CHAIRMAN: I trust that you have all managed to do some speedy reading during the ten minutes so that we can proceed to the adoption of the reports which we have before us, REP 1 and REP. 2. The Chairman of the Drafting Committee, Ambassador Pascarelli, will introduce the reports.
Elio PASCARELLI (Chairman, Drafting Committee): Thank you Mr Chairman - and in addition I thank all members of this Cómmittee, because I think they can be proud of the fact that they deserve an Oscar for speed. This report, although containing improvements and - not footnotes, but expressions of views which were voiced by some members, was discussed in a very brief period of time. We considered for one hour and then for a further three quarters of an hour, and then we had some spare time afterwards.
I will not, from this post, suggest that our work be approved en bloc, because I know what happened in a previous case. So I will open this for discussion - I have no comments, except that we have done our very best to introduce here all the views which were asked to .be represented. So I shall wait for some of the distinguished delegates who are not members of the Committee to propose the adoption en bloc - I would be very happy if that could happen. If not, I am here to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN:I think it is normal procedure to adopt the report paragraph by paragraph. It may appear tedious, but I think that in the long run it would be more expeditious to follow this procedure rather than consider the report en bloc. So, with your concurrence, we shall proceed to the. adoption of the report paragraph by paragraph.
Paragraphs 1 to 3 approved
Les paragraphes 1 à 3 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 1 a 3 son aprobados
Paragraphs 4 to 11 approved
Les paragraphes 4 à 11 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 4 a 11 son aprobados
Paragraphs 12 to 13 approved
Les paragraphes 12 à 13 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 12 a 13 son aprobados
Paragraphs 14 to 15 , approved
Les paragraphes 14 à 15 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 14 a 15 son aprobados
Paragraphs 16 to 19 approved
Les paragraphes 16 à 19 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 16 a 19 son aprobados
Draft Report of Commission III, Part 1, was adopted
Projet de rapport de la Commission III, partie I, est adopté
El proyecto de informe de la Comisión III, parte 1, es aprobado
DRAFT REPORT OF COMMISSION III - PART 2
PROJET DE RAPPORT DE LA COMMISSION III - PARTIE 2
PROYECTO DE INFORME DE LA COMSION III - PARTE 2
PARAGRAPHS 1 TO 3 INCLUDING DRAFT RESOLUTION
PARAGRAPHES 1 A 3 Y COMPRIS LE PROJET DE RESOLUTION
PÁRRAFOS 1 A 3, INCLUIDO EL PROYECTO DE RESOLUCION
John LYNCH (Canada): On paragraph 2 1 have two problems. The first one is in the first sentence where it talks about what we thought this increase in the Working Capital Fund was a practical means to do. It states there: ".. protect the integrity of the approved programme against unbudgeted inflation-and currency instability which were beyond the control of the Organization".' I would note that in paragraph 1 we refer to Financial Regulation 6.2. As far as I can determine, and as far as I can recall from the explanation given by the Secretariat, the. two things that are cited in the first sentence of paragraph 2 are not within the purpose of the Working Capital Fund. If I understand correctly, it is basically to cover temporary shortfalls. It is a cashflow item with respect to delays in receipt of contributions to the Budget. If I recall, at least from my intervention and I believe from the intervention of the Secretariat as well as of many other delegations, we were discussing it in those terms. I think perhaps people may have mentioned the two purposes in passing but I think that, given that this is a very summary version, perhaps it would be better to try to align that first sentence with respect to the purpose of the Working Capital Fund as stated in Financial Regulation 6.2. I think that will help clarify it for future generations of delegates as yet unborn.
Secondly, with respect to the reflection of the debate, I think it is not an unreasonable reflection but I think it could be sharpened a little, particularly by adding after the second sentence in paragraph 2 something along the lines of, "particularly given the sharp increase in assessments which was not compatible with national objectives of restraint in public expenditure of many member countries and the absence of an indication in the Programme of Work and Budget of programme adjustments which could be used to meet anticipated reductions or shortfalls in income".
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, delegate of Canada. Would you be kind enough to repeat your suggestion?
John LYNCH (Canada): For the first one, I did not have any particular wording other than to use the language from Financial Regulation 6.2. I think I have given an outline of what it is, and I am sure the Secretariat can provide us with a very concise type of wording. If I recall, they gave us that type of wording in their explanation, and all I am proposing is that we use Financial Regulation 6.2. If you want me to, I can provide wording, but I am sure that either Mr Crowther or Mr Shah could do it much more skillfully than I.
Secondly, in terms of what was said during the course of the debate, it would be to add at the end of sentence two the following: ".. particularly given the sharp increase in assessments which was not compatible with national objectives of restraint in public expenditure of many member countries and, in the view of some other member countries, the absence of an indication in the Programme of Work and Budget of programme adjustments which could be used to meet anticipated shortfalls in income.
Elio PASCARELLI (Chairman, Drafting Committee): The remark made by the delegate of Canada, if I recall correctly - but some of the members might help me - was considered by the Drafting Committee and we. remarked that to expand at this stage by giving reasons which were not necessarily fitting would not be appropriate. I recall, that for 82 countries of this Organization the sharp increase means $370 in one year and $300 in the other year. 82 countries of this Organization will be suffering this tremendously sharp increase of $370. I do not know how it combines with disrupting the national objectives. That is why we abandoned it. We considered it, then we abandoned it.
John LYNCH (Canada): First of all, I wonder. if the Secretariat could provide us with an explanation of how much the increase in the Working Capital Fund and the Special Reserve Account will be for my country. I think it is considerably more than $370.
Secondly, the language that I have proposed is an adaptation of language which has already been approved in another place in this House, in the Plenary, in respect of the Report of Commission II on the Programme of Work and Budget. There in paragraph 26 of C 87/REP/1 the language which has already been approved by this Conference is: ".. the sharp increase in assessments, especially if account was taken of possible one-time additional assessments related to the Working Capital Fund and the Special Reserve Account, which was not compatible with national objectives of restraint in public expenditure..". The language I have proposed is so close to the language that this Conference has already approved for the Final Report of this Conference that I think I would be permitted to say that, as this Conference itself has approved the language, I cannot see why this particular Commission. would object to lifting that language from the Conference Report and- transposing it here, which is the relevant agenda item.
A. Daniel WEYGANDT (United States of America): As a member of the Drafting Committee, I do not want to take a position on the suggestions made by the delegate of Canada, but I have a question for the Secretariat. Could they give us some kind of an idea of what language they might propose in the first part of paragraph 2? I have to say, at least for myself, that I think the delegate of Canada has a good point there. It may be that the majority of delegates here felt that that was the reason that the Working Capital Fund should be increased, but I do not think that is what is provided. for in the Financial Regulations, and so I think it should be made consistent with that. I would ask if someone might give us briefly an idea of what that language might be. It would certainly clarify my understanding.
Ronald DEARE (United Kingdom): I can be very brief. I simply take the floor to support the amendment made by the delegation of Canada.
Dean K. CROWTHER (Assistant Director-General, Administration and Finance Department): I think probably the simplest revision would be in paragraph 2, the third line, to delete the words "unbudgeted inflation and currency instability", and to insert in their place "delayed receipt of contributions". The sentence would then read, "The majority of Member Nations supported the proposal which they considered a practical means to protect the integrity of the approved programme against delayed receipt of contributions which were beyond the control of the Organization." I think that would take care of it.
CHAIRMAN: I see the delegate of Canada is nodding. Does that mean this is acceptable and that the proposal he has advanced would be taken care of by this suggestion made by Mr Crowther? For the verbatim record, would you please respond?
John LYNCH (Canada): For the first sentence, yes, that would be more than fine.
CHAIRMAN: I am just wondering whether you still insist on the inclusion of the new sentence you have proposed?
John LYNCH (Canada): Yes, I would. In fact, If Mr Crowther could give it, I would appreciate finding out - and perhaps others would - exactly how much more my country is going to pay.
V. J. SHAH (Director, Office of Programme, Budget and Evalation): The assessment for Canada for the increase in the Working Capital Fund from its present level to $17 million at the beginning of 1988 represents a total assessment of $3 750 000. The Canadian share of that, using the scale of assessments which is 3.67 percent, amounts to $137 625.
J. LYNCH (Canada): For $137 000 I think we have the right to have one sentence saying that we do not really like having to pay 137 000—odd. If it had been under $100 000 I would not have insisted!
Ronald DEARE (United kingdom): If we are talking dollars, I think ours is about twice the level of the Canadian subscriptions. However, I think there is a rather more serious point here because we are talking about a sharp increase in assessments. That actually does not just refer to the assessments for the Working Capital Fund; it refers to the assessments for the Programme of Work and Budget and to the assessments for the Special Reserve Account. When they are added all together, for most of us it is more than just a few hundred thousand dollars.
Clifton E. MAYNARD (Barbados): If some delegations raised these questions, I have no difficulty in inserting them in the report. Indeed, I have no difficulty in accepting the second Canadian amendment, provided the words "of some" are changed to "a few".
Sra. María Eulalia JIMENEZ (El Salvador): mí delegación estaría de acuerdo con lo planteado ultimamente por el Delegado de Barbados sobre unos pocos delegados. Pero había pedido la palabra anteriormente para solicitarle gentilmente al Delegado de Canadá si nos puede repetir nuevamente su propuesta.
CHAIRMAN: I wonder if the delegate of Canada would be kind enough once again to read his proposal so that everybody" will be clear what his suggested amendment is.
John LYNCH (Canada): The first part of the second sentence of paragraph 2 would read as it is, that is, "Many Member Nations expressed their reservations about the advisability of increasing assessments on Member Nations at this time" and there would then be a comma, "particularity given the sharp increase ih assessments which was not compatible with national objectives of restraint and public expenditure of several member countries and in the view of a few countries the absence of any indication in the Programme of Work and Budget of programme adjustments which could be used to meet anticipated shortfalls in income".
Ms Janet Lesley TOMI (Australia): I will keep my remarks very brief. I feel bound to intervene because, in fact, in the proposed second Canadian amendment to paragraph 2 he actually strikes at the very heart of the Australian government's policy concerns. I would like to place on the record Australia's very strong endorsement that this slight expansion of paragraph 2 be accepted by this Commission.
Sra. María Eulalia JIMENEZ (El Salvador): ¿No sería posible que el delegado de Canadá reconsiderara su propuesta y haciendo eco a sus palabras en las que al principio dijo que en la -Comisión II había sido aprobado un párrafo similar, si fuera posible que en este párrafo se incluyera una cuestión similar a lo aprobado en la Comisión II? 0 sea, únicamente la primera parte de su intervención. 0 sea, sobre todo tomando en cuenta el aumento de cuota, etc. hasta el gasto público perseguido por varios países miembros. Sin la última parte, para compaginar lo que se ha dicho en la Comisión II con lo que diríamos en esta Comisión. ¿No sería posible esto?
Hannu HALINEN (Finland): I have a comment on the last sentence of paragraph 2, where we are starting the sentence with the reference "with a view to reaching consensus it was proposed .." etc. I think the report would reflect what had happened more correctly if, instead of this, we said that the Commission, after a vote, proposed that the Working Capital Fund, etc. My delegation was one of those who voted for this resolution. I should like to point out this fact. I think this would reflect the facts if, instead of beginning with the words "with a view to reaching consensus", we deleted this part and said instead that the Commission, after a vote, proposed -
CHAIRMAN: I wonder if you would be kind enough to repeat your suggestion, please?
Hannu HALINEN (Finland): I suggest that we delete from the beginning of the last sentence in paragraph 2 the words "with a view to reaching consensus it was" - we should include "was" - and instead have the text "the Commission, after a vote," and then continue the rest of the sentence as it is.
