like to get from the United Kingdom a yes or no on this question. The Chair interprets your remarks as seconding Mexico's motion. That is correct. We now have two motions which have been proposed and seconded. There is a motion by Costa Rica that a contact group be established. That has been seconded. We have a motion put forward by Mexico that we should continue-discussion of this issue; and we have that seconded by the United Kingdom.
The Chair would suggest that for orderly progress any motion is subject to discussion. Let us take them in the order in which they were raised. In fairness, Costa Rica's motion was made first. It is that a contact group be established. Is that a fair statement of your motion, Costa Rica?
Carlos DI MOTTOLA BALESTRA (Costa Rica): La idea era que el Grupo de Concacto no puede ser establecido oficiosamente en los corredores. El Grupo de Contacto tiene que ser establecido por esta misma Comisión. Ahora tenemos ya depositados y publicados como documentos de la Conferencia tres proyectos de resolucion y el Grupo que tengo el honor de presidir está completamente abierto a un diàlogo para ver si es posible un entendimiento entre los presentadores y los que apoyan este Proyecto.
Creo que el dialogo es lo mejor para el entendimiento. El tiempo apura, Señor Presidente, ya que la Conferencia tiene un termino. Creo que constituyendo oficialmente el Grupo de Contacto hoy, será fácil llegar a un cierto entendimiento antes del comienzo de la próxima semana. Usted, Señor Presidente, podría consultar en este momento sobre la integración numérica del Grupo de Contacto. Sobre la Presidencia, creo debería haber un Presidente, yo propondría a la Delegación de Turquía, que podría dirigir muy bien el Grupo de contacto y creo que cada Región podría nombrar dos Representantes. Sin embargo, todo esto está sujeto a variación una vez establecida la Presidencia, y establecida la integración numérica, se debería dejar a las regiones entregarle durante el día de hoy el nombre de los respectivos Representantes. Asi ganaríamos muchísimo tiempo.
Reenviar al lunes todo, significa precipitar la labor de la Comisión a los últimos días de la Conferencia. Enviar a votación estos Proyectos de Resolución, no es agradable para nadie, especialmente para nosotros. Mi Región está con la máxima voluntad conciliatoria y de diálogo.
José Ramón LÚPEZ-PORTILLO ROMANO (México): Una moción de orden, Señor Presidente, creo que no se me ha interpretado. Yo hice dos mociones: Una en relación a que debía resolverse el problema de la moción de orden de Costa Rica primero. Dos, una moción aclaratoria en el sentido de que si no iniciábamos los trabajos estos podían discutirse en el Comité de Redacción. No apoyé en ningún momento que no se constituyera el Grupo de Contacto, sino hasta que termináramos nuestros trabajos. Yo no hice esa propuesta, Señor Presidente, y espero que se me haya entendido adecuadamente y en vista de que Costa Rica ha aclarado su posición nosotros nos unimos a ella.
Harald HØSTMARK (Norway): If I understood the Ambassador of Costa Rica correctly, what he was concerned about was that the setting up of a contact group should not be put off until item 13 is discussed. What I was going to suggest is that, in view of the necessity for a few more informal contacts before the contact group is set up the Chair declare that as soon as they were completed and the talks with the regional spokesmen were completed the Chair would interrupt item.13.to formally establish a contact group, which would take a very short time, and then come back to item 13 again, but I am sorry if this has been overtaken by events.
CHAIRMAN: Norway is correct. That is what the Chair stated, that we would interrupt item 13 and then would proceed.
Sra. María Eulalia JIMENEZ (El Salvador): Permítame, en primer lugar, decirle que es necesario que se respete el orden en que los países han pedido la palabra. Queremos apoyar la moción hecha por Costa Rica. Creemos que es necesario crear el Grupo de Contacto, y crearlo en esta Sesión de la mañana, y puede ser establecido como lo ha propuesto Costa Rica, o sea, dos miembros por cada región.
La decisión sobre la creación del Grupo de Contacto, creemos debe tomarse esta mañana. Sobre su composición, estimamos que el mismo puede estar compuesto por dos miembros de cada región. Las diferentes regiones٫ durante la hora del almuerzo podrían consultarse y establecer quiénes serán los miembros de su región que participarán en ese Grupo de Contacto.
Cuando iniciemos nuestro trabajo a las dos y media, esta tarde, las diferentes regiones habrán ya comunicado a la presidencia cuáles son los miembros que participarán, y así podremos encomendarle al Grupo de Contacto que inicie sus trabajos.
Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Vamos a hacer una moción concreta con el deseo de ayudarlo, no obstante el comportamiento que no entendemos, Sr. Presidente. Creo que la actitud de Costa Rica es perfectamente constructiva. Los colegas que habían pensado intervenir sobre este Tema 12, han renunciado al derecho al uso de la palabra. Creemos que la Comisión debe ahora declarar que se constituya un Grupo de Contacto, que se comisione a los presidentes del Grupo de los 77 y de la OCDE, para determinar la composición de ese grupo y su presidente, y pasamos al Tema 13.
