LE PRESIDENT: Excellence, Mesdames et Messieurs, bon après-midi. Nous allons continuer notre débat sur le point 9, à savoir "Elargissement du mandat de la Commission des ressources phytogénétiques".
Avant de passer la parole à l'orateur qui est inscrit sur la liste, à savoir la France, je voudrais juste vous annoncer que les dispositions ont été prises pour que nous puissions achever ce soir le point 8 de l'ordre du jour sur l'ajustement agricole international aussi. Donc cela dépendra de vous que nous allions jusqu'à 9 heures du soir et je souhaite que nous puissions ne pas aller jusque-là. Mais j'ai l'intention de vouloir terminer ce soir ces deux points qu'il nous reste à l'ordre du jour pour rattraper le retard que nous avons pris sur le Sommet. Alors encore une fois, je vous invite à vous concentrer sur le projet de résolution qui figure dans le document et les annexes et à faire part de vos observations précises et concises sur ce projet de résolution. Et nous allons essayer, autant que possible, de finir le point 9 et le point 8 cet après-midi.
Sur ce, je passe la parole au délégué de la France. Mais avant j'aimerais lire la liste des orateurs et si possible clore cette liste. Donc nous avons: la France, la Malaisie, l'Italie, le Portugal, le Venezuela, la Roumanie, l'Indonésie, l'Inde, les Etats-Unis d'Amérique, le Cap-Vert, le Japon, le Mexique, le Canada, l'Iran, la Syrie, le Pakistan, l'Egypte, l'Argentine, le Chili, l'Australie, El Salvador, l'Uruguay, Cuba, le Royaume-Uni, la Tanzanie, la Norvège, Trinité-et-Tobago, la République de Corée, Costa Rica. Le délégué du Panama vient de me signaler qu'il remettra le contenu de sa déclaration au Secrétariat et cette déclaration sera insérée dans le verbatim. J'invite d'autres délégués, notamment ceux qui sont inscrits, à imiter son geste et je vous remercie infiniment, honorable délégué et cher ami du Panama.
Nous continuons dans la liste des intervenants sur ce point. Je sais que certaines délégations ont émis le souhait de pouvoir prendre la parole au cas où le besoin s'en ferait sentir. Mais au moins, nous arrêtons là si possible la liste des intervenants, sauf peut-être pour ceux qui, à la suite du débat ou de certaines interventions, auraient à reprendre la parole pour une deuxième fois.
Paul LUU (France): Monsieur le Président, ma délégation confirme que la France est favorable au principe de l'élargissement du mandat de la Commission des ressources phytogénétiques recommandé par le Conseil lors de sa cent huitième session, dans la mesure où les trois conditions suivantes que je vais énumérer pourront être satisfaites:
Premièrement, comme cela a été souligné par la Présidence de l'Union européenne, il est impératif que la révision de l'Engagement international sur les ressources phytogénétiques accompagne l'élargissement du mandat de la Commission des ressources phytogénétiques.
Je rappelle que, suite à la Résolution 3 de l'Acte final de Nairobi, l'OAA et sa Commission des ressources phytogénétiques avaient reçu mandat d'intégrer sous une forme opérationnelle le concept relatif aux droits des agriculteurs sur ces ressources dans le cadre de l'Engagement international et dans le contexte de l'agriculture durable.
Il conviendrait donc que la Conférence rappelle à cette Commission ses obligations et le respect du calendrier fixé en 1994 pour ses travaux. Or pour cela, cette Commission ne dispose normalement que d'une session extraordinaire prévue en mars/avril 1996 et d'une session ordinaire en 1997.
Dans cette perspective, il importe que la prochaine session de la Commission des ressources phytogénétiques partage équitablement la durée de ses travaux qui devraient être consacrés à la révision de l'Engagement international d'une part, et à la préparation de la 4ème Conférence technique internationale d'autre part.
Je souhaiterais que la priorité qu'il convient d'attacher à la révision négociée de l'Engagement international soit affirmée dans la Résolution de la Conférence sur ce point et je voudrais faire une proposition dans ce sens.
A la fin de l'avant-dernier paragraphe de la Résolution, à la page 5 du document C 95/19, je propose que l'on rajoute à la suite donc des derniers mots du paragraphe "l'Engagement international sur les ressources phytogénétiques" la phrase suivante: "qui constitue une activité prioritaire pour donner tout son sens à l'élargissement de la Commission."
Deuxièmement, la délégation française appuie la déclaration de l'Union européenne concernant la nécessité d'un processus d'élargissement par étapes commençant, en premier lieu, par les ressources zoogénétiques.
Dans les secteurs forestier et halieutique, il me semble utile que les groupes de travail spécialisés continuent à mener leurs travaux en parallèle, jusqu'à leur "arrimage" éventuel à la Commission élargie.
Troisièmement, ma délégation estime que les travaux préparatoires à ceux de la Commission élargie devraient être confiés à des groupes de travail sectoriels composés d'experts nationaux désignés dans le cadre de procédures transparentes et en veillant à ce que la composition des groupes soit représentative des Régions auxquelles appartiennent les membres de l'OAA.
C'est pourquoi ma délégation, prenant en compte les incidences financières de cette question, se prononce en faveur de l'option "C" dans une phase initiale et pour une durée limitée, avec un passage ultérieur à une structure de type "B".
Che Ani bin SAAD (Malaysia): Malaysia joins the consensus in supporting the broadening of the mandate of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources to include other forms of food and agriculture. It also agrees that the new name be Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.
As regards the question of the composition of the incoming Sectoral Working Groups, Malaysia maintains its position that it should remain intergovernmental and supports Brazil on this issue. Malaysia, like many other countries, sends its experts to the intergovernmental group meetings, who have a broad knowledge of the sciences. Moreover, they carry the government's mandate. It is unreasonable to think that policies and programmes on genetic resources, which are intended for national governments, should be first examined by a working level of experts, who do not have sufficient knowledge of the governments' intentions in relation to the conservation and management of their genetic resources. For the smooth running and desirable outcome of the Commission, the intergovernmental nature of the Sectoral Working Groups should remain.
My delegation moves that sub-head 3 Annex to the Resolution on the Statutes of the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture - the Commission - as found on page 6, document C 95/19, should read as follows: "The Commission may be assisted by Sectoral Working Groups, which are intergovernmental, with appropriate geographical balance, for plant, animal, forestry and fishery genetic resources".
My delegation would like to refer again to the Annex to the Resolution on Statutes of the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture as found on page 6 of document C 95/19. Under paragraph 2, Terms of Reference to the Commission, my delegation has difficulty in accepting paragraph 2(iii). My delegation's interpretation of international agreements includes the Convention on Biodiversity, which has been ratified by my government and many other governments as well.
My delegation wishes to remind you that the Commission is in no position to negotiate that instrument, and maintaining this term of reference would be seriously undermining the resolution's fourth consideration, as found on page 4.