CHAIRMAN: Before we deal with this suggested amendment, we should try to sort out the amendment suggested by Canada, otherwise we shall become confused. After the discussion on the Canadian proposal, do I take it there is no strong objection to the insertion of the Canadian proposal?
Elio PASCARELLI (Chairman, Drafting Committee): In this Committee we came to the conclusion that the Conference adopted the following resolution. That: means the resolution is presented for adoption. We wrote "The majority of Member Nations" and we gave four lines. Then we gave about three times that much to the minorities. If you go on, I will put: my own objection and I will come back to 26 million. I think this is a disproportionate representation of minority views. That is why I am firmly opposed, but you can put it to the vote.
Rainer PRESTIEN (Germany, Federal Republic of) (original language German): The delegate of Canada has suggested a considerable amendment consisting of two parts. I do not know whether if, in the second part of this amendment, he is not under a false impression. The way I wrote down his text when he dictated it, he said in the second part of his amendment that a number of members could not approve the increase of the Programme of Work and Budget because no preparations were made as regards anticipated shortfalls in income. Quite a few Member States used this argument, whereby they rejected the next budget, but I think these member countries did not argue that the increase of the Programme of Work and Budget should be rejected for these precise reasons. Basically, they pointed out that an increase in the Programme of Work and Budget would not be necessary. Also, it does not give the necessary financial security to our Organization. Therefore, I think the discussions in our Commission could best be reflected if in the Canadian proposal we were to leave out the second part. I cannot object to the first part of his amendment, but I could not accept the second part.
Sra. María Eulalia JIMENEZ (El Salvador): El delegado de Alemania acaba de plantear lo que ya mi delegación había planteado anteriormente. Creo que reflejaríamos mejor los debates de nuestra Comisión si dejáramos la propuesta de Canadá solamente en śu primera parte, por los motivos que ya el delegado de Alemania ha expresado.
Por otra parte, no es aquí donde discutimos el Programa de Labores y Presupuesto; se ha discutido en la Comisión II. Creo que estamos discutiendo sobre la reposición del Fondo de Operaciones y podríamos dejar la primera parte de la propuesta de Canadá sin ningún problema si eliminamos la segunda. No tendríamos ningún inconveniente.
A. Daniel WEYGANDT (United States of America): I would like to make a general observation. First, although we have always had a very high regard for our Drafting Committee Chairman, I am struck by the fact that as soon as he gets angry, it starts to rain. That suggests he has powers beyond those of the normal delegate. Nevertheless I have to correct slightly what he has just said about what we did in the Drafting Committee. I believe that at least myself and perhaps some other Members of the Committee pointed out that the report before us was very short and that we expected that we might have some problems getting'everyone to agree to it in the Commission. I would like to mention that we in the Drafting Committee were operating under tremendous time pressures and we in the Commission also are operating under tremendous time pressures. It seems to me that the only way we can fulfil our obligation to the Plenary, is to be tolerant, if you will, of the views of delegates who feel that their views have not been reflected fully here.
So I think that as we get into some of the other more difficult items ahead of us, we should bear that in mind. I am not addressing any particular suggestions made here, but I think we have to recall that this was all done rather hastily. We should understand that when we adopt the report.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for your constructive and conciliatory remarks. I am inclined to take up your suggestion that we should bear in mind that we are working under constraints and should try to strike a balance or reach a compromise as soon as possible.
T.F.F. MALUZA (Zambia): It appears that the first part of the Canadian amendment is acceptable and that the second part is causing a lot of problems. We should try to solve the problems. The sentence starts, "In the view of a few countries", so I am posing a question to you: how many countries is a few? I think that if we can resolve that, we can either accept this or re-amend the sentence toread that two, one or some "delegates said that….” If it was said, then we have to reflect it.
If it was not said, then we should delete the whole sentence. If it was said then we should not delete it unless those who said it are not really keen about it. We can find out from the Secretariat about the number of people who said that, if it was one delegate, why not just say "one delegate said", or that that, was the view of one delegate?
Sra. Mery Cecilia HURTADO SALAMANCA (Colombia): Muy brevemente, para apoyar a la Delegada de El Salvador para que se suprima la segunda parte de la propuesta presentada por la Delegación de Canada.
CHAIRMAN: Since we have heard quite a number of countries voicing their desire that the first part of the Canadian amendment should be acceptable, while having some difficulty with the second part, I should just like to pose a question to the delegate of Canada as to whether it is acceptable to him to delete the second part, as suggested by quite a number of countries in the interests of this Commission and with the time constraints that we have.
John LYNCH (Canada): Although my delegation said it and I think that at least one other delegation said it, in the interests of time we shall delete it.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your understanding.
Ronald DEARE (United Kingdom): Since the delegate of Canada has withdrawn his proposal, I shall not insist on it. But just let me remind the meeting that we were one of the delegations which said what was in this amendment. It is on page 34 of C 87/III/PV/7.
CHAIRMAN: Then it is decided that we delete the second part of the Canadian amendment. Maybe the matter is not settled yet.
Jean-Luc GRAEVE (France): Je voudrais soutenir l'amendement finlandais. Il semble qu'il faut, à la fin du paragraphe 2, rappeler les faits..
CHAIRMAN: I am sorry, we have not come to that yet because the matter of the Canadian amendment is still not resolved. There is an objection from the Chairman of the Drafting Committee.
Elio PASCARELLI (Chairman, Drafting Committee): I am again not speaking for Italy. We tried to balance the minority views and gave them ample room. If every single minority view has to be reflected here, I as Chairman do not feel satisfied. I do not know about the members of my Committee, they said it would cause trouble, we know it will cause trouble but we have the ultimate weapon of the vote and we shall see what the majority accept. We gave enough, ample satisfaction for all the proposals made to me and none of these proposals was made in the Committee.
POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN
Ronald DEARE (United Kingdom): I would just like to ask the Chairman of the Drafting Committee a question. Does he speak on behalf of this Commission, on behalf of us all, both points of view, or is he speaking on behalf of the majority? I am rather confused.
Elio PASCARELLI (Chairman, Drafting Committee): It is my duty to present the report in the name of the whole Committee and to justify why we added the views of the majority and the minority, That is relevant. What is my position? We said, "the majority of Member Nations" and we gave three and a half lines to that, then we gave nine lines to the minority. Then finally we gave the draft resolution. Do you think we should give ten times the views of the minority and once only the views of the majority? As Chairman of the Drafting Committee I think we should keep a balance and that was difficult for us. If every minority view has to be reflected in here, we should have a whole volume; we have the verbatim, the verbatim is there and the footnotes and reservations.
CHAIRMAN: It looks as if this matter still does not have your agreement. I should like to give
the floor to a few more speakers, after which I shall have no recourse but to put the matter to a vote.
John LYNCH (Canada): First of all, I think we have to look at this in the light of the two paragraphs. There is paragraph one in which there is an explanation of the reasons why this increase in Working Capital Fund was being sought. I think that paragraph puts the view of those countries which supported the proposal. Then we have paragraph 2 which puts the views of those countries which did not support the proposal. I think if you look at them in terms of their length, they are almost balanced.
I am asking to put forward a statement which I and other delegations made and which is an explanation of one of the factors which is already there. I have already quite willingly compromised and deleted half my proposed addition. I think it is unfair, inappropriate and unprofessional for the Chairman of the Drafting Committee at this stage to be asking a Member State which can justify its position to withdraw.
When I made my withdrawal, I did it in the interests of time,I thought we were immediately going to pass on. I think that is what we should do now, we should pass on.
T.F.F. MALUZA (Zambia): My delegation regrets that if this is the way we are going to operate here, then we are in for a big problem. My delegation does not believe that the Drafting Committee is infallible. The Drafting Committee prepares a report for us, the Commission is the sovereign body. So we have to discuss the report of the Drafting Committee and if members want to change anything, it is up to Member countries to do so.
What has happened now is that after the Commission has actually adopted the amendment the Chairman of the Drafting Committee has come to speak against the adoption of the amendment but I do not know whether he is talking as Chairman of the Drafting Committee or as the delegate of Italy.
I think it is not fair. Once the Commission agrees then we should move ahead. I did not hear any objection from the floor and if the Chairman was speaking as the Chairman, then I think his job finished when the Commission adopted that amendment. Otherwise, Mr Chairman, you have to be firm, or we shall have problems here.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. please bear with me while I try to verify whether we have enough of a quorum for a vote.
POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN
A.Daniel WEYGANDT (United States of America): Mr Chairman, did I hear you say that you were wondering whether we had a quorum for a vote? It seems to me that if the vote is on the adoption of the report, we do not need a quorum because we are approving this. To approve the report you do not need a majority in the first place, therefore, a vote is the same as taking a decision. If my understanding of the rules is correct, you need a majority to take a decision. You do not need a majority to adopt the report. Therefore, if you vote in the course of adopting the report you still do not need a quorum, that would be my guess. I do not think we need to have a voting quorum to decide this matter, if that is what you were seeking a quorum for. That is my view.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your point of order on which I think I have to seek the guidance of Legal Counsel. Can you please enlighten us, Mr Roche?
LEGAL COUNSEL: You are taking a decision as to what you are putting in the Report. But it strikes me from the last interventions from various delegations that you do not need to vote anyway, because it was my understanding that after some discussion the delegate of Canada withdrew the second part of his proposal. I think the first part of his proposal found general acceptance. If that is correct, as one of the other delegations suggested earlier on, you could proceed to the next paragraph, assuming that it is agreed by the Commission that everything is kept with the addition of the first Canadian amendment. However, I see the delegate of El Salvador still wishes to take the floor, so maybe the situation is not quite as simple as it seems.
Sra. María Eulalia JIMENEZ (El Salvador): .Realmente mi delegación quería apoyar lo que está diciendo el señor Roche. Hemos entendido que hemos llegado a una discusión sobre este asunto. La Delegación de Canadá, en un gesto de buena voluntad, retiró su segunda parte atendiendo a los elementos de juicio que aquí se plantearon, y como bien dijo creo que el delegado de Zambia, la Comisión es soberana para cambiar cualquier cosa que el Comité de Redaccio'n nos haya mandado. Si no, no habría necesidad de aprobar el informe por parte de la Comisión.
Otra cosa que quería preguntar es: ¿Qué es lo que vamos a votar cuando usted planteo' que queríamos quorum? Creo que hemos llegado a un consenso sobre este párrafo. Pasemos a la propuesta de Finlandia y cerremos este asunto.
Assefa YILALA (Ethiopia): I too agree with the proposal made by the delegate of El Salvador, but in doing so I feel I should make some remarks with regard to what happened in the Drafting Committee and also concerning a point that was mentioned by Ambassador Pascarelli earlier. This view was proposed by Canada, and a different form was presented in the document, and in the Committee we agreed that this was the view of a few members of the Commission and we left it out; but in the interests of some member countries, to which this draft report has been proposed, we feel it is not fair to say that a member country wishes to include a certain item that was raised during the discussion should not be in the Report. So I would agree with the proposal that was made.
I also feel that the matter has been discussed and there was no objection as far as the first part of the amendment is concerned. I think, instead of spending time on the second paragraph, we should move to the third paragraph.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for all your indulgence. I think Ambassador Pascarelli has consented to the proposal, especially if the second part of the sentence proposed by Canada is deleted
In that case, we now have agreement and we can move on to the amendment suggested by Finland on the same paragraph.