Atif Y. BUKHARI (Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of) (original language Arabic): The delegation of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia expresses deep regret at the fact that we have got ourselves into the present situation after so much discussion and counter discussion. This has been the result of some draft resolutions and proposals which perhaps have made the atmosphere somewhat too tense in this assambly. Therefore we would like to make an appeal to all our coleagues who are members of this Commission, including yourself, Mr Chairman, we would like to make an appeal to everybody, an appeal for patience, for calm, because we have all come here, I believe, to seek solutions to very great problems indeed, which problems the Organization has to deal with, problems which are matters of great concern to the Member Nations of this Organization. Therefore we must try to find the right solution and we must not attempt to complicate a situation which is already excessively complicated.
As was observed by my friend Mr HØstmark of Norway, I also am beginning to understand what is going on in this room after a certain period of calm which has settled upon it. I think there is no doubt that what Mexico moved is realistic indeed, because if we break off discussion on this item we are not going to get ourselves in a very useful position.
I think, you have before you a list of countries which have asked for the floor and I think you should ask those countries whether finally they do want to address the assembly or whether they wish to waive their right to the floor, at least for this morning's session I think this is the best way of proceeding at this stage in development.
Then let me say that 1 support fully any proposal which is constructive and I think that what the: Ambassador of Costa Rica moved was extremely useful - that is, that the contact group be set up.
May I very sincerely ask you, to proceed as suggested, because what we have to do first is to solve our problems and we certainly should avoid adding further complications to an already complicated situation.
V. K. SIBAL (India): We should like briefly to endorse the suggestion made by Costa Rica. We think it is positive, it is constructive, and it will help us in our sincere search for finding solutions, which should be the paramount consideration. We feel that Mexico's suggestion to carry on the debate is a sound one' if the Commission so wishes and you may perhaps like to elicit views on that.
CHAIRMAN: That is precisely what the Chair would like to do. We have two motions. We have a motion from Costa Rica and we have a motion from Mexico. In fairness, a motion has to be specific. So that there is no possibility of misunderstanding, we would ask at this point that Costa Rica state its motion. We would ask that France at that point indicate whether that is in fact the motion it wishes to second. We would like to have a show of hands, or whatever, to get an idea of the view on that motion. The next proper step would be to have Mexico state its motion. The Chair's impression is that Mexico's clarification remarks later made indicated that it really was not making a motion so much as supporting, but that is for Mexico to say. At that point the United Kingdom, which had seconded what it thought was a motion by Mexico, would be next in line. At this point we would ask that Costa Rica state its motion - not discuss it but state it. Would Costa Rica please state its motion?
Carlos DI MOTTOLA BALESTRA (Costa Rica): La propuesta de Costa Rica es de que el Comité declare constituido un Grupo de Contacto desde ahora. El Comité tiene que decidir su integración numérica. Me permito proponerle de consultar al Comité sobre lo que voy proponiendo, ya sea que. la integración numérica sea de 2 representantes por región y de un presidente. Propongo, que para la presidencia sea escogido el jefe de la delegación de Turquía. Una vez declarada esta constitución, se pediría a los jefes de los grupos regionales de consultar con sus grupos sobre los dos representantes por cada región, comunicándolo a Ud. durante la hora del almuerzo, de manera que Ud. pueda comunicar la integración nominativa del Grupo de Contacto durante la sesión de la tarde.
CHAIRMAN: That is a specific motion. We had an indication earlier that France seconded that motion. Would France please indicate at this point if it does second that specific motion?
Bernard LEDUN (France): Oui merci, Monsieur le Président. Je crois qu'effectivement nous aurions pu aller beaucoup plus vite dans le débat si, à la fin du dernier orateur inscrit, la France ou le Costa Rica avaient pu faire valoir leur point de vue qui n'était pas d'en revenir sur les discussions du point précédemment examiné mais de proposer précisément la constitution de ce groupe de contact.
Je redis ici que nous soutenons absolument la proposition présentée par le Costa Rica, et nous l'appuyons entièrement.
CHAIRMAN: There is a motion from Costa Rica; that motion has been properly seconded; that motion is now before the Body. At this point discussion on that specific motion is in order and will now be discussed. Anyone wishing to speak on that motion?
Antonio GAYOSO (United States of America): I was planning to state that I got somewhat confused but it is clear that this is not a confused proposal. It was the understanding of my delegation that the idea of the Contact Group was the initiative of the Chair and that the chair had, on its own initiative, approached the heads of the OECD and the heads of the G 77 Groups to put in motion the negotiations necessary for this process, so that there has never been any question in my view that the Chair has been moving in this direction. So whether the Commission declares that they agree with the Chair's motion, it would be nice but I do not think it is necessary. Certainly to my knowledge there has never been a procedure such as when the Chair is.moving to create what has been called a Contact Group, but elsewhere it has been called the friends of the Chairman, for the Commission to discuss in public, without these negotiations taking place as they usually do outside of the Plenary, who the Chairman would be and what the composition would be, so it seems to me that is highly irregular and I am not even sure whether the motion that the Costa Rican delegation has presented included both the central idea of supporting the initiative for the Contact Group and/or his own proposals for a specific composition.
