Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page

ADOPTION OF REPORT (continued)
ADOPTION DU RAPPORT (suite)
APROBACION DEL INFORME (continuación)

DRAFT REPORT OF COMMISSION II - PART 3 (continued)
PROJET DE RAPPORT DE LA COMMISSION II - PARTIE 3 (suite)
PROYECTO DE INFORME DE LA COMISION II - PARTE 3 (continuación)

CHAIRMAN: The Secretary advises me that we now have a quorum. The Chair will observe that, true to form, we are forty minutes late. Time is running out and we have to deal with serious business. We are going to pursue the Draft Report of Comission II - Part 3, where we left off and we will continue until four o'clock. There will then be a recess because the report of the Contact Group is expected to be ready by then. We presume that it will be ready and can be distributed and read. At 4.30 p.m. we will reconvene and take up that issue, which is probably the most important one in the deliberations we have had over the last two weeks or so. Also it is clearly the most important pressing issue to be dealt with in the remaining few hours.

PARAGRAPHS 1-17 (continued)
PARAGRAPHES 1-17 (suite)
PARRAFOS 1-17 (continuación)

CHAIRMAN: At this point we have on Part 3 a number of paragraphs to be discussed. If objections are raised we will return to them in order. When we went through paragraph 2 this morning there was an objection raised in regard to it and we now return to it in order to discuss the objection.

Ms Joan DUDIK-GAYOSO (United States of America): My problem with paragraph 2 was that my delegation is not particularly concerned about the decline in FAO’s share of UNDP programmes. There is not a fixed share, and so I should like to propose an amendment to this text that says: "in noting the decline in the FAO share of the UNDP-funded programmes".

CHAIRMAN: Are there any objections?

Antoine SAINTRAINT (Belgique): Nous avons eu l'occasion de souligner, lors de nos diverses interventions, la nécessité pour le PNUD de recourir, pour les projets dans les domaines de l'agriculture et du développement rural, par priorité à la FAO. Or nous sommes très préoccupés parce que le PNUD aurait trop tendance à exécuter lui-même un certain nombre de projets, alors que ce n'est pas sa fonction principale. Nous avons eu l'occasion d'insister sur la nécessité de recourir aux organismes des Nations Unies opérationnels, et notamment à la FAO, pour l'exécution des projets agricoles, ce qui me paraît tout à fait normal.

En ce qui nous concerne, et c'est le cas d'un certain nombre de délégations, - en tout cas c'est vrai pour le Royaume de Belgique - nous sommes préoccupés de la situation.


Arrow Solomon OBURU (Kenya): If I recall allright, during the discussions the observations made by the UNDP was that the decline of the FAO share in UNDP is mainly a reflection of the priority of the recipient governments - that it is the recipient governments which decide how much the UNDP should put into the agricultural sectors of the various countries. This is the position we would wish: that both FAO and UNDP should not dictate to recipient countries how much of the aid resources should go to one particular sector. Therefore we would concur that it be noted that there is a decline in UNDP input and that we should express concern that we should be allowed to say where the resources should go.

Carlos Moyses ANDREOTTI (Brésil): La delegation du Brésil voudrait soutenir la proposition de la délégation de la Belgique.

Milutin TAPAVICKI (Yugoslavia): I would like also to support the expressed view of the delegate of Belgium and I would like to retain the text presented by the Drafting Committee.

Gerald Phirinyane KHOJANE (Lesotho): We would also like to associate ourselves with the sentiments expressed by the delegation of Belgium.

Ibrahim KABA (Guinée): Monsieur le Président, notre délégation exprime son soutien à la déclaration faite par l'honorable délégué du Royaume de Belgique.

CHAIRMAN: The United States again has the Chair's attention, but before we recognize the United States if there is any member country who has not yet spoken we will give the priority.

Ms Joan DUDIK-GAYOSO (United States of America): I am aware that the issue of UNDP's Office of Project Execution has been a continuing issue in this body. The United States could accept language that noted the activities of the UNDP’s Office of Project Execution. Since the Office of Project Execution is described in UNDP documents very much like FAO’s TCP programme in terms of its quick response time, we could not accept that we note with concern the activities of a small office of UNDP which implements less than six percent of the resources of the UNDP.

CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else? I am trying to arrive at some sort of consensus here but we have a clearly conflicting view. The Chair will have to ask for a division by a show of hands in that circumstance.

Temei ISKIT (Turkey): As you have said, there are conflicting views here, but may I venture to make a proposal, and it will be as follows: that after "expressing" we put "generally", "In expressing generally its concern about the decline in the FAO share", and I suppose here "generally" will take care of the US concern; they are not included in the "generally". This is just a try.

CHAIRMAN: I understand, United States, is that acceptable?


Ms Joan DUDIK-GAYOSO (United States of America): No, Mr Chairman, because we do not have a general concern. I could make an alternative proposal, that we just add a sentence that says something like what Kenya said, that some members pointed out that sovereign governments decide what agencies should implement UNDP projects according to what is appropriate.

CHAIRMAN: Docs anyone object to the United States position as just stated, which was in support of what Kenya said?

Antoine SAINTRAINT (Belgique): On. constato qu'on a constaté, mais je crois que l'on constate que l'on ne constate point, et qu'il ne s'agit pas ici en l'occurence ici ni de CTPD ni de PCT. Il s'agit du Programme ordinaire du PNUD. Beaucoup de pays ont insisté pour que le PNUD continue à servir dans le rôle et les fonctions qui lui sont attribués, c'est-à-dire de ne pas être sa propre agence d'exécution, et dans le domaine des projets agricoles de s'adresser aux organisations spécialisées des Nations Unies. Or, incontestablement, dans le domaine de l'agriculture, la FAO est l'Organisation privilégiée des Nations Unies. Il me paraît normal que l'on puisse être préoccupé du fait que le PNUD exécute lui-même une partie de ce programme.

Quant à l'option faite que c'est au pays à le déterminer, nous sommes d'accord que c'est aux pays à le déterminer. Encore faut-il dans les discussions que le PNUD s'efforce de faire participer la FAO à ses discussions. La FAO a incontestablement la capacité de réponse dans le cadre des cycles de programmation pour exécuter les projets financés par le PNUD.

CHAIRMAN: Belgium has made it clear that it supports the text as it is. The United States has an alternative proposal

E.V. WADE-BROWN (United Kingdom): I would just like to say that I support the amendment as proposed by the United States and, in fact, by the delegation of Kenya. It reflects very much what I have heard the UNDP representative say in this forum.

CHAIRMAN: At this time could the United States state its suggestion, the statement in support of what Kenya said? Then we will ask for a decision by a show of hands.

Ms Joan DUDIK-GAYOSO (United States of America): What the text would be, we would not change the "in expressing its concern", that would stay. Then there would be at the end of the paragraph a sentence that reads as follows: "Some members pointed out that sovereign governments decide what agencies should implement UNDP projects according to which is appropiate."

CHAIRMAN: Is there any objection? Belgium objects to that.


Antoine SAINTRAINT (Belgique): On utilise I'expression "certains membres". Or c'est tous les membres qui sont d'accord sur le fait que les pays souverains organisent eux-mêmes leurs programmes de développement. Il n'y a pas de pays qui déclarent le contraire, et qu'il faille mettre des pays sous tutelle. Ce que nous voudrions c'est que dans le cadre de l'élaboration des cycles de programmation et dans l'exécution des programmes du PNUD, la FAO soit l'organisme privilégié pour exécuter les projets dans le domaine agricole. Aucun pays ne viendra dire que la souveraineté des pays pourrait être atteinte de Ia moindre façon en ce qui concerne leur pouvoir de décision. Leur dire que certains pays ont soulevé le principe de la souveraineté des pays me paraît un texte inacceptable pour l'ensemble des pays.

CHAIRMAN: Are you proposing to change it to "all countries"?

Antoine SAINTRANT (Belgique): Tout à fait d'accord: "tous les pays".

CHAIRMAN: Would the United States accept that? Is there any objection to the United States proposal as amended by Belgium? There being no objection, it is adopted. Without further objection paragraph 2 is adopted as amended. Paragraph 3 was also contested.

Ms Joan DUDIK-GAYOSO (United States of America): I take responsibility for contesting this paragraph and the reason is the words "with satisfaction". My government believes that the funding for UN System technical assistance should go through the UNDP, so we are not particularly in favour or satisfied with the idea of trust funds. So we would like to drop those two words.

Antoine SAINTRAINT (Belgique): Il y a parmi les membres de la FAO un certain nombre de pays qui travaillent depuis des années à l'aide de fonds fiduciaires et qui sont très satisfaits de la formule. Si on veut supprimer les termes "la Conférence", on peut dire "une large majorité de pays a noté avec satisfaction...", ce qui veut dire qu'une petite minorité se dissocie de cette majorité.

CHAIRMAN: Docs anyone object to saying "some countries noted with satisfaction" - "A majority of countries noted with satisfaction"? Is there any objection to that? There being no objection, that is adopted. Are there any other points on paragraph 3?

Ms Joan DUDIK-GAYOSO (United States of America): Many countries also praised the allocation of the share of the programme to Africa and I would like to add at the bottom of the paragraph "and to the proportion of the programme allocated to Africa".

CHAIRMAN: Is there any objection? There being no objection, it is so ordered. Are there any further points on paragraph 3? There being none, paragraph 3 is adopted as amended.

There is an objection raised to paragraph 4. The Chair did not note who objected at different points. On some there were more than one. So when we come to a paragraph under dispute please indicate.


Antoine SAINTRAINT (Belgique): Nous avons nu l'occasion, lors do la discussion du Programme du PCT et à diverses reprises, de souligner le rôîe du programme do coopération technique.

Je proposerais d'ajouter à la 4ème ligne: "le PCT aide à réaliser de petits projets catalytiques qui permettent la formulation et la mise au point de projets importants et qui engendrent souvent une expansion à plus long terme..."

CHAIRMAN: Is there any objection to that?

Ms Joan DUDIK-GAYOSO (United States of America): I do not object. I just wonder if it could be rend one more time.

CHAIRMAN: Belgium, could you please repeat your proposal slowly?

Antoine SAINTRAINT (Belgique): Voici la redaction quo jo proposo: "lo Programme do cooperation technique aide à réaliser de petits projets catalytiques, qui permettent la formulation et la mise au point de projets importants qui engendrent...".

CHAIRMAN: Is there any objection? That language is adopted. Are there any further points on paragraph 4?

Ms Joan DUDIK-GAYOSO (United States of America): I would like to propose the addition of the following sentence at the end of paragraph 4: "Some delegations called for more thorough assessment of TCP projects."

CHAIRMAN: Are there any objections? If there are no objections, it is adopted.

Any further points on paragraph 4? No, so it is adopted. The Chair's record shows that the next paragraph in contest is paragraph 7.

Ms Joan DUDIK-GAYOSO (United States of America): I would like to insert the word "more" before "candid and balanced", so the first sentence would read "The Conference noted with appreciation that Chapter Two, covering the assessment of field project performance, provided a more candid and balanced account".

CHAIRMAN: Is there any objection?

Sra. Monica DEREGIBUS (Argentina): Si entendí bien la enmienda que esta proponiendo la distinguida Delegada de Estados Unidos, se diría en la primera frase "La Conferencia tomó nota con agrado de quo en el Capítulo Dos, rolativo a la evaluación do los proyectos do campo, so describían do forma más objetiva y equilibrada". Yo creo que esto implicaría que en algún momento no se hizo de forma suficientemente objetiva, de manera que me parece que estamos haciendo un juicio de valor si incluimos la palabra "más". Yo preferiría que no se incluyera.


CHAIRMAN: Argentina, in the English language at least that is a problem, you could have potential interpretation either way beacuse if you say it is a more candid and balanced account, yes, it could be taken to connote as you have just stated. If you say it is a candid and balanced account, the very fact that you are saying that it is a candid and balanced account implies that previously it was not.

Gonzalo BULA HOYOS(Colombia): Sr. Presidente, muy respetuosamente le pregunto: ¿Puedo referirme al párrafo seis?

CHAIRMAN: Paragraph 6 was adopted earlier today; your country was represented at the time that it was. We arc going to have to get on with our work. We are not going to open closed doors. Paragraph 7, any more work on paragraph 7?

Mme Anna Teresa FRITTELLI ANNIBALDI (Italie): Je veux tout simplement me rallier à ce que vient de dire la déléguée de l'Argentine en ce sens que je suis pour la conservation du texte. tel que le Comité de rédaction l'a approuvé, étant donné que la majorité des membres de la Commission n'ont pas mis en cause la question de la franchise. Or, si nous ajoutons le mot "plus", cela pourrait faire penser qu'un jugement de valeur est effectivement porté, ce qui ne me semble pas le cas.

K.N. ARDHANAREESWARAN (India): My delegation feels that there is no need to add the word "more". We can leave the text as it is.

Raphael RABE (Madagascar): Au Comité de rédaction, cette phrase a fait l'objet d'une très longue négociation et si l'on est arrivé à accepter ce texte, c'est pour plusieurs raisons. Nous souhaiterions que l'on apprécie le consensus qui a été obtenu au sein du Comité de rédaction et que l'on laisse cette phrase telle quelle.

Ms Joan DUDIK-GAYOSO (United States of America): On this point my delegation was among those who indicated in the debate that we felt that the evaluations and assessments section of this Report was progress over.previous such Reports, and that is part of the reason why the "more" inserted there. We also-indicated that we would have wished for a greater attention to certain aspects of the assessment process, so my delegation had problems with the word "balanced" and I chose to propose the addition of the word "more" because it seemed to be the simplest way of "dealing with our problem. I think the Chairman is right, that if you just say "candid and balanced" one wonders what came before and I think that Argentina is also right, that if you say "more candid and balanced", well that obviously means last year or two years ago the Report was less. I can propose a language which is more complicated and says that "the Conference recognised progress in assessing field projects" but frankly it would facilitate our work if this Group could accept the addition of "more".

CHAIRMAN: Thank you, United States but we do seem to have a dispute on the addition of "more" and I presume that that remains, no one has indicated a withdrawal of that. In the interests of time, the Chair will suggest that anyone could interpret the language presently there as an implied statement that there were previously problems of the lack of candour or a lack of balance and the chair would also observe that the very fact that the phrase "with appreciation" is in the sentence indicates that it is greeted favourably as a change. One would know that candour and balance would be expected as opposed to being appreciated and the very phrase "with appreciation" adds to that weight but we can spend as much time or as little time as you wish on this.


Sra. MÓnica DEREGIBUS (Argentina): Mi delegación no se opone a que la Conferencia o algunos Estados Miembros expresen que encuentran un progreso o encuentran un avance en la manera en que se describen las dificultades con que se había tropezado. Lo que no quisiera es que se calificara ese avance mediante la adopción de la palabra "más" previa a "objetiva", que aparentemente en inglés está escrita como candida o algo así. 0 sea, que si existe otra formulación que la distinguida delegada de Estados Unidos pueda ofrecernos, sin que ello implique un juicio de valor con relación n la objetividad o al balance de estos análisis o de estos estudios, estamos dispuestos a escucharla.

K.N. ARDHANAREESWARAN (India): I would suggest a compromise formulation; in the place of the words "candid and balanced" can we have the expression "useful account", "a useful account of the difficulties faced in programming formulation".

CHAIRMAN: The Chair might suggest that you could say "the Conference noted". I think that the United States and Argentina would seem to be the ones disputing this, they seem to have some kind of an agreement on the word "progress" as an acceptable middle ground and perhaps that might be a way out of this particular linguistic impasse. Do the United States have any alterations?

Ms Joan DUDIK-GAYOSO (United States of America): Well I always admire the ability of the representative of India in those kinds of meetings to come up with useful words and in this case I could accept "useful" but. the formulation I had made that had "progress" was something like this, "the Conference noted with appreciation progress indicated in Chapter 2 in assessing the field project performance and noting the difficulties," so either one would be acceptable to my delegation.

Sra. Mercedes FERMIN-GOMEZ (Venezuela): Yo estaría perfectamente de acuerdo si la palabra no fuera "useful". Continues in English:

"Useful" means nothing because "useful" is everything that you can do in any moment which is useful.

CHAIRMAN: Well, it is the opposite of useless!

Sra. Mercedes FERMIN-GOMEZ (Venezuela): Entonces voy a hablarle en español para que me entienda. Quando hablamos en forma objetiva estamos calificando de una manera específica lo que es realmente objetivo. Pero, entre "objetivo" y "useful" hay una distancia tan grande porque "útil", que es útil. Entonces, yo creo que la atinada e inteligente intervención de la India para mediar, en este caso no está siendo muy favorable para quienes defienden la objetividad de los informes.

CHAIRMAN: The Chair might suggest that an alternative would be to say that "the Conference noted with appreciation" - or without it, it doesn't matter - "certain progress, in that Chapter 2" and then leave the rest exactly as it is which seems to inject the word "progress" that Argentina wished as an alternative and that the United States from what I understood, accepted. Could we reach agreement on that? The Chair was just suggesting that on the basis of what people had stated. Possibly an alternative would be simply to say that "the Conference noted with appreciation that certain progress, in that" and the rest. exactly as it is.

Sra.Mónica DEREGIBUS (Argentina): En lugar de decir "algún adelanto", yo preferiría decir: "tomó nota con agrado del adelanto logrado en el Capítulo Dos, en que se describían de forma objetiva y equilibrada". Porque "algún adelanto" es casi despectivo en español.


CHAIRMAN: Any objection to that?

Barthélémy BOUASSA-MOUSSADJI (Gabon): Pour éviter de discuter longuement sur ce qu'il y a à mettre avant "franche et ut,ile", ne serait-il pas possible de remplacer les mots "franche et équilibrée" par le mot "objective" - qui reléve de l' objectivité, bien sur?

Selon ma proposition, ma phrase se lirait donc comme suit:

"La Conférence a noté avec satisfaction que le chapitre DEUX, qui porte sur l'évaluation des résultats des projets de terrain, donne une analyse objective des difficultés rencontrées dans la programmation...". Le reste sans changement.

Ms Joan DUDIK-GAYOSO (United States of America): Not to object, just to clarify that we would be' talking about "an objective account". If the language is "an objective account" I would note with appreciation the suggestion and accept it.

CHAIRMAN: Gabon, the question the Chair put to you was do you concur with that, the word "account" added? Could you indicate yes or no.

Barthélémy BOUASSA MOUSSADJI (Gabon): A la place d'analyse? Je n'ai pas bien compris.

CHAIRMAN: Okay United States, could you...? Thank God we are not writing the Ten Commandments here:

Ms Joan DUDIK-GAYOSO (United States of America): I was listening in translation and I do not know the translation I got or the interpretation was first the word "analysis", "an objective analysis", and then it was substituted, an objective account. My delegation could accept "an objective account" but since some of us complain that there was not an analysis in this paper, the word "analysis" would be hard to accept.

CHAIRMAN: Gabon, is that satisfactory with you, the word "account", "an objective account"?

Barthélémy BOUASSA MOUSSADJI (Gabon): Pour ce qui est de la version française, "analyse" existe et je pense, pour ma part, qu'il ne sert à rien de changer cela.

CHAIRMAN: Why do you not. leave the French as it is so long as you do not object to the word "account" in English. Have you any objection to that suggestion by the United States?

Sra. MÓnica DEREGIBUS (Argentina): ¿Podría hacer creer por la Secretaría la formulación última que se está tratando de acordar?


CHAIRMAN: That is a good suggestion. Secretary, will you please read.

Michel SAVINI (Assistant Secretary, Commission II): The text will now read: "The Conference noted with appreciation the progress made in the assessment of field project performance, providing an objective account of the difficulties faced in the programming" and the rest without change.

CHAIRMAN: Is there any problem with that? The Chair sees no objection. Netherlands, you have an objection?

Ton A.J.M- OOMEN (Netherlands): One word in the third line from the bottom of the paragraph, the word "were". We felt yesterday during the Drafting Commitee that the word "were" should be "are" but I am just asking if that is in the right tense?

CHAIRMAN: You are right. It should be the present tense. Is there any problem with that? No problem, is there any other point of paragraph 7? There being no objection, paragraph 7 is adopted.

Paragraph 8 was in dispute. Who had objections to paragraph 8?

Ms Joan DUDIK-GAYOSO (United States of America): I should like to add the following language to the end of paragraph 8. After the word "studies" I would add: "while still others stressed the importance of external evaluations".

CHAIRMAN: Is there any objection? There being no objection it is adopted. Are there any further points on paragraph 8? The.re being none, paragraph 8 is adopted.

The next paragraph to which there was objection - paragraph 9.

E.V. WADE-BROWN (united Kingdom): It may be known to some that most members of the United Kingdom delegation are from our Overseas Development and Administration. For this reason we are well aware of the burden placed upon developing countries in meeting the local costs on development projects, as well as the difficulties faced by such countries in finding resources to continue such projects once external assistance is phased out. For this reason we should like to propose an addition to paragraph 9 which we believe reflects the views of some member nations which spoke on this Agenda Item. The proposal we should like to make is that after the word "for" in line 3 we should like to add the following: "project design to include consideration of recurrent costs and for projects to promote".

Sra. MÓnica DEREGIBUS (Argentina): Lamentablemente no entiendo la inclusión que está pidiendo el Reino Unido. Pediría yo, si es posible, que se me aclarara qué tiene que ver poner delante de "promover un desarrollo autosostenido y el examen de los costos". Me parece que son dos cosas absolutamente diferentes.


Ms Joan DUDIK-GAYOSO (United States of America): I am glad to answer that question. I think it was actually the delegate of Kenya who, in our debate, raised the problem that in the reports there is discussion of the problem of follow-on. The problem of follow-on is what happens after external assistance ceases. Many times projects cannot be maintained and the delegation of Kenya called attention to this. It is of concern also to my delegation, as indeed it is to the United Kingdom, that in the very beginning project design should consider how much it will cost to maintain a project after external assistance ceases, otherwise the development is not self-sustained and is in fact continually dependent on external resources that are not always available.

Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): ¿Podría la Secretaría leernos cómo y dónde sería insertada la propuesta del Reino Unido?

CHAIRMAN: It is not up to the Secretariat to make recommendations of what to insert. It is up to the member country which proposes it and the Chair would have to yield to the member country to clarify. I believe they stated it at the end. However, would you please state where the United Kingdom proposed to insert that language.

E.V. WADE-BROWN (United Kingdom): Certainly, at line 3 of paragraph 9, it would read as follows after the comma: "The Conference emphasized the need for project design to include consideration of recurrent costs and for projects to promote self-sustained development".

CHAIRMAN: Is there still objection to that?

McDonald Phillip BENJAMIN (Dominica): As a person involved with projects I have a lot of sympathy with the United Kingdom proposal on this matter and I think it is an area on which the Government has to focus much more and this has to be done at the stage of project design.

Arrow Solomon OBURU (Kenya): We are agreeable to the United Kingdom proposal except that we would wish to leave out the "consideration" and to say "to include an accurate forecast of post project recurrent costs", the rest would continue as it is.

E.V. WADE-BROWN (United Kingdom): That is excellent and we fully accept it.

CHAIRMAN: Any objection to that?

Jaime GARCIA BADIAS (España): Si nuestra delegación ha entendido bien la propuesta del distinguido representante del Reino Unido, él proponía hacer un cambio de la palabra "promover" por "mejorar". En español el sentido de estas dos palabras significa cosas muy diferentes y yo propondría, nuestra delegación desería que se mantuviera la palabra "promover" porque eso quiere decir cosas nuevas, iniciativas nuevas; sin embargo, "mejorar" en castellano, en español significa continuar con cosas ya iniciadas.

En este sentido creo que es mucho más rico de cara al futuro el sentido de la palabra "promover" que es el que había originariamente en el párrafo 9.