Before going further, for the benefit of the Commission I will read out Finland's suggestion. This concerns the last sentence of paragraph 2 in which it is proposed the phrase "With a view to reaching a consensus" is deleted and replaced by "The Commission, after a vote, proposed that the Working Capital Fund be increased to US$ 17 million as from 1 January 1988 and US$ 20 million as from 1 January 1989." Could I have comments on this proposal, please.
Ronald DEARE (United Kingdom): I support the amendment.
Miss Janet Lesley TOMI (Australia): I also support this amendment.
Antonio C. De ALMEIDA RIBEIRO (Portugal): I should also like to support this amendment. It is very correct.
Dean K. CROWTHER (Assistant Director-General,Administration and Finance Department): I think a slight correction would be useful here. As I recall it, the vote was taken on the very issue of the US$ 17 million. Therefore, rather than use the word "proposed" probably "agreed" would be better, since the change in wording would say "The Commission, after a vote, proposed", but the proposal came before the vote, so it would probably be better to substitute the word "agreed" for "proposed".
Jean-Luc GRAEVE (France): De même que pour l'amendement finlandais, je crois que nous devons rappeler qu'il y a eu un vote sur le Compte de réserve spécial. Alors je ne sais où mettre l'amendement mais il faut indiquer qu'il y a eu un vote et qu'ensuite il a été décidé.
CHAIRMAN: Are there any more comments?
Ronald DEARE (United Kingdom): Of course, the French delegation has a point. It is the same point as was discussed on the Working Capital Fund. I do not quite see where it can be worked in here, but perhaps our Secretariat colleagues might be able to help us.
Dean K. CROWTHER (Assistant Director-General, Administration and Finance Department): If you were to insert the words "after a vote" in paragraph 6 I think they must come in the third line after the word "assessments" but before "the Conference decided". It would then read ".. further assessments. after a vote, the Conference decided", and go on from there. I think that is the proper place for it.
Ronald DEARE (United Kingdom): On a point of information, I suppose having sat through the 1985 Conference I should know the answer but I do not. This language is all in terms of the Conference not of the Commission. Do we have to reflect here what the Commission did or are we looking ahead at what the Conference will do, because on all these Resolutions it seems to me that we have had a vote in the Commission? We still have to have votes on some Resolutions, but there will be votes
again in the Conference, and with the amendment which has just been made we have "after the vote the Conference decided that the best solution ..". I am sure that is very prescient and that is what is going to happen, but what we want to get in here is a reference to the fact that the Commission also had a vote. We have it in paragraph 2, as amended; we do not have it in this paragraph. I do not have a form of words, but perhaps I can appeal to our Secretariat colleagues, who must have encountered this problem before.
Manuel DE GUZMAN PEREZ (Ecuador): Es para una cuestión de orden. En relación con el asunto que estamos discutiendo, efectivamente Francia tiene razón al haber sugerido que debe hacerse constar que hubo una votación. A mi manera de .ver pienso que debería insertarse un texto en el que se diga que "La Comisión, después de un largo debate y por rotación sobre los posibles medios de reponer esta cuenta especial de reserva, etc." decidió tal cosa.
LEGAL COUNSEL: The practice of the Organization is to draft the Reports in the Commission as they would be adopted by the Conference, so you do not reflect, for instance - this is mainly in reply to the delegate of Spain, I think it was - that there was a vote in the Commission and that there was a vote later in the Conference. What is reflected in the Conference Report is the final decision of the Conference. If something occurs in the Plenary which is not reflected in the Report as submitted to it by the Commission, the Conference Report is amended accordingly. But the style in which the Commission drafts its Report is exactly as if it were the Conference in Plenary Session.
CHAIRMAN: I think that clarifies a lot of the questions that we had in our minds.
Ronald DEARE (United Kingdom): I am grateful to Mr Roche for that clarification. This is much clearer now. However, what it means is that the amendment we just made to paragraph 2 is superfluous, and that we need to take another look at that, at least to remove the reference to the Commission, if my understanding of what Mr Roche said is right, because we have now said "The Commission, after a vote, agreed that the Working Capital Fund ..". We were told that we do not reflect votes in the Commissions, and in any event it is my presumption that the Commission did not agree anything. The Commission agreed to put this proposal to the Conference, and the Conference will take the decision.
I do not want to delay our proceedings, but I really think in the interests of accuracy we ought to take another look at paragraph 2.
While I have the floor, could I just check one point with the Legal Counsel. He mentioned that if events which are not foreshadowed here take place in the Plenary, such as a vote, the Report is amended. Would I be correct in assuming that in the case of this particular item, the Special Reserve Account, there would be an amendment to paragraph 8 which would in effect give the results of the vote and then the Resolution?
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for pointing out that little discrepancy. I would like to refer again to the Legal Counsel and ask whether the wording that we have decided upon in paragraph 2 is contrary to the normal practice.
LEGAL COUNSEL: The delegate of the United Kingdom is quite correct. We should not refer in the Report of the Conference t.o various preliminary steps in the procedure such as votes in the Commission. It is written in the name of the Conference itself. For example, in the event that there were no vote in the Commission, and that a vote took place in plenary, this could be reflected in so far as it is necessary to do so, in the Report of the Conference, or if delegates wish it to be reflected.
I think that is all I need to say at this stage. Briefly, we do not refer to the Commission in the Draft Report as adopted by the Commission.
CHAIRMAN: In that case, may I have a proposal to correct this small mistake? Perhaps the Secretariat can make a suggestion.
Elio PASCARELLI (Chairman,Drafting Committee): When this point arose in the Committee, we did find this formula acceptable, exactly because of what Mr Roche has just said. We could not mention the Commission so we said, with a view to reaching a consensus. That is impersonal.
On this point, may I comment that the consensus was an attempt made by some of us in the Commission to reflect in the Report the two extremes.
One Member was in favour of US$ 26 million - I do not want to mention which one - but it was not the only one, there were many more. Others were for a middle way, which was found in between the US$ 20 million and US$ 26 million in the biennium. Finally, that was the consensus that was found. So we think that we have been extremely fair in reporting all of these troubles, and I think the best solution would be "with a view to reaching a consensus", because this proposal did not satisfy some of us.
A. Daniel WEYGANDT (United States of America): I wanted to take the floor for some time to try and explain that we had discussed at great lengths in the Drafting Committee how we were going to go about doing this. I had wanted to take the floor to warn against adopting the amendment in paragraph 2 because it does confuse things. I think what we have to do is to go back to the original text as much as possible. Certainly we have to retain the "view" proposed because, after all, the following paragraph then says the Conference "adopted". It seems to me that it is inevitable that what we will ultimately have is, "following a vote thē Conference adopted", because I am sure there will be a vote in this Conference.
Sra. María Eulalia JIMENEZ (El Salvador): Estoy completamente de acuerdo con lo que ha expresado el representante de los Estados Unidos respecto al párrafo 2. Creo que sería más conveniente dejar la redacción come estaba originalmente, y posteriormente, si durante la Conferencia, llegáramos. a votación, se podría incluir un párrafo en el que se especifique por votación si esto es así. Que yo sepa, las resoluciones se votan normalmente.
Hannu HALINEN (Finland): .In the spirit of compromise, I will withdraw my suggestion if that is the practice in this Organization. However, from my experience in other United Nations organizations I feel that in some cases perhaps it would be good for us to reflect the discussions, the essential parts thereof, in the lower level of bodies, in our final report. It would be giving more information, and on that basis I made my suggestion. But if the practice now in this Organization is as was stated by the Legal Counsel, I will not dispute that.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for your understanding in withdrawing your suggestion.
Jean-Luc GRAEVE (France): Je suis un peu perplexe sur la manière dont nous menons nos travaux. Nous avons adopté un amendement, tout à l'heure, à la fin du paragraphe 2, ensuite la Commission était d'accord, puis on est passé au paragraphe 6, on s'est aperçu qu'il y avait une erreur technique au paragraphe 2, qu'il fallait parler non pas de la Commission mais de la Conférence. Très bien. Donc c'était une simple erreur de rédaction à corriger. Et ensuite on remet en cause l'ensemble de la rédaction, ce qui a été adopté peu de temps avant par la Commission. C'est vraiment une démarche circulaire, on n'en finira pas!
Maintenant, je reparle des propos tenus par M. Roche. En quelque sorte, notre Commission anticipe la résolution, les décisions de la Conférence, nous préparons les travaux de la Conférence, donc nous faisons comme si nos travaux anticipaient exactement les résultats de la Conférence, et si à la plénière il se passe quelque chose de nouveau, eh bien on modifiera notre texte. Qu'est-ce qui s'est passé à la Commission? On a voté, il n'y a pas eu de consensus; admettons que la même chose se passe en plénière, si en plénière il n'y a pas de vote et s'il y a un consensus, on changera le texte, mais ne changeons pas à l'avance de texte, étant donné qu'il faut partir de ce qui s'est réellement passé, à savoir qu'il n'y a pas eu de consensus. Et il n'y a pas de raison d'ailleurs de penser qu'il y en aura davantage en plénière, donc ce que je propose c'est de revenir au texte tel qu'il avait été adopté, à un moment donné par notre Commission, où l'on supprimait "pour permettre un consensus", mais que l'on corrige l'erreur technique qui était de mettre "la Commission", gardons "la Conférence". C'est un second amendement utile que proposaient les Etats-Unis, mais n'anticipons pas un consensus, qui a priori, n'existe pas.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your very constructive opinion. I assure you that I am in no way confused about the way we proceeded, because we adopted paragraph 2 on the basis that we thought the amendment suggested by Finland was a good way and had been agreed by a number of people, until it was pointed out by the United Kingdom and clarified by Mr Roche. In that case, we made the suggested correction. We are not going in circles. We have to correct whatever mistakes we have made. I think that is normal procedure.
I think we will adopt paragraph 2 as the original text, especially with regard to the last sentence, but we will not mention the vote.
Jean-Luc GRAEVE (France): C'est ma première Conférence, donc vous excuserez les ignorances que je peux avoir, mais si nous faisons comme il est proposé, et que nous parlions d'un consensus et que nous anticipions le consensus, en quelque sorte, les Etats qui n'ont pas modifié leur position en deux ou trois jours, vous les appelez en quelque sorte en séance plénière qu'il n'y a pas eu de consensus. Je croyais que le but était que la Conférence adopte le plus rapidement possible les rapports préparés par les Commissions. Alors je ne sais pas si c'est vraiment une manière d'accélérer les travaux de l'ensemble de la Conférence. Je pose la question. Si la coutume est de ne pas refléter exactement les travaux de la Commission, mais il faudra faire alors une rectification en plénière. Est-ce utile?
Sra. María Eulalia JIMENEZ (El Salvador): Verdaderamente, la situación no es muy fácil, pero el delegado de Francia menciona que no podemos adelantar el hecho de que va a haber un Consejo, pero tampoco podemos adelantar el hecho de que va a haber una votación. Pudiera ser que no tuviéramos necesidad de la votación en la Conferencia. Es mejor dejarla abierta en la Conferencia para dar un consenso y llegar a esta decisión, y si hay necesidad de votación durante el Plenario, lo agregamos en el informe, o sea, o una cosa u otra, es exactamente igual. No podemos adelantar que va a haber un consenso, como no podemos adelantar que va a haber una votación.
A. Daniel WEYGANDT (United States of America): I think the delegate of France has pointed out a problem that can be easily solved by a simple drafting amendment, and that would be to replace the expression "reaching a consensus" by substituting "with a view to achieving the broadest possible support." That does not prejudge reaching a consensus or not. I think that was the spirit in which the amendment was put forward. Maybe I am overly optimistic, but it seems to me that should solve the concern about the particular use of the word "consensus", and I think it has a nice ring to it, if I may say so. I think that by substituting "achieving the broadest possible support" we could solve the problem and could proceed to the remainder of the report.
