CHAIRMAN: Distinguished Delegates, we have now come to the last work for our Commission - the adoption of our Report. I shall now give the floor to the Chairman of the Drafting Group, Mr. D'Alraeida. As you know, the Drafting Group has been working during the whole weekend, while we - at least some of us -have been able to enjoy ourselves. They have been sitting until very late at night, but as you can see, they have produced a good result in a very short time. I give the floor to Mr. D'Almeida.

F. D'ALMEIDA (President du Comité de rédaction): Je tâcherai d'être bref puisque notre Commission a déjà pris beaucoup de temps. Le Groupe de rédaction de la Commission II s'est réuni pendant au moins 25 heures; comme l'a dit le Président de la Commission, nous avons dû sacrifier notre week-end pour accomplir notre tâche. Nous nous sommes penchés sur tous les points du rapport qui nous ont été soumis. Le Comité de rédaction a travaillé dans un esprit de parfaite conciliation et nous n'avons pas rencontré beaucoup de difficultés pour l'approbation du rapport. Nous avons étudié une douzaine de résolutions à l'exception de quatre d'entre elles que nous n'avons pas eu le temps d'examiner et que nous avons renvoyées à notre Commission de manière qu'elle les approuve. Il s'agit surtout des résolutions concernant les semences et le PCT, la nutrition et le corps international de volontaires. Je ne m'entendrai pas puisque vous êtes tous en possession du projet de rapport. Avant de terminer, je voudrais à nouveau adresser mes félicitations à tous les membres du Comité qui ont bien voulu consacrer à nos travaux leur samedi et leur dimanche et je les remercie de l'esprit qui a présidé à nos débats.

DRAFT REPORT OF COMMISSION II - PART I
PROJET DE RAPPORT DE LA COMMISSION II - PREMIERE PARTIE
PROYECTO DE INFORME DE LA COMISION II - PARTE I

CHAIRMAN: I thank the Chairman of the Drafting Group, and the members of his Group, for the very good work they have done.

PARAGRAPHS 1 to 18, INCLUDING RESOLUTIONS
PARAGRAPHES 1 à 18, Y COMPRIS LES RESOLUTIONS
PARRAFOS 1 a 18, INCLUIDAS LAS RESOLUCIONES

CHAIRMAN: We start on page 2 of REP/1, the Review of Arrangements for the World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural DEvelopment. Are there any comments on paragraph 1? I see none. Regarding paragraph 1, that is adopted. Paragraph 2, any comments on that? Paragraph 2 is adopted. Paragraph 3? No comments. Paragraph 3 is adopted.

Paragraph 4. No comments. Adopted. Paragraph 5. No comments. Adopted. Paragraph 6.

J,S, KHAN (Pakistan): Just a slight suggestion, and probably a query for the Chairman of the Drafting Committee. There is ''the majority of the delegates“ and ''most delegations”. I do not think these are controversial issues and this could be “the views of the Conference” rather than most of the delegates.

R.L. TORRAS (Cuba): En relación al párrafo 6, en el texto en español, en la línea 5 en donde dice el texto: ''para la preparación de la documentación de la Conferencia'', intercalar una frase que diga lo siguiente:''de la Conferencia y de las Conferencias Regionales''; el resto del párrafo sigue igual.

CHAIRMAN: Distinguished delegates you have had two proposals. We will consider the first proposal by the delegate of Pakistan first, which is to replace the words “majority” and “most delegations” by “the Conference”. Any objections? There seems to be no objections. It is so decided.

R.L. TORRAS (Cuba): Tengo el texto en español; no se en ingles la línea que es. En español es la línea 5 y es donde dice: “para la preparación de la documentación de la Conferencia”, agregar “y de las Conferencias Regionales”.

CHAIRMAN: Is it clear to all delegates. At the end of the fourth line add ''and regional conferences''. Any objections? There seems to be none. So it is agreed.

H. SANTA CRUZ (Representante Especial del Director General, Conferencia Mundial sobre Reforma Agraria y Desarrollo Rural): Respecto a esta enmienda que se acaba de aprobar, queda entendido que ella podrá tener efecto si realmente tenemos a tiempo los documentos de los países.

Pero en todo caso, aún cuando no estén pronto todos, la intención del Secretariado es que se presente a las Conferencias Regionales, además, un documento con la experiencia y con la información que hayan podido recoger las respectivas oficinas regionales.

CHAIRMAN: Thank you Mr. Santa Cruz. You are agreed on the changes? Can I take it that paragraph 6 is adopted with these two changes? So it is agreed.

Paragraph 7, any comment? There seems to be none. Paragraph 7 is adopted. Paragraph 8. Paragraph 8 is adopted. Paragraph 9.

S.M. RICHARDS (Liberia): On paragraph 9 I think that the phrase “overall rural development” was the consensus of the Conference. Therefore I would say instead of the wording “several delegations”., we substitute “the Conference suggested”.

CHAIRMAN: Distinguished delegates, you heard his proposal. Any objections? There seems to be no objections. It is so decided. Paragraph 10? No comments. Paragraph 11?

Ms. A. BERQUIST (Sweden): Mr. Chairman, my delegation would like to add a sentence to the last one along the following lines: - the regional consultations on integrated rural development have also produced valuable documentation for the World Conference.

CHAIRMAN: Has everyone got it? Are there any objections? No objections. Paragraph 11 is adopted with the additional sentence proposed by the delegate of Sweden. Paragraph 12. No comments. Adopted. Paragraph 13.

J.S. KHAN (Pakistan): Mr. Chairman I have a suggestion here. I presume this paragraph refers to the basic documentation for the Conference in addition to the background material, and the idea expressed here is a timely submission and I think there was an idea expressed, that you also mentioned in your

summing up, which my delegation raised and which was supported by some others, that the basic documentation should be kept limited and I would like to introduce that idea if the Commission agrees. My proposal is after “the Conference stressed that the” and before the words “documentation” is added the word “basic”. It goes on “for the Conference”, and that we should then add a few more words as follows: - “should be kept to the minimum and” and then the rest of the sentence would remain as it is.

CHAIRMAN: I thank the delegate of Pakistan. You heard his proposal to insert the word “basic”' in the first line between “the” and “documentation” and insert after the words “Conference should be” insert “kept to the minimum and ”. Any objections?

W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Fed. Rep. of) (interpretation from German): I have no difficulty with the proposal of the Pakistan delegate. However, we must fully realise that the basic documentation includes in fact the Country Review Papers. If we have Country Review Papers from 140 or more countries plus the next that has just been suggested, then things will be fairly easy. What the delegate of Pakistan meant, I think, was that the summary of the basic documentation should be fairly brief and that the Country Review Papers would be available on top of that summary.

CHAIRMAN: I see the delegate of Pakistan is nodding so we have given the summary correctly and I give the floor to Mr. Santa Cruz.

H. SANTA CRUZ (Representante Especial del Director General, Conferencia Mundial sobre Reforma Agraria y Desarrollo Rural): Yo creo que no hay contradicción entre la posición del señor Delegado de Pakistán y la del Delegado de la República Federal de Alemania porque, en realidad, los documentos por países no van a ser documentos básicos de la Conferencia, van a ser documentos básicos para preparar la documentación básica y creo que lo dijimos durante la discusión. Es absolutamente imposible traducir en seis lenguas 140 informes de países y van a ser documentos que van a estar a la disposición de las delegaciones para informar, y ellos van a ser la base para el documento fundamental que va a preparar la Secretaría que va a presentar los aspectos principales de estos documentos y, sobre todo, organizar estos documentos por temas o por posiciones comunes, pero yo he entendido al señor Delegado de Pakistán en el sentido de que se refiere a los documentos básicos de la Conferencia que deben ser reducidos al mínimo. Esta fue la recomendación del Comité Asesor y esa recomendación encuentra toda nuestra simpatía porque creemos que ello permite una discusión mucho más concentrada y más clara en los aspectos principales de la Conferencia.

F. SHEFRIN (Canada): I just want to make sure that the advice and instructions given in paragraph 13 not only apply to the Secretariat but also to the Member Governments because they will be meaning, I am sure, the Committee on Agriculture, will be discussing this item. I think the real appeal should be not only to the Secretariat but the Member Governments not to come forward asking for additional papers, and if that is what the distinguished delegate of Pakistan has in mind I am happy to accept his modification.

A.J. PECKHAM (United Kingdom): I just wonder, in view of what Mr. Santa Cruz was saying, whether the delegate of Pakistan would be prepared to consider a slight modification of his working. It might read"The Conference stressed that the basic documentation should be limited to essentials and sent well in advance to Member Governments.'' It is a little more general but I think it takes Mr. Santa Cruz's point about the main features.

CHAIRMAN: The proposal of the delegate of the United Kingdom is that instead of inserting the sentence by Pakistan we should insert this: ''should be limited to essentials and sent well in advance''. Is that acceptable to the delegate of Pakistan? I see he is nodding. Is it acceptable to the rest of the delegates?

W. JURASZ (Poland): I would propose a slight change in paragraph 13, that we should replace ''Member Governments'' by “participating Governments” since there was a decision, as I understand it, to invite other governments and this wording would be proper.

CHAIRMAN: Delegates have heard the last proposal. Are there any objections to it?

A.J. PECKHAM (United Kingdom): I think it should refer to participants in general and not be necessarily limited, all those taking part would need the documents in advance, I would assume.

F. SHEFRIN (Canada): If I understand the rules of the Organization, any document issued by the Organization has to be sent to all Member Governments, and it cannot be restricted just to participants. I do not think any great discussion on this item is necessary, I am sure the Director-General will send this to everybody involved. But let us not use the word ''participating'' because many governments may not participate in the Conference but they would want to be fully informed on what is happening.

Often we do not go to meetings, to keep down the number of meetings attended, but we ask for documentation. We should avoid getting involved in a play of words because there are legal rules to cover all the distribution.

CHAIRMAN: I think the delegate of Canada has a point. The delegate of Poland suggested this, does he agree?

W. JURASZ (Poland): Could I ask for clarification? Did the delegate of Canada ask to keep the wording ''Member Governments''?

CHAIRMAN: Yes, that is the proposal. The reason for it is that it is quite normal that documentation is sent to all Member Governments, not only those participating, because those who do not participate may still want to be informed. I think that is quite a good point.

