A. PAPASOLOMONTOS (Director, Plant Production and Protection Division): In introducing Item 7.1 the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources or CPGR which, as you know, celebrated its tenth anniversary this year, dedicated a substantial part of its Fifth Session last April to discussing the implications of UNCED's Agenda 21 and the Biological Diversity Convention on the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources, including the FAO Global System. Its recommendations were endorsed by the Hundred-and-third Session of the FAO Council.
The Commission and the Council noted Agenda 21's recommendations to strengthen the FAO Global System on Plant Genetic Resources and to implement the agreements on farmers' rights. They also noted Resolutions 2 and 3 of the Convention on Biological Diversity, the first of which requested FAO's cooperation in the establishment and operation of the Interim Secretariat of the Convention, and the second requested that solutions to outstanding matters of the Convention, inter alia access to ex situ collections and the realization of farmers' rights agreements, be sought within the FAO Global System on Plant Genetic Resources.
The Commission's Resolution for the revision of the International Undertaking is attached to document C 93/28. It requests the Director-General to provide a forum for negotiations among governments to adapt the International Undertaking in harmony with the Convention on Biological
Diversity, and to consider the issues of access to plant genetic resources on mutually-agreed terms as well as the implementation of farmers' rights. The Resolution urges that this process be carried out by the CPGR in close cooperation with the intergovernmental body of the Convention.
The Commission established a tentative timetable for the revision of the Undertaking. The Working Group meeting of the Commission is planned for early 1994. Extra-budgetary resources will be needed to continue future meetings and to ensure participation of the developing countries at such meetings.
The Commission recommended that FAO collaborate with the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, and agreed that the FAO Conference could provide recommendations to the Conference of the Parties to the Convention and its financial mechanism on matters related to plant genetic resources. In this context, the possibility was suggested of establishing a joint task force of the Commission of Plant Genetic Resources and the Interim Intergovernmental Committee for the Convention on Biological Diversity, or ICCBD, to facilitate complementarity between the International Undertaking and the Convention. The CPGR also agreed that the UN Commission on Sustainable Development should be periodically informed of the progress made by the CPGR in the implementation of relevant aspects of Agenda 21.
In this context it is important to note that the conservation and use of plant and animal genetic resources are dealt within Agenda 21 in Chapter 14 as an integral part of SARD, whereas the broader aspects of biodiversity are covered in Chapter 15. FAO was designated as Task Manager for the cooperation of the UN system in the implementation of Chapter 14 and UNEP will play this role for Chapter 15. Cooperation between FAO and UNEP in this area is, therefore, essential. As part of the multi-year programme of the CSD, both Chapter 14 on SARD and Chapter 15 on biodiversity will come under review by the CSD in 1995.
The first session of the ICCBD took place in Geneva last month. The Committee was informed of the recommendations of CPGR and FAO Council, and reminded of FAO's mandate and activities in relation to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity for food and agriculture. It was also informed that the last FAO Conference in 1991 had recognized that CPGR was "the only intergovernmental permanent body in the UN system, addressing a large portion of the biological diversity", and in this context FAO was ready, if requested by its governing bodies, to broaden this Commission into a commission on biodiversity on agriculture, forestry and fisheries. This body could then provide overall policy and programme guidance to all FAO's activities related to plant genetic resources, including forest genetic resources, and animal genetic resources including fish genetic resources. It could also provide support to the ICCBD and to the Conference of the Parties of the Convention on BDFA. Of course, this would not necessarily imply a need for a parallel broadening of the International Undertaking, as different segments of biodiversity may require specific guiding principles and agreements.
The CPGR has also endorsed the aim and strategies of the Fourth International Technical Conference for Plant Genetic Resources and its preparatory process, including the development of the first Report on the State of the World's PGR and the Global Plan of Action, and emphasized the urgent need to initiate it as a participatory and country-driven process. Funds have been, and are still being, pledged and the process is underway.
It should be noted that the revision of the Undertaking and the development of a costed Global Plan of Action are related and complementary activities.
Further, the last session of the CPGR, the CGIAR centres offered to place their base and active collections under the auspices of FAO. A first draft of a Code of Conduct on Biotechnology was also discussed.
In conclusion, the role of FAO in the follow-up to UNCED's Agenda 21 and the Convention on Biological Diversity on matters related to BDFA is especially important for the sectors of food, agriculture, forestry and fisheries. The Secretariat seeks the guidance of the Conference on the proposals for cooperating with the ICCBD and the Conference of Parties for the Convention. The CPGR Resolution for the revision of the International Undertaking is submitted to the Commission for approval. It will be a first step to developing and strengthening cooperation as regards plant genetic resources. Actions to be taken for animal and fishery genetic resources, including considerations for broadening the scope of CPGR, may also need to be discussed. Additional extra-budgetary funds for the revision of the International Undertaking and to continue preparations for the International Technical Conference are needed. We hope that further pledges will be made during this Conference.
I turn now to Conference Item 7.2.
The Draft Resolution on the International Code of Conduct for Plant Germplasm Collecting and Transfer, which is submitted to you in documents C 93/28, and also in C 93/INF 17, represents the culmination of a process which started in April 1989.
At its Third Session in 1989 the CPGR noted that most countries do not request any kind of licence or permit for collecting plant genetic resources in their territories. It discussed the need for international regulations in the collecting and transfer of plant genetic resources which would allow countries to exercise sovereignty and to benefit from their plant genetic resources. It recommended that the Working Group of the Commission assisted by the Secretariat, prepare an International Code of Conduct for Plant Germplasm Collecting and Transfer.
The Secretariat sent a questionnaire to a wide range of experts, including germplasm collectors and curators, sponsors, plant breeders, biotechnologists, botanists and policy-makers; national and international organizations, non-governmental organizations, and industry seeking their advice on issues to be addressed. Material for the preparation of the draft Code was also assembled from national codes and regulations and from literature reviews.
A first draft Code of Conduct was discussed in 1990 by the Working Group of the Commission. Since then the Working Group and the Commission itself have provided the intergovernmental fora through which member countries have developed and negotiated the Code. You considered an earlier draft at your last session, when there was general agreement on its contents. This has formed the basis of further elaboration by the Commission, together with the comments received from member countries. The present revisions seek to ensure consistency and complementarity with the Convention on Biological Diversity on matters which are relevant to plant genetic resources for food and agriculture.