My delegation understands fully the best intentions of the Secretariat, but my delegation's understanding of the word "negotiate" is one of the following: (a) to transact business; (b) to conduct communications or conferences with a view to reaching a settlement or agreement; (c) to conclude by bargain, treaty or agreement.
This is not the intention of the member countries, nor is it the intention of the Secretariat. The process so far at FAO is to harmonize, and that is the same word that should be contained in the Annex.
My delegation's first proposal is to change it from "negotiate or" to "harmonize and". Having just registered my delegation's concern on this subject, I would like now to propose that under paragraph 2, Terms of Reference of the Commission, in the Annex paragraph 2(iii) should be moved to paragraph 2(ii) and vice versa. That is our second proposal.
We then suggest the word "other" is added between the words "of" and "international", making the phrase read: "...of other international agreements" in paragraph 2(ii). That is our third proposal.
My delegation hopes that the three suggestions be considered and this would improve the Annex to the resolution tremendously.
My delegation wishes to reiterate the views of the Resolution Committee that all substantive issues covered in the Annex of the draft Conference resolution have not been examined by a previous session of CPGR or the Council. If there is a procedural green light, perhaps my delegation's three suggestions, and the other members' suggestions, should be accepted in order to progress the activities of the Plant Genetic Resources in relation to conservation and utilization.
Having said that, permit us to intervene on this matter at a later stage, as Malaysia, being one of the major centres of genetic resources, considers the issues in the documents to be important and, should the need arise, we ask for additional time to intervene.
Ms Raffaella ISOPI (Italy): My delegation has noted with interest the contents of the documents presented to us on the broadening of the mandate of the FAO Commission on Plant Genetic Resources, to cover all genetic resources relevant to food and agriculture.
The entry into force of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the recent important progress in biotechnology have increased the evidence of the need for an integrated approach to agrobiodiversity and makes it advisable and preferable to have a single intergovernmental forum in which to discuss the implementation of UNCED Agenda 21 provisions concerning sustainable agriculture and rural development, utilization of forestry and fisheries, and those matters dealing with conservation of biodiversity.
In the field of plant genetic resources, FAO, through its Commission on Plant Genetic Resources, has gained an important experience. The broadening of the mandate of this Commission was already discussed in 1991, but has not been endorsed yet.
In a deeply modified scenario, the Italian delegation agrees on the opportunity to extend, through a step-by-step approach, the competence of the FAO Commission on Plant Genetic Resources to include animal genetic resources and progressively to all genetic resources of relevance to food and agriculture.
In this process, the Italian delegation fully agrees with the concerns and reserves expressed by the Presidency of the European Community on the need not to underestimate the technical and, most of all, the financial problems involved in such a process, on the necessity of not interfering with the preparatory process for the Fourth International Conference on Plant Genetic Resources, and the ongoing negotiation for the revision of the international undertaking.
Manuel José DIAS SOARES COSTA (Portugal): The Portuguese delegation endorses the statement made by the distinguished delegation of Spain on behalf of the European Union and its Member States. Our contribution and remarks should therefore be understood as a complement.
Having noted the previous recommendation of the Council in its Hundred and Eighth Session; "to broaden the mandate of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources to that of a Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture" and "that the whole process should be carried out through a step-by-step approach, beginning with animal genetic resources", and recognizing the increased opportunity of that measure with the entry into force of the Convention on Biological Diversity because of the recent developments in bio-technology, our delegation has considered the technical and economical advantages of a single intergovernmental body, allowing for coordinated technical guidance on policy on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Therefore, we agree with the need to broaden the mandate of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources to that of a Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, on a step-by-step approach, beginning with animal genetic resources, of course.
However, following the recommendations of the FAO Commission on Plant Genetic Resources, and reiterating the views already expressed by the Council at its Hundred and Seventh Session that the broadening of the scope of CPGR "should not interfere with the ongoing negotiations for the revision of the international undertaking, or with the preparation of the Fourth International Technical Conference", and also having noted the insignificant progress until now achieved with the revision of the international undertaking; also taking into account the budgetary implications of the broadening on the performance of the Commission in what concerns its present mandate, and still taking into consideration the short resources available, my delegation fully endorses the need to create Sectoral Working Groups with well-defined mandates in order to prepare the work of the broadened Commission in the four identified areas, beginning with domestic animal genetic resources.
In fact, included in the country statement that I presented on behalf of our delegation at the Regional Conference for Europe held in Ireland, I drew the attention of the Organization to the fact that generally in Europe, and in particular in the Mediterranean region, there are a number of domestic animal breeds at risk of extinction. This, of course, requires urgent action if we really want to protect biodiversity.
Concerning the Sectoral Working Groups, our delegation would like to suggest that in the first stage it is advisable that these working groups should take the form of ad hoc expert panels, specifically appointed to define areas of work to be pursued and to design and propose the guidelines and the methodologies to be used.
Then, at a later stage, when working costs could be fully evaluated and the financial resources would be generated or mobilized it is then advisable to transform the ad hoc expert panels into intergovernmental expert working groups with specified reference terms and working programmes. Therefore, number 3, the statutes of the Commission annexed to the resolution, be amended to contemplate this two-stage option concerning the nature of the sectoral working groups.
This means that what I am proposing is not either A or B or C but instead a two-stage solution starting with this expert working group and then switching later on to an inter-governmental structure. In that case, we would like to see it contemplated in number 3 of the resolution which should be amended or amplified in that case as you may consider fit.
Sra. Virginia PEREZ PEREZ (Venezuela): Respondiendo a su solicitud, señor Presidente, mi Delegación resumirá el contenido de su declaración, sin embargo, nos gustaría que el contenido integral del texto conste en acta.
A nuestro juicio, señor Presidente, el mandato de la Comisión debería ampliarse con el objeto de incorporar todos los recursos genéticos de interés para la agricultura y la alimentación. Pero me permito reiterar la recomendación hecha por mi Delegación en diversas oportunidades, para que el proceso de ampliación, se realice por etapas, de manera que no afecte negativamente las actividades y negociaciones en curso en el seno de la Comisión, por lo tanto, el mandato ampliado de la Comisión debe entrar en ejecución cuando se haya concluido el compromiso internacional y la Conferencia Técnica Internacional.
Pedimos que se considere esta propuesta en el Proyecto de Resolución.
Una Comisión así ampliada, señor Presidente, debería contar con la asistencia de grupos de trabajo sectoriales, que atiendan al principio de la composición geográfica equilibrada.
Mi Delegación considera conveniente, la creación de estos grupos, y que a ellos tenga acceso, y, que la creación de grupos sectoriales de trabajo tengan acceso a la Comisión. Quisiera enfatizar, sin embargo, nuestra opinión de que la creación de tales grupos no tiene sólo implicaciones financieras y administrativas, sino también políticas. Por tal motivo apoyamos que estos grupos sean intergubernamentales; sólo de esta manera podemos esperar una más amplia participación, mayor transparencia y mantendríamos debidamente el equilibrio regional.