H. SANTA CRUZ (Representante Especial del Director General, Conferencia Mundial sobre Reforma Agraria y Desarrollo Rural): Nosotros interpretamos la proposición del señor Delegado de Polonia como que la documentación debe ser enviada a los gobiernos invitados, participen o no. Yo entiendo que lo que èl ha querido decir es que también llegue la documentación a aquellos países que no son miembros de Naciones Unidas ni de la FAO y son países que tienen derecho a asistir a la Conferencia. De manera que la fórmula podría ser “a los Gobiernos invitados”.

CHAIRMAN: Delegates have heard the proposal by Mr. Santa Cruz. Could I venture another proposal, that we say that the documents. ''should be sent well in advance to Member Governments and other participants “? I think that would cover all possibilities. Is that acceptable to delegates? If so, I would ask the Secretariat to read paragraph 13 as amended.

Ms.Κ. KILLINGSWORTH (Assistant Secretary, Commission II): Paragraph 13 would then read: ''The Conference stressed that the basic documentation for the Conference should be limited to essentials and should be sent well in advance to Member Governments and other participants.''

CHAIRMAN: Can I take it that that is acceptable? Paragraph 13 (as amended) approved. Are there any comments on paragraph 14?

W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Fed. Rep. of) (interpretation from German): Before I make a brief comment in respect of paragraph 14, I would like to thank the Chairman and all the members of the Drafting Committee, and congratulate them on the work they have done. I would like to do this on behalf of my delegation.

If, nevertheless here or there, we make certain proposals, it will always be in the spirit of constructive collaboration, and we very much hope that none of these proposals will lead to difficulties.

Having said that, I would like to make a comment in respect of paragraph 14. I have a question on the first line, where it states that: ''the new dimensions of the World Conference...''. I do not know, perhaps it is because English is not my mother tongue, but I have some difficulty here. I would prefer us to say “that the broader orientations of the World Conference'', and so on. However, if others prefer the expression “new dimensions “, we would not have much difficulty, I would merely make the suggestion.

CHAIRMAN: I understand that the delegate of Germany would like to replace “new dimensions'' with ''broader orientations''. Is that acceptable? It seems so. Are there any other proposals to amend paragraph 14?

H.M. CARANDANG (Philippines) I would propose adding at the end of paragraph 14 the following words: ''and representatives of local government agencies.'' When the Philippine delegation made an intervention on this item, it proposed that this suggestion should be included and that they should be included either in the distribution or in this paragraph. The reason for this is that the people directly involved in working with the rural, small farmers, could also go to this Conference, because they are in direct contact with the problems, they are in day-to-day relationship with the farmers, they know the problems. It is not just those who are up there in the government agencies, sitting at desks, they do not realize the magnitude of the problems encountered in rural development and agrarian reform.

CHAIRMAN: The delegate of the Philippines has proposed adding after the last words in paragraph 14, ''and representatives of local government agencies.'' Are there any objections? There seem to be none, so can I take it that paragraph 14 is adopted with these two amendments?

A.J. PECKHAM (United Kingdom): It just occurred to me that if one goes back to the German amendment of the first sentence, possibly instead of ''broader orientations'', I offer the words ''in view of the wider implications of the World Conference''. If that is what we are trying to get at, the level of representation, I think “wider implications'' might - if this is read by Ministers - be more compelling than “broader orientations”.

CHAIRMAN: The delegate of Germany has heard the proposal by the delegate of the United Kingdom. Does he agree?

W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany. Fed. Rep. of) (interpretation from German): I have no difficulty with that, at all, from the discussion, we heard that there were new orientations. But we could accept ''wider implications''. I do not quite understand why the connexion has been made between this and the last proposal, but we do not really have any difficulty with it. Would, of course, prefer it if we were to stick to ''broader orientations''.

CHAIRMAN: I understand that the delegate of Germany can accept the proposal by the United Kingdom. Is it acceptable to other delegates? Paragraph 14 will then read: ''The Conference was of the view that the wider implications of the World Conference called for high-level representation from participating countries.'' Then we shall add in the last line: ''and representatives of local government agencies.''

O. MBURU (Kenya): I was just wondering whether it is correct to add the last proposal by the delegation of the Philippines at the end. I think it would be more correct if it came after ''organizations'' so that it would read: ''agricultural workers' organizations and representatives of local government agencies in national delegations.'' We would, of course, delete the word “and“ between “farmers“ and “agricultural workers”.

S. JUMA'A (Jordan): I would like to propose keeping this paragraph as it stands here, for the following reason. As regards the " “new dimensions “, if we go back to paragraph 3 in the second line we talk about ''more profound dimension “, so the word “dimensions'' has been used several times. I do not know whether we should keep it in this paragraph, because it reflects the views of delegates which have been taken note of in paragraph 3, so we are not putting a new word in here, we are using the same words as have been used in other paragraphs.

On the proposal of the Philippine delegation, I do not see that there is any need to include this in our report, because it will be left for the Government to decide who will represent the Government, whether it is local governments or Headquarters. I do not think we should insist on putting this wording in such a paragraph. It should be left for each Government to decide on how it is going to form its delegation ot this Conference. So I would propose keeping the paragraph as it stands in the report.

CHAIRMAN: We have to take these two proposals one by one; there are now three proposals: one is to keep the first sentence as it is, with “new dimensions “; the other is to replace it by “broader orientations''; the third is to replace it by “wider implications''. I need some indication as to whether there is any support for the proposal by the delegate of Jordan to keep it as it is.

H.M. CARANDANG (Philippines): I agree completely with the delegate of Jordan that it is up to the governments to decide the kind of representation they should send to this kind of Conference.

CHAIRMAN: I am sorry to interrupt the delegate of the Philippines, but we must deal with these proposals one by one. I suggest we take the first part and finalize that first. My question was: do you agree with the delegate of Jordan on keeping “new dimensions“ as it is, or should we replace it with “broader orientations'' or “wider implications''? We shall come to the other proposal later, but we must deal with this one by one.

F. SHEFRIN (Canada): We can support the proposal by Jordan; leave the first sentence as it is. None of the additions or modifications change the meaning.

W.A.F, GRABISCH (Germany, Fed. Rep. of) (interpretation from German): At the outset I already said that we were just wondering whether it was right to use ''new dimension'' so often, for it might lose some of its meaning. We have no problem with it, we can agree to the paragraph remaining as it stands.

A.J. PECKHAM (United Kingdom): Indeed, Sir, but may I draw the attention of the Commission to the fact that paragraph 3 refers to ''a broader and more profound dimension“ in the singular. I would be happy to accept the wording in paragraph 14 with the “s“ removed.

CHAIRMAN: I think we can take it that the change now is to cross out one ''s'' and keep the rest as it is, and then we come to the last amendment.

H.M. CARANDANG (Philippines): I agree perfectly with Jordan that it is up to the Government to decide what kind of delegates they have to send to this kind of conference. But this sentence, as you will notice, Sir, does not give any obligation to the government to send or oblige them to send any kind of delegates,it just says, ''It recognized the importance... and the desirability of including...“ In other words, even if you include those words, nevertheless the governments are free to decide.

Now, the purpose of the amendment was to give real meaning to this Conference, we need people who are in contact daily with the problems encountered that are to be dealt with in this Conference.

S. JUMA'A (Jordan): For this Conference there will be two kinds of representatives. They are representatives of the governmental organizations and non-governmental organizations, so if we talk about local government employees, are they non-governmental or governmental employees? It they are non-governmental, it is O.K., then we can invite them, but if they are governmental, there is no need for us to include this in our report. Maybe in the Philippines the local governments do not consider them as government employees, but in my country, all the local government employees belong to the government, they are not non-governmental.

CHAIRMAN: It is proposed by the delegate of the Philippines and no other delegation has argued against having this in. You said yourself it is up to the governments as to what they do. Do you mind very much if we include it? I see Jordan agrees.

We have then the proposal to insert after the word'' organizations'' in the last but second line the words “and representatives of local governments, agencies “. Can I take it that this is acceptable?

R.S. KAMARA (Sierra Leone): It is just a minor intervention, and all I wish to do is to offer you the word “pledged by “, leaving the word “offered“ in the second line. I think it would convey the sense more appropriately, that is, “Several delegations pledged support “, because as it is now, it gives the impression that it is done and finished with, whilst the sense is a promissory one.

N. AL-SALEH (Saudi Arabia) (interpretation from Arabic): I have noticed that most of the delegations here have expressed their thanks to the members of the Drafting Committee. It is true that it is necessary to thank them, but no one thanked the members of the Resolutions Committee, although they did a very important task. I think we should think about thanking them from time to time as well.

As regards paragraph 15, I should like to refer to the last sentence which reads, ''Several delegations offered support to the Secretariat and to countries to help them in the preparation for the Conference''. It seems to me that the countries would like to know what type of support would be required and which delegations have offered this support.

N.AL-SALEH (Saudi Arabia) (interpretation from Arabic): Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think we should describe the type of support to be given to the Secretariat, and we should also spell out those delegations that offered such support.

CHAIRMAN: I would expect you to propose some concrete language to insert so that we could deal with it. If you think about that in the meantime, we can consider the proposal of Sierra Leone to replace the word ''offered'' by ''pledged''.

H.M. CARANDANG (Philippines): I would like to ask for clarification from the Secretariat. If this paragraph refers to the $1.2 million that is requested by the Director-General as a budgetary increase just for the expenditure of this Conference, I understand that the word “supported“ should remain because that is the proposal of our Director-General and it is not a pledge of any other money, so I would like to be enlightened on this before I give my comments.

H. SANTA CRUZ (Representante Especial del Director General, Conferencia Mundial sobre Reforma Agraria y Desarrollo Rural): En realidad, durante el debate que se llevo a cabo aquí sobre este tema hubo varias delegaciones que expresaron que estaban en situación de prestar cualquier ayuda de tipo técnico o de otro género para la preparación de la Conferencia siempre que fuera solicitada o que fuera aceptada por el Secretariado. Después de eso, varias delegaciones se nos han acercado para decirnos que ponían a nuestra disposición la información que ellos habían recogido a través de programas bilaterales o a través de programas regionales, y que estaban a la disposición para poder proporcionar un gènero de ayuda que no se ha especificado. Y a mí me parece que tal vez nosotros no podríamos dar una lista de estas delegaciones pero, obviamente, y aquí quedó constancia de los “records“ de ofrecimientos de una ayuda especial a países que tienen más experiencia que otros en esta materia, y yo creo que más información que ésta no podríamos dar nosotros por lo menos.