CHAIRMAN: For the record the Chair would state that the representative of Costa Rica was very precise, at the Chair's request just a few moments ago he made a precise Resolution before the Body. So that there is no misunderstanding of it, that precise motion was that there be a Contact Group established, that the membership of the Contact Group be two members from each FAO region; that there also be a Chairman and that the Chairman be specifically the representative of Turkey. That was the motion put before the Body. On your information request, yes, the Chair did contact the• Group of 77 leader yesterday; yes, the Chair did contact the OECD' leader; the Chair did ask them both to try to work out a Contact Group and to come to an agreement on its formation because the understanding was that that was the way that things are normally done, that the two Bodies try to get together on an on-going basis, at lunches and at other events and private discussions, try to come to a consensus on what is the composition. That is not satisfactory obviously to the gentleman who made the motion and he made a specific motion on how the composition ought to be and he made a specific motion on who ought to be the Chairman. Further discussion?
Sra. Mónica DEREGIBUS (Argentina): Señor Presidente, habiendo de tener el panorama completo de lo que estamos por hacer, la delegación argentina solicita que se le explique claramente también cuál va a ser el madato del eventual Grupo de Contacto que vamos a crear, específicamente, qué tiene que hacer el Grupo de Contacto.
CHAIRMAN: Full clarification of that will have to come from the discussion and to facilitate that we will certainly have to give the floor back to the persons who made the motion. Congo has indicated it has a Point of Order.
POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN
Joseph TCHICAYA (Congo): Je voulais intervenir depuis longtemps sur la question, et il semble malheureusement qu'il y ait quelque confusion au niveau du Secrétariat. Je pense qu'il convient de donner la parole dans l'ordre; et nous pensons donc qu'il faut respecter cet ordre sinon nous risquons d'aboutir à une confusion dans ce débat.
Pour notre part, nous nous sommes exp'rime's hier sur cette question et nous étions de ceux qui avaient fait la proposition de constituer ce groupe de contact parce que nous pensions que le débat en plé-nière tel qu'il était engagé ne pouvait aboutir à des solutions viables. C'est pour cette raison que nous sommes d'accord avec la proposition faite par le Costa Rica, que nous appuyons; mais nous aimerions que le problème de la composition de ce groupe de contact soit revu à la lumière des dimensions de chaque région. Je crois qu'on ne peut pas de but en blanc fixer à deux par région. Il y a des régions qui n'ont que deux pays. Et s'il y a des régions qui n'ont que deux pays contrairement à d'autres qui en ont 50, nous pensons qu'on ne peut pas arrêter à un chiffre unique pour toutes les régions. Je crois que cela doit être pris en compte lorsque nous aurons à fixer le nombre des membres de ce groupe de contact.
C'est tout ce que j'avais à dire pour l'instant sur cette question. Nous pensons que vous tiendrez compte de ces remarques pour que nous puissions avancer.
CHAIRMAN: Yes they have and for your Point of Order on what is the Point of Order I will tell you on the Chair's list before us to speak are Gambia, Norway, Algeria, Costa Rica and Mexico but India had indicated that it had a Point of Order and the Point of Order takes precedence.
POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTOF-DE-ORDEN
V.K. SIBAL (India): Briefly, when you were summarizing the Costa Rican proposal you said that the Chairman should be the representative of Turkey. We thought that the Costa Rica delegate said the Head of the Delegation of Turkey. We are a little confused, so could you clarify.
CHAIRMAN: You are accurate in your statement that the statement made by him at that point was that it was to be the Head of Delegation of Turkey.
Harald HOSTMARK (Norway): Just a question for clarification, does the motion as stated by Costa Rica imply that what we are now doing is setting up a Committee under the Commission under Rule XIV instead of the other type of structure of the Chairman's Contact Group. Would it in that case be guided by those Rules and what would be the ramifications of that? I think my question is somewhat on the line of what was raised by Argentina earlier.
CHAIRMAN: You do indeed raise a question similar to the question raised by the representative of Argentina but it is a question that the Chair cannot speak on the intent of someone who makes a motion. The Chair would yield to the representative of Costa Rica to respond and clarify the questions put to you through the Chair by Norway and previously by Argentina. Could you please do that?
Carlos DI MOTTOLA BALESTRA (Costa Rica): A la pregunta de Argentina contesto inmediatamente. Nos encontramos frente a tres proyectos de resolución. Lo que tenemos que tratar de obtener es que haya un único proyecto de resolución o tratar de expresar el consenso que hay en la sala; para esto se necesitan conversaciones. Se podría negociar para ver si hay un retiro momentáneo de todos y se pasa únicamente al informe del Comité o si se puede llegar a un proyecto de resolución. Esto sería el mandato: un proyecto de resolución único negociado entre las partes.
