CHAIRMAN: We will start by discussing item 6.1, resolution C/89/LIM/27, then we will go to the same item C 89/LIM/34. Is there any objection to that? I see no objections, so we will discuss that. The document before us is C 89/LIM/27. It is a draft resolution proposed by the delegation of Norway on behalf of the Nordic countries on FAO Activities related to Sustainable Development. I wonder if the delegation of Norway has anything to add to the document before us.
Ms Birgit SCHJERVEN (Norway) : I would like to add a few remarks concerning the document before us. During the discussion on the agenda item 6, Norway on behalf of the Nordic countries, along with many other delegations and the line that FAO in the future must continue to respond to the environmental challenges. Member countries have found it increasingly important to follow up the integration or environmental concerns in all FAO's activities. The Nordic countries therefore introduced draft resolution C 89/LIM/27. The draft resolution can be seen as a guideline for the future work within FAO to strengthen the valuable work already being done by the Organization. During our discussions with other delegations we have been pleased to note the positive response to the draft resolution. Some constructive suggestions regarding the text have also been made, and amendments from the Brazilian and Mexican delegations will be introduced. Following the high priority given to environmental issues by member countries, FAO must integrate such activities in its Regular Programme and Budget. FAO's contribution to an active involvement in preparation for the 1992 UN Conference is an important part of this high priority, and should consequently be financed within the regular budget. In paper C 89/LIM/29-Sup. 1, the cost of a joint meeting of FAO and UNEP which is supported in the resolution is cost-estimated. It is not clear from the estimates given how the cost is arrived at and it seems very high compared to costs, for instance, for expert meetings in other UN agencies. It is now important that FAO takes an initiative and draws on all its valuable expertise to give a substantial contribution to the 1992 Conference. When suggestions for the framework and scope for the FAO/UNEP meeting emerge we will then have a clear picture of whether the costs involved would be seen to exceed reasonable limits for the Organization. At that point, FAO and UNEP might invite member countries to discuss supplementary financial contributions for this special activity. Finally, just to conclude, I hope that this resolution could be adopted by consensus.
C.H. BONIE-FRIEDHEIM (Assistant Director-General, Agriculture Department) : Let me first read out sane of our views and then answer one or two questions raised by the distinguished delegate of Norway. The Commission is considering a resolution, that in effect is a response by FAO to UNEP resolution, although this resolution was not originally available to distinguished delegates for their review. In order that Members can acquaint themselves with the various aspects of this proposal, we have provided the UNEP resolutions in all official languages, and I refer to document C 89/INF/16. Furthermore, we want to provide this Commission with as much information as possible, including some of the problems that the UNEP resolution might cause to FAO. On 25 May 1989 the UNEP Governing Council adopted a decision, 15/24, on sustainable agriculture. During our June Council session, we had just been informed that this specific decision had been taken and Council was informed of our interest on the one hand and our concern on the other. The report of the Ninety-fifth Session of the Council states in paragraph 145, "mention was also nade of the decision adopted by the UNEP Governing Council in May 1989 by commending a joint FAO/UNEP meeting on sustainable agriculture". To the best of our knowledge, a UNEP resolution was sponsored by Switzerland, Senegal and Nigeria. We contacted Pernanent Representatives to FAO of these three countries to brief them on FAO's past activities in this important field and of FAO's nandate in accordance with its Constitution. Briefing was provided to Switzerland and Senegal. Just a very few brief contents on the UNEP decision which is surprising since it seems to assign responsibility for sustainable agriculture to UNEP, and does not record the mandated responsibilities and the comparative advantage and long experience of FAO in this field. It is furthermore surprising that a decision by a Governing Body of a UN/UNEP programme attempts to impose action with considerable, and I repeat, considerable financial repercussions on a UN specialized agency. The UNEP decision recommended a joint FAO/UNEP meeting be convened. We assume that this is the Secretariat meeting to prepare inputs for the UN Conference in 1992 and not a meeting of member countries since this, in effect, would duplicate part of the UN Conference itself. However, Member Governments will be involved through regional intergovernmental confrontations if we implement this resolution. If the UNEP decision, however, refers to a full intergovernmental conference, then our estimated costs at US$ 580 000 are totally unrealistic. For these and other reasons, not least the problem of non-availability of resources, the draft resolution before us gives us some concern, and we would have preferred the natter to have been dealt with in the report like many other important issues. Let me illustrate some of the problems raised by the present text of the Nordic resolution which you have in front of you. In paragraph 2, it seems to us impossible to discuss the environmental impact of agriculture policies and priorities without mentioning agricultural practices. In paragraph 6, the content of this paragraph is much too restrictive and refers to sub-sectors. In view of the discussions in the report of the Ninety-fourth Session of the Council in November 1988, and I refer to paragraph 60 of the report, the Secretariat reminds this Commission of FAO's narriate and vast experience which nade it the key agency within the UN system to promote environmentally sound and sustainable agricultural development. We are surprised that there is also no reference to FAO's long involvment in this field in actions to promote sustainable production systems and the breadth of its current activities on rational management and conservation of natural resources to increase agricultural production and improve the living conditions of rural people. In paragraph 7, it is surprising that there is no recognition of our work on environmental impact assessment procedures and we are the only agency that has them. On the various steps taken by FAO to introduce environmental impact assessment procedures in the field programme and to strengthen the integration of environmental concerns into Regular Programme activities, and the proposal of making increased allocations in the Programme of Work and Budget to activities related to sustainable development.
The operative part of the resolution has five paragraphs. We feel that there is some duplication. With regard to paragraph 1, we do not think it correct to assume that environmental considerations should be integrated in all FAO activities since certainly not all activities are of environmental concern. Paragraph 3 requests FAO to strengthen cooperation without indicating that other organizations, UN and others, should do the same. Paragraph 4 has four parts. The first part is, of course, fully acceptable. With regard to the second part, which organization will be responsible? Or is it assumed that there will be joint responsibility by UNEP and FAO? We are also missing in the UNEP resolution a definition of what is meant by a world strategy and action-oriented proposals on sustainable agriculture in view of the wide diversity of conditions in various countries and regions of the world. As the present budget proposal for 1990-91 does not see any specific resources for such additional work, it is imperative that this question be solved before the Secretariat is requested to take any action.
FAO's financial regulation 13.1 reads as follows: "Before talcing any decision involving expenditures the Council or any Commission or Commiittee appointed by the Council or the Conference shall have before it a report from the Director-General on the administrative and financial implications of the proposals."
The delegate of Norway has already mentioned document C 89/LIM/29-Sup.1, which I will refer to in a minute. In that document We have informed the Commission that the UNEP decision would amount to costs of some US$ 580 000 or even more if the UNEP envisages intergovernmental rather than inter-Secretariat meeetings. There is no provision in the Programme of Work and Budget nor any prospects of savings becoming available later for such expenditures. Unless, therefore, additional extra-budgetary funds are made available to FAO for this particular endeavour, which a UN decision in the draft here seeks to impose upon us, it is difficult to see how it could be implemented beyond what is envisaged as part of the PWB, or to-be-approved PWB. I would therefore suggest that the gist of the intention might be included and reflected in the report instead of as a separate resolution.
Whatever decision is taken by Conference, it should be noted that we are in full agreement with UNEP that the joint work on such a wide and so far not really defined topic will take more than twelve months. Therefore, any meaningful report to our governing bodies, should be foreseen for 1991, not 1990.
The delegate of Norway has asked how we reached this US$ 580 000 figure. A UNEP delegation visited FAO in October and we had lengthy discussions, during which we discussed how to approach this subject. We foresee that there will be some joint programming meetings between FAO and UNEP; that there needs to be a steering committee; that we need to have an extra consultant; that we need to have some technical panels; that we need to have intergovernmental consultations in the regions because the situations and conditions in the regions vary; that we need to publish the results; and that we need to have an FAO/UNEP meeting in Rome, which means, let me repeat, an inter-Secretariat meeting, not an intergovernmental meeting. There was no disagreement between the UNEP Secretariat and our people here that the costs will be between US$ 500 000 and US$ 600 000 for FAO.
Those are the points which I thought, on behalf of the Secretariat, I should bring to the attention of this Commission before it makes a decision on which way the Organization should go in the next two years in preparation for the world meeting to be held in Brazil in 1992. Let me repeat; we are talking about a world strategy, This is not a topic for which somebody can prepare in a few months and believe he has a meaningful paper for a world conference. This is a major exercise if we want to have results.
Paulo Estivallet DE MESQUITA (Brazil): I have an amendment to propose, but I do not know if it should be done before we hear the Nordic response to the Secretariat. What I have is a specific point. Should I proceed now, or should the Nordic countries respond to the Secretariat?
CHAIRMAN: I called the delegation of Brazil because I saw no signs freni the Nordic delegations.
Paulo Estivallet DE MESQUTTA (Brazil) : What I have to propose is the addition of a paragraph in the operative part of the resolution with regard to the e concept of sustainable development. We had already mentioned during our intervention in the debate on this point that we wished that the definition agreed by consensus by the UNEP Governing Council had also been presented in that document. We believe that the statement of the Governing Council is a most important one and that it accurately reflects the way we view the relationship between the need and importance of international cooperation on the natter of sustainable development and the issue of sovereignty and the analysis of the causes of envirornmental degradation. In fact, we would have liked to have seen in the draft resolution a number of the points made in the statement of the Governing Council of UNEP. We should like to have seen explicit recognition, for instance, that sustainable development implies the existence of a supportive international economic environment which should result in sustained economic growth and development in all countries, particularly in developing countries. We would also like to see it stressed, as it is in the statement by the UNEP Governing Council, that the concept of sustainable development does not represent a new form of conditionality in aid or development financing.
For the sake of elegance, and in line with the way the resolution has been drafted, we will make our amendment shorter than it was our initial intention to do. We propose that after paragraph 3 the following new paragraph be added to the Nordic resolution: "FAO endorses the statement by the Governing Council of the United Nations Environment Programme on sustainable development, adopted by consensus at its Fifteen Session."
That is the proposal we make, and to which we attach the utmost importance. I stress that the position of the Brazilian Government is that the idea of attaching greater priority and greater importance to activities related to sustainable development, be it in FAO, be it in other international organizations does not in any way represent any kind of conditionality whatsoever with regard to financial flows, aid or development financing.
Ms Birgit SCHJERVEN (Norway): The Nordic countries would have no problem in agreeing to such an amendment to our text.
R.C.A. JAIN (India): During its intervention the Indian delegation had also made clear its position that international cooperation in the field of sustainable development should not lead to any new conditionality in the disbursement of international assistance. Therefore, unless the Norwegian delegation, in the light of the observations nade on behalf of the Secretariat by Dr Bonte Friedheim, has anything to say, we would support it as amended in the way suggested by the Brazilian delegation.
We also have sane difficulty with operative paragraph 2. We would suggest the deletion of the phrase "inter alia, by screening projects and programmes in the light of their compatibility with sustainable and environmentally sound development" and the substitution of the phrase "and strive for projects and programmes which have greater compatibility with sustainable and environmentally sound development".
If the resolution is passed, the Indian delegation would suggest that it should be passed in the light of the amendment suggested by the Brazilian delegation and of the amendment of paragraph 2 which we have suggested.
CHAIRMAN: We are faced with two amendments to the resolution. To make it doubly clear, I should like to have the delegations of Brazil and India read their amendments at dictation speed. I will first ask the delegate of Brazil to read his amendment.
Paulo Estivallet DE MESQUTTA (Brazil): This new paragraph, which vvould come after paragraph 3, would read: "FAO endorses the statement by the Governing Council of the United Nations Environment Programme on sustainable development, adopted by consensus at its Fifteenth Session. " It is a statement by the Governing Council, not a resolution.
CHAIRMAN: This amendment is supported by the delegation of Norway, as I understood it.
C.H. BONTE-FRIEDHEIMl (Assistant Director-General, Agriculture Department): I
have two questions on the proposed amendment. First, I think that of course the delegate from Brazil means "The Conference " at the beginning, not "FAO". Second, I am not sure what the Conférence is endorsing, because I do not have the statement from the UNEP Governing Council on sustainable development in front of me. I think I shall have to look at it before I can answer on that point.
CHAIRMAN: I would ask the delegate of Brazil if he can provide a copy of that statement to the Chair. While we are waiting for that to be delivered, I ask the delegate of India to give us his amendment on the second operative paragraph.
R.C.A. JAIN (India): My amendment relates to operative para 2. I am suggesting replacement of the phrases starting from "inter alia" and ending with "their", on the next line. I am suggesting the replacement of these words with "and strive for projects and programmes which have greater".
This is the substitute clause.
CHAIRMAN: The new paragraph would read, if my understanding is correct, "FAO in the future must give higher priority to the prevention of environmental degradation which affects agriculture, fisheries and forestry, and strive for projects and programmes which have greater compatibility with sustainable and environmentally sound development" • Is there any objection to the amendment?
Richard SEIFMAN (United States of America): I have three points to make. One is I would share with Doctor Bonte Friedheim's suggestion that we give the chance to be acquainted with the text of the decision of the UNEP Council's so that we know what we are indeed endorsing. I think, consensus notwithstanding, I think it is important to knew what we are talking about when we approve or move forward on a resolution.
Secondly, in the second preambular paragraph with respect to the second and third sub-items, I have two suggestions to propose. With respect to the sub-paragraph or indentation relating to the "loss of land productivity, soil and water pollution and hazard to hurtan health caused by excessive.. " after the word "excessive" I would suggest that we include "and improper use of agricultural chemicals". So it would be the addition of two words after "excessive" namely "and improper use of agricultural chemicals".
With respect to the third indentation concerning genetic erosion and increased vulnerability of crops to diseases and pests due in part to", I would add at that juncture "over-reliance upon the use of high-yielding varieties". So the addition would be after the word "to" and it would consist of two words, one of which is hyphenated, "over-reliance upon".
The third aspect is that we are certainly supportive of efforts related to sustainable development and indeed closer coordination in the UN system to address this very important issue. With respect to the proposal for this joint meeting, as part of the preparation for the 1992 Conference, if the member countries agree that this session is of sufficient priority, and if they are prepared to support it with their existing resources, we can join in moving forward with the resolution.
CHAIRMAN: Let me first try to read the amendments to see whether I understood them correctly. The first was in the second preambular paragraph in the second indent, to add the words "and imprper" after "excessive". The second one would be after "in part to" - this is after genetic erosion and so on -"in part to over-reliance on the use of high-yielding varieties. Is that correct?
Ms Birgit SCHJERVEN (Norway): As I say, we are pleased that our resolution engendered so much interest, and so far there seems to be reasonable requests made by us and we will not make any problems with that.
We would however implore that we should not be going in to too much detail in the drafting of it, even if there are additional things that they would like to see in it. We would as a matter of fact also. When it comes for screening projects or strive for projects or programmes, of course we will put full trust in the FAO to give high priority to this area in this matter as has already been assured us by Mr Bonte-Friedheim himself so we will not have any problems with that.
CHAIRMAN: I see that the proposal nade by the US delegation is acceptable to the sponsors of the resolution. There have been questions which are not exactly contents of the statement by the Governing Council on sustainable development. I have here the text of the statement and I think for the sake of all the delegations who do not have it, perhaps it could be read. As it was pointed out by the delegation of Brazil, this was accepted and adopted by consensus by the last session of the Governing Council of the UNEP, and I read from it: "Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs and does not imply in any way encroachment upon national sovereignty. The Governing Council considers that the achievement of sustainable development involves cooperation within and across national boundaries. It implies progress towards national and international equity, including assistance to developing countries in accordance with their national development plans, priorities and objectives. It implies, further, the existence of a supportive international economic environment that would result in sustained economic growth in all countries, particularly in the developing countries, which is of major importance for sound management of the environment. It also implies the maintenance, rational use and enhancement of the natural resource base that underpins ecological resilience and economic growth. Sustainable development further implies incorporation of environmental concerns and considerations in development planning and policies, and does not represent a new form of conditionality in aid on developing financing."