CHAIRMAN: Having heard the arguments, I wonder if the latest suggestion by the delegate of the United States is acceptable to the delegates of France and El Salvador.
Jean-Luc GRAEVE (France): Oui
Sra. María Eulalia JIMENEZ (El Salvador): sí
THE CHAIRMAN: I see some agreement in that respect. We could delete the word "consensus" and substitute therefore "wider support". If there is no objection, we will adopt paragraph 2. I see no objection.
Paragraphs 1 to 2, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 1 à 2, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
Los párrafos la 2, así enmendados, son aprobados
Paragraph 3, including draft resolution, approved
Le paragraphe 3,y compris le projet de résolution, est approuvé
El párrafo 3, incluido el proyecto de resolución, es aprobado
PARAGRAPHS 4 TU 8 INCLUDING DRAFT RESOLUTION
PARAGRAPHES 4 A 8 Y COMPRIS LE PROJET DE RESOLUTION
PARRAFOS 4 A 8,INCLUIDO EL PROYECTO DE RESOLUCION
CHAIRMAN: We come now to Item 25.3, Replenishment of the Special Reserve Account. Paragraph 4: any objection? It is approved. Paragraph 5: any objection? It is approved. Paragraph 6? There was a suggestion by the delegate of the United States for an amendment. I wonder if the delegate of the United States would be kind enough to clarify that amendment.
A. Daniel WEYGANDT (United States of America): I think it might be clearer if I read the paragraph from the beginning and then I will point out what it is that I am substituting: "Following extensive discussion on possible ways to replenish the Special Reserve Account, and with many delegations objecting to the replenishment by further assessments, it was proposed, as recommended by the Council, to replenish the Account. I am suggesting deletion of the phrase "the Conference decided that the best solution", and the word "was", and add in place of that "it was proposed."
It may not follow tremendously well from the logic of the beginning of the sentence, but I think it gets over the hurdle, and I do not think that we need to spend too much more time trying to reformulate the beautiful English wording.
Sra. María Eulalia JIMENEZ (El Salvador): Respecto al párrafo 6, también estaría de acuerdo en que lo planteáramos como lo expreso el delegado de los Estados Unidos, dejándolo de conformidad con la recomendación del Consejo.
Elio PASCARELLI (Chairman, Drafting Committee): I do not wish to contribute to prolonging the deliberations, but I want to say that I do like the formula of the delegate of the United States, who was a member of the Drafting Committee. In the Committee there were no objections from anyone to this paragraph. We worked on it together, but I must recognize that I told the delegate of the. United States that he would be defended by his Chairman if he made a proposal for a change in the meeting of the Commission. Therefore, I say that to oblige.
Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): El colega Pascarelli, Presidente del Comité de Redacción; tiene razón a nuestro juicio. Pensábamos que este párrafo estaba redactado de manera cuidadosa y equilibrada. Antes de anunciar la decisión de la Conferencia, se reconoce que hubo oposición de muchas delegaciones. De manera que sería difícil aceptar cambios que puedan inducirnos a un debate excesivamente controvertido. Convendría adoptarlo tal como está.
Ronald DEARE (United Kingdom): In order to save the concern of the Chairman of the Drafting Committee, I shall adopt this proposed recommendation as my own because I think it is eminently sensible in the light of what we have just discussed in relation to paragraph 2. The amendment originally proposed by the delegation of the United States - and now proposed by the delegation of the United Kingdom -is simply designed to avoid the difficulty into which we ran on paragraph 2. It in no way affects the sense of the sentence: it simply brings it into line with the situation which we have decided applies at this stage of the report in relation to the recommendation in paragraph 2, and it brings this particular recommendation into line. I therefore urge that we adopt it - and get on with the real business of this afternoon.
CHAIRMAN: There seems to be a divergence of opinion in this case, although very few members have spoken. I would like to have some idea of the views of others.
John LYNCH (Canada): After my first intervention, as I sit back here waiting for the last paragraph, which is the only other time I shall intervene, I can only say that after having listened to the various speakers we support the United Kingdom.
Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): ¿Podría acaso leerse la propuesta del Reino Unido lentamente indicando la redacción y el sitio?
Ronald DEARE (United Kingdom): The amendment occurs in about the middle of the first sentence of paragraph 6. There, there is a phrase beginning "and with many delegations objecting to the replenishment by further assessment": delete "the Conference decided that the best solution", and substitute "it was proposed"; leave in "as recommended by the Council" and delete "was". So, in the English version it would read from the beginning of the paragraph: "Following extensive discussion on possible ways to replenish the Special Reserve Account, and with many delegations objecting to the replenishment by further assessments it was proposed as recommended by the Council to replenish the Account with a special assessment ..", and the paragraph then continues as in the original text.
- 192 -
Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Creemos que habría incoerencia si aceptásemos una redacción del párrafo 6 con la sola expresión de proponer y luego adoptásemos la resolución respectiva. Sin embargo, para avanzar, para tratar de lograr compromisos, podríamos aceptar la propuesta del Reino Unido, pero en vez de "se propuso", "se acordó que"; no se propuso porque hubo un acuerdo y por eso aparece el proyecto de resolución en el texto; se acordó. Espero que en esto haya también concesiones de la otra parte porque estamos tratando de lograr compromisos que nos permitan avanzar.
CHAIRMAN: Is that agreeable to the United Kingdom?
Ronald DEARE (United Kingdom): I am sorry, but I cannot agree with my distinguished friend from Colombia. What we are trying to do here is to bring the language of paragraph 6 into line with the language which we have already all agreed was appropriate in paragraph 2, where we said "With a view to reaching wide support it was proposed.." and then, after that, we go on to say, "The Conference adopted the following Resolution:". I am not a star gazer, but I am pretty confident that that will have to be amended by the addition of the words "after a vote".
The same applies to paragraph 6. We are trying to bring paragraph 6 into line with paragraph 2 by saying "It was proposed", and eventually paragraph 8 will say "The Conference, after a vote, adopted.." - the decision is in the Resolution.
Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Nos extraña verdaderamente que no se acoja nuestro gesto de buena voluntad. No podemos seguir proponiendo en cada párrafo. En el párrafo 2 aceptamos ya esa transac-ción, pero creemos que ahora estamos en la etapa de presentar un informe. El informe no recoge propuestas; el informe recoge decisiones obtenidas a base de las propuestas que se hicieron, y yo creo que esto es claro. Habíamos aceptado que se dijera "se acordó", pero ahora sólo aceptamos la redacción original "La Conferencia decidió". Las delegaciones que no estén de acuerdo con este texto, pueden dejar sus reservas.
Ms Josephine KAMSVAG (New Zealand): The New Zealand delegation supports the amendment to paragraph 6 as proposed by the United Kingdom, as this is in line with the amendment and wording agreed to in paragraph 2.
Jean-Luc GRAEVE (France): Je voudrais également soutenir l'amendement britannique. Il s'agit réellement d'harmoniser une rédaction qui a été jugée logique et convenant aux usages de notre Conférence.
A partir du moment où la rédaction a été jugée convenable à un point donné et que le problème est exactement le même, il n'y a pas de raison de la changer.
Elio PASCARELLI (Chairman, Drafting Committee): So as to avoid the conclusion which sharply offended my feelings - and I hope someone will repent of it- this is the Chairman of a Committee who tells you that this is a false parallel because in the first case, paragraph 2, we - because I was included - were trying to reach a consensus or a wide support. There was no recommendation of the Council. Here we do have a recommendation of the Council - so I cannot see that we can talk about "propose" when we have a recommendation of the Council. The Council did not propose - it recommended. We accept the recommendation of the Council: we do not propose. So that is a false parallel - false.
Sra. María Eulalia JIMENEZ (El Salvador): Simplemente para apoyar lo mencionado por el Delegado de Colombia. Aunque él ha retirado su propuesta, yo la repropondría nuevamente a la Comisión. Sería posible que pongamos "acordó" ya que estamos aprobando la Resolución en el párrafo 8. No veo cuál es el problema de poder aprobar un párrafo con "acordó que tal como recomendó el Consejo", ya tenemos una recomendación del Consejo que nos sustenta.
Mounir KHORAYCH (Liban) (Langue originale arabe): Il existe un point qui n'est pas clair pour moi: le Conseil juridique avait déjà mentionné que le texte qui nous est soumis et qui a été rédigé en tant que Commission indépendante reflète ce que la Conférence dira.
Le texte du paragraphe 6, si nous l'adoptons conformément à ce qu'on a proposé, revient à la commission et par conséquent on ne peut pas dire "on propose" au paragraphe 6 et dire en même temps au paragraphe 8 "la Conférence a adopté".
Le paragraphe 6 reflète ce que la commission a dit alors que le paragraphe 8 reflète ce que la Conférence a adopté.
Pour conséquent, j'estime que la proposition du délégué de Colombie, à savoir que "la Conférence a décidé" est conforme au texte de ce rapport.
LEGAL COUNSEL: If I may say so, I think your Commission is making very heavy weather of this, to me, relatively simple proposition. It is agreed that we do not reflect every step in the evolution which leads to the Conference decisions. The Resolution is in paragraph 8: "The Conference adopted the following resolution:"The words leading up to it - or rather the paragraphs leading up to it -obviously require a certain logical sequence, and I have some difficulty in seeing that paragraph 6 would be inconsistent with paragraph 2, which was adopted previously, because the Conference decides what is the best way of taking the necessary action. The logical sequence, although interrupted in what one might call a parenthesis in paragraph 7, is paragraph 8. The Conference decided, in paragraph 6, what had to be done, and therefore went on to adopt the Resolution which is reflected in paragraph 8.
So I think that we are perhaps going around in circles, where the text seems fairly straightforward -at least, to me.
Sra. Doña Silvia CARBALLO VIVES (Cuba): Después de escuchar las aclaraciones que nos ha vuelto a hacer el Asesor Jurídico, estamos completamente de acuerdo con la propuesta de la distinguida delegación de Colombia. Dejar el párrafo tal como está propuesto aquí en este proyecto que nos dice "la Conferencia decidió", ya que la palabra "sugirió" no refleja en realidad lo que hemos debatido aquí en esta Comisión ni está en concordancia con el párrafo 8.
Germán CAKRASGO DOMINGUEZ (Chile): Mi delegación también suscribe lo que acaba de decir la delegación de Cuba que en realidad suscribe lo que acaba de decir el Consejero Jurídico de la Organización. Este párrafo refleja exactamente lo que ocurrió. Fue la Conferencia la que decidió reponer la cuenta. Eso es lo que ocurrió es lo que dice aquí el Proyecto de Informe.
John NG'ONGOLO (Tanzania): I support the proposal put forward by Colombia to leave paragraph 6 as it was before, but I am worried about the word "many" in the second line of the paragraph. I do not recall that it was many delegations that objected to the replenishment of the Reserve Account. What I remember is that a few delegations objected to the replenishment of the Reserve Account. That is why the Conference decided as recommended by the Council. I would propose that the word "many" should be deleted and that instead it should say "a few delegations".
T.F.F. MALUZA (Zambia): It appears that my flag is too small. I think I would request the Secretariat to give me a much bigger flag so that it can be easily seen. Since I have been asking for the floor for a long time, my views have changed, in the light of what Cuba and the Legal Counsel have said. I think the best way for this House is to adopt the paragraph as presented to us by the Drafting Committee.
Pedro SEBASTIÃO (Angola): Nous sommes aussi d'accord pour adopter cette proposition telle qu'elle nous a été soumise. Donc, nous sommes d'accord avec la délégation de la Colombie.