The Code is intended as a set of standards for those who voluntarily adhere to the principles it embodies. It provides ethical standards of field behaviour for collectors and has also provisions for sponsors, curators and users, long-term responsibilities for the planning and approval of collecting missions, the management of germplasm collections, and the transfer, conservation and use of germplasm itself.
The primary function of the Code is to serve as a point of reference until such time as individual countries establish their own codes, or regulations for collection, conservation, exchange and use. The Code may serve as a source of ideas, both for individual countries in preparing their own national regulations on collection, and for the possible development, at a future time, of an international legally-binding instrument, for example as a Protocol of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Although the terms of this Code relate primarily to international collecting missions, as requested by the Commission itself, its ethical standards, and the principle of fully involving local communities, may also provide guidance for national collecting missions.
The Hundred-and-Third Session of the Council recognized that this latest version of the Code is "the final result of long and difficult negotiations and represents the compromise text that could be acceptable to all countries". I would appeal to you to endorse the draft Resolution on the Code without further delay. In doing so, it should be noted that the Code is a "voluntary instrument", which can be updated, amended or modified later, if and when necessary.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Papasolomontos, for your excellent introduction.
As I understand it, we are now seeking the approval of the Commission for the Draft Resolution on the Revision of the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources, which is document C 93/28, page C2, and the approval of the agreed text on the Draft International Code of Conduct for Plant Germplasm Collection and Transfer, which is document CL 103/16-Sup.1. We are also hoping for an extra-budgetary donation for the Fourth Plant Genetic Convention and, I think, the request of the Secretariat for expanding the Commission.
The floor is open. The interpreters are available up to 11 p.m. but we hope not to waste a lot of time and reach that point earlier.
Alcir CARVALHO REBELLO (Brazil): First of all, I would like to commend the Secretariat on their collaboration, not only of the documents in front of us but for all the work that has been carried out by the Organization in the field of plant genetics.
As a member of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources team and of the Council, Brazil has had many opportunities to express support for the strengthening of the global system on plant genetic resources and its components up to the convening of the Fourth International Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources and the implementation of farmer rights. Our views are fully integrated in the draft Resolution and revision of the International Undertaking and the International Code of Conduct for Plant Germplasm Collection and Transfer. We are, therefore, happy to endorse both drafts, which crown a long but fruitful work process.
Finally, my delegation strongly favours the Council's recommendation that the content of the resolution regarding revision of the International Undertaking be formally brought to the attention of the Inter-Governmental Committee of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
Zahir Shah MOHMAND (Pakistan): The Pakistan delegation is in full agreement with the recommendations of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources and feels the need for vigorous follow-up by the FAO Conference.
We also urge that the Convention on Biological Diversity should be brought into full operation as quickly as possible, in consultation with Member States and parties concerned. We would, however, stress the need for clearly defining farmers' rights and all possible steps to be taken to safeguard those rights.
The Pakistan delegation also believes that the resolution adopted by the Commission for the Revision of the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources be adopted by Conference and as soon as possible the revised undertaking may be given the shape of a binding legal instrument.
We agree with FAO's concern that, despite the discussion and activities going on at various international fora, genetic erosion is continuing and on a large scale. The potential harmful and insidious collecting activities which are definitely taking place must be stopped.
It is an admitted fact that in the mindless pursuit of cross-breeding and gene analysis, modern researchers are not exercising care and caution. This can cause damage to the genetic assets of nature. Moreover, some thoroughbreds and nondescript species which are part of biodiversity are being wiped out. The researchers and organizations must heed the due rights of people, areas and countries where such genetic researches are carried out. The Commission, inter alia, intends to transform the relevant part of the UNCED process, including Agenda 21 and the Convention on Biodiversity, and work to a costed global plan of action based on the report on the state of the World's Plant Genetic Resources.
While we agree in principle with the Commission's intentions, the word "costed" in this context requires a little elaboration and tends to cast some doubts. Secondly, the document nowhere indicates the extent of extra-budgetary requirements for the pledges made so far and the additional pledges required. If it is possible and feasible, FAO might also give such clarification at an appropriate time and in an appropriate forum. The offer of a Consultative Group on International Agriculture Research (CGIAR) to place their base and actual collection under the auspices of FAO is laudable. We hope that this trusteeship will be taken over by FAO with well thought-out terms and conditions.
Miss TING WEN LIAN (Malaysia): First of all, my delegation would like to draw the attention of this Commission to the subject of the ex situ collections which the CGIAR centres have offered to place under the auspices of FAO.
This subject, as our colleagues will recall, was discussed in great depth at the last meeting of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources. This is in paragraph 16 on page 4 of document C 93/28.
I only wish to draw the attention of the Secretariat to the portion of this report which says that it requested the Director-General to negotiate with the centres on the basis of the model agreement discussed. My delegation would like to place on record that any further developments in this respect should be reported back to the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources before any decision is taken.
While I am on this point, my delegation would also like to draw the attention of fellow delegates here to the fact that when the CGIAR centres offer to place their base collections under the auspices of FAO, we must also be sure to find out what sort of role is envisaged for FAO. Is it just a decorative role? We would like to see FAO having a say in policy, for instance.
The other point that was also raised in the discussions in the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources is the fact that any such kind of agreement arrived at should be reviewed every four years. I would simply like the Secretariat to take note of these comments.
Another element I want to flag is that the CGIAR talked of trusteeship. During the discussions in the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources, my delegation was very concerned that this new concept of trusteeship would bestow on the CGIAR centres a legal status that they never had up till now.
Those are the points that we would like the Secretariat to bear in mind.
On the two points mentioned in the introduction, there was a suggestion that we should address our comments to the proposal of broadening the scope of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources to include forests and fisheries. My delegation is of the view that we do not wish to see any duplication. For the moment we would like the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources to confine itself in the discussion on plant genetic resources to food and agriculture because we do have a Convention on Biological Diversity which will come into force on 29 December this year and, as mentioned from the podium, the first Inter-Governmental Committee, the ICCBD, met in October in Geneva. I led our delegation there.
I would like to say on the second point which was raised, the relationship with the ICCBD, that it is certainly very important for the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources to maintain a very close relationship with the ICCBD. In fact, for the information of our friends here, at the next meeting of the ICCBD in Geneva the subject of ex situ collections in the gene banks will also be discussed. In fact, there should be very close liaison between the work of each commission or each body so that there is no overlap or conflict.