If any delegation would like to have the text, the Chair will be ready to provide them.
Carlos GARCIA DE ALBA. (México) : Lamentaríamos desde luego que se prolongase el debate sobre esta Resolución, pero desde hace rato estamos tratando de dejarnos ver. Porque como se mencionaba anteriormente México, también, basándose en la declaración que usted hizo ahora mismo y en el mismo Artículo 1 de la Constitución de la FAO, siguiendo el espíritu constructivo que caracteriza a esta Resolución propuesta por Noruega, quisiera introducir, agregar mejor dicho, algunos pequeños párrafos al texto original de la Resolución.
Trataré de hacer lentamente y a ritmo de dictado las sugerencias de mi Gobierno. En la parte de los Considerandos, y hago alusión al texto en inglés, inmediatamente después del párrafo que se inicia diciendo: "Bearing in mind that in Article 1 of FAO's Constitution, ... ", después de este párrafo desearíamos introducir otro más que dijese: "Considerando que la FAO ha desarrollado un sistema global como mecanismo para la segura conservación, uso sostenible y de irrestricto acceso a los recursos fitogenéticos". Terminaría así este párrafo.
Después vendría otro que aparece en la versión original, y en seguida agregaríamos tres líneas que dirían lo siguiente: "Reconociendo que el concepto de agricultura sostenible y de desarrollo forestal así como de conservación biológica y genética son plenamente complementarios ... ". Perdón, Sr. Presidente, me disculpo. Aquí estoy haciendo una involuntaria omisión. Después de hacer mención a "la conservación" tendríamos que introducir la palabra "diversidad biológica y genética son plenamente complementarias". Terminaría así este párrafo.
Y después pasaríamos a la parte operativa de la Resolución. Y en el primer párrafo de la parte decisiva de la Resolución, inmediatamente después de la parte del texto inglés que dice: (en la línea cuarta) "associated with sustainable development" agregaríamos: "la conservación y el uso de la diversidad biológica y genética en elmarco de programs técnicos y económicos".
En el segundo párrafo de la parte operativa de la Resolución, leo, inmediatamente después del texto inglés que dice: "of biological and genetic diversity with current and potential importance for agriculture, fisheries and forestry, inter alia, by rendering possible the inclusion of sustainable development within the Organization's projects and programmes".
Aguí son pequeñas enmiendas que estamos introduciendo. En el tercer párrafo de la parte operativa, después de "sustainable development" agregaríamos tres líneas que dirían: "conservation and use of biological and genetic diversity, increase its efforts in assisting governments in the formulation of conservation strategies, specifically in developing countries".
Finalmente, Sr. Presidente, y lamentando prolongar nuestros debates, concluiríamos el Proyecto de Resolución con un inciso b) que se desprende del cuarto numeral de la parte operativa de la Resolución.
El mismo diría lo siguiente: "FAO should jointly with other UN organizations contribute to an international legal instrument on biological diversity, talcing maximum advantage of existing FAO global systems".
José TUBINO (Canada) : I just wanted to express my confusion in terms of the measures that we are adding to this resolution. I do not knew if we should go paragraph by paragraph, but I do not know what is in front of us any more. Could we have sane clarification, please?
Ms Birgit SCHJERVEN (Norway): I would not try to usurp the role of the Chair in trying to clarify the débate, but perhaps I can make some comments an the amendments suggested by Mexico, They sounded rather a mouthful and of course it is difficult to keep track of them, but if we take it in an orderly manner I do not think it is so difficult.
Hie first suggestion from Mexico is an insertion after the preambular paragrph on page 1, after "Bearing in mind" where he was suggesting a formulation "Considering that FAO has alreadty developed a global system as a mechanism for safe conservation, sustainable use and unrestricted availability of plant genetic resources". It develops that aspect of it. I do not think we would have any problem with that, but I would pose a question to the Secretariat. When the Mexican delegate says "unrestricted availability" will that in any way conflict with the resolution on plant genetic resources and the Undertaking that we have bean discussing? I do not think we use "unrestricted" there, so it might be possible to delete that word, but perhaps the Secretariat could help us there,
Thenwe go on in the resolution "Agreeing that in order to promote sustainable development", and then there is the new wording "recognizing the concept of sustainable agriculture and forestry development and the conservation and use of biological and genetic diversity are fully
Complementary". Again, as I see it the idea is to include the biological diversity in the best possible manner, and as it goes along with several formulations in other international fora, I do not think we would have any problems with that either.
Then it goes on unchanged until we come to the operational paragraphs. In operational paragraph ( 1 ) to my mind it seems logical to insert the words "and the conservation and use of biological and genetic diversity under the technical and economic programmes". It is a follow up of the additional preambolar paragraph, so there is a certain logic and I think we could accept that too.
In operational paragraph (2) the idea is to insert after "inter alia" an amendment which says "by rendering possible the inclusion of". This says more or less the same as did the proposal of the Indian delegation. I think they are along the same lines and should not be mutually exclusive. I do not really have any preference but as they are now, working through the Mexican proposal, I wonder whether the Indian delegation would find it useful to use the Mexican proposals. They are equally acceptable to us.
When we come to paragraph 3 there is one line again to include the biological diversity by saying after development "conservation and use of biological and genetic diversity and increase its efforts". As I went along with the general drift of the amendments nade before, I do not think I would have any problems with that.
The last amendment of the Mexican delegation points to the contribution that FAO could make to the work on an international legal instrument which is being discussed in other UN fora. In the way it is phrased, which leaves open all the work to come in the future, I think we could go along with that too. As far as I see it, it does not really change the drift of the resolution and it will be a comprehensive whole, also with the additions nade by the united States delegation.
Sra. Graf ila SOTO CARRERO (Cuba): En realidad no sabemos si nuestra intervención ayudará a su ya difícil trabajo, señor ¡Presidente, pero, al oír las distintas enmiendas hechas a la interesante Resolución que han presentado los países nórdicos, a la delegación de Cuba le surgen algunas preocupaciones. Nos parece que la delegación de México ha hecho toda una serie de enmiendas que complementan o tal vez mejoran el texto de Resolución que ya estábamos analizando. Sin embargo, señor Presidente, teníamos a nuestra consideración las enmiendas propuestas por las distinguidas delegaciones de Brasil y de la India. A nuestro entender, algunas de las propuestas hechas por la delegación de México se complementan con las hechas por la India y Brasil, pero quisiéramos saber qué estamos analizando realmente en este memento: lo de Brasil, lo de la India, lo de México... En fin, señor Presidente, que usted nos aclarara en qué punto estamos, por favor.
Carlos GARCIA DE ALBA (México) : Sin afán, desde luego, de crear confusión, nosotros hicimos una lectura fragmentaria de las propuestas de adición a la Resolución presentada por el Gobierno de Noruega. Si se procede a la lectura del conjunto de la Resolución, debería quedar claro el propósito que nos mueve a haberla formulado. Es decir, partimos del entendimiento de que el desarrollo sostenible va íntimamente vinculado, debe ser entendido como algo indivisible de la conservación de la diversidad biológica, de la diversidad genética. Creo que esto queda claro en el caso de muchos de nuestros países, que han franqueado un modelo de desarrollo viable a largo plazo, precisamente por la pérdida, por la erosión de su diversidad biológica y genética. Es esto lo que nos mueve a hacer la propuesta.
Reitero que si se parte de una lectura fragmentada resultaría, posiblemente, difícil de entender; pero estamos plenamente dentro del espíritu y el contenido de la propuesta que originalmente planteó la distinguida Delegada de Noruega.
En cuanto a la metodología a seguir, señor Presidente, las propuestas que ha hecho la delegación de México desde luego no se contraponen, sino que se complementan con las hechas por las Delegaciones de Brasil y de la India. Es decir, se puede proceder a discutir la Resolución - me permito sugerirlo -partiendo de las propuestas que han hecho las tres delegaciones.
Sra. Mercedes FHRMIN GOMEZ (Venezuela): La delegación de Venezuela va a respaldar completamente las proposiciones hechas por México. Los argumentos que acaba de hacer el delegado de México satisfacen a nuestra posición, porque consideramos que no hay contradicción en las proposiciones hechas por la delegación de México, que nosotros respaldamos, y las que anteriormente había hecho Brasil.
En consecuencia, en beneficio del debate y de poder entenderlo, creo que podríamos pasar suscintamente por las proposiciones, pero rogamos a los proponentes de Brasil considerar las de México, y de esa manera podríamos estar de acuerdo. Así que ratifico nuestra proposición a las modificaciones presentadas por la delegación de México porque consideramos completan perfectamente el texto propuesto por la original declaración de Noruega.
Ms Birgit SCHJERVEN (Norway) : On a point of clarification, and to try to help my distinguished colleague fron Cuba, as the first amendment was proposed by Brazil and we found it reasonable, and having had the information and the text in full read out from the Chair, there seems to us to be no apposition to that amendment. As such, it was accepted by Norway and the Nordic countries. Therefore, we are in the situation where we have an amendment by Brazil which is accepted by the sponsors, an amendment fron the United States which is accepted by the sponsors, and amendments from Mexico which are also accepted by the sponsors. I take it that India would have no problems with talcing the Mexican text, which substitutes what he said and makes it simple, in a way. We have these amendments all accepted by the sponsors, making a good basis for a decision on the Resolution, which I hope we are about to take.
CHAIRMAN: Delegates, I understand that a few delegations might have sane difficulty in knowing what they are discussing, and I believe the best way of dealing with that is that we start taking the Resolution paragraph by paragraph. Ojien later on we could see if there is acceptance of each paragraph. Then we will come back to the Resolution as a whole.
Philippe PIOTET (France): Marci, Monsieur le Président. Je comprends fort bien le souci de la délégation mexicaine de mettre l'accent dans cette résolution sur le problème des ressources phytogénétiques. Cependant, je crois que nous nous trouvons face à une question de principe car si l'on ajoute à un point donné le problème des ressources phytogénétiques, cela est parfaitement concevable et enrichit le texte, mais si l'on souhaite sur chaque point traité par cette résolution parler aussi des ressources phytogénétiques, j'ai l'impression que nous dénaturons un peu le texte initial parce que nous pourrions aussi parler de toute sorte d'autres questions car le développement durable est une notion très générale, englobante, qui doit guider l'ensemble des activités de notre Organisation.
Je ne vois pas bien pourquoi l'on fait une part spéciale aux ressources phytogénétiques. Il me semble qu'il serait plus raisonnable de se limiter à le mentionner une fois dans les considérants et une fois dans le texte pour bien prendre en compte ce problème, nais ne pas vouloir à tout prix l'inscrire à plusieurs reprises dans cette résolution.
Sra. Graf ila SOTO CARRERO (Cuba): La delegación de Cuba acogió con mucho beneplácito -y lo repetimos- la Resolución presentada por los países nórdicos, y apoyamos las propuestas hechas por la delegación de México porque nos parecen muy pertinentes. Nuestra idea en la intervención anterior era, un poco, que dejáramos claro si las propuestas hechas por las delegaciones de la India y de Brasil eran consideradas por estas Delegaciones cerno incluidas ya en las propuestas de México y, por lo tanto, así quedaríamos con un solo texto por analizar.
Richard SETENAN (United States of ¿feerica): I have two suggestions and then seme comments. It does seem to us that there is a number of different suggestions that are coming at us from the floor. Given the volume of these contents, perhaps it might be worthwhile to us to get a small drafting group together of, say, the Norwegians, Brazilians, Mexicans and anybody else who feels they have an important element to contribute, so that we might have before us quickly a single text that we could then deal with directly. If this is not attractive to you, Mr Chairman, I will then make some additional suggestions.
CHAIRMAN: I think that is very attractive to me. I was really wondering how we should go through this Resolution. Perhaps it could be helpful to us to have a small drafting group of the sponsors of the Resolution and the amendments, and two or three other interested countries such as France and the US who indicated their wish to participate in this draft.
Carlos GARCIA DE ALBA (México) : Señor Presidente, si no hubiese nada en contrario por parte de las distinguidas delegaciones de Noruega, la India, Brasil y los Estados Unidos, que han participado en los debates de esta Resolución, aceptaríamos fornar parte de un pequeño grupo de redacción que pudiese sesionar en cuanto lo dispusiese esta Comisión.
CHAIRMAN: If we suspend discussion of this Resolution, a snail contact group could meet in the adjoining room, composed of Norway - under the chairmanship of the delegate of Norway, which is the sponsor of the Resolution - Brazil,
Mexico, the United States and France. France will be interested in participating, and also India of course. Thisgroup should meet now while we go on to the next item on our agenda. Of course, they would have the help of someone from the Secretariat.
Ms Birgit SCHJERVEN (Norway): Mr Chairman, if you think it would be helpful, of course, we would go along with your suggestion. I do not think there would be too much of a problem of substance here. It is just a matter of everyone being clear that everything has been included. I do not think we really have to go through it paragraph by paragraph. I am sure that we will be quick about it and I am sure that we shall cooperate fully.
CHAIRMAN: The idea was to have some kind of collage that we have everything mentioned here and it is accepted by everyone, so that we can have a paper which could be seen by the other delegations and adopted by them in full cognizance of what they are adopting.
According to the revised decision taken this afternoon by Commission I, we now consider under item 6.1 a draft resolution presented by the Arab Member Countries on "Provision of Technical Assistance to the Palestinian People". This is contained in document C 89/LIM/34.
Bashir El Mabrouk SAID (Libya) (original language Arabic): First and foremost, before examining this draft resolution and dealing with assistance to the Palestinian people, allow me to make a few general comments, observations, which could be of assistance to the Commission in making a proper decision. I should like to point out that from the very beginning technical assistance to the Palestinian people is in no way whatsoever a political decision: quite the contrary. The Group of Arab Member Nations feels that technical assistance falls within the context of the Technical Assistance Programme which is part and parcel of FAO's activities. That is also the case for the other international organizations which are part of the UN system, such as UNIDO, Unesco, WHO and many other organizations which have nade similar decisions. I think you knew very well, Mr Chairman, that the agricultural sector is very, very important for the Palestinian people. It is considered the axis around which the economy of the Palestinian people rotates.
We feel - and by "we" I mean the Arab Matter Nations - that there are reasons which do justify the contribution of this technical assistance to the Palestinian people in the agricultural sector for the following reasons.
The first reason is that the international community has to focus on the occiçational policies which hinder and hamper the development of agriculture. Second of all, the expropriation of more than 50 percent of the arable land occupied in the establishment of colonies, settlements and many other practices further hinder and hamper the development of agriculture in the Palestine territory. Ohen you have the expropriation of water ways, rivers, streams, of water resources in the Occupied Arab Territories. The policies pursued by the occupational authorities and the setting of certain rules for agricultural and marketing and trading all go against international norms. The closing or the limitation of the activities on the part of numerous institutions, for example, the problems of activities in credit, research cooperation, all those institutions wOrking in those areas have either been frozen or have been hampered in their activities.