Assefa YILALA (Ethiopia): We also should like to support the proposal made by the distinguished
Ambassador of Colombia.
Ronald DEARE (United Kingdom): I must say I am a little baffled. It seems to me that the Conference does not actually decide anything until it adopts the Resolution, and the Resolution is the last act of the Conference on this particular item. It is the last paragraph in this Report, so everything leading up to the Resolution pre-dates the adoption. I may be illogical, but it seems to me that, until you get to that point, you have not decided anything. But, in the interests of saving time, since obviously the majority of my colleagues are not particularly interested in logic this afternoon, I will withdraw my amendment on the understanding that we do not touch the word "many" in that paragraph because "many" actually does reflect very accurately what happened in the discussions on this item in the Commission.
CHAIRMAN: If that is agreeable, we can adopt the Report as it was originally agreed. I recognize the delegate of the United States.
A. Daniel WEYGANDT (United States of America): I am happy to get this over and done with. I would just like to say that, if anyone really thinks about it, they will recognize that there cannot be any difference between proposing something and agreeing to something. Obviously, you do not propose something unless you agree to it. The only reason that this language was put forward in the first place was to make a logical connection between the two issues, and I reject emphatically that there is a false parallel between these two questions. I do not want to start a discussion on this, but it seems to me that we have the same situation pertaining, and it seems to me we are wasting an awful lot of time here. I will, for my part, refrain from making any more positive constructive suggestions because it does not do a damn bit of good.
Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Señor Presidente, quiero agradecer el gesto constructivo decolega del Reino Unido, y pedirle, de manera cordial y respetuosa a mi amigo Daniel Weygandt de los Estados ; Unidos que trate de entender nuestra posición y que no crea, en ningún momento que menospreciamos y desatendemos aquellas propuestas que generalmente sabemos que ellos las hacen con ánimo constructivo pero que a veces no reflejan un debate sobre un punto. Con estas palabras espero que se pueda aceptar el párrafo 6, inclusive con la referencia a "muchas delegaciones" que como lo demuestra este mismo momento en esta sala no corresponde a la verdad. Sin embargo, queremos dar esa satisfacción al Reino Unido y a los Estados Unidos, adoptemos así el párrafo 6 y pasemos al párrafo 7.
CHAIRMAN: Paragraph 6 is approved. We go to paragraph 7. I see no objections.
Paragraphs 4 to 7 approved
Les paragraphes 4 à 7 sont approuvés
Los Párrafos 4 a 7 son aprobados
Paragraph 8, with a Resolution on the replenishment of the Special Reserve Account for 1988/89: no objection.
Paragraph 8, including draft resolution, approved
Le paragraphe 8, y compris le projet de résolution, est approuvé
El párrafo 8, incluido el proyecto de resolución, es aprobado
CHAIRMAN: We come to Item 25.5, Headquarters Accomodations.
Paragraphs 9 to 13 approved
Les paragraphes 9 à 13 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 9 a 13 son aprobados
CHAIRMAN: We come now to Item 25.6 Personnel Matters.
PARAGRAPHS 14 to 18
PARAGRAPHES 14 à 18
PÁRRAFOS 14 a 18
Ms Janet Lesley TOMI (Australia): In paragraph 17 (ii) it says: "Those Member Nations who were represented in the Fifth Committee of the General Assembly would alert their delegations to the need to improve the conditions of employment of staff;". Australia is a member who is represented in the Fifth Committee. My only concern is that I would prefer that after saying.." to the need to improve the conditions of employment of staff" it should say "within the common system". I would have difficulty accepting this phraseology without adding "within the common system".
Rainer PRESTIEN (Germany, Federal Republic of) (original language German): I support the proposal of Australia.
Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Aunque parece innecesario, queremos también apoyar la propuesta australiana, que es constructiva, y que refleja la realidad: la paridad que se aplica a estas condiciones de servicio en todo el sistema de las Naciones Unidas.
J. Augusto DE MEDICIS (Brazil): I think we should adjust our text here. All Member Nations are represented in the Fifth Committee of the General Assembly of the United Nations. They are represented in the Committee of the General Assembly. The Committees of the General Assembly are open committees. All Member Nations of the United Nations are present on those committees. I think we should change that. All Member Nations should alert their delegations in the Fifth Committee, rather than put it that way.
Dean K. CROWTHER (Assistant Director-General, Administration and Finance Department): The delegate from Brazil is certainly correct in saying that all members of the Fifth Committee are members of the General Assembly, but there is a very slight difference in the membership of the General Assembly and the membership of the FAO. I think there are six members that are different, and therefore there is just a slight distinction between both the membership in the Fifth Committee and the membership here, so there needed to be some qualification.
Koo Bum SHIN (Republic of Korea): I do not have any intention to propose an amendment to this paragraph, but, as you know, we expressed our deep sympathy and concern, having listened to the address given by the Secretary-General of the APS, so I should like to know, concerning paragraph (iv), whether the Director-General has already sent a telegram to the Secretary-General of the United Nations on behalf of this Conference.
Dean K. CROWTHER (Assistant Director-General, Administration and Finance Department): Since the request is being made by the Conference, and therefore the Conference must adopt this Report, let me assure the distinguished representative that the telegram has been prepared and is ready for signature, but until the Report is adopted it cannot be sent.
CHAIRMAN: I believe there is no objection to the amendment proposed by Australia. In that case, we adopt paragraph 17. Paragraph 18? No objections.
Paragraphs 14 to 18, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 14 à 18, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 14 a 18, así enmendados, son aprobados
J. LYNCH (Canada): I will save you time, Mr Chairman. It is a proposal for an additional paragraph, 19. It is a small item but one which is of considerable concern to my country. We would propose adding a very short paragraph to deal with a subject which we raised under this item of Personnel Matters, along the lines of: "A few delegations, while noting the United Nations General Assembly target figure of 30 percent of women professionals in the UN Secretariat by the year 1990, sought information regarding the employment of women at the professional level within the FAO Secretariat."
J. Augusto DE MEDICI.S (Brazil): First, allow me to admit my mistake in my previous intervention. I did not realize the difference between the membership of FAO and the membership of the UN.
Second, I think we should change that to "many delegations" because you will recall that a great many delegations spoke on behalf of this proposal. My delegation spoke on that, and I feel that rather than "a few" it should be "many" delegations.
Mrs Astrid BERGQUIST (Sweden): My delegation wish to support the Canadian proposal as amended by Brazil. I have no objections to stating "many" instead of "a few".
Clifton E. MAYNARD (Barbados): My delegation would like to support the Canadian proposal, whether it be a few, many, some or whichever way it is written.
Sra. María Eulalia JIMENEZ (El Salvador): Brevemente para apoyar la propuesta hecha por el Delegado de Canadá con la modificación planteada por el delegado de Brasil.
A. H. COPPER (Netherlands): As you know, it is the standing policy of the Dutch government to support the increasing number of women in international organizations. We have expressed these objectives many times. We fully support the new paragraph proposed by Canada, and instead of "a few" delegations, we propose "several", and then as was suggested by Canada.
Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Sr. Presidente, parece evidente que son muchísimas las delegaciones que están en favor del contenido de esta adición, pero el último delegado va más allá, como yo lo dije también en mi declaración.
Si el colega de Canadá me lo permite, yo quisiera completar la idea que él expreso porque pensamos que no basta haber pedido informes. Pedíamos agregar, depués de la propuesta de Canadá, "y pidieron que ese porcentaje trate de reflejarse en el personsal de la FAO". Esto completa la idea porque no solamente pedimos información, sino que tratamos de que se aumente. La relación en más flexible "tratar". Espero que esto no moleste a la Secretaría de la FAO.
CHAIRMAN: Are there any comments on the further addition as proposed by Colombia? If there are none, then I take it there is a consensus to the addition suggested by Canada, with a further addition by Colombia. It is decided that there is a new paragraph,19.
Draft Report of Commission III, Part 2, as amended, was adopted
Projet de rapport de la Commission III, partie 2, ainsi amende., est adopté
El proyecto de informe de la Comisisión III, parte 2, así enmendado, es aprobado
Jozef Wiejacz, Chairman of Commission III, took the Chair
Jozef Wiejacz, Président de la Commission III, assume la présidence
Ocupa la presidencia Jozef Wiejacz, Presidente de la Comisión III
PART III - CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS (continued)
PARTIE III - QUESTIONS CONSTITUTIONNELLES ET ADMINISTRATIVES (suite)
PARTE III - ASUNTOS CONSTITUCIONALES Y ADMINISTRATIVOS (continuación)
B. Administrative and Financial Matters (continued)
B. Questions administratives et financières (suite)
B. Otros asuntos administrativos y financieros (continuación)
25.4. Other Measures to deal with Budgetary Uncertainties (continued)
25.4. Autres mesures destinées à faire face aux incertitudes budgétaires (suite)
25.4. Otras medidas para hacer frente a las incertidumbres presupuestarias (continuación)
CHAIRMAN: We now come back to Item 25.4, Other Measures to deal with Budgetary Uncertainties. I would inform you that we have the situation where our interpreters are ready to work for us until 18.45. D.m. unless of course there is the need to stay longer, but I hope this will not be the case. I count on your cooperation.
I would recall that we have spent quite a long time on this item. There was a lengthy discussion and many clarifications were given.
I also wish to appeal to all of you to stay in the hall because we expect to have the vote and we need a quorum of course.
I remember that when we last discussed this item certain delegations made reservations to come back and speak on it. Are there any delegates who wish to speak on this item? This is item C 87/LIM/9, the draft resolution contained in this document.
I do not see any speakers. I would ask the Secretariat to court how many delegations are present.
A.H. COPPER' (Netherlands): Mr Chairman, are you asking us again to discuss document C 87/LIM/9 which has already been discussed, or are you asking for any new comments?
CHAIRMAN: I am not of course trying to reopen the discussion on that item. As I said, it has already taken place.
Unfortunately, we do not have enough delegations in order to vote. We will make certain efforts to increase the number of delegations. In the meantime, maybe there are some other comments on document C 87/LIM/14?
Ronald DEARE (United Kingdom): We do not have any comments on these documents. We think we have all had ample time and opportunity in which to make our comments. I was just going to say that, although the light is on for the red room, they are in recess there. I wondered if there was some way of appealing to members there to move over here to give us the quorum.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, we are going to follow your good advice. .
Of course, under this item we cannot foresee that we shall have a quorum within a few minutes so we shall also not vote on this resolution but I would remind delegates that this item has not been discussed by the Commission. So there is a proposal on my side that we should devote a certain time to discussing the Draft Resolution under Item 22.3 with the understanding that without a quorum we cannot take a decision, although this resolution will be passed for decision to the Plenary Session. Are there any remarks or objections to this proposal? I do not see any. Who would like to speak on this item. I shall ask Mr Roche to make his introductory remarks.
I have a proposal to make, to save your time and ours. As we have no quorum, we cannot take a decision on these draft resolutions contained in document C 87/LIM/9, C 87/LIM/14 and the Supplement. So we propose not to take a decision in the Commission and to pass it directly to the Plenary Session, with a proposal to vote on this document in the Plenary Session. If I see no objections we shall do that. I see none.
A. Constitutional and Legal Matters (continued)
A. Questions constitutionnelles et juridiques (suite)
A. Asuntos constitucionales y jurídicos (continuación)
22. Other Constitutional and Legal Matters (continued)
22. Autres questions constitutionnelles et juridiques (suite)
22. Otros asuntos constitucionales y jurídicos (continuación)
22.1. Procedure for the Election of the Chairmen and Members of the Programme Committee and Finance Committee (continued)
22.1. Procédure à suivre pour l'élection des présidents et des membres du Comité du programme et du Comité financier (suite)
22.1 Procedimiento de elección de los presidentes y los miembros de los Comités del Programa y de Finanzas (continuación)
LEGAL COUNSEL: In view of the time constraints I shall present this item in a somewhat summary form. The item relates to the procedure for the election of the chairmen and members of the Programme Committee and the Finance Committee. The documents which relate to this item are C 87/LIM/8, C 87/LIM/43 and C 87/LIM/46.