There is another important point I would like to flag. We should look at page 41 of document C 93/28, where we see, right down in the right hand bottom corner, "State of the World's Plant Genetic Resources". It is elaborated on page 3 paragraph 13(i).
There it says, "transform the relevant parts of the UNCED process (including Agenda 21... based on a Report on the State of the World's Plant Genetic Resources." As you can see, Mr Chairman, this is part of what the Technical Conference proposes to produce. I would like to advance a note of caution here. In my mind, this so-called State of the World's Plant Genetic Resources and a report on the State of the World's Plant Genetic Resources is very similar to the global list that was proposed in the Convention on
Biological Diversity, which was rejected by the Group of 77 and finally rejected by the whole Conference attending the negotiations because we considered it impracticable and time-consuming, and because funds for that purpose could be more wisely spent on the conservation and sustainable use of biological resources.
I thought I would draw the attention of the Secretariat to that very important point, that we regarded the global list as really of no great importance and that it would be a waste of resources.
Whilst on the subject of the Conference, my delegation feels very strongly that there should be the normal preparatory process. We certainly would not wish to see the FAO Secretariat dealing with this particular subject -although they are very experienced in this area - to prepare papers for us to look at when we arrive at the Conference. I think it is important for all participating countries to give their input in a regular preparatory process of - I do not know, maybe we could have a few meetings. There is the Working Group of Commission on Plant Genetic Resources. We also have meetings of the Commission which could be increased so as to take on board these preparatory processes.
For the time being, those are the points I would like to make and I hope that the Secretariat will take notice of them.
Hitoshi ASAKI (Japan): My delegation would like to express its appreciation for the concise document before us, and for the clear explanation given by Mr Papasolomontos.
My delegation wishes to make some comments on document C 93/28. Japan fully recognizes that the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources with the three appendices is the result of long and careful discussion, and therefore considers that any revision should be treated cautiously, step by step. My Government would like to respect the voluntary status of this Undertaking.
Regarding the International Code of Conduct for Plant Germplasm Collection and Transfer, which Japan approved at the 103rd Council, my Government hopes that this Code will provide an effective technical guideline for member countries.
Finally, as for the Fourth International Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources, my Government appreciates the substantial contribution made by Germany and would wish to be associated with the views expressed.
Theodor GLASER (Suisse): Je remercie le Secrétariat pour la documentation qu'il nous a fournie et son introduction très instructive.
La délégation suisse considère que la conservation et l'utilisation durable des ressources phytogénétiques représentent une activité importante. Ainsi, mon pays participe à la Commission des ressources phytogénétiques et a également adhéré à l'engagement international.
En ce qui concerne le document C 93/28, j'ai les remarques suivantes à faire. Au paragraphe 8, il est dit: "La Commission a noté que, plus tard, la FAO, si on lui en fait la demande, pourrait transformer l'Engagement révisé en un instrument juridique ayant force obligatoire, qui pourrait se
présenter sous la forme d'un protocole de la Convention, avec son propre secrétariat et son propre organe directeur".
Nous sommes de l'avis que, bien que cette projection soit en grande partie légitime de par les travaux à entreprendre en vue de répondre aux actions requises par la Convention sur la diversité biologique, il est nettement prématuré d'entrevoir, au stade actuel des discussions, des lignes directrices aussi précises. Au contraire, comme l'indique d'ailleurs le Secrétariat lui-même, au paragraphe 7, "il faudra agir avec prudence et pragmatisme et procéder par étapes". Pour ce faire, il conviendrait davantage de s'assurer dans une première étape de l'entière adhésion d'un plus grand nombre de partenaires à l'Engagement international. A ce titre, il est à noter, selon les indications à l'Annexe B du document, que plusieurs pays qui auraient un rôle important à jouer n'ont- toujours pas adhéré à l'Engagement international sur les ressources phytogénétiques. Il me paraît plus urgent de convaincre ces pays d'adhérer bientôt à l'Engagement international avant de transformer ce dernier en un instrument juridique ayant force obligatoire.
Il est à plusieurs reprises fait mention de la concrétisation du droit des agriculteurs (farmer's rights) sans qu'il soit précisé de quoi il retourne exactement. Ma délégation considère qu'il s'agit là d'un point essentiel à éclaircir. Comme d'autres pays, la Suisse a souscrit à plusieurs engagements internationaux en matière de propriété intellectuelle, qu'il s'agit d'observer. Je pense, par exemple, aux engagements dans le cadre du GATT et à l'Accord européen en la matière. Des droits d'accès légitimes aux ressources phytogénétiques doivent donc être formulés en harmonie avec les engagements sur la propriété intellectuelle.
Le premier projet de résolution concernant la révision de l'Engagement international sur les ressources phytogénétiques soulève une question. A l'alinéa b) des constats, on cite partiellement l'article 15 de la Convention sur la diversité biologique. Pour que la citation soit correcte, il faudrait introduire, à l'avant-dernière ligne, après "lesdites ressources", la mention "sauf décision contraire de cette Partie". L'alinéa se poursuivrait ensuite avec: "et qu'il s'effectue selon des modalités mutuellement convenues". J'aimerais savoir pourquoi cette partie de la citation à été modifiée.
En ce qui concerne la deuxième résolution, je n'ai pas de commentaire particulier à faire.
Enfin, au paragraphe 54, des doutes sont exprimés quant à la nécessité d'élaborer un code de vaste portée sur les biotechnologies. En considération de tous les travaux engagés au niveau international, aussi bien sur la base des initiatives publiques que privées, nous partageons ces doutes, en particulier parce qu'un tel code risquerait fort d'entrer en duplication avec des instruments déjà existants.
Alan Bruce AMEY (Canada): The Canadian delegation is pleased to see the fruits of its and other delegations' labours in the area of plant genetic resources. As has been indicated in other interventions, this is a high priority area for Canada and other member countries, and we note the progress achieved.
We have discussed the two resolutions at the 103rd Council and are pleased that another step has been reached towards implementation.