The fact of not pointing an accusing finger against those shameful activities would further encourage the occupational authorities to continue their work and would further hamper agriculture development, hence the group of Arab Member Nations, convinced that the agricultural sector constitutes the very keystone for the economy of the Palestinian people at present, and this with the view to achievement of true agricultural development and hence the achievement of food self-sufficiency and food security. The Group of Arab Member Nations has presented this draft resolution. Now, this draft resolution includes a certain number of essential elements. The first is that the Palestinian people need to be included in the agricultural development of activities of FAO and this through the projects relative to technical assistance in order to help them to resolve the problems encountered by the agricultural sector in the Palestinian territory. The second element contained in this resolution is the need to study, to examine and to evaluate the situation of the agricultural sector in the Occupied Arab Territories and that would call for the sending out of missions of esxperts in order to undertake an evaluation pursuant to the results of which it would be possible to draw up suitable projects. Thirdly, we have in this draft resolution the need to resolve problems by organizing a seminar which would shed light on the situation. This would entail, quite obviously, or would bring together, to put in that way, the agricultural development experts, and also involve the participation of those who know agricultural problems. Lastly, the Arab Member Nations feel that technical assistance and other assistance should be provided by FAO and also by other organizations as such a need could provide a very strong and resolute and praiseworthy contribution to agricultural development in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Then I would just to like to point out that the Arab Member Nations, the Group of Arab Member Nations, in submitting for consideration this draft resolution feels, thinks, wishes and harbours the hope that the First Commission would be able to adopt this resolution and accept this draft resolution. We are convinced that this draft resolution will serve the purposes of agricultural land and agricultural development.
Quite obviously, the Group of Arab Member Nations is very, very flexible and is open to any suggestions that would go in the general direction of the meaning of this draft resolution. I trust and hope that all the members of this august assembly could manifest comprehension and understanding with respect to the very substance of this draft resolution, because we are quite obviously very open to any and all dialogue; to any and all examination; to any and all amendments; if it helps to resolve the problems. We are open to any dialogue with other countries concerned by the issue with our friends. Obviously, we are prepared to entertain any amendments which may be raised relative to this draft resolution, and this, as we said, in order to come up with a solution to this problem.
CHAIRMAN: I assume that the statement just made by the distinguished delegate of Libya constitutes the presentation of the draft resolution in the name of the Arab Member Nations. I Would ask that other delegations addressing the items WDuld concentrate themselves on discussing the specific points on the draft resolution, and if that is the case, any anendments to it.
Mme Amina BOUDJELTI (Algérie) : Avant toute chose, permettez-nous de vous remercier, Monsieur le Président, d'avoir accéder à notre demande surtout à un niveau aussi avancé de notre ordre du jour.
Je voulais à ce niveau là prendre également la parole uniquement pour soutenir le précédent orateur et axer la question aussi bien sur l'esprit du dialogue qui anime le groupe arabe que sur l'aspect technique de la résolution. En effet, de quoi s'agit-il d'autre si ce n'est de la réalisation d'une étude ou de l'organisation d'un symposium sur la situation agricole dans les territoires palestiniens occupés.
Il nous semble donc qu'à partir du moment où le propos de cette résolution est d'apporter une assistance technique dans le strict respect des attributions de la FAO, ce texte pourrait être parfaitement acceptable. Nous espérons d'ailleurs le soutien de tous dans ce sens.
David MCGAFFEY (United States of ¿nerica) : I note your request that we go immediately to the details of the resolution, but I beg your indulgence, Sir, because the distinguished representative of Libya asked to make a general statement before we begin covering the resolution, and I feel it is important for the deliberations of this body that I make some comment on that. The first coment is that I agree entirely with the delegate of Libya that the provision of technical assistance to the Palestinian people is not a political issue and is an appropriate issue for this body and for FAO to consider. Immediately following that point, the delegate of Libya stated that the first purpose of this draft text that we have in front of us is, to use his wards, pointing an accusing finger at alleged perpetrators of certain actions, which he states are occuring. I do not know, of my own knowledge, whether those acts are occurring or not. I have certainly seen convincing statements backed by statistics that would show that they are not. I have seen equally strong statements in political fora that they are. I do not believe that this is the body to debate such political issues or even such issues of fact, because we whoare concerned with food and agricultural issues are not in fact competent to address natters of law, of politics, and of very severe emotional strains between different groups. What the delegate of Libya states is that the purpose of this resolution is to request FAO to provide specific activities in a specific area. I think that it is entirely appropriate for any group of matters to so request. We have had such requests from the representative of Trinidad and Tobago asking for greater training for professionals and para-professionals. We have had requests asking for greater assistance to fishermen with snail boats, we have had over 50 such requests, by my list, which can and should be reflected in the report of this Conference. I do not think that such a request by a group of countries for a specific activity by FAO is appropriate for a resolution. It is asking FAO to do its nomai and ordinary business and stating the preference of a group. I would, and have, therefore, requested that group that they withdraw this as a resolution and instead state their request so it would be printed in the records. Even at this late stage, they have the opportunity to do that. But, if they do not, let us be clear. We are being asked to consider two separate issues: one is a request for technical assistance to the Palestinian people; the second is a request for the politicization of FAO. Now, let me be clear, the US is not opposed to assistance to the Palestinian people. Since 1964 the US has provided over US$ 125 million in direct assistance to the Palestinian people. We agree that the Arab Group has a full right to request FAO to put that priority on assistance to the Palestinians, and if FAO agrees to this priority, the US is not opposed. However, let me be equally clear. The US is adamantly opposed to any attempt to use FAO to advance a particular political agenda. I am telling you that the attempts to put political language into the resolution will be, and must be, opposed, because they endanger the stability and even the future of FAO. Any attempt to link political resolutions in the
UNGA; any attempt to use it to give political status to the PLO; any attempt to pre-judge the results of the peace process or even the results of the FAO study being proposed, will not only bring forth strong opposition from the US and others, but will endanger the reputation of FAO as an apolitical, technical organization and that threatens not only financial support for the Organization, but even the universality of membership. In the US Administration, there is a relatively small group which is concerned with FAO and with seme differences about specific issues that have been expressed here and in another forum, but that group is basically a strong supporter of FAO and of its mission.
If the FAO is politicized, the attention of a much larger group of people within the United States who have little knowledge of and no reason to support FAO will be engaged, and I cannot predict what action they might take. The choice rests with this body. If we wish technical assistance for the Palestinian people, we can ask that this resolution be withdrawn and present another along the lines of a draft that I have seen prepared by one member of the Arab Group which was strictly a request for technical assistance, or we could amend it to reflect that. Depending on the language, the US nay well be able to support such a resolution and in any event will not oppose a request for technical assistance to the Palestinian people. If, however, we wish to raise political issues in the FAO forum, we need only continue with the present language. The US will strongly oppose this, as will others, and I believe that the consequences for FAO will be severe. This body must accept the responsibility for the consequences if we continue along this path.
Finally, I understand fully that the US holds political views which are different from those of other nations. We all have the right to express our views, to express differing views, in a political forum. I merely urge that we should not endanger FAO by using this forum to advance our political views.
If we decide to continue with this resolution, the US would appreciate the opportunity to speak on the specifics of the resolution, but I felt that this over-arching issue should be brought to the attention of this body.
Mohamed Saeed HARBI (Sudan) (original language Arabic): If the long-term goal and objective of our Organization is to create expanded economic growth and safeguard the freedom of humanity from hunger, the proposal submitted by Egypt on behalf of the Arab Group related to the technical assistance to be granted to the Palestinian people is in conformity with the goal and objective of our Organization. I have no doubt of the awareness of the different Member Nations about the deteriorating living conditions in the occupied territories, especially as far as agriculture is concerned. The occupying authority has a number of practices which hinder rural development and the growth of agricultural production. The Palestinian people deserve technical assistance in order to face the repression.
FAO is operating within the framework of the United Nations. Resolution 181/41 dated 8 December 1986 approved assistance to the Palestinian people. In addition, resolution 178/43 dated 20 December 1988 is about the assistance to be extended to the Palestinian people.
In addition to UNEP, ILO, WHO, UNESCO, all the international organizations have followed the same path. They have adopted an objective attitude towards the Palestinian people. I should like to express the opinion of the Arab
OTuntries and support this draft resolution submitted by Egypt. My delegation urges other members of our Commission to support the draft resolution, which is not political, as sane might have the impression.
Atif Y. BUKHARI (Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of) (original language Arabic): The
Arab Group are members of FAO and are at the same time members of the Near East Group. The Arab Group has a clean bill of health as it were. we have a sound history with you. Therefore, we tend to support developing countries. As you know, we have always shown reluctance towards any move to politicize this Organization and are still anxious to preserve our Organization from politicization. The Organization has a longstanding tradition in dealing with agriculture and agricultural development, and therefore we are far from aiming at politicizing it. We know that some other organizations have a more political nature, and therefore we do not deal with political matters in this forum.
When we submitted document C 89/LIM/34, we stated some facts. These are not political in nature. They are real facts and they reflect the living conditions and the reality of the Palestinian people. Furthermore, with regard to what was said by the delegate of the United States that we did not wish to politicize the Organization. We told him that we were flexible enough to change our attitude in order to reach a common agreement. We said that we had submitted the draft resolution and were quite ready to listen to his explanation of what he considered the political nature of this document, what were the political points which disturbed him and vdiat were the references which he believed to be outside the secce of agriculture. But we met with some rejections. The delegation of the United States told us that they do not have the competence to deal with this natter.
Since I am the chairman of the Near East Group, to which all Arab country menbers of this Organization belong, I met with some fellow members from the Arab countries, especially those who are in support of this draft resolution. We have therefore seen fit to bring forward some amendments which we believe are a reflection of our goodwill. We hope that the different delegations present here, including the delegation of the United States of America, will understand our attitude. I still say that we are flexible and that we do not want confrontation, destructive discussion or anything else which might lead us to confrontation. We are for reason and wisdom in dealing with this matter.
If you will allow me, Mr Chairman, I should like to read out the basic changes which we believe we can adopt concerning this document.
•Hie first paragraph of the draft resolution begins, "Recalling the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181/41... ". We know that this resolution was not accepted by the United States of America, and we have therefore seen fit to delete all reference to it. Instead of this reference, we would insert the following: "Recalling the Economic and Social Council Resolution 1989/96 of 26 July 1989..."
The following paragraph begins: "Recalling also the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 178/43... ". We would delete this and insert the following instead: "Recognizing that the policies and practices of the Israeli occupation authorities impede the basic requirements for the development of the economy of the occupied Palestinian territory, including the agricultural sector... "
The third change would be as follows. It starts with: "Affirming importance of supporting... ". This would be left as it was originally, and we then move to the following.
We would say "its" opposition to the Israeli confiscation of Palestinian land and expropriation of Palestinian water resources. Mr Chairman, I do not know if some of our colleagues from the Near East region or from other member countries, Arab countries present here, I wonder if they wish to propose some amendments or changes to this document. But I would like to confirm in this connection, Mr Chai men that these changes would reflect to you and to the other Member Nations our flexibility, the spirit of flexibility we are shewing.
This is what I have to say, Mr Chairman, concerning this precise item and I do thank you for giving me the floor.
Ms Hoda EL MARASSI (Egypt): Actually, I have seme amendments, slight amendments, that I would like to submit concerning the draft resolution under discussion, but I wish first of all and before stating my amendments, I would like to make an appeal to our colleague from the United States of America. I would like to make an appeal and ask them to be patient enough with us because we attach great importance to this matter as an Arab group. We knew that the aim of submitting this draft resolution is not political in its nature. We know that FAO is an organization of a technical nature. This Organization is focusing on extending technical assistance in the field of agriculture, and therefore I would like to request the delegation of the united States of America to understand this attitude, and this is the general attitude of our colleagues from the Arab countries.
New, Mr Chairman, allow me to move to my amendment to the item under discussion. This is related to the term "Palestinian occupied territories", and I would like to say "the Palestinian territory" in the singular and not in the plural. This relates to the third paragraph and the third operative paragrafai. I would like to submit this amendment so that it would be in conformity with the terminology used in the UN resolutions and the other agencies, including ECOSOC in its Resolution 89 dated 1988.
Yosef HASSEN (Israel): I would like to state our complete rejection of this draft resolution for which a very strange reason is entitled "Provision of Technical Assistance to the Palestinian People." This resolution replete as it is, with falsifications, is yet another exercise of the political and propaganda campaign waged consistently against Israel by Arab states. It became a ritual custom of the Arab countries to introduce politics into our deliberations, They clearly demonstrate their intention to politicize the FAO as they do in other specialized and technical UN agencies. For the mere purpose of paying lip service to the Palestinian subject, they show no concern or consideration for the valuable time spent due to this uncalled-for political warfare against Israel. We witness here again a high degree of arrogancy and lack of sensitivity in demanding special funds and extra budget for conducting unnecessary surveys and seminars to an agricultural Palestinian community which can still serve as an example to many Arab countries. The money defended for the Palestinians is desperately needed for farmers less fortunate in poorer countries.
Vite look at document C 89/LIM/34-Sup.1 and we should ask ourselves where the money will ocme from. I did not hear pledges of contributions from anyone from the sponsoring countries. In their generosity they expect other Mamiber States to carry the burden.
Mr Chairiran, the damage has been done. Our attention has already been diverted away from the crucial and important issues on our agenda, and reluctantly I am forced to join this futile exercise and deprive the Commission of more important time. The blame is not on me. The explicated political problems of the Middle East, as we are all aware, have no place in this Commission. The political organs of the UN are constantly preoccupied by it in a manner which surpasses other major subjects included in the agenda. It would have been better if this Commission had avoided this highly controversial and tense issue and directed its attention to the real problems facing our Organization. All we can expect at present is another debate and resolution which in the end will remain "lettre morte", without significance or value. It will surely serve the propaganda purposes of the sponsors, but not the interests of the Palestinians themselves. The Palestinians are the people affected first and foremost, not from Israel but from those who for so many years led them to sacrifice their most vital interests in return for politically motivated reports and resolutions.
As for the real economic situation in the territories under Israeli administration, the facts are very different from the situation portrayed in the draft. The records are known to everybody who wishes to know the truth, though I doubt if those vrtio submitted the draft really want to be bothered with facts since their mind is set on other objectives.
Let me then furnish this Commission with some facts and figures. The GNP in the territories under Israeli administration has increased by about 400% since 1967. Private and public construction has risen 900%, and the value of exported goods has increased almost twelve-fold, namely from US$ 34 million to US$ 395 million. Furthermore in this period, close to 2 500 industrial plants and workshops were established. The industrial workforce doubled and the unemployment rate dropped from 10% to 3%. To be more specific the per capita GNP of US$ 1 730 in 1987 places the territories well above Jordan with US$ 1 560 only, and Syria US$ 1 640 only, and every other nan-oil-exporting Arab country. The per capita GDP growth in 1987 is 0.8% annually. How many developing countries have had such a record during the 1980s?
As for the quality of life, private constructions rose 230%. The percentage of households in the Territories provided with electricity increased from about 20% in 1967 to more than 90% in 1986, and the number of those possessing refrigerators rose from 12% to 75%. Finally the number of families owning private cars has grown five-fold. All this notwithstanding the 45% increase in the peculation since 1967. But the most significant achievement is registered in the agricultural sector. The area has benefited greatly from the transfer from Israel of new technologies to agrarian evolution, modern farming methods which radically changed agricultural production capacities in the whole region. An objective observer can tell of the very deep-rooted economic cooperation and inter-relationship that exists between Israel and the Territories, although not everyone in this Arab world is willing to admit it. The highlight of the Palestinian producer achievement is the possibility to export to the European market. Israel has agreed to a direct export from the Territories to the European Community. This is yet another proof of the high level and standard of Palestinian agriculture. How many other Arab countries can claim such a success?