CHAIRMAN: saudi Arabia, I understand the reply by Mr. Santa Cruz is to the effect that it would be very difficult to specify as you would like it to be, so I would suggest that we leave it like this because we understand that there has been expressed support for it in various ways, and this is really what we would like to have since a list with the names of the countries and the types of assistance they have offered would really go too far in this report,so would it be agreeable to you that we leave it as it is?

N. AL-SALEH (Saudi Arabia)(interpretation from Arabic): I have no objections, but I think that we should add ''technical support to the Secretariat'', so that the sentence would read “Several delegations offered technical support to the Secretariat...''

A.J, PECKHAM (United Kingdom): Well, I was thinking along similar lines and toying with a slight change in the words to read perhaps “in addition a number of delegations were ready to provide technical support “, etc. I have been criticized for playing on words, but I just offer it as maybe a helpful one to Saudi Arabia.

CHAIRMAN: I understand that United Kingdom would like instead of the words ''Several delegations offered support'' to say ''A number of delegations were ready to offer technical assistance to the Secretariat''. Is that correct?

A.J. PECKMAN (United Kingdom): I think ''ready to provide'' rather than “offered “. It is slightly stronger.

H. SANTA CRUZ (Representante Especial del Director General, Conferencia Mundial sobre Reforma Agraria y Desarrollo Rural): La verdad es que reflejaría mejor la verdad de los hechos el que se hablara de apoyo o asistencia técnica y de otro tipo porque, por ejemplo, algunos países, no diré que han ofrecido de una manera formal y oficial pero han tenido conversaciones conmigo sobre la posibilidad de que ellos contribuyan a la organización de algunos seminarios que nosotros desearíamos que fueran organizados en los países en desarrollo con la participación de la Conferencia para esclarecer algunos de los aspectos y de los problemas que existen en las diversas regiones en desarrollo. De manera que la implicancia de las ofertas que se hicieron aquí van más allá de una asistencia simplemente técnica.

S. JUMA'A (Jordan): I would like to apologize to my distinguished colleague from the United Kingdom and support the views just expressed by Mr. Santa Cruz, because we are talking about support to the Secretariat and to the countries, so there might be financial support to the countries in order to include the participation of non-governmental organizations, their delegations, so why keep it? I mean just technical support; we give support and leave it to the country to decide whether it will be technical or financial, so I would like to keep it as it stands here in this paragraph without any change.

CHAIRMAN: I thought I understood Jordan. From the first you said that you can accept the addition more or less suggested by Mr. Santa Cruz to say “technical and other kinds of assistance “. It is really to amend the United Kingdom proposal in that way. Is that correct?

I have seen the delegate of the United Kingdom has been nodding, so he also agrees with that. The second line of paragraph 15 will read: “A number of delegations were ready to provide technical and other kinds of assistance to the Secretariat“ and so on. Is that acceptable to everyone?

S. JUMA'A (Jordan): Mr. Chairman, I think there is a difference between the words “Several“ and ''a number “. When we speak about a number it means it is a few delegations. When we speak about several it means more than a few, so why not keep it as it stands here without a number of delegations. I was attending the discussion and there were so many delegations who had offered support to the Secretariat to the countries, so we leave it ''several''. It is better than saying ''a number''.

CHAIRMAN: So it should read, “Several delegations were ready to provide technical and other kinds of assistance to the Secretariat''. I understand this is acceptable to the delegation of the United Kingdom. I almost forgot, the delegate of Yugoslavia had another proposal, but I regard this now as accepted. You have the floor, Sir.

M. TRKULJA (Yugoslavia). “Most of the delegations “, I might have perhaps failed to note any dissenting view expressed in debate on the increased budgetary resources to cover the widened scope of the Conference. If my memory is correct everybody who spoke on that issue was more or less in full agreement, so in that case if I am correct I would suggest we say simply, “the Conference supported“ and so on.

CHAIRMAN: So the proposal is instead of saying “most delegations supported“ to say, “the Conference supported “. Any objections? The delegate of Germany. You have the floor.

W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Fed. Rep. of) (interpretation from German): I am sorry that I cannot be entirely in agreement with this proposal. It was my delegation which, amongst others, said in the course of the discussion that we hoped that part of the cost would be absorbed by the proposed Programme of Work and Budget, so we really would have some difficulty in accepting the proposal that has just been made.

G.WEILL (France): Le délégué de la République fédérale d'Allemagne a très exactement dit ce que nous-mêmes nous nous proposions de rappeler. Ma délégation a été du nombre de celles qui ont exprimé le souhait que les frais de cette Conférence puissent être pris sur le budget tel qu'il était, sans l'augmentation qui nous a été soumise; par conséquent, la rédaction actuelle nous semble satisfaisante, et nous préférons qu'on s'y tienne,

K. ALADEJANA (Nigeria): My delegation expressed the view that the budgetary level should be cut at the barest minimum. In other words, we did not support the increase.

F. SHEFRIN (Canada): We think paragraph 15 is very clear and we see no reason why we should change the language. I could start asking who said what. It merely says, ''Several delegations offered support.'' We can't spell it out for any delegation what they offered. Therefore, I would propose, along with the German and French delegations, to leave the text unchanged.

H.M. CARANDANG (Philippines): Mr. Chairman, I am trying to find out here the place where it was indicated where the Conference was going to be held, but I have a proposal to make, and I hope that the Conference and our friends would take this into serious consideration, because just now I received a telephone call from Manila authorizing the Philippines delegation to invite this Conference to Manila if this body would so desire. It is, therefore, the will of the Philippines Government to invite this Conference. It is understood, of course, the Philippine Government is willing to shoulder the expenses, the difference between the expenditures in holding the Conference if. it is held in Manila from the amount of expenditure that would be spent if this Conference were held in Rome. This is my proposal, Mr. Chairman.

I would say to the delegate of Yugoslavia, your proposal was to say, ''the Conference''. Your delegation has said they do not agree. I do not think we then could say, ''the Conference'', I think it would be reasonable to leave in, ''most of the delegations'' as there are some who clearly do not wish to be in. Is that acceptable to you?

M. TRKULJA (Yugoslavia): To help you solve that issue I would go along. May I mention only one thing, the increase in budget is a part of budgetary appropriations, and I would like to know, of course, first of all, whether those delegations who spoke in debate, or had some reservations, would have the same kind of reservation when we are actually going towards budgetary appropriations. That is my worry. If nobody has any reservation formally speaking, then it means ''the Conference'' here, but anyhow I am not going to insist. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN: I thank the delegate of Yugoslavia, and I understand we can then leave it as it is. ''Most of the delegations supported'' and so on.

H. SANTA CRUZ (Representante Especial del Director General, Conferencia Mundial sobre Reforma Agraria y Desarrollo Rural): Yo quiero llamar la atención sobre la redacción de este párrafo 15, que dice en inglés: ''Most of the delegations supported the increase in budgetary resources to allow for proper onference Preparation según ha entendido el delegado de Francia, él hizo presente que deseaba que el gasto de esta Conferencia no aumentara el Presupuesto General de la Organización.

A mi me parece que la redacción del párrafo 15 no tiene nada que ver con el límite general del Presupuesto. No es este párrafo el que está resolviendo sobre este punto; este punto se resolverá en otra instancia. De manera que la redacción podría quedar como está o incluso decir que: ''La Conferencia estimó que había una necesidad de aumentar los recursos para que la Conferencia se desarrollara y se preparara en una forma apropiada''. Pero este párrafo no modifica en nada el nivel general del Presupuesto.

A.J. PECKHAM (United Kingdom): Just to say, Mr. Chairman, I agree with that statement, and I also think that the first sentence of paragraph 15 faithfully reflects the discussion which we had in this Commission. I think it should stand.

CHAIRMAN: So I can take it that is accepted also by the delegate of Yugoslavia. We have the sentence as it is, ''Most of the delegations supported'' and so on. Then that settles that matter.

Then we come to the proposal by the delegate of the Philippines. The Secretariat has put this into words and suggested the following, ''The Conference noted with pleasure the offer by the Government of the Philippines to host the World Conference “. Is that a correct interpretation of your proposal?

H.M. CARANDANG (Philippines): Mr. Chairman, it is not just “noting “, we want to know whether the Conference will agree to this invitation or not. If the Conference does, our understanding is that this invitation can be decided upon by the Conference and we are putting it now on the floor in order for the Conference to make a decision. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN: I thank the delegate of the Philippines. It might be a bit difficult for us to decide this here and now, but I will give the floor to Mr. Santa Cruz to comment on your proposal.

H. SANTA CRUZ (Representante Especial del Director General, Conferencia Mundial sobre Reforma Agraria y Desarrollo Rural): No creo que me corresponda a mí comentar esta proposición. Este es un problema de las delegaciones y, naturalmente, si el Director General tiene alguna cosa que decir, él lo dirá oportunamente en la Conferencia. Por lo demás, se requiere estudiar las cuestiones financieras, es decir la diferencia de costo que hay entre la celebración de la Conferencia en Roma y la celebración de la Conferencia fuera de la Sede. En este caso, sería Manila.

Por lo demás, cada delegación juzgará cuál es la conveniencia para su país y para la Organización en general y para el éxito de la Conferencia. El que se efectué este torneo en una parte u otra, dentro de la familia de las Naciones Unidas, tenemos soluciones en ambos sentidos, soluciones que han sido dictadas por consideraciones particulares de incidencia en cada una de las situaciones.

De manera que por mi parte no tengo ningún comentario que hacer y creo que corresponde al Director General; si él tiene alguna observación que él la formule.

CHAIRMAN: I thank Mr. Santa Cruz. Distinguished Delegates, and especially the Delegate of Philippines, I think you realize that this has come as something of a surprise to all delegations here, and it may be difficult to decide on the spur of the moment. I have two alternative suggestions: either we include a sentence such as the one I read out, that “the Conference noted with pleasure the offer of the Government of Philippines to host the World Conference“ - that, I understand, we could decide now for insertion in our Report. Otherwise, we will have to leave paragraph 15 for the moment and give delegations time to consult their governments, and also give time for the Director-General to be informed of your proposal - I assume he does not know of it. So it is up to you to choose what you propose: would you propose that we take note of your offer?