Mr Chairman, we would like to support the resolution regarding the revision of the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources. However, in the text of the resolution it is noted that the Director-General is requested to provide a forum for negotiations among governments to revise the Undertaking. We understand that a draft text is in an advanced state of preparation already, even before the members have met, and would request a clarification from the Secretariat. There may be a need for a consultation or a Working Group meeting amongst the members before the Secretariat proceeds much further with its work.
Secondly, as called for in paragraph 47 of the report of the CPGR, it would be beneficial to have a report on how well FAO is doing in relation to the timetable of the work that the CPGR has sanctioned, as some delays have occurred. We strongly support the work of the CPGR and urge that the members be given the information necessary to do their jobs.
This delegation also supports the resolution on the Code of Conduct for Germplasm Collecting and Transfer as this is another high priority item for us.
We also support the goals of the International Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources. To that end, we will be supporting a forum in francophone Africa with FAO participation on National Planning of Plant Genetic Resources. This forum will contribute to the development of a global Plan of Action and we would urge all nations here present to make a contribution, however small, to the International Technical Conference. In fact, considerable ingenuity by the FAO Secretariat will be needed to launch this conference successfully. For example, it has been suggested that the preparation of the International Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources and the revision of the Undertaking might be considered together, and resources devoted to the revision of the Undertaking could also be used for the International Technical Conference.
The Canadian delegation also brought up earlier the possibility of global environmental funding which Mr Mahler touched on yesterday. Many nations have spoken about the high priority of this Conference and we would like to add Canada's voice.
The theme "Harvesting Nature's Diversity" was chosen for World Food Day 1993 and was successful in stressing the importance of biodiversity and generating expectations among member countries that FAO was on track in its activities in this area. This does not appear to be the case, and in particular, progress to date on the Technical Conference has been less than reassuring. We hope that this Commission will give it the high priority it deserves by insisting that the report to the Plenary will be that the proposed Fourth International Technical Conference should take place in 1996 at the very latest.
Finally, we would like to indicate that all possible haste be used in the conclusion of the agreements between FAO and the IBPGR on the issue of the Control of Plant Genetic Resources currently under the control of the IBPGR.
José Ramón LOPEZ PORTILLO (México): En primer lugar deseo felicitarle a usted por presidir tan eficazmente los trabajos de esta Comisión y agradecer al Dr. Papasolomontos sus comentarios iniciales.
La Delegación de México ha apoyado activamente, desde el inicio, a la Comisión de Recursos Fitogenéticos, al Compromiso Internacional y al Programa de Acción y nos congratulamos de los avances y de la importancia creciente que ha cobrado en la conciencia internacional esta actividad.
Con miras a consolidar el esfuerzo realizado durante más de una década, México aprueba los Proyectos de Resolución sobre la revisión del Compromiso Internacional sobre Recursos Fitogenéticos, así como la del Código Internacional de Conducta para la recolección y transferencia de germoplasma vegetal.
Igualmente, apoyamos firmemente y endosamos los objetivos y la estrategia de la cuarta Conferencia Internacional Técnica de Recursos Fitogenéticos. Existe una clara complementariedad entre dicha Conferencia y la revisión del Compromiso Internacional que llevará al primer Informe Mundial sobre el estado de los recursos fitogenéticos y al Plan Global de Acción costeado.
Los esfuerzos en materia de recursos fitogenéticos forman parte integral de la ejecución de la convención sobre diversidad biológica y de varios de los capítulos de la Agenda 21.
Queremos agradecer en este foro a aquellos países que generosamente han donado fondos extrapresupuestarios para la realización del proceso de preparación de la Conferencia Técnica y, en particular, a Alemania, país que además ha ofrecido generosamente hospedarla. Esperamos que la Conferencia convenga reunirse en Alemania para mediados de 1996.
Instamos al Director General para que encuentre los recursos necesarios presupuestarios y extrapresupuestarios para que el proceso preparatorio de la Conferencia Técnica se inicie de inmediato. Los recursos adicionales para concluirla podrán y deberán hacerse llegar durante el proceso. Estamos seguros de que la Comunidad Internacional reconoce la prioridad que este esfuerzo significa para la supervivencia y el mejoramiento de las condiciones de vida de toda la humanidad, de las generaciones presentes y futuras.
Es necesario que se asegure una retroalimentación entre los foros intergubernamentales y las reuniones técnicas. En ese sentido, consideramos fundamental que la Comisión de Recursos Fitogenéticos, guíe, coordine y asegure la convergencia y la congruencia de todo el proceso preparatorio de la Conferencia Técnica Internacional. Una mayor colaboración con el Comité Intergubernamental de la Convención sobre Biodiversidad Biológica, es también necesario.
Instamos, señor Presidente, al Director General para que asegure la celebración de una reunión del Grupo de Trabajo de la Comisión a comienzos de 1994, a fin de que se inicien las negociaciones sobre la revisión del Compromiso Internacional. Asimismo le instamos a encontrar los fondos para convocar una sesión extraordinaria de la Comisión durante el año 1994, que será el foro para la renegociación del Compromiso Internacional y que determinará el que se realice, o la oportunidad de que se realice, una reunión del Grupo de Trabajo.
En ese sentido, señor Presidente, volvemos a insistir como lo hemos hecho en otros foros, y como se ha recomendado en nuestra Comisión, en el Comité del Programa y en el Consejo de la Organización, para que se dé mayor visibilidad a la Secretaría de la Comisión y se le asignen más recursos financieros y humanos al secretario de dicha Comisión.
La Comisión tiene enfrente de sí una gran tarea. Debe estar en grado de informar, entre otras cosas, de sus progresos al próximo Consejo de la Organización de noviembre de 1994.
Por otro lado, señor Presidente, nos ha preocupado la posible participación insuficiente de expertos de países en desarrollo, debido a limitaciones financieras de esos países en el proceso preparatorio de la Conferencia y en la Comisión de Recursos Fitogenéticos. Entendemos, no obstante, que la generosa contribución de varios países permitirá sufragar parte de dichos gastos. Esto asegurará una efectiva convergencia de intereses y esfuerzos para beneficio de todos los países, los donantes de fondos y los donantes de germoplasma.
En este proceso de convergencia, también apreciamos mucho el gesto de los centros del grupo consultivo de investigaciones agrícolas internacionales de poner sus colecciones bajo los auspicios de la FAO.