CHAIRMAN: I think that is what the United Kingdom has settled on. Is there a problem?

E.V. WADE-BROWN (United Kingdom): No, that was understood.

CHAIRMAN: Paragraph 9 is adopted. The next contested paragraph is paragraph 10.

Ms Joan DUDIK-GAYOSO (United States of America): I should like to add a sentence to this paragraph. It would be the second sentence from the bottom. 1 will read the preceding sentence in the middle of the paragraph and then the addition: "however, a few member nations emphasized the need to undertake a more global review of the management of field programmes, as part of a wider package of reforms which they were proposing". Then comes the addition "some also highlighted continuing problems in several areas, for example, project back-stopping, quality of experts and their ability to transfer skills".

CHAIRMAN: Are there any objections?

Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Antes de hacer una propuesta que tenemos sobre el párrafo 10 quisiéramos que la Secretaría o el Presidente del Comité de Redacción nos informara si lo que ha propuesto ahora la delegada de Estados Unidos fue planteado aquí en la Comisión cuando se discutió este tema.

CHAIRMAN: 1 am sorry we have already adopted that, but if you want we would be glad to ask the Chairman of the Drafting Committee to respond to your question. Was that discussed?

Joseph TCHICAYA (President, Comité de Rédaction): Ce paragraphe a fait l'objet de discussion au sein du Comité de rédaction. Il a été amendé et nous pensons que toutes les idées sont relevées dans le texte qui vous est présenté. Donc, les idées que l'on propose ici sont nouvelles et nous n'en avons pas débattu au niveau du Comité de rédaction.

CHAIRMAN: Does that answer your question Colombia? Of course, it is for the whole Body to write this report.

Akbar Mirza KHALEELI (India): I was about to speak on the same lines as the distinguished representative of Colombia, as clarified by the distinguished Chairman of the Drafting Group. Almost all the amendments which have been introduced to paragraph 4, 7, 8, 9 and now 10 are focussing continually on criticism of whatever has taken place. It looks as though it is adding something which has not found its way at the time of the Drafting Committee Meetings. We accept with you that when the Conference meets we reserve the right to add something more to these additions. In the interest of work we do not wish to make comments on all these additions now.


CHAIRMAN: Anymore comments on that paragraph? There are no other points? Paragraph 10 as amended is adopted. Colombia, can you please state your objections at the time? We are trying to move along expeditiously. If you could raise your flag, or signal it would help. We will re-open 10 -do you have a point on 10?

Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Gracias por su lección, Sr. Presidente. Siempre aprende uno, por muy viejo que sea en esta Organización. En primer lugar, la distinguida colega de los Estados Unidos presentó una propuesta, sobre la cual yo pedí una aclaración; fue suministrada por el Presidente del Comité de Redacción. Otro colega aclaró también la situación, y usted decidió que se adoptara esa propuesta. Nosotros creemos que no se debe adoptar. Y, después de que usted resuelva esto, le pedimos que nos dé la palabra, porque tenemos una propuesta para el párrafo 10.

CHAIRMAN: The Chair assures you, and had you been present and participating earlier, you would have heard me clearly state that in the interest of time we will go through this in as 'expeditious a manner as possible. We went through to try to identify those paragraphs which were non-controversial. We rapidly adopted them. We then singled out all those paragraphs in which there was some conflict. We said that we would return here in an orderly fashion and go through them. We on more than one occasion explained that we would try to move fast, but any time that we inadvertently close things and somebody wanted to come in a couple of minutes later, we would always go back and reopen. And that is what we are doing. All the Chair was pointing out was that while the Chair is saying "without objection" or "is there any objection?", at that time say there is an objection. That was the point. Please state your proposal. Paragraph 10 is wide open.

Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Cuando usted hizo un dictamen semejante sobre el párrafo 6, nosotros lo acogimos y no intervinimos en el párrafo 6. Si vamos a intervenir sobre el párrafo 10, es porque usted lo ha citado entre los párrafos que están pendientes.

CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Did you wish us to ask the Chairman to. clarify whether that was discussed at the Drafting Committee or not?

Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Proponemos que al final del párrafo 10 se agregue la siguiente frase: "Las Delegaciones de América Latina y el Caribe pidieron que se incrementaran las actividades de campo en los paísos de esa región". Gracias.

CHAIRMAN: There is a proposal by Colombia. Is there any objection to it? The Chair sees no objection. Colombia's proposal is adopted. The Chair now recognizes Libya.

Bashir El Mabrouk SAID (Libya) (orginal language Arabic): In the same sense, I would like to say what was said by Colombia with regard to the United States' proposal. Therefore, we would like some clarification. We think that this sentence now being proposed is not within the purview or competence of this Committee because it was not discussed. I think that we should not accept the sentence which the United States delegate has proposed be added.


CHAIRMAN: For a point of clarification, the report is not what we discussed. It is not a report on what the Drafting Committee discussed or did not discuss. It is a report on the whole procedure. For example, Colombia just moved an amendment here. It has every right to do so. It was concurred in. There was no objection to it. Colombia would not have been out of order, as you seem to be suggesting, if the Drafting Committee did not happen to discuss whether the Latin American group did that. What Colombia said is that, as a point of fact, in the discussions the Latin American group did say that particular statement that Colombia said. Now if the Drafting Committee did not happen to think about that while they were discussing, that does not mean that we are out of order in discussing it. It is perfectly in order; perfectly.

Sarai SUNAA (Jordan): I am sorry; I have to agree with my colleague from Libya that the role of the Drafting Committee really is to collect all the information, put it together and come up with some­thing that has been discussed, really, here. It is not up to one delegation or two just to change the whole subject and make it look as if many countries or fewer countries - if there is any system that one country does not approve or goes with the majority - you cannot say one country, for example, or two countries decided that and that and that. Just let us be more clear because the interpretation of such reports is very important later on. I do not agree with what has been proposed by the United States.

Ms Joan DUDIK-GAYOSO (United States of America): I agree with Libya and Jordan. This report should reflect what took place in the debate. Frankly, I find that this report is basically not a fair, balanced report of what took place in the debate. As the delegate of India noted, the kind of things we are adding in are things that we felt were important. that were not included in the report. Frankly, the Drafting Committee worked very hard under tremendous time pressure, so I really think they did the very best job they could and I welcome the chance to have a second look at it. My delegation - and we were not the only ones - specifically highlighted particular problems in project management. The sentence that I proposed does not say that everyone agreed; it said that some also highlighted particular problems. Those problems are even highlighted in the document itself in the section on evaluation, page 42, paragraph 2.30. I would like it to be reflected in this report because I think otherwise the report will not reflect the debate.

Raphael RABE (Madagascar): Je voudrais intervenir plutôt sur la proposition de la délégation de la Colombie.

CHAIRMAN: " Excuse me, but we are going to have to have some order. The Chair has ruled that the Colombian proposal has been adopted. Now we have got to have a certain flexibility in being able to go back when somebody did not hear us say that the debate was closed, and reopen and be flexible on that. But Colombia's proposal is clearly adopted. We cannot go back and resurrect it because Colombia would be perfectly in order to object to it, which would block that. We cannot resurrect that.

Raphael RABE (Madagascar): Je voulais intervenir plus tôt sur la proposition de la délégation de la Colombia. Cette proposition a sa place dans le paragraphe 6.

CHAIRMAN: Paragraph 6 was adopted previously.

Excuse me, but Madagascar has raised a very pertinent point that in the language in paragraph 6 it. does say that regret was expressed at the low share of field projects in Latin America and the Caribbean, which was the point of Colombia's. The point seems to be that we have already plowed that ground.


Sra. Mónica DEREGIBUS (Argentina): La Delegación argentina también ha dicho cosas, durante el debate de todos los temas que hemos tratado en esta Comision, y, no obstante, no está tratando de que en cada párrafo se incluya su punto de vista. Creo que las Delegaciones aquí tenemos que tener, en ese sentido, un poco de responsabilidad y no intentar modificar todos los párrafos con cosas que hemos dicho durante el debate. Porque, de todas maneras, el Comité de Redacción ha hecho lo que ha podido con el conjunto del debate; y si cada uno de los Estados Miembros quiere poner su párrafo particular en cada párrafo particular del informe, no vamos a terminar.

Ms Anna-Liisa KORHONEN (Finland): As Finland was not a part. of the Drafting group, 1 think that from that point of view I may raise some additional points here just for the benefit of the Commission. 1 think that the proposal by the United States is just a factual statement, and my delegation would like to support it just because of the fact that this is a common problem. We all know that in our bilateral programmes and in programmes with the other multilateral agencies the same problem occurs. So this is not something which is specifically problematic to FAO. I also believe that this is in the very nature of the changing requirements of technical cooperation when we face these kinds of problems. I do not see that this is any kind of a negative statement, but just a kind of factual statement of the processes, where ail the countries are when we deal with technical cooperation issues. So I hope that we will keep this fact in mind when we discuss the United States amendment.

CHAIRMAN: If there is any country which has not spoken, we always try to give preference.

Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Espero que, al referirme solamente a mi propuesta, pueda ayudarle para que usted pase luego a Estados Unidos. El colega de Madagascar ha señalado que en el párrafo 6 hay y? una referencia a la posición de las Delegaciones latinoamericanas, y recordará usted que yo no pude referirme a ese párrafo por acogerme a su dictamen. Pero en el párrafo 6 solamente aparece la mitad de la posición nuestra; ahí lamentamos la escasa participación. Con la adición que propone­mos al párrafo 10, pedimos que se incremente la participación. Son dos conceptos distintos. Induda­blemente, desde el punto de vista estético, habría sido todo mejor en el párrafo 6; pero, como no fue posible, lo hemos propuesto en el párrafo 10, que termina hablando del incremento de las actividades de campo en los países.

CHAIRMAN: Are there any other points?

Raphael RABE (Madagascar): En fait ma proposition était d'inclure cette phrase de la délégation de Colombie au paragraphe 6. Je n'avais pas dit qu'elle était déjà incluse. Ma proposition était donc sur le paragraphe 6 et d'inclure cette proposition à sa place dans ce paragraphe.

CHAIRMAN: Does anyone have an objection to reopening paragraph 6 and putting Colombia's statement in paragraph 6? Nobody? So ordered.

The Chairman must caution that we have to agree not to keep going back and reopening closed territory or we will never know when we have concluded. If we close down a paragraph we should try within reason to keep it closed so nobody at any time can jump back and forth all over the place or we will not finish any work. We still have paragraph 10 to finish. At this point, to clarify the debate, it would facilitate things if the United States of America would restate its proposal, because that is the remaining point of contention on this paragraph as the Chair understands it.


Ms Joan DUDIK-GAYOSO (United States of America): The addition would be to the second to the last sentence. It would read, "some delegations also highlighted continuing problems in several areas, for example project back-stopping, quality of experts and their ability to transfer skills".

CHAIRMAN: On the proposal moved by the United States of America and seconded by Finland, is there on this point any objection?

Bashir El Mabrouk SAID (Libya) (original language Arabic): This reference in this paragraph, in order to facilitate our work we agree on condition that we say, "a few members of delegations" or "few delegations" highlighted. If the delegation of the United States feels it has referred to this in its statement during the discussion, we have to say, "a few delegations have highlighted".

CHAIRMAN: I believe the word put forward by the United States was the word "some", or was it "a few"? There is a different meaning between "few" and "some", but there is not a different meaning between "some" and "a few", but if you do not have the "of" there it has a different meaning. I suggest the United States would not agree to "only a few".

Ms Joan DUDIK-GAYOSO (United States of America): I would only say that I am very surprised at the desire of some of us to try to gloss over problems that are problems we all deal with. I can live with "a few". I am surprised that in this body it seems to be unacceptable to say things which are said out loud with no embarrassment in United Nations bodies. These kinds of things are in UNEP documents, and FAO has participated in discussion of these problems, but for some reason in Rome it is an embarrassment to discuss them. I am willing to end up and live with "a few".

CHAIRMAN: Perhaps you mean "too few".

Ms Joan DUDIK-GAYOSO (United States of America): I would be happy to say "too few".

Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Señor Presidente, apruebo la propuesta de compromiso presentada por Libia.

Marcos I. NIETO LARA (Cuba): Señor Presidente, modificación introducida en el sentido de que se diga unas pocas Delegaciones, estaríamos dispuestos a aceptarla; pero una vez más hacemos un llamado a esta Comisión para significar que el Comité de Redacción trabajó con mucho equilibrio, tuvo una composición muy bien equilibrada, trabajó intensamente con una excelente voluntad para recoger lo que se dijÓ en el debate, y nos parece que estamos deteniendo nuestras labores quizá examinando puntos que ya fueron debidamente discutidos.

Ahora, dicutíamos si se ponía unos pocos, algunos, muchos, etc.. Estos aspectos fueron previamente discutidos en el Comité de Redacción, incluso llegaron a señalarse específicamente las Delegaciones que habían hecho referencia a tal o cual tema. Pudiéramos, llegado el caso hablar de cantidades respecto a tal o cual planteamiento, porque así fue examinado cuidadosamente en el Comité de Redacción.

Hacemos, Señor Presidente, un llamado nuevamente para tratar de avanzar mucho más en nuestro trabajo y ofrecer, y otorgar un tanto más de confianza al Comité de Redacción que hasta ahora ha contado con la confianza de esta Comisión.


CHAIRMAN: The Chair cannot deny member countries the opportunity to speak on these additions. The Chair sympathizes with your admonishing us to get on with the work and for that reason the Chair has opened each meeting and pointed out that nobody turns up for work. We need to get on with it, true, but it is not within my power to keep people from debating an "as" or "but" or "how", or "when" or any of these sorts of things. Does the United States wish to amend this to "too few".

Ms Joan DUDIK-GAYOSO (United States of America): If that is a serious question and this body will accept this language, I will be happy to accept it.

CHAIRMAN: Is there any objection to "too few"? No objection. Paragraph 10 is hereby closed, As previously announced, we have the Contact Group completing its business and there will be a report to us shortly. This will be given to the translators to try and make it as easy as possible to work with. As I indicated earlier we will recess for a while. We will suspend this item and try to return in a short while. We will come back as quickly as we can.

Paragraphs 1 to 17 not concluded
Les paragraphes 1 à 17 sont en suspend
Los
párrafos 1 a 17 quedan pendientes

The meeting was suspended from 16.20 to 18.30 hours
La séance est suspendue de 16 h 20 á 18 h30
Se suspende la sesión de las 16.20
a las 18.30 horas

II. ACTIVITIES AND PROGRAMMES OF THE ORGANIZATION (continued)
II. ACTIVITES ET
PROGRAMMES DE L'ORGANISATION (suite)
II.
ACTIVIDADES Y PROGRAMAS DE LA ORGANIZACION (continuación)

12. Consideration of Review of Certain Aspects of FAO's Goals and Operations, including the Need for Reform in the Programme Budget Process (continued)
12. Examen éventuel de certains aspects des buts et opérations de la FAO, y compris la nécessité d'une réforme de la procédure du budget-programme (suite)
12. Posible examen de algunos aspectos de las metas y operaciones de la FAO, especialmente la necesidad
de reformar el proceso de presupuestación por programas (continuación)

CHAIRMAN: The Secretariat now has for distribution to the member countries he document C 87/LIM/50 being submitted by the Contact Group, and to try to facilitate matters for everybody here we would be scribbling this right now but we will not start the introduction for a few more moments so that member countries have the documents.

Secretariat, would you please distribute to the member countries the report of the Contact Group?

The Chair will now ask Mr Jurecky, who is the man who presided over the Contact Group meetings, to make some introductory comments and report to us on the activities of the Contact Group.


John JURECKY (Chairman, Contact Group): The Contact Group met in an extremely extensive series of sessions that began on 18 November and continued on a daily and oftentimes nightly basis, Saturday and Sunday included, until today, 25 November. The actual amount of time devoted to our discussion and negotiation was in excess of 32 hours. Those countries which participated - and all of them did so very actively - were the countries that I shall now name: the Cameroon, Congo, Costa Rica, France, the Federal Republic of Gernamy, India, Japan, Libya, Mexico, Norway, the Philippines, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. According to the procedures we all agreed to, the draft resolutions of the United States, C 87/LIM/28, the one presented by the delegations of the Latin American and Caribbean Group and the Near East Group, C 87/LIM/29-Rev.1, and the Nordic proposal, C 87/LIM/27, were taken up. The procedure that was followed was that there should be an oral expla­nation of the respective resolutions by the sponsors, followed by a round of subsequent questions and answers. It was agreed by those present that we would first take up the so-called Nordic Resolution -this following the initial presentation - and that there would be a question and answer period on each of the three draft resolutions. It was then agreed that the so-called Nordic Resolution would be taken up in the next round and that it was to be used as a basis for the detailed negotiation of language, As part of this agreement, we decided to begin with paragraph 2 of C 87/LIM/27, deleting for the purposes of our discussion references to the "Committee", which occur throughout the reso­lution, wherever it appeared in the Nordic text. The document which has just been distributed to you should be read with this understanding.

We continued from paragraph 2 and got as far as paragraph 5, where only limited discussion. was possible due to the exhaustion of our available time, and of our bodies as well, I am afraid. Therefore the Contact Group agreed that paragraphs 2-4 of C 87/LIM/27 were to be replaced by the language in the document that you should now have before you. I would note that these revisions reflect inputs from C 87/LiM/29-Rev.1 and from all other members of the Contact Group who worked very diligently and cooperatively together in a spirit that does great credit to all those involved. I thank all of them for the tremendous effort and sense of responsibility they all amply demonstrated in this task. That is all 1 would wish to say at this point.

CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I am sure the Chair speaks for all member countries when we observe that we appreciate the extra work on the part of each of the representatives of the member countries you have named in devoting those 32 extra hours to a difficult task. In the report of the Contact Group that we have before us changes are recommended and in the Nordic Resolution introduced by Norway on behalf of all the Nordic countries. The Chair would feel that it would be in order, to facilitate matters and to help our discussion, if we were to ask Norway whether it concurs in the language used. The Chair has been asked by the Secretary to announce that there is an error in the Spanish language text. Could the Secretary please deal with that now, as it may save time later.

Ms Kay KILLINGSWORTH (Secretary, Commission II): In the Spanish version of C 87/LIM/50 certain words in square brackets at the end of paragraph 2 have been omitted. They are in the English and French texts. I will therefore say them in Spanish:

Al fin del párrafo, después de la palabras "Resolución 3/75", habría que poner, entre paréntesis, las palabras "tal como ha sido adoptada".

Harald HØSTMARK (Norway): Mr Chairman, you asked me a straight question but before I answer it may I, somewhat irregularly, do a favour for a friend in the Secretariat, who has just come to me and asked me to announce that Commission 1 is meeting now.

CHAIRMAN: The Secretary wishes to correct that, but at this point the Chair would discourage other people from going to other meetings, and would encourage them to stay and listen to hear Norway speak about the Nordic Resolution. I would ask the Deputy Director-General to say a few words here.


DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: Commission I is not able to meet now. Commission I will meet at 9.30 punctually tomorrow morning for a maximum of half an hour.

CHAIRMAN: If anybody would like to place bets on whether anything starts punctually here or not, I will take them.

Harald HØSTMARK (Norway): Permit me first to extend my thanks to the Chairman of our Contact Group, who was extremely accommodating and extremely fair and who probably worked harder than anyone else. I would give my personal thanks to him and also to my colleagues in that Group. They all seemed to be acting out of a spirit of goodwill and cooperation, wanting to come to a result. I appreciated that very much.

It is my great pleasure to say on behalf of the Nordic Group that these amendments that were agreed in the Contact Group and are presented before us in C 87/LIM/50 are fully acceptable to the Nordic Group in its draft resolution and can be considered to be a replacement for paragraphs 2, 3 and 4. Paragraph 7 will not be replaced but is being incorporated into another paragraph in the document which has just been distributed. The Nordic Group accepts this, provided that these amendments meet with the consensus of the Commission. Unless it is so accepted, we will have to reserve our right to revert to our original draft.

CHAIRMAN: Thank you Norway: we will come back to you. The Chair understands that changes have also been recommended by the Contact Group which included drafts by Mexico, introduced on behalf of the Latin American and Caribbean Group and the Near East Group. We would wish to give Mexico the oppor­tunity at this point to respond and make observations about its concurrence or non-concurrence.

Sra. Margarita LIZARRAGA SAUCEDO (Mexico): Quisiera, primero que nada, aclarar un poco la situación. La región latinoamericana y del Caribe se encontró representada por su Presidente y por la Delegación de Mexico. Nuestro grupo, apoyado por el del Cercano Oriente, presentó una resolución contenida en el LIM/29/Rev. 1 y asistimos todos a este Grupo de Contacto que como mencionó su Chairman, ha elabora­do numerosas horas y con el mayor espíritu de comprensión, tratando de buscar un texto negociado que fuera aceptable por consenso. Con ese espíritu, tratamos de abordar los elementos para que fuera po­sible llegar a ese entendimiento y, como lo explicó el Presidente, eludimos aquellos aspectos, o me­jor dicho, dejamos para el final aquellos aspectos en donde sentimos que las posiciones no estaban muy cercanas y, proseguimos a ponernos de acuerdo sobre lo que sería el mandato y la forma de entrega del producto del estudio o revisión que estábamos revisando.

Quiero dejar sentado que la Delegación de México encontró el ambiente de trabajo sumamente fructí­fero, que todos los colegas hicieron el mayor esfuerzo para un entendimiento y mi agradecimiento particular va al Grupo Nórdico por representación del Sr. Hostmark, con quienes pudimos tratar de conciliar aquellos aspectos de la Resolución de ellos, con parte de nuestra resolución que podría traer los elementos contenidos en el documento que aquí tenemos.

Como ya se ha expresado antes, los aspectos relativos al mecanismo no se pudieron analizar. El tiem­po nos faltó, tal vez porque empezamos algo tarde, pero en concreto puedo decir que el texto que te­nemos en nuestras manos, es un texto que negociamos y pudimos llegar a un entendimiento que está re­flejado aquí.


Bernard LEDUN (France): A l'instar de mes collègues de la Norvège et du Mexique, je voudrais bien entendu adresser toutes mes félicitations et mes remerciements, d'une part, au Président de notre Groupe de contact et, d'autre part, à tous ses membres, qui ont effectivementaccompli un très gros travail. Comme l'a dit tout à l'heure le président de notre groupe, nous avons en effet beaucoup travaillé même si, aux yeux de certaines délégations ici présentes, le résultat peut paraître rela­tivement mince. C'est que chaque article du document C 87/LIM/50 qui vous est soumis a fait. l'objet de nombreuses interventions souvent pertinentes et que le temps nous aura finalement manqué pour conclure et boucler un projet de résolution complet.

En ce qui concerne ma délégation, si nous souhaitons intervenir ici, ce ne sera pas pour gloser à nouveau sur un document dont les propositions qui concernent le mandat de la Conférence à un groupe d'experts reçoivent globalement notre adhésion, en tenant dûment compte toutefois des points qui restent encore provisoirement en suspens et qui sont mis entre crochets ou qui n'y figurent pas en raison des réserves qu'ils ont suscitées. C'est le cas, notamment, pour le paragraphe 5 du projet de résolution nordique, sous la cote C 87/LIM/27, qui, à notre avis, n'a pas sa place ici s'agissant, d'une part, d'études qui sont déjà prévues dans le mandat général du groupe d'experts ainsi qu'il est indiqué à l'alinéa b) du document C 87/LIM/50 et, d'autre part, d ' une orientation spécifique et davantage du ressort ou du domaine de compétence d'un organe de vérification ou d'un cabinet d'auditeurs en management que d'un groupe de consultants généralistes.