Respecto a la solicitud hecha por mi amigo Tchicáya, del Congo, estoy abierto en lo que respecta a la región que tengo el honor de representar, a las propuestas que él pueda formular. Yo creo que podríamos escucharlas, aceptarlas o eventualmente modificarlas, pero no creo que deberíamos perder días sobre este punto. Estoy de acuerdo en que hay regiones que pueden tener un representante más que otras porque hay razones basadas en la costumbre.
Respecto al hecho de que éste sea un grupo del presidente o de qué sé yo, el concepto es que en Naciones Unidas se usa siempre que cuando haya un grupo de negociación, un grupo de contacto, las regiones interesadas designen sus representantes y no sean escogidos por la presidencia, porque la escogencia por la presidencia puede llevar a designar personas equivocadas, las regiones pueden establecer personas que representen verdaderamente las tendencias, que representen verdaderamente el pensamiento prevalente en el grupo regional y, por tanto, este método que me permití sugerir tiene más posibilidad de éxito que una escogencia hecha únicamente por su persona.
CHAIRMAN: We have been on a Point of Order. On a point of information the Chair never suggested appointing anybody. The Chair suggested prodding the Group of 77 and the OECD group to come together. The Chair never suggested that the Chair appoint anybody, simply that the Chair tried to facilitate the group getting together, and that was done yesterday.
POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN
Bashir El Mabrouk SAID (Libya) (original language Arabic): I propose that we close this discussion which has now become sterile. The delegation of Costa Rica has moved a very formal proposal. It is not necessary to repeat it any further. Therefore, I move that the Commission should simply support the Costa Rican proposal and move on to item 13 on the agenda.
CHAIRMAN: Unfortunately, we have other persons wishing to speak and you have made what is a closure motion to close the debate. The consequence of that motion would be to deny some countries which have requested to speak, namely, Algeria, Mexico, Colombia and the United Kingdom the opportunity to speak further.
We have a motion before the floor and we have a second of that motion and we have a discussion on that motion. We have had some points of order and we now have a motion, which now takes precedence, to close further discussion. Your motion is that at this point we should cease discussion on this motion. That is perfectly in order to make. It requires a second and it requires an affirmative vote. I trust that the members are aware that the passage of that motion means that Algeria, Mexico, Colombia and the United Kingdom would not be discussing. Do you wish to press your motion?
Bashir El Mabrouk SAID (Libya) (original language Arabic): The answer is yes because the countries which have asked for the floor will merely repeat the same proposal. They will simply speak to the motion from Costa Rica. Therefore I think that since the Costa Rican motion has been adopted by many of us explicitly, there is no need to go on with any further discussion.
CHAIRMAN: Well you have just informed the Chair that Algeria, Mexico, Colombia and the United Kingdom second your motion. In fairness the Chair would insist upon confirmation by Algeria, Mexico, Colombia and the United Kingdom that they confirm. Colombia do you second that?
Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Apoyamos plenamente esa moción a la luz de la siguiente conclusión que es clara: la Comisión decide crear un grupo de contacto presidido por el representante de Turquía. La Comisión pide a los presidentes del Grupo de los 77 y de la OCDE que determinen la composición geográfica equilibrada de ese grupo de contacto. Suspendemos el debate sobre el tema 12 y pasamos al punto 13.
CHAIRMAN: Algeria do you second that? On a point of clarification the motion stated is not as you stated it. It was not have a geographic balance but specifically to have two countries from each region. It did not say "geographic balance", it defined geographic balance as "two countries from each region". Algeria, the Chair asks you do you second the motion?
Mile Faouzia BOUMAIZA (Algérie): Nous avons demandé à prendre la parole parce que nous avons suivi le débat avec intérêt et nous pensons que, s'il y a une telle résistance de la part de nombreux délégués, c'est justement parce que la discussion sur ce point de l'ordre du jour n'a pas été jusqu'au bout.
Nous sommes d'accord avec la proposition du Costa Rica, mais nous souhaitons vivement connaître le mandat du Groupe de contact, comme l'ont demandé l'Argentine et la Norvège.
Nous sommes plus ou moins rassurés par les explications de l'Ambassadeur du Còsta Rica, mais nous souhaiterions connaître également votre position sur la composition de ce Groupe de concact. Nous souhaitons vivement aussi que le critère de l'équilibre régional soit assuré.
James AITKEN (United Kingdom): I make it clear we are opposed to the motion to close the debate. We also oppose the terms of any motion we have at present on the floor to establish a Contact Group. We are opposed to the motion to establish a Contact Group, although it is linked to the motion to close the debate,because we are opposed to the proposals for the composition of the Group and also the method of proposing the Chairman from the floor...
The reason we are opposed in this way is because we feel that this is directly against the rules of procedure that we normally have for establishing either friends of the Chair, and most specifically against Rule no. XIV of the General Rules.