Para la Delegación de Venezuela es de gran importancia que el trabajo de estos grupos sea transparente, tanto en los procedimientos como en los resultados de la discusión.
En cuanto al Anexo de la Resolución, Estatutos de la Comisión, apoyamos firmemente lo dicho por la distinguida Delegación de Brasil, y me disculpo porque tengo que retirarme a Plenaria.
Tiberiu VASIESIU (Romania): Thank you for giving me the floor to speak on this important item, Broadening the Mandate of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources.
To begin with I would like to express my appreciation of the paper submitted to us by the Secretariat.
Romania is one of the countries with the largest genetic resources, both plant and animal genetic resources. In this respect we consider this as a good opportunity for an exchange on an international and world level.
Genetic resources are very important in the process of creating new plant cultures or races of animals. Romania is among the few countries which, although it has only limited financial resources, has founded in the town of Suceava, a gene bank which is to be enlarged in the future.
We are of the opinion that the genetic resources are within the patrimony of each country. These resources should then be used in such a way that the greatest percentage of profit achieved is shared by the respective countries that provide these genes.
The governmental bodies as well as NGOs on a national level, and the international organizations alike should urgently take the necessary measures to ensure financial resources for supporting the programmes of inventory, collection and preservation of genetic resources.
We think we are now at a crucial and critical point regarding the matter of genetic resources. Any delay could bring (as has happened so far) the danger of extinction for a series of species. This matter is very acute in regard to the animal genetic resources.
With regard to the options proposed for the broadened Commission, we think that the most efficient and convenient option would be Option A as all countries have (more or less) genetic resources which have to be carefully evaluated, collected and preserved.
Romania is ready to participate within an FAO programme directed to this evaluation, collection and preservation of genetic resources which should finally materialize in the drawing up of a specific genetic map. We are ready to participate in this programme as we consider we have experts with a high professional expertise.
Benni H. SORMIN (Indonesia): I shall be brief, Mr Chairman. First of all my delegation would like to thank the Resolutions Committee for their work and the Secretariat for preparing the excellent documentation under the topic being discussed.
As one main country, and as a party to the Convention on Biological Diversity, my delegation attaches great importance to this issue. We therefore consider that the broadening of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources to cover all aspects of genetic resources relevant to food and agriculture is very important and timely.
In general, my delegation can support the adoption of the draft resolution as outlined in Document C 95/19.
With regard to the nature and composition of the proposed sectoral working groups, we are of the opinion that maximum participation by countries should be facilitated in the work of the working groups. Therefore, we support Option A which is the "Open-ended intergovernmental working groups".
It is hard for our delegation to endorse Option C "The proposed technical expert arrangements".
Lastly, Mr Chairman, as a major country in terms of forest area and the international timber trade, we would like to urge that the topic of forestry genetic resources be given due attention by the working groups in the future and, whatever the form of the working groups the Conference decides upon, we would recommend that in its future works the working groups work closely with the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research.
Bhag MAL (India): In view of the Convention on Biological Diversity coming into force and also the implementation of the provisions of UNCED's Agenda 21, the field of genetic resources and biological diversity has become more important now than ever before. There is an increasing worldwide awareness of the importance of genetic resources for food and agriculture. Many countries are now strengthening their national programmes for conservation and sustainable use of agrobiodiversity.
My delegation strongly supports the initiatives being taken by the FAO to broaden the mandate of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources to include all the genetic resources important for food and agriculture. This means the broadened Commission will deal with genetic resources of plants, animals, fisheries and forestry.
My delegation would like to state that while broadening the mandate of the Commission, the important aspects which need to be taken care of are: (i) current activities on plant genetic resources should not be affected in any way by the broadening of the Commission's mandate; (ii) the entire process of broadening the mandate should be in a phased manner beginning possibly with animal genetic resources; and (iii) broadening of the scope should not interfere with the ongoing negotiations for the revision of the International Undertaking or with preparation of the Fourth International Technical Conference.
Regarding the sectoral working groups, our delegation's view is that intergovernmental working groups composed of FAO members elected by the full Commission to represent the regions on the pattern of working groups of the CPGR would be a better option.
There could be different working groups for plant, animal, forestry and fishery genetic resources.
The Indian delegation would also like to suggest that:
1. FAO may like to consider the establishment of regional commissions to effectively monitor the implementation of programmes on genetic resources for food and agriculture in the concerned regions endowed with rich bio-diversity.
2. There is also an urgent need that FAO establishes a separate division at Headquarters to provide the required thrust to the genetic resources for food and agriculture at the global level.
3. FAO may also like to consider establishing an international fund to promote various activities relating to conservation and use of the genetic resources of plants, animals, fishery and forestry, and support national governments in executing their respective programmes.
The step-by-step approach mentioned in the Draft Resolution for broadening the scope should clearly indicate the order of priority, of course beginning with animal genetic resources.
The scheduling of the meetings of the Commission biannually and of sectoral working groups annually seems to be appropriate. However, there should be provision for extraordinary sessions, if considered necessary.
The Commission may also establish subsidiary bodies, if considered necessary, for discharge of its functions.
E. Wayne DENNEY (United States of America): The United States has followed the debate on this issue with considerable interest since it was first raised by the Director-General in this address to the May 1994 FAO Council. Since that time, it has received thoughtful debate in subsequent Council sessions, in COFI, COFO, and COAG, and in two different sessions of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources. A number of views and ideas have been put on the table as the discussion has matured. The Secretariat has done an admirable job of considering these views and amending its proposals accordingly. We were particularly fond of the Secretariat's proposal to have the work of the expanded Commission backstopped by small, scientifically-based, technical experts groups that could make a genuinely technical contribution to the work of the Commission, as well as advise the Secretariat on its Regular Programme of Work. Although the Secretariat would have to pay for these experts, as it would for others, the cost of documentation and translation would be far less than if the Group were a larger body.
In these earlier discussions our view on this matter has been clearly in the minority. Others do not see technical competence as the issue. They believe that governments must advise an intergovernmental group, especially one that is dealing with such volatile issues as our Commission is currently addressing. The recent meetings of the working group apparently have made a marked improvement in terms of attendance, familiarity with issues and overall accomplishment than it did just a couple of years ago. All of these are valid considerations. No reasonable views will be discounted as we reach important decisions as to how we move forward. We would like to see a broadened Commission supported by technically competent people, but also by people who are attuned to the sensitive positions of the countries they represent. Cost effectiveness is another key consideration. We must achieve consensus on this matter.
