16. The Commission had before it a paper which had been prepared by the Secretariat in consequence of a suggestion which had been put forward by the 15th Session of the FAO Conference that “the Codex Alimentarius Commission should re-examine, at its next session, the principles governing the elaboration of standards for regions or groups of countries, as reflected in Rule VI. 3 of the Rules of Procedure of the Codex Alimentarius Commission”. The Commission also had before it the views of the 15th Session of the Executive Committee on this matter (paragraph 11 of Appendix II to this Report). The Commission agreed to draw to the attention of the FAO Conference the fact that, under the Rules of Procedure of the Commission, a two-thirds majority of the votes cast would be required to change the Rule. The Commission also agreed to draw to the attention of the Conference that there were two different points of view held by Member Countries regarding the elaboration of regional standards. Some Members of the Commission considered that, in order that the Commission should remain fully master of its own programme of work, a decision on whether a standard should be elaborated for a region should be a matter for the Commission. Other Member Countries held the view that if a majority of Members in a region attached importance to the elaboration of a standard for the region concerned, it would not be right for Member Countries outside the region to prevent them from doing so. The Commission agreed that the Rule would be open to review in the light of developments, but considered that the time for reconsideration of the Rule would best be judged by the Commission itself and its Executive Committee. The Commission agreed to draw these matters to the attention of the next session of the FAO Conference in the terms set out in Appendix IV to this Report.
17. The Commission had before it a document prepared by the Secretariat dealing with (a) the subject of Rule XII (languages) as a whole, and (b) the proposal made by the Argentine delegation at the Sixth Session of the Commission that Rule XII.3 be amended, so that English, French and Spanish would be mandatory working languages in subsidiary bodies of the Commission set up under Rule IX.1(b). The Commission also had before it the Report of the Fifteenth Session of the Executive Committee, which contained the recommendations of the Executive Committee on these two matters. The Commission noted the difficulties in interpreting Rule XII. 1, particularly the reference therein to the official and working languages of FAO and WHO. Because of these difficulties, which were explained in the Secretariat document on the subject, the DirectorsGeneral had proposed an amendment of the Rule. The proposed amended version of the Rule had been considered by the Fifteenth Session of the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee had agreed with the substance of the proposed amendment to the Rule, but had considered it desirable to introduce a number of drafting amendments.
18. The Commission considered the amended version of the Rule, as recommended by the Executive Committee and adopted it unanimously. The amended version of Rule XII. 1, as adopted by the Commission, reads as follows:
“Rule XII
The languages of the Commission and of its subsidiary bodies set up under Rule IX. 1(a) shall be not less than three of the working languages, as shall be determined by the Commission, which are working languages both of FAO and of the Health Assembly of WHO.
Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1 above, other languages which are working languages either of FAO or of the Health Assembly of WHO may be added by the Commission if
the Commission has before it a report from the Directors-General of FAO and WHO on the policy, financial and administrative implications of the addition of such languages; and
the addition of such languages has the approval of the Directors-General of FAO and WHO.”
19. The Commission determined that the languages of the Commission should be English, French and Spanish, as was required under the amended version of Rule XII.1.
20. As a consequence of the adoption of the amended version of Rule XII.1, the Commission also adopted unanimously the following amended versions of Rule XII.2 and Rule XII.3, which will become Rule XII.3 and Rule XII.4, respectively:
“Rule XII
Where a representative wishes to use a language other than a language of the Commission he shall himself provide the necessary interpretation and/or translation into one of the languages of the Commission.
Without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 3 of this Rule, the languages of subsidiary bodies set up under Rule IX.1(b) shall include at least two of the languages of the Commission.”