Document C 87/LIM/8 is an extract from the report of the Ninety-second Session of the Council held earlier this month. C 87/LIM/43 is a draft resolution which has been presented by the delegation of Italy, and document C 87/LIM/46 is the Eighth Report of the Resolutions Committee, and contains certain observations on the Draft Resolution set out in C 87/LIM/43, as well as a slightly revised presentation of the amendment to the General Rules of the Organization proposed in C 87/LIM/43.
To sum up very briefly what the issue actually is, in 1985 when the Council proceeded to the election of the members of the Finance Committee, one of the regions which had put up a candidate was not elected. As a consequence, this matter was considered by the Council on three occasions. The nub of the problem was whether the General Rules of the Organization which apply to the election of the members of the Finance Committee - it is, in fact, Rule XXVII paragraphe three - and also the similar procedure set out in Rule XXVI paragraph three, relating to the Programme Committee, should be amended to guarantee that every region that wished to be represented would be represented. Some delegations^ were in favour of amending the Regulations.
The other proposal was that, rather than amend the General Rules to achieve this objective, the matter should be left entirely to coordination among the various regions, and also within the regions as far as rotation was concerned.
No consensus was reached on the first two rounds of the discussions in the Council as to which of these two solutions was preferable. The Council referred the matter back to the CCLM at its 91st Session, asking the CCLM to endeavour to find a solution which would lead to a consensus in the Council. The proposal of the CCLM, which was endorsed by the Council, was to take an intermediate course of action whereby the Conference would adopt a resolution affirming certain principles.
If you look at document C 87/LIM/8 you will see the summary of the Council's deliberations ;on this matter, and on page three of the English text there is a Draft Resolution recommended by the Council containing the principles that the Conference would endorse. The three operative paragraphs read that the Conference decides: "1. To affirm the need for just and equitable representation of the various regions on the Programme Committee and the Finance Committee; 2. To underline that an essential element of such representation - that is to say just and equitable representation - "is that all regions that so wish are in fact represented on the Committees; and 3. That members of the Council should bear the above in mind, as well as the importance of securing equitable rotation among the countries constituting each region, when electing the chairmen and members of the two Committees in accordance with Rules XXVI.3 and XXVII.3 respectively."
That is the proposal that was submitted to you by the Council.
In document C 87/LIM/43, which has been proposed by the delegation of Italy, a substantially different approach has beed adopted. The delegation of Italy has proposed the amendment of the General Rules of the Organization, but only in so far as the Finance Committee is concerned. Hence, it would be an amendment to Rule XXVII. The proposal sets out in detail the amendment. needed to achieve the objectives described in the Council's Report, which I have just quoted, and how the election procedure would be changed. Rather than go into a description of this proposal, let me just say that, having elected the Chairman, there would be a first round whereby there would be an election for one member for each region except the region from which the Chairman had been elected.
The second round would be to elect four members, one from Europe and three from the second group of regions, and I should draw your attention to the fact that this amendment also necessarily implies an increase of two members of the Finance Committee. One would be allocated to the region of Europe; the other additional seat would be allocated the the group of regions which is composed of Africa, Asia and the Pacific, the Near East, and Latin America and the Caribbean.
The issue, therefore,that you have before you is whether you wish to choose the course of action
recommended by the Council, or whether you wish to choose the course of action recommended by Italy, as proposed in document C 87/LIM/43, with the observations of the Resolutions Committee in C 87/LIM/46.
Elio PASCARELLI (Italy): I think it is my duty to state first of all that I made it clear at the very beginning of one of these Commission meetings that it would not be called the Draft Resolution proposed by the delegation of Italy, but just "a proposal" until we found sponsors. At the state of affairs here, I see that my country is still singled out, which we do not like.
The reason why this proposal was tabled by Italy, waiting for sponsors, was sufficiently' clearly explained when we said that, however respectable, principles established by the Council had not been respected and we had no warranty that they would be respected by the Council members.
The main reason is the lack of sufficient posts for Europe. This is the fourth time that Europe has had more candidates than posts. We do not want to argue about specific weight, because we are all equal, but for God's sake, we have 29 countries and we have 1 seat. North America has 50 states plus 1, thus 2 countries and one post, and we have never contested that. The South West Pacific has one seat and 8 states, and we never contested that. What we were not satisfied with was the practical course of affairs, because for four successive elections some Europeans have had to make way for others, except on the last occasion. On the last occasion Italy, having been beaten once, and having been forced to renounce other times, after 40 years of not being minor donors to this Organization -I think you have some proof that we are not a minor donor in this Organization - nothwithstanding the fact that we do not flood the Secretariat with papers but with a million dollars, this time again we find that the consultation was not even tried. After two months of our name being known to our group another name came out, which we have nothing to object to except what I said in the Conference: there is no seat. If we want to respect the principle of one seat to each region, there is no seat for the latecomer.
In view of the fact that we do not want to displace any country from the same continent as ours, in view of the fact that our donations are quittè substantial and this candidate respresents a very important group of European countries, we thought that this solution might avoid the risk that one region is not represented. I am not sure that my fellow candidate from Europe will fall - not at all. I would rather be in doubt about whether the remaining regions would be represented. That would be a tragedy that we want to prevent, so we put forward a proposal.
The proposal became a resolution sponsored by Italy dot dot dot. Nobody authorized the Secretariat to put a bracket, so the dots should be there. As such, I do not accept there should be dots, and we accept to be a sponsor of the Resolution if we find at least one sponsor for Africa, one sponsor for Latin America, one sponsor for the Near East, one sponsor for Asia and one other sponsor for Europe.
Much to my regret, the only interested country was so terribly proud and sure of being elected that they refused to co-sponsor. God bless themi! I would not be so sure.
Now, Mr Chairman, may I for practical purposes ask you to relieve me from the task of further explaining that the consultation, advice by the Council, did not work; and may I ask you kindly, if sponsors are present here tonight and they lend their name, to allow me to defend and participate in the debate; otherwise I withdraw the Resolution.
CHAIRMAN: I think the statement by the delegate of Italy was very clear, so I would like to ask whether there are countries willing to co-sponsor this Draft Resolution.
Before that, I recognize that certain delegations have already asked for the floor. Colombia was the first.
Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Cuenta la historia que hasta los amores apasionados suelen llegar a su final. En esta Conferencia, hemos tratado de estar a la par del Osear de la velocidad de que nos hablara el Embajador Pascarelli, hace poco, pasando de una sala a otra para apoyar a nuestro distinguido colega Pascarelli de Italia. Pero esta vez, tenemos que abandonarle. Pensamos que el LIM/8 constituye el máximo que ha podido dar el Consejo a través del asesoramiento del CACS durante dos años, entre 1985 y 1987, y este Proyecto de Resolución es el resultado de un proceso decantado y estudiado detenidamente, que es lo único que podremos aprobar.
Es muy tarde; yo también estoy cansado. Podría hablar muchísimo sobre esto. En primer lugar, estoy seguro de que el Embajador Pascarelli está guiado por buena voluntad y no por circunstancias coyun-turales, no obstante que en su declaración incurriera en algunas referencias que no podrían ayudar sus buenos propósitos.
Hace once años, cuando el Embajador Pascarelli tal vez estaba empezando a perder sus primeros cabellos, se introdujo una reforma en la composición de los Comités del Programa y de Finanzas que hasta ese año, 1976, era elegido a base estrictamente personal y sin representación geográfica definida. Pero ese acuerdo se obtuvo no en tres o cuatro días, como ahora se pretende hacernos aprobar una propuesta, sino a lo largo de un proceso intenso de consultas entre los representantes de todas las Regiones.
Fue así como se llegó a lo que está operante hoy. En relación con los Comités del Programa y de Finanzas, este punto como ningún otro, impone esas consultas porque justamente se hace referencia a la manera como están representados en esos Comités las distintas Regiones de la FAO. No se puede improvisar.
El propio Embajador Pascarelli ha confesado, con la sinceridad que le caracteriza, que sus consultas no han dado buen resultado. Todo esto conllevaría, como lo anotó el Comité de Resoluciones en el C 87/LIM/46 y como lo ha explicado el Sr. Roche, Consejero Jurídico, a una serie de complicaciones a menos de veinticuatro horas, por lo menos esperamos, de concluir esta Conferencia; a la suspensión del Reglamento, a aprobar un texto que no ha sido revisado por el CACJ que implica aumento de gastos en el presupuesto. Además, yo creo que el Embajador Pascarelli sin duda cuando hizo sus estudios, sobresalía mucho en literatura y otras materias, pero tal vez era poco aplicado en Aritmética porque si la composición actual del Comité de Finanzas es seis y tres, no se puede proponer un aumento que no corresponda a esa proporción.
De manera que en caso de que fuese viable esa propuesta, sería obviamente, manteniendo la misma proporción: dos para el grupo de los países en desarrollo, y uno para el grupo de los países industrializados. Aun así, Señor Presidente, eso traería problemas en este momento, porque el grupo de los países en desarrollo hizo esfuerzos y se puso de acuerdo para presentar un número de candidatos al Comité de Finanzas igual al que corresponde a nuestras regiones. De manera, que no es sensato tratar de arreglar el problema en una región para crear dificultades en otras regiones.
Pensamos Señor Presidente que esta es una buena idea, que debemos conservarla en nuestras mentes, y aun en el informe, como una iniciativa, como una propuesta y seguirla estudiando en los dos años que vienen para, después de una meditación serena, juiciosa y atinada tomar la decisión en la Conferencia.
Siento mucho, Señor Presidente, haber hablado con franqueza y no nos extendemos más por lo tardío de la hora, pero esa es nuestra posición.
Sra. Maria E. JIMENEZ (EL Salvador) : La Delegación de EÌ Salvador quiere manifestar que, por principio, apoya la solución de compromiso que está contenida en el documento C 87/LIM/8, o sea el proyecto de resolución que ha sido examinado por el Comité de Asuntos Constitucionales y Jurídicos, por el Consejo y remitido a esta Conferencia. Decimos por principio porque mi delegación, El Salvador, es miembro del Comité de Asuntos Constitucionales y Jurídicos y en su oportunidad aprobó este proyecto de resolución. Sin embargo, no debemos tener la mente cerrada a cuestiones que podrían mejorar nuestra Organización; estamos de acuerdo con la última parte de la declaración hecha por el Delegado de Colombia en el sentido de que la propuesta que ha hecho el Delegado de Italia, podría se analizada por los órganos competentes y en este caso se podría remitir, como bien lo dice el C 87/LIM/46 en su Artículo 5 para su examen, al Comité de Asuntos Constitucionales y Jurídicos para que analice este proyecto de Resolución presentado por Italia.
Queremos de jar constancia, desde ahora, que estamos completamente de acuerdo con que si se va a hacer un incremento de miembros en el Comité de Finanzas tendría que ser proporcional a la relación que existe en este momento; o sea, 4 para el primer grupo de países y 8 para el segundo grupo de países, porque, Señor Presidente, el primer grupo de países, si vamos a relacionar los miembros que componen esas regiones, ese primer grupo, repito tiene 40 países; el segundo tiene 118, Señor Presidente. 0 sea, las regiones de Africa, Asia, el Cercano Oriente y América Latina están compuestas por 118 países. Si lográramos una proporción justa tendríamos que tener 12 miembros para estas regiones y 4 para el primer grupo de países. Sin embargo, nos parece que la proporción hasta ahora mantenida de 3 a 6 se podría continuar manteniendo con 8 y 4.