H.M. CARANDANG (Philippines): It is entirely unacceptable to our delegation that the Conference just take note of it. I would therefore request the Chairman to give the Conference time to decide if it is required, and I would like to ask him when we will take up this matter again.

CHAIRMAN: My proposal was that we should just take note of it and do nothing more, and have that included in our report - if you agree. If you insist that we go further, then we would have to leave paragraph 15 for the moment and take it up this afternoon, after delegations have had time to consult each other, and also for the Secretariat to be in touch with the Director-General.

H.M. CARANDANG (Philippines): I entirely agree with your second proposal. One of the reasons why it is rather proper that it be held in a developing country is that we do not want an abstract discussion of a programme: if we can discuss it in a developing country where something is going on about agrarian reform and rural development, then we can come to grips with the problem, by seeing with our own eyes what the problems are and what probable or possible solutions can be found. I would therefore agree with your second proposal.

H. SANTA CRUZ (Representante Especial del Director General, Conferencia Mundial sobre Reforma Agraria y Desarrollo Rural): Yo no sé si estaré interfiriendo en un asunto que no me corresponde, pero yo creo que el párrafo 15 tal como ha sido acordado antes de la proposición de Filipinas, puede ser aprobado, porque es un asunto separado el que ha presentado el delegado de Filipinas. Entonces podría quedar aprobado el informe con una proposición que queda pendiente, que es la del delegado de Filipinas.

CHAIRMAN: I must tell the delegate of the Philippines that we have a technical problem: if we do not proceed with our work here, we will have to hold up the report and also the Plenary. It is suggested by the Secretariat that we take the report as it is, and that you raise this matter in Plenary, otherwise we will not be able to proceed with our work. I also agree with Mr Santa Cruz, that we might approve paragraph 15 as it is because this does not necessarily have to be in paragraph 15 - we will in fact come to it when dealing with the Resolution, where the place of the Conference is indicated as Rome. I think that you can probably raise your reservations about this matter in Plenary - would that be agreeable to you?

H.M. CARANDANG (Philippines): This is a formal proposal, and I think that to make a reservation on an item regarding the place where this Conference is going to be held is rather weak. We therefore propose that the Conference take action that either pro or con - on this. If you tell us that it will be all right to do this in Plenary, we will abide by your decision; if you tell us that we can do it now, we will also abide by that.

CHAIRMAN: I think it would definitely be preferable that you do this in Plenary, so that we do not hold up the work here, because we must go through our report. So I take it that we can accept paragraph 15 as it is, and that you raise this matter in Plenary tomorrow instead. Is that correct?

H.M. CARANDANG (Philippines): I can see that it creates difficulties for you to raise the question now. In that case we agree, but if there are no technical difficulties we would prefer to deal with it in this Commission now.

CHAIRMAN: It is difficult to do it now, as it would hold up our work. So I would be most grateful if you could raise it in Plenary tomorrow. Thank you for your cooperation.

So I can take it that paragraph 15 is accepted, with the amendment which you approved earlier: that we say in the second sentence, the second line: ''Several delegates were ready to provide technical and other kinds of assistance to the secretariat... ' ' and no other changes.

S.M. RICHARDS (Liberia): Paragraph 16, if I understand it correctly, somewhat contradicts paragraph 8 of the Resolution on page 6, because you say here that you cannot decide on a date, but in the Resolution you have placed a date, if I understand the paragraph correctly.

H. SANTA CRUZ (Representante Especial del Director General, Conferencia Mundial sobre Reforma Agraria y Desarrollo Rural): Señor Presidente,a mí me parece que la cita de la fecha en el informe no tiene mucha importancia porque en La parte resolutiva de la Resolución dice muy claro:“ Decides that the World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development will be held in Rome for eight working days, beginning at 12 july l979 “Lo que está en discusión es el sitio, pero no la fecha; la fecha se ha fijado para el 12 de julio de 1979.

S.M. RICHARDS (Liberia): If we are to read paragraph 16 as it stands, as I understand it,it says that the date is not set for the World Conference. How is it that we have a Resolution with a date, in that case?

F. SHEFRIN (Canada): I think there is a misunderstanding. Paragraph 16 states that “... an alternative date... was not possible''. It has now been fixed, so that is merely telling us in the Report that it was not possible to have an alternative date. There is no inconsistency -the Resolution is correct. The paragraph merely explains that that date was the only date chosen.

R.S. KAMARA (Sierra Leone): I would just like to confirm what the Delegate of Canada has said. Paragraph 16 may be superfluous, but it is not in any way contradictory. It only means that people wanted to suggest another date, but this was not possible, I believe.

CHAIRMAN: Does the delegate of Liberia understand the position now? Can we leave it as it stands? thank you, Paragraph 16 is accepted.

Paragraphs 1 to 16, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 1 à 16, ainsi amendes, sont approuves.
Los párrafos 1 a 16, así enmendados, son aprobados

W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Fed. Rep. of) (interpretation from German): I refer to the paragraph which starts on page 5. The English in the document states “Bearing in mind the necessity...'' I suggest that that word “necessity'' at the bottom of page 5 be deleted, and the words “the decision already taken'' be inserted, so that it reads: “Bearing in mind the decision already taken...'' As I understand it, the Council of FAO has already decided that the World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development should be a subject matter for the Regional Conferences. As far as the European Regional Conference is concerned, we have already taken this as one of our subject matters, and I think that this goes back to a Council decision which has already been taken but perhaps the Secretariat could confirm this?

CHAIRMAN: I think perhaps we should take paragraph 17, paragraph by paragraph. I think we should start with the first two lines on page 5 “Taking into account'' and so on, and then we take it paragraph by paragraph in the Resolution, and I think you should take it up when it comes to that.

So we start with the first two lines on top of page 5, “Taking into account'' and so on. Are there any objections to that? There seem to be no objections.

And then we come to the paragraph which I think the delegate of Germany referred to. Could you please repeat what you had to say on this paragraph.

W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Fed. Rep. of) (interpretation from German): Yes, willingly, Mr. Chairman. We think that the word “necessity“ should be replaced by “decision already taken “, and the reason why we are proposing this is that we feel that the Council of FAO has already taken a firm decision, and that the subject of the World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development is already contained in the Agenda of the Regional Conferences. As I said earlier, this is certainly the case for the European Regional Conference.

CHAIRMAN: It has been proposed to replace the word “necessity“ by “decision already taken “, so that it would read, “Bearing in mind the decision already taken that the FAO Regional Conference“ and so on. Any objections to this amendment? There seems to be none.

S. JUMA'A (Jordan): I do not know whether the Council can decide; the Council merely recommends to the government or people engaged in the preparation of this Item of the agenda of the Regional Conference to include, so why not say “bearing in mind that the FAO“ without saying, “bearing in mind the necessi ty or the decision of the Council, because I do not think the Council can take a decision with regard to the agenda or the items.

CHAIRMAN: The delegate of Germany is nodding so the proposal is to delete the word “necessity“ and leave the proposal as it is. Is that in agreement with everyone?

J. RUTKOWSKI (Poland): With this last mendment, I can go with it. Thank you very much.

CHAIRMAN: I thank the delegate of Poland. Adopted. We come then to the next paragraph. I understand the delegate of Nigeria wants to speak.

K. ALADEJANA (Nigeria): There is a minor point. I speak grammar which is perhaps not English. The word “agendas“ in the second line of that paragraph I think should read “agenda “, and not “agendas “.

CHAIRMAN: I am not an expert in English grammar. Can I ask someone who is to tell us whether it should be “agenda“ in the singular or in the plural.

A.J. PECKHAM (United Kingdom): I am not an expert in grammar Mr. Chairman, but I do see an advantage in contraction, therefore I suggest we agree with Nigeria and delete the “s “.

CHAIRMAN: I thank the delegate of the United Kingdom for his advice. We will delete the “s “.

H.M. CARANDANG (Philippines): Mr. Chairman, I would like to propose the, deletion of the words “in Rome“ pending the decision of the Conference on the matter. That is all Mr. Charman.

S. JUMA'A (Jordan): I would rather prefer to keep this sentence as it stands and if the delegate of the Philippines would raise this question in the Plenary, and then we will change it from Rome to Manila, but we have been discussing this for a week now and we have decided this should be held in Rome. We are of course recommending something to the Plenary, and the Philippines delegation can bring it to the attention of the of the distinguished delegates at that time, so we should leave it as it stands here.

H.M. CARANDANG (Philippines): I would agree with the delegate of Jordan if all the Conference agree that it should be held in Rome, but that is precisely what we would like to find out and the floor has post poned the question, so it is just as proper that we delete the words “in Rome'' because there is no decision up to now. It there was a decision then there is no use in the Chairman proposing that the question be taken up in Plenary, and I am sure there are delegations that have not yet decided that it should be held in Rome in view of the offer made by the Philippines.

CHAIRMAN: Delegate of the Philippines, I wonder if we can solve the problem in the following way: that we leave the text as it is and you take it up in Plenary and you take a reservation to this paragraph. Could we do it in that way?

H.M. CARANDANG (Philippines): I have some difficulty in this, Mr. Chairman because it will indicate that this Commission has decided, but since you did not want to open the question here I think there was no decision.

S. JUMA'A (Jordan): I think the Conmmission cannot decide. We just recommend to the Conference a Resolutionto be decided upon in the Plenary, and we have recommended to the Plenary that this Conference be held in Rome. If the distinguished delegate from the Philippines would raise it in the Plenary then the Plenary would change it from Rome to Manila, but I do not think that we should discuss it now, otherwise we are going to spend hours deciding whether it should be held in Rome or Manila or other places.

CHAIRMAN: I thank the delegate of Jordan. What we agreed on a few minutes ago was that we should try to proceed with the work of this Commission without delay, and I think the best way to deal with it is to leave it as it is and you take a reservation and we raise the matter in Plenary, or we may, as the delegate for Jordan has suggested, take it up here and this would delay our work.

H.M. CARANDANG (Philippines): Since you did not like us to discuss this matter here I do not think that this Commission did make this decision, so if we did not make this decision we cannot approve its recommendation.