Finally, Mr Chairman, through you I should like to ask for clarification from the distinguished delegate of Costa Rica. I may have picked up the translation wrongly but when he was describing his proposals for selecting participants on the basis of regional groups and two members for regional groups I heard him say that this was "to prevent the inclusion of the wrong persons". I was very interested in this, and through you, Mr Chairman, I would be very grateful if he could provide us with a definition of what are "the wrong persons" to enable us to consider these proposals more fully.
CHAIRMAN: Costa Rica, to try and make this as clear as possible, the Chair cannot answer questions on what you stated, but a question was put by the United Kingdom, namely, who determines which two countries from the region?
I think it is obvious that there was an interpretation mix up if it said "the wrong persons", but I think he wishes for clarification of who would select. Could you please respond to his enquiry? Point of Order by the United Kingdom.
POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN
James AITKEN (United Kingdom): May I intervene to assist you here? My point was that on translation I heard the distinguished delegate of Costa Rica say in his description of his proposals "to prevent the selection of the wrong persons". I merely wanted, through you, to seek a definition of what is a "wrong person" in terms of the view of the delegate of Costa Rica.
CHAIRMAN: The question put to the Chair to put to you was that what he heard when you spoke was that there would be two persons selected from each region but they would be "wrong persons". He asks "what is the definition of the wrong persons?" Costa Rica, please, reply.
Carlos DI MOTTOLA BALESTRA (Costa Rica): Sr. Presidente, estamos en un momento muy serio de la Conferencia y no estamos jugando con las palabras. No recuerdo la frase que dije ni sé cómo ha sido traducida. Mi intención era decir que cuando la designación es hecha por los grupos regionales se va a encontrar en el grupo de trabajo un conjunto de personas que representan diferentes tendencias que han sido expresadas en los documentos que tenemos a la vista y entre los cuales se tendría que buscar una conciliación. Yo creo que podría ser una cosa que no produce los efectos que queríamos alcanzar, incluir sólo representantes de una tendencia o de dos, pero no de las tres tendencias por conducto de las cuales han sido formuladas las tres propuestas de resolución. Esto era el fondo de lo que quería decir. Si durante la intervención he usado algún término que puede haber sido mal interpretado me disculpo, pero mi idea es que los grupos regionales son los más aptos para designar sus representantes porque les toca a ellos llegar a una tentativa de composición y de formulación de un consenso.
CHAIRMAN: At this point we have a couple of other countries which have sought to speak on the motion, but we also have two points of order - one by the Congo and one by Mexico. We will take those in order. But the Chair would caution, a point of order must be a point of order.
POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN
Joseph TCHICAYA (Congo): Ce que nous voulions, ce n'était pas refaire un discours sur le sujet dont nous discutons en ce moment mais apporter la lumière sur la proposition faite par le Costa Rica, qui a pourtant été amendée par nous - et notre amendement a été appuyé. Nous n'aimerions pas que toutes les régions soient représentées sur une base égalitaire; nous avons souscrit pour notre part à la proposition faite par la Colombie qui a invité les deux Présidents du Groupe des 77 et de l'OCDE à s'entendre sur la représentation au sein de ce Groupe; en effet, nous pensons qu'une représentation égalitaire au sein de ce Groupe ne reflète pas les opinions émises dans cette Commission.
Voilà ce que nous avions à dire sur ce sujet: il faut amender légèrement la proposition faite par notre ami du Costa Rica et reprendre la proposition concrète et bien élaborée, comme à l'habitude, par mon collègue et ami, l'Ambassadeur Bula Hoyos.
CHAIRMAN: That was not of course a point of order but you were not ruled out on those grounds because, coincidentally, you were next in line. We have four other countries requesting the Chair's attention. We would ask that in the future if you have a point of order as opposed to a request to speak please slip a note up to the Secretary. Sometimes it is not clear. We have had two instances where the chair had the impression that the distinguished representative of India was asking to speak. In fact he had a point of order and we apologise for that. It was a misunderstanding.
POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN
José Ramon LOPEZ-PORTILLO ROMANO (Mexico): Mi moción de orden consiste en protestar por la forma en que se tratan las mociones de orden, porque de acuerdo con los textos básicos cuando hay una moción de orden usted debe dictaminar al respecto, después de lo cual la Asamblea decide, y no continuar con una sucesión de mociones de orden que no nos permiten aclarar el debate.
Yo tenía una lista de países que iban a intervenir normalmente y he visto, sin embargo, que algunos de los que iban a hablar después de mí han hablado antes sin aclarar que se trataba de una moción de orden. Y además, el tratamiento que se le ha dado a esas supuestas mociones de orden no ha sido el adecuado; es decir, dirimirlas inmediatamente, por tanto, Sr. Presidente consiste en que se traten las mociones de orden conforme a los textos básicos y que se me dé la palabra luego para hacer las propuestas correspondientes en relación al tema que estamos discutiendo.