During 1988 and despite disturbances, the so-called intifada, exports of vegetables and fruits from the Territories continued uninterruptedly. Last year 170 000 tons of produce were exported through the Jordan bridges to various Arab states. Export of vegetables amounted to 1 200 tons, double the amount of 1986. The Palestinian farmers do not need assistance. They are in the position of offering support and assistance to many neighbouring Arab states including Egypt, which already uses Israeli know-how; surely Algeria, definitely Syria, and even Iraq, Yemen and no doubt Saudi Arabia and Sudan and Libya.
It is not our intention to argue that material well-being is an alternative to a political settlement. As always, Israel remains fully committed to the search for a peaceful solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
In the meantime, it has done its utmost in the prevailing situation to ensure the well-being of the population in the Territories and will continue to do so until such a time as a political settlement is achieved.
If this resolution was honestly concerned only with the well-being of the Palestinians, then Israel would have been one of the sponsors. But this resolution is only an excuse to stage a political attack on Israel. Amendments will not change the nature of this resolution.
In conclusion, I call upon all delegates who wish to promote the real goals of FAO to reject this transparent attempt to distort and politicize the work of the Conference and to reject the draft outright.
CHAIRMAN: I thank the representative of Israel. I will call on the member countries to accept the proposal made at the beginning of our discussion that we concentrate our debate on the issue before us, which is the resolution regarding the provision of technical assistance to the Palestinian people. I hope that we will not engage in a long unending political debate on the fate of the Palestinian people in the political situation of the Middle East.
Ms. Souad ABDALLAH (Syria)(original language Arabic): I will respond to your call and limit my intervention to make a brief statement.
I listened with astonishment to the statement by the United States delegation. I would like to thank him because he said that his country was prepared to provide technical assistance to the Palestinian people, but at the same time I am surprised at the threatening language he used regarding the future of this Organization and the provision of technical assistance.
This is the first time that I have attended the work of this Organization and I think I have a lot to learn, but what I have heard frati the delegate of Israel is beyond my imagination. It is our duty as delegates to respect other delegations. What Israel is doing for the Palestinian people in the agricultural sector in many fields is well known to the world as a whole, and there are documents to support that in the United Nations. I will not cannent on that except to say that the Palestinian farmer needs help but he cannot get this help.
If we seriously look into the statement made by Israel, our friends from the developing countries would be willing to provide their countries for Israel to occupy, if the farmers are going to get assistance. We are not politicizing this Organization. We have respect for its ideals and objectives and for the efforts it is making to provide help and assistance to human beings in natural catastrophies, and anything that will cause hunger and disease, natural disasters or chemical ones, drought or any other disaster.
If we mention Israel we are not talking about the political aspects; we are talking about reality. The Palestinian farmer cannot cultivate his land. He cannot make use of the water resources. In order to achieve consensus on this draft resolution I should like to join my Arab brothers and support the amendments they have made to this resolution. We support the deletion of the first operative paragraph because Saudi Arabia has presented another paragraph which would cover what is intended here.
Jacques WARIN (France): Je vais tâcher d'être bref, je me conformerai strictement à l'appel que vous avez lancé en me concentrant sur l'aspect technique de notre débat. Je précise que j'ai été mandaté par mes collègues de la Communauté européenne pour parler au nom des 12 pays membres dont non pays assume à l'heure actuelle la présidence.
Dans le principe, nous sommes favorables à la fourniture d'ime assistance technique au peuple palestinien par le canal de la FAO, étant entendu qu'il s'agit uniquement d'une assistance dans le domaine agricole et alimentaire puisqu'aussi bien ce sont là les compétences de notre Organisation.
Nous déplorons en revanche l'introduction de résolutions qui pourraient avoir un caractère politique dans les organes directeurs de cette Organisation, nous déplorons également que le débat puisse prendre immédiatement un tour politique cerate certaines interventions de précédents orateurs l'ont laissé craindre.
Cerane le délégué des Etats-Unis, nous préférerions que ce problème de l'assistance technique au peuple palestinien soit pris en compte dans le rapport à la Conférence. Cela dit, nous sommes prêts dans un esprit de conciliation à étudier tout amendement qui pourrait être proposé par une ou plusieurs délégations arabes au tésete que nous avons sous les yeux. Nous avons entendu déjà le délégué de l'Arabie Saoudite, puis l'Ambassadrice d'Egypte proposer quelques amendements. Nous serions intéressés de les étudier et nous réservons notre attitude sur le texte final qui nous sera proposé.
Jaml AHMAD KHAN (Pakistan) : we do not believe that the debate is necessarily moving in the direction in which we do not wish it to move. We believe that political matters can be avoided by mutual goodwill, and we have already heard several speakers appealing to all concerned here to approach the problem in its essential feature of non-political technical assistance.
Pakistan has always supported the just and well-deserved economic needs and rights of the Palestinian people, and in the same spirit of sympathy and solidarity we see clear merit in the basic needs of the Palestinian people which are proposed to be met by the technical - not political - assistance in the main provisions of the resolution.
It is our sincere view that every possible step that goes towards the alleviation of the hardships of the Palestinian people deserves encouragement and support, including the support of FAO's technical expertise in the field of agriculture.
Accordingly, on both humanitarian and moral grounds the Pakistan delegation strongly supports the resolution, and we join the appeals nade here to all those present to work towards the evolution of a resolution which would be apolitical and concentrate only on FAO's technical cooperation being requested through the draft.
David COUPES (Australia) : I also will very much respect the request to speak to the resolution and not make broader remarks of a political nature.
In general terms, Australia would most definitely prefer not to have this resolution on the table, not because we do not support the appropriate consideration for Palestinian farmers but because we do not regard it as appropriate to have a resolution of this nature such as the one that is before us come out of this Conference. We think the matter could have been handled, as other speakers have said, far more sensitively and appropriately by recognition in the text of Commission I's report. However, we do not have the resolution, and in relation to it I should like to say a few things to express our position.
we would not be able to support the resolution as it stands. I have not managed to keep track of the amendments, but I dare say they will be recalled to us at some stage. As it stands, the reason why we would have difficulty in supporting it is not related to the preambular material, because Australia has supported resolution 181/41 which is mentioned at the start, and although we voted against resolution 178/43 mentioned in the second preambular paragrafai in the past, I understand that we may be able to support it when it goes back to the General Assembly this year as it has been substantially modified. So I would like to underline that we do not have problems with those general concepts.
However, we do have difficulties with references such as that in paragraph 2 where the words "exercising sovereignty" are mentioned. We would certainly prefer to see that sort of phrase dropped from any resolution.
we also have some difficulty with the wording of paragrafai 3 where it says "Takes note with appreciation of the European Community's resolution". Our position is that we accept certificates of origin only if they are issued by competent recognized state authorities. I knew that this is noting the European Community's resolution, but the words "with appreciation" may give us seme difficulty.
In relation to paragraphs 4 and 5, we are a little concerned about the resource implications of those paragraphs inasmuch as we are not sure that much of the proposed work would not duplicate other work going on in such bodies as UNCTAD. It would be difficult, therefore, for us to support those sorts of proposals given our commitment to reducing such duplication among international agencies.
In addition, in paragraph 6, where it says "with the present cooperation and coordination between the Palestine Liberation Organization and other UN agencies" we are not particularly confortable with that sort of wording.
On the whole, we would prefer to see FAO not involved in activities outside government frameworks.
Those are the main points I wished to make to explain why we have sane difficulties with this proposal.
Elvind S. HOMME (Norway): In order to be brief, I should just like to express my delegation's support for the remarks made by the representative of France.
Atif Y. BUKHARI (Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of) (original language Arabic): I
should like to thank the delegates of France and Norway, and we hope that they will be more sympathetic with our draft resolution, because we are presenting this as a draft resolution and not to be included in the report of the Commission.
I would also like to say that the principle of sound, fruitful dialogue, which has characterized the attitude of the delegate of Australia who referred to the points he did not like to see in this draft resolution, is what we are calling for from other delegations.
We have a draft resolution before us. We have to study it. We said earlier that we are flexible enough ad we are ready to understand the positions of the others, and we call for a fruitful dialogue. In fact, we are pleased to see that the delegation of Australia has said that this is really demoçratic dialogue which should be taking place regarding this draft resolution. The paragraph he mentioned is an important one. I should like to refer to paragraph 3 of the original draft resolution in LIM/34. We dp not object to deleting this paragraph. However it refers to an expression, and it expressed satisfaction to the EEC for the help and assistance it has given to the Palestinian people. However, we do not object to deleting this third paragraph. In the amendments made by other members of the group, we have referred to the phrase that appeared in paragraph 2 of the original text, "exercising sovereignty". We have already dropped this for the second time.
Once again I should like to thank the delegate of France, the delegate of Norway and Mr Coutts from Australia for their remarks.
Tawfik Ahmed Hassan AL MESH-HEDANI (Iraq) (original language Arabic): Like my brother from Saudi Arabia, I should like to thank the delegates from France, Austalia and Norway for their positive remarks. It was also said that we believe in a fruitful dialogue, and we have before us a draft resolution, and we hope that the paragraph will be studied. We have an open mind on this, we are very flexible and ready to make any amendments which would serve the interests of the Palestinian people. The delegate of Australia referred to paragraph 4. I should like to make the following amendment to paragraph 4. I wish to delete paragraph 4 from the present text, to be replaced by the following: "requests the Director-General to send a mission to study and evaluate the situation of the agricultural sector in the Occupied Palestinian Territory taking into consideration the conditions of the fanners and the existing occupation policies and practices, and to prepare a report comprising possible technical inputs or interventions to be executed and implemented by FAO."
Mar BEH ROMDHANE (Tunisie): L'intervention de la délégation tunisienne sera très brève.
Nous voudrions donc à notre tour remercier les honorables représentants qui ont fait montre de compréhension à l'égard du peuple palestinien et qui ont appuyé l'effort d'assistance à lui apporter sur le plan alimentaire et agricole, sujet de notre point de l'ordre du jour auquel nous attachons la plus grande importance.
La délégation tunisienne voudrait encore une fois attirer l'attention sur la souplesse qui caractérise la position du groupe arabe quant à la possibilité d'introduire des amendements au téxte de ce projet de résolution. Je dirais très brièvement que notre position va dans le sens des amendements mis au point par les délégations qui m'ont précédé et va également dans le sens de la position de Son Excellence l'Ambassadeur d'Arabie Saoudite.
Bashir El Mabrouk SAID (Libya) (original language Arabie): Before making observations on the amendment, I should like to make a few points. First of all, I should like to say that we go along with the statement nade by the American delegation. It is not in the interests of the international community to politicize FAO at all. Nonetheless, we would like to remind people that we live in a climate of democratic practices, and that the politics of 'stick and threat' have evolved quite a bit, especially when it emanates from a major power.
Secondly, I should like to reply to the statements made by my colleague from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. He recalled the flexibility which is so characteristic of the position of the Arab Group. The amendments that have been suggested by numerous Arab delegations were not advanced just to please the American delegation. We took into consideration, and have noted, their position; and on the contrary, our amendments were generated out of a spirit of dialogue going along with the position voiced by so many delegations present in this room, especially and particularly the position voiced by the spokesman for the EEC.
Therefore, this dialogue calls for amendments to some paragraphs. We acknowledge that and we very much appreciate the need therefor. We take a note of the various statements made and what has been said by France, Norway and Australia relative to certain paragraphs in this draft Resolution. Quite obviously, we have recognized the fact that perhaps this text did need certain amendments to it. Hence, I would go along with what was said and support my colleague from Saudi Arabia in saying that it was necessary to amend the second paragraph and highlight the importance of providing the Palestinian people with the necessary assistance for their economic development, and that in close collaboration with the PLO.
Those were just a few observations I wanted to voice.
Srta. Marta VASQUEZ SANDOVAL (Nicaragua): Acogiéndonos, señor Presidente, a su llamado de limitar el tiempo al referirnos al Proyecto de Resolución sobre suministro de asistencia tecnica al pueblo palestino, nosotros queremos pronunciarnos en favor de la Resolución, ya sea la antes presentada o la que aparece con la modificación; lo importante es que se apruebe la Resolución brindando la asistencia técnica al pueblo palestino.
Ms Fatima H.J. HAYAT (Kuwait) (original language Arabic) : I would just like to say that it falls to me to table certain amendments which might assist our colleagues in understanding the need to perfect this draft resolution, the purpose or raison d'être of which is to provide assistance to the Palestinian people and not to politicize the Organization. As we have had an opportunity to point out before within the context of this draft resolution, we are asking that the technical assistance be provided to the people by FAO, and provided to our brothers, the Palestinian people in the Occupied Territories.
Therefore, in paragraph 7 of the Draft Resolution submitted for our consideration, I should like to read out my suggested amendment: "requests free access of experts and FAO officials to the Occupied Territories of Palestine".
That is the text in paragraph 5. We have tried to delete sane of the words in the original draft which might be looked upon as an attempt to politicize the Organization.
Walid Abdel RABOH (Jordan) (original language Arabic): Far be it for me to
prolong the discussion; to the contrary, I shall be brief. In reply to the position voiced by various Arab countries on flexibility, we would suggest an amendment to paragraph 5 in the following way: "Requests the Director-General to organize a symposium on the Palestinian agricultural sector."
CHAIRMAN: Fran debates that we have had from the speakers so far, we notice that a number of delegations would be expecting to find seme flexibility on the part of the sponsors of the resolution, and the sponsors also responded to that and indicated that they are ready to be flexible, and the number of suggestions and amendments proposed during the course of our débate somehow endorsed this statement. I wonder, though, whether it would not be more fruitful for the outcome of our debate, that a small group coordinated by, let's say the distinguished Chairman of the Arab Member Nations, which I understand is our distinguished Ambassador Bukhari from Saudi Arabia, together with those other countries who do not belong to Arab groups but have already indicated they would be willing to have a positive approach to this resolution, could meet and provide a text that would have some kind of, let's say, I would not believe consensus but in a more general acceptance. That would save us time in having a long and protracted debate that will lead us nowhere and perhaps could provide this Commission with a text that could assemble a more ample approval.
Atif Y. BUKHARI (Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of) (original language Arabic): Thank you very much for having tried, or attempted, to deploy efforts in order to ensure progress in the consideration of this matter in order to present in the best possible form. Nonetheless, I think you know even better than I do, we all knew very well, that this Commission is supposed to terminate its proceedings tomorrow, and tomorrow is a very important day for everyone, because in the morning we are going to consider the budget and we are going to be called upon to vote thereupon, and we do not have any idea whatsoever when we will finish our consideration of that natter and when we are going to finish with this direct resolution. We would hope that the amendments which have beai presented by our brother member countries from the Arab Group have been taken into due consideration, and that all of the delegations have been able to take note thereof, and in a suitable and appropriate fashion, if this has not been done or has not been able to be done, then I have done it myself. I knew well beforehand, so that I am prepared, fully prepared, either to read out the text as amended right now, immediately, in your presence, at dictation speed, or else that we perhaps postpone things for half an hour or so, so that we could circulate the text as suggested. And in the light of the initial draft we would be able to distribute that updated document to all delegations present. We obviously hope and trust that our discussions and proceedings will be of a positive nature, and pursue the objectives shared by all. I trust and hope that we will be able to cane up with a consensus. If we are not able to achieve that consensus, then we will regret the fact that we would have to proceed to a vote on this text. We feel that you are endowed with quite sufficient wisdom, knowledge, expertise and skill, because you are a colleague of ours on the Finance Committee and we know very, very well who you are; we knew about your extensive experience and wisdom. I am sure that you would agree with me and would very much be in line with the same type of position.