21. The Commission considered the section of the Secretariat paper referred to in paragraph 16 of this Report (document ALINORM 70/8-Part II), dealing with the proposal made by the Argentine delegation at the Sixth Session of the Commission that Rule XII.3 be amended so that English, French and Spanish would be mandatory working languages in subsidiary bodies of the Commission set up under Rule IX.1(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission. The paper set out the replies of host governments on the question of whether they would be prepared to undertake an obligation to provide full facilities in the three languages. The paper also contained an estimate of what it would cost to provide for Spanish as a working language in all Codex Committees and Sub-Committees. The Commission also had before it the Report of the 15th Session of the Executive Committee, which set out the views and recommendations of the Executive Committee on this question.
22. In general, host governments had indicated that, while they sympathized with the desire of the Spanish-speaking countries to have Spanish provided as a third working language in Codex Committees, there were both financial and practical difficulties in the way of undertaking an obligation to provide full facilities in the three languages. This was particularly the case for those host countries where the mother tongue was not one of the languages of the Commission.
23. A summary of the views of host governments and the reaction of the representative of Latin America in the Executive Committee to those views are set out in paragraphs 3 to 5 of the Report of the 15th Session of the Executive Committee (Appendix II to this Report).
24. The delegation of the Argentine recalled that the case for the provision of Spanish had been set out in paragraph 37 of the Report of the Sixth Session of the Commission. The delegation stated that the need for the provision of Spanish had been fully established and that the costs of providing for the use of Spanish were a consequence of the fact that the Commission was an international body. The Argentine delegation stressed that it was only in the past two years that the Latin American countries in general had become actively interested in the work of the Commission by becoming Members of the Commission. A greater number of Latin American countries would participate in the work of Codex Committees if facilities were available in Spanish. In the absence of such facilities, it would be extremely difficult to justify the attendance of delegates from Latin America at Codex Committee sessions, particularly in view of the heavy travel costs involved. This would impair the implementation of the aims of the Food Standards Programme as a world-wide programme. The delegations of the Argentine supported by the other Spanish-speaking delegations present at the session urged that Rule XII.3 be amended to provide for the use of the three languages.
25. Most delegations were sympathetic to the wishes of the Spanish-speaking countries, but recognized that there were serious practical difficulties in the way of giving effect to these wishes. It was pointed out that the Rules of Procedure had originally only required one of the Commission's languages to be provided at sessions of Codex Committees and that host governments had had this in mind when accepting the obligation to chair a committee. The required languages had subsequently been increased to two and to increase them immediately to three would throw a totally unforeseen burden on these countries. A changeover to three languages could only be made gradually.
26. The delegation of France stated that it would consider sympathetically whether it would be possible to provide full facilities in Spanish for the next session of the Codex Committee on General Principles, but, at the same time, considered that some thought ought to be given to the question of whether, for example, documents for the session could be sent to one of the Spanish-speaking countries for translation into Spanish. The delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany offered to provide facilities in Spanish in the Codex Committee on Meat and Meat Products. The delegation of the U.S.A. indicated that it would provide a number of documents in Spanish relating to the draft standard for table olives at the next session of the Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables.
27. The Commission noted the point made by the Executive Committee that it should not be taken as axiomatic that all Codex Committees would always select English and French as the languages in which they would work. The Commission agreed that, as recommended by the Executive Committee, it would be a step in the right direction if the Directors-General were to write to host governments, stressing the particular importance of at least providing simultaneous interpretation in the three languages of the Commission, and other facilities as far as possible. The Commission also agreed, on the recommendation of the Executive Committee, to request the Directors-General to consider doing what they could to provide as many working documents as possible in Spanish for Codex Committee sessions. The Commission agreed that the Spanishspeaking countries should be asked to state the relative importance they attached to the following:
translation of working documents for a session into Spanish;
simultaneous interpretation;
translation of the draft report and other documents of the session into Spanish.
The Commission further agreed that an opportunity should be offered to the Spanish-speaking delegations and the delegations from host countries to discuss this subject further during the course of the session.
28. This meeting took place under the chairmanship of Mr. G. Weill (France). It considered the following proposal of the delegation of the Argentine concerning the use of Spanish in all Codex Committees.