R.S. KAMARA (Sierra Leone): The understanding of my delegation is that we are reviewing the work we have done in the past and we are trying in take stock of what we have said with a view to adopting the Report. What the delegate of the Philippines is presenting is something completely outside what we discussed. In any case some of us are not leaders of our delegation. We have no mandate and it is only the Plenary that can decide on whatever is going to bind governments, so I would like, for the sake of progress, to appeal to the delegate of the Philippines that we cannot discuss something anew, we are only taking stock of what the Report says, so he should be urged and I ask him to be magnanimous and bring this point at the Plenary because it is always at the Plenary that governments invite or issue invitations for any conference to be hosted by them.

M. TRKULJA (Yugoslavia): To be fair I think we might add a footnote here since the point was raised officially; to make a footnote explaining in the course of our debate the Philippine' delegation made... so on and so- on, and the Commission did not go into the substance of the proposed change of place, and then to inform the Plenary that the point was raised here and that the Philippines delegation agreed to this idea.

CHAIRMAN: I thank the delegate of Yugoslavia for his proposal and I think that it was a very helpful one. Would the delegate of the Philippines agree to that?

H.M. CARANDANG (Philippines): If that means that this Commission decided to hold it in Rome I cannot agree with it, because you said that we should not talk about it here.

CHAIRMAN: Delegate of the Philippines, as it was stated earlier, it is the Plenary that decides; we recommend. I think the objection would be served as suggested by the delegate of Yugoslavia to have a footnote like this, where you draw the attention of the Plenary to this matter.

J. RUTKOWSKI (Poland): I think we are all delighted to note the hospitality of the Philippines Government. Our only concern is the costs involved. But if we say in our document that we, as a Commission, recommend Rome, we probably, to some extent, prejudge the decision of the Plenary, because then they will accept Rome. Could we try to find another compromise? I do not know if this is a suitable one: we should write that the Conference will be held in Rome or Manila, according to the decision of the Plenary, and the opinions of delegations on the practicability of such a solution.

W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Fed. Rep. of) (interpretation from German): Perhaps we can remove this difficulty by supplementing the proposal made by the delegate of Yugoslavia. We could make a footnote, as he has suggested, and put the two words “in Rome'' in, in brackets. In this way the Plenary will know that no final decision has been taken. If we have the footnote as well, then there should be no difficulty whatever, the Plenary will know that they will have to make the decision.

CHAIRMAN: I think the two proposals of Yugoslavia and Germany together should take care of the problem of the delegate of the Philippines. Can he accept them?

H.M. CARANDANG (Philippines): I would rather support the proposal by the delegate of Poland, for the simple reason that it is ambivalent and it does not preclude the judgment of the Plenary. I suppose that it would be acceptable to the Commission ?

CHAIRMAN: The problem, as I understand it, is that this question of Manila as the site has not been discussed during our debate, as was pointed out by the delegate of Sierra Leone. This is the real difficulty. If we put “in Rome“ in brackets and have a footnote to the effect that you have taken this matter up, this should really take care of your problem.

I shall read the proposal by the Secretariat for the footnote; “In the course of the debate, the Government of the Philippines offered to host the World Conference. The Commission suggested that the place of the Conference be decided in the Plenary “. That would make the position absolutely clear to everyone, I think, and I would appeal to the delegate of the Philippines to accept this solution, so that we can proceed with our work and your position will be taken care of.

H.M. CARANDANG (Philippines): I would just like to ask if this means that no decision is taken here.

CHAIRMAN: When we put “in Rome'' in brackets, this will be absolutely clear, Ί think. May I take it you accept that? I understand that the delegate of the Philippines does accept it. Do the delegations of Canada, Thailand and Pakistan want to speak, or can I take it that everyone agrees with this? I see they do and I thank delegates for their cooperation. I shall just read what we have decided on, which is to have the following wording to the paragraph at the top of page 6: “Decides that the World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Develoment will be held (in Rome) for eight working days... “, then there will be an asterisk and a footnote which says the following: “In the course of the debate, the Government of the Philippines offered to host the World Conference. The Commission suggested that the place of the Conference be decided in the Plenary “. Then it will go on:’for eight working days, beginning at 12 July 1979.“ I take it that that is acceptable?

R. FAHMY (United Arab Emirates) (interpretation from Arabic): The paragraph now under discussion says “the World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development will be held in Rome “, but in the course of our discussions we said,” “the World Conference on Rural Development and Agrarian Reform “. However, perhaps this difference does not apply in the English text. We must agree on whether we are going to call it “Agrarian Reform and Rural Development“ or “Rural Develoment and Agrarian Reform “.

CHAIRMAN: The English text as I have it says, “the World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development''.

J. S.KHAN (Pakistan): I do not wish to delay the Commission, I just thought that for greater clarity in the footnote, rather than saying “in the course of the debate “, we should say “during the adoption of the Report “, I think it will be clearer.

CHAIRMAN: I think the delegate of Pakistan is quite right, the Secretariat has taken note of that. So this paragraph is adopted, with the changes that we have agreed upon.

The following paragraph starts with: “Approves the proposal of the Director-General.... “. Are there any comments on that?

L. CHEN-HUAN (China) (interpretation from Chinese): The 9th paragraph of the Draft Resolution on the World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development deals with the question of whom to invite, and reads as follows:’Approves the proposal of the Director-General to invite all States that are members of FAO or of the United Nations, of its Specialized Agencies or of the International Atomic Energy Agency to participate in the World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development “. We would like to point out that so far there are still a few Specialized Agencies such as the World Bank or the Inter national Monetary Fund which have refused to implement Resolution 2758 of the 26th Session of the UN General Assembly so that the Chiang clique continues to usurp the legitimate seat of the People's Republic of China, therein.

It is a well known fact that Taiwan is an inalienable part of the territory of the People's Republic of China. The Chiang clique entrenched in Taiwan has long been spurned by the Chinese people and has absolutely no right to participate in any international conference or meeting. We wish, therefore, to draw the serious attention of FAO to this position of ours in implementing the present Resolution.

CHAIRMAN: Are there any other comments on this paragraph? If not, I take it that this paragraph is adopted.

The following paragraph starts with the words: “Invites the United Nations … “. Are there any comments on this paragraph? There seem to be none, so it is adopted.

The following paragraph starts with the words: “Asks Member Nations to forward and so on.

W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Fed. Rep. of) (interpretation from German): I have a proposal for an amendment. We consider that this would adapt the paragraph rather better to paragraph 6 of the Report which we have already adopted. I suggest that in the second line which starts with “by April 1978, so that the Secretariat...“ et cetera, there should be a change. It would read as follows: “so that they can be used as a basis for the discussions at the Regional Conferences“ full stop. I think this would correspond to what we have already said in paragraph 6 where we say that the Secretariat will take the Review Papers as a background. I think this goes without saying.

CHAIRMAN: So your proposal is to delete the words in the second line, “the Secretariat may use them as background papers in preparing“ and replace them by the words, “so that they can be used as a basis for the discussions at the Regional Conferences “.

W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Fed. Rep. of) (interpretation from German): Yes. It would read as follows: “so that they can be used as a basis for the discussions at the Regional Conferences.“ Then we put a full stop. We believe that the detail saying that the Secretariat may use them as background papers has already been expressed previously and there is no need to repeat this in the operative part of the Resolution.

R.L. TORRAS (Cuba): Mi delegación desearía pedir a la delegación de la FAO que nos aclarara un poco su propuesta. Según este párrafo nos plantea, los documentos de base elaborados por cada gobierno los uti lizará la Secretaría para resumirlos o para extraer de ellos todas aquellas experiencias que se hayan obtenido en los gobiernos, en las regiones; y sobre esa base va a presentar un documento a las Confe rencias Regionales, o sea, lo que se discutirá será el documento que nos lleve.la Secretaría sobre la base de los documentos elaborados en los países y no se van a discutir los documentos elaborados en los países individualmente. Yo le rogaría, en este sentido, que la Secretaría nos diera una aclaración y si este punto es correcto, entonces el párrafo queda igual como está.

H. SANTA CRUZ (Representante Especial del Director General, Conferencia Mundial sobre la Reforma Agra ria y Desarrollo Rural): Yo había pedido la palabra precisamente para hacer presente lo que acaba de decir el señor delegado de Cuba. El documento básico de la Conferencia tiene que ser documento de la Secretaría. Naturalmente que esos documentos básicos, como lo repetí ya para la Conferencia misma, también deben ser preparados por las Conferencias Regionales por la Secretaría serán la base de los documentos que se prepararán para la discusión en las Conferencias Regionales. Pero yo creo que se aparta de los hábitos corrientes por una parte y por la otra crea serias dificultades de tipo material, al llevar a las Conferencias Regionales los informes de los países. Hay que recordar que en las regio nes no todos los gobiernos o los representantes hablan la misma lengua. Así que de momento si se decla ran documentos básicos, hay que proceder a la traducción de acuerdo con el reglamento, y al mismo tiempo crea problemas a la Conferencia por el gran volumen de documentos. En Africa habría que tener 46 6 48 documentos.

W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Fed. Rep. of) (interpretation from German): When we adopted paragraph 12 or 13, I do not remember, Mr. Santa Cruz said that the country reports would be available, in other words, the countries concerned would have the country reports available. This is what I understood him to say. My delegation really wants nothing more than to keep in line with what we proposed earlier, which was that the country reports be made available to the countries for discussion at the regional conferences.

Now, if this is so and if there are no difficulties, then we need not modify the paragraph of the Resolution we have before us. In that case, it could remain as printed.

H. SANTA CRUZ (Representante Especial del Director General, Conferencia Mundial sobre la Reforma Agraria y Desarrollo Rural): Yo mantengo lo que dije en la ocasión a que se refirió el delegado de la República Federal de Alemania. Los documentos que hayan llegado estarán a disposición pero no como documentos básicos que tengan que cumplir ciertos requisitos especiales, es decir, que dentro de la redacción actual estarán a disposición de las Conferencias Regionales los documentos de países que hayan llegado en su respectiva lengua.

W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Fed. Rep. of) (interpretation from German): The statement of Mr. Santa Cruz is less satisfactory to my delegation. We understand this to mean that the country reports will not be available in all the languages of the Organization but they will be available in the language in which they were drafted and presented to the Secretariat.

CHAIRMAN: I understand that Germany now accepts the text as it was without any amendments. This paragraph is also adopted.

R.L. TORRAS (Cuba): Es una simple aclaración con relación al párrafo que ya hemos aprobado. ¿Se va a mantener la fecha de abril o la que ya hemos aprobado para marzo? A mi me da la impresión de que si hemos aprobado la fecha de marzo en el texto inicial debemos variarlo aquí, sustituyendo abril por marzo.