CHAIRMAN: The Point of Order is well taken and the Chair specifically made the request that when there is a Point of Order please slip a note to the desk so that we will be absolutely certain whether it is a Point of Order request or a request to speak. They are different. You are correct and it would facilitate the proceedings if we did know that.
The meeting was suspended from 11.40 to 12.20 hours
La séance est suspendue de 11 h 40 à 12 h 20
Se suspende la sesión de las 11.40 a las 12.20 horas
Carlos DI MOTTOLA BALESTRA (Costa Rica): Sr. Presidente, si por razones técnicas, que mi delegación no entiende, usted sugiere que yo retire la moción de orden de manera que se permita formular una propuesta de Francia respecto a la solución de los problemas que he venido presentando en mi intervención, estoy de acuerdo en retirarla para facilitar la conclusión de esta reunión y, por lo tanto, le ruego dé la palabra a la delegación de Francia.
Bernard LEDUN (FRANCE): Après avoir entendu les nombreuses déclarations des délégations ici présentes, il faut bien convenir que nous n'avons guère avancé sur la voie du consensus. Les thèses en présence sont en effet fort éloignées les unes des autres et on ne voit pas bien, dans ces conditions, comment nous pourrons parvenir à nous séparer avec une position commune.
La délégation française suggère donc, après en avoir discuté avec d'autres délégations, la mise sur pied d'un groupe de contact constitué sur une base géographique dont les membres seraient désignés par les différents chefs des groupes régionaux. Ce groupe de contact se réunirait dès que possible, sur une base informelle, afin de procéder éventuellement à la préparation d'un projet de résolution qui permettrait de rapprocher autant que faire se peut les points de vue en présence.
Nous pensons que nous devons faire tout notre possible pour aboutir à un résultat positif. Seul un groupe de contact restreint, établi sur une base géographique, mais également représentatif des thèses des uns et des autres, serait en mesure d'aboutir à un compromis de cette nature. Nous suggérons que la composition de ce groupe se fasse au plus tot, en consultation avec les différents groupes régionaux, et soit annoncée par vous-même dès que possible.
CHAIRMAN: Before proceeding the Chair would ask if there are any objections to the motion of France? There is an objection. Italy state your objection.
Elio PASCARELLI (Italy): I have tried to take the floor for the last hour and ten minutes. So far Italy has not been allowed to express its view on the subject which is being discussed. We have lost one hour and fifteen minutes for a recess that was supposed to be only five minutes. You never gave me the floor although I asked for it five times.
CHAIRMAN: India has signalled the Chair that it relinquishes its slot on the roll; it preceded you; you were next in order.
Elio PASCARELLI (Italy): May I say why I have to oppose the French motion. The reason is that I never thought that the Chairman would ask the Committee to form the Contact Group. This is alien to my knowledge of the proceedings. Sharing the view of many delegates I think that is our duty to try our very best to reach a consensus if it is reachable. We should help you but you have the baton. You should in my view form the Contact Group, not ask us to vote. I am so glad that the Costa Rican delegate withdrew his proposal because I wanted to ask him kindly to withdraw and to leave it to the Chairman to select the advisors that would be most susceptible of reaching a compromise. Although I am very doubtful of the result this is the duty and the right of the Chairman Please consider my delegation at your disposal for any of this attempt, but let us not waste more time. We have wasted an hour and twenty minutes, whereas you yourself have proposed that we shift to the next item on the Agenda. I was ready to support your proposal because the item has a deadline whereas this one has no deadline.
CHAIRMAN: I want to assure you that I very much appreciate that. I was well aware that earlier you requested to speak in support of what you just said and that that certainly made things easier for the Chairman. As you well stated the Chair did indicate yesterday that efforts were under way concerning the Contact group, and indicated that earlier this morning before 10 o'clock. They are under way.
The Chair does not feel that it is the role of the Chair to pick the specific members. The order of procedure has been to approach the representative groups. Yesterday I met with the head of the Group of 77 and .I met with the head of the OECD group. To them privately I expressed my personal views that there ought to be effort under way that was roughly what France has just suggested, and there ought to be a geographic balance but not at the expense of having a representation that is by viewpoint and you should try to have people who have particularly strong views one way and particular views another way. There should be some countries like France which I specifically mentioned yesterday being involved, and you have a blending that way. I cautioned that we try to avoid having friends of the Chairman or contact group that is Coo big. So there is no possible misunderstanding, do we have a consensus in support of the proposal of France? The Chair's impression was that there was but one objection raised, a mild one. Can you please indicate by a show of hands those countries who feel that they are in general agreement with the proposal of the Government of France? Well, the Chair does not see remotely as many signs held up as it had the impression there was support. Can the Chair now see those that are objecting?
Harald HØSTMARK (Norway): It is a question of clarification. If I understood the French proposal correctly - that is what I want to clarify - the French proposal was trying to convey to you the sense and the hope that it should be announced that a contact group would be established and that its composition would be announced as soon as possible when consultations that are presently ongoing with regional groups were concluded. Am I right in that understanding?