CHAIRMAN: I just wanted to be constructive. If the delegates believe that there is no use in providing any extra negotiation group, I see no reason that we stop our debates here. I have another speaker on my list.
Waliur RAIMAN (Bangladesh) : If my delegation has not taken the floor till now, it does not indicate that we are not preoccupied with this important item under discussion. On the contrary, we have supported the resolutions 181/41 and 178/43 in the General Assembly in 1986 and 1988 respectively. But here in FAO, we are concerned with the humanitarian and technical assistance to be given to the occupied Palestinian territory. My delegation is pleased to note that amendments so far made are constructive and in the light of the statements made by the distinguished delegates of Egypt and Saudi Arabia, it is in the view of my delegation that we are moving in the right direction. Somebody mentioned in the course of the débate that we are trying to achieve a consensus which will be apolitical, and which will be in the interests of all concerned. In view of this, my delegation supports the statement of the distinguished representative of Saudi Arabia that the amendments so far made on the floor may be read out for the benefit of all concerned by the distinguished representative of Saudi Arabia.
Bashir El Mabrouk SAID (Libya) (origjunal language Arabic): I very much appreciate what you said about the setting up of a snail drafting group to work on the text which would take in due consideration the various amendments tabled. Nonetheless, the various amendments which have been raised by different delegations have been taken into due consideration and those amendments are available in a text which, I think, has been given to you. Considering the time factor, the very limited time at our disposal, it might be possible to cerne up with suggestions and proposals to see what would be the best way to proceed and see how we could do that.
Jacques WARIN (France) s Je voudrais remercier la plupart des délégués des pays arabes qui ont parlé dans un sens constructif, et plus particulièrement l'Ambassadeur de l'Arabie Saoudite, Monsieur Bukhari, qui a présenté une série d'amendements qui, a priori, me paraissent aller dans le bon sens. Cela dit, il est évident que nous ne pouvons pas nous prononcer sur un texte qui n'est pas clair et il serait souhaitable d'avoir sous les yeux le texte final, car il me semble considérablement transformé par rapport au projet que nous avions dans le document LIM 34. C'est pour cela que de deux choses l'une: ou bien nous acceptons la formule que vous aviez proposée,
c'est-à-dire qu'un petit groupe se réunisse avec l'Ambassadeur Monsieur Bukhari et je suis prêt à y participer au nom de la Communauté, ou bien que nous nous prononcions dans une demi-heure sur la base d'un texte que nous pourrions avoir sous les yeux et qui serait le texte final du projet de résolution. Je suis disposé, dans l'esprit d'une action constructive, à adopter l'une ou l'autre des procédures.
CHAIRMAN: I received from the Arab Member Nations delegations a revised text containing all the amendments presented by the various Arab delegations. This text is being multiplied right now. Unfortunately, we only have the English text. We do not have either the French or the Spanish. I suppose the Arabs have the Arab text. We ask for five to ten minutes for the multiplication of the text.
The meeting was suspended from 17.40 to 18.00 hours
La séance est suspendue de 17 h 40 à 18 heures
Se suspende la sesión de las 17.40 a las 18 horas
CHAIRMAN: I believe that all delegates have a copy in English of the revised text of the Arab Member Nations' resolution en the provision of technical assistance to the Palestinian people. For the sake of the French-speaking, Spanish-speaking and Chinese-speaking countries, I will read the text contained in document C 89/LIM/34.
The first preambular paragraph replacing the paragraph in document C 89 LIM/34 reads: "Recalling the Economic and Social Council resolution 1989/96 of 26 July 1989;".
The new second preambular paragraph replacing the old preambular paragraph reads: "Recognizing that the policies and practices of the Israeli occupation authorities impede the basic requirements for the development of the economy of the occupied Palestinian territory, including the agricultural sector;".
The third preambular paragraph has only a slight amendment. The last word of the sentence in the English text which was drafted in the plural is now drafted in the singular, so it reads: "Affirming the importance of supporting the agricultural sector in the occupied Palestinian territory; ".
The fourth preambular paragraph is substituted by one which reads: "Expressing its opposition to the Israeli confiscation of Palestinian land and expropriation of Palestinian water resources".
The first operative paragraph in the former text is dropped. The second operative paragraph becomes the first in the new text, with the following revised drafting: "Stresses the need for providing the Palestinian people with the assistance necessary for their economic development in close cooperation with the Palestinian Liberation Organization."
The third operative paragraph in the former text is dropped. I think it will be best for me to read the rest of the text slowly because it is quite different from the former text. There is a new third operative paragraph which reads: "Request the Director-General to organize a symposium on the Palestinian agricultural sector."
The fourth operative paragraph reads: "Requests the Director-General to include the occupied Palestinian territory in future FAO programmes and activities, and in line with the present collaboration and coordination between the Palestine Liberation Organization and other UN agencies. "
The fifth operative paragraph reads: "Calls for free access of FAO staff and experts to the occupied Palestinian territory. "
The sixth operative paragraph reads: "Requests the Director-General to report to the FAO Council in its next session and to FAO Conference in its Twenty-sixth Session on the progress achieved in the implementation of the present resolution."
While reading this draft resolution I jumped over the second operative paragraph, which should read: "Requests the Director-General to send a mission to study and evaluate the situation of the agricultural sector in the occupied Palestinian territory, taking into consideration the conditions of the farmers under the existing policies and practices, and to prepare a report comprising possible technical interventions to be executed by FAO." This is the revised text proposed by the Arab Member Nations.
David MCGAFFEY (United States of Anerica) : I should like to express my sincere appreciation of the statements made by the many members of the Arab Group to the effect that they wish to have a resolution which will be apolitical and which will have as its sole purpose the provision of technical assistance to the Palestinian people so that there can be consensus in this body. I should, however, like to reply to the statement by the delegate of Libya who spoke of the United States using a big stick. Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish, but if two men are standing by the edge of a cliff and one streches out his hand and says, "I am going to push you over", that is a threat. If he stretches out that hand and takes hold and says, "Be careful, brother, you are in danger of falling", that is a warning, not a threat. To assist the delegates, let me assure you that what I stretched out was not a big stick but a helping hand.
I have carefully examined the new text which has been presented, and I recognize that it is presented in a spirit of trying to accomodate the need to avoid excess politicization, but I am forcefully reminded of a marriage negotiation which I participated in some years ago which was almost concluded when the father of the groom said: "we are agreed on all points, and we will sign the contract if you can assure me that your daughter is a virgin. " The other father replied: "Almost." Needless to say, that contract was not successfully concluded. I say to you that this new text which we have before us is almost a virgin.
Again I appeal to the members of this body: if what they wish is for FAO to send a technical mission to the West Bank and Gaza to discover the facts about the agricultural situation there and to look for a need for technical assistance, let them state that.
This text has many failings and does make the FAO a political body. It is a political statement. It includes, for example, references to another resolution which contains highly politicized statements, and endorses them. It contains references to the Palestine Liberation Organization. There are many States in this body which have recognized the Palestine Liberation Organization with very high status, and there are others which have not. That kind of recognition is a purely political act. To refer to it in this kind of text is again making a political statement.
This text makes pre-judgements about the state of agriculture. As we have heard so clearly from a country member of FAO in good standing, Israel, there is at least dispute about the facts. For us to pre-judge them and then ask that a commission be sent to study than is a political act.
If indeed the sponsors of this resolution wish a resolution to request technical assistance to the Palestinian people, it would be easy for them to draft a resolution which asks for that without adding the political statements. I appeal to them to do so, and I again state that the United States, depending on the language, nay be able to support, but certainly would not oppose, a technical resolution.
Tawfik Afmed Hassan MESH-HEDANI (Iraq): Having read the new text of the draft resolution, and having listened to the delegate of the United States of America, for my part, as a representative of Iraq, and on behalf of the Iraqi delegation to this Conference, I cannot submit any amendments to the new drafting. I therefore suggest that we vote on the draft resolution as a whole.
Atif Y. BUKHNRI (Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of): Firstly, I should like to support the motion for a vote. I think it is the only way to bring this discussion to an end.
Secondly, I should like to stress that, whatever amendments or alterations we introduce to this new drafting, it will not be acceptable to the United States of America. That is the attitude of the United States. This is an attitude which we respect and do not object to because it is a principle and an attitude. Whatever the alterations and amendments to this new drafting, and whatever the insertions might be, this draft resolution will not be acceptable to the United States of America. we tried to formulate this resolution and we met for an hour and a half in an attempt to find an appropriate formula and to delete any points which might not be to the liking of the delegation of the United States of America. Unfortunately, our endeavour was not destined to succeed, and I stress that it will not succeed even with new endeavours. I therefore support the motion for a vote.
David IfcGAFFEY (United States of America): I respect the wishes of Iraq and Saudi Arabia to call for a vote and I will go along with that. Again I remind, since we are not apparently able to separate the issues, I remind all members they are voting on two issues: one is wherther to provide technical assistance, and the second which is new intertwined, is viiether to make the FAO a politicized organization.
Ilan HARTUV(Israel): I support the observations and suggestions of the distinguished delegate frati the United States, Mr Chairman, and it seems to me very very strange for a resolution having in its preamble the completely untrue fact of somebody impeding the basic requirement for the development of the Territories, including the agricultural centre. Nobody has impeded them; there exists a very great development as we have proved and as is well known, and as many FAO staff and other people - some of the delegates here have been to the Territories, I have been and have seen the very great improvement and there are no basic impediments, no impediments at all, especially in the agricultural sector. Now is the proposition about confiscation of Palestinian land and the confiscation of Palestinian water resources not a political one?
There has not been any confiscation of land belonging to Arab citizens, of Arab people of the Territories. Ihey have much more water and irrigation than they had previously, and of course the two mentions of the Palestine Liberation Organization, are they not political? I am very much surprised that there are members - some of our friends - that would support such a political resolution against all the traditions of the FAO, and only two years ago, such a resolution was attempted to be put to the floor and everybody decided, together with the DG, to stop it and not to politicize this Organization.
I do not know what has changed from two years ago, and I do not ask to withdraw this resolution and to vote against it if it comes to a vote.
CHAIRMAN: There is a proposal by the distinguished delegate of Iraq supported by the distinguished delegate of Saudi Arabia that we put the motion to the vote. If there are no other speakers on the list? Do the two delegates want to speak on this motion?
Bashir El Mahrouk SAID (Libya) (Original language Arabic): It is not my
intention to refer to some of the ideas with which I do not concur, but I would like to support an official proposal to vote on this draft resolution.
Ghassem TEHRANI YAVARI NEJAD (Iran, Islamic Republic of): In the name of the Most High, first of all Mr (Chairman, God bless you for you patience in this debate. Secondly, I wanted to raise this question. Those who claim that there are many achievements that have been attained in the occupied territory on agricultural issues should welcome FAO to come there and have a look at such achievements, but why are they anxious of approval of such a resolution which is entirely technical like other technical assistance to other member countries. I think in such circumstances we have to give a new definition of this work or of this concept.
Finally, on behalf of my delegation, I announce full support of the resolution declared on technical assistance to the Palestinian people.
Sra. Mànica DEREGIBUS (Argentina): Nosotros quisiéramos, señor Presidente, preguntarle a usted si existe alguna posibilidad de tenar decisión sobre esta Resolución en el día de mañana y no en el día de hoy, porque como es bien claro tenemos un nuevo texto delante de nosotros y no hemos podido consultar a nuestras cancillerías de ninguna manera. Por consiguiente, yo le pido que usted considere la posibilidad de permitir que las delegaciones puedan pedir instrucciones a sus gobiernos en base al nuevo texto que nos ha sido presentado.
CHAIRMAN: The sponsors of the text do not consider that as a new text but as an amended text. A number of amendments have been presented by various delegations to the original text, so the new paper actually only reflects the inclusion and the acceptance of those amesndments. On the other hand, I have asked before vrtiether it would be possible to postpone, even to get close to seme more positive rapprochement, and I was answered by the sponsors that this seemed not to be possible and that we should proceed to a decision on this issue. So the delegations of Iraq and Saudi Arabia have proposed the closing of the debate.
Mme Catherine KOUASSI (Cote d'Ivoire): Ma délégation appuie la proposition faite par l'honorable délégué de l'Argentine. La Côte d'Ivoire est un pays qui a pour langue de travail le français. Et nous souhaiterions que le texte soit traduit demain en français pour nous permettre d'avoir les éléments, étant donné que ce document est très important pour nous.
Noritake KM (Japon) : Nous appuyons également la position exprimée par les délégations de l'Argentine et de la Côte d'Ivoire car nous pensons que le texte original a subi un très grand changement avec la présentation de ce nouveau texte. Il faut donc pour cela que nous nous référions ce soir à notre gouvernement. Mais c'est aujourd'hui jour férié au Japon et, puisqu'il faudrait beaucoup de temps pour avoir la réponse, je vous propose d'organiser le vote au plus tôt demain dans la matinée.
Bashir El Mabrouk SAID (Libya) (original language Arabic): I agree with you Mr Chairman that the draft resolution was circulated and studied by the Resolutions Committee, and that the amendments introduced by many delegates referred to the original text, and officially, Mr Chairman, I beseech you to respond to the official request by Iraq to vote and the support by Saudi Arabia. Therefore I consider it an official request, and I think it is seditious to bring this discussion to an end because there is an official request by a State endorsed by two others.
Ms Fatima H.J. HAYAT (Kuwait) (original language Arabic) : My delegation endorses voting on the draft resolution and we want this to be by roll call.
CHAIRMAN: There are proposals by four delegations - Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Libya, and Kuwait - that we close our debate and proceed to a vote. This proposal has the expressed intention that the vote should be taken by roll call. Does any delegation oppose this proposal?
David MoGAFFEY (United States of America) : I feel that I must oppose the proposal for a vote. I am here not speaking of the substance of the resolution but merely the motion to vote. It is true that a draft resolution was approved by the Resolutions Committee on which I sit, and was circulated in advance. It is also true that the document that we have before us bears almost no resemblance to the resolution that was submitted by the Resolutions Committee. It in fact contains by my count seven paragraphs that have never been mentioned from the floor. Saudi Arabia did propose amendments on the preambular paragraphs. Somebody - I believe Iraq - but I am not sure who -proposed an amendment to paragraph 4. A third party gave an amendment to paragraph 3 but we have now been presented with a text with at least one more preambolar statement and four paragraphs that have never been proposed as amendments by any delegation and I believe we must consider this a new text, and therefore we do not have the necessary 24 hours to consider that would be required for consideration and vote.
CHAIRMAN: I regret to disagree with the United States' delegate. What this paper contains, it is just a consolidation of the amendments presented here. we have taken note of the amendments. They correspond to the amendments that have been proposed here, so actually it is not a new text. The consolidation of the amendments presented here by a number of Arab countries on the text that we have was transcribed in document C 89/LIM/4, so the idea of distributing this text was only to facilitate the life of the delegations. It does not constitute an official text and should not be understood as such. The official text is still C 89/LIM/34 with the amendments proposed to it by the various interventions of the Arab Member Nations' delegations, and I evaluated that very carefully together with the Secretariat and the amendments. They are contained in this unofficial paper and they have actually been proposed by the Arab delegations.
There has been a proposal to close the débate presented by a number of delegations, including a proposal for the voting. According to our Rules of Procedure, we have two delegates to vote against the closure of the débate. Does Venezuela want to speak against the closure of the debate?