La Comisión y el Consejo han solicitado ya al Director General que llegue a un acuerdo provechoso con dichos centros, tomando en consideración los problemas de tipo legal y financiero y el papel de la Comisión en relación a decisiones de política relativas a dichas colecciones.
Otro aspecto importante de conformidad a la Resolución 3 del Acta Final de Nairobi, es la búsqueda de soluciones a problemas de las colecciones ex situ no adquiridas de acuerdo a la Convención de Diversidad Biológica, y la implantación de los derechos de los agricultores. Estos aspectos y estos conceptos deberán explorarse próximamente y deberán también analizarse los términos en que se convenga mutuamente el acceso a los recursos fitogenéticos.
La Comisión de Recursos Fitogenéticos y la Conferencia Técnica se abocarán en el contexto de la versión del Compromiso Internacional a estudiarlos.
Finalmente, señor Presidente, enfatizamos que todo este proceso deberá converger en la Conferencia de las Partes de la Convención sobre Diversidad Biológica donde el Compromiso Internacional revisado podría, así lo esperamos, conformar un protocolo de dicha Convención, y en donde el Plan Global de Acción podría convertirse en una ventanilla del Fondo Global para el Medio Ambiente.
La reflexión final de la Delegación de México, es en el sentido de que en nuestra Organización debemos considerar seriamente la conveniencia de que la Comisión de Recursos Fitogenéticos se expanda eventualmente para abarcar los otros aspectos de la diversidad biológica a fin de darle un tratamiento similar a todos los recursos genéticos y a los ecosistemas.
Ulf SVENSSON (Sweden): Let me thank the Secretariat first for as always in the field of plant genetic resources, providing a clear, lucid and excellent document - and also my thanks for the representation made by Mr Papasolomontos.
We support the adoption of the resolutions presented to us by this Conference. The first resolution requests the Director-General of the FAO to provide a forum for negotiations among governments - that is, for inter-governmental negotiations on some very important topics, the revision and adaptation of the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources to make it in harmony with the Convention on Biological Diversity that will
be a legally binding document on the 29th December of this year. We are not to discuss the Undertaking here, but I can only state that Sweden will negotiate in inter-governmental negotiations on the Undertaking in order for us to be fully bound by it and to act in accordance with it as a legally binding instrument. We are not going to negotiate anything that is not binding because it is based on a binding instrument, the Convention on Biological Diversity.
This will be a complex negotiation. We will have to make the Undertaking compatible and in harmony with the chapters on in situ conservation, ex situ conservation, sustainable use, and also the provisions, chapters and articles on access to genetic resources, the transfer of technology and funding in the Biodiversity Convention. That is a tall order. We have the forum for it, and it is said in the resolution that the forum will be the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources. It is said - and my delegation has accepted it - that it be convened if necessary with extra-budgetary financing. But I know of no other inter-governmental body in that case but FAO where inter-governmental negotiations, fora negotiating conventional instruments and treaties of great significance would be financed from extra-budgetary resources and not from regular budgetary resources.
I can imagine how the governing body of UNEP would have reacted if the negotiation upon the Treaty of Biological Diversity had to be financed from extra-budgetary resources. There would have been a row if there had been such a proposal. Similarly in the General Assembly if the Treaty on Climatic Change had been negotiated in sessions financed from sources outside the regular budgetary resources. I must say we are a bit surprised that the budgetary proposal before this Conference does not include from regular budgetary resources the finance for the necessary negotiating sessions of a very important instrument. We hope that the Secretariat will redress that and provide the necessary one or two extraordinary sessions with the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources, and perhaps three, four, five or six extra sessions of this working group reflected in the resolution from budgetary resources.
Then, when it comes to the necessary full participation from the developing countries in these important negotiations - and from our side we compare them with the negotiations on the Treaties on Biological Diversity and Climatic Change in significance and importance, maybe even more - we hope the developing countries will participate. Those resources, or most of them, will have to come from extra-budgetary resources. That is quite clear and from our point of view, Sweden will do its utmost to contribute to them.
We strongly support the statement made by the delegate of Malaysia. In this case we are in a process which, as she said, will have to be a normal preparatory process where governments in inter-governmental negotiating sessions really formulate the instrument down to each comma if we are going to be bound by it. It is not going to be a Secretariat document that we rubber stamp. We are going to negotiate seriously as we did with the Biodiversity and Climate Conventions where there was not a word left in by the Secretariat and where governments were ready with the conventions for signing, and which we are now ratifying.
In the wider position, when the text of the biodiversity convention was adopted - and Resolution 3 is reflected in the document - the signatories requested a global system of plant genetic resources as is operated by FAO
to investigate two outstanding issues, the issues of farmers' rights and of access to ex situ collections not addressed by the Convention.
The Resolution before us takes up that invitation, and we invite FAO to carry out this process. We would therefore suggest that the Conference request the Director-General to carry this Resolution to the meeting in the spring of next year of the Inter-Governmental Committee on the Convention on Biodiversity, the so-called ICCBD, and then to the first meeting of the conference of the parties to the Convention in November/December 1994. We share the view expressed by the distinguished Ambassador of Malaysia that we shall receive guidance from these bodies. Negotiations will have to be carried out in order to ensure that the text we shall ultimately agree upon is in harmony with the Convention on Biological Diversity. I take it that the whole negotiation process will be carried out in close -consultation with, and dialogue between, the forum for negotiations among governments, the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources, and the governing body of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
The Ambassador from Malaysia also mentioned ex situ collections and expressed some concerns on the agreement between FAO and the international agricultural research centres. In the agenda for the international negotiations which we have in the Resolution, there is also introduced the issue of access, on mutually agreed terms, to plant genetic resources, including ex situ collections not addressed by the Convention. That means that those collections which are presently in the international agricultural research centres will be drawn into the inter-governmental negotiations for agreement. The whole issue of ownership of, and remuneration for, access to such material will be taken up, deliberated and agreed upon. I therefore think that the concerns of the distinguished Ambassador for Malaysia will be well taken into account in the negotiations of the Commission. We therefore request the Director-General to invite the IBPGR and also the other international agricultural research centres to provide the technical material concerning the negotiations, i.e. the ex situ collections, inter alia, necessary for the negotiations.
The Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources will, in the view of Sweden, be the first global summit on plant genetic resources, a technical conference with technical elements but also highly political, a conference which will have before it the agreement on access to plant genetic resources for food and agriculture, including ex situ collections. It will be a highly political conference in Germany.