Atif Y. BUKHARX (Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of) (original language Arabic): We should like to begin by thanking our colleague, Ambassador. Pascarelli. He has done a praiseworthy job in order to find a solution to a problem that one of the groups might be facing. Within the Resolutions Committee we have already discussed this issue. We examined this Resolution as a matter of fact, and there is a report prepared by the Resolutions Committee. That report has been distributed, and we should like you to take a look at it before reaching any decision on this Resolution before us, whether you are going to accept it or reject it.
This question certainly does deserve careful scrutiny. This Resolution should be taken into account because of the very positive aspects it contains. Nevertheless, I would like to mention that we have a document before the Conference, C 87/LIM/8, which gives us an account of the legal procedure covering these two committees, the Finance Committee and the Programme Committee. It covers the question of their Chairmen and Members. In adopting this Resolution we do not know whether it would be incompatible with the terms of that document.
The delegation of the Kingdom of Saudia Arabia has absolutely no objection to this Resolution. We would suggest that the number for the Group of 77 be eight and for the OECD Group, four. If this proposal is acceptable, we certainly could accept this Resolution.
Mrs Astrid BERGQUIST (Sweden): My delegation certainly appreciates the efforts of Ambassador Pascarelli to find a solution to a matter that has been a problem for some time, but I am afraid that my delegation has considerable problems with the resolution as proposed by Italy.
The text as amended by the Resolutions Committee does not, I am afraid, make it any easier for us, although we certainly share some of the concerns raised by the Resolutions Committee.
Last time, as was pointed out by the delegate of Colombia, the rules guiding the Finance Committee together with that of the Programme Committee were reviewed and changed after very careful consideration, taking quite a long time in a special group of which my country was a member. If I remember correctly, that group was chaired by the delegate of Colombia in his then capacity as Independent Chairman of the Council. And we are now rather concerned that we would be asked to adopt a change of the basic text without this matter having been considered carefully by the Members, and also we do not benefit from the comments of the CCLM.
When it comes to changes in the constitution of the basic text, I think we need to do that only after careful consideration. I do not question the need for the review of the Finance Committee and the Programme Committee. The Nordic Countries have asked for such a review of such aspects of our Organization in order to make it more effective in the years to come. But we feel that at this stage we would not be able to support the Resolution as tabled in C 87/LIM/43 and amended by the Resolutions Committee, C 87/LIM/46. On the contrary, we could give our support to the Resolution already adopted by the Council in C 87/LIM/8.
POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN
Elio PASCARELLI (Italy):I do not like this resolution to be called a resolution of Italy. Please, I withdraw unless I find a sponsor. Why should we go on wasting time with a debate?
CHAIRMAN: If Ambassador Pascarelli prefers not to call this resolution a resolution of Italy, please follow that request.
A.H. COPPER (Netherlands): I did not mention a resolution of Italy. I listened with interest to the statement of the delegate of Italy regarding the resolution presented by Italy, or whatever it is called. But I wonder if this resolution is replacing the draft Resolution as presented by document in C 87/LIM/8, with which we have no difficulty, or are we discussing both? That is my first question.
We have no difficulty with document C 87/LIM/8, and in general we have no difficulties with the resolution presented by the delegate of Italy, but we have a few observations regarding the remarks made. I want to put on the record, in view of the remarks of a few countries who also contribute largely to FAO, that the Netherlands consistently during its participation in FAO has always supported FAO, and has been one of the largest donors in the multi-bilateral programme. This year we have been surpassed by Italy in the trust fund contributions. Therefore, I congratulate Ambassador Pascarelli for that, because I think Italy is a larger country than the Netherlands and it would be a shame if the Netherlands had been the largest multi-bilateral donor.
Sra. María Eulalia JIMENEZ (El Salvador): Disculpe que le pida nuevamente el uso de la palabra, pero es que quería llamar la atención a la Comisión en lo que dijo el delegado de Arabia Saudita. Tenemos ante nosotros el documento C 87/LIM/46,' que es el octavo informe del Comité de Resoluciones, en el cual dicho Comité hizo un análisis pormenorizado de la resolución presentada por el delegado de Italia.
En el artículo 4 se menciona que, "en vista de que el plazo para la presentación de candidaturas para este bienio ya pasó, la aplicación inmediata de esta resolución no sería posible". En ese caso, creo que sería más conveniente que remitamos esto al Comité de Asuntos Constitucionales y Jurídicos para que lo analice durante este bienio, para que durante la próxima Conferencia nos presente un análisis de la cuestión sobre la base de la resolución presentada por Italia.
El delegado de Italia dijo hace poco que retiraba su resolución. Nosotros estimamos que el contenido de la misma no hay que dejarlo perder. Se podría aprovechar. Unicamente no es el momento apropiado para hacerlo. Podríamos obtener en el futuro, con un análisis adecuado, que este cambio se logre en los reglamentos para que se consiga una representación equitativa de todos los países miembros de la FAO en los Comités de Finanzas y del Programa, pero no es el momento adecuado. Remitámoslo. al Comité de Asuntos Constitucionales y Jurídicos y veamos si durante la próxima Conferencia podemos tomar una decisión sobre esto.
CHAIRMAN: Before giving the floor to the United States delegation I would remark that it would now be very difficult to withdraw "the resolution of the Italian delegation", since it is not an Italian draft resolution! But we shall find the solution, because international practice is very rich -sometimes. delegations and conferences are discussing documents that I call "non documents", papers which are not papers - so I am sure that we will find a solution to this problem!
A. Daniel WEYGANDT (United States of America): I am beginning to think, Mr Chairman, that your wit is exceeded only by your wisdom! It is in fact very difficult to know exactly what we are supposed to talk about, and I was tempted to ask you informally for a point of order because it is not clear to me how we should proceed. It seems fairly clear, in the light of what our distinguished colleague from Italy has said that there is not a consensus, at least yet,and a resolution will not be formally submitted to the Commission.' In those circumstances, I am wondering how to express myself, because my opinion differs about the content of this from some of the previous speakers. I don't want to talk about the resolution, but in the interests of a full record of this discussion I have to record my view that in the event that somewhere down the line there might be a possible expansion of the Finance Committee, my delegation emphatically does not support the idea that it should be on the basis of four to eight. It seems important to record that at this point, to highlight the fact that any negotiations about this would be quite complicated and difficult, and I think beyond the scope of the time that we have available to us.
I would like to confine my comments to C 87/LIM/8 and say that since we commenced our discussions last week and a number of delegates at that point indicated their support for it, I have yet to hear any delegation say that they oppose the resolution contained in C 87/LIM/8. That is not perhaps surprising - but I do want to record the fact in the Commission that even though we support this resolution, my delegation continues to have some difficulties with the fact that there is no provision in it for guaranteeing regional representation. This is a point to which we attach great importance and it is certainly a point contained in the "non-resolution" in C 87/LIM/43, and it is that point which I think we perhaps could profitably study in the CCLM. But I do not think that we have any kind of consensus from this Commission about the actual expansion of the Finance Committee, and therefore, if we are giving a mandate to the CCLM, I think we have to be very careful at least as to charging CCLM with anything particular at all,and.therefore I am not at all convinced that we should remand this to the CCLM.
I would point out, however, that in paragraph 5 of C 87/LIM/8, there is in my opinion a very important clause which is to remind the Commission, and ultimately the Conference, that should the solution envisaged in the C 87/LIM/8 resolution not prove to be effective, we should have to reconsider the matter. So, with that in mind, perhaps this discussion has not been completely in vain. We have had an exchange of views and in the unfortunate event of the solution proposed in the document -which I think most, or even all, members here supported - not proving effective we have now. I think some basis on which to proceed in the future; but, until it becomes clear that this solution is not effective, I think it is premature to remand the issue to the CCLM.
LEGAL COUNSEL: I would like to address one particular aspect which has just been referred to by the United States delegation. As you are aware, the CCLM is not a policy-making adviser - it would advise on the legal texts, which should be prepared to reflect the policy decisions taken by either the Council or the Conference. In this respect I would submit that it would be preferable for any future discussions on this particular item, including the size of the Finance Committee, to be first discussed by the Council, in order that the Council can determine what it wants to achieve, and then - but only then - would it refer the matter to the CCLM with a view to the CCLM preparing the appropriate texts for endorsement by the Council and eventual approval by the Conference at a future session.
Ms Anne Lise PETERSEN (Denmark): The Danish delegation would like to fully support the comments made by the delegate of Sweden. As a member of the Council, the Danish delegation has already supported the compromise text contained in C 87/LIM/8.
Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Señor Presidente, yo se que usted es un Presidente excelente y que sin duda va a presentar un resumen pertinente de este debate, pero sin embargo quisiera tratar de ayudarle, señor Presidente, sobre todo después de la declaración de nuestro Consejero Legal.
Estoy de acuerdo con lo que ha dicho nuestro colega Weygandt, de Estados Unidos, en el sentido de que el C 87/LIM/8 puede que todavía no logre alcanzar el propósito que persiguen algunos representantes de gobiernos, pero como pareció dejarlo entender el colega de los Estados Unidos, él reconoce, señor Presidente - como lo dije yo antes - que este proyecto de resolución del LIM/8 es el resultado de dos ocasiones en las cuales el Consejo se ocupó de este asunto, y en ambas ocasiones recibió la asesoría del CACJ. De modo que, en cuanto a nuestra manera de proceder, entendemos que no hay objeción para que se adopte el proyecto de resolución contenido en el LIM/8.
Luego, señor Presidente - y aquí en este caso sí quiero que mi delegación se una a la del Embajador Pascarelli - diríamos en nuestro informe simplemente lo siguiente: "Algunas delegaciones consideraron que había llegado el momento de revisar la composición, la forma de elección y la representación geográfica de los Comités del Programa y de Finanzas."
Creo, señor Presidente, que los Comités del Programa y de Finanzas, que son los dos órganos asesores más importantes del Consejo, no pueden tocarse separadamente. Esto lo demuestra la experiencia del pasado. La colega Astrid, de Suecia, se refirió a los detalles, en los cuales yo no quise entrar por modestia personal a pesar de que fuí no solamente testigo, sino actor - y muy importante - en el proceso que llevó a la modificación que rige actualmente.
Después de expresar que algunas delegaciones manifestaron ese deseo de que se revisen esos aspectos a que me he referido, la Conferencia consideró que no había tiempo para tomar una decisión al respecto. Yo traslado este asunto al Consejo. El Consejo, si lo considerara oportuno, se ocupará del fondo de la cuestión y para los aspectos legales contará el Consejo con la asesoría del CACJ.
Pensamos también que la Conferencia debe recomendar algo que es muy importante, señor Presidente, y que es generalmente conocido, como que todo este proceso debe adelantarse a través de consultas pertinentes y adecuadas entre todos los grupos regionales vinculados a esta iniciativa.
T.F.F. MALUZA (Zambia): My delegation is one of those who do not fully agree with- the compromise resolution contained in C 87/LIM/8, mainly because it does not guarantee regional representation. We believe that we must find a way in which every region which wants to be represented should be represented and this is not to be found in C 87/LIM/8. Even in the forthcoming elections, if all the regions will be represented equitably, I am sure that it will be by pure luck and not by design. In this respect we really congratulate the delegation of Italy for the bold move he has taken in giving us the resolution in C 87/LIM/43.