Sra. Mercedes FBMEN GOMEZ (Venezuela): Moción de orden, Presidente. Hace mucho rato que este débate debió haber sido cerrado. Desde que se pide votación es porque ya no hay oportunidad para que los Miembros de la Asamblea sigan pidiendo la palabra. Por consiguiente, si el débate ya está cerrado, no hay oportunidad para hablar más. Que se proceda a la votación y no se hable más. Y es lo que yo estoy haciendo con una Moción de orden.
POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN
CHAIRMAN: The delegation is asking for the closure of the débate and for voting on the draft resolution before us, with the amendments proposed by a number of delegations in the course of our debate. Does the delegate of Israel want to speak on the closure of the débate?
Yosef HASSEN (Israel): Yes, I support the request to postpone the debate. I think it would be only fair to those who wish to consult their capitals to have a clear view on this subject.
CHAIRMAN: We have one delegate speaking against the closure of the debate and for the postponement of the vote. Is there anyone who wishes to speak against the closure of the débate and the postponement of the vote?
Calixte ALAPINI (Benin): Je voudrais juste appuyer ce qu'ont dit les représentantes de l'Argentine et de la Côte d'Ivoire. En effet, le texte qui nous est proposé est en anglais. Nous avons réclamé plusieurs fois le texte en français mais nous ne l'avons pas reçu; il est donc très difficile, étant donné que le français est une langue de notre Organisation, de pouvoir nous prononcer si nous mettons cette résolution au vote.
CHAIRMAN: I have two delegations supporting the closure of the debate, the delegation of Israel and the delegation of Cote d'Ivoire. I think I should ask the Commission to decide on that.
POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN
David McGAFFEY (United States of America) : Forgive me for coming back at this point, but I have just had an opportunity to consult the Basic Text because I was somewhat unsure what the Texts provided for.
On Rule XI. 3 there are twosections of the rule - I just want to make this clear - and the first is "Proposals shall not be put to the vote unless copies thereof have been circulated at least twenty-four hours before the vote". I think it has been clearly established that the copies of this proposal have been circulated at least officially even though in a different form. The rule continues "The Chairman of the Conference or of the commission or committee concerned may permit voting on amendments even though these amendments have not been circulated." what I wished to stress is that there is no requirement for voting. It is entirely at your discretion, and therefore you may consider what I believe is the very reasonable request of those who are not conversant with English as their first language. It is in your discretion to decide whether there may be voting or not according to the Basic Texts.
Atif Y. BUKHARI (Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of) (original language Arabic): As
you have said, Mr Chairman, this is not a new text. This is a text which has been amended. Certainly for some of the paragraphs of the operative part of the text it is not a new resolution. We do not have before us a new resolution that we have to study. Sane delegations have supported the request to vote; others have opposed the closure of the debate and the voting. Perhaps we should ask our Legal Adviser for advice so that we might have a somewhat clearer picture.
Aboubakar KOLY-KOUROUMA (Guinée): Compte tenu de l'importance de ce problème et étant donné la position guinéenne vis-à-vis de toute assistance du peuple palestinien (c'est-à-dire que la Guinée a toujours été favorable à une assistance du peuple palestinien), mais compte tenu de l'importance de ce problème, nous voudrions avoir toutes les données. C'est-à-dire que le texte qui vient de nous être proposé soit traduit en français car le français est notre langue de travail; en cela, je ne rallie à nés prédécesseurs dont le Bénin, l'Argentine et la Côte d'Ivoire.
LEGALCOUNSEL: It seems that we have two issues at the moment, the first regarding the status of the proposal and the amendments to the proposal, and secondly the question relating to the closure of the debate to be followed by voting.
On the first question it is true, as has been pointed out by the delegate of the United States of America, that the provisions of Rule XI of the Basic Text are relevant. These provisions, and paragraph 2 in particular, indicate that "Proposals and amendments shall be introduced in writing and handed to the Secretary-General of the Conference, who shall arrange for their circulation as Conference documents". The third paragraph reads "Except as may be decided otherwise by the Conference at a Plenary meeting or by a commission or a committee, proposals shall not be put to the vote unless copies thereof have been circulated at least twenty-four hours before the vote".
It would appear that the proposal was put forward regularly and that amendments have been introduced to this proposal. It is now for the Chairman to decide, because the question of voting has arisen, whether he will permit voting on the amendments even though these amendments have not been circulated, or have been circulated less than twenty-four hours before the vote. That is one question.
Hie second question relates to the closure of the débate before proceeding to a vote. On this we have to follow the procedure as set out in Rule XII.23, which reads "A delegate or representative may at any time move the closure of the débate on the item under discussion, whether or not any other delegate or representative has signified his wish to speak. Permission to speak on the closure of the débate shall be accorded only to two speakers opposing the closure, after which the motion shall be immediately put to the vote. If the Conference or Council is in favour of the closure, the Chairman shall declare the closure of the debate. The Chairman may limit the time allowed to speakers under this paragraph".
In order to clarify the natter, I would suggest that it may be appropriate, before proceeding, to the issue of the motion on the closure of the debate, to see whether the Chairman would in fact permit voting on the amendments. If that is so, you may then proceed to decide on the motion for closure of the debate. Otherwise there may be no purpose in deciding on the motion for the closure of the debate.
The third step would be that if you decide that the amendments can be voted on, although they have not been circulated twenty-four hours in advance, and if the motion to close the debate is carried, you vote upon the proposal as amended.
Jacques TOKEN (France): J'ai entendu un certain nombre de pays francophones se prononcer sur le fait que le papier qu'ils avaient sous les yeux était en anglais. C'est vrai. J'avais cru, pour ma part, qu'il s'agissait d'un certain nombre d'amendements et que nous pouvions considérer que nous allions voter sur le texte initial amendé, après avoir entendu la traduction par l'interprète. Cela dit, pour éviter toute confusion et dans la mesure où nous avons encore le temps, me semble-t-il, dans la journée de demain, il me paraît préférable, et je vous le demande au nom d'un grand nombre de pays francophones, de suspendre la séance à cette heure tardive et de nous retrouver demain matin, à n'importe quel moment approprié pour que chacun puisse se prononcer en toute connaissance de cause sur un texte traduit à la fois en anglais, en espagnol, en français et en arabe.
CHAIRMAN: I think it has been the normal practice in FAO for the Commission to accept amendments proposed from the floor in accordance with the authority given by the Rules of Procedure to the Chairman. I do not dispute that, and when you accepted debating on this amendment you for sure started accepting the fact that we could vote on this amendment. So far as the authority of the Chair to authorize the voting is concerned, I have no doubt whatsoever.
Nevertheless, I think that a number of countries with the Spanish and the French language have expressed their wish that they should be better acquainted with the proposals made by the Arab countries so that they could express their vote with better knowledge of the issue before us. I would therefore ask the delegates from the sponsors of this resolution whether it would be acceptable to postpone the voting until tomorrow morning.
Atif Y. BUKHARI (Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of) (original language Arabic) : Mien we presented this resolution it was obvious that what we sought to avoid was any barren, sterile, pointless discussion, and we presented this text with a view to undertaking humanitarian action, because we know that the Palestinian people fully deserve this assistance from the FAO.
It was never our intention to bring up problems or to sow discord or misunderstanding. We always took ai conciliatory position. We have all along sought to avoid anything that could lead to confrontation.
I have taken the floor to ask my brothers in the Arab nation delegations to take proper account of the language difficulties that the French-speaking delegations experience. I think it would be helpful to take into account these linguistic difficulties.
If you think, Mr Chairman, that it might be better for us to defer the voting procedure until tomorrow in order to assist our French-speaking and Spanish-speaking colleagues, I would like to assure you that far be it from us to seek to put obstacles in the path of proper understanding. We seek agreement and consensus among us all. That is our main purpose.
I should like to ask that if we defer the vote, at what time do you think that this document will be available in all the conference languages?
I have a second question: when we resume our discussion tomorrow, will it be solely in order to vote or will we return to the debate? I think that when we come back tomorrow we should immediately proceed to vote, and we would be opposed to any further discussion.
CHARIMAN: The intention was that if the Commission accepted the proposal just made by the distinguished representative of Saudi Arabia that we postpone the vote, we have it first thing tomorrow morning at eleven o'clock when we are going to start. At ten o'clock we have a meeting upstairs. It is the understanding of the Chair that the voting will be on the original draft resolution with the amendment proposed orally by the Arab Member Nations of this Commission. Therefore, it will not constitute a new document; it will not be interpreted as such. According to the faculty given by the Rules of Procedure to the Chairman, the Chairman interprets those amendments as presented orally by the member of the Commission and accepted by him as such. So they will not constitute a new document and will not be subjected to any twenty-four hour rule in that respect.
BashurEl Mabrouk SAID (Libya) (original language Arabic) : I should like to say that my delegation fully supports your summary of the situation. I should also like to say, as my colleague from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has said, that it is in a positive frame of mind that the Arab delegations presented these amendments to the original text. It is in the same constructive spirit that we face the problems raised by certain brothers in the Commission, that the text does not exist yet in Spanish and French. We sympathize with their point of view and, therefore, agree to put the voting procedure off until tomorrow morning. We would ask the Secretariat to make sure that the amended text be translated into all the working languages of the Conference. We can then vote on it tomorrow.
Sra. Mercedes FERMIN GOMEZ (Venezuela): Yo solamente voy a expresar el deseo de que esto no sea un subterfugio y que los que están por apoyar al pueblo palestino estén mañana puntualmente aquí, en la reunión.
David MoGAFFEY (United States of America) : I thought we had reached agreement and I was wishing to raise a new point; do you want me to finish?
CHAIRMAN: I think we have reached agreement on this point that we postpone the voting on this issue until tomorrow morning on the understanding that the amendments presented here have been accepted by this Chair in accordance with the development provisions of the Rules of Procedure, do not constitute a new document and are not subject to the twenty-four hour rule. Tomorrow morning the papers will be distributed in the official languages for the help of the delegates so that they can have a proper knowledge of the contents of the amendments, rather than just the oral translation given by the interpreters.
Does the delegate of the United States wish to address the same issue or to go to the next itati?
David McGAFFEY (United States of America) : A new item.
CHAIRMAN: We conclude the discussion of item 6.1 of our Agenda and we move to item 9. Does the delegate of the United States want the floor?
David McGAFFEY (United States of America) : Mr Chairman, if I could beg your indulgence, I was operating under the mistaken assumption that we were adjourning, since I saw delegates leaving. I just wanted to note that today in the United States is Thanksgiving Day, a holiday on which we are all asked to consider our blessings and to set some time aside to thank God for all the good things that we have. My delegation would like very much to extend to our fellow delegates the best wishes of Thanksgiving.
CHAIRMAN: We all thank the delegate of the United States for his good wishes and we move to item 9 of the Agenda, Commission on Plant Genetic Resources and International undertaking. There are two draft resolutions under this item: the first resolution appears in Appendix 2 of document C 89/24.
Hie second resolution appears in C 89/LIM/29, the First Report of the Resolutions Committee. I think we should deal firstly with the Farmers' Rights resolution contained in C 89/LIM/29. Documents C 89/1/DG 5, Resolution on Farmers' Rights. Do I see any proposal of amendment? Ace there any suggestions or shall we take it that this Commission accepts the resolution proposal?
I see no objection, so the resolution contained in document C 89, p. 9, Draft Resolution on Farmers' Rights, is accepted.
The next item on our Agenda is the resolution proposed by Spain on the agreed interpretation of International Undertaking.
Steen SONDERGAARD (Denmark) : I have a few remarks on the preambles on this resolution. It is preambles (c) and (d). It says among other things that the undertaking recognises the legitimate rights of donors of technology (breeders) and donors of germplasm (farmers) to benefit from their contributions; and (d) says, "a satisfactory agreed interpretation of the undertaking can be accomplished through the simultaneous and parallel recognition of Plant Breeders' Rights and Fanners' Rights".
Although we recognize it in a parallel way. Therefore, I would suggest that we cut out a few things in paragraphs (c) and (d), and merge the two paragraphs so that it reads like this: "Ihese reservations and constraints may be overcame through" - and here I jump to paragraph (d) - "a satisfactory agreed interpretation of the undertaking which recognizes plant breeders rights' and and farmers' rights".
I think that will satisfy everybody. It is a clear and clean way in which to say this.
David COUTES (Australia): I do not think I have any problems with that amendment. we would prefer in paragraph (d) that these words still renain: "Plant Breeders' Rights and Farmers' Rights" and to have those capitals removed in those words, That would be consistent with the way it has been handled in the other documents, if you follow. So, "plant breeders' rights and farmers' rights" would have small letters and not be capitalized.
C.H. BONEE-FRIEDHEIM (Assistant Director-General, Agriculture Department): The proposal by Denmark is that in the second section of the draft resolution as proposed by Spain, it says under "Further recognizing that : "there will only be three paragraphs, and paragraph (c) and (d) will be joined in the following way and this new paragraph (c) would read as follows: "these reservations and constraints may be overcome through an agreed interpretation whichrecognizes plant breeders' rights and farmers' rights", and in accordance with the proposal made by the distinguished delegate of Australia, there will be no capital letters for either plant breeders' rights or farmers' rights.
D.A. BUCKLE (United Kingdom) : I have no problems with the revised text that Dr Bonte-Friedheim has read out. Could I just raise one other issue? I think at some point we had seme discussion as to whether the word "legal" was appropriate in the second line of sub-paragraph (a). I believe we thought about taking in out. Could you just confirm that point?
C.H. BONTE-FRIEDHEIM (Assistant Director-Generalf Agricultural Department): As I had reported before in the meeting of the Resolutions Committee, it was decided and I do not know why it is back here - to take this word "legal" out and to just say "constitute a framework aimed at". If you allow me, Sir, I would like to have the confirmation of Legal Counsel because it is the word "legal" and I would like Legal Counsel to confirm what I am saying.
LEGALL COUNSEL: I think the word "legal" in this context might be misconstrued as in implying legally binding. I think that was not the intention and therefore the word "legal" could be dropped.
CHAIRMAN: Does the Commissian accept those interpretations?
Vicente CANELUES (España): Me temo que tengo que explicar brevemente una pequeña anécdota antes de mi intervención. En este momento, los representantes permanentes de España en FAO están celebrando la inauguración de su oficina en Roma. Es por eso por lo que me encuentro yo ocupando esta silla, y lamentablemente tengo poca experiencia sobre los antecedentes de este asunto concreto. Sin embargo, creo que la inclusión de la palabra "legal" en el párrafo a), que se discute, no es gratuita -aunque, insisto, personalmente no sé si es así o no-, sino que se ha hecho ya en otras ocasiones alusión a un "marco legal" -precisamente con esa misma palabra- en documentos oficiales de la FAO y en el mismo contexto. Quizás me atrevería a pedir, a través de usted, señor Presidente, si algunas de las otras delegaciones presentes en la sala podrían ilustrarme o ayudarme en este punto.
C.H. BONTE-ERIEDHEIM: (Assistant Director-General, Agriculture Department) :
It has been used and it has been objected to and I think that the proposal has been nade, instead of using the word "legal", to use the word "formal". So, to say that it constitutes a "formal framework". I think this is generally accepted because there has always been opposition to "legal". It has appeared in other documentation, too, but there has always been opposition•
CHAIRMAN: we have a proposal to substitute the word "legal" by "formal". Would that be acceptable to the delegations? I see no objections. It is accepted. I believe with those amendments we can consider the resolutions on the agreed interpretations on the International Undertaking contained in document C 89/LIM/37 as adopted.