In Agenda 21 it was said that the conference would take place in 1995, and that was our decision previously. Now we hear that it may instead be held in 1996. I hope we shall not hear that it will be held in 1997 or 1998 because the preparatory process has not yet started. I would appeal to other donor countries to make proper contribution to the preparatory process, which, to a large extent, will have to be financed extra-budgetarily. It is a question of US$7.5 million, which is not big money for such a highly important conference and for the preparatory process, which is not the normal consultancy process but a country-driven process in which countries will prepare and decide upon national action plans on in situ and ex situ conservation, on plant breeding, on production of the seeds which will feed so many people into the next century. We hope that the money will be forthcoming and that the FAO Secretariat will move into that higher gear which my Under-Secretary referred to yesterday. In that preparatory process use should be made of the secretariat of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources, as well as other secretarial
resources, and the information produced by the IBPGR and the international agricultural research centres.
Finally, I share the views expressed by the distinguished Ambassador of Malaysia on the state of the world plant genetic resources. We are convinced, as she is, that it must not be developed upon a global-list perspective. That was something that was flatly rejected in the negotiations on the Biological Diversity Convention. We are certain that the Secretariat and the countries involved in the country-driven process of preparing for that report will take the logical and important action-oriented approach which is called for in order to make that important report a basis for action in the field of conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture.
Sra. Concha Marina RAMIREZ DE LOPEZ (Honduras): Agradecemos a la Secretaría por la presentación del documento y sus comentarios.
Permítame, señor Presidente, brindar en primer lugar el apoyo de mi Delegación a la Conferencia Técnica, la que consideramos necesaria e importante para poner en práctica la Agenda 21 y la Convención de Diversidad en materia de Recursos Genéticos para la Agricultura y la Alimentación; importante también para los derechos del agricultor.
Es urgente que se ponga en marcha el proceso preparatorio con suficientes medios económicos y humanos para producir el Plan de Acción Global con presupuestos inmediatos.
Apoyamos la resolución sobre la Revisión del Compromiso Internacional sobre Recursos Fitogenéticos, y estimamos que es necesario encontrar fondos adecuados presupuestarios y extrapresupuestarios para implementar esta Resolución.
Este proceso debe integrar el proceso preparatorio de la Conferencia Técnica Internacional que debe estar, así como la Conferencia misma, bajo la guía y el monitoreo de los gobiernos a través de la Comisión y de los Grupos de Trabajo.
El Secretariado de la Conferencia Técnica debe estar integrado fundamentalmente por profesionales de los países en desarrollo.
Mi Delegación apoya también el Código Internacional de Conducta para la Recolección y Transferencia de Germoplasma. Es necesario y urgente y no se puede perder más tiempo en discusiones y debe quedar aprobado en esta Conferencia.
Mme Maria de Lourdes MARTINS DUARTE (Cap-Vert): Monsieur le Président, sachez que nous nous réjouissons de vous voir présider notre séance. Avant tout, nous tenons à remercier M. Papasolomontos de la présentation des deux sous-points 7.1 et 7.2. Permettez-nous également d'adresser nos remerciements à M. Esquinas qui, par sa patience et sa compétence, a bien su conduire nos travaux qui aboutissent aujourd'hui aux résultats, objet de la présente analyse.
Monsieur le Président, dans un souci de brièveté et tenant compte de l'avis exprimé par d'autres délégations telles que le Brésil, le Pakistan et le Mexique, auxquelles elle se rallie, la délégation du Cap-Vert appuie tout
simplement les projets de résolution constants des documents C 93/28 et C 93/INF/17.
Francis Montanaro MIFSUD (Malta): Mr Chairman, I should like to say first of all how pleased we are to see you in the Chair. I should like to express our appreciation for the excellent documentation which has been given to us and also for the lucid presentation by Dr Papasolomontos.
Our delegation fully supports the two draft resolutions on the revision of the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources and the International Code of Conduct for Plant Germplasm Collection and Transfer. As you will recall, they have been examined in detail and in depth in the Commission for Plant Genetic Resources.
With regard to the planned International Technical Conference, I should like to associate myself with the remarks made by the distinguished representative of Malaysia, echoed by, among others, the representative of Sweden, in regard to the importance of involving member countries in the preparation process. The same considerations apply, in my submission, to the preparation process for the revision of the International Undertaking. We are pleased to hear that a session of the Working Group of the Commission is planned for early 1994. However, I submit that this is not enough, considering the importance of the issues which are to be dealt with and the importance of these issues for Member States. I presume that one or more full sessions of the Commission are called for. With regard to meetings of the Working Group, I would hope that member countries which do not form part of that Group will also be able to participate in this preparatory process, since so much of the preparatory work tends to be carried out in the smaller working groups.
So much for the draft resolutions.
The only other point I should like to make - which I have made before and which has been made by other representatives here - is the importance of strengthening the Secretariat if it is to be put in a position to carry out what I think I am not exaggerating in calling the Herculean task before it.
Winston RUDDER (Trinidad and Tobago): The delegation of Trinidad and Tobago intervenes on this agenda item to indicate its support for the two draft Resolutions before us. They reflect hard-won consensus after arduous negotiations amongst the Member States. They also reflect the consummation of goodwill and good sense in the light of the insidious and pervasive activities in the area leading to genetic erosion and genetic loss.
Our plant genetic resources constitute a major pillar, some may say a bedrock, upon which our food and agricultural systems are based. In consequence, we would urge the Member States and the Secretariat to take all necessary action to advance the agenda most urgently in respect of the holding of the Fourth International Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources.
We believe that this is a critical and crucial issue on which the Secretariat should move swiftly and purposefully, together with Member Nations, if it is to maintain its credibility and provide technical and professional leadership in this very important area. We trust that the date
for the hosting of the International Technical Conference will not constitute a continually receding horizon.
Eberhard SCHMAUZ (Germany) (Original language German): My delegation would also like to thank the Secretariat for this excellent document C 93/28. We would like to thank Mr Papasolomontos for his very comprehensive and lucid introduction.
Yesterday, when we were looking at the Fourth Technical Conference, we gave considerable detail about questions pertaining to plant genetic resources. At that time my delegation repeated its invitation to hold this Conference in Germany in the middle of 1996. We would like to thank delegations who have referred during this discussion to that Conference and to those countries who have supported the running of the Conference in my country.