The document before us for adoption by Conference offers new or at least reformulated proposals. Perhaps we will need some sort of friends of the Chair or contact group to accommodate our varied views and concerns. Normally items that come before Conference have been sufficiently discussed and agreed to so that only minor refinements are required. The situation here is somewhat different. The issue has been discussed many times, but new elements now confront us. The implications of the various options are not clear. We need more than a matrix of Xs shown on page 15 to understand the costs involved. Both the differences in the cost involved, as well as the magnitude of the costs, must be presented before we can make any commitment. If we agree to broaden the Commission on a step-by-step process, what is the first step? We believe that the Commission should also have some say on these matters.
The draft resolution needs to be looked at very carefully before we can support it. We are not convinced that the inclusion of biotechnology and biosafety elements, as given on page 4 of the Draft Resolution, are appropriate for a broadened Commission. We suggest that this paragraph be deleted. We would like to see an animal genetic resources discussion at the 1997 Session of the Commission provided that the negotiations and the International Undertaking have been completed.
Regarding paragraph 2 of the Annex, we agree with Brazil that reference to advising the Council must be included.
The reporting reference on page 7 says that the Commission will report directly to the Director-General. Where is the role of the Council in this process? Why does it say that the Secretary of the Commission will report to the Director-General rather than through a Division Director or an Assistant Director-General? We believe that the Secretary should report to the Assistant Director-General for sustainable development, as proposed in an earlier Secretariat document. We need answers to these queries if we are to make an informed decision.
In our view, these issues should have been resolved in other fora. While we are willing to discuss these issues informally with anyone, and would hope to reach an agreement, we are not optimistic that we will be able to do so.
Mlle Adelaide RIBEIRO (Cap-Vert): Tout d'abord, nous voudrions remercier le Secrétariat pour la qualité du document dont la clarté facilite énormément notre tâche. Nous remercions également le Comité des résolutions.
L'élargissement du mandat de la Commission des ressources phytogénétiques pour inclure toutes les ressources intéressant l'alimentation et l'agriculture permettra d'élargir le champ d'application de cette Commission. Cependant, nous partageons l'avis que ce processus devra se dérouler de façon progressive, avec prudence et par étape, en commençant par les ressources génétiques animales et, plus tard, en élargissant à d'autres domaines, de façon à n'influencer ni les négociations en cours pour la révision de l'engagement international, ni les préparatifs de la quatrième Conférence technique internationale.
Nous approuvons l'adoption du projet de résolution sur l'élargissement du mandat de la Commission tel qu'amendé au document C 95/LIM/20 et nous souhaitons qu'elle soit mise en oeuvre dans un proche avenir.
Concernant les groupes de travail sectoriels pour seconder la Commission élargie, l'option B, à notre avis, semble répondre aux nécessités de la Commission et permettra une représentation équilibrée, mais nous sommes d'avis que les délégués nommés par les Gouvernements doivent avoir des compétences techniques pour que la région qu'ils représentent soit bien représentée, et aussi afin que la Commission puisse jouer son rôle avec efficacité.
Pour cela, la mobilisation de fonds extrabudgétaires serait nécessaire pour permettre une représentation appropriée des pays en développement.
Pour terminer, nous pensons que les rapports de la Commission élargie doivent être présentés au Conseil pour qu'il puisse donner son avis.
Akio YAMAMOTO (Japan): Japan is of the view that the conservation of genetic resources is very important for the sustainable supply of food for mankind. Japan has participated in the discussions of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources, including its working group.
The fruits of these discussions provide us with guidance to facilitate efforts towards conservation and use of plant genetic resources under a FAO global system which is based on a principle that plant genetic resources are a common heritage of mankind.
As we also recognize the importance of other categories of germplasm rather than plants, we would like to refer to the reports of relevant committees and the Council which had focused on this issue.
I have the impression from these reports, particularly that of the 108th Session of the Council, that most of us already share the view that the germplasm of animals, forestry and fishery are also important, which leads us to the common understanding that the mandate of the Common Plant Genetic Resources be broadened.
However, it should be also recalled that most of us are of the opinion that the implementation of the broadened mandate should proceed very carefully in a step-by-step manner, beginning with animal germplasm.
Consequently, regarding germplasm in the field of forestry and fishery we are of the view that they should be dealt with later on. Therefore, further considerations in COFO and COFI are necessary before the Commission takes steps to include these germplasm.
At the same time, any broadening of the mandate should not adversely affect the ongoing process of the negotiation of the revision of the International Undertaking. Japan considers it is most important for us to achieve a successful conclusion from the negotiations on the revision of the Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources.
We would like to stress that FAO is the best forum for discussions related to genetic resources for food and agriculture.
Considering all these, Japan supports the proposal to broaden the mandate of the Common Plant Genetic Resources into the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture assisted by sectoral working groups for plant, animal, forestry and fishery genetic resources on condition that the implementation of the broadened mandate including discussions on the composition of its working groups and their Terms of
Reference, will be further discussed in the broadened Commission. Such detailed issues are more likely to be matters for the new Commission than by the Conference based on specific discussions in such committees as COFO and COFI.
In conclusion, Japan would like to propose some amendments to the draft resolution. The first amendment is to add reference to UPOV and IPGRI in the seventh paragraph of the draft resolution.
The second amendment is on the first paragraph of the second page of the draft resolution. We would like to replace "the process of broadening the scope" with "implementation of the broadened mandate".
The third and last amendment is number 4 of the Annex to the draft resolution, Terms of Reference of the Sectoral Working Groups, and item 3 should be amended as follows: "The Commission may be assisted by Sectoral Working Groups for plant, Animal, Forestry and Fishery Genetic Resources, the composition and the terms of reference of which will be agreed upon at the first regular session of the Commission. "
Mr Chairman, we are ready to submit our proposal in written form.
Finally, with regard to the draft resolution, we associate ourselves with the proposal of the United States to form a friends of the chair or contact group on various amendment proposals.
Sra. Veronique DELI (México): México reconoce la importancia que en el mundo se está dando a los recursos genéticos para la alimentación y la agricultura, y el aumento que ello supone para la conservación y utilización sostenible de los mismos. En este sentido, la Delegación mexicana considera conveniente la ampliación del mandato de la Comisión de Recursos Fitogenéticos. Esta ampliación debería hacerse paulatinamente, dado que se incorporarán inicialmente aspectos relacionados con la genética animal, lo cual tiende, necesariamente, a la conservación y aumento de la productividad de las especies ganaderas explotadas en el mundo, que contribuyen a mejorar la alimentación de una población que demanda cada vez más proteínas de origen animal.
En este orden de ideas, la Delegación mexicana se une a la sugerencia de otras delegaciones a fin de que se considere el presupuesto necesario para la citada ampliación del mandato, de tal manera que esté disponible lo más pronto posible, tomando en cuenta los trabajos que se realizan actualmente con miras a la Conferencia Internacional sobre Recursos Fitogenéticos a celebrarse en Alemania en junio de 1966.