We recognize that according to the Resolutions: Committee there is not much time for us to actually decide on this matter. I think however that we can agree with the Legal Counsel that the time has come for us as a Conference, or as a Commission, to give a clear mandate to the Council (of which Zambia is a member) as to what is the next move. We feel that the next thing to be done is to agree that a change must come, and that the change can only come by increasing the number of representatives on both the Finance and Programme Committees. That should be the first step: that we should agree to have a change, and that it should be by increasing the number.
Secondly, the Legal Committee should now look at the question of how this should be done. We seem now to have a good framework - the numbers which are reflected in C 87/LIM/43 are not, I know, acceptable to all delegations, but we have some basis on which to work.
Ronald DEARE (United Kingdom): My delegation has no difficulty in supporting the resolution contained in C 87/LIM/8, but I have to say that it remains a matter of regret to us that it has not been possible to find a solution that guarantees a place on both the Finance Committee and the Programme Committee for a region which wishes to have one.
In this respect we very much share the thoughts expressed by the distinguished delegate of Zambia, and we certainly believe that it will be necessary to return to this issue - which I emphasize is not an issue between the OECD and G 77 countries.
Two of the regions of this Organization are mixed regions composed from members from both OECD and G.77. I would not comment on the "non-Italian" Resolution, particularly as I assume that it is not any longer before us, except to say that we share the view of the United States in that, if it were proposed to proceed along this track, we could certainly support a ratio of 7 to 4, as proposed in the Resolution. We would have great difficulty with the suggestion that has been made about a ratio of 8 to 4.
Hidayat Ganda ATMADJA (Indonesia): I will give my opinion on C 87/LIM/43. My delegation has studied the proposal of the Draft Resolution presented by the delegate of Italy, or from wherever. We are of the view that the proposal is realistic enough, which is intended for a more equitable distribution in the country representation on the Finance Committee, both by region as well as by group of countries. The proposal, I believe, provides room for more participation of member countries in financial deliberations of the Organization, while at the same time maintaining considerations of
effectiveness and efficiency. We believe that the proposal deserves support as far as my country is concerned. However, we should not like to see the change of representation in the Finance Committee creating a new problem or tension among the regions due to inequitable balance in the increase of the Finance Committee membership. We are therefore prepared to support the Resolution, provided. the increase of membership becomes 4 from OECD and 8 from developing regions.
Sra. Maria E. JIMENEZ (El Salvador): Brevemente, mi delegación quería apoyar la propuesta que hizo hace poco el delegado de Colombia. Tanto el delegado de Colombia, como Estados Unidos, como el Asesor Legal, nos han ilustrado sobre los mecanismos adecuados para que esta cuestión se siga estudiando. Es importante que dejemos planteado esto, que planteemos el resultado en nuestros debates, como dijo el delegado de Colombia, y que lo encomendemos a los órganos que corresponda para que esta cuestión se siga analizando.
J. LYNCH (Canada): I will be relatively brief but, given our experience two years ago, it would, I think, be unseemly if we did not make a comment. First, we have a problem, and that problem has not been solved. The problem is expressed in its most visible sense by the fact that a region that contributes more than 23 percent of the budget of this Organization is not represented in any way on the Finance Committee of the FAO. However, given the problems which have been identified in this debate, it appears that the only solution open to us at this particular Conference is that found in LIM/8, and we would be willing to accept it.
Mrs Kate ABANKWA (Ghana): Briefly, my delegation sees no objection to the Draft Resolution in C 87/LIM/8. However, my delegation is of the view that there is also increased interest on the part of a number of countries in the second group of countries, just as in the first group of countries. This is because the deliberations of the Finance Committee have effect on the programmes of interest today. Therefore, as stated by the delegate of Colombia and supported by others, if Group 1, which originally had three members on the Finance Committee, is to be given one additional seat, then it will be fair and logical to give two additional seats to Group 2, which originally had six seats. My delegation cannot, therefore, support Resolution C 87/LIM/43.
My delegation is also of the view that the question of expanding the Finance Committee should be further studied by the Council.
Elio PASCARELLI (Italy): As a free man, Mr Chairman, because I am not proposing any resolution, I think I can give my advice. Italy was represented in the CCLM, and, as Dr Roche just said, they do not aim to make political decisions, because that is not their duty. They did a wonderful job. They submitted to the Council three alternatives. We, as host country, as a member country of the Council, chose the third alternative, and we would have expected this choice to be enacted by a very simple change to Rule XXVII which, according to the Regulation, is possible even tonight, and by an extension of the terms, because we have to allow for this if, as we proposed, as a certain country proposed, the number of the members of the Finance Committee in view of the very difficult financial problems that are expected in the next biennium. I expanded on it yesterday. We think the time is sufficient. 24 hours are long enough to present new candidatures.
Let me make a little brag, I have the highest esteem for my distinguished colleague from Colombia, but he does not know that I studied mathematics for four years at university level, I almost hold a degree in engineering and I am a permanent army officer of artillery: I could hit his head from here, but I will not do it. He knows that mathematics are sometimes empoisoned by politics. I know exactly that six is twice three, so it will be extremely easy to say that eight is twice four. The only question I have for the members of the Group of 77 who were sitting in that committee on a draft resolution is: why did they not do it then?
Mounir KHORAYCH (Liban) (langue originale Arabe): Après tout ce que nous avons entendu à ce sujet, je serai très bref dans mes propos. Ce sur quoi je voudrais concentrer mon propos, c'est le fait que ce sujet, semble-t-il, à cette heure, n'est pas assez mûr pour permettre qu'une décision véritable soit prise maintenant, surtout après ce qui a été dit dans le document C 87/LIM/46. Il nous semble donc plus opportun de poursuivre l'examen de cette question au sein du CQCJ, et le résultat de cet examen serait soumis à la prochaine conférence.
Clifton E. MAYNARD (Barbados): This delegation regrets that this problem, which arose after the last Conference, which is to some extent reflected in document C 87/LIM/8 was not satisfactorily resolved because the solution proposed in the Resolution attached to document C 87/LIM/8 is only one part of the solution. It seems to me that the proposal which is presented in document C 87/LIM/43 goes a long way towards resolving the problem, because I must emphasize that, for as long as there has been international organizations, the principle of equitable geographic distribution in those bodies has been understood and accepted. Therefore, for me, the Finance Committee and Programme Committee have always been organized to the disadvantage of that principle. Therefore, my delegation would have been happy to support C 87/LIM/43 and even co-sponsor it had it been amended to show eight seats for the second group of states, because that would be reflective of the equitable geographic distribution. This Conference must not decide that things that happen in other fora of international organizations do not apply - particularly important principles. It seems to me that there is still a great deal of work to be done on this. While, for the moment, one can accept the solution proposed in C 87/LIM/8, it seems to me that the proposal by the distinguished representative of Colombia is the only way out, but I would emphasize - because this delegation would not be present when the Council or any other subsidiary body is looking at this question - that a solution which does not involve the principle of equitable geographic distribution will not be acceptable to this delegation. We can therefore support the resolution in C 87/LIM/8, emphasizing that paragraph 3 of that resolution is a very important principle from which we must not depart. I would therefore suggest that we adopt the solution, insofar as C 87/LIM/43 is concerned, that has been proposed by the representative of Colombia.
Manuel DE GUZMAN PEREZ (Ecuador): La verdad es que usted, cuando se inició esta reunión, empezó indicando que lamentablemente no teníamos el quorum como para poder tomar una resolución sobre el tema, pero usted había indicado que habría un debate que en mi concepto ha sido muy útil, porque se ha logrado determinar cuál es, más o menos, el ambiente que existe respecto de las dos proposiciones sometidas a consideración de la Sala.
E'n función de ahorrar tiempo, Sr. Presidente, yo propongo que al presente momento usted se sirva dar por concluido el debate, remitir el proyecto de las dos resoluciones a la Conferencia para que allá pueda nuevamente instaurarse el debate pertinente y se tome la votación. Esta es una propuesta que mi delegación le hace en atención del ahorro de tiempo.
Akbar Mirza KHALEELI (India): The suggestion of the representative of Barbados that the principle of proper regional and geographical group distribution needs to be respected. To the extent that document C 87/LIM/43 goes in that direction, we would be inclined to support it. I think the developing group of countries would require eight from the second group in the Finance Committee for a proper distribution. To that extent we would be prepared to go along with the proposal.
LEGAL COUNSEL: Mr Chairman, before you sum up and in order to assist the Secretariat in preparing the report on this discussion - which will have to be done very quickly in order to get it to the Plenary tomorrow - is it my understanding that the resolution in C 87/LIM/8 is generally acceptable and should_go forward to the Plenary? Also that C 87/LIM/43, although the concept in it received varying degrees of support with various shades of interpretation, should be discussed in the Council? I think as the delegate of Colombia suggested, the actual text of the resolution - or "no-resolutions",
as it came to be known - would not actually be submitted as part of the report of this Commission, but the report would, on the other hand, reflect various views and various proposals which were made, in order that the whole background would be available for the Council to take action upon in the next biennium.
Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Yo creo que el Sr. Roche ha expresado exactamente lo que queríamos. Además, el colega de Ecuador ha propuesto que se cierre el debate. Todos queremos ahora pasar, con las pocas energías que nos quedan, a la Sala Roja.
CHAIRMAN: I do not see any other speakers. It is difficult to sum up this discussion. I found it very useful, very interesting, as many speakers have said. I thank you for your remarks, Mr Roche. As far as C 87/LIM/43 is concerned, there were different views. Certain support was expressed, but there were also certain reservations. However, it is not so important because we cannot decide as we are short of a quorum, but that does not mean that the discussion was not interesting.
If you have no objections, my proposal is that we ask the Secretariat to prepare the report of this afternoon's session to be accepted by the Plenary session. The Drafting Committee will not have enough time to do this job in time for it to be presented tomorrow morning. If I do not see any objections, we shall decide in this way. I do not see any objections.
We are now approaching the end of our work in Commission III.
Elio PASCARELLI (Italy): Since I have to chair the Drafting Committee, Mr Chairman, would you decide how C 87/LIM/43 is to be chaired? I formally request that you cross out "presented by the delegation of Italy.””
CHAIRMAN: I will ask Mr Mifsud to give an explanation.
F.MIFSUD (Secretary, Commission III): I am sorry, I advised Ambassador Pascarelli earlier on to find out whether he was agreeable to chairing the Drafting Committee meeting, to deal with the business concluded which is not covered in the two reports which we approved this afternoon. But this was earlier on and now we find that for logistic reasons it is just not possible to consider a Drafting Committee meeting tomorrow morning because the Draft has to be prepared for the Plenary tomorrow morning.
So the proposal is that the Draft Report will be prepared by the Secretariat and referred directly to the Plenary. In the Plenary you will all of course, have an opportunity to discuss it and approve it or otherwise.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you for these additional explanations. I see no objections so on behalf of the Chairman and Vice-Chairmen I would like to thank all delegates and colleagues for their cooperation. I also thank the representatives of the Secretariat for their important contributions to our debates and our work. The Lesotho delegation has asked to have a message of thanks to Ambassador Pascarelli inserted in this report.
P.N. KHADI (Lesotho): The Lesotho Delegation wishes to join the other delegations in thanking H.E. Ambassador Pascarelli and the Italian Government for the generous offer particularly to FAO. Ambassador Pascarelli has often shown that he has the welfare of developing countries at heart.
CHAIRMAN: I also wish to thank the interpreters and all technical staff members for their help. With this we end the work of Commission III.
The meeting rose at 18.30 hours
La séance est levée à 18 h 30
Se levanta la sesión a las 18.30 horas