Cette étude approfondie, en effet, sur la gestion de l'Organisation, ne pourrait être entreprise, à notre avis, qu'à l'initiative du Directeur général et par l'entremise d'un cabinet spécialisé de consultants, comme ce fut le cas, par exemple, au Programme alimentaire mondial, l'année dernière.

Non, si nous intervenons, c'est en fait pour traiter de la question qui n'a pu être débattue au sein du Groupe de contact, à savoir la définition du mécanisme auquel serait confiée l'exécution du mandat indiqué dans le document de référence.

Le projet de résolution nordique propose un tel mécanisme dénommé Comité ad hoc d'experts de haut niveau qui n'a pu, faute de temps, faire l'objet d'un examen approfondi au sein du Groupe de contact. Toutefois, le texte du projet de résolution nordique nous éclaire sur le mode de composition et de sélection de ce comité et suscite de notre part et de la part d'autres délégations certaines réserves que nous espérons surmonter, pour notre part, en retenant l'idée de base - le principe de base - c'est-à-dire l'appel à des consultants techniques extérieurs, mais en faisant l'émanation des comités techniques du Programme et des finances, de façon à bien articuler.le travail de ces experts avec celui des organes techniques et du Secrétariat de la FAO.

Nous pensons, en effet, qu'une superstructure du type de celle proposée par le groupe des pays nordiques présente l'inconvénient de court-circuiter les mécanismes établis et, ce faisant, de s'ériger en une espèce de comité des juges ou de commission de contrôle dont nous ne voyons pas bien la vocation en dehors d'une situation d'urgence ou de crise grave, ou encore de flagrante mauvaise gestion.

Nous n'en sommes pas là. Aussi proposons-nous, sous forme de complément au document du Groupe de contact, ou d'amendement au projet de résolution norvégien, le paragraphe suivant que je vais vous lire, d'abord rapidement, et ensuite à vitesse de dictée. Il est relativement bref et ne comporte que quelques lignes. Je lis d'abord rapidement.

POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN

Harald HØSTMARK (Norway): Could I ask for a point of clarification? May I ask if I misunderstood? I thought you opened for a discussion in the first instance of the, if I may term it so, consensus text from the Consulting Group and afterwards we come back to the other parts of the resolution, because of course we Nordics have a few things to say about that too. But I limited myself specifi cally to what I thought you asked for. If I was wrong, please inform me.


CHAIRMAN: The Chair was about to point out that we did indicate that we were going to discuss the document submitted by the Contact Group and see if we had a consensus agreement on this. But France was speaking until that point in general terms, and the Chair is trying to be flexible and have a general discussion, but a specific amendment on that would not be in order at this point. I indicated earlier when Norway finished that we would be coming back to Norway, and then went to Mexico, because changes had been recommended, and we asked Mexico if they wished to address that and they did and they spoke on that. We will come back to Norway, taking up their amendment as soon as we got through some of the introductory remarks here.

Bernard LEDUN (France): Dois-je comprendre qu'il me faudra intervenir une nouvelle fois. ultérieu­rement, au cours du débat pour présenter mon amendement, ou que faisant d'une pierre deux coups, je peux profiter du débat général pour présenter l'amendement, ce qui nous ferait gagner du temps, je pense?

CHAIRMAN: The Chair is perfectly willing to be flexible on that and to allow you in your remarks to talk about your amendment, so long as it is understood by everyone that we will not be proceeding to a vote on your amendment. We would then ask you to come back at the appropriate time and formally move it. But with that understanding, please proceed. You are right, it might facilitate matters but so long as there is an understanding on both parts, and there was not on the part of the sponsor, and for that reason we clarify this. But feel free to state it so long as it is understood that there will not be a vote whenever you wish to press it later.

Bernard LEDUN (France): Si vous le souhaitez, je m'apprête non pas à lire maintenant ou présenter formellement l'amendement que je voulais à l'instant présenter. Simplement, à la différence du mécanisme prévu par le Groupe des pays nordiques, notre proposition vise A la création d'un groupe, je dis bien, d'un groupe d'experts en petit nombre qui serait choisi conjointement par le Comité technique du Programme et des Finances.

Je reviendrai plus longuement sur cette proposition et je m'apprête à en faire une lecture plus appro­fondie ultérieurement. Qu'il soit bien clair néanmoins, à ce stade, que les experts que nous souhai­tons mettre en place, en ce qui nous concerne, nous les souhaitons aussi qualifiés et aussi indépen­dants d'esprit que possible. Comme ils ne feront pas partie statutairement de l'Organisation, il n'y a pas de raison qu'il n'en soit pas ainsi.

Enfin, cette proposition a pour nous le mérite de contribuer à renforcer la capacité d'analyse et d'action du Comité du Programme et du Comité des Finances, renforcement que nous avons appelé de nos voeux durant cette Conférence. Elle présente aussi l'avantage d'être une formule finalement apoliti­que car des experts désignés par des Etats Membres ou groupes régionaux seront investis, quoi qu'ils en aient, d'une mission de caractère quasiment politique ou institutionnel. Quel pas de plus aurons-nous fait alors vis-à-vis des structures actuelles de l'Organisation? Au lieu que les experts désignés par les comités du Programme et des Finances, le seront és qualité, c'est-à-dire en fonction seulement de leur compétence professionnel le et de leur éminence internationalement reconnue. Je me réserve le droit d'intervenir ultérieurement pour présenter mon amendement.

Carlos DI MOTTOLA BALESTRA (Costa Rica): Sr. Presidente, en el Grupo de Contacto hemos hecho el máximo esfuerzo de conciliación. Agradezco a los demás miembros del Grupo de Contacto porque estimo que ellos también hicieron todo el esfuerzo posible de conciliación.

En nombre del grupo latinoamericano apruebo todo el texto que ha sido convenido en el Grupo de Contac­to excepto las palabras entre corchetes. Las palabras entre corchetes son las contenidas en el pá­rrafo 2. subpárrafo b y son "y procedimientos".


Mi grupo no puede estar de acuerdo en eso porque estima que el mecanismo que vamos a poner en marcha no debería ocuparse de la manera con la que se logren los acuerdos entre gobiernos.

A estas alturas me permito apoyar y agradecer a Francia por haber presentado, por ahora en términos genéricos y en lo sucesivo lo hará en términos más específicos, una propuesta que nos permita llevar a la práctica el mandato establecido en el Grupo de Contacto.

En el Grupo de Contacto liemos logrado únicamente un acuerdo sobre un mandato. La tarea que tenemos esta noche es llegar a establecer un acuerdo sobre quién lleva a cabo este mandato. Creo que la propuesta de la cual Francia ha empezado a definir las grandes líneas que van a ser formuladas en su propuesta formal puede ayudarnos muchísimo. Le agradezco y le apoyo de antemano.

Horacio CARANDANG (Philippines): We have also participated in the Contact Group and as soon as we had the opportunity this afternoon I had the honour of calling together the meeting of the Asia Group. It had before it the results of the work of the Contact Group in LIM 50, as well as the other documents that were presented to the Contact Group, including the so-called French proposal. I should like to confirm that the Asia Group is in conformity with the agreements that have been reached in the Contact Group as indicated in LIM 50. The Asia Group has also looked at the so-called "French proposal" in paragraph 3, which is not really an amendment but an additional paragraph, which could possibly be a paragraph 1 of this LIM 50 and they have also indicated their agreement with the same paragraph to be an amendment to the agreement which has been admitted in LIM 50 but would form a new paragraph in the LIM 50, and therefore would find mechanism for the review, whose terms of reference have been more or less spelled out in paragraphs 2 to 4 in the LIM that is now before us.

The problems that are in paragraph 2 of the text before us, we have a small bracket. That is still, I believe, in brackets up to now because this, if you will permit me to explain the origin of these brackets was placed because our delegation requested the inclusion of this because of possible reservations that had been adopted during the Resolution that is reflected in this paragraph 2, but precisely for that reason the paragraph which has been adopted without any reservation, that some people thought this should be into brackets, but that is a different matter altogether, I would just like to confirm the agreement of the Asia Group to this and I hope that we could, as soon as possible, go to the other matters that are pending related to the mandate of this Group proposal, which is precisely the mechanism which is going to the review or to do the review, the mandate of which is already defined in this document before us.

Atif Y. BUKARI (Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of) (original language Arabic): I think that we feel a bit better now. We are more satisfied with the outcome achieved by the Contact Group and also we are very grateful for all the efforts made by the Contact Group and we hope that our satisfaction will further prevail until wé have wound up the scrutiny of all the matters before us. We greatly appreciate the Contact Group's work and efforts and we want to address all our thanks to this Group.

Actually we studied the revised version, paras 2, 3 and 4 as before us now and I think that I am now able, as Chairman of the Group of 77 to say that we do not object. We certainly have no problems in accepting this revised version and I would like to add that we listened very carefully and keenly to the statement made by the delegate of France. We want to confirm that we thought that it was very interesting and very important, what the delegate of France said, and I want to thank France for this effort, these very praiseworthy efforts that were made by France and also for the help that this really implies for all of us, and I would also like to know from the delegate of France if what he is proposing by way of text is going to be added to the text or whether it is a mere amendment. There is, of course, a difference between something which is added or just an amendment and we support the declaration of France and we hope that everybody will take this into account and give it the necessary importance.


Akbar Mirza KHALEELI (India): Having participated quite frequently in the Contact Group, 1 would like first to express our appreciation to the painstaking work of the Chairman, to the extremely restrained and positive attitude to the delegate of Norway, representing the Nordic countries; we know their position and therefore deeply appreciate the efforts they made to reconcile the positions. We also have to thank the delegates of Mexico and Costa Rica and of course Congo, Cameroons, all .of whom had rather strong views on the subject.

Within the Group of 77 I would be. less than frank if I did not say that within the Group of 77 there are a number of countries who have basic reservations on the need of reform or review, in the sense proposed by some countries. That is why we did submit certain other papers which were not considered but in the spirit of compromise and recognizing that there are genuine concerns of a number of important and friendly countries, we agreed to discuss the basic issue of reform or review and therefore the Nordic proposal, which became the basis of the Contact Group's discussion, was considered as the primary paper. It could have been some other paper. Despite 30-odd hours of discussion it was almost impossible to take off so far as the mechanism was concerned. So far as the preamble is concerned, the preamble is not that important, I think one could get to it later, and therefore when the delegate from France suggested at the Contact Group a certain formulation, it was not with a view to pre-empting the discussion of the Nordic proposal but the fact is that even in the Contact Group it was almost impossible to start the discussion on that ad hoc high level Committee and there was no time to discuss the proposal from France and hence this proposal was made. There are also some reservations within the Contact Group on the bracketed portions, which also need to be considered. I think generally those of us who were in the Contact Group, we are not in a position to speak on this. Therefore I do not think I should lengthen my talk any further, except to say that the points between the brackets should be considered, we reserve the right to speak there, and so far as the French proposal is concerned we might consider it an early stage whether a formulation from them would help this committee to get on faster with the work.

Guillermo GONZALEZ (Argentina): Gracias, Sr. Presidente. Mi Delegación desea también, en primer término expresar nuestro sincero reconocimiento a todos ios miembros del Grupo de Contacto, por el esfuerzo que han realizado y por presentarnos en la tarde de hoy algunos párrafos sobre los que, a nivel de Grupo de Contacto, se ha llegado a cierto consenso.

Mi Delegación, sin embargo, no está todavía en condiciones de unirse a este consenso, que parece ser mayoritario, porque tiene algunas dudas. En primer término, resulta difícil estudiar el mandato sin conocer el sujeto a quien se le da el mandato. Pero, de todas maneras, tratando de hacer abstracción del sujeto y limitándonos exclusivamente a la cuestión del mandato - es decir, a ios párrafos 2, 3 y 4, tal cual nos los presenta el Grupo de Contacto-, quiero traer a la atención de toda la Comisión las dudas - sinceras y constructivas dudas - de mi Delegación.

En el párrafo 2, por ejemplo, entre las primeras palabras, se establece como primer mandato del comité - o no sé cómo se llamará - queestudiará "la función". No sé qué diferencia habrá en otros idiomas; en español se habla solamente de una (singular) función: una función, mientras que cuando se habla de prioridades, objetivos y estrategias, se habla en plural. Mi Delegación - insisto: sinceramente - pregunto cuál es la función que se va a estudiar de la FAO.

Fíjese que en el subpárrafo b) del mismo párrafo 2 comienza la oración diciendo: "Sin perjuicio del compromiso de los Estados Miembros de' respetar la Constitución de la Organización"; es decir, que no vamos a cambiar la Constitución de la Organización. Sin embargo, como primer mandato que se le da al comité - o como se le vaya a denominar -, se le da el de estudiar la función. Las funciones están determinadas precisamente por la Constitución de esta Organización, y se llaman, en el artículoprimero, "funciones de la Organización". Insisto en que lo que hago no son objeciones, sino, simplemente, preguntas al Presidente del Grupo de Contacto, para que nos aclare estos aspectos, a fin de podernos unir al consenso que se va creando en esta sala.


Por ultimo, Sr. Presidente - siempre en el subpárrafo b), dentro del párrafo 2 -, después de señalar que "sin perjuicio del compromiso de los Estados Miembros de respetar la Constitución de la Organización", dice "examinar si es necesario introducir cambios en las estructuras internas". Me refiero a antes del corchete. ¿Estructuras internas de la Organización - una vez más, y con toda sinceridad, con toda calidez lo pregunto -, estructuras internas de la Organización, de la Secretaría, de los Comités que forman la Organización? No lo tengo claro. Quisiera, si es posible, Sr. Presidente, por su intermedio, tener aclaraciones sobre estos puntos, antes de poder, esporo, unirme al consenso de esta sala con respecto a estos párrafos, sin perjuicio de que después estudiemos la resolución en su conjunto.

CHAIRMAN: Before we get to the next speaker, Argentina, the Chairman has been taking notes while you were speaking, I noticed, and I will ask him to come back later to your question but we must take the other countries in order.

Joseph TCHICAYA (Congo): Comme d'autres avant moi ici, j'ai fait partie du groupe de 'contact, et à cet égard je voudrais rendre hommage à notre Président pour les efforts qui'il a su déployer 32 heures durant pour nous amener à faire le travail qui vous est présenté ici.

J'étais dans ce groupe de contact pour représenter une région de l'Afrique, en compagnie de mon frère du Cameroun, et nous avons, avant que ne débute cette réunion, rendu compte des résultats de notre travail au sein du groupe de contact au groupe africain. Nous devons dire qu'au niveau du groupe africain ce n'est pas la satisfaction générale qui a prévalu. Nous pensons - et le groupe pense avec nous - que nous avons certainement accompli des efforts pour arriver aux résultats qui nous sont présentés dans le LIM/50. Mais l'Afrique aurait voulu que nous allions certainement plus avant. Nous devons dire que cela n'a pas été possible, les positions au départ étant si éloignées les unes des autres.

Mais nous espérons, comme d'autres ici, que l'Organisation ne souffrira pas de ce travail que nous venons d'accomplir. Au contraire, nous pensons que nous venons de faire là un pas qui doit constituer une base sur laquelle devraient se développer d'autres concertations futures.

Nous aurions certainement voulu que le mécanisme ait été précisé, le mécanisme qui pourrait contribuer à aller de l'avant. Mais je crois que cela mérite encore un examen approfondi, et je crois que tous nous nous sommes rendus compte que le travail qui a été fait là, tout en ne nous donnant pas entièrement satisfaction, constitue une base pour le consensus, et nous espérons que ce consensus sera obtenu dans cette salle.

Nous voudrions à cet égard remercier notamment les auteurs des résolutions ou des projets de résolution qui ont constitué la base de nos discussions au sein du groupe de contact. Je songe à la Norvège, mais je songe aussi aux pays latino-américains, et du Proche-Orient. Notamment, je veux parler de la déléguée du Mexique qui a eu à défendre avec talent le projet de résolution autant que notre ami de Norvège.

Nous pensons que cela ne s'arrêtera pas là, et nous sommes certains que les uns et les autres ont mis toute leur bonne volonté durant tous ces travaux et nous pensons que nous réussirons peut-être dans le futur à continuer ce dialogue fructueux que nous avons entamé.


Ian BUIST (United Kingdom): I am sorry if at present the members of the Contact Group are monopolising the discussion. If I intervene now it is of course only on the text which has been distributed, and I wanted to say something about the two passages in square brackets. However, before that 1 should be less than true to my own feelings if I did not echo warmly what the distinguished Ambassador for the Congo has said about both the spirit in which the exercise was conducted, and the way in which the results were arrived at. I felt, and perhaps I should put on record one small complaint, that we could have achieved much more if we had been given greater priority in the allocation of resources available to the Conference over all. However, I do appreciate the difficulties that the Secretariat has over this matter. I think that is largely due to the fact that we are not able to present something which is a complete text.

As regards the two passages in square brackets in the first passage (which is "as adopted") as I understood it those words were to be included if there had been statements of reservation made during the discussion of Resolution 375. My own personal checks with the Secretariat did, 1 think, confirm that at least our country made such a statement of reservation. I am not in a position to speak for others and therefore I consider that it ought to be possible to delete those square brackets and include the two words, thus dropping one potential problem for a consensus.

The other two words in square brackets are, frankly, of a rather different nature. We had a very long discussion about this in the Friends of the President Group. 1 know this is perfectly clear and fair, with one delegation on behalf of a number of countries was not able, without further consideration, to agree to the inclusion of those two words. My country, and 1 believe some others (but they must speak for themselves) did say that unless those two words were included we were not able to agree to the formulation in the little paragraph (b), as it stood.

1 would like to place on record that our agreement to the formula, which we were very happy to accept in a spirit of compromise, (although it went far beyond instructions which we had received) depended on accepting the inclusion of those two words. I do not want to add to the difficulties, on the contrary, I think that we overcame very many, but that problem is certainly still one which we have left.

Igor MARINCEK (Switzerland): My country has also taken part in the Contact Group, and I should like to extend my thanks to all the other members for their cooperation in this work. We have been able to narrow our positions and our understanding on the terms of reference. 1 think we achieved good work there, with the exception, however, of paragraph 5 as I think Mr Hostmark has already pointed out.

My country can fully support the work presented in document LIM/50 as it has been distributed. We still have differences on the mechanism and I should like to explain the position of my country with respect to this matter. First, why do we believe that the review is necessary? We believe it because of a reason well spelt out in paragraph 2(a) - how FAO can make, the most effective contribution to the efforts of member countries and people to eliminate hunger, malnutrition and poverty. The world is sick of under development, of malnutrition and poverty. It is because of that that we believe we have constantly to look at how FAO can, with its comparative advantage, make the best contribution to help. It is clear that these questions which we would like to have looked at in the review, must be looked at from a very independent point of view. The mechanism itself should not add to questions, but reduce them. This is the reason why my country supports an independent mechanism as proposed in the Nordic resolutions.

Waliur RAHMAN (Bangladesh): I should like to join the previous speakers in paying tribute on behalf of my delegation to the members of the Contact Group, particularly the Chairman of the Group for the very laborious and successful work which they have been able to accomplish. The thirty-two hour period that they had at their disposal was a very short time, but the amount that they accomplished is tremendous. We have the experience in one case when we sat for one year and still could not come to a decision about the terms of reference of a particular issue. They achieved a lot in thirty-two hours.

The agreed text on the terms of reference is entirely acceptable to my delegation. When I said this, I am not very sure about the clarification that has been given by the distinguished delegate of the U.K. Perhaps at the end of this discussion the Chairman of the Contact Group will be in a position to give further clarification concerning the square brackets.

As has been said by one of the speakers, obviously, we have a difference of views as to whether or not to have the review. Seen in that context the paragraphs in the amendment presented by the distinguished delegate of France, particularly with reference to the question of mechanism, deserve our serious consideration. This accords well with the statement made by the leader of my delegation in the Plenary of the Conference (page 6, document C 87/PV/9). We have the experience of the


Committee of Eighteen and its report at the United Nations Headquarters in New York. Indeed, it is true that the Group of experts in New York sat over a number of months and finally came to an agreement which was not acceptable, or not palatable, to everyone. However, we accepted that for the sake of better international cooperation and understanding and above all, for helping the United Nations charter principles and purposes to be revendicated - if indeed they needed any revrndicntion.

In the case of FAO, I believe that we are not far from that situation, although certain aspects of the priorities which FAO is considering are rather different from other organizations. Having said that 1 would appeal to the Commission that we should proceed to the amendment of the French paper as soon as possible.

Antoine SAINTRAINT (Belgique): Je m'associerai également à tout ce qui vient d'être dit par nos collègues qui ont participé au Groupe de contact. Peut-être estimerez-vous utile d'écouter la première réaction de quelqu'un qui n'a pas participé au Groupe de contact, qui vient de lire la version révisée, le document LIM/50, et qui vient rapidement de relire également le préambule de l'Acte constitutif et l'Article Ier des Textes fondamentaux de l'Organisation dont nous avons la responsabilité.

Il est clair qu'il faudra pouvoir déterminer de façon précise les mécanismes et le fonctionnement de ceux qui seront chargés de reconstruire le monde dans le secteur de l'alimentation et de l'agricul­ture. C'est incontestablement un secteur extrêmement vaste et extrêmement important. Ce type d'appro­che recouvre des domaines gigantesques et extrêmement différents touchant a la fois à l'environnement, à la pêche, à la forêt, à une série de problèmes d'ordre technique, à une série de problèmes humains d'une complexité folle.

J'ai quand même une certaine expérience dans le domaine des réformes ayant été chef d'administration pendant de nombreuses années et je sais combien tout cela est complexe pour un groupe d'experts dit indépendants. Je ne crois d'ailleurs pas à l'indépendance, on dépend tous de quelqu'un, on dépend tous de sa formation, de ses approches et, dans un certain nombre de cas, des instructions qu'on reçoit; donc parler d'experts indépendants est peut-être un leurre, ce qu'il faut ce sont des gens de bonne volonté, décidés à travailler en collaboration avec les responsables FAO, les responsables sur le plan de l'administration, ceux qui connaissent les rouages, ceux qui ont la pratique des mécanismes. Je vous avoue qu'après un an de représentation de mon pays auprès de la FAO, je n'ai pas 'encore fait le tour de tout le dédale, de toute la complexité de l'ensemble de l'Organisation. Alors je suis convaincu que si on parle d'experts indépendants et s'il n'y a pas une interrelation extrê­mement étroite, extrêmement opérationnelle avec l'ensemble des responsables et des fonctionnaires compétents de la FAO, nous courrons à un document qui sera peut-être indépendant sur le plan de la lecture mais qui n'aura rien d'opérationnel.

Je crois que si l'on veut être opérationnel, le Groupe d'experts doit être un groupe d'experts qualifiés mais collaborant et désireux de travailler avec les responsables de la FAO, tant les responsables ici à Rome qu'également les pays intéressés, les pays concernés, qui sont représentés,, qui ont leur mot à dire. Je crois que cette tâche, extrêmement ambitieuse, est une tâche qui, dans les années qui viennent, doit être qualifiée de permanente, car je crois que, toujours, nous devons essayer d'améliorer le fonctionnement de l'Organisation, nous devons essayer de répondre aux interpellations d'un monde en perpétuelle mutation, d'un monde qui évolue rapidement, qui présente quand même certains aspects angoissants. Si l'on veut régler des problèmes aussi fondamentaux, aussi difficiles que les problèmes de la faim et du développement, je crois que c'est dans une collabora­tion, et non en restant avec un bureau d'études d'experts indépendants qui n'aura pas le lien nécessaire avec ceux qui ont quand même travaillé sur le terrain et qui connaissent un certain nombre de réalités.