Finalmente, por lo que toca a la formación de grupos de trabajo, la Delegación de México estima que la opción de los grupos de trabajo intergubernamentales abiertos, en cuyas reuniones pueden participar plenamente todos los miembros de la FAO, es la más adecuada, ya que se propiciaría la participación mayoritaria de los países miembros de esta Organización.
Ms Susan MILLS (Canada): This is a very important debate this afternoon, the broadening of the mandate of the FAO Commission on Plant Genetic Resources. Whereas the suggestion of such an expansion has been made repeatedly before, this is the first opportunity for us to review such a proposal via a detailed resolution. As we have seen, there have been many suggestions this afternoon that there should be changes to the draft resolution as presented to us. We may wish to take up this discussion within a working group.
In particular, Canada has concerns with regard to the issues of reporting and accountability to the Council itself of a broadened Commission. In particular, again, given the sensitivity of the present discussions regarding the revision of the IUPGR we must be careful as regards the effect of a broadened mandate on the Commission and the discussions presently going on.
However, Canada regards the issues relating to genetic resources and biological diversity in food and agriculture as very important. Therefore, Canada does accept the concept of a broadened Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. However, provided that a step-by-step procedure is followed. As several other delegations have mentioned, we too believe that the draft resolution may go too far at this point in time and also perhaps too fast. The Commission on Plant Genetic Resources itself has warned against premature moves which may have the effect of undermining the revision of the IUPGR. Therefore, as a first step, Canada suggests that a working group on domesticated animal genetic resources could report to the Committee on Agriculture until it is timely to have it report to a broader Genetic Resources Commission.
In specific consideration of the draft resolution given here, we find that the sixth paragraph of the resolution is too specific in its identification of subjects to be addressed by the new Commission. For instance, some of these topics are being addressed in other inter-governmental bodies. We suggest ommitting the phrase "including considerations of biosafety and food security."
In terms of working groups, Canada prefers Option B for the establishment of limited size intergovernmental sectoral working groups. We feel this is the least expensive option and will provide both technical, legitimacy and broad governmental oversight for sectoral genetic resource policies and activities.
Finally, we would like to note that in broadening the mandate and terms of reference of the Commission, we should not put into place a body which will prevent future changes to its institutional status. In particular, the broadened Commission must be available to serve if countries that are revising present undertaking decide to use it eventually as the inter-governmental vehicle to implement a revised undertaking on plant genetic resources.
Abdolrahman CHERAGHALI (Iran, Islamic Republic of) : My delegation thanks the Secretariat for the preparation of the excellent document on the agenda item broadening the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources to a Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. My delegation emphasizes the following points and urges the Secretariat to pay due attention to their implementation.
First, an intergovernmental mechanism for animal genetic resources is just as important as that for plant genetic resources and is essential to position FAO properly in relation to other current and possible future agreements such as the Convention on Biological Diversity.
Second, the Islamic Republic of Iran recognizes that a good deal of preparation will be required before any items dealing with animals can be brought before the new Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.
Third, meanwhile it is critical that the preparation be initiated by the global focus for the programme to ensure that adequate documentation is developed for animals, and the Islamic Republic of Iran calls for this preparation to be initiated as soon as possible in this coming biennium.
Four, since the status of biological diversity for rangelands vegetation is at very high risk of loss especially in the Middle East region and some of the most important species already extinct, we support the idea of conservation to prevent more extinction. The economic importance in this aspect is livestock production for food security and employment, herb medicine production and above all the crucial problems of environment and sustainable development.
Ms Razane MAHFOUZ (Syria) (Original language Arabic): Plant genetic resources and animal genetic resources are under threat in all countries throughout the world following on practices: overgrazing, deforestation and the production of high-yielding species. The world is aware of this danger but it has so far been relatively short-term oriented and is now becoming more aware of the need for conserving these very precious biological resources.
Syria is rich in plant genetic resources but these resources are under threat because of overgrazing, drought, human activities and it has great needs for protection. My delegation feels that it is necessary to make considerable efforts, internationally, regionally and sub-regionally, to conserve these resources and to make necessary efforts in this area. Developing countries should be helped to strengthen their plant genetic resources and bases and to help in the training of cadres to make international cooperation more effective and to help in the exchange of information and plant genetic resources. We should also expand this activity so that animal genetic resources should also be covered.
Zahir Shah MOHMAND (Pakistan): Thank you for giving me an opportunity to speak on this vital issue having far-reaching bearing on the global food and agriculture sector.
At the onset, we would like to inform this Commission that my delegation agrees to the FAO proposal of broadening the mandate of the FAO Commission on Plant Genetic Resources to that of a Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.
My delegation also agrees to the draft resolution to this effect, set out at the end of the document for consideration and adoption by the Conference.
We also agree in principle to the plan that the Commission with broadened mandate may be assisted by sectoral working groups with appropriate geographical distribution and balance for plant, animal, forestry and fishery genetic resources. However, to economize on cost and also being conscious of the fact that much valuable and quality work can be carried out only in relatively smaller and compact groups, my delegation agrees with the delegate of Canada and would go along with Option B in paragraph 8 of the document. In this way the two considerations, i.e. cost reduction and giving proper representation to the national governments will be adequately balanced and met. Nevertheless any arrangement with regard to the sectoral group should have a built-in flexibility to obtain and seek the services of experts and professionals wherever they may be, of course, including the FAO experts, or expert services arranged by FAO. My delegation, while agreeing with the step-by-step approach advised by the Council would like to know the technical or administrative reason or reasons to begin the process with animal genetic resources.
If there is no tangible reason for beginning the process as suggested, one would venture to suggest, and logic also demands, that as the Commission is presently working on the plant genetic resources it must have made some headway in its work on plant genetic resources, and thus should make a start or continue with that subject which is already in hand.
On behalf of the Pakistan delegation I would like to inform the Commission that we have a wealth of biodiversity and plant and animal genetic variety. For more than 100 years we have been establishing and keeping nucleus herds of important breeds of cattle, small ruminants, buffaloes and horses. The nondescript species are a valuable asset for researchers and scientists. We would like to offer sharing all our expertise and knowledge to the Commission with a broadened mandate. At the same time we would welcome any assistance or initiative from the Commission for preserving and propagating further the resources available in our country.
On the draft resolution my delegation has just one observation, when the Conference arrives at a decision and makes a choice with regard to the three options given in paragraph 8 of the document, that choice should have an appropriate reflection in the draft resolution to be finally cleared by this Commission. Thus paragraph 8 of the resolution starting with the word "recognizing" would need a suitable addition in order to elaborate and specify the composition and structure of the sectoral working groups, which will come into effect with the broadening of the mandate of the Commission. Similarly, the regional balancing consideration with regard to the sectoral working groups should also get appropriate mention in the draft resolution.
Srta. Maria Cristina FERRARI (Argentina): La Delegación argentina ha reducido considerablemente su intervención en aras a la verdad y al tiempo.