CHAIRMAN: The next item on our agenda is item 10, the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides: Introduction of the Prior Informed Consent Clause, document C 89/LIM/38, which contains the sixth report of the Resolutions Committee and contains also draft resolution presented by the Philippines. Ace there any observations on this Resolution? I see no objections; no reservations; no amendments. Shall I take it that the Committee accepts the draft resolution contained in C 89/LIM/38, page 2, on the inclusion of Prior Informed Consent, and consider it as adopted? It is adopted.
José TUBINO (Canada): Just to request a few minutes. We have to get the people who are involved in Women in Development here in the room. If we could have a few minutes just to change the representation in some of the delegations.
The meeting was suspended from 17.40 to 18.00 hours
La séance est suspendue de 17 h 40 à 18 heures
Se suspende la sesión de las 17.40 a las 18 horas
CHAIRMAN: We move to item 11 of our agenda, Plan of Action for the Integration of Women in Agricultural and Rural Development. On this item we have a draft resolution presented by Costa Rica contained in document C 89/LIM/37, which is before us.
David DRAKE (Canada) : The Canadian delegation would like to thank the delegation of Costa Rica for taking the initiative to put forward this resolution. We are in agreement to a large extent with the proposed resolution and we certainly support its general thrust. However, we are unable to support this resolution as presently worded. Like the delegations of the Netherlands, Argentina and El Salvador, which spoke on this issue yesterday, we have trouble with the reference in paragraph 3 to "subject to the availability of the Regular Programme and extra-budgetary funds". We also feel that paragraph 3(c), which presently reads "make all efforts to achieve significant results in the execution of priorities" does not have the desired effect.
Our concern, which I gather from the discussion on this item yesterday is shared by many other delegations, is that the financing of the WID Plan of Action, and the proposed Progress Report for the next two years in particular, does not appear to be fully secured. With the inclusion of the wording in the original text, it seems almost implicit that cuts will follow. This should not be the case. In our view, inclusion of "subject to the availability of Regular Programme and extra-budgetary funds" would also constitute an unfortunate precedent, and we would agree with the delegations of the Netherlands that this is superfluous. we believe that the FAO has the institutional commitment fully to implement the Plan of Action and that the Regular Programme resources should be earmarked because this is a mainstream activity of FAO. We welcome the level of funding allocation stated in the Progress Report and would wish to see it maintained. My delegation recognizes that extra-budgetary contributions would help to enlarge the scope, or accelerate the implementation, of certain WID-related activities. We join many other delegations in hoping that such financing will be found, and we are optimistic that this will be the case, given the importance of this issue. This is a case of priorities. WID is a top priority for the FAO and we expect to see that measures are taken along those lines.
The Canadian delegation therefore suggests the following two short amendments to the proposed resolution. In paragraph 3, the phrase "subject to the availability of the Regular Programme and extra-budgetary funds" should be removed. Paragraph 3(c) should be replaced with the phrase "maintain budgetary resources at least at the proposed level in order to achieve significant results in the execution of priorities".
Ms Gunilla KURTEN (Finland): On this occasion I speak on behalf of the four Nordic countries, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland. We wish to associate ourselves fully with what was said by the delegate of Canada and we support the amendments proposed by him.
R.W.Ch. VAN DEW BERGH (Netherlands): We completely support the suggestion for the text amendments made by the delegate of Canada. I could not have said it in any better way than he did.
Richaixl SEEFMHN (United States of America): In brief, we, too, associate ourselves with the contents nade by Canada and fully support the amendments proposed.
R.C.A. JAIN (India): While the Indian delegation would support the amendments suggested to sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 3, we would find it difficult to agree to the deletion of the clause "subject to the availability of Regular Programme and extra-budgetary funds". Our position would be that, if some new programmes have to be undertaken, funds have to be provided for them. There is no point in making a statement of intention without funding it. That is self-defeating. At the end of the day, when we take stock and say what has been done in this direction, if we find that because there were no funds nothing could be done and we then start apportioning the blame for not doing something, it will not be fair to the Secretariat and the management to make priorities and reocommend programmes and not fund them.
Paulo Estivallet DB MESQUTTA (Brazil): I associate myself with the comment made by the Indian delegate. I think that the proposed amendments presented by Canada amounts to a change, or at least a potential change, in the budget, and therefore we cannot go along with it. If you freeze the level in one programme in a certain way, you may be affecting other programmes, and therefore it has wider implications than just the question of women in development•
Martin STRUB (Suisse): La Suisse soutient la proposition d'amendement du Canada et estime qu'il s'agit avant tout de mobiliser les mentalités au sein du Secrétariat plutôt que de mobiliser les fonds supplémentaires importants pour des programmes spéciaux.
Sra. María Eulalia JIMENEZ (El Salvador): Mi delegación también está preocupada por la efectiva aplicación del Plan. Sin embargo, compartimos los puntos de vista expresados por los Delegados de la India y del Brasil. Creo que debemos ser ante todo realistas. Tenemos una asignación presupuestaria dentro del Presupuesto ordinario para llevar adelante este Plan. Si todos los países, repito, todos los países pagamos nuestras cuotas, esta asignación no tendría por qué verse reducida.
Yo creo que deberíamos tratar de buscar otra interpretación u otra manera de plantear este punto 3 de nuestra Resolución.
Y cuando usted me lo permita, señor Presidente, que terminemos de discutir el planteamiento hecho por Canadá, me permitiría hacer una propuesta de modificación a este párrafo, a este encabezamiento del párrafo 3 de la Resolución.
Sra. Olga Clemencia FERNANDEZ (Colombia): Simplemente para apoyar totalmente lo que ha dicho la delegación de El Salvador.
Sra. Graf ila SOTO CARRERO (Cuba): En realidad, la delegación de Cuba mantiene las mismas preocupaciones que han expresado otras delegaciones. Sin embargo, se han hecho algunas propuestas aquí que mi delegación no estaría dispuesta a aceptar, por razones que ya otros delegados han expresado.
En ese sentido, la delegación de Cuba aprueba la propuesta hecha por la . distinguida Delegación de la India y apoyada por Brasil y El Salvador.
Sra. Mànica DEREGIBUS (Argentina): Yo le voy a ser muy franca. Yo tengo alergia a las expresiones que dicen: "con arreglo a la disponibilidad de recursos del Prograna Ordinario y extapresupuestarios". Tengo alergia a toda disposición que diga que el Director General tiene que hacer las cosas con la plata con que cuente. El Director General va a hacer las cosas con la plata con que cuente en éste, como en cualquier otro programa. A nosotros nos llama poderosamente la atención que justamente en el tena de la mujer, que ha sido endosado por esta Conferencia ampliamente como uno de los temas prioritarios de la futura programación de actividades de la EAO, se tenga que incluir una frase de este tipo. Ninguna de las otras resoluciones que han sido puestas a consideración de este periodo de sesiones de la Conferencia tiene una frase de este tipo.
Nosotros apoyamos plenamente y compartimos los fundamentos de las enmiendas expresadas por el señor representante de Canadá. Nosotros creemos que incluir en el párrafo 3 una frase que diga: "con arreglo a la disponibilidad de recursos del Programa Ordinario y extrapresupuestarios" significa dos cosas.
Primero, que creemos que no va a haber suficientes recursos, y esto ya es un punto flaco, señor Presidente, puesto que si no lo hay para éste, tampoco lo va a haber para otros programs. Entonces, tendríamos que empezar a poner en cada resolución que aprobemos y en cada cosa que pedimos, que se haga siempre que haya plata. Yo no he visto en la Resolución de Palestina, ni en la Resolución sobre Fitogenéticos, en ninguna de las resoluciones que la Conferencia está considerando esa expresión.
La segunda implicancia de esto es poner en el mismo rango los recursos del Programa Ordinario y los extrapresupuestarios, justamente para este programa que nosotros entendemos que tiene que entrar dentro del flujo nornal de las actividades de la FAO, y así lo sostuvimos en el Consejo durante la sesión de noviembre del año pasado.
Nosotros creemos que tiene que haber una financiación básica del programa de la FAO; que la FAO tiene que incorporar la programación de las actividades en favor de la mujer a sus actividades ordinarias. Que si después hay países que tienen interés específico en el prograna y van a avanzar fondos extrapresupuestarios para aspectos específicos del Plan, serán bienvenidos.
Pero no sé por qué tenemos que ponerlos en el mismo rango, justamente en esta Resolución que es del interés de todos los Estados Miembros. Yo creo que es un paso atrás con relación a lo que hemos hecho hasta ahora por impulso; por impulso importante de la Resolución 1/94 del Consejo de la FAO, incluir una frase como la que figura en la introducción del párrafo 3.
Con relación a la enmienda del Señor delegado de Canadá respecto del inciso c) del párrafo 3, creemos que es claro; que lo que se pide es que el Director General mantenga los recursos, al menos y de ser posible, en el nivel indicado por este presupuesto. Por consiguiente, pedimos que las delegaciones consideren atentamente y cuidadosamente todas las implicancias de esto, y consideren en última instancia que no nos conviene pasar una Resolución; que no nos conviene pasar una Resolución que nos lleve a un paso atrás con relación a lo que ya teníamos en noviembre del año pasado.
Philippe PIOTET (France): Je suis assez d'accord avec la déclaration de la déléguée de l'Argentine. Je crois que ce projet de texte crée un certain amalgame entre les questions financières et les questions d'orientation générale. S'agissant des crédits pour mettre en oeuvre les mesures de cette résolution, je crois qu'il y a un budget et ce budget est voté par la Conférence, alors je ne vois pas pourquoi on ferait référence à ce budget. J'appuie à ce sujet ce que propose le Canada. Effectivement il n'est pas nécessaire, ainsi que l'a dit la déléguée de l'Argentine, d'émettre des réserves sur les fonds ordinaires ou les fonds extra-budgétaires. Ou bien ils sont disponibles ou ils ne le sont pas. Ceci est le problème du budget. Nous sommes donc tout à fait d'accord pour supprimer cette mention. Dans ces œnditions, faut-il comme le propose le Canada, appuyé par d'autres pays, demander au Directeur général de maintenir les ressources budgétaires à un certain niveau? En fait les ressources budgétaires résultent du budget tel que nous le votons. Donc je crois que c'est la manière dont nous voterons le budget qui domerà les orientations nécessaires. Donc sur le c), je préfère que l'on maintienne la rédaction actuelle proposée dans le texte qui nous est soumis. Je résumes je préfère que l'en supprime la mention "sous réserve des fonds ordinaires extra-budgétaires" et que l'on maintienne le texte c) dans l'état actuel.
Mohammed Badr El Din EL MASOUDI (Libya) (original language Arabic) : My
delegation would like to endorse what has been submitted by the delegate of India, and any provision related to the provision of funds irakés this resolution a paralyzed one, and we would like once more to endorse what India said.
Mme Catherine KOUASSI (Côte d'Ivoire): Merci, Monsieur le Président. Ma délégation supporte l'amendement proposé par le Canada et elle appuie les interventions de la déléguée de l'Argentine et de l'honorable délégué de la France ainsi que ceux qui m'ont précédée.
Mme Ivone DIAS DE GRACA (Gabon): Merci, Monsieur le Président. La délégation gabonaise appuie les amendements proposés par le Canada pour les raisons très bien décrites par la déléguée de l'Argentine. Nous pensons que s'il y a des ressources budgétaires prévues pour ce plan d'action, il est inutile de préciser "sous réserve de fonds ordinaires et extra-budgétaires disponibles", cette remarque étant valable pour toute activité de la FAO, ne la mentionner que pour cette question serait un précédent.
David COUTES (Australia): I can support the amendments suggested by Canada. I would particularly support the amendments to the preambular part of paragraph 3 and I think for the same reasons just stated by Gabon, I find this phrase "subject to the availability of the Regular Programme and Extra-Budgetary funds" to be really rather redundant. That qualification applies to everything and I think by putting it there specifically, I think it gives almost a misleading impression of what we are trying to achieve, so I can strongly support the removal of that.
For my part, I am not quite so convinced on the amendment to paragraph C. Australia could certainly accept the Canadian proposal but wecould also accept leaving the text the way it is.
G.G. FREELAND (United Kingdom) : My delegation supports the amendment put forward by the delegate from Canada, and we feel that this is a question of prioritization of programmes, and then the appropriate allocation of resources to them, and we consider this a priority programme.
Mlle Faouzia BOUMAIZA (Algérie): Pour les raisons expliquées par la déléguée de l'Argentine et complétées par les observations de la déléguée du Gabon, la délégation algérienne se joint à elle pour dire que la réserve quant aux fonds disponibles est inutile.
Sra. Delia CHEVALIER VILLAMONTE (Panamá): Durante los debates de este tema, nosotros ya nos habíamos pronunciado sobre la preocupación que tenía nuestra Delegación en torno a los asuntos presupuestarios. Ahora bien, también con la propuesta que hace Canadá realmente tenemos nuestras dudas en cuanto a las modificaciones al párrafo c). Hamos escuchado también que la Delegada de El Salvador hizo señalamientos en torno a hacer eventualmente algunas sugerencias. No sé si a este punto del débate sería conveniente escuchar la sugerencia que tiene la Delegada de El Salvador para eventualmente temar una decisión de cuál sería el camino a seguir.
Tousef Ali Mahmoud HAMDI (Egypt) (original language Arabic) : I would like to endorse my colleagues who were of the viewpoint that the implementation of this programme is subject to the availability of the Regular Programme and Extra-Budgetary Funds, and say that the implementation of any project necessitates the availability of resources. So why put this proviso here? We are of the view that this condition is necessary.
Paulo Estivallet DE MESQUTTA (Brazil) : I think that the delegate from Argentina has a point when she says that in the resolution we mention "subject to the availability of the Regular Programme" and so on. On the other hand also we do not have any other resolution, at least in this Commission, something like maintained budgetary resources at some level or whatever. So it would seem to me that the most reasonable proposition would be the one advanced by the representative of France, which said that we could perhaps delete that clause in Item 3 and leave the text as it is in indent "c". I mean to keep "to make all efforts", and avoid this reference to making changes or keeping budgetary resources, and leave it to the other Commission.
Sra. Concha Maura RAMIREZ DE LOPEZ (Honduras): Seré breve. Solamente para apoyar lo dicho por la Delegación de Panamá en cuanto a la Delegada de El Salvador.
Kiala Kîa MATEVA (Angola): Merci, Monsieur le Président. Je suis un peu surpris de trouver dans ce projet de résolution la mention "sous réserve de fonds ordinaires et extra-budgétaires" parce que cela ne reflète pas les déclarations faites lors de la session qui s'est réalisée le 22/11/89. C'est pourquoi j'appuie les délégués de la Côte d'Ivoire, du Gabon et de l'Argentine. Marci, Monsieur le Président.
Crispos R.J, NYAGA (Kenya): I would expect the floor to support those delegations who have suggested the deletion of this provision. Mr Chairman, we are suggesting that the Director-General should look at these activities and I do not see why we should have this proviso in the resolution. So I will not support these views.
CHAIRMAN: I think the Members expressing their views on this issue have clearly indicated that the great majority would be prepared to accept the deletion of the piece of the sentence, the expression "subject to the availability of Regular Programme and Extra-Budgetary Fund" in the beginning of paragraph 3. I did not see much objection to the deletion of this paragraph. I believe the question resides more in paragraph "c", but some delegations want to have it, same delegations want to have it amended, but I have two delegations wishing to make their statement, so I give the floor to Venezuela and then to El Salvador.