CHAIRMAN: Does France state in the affirmative that Norway has a correct interpretation of the French views?
Bernard LEDUN (France): Oui, monsieur le Président, le distingué délégué de la Norvège a en effet bien interprété la proposition que j'ai faite. Il s'agit d'annoncer au plus tot, ou dès que possible, la composition du Groupe de contact, une fois que les consultations entre les différents groupes régionaux auront abouti.
CHAIRMAN: That was the Chair's interpretation as well. Accordingly, the Chair also interprets that there is a majority support for the French proposal and accordingly the Chair will ask the group of 77 representative and the OECD representative to continue with the efforts that they began yesterday and as expeditiously as possible to try to come to agreement following consultation with the representatives of each region. They should try to put together a body that follows the outline of the French proposal and to report to me as quickly as possible on its composition so that I can then present it to the full body.
Elio PASCARELLI (Italy): I think you were rather too optimistic in saying that my objection to joining the consensus was mild. I do not agree at all.
CHAIRMAN: At this point I would apologise to you then because I did something that I said the Chair should not do and that is interpret for you.
Elio PASCARELLI (Italy): My objections do not concern the intentions of the French delegation. I fully share them. My opposition was not to the foresight or slim perspective that the French delegation sees. I do agree with him. I agree with many things except the point it should not be the Chairman to select a very restricted group of countries after hearing what the positions are, and not balancing geographically. It is not a balancing of geography here. I am straightforwardly opposed to geographical distribution, otherwise we make a small committee which reproduces this Commission and we never get through.
CHAIRMAN: The Chair believes that it can clarify your concern by asking France to state if it's intent was as the Chair understood it and that was not simply to have geographic balance, but to have a consideration of both the different viewpoints and the geographic balance. Is that correct France?
Bernard LEDUN (France): Tout à fait Monsieur le Président; nous avons dit au moment de notre intervention qu'il serait souhaitable que la constitution de ce Groupe de contact se fasse sur une base géographique, car je vois difficilement comment il pourrait en être autrement; il faudra bien que les régions du globe soient représentées au sein de ce Groupe de contact; mais j'ai également dit qu'il faudrait pondérer cette représentation géographique par une représentation des différentes thèses exprimées au cours de nos débats pendant cette session.
Donc, les deux aspects rentreront en ligne de compte: d'une part, un aspect représentation géographique, et d'autre part, un aspect représentation des différentes thèses et tendances retenues pendant nos débats.
CHAIRMAN: The Chair rules that there has been a consensus on the French proposal and that efforts will proceed to get under way.
James AITKEN (United Kingdom): As you were just about to close the debate we should like some clarification of the French proposals. They are not the proposals we understood that we would be dealing with. We were also surprised to hear reference to "weighting" involved. We understood nothing about this and what we are being asked to agree to was something that was on a regional basis, and the composition would be decided by regional groups. It might be helpful if we had some clarification about it.
Bernard LEDUN (France): Il est bien certain, en ce qui me concerne, que je ne peux pas faire à leur place le travail des groupes de consultation régionaux. Par conséquent, quand je dis "pondération", je dis que c'est un terme qui équivaut à "prise en compte". Il y aura forcément une représentation géographique au sein de ce Groupe de contact parce que l'on ne peut pas imaginer un instant que, par exemple, une région en soit totalement absente. Il faudra donc qu'il y ait un équilibrage.
Cela étant, cet équilibrage pourra et devra prendre en considération les différentes thèses soutenues au cours de ce débat. Elles ne sont pas très nombreuses et l'on peut en résumer deux ou trois catégories au maximum.
Il ne devrait pas y avoir de doute ou davantage d'ambiguité sur ma proposition; il appartiendra aux différents chefs de groupe régionaux d'en discuter plus profondément ultérieurement.
CHAIRMAN: Does that answer your question?
Ian BUIST (United Kingdom): I take the French intervention as being solely the expression of opinion of one delegation about how the geographical areas might themselves draw up the composition of any contact group representatives that might be put forward. However, it cannot be for any other group than each geographical region to make its own decisions. It is therefore my understanding that that particular aspect of the French intervention does not form part of the proposal which we are all being asked to endorse.
Sra.María Eulalia JIMENEZ (El Salvador): Queríamos, Señor Presidente, apoyar la moción de Francia, ya que tiene como finalidad lo que durante esta mañana hemos estado discutiendo. No compartimos lamentablemente la opinión de Italia. El Grupo de Contacto debe ser formado por las diferentes Regiones.
Queremos dejar constancia, sin embargo, de una cuestión. No entendemos, Señor Presidente las razones técnicas por las cuales el Delegado de Costa Rica ha debido retirar su propuesta para que se acepte otra de Francia que es igual a la que venimos discutiendo toda la mañana.