Ce sont des réflexions de quelqu'un qui n'a pas participé aux trente-deux heures. Je me rends compte que ces trente-deux heures sont importantes, mais elles seront suivies de nombreuses autres heures si l'on veut réellement apporter un certain nombre d'améliorations. Je crois que tous ceux qui portent des responsabilités au sein de cet organisme sont conscients de la nécessité d'un renouvel­lement, d'une adaptation et d'une adéquation permanente de l'Organisation aux nécessités du monde de demain.


Antonio GAYOSO (United States of America): Were it not for the fact that we are focusing on LIM/50, I would be throughly tempted to make some comments on my preceding speaker, the delegate from Belgium because, to say the least, we have a completely differing understanding about what independent experts mean or can do. But 1 will focus, as you have suggested, on the document that we are discussing at this time, and we will talk about mechanisms later on.

My delegation was also in the Contact Group, and it was a good experience in terms of harmony and the cooperation, a very fair Chairman, very constructive work. it was my delegation who suggested the lanuage as adopted following Resolution 375 in paragraph 2. In doing so, we followed what is absolutely the long-standing standard practice in the united Nations for many reasons that resolution was adopted 12 years ago. My experience, which is not unique, is that sometimes reservations have a way of disappearing. I will never forget the Plan of Action of WCAARD in which the reservations were printed on a single sheet of paper, not in the body of the report. If you go to my office, 1 have 6 copies of the report, which I like very much. I have a long time ago lost the single sheet with the reservations. Quite frankly - and I did say this clearly in the Contact Group - as adopted, it protects us all against forgetfulness and does not change an iota the spirit of the paragraph or the quotation of the Resolution 375.

For my country I said there that it is very important to have it as adopted. Maybe we do not have long memories as others do.

With respect to 2(b), we also felt that this bracketed word was and remains very important to us. One needs to examine the fact that we spent several hours on that paragraph. That is a very important paragraph. Some sought assurance that we were not trying with the review to change the Council, the Conference and basic constitutional arrangements. It was the selection of those three words, "internal structures and procedures," that provided that guarantee, a guarantee that other­wise is reassured in the first sentence of that sub-paragraph, when it says, "subject to the commitment of Member Nations to the constitution of the Organization."

So we started paragraph 7 precisely on the basis that we are going to work fully in the ambit of the constitution and with no aim for a review to seek changes in the constitution. Looking at procedures, it is important in terms of what our Swiss delegate colleague was saying a few minutes ago. The FAO is an organization that was created to deliver a product or a set of products. The proof of the pudding is in the tasting, they say in English. Countries in which the FAO has programmes or who are affected by these programmes - including my own - see these effects delivered through procedures. Effective delivery depends on effective procedures. Inadequate delivery depends on inadequate procedures. So without making any judgements, a review of whether the FAO is delivering the best value for money - and that is not a criticism of the FAO - we must necessarily look at procedures.

My delegation feels very strongly about that word and feels that it is very necessary, and we just cannot understand why it may seem a threat to anyone, given that we provided the guarantees that we have requested in terms of the inviolability of the Constitution.

Leo HERTOG (Netherlands): My delegation is fully aware of the tremendous efforts the Contact Group has made in reaching a consensus in the Group on the revised draft paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the Nordic Document C 87/LIM/27. My delegation wants to thank the Chairman and the members of this group for their work and the time spent on it. I would remind this Commission that the background for the whole exercise was to contribute to the strengthening of our Organization in relation to major economic and agricultural developments and trends which are taking place in our world. Having said this and having read the text of LIM/50, my delegation wants to put forward that this paper does not reflect in a sufficient way in what manner FAO should adopt measures to realize its necessary reorientation. As I said, surely we appreciate very much the work of the Contact Group, and we are aware of the difficult tasks it carried out.

Now looking to paragraph 2(b), 1 was reminded of a very nice and fine product of the Italian culinary art, and it is composing a nice minestrone. For the minestrone you need quite a few ingredients which are necessary to give it its proper taste. Now what I miss in this minestrone, paragraph 2(b), is that one ingredient has a tendency, as it stands here, to be left out and the other left in which should not be there with as much emphasis as is stated here. What I am aiming at is that the attention of my delegation was drawn to the brackets in 2(b) in the third line, "changes are necessary in the internal structures and procedures," between brackets. In the opinion of my delegation, looking into internal structures is a way of self-reflection, which is perhaps not as much necessary as looking into the procedures in which the Organization, FAO, operates or should operate. Speaking about procedures, I think this word is a little bit too neutral. I think what is lacking - and I think this Conference will maybe approve of what 1 am going to say - what FAO is lacking is a proper way of decision making. So one of the ingredients in the minestrone which I mentioned should, in the first place, be that there should be changes in the decision-making procedures. We feel very strongly about that point, and it would be very difficult for our delegation to accept this paragraph if, first of all, the words between brackets would be left out. That is one point. If that would not be acceptable to the Commission, we could, we might, we


could be willing to, we would be willing to accept the words simply "and procedures. We would strongly insist on having the words "structures and decision making procedures."

João Augusto DE MEDICIS (Brawil): I will try to be brief by associating myself with statements made by one or more delegations that preceded me in this debate. May I first associate our delegation with all the expressions of thanks to the extremely effective work of the Contact Group. May I also associate myself with the doubts raised by the Argentina delegation as with regards the words "role" in paragraph 2 and "internal structures" in paragraph 4.

May 1 also associato myself with the pertinent remarks made by the delegate of Belgium as regards the Contact Group.

Finally, I wish to state that my delegation believes that the paragraphs agreed by the Contact Group, together with the proposals for the Constitution and the Ad Hoc Committee which will be entrusted with the task of reviewing our Organization as contained in the document in the French draft, are a good beginning. May I only say we should first look at the composition in this manner before adopting this mandate.

George Henry MUSGROVE (Canada): We were not part of the Contact Group, therefore, until only just a few minutes ago I have not had an opportunity to be privy to the discussions and the results of those discussions of its meetings. Therefore, I would join others in welcoming the report we have received from the Director of that Group. I have been looking through the draft he has put in front of us. We are quite impressed, but I guess not as organized as our colleagues in the Group of 77 in Africa and Asia where it appears they have had time for consultations on this particular document as well as on other documents which we have not seen. There have been references to the French draft, for example, which to my knowledge has never been made available to my delegation.

It will come as no surprise to those who have listened with some monotony to our interventions over the last few years that we were one of those countries quite interested in seeing a review exercise with the prospect of coming up with recommendations on reform. In this sense, we would very much like to associate ourselves with the remarks made by the delegations of Switzerland and the Netherlands in the last few minutes, that our objective was and is to see a strengthening and improvement of the Organization. In our comments over the last year or two we have spread our net rather widely. We have at times been somewhat harsh and critical in the tone of our remarks and we quite appreciate that the views we hold would not be shared by other members in their entirety.

But having said that, we find the paper which has been put in front of us is rather modest (perhaps somewhat too modest) in its aspirations. In this paper, and in the comments that delegates have been making, we detect a hesitancy, a hesitancy for the process of review itself, a hesitancy as to what such a review might do in terms of its mandate and a hesitancy with respect to the process by which such a review might be carried out.

The document is replete with very thinly veiled wording which seeks to contain the scope or inhibit the width of what a review might be. It suggests rather defensively that it should be within the context of the Constitution of the Organization, within its Basic Texts and should not discuss FAO procedures - it may be should not discuss roles someone said. We are disappointed that there is this kind of hesitancy because we feel that the power of the membership is firmly in control at every stage of such a review exercise.

The review, should it be held, of course will report to the various governing bodies of this Organization, perhaps through the Council to the Conference, and recommendations, should they be forthcoming, will be there for discussion by the membership, each and every one of us, for acceptance, consideration or rejection. I think there is no need for fear or hesitancy on the part of any member here as to the ultimate outcome.

What, then, is the source of the hesitancy? In our view, the review is an attempt to seek new ideas. It is often said that people who are closely involved with things cannot see the forest for the trees. We have thought that such a review would bring in a breath of fresh air, new ideas, observations and recommendations which would make this Organization more effective. We had thought that by definition such a review should have independent people on it. In our view, we think they should be completely divorced from the Organization, but should have an eminence and expertise and a distinguished back­ground which would permit them to look at this Organization and, indeed, other organizations in the multilateral system, to look at global agriculture and its problems, to have a knowledge of develop­mental issues that they could bring to bear, a freshness of advice and suggestion to this Organization.

It is in that concept that it is our view that such a review should be independent and divorced from the membership, from the Permanent Representatives such as myself who sit in Rome and who sometimes lose sight in our day-to-day discussions and debate of the larger issues of what this Organization should do and perhaps how it should be doing it. It has been suggested that the process should be operated with the hands-on management of the Secretariat itself.


Well, we appreciate the" virtues of the Secretariat, but again we feel they have some encumbrance in either justifying current practice or in seeing the problems that change in the day-to-day management of the Organization. We do feel the participation of the Secretariat in such a review is crucial to its success, but the independence of the reviewers should be somewhat divorced from either the membership or the Secretariat. We indicated a minute ago that the membership will have ample time to study the review locally or accept any such report. We feel from past experience that likewise the Secretariat will have the same sort of options.

Mr Chairman, in conclusion we are somewhat disappointed in the modesty of the report, but would like to join with the consensus that we proceed with such a review exercise and that we do so with independent expertise.

Ernest Sylvester BENJAMIN (Antigua and Barbuda): Antigua and Barbuda would like to congratulate the Contact Group in trying to grapple with what appeared to be a difficult problem. However, we are not at all convinced in the first place that every view is contemplated in the documents or that the documents are necessary, in that reviews have been taking place in FAO since 1976 and before, with beneficial results. That is not to say we are not in favour of renewal, adjustment and change. In any event, Mr Chairman, in our view this review will not necessarily be a panacea for the problems facing developing countries. We say that against the background of document C 87/LIM/50 which says something about "and the need to implement and promote the establishment of a new international economic order within the ambit of FAO". Since 1975 we have heard of a NIEO. We can strive and dream - at least we should have visions; but this review would never push us on to the goal of the new international economic order. In fact, what is pressing us away from a new international economic order has nothing to do with FAO. It has to do with factors external to FAO so we -cannot follow the logic that this review might lead to a new international economic order within the ambit of FAO. Let us not be dreamers. We might be visionaries!

Then again, we cannot see what has prompted this review, this ad hoc committee. We cannot see anywhere in the documents that there is mismanagement in their election, in the orientation of FAO programmes, in carrying out this mandate, so what has prompted the review? We cannot understand it.

Further, we have considerable problems with the language. It has a lot of polemics. First of all, in one place it talks about international.structures and intergovernmental decisions. Then in document C 87/LIM/50 we had a watering down of the structures and procedures. Listening to another delegation, it was suggested that it is watered down and this confirmed our greatest fear, that there seems to be an expression of wanting to have a change in the decision-making.

We have read the document and it seems that some countries would like to have vetoing powers which would be tantamount to the dismantling of the whole concept of multilateralism, that is, the equality and the sovereignty of nations which cannot vote. We cannot accept a decision where a country or countries, because of their vote, will be controlling the Organization. We also need to know what precisely this ad hoc committee is going to do in examining the role. Is something wrong with the role as laid down in Article i of the Constitution? If it is wrong, then change it. We submit we do not see anything is wrong with it. As a matter of fact, from the papers we get the impression from the developing countries that all countries agreed that the mandates are as valid today as they were forty years ago.

So we do not see the need for the appointment or the establishment of any ad hoc high-level committee. They do not have roots. They cannot emphasise with the various roles which FAO is asked to perform. In all sincerity we want to feel that within FAO itself there is the capability through its intergovernmental bodies. Those bodies represent governments and their loyalty and allegiance would be first to the governments and not to the management of this Organization.

In conclusion we support the view that any organization must be subject to renewal and change, but we do not see the need at this stage for the review of our Organization to be as far-reaching as contemplated. Moreover, we do not see the need for a high-level group of experts.

Finally we think, we suspect that there seem to be attempts at wanting to dismantle the whole principle of consensus and multilateral cooperation. We thank you Mr Chairman.


Leopoldo ARIZA HIDALGO (Cuba): Queremos, en primer lugar, felicitar a los Miembros del Grupo de Contacto los ingentes esfuerzos que han hecho para presentarnos esta proposición.

Nuestra delegación quiere adelantar, independientemente de los análisis que creo que se están hacien do en estos momentos, en esta Comisión en forma mesurada, civilizada y tranquila, que espero que podamos seguir así para intercambiar los criterios, para poder ayudarnos, para poder oir y poder hablar lo que realmente representa un intercambio de criterios.

Nosotros tenemos el criterio, y lo puedo expresar, de que este documento que se nos presenta es un buen documento que podemos aprobar. Creo que se ha hecho un análisis bastante inteligente y se ha reflejado todo aquello que puede ayudar a que se haga el análisis, si se quiere. La necesidad del análisis en el Consejo pasado se puso en posibilidad.

De todas maneras, no podemos negar que la obra humana hay que analizarla. La forma de analizarla y el tiempo para analizarla es el que la misma obra humana debe escoger.

Tenemos el dilema de que hemos de aprobar un documento, con un mecanismo. Nosotros quisiéramos solamente hacer dos observaciones, después de haber dicho que estamos de acuerdo con este documento, como dijo la distinguida Representación de México y la distinguida Representación de Costa Rica. Sin embargo, aquí se han expresado algunas cuestiones que nosotros quisiéramos expresar también.

Hay una sola de las intervenciones que nos parece que no se ajusta a la idea de que podamos discutir e intercambiar criterios. Es la de aquella Delegación que se presenta condicionando su aprobación a su criterio solamente, y de esa forma no nos ayuda. Esa Delegación es una Delegación que tiene un aval de siglos en la investigación, en la cultura, en las letras, y creo que podría ayudarnos dándonos criterios de lo que opina y no paralizando la discusión diciendo sencillamente que todo está supeditado a que se oiga su criterio solamente.

Independientemente de este pequeño lunar, creo que estamos discutiendo bien. Nosotros queremos asociarnos a lo que ha expresado la Delegación de Bélgica acerca de la palabra "independiente". Creo que la Delegación de Francia hizo un análisis en el sentido de que podríamos entrar a analizar consulrores externos, pero para coordinar con la Secretaría de la FAO y los organismos técnicos. Creo que así respetamos la representâtividad gubernamental que tenemos. Estas dos cosas se unen, Sr. Presidente. La palabra "independiente" no la entendemos, a no ser que escojamos un alto técnico que en estos momentos no esté trabajando, que no tenga ningún nexo con ningún organismo. Entonces sí puede ser independiente; pero en este mundo, todo el que tiene un nexo ya tiene dependencia, Sr. Presidente. Un cesante, un hombre que no esté trabajando, si tiene todos esos méritos, lo podemos traer.

De todas maneras, esto tiene relación con lo que ha expresado ahora la distinguida Delegación de Antigua y Barbuda, en cuanto a que hay que tratar de garantizar que no se rompa el carácter intergubernamental, que'es lo que le da sostén a esta Organización, es lo que le da el sostén al multilateralismo. La adopción de sus decisiones debe ser la adopción del voto que cada país tiene, igualitario. Esta es una situación que ya se ha ganado en la historia de la civilización. Entonces, no creo que podamos entrar a querer hacer valer un voto más que otro.

En lo que sí debemos ganar es en forma de discutir y en forma de hacernos entender. Yo no sé si tendré suficiente capacidad para hacerme entender. Sin embargo, hago el esfuerzo de expresar que si discutimos los procedimientos estamos poniendo ya en duda nuestra representatividad gubernamental. Primero.

Segundo. Creo que sé nos puede hacer alguna observación, si no se está de acuerdo, de cómo podemos obviar esto. Estamos dispuestos a oír; a oír todos los criterios que haya sobre esta materia.

Nosotros creemos que el esfuerzo que se ha hecho no debemos dejarlo resbalar hacia atrás. Vamos a seguir discutiendo como estamos, sobre la base de aprobar el documento y aislar los dos o tres virus que hay en ellos, para ver cómo podemos resolverlos, después de un intercambio amplio, paciente, de discusión, sin negar el documento, de momento. Creo que si son realmente dos cuestiones entre corchetes, esas dos cuestiones entre corchetes no deben nublar nuestra vista, en cuanto a que ya hay un esfuerzo grande, que es todo el documento. Y esos dos puntos, discutirlos.

Nuestro criterio, sencillamente, lo damos ahora. Repito que estamos dispuestos a oír todos los criterios. Nosotros creemos que si entramos a condicionar o a negar, a cuestionar la adopción de las


medidas, de las decisiones, estamos cuestionando nuestro carácter intergubernamental. Y, si no aceptamos, podemos aceptar un asesor, un consultor, un técnico externo, pero calificándolo de externo normalmente, para trabajar en comunión estrecha con la estructura actual intergubernamental, representativa, legal, que tiene la Organización, que es la estructura de la FAO. En esos términos creo que podemos conciliar la situación. Se puede pensar que es un capricho el que para nosotros la palabra "externo" no sea igual que "independiente". No; creo que "externo" ya indica que no tiene nexos con FAO. Pero la palabra "independiente" puede crearnos alguna situación de liberación que nadie quiere. Croo quo aquf nadie quiere ser independiente en oso sentido, sino discutir los problemas por los que atraviesa la FAO, que pueden ser fáciles, pueden ser difíciles, pero son problemas a estudiar.

Repito, Sr. Presidente: aceptamos el párrafo en todas sus partes y también creemos que debe eliminarse lo que está entre corchetes, por lo que hemos explicado. Muchas gracias.

CHAIRMAN: At this point the Chair would like to observe that we have a few remaining speakers on this topic. We have also taken notes of questions asked by certain Member Countries and we will try, when we finish with those remaining speakers on the list, to go back to the questions and we will try to have as best possible, as close to the source as possible, answers to the questions.

The Chair would like to make an observation about procedure and a suggestion. We have, everyone would agree, a degree of a consensus but there has been an awful lot of wasted time. We are into something that is very important. It would be highly risky to break for eating because we would suffer from the absence of a quorum, and the Chair recognises however that even as we discuss at length here the problems of the hungry of the world, some of them are going to be right here and they may wish to send out for sandwiches. We would ask that Member Countries would not press points of quorum or that; if we can continue with a certain understanding that people can send out for food or sandwiches or coffee or whatever, and just go to the adjoining room and eat it or eat it at the desk or whatever you want to do, but I would highly recommend against breaking for that purpose or we will have serious problems.

We are also aware that we have a Drafting Group that must meet after our proceedings, and we will try to call things to a halt at some reasonable hour this evening. We do not believe that grown men and women ought to be conducting business under unnecessarily adverse circumstances in the best parts of the world, and that could be focussed much after 10:00, with no reflection of what the Drafting Committee may do after that!

It is best to be prudent and not get into those sorts of problems!

The Chair would also like to suggest that while it may be a little bit unorthodox it might be more prudent, as we carry on here and complete this and go back to the questions, to proceed and recognise that we do "have obviously a large consensus but not a complete one, and that we have considerable discussion as focussed on the mechanism, and may be for the whole package we ought to consider it in toto - at least the discussion that is - and at some point go into a discussion of the mechanism. The two topics which have been crossed are inter-related, and it might be fruitful, as soon as we complete here, to get into a discussion in the same manner as it has gone on and just let countries speak as they are recognized. But in a few minutes when we complete the next five or six speakers that are here, try to get into a discussion of the mechanism and then carry that on for a while.

Arrow Solomon OBURU (Kenya): My delegation would wish to express appreciation and thanks to the Contact Group for working, as I understand, fairly odd hours - 32 hours - to come up with a document which looks small but the number of hours indicate the complexity.

Mr Chairman, it could be useful before we even start really wondering how much or how good this document is, to remember that this Commission did set up the Contact Group, and it did set up the Contact Group arising from the difficulties which the Commission did realise then. If we were to


start opening the discussions which made us establish the Contact Group we might be here I do not know until when. So it is with that in mind that we do appreciate very much the report of the Contact Group, and we are to a large extent agreeable with it. In fact we see no difficulties in accepting it including the words which at the moment happen to be in square brackets. All we suggest is that the square brackets be taken out and the words remain in.

Mr Chairman, we would also wish to comment, if I were not to limit myself to LIM/50 but arising from your observations that various countries or various delegations have made their recommendations for discussions of the mechanism, we have a statement which deals with the mechanism and perhaps 1 will reserve the right to come back to that when we are discussing the mechanism, and restrict myself exclusively to LIM/50.

There is one addition perhaps Mr Chairman that we would wish to make, and if it were to meet with the consensus it would be very useful. It is a small addition to 'a'. In the course of discussions here, Mr Chairman, there were several expressions that it is high time FAO took into consideration the capabilities and the resources that some of the developed countries have cultivated and accumulated. So for that reason, Mr Chairman, 'a' which is asking FAO to make the most effective contribution to the efforts of Member Countries and people to eliminate hunger, malnutrition and poverty, taking into account the resources available to the Organization", Mr Chairman our delegation would prefer to add these three words "and Member Countries" "... resources available to the Organization and Member Countries".

Temei ISKIT (Turkey): Thank you Mr Chairman. Especially since I intervened after your proposals on procedure I can be quite brief I hope. First, of course, I join the chorus of thanks and appreciation for the Contact Group and its President.

Mr Chairman, I want to address myself to the outcome of the Contact Group. My first remark is that my delegation has always maintained the necessity of keeping the dialogue and arriving at a compromise.

I consider this work of the Contact Group to be a real work of compromise and I hail this result. That means we are ·inclined to join a consensus, if there is one, on the text before us, but since.we understand that the portions between brackets will be discussed later, we reserve the right to deal with these points at that time.

I said we were inclined, because I want to make clear a point already made by Brazil, I cannot escape the impression that we are putting the cart before the horse." We have the cart, which is Document C 87/LÏM/50, but we do not have the horse. Who will carry out this mandate? 1 think it is inevitable that we should consider also the Group or Committee, whatever it is called, which will have this mandate. When I make this comparison about cart and horse it may be that the cart is too big, or perhaps too small for the horse.

Turning to the horse now, since you have said that the discussion is also open on the Group or Committee...

CHAIRMAN: I said we would be coming to that next, and I asked that we would get these speakers on the topic and then we would come back to that. If that is done, you will certainly be recognized at that time, but I am afraid that if you do, then all the others who have confined themselves to the topic at hand might have been done a little disservice. We will come back in time to that.

Temei ISKIT (Turkey): May I continue? Perhaps I am allowed to make general comments on that, as Belgium did, because it was my intention to support entirely the declaration of Belgium on this point, and since other delegations have already found the opportunity to make general comments I think I am entitled to at least support their statements. I repeat that I support the Belgium declaration on the horse.


CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Turkey. I am sorry if I was unclear but I was just cautioning against getting into detail on this.

Ibrahim KABA (Guinée): Pour notre part, nous nous bornerons à des observations d'ordre general. Pour celui qui a participé à la 90ème Session du Conseil en juin 1987, il est aisé de comprendre et surtout de mesurer les progrès constdérables accomplis dans le rapprochement des points de vue. Le temps, la concertation, les événements ont considérablement contribués à l'efficacité du travail du Groupe du Contact. Toutefois, les efforts louables du Groupe méritent toute notre admiration. Ainsi, le document C 87/LIM/4 retient fortement notre attention. Quant à la proposition constructive avancée par la France, nous pensons qu'elle pourra contribuer à la recherche de la solution aux problèmes de mécanismes efficaces. En définitive, nous, pays membre, restons les auteurs et les bénéficiaires de cette Organisation qu'est la FAO. Et la Conférence est souveraine. C'est pourquoi nous pensons et croyons fortement que nous ne ferons rien qui puisse nuire au fonctionnement de la FAO. Ainsi, tout en prenant en compte les propositions qui nous sont faites et que nous avons déjà évoquées, nous nous associons à la déclaration de l'Ambassadeur du Congo. A notre avis, l'importance et la délicatesse de la question exigent de nous beaucoup de sagesse. Dans ce cas, le temps est un facteur positif caree qui a été atteint à ce jour est de loin plus important que ce qui reste à faire. Nous pensons que la Conférence pourrait en prendre note et fixer une date pour la reprise du dialogue.