H. SANTA CRUZ (Representante del Director General, Conferencia Mundial sobre la Reforma Agraria y Desarrollo Rural): Nuestra fecha inicial era febrero, después se extendió hacia marzo, y entiendo que esta proposición de la resolución tiende a dar todavía un plazo mayor;para muchos de los representantes parece una fecha más realista, porque hemos tenido varias observaciones en el sentido de que difícil mente podrán estar listos los papeles antes de abril, pero con el cambio, también,de fecha de la Comisión Preparatoria tal como está aquí, yo creo quedar plazo hasta abril no va a crear problemas.

R.L. TORRAS (Cuba): El único objetivo nuestro era que la fecha en que tuviera lugar la reunión estuviera en concordancia con lo que ya habíamos visto en el informe. De manera que, nuestra delegación, no tiene inconveniente en que sea en abril. Es a final del párrafo 7.

CHAIRMAN: It says in paragraph 7 “for the preparation of such papers until the end of March 1978'', and “by April 1978“ would mean the same thing, so I think it does correspond and we can leave it as it is.

I take it that the paragraph that starts with “Requests the Director-General“ is acceptable to every one as it now stands, and we take the last paragraph “Further recommends “.

S.M. RICHARDS (Liberia): I was just wondering if we should not add the amendment made by the Philippines to paragraph 14. The second point: for consistency we have in paragraph 14 “agricultural workers'', so I was just wondering if they also should not be included.

N. AL-SALEH (Saudi-Arabia)(interpretation from Arabic): I was going to make the same observation, because we had agreed in the Resolutions Committee to add that expression “rural workers''.

CHAIRMAN: So the proposal is then to use the same wording in the resolution that we have in paragraph 14 in the last line of the resolution, where it says “representatives of farmers' and rural workers' organizations “, to replace that by “representatives of farmers' and agricultural workers' organizations and representatives of local government agencies “.

J. BERTELING (Netherlands): In the. Drafting Committee, we were quite aware of the suggestion made by the Resolutions Committee. However, it again suggested to delete the words “rural agricultural workers'' and there were quite a number of reasons why at that stage it was preferable to use the term “rural workers''. One of them is that it is quite clearly defined in the convention mentioned in the 6th paragraph, the ILO convention number 141, what rural workers' organizations are. If you put it simply as “rural agricultural workers'' you are saying that a number of organizations might not be involved and it was thought that it should not be the case, so we prefer to stick to the formulation here “farmers' and rural workers' organizations''.

I have no objection to the addition to the sentence of “and representatives of local government agencies'', although my delegation's feeling is that governments will make the best government representation anyway to a delegation to a world conference. The particular point here is that they invite the non-governmental representatives to be present in their own delegations but I have no problem, we have accepted that in the report, but I would like to request Saudi Arabia not to insist on the formulation “rural agricultural workers'', or only “agricultural workers “.

CHAIRMAN: I understand that the Netherlands suggests that we keep in the word “rural“ but that he has no objection to adding what was suggested by the Philippines, “representatives of local government agencies “.

Would it be acceptable to Liberia and Saudi Arabia to retain the words “rural workers“ but to add what was suggested by the Philippines in paragraph 14?

N. AL-SALEH (Saudi-Arabia) (interpretation from Arabic): I did not request deletion of the word “rural “. What I said was that the Resolutions Committee requested adding the words “rural agricultural workers“ because there are rural workers who are not necessarily agricultural workers so I think it would be important to add “rural agricultural workers “, so that it would read as follows: “representatives of farmers' and rural agricultural workers' organizations “, and I believe that this is not in contradiction with the statement made by the Netherlands.

J. BERTELING (Netherlands): In the Drafting Committee we were quite aware of the reasons why they put in “agricultural“ but after quite a long discussion there we thought it was preferable not to do it because of the fact that you are limiting it and there are a number of other organizations not in agriculture that could be important for the purposes of this Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development. It is not only the agricultural side that is involved.

Also, we discussed earlier the new dimensions and the scope of the Conference. In our opinion we should not limit it too much to only agriculture, and that was the consensus after long discussion in the Drafting Committee, to leave it as it is and to use the phrase as officially defined by the International Labour Organization.

CHAIRMAN: I thank the delegate of the Netherlands. If I understand the delegations of Liberia, and Saudi Arabia, you really intend the same as the delegate of Netherlands, that you should include other workers than just the agricultural workers, and the word “rural“ would then allow for that, or have I misunderstood you? The delegate of Saudi Arabia.

N. AL-SALEH (Saudi Arabia) (interpretation from Arabic): No, there was a very clear-cut agreement on this matter, the rural areas. In the rural areas we see many workers, agricultural workers and industrial workers, or workers in other fields as well, so we felt it would be better to clarify this so that we could say farmers and rural agricultural workers. I believe that here it is necessary to spell out very clearly what we wish.

A.J. PECKHAM (United Kingdom): It just occurs to me, Mr. Chairman, a slight adaptation of wording might help us here. It had occurred to me when we were discussing paragraph 14. Could we possibly refer to the inclusion in the national delegations of representative bodies, for example from the farmers and agricultural workers and other rural organizations. If one says, “for example“ one is not excluding anyone, but the point is they are representative bodies.

CHAIRMAN: I thank the delegate of the United Kingdom. So you would say “inclusion in the national delegations of representative bodies, for example from farmers and rural workers organizations“ as it stands now? Delegate of the United Kingdom has the floor.

A.J. PECKHAM (United Kingdom): I think we have to drop the word “from “. “For example farmers and agricultural workers and other rural organizations''.

CHAIRMAN: I thank the delegate of the United Kingdom, Is this agreeable? The delegate of Saudi Arabia has the floor.

N. AL-SALEH (Saudi Arabia)(interpretation from Arabic): May I suggest you add the word “relatede” and “other rural workers ”.

CHAIRMAN: I thank the delegate of Saudi Arabia. I will ask the Secretariat to read the proposal as it now is, so we are all clear what we are all talking about.

K.C. WRIGHT (Secretary, Commission II): This paragraph now would read as follows: “Further recommends governments participating in the World Conference to be represented at the highest possible level and to consider the inclusion in their national delegations of representative bodies, for example, from farmers and rural workers and related organizations “.

CHAIRMAN: I think it was a proposal the word “from“ should be deleted, otherwise the proposal is as read out. Is that acceptable to everyone? I think every one is nodding. It is accepted.

I can then take paragraph 17 with the Resolution, as we have amended it, is acceptable to everyone? The delegate of Cuba has the floor.

R.L. TORRAS (Cuba): Referente al párrafo introductorio de la Resolución, que dice que en las Conferen cias Regionales debe incluirse un tema sobre la Conferencia Mundial de Reforma Agraria, nos gustaría que la Secretaria nos explicara si es necesario que se incluya en la parte resolutiva de esta Resolu ción, o si se tiene entendido de hecho que para las Conferencias Regionales de la FAO que van a ce lebrarse en 1978 ya se ha aprobado que vaya un tema sobre estas Conferencias para la Conferencia Mundial, porque si no fuese así, yo haría una propuesta de un nuevo párrafo que recogiera lo que se dice en la parte introductoria.

J.F. YRIART (Subdirector General, Departamento de Desarrollo): El Director General, conforme a la Resolución del Consejo, incluirá en los temarios provisionales de cada agenda regional el tema de la Conferencia Mundial de Reforma Agraria y Desarrollo Rural, pero son las Conferencias quienes adoptan sus propias agendas.

CHAIRMAN: Is that clear to the delegate of cuba? I take it then that paragraph 17 is adopted with the Resolution as amended.

Paragraph 17, including Resolution as amended, adopted
Le Paragraphe I compris la résolution aIñsi amendée “, est adopte
El párrafo 17, incluida la Resolución así enmendada, es aprobado

CHAIRMAN: We then come to paragraph 18. We take that in the same way as we dealt with paragraph 17. I take it there are no objections to the first line and the title of the Resolution? We come then to the first preamble of paragraph starting with “recalling Resolution 3520” etc. Are there any objec tions to that one? It appears not to be the case.

The third starts with the word “Recognizing the important role“ etc. Any comments?

The fourth “Convinced that in order to be effective“ and so on. Any comments?

The next “Requests the Director-General“ etc. Any comments? The delegate of Mexico has the floor.

Sra. G. RIVERA MARIN DE ITURBE (México): En la version en castellano de este párrafo hay cuatro ren glones de más con relación a las versiones en francés e inglés. Me permito sugerir que los intérpretes traduzcan las versiones francesa e inglesa para que las demás personas de habla española tomen nota de cómo debe quedar la Resolución.

CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Madam. I am going to read it out and you can listen to the interpreters. The text is as follows: “Requests the Director-General to include in the major themes for discussion by the Conference the growing role of women in all aspects of rural development including policies and means required to ensure their full participation on an equitable basis in policy making, planning and implementation of agrarian reform and rural development “. Is this acceptable?

Sra. G. RIVERA MARIN DE ITURBE (México): Si, señor Presidente, así queda bien la recomendación en es pañol. Sobraban cuatro páginas.

CHAIRMAN: Thank you. So the paragraph that starts with “Requests the Director-General“ is accepted. And the last paragraph that reads “Requests that the Director-General'' etc., Is that acceptable? The delegate of Jordan has the floor:

S. JUMA'A (Jordan) (interpretation from Arabic): In the third line of this paragraph the word, “all“ if it could be replaced by the word “the“ because all rural activities, it means that many things which are not related to agriculture, so I don't know whether it is within the FAO scope to deal with all these matters. Besides that there might be some financial implication as far as this request is concerned. I don't know whether FAO has enough funds to cover all these studies, and whether they can do it in time. Besides, I do not see that there is any need to say “all “, so if we can say “the“ instead of “all“ I leave it there.

CHAIRMAN: I thank the delegate of Jordan. You heard the proposal. Any objection to replacing the word “all“ by the word “the “? There seems to be no objection.

Can I take it then that paragraph 18, including the Resolution with the amendment we have just heard is acceptable to everyone? That seems to be the case.

Paragraph 18, including Resolution as amended, adopted
Le paragraphe 18, y compris la résolution ainsi amendée, est adopté
Ël parrafo 18, incluida“ la Resolución asi enmendada, es aprobado.