En el 108° Consejo de la FAO la Delegación argentina destacó, que en principio no hay razones técnicas para no tratar a los recursos genéticos en su conjunto y más bien existen ventajas.
Señalamos que si bien desde el punto de vista técnico resulta ventajoso tratar el tema de los recursos genéticos de manera global, deberían tenerse en cuenta las implicaciones financieras que el abordaje de este tema implicaría, ya que la inclusión de los recursos zoogenéticos en una comisión ampliada demandaría la reemisión de objetivos, mecanismos operativos y articulación logística de las representaciones. En esa oportunidad, Argentina, condicionó la ampliación del mandato de la Comisión de recursos fitogenéticos únicamente a la existencia y disponibilidades financieras de la Organización para afrontarlas.
En aras al consenso, Argentina apoya la ampliación del mandato de la Comisión a los recursos zoogenéticos.
Segundo, relativo al apartado 4 del mismo documento a cerca de la composición de los grupos de trabajo sectoriales de la Comisión para su estructura y composición, Argentina apoya la alternativa "A", o sea, grupos de trabajo intergubernamentales abiertos en cuyas reuniones puedan participar todos los miembros de la FAO.
Igual posición fue sostenida por Brasil y México en el entorno regional. Entendemos y compartimos la preocupación por el costo que esta opción requeriría, pero no apoyamos otra opción en el entendido que una representación regional limitada no siempre representa, valga la redundancia, las realidades e intereses de todos los países que comparten un mismo entorno regional.
Por otra parte, entendemos que la opción "B" contempla no sólo el principio legítimo de cada Estado a defender sus intereses, sino que también respeta una adecuada participación técnica en las delegaciones.
Finalmente, señor Presidente, desearía referirme a un punto levantado por la Delegación de Brasil vinculado al mandato de la Comisión contenido en la página 6 de la versión española del Documento C 95/19, en el punto 2 ii, Argentina comparte lo expresado por la Delegación de Brasil y de Estados Unidos en el sentido que esas iniciativas deberían ser sometidas al Consejo de la FAO y agradecemos una explicación de la Secretaría a ese respecto.
Aún así y como señaló la Delegación de Malasia, el párrafo a entender de la Delegación argentina debería ser modificado.
Adel Mahmoud ABOUL-NAGA (Egypt) (Original language Arabic): We have already expressed our views on various occasions and in various different bodies. I see that we have a large number of documents before us and also the draft resolution, so I should have liked the discussion not to have gone on at any great length, but I think we always have a tendency to repeat ourselves on this. There is no doubt that with all the concerns we have and all the importance that we ascribe to plant genetic resources, we should certainly support the broadening of the mandate of the Commission so that it should also cover animal resources and also fisheries. I think that there is a certain degree of concern about broadening the mandate to other activities, but I feel that these perhaps are not soundly based. We have been able to note that we have not made any progress concerning the amendment of the Convention on Plant Genetic Resources. I think that the progress so far on animal resources in the trade and the private sectors can be used as an example in order to apply it to plant genetic resources. There are trade agreements and agreements within the private sector which define an approach to the handling of these genetic resources and their exploitation by the various parties to these agreements. I am sure that plant genetic resources and those who are responsible for them will benefit from the guidance which we now note in the area of animal genetic resources. I fully agree here with the broadening of the mandate in order that it should cover animal resources and production. I would also like to draw attention to the COAG Report, paragraph 43, which covers a series of meetings of the technical groups in order to move these activities forward. We have had the Council discussion, which we have before us, for four years now, that an animal genetic resource centre should be founded, and this has not come about. The resources allocated to it were not enough to carry out this project. At the moment we are rather hesitant, and we do not know whether any guidance is going to be given concerning this centre. We should ensure that the centre has the necessary competence to carry out its activities. As for the other suggestions, we support option B, the limited intergovernmental working groups, because open groups do not always have the hoped for competencies.
Ricardo LEON VALDES (Chile): En atención al tiempo disponible me referiré brevemente a la materia que nos ocupa aunque entregaré el texto en extenso a la Secretaría.
En relación al tema en cuestión, mi Delegación confirma la ampliación de la Comisión de Recursos Fitogenéticos, teniendo presente las observaciones y condiciones que han hecho presente las distinguidas Delegaciones de Brasil, México y Venezuela.
En este sentido, se considera pertinente que esta ampliación se realice considerando al menos los siguientes criterios:
Que se realice en forma gradual; incorporando en una primera etapa los recursos zoogenéticos domésticos, y, que se configuren grupos de trabajo sectoriales de carácter intergubernamental, de composición limitada, considerando un adecuado equilibrio geográfico, contemplando la asistencia de observadores que puedan dar seguimiento a las reuniones.
Del mismo modo, comparto las apreciaciones manifestadas por Venezuela en cuanto a que el proceso de ampliación se comience una vez concluida la IV Conferencia Técnica Internacional y la revisión del compromiso, a fin que su adecuación no interfiera en estas importantes negociaciones.
Por último, en lo que respecta al Proyecto de Resolución, apoyo en todos sus términos lo expresado por la distinguida Delegación de Brasil, especialmente en cuanto a que sería interesante considerar la posibilidad conforme un grupo informal de contacto, a fin de analizar en profundidad y adecuadamente a este tema que tiene vínculos tan decisivos para la seguridad alimentaria.
Kevin O'BRIEN (Australia): I will try to be brief. We, too, have a number of suggestions to put forward, which we will be pleased to provide in writing.
The proposal to expand the role of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources is aimed at providing an effective mechanism for improved international cooperation on genetic resources in conjunction with the Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. It is important, we believe, that the work undertaken by the new Commission is consistent and indeed, fully integrated with the Convention on Biological Diversity and its work programme and activities.
This Convention already has a mandate to address issues of access to, and ownership of, genetic resources, including plant, animal and microbial resources. In this context, we would note that in November of this year, as part of its medium-term work programme, the Conference of Parties to the Convention will be reviewing the need for and the modalities of a protocol on biosafety.
It will also be considering a resolution on input to the Leipzig Conference and preparing for its reviews in 1996 of agricultural biological diversity and genetic resources. We consider therefore that the proposed resolution on pages 4 and 5 of the document before us and in the proposed Annex does not give adequate recognition to the need to integrate the work of the new Commission with that of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
Paragraph 4 of the draft resolution beginning; "Considering that recent developments..." does not provide for such an integrated approach. Rather, it suggests that the Commission should take an integrated approach to its own activities. It merely notes that the Convention has come into force. We believe this is an important distinction.
We would wish to see this paragraph amended as follows: on the second line to delete the words: "and the entry into force of", and on the third line to delete the words: "the importance of and". The paragraph would then read: "considering that recent developments, including the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), have increased international awareness of the need for an integrated approach to agrobiodiversity", to which we would add: "including with the Convention on Biological Diversity".