As we said yesterday, we need a definite decision by the FAO Secretariat, so that the necessary preparatory work can be put in hand quickly in my country.
With regard to the Resolutions which are contained in this document, we believe that the revision of the International Undertaking should be brought in line with the International Code on Biological Diversity. For that reason, we would give our support to this draft. As in paragraph 7 of this document, we believe that we do have to have a pragmatic and step-by-step approach.
We would also welcome the resolution on the Code of Conduct.
Kiala KIA MATEVA (Angola): Monsieur le Président, je voudrais d'abord féliciter le Secrétariat pour le document C 93/28. Je ne voudrais pas me répéter sur les ressources phytogénétiques, car la déclaration de mon pays, en plénière, en parle.
Monsieur le Président, 111 pays plus une organisation d'intégration économique sont membres de la Commission FAO des ressources phytogénétiques et 108 par contre ont adhéré à l'Engagement international. Avec l'admission des nouveaux membres au sein de l'Organisation, ce nombre pourra augmenter à court terme; ce dont je me félicite. Cela démontre l'importance que les uns et les autres attachent aux ressources phytogénétiques, déjà contenues dans le chapitre 14 d'Action 21.
Les documents que le Secrétariat a mis à notre disposition sollicitent de la Conférence deux choses:
- la première, c'est l'approbation des deux projets de résolution, l'un sur la révision de l'engagement international sur les ressources phytogénétiques, l'autre adoptant le texte du projet de Code international de conduite pour la collecte et le transfert de matériel phytogénétique;
- la seconde sollicitation, ce sont les recommandations à l'intention de la Conférence des Parties à la Convention sur la diversité biologique prévue en 1994.
Monsieur le Président, l'Angola, qui a participé activement à la CNUED, est signataire de la Convention sur la biodiversité. Le processus d'adhésion à
l'Engagement international étant en cours, ma délégation appuie sans difficulté les deux projets de résolution, sans oublier la décision souveraine prise lors de son adhésion à la Commission FAO des ressources phytogénétiques.
Je voudrais ici appuyer les propos de la délégation suisse lorsqu'elle demande que le Secrétariat fournisse un peu plus d'éclaircissements sur les droits des agriculteurs.
En ce qui concerne les recommandations à formuler à l'intention de la Conférence des Parties à la Convention sur la diversité biologique prévue en 1994, la délégation angolaise fait siennes les préoccupations de la délégation de Malte, c'est-à-dire renforcer le Secrétariat de la Commission des ressources phytogénétiques si elle veut arriver la tête haute à la Conférence technique. Elle appuie également les paragraphes 7 et 8 qui supposent des ressources extrabudgétaires. Comme il est prévu au paragraphe 16, les négociations ont déjà commencé. Ma délégation appuie la FAO pour continuer et accélérer les négociations avec le CIRP afin qu'elles aboutissent avant la tenue de la Conférence; ce qui viendrait enrichir les débats pendant ladite Conférence.
E. Wayne DENNEY (United States of America): I would like to thank Dr Papasolomontos for his excellent introduction to these important topics.
Most of the issues before us today have been fully discussed in a number of other fora during the past year. We are not being asked to make any decision on issues that have not been previously addressed.
We support the resolution pertaining to the revised International Undertaking. It is indeed a step-by-step process, as noted in paragraph 7. We were encouraged by the Programme Committee Report which revealed that the revised draft is under way. This draft should be submitted to the Commission's Working Group as soon as it is finalized; but to make genuine progress, the Working Group must meet early in the new biennium. Whether the revised Undertaking might eventually be transformed into a legally binding document is beyond the scope of our present discussions, as noted by Switzerland.
The draft International Code of Conduct for Plant Germplasm Collecting and Transfer will be a valuable reference document and we support this voluntary Code.
As with others, most of our concerns relate to the many issues surrounding the preparations for the Fourth International Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources. As we have said repeatedly in recent months, efforts made today to conserve genetic resources for future utilization will pay dividends in the next century. Whilst the Technical Conference itself will finalize a number of efforts, the activities which comprise the preparatory process are the most critical. Yesterday and today Sweden said that we must shift into a higher gear. The point is that much needs to be done. It is up to this Conference to make decisions that will instruct the Secretariat on what is to be done and with what resources. We do not want a lack of decisiveness in the language adopted during this Conference to be an excuse for inaction or delayed action during 1994-95. We cannot rationalize further delays.
In listening as carefully as we could to what others have said before us, a combination of developed and developing countries' views, it seems to us that the Conference agrees that the following five things must happen: first, the Working Group should meet in early 1994 to commence negotiations on the revised International Undertaking.
Second, an extraordinary session of the Commission should be convened in 1994 which will serve as a forum for the renegotiating of the International Undertaking. An additional session of the Working Group will be held if necessary. The Commission must meet in sufficient time to allow a report of its progress to be considered by the FAO Council in November 1994. The increased funding in the 1994-95 Regular Programme for Commission activities should be used to fund these meetings.
Third, Regular Programme resources will be allocated as necessary to augment available extra-budgetary funds to enable the preparatory process for the Technical Conference to proceed immediately. In particular, this includes the hiring of Secretariat staff and regional coordinators, making travel funds available and other items as sequentially required and costed in the approved project document.
Fourth, FAO should maintain and increase collaboration with the Inter-Governmental Committees on the Convention on Biological Diversity. FAO can help the ICCBD Secretariat, and they can assist FAO.
Fifth, and finally, the Conference should decide that the Fourth International Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources will, at the invitation of Germany, convene in that country in mid-1996.
On other issues that have been raised during our discussion, we agree with Malaysia regarding the need to limit the scope of the Commission to plants at this time. We would also like to seek clarification from the Secretariat on the status of the FAO CGIAR discussions regarding the ex situ collections. Our understanding is that the Commission and the Council have given approval to conclude an agreement. If this is not the case, we would like to be informed.
Regarding the content of the state of the world's plant genetic resources, the points made by Malaysia and Sweden appear prudent, but we certainly believe that the report itself is central to the preparatory process of the Technical Conference.
ZHANG XIGUI (China): (Original language Chinese): We wish to thank the Secretariat for preparing document C 93/28 and the information document, part 7. I wish to thank the Secretariat for their introduction.