Antonio R. PIRES (Cap-Vert): Nous apprécions I'effet fort louable qu'a fait notre Groupe de contact et nous tenons à le féliciter et à le remercier.

Les taches dont nous avons investi ce Groupe n'étaient certainement pas faciles. Nous le constatons maintenant. L'honorable délégué d'Antigua-et-Barbuda a présenté une analyse très claire. La délégation du Cap-Vert tient à soutenir tout ce qu'il a dit au sein de cette Assemblée.

Nous pensons également qu'il faut souligner l'importance cruciale et le caractère intergouvernmental de notre Organisation. Comme l'a dit l'honorable délégué de Cuba, c'est un aspect fondamental que nous devons respecter et suivre.

Nous aussi, nous voulons dire: "indépendant"; oui, mais avec le Secrétariat. Parce que nous ne voyons pas un Groupe indépendant sans le Secrétariat, surtout si nous voulons atteindre les objectifs que nous nous sommes fixés ici. Nous sommes aussi pour une solution de compromis: oui, mais nous soutenons ce qu'ont dit les délégations de la Belgique et du Kenya, surtout l'adoption sans les crochets.

Joachim WINKEL (Germany, Federal Republic of) (original language German): I was a little reluctant to ask to speak today out of feelings of modesty because I was a member of the Contact Group, and that Group has been praised so enormously. However, I think that a Contact Group such as this one is only as good as the Committee that has elected it. That is why we can return the compliments. I have heard so many well-weighted views that I am convinced that what we are hoping for will certainly be achieved. I think those who believe that the mandate for the Contact Group is too far-reaching as well as those who are in favour of it can learn from that argumentation. I think that Argentina's thoughts would be very useful as regards the role of the Organization and its internal structure. I especially welcome the declaration of the delegate of Cuba and I regret that he is not listening now - because i am talking about you, Sir, and about what you said in regard to this document which is before us here. That indicates the way I take it. I see this as dough which, with the yeast of the Contact Group, is going to be a nice loaf of bread with which we will be able to keep the Organization well-fed and as healthy as it has been up to now and as it may continue to be.

Now I come to another point. Our distinguished colleague from Turkey said that we were putting the cart before the horse. I think we are deciding about the load before we know about the horse. We are no great horsemen planning what we are going to do. We are going to carry a heavy load over a long, arduous road, and I am one of those who is lucky enough to be a farmer. You have to be very careful. You look at the load and at the roads you have to cover. When you know all this you can


go back to the stable and you look at your cart and, depending on how fast you have to go and on how heavy the load is, you take your fiery Arab steed or one of those nice tough Belgian animals. In any case I think what we have chosen here - first the load and then the horse - is the right approach. I will speak about this again later on.

CHAIRMAN: Moving further along on the carts and horses - and you always watch where you step when there are horses - I will call on Barbados.

Clifton E. MAYNARD (Barbados): As you know, ray delegation stated its position on this issue when the matter was being discussed earlier. I too would like to thank the Contact Group for the important contribution they have made in the short time available. I must say that they have done well in the number of hours available to them, when I recall some time ago that it took a committee thirteen years to define "aggression". My delegation would not wish to repeat the comments made when we spoke earlier on this issue, but I cannot help but again emphasize two points that were made: that the proposals for any group external to the Organization could not be supported because I did not see a crisis and I do not believe the financial problem to be the sort of crisis that would require external examination. Therefore, while we could go along with some aspects of the draft from the high-level group, I must again ask the question as to why FAO, which a few years ago was held to be an Organization that other intergovernmental organizations should emulate because of management and because of the fact that its programmes responded to the needs of member countries, should need a review or reform. Therefore I still have a suspicion as to the real reason for this review or reform, or whatever you term it.

However, common sense demands that one should be prepared at all times to review, to reflect and to ensure that the goals which motivated the foundation of this Organization and all international organizations are constantly being followed and policies adopted in concert with these goals.

I would have been happier if the important contribution made by the French delegation was reflected in LIM/20 in greater detail because it corresponds with precisely what our views were on this whole question and with the mechanism that should be used in order to carry out this review.

I should like to add that it is vitally important that we understand here that eventually we have to respect the fact that this is an intergovernmental organization and in the long run,governments, through their representatives, will decide what happens to it, including the possibility that they might not wish it to exist any longer. But that is for governments to decide and therefore they should be responsible for ensuring that it continues to work to the benefit of Member States.

I would just like to add that the decisions taken on the report of the High level Group in New York reflect the fact that the international organization is intergovernmental in nature and that the governing bodies will always make the choices. I am sure that the Secretary General is going to be guided in his implementation of the work of the High Level Group by the comments made by the fifth committee in the resolution that they put to the Plenary which was adopted, after ensuring that two principles were respected. These same principles must be respected here, that is the principle that the chief executive or administrative officer has responsibility under the basic documents for certain matters and his role must be respected. The other one is the equality of all Member States.

If we can get the body which we believe would reflect those concerns into this piece of paper, we would have no difficulty in accepting it. I would hope that you would not insist on people reflecting what the horse should be because I do not care, provided it reflects the intergovernmental nature of this Organization.

Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Sr. Presidente, gracias por el intenso trabajo realizado por el Presidente y los miembros del Grupo de Contacto. Al principio del debate tuvimos la impresión de que podría lograrse el consenso, al menos sobre esta primera parte, pero en la medida en que hemos ido avanzando, y no obstante la declaración conciliante y serena que ha hecho nuestro amigo el Dr. Winkel de la República Federal de Alemania, tenemos la impresión de que nos estamos alejando del


consenso. Sin embargo, seguiremos acompañandole a Usted en su optimismo, Sr. Presidente, con las pocas fuerzas que nos quedan, sin comer, a estas horas.

En esta primera intervención, nos acogemos al dictamen suyo para referirnos solamente al LIM/50, y, concretamente al apartado B del párrafo dos, al cual hizo referencia adecuada el Embajador Di Mottola de Costa Rica, Presidente del Grupo de América Latina y del Caribe. Tenemos la impresión, Sr. Presidente, de que el término "procedimientos" que aparece entre corchetes es la nueva versión de lo que ya aparecía en el apartado B del párrafo dos del LIM/27. Decía "procesos intergubernamentales de adopción de decisiones". Además de que esto es inaceptable por principios a los que nos referiremos más adelante, incluir "procedimientos" en este párrafo resulta inadecuado y fuera de contexto. Porque resulta fácil observar en el resto de la redacción del apartado B del párrafo dos que ese texto se refiere a las funciones que corresponden exclusivamente a la Secretaría de la FAO y que nada tienen que ver con los procedimientos sobre cómo los representantes de gobiernos tomamos las decisiones.

Es fácil observar que el apartado B se refiere a asesoramiento, función catalítica, asistencia, etcétera, es decir, la función de la FAO. Si eso es así, como parece evidente, Sr. Presidente, lo máximo que podríamos aceptar es una referencia a la introducción de algunos cambios en la estructura interna y los métodos de trabajo de la Secretaría de la FAO. Esto sería coherente con el resto del apartado B des párrafo dos. Está es una propuesta que hacemos, Sr. Presidente, después de consultar a algunos colegas y que creemos tiene algún apoyo.

Finalmente, Sr. Presidente, queremos apoyar firmemente las declaraciones de Antigua y Barbuda, que fue excelente, la de Cuba y otros colegas, en el sentido de que será inútil todo empeño por desvirtuar el principio democrático de la igualdad de todos los estados, cualesquiera que sean sus condiciones económicas, cualesquiera que sean sus contribuciones financieras, su extensión, su población o cualquier otro factor discriminatorio.

El Gobierno de Colombia jamás aceptará que en esta Organización, se altere el principio de que cada estado tiene los mismos derechos y la participación y el voto de cada país es soberanamente igual.

Mlle Faouzia BOUMAIZA (Algérie): Notre délégation se limitera, Monsieur le Président, pour suivre vos injonctions, à donner son avis préliminaire sur le texte contenu au LIM/50.

Nous n'avons pas de problème particulier sur ce texte. Pour l'instant, nous pouvons être d'accord sur sa formulation actuelle.

Toutefois, nous avons quand même l'impression, comme l'ont dit les Représentants de la Turquie, du Brésil et de la RFA, que parler du mandat avant même de savoir qui sera chargé de l'exécuter, c'est peut-être aller trop vite, et nous risquons de discuter le fond de la question sans savoir quel est l'organe qui va être chargé de l'exécuter. Nous risquons peut-être également de buter sur la composition de cet organe et de revenir finalement sur tout le travail que nous sommes en train d'effectuer.

La délégation algérienne souhaiterait qu'au b) du paragraphe 2. on supprime le membre de phrase qui dit: "sous réserve de l'adhésion des Etats Membres à l'Acte constitutif de l'Organisation". Il y a déjà une délégation qui l'a indiqué, il me semble qu'il s'agit de la délégation de l'Argentine, et nous pensons également que tous les Etats Membres qui sont ici présents ont déjà adhéré à l'Acte constitutif de l'Organisation, et qu'il ne s'agit pas de remettre en cause cet Acte constitutif. Donc cette phrase n'a pas lieu d'être.


German CARRASCO DOMINGUEZ (Chile): Señor Presidente antes que nada debo expresar, como país latinoamericano, el agradecimiento que tenemos todos para los que formaron el Grupo de Contacto. _,Los países latinoamericanos concurrimos a este Grupo de Contacto y hubo esperanzas de que se iba a alcanzar un consenso, un consenso, Señor Presidente, que reflejaba en gran medida el sentimiento general de los países que concurren a esta Conferencia de la FAO. Este sentimiento era ya bien conocido de todos. Nosotros abrigábamos la esperanza, y creo que allí los países del Grupo de los 77 hicieron sus grandes esfuerzos para que hubiera comprensión para nuestras posiciones. Sin embargo. Señor Presidente, los documentos resultantes no nos han dejado del todo contentos.

Otras delegaciones ya han expresado las dudas, los temores, que ven detrás de cada una de las frases que contienen los documentos que tenemos delante de nosotros.

Señor Presidente, Chile, al igual que otros países, ya dijo en su oportunidad lo que estimaba y lo que pensaba frente a estos proyectos de resolución para restructurar la FAO. Nosotros siempre hemos creído que la FAO no necesita una restructuración que pueda afectar su marco legal y su rol fundamental, que está bien conocido por todos y que durante muchos años ha funcionado sin tropiezos.

Es evidente, Señor Presidente, que la FAO necesita algunos pequeños ajustes. Estos pequeños ajustes y los problemas que ahora se suscitan, a juicio de mi delegación son un refle jo.de la crisis económica internacional; es un problema presupuestario acentuado por una contracción en el cumplimiento de las obligaciones como contribuyentes que tienen muchos estados miembros, sea porque tienen una gran deuda exterior, sea porque tienen un gran déficit en sus presupuestos, sea por diversas razones, muchos estados miembros no están en condiciones de pagar totalmente sus deudas y en efecto no lo han hecho. Esto, a juicio nuestro ha movido a que se crea que por el establecimiento de un grupo de cualquier naturaleza de personas ajenas a la FAO puede mejorar el funcionamiento de la Organización, en un aspecto que básicamente es financiero.

Señor Presidente, la FAO es una organización, como ya muchos lo han dicho aquí, intergubernamental, que forma parte del esquema de las Naciones Unidas. Chile es uno de los países miembros fundadores de la FAO y de las Naciones Unidas; nosotros entramos a las Naciones Unidas, a esta Organización, y a las otras que forman el sistema general de las Naciones Unidas con dos compromisos básicos, Señor Presidente. Uno, que se respetara la igualdad jurídica de los estados y otro que se respetara la soberanía de cada uno de ellos. Ningún estado puede aceptar que personas externas a su Organización vengan a dictarle las normas sobre las cuales tiene que regirse su funcionamiento futuro. Yo me pregunto, Señor Presidente, si alguno de los países que tiene graves problemas económicos y financieros internos estaría dispuesto a que una Comisión de alto nivel venida de fuera, formada por gente ilustre, por cierto, como dice aquí en el proyecto LIM/27 ''personas elegidas por su eminencia y çomtencia especial en los campos de la agricultura, el desarrollo, las finanzas, y la administración", estaría dispuesto, repito, a que vinieran a dictarle normas de lo que tiene que hacer. A muchos de los países subdesarrollados no les parecería bien y yo creo que incluso al suyo Señor Presidente, que hubiera una Comisión de alto nivel que viniera de fuera y les dijera cómo superar el problema de la deuda externa y de la deuda interna. Creo que usted no lo aceptaría.

Por esta misma razón mi delegación se opone firmemente a que nosotros aceptemos una comisión externa que venga a dictar normas a los estados soberanos que conforman la FAO para que les indique cómo debe cambiarse. Estamos sí, Señor Presidente, dispuestos a que se constituya un grupo de expertos nombrado por los países miembros, excogido por nosotros mismos y que venga de ios sectores que nosotros estimamos que son los útiles, y para eso tenemos un comité que está en condiciones de elegirlo y un grupo regional que lo pueda designar.

Señor Presidente, me adhiero a muchas de las expresiones valiosas que se han vertido aquí por otros países anteriormente con respecto a lo que no debe ser este grupo de alto nivel, este sistema de reforma de la FAO y esta Resolución.


CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Chile. I will not respond to your question, but, believe me, you tempt me dearly when you ask a former Member of the Congress of the United States whether we need a high-level group.

We will now take up some questions that were directed, and try to get a response. In the course of the discussions earlier, Argentina had raised some questions for which it asked clarification. It was given assurance by this Chair that we would return to them for clarification. We would suggest that, since the questions were dealing with the points on the draft by Norway, rather than the Chairman of the group responding by discussion with him and with note to you and to Norway, it would be in order for Norway to respond. The Chair would suggest that it might be a little different, but perhaps we could engage in a colloquy between the Chair and you: if you pose the question, I will try, as directly as we can, to get a direct response. Please state your question and I shall ask Norway to respond.

Guillermo GONZALEZ (Argentina): Durante el curso del debate me temo que alguna delegación no ha comprendido el contenido de las preguntas, o por lo menos de sus interpretaciones, pero de todas maneras las formularé para que, como usted bien ha dicho, quiénes redactaron el LIM/27 nos den su propria interpretación.

Las dos preguntas concretamente se referían en el párrafo 2 en la primera línea a qué se entiende por la función de la FAO particularmente, y quizás haya sido maiinterpretado por otras delegaciones cuando hice uso de la palabra, repito, pregunté qué se entendía por la función de la FAO a la luz de que en el apartado b) del mismo párrafo se ratificaba el respeto a la constitución de la Organización. Digo esto porque las funciones de la FAO están perfectamente establecidas en el artículo l de la Constitución de la FAO.

La segunda pregunta mucho me temo que ya ha tenido una respuesta y se refiere a qué se entiende por estructuras internas de la FAO. Mi interpretación es que se trataba de la Secretaría de la FAO, pero quizás la distinguida representación de Noruega, a través suyo, pueda tener la gentileza de aclarar ese tema.

Harald HØSTMARK (Norway): FAO's role - by the way, that word, as far as I can recall, is not used in the Constitution; its objectives are set out there, but I have not referred to the Basic Texts in the last few minutes - FAO's role, it is a word that is perceived in different ways. How does it fulfil the function? How is it perceived? It can also of course be perceived from the other side. What is its place in the system? That is a different perception. That is not what is meant here. I am not the only one who has been using the word "role" in this sense. As we have seen in another LIM document which has been placed before us, drafted by a group of Latin American countries, they have also been talking about strengthening the role of FAO. If you strengthen the role, I think you must mean it in the sense that I meant it, otherwise they would also, in using the first sense of the term, be going against the Constitution as set forth.

Mr Chairman, did you want me only to respond to that particular point?

CHAIRMAN: Argentina stated, any other question or follow-up, if you chose.

Guillermo GONZALEZ (Argentina): Agradezco la oportunidad que usted me da, Señor Presidente de hacer le repregunta. Comprendo la explicación que nos da nuestro distinguido colega y amigo de Noruega; lamentablemente no puedo compartir su interpretación y como ha hecho mención a un proyecto de resolución en el cual soy parte, por contar con el patrocinio latinoamericano y del Caribe, quiero asegurarle que la visión nuestra, el enfoque nuestro, me da la impresión de que es distinto. Nosotros efectivamente nos referimos al fortalecimiento de la Organización a través del fortalecimiento de sus funciones. Quizás sea un problema de idioma no estamos en momento alguno solicitando la modificación del artículo 1 de la Constitución de la FAO. Por lo menos no es esa la intención de mi delegación.


CHAIRMAN: Are your questions answered?

Harald HØSTMARK (Norway): I will not ask for any changes in the Constitution's Article 1 either. I was pointing out that, in the same way as the sponsors of other resolutions had used that word, I will use that word, I think I meant that word in the same way. Whether you spell out that you strengthen or not, the point is that you use that word in the same sense. I think that was self-explanatory in that case.

Guillermo GONZALEZ (Argentina): Señor Presidente, entrar en este diálogo no lo ayuda a usted, por lo tanto doy por terminada la primera pregunta y rogaría pasar a una explicación sobre mi segunda preocupación que es que se defina más claramente que quiere decir "estructuras internas de la FAO".

CHAIRMAN: Libya has a point or order.

POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN

Bashir El Mabrouk SAID (Libya)(original language Arabic): I do not think this form of discussion is of any use to the Commission. I believe that the discussion should be managed or arranged in a different manner. I object to this procedure, giving the word to Argentina, then to Norway and so on and so forth. We could go on like this until tomorrow morning. I believe that we should have a constructive discussion, but arranged in a different manner.

CHAIRMAN: The Chair would respectfully have to disagree with that and point out that it is very important, because what you are establishing here is a legislative intent. The questions asked by Argentina earlier in the course of the discussion could not be responded to at that time out of courtesy to everyone. We clearly said that we would like to provide them with the opportunity to do that. It is an extremely important and constructive contribution to the dialogue here because what Argentina is raising are precise points of interpretation and clarity. If you had to go back later and decide what was meant - presumably when it was adopted - by these given phrases and it was open to possible interpretation, then the final arbiter must be the intent of the sponsor, and he is clearly establishing here legislative intent. It is a very constructive proposal, and the Chair is certainly not trying to give extra time to Argentina, but it is trying to expedite the matter. We did have countries which asked questions, and each of them was assured that they would be given an opportunity. The Chair views this as informative for all countries and could not conceive of how it could be considered otherwise.

Harald HØSTMARK (Norway): When we look at that word, I think it has to be understood in the context of a discussion that was held in the Contact Group. You can ask the Chairman of the Group to confirm that, if he so desires. A large number of concepts was discussed and we tried to define those concepts which would deal with - I am trying to find synonyms - the tools for arriving at certain conclusions, which were to be examined without actually touching upon the specific processes that were otherwise established in the Constitution. We did not want to include what the Member Countries themselves had as processes in their own capitals in their own aims of coming to the points of view and the conclusions to which they would come. We want to limit this to what went on allied directly and pertaining to the Organization. As a result of that we came to those words to describe those activities that we thought could usefully be examined. In other words, it is activities that take place directly in connection with the Organization and in the Organization that we have tried to describe.


CHAIRMAN: I believe that concludes that colloquy, does it not?

Guillermo GONZALEZ (Argentina): Crearne que no tengo ninguna intención de demorar esta sesión y mucho menos de crearle a Usted un problema adicional. La explicación que me da el distinguido representante de Noruega, señor Presidente, no es a nuestro juicio totalmente clara pero, do todas maneras, dejo constancia - porque así lo había señalado al principio - de que la delegación Argentina no puede aceptar la interpretación del apartado b) del párrafo 2o si no se interpreta en la forma en que lo hizo el señor Embajador de Colombia al hacer un proyecto de enmienda a este párrafo.

CHAIRMAN: We have just a couple more quick questions that were raised on which we need to get answers. Canada raised a specific question about the presence of a French draft. The Chair is not aware of one. Could the Secretariat advise Canada if there is a draft of a French resolution that was referred to, and has it been distributed?

Ms Kay KILLINCSWORTH (Secretary Commission II): No. A draft submitted by the delegation of France was presented to the Contact Group.

CHAIRMAN: Bangladesh had a question on the United Kingdom interpretation. I believe it was subsequently answered.

I have inadvertently overlooked Italy.

Mme Anna Teresa FRITTELLI ANNIBALDI (Italie): Monsieur le Président, vous ne devez pas vous excuser puisque vous m'avez donné la parole. Je regrette simplement qu'on doive revenir ' en arrière.

Je voulais avant tout féliciter et remercier le Groupe de contact pour le travail qu'il a accompli. Ma délégation estime que la critique constructive de son propre travail par rapport aux objectifs voulus est toujours la meilleure façon d'a vancer. Nous pensons qu'il ressort des travaux et des conclusions de la Conférence que la FAO a fait preuve de sa capacité de progrès, d'évaluation et d'amendement, . suivant les suggestions en ce sens de ses organes directeurs.

Cela étant dit, mon pays serait prêt, par esprit de conciliation, à se rallier à un consensus sur le document C 87/LIM/50, pour laisser la porte ouverte à tout ce qui pourrait aider - et nous attendons la preuve - à faire mieux."

Poursuivant dans des considérations d'ordre général, je dirai que nous partageons ce que la délégation de la Belgique a souligné. Nous sommes convaincus que tout exercice de ce genre ne peut être fait sans 1 'apport du Secrétariat de la FAO.

Je ne vais pas insister maintenant sur ce sujet car je me réserve la possibilité, le cas échéant, d'intervenir à nouveau, mais il faudrait se mettre d'accord à l'avance sur cet aspect de la question: par qui et en fonction de quoi les experts indépendants - et je souligne indépendants - devraient-ils être choisis? Je crois que n'importe quelle étude conduite sans l'apport et l'expérience du Sécretariat de la FAO et sans l'appui constructif de l'Organisation risquerait d'être une étude belle et compé­tente mais pas basée'sur l'expérience.

Voulons-nous quelque chose qui puisse être laissé en l'air? Je ne le crois pas.

Enfin, j'ai entendu une suggestion qui me semble bonne. Pourquoi ne pas parler d'experts externes plutôt qu'Indépendants, si ce mot nous pose des problèmes? Pour conclure, si l'on considère que des yeux externes pourraient aider à accomplir la tâche, nous estimons que la proposition de la France pourrait être prise en considération afin d'arriver à une solution.


CHAIRMAN: We have indicated earlier that we would proceed into a discussion of the mechanism, and the Chair feels that it is important to clarify a couple of points. The Chair feels that in order to discuss the mechanism of the proposed High Level Committee of Experts, if we are going to suggest alternative suggestions for that and how to do it, it would be in order and appropriate for the sponsor of the Resolution to explain what it meant by paragraph 1. We will do that in a moment.

The Chair would further observe that there has also been considerable discussion about the Secretariat's participation in any outside group. Therefore, it might be a fruitful discussion of the issue if at some point we would clarify from Norway what it means in paragraph 6 by "small Secretariat", and also ask the Deputy Director-General on behalf of the Director-General if he would respond to some of the concern raised here so that the body would know if the Deputy Director-General feels that the Director-General could work with such a group along the provisions in paragraph 6, because we have many countries represented and the Director-General might have difficulty with that.

Perhaps it would be more appropriate at this time if we asked the Secretariat to respond to the question of whether or not the Secretariat has that problem, so that we can establish that.

Turkey has a point of order.

POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN

Temei ISKIT (Turkey): It is on the procedure. You interrupted my statement saying that I could not speak on the mechanism. Is the mechanism question open for discussion now?

CHAIRMAN: I said that we are going to try to get into proceding with a discussion on that, and I thought the Chair made it clear that we were just cautioning against a detailed discussion, certainly not the general sort of remarks you made earlier. We will be proceeding into a more detailed discussion of that.

The Chair would have to observe that we have two options before us. We have tried to be flexible in having a flow of discussion on a number of things and to try to come back later, or we could follow a more strict interpretation of the rules under which the Norwegian Resolution as originally drafted takes precedence and would have to be voted on, which clearly no one wishes to do at this point. We are trying to avoid those sorts of confrontational votes and procedures, and be more flexible. The Chair can do it either way.

Congo has a point of order.

POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN

Joseph TCHICAYA (Congo): Je ne comprends pas très bien qu'à ce stade de nos débats vous puissiez demander au Secrétariat de nous donner un point de vue sur on ne sait quoi.

Le Groupe de contact a abordé cette question et il faut avouer qu'après un échange de points de vue les avis étaient très divergents. Par conséquent, nous ne pensons pas pour notre part qu'un débat dans cette salle puisse aboutir à des conclusions acceptables par tous.


Il serait de bon ton, en tant que Président, que vous puissiez examiner cette question avec le Président du Groupe de contact pour mesurer les difficultés à discuter, à ouvrir le débat sur ce point ici.

C'est pour cette raison que pour ma part je ne pense pas que nous soyons ici pour écouter le Secrétariat sur on ne sait quoi, il faut d'abord que nous puissions, nous Etats Membres, discuter de la question et proposer des solutions avant d'écouter le Secrétariat.

Voilà ce que je pense de cette question.

POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN

Carlo DI MOTTOLA BALESTRA (Costa Rica): Tengo un punto de orden. Durante las sesiones largas de días y de horas del Grupo de Contacto se pasaron muchas horas y nos dimos cuenta que no hay ninguna forma de acuerdo posible sobre él párrafo 1 de la proposición de Noruega.

La Delegación francesa ha sometido, sea al Grupo de Contacto, sea oficiosamente a muchas delegaciones miembros de la Conferencia, un texto de propuesta. Yo le pido atenta pero firmemente que Usted tenga la amabilidad de permitir a Francia que presente su propuesta.

CHAIRMAN: I am sorry but we cannot take France out of order. We are trying to follow a more orderly procedure. The Chair simply observed that many member countries during the course of the discussion speculated, speculated, on whether or not the Secretariat would have difficulty in working with such a group. The Chair simply observed that that is an opinion that could come from the Secretariat. If the Secretariat wishes to respond, I certainly think that it would be in order. If it doesn't wish to respond, so be it.

POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN

Leo HERTOG (Netherlands): I would like to suggest that we proceed with the debate in the way you just had in mind to do.

CHAIRMAN: That is the best suggestion I have heard in two weeks. The Chairman would just caution, as mentioned before, that the rules and things that you are handed at the time also include references to suggestions that at some point you should intervene and make such observations. It is up to the body to decide those, but we do have an attempt here to try and get facts and information from which member countries can make sound judgments. It certainly seems obvious to the Chair that if that particular issue is in dispute, it is easily rectified.

DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: The Commission is discussing the text contained in C 87/LIM/50 emerging from the Contact Group. The relevant paragraph of that text is paragraph 4, and I do not believe that the Director-General will have any difficulty in carrying out his functions in line with paragraph 4. In any event, the Director-General is, of course, at the service of the Organization


and it is up Governments to take the final decisions. As far as the Secretariat is concerned, there should be no problems with paragraph 4 of C 87/LIM/50.

CHAIRMAN: Canada, are you raising a Point of Order or seeking to be recognized?

POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN

George Henry MUSGROVE (Canada): I hope am not out of order. I do find an increasing propensity for people who want to seek the floor to use the route of Point of Order. I won't answer that question too directly whether I raise a Point of Order, Mr Chairman, but my point is simply this: that we did begin a discussion which was introduced by the delegate of Norway on the Nordic Resolution that went on to discuss the Contact Group Report as contained in C 87/LIM/50, but I thought I heard at the inception of the discussion that we would confine ourselves during the discussion to see whether a consensus did exist. In his introduction, the delegate of Norway said in relation to the Nordic Resolution that the Nordic countries would consider replacing the irrelevant parts of their Resolution with this work of the Contact Group if this consensus did exist; and before we move on and leave this subject, which I think is being proposed now....

CHAIRMAN: No…

George Henry MUSGROVE (Canada): ... whether consensus could be …

CHAIRMAN: We are not proposing to leavel that subject. What the Chair observed some timo ago was that we appeared to have a consensus, but certainly not total unanimity here, that there were a great number of countries which clearly wished to have an extended discussion in more detail of the mechanism. The Chair has also just announced that we are going to proceed onto a discussion of the mechanism; but, in order to properly introduce that and in following the proper order, clearly the sponsor of the Resolution had to explain what was meant in his relevant section, paragraph 1. We would introduce the discussion on the mechanism if the delegate of Norway would be so kind as to explain what he means by his paragraph 1.

Harald HØSTMARK (Norway): The preamble of paragraph l,or the operative part of paragraph 1?

CHAIRMAN: Paragraph 1? No, the High-Level Group, so we can establish some kind of frame as we begin to discuss the mechanism. Could you please make some introductory comments on your proposal, so that those who are discussing it will have some idea of your intentions.

Harald HØSTMARK (Norway): I shall try to do so, Mr Chairman. I am sure I shall have to come back on this many times, as will other members of the Nordic Group, because I have had certain experiences during the last 33 hours that this sort of discussion is not completed at one sitting - or at two either, for that matter!

We have put in the phrase "ad hoc" to make it quite clear that we do not here have in mind the institution of any sort of permanent structure. We have used the expression "High-Level", because we believe that this would be a group that should have this sort of overall view, this sort of understanding, this sort of ability and experience that would enable them to deal with these matters on a broad basis. The phrase "a committee of experts" is one on which we can hear the opinions of others. The child has many names: you may call it "a group of experts", "a group of eminent people", "an eminent persons group", etc., but we are trying to indicate a concept here - that is all we are trying to do with this phrase...


CHAIRMAN: Would Member Nations, if you are going to conduct discussions that can be heard, conduct them outside so that Norway can be heard?

Harald HØSTMARK (Norway): We are trying to give an indication of the type of persons we are looking for, working together in a group, in a body. We also considered that, if this group was to work reasonably efficiently its numbers should be as small as possible. By that, we really meant to indicate that, after dialogue with members here, all of you could accept it, and we all know that discussion always takes place on numbers. But from an efficiency point of view a smaller group is preferable to a larger one.

We have also brought in the concept of "designated by Member Nations", because we want to make it clear that our Organization as belonging to the Member Nations - to all Member Nations who have an interest in doing so - should in part at least, through their specific groupings, have some say in the selection of its members so as to ensure that they are in some way connected with the process, because quite clearly it is impossible that every Member Nation should have a participant in this Group, - at least, it is quite clear to me, and I hope I don't have to come back and explain that point!

We have here introduced a concept of an independent Chairman. When this was briefly discussed in the Contact Group, I believe - but I may stand corrected by the Chairman of the Contact Group - one of its members suggested the name of Mr Swaminathan who was formerly our Chairman of the Council, as an independent chairman. We believe that the Chairman should be selected independently on the selection process of the other members, in order to facilitate discussion in the most objective manner possible. I believe in some way the same thinking and philosophy lies behind the creation of the institution of an independent chairman of the Council.

The main point and basic element of our thinking is that we believe that this Group should be mainly composed of members outside the actual Organization itself - outside its working, so that it can look at it with fresh eyes, with a broader view and not, as one of the members of the Contact Group termed it when the discussion again briefly touched upon it, as suffering from "Betriebsblindheit".

CHAIRMAN: The Chair recommends that we proceed with the discussion of the mechanism, and it seems clear to most of us that it would facilitate matters if the Chair recognizes first France and then holds a discussion. We will not be voting on anything at this point, and Norway had the right to come back on their Resolution before any amendments are moved; but on the discussion of the mechanism, the Chair would like to recognize France and to request anyone who wishes to speak on that issue to please indicate so to the Secretariat.

Bashir El Mabrouk SAID, Vice Chairman of Commission II took the Chair
Bashir El Mabrouk SAID, Vice
Président de la Commission II assume la Présidence
Ocupa la presidencia Bashir El Mabrouk SAID, Vicepresidente de la Comisión II

Bernard LEDUN (France): Monsieur le Président, la proposition de la délégation française doit être comprise comme un complément, une adjonction au document du Groupe de contact C 87/LIM/50. Nous n'avions malheureusement pas eu le temps d'en débattre au sein du Groupe de contact, aussi je le livre ici, en Commission II, à votre appréciation, en espérant qu'elle recueillera l'agrément le plus large possible.

Il va sans dire qu'il s'agit ici d'une proposition de compromis, qui s'efforce de retenir des uns et des autres points de vue en présence des éléments en commun. Je tiens surtout à redire une nouvelle fois que la formule que nous proposons présente l'avantage de faire un pas de plus sur la voie de la technicité, d'être une formule en quelque sorte non politique, car des experts désignés par les Etats Membres ou les régions seront - ou se sentiront - investis d'une mission de caractère quasiment politique ou institutionnel, au lieu que des experts désignés par le Comité du Programme et des Finances le seront encore une fois, és qualité, c'est-à-dire en fonction - et en fonction seulement - de leurs compétences professionnelles, de leur audience, au-delà des limites qu'imposent les fron­tières ou les idéologies. C'est là, à notre avis, un avantage décisif sur des experts désignés par les Etats Membres. Désignés par nos Etats, nous le sommes tous ici, Monsieur le Président; ce que nous voulons maintenant, c'est donc une plus-value en termes de compétence mais aussi en termes de bonne volonté, comme l'a déclaré tout à l'heure l'honorable représentant de la Belgique.

Nous pensons que le mécanisme que nous introduisons est en mesure de nous rapprocher de cet objectif. Nous faisons confiance à des experts réellement indépendants, qui en définitive ne représenteront qu'eux-mêmes. C'est là l'essentiel, Monsieur le Président.


Je vous lis à présent, à vitesse réduite, le texte de notre proposition à inclure dans le document que vous avez sous les yeux:

"Aux fins de cet examen (quand je dis "examen", il s'agit bien entendu de l'examen qui est mentionné au paragraphe 2 du document C 87/LlM/50), le Comité du Programme et le Comité financier travaillant conjointement seront assistés d'un petit nombre d'experts. Ils seront choisis en fonction de leur compétence dans les domaines de l'agriculture, du développement, des finances et de l'administration, par les Comités du Programme et des finances en consultation avec le Directeur général, en tenant compte d'une répartition géographique équilibrée."

Je tiens également à vous signaler que je peux mettre à la disposition de notre assemblée le texte d'un préambule qui viendrait coiffer l'ensemble du document et que je suis prêt soit à lire, mais soit plutôt à communiquer ultérieurement au Secrétariat qui pourrait le faire circuler, sous forme de document écrit par exemple.

J'espère que tout le monde a pu prendre note de la proposition que j'ai faite. Il est bien évident que si des questions doivent être posées, je suis prêt à y répondre.

CHAIRMAN (original language Arabic): Thank you, France, I would also like to welcome you.

Clearly, you have all heard the proposal put forward by France on the different mechanisms relating to the study of certain aspects of the Organization.

Assefa YILALA (Ethiopia): When the basic document C 87/30 was circulated my delegation tried to go through it with due regard within the time limits available. We have tried to understand it from the angle of a neutral position, also placing ourselves as part of the whole process so as to gather a balanced view. From both of these angles we were able to witness that the suggestions and recommendations concerned in all those papers were far-reaching and useful. Even though there were some areas which required further study and analysis in order to form our own conclusive evaluations of the whole process, which it tabled for discussion during the 24th Conference, there was one area to which all members of the delegations agreed without ideas contained in the document, so that this would contribute towards strengthening the Organization for which we all have a responsibility.

With this as a background, the establishment of the Contact Group was welcomed by our delegation in its entirety. To our satisfaction, the contact Group was established, and it worked long hours and came up with ideas that were both conciliatory and "also of a high quality.

Our delegation would like to join others in expressing its gratitude and due regard for the outstanding service that was provided to the Commission by the Contact Group and its Chairman.

We were also satisfied that the Norwegian proposal was used as a basic document, to which the ideas contained in the other papers and recommendations were directed and focused.

It was unfortunate that the papers were processed by our delegation late in the evening, so we could not express our views on it as much as we would have liked and at length. However, we feel that the paper placed before us for consideration, after long hours of work and concentration, deserves our support.

We would also like to say that the ideas contained in document C 87/LIM/50 should be taken as accept- ' able and that we should proceed to other areas which were not dealt with by the Contact Group. If we do that, we might come up with the mechanism that needs to be worked out, which at present seems to be within reachable dimensions when we consider the French proposal. We would therefore like to indicate our acceptance of a consensus,, and will not adhere to any position that will block programmes and support to the proposal thus placed before us.

CHAIRMAN (original language Arabic): Now I think it would be preferable for delegations when they take the floor to focus on the machinery proposed by Norway and by France. Let us focus on this in order to try and make progress.


Humberto CARRION MCDONOUGH (Nicaragua): Sr. Presidente, muchas gracias. Queremos, en primer lugar, manifestar nuestra complacencia por verlo a usted presidiendo esta sesión. Voy a limitarme a lo que usted ha mencionado, que es precisamente nuestra principal responsabilidad en esta fase del debate: el procedimiento. Además, Nicaragua ha suscrito un documento, que ha sido el C 87/30. No nos hemos separado de esas posiciones, y también ya el Presidente del Grupo Latinoamericano y del Caribe ha hecho una exposición inicial, en la primera fase del debate, sobre el resultado del Grupo de Con­tacto y los proyectos que tenemos ante nosotros para consideración.

Dicho esto, quiero también hacer un reconocimiento especifico de parte de mi Delegación a los países nórdicos, en el sentido de que entendemos que sus posiciones en relación a la FAO han sido y son de apoyo a los trabajos de la Organización y han sido también de apoyo a los países miembros necesita-dos de la cooperación financiera de la FAO. En ese entendido, también deseamos hacer un reconoci­miento a todos los miembros del grupo de Contacto, por el espíritu de cooperación que se demostró, y en ese espíritu deseamos apoyar la propuesta de compromiso que ha hecho la Representación de Francia sobre los mecanismos que podríamos adoptar para la posible revisión de los trabajos de la Organización, según están redactados en el documento C 87/LIM/50, con la salvedad de la posición de reserva que presentó en su oportunidad el Embajador de Costa Rica. Creo que puede llegarse a una fórmula de compromiso en el espíritu de cooperación, en el entendido, insisto, de que todos los miembros de la Organización aquí presentes deseamos que la FAO continúe sus labores en beneficio de los más necesitados y en su lucha en contra del hambre, la desnutrición y el subdesarrollo.

CHAIRMAN (original language Arabic): It seems to me that at this stage it would be desirable for the Secretariat to distribute the proposal submitted by the French delegation. This should be in writing and you should have it as soon as possible so that we can carry on with our work. In order to facilitate our debate on this, I propose that the Secretariat should distribute as quickly as possible to all delegations the proposal made by the French delegation.

POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN

Ian BUIST (United Kingdom): We would support the proposal that the Secretariat should distributo this text in all languages as soon as possible.

CHAIRMAN(original language Arabic): The Secretariat have noted this, and they assure me they are going to distribute.this text in ail languages as quickly as possible.

In order not to waste any more time, 1 propose that in the meantime we should continue our debate.

Arrow Solomon OBURU (Kenya): First, we have one small question before I go into the substance of the matter. Earlier on, with the work with C 87/LIM/50 as a basis of compromise submitted by the Contact Group, Norway, speaking on behalf of the Nordic countries, if I understood them correctly, gave us the impression that if there was substantial amendment to C 87/LIM/50 they would be making revisions reverting to the document they have. I do not know whether this is their stance in relation to the French submission. Perhaps we could have some clarification later, because that would affect what we want to say.

Having said that, we think we should support the proposals that have been made. We agree with the proposal by the delegate of France, but we suggest a small revision of that, that is, to say "For the purposes of this review, a group of experts, working in consultation with the Finance and Programme Committees and the Director-General ...", and then the rest continues as they put it.


We appreciate the view that the Programme and Finance Committees could carry this out, but we see this as really tied with responsibility if we were to assign them the responsibility, the way it is put here, because, the way we get the French proposal, it is they that will be doing this review, but in the process will be assisted. The onus of carrying out the revision is with the Finance and Programme Committees, but they will be assisted with it. We wish that the onus of carrying out the revision be with the group of experts. They should be assisted, or their work should be facilitated, by the Committees. Î think that will give us something good.

We should also wish to say something to the effect that the institution, in our view, should try to borrow from the daily human behaviour of all of us sitting here. I know that this morning before we left wherever we came from about 99 percent of us went to the mirror. Everyday we go to the mirror and look at it. It has become a routine. We do it without really checking. If you were to ask yourself why it is that we all go to the mirror, it is simple, it is almost obvious. A mirror is a very neutral object. It assists us to improve. The view of the Kenyan delegation is that we should submit ourselves to the neutrality of the mirror. In so far as we look at this, let us submit ourselves to the neutrality of the mirror.

Igor MARINCEK (Switzerland): First of all, I want to thank Mr Høstmark from Norway for the very clear presentation of the mechanism of review as it is to be found in paragraph 1 of the Nordic resolution. He has underlined that, in order to make such a review, you need to have fresh eyes, looking at FAO in the world of under-development, in the world of hunger and malnutrition. It should look into the future, beyond the year 2000, give suggestions and some guidance for further discussions on this issue. I would also like to point to the fact that, when one speaks of an independent group of experts, we should also look at the same time at paragraph 6 where it clearly says that the group of eminent persons should be provided - I guess by FAO - with a small secretariat, so this link with the Organization which is necessary is provided for in the resolution we have before us.

I would also like to thank the delegate of France for the presentation of their idea. However, I have some difficulty in seeing in the French proposal a compromise. We are suggesting these kinds of fresh eyes. There is some suggestion to have experts selected for their competence in the field of agriculture, development, finance or administration. But it is not so much technical questions which should be looked at. We have confidence in the technical abilities of FAO. There is a suggestion in the French proposal that the review should be carried out by the Programme and Finance Committees. The Programme Committee has in its task today to look at the biennium, to look at everything, to see if all the requests from member countries are brought together correctly. Let me remind you, FAO may be a little bit like a truck. It is good for 20 tons, but what we are putting on FAO may already be 30 or 40 tons. It is overloaded, so it may be quite difficult for FAO to fulfil its work. The Finance Committee should look to see that it is not overloaded, but I do not know if this can always be fulfilled.

Let me underline again the fact that we should have fresh eyes when we come to the last example brought forward by the delegate of Kenya. When we looked into a mirror when we were young we looked one way. When we are older, we are grey, from one day to the other we may not see the difference but somebody from outside may tell us that we are different when years pass by.

Srà. Margarita LIZARRAGA SAUCEDO (Mexico): Nuestra delegación se ha expresado ya en numerosas ocasiones en relación con la posible revisión de ciertos aspectos de nuestra Organización, pues aunque creemos que todo es perfectible, pensamos que este examen se daba en condiciones y en un momento muy particulares. Hemos, sin embargo, reiterado también nuestra posición abierta al diálogo, y en ese sentido nos hemos sentado a la Mesa de Discusiones para escuchar en términos igualitarios con los representantes de las diferentes posturas en relación con estos aspectos.

Quiero expresar nuestro gran reconocimiento y respeto a la postura de los países nórdicos y a su portavoz, el Sr. Høstmark.. Creemos en la buena fe y en todas las condiciones que han acompañado a su propuesta, pero creemos también y agradecemos mucho a la delegación francesa, porque creo que nos ha traído a la Mesa una solución de compromiso que realmente, en la resolución presentada por nues­tros grupos, habíamos propuesto el mecanismo intergubernamental establecido en nuestra Constitución, y en donde estamos representados legítimamente los gobiernos miembros, con una representación de carácter equilibrado y regional.


Es por esto que la propuesta francesa la consideramos muy válida porque justamente tomamos lo cons­tructivo de la propuesta nordica, que es la unión de expertos de alta capacidad para venirse a adicionar, apoyar, el trabajo de los Comités de Programas y de Finanzas, que en forma usual han encargado evaluaciones y estudios que han servido para dirimir aspectos que el Consejo ha encargado a estos Comités, y es por ello que nosotros consideramos que esta propuesta francesa es muy valiosa y que, unida al mandato que hemos concordado todos los países que tenemos diferentes posturas, podría ser una buena solución de compromiso, por lo que nuestro país le da todo su apoyo.

Akbar Mirza KHALEELI (India): I should like to be a little briefer than perhaps I shall be, but I should like to put the proposal of France in the context of the time available and the work that has been done. Before doing so, I should again like to thank the representative of Canada for his extremely persuasive and well thought out plea for reform and for acceptance of the idea. As he is aware, many of us would not believe that there was need for wholesale reform or establishment of any major structural changes in the functioning of FAO, but as a compromise we have gone along with a number of countries to do our best to improve, if possible, our own working and the working of the Organization in which we are represented, which is FAO. Let us not imagine that,just because FAO has improved the problems of world food and agriculture, it has solved them. Let us have some sense of modesty. Ño given organization can solve the world's problems, no matter what we do. Since this Organization has served a very notable purpose for many years, we should be a little cautious in working for wholesale changes.

I go along with the simile or parable of needing to look at the mirror, but, before one looks in the mirror, the person who is going to look in the mirror should be there, otherwise the mirror itself reflects all types of passing objects. To that extent, therefore, the idea of having a group of experts which consists not only of experts selected by the Finance and Programme Committees but includes the Finance and Programme Committee members themselves should be acceptable. After all, the Programme and Finance Committees do represent a very important aspect - almost all important in toto aspects - of the working of FAO. It would be much more conducive to good work if there were inter-action between this group of independent-minded experts and the Organization itself it seeks to benefit. Therefore, to cut things short, I think that it is a very happy complement to the Nordic proposal to accept the French proposal in total. There are some small lacunae which I think can be filled in later as to the number of experts. It will be important to go into detail in due course. After all, one is thinking of extremely far-reaching changes, and therefore it would not do just to have a small number. At some point in the Conference one will have to think of the number, how the Chairman will be selected and other things.

But as things stand, I think it would be reflecting the sense of the house and a large number of small countries, as was very eloquently expressed by Antigua and Barbuda and Barbados, have expressed the same view.

Finally, as a matter of procedure, may I suggest that while the complementary proposal is being translated and circulated it would be useful if as soon as possible we all consider the preamble which has been prepared. That also may save time and perhaps it can be circulated soon.

Horacio CARANDANG (Philippines): We are now considering as a principal document before us C 87/LIM/50. If we look into this document we see that there is no paragraph 1 and also in the second paragraph there is an empty bracket, as well as one in paragraph 3. The reason for this is that we have before us really two documents, one presented by the Latin American Group, LIM/29 Rev. 1 and the Nordic proposal which was LIM/27. The Contact Group could not agree on either of these proposals, regarding the mechanism of the review, the Nordic proposal was not acceptable to the sponsors of LIM/29, the delegations of Latin America and the Near-East Group, nor to the other members of the Contact Group. Neither was the Latin American proposal entirely acceptable to the proponents or sponsors of the Nordic proposal.