In addition, we believe that the proposed wording in paragraph 6 of the draft resolution commencing: "Considering that recent advances ..." suggests that the expanded Commission would provide "a single forum on agrobiodiversity", which would consider matters including considerations on biosafety. This is clearly not the case. It is not a single forum, and it is not the only forum. We would prefer to see the word "single" deleted and replaced by the word "specialized".
We would also agree with the delegate of Canada that the reference to "including considerations of biosafety and food security" should be deleted.
We support the arrangements proposed in the penultimate paragraph of the draft resolution to proceed on a cautious step-by-step basis, commencing with animal genetic resources in a manner that will not adversely affect negotiations for the revision of the Undertaking on preparations for the Leipzig Conference.
With regard to the last paragraph of the draft resolution, we note the proposal to include animal genetic resources on the agenda for the next regular session of the Commission, which is to be held in early 1997. However, details provided to us in the Table on page 5 of document 19-Sup.l that we have before us, advises us that at this regular session further negotiations on the International Undertaking are expected to be a primary focus. This will make it difficult to place animal genetic resources on the agenda for this same meeting. As members of CPGR have already made it clear at the June Council this year, this issue should not be raised in the Commission until after the Leipzig Conference and the revision of the Undertaking has been finalized. We would suggest, therefore, that the last paragraph of this resolution be amended to add at the end of the proposed words: "(comma) once the revision of the International Undertaking has been finalized".
We note the suggestions of both Brazil and Canada to find some appropriate way to take our considerations forward on the issue of animal genetic resources in the interim, and we would be willing to consider these options.
Turning to the Annex, if I may, we would reiterate that we do not believe the proposed Statutes sufficiently recognize the manner in which the Commission would integrate its work with that of the Conference of Parties to the Biodiversity Convention. We believe that these Statues need to reflect three things. Firstly, the need for the Commission to take account of the priorities of the Conference of Parties to the Convention. Secondly, to report regularly on progress to both the Conference of Parties as well as to the Council of FAO. We would join with those who have queried the advisability of reporting to the Director-General or the Secretariat. Thirdly, the Statute should make provision for the Secretariat of the Conference of Parties to contribute to the deliberations of any of the working groups under the Commission.
Indeed, given the range of other international processes underway, which could have a bearing on the manner in which the Commission carries out its work, we believe serious consideration should be given to adopting these Statutes only as a draft at this stage, in order to guide the work of the Commission. For example, we do need to take account of the possible outcomes of the negotiations in revising the Undertaking and any proposals that may emerge for new administrative or financial arrangements. We would also need to take account of the review of progress on agrobiodiversity in 1996 by the Conference of Parties to the Convention. In 1997 the ad hoc Intergovernmental Panel on Forests is due to complete its work, and the General Assembly will review Agenda 21. We believe these considerations should also be included, and therefore we would suggest that you consider adopting these Statutes only as drafts.
Eduardo VIDES LARIN (El Salvador): La Delegación de El Salvador desea manifestar su apoyo a los conceptos expresados por las distinguidas delegaciones de Venezuela, México, Brasil y Chile, sobre todo por lo que respecta a la extensión gradual y paulatina de la ampliación del mandato de la Comisión de Recursos Fitogenéticos. Asimismo reiteramos nuestro apoyo a la opción A, o sea, a que los grupos de trabajo intergubernamentales sean abiertos.
Del mismo modo, la Delegación de El Salvador reitera su apoyo a la FAO en el sector de los recursos fitogenéticos.
Marcos I. NIETO LARA (Cuba): La Delegación de Cuba expresa su complacencia por la presentación de este tema por parte de la Secretaría. Algunos veteranos en estos menesteres saben que hace más de diez años se discutió en esta sala un proyecto de compromiso sobre recursos genéticos que fue acogido por la comunidad internacional. Hoy, naturalmente, vemos con satisfacción que los esfuerzos de aquellos momentos siguen ampliándose en beneficio de todos. La Delegación cubana desea aprobar el proyecto de resolución en todos sus términos y en la forma en que está planteada, y sugiere también que este trabajo se realice por etapas, como lo han expresado otras delegaciones. Sin embargo, debemos reconocer que los países desarrollados y muchos países en desarrollo, están trabajando simultáneamente los recursos genéticos, los recursos fitogenéticos, los recursos genéticos forestales, los recursos zoogenéticos, e inclusive los recursos pesqueros.
Muchas instituciones de investigación tienen acceso y trabajan en conjunto las diferentes líneas y los diferentes recursos genéticos; esto nos lleva a plantear a esta Asamblea, que si bien hay que trabajar gradualmente, no podemos perder de vista que algunas actividades se pueden llevar simultáneamente si se cuenta con una orientación adecuada en estos trabajos.
La Delegación cubana reconoce que crear un grupo de trabajo abierto para tratar una materia de la naturaleza de los recursos genéticos podría complicar un tanto el debate y el diálogo, por ello se suma a otras delegaciones que han propuesto que se adopte la variante B del párrafo 8, es decir, grupos estrechos, pero siempre bajo el criterio y el carácter de grupos intergubernamentales. Por otro lado considera que se debe evitar por todos los medios interferir en todo lo que se refiere a la revisión del Compromiso Internacional Sobre Recursos Fitogéneticos, e incluso en los preparativos de la 4a Conferencia Internacional sobre Recursos Fitogenéticos, que tendrá lugar en Alemania por atenta acogida de este país.
Por último, sabemos que todo esfuerzo de nueva acción de la FAO siempre implica una mayor demanda de recursos, por eso nos permitimos saludar muy amablemente a aquellos países, a aquellos donantes que han ofrecido aumentar sus contribuciones en forma de fondo fiduciario para poder apoyar las acciones de los recursos genéticos y las implicaciones financieras que pudiera tener la aprobación de esta resolución. Quiero aclarar y quiero reconocer ante todos que esta contribución sería muy bien recibida, no sólo por nosotros sino por las generaciones futuras, porque sabrán que estamos protegiendo lo que ellos nos prestaron a nosotros.
R. FOX (United Kingdom): My delegation would like to associate itself with the statement given earlier by the distinguished delegate of Spain on behalf of the European Union, and in particular with the emphasis placed on this statement on the need for a step-by-step approach to broadening the mandate of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources, and the emphasis given in paragraph 5 of that statement, in the English text, to a gradual approach to the early stages of any preparatory process.
As part of this preparatory work when it begins, we hope that experience (including costs) of the working group that services the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources will be fully taken into account.
We wish to emphasize that no action should affect the completion of the ongoing important work on Plant Genetic Resources. We do not therefore believe that any substantive work can be undertaken before 1997 at the earliest.
Given this view, Mr Chairman, we are unsure that the wording in the present draft resolution is entirely appropriate in calling for the name of the Commission to be changed at this stage and for the Commission to include animal genetic resources in the agenda for its next regular session. We do agree with the point made by the distinguished delegate from Australia, this last section might more properly refer to the first meeting after completion of outstanding work on Plant Genetic Resources.