Plant genetic resources are an essential basis for the development of agricultural production, if they are properly conserved. They are part of the heritage of humankind and they are a historical and sustainable way of promoting agricultural development to the benefit also of future generations.
The delegation of China has noted with appreciation that the international community and the governments of different countries attach very special importance to this problem. The implementation of the Convention on Biodiversity will play a very important role in the definition of policies for plant genetic resources. Therefore, we support the recommendations
formulated by the FAO Commission on Plant Genetic Resources during its 25th Session to re-examine and review the international undertakings so as to harmonize the latter with all the relevant provisions of the Convention.
The Chinese Government wishes to participated further in the work carried out in this particular area and also promote cooperation with all international organizations which are interested in the different countries. We are certain that with full respect to the sovereignty of states for their own plant genetic resources and the realization of farmers' rights, it is necessary to establish an international form of cooperation for the conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources.
In a general manner, the International Code of Conduct for -Plant Germplasm Collection and Transfer has reflected these basic principles and the Government of China attaches great importance to the appropriate use of plant genetic resources, as well as to international cooperation and exchange in this area.
We have already decided to become members of the FAO Commission on Plant Genetic Resources. We wish to give substance to the major principles of this particular area. We wish to support the consensus.
CHAIRMAN: Last week China became a member of the Commission. We would like to welcome China to the Commission.
We have had many interventions and I see no further speakers. The interventions have given a direction to the Secretariat as to what to do. To some extent this has been summarized by the different Member States. I will ask Mr Papasolomontos to give some answers to the questions which were raised.
A. PAPASOLOMONTOS (Director, Plant Production and Protection Division):
First of all, may I take this opportunity to thank all those delegations who have taken the floor and for their general support given to the FAO Programme on Plant Genetic Resources. We would particularly like to thank all of you for the helpful comments and suggestions you have made.
Some specific questions have been asked. We will try and answer some of these. Mr Moore, Legal Counsel, will answer those of a legal nature.
I think it was Pakistan who asked a question on the estimated cost of the International Technical Conference. The estimated total cost for the programme and Conference itself is about US$7.5 million, out of which about US$4.4 million or US$4.5 million have already been pledged.
A question was asked on the status of the provision of the International Undertaking. I think more particularly Canada and the United States would like to know where we stand on this issue. We are in the process of making a preliminary revision which will go forward to the Working Group when it meets early in 1994.
On the same issue, may we also indicate that we plan to hold a committee of the Commission in late 1994.
Switzerland and Angola asked for the definition of farmers' rights. Rather than read it out, which will take some of your valuable time, I would refer you to document C 93/INF/17, page 2 Article 2.4 which gives the definition of farmers' rights as approved and before you right now.
Malaysia, Sweden and some other countries have raised important issues. I wish to assure all of you that in the preparation for the Technical Conference we will consult very closely with all member countries. They will be fully associated with the preparatory process.
Mr Chairman, these are the basic technical questions that were asked. I am sure Mr Moore will have some answers to the legal questions that were raised.
LEGAL COUNSEL: I would like to respond to three points that have been raised of a legal nature. The first is the actual wording of the Draft Resolution relating to the revision of the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources and in particular paragraph (b) of the first preambular section.
A comment was made by the distinguished delegate of Switzerland that we have been incomplete in our reference and quotation from the Convention on Biological Diversity. We now have the text of the Convention on Biological Diversity before us. I would suggest that after the words "providing such resources" in the last line of paragraph (b) of the first preambular section, we should include the words "unless otherwise determined by that Party", and then carry on "and shall be on mutually agreed terms".
I think this reflects perfectly the wording of Article XV of the Convention.
The second point was with respect to the status of the negotiations on the agreement with the CGIAR on the ex situ collections, bringing them under the auspices of FAO. I would like to confirm that the negotiations will, of course, be on the basis of the comments and observations made by the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources.
Several comments and observations were made at that time, including on the duration of the agreement and its review, policy aspects, etc., and including, of course, the difficult question of trusteeship and avoiding any undue implications regarding legal ownership flowing from the notion of trusteeship.
I would also like to say that we will, of course, report on the progress of those negotiations to the Working Group when it next meets and, as necessary, to the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources itself.
Finally, I think this point has already been covered by Mr Papasolomontos, we have certainly noted the very strong comments and urging of the Conference here today that the revision of the International Undertaking must be an intergovernmental process and that governments must be fully involved. We certainly will do everything to ensure that this is a truly intergovernmental process and that governments are fully involved at every stage.
E. Wayne DENNEY (United States of America): I appreciate the clarifications given by both Dr Papasolomontos and Mr Moore. I guess I was a little disappointed to hear that the session of the Commission has been fixed for some unknown time in late 1994. I am wondering, given what I thought to be a consensus by several countries that it needed to be held sufficiently early if these proceedings were to be discussed at the Council in November 1994, if perhaps that could not be reflected in our report.
Ulf SVENSSON (Sweden): I support what was said by the distinguished delegate of the United States.
Alan Bruce AMEY (Canada): I say the same as Sweden and the United States. I think it is important that the Commission be convened early enough to take the results into consideration at the November Conference.
José Ramón LOPEZ PORTILLO (México): Para unirme al consenso y para enfatizar que esto debe reflejarse en el Informe de manera que la Comisión puede reportar al Consejo de la FAO en noviembre del próximo año. Asimismo quisiéramos tener información de cuándo se va a celebrar la reunión temprana del Grupo de Trabajo de la Comisión.
CHAIRMAN: With these interventions, I think we can close Items 7.1 and 7.2.
I would like to bring to the attention of the Commission that there are two resolutions to be discussed. One of them is the resolution follow-up of the International Conference on Nutrition proposed by the delegation of the Netherlands which is document C 93/LIM/37. The other one is the resolution on the Control and Monitoring of the Desert Locust Situation which is document C 93/LIM/35.
Mme Yvette LANGRAND (France): Ce sera très bref. Je voulais simplement dire que je souhaiterais que nous examinions plutôt ces textes demain matin car, dans la mesure où nous venons seulement de les avoir à notre disposition, nous n'avons pas eu le temps de les étudier avec nos délégations.
The meeting rose at 18.45 hours.
La séance est levée à 18 h 45.
Se levanta la sesión a las 18.45 horas.