CHAIRMAN: I am sorry I have to interrupt you but the Chair has been advised of a point of Order from Algeria. Algeria would you state your point of Order.
POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN
Mourad BENCHEIKH (Algerie): J'avoue, Monsieur le Président, que je suis très étonné de la façon dont toute l'affaire et tous les débats sont menés.
Je pose une motion d'ordre sur votre façon d'aborder la création d'un Groupe de contact, et qui est tout à fait ésotérique; je crois ici représenter l'opinion de beaucoup d'entre nous.
En fait, il vous appartenait de dénoncer dans cette salle cette proposition au lieu de la soumettre -encore une fois - de façon ésotérique, en contactant les uns et les autres en dehors de cette enceinte.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. These are personal comments and I will reply. You were told yesterday that the Group of 77 and the OECD Group were approached and that they were asked to start this in motion. You were informed this morning that there was a sense that some persons are not quite as enthusiastic about the Contact Group at this point as others are and it needs the participation of everyone. The timing was a little bit off and you can see by the feelings expressed that there are some very serious divisive issues before here and that it was best under the circumstances to let the contact Group evolve. If you observed up here you would see that there are representatives of France, of Mexico and others in the Secretariat all trying to come to an amenable resolution and together in those discussions we thought that the procedure that we were about to follow to resolve this right after the recess was an orderly procedure that could lead to a consensus and get us on to the other business.
Sra.-María Eulalia JIMENEZ (El Salvador): Había ya manifestado, Señor Presidente, la opinion de mi país sobre este asunto; sin embargo, quiero plantear una cuestión. Dos veces en esta mañana se me ha interrumpido por una moción de orden. Yo creo que con una moción de orden se puede interrumpir al Delegado que habla si la moción de orden es sobre lo que el Delegado está planteando, no se interrumpe por una moción de orden a cualquier Delegado que está haciendo uso de la palabra en ese momento. Repito lo que plantee anteriormente.
Apoyamos la moción de Francia ya que tiene como finalidad lo que durante toda esta mañana hemos esta do discutiendo. Lamentamos no poder compartir la opinión de Italia, ya que el Grupo de Contacto, según nuestra opinión, debe estar formado por los países que las Regiones decidan y tratar de que en ese Grupo de Contacto, como lo dijo el Delegado de Francia, se encuentren reunidas todas las tendencias que existen sobre ese asunto
Mi Delegación quiere dejar constancia de que no entendemos, Señor Presidente, las razones técnicas por las cuales el Delegado de Costa Rica ha debido retirar una propuesta para que aceptemos en esta sala otra propuesta exactamente igual como la que ha hecho el Delegado de Francia.
CHAIRMAN: El Salvador, you are absolutely right on a Point of Order and the Chair ruled earlier that Points of Order that are not genuine Points of Order but are simply an effort to interrupt another delegation will be ruled out of order. That was stated before and I appreciate your support for that - you are absolutely correct.
Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): La Delegación de Colombia apoya, Señor Presidente, los principios expuestos por nuestros colegas de El Salvador y de Argelia. Una vez más de manera muy cordial, respetuosa y hasta humilde, quisiera pedir a usted que en todo lo que falta en los trabajos de nuestra Comisión, por favor, se abstenga en adelante de interrumpir a cualquier orador.
Pensamos, Señor Presidente, que sobre la propuesta del Grupo de Contacto hay acuerdo unánime, los argumentos que se han expuesto complementan la propuesta de Francia, y esos argumentos deberán tenerse en cuenta por los Representantes de los Grupos Regionales para conciliar la manera más adecuada como se constituya el Grupo y se pueda presentar una propuesta generalmente aceptable.
Para concluir, Señor Presidente, pedimos que se aplique el Reglamento sobre nuestra moción formal de suspender el debate sobre el Tema 12, para esta tarde iniciar el debate sobre el Tema 13. Es una propuesta que se aplique el Reglamento.
CHAIRMAN: Does anyone second the motion just put before the Body? I would also point out that you do not need a formal motion for that; it can be done without it but it would be better with it. The motion was that we just simply suspend and when we come back this afternoon we go on to item 13.Is that a correct statement of your motion?
Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Señor Presidente, nuestra propuesta, después de haber perdido tanto tiempo en apoyar y adoptar la propuesta de Francia, es que se suspenda el debate sobre el Tema 12. Usted ha aplicado una interpretación perfectamente opuesta al Reglamento. No se necesita que nadie apoye esa propuesta. Usted debe preguntar quién se opone a mi propuesta. Eso dice el Reglamento.
CHAIRMAN: The motion is to suspend discussion. There is a vote on it immediately under the rules. Under the rules of FAO "when a motion is made by a member such motion shall not be debated but shall be immediately put to a vote". Under the rules I will put that to a vote immediately. Those countries which wish to suspend discussion indicate so by showing your hand or your sign.
Vote by show of hands.
Vote à main levée.
Votación a mano alzada.
It was so decided.
Il en est ainsi décidé.
Así se acuerda.