“Proposal of Argentina concerning the Use of Spanish in All Codex Committees - Amendment to Rule XII
Rule XII.4
Apart from the dispositions of paragraph 3 of this Rule, the languages of the subsidiary bodies created by Rule IX.1(b) shall include at least three of the languages of the Commission, subject to the following norms with reference to the Spanish language.
As from 1971, the host country of any of the subsidiary bodies mentioned in Rule IX.1(b), with the exception of the Coordinating Committees, will provide simultaneous translation into/from the Spanish language, and also provide a Spanish version of the final report of each meeting.
The dispositions of item (a) will have no effect in those cases in which no delegations of Spanishspeaking countries have expressed their desire to participate in the meeting of any subsidiary body, at least thirty days before the initiation of the meetings.
In accordance with the text of Article 10 of the Statute the Commission, as from 1971, will pay the cost of translations into the Spanish language of the working documents for the subsidiary bodies mentioned in item (a).
The proposal of the delegate of the Argentine was supported by the delegations of the Spanish-speaking countries present.
29. As regards sub-section (a) of the proposal of the delegation of the Argentine, it was pointed out that the cost of providing simultaneous interpretation in Spanish and a draft report in Spanish at Codex Committee sessions (excluding the Coordinating Committee for Europe) had been estimated at $59,000 in a biennium, or an average of about $ 2,000 per Codex Committee session. This estimate provided for (i) interpretation facilities on the basis of two Spanish interpreters in a team of six interpreters, interpreting simultaneously in English, French and Spanish, (ii) one Spanish translator to translate the draft report, (iii) a Spanish stenographer, and (iv) the travel costs of the above four people, recruited from an international centre in Europe to work in another European country.
30. As regards sub-section (b) of the proposal, it was indicated that for practical reasons host countries would require about two months' notice of the intention of Spanish-speaking countries to send delegates to Codex Committee sessions.
31. As regards sub-section (c) of the proposal, it was pointed out that the cost of translating working documents into Spanish for the Codex Committee sessions had been estimated at $ 91,000 in a biennium, or an average of about $ 3,000 per Codex Committee session. This figure would, however, vary from Committee to Committee, since the volume of documentation varied from Committee to Committee.
32. The budget for the Commission had already been fixed for the biennium 1970/71 and any proposal to increase the budget of the Commission in the succeeding biennium in order to cover the cost of translating working documents into Spanish would have to be carefully considered by the Directors-General of FAO and WHO and would require to be approved by the governing bodies of both Organizations.
33. Each of the Spanish-speaking delegations was asked to indicate its priorities as between the various Codex Committees and it emerged that the priorities of the individual Spanish-speaking delegations were varied. Taken as a whole, therefore, it was noted that there was no Codex Committee in which Spanish-speaking countries did not wish to participate. The delegations of the host countries indicated that their governments were sympathetic to the wishes of the Spanish-speaking delegations but that they had no authority to commit their governments to any increased expenditure arising from the addition of Spanish as a further working language in the Committees for which they were responsible. Some delegations from the host countries said that it would be extremely difficult for them, on practical grounds, to work in the three languages of the Commission.
34. It was noted that interpretation facilities and documentation in Spanish would be provided at sessions of the Commission, Executive Committee, Milk and Milk Products Committee, Group of Experts on Quick-Frozen Foods and Group of Experts on Fruit Juices.
35. Taking into account that the Directors-General had been requested by the Commission to write to host countries stressing the importance of at least providing simultaneous interpretation in the three languages of the Commission and other facilities as far as possible, the meeting recognized that it would not be possible to go any further at this stage. The hope was expressed that at the next session of the Commission the delegations of the host countries would be in a position to state whether their governements would be willing to undertake the cost of providing the necessary facilities in Spanish in the Codex Committees for which they were responsible.
36. The Commission took note of the report on the meeting made by Mr. G. Weill (France) and decided that the proposal of the delegation of the Argentine should be included in the report so that host governments would be in a position to study it. The Commission asked the Executive Committee to study further the questions raised in the discussion of this issue, with a view to submitting a report to the next session of the Commission.