Since there was no agreement, therefore the Contact Group had to report to the Commission a non-agreement by giving it LIM/50 without paragraph 1 which was precisely supposed to deal with the mechanism and also the blanks in paragraphs 2 and 3. It was not possible to arrive at an agreement because according to members of the Contact Group its terms of reference were that the Group had to take into account not only the views of the sponsors but also the views which had been expressed in Commission II as well. This being the case, it is clear that neither the proposal of the Nordic Group nor the proposals of the Latin American and the Near-East Groups had received unanimous support.


Therefore, we now have a proposal from the French delegation which is supposed to marry these two proposals. To start with, we have the Programme and Finance Committees from the proposal of the Latin American and Near-East Group and the High Level Committee from the Nordic Group. In a sense, therefore, we can call the French proposal a compromise proposal. As I indicated to you, Mr Chairman, the Asian Group had a chance to look at this proposal of the French delegation and I should like to indicate to you that the Group had given its blessing to this proposal inasmuch as they believed it would be a workable solution. Òf course, the members of the Asian Group can later confirm the view which I am now expressing that indeed the Asian Group stands behind the French proposal as a compromise which could be a fitting and appropriate mechanism to carry out the review.

After all, the Programme and Finance Committees are composed of countries which we have elected. We have chosen them to represent us in these two important committees. If we need the help' of external independent experts, then the Programme and Finance Committees are free to engage the services of these experts in the numbers they wish.

With this I should like to indicate not only my own personal but my country's support for this proposal and also the support of other members of the Asian Group for the French proposal, as indicated to you earlier.

CHAIRMAN (original language Arabic): Time is very limited because the third part of the report of Commission II is not yet finished. The Drafting Committee also has to meet this evening in order to finish its work and therefore I hope that your remarks will be as brief as possible.

Salim SARRAF (Liban) (langue originale arabe): Monsieur le Président, je vous souhaite la bienvenue à la présidence de cette séance de la Commission.

Je serai plus que bref, à cette heure fort tardive de la journée. J'ai suivi avec beaucoup d'intérêt ce qu'a dit le représentant de la France et je peux vous assurer que le Liban appuie la proposition française qui représente une solution transactionnelle.

Je dois dire qu'il s'agit d'une question que nous envisageons partiellement. Nous ne pouvons pas approuver le projet de résolution du document C 87/LIM/50 avant d'en avoir examiné tous les éléments. Après ce qu'a dit le délégué des Philippines, nous avons besoin d'une solution de compromis. Cela est très important.

W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of) (original language German): My delegation is very grateful to the delegates of Norway and France for their proposals and the explanations they have given us about the machinery or mechanism which we have been discussing. Both proposals have obviously been brought forward with the intention of contributing towards a consensus.

As things now stand in our debate, I should like to state my delegation's position which is that we would give preference to the Norwegian proposal. The main reasons for this are very briefly the following. First, we can well imagine that it would be easier to proceed on the basis of the Norwegian proposal and to get highly qualified experts to perform this very important task.

Secondly, we assume that the Director-General, whatever the Group that may be involved, will cooperate with those experts or whatever you call them and will support them in their endeavours. We are grateful to the Deputy Director-General for his explanations just now given in relation to paragraph 4.

Thirdly, we do not believe that this group - whatever they call it - should be working in isolation from Member Nations and from the Secretariat. It would not operate in isolation, as some speaker has already pointed out; quite the contrary.In our view such an ad hoc group cannot operate without the valuable support of the Secretariat.


Fourthly, we believe that what the delegate of Kenya proposed - or rather mentioned or stated - a little while ago is well worth having a further look at. As I understood him, he was stating that he was very much in favour of consultation between the ad hoc group and the Finance and Programme Committees of the Organization, but that he was not in favour of the idea that the Members of that group should be selected by the Chairman of those two Committees of the Organization.

Fred J. Eckert, Chairman of Commission II, took the chair.
Fred J. Eckert, Président de la Commission II, assume la présidence.
Ocupa la presidencia Fred J. Eckert, Presidente de la Comisión II.

Temel ISKIT (Turkey): We have made known our views as far as the mechanism is concerned, when we had a limited opportunity to support another delegation, which was Belgium. We have two proposals before us, the Norwegian proposal and the French compromise proposal. I insist on compromise.

As far as the Norwegian proposal is concerned, I. must say that I very much appreciated the sound logic in the presentation of Mr Høstmark. His ideas were very consequential and he defended his case perfectly. However, I see a difference between these two proposals. There is a difference of philosophy which we cannot escape. In the Norwegian proposal, what we see - and we do not agree, although I underline that it was consequent - is that the member countries should accept some kind of authority about themselves to decide or to pass judgement on the work of our Organization, which is an inter-governmental organization. This point was underlined by many delegations, and I should like to emphasize especially the intervention of the Barbados delegation with which I agree completely.

Therefore, this difference of philosophy means that we do not agree with the Norwegian proposal. We think that in an inter-governmental organization, the Member Nations are the last instance. There are no instances beyond the member countries. We have the responsibility and we have to take it. He has made a point about "Retriebs blindheit", which can be translated in French as 'déformation professionnelle"or in English as 'professional deformation", but, as somebody else has already pointed out, to be away from the things you have discussed may induce you to errors, too.. I have been in this Organization for two years. I have learned a lot and if I were to comment on FAO two years ago I am sure I would have made many fundamental mistakes. Therefore we should involve ourselves and the Secretariat, and we should take advantage of the accumulation of experience and knowledge over 42 years.

Coming back to the question of philosophy, which brings me to the French proposal, my delegation can accept the French proposal as a compromise, because I think it inclines towards the philosophy which we share, which is that in the end it will be the member countries which will decide on the changes or on the improvement. I like the word "improvement" rather than the word "reform".

To be brief, my delegation can support the French proposal as a compromise, but I have some comments to make on the form of this proposal. Whilst, waiting for the distribution of the text of the French proposal, I think I managed to take it down, and we should make some changes in the form, first, to integrate it in LIM 50, because LIM 50 starts with"a body", but the French proposal starts with "to make the study the Programme and Finance Committee", so we need some changes in the form.

The second point I want to make on the form and the procedure related to the French proposal is that we stop at a certain point with the French proposal. If I understood it correctly, the Programme and Finance Committee assisted - I underline the word "assisted" - by a small group of experts would study, etc., but we do not see the follow-up. Perhaps it is understood that the report of the Programme and Finance Committee will be referred to the Council and then to the Conference. In the light of my comment, perhaps some additions may be made to complete the whole procedure. As I said, there are comments on the form, but I repeat that on the substance my delegation supports the French proposal as a compromise.


Joseph TCHICAYA (Congo): Nous avons siégé au Groupe de contact et à ce niveau nous avons abordé les problèmes des mécanismes, disons que nous les avons survolés, les uns et les autres ayant exprimé ce qu'il croient être le bon choix.

Nous avions notre idée nous-mêmes sur la question, nous l'avons exposée au cours de la réunion et enfin, nous n'avons pas pu aboutir à un accord général. C'est pour cette raison que nous avons dû abandonner cette question de mécanismes et que nous nous sommes attelés à définir le mandat du mécanisme qui pourrait être mis en place.

On a dit ici que l'on a mis la charrue avant les boeufs. Je crois que cela est exact, nous pouvons accepter cette critique. Mais nous l'avons fait parce que nous avons senti que nous avions beaucoup de difficultés à avancer et je crois que la suite nous a donné raison. Nous avons pu définir le mandat, tout au moins une grande partie de ce mandat, alors maintenant nous devons nous prononcer sur les mécanismes.

Pour notre part, nous avons pensé dès le départ que deux choix étaient à faire: le premier choix était de faire confiance au Directeur général qui aurait pu désigner un groupe d'experts travaillant sur la base du mandat que nous aurions défini et qui aurait présenté un rapport donnant ses avis et ses commentaires, il l'aurait acheminé par les voies habituelles jusqu'à la Conférence.

Cette solution a été jugée partisane et par conséquent n'étant pas susceptible d'être retenue.

L'autre choix était de dire que les Etats Membres par région devaient désigner des experts qui se rassembleraient, feraient le rapport et l'enverraient par l'intermédiaire des mécanismes habituels.

Je dois dire ici que l'une et l'autre solutions n'ont pas, semble-t-il recueilli l'assentiment de tous.

Nous pensions qu'il fallait effectivement opter pour une solution qui puisse rallier certainement les deux possibilités, c'est-à-dire où les Etats Membres et le Secrétariat travailleraient ensemble pour mener à bien ce travail qui nous est cher à tous. Oui, Monsieur le Président, nous avons pensé que ce travail nous est cher à tous et je crois que le consensus s'est réalisé ici pour que certains aspects des activités de l'Organisation puissent être revus afin d'apporter le nouveau souffle nécessaire pour en améliorer l'impact. Personne n'a été contre de telles améliorations, le débat actuel le prouve amplement.

Nous avons lu avec beaucoup d'attention la proposition norvégienne, disons nordique, sur les mécanismes et nous avons écouté avec beaucoup d'attention l'intervention de la France nous exposant un mécanisme pour pouvoir mener à bien le travail, tout au moins le travail prescrit dans le cadre du mandat défini au sein du Groupe de contact.

Je dois dire qu'entre ces deux propositions, pour notre part et après mûre réflexion, nous avons opté pour la proposition de la France. Nous voyons là une synthèse entre les partisans d'associer complètement le Secrétariat et uniquement lui au niveau de la production ou de l'élaboration du rapport et ceux qui pensaient qu'il fallait laisser ce choix exclusivement aux Etats Membres. Cette solution française a donc l'avantage d'associer les deux idées même si les Etats Membres restent disons les principaux contributeurs de cette solution. Il est bon que nous puissions associer cette proposition française au mandat que nous avons défini au niveau du Groupe de contact. Evidemment nous supposons pour notre part que les crochets qui avaient élagué les travaux de notre groupe devront disparaître, soit en enlevant les mots entre crochets - et pour ma part je pencherais pour cette solution - soit en supprimant simplement les crochets.

Notre travail ne se limitait pas seulement à cela puisqu'il s'agit d'une résolution, nous avons des dispositifs qui sont le mécanisme, il y a le mandat, nous n'avons pas suffisamment abordé cette question mais je crois pour ma part que la proposition française que j'ai devant moi, puisque i'ai eu la chance de l'avoir au niveau du Groupe de contact, cette proposition française du préambule mérite que tout le monde puisse s'en imprégner pour que nous puissions en faire l'étude. Pour notre part, nous pensons que cela est une bonne base pour pouvoir compléter notre projet de résolution.

Voilà ce que nous tenions à dire. Nous espérons que grâce à cela nous pourrons aller de l'avant et permettre aux experts, au Comité de programme et au Comité financier d'accomplir leur travail. Peut-être qu'au niveau de la proposition française quelques aménagements peuvent être apportés mais la base devrait être retenue.

CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Congo. On the point you raised about the preamble, the Secretariat advised the Chair that it is being translated and is in process of being distributed in the various languages.


Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Estoy muy agradecido al colega y amigo Sr. Høstmark y a los países nórdicos por el carácter pragmático y el espíritu constructivo de sus propuestas. Desafortunadamen­te, con realismo político, la única alternativa posible ahora parece ser la propuesta de Francia. Pensamos, señor Presidente, que la propuesta de Francia tiende a lograr, en buena parte, el obje­tivo que todos perseguimos, pero pensamos igualmente, con mucha franqueza, que esta propuesta deja abierto el problema de la especificidad del número de miembros del Consejo y también de la manera adecuada para seleccionarlos. Doce miembros del Grupo de Contacto, presididos ejemplarmente por John Jurecky de los Estados Unidos, emplearon 33 horas que equivalen a más de cinco días de reunio­nes de los miembros del Programa de Finanzas, y no se pusieron de acuerdo sobre el mecanismo, ni siquiera llegaron a considerar la posibilidad del mecanismo. El Comité del Programa de Finanzas suma 21 miembros además de las consultas con el Director General; semejante cosa, casi el doble de los miembros del Grupo de Contacto necesitan un espejo mucho más grande y una lámpara de Diògenes muy luminosa para escoger acertadamente los miembros del grupo. Tendrían varios problemas: el pri­mero sería cuántos expertos y el segundo sería la proveniencia, sus características, etc.

Hay otras cosas importantes, y ello recientemente se comprueba, y es que los aspectos técnicos no se pueden separar de la representación política. Si se integran en un grupo de expertos - y esto lo dijo en cierta medida el distinguido Sr. Iskit de Turquía - divorciados apoyo político que pue­dan tener las recomendaciones de esos expertos, la suerte de esas recomendaciones de antemano está condenada a la adversidad. Por eso señor Presidente con realismo y tratando de complementar el es­fuerzo de Francia - aunque sé muy bien por la información que poseo que no es muy popular la pro­puesta que vamos a hacer, y ya el colega del Congo la planteó como una de las hipótesis - pensamos que realmente contribuiríamos a avanzar en estos propósitos, si dijéramos que el grupo de expertos debe ser de siete miembros como lo fue en 1976, siete miembros, uno por cada región, elegidos por sus respectivas regiones y en función de todos los temas, su competencia, dominio agrícola, del desarrollo, de finanzas y de administración. Esta es la única manera práctica de avanzar realmente porque, de lo contrario, seguimos pensando que el problema queda completamente abierto y a lo mejor, 21 personas más el Director General necesitarán de un bienio de trabajo para ponerse de acuerdo.

Mohammed ABDELHADI (Tunisie): Monsieur le Président, vous nous avez demandé de concentrer nos commentaires sur le problème du mécanisme ou de l'organisme qui serait chargé d'examiner les amélio rations ou les réformes qui pourraient être introduites dans les méthodes de travail de la FAO. Je m'en vais donc limiter mon intervention sur cet aspect de la question, et je serai bref, puisque d'autres délégations avant moi, telles l'Inde, la Turquie, le Congo, la Colombie, ont déjà fait part de points de vue sur ce sujet que je partage entièrement.

A notre avis, le mécanisme en question ne saurait être qu'un organe institutionnel déjà existant de la FAO. C'est plus efficace et c'est plus opérationnel, comme l'a dit l'Ambassadeur de Belgique tout à l'heure. La proposition de la délégation française, que j'appuie, constitue à notre avis la formule de compromis, par excellence, en ce sens qu'elle a l'avantage de lier le mécanisme en question aux structures existantes de la FAO,Ç'est-à-dire le Comité de Programme et le Comité financier, qui seront assistés par des experts dans différents domaines, à titre personnel, comme donneurs d'avis, comme donneurs d'avis autorisés compte tenu de leur compétence et de leur expérience.

La proposition de la France associe également le Directeur Général, qui est nécessairement consulté, et c'est tout à fait normal.

Les experts seront choisis également compte tenu de leur origine géographique. Donc, la proposition française, sur ce plan là, nous la considérons comme étant une proposition équilibrée, sur le plan de la représentation géographique puisque, à notre avis et tel que nous le comprenons, les différentes régions seront représentées-par des experts, comme l'a déjà proposé également le délégué de la Colombie. Monsieur le Président, ma délégation appuie la proposition française en tant que formule de compromis.


Atif Y. BUKHARI (Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of) (original language Arabic): The French proposal is a logical and acceptable one in its form and substance, and we believe that it represents a sound basis for the establishment of a balanced mechanism to undertake this review referred to in the second paragraph of the amended draft resolution. We had thought C 87/LIM/50 represented the sum total of all the work of the Contact Group, which worked for several days, and that it also represented a compromise between the proposals of the Scandinavian countries and those submitted by the Latin American and Near East countries.

The document before us is being examined and reviewed now with a view to reaching a consensus on its contents. We have in fact agreed to this document: I have heard several members state this. We are duty bound to adopt and approve any proposal deemed appropriate on the matter.

As you know, Mr Chairman, we have spent a very long time discussing matters, and in my country's opinion it is difficult to see where they are leading to, or how long it will take us to reach a conclusion. Time is moving on - and frankly, Sir, we consider that you should take whatever decision you deem appropriate to reach a solution to this question now. As you may have noted, Sir, the delegation of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia - the delegation of a developing country - has not yet dined, no matter how simply or how modestly - and I would like to assure you, Sir, that all developing countries here have not yet had their dinner. We all know that developing countries are not unfamiliar with that situation, but ...! Sir, you, as Chairman of this Committee, must adopt a quick, clear cut solution, and inform us precisely how long our work will continue tonight.

CHAIRMAN: That is a legitimate question. The Chair has been eyeing the clock as well - but we have eight speakers. Part of this question will be determined by what emerges from the discussion - but the Chair would like to wrap up the discussion as soon as we can.

However, this is up to the member countries as well. We have tried to provide an opportunity for every member country who wishes to speak on the subject to address relevant points, to try and cover the whole ground. However, since you, Saudi Arabia, have specifically recommended to me that I wrap this up quickly because time is running out, I must tell you that I asked you recently, as representative of G 77, to produce a list of member countries and it took one week to produce it. I know this is not solely your fault, but it took one week to agree on the membership. Having taken one week's time, I cannot in all conscience complain that in a few hours we have not resolved this whole question. I cannot do that.

POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN

Atif Y. BUKHARI (Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of) (original language Arabic): I believe you are mistaken, Sir, the Group of 77 did not take that time, and we decided from the very first day on the names of the members of the Contact Group. As you know personally, the delay was due to the OECD and not to the Group of 77.

CHAIRMAN: Well, the Chair would observe that it would probably take another week to decide that issue, and best leave it alone and proceed on other matters. But, Saudi Arabia, the point whether it took one day or seven days, the record is clear, from the time the Chair first made reference to that and the time...

... I have not finished responding to him, please. I am talking in response to his point of order. You will be recognized.


…That we will not get into that, but the record will say: The Chair calls your attention to -check the verbatim - when there was first reference to it and when the membership was first agreed on. We realize the hour is getting late. We will try to adjourn as close to eleven o'clock as we possibly can. Part of that must depend on the comments of the member countries.

Ernest Sylvester BENJAMIN (Antigua and Barbuda): Mr Chairman, you finally did what is right in that you answered the question. So we shall hope to adjourn at eleven o'clock.

CHAIRMAN: On your point of information, the Chair indicated that it would attempt to adjourn as close to eleven o'clock as possible, and we pointed out the number of speakers left, and that much will depend on that. The Chair is no more anxious to be here than you are, but I feel that we have a lot of work left to do and we have some speakers here who wish to speak this evening. The countries who wished to speak have listened to other speakers; they wish their turn. I am sure they would have preferred an earlier time, but this is how the lot falls. We would like to proceed and wrap it up. Believe me, I would just as soon adjourn as get on to other things. I call your attention to the fact that under the Rules the Chair has the power to adjourn at any time the Chair chooses. My feeling has been that most of the member countries wished us to get through as much as we possibly could this evening. If I am wrong in that, so indicate, and I will adjourn the meeting in two seconds.

Yacoub Y. AL-YOUSUFI (Kuwait) (original language Arabic)': This is the fourth time that I have spoken in this Committee, and unfortunately every time 1 have asked for the floor the discussion preceding my taking the floor dwelt on the question of saving time.

CHAIRMAN: You have not been a consumer of a great deal of time of this body, and please do not be inhibited by that accident, so say whatever you want to say.

Yacoub Y. AL-YOUSUFI (Kuwait) (original language Arabic): To sum up and to be very brief, a group of countries has commented on the French proposal and another group has commented on the Scandinavian proposal. I shall not, in fact, deprive myself of making a proposal I drafted at the beginning of this evening's meeting. In fact, I have amended and re-amended my proposal on the basis of what I heard. My proposal is in eight very short points.

The first point is the name of the Committee to fill the empty brackets of paragraph 2 of C 87/LIM/50. I shall not refer to the name of the group now.

My second point deals with the mandate of the Committee. Both technical and material matters have to be determined, and they have to be clearly determined and defined.

My third point is that the proposals and recommendations of the above mentioned Committee are to be submitted to the general Conference of the Organization for approval and adoption.

My fourth point - an important one - is that the Committee should be composed of 75% of the following: (a) experts from various fields from within the Organization known for their competence and experience in their various fields of specialization; (b) the heads of committees or their alternates - I mean by this the Finance and Programme Committees; (c) a representative of the Director-General. The remaining 25% will be independent and neutral experts from outside the Organization who will be very carefully selected. In so doing, we will have represented the experts in the Organization in points (a) and (b), the Director-General in (c) and the outside experts in (d).


The fifth point: the Committee will be set up by the joint Programme and Finance Committees.

The sixth point: a specific time span or period will be determined for the Committee to undertake its tasks and mandate.

The seventh point: the first and last purpose of this Committee is to seek to establish the ultimate goals for this Organization, namely to improve the food and agricultural processes in the world and to achieve development in the world. This should not aim ultimately at reducing or impeding the work of the Organization, or reduce its budget.

The eighth point: the Secretariat should provide the necessary information for the undertaking of such a study and facilitate the work of the Committee.

1 believe that what I have stated in these eight points could represent a compromise solution, or may be represented as an amendment to certain proposals made so far.

Ian BUIST (United Kingdom): I would begin by observing that unfortunately, during the intervention of the delegate of Kuwait, which I was very anxious to hear, there was rather a lot of noise in the hall. I do not think that that was very respectful to him, and I very much regret that.

For my own part, I should like to address myself to the question you have put to us of the mechanism. I begin by stating that, as the delegate of the Congo indicated, the Contact Group did have a chance to take some part in the discussion of the French ideas. Indeed, therefore my delegation had the chance to take part in that discussion. Unfortunately, some us there found those ideas rather lacking - sadly, even lacking in logic. I am not sure that they look any more satisfactory now, and certainly they do not appear to my delegation to be a satisfactory basis for a compromise. On the contrary, several of us turned thumbs down on them before. Therefore, as far as my delegation is concerned I must do so again. Why?

Let us go through the logic. First of all, let us get one point absolutely clear. It is central, it is important, and I think it is worrying a good number of the delegates in this room. No-one is arguing against a cooperation between the study - I give it a neutral word - and the management of the Organization. On the contrary, this is written into the various texts which we have already considered. It is in the Nordic text and, as the Deputy Director-General underlined, it is well provided for in paragraph 4 of LIM/50 which the Contact Group agreed on.

There is of course - and this is the next point, which was mentioned by the distinguished representa­tive of Turkey - a difference of philosophy. I think our Turkish colleague put forward the idea that somehow under the Nordic text someone was going to be put above the Member States in come way to take some overall view or range of decisions to which they would be subordinate. That is absolutely not so. If there are any misapprehensions on our part, or if I have misunderstood what my colleague said, I apologise to him in advance. It is nevertheless clear that the essence of the idea in the Nordic text is a strict division between the phase of study, which would be quite wide-ranging, and the phase of taking decisions on the outcome of that study. Indeed, this distinction was insisted upon in the earlier debates by several delegations in this Commission and, 1 believe, in the Plenary. I have the text before me but I will not, because of time, refer to it. It is an absolutely critical point, and, as the distinguished delegate of Turkey did, I think, say, decisions on improvements are for the Member States to make, not for any group of experts. But it is our view, and it is the view behind this text, that the Member States should not be committed by, or involved in, the study. The study is only of real value if it is independent, and that, I think, was a point also made by France: independent of the Member States, independent of the management, independent of the political decision-making bodies within the Organization. My delegation very much supports the views of Kenya on this point, and, as the German delegation did, we found them a very convincing interpretation.


As the distinguished representative of the Philippines said - and I think I quote his exact words - the Programme and Finance Committees are composed of countries we have elected. In other words, those Committees are part of the decision-making machinery which represents the governments within the Organization and they are not, therefore, appropriate bodies to carry out the study. Their role is surely to take part in the phase of decision-making.

I would remark that these Committees are in any case going to be very heavily charged with work over the next biennium as a result of the various decisions and points which will be put to them, which are already being discussed within this Conference.