Draft Report of Commission II - Part 1, as amended, was adopted
Projet de rapport de la Commission II, premiére partie, ainsi amendée est adopté
El proyecto de informe de la Comisión II - Parte 1, así enmendado, es aprobado

DRAFT REPORT OF COMMISSION II - PART 2
PROJET DE RAPPORT DE LA COMMISSION II - DEUXIEME PARTIE
PROYECTO DE INFORME DE LA COMISION II - ΡARTE 2

CHAIRMAN: We start then on REP/2 with the Programme of Work and Budget introduction, paragraph 1. Are there any comments? The delegate of the United Kingdom has the floor.

A.J. PECKHAM (United Kingdom): Only a small point, Mr, Chairman, that perhaps at the end of the next to last line it is worth adding “Decentralization of FAO and the use of national institutions “. It perhaps makes it a little clearer.

CHAIRMAN: I thank the delegate of the United Kingdom. I take it this is acceptable to everyone? Paragraph 1 is adopted.

Paragraph 2. Any comments? I have a proposal to replace the word “action“ by \''activities “. This is in the sixth line of that paragraph. Any objections to that? Paragraph 2, then I take it adopted with the replacement of the word “activities“ instead of “action“ in the sixth line?

Paragraphs 1 and 2, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 1 et 2, ainsi amendés, sont approuves
Los párrafos 1 y 2, asi enmendados, son aprobados
PARAGRAPHS 3 to 13
PARAGRAPHES 3 à 13
PARRAFOS 3 a 13

CHAIRMAN: We come to overall policy issues, paragraph 3. Any comments? The delegate of the United Kingdom has the floor.

A.J. PECKHAM (United Kingdom): I wondered, Mr. Chairman, whether the first sentence might be very slightly reworded, because we have the words “fully reflected” at the end of paragraph 2, and repeated again in the second line of paragraph 3, and then we have “fully responded“ in the third line. Could I just offer a modification that the first sentence of paragraph 3 might read: “The Conference endorsed the main lines of the new orientation of FAO, reflected in the Programme of Work and Budget, as approved by the Council at its Sixty-Ninth Session.“ And the third line would then read “It agreed that the Director-General's proposals had“ instead of “fully responded “ “met the requirements of Resolution 16/75 “, I don't know but it is just a form of words perhaps a little clearer. I don't know.

E.M. WEST (Assistant Director-General, Office of Programme and Budget): One problem I must point out about that proposal is that chronologically it is incorrect. The Sixty-Ninth Session was commissioned by the Resolution to deal with the Director-General's proposal and it did so in June 1976. We are now talking about a subsequent matter, the Programme of Work and Budget for 1978–79, so I think that proposal would, in effect, change history, which it is undesirable to try to do.

A.J. PECKHAM (United Kingdom): The last thing I would attempt to do, Mr. Chairman, is to change history. I would withdraw the first amendment and stand on the second.

CHAIRMAN: So your proposal is then, delegate of the United Kingdom? Could you repeat it?

A.J. PECKHAM (United Kingdom): The second proposal, Sir, refers to the second sentence. I am really looking at the words “fully responded “. I am not quite sure what that means, and my suggestion, if it is correct, is that instead of “fully responded“ we should say “had met the requirements of Resolution 16/75 “.

E.M. WEST (Assistant Director-General, Office of Programme and Budget): I am not trying to intervene in the substance of the Delegate for the United Kingdom's view on the Programme of Work and Budget, but this is not referring to that matter, but to the views of the Sixty-Ninth Session of the Council, on the Director General's response to Resolution 16/75, and the Council said that the Director-General had fully responded to that Resolution in his proposals to the Sixty-Ninth Session. If Mr. Peckham, the delegate for the United Kingdom, has criticisms of the Council, that is for him to say; but I would like to stress to him that we are not here discussing his view, whatever it may be, of the Programme of Work and Budget for 1978–79,- we are still dealing with history. If the wording gives him problems in that regard, I would say “had agreed with the conclusions of the Sixty-Ninth Session of the Council that... “

A.J. PECKHAM (United Kingdom): I have no problem with the history or its interpretation - I simply wanted to understand what it means, and I am grateful for the clarification.

CHAIRMAN: Does that mean that we can leave it as it is? So I take it that paragraph 3, as it stands, without any amendment, is acceptable.

R.L. TORRAS (Cuba): Es un problema de lingüística que tenemos en nuestro informe en español, y es al final del párrafo 3 donde dice: “en la prioridad maxima: debelar el hambre “. En español no se usa la palabra “debelar “, sino que sería “eliminar “. En ese caso se diría: “eliminar el hambre y la malnutricion “, porque es una palabra, como digo, que no se usa en español.

CHAIRMAN: Could I suggest that you give proposals for a correction of the translation to the Secretariat who, I am sure, will take care of this? Thank you. So I take it that paragraph 3 as it now stands is acceptable?

W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Fed. Rep. of) (interpretation from German): I would like to suggest that in the seventh line the word “the“ should be replaced by “a“ - “objectives of a new international economic order “, instead of “... the new international economic order\ “. This matter was dealt with in Commission I yesterday, and, in agreement with earlier decisions taken in FAO, it was agreed that throughout all the documents “the“ should be replaced by “a “, so that we should now say “a new international economic order “.

J. RUTKOWSKI (Poland): I have a very small doubt - in the third line it says “... the associated needs for investment, training, credit, processing, marketing, seeds...“ I do not think we have constraints on seeds, but probably a need for better, or improved, seeds.

J. RUTKOWSKI (Poland): I suggest we add the word “improved“ before “seeds;

CHAIRMAN: We have two proposals. The first, in the third line, is from the Delegate for Poland, to insert between the words “marketing“ and “seeds“ the word “improved “. May I take it that that is acceptable? Yes. The other proposal is that in the third line from the bottom, the word “the“ be replaced by the word “a “.

R.L. TORRAS (Cuba): Yo rogaría al distinguido delegado de la República Federal de Alemania que nos hiciera una aclaración a su propuesta, porque para mi delegación está muy claro cuando se dice “del Nuevo Orden Economico Internacional“ en lo que se refiere a la Resolución 3201 y 3202 que establece la declaración del plan de acción para el establecimiente de un nuevo orden económico internacional. El texto que se refiere a esto está muy claro en la forma en que está redactado, pero si el distinguido delegado de la República Federal de Alemania se refiere a otro nuevo orden económico internacional quisiéramos que nos lo aclarara.

CHAIRMAN: I give the floor to the delegate of Germany. I understood the question of the delegate of Cuba was that you try to define the nature of your proposed amendment.

W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Fed. Rep. of) (interpretation from German): I am perfectly willing to say why we were led to suggest that “the“ be replaced by “a “. This is a matter which was brought up on several occasions in the Conference, and discussed at length, and it was decided to use “a'' unanimously - I said that this happened yesterday in Commission I, but we have also seen in earlier documents that the reference is to “a new international economic order “. My delegation therefore feels that within FAO, as well as in other fora, we should stick to what had been decided in the past.

S. JUMA'A (Jordan): If we are going to delete “the“ and replace it with “a “, then there is no need for a capital letter to be used - “a new international economic order “. So I believe that I must support the views of the Delegate of Cuba - we should leave it as it is. Everyone in the world is talking about “the new international economic order“ and I think it is known to everyone.

SANG WOO PARK (Korea, Rep. of): I wonder if we are talking about “the new international economic order “? What we are thinking of - many of us - is any new international economic order. The term “the objectives“ is referring to “a“ new international economic order, and I think it would therefore be better to leave it as it stands.

I have one further suggestion. In the second line from the bottom of paragraph 4, it says “with particular regard for the most seriously affected and least developed countries “. Is that correct? - should it be “with particular regard to“ instead of “for the “?

J. RUTKOWSKI (Poland): Many of us who do not speak very good English have difficulty in understanding the difference between “the“ and “a“ - could we perhaps ask for the usual presentation, from the delegate of the United Kingdom?

A.J. PECKHAM (United Kingdom): I find it extremely difficult to answer this - but I think that, if you use the definite article, you must know precisely what it is - the thing in question has to be defined. Therefore, I am not familar with the progress made yet in establishing “the“ new international economic order, but I rather think that strictly the German suggestion is the correct one. I think, in the strictest sense, it should be the indefinite article, but I hesitate to make-further comment than that.

While I have the floor, I would like to say that it did seem to me that the last few words might more happily read instead of “with particular regard for “ “particularly in the most seriously affected and least developed countries “.

F.SHEFRIN (Canada): I have no problem with “the objectives of the new international economic order “, but I would like to see a footnote to say which resolution is referred to - U.N. resolution, etc. - and then we would have no confusion about “whose'' economic order. So I suggest that we retain “the “, and insert a footnote “U.N. Resolution No...“ - and then we will know which “order“ we are talking about.

CHAIRMAN: I think that is a good proposal. Could we do it that way? Would that satisfy the delegates of Cuba and Germany? So, we have an asterisk and a footnote, and we insert the reference to the resolutions in question.

Then we come to the proposal by the delegate of the United Kingdom, which I understand is in the second line of paragraph 4, to delete “with particular regard for the most seriously affected and least developed countries “, and insert “particularly in the most seriously affected and least developed countries “. This is purely a drafting change - is that acceptable?

May I take it then that paragraph 4 is accepted with the three amendments which we have had:

Firstly, in the third line, to insert the word “improved“ before “seeds “.

Secondly, to have the text of the third line from the bottom - “the new international economic order“ and then have an asterisk and a reference to the particular resolutions.

Thirdly, to say after the word “agriculture “, in the second last line, “particularly in the most seriously affected and least developed countries “.

Are there any comments on paragraph 5? There seem to be none. Paragraph 5 approved.

G.WEILL (France): Les paragraphes 6 et 7 sont étroitement liés l'un à l'autre, et je voudrais parler au sujet de ces deux paragraphes. Ils ont trait au processus de décentralisation et, après que la Conférence a donné son approbation au paragraphe 6, le paragraphe 7 indique: “Ce résultat est dû à la réduction proposée du personnel au Siège, à des accroissements dans les bureaux régionaux, aux plans concernant les Représentants de la FAO...“ Dans ce paragraphe assez complexe, nous trouvons un certain nombre d'indications sur les orientations qui ont été données. A la fin de ce paragraphe, j'aimerais voir figurer un amendement que je me suis efforcé de mettre par écrit pour en communiquer le texte au Secrétariat et qui serait le suivant:

“Un certain nombre de délégations se sont cependant prononcées contre le renforcement simultané des bureaux régionaux et de la représentation dans les pays. Elles ont à cet égard rappelé qu'en se ralliant aux propositions que le Directeur général lui a soumises à sa soixante-neuvième session, en juillet 1976, au sujet de la décentralisation, le Conseil a convenu (mais je n'ai que la version anglaise du rapport): “It felt that while their expansion was not necessary... (il s'agit des bureaux régionaux) their functions could...“ - dans un stade ultérieur.