Sra. Meroedes FERMIN GOMEZ (Venezuela): Simplemente para proponer que se sustituya completamente el número 3 por esta proposición que ine permito hacer: "Pide al Director General que haga esfuerzos por mantener el nivel de recursos asignados para este presupuesto en el subprogram en el Prograna Ordinario", sin tener que tocar recursos presupuestarios que no estamos en condiciones de buscar. Creo que con esto interpreto lo que ha dicho Panamá, lo que piensa Colombia, lo que piensa Costa Rica, que han estado de acuerdo con proponer la modif icacón del número 3 con esta redacción que yo me permito leer.
PRESIDENTE: Agradezco a la distinguida Delegada de Venezuela. ¿Usted podría ser tan gentil de escribir su proposición y hacerla llegar a la Mesa? Tiene la plabra la distinguida representante de El Salvador.
Sra. María Eulalia JIMENEZ (El Salvador): Cuando intervine la otra vez, planteó mi delegación que también nosotros estábamos preocupados por esta efectiva aplicación del Plan, pero que deberíamos ser realistas. Y, al final de mi intervención, le solicité que cuando usted lo considerara conveniente, quería plantear una reformulación de esta primera parte del párrafo 3.
Mi reformulación va en el mismo sentido que lo planteado por la Delegada de Venezuela. A nosotros nos gustaría que en este párrafo 3 se dijera: "Pide al Director General que, haciendo esfuerzos por mantener el nivel de recursos asignados para este subprograma en el Programa Ordinario" se enumeraran a continuación los apartados a), b), c) y d) que están planteados aquí, en la Resolución.
Con relación a la propuesta del párrafo c), que planteaba el Delegado de Canadá, mi Delegación, como otras, preferiría que quedara como está en la Resolución.
CHAIRMAN: Now we have a proposal made by the delegate of Venezuela that goes very much in the same direction as the proposal made by the delegate of Canada, because what we are actually looking for is the maintenance of the same level of resources for the programme. Ihe proposal of the delegate of Venezuela requests the Director-General to make efforts to maintain the same level of resources. It is not so strict as the Canadian proposal, in that the Canadian proposal established that they should maintain the same level. I believe that in the face of the financial constraints in which we are living the proposal by the delegate of Venezuela is a little more, say, realistic than the other proposal.
R.C.A. JAIN (India): The new formulation of paragraph 3(c) gives us sane difficulty, 3he budgetary levels are maintained by the Conference. The budget is voted by the Conference, so to request the Director-General to maintain the budgetary level may not be quite correct. It is for the Conference to vote particular budgetary levels. I would prefer to go along with the French delegation's view that we leave sub-paragraph (c) as it is and, by the consensus that is emerging, as you anniented, Mr Chairnen, probably we could leave that provision out of the formulation, the first sentence of paragraph 3.
David ERAKE (Canada) : I have no particular desire to prolong this debate interminably. I support much of vdhat has been said, and I welcome what has been put forward by the delegate of Venezuela. We certainly would be prepared to go along with what she suggested with regard to 3(c) as long as the phrase "subject to the availability of the Regular Programme and extra-budgetary funds" is removed.
CHAIRMAN: I understand the proposal by the delegate of Venezuela is to replace the beginning of paragraph 3 with a new sentence that would say - I will read it in Spanish so that it can be better translated. (Continues in Spanish)
"Pide al Director General que haga esfuerzos para mantener el nivel de recursos asignados para este subprogram dentro del Programa Ordinario". (Continúa en inglés).
Sub-paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) would be maintained. That is the proposal by the delegation of Venezuela.
Sra. María Eulalia JIMENEZ (El Salvador): Mi Delegación estarla de acuerdo con la propuesta de Venezuela, que es la misma que yo expresé.
Sra. Mónica DERBSIBÜS (Argentina): Yo creo que tal vez la Delegación de la India no ha comprendido bien el sentido de la enmienda, porque entendió que iban a remplazar el inciso c). En cambio, esto es, digamos, una exhortación, que entraría dentro de la introducción del párrafo 3.
Creo que el distinguido Delegado de la India ha dicho que es la Conferencia la que debe mantener el nivel de recursos; por lo menos así me llegó en la interpretación. Nosotros creemos que, en realidad, no es ése el significado de la palabra que ha sido propuesta en español. Lo que se quiere decir aquí no es otra cosa más que, en la medida de lo posible, el Director General trate de proteger, de asegurar, de garantizar que el Programa de la Mujer no va a ser afectado eventualmente demasiado por un corte presupuestario. Tampoco es la Conferencia la que decide los cortes presupuestarios; es bueno traerlo a colación. 0 sea, que la Conferencia ni lo mantiene ni lo recorta; generalmente es el Director General, con acuerdo del Cernite de Finanzas, quien ha decidido los cortes en el pasado y han sido refrendados por el Consejo, órganos de los cuales la India creo que es miembro.
R.C.A. JAIN (India): As the proposal has been made, the understanding is that probably the concern is only for reduction, but I understood our concern vas to increase gradually over a period of time the allocations to the programme for the integration of vanen in de\relqptent. If the concern is only for saving it from cuts, probably that is served by this formulation, but I do not think that was the intention of the Conference. We would want to see the allocations increased and a greater number of programmes undertaken f rem the resources available to the Organization.
CHAIRMAN: I think in the current financial crisis to save it from cuts is already a great victory.
I wander if this proposal of the delegation of Venezuela f endorsed by a number of delegations, can be accepted by the delegation of Canada?
Mlle Faouzia BOUMAIZA (Algérie); Je tiens tout d'abord à vous exprimer mes félicitations pour votre élection à la présidence, Ma délégation l'a déjà fait mais je tenais à le faire à titre personnel.
Pour gagner du temps, j'apporte mon appui à la proposition du Venezuela parce que, hélas, il faut bien tenir compte des réalités économiques de l'Organisation.
I£ PRESIDENT: Marci également pour votre gentillesse.
David DRAKE (Canada) : I would appreciate a clarification of exactly what has been proposed. I was under the impression that the proposal of the delegate of Venezuela was with regard to 3(c). Fran your clarification, I gather it replaces "Requests the Director-General, subject to the availability of the Regular Programme and extra-budgetary funds". I wonder if this could be clarified.
CHAIRMAN: Your second interpretation is the correct one. The proposal by Venezuela is to replace the beginning of paragraph 3, that is "Requests the Director-General ... etc. " by a new sentence that would read - I will read it in Spanish to have a better English translation.
"Pide al Director General que haga esfuerzos por mantener el nivel de recursos asignados para este subprograma dentro del Prograna ordinario". Sub-paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) would have no amendments. TSiat is the proposal by Venezuela which has been supported by some delegations.
David DRAKE (Canada): Thank you for your clarification, Mr Chairman. I think that that would satisfy our concerns. Once again, we are concerned that within the budgetary exercise which is taking place the appropriate priority is placed on women in development as the top priority, and I thank the delegate of Venezuela for making this constructive suggestion.
CHAIRMAN: I think we now have general agreement on that issue.
Sra. Graf ila SOTO CARRERO(Cuba): Creo señor Presidente que a estas alturas del débate no sería conveniente alargarnos con largas intervenciones.
Nosotros queríamos expresar que la delegación de Cuba apoya totalmente la propuesta de la Delegación de Venezuela.
R.W.Ch. VAN DEN BHRGH (Netherlands): May we have a clarification? would the sentence proposed by the delegate of Venezuela be added to (a), (b), (c) and (d) under the same heading as "Requests the Director-General", followed by the text?
CHAIRMAN: The sentence proposed by Venezuela would replace the sentence that reads "Requests the Director-General, subject to the availability ..." it would replace that sentence. Paragraph 3 would start with the sentence proposed by Venezuela and would go on to (a), (b), (c) and (d) with no alterations whatsoever. Is that understood?
R.W.Ch. VAN DEN BERGH (Netherlands): I understand, but then it does not read very well. It is as if your prims intention is to keep within the budget, that first of all your budget is the first consideration and then afterwards you have items (a), (b), (c) and (d). This does not seem to follow.
Mme IvoneDÍAS DA GRACA (Gabon): Je voudrais appuyer l'amendement proposé par le Venezuela mais j'aimerais qu'on puisse inclure les mots "au moins", "Maintenir au moins".
Sra. Yolanda GBGO FEREZ (Còsta Rica): Simplemente, señor Presidente para apoyar la propuesta de Venezuela.
R.C.A. JAIN (India): I have a small point which I think will be helpful. After the formulation of the Venezuelan delegation, in order to connect (a), (b), (c) and (d) ws should put "and to", That will solve this problem.
CHAIRMAN: I think ws have a basic agreement here on the proposal of the distinguished delegate of Venezuela, that we start paragraph 3 with the sentence proposed by Venezuela with the addition just proposed by India, having "and" at the end of it. Then we go to (a), (b), (c), (d) as in the original draft.
Richard SEIFMAN (United States of America) : I think the proposal of the Indian delegation was correct. I think he was saying that we also needed "and to" in order to introduce the sub-paragraphs.
Rafael MOREJJD (Subdirector General/Representante Regional para América latina y el Caribe) : Señor Presidente, la Secretaría no había querido intervenir para dar alguna breve explicación sobre lo que ha sido la búsqueda de este consenso en este aspecto de la Resolución; pero, creemos, que es necesario al menos dejar clarificado el punto de vista de lo que es el archivo de esta discusión, que esta Resolución, en el fondo, es xana Resolución que al ser aprobada aprueba el Plan de Acción como estaba previsto.
Este es un Plan de Acción que no sólo conlleva responsabilidades para el bienio que se inicia, sino que además es un Plan de Acción que se extiende hasta el año 1995, en el cual las actividades que están señaladas para ser llevadas a cabo en el bienio 1990/91, y que en el texto en español, C 89/14, han sido reseñadas en una tabla detallada en la cual están los recursos del Presupuesto Ordinario, y también los recursos del presupuesto, que serían de Fondos Fiduciarios o Extrapresupuestarios, no ha sido hecho al azar, porque, obviamente, la disponibilidad de los recursos de la Secretaría en las formas teóricamente aprobadas no permitiría, sin el apoyo de una cantidad de recursos presupuestarios, implementar lo que ustedes aquí van a aprobar.
Por lo tanto, en esta búsqueda del consenso la Secretaría quiere dejar claro que puede perfectamente aceptar la formulación que aquí una serie de países están haciendo, en el entendido de que ésta, la plena implementación de esta Resolución, requiere sin duda, el pago de las contribuciones y un mantenímiento del nivel de recursos en los términos en que el presupuesto en el día de mañana será votado; sin ese supuesto, obviamente, ninguna Secretaría, no sólo el Director de la FAO, nadie, ninguna organización, se puede hacer cargo de implementar un programa de siete años con el nivel de recursos que aquí está detallado hasta en su última cifra, y después ser declarado reo de un mandato que no fue capaz de cumplir.
Sólo queríamos, señor Presidente, hacer esta declaración, creemos que la fórmula de la búsqueda del consenso es adecuada; pero la Secretaría se siente en la obligación de de jeu: esto establecido para el récord.
Sia. Mónica DEREGIBUS (Argentina): Hay un dicho en mi país, señor Presidente, que reza: "ayúdate que Dios te ayudará". Nosotros le pedimos a la Secretaría de la FAO que empiece a poner en práctica el Plan y que demuestre que puede hacerlo eficientemente, y estamos seguros que los recursos extrapresupuestarios para este temtan importante van a llegar.
David DRAKE (Canada) : There is one thing which has been brought up which we have not taken into account and that is the suggestion nade by the distinguished delegate of Gabon with regard to the addition of "at least". I knew that these are hard times financially for FAO, but I think that this inclusion would be helpful.
CHAIRMAN: We have agreed on the proposal nade by the distinguished delegate of Australia for the beginning of substituting the initial sentence on paragraph 3 with a new one. Then we have the proposal made by the distinguished delegate from Gabon that to this sentence we add "at least". There is also the proposal nade by the distinguished delegate of India that we add at the end "and to" •
I believe that the proposal by India is just a formal one. It does not make much difference. It is a question of making the English more elegant and more fluid.
The proposal of the distinguished delegate of Gabon has some specific implications. Of course when we say that we ask the Director-General to make efforts, that means that we expect him to do his utmost, but we also concede that in seme cases he will not be able to do everything because of the lack of financial resources.
Having agreed on the Venezuelan proposal, I wonder what is the reaction of the Commission on the Gabonese proposal; is there any support for that proposal?
Mb Gunilla KURTEN (Finland) : The Nordic countries would also like to support this phrase "at least". It was also included in the original amendment proposed by Canada and supported by the Nordic countries.
Sra. Maria Eulalia JIMENEZ (El Salvador): Yo comprendo las preocupaciones de la Delegada del Gabán, porque también a mi delegación le gustaría que se hiciera eso, perof como he dicho ya en tres ocasiones, creo que debamos ser realistas.
Habíamos logrado un consenso y creo que no sería conveniente iniciar nuevamente el débate sobre esto. Creo que el Director General y el personal de la Organización harán todos los esfuerzos para mantener el nivel de recursos asignados, porque poner el "por lo menos" implicaría también una cuestión futura para los dos próximos bienios.
Tenemos que tener en cuenta, como dije en mi declaración sobre este tema en el día de ayer, que el Plan de Acción para la Integración de la Mujer es para seis años, es para medio plazo. Creo que sería más conveniente, a efectos de no iniciar nuevamente las discusiones, mantener la propuesta que había hecho la Delegada de Venezuela, ya apoyada por otras delegaciones.
Paulo Estivallet DE MESQUITA (Brazil): I should like to support what the distinguished delegate from El Salvador has just said. In fact, the distinguished delegate from Finland referred to the fact that the proposal by Gabon was already part of the amendment proposed by Canada, and that is the amendment which raises some difficulties with several members of this Commission. A very useful and constructive suggestion from Venezuela was made to reach a consensus. I also think that we should keep with the Venezuelan amendment without further going back on what was the original proposal on item (c).
CHAIRMAN: I do not want to press in any direction, but I think it would be easier for us to reach a consensus if we kept the proposal by Venezuela in its original form. I wander if that would be acceptable to other delegations, including the delegation of Gabon who proposed the amendment to the Venezuelan proposal.
Mme Ivone DÍAS DA GRACA (Gabon) : A cette heure tardive, je me rallie au consensus.
MA GENS CO (China) (original language Chinese) : I do not think we should continue the débate. If FAO can provide enough budget and earmark sufficient money for the activities of women, there would be no problem. But everyone knows that FAO is faced with a financial crisis and we do not yet knew whether next year everyone will make his contribution in due time. That is why we agree with the proposal made by Venezuela. Of course, we can express the desire that the Director-General will try his best to solicit enough funds for these activities.
CHAIRMAN: I think we can now agree to adopt the Draft Resolution contained in C 89/LIM/37 as amended by Venezuela. Is there agreement on that? I see no objection, so the Resolution as amended, is adopted.
ADOPTED
ADOPTE
APROBADO
Richard SEIFMAN (ttiited States of America): I do not mean to prolong the discussion, bat just to clarify our understanding so that no one goes home with a misunderstanding - and that is that there is not yet a consensus with regard to this Sustainable Development Resolution.
CHAIRMAN: There is one point missing, I understand.
Richard SEIFMAN (United States of America): It is like a financial crisis -there is one point missing but it sometimes can be an important one.
The meeting rose at 20 30 hours
La séance est levée à 20 h 30
Se levanta la sesión a las 20.30 horas