Here is the question which I think underlies the French proposal: how can individuals designated by a panel of countries, as in the Nordic resolution, still be independent? How can they give independent advice? The answer is very clear to my delegation. It is because the people who are designated by groups of Member States, would not and should not in any way be their representatives. On the contrary, they would, and should, be chosen precisely for their individual qualities and their individual eminence. This arrangement is working very well in other institutions which are having similar reviews.

As to the number and the geographical composition, I thought the distinguished delegate of Colombia made a proposal which was precise and pretty well reflected the ideas of my own delegation, with the exception that, as 1 continue to stipulate, the individuals who would be designated would not be representatives of their governments in any way. We therefore do not find the French proposal, which mixed up the different phases, which mixes up the competence of the Organization, which mixes up the studying element and the decision-meking element, philosophically or practically satisfactory. We believe strongly that the Nordic proposal, and in particular its proposal for a truly independent body, is the only one to which our delegation can give support.

Fotis G. POULIDES (Cyprus): First of all, I wish to say that the Cyprus delegation associates itself with the Belgian declaration. Secondly, we were indeed very glad to hear the delegate of France making a compromise proposal. As we shall very shortly have the full text in front of us, we shall be able to judge the pros and cons and reach our conclusions without losing further precious time. I wish, therefore, fully to support the compromise proposal of France, which I think is well balanced and logical, covering to a great extent the concept and mechanism of reforms, and safeguarding the principles of this Organization. I wish, however, to say that the Norwegian proposal also contains very wise thoughts and should be well considered to a certain extent. I avail myself of this opportunity to stress the importance of the fact that we must be very cautious and try by all means to take the best out of both proposals, because I am sure that those who contribute to promoting further the aims of FAO, to which we are all committed.

Antonio GAYOSO (United States of America): I was trying to figure out how I could approach this issue of the mechanism, because my country is one which has in its own deposition to the assembly, C 87/30, fully supported the idea of appointing an independent high-level group. Perhaps the best way to approach this, following the eloquence of the UK delegate, is to look at what the factors are that we must consider in buying this horse that so many people have talked about. We need a group that will have knowledge of FAO, some people have said. We need a group that will have knowledge of agriculture and development. We need close working contacts during the review with the FAO Secretariat. We need the involvement of the Director-General in the process. We need objectivity in the review to ensure that the results will be credible. We need a tied group that can be operationally effective. We need members, through the Conference, to make final decisions on recommendations of this group. We need regional representation so that everyone is satisfied, although in the sense that the UK stressed. This group needs time to do the job.

Basically, if you take that criteria, incomplete as it is, in assessing which of these two horses we are going to choose, it is quite obvious that the Nordic proposed mechanism answers all the questions in the affirmative. It does not compromise the credibility of the group because they


will be independent, they will be eminent, they have too much to lose to be otherwise, because there will be a small group with time, because they will make a commitment, because they will be from outside the Organization, so that they can be detached, detached from the daily responsibilities of work in the Organization, detached from the daily responsibilities of overseeing the Organization that exists in the Programme and Finance Committees.

I am afraid that when I look at the French alternative it really does not answer many of the questions, and those which it tries to answer it does not answer very well.

1 cannot imagine a group of 21 people plus 7 or 8 experts attempting a cogent, a coherent and independent revue of anything. One would need to have a DC-10 to go around. Can you imagine all these people flying to countries to take a look at how field programmes operate? It is just impractical, totally lacking in logic, totally lacking in operational sense.

I would like.for a minute, therefore, to focus again on the Nordic proposal. It says, and it is short: "Establish an ad hoc high-level committee of experts consisting of individuals chosen for their special eminence and competence in the fields of agriculture, development, finance and administration.”

Gentlemen, ladies: just look at that wall, a number of eminent people who know the FAO, who could be independent. Some of them work too close to the FAO right now and I could eliminato them from the list, not because they lack credibility, but because it would put too much of a burden on them.

Jokes aside, it is serious. You have a Bukar Shaib who has extensive experience, you have a Swami-nathan who fits the bill, you have an Enrique Iglesias, and there are a large number of people who we all know from all of our regions who can provide that detachment, that independence and that credibility.

So basically I know that many people do not like this and I know that many people are accepting or supporting the French alternative which, as many have said, is not really operationally complete. So even if we decide tonight on it it would not work. So I would like to appeal to the members, particularly those who want to go home early, to look at the practical effectivity of the mechanism proposed that answers all the questions, all the qualities required to do a review.

In closing I would like to express my appreciation for the very interesting presentation of the delegate of Kenya, very interesting from a philosophical standpoint and in the end very interesting from a practical standpoint.

Harald HØSTMARK (Norway): I ask to come back again on the list on a proposal of the resolution that is the basic text in front of us. I thought I should respond to some of those interventions, some of those proposals that have been made to my original proposal.

When we were working in the Contact Group it was observed by one of the members from one of the developing nations that he had the impression that some developed nations considered development only in relation to what happened within the national boundaries, and he rejected that view. I agree with him. I subscribe to that same philosophy. That is precisely one of the major points that will live in a world of interdependence. So do we. So do FAO. FAO is a complex organism, having a complex set of relationships, it does not exist in a vacuum. That is one of the major reasons why we need people that also have a view of other factors of the other parts of the relationships which are needed to help us with the work which we propose for the betterment of our Organization.

There are basically two points of view that have been propounded here, be that in that draft resolu­tion that Mexico so ably proposed and used in the Contact Group, or be that in the French proposal which, as I see it, is more or less a variation upon the same theme which holds an internal review.

We in Nordic believe very strongly in the external review, partly for the reason.I have just described and partly for reasons that I gave in my first intervention, namely the need to look at this from the outside, divorced from the daily work of those who are engaged in the operations of our daily activi­ties.


The point was made earlier that some propose, some dispose, and that is exactly what we had in mind here. The group that we have suggested should be set up is a group that proposes, and proposes only, and I cannot underline that strongly enough. It is for the member countries only to dispose. They make the decisions. They take advice, they reject it, they apply it, they modify it, but they decide fully what to do with it. That is also why I want a separation. It was my friend the delegate of Colombia who suggested that we might lose something, might lose political support, if these members were not direct representatives of the member countries. Yes, exactly so, and we want that support lost. We want the member countries when they get together to accept or reject that advice, not to feel bound at the outset by what has been proposed by their representatives. There have been many references, indeed in the French variation it has been stated explicitly, as it was in the Mexican, to the Finance and Programme Committees. I believe the delegate of the Philippines used the term that we had elected them, they are important, so we should use them. Exactly so. But if I may use a slightly old-fashioned term, I elected my wife, nobody is more important to me, but I would not propose her as a member of the eminent body that we are talking about here. But I do believe we can use the Programme and Finance Committees. We can submit the findings of this group, this review that we have proposed, to those Committees, maybe in joint session, before that is passed on to the Council, to review and attach recommendations to it. That is certainly a modification that we should consider, to get the best advice on that score. But if they should do that, then they must not be a part of constructing those proposals, then they would not any longer be free to give

their views upon it. Otherwise, if that would not meet with the pleasure of the House I also found that the Kenyan suggestion could contain a real compromise, a first attempt at a real compromise that I have heard in this House and, believe me, I am as fully cognizant as anybody else of the difficulty at finding a compromise between being pregnant and not being pregnant.

CHAIRMAN: If you can find a compromise between beine pregnant and not being pregnant you will be in the high-level group!

Michael Joseph RYAN (Australia): I come in at this stage of the discussion, I find that the ground has been pretty well run-over but I would like to make a couple of points. Firstly, we would like to put on record our support for the Nordic proposal. As we see it, it points the way clearly to a comprehensive, wide-ranging, thorough-going review of this Organization.

When. I was collecting my thoughts I had in fact harked back to the views put forward by the Swiss delegation which I thought were excellent, but the United Kingdom, United States and a number of other delegations have come over the top since then. Suffice it to'say though that we find the French proposal - well, it's not a compromise in our view; it does leave key decisions, particularly the one dealing with how the members of this Study Group are to be chosen within the Organization as it stands right now, as it stands today. As has been already pointed out, these Committees work within a set framework, they deal with a lot of detail, they only have a very limited view down the road for a couple of years and we do not see them as being the appropriate body to make these sorts of decisions.

The French proposal concentrated very much on technical matters. We have no great truck with the Organization on their competence in such things as CODEX, I could list them off. We think they do excellent work there. We do not have any trouble with that. That is not the thing that we are talking about. We want to review the internal Organization structure of the mechanisms by which policy-making decisions, or policy decisions are made, the mode and the way these things flow through and become a reality, become tangible. We feel that it is necessary to bring in outside views to further guide the membership of FAO as to the future orientation and evolution of the Organization of the years ahead. We have already had one view on that and that is the view that comes forward each biennium in the work of the Programme of Work and Budget. We believe there could be another view to that. It is worth looking at. The time is ripe and we believe it should take place along the lines of the Nordic proposal.

One final comment., if it does take place at the end of the day when the delegates gathered here review that study, as Canada pointed out, we should not be afraid of it, we in the end do make the decisions on where we go. I would suggest it would make this place a lot stronger and there would be a lot greater confidence on the part of members in the Organization.


CHAIRMAN: We are past 11 o'clock and we have a number of speakers, a number of member countries who have indicated a desire to speak. We also have a number of member countries who have indicated a desire to wrap things up and they are fundamentally in conflict. The Chair would suggest that it may be prudent to try to come to some resolution this evening. We have before us a proposal intro­duced by Norway on behalf of the Nordic countries. We earlier established that Norway concurred in the suggested changes of the Contact Group. We also had one other, Kenya had some specific other alternatives also suggested and the Chair would suggest if we have any hope of coming to resolution this evening that we had best start on an orderly procedure. It certainly has been a wide diverse discussion on virtually every aspect that we perhaps would be best advised to try to move things along by having some votes and coming to some decisions. At the rate we are going, I must caution you, please bear in mind that there is a fundamental conflict between being urged to let everyone speak and say what he wants to say and simultaneously complain that we are not coming to a resolution. They are fundamentally in conflict. You cannot do both. We must come to a decision on the closure of the debate and proceed to start to come to reach a decision. The Chair would highly recommend that we do that. Just by the time, and the number of speakers that are remaining and what is likely to occur. Every country which is on the list to speak yet has spoken at least two or three times this evening. We would suggest . that we suspend further discussion and spend the rest of our energy on a decision and try to take it in the best possible order, the proper order. The proper order is this; we have before this body, as we have had for some time now, a resolution advanced by Norway on behalf of the Nordic countries. We have had earlier this evening their concurrence in changing the language, their acceptance to modify an amendment proposed by a great number of countries acting in concert. The Chair would point out that before we can move, even on Norway's acceptance of the language, we need to have a clarification on the issue of the brackets. That decision on whether to have language included or excluded is a decision that is in the hands of Norway as the prime sponsor of this motion and their concurrence must be stated as a concurrence with or without and at that point we can then take up the amendment.

Norway, the Chair's understanding is that you have concurred in the language. Is it Norway's intent to accept? How is it your intent to accept? Could you clarify?

Harald HØSTMARK (Norway): When I first moved that on behalf of the Nordic group I accepted a proposal, I accepted a proposal fully as it was with the brackets removed. I would suggest, as a suggestion that those countries who cannot accept the words that are in the brackets get a chance to list that in a footnote to those brackets, with those removed. That was my understanding then.

POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN

Horacio CARANDANG (Philippines): I would like to ask for the right of reply.

CHAIRMAN: The right of reply is a procedure for a country to respond to a criticism of its govern­ment's policies and you would certainly, if you have a wish to respond to a criticism of the policies of the government of the Philippines made today we provide under the Rules for an orderly time for that at the end of the proceedings of the day and it would certainly be granted as requested.

Horacio CARANDANG (Philippines): We have advanced certain arguments and there has been reference to our arguments. I think it is correct procedure that we be allowed to answer those arguments which have been advanced against our arguments.


CHAIRMAN: I am sorry that is not a right of reply. What you are saying is that you wish the discussion to be continued. Let me clarify, I am not playing with language but under the rules of this Organization the phrase "right of reply" is a specific phrase that provides m ember countries an opportunity to respond when the policies of that member country have been criticised and there is a procedure for doing that. I do not believe that that is really what you are saying here. What you are saying, as I understand it, is that you wish the debate to continue - is that correct? We have here a suggestion of the Chair that we close debate and come to a decision. We have an objection to that from the Philippines which is perfecly in order. The body can decide whether or not it wishes to continue. That is a decision that must be taken by Member Countries - the Chair cannot make that decision.

POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN

Bernard LEDÜN (France): En effet, s'il y a un droit de réponse, il ne peut pas s'exercer pour un seul pays. La Norvège a eu tout à l'heure l'occasion de répondre aux critiques qui ont été formulées à l'égard de sa proposition. J'estime donc, étant l'auteur du deuxième projet de réso­lution, qu'en ce qui me concerne, j'ai également le droit de répondre aux critiques et aux remarques qui ont été faites au sujet de la proposition française.

CHAIRMAN: The Chair must correct you, you were wrong. That is not a right of reply issue. We have just explained that to the Philippines. The right of reply deals with the criticism of the policies of a Government. Under the rules there is a right of reply procedure. We have just had two countries evoke the right of reply, but we are not dealing with the right of reply. What you are saying is what the Philippines have just said and what we have just dicussed. What you are saying is that you do not wish to close the debate. That is not a right of reply, that is an objection to closing the debate. The procedure under the rules for a point of order - we do not want to be strict about this, but sometimes it is confusing when you are trying to signal whether you want to talk, or whether you have a point of order. They are very different. Under the rules you should stand and hold your country's sign. But if you can stand and make a sign something which differentiates between the two.

POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN

Waliur RAHMAN (Bangladesh): I have no quarrel with your interpretation of the rules of procedure. You are right in interpreting the right to reply. It relates to a country's policy, but when we are debating two divergent views, perhaps before the Committee, that also may be in a modified form, you can interpret that as a right of reply, not to a country's policy but a response to certain criticisms which have been levelled at certain proposals. In that respect the French and the Philippine requests for further clarification of their points can be termed as a right of reply.

CHAIRMAN: The Chair would point out that the Chair cannot determine whether we close, that is up to the member countries. All the Chair was trying to do was to point out that in the past hour we have had a number of countries express a desire to bring the debate to a close and proceed with the decision making, Saudi Arabia did so and Antigua and Barbuda and other have made similar statements. We have tried to caution that we cannot do both, we cannot come to a decision tonight and continue with a further long discussion which the Chair has made the observation that we have already been over this ground. It is up to the body. The Chair is perfecly willing to sit here


and listen to further discussion. However, it made it perfectly clear earlier this evening that it is simply not sound decision making policy to waste so much time at other times, and then when people are tired and not thinking properly to press the more pressing decisions. We will invoke the right to adjourn so that we can take it up tomorrow. We have a feeling that a lot of people want to proceed to a decision and some people also want to keep talking. We cannot do both. We are going to have a decision.

Wolfgang A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of) (Original language German): We can abide by both solutions. We are ready Lo carry on with the debate or to adjourn until, tomorrow. What we do not think would be right would be for us now to force a decision at a time when we all feel that there is still a possibility to reach a consensus if we debate further. We propose that we must first exhaust the possibility of achieving a consensus either this evening or tomorrow.

CHAIRMAN: For the benefit of the membership the Chair would like to read from the rules a point that some Member Countries may wish to consider at this time. "During discussion of any matter a delegate or representative may move adjournment of the debate on the item under discussion. In addition to the proposer of the motion two delegates or two representatives may speak for, and two against the motion after which the motion shall be immediately put to the vote. The Chairman may limit the time allowed to these speakers”. We just caution you that under these rules at any moment any country can move to cease the discussion. If that occurs then certain steps must occur automatically under the rules, and the Chairman is empowered to limit the time allowed to those speakers and would limit it to three minutes.

POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN

Temel ISKIT (Turkey): I have a point of order on three counts. First, I abide by your ruling

and on behalf of my delegation I support the view that we should continue the discussion. As regards

the second point of order I support the interpretation of Bangladesh. The third point of order

I support the interpretation of Germany. That is all - I have not surpassed three minutes.

CHAIRMAN: If we get that motion I hope that you are one of the speakers.

POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN

Mlle Faouzia BOUMAIZA (Algérie): Je serai très brève. J'appuie la Turquie. Je ne parie pas sur le fond des mécanismes. Je parle de la question de savoir si nous devons continuer nos travaux ou non .

Il me semble que le délégué de la Turquie vient de résumer tout à fait la question et nous nous joignons à son idée de poursuivre le débat parce que nous pensons que nous ne sommes pas trop loin d'une solution.


POINT OF ORDER
POINT
D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN

Ernest Sylvester BENJAMIN (Antigua and Barbuda): My point of order is very simple. By consensus, as I understand it and the house understood it, the debate was closed. The Chair was proceeding, before it took a vote, with asking Norway for a clarification. Norway gave that clarification, and then there were some interruptions. Antigua and Barbuda submit that there is no point for a vote to close the debate. The debate was closed. We were now in the process of voting.

CHAIRMAN: It certainly would facilitate the workings of the Chair, but the Chair must point out in good conscience that we have applied a certain flexibility to reopening things. We must be consistent on that. With the Philippines we may disagree with the language, but the point is well taken and the chair has to respect the rights of Member Countries to speak. State your point of order.

Ernest Sylvester BENJAMIN (Antigua and Barbuda): It is with the greatest difference. My point of order is that the debate is closed. I like your flexibility, but it is a point of order that we cannot enter into any more discussions. We are now in the process of voting.

CHAIRMAN: On your point of order, the Chair recommended - your point of order is not well taken. The Chair recommended to the body a certain consideration. The Chair expressed a view on how it would, in the Chair's judgement, be best to proceed. The Chair gave advice. For the past fifteen minutes or so we have had a discussion of why member countries disagree with my suggestion. Now . the Chair cannot then turn around and state that it heard no such objections because the Chair heard several objections. It heard the Philippines object, it heard Turkey object, it heard Bangladesh object. And I cannot turn around and rule that they were in concurrence with that closure. I cannot do that. The Chair agrees with you that it would be a more expeditious manner of getting to decision making, and that was the reason the Chair suggested it. There was not a concurrence of this body in that. The Chair then proceeded to point out how a member country which wished to make that point might do so, if it did wish to do so, by opening the Basic Text at page 40 paragraph 22, and making such a motion. The Chair stated were such an event to occur we would be into races. That is one possibility that would close things down. The other is getting to a decision. The Chair strongly feels that we ought to move to a decision making, but that is not the view that is prevailing here.

Wolfgang A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of) (original language German): In 1974 at the World Food Conference, shortly before midnight in Rome the distinguished representative of a very large state said, "Hungry people are angry people. Let us stop the discussion. Otherwise, we might become even more angry". Having quoted this saying, I propose formally that we stop the debate now and carry on tomorrow. In other word I am moving for an adjournment of the debate to tomorrow. Tomorrow we can carry on with it.

CHAIRMAN: The Chair rules that under Rule XXII, following the motion of the Federal Republic of Germany, two delegates may speak for and two delegates may speak against the motion. When the two have spoken for and two have spoken against, it will be immediately put to a vote. The Chairman, under the rules is empowered to set a limit of time allowed to the speakers. The Chair rules that there will be three minutes for each pro; three minutes for each con. The Chair will recognize one pro, then one con, in the order handed by the Secretary. Secretary, please see who wishes to


speak on it. Federal Republic of Germany, you are absolutely right under the Rules. That is what the Rules provide. They must be carried out. We must under the Rules of this Organization proceed to a vote on that after two countries have spoken for and two against. Please indicate to the Chair whether you wish to speak for or against to the Secretary. If there is a point of order, it must be specifically on the issue of the vote.

Ian BUIST (United Kingdom): I wish to be clear what we are supposed to be deciding. As I under­stand it, the proposal is for adjournment of the debate of the item until tomorrow. Is that right? I am most grateful.

CHAIRMAN: That is correct. That is what the Federal Republic of Germany stated. There may be two speakers for, two speakers against. Please signal the Secretary. The Chair will ask her to give me one for, one against, one for, one against. Who wishes to speak for this motion? Colombia? The Chair presumes that you are now well. Or the Chair could just as easily rule that that is evidence that you are not so well. But Colombia, if you have a point of order, your point of order must be on the issue of the vote. It is almost twenty minutes to midnight. We are going to have to enforce the rules strictly. State your point of order. If it is on the vote, it will be listened to; if it is not it will be out of order. State it.

Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Sr. Presidente. Yo sé que soy muy pequeño de estatura, pero esperaba que usted, por lo menos, a través del espejo de Kenya, viera el reflejo de mi fotografía sobre la pared. Colombia es uno de los países que está a favor de la propuesta de Alemania. Basta.

CHAIRMAN: You have three minutes to speak. The clock is ticking. Start speaking in favour. You were recognized for the purpose of speaking in favour of the motion to adjourn until tomorrow. You have the floor. Speak.

Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Me quedan dos minutos, pero el texto del discurso lo dejé en mi casa. .

CHAIRMAN: I must, complement you, Colombia, - that is the finest speech you have given. I will recognize one speaker for and one speaker against the motion. They may speak for three minutes

Bashir El Mabrouk SAID (Libya) (original.language Arabic): I do not approve of the proposal of the Federal Republic of Germany and I suggest that we continue the debate and then vote on one of the draft resolutions.

CHAIRMAN: It is not a proposal from the Chair, it is a motion from the Federal Republic of Germany which has been clearly explained by the Chair. We have had one opportunity. Who wishes to speak in favour of adjournment? Does anyone else wish to speak in favour?

Ton A.J.M. OOmen (Netherlands): If you will allow me a point of clarification, can you indicate,


Mr Chairman, how many speakers are on your list?

CHAIRMAN: There are eight at this time. That could go on longer. But it is the intention of the Chair to adjourn at midnight anyhow. We have had plenty of time to discuss this issue. This is not a responsible time to carry on these discussions. A point of order must be on the vote, not on a side issue.

Harald HØSTMARK (Norway): This is not a point of order but one of clarification. If we adjourn now, can we through you, Mr Chairman, have knowledge of the practical possibilities of continuing the debate tomorrow?

CHAIRMAN: Absolutely, that is exactly what the motion is. It is to start tomorrow at 9.30 if people show up. Is anyone speaking in favour of the motion?

John GLISTRUP (Denmark): We are all very tired now. It is the view of my delegation we should continue our debate in the most orderly way and for that reason, I strongly support the motion moved by the Federal Republic of Germany.

CHAIRMAN: Does any country wish to speak against? Philippines, you had our attention earlier.

Horacio CARANOANG (Philippines): I am speaking against the order to close the debate for the following reasons. First, tomorrow is the last day of the Conference. I believe we have worked for 36 hours in the Contact Group. We deserve a full debate on the result of this Contact Group and at this late hour, we will not be able to come to a conclusion of our debate.

Secondly, the Contact Group has reached an agreement on the terms of reference of the review. This is not the only result we have come to. There is another problem - that of the mechanism of the Review. We must have some time to debate this issue.

Third, I have heard arguments put against arguments that I have put forward. I have a right to reply to those arguments put against my own. For these reasons I do not agree with the motion to close the debate at this stage.

CHAIRMAN: There have now been two speeches for and two speeches against the proposition. The Rules state that the motion shall be immediately put to a vote. We shall now have a vote on the motion of the Federal Republic of Germany. We will conduct the vote and we can have a show of hands. Those countries who wish to support the motion of the Federal Republic of Germany will now indicate by raising the sign of their country. Those opposed to the motion? That is carried. We will all adjourn until tomorrow morning at 9.30.

The meeting rose at 23.45 hours
La séance est levée à 23 h. 45
Se levant a la sesión a las 23.45 hors

Previous Page Top of Page Next Page