Voici encore une citation, le Conseil “agreed that the most effective way of implementing decentralization was to upgrade the quality and strength of FAO representation at the country level rather than to expand regional offices “.

Voilà le texte de l'amendement que je suggère d'insérer à la fin du paragraphe 7 dans sa rédaction actuelle, avec les deux citations extraites du rapport du Conseil qui s'est prononcé, en juillet 1976, sur les propositions du Directeur général en matière de décentralisation.

CHAIRMAN: I thank the delegate of France. Would you please hand the text to the Secretariat. I would ask the Secretariat to read it again so that I am absolutely certain that delegates have understood what it is all about.

Mile. Κ· KILLINGSWORTH (Secrétaire adjointe de la Commission II): Voici l'amendement que le délégué de la france suggère d'insérer à la fin du paragraphe 7: “Un certain nombre de délégations se sont cependant prononcées contre le renforcement simultané des bureaux régionaux et de la représentation dans les pays. Elles ont à cet égard rappelé qu'en se ralliant aux propositions que le Directeur général a soumise â la 62e session, en juillet 1976, au sujet de la décentralisation, le Conseil a convenu ···“ (suit une citation en anglais): “It felt that while their expansion at present was not necessary their functions could be given... “

Et un autre passage: “The Council agreed that the most effective way of implementing decentralization was to upgrade the quality and strength of FAO representation at the Country level rather than to expand regional offices. “

G. WEILL (France): Je prie le Secrétariat de m'excuser de la peine que je lui ai donnée, mais je pense qu'il suffit dans l'amendement très long dont j'ai remis le texte, de ne retenir que la deuxième. citation en anglais. Cela évite d'alourdir le texte.

Mile. K. KILLINGSWORTH (Secrétaire adjointe de la Commission II): Insérer à la fin du paragraphe 7 l'amendement suivant: “Un certain nombre de délégations se sont cependant prononcées contre le renforcement simultané des bureaux régionaux et de la représentation dans les pays. Elles ont â cet égard rappelé qu'en se ralliant aux propositions que le Directeur général a soumises â la 69e session, en juillet 1976, au sujet de la décentralisation, le Conseil a convenu.....“ [continue en anglais]. “Agreed that the most effective way of implementing the centralization was to upgrade the quality and strength of FAO representation at the country level rather than to expand regional offices. “

CHAIRMAN: Distinguised delegates you heard the proposed amendment, the addition to paragraph 7· We are really at paragraph 6 and I should, I think, ask whether the delegates, before going to this amendment, if they have any further comments to paragraph 6 or whether I can regard that as accepted.

A.J. PECKHAM (United Kingdom): I did have a little difficulty in understanding paragraph 6, which is, of course, linked with paragraph 7· I do not quite know what is meant by “the now evolving process of decentralization “. I can perhaps understand the sense of it but is it more than progressive decentralization? At least that is what I hope it is. Then I am totally lost with the percentage figures at the end. If I have understood it correctly the objective is that progressive decentralizat ion under the Regular Programme would have the effect of increasing the proportion of expenditure in the region and the countries, and then I have problems like our French colleague on para 7· I do not want to anticipate that but my suggestion was a reduction of the length of para 7·

CHAIRMAN: If I understand you correctly you would like to substitute for the words “now evolving process“ in the first line, the word “progressive “.

E.M. WEST (Assistant Director-General, Office of Programme and Budget): The distinguished delegate of the United Kingdom suggested that his word was the same in substance but I think it is not, because the evolving process covers, among other things, the situation in the United Nations where they are discussing but have not yet decided what to do about regional and economic commissions which would affect the form of FAO's decentralization. The solution is evolving so I think this is conveyed by the present wording.

A.J. PECKHAM (United Kingdom): I would happily accept the words if they are necessary, “now evolving process of decentralization “, but am I clear that the objective is to increase the expenditure in the regions and countries.

- 423 –

E.M. WEST (Assistant Director-General, Office of Programme and Budget): This paragraph expresses the view of the Conference which welcomes the fact that it is increasing in regions and countries. Personally I do not see what is unclear about that statement.

A.J. PECKHAM (United Kingdom): I am afraid I shall need the Chairman' s discretion totgo on to the first line of paragraph 7· As I read it, this first line of paragraph 7 says that some increase - whether in the past or in the future - had been achieved by a proposed reduction. Quite frankly, I cannot understand how you can achieve something if it is only proposed.

E.M. WEST (Assistant Director-General, Office of Programme and Budget): This would be achieved if the proposals in the Programme of Work and Budget to reduce the staff at Headquarters, etc., etc. were accepted. But is that really necessary?

A.J. PECKHAM (United Kingdom): That is fine, I think we are coming out of the wood. I think it really means this would be achieved by a reduction of staff, etc.

Ε.Μ· WEST (Assistant Director-General, Office of Programme and Budget):.The point is that the Director-General is putting forward his proposed Programme of Work and Budget. This is what we are talking about. Would it do if we say that this would be achieved by the proposed reduction?

A.J. PECKHAM (United Kingdom): Admirable, thank you.

CHAIRMAN: So do I understand, then, that there are no amendments proposed to paragraph 6? We leave paragraph 6 as it is and start paragraph 7 by saying: “This would be achieved by the proposed reduction....”? Is that acceptable to other delegates? That seems to be the case, so it is now a question of the proposal by France. Delegates have heard the amendment. Is it acceptable?

S. JUMA’A (Jordan): I have no problem in accepting the amendment, but I would like to change the words “a number” to “a few delegates” “A number” could mean a hundred, so I think we had better say “a few delegates”, although these few are very important.

CHAIRMAN: The delegate of France seems to agree with that amendment. Can I take it that everyone else accepts the addition to paragraph 7?

G. WEILL (France): Hors séance, j'ai si souvent dit au délégué de la Jordanie que j'appréciais ses interventions que je ne crois pas pouvoir accepter son invitation.

Par contre, je voudrais faire remarquer que je ne sais pas si le nombre dont il est question est petit ou s'il représente un nombre plus important de membres, mais il correspond â une position du Conseil. Par conséquent, en juillet 1976, 43 délégations au Conseil ont pris la position que je rappelle dans mon amendement. Il y a donc une certaine cohérence de positions â respecter par nos délégations et pour ce qui concerne la délégation française, c'est ce qu’elle a tenu à faire en proposant cet amen dement.

CHAIRMAN: Do I understand that the delegate of France would like to have “a number of delegations”? If so, can the delegate of Jordan accept that we leave it as it is? If so, paragraphs 6 and 7 are both adopted with the proposed amendments.

- 424 –

A.J. PECKHAM (United Kingdom): I had a point on the third sentence in paragraph 7· I hesitate to put this forward, in view of the mutually supportive role between my colleague, the Assistant Director-General and myself, but I wondered whether this meant more than that the Conference welcomed the move in this direction - referring back to the previous sentence with a view to securing maximum operational efficiency and economy. It would not beg quite so many questions, but I greatly hesitate to put forward an amendment at this late hour.

CHAIRMAN: Would the delegate of the United Kingdom like to propose an amendment?

A,J. PECKHAM (United Kingdom): I was suggesting that the third sentence mught be reworded, and we are talking here about decentralization, “it welcomed the move in this direction, with a view to securing the maximum efficiency and economy.” Quite shortly and directly.

E.M. WEST (Assistant Director-General, Office of Programme and Budget): I must point out, once again, that this changes the substance. What this sentence says is that each level of the structure should be mutually supportive with the objective. Decentralization can be pure and simple decentralization, creating many FAO's which are not mutually supportive. If the delegate of the United Kingdom is in favour of that, that is what he should propose. But I do not think the French delegate is in favour of it, since he quoted the last Council decision on the subject.

A.J. PECKHAM (United Kingdom): If I continued the debate, I would weary the meeting. I have pointed out what I think to be the weakness, but, on the other hand, if we like mutual support, we had better retain it.

CHAIRMAN: So we leave paragraph 7 as it is, apart from the addition proposed by France. Does every one agree to that? It is so decided. Paragraph 7 (as amended) approved.

Paragraphs 3 to 13 not concluded
Les paragraphes 3 â 13 restent en suspens
Los párrafos 3 a 13 quedan pendientes

The meeting rose at 13.00 hours
La -séance est levée â 13 heures
Se levanta la sesión a las 13.00 horas

ADOPTION OF REPORT ADOPTION DU RAPPORT APROBACION DEL INFORME

DRAFT REPORT OF COMMISSION II - PART I PROJET DE RAPPORT DE LA COMMISSION II - PREMIERE PARTIE PROYECTO DE INFORME DE LA COMISION II - PARTE I

Draft Report of Commission II - Part 1, as amended, was adopted Projet de rapport de la Commission II, premiére partie, ainsi amendée est adopté El proyecto de informe de la Comisión II - Parte 1, así enmendado, es aprobado

DRAFT REPORT OF COMMISSION II - PART 2 PROJET DE RAPPORT DE LA COMMISSION II - DEUXIEME PARTIE PROYECTO DE INFORME DE LA COMISION II - ΡARTE 2

ADOPTION OF REPORT
ADOPTION DU RAPPORT
APROBACION DEL INFORME

DRAFT REPORT OF COMMISSION II - PART I
PROJET DE RAPPORT DE LA COMMISSION II - PREMIERE PARTIE
PROYECTO DE INFORME DE LA COMISION II - PARTE I

Draft Report of Commission II - Part 1, as amended, was adopted
Projet de rapport de la Commission II, premiére partie, ainsi amendée est adopté
El proyecto de informe de la Comisión II - Parte 1, así enmendado, es aprobado

DRAFT REPORT OF COMMISSION II - PART 2
PROJET DE RAPPORT DE LA COMMISSION II - DEUXIEME PARTIE
PROYECTO DE INFORME DE LA COMISION II - ΡARTE 2