Finally, Chairman, the United States delegation and others have suggested a contact group to discuss the number of amendments which have now been proposed, which seems reasonable. Chairman, we agree with that.
Mohamed Said M. A. HARBI (Sudan) (Original language Arabic): I would like to thank you, Mr Chairman, for giving me the opportunity to take the floor and to thank the Secretariat for the documents. In our country we do have a Commission on Agricultural Research. Its headquarters is in one of our large cities and their competence is genetic resources.
I am a veterinary surgeon and I would like to see this competence enlarged so that we have animals and fisheries included, but, at the same time, I would say that we have got to pay particular attention to genetic resources as far as some microbes are concerned.
In the city of Quebec I stood in a corner of an exhibition and noted certain types of larvae parasiting leaves of timber trees. Of course as we know timber is an important source of hard currency to Canada. However, these larvae were killed through spraying a certain type of bacteria. This in what we call biological control. Is it not feasible to make use of such technology to combat desert locusts which endanger our countries?
Certainly through genetic resources we can have such bacteria specific for desert locust.
On behalf of my country we are fully in support of expanding the function of the Plant Genetic Resource Committee to incorporate wider scope of agriculture namely animals and fish.
Joseph Kong'onheli MHELLA (Tanzania): The Tanzanian delegation takes the floor to support the resolution to broaden the FAO Commission on Plant Genetic Resources to that of Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. We are all aware that since the existence of humanity domestic animals and fish have been playing and continue to play a vital role in meeting human food requirements just as plants do.
Their role will be more crucial in future as the world population increases and standards of living rise, particularly in developing countries. It is therefore important that steps are taken to include these genetic resources alongside others and broaden the mandate of the Commission as recommended.
This will enable proper conservation, management and sustainable use of important biological diversity to ensure increased production and availability of adequate food in the future.
The whole process, however, should be carried out through a step-by-step approach beginning preferably with animal genetic resources followed by forestry and fishery genetic resources. Care must be taken not to interfere with the ongoing negotiations for the revision of the International Undertaking or with the preparation of the Fourth International Technical Conference.
Regarding the options on the working groups, Tanzania goes along with the open-ended intergovernmental working group as this will allow all interested experts from Member Countries to participate and make their contributions.
Haavard ELSTRAND (Norway): Norway attaches great importance to the issues relating to conservation of genetic resources and sees this as one of the activities relating to the implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
We support the broadening of the mandate but would, like most of the other previous speakers, emphasize the need that a broadening of the mandate should be carried out on a step-by-step basis and that we must avoid any possible negative effects on the ongoing important work in the current Commission relating to the Undertaking for the Technical Conference in Leipzig next year.
Vernon DOUGLAS (Trinidad and Tobago): My delegation supports the broadening of the mandate of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources as proposed in document C 95/19.
As regards the sectoral working groups of the Commission, we support working groups composed of technical experts i.e. option C of paragraph 8.
My delegation is prepared to support the resolution presented in C 95/19.
JungSup CHOI (Republic of Korea): I am going to be very brief in my intervention on this agenda Item 9. The Korean delegation supports the broadening of the mandate of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources to cover all components of biodiversity relevant to food and agriculture. We also join other delegations in supporting the establishment of the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.
In addition, my delegation considers very appropriate the step-by-step approach beginning with animal genetic resources as proposed in the draft resolution. My delegation, however, joins with other delegations in their view that the resolution should be finalized after the scrutinization.
Korea will actively participate in the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture since it is a very important issue to us.
Sra. Marcela SUNOL PREGO (Costa Rica): Nuestra delegación apoya la ampliación de la Comisión de Recursos Fitogenéticos de la FAO, para que se incorporen todos los recursos fitogenéticos de interés para la alimentación y la agricultura. Este mandato ayudaría a las orientaciones de las políticas de la FAO en materia de recursos fitogenéticos para la alimentación y la agricultura.
Nos sumamos al parecer de que esta ampliación se realice en manera paulatina.
En lo que respecta a la estructura y composición de los grupos de trabajo, nuestra delegación es de la idea que la opción "A", de los grupos intergubernamentales de trabajo abiertos, es la mejor opción, que ya han sido apoyadas por delegaciones como Brasil, Venezuela, Chile, El Salvador y Tanzania y por lo tanto auspiciamos ésta; así será posible creemos la mayor participación de los miembros de la FAO.
Nos mostramos plenamente de acuerdo con el comentario hecho por Brasil en cuanto a que en el párrafo 7, en el que se dice que la Comisión de la resolución claramente al final de sus reuniones presentará sus informes al Director General, debería decir "presentar sus informes a los órganos rectores de la FAO".
Sra. Graziella DUBRA ((Uruguay): Quiero disculparme por haber estado ausente, pero en los casos en que las delegaciones son muy pequeñas a veces tenemos que trasladarnos de una sala a la otra.
Señor Presidente, cuando se celebró la primera reunión extraordinaria de la Comisión de Recursos Fitogenéticos celebrada en noviembre del año pasado, mi delegación apoyó la ampliación de la Comisión a fin de incorporar todos los recursos genéticos de interés para la alimentación y la agricultura. La recomendación, para convertirla en una Comisión de Recursos Genéticos para la alimentación, la consideramos positiva y necesaria.
En cuanto al proyecto de resolución contenido en el Documento C 95/19 la apoyamos, porque su finalidad es, como dijimos positiva y constructiva. Sin embargo, tenemos algunas reservas en la redacción, que fueron ya mencionadas por la Delegación del Brasil.
En cuanto a los estatutos, creemos que deberían ajustarse criterios por lo que seríamos partidarios de un grupo informal de contacto para armonizar dichos criterios, y de esa manera poder aprobar por consenso la resolución y el estatuto.
U SEIN WIN (Myanmar): Mr Chairman, this is the first time my delegation has taken the floor, and I am pleased to congratulate you for being elected as the Chairman for this important Commission.
Food production has been improved to some extent due to a considerable level of technologies and inputs. There remains further potential to promote production of crops and livestock. To fill those gaps, genetic resources available around us should be properly explored and utilized along with the advancement of technology. Conservation and sustainable use of those genetic resources becomes more important in the attempt toward security for mankind.
In Myanmar we have established a gene bank for crops, working in collaboration with international organizations and government institutions of some countries. It is in an initial stage but we believe that it will pay good results in a short time and will be less expensive.
In this light my delegation supports the broadening of the mandate of the Commission. We also wish to congratulate the Secretariat for the preparation of the documents.
Thanit YINGVANA-SIRI (Thailand): The Thailand delegation would like to offer some comments.
My delegation agrees to the Draft Resolution for the broadening of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources to cover all genetic resources relevant to food and agriculture.
We also agree to the change of name of the Commission to the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.
The broadening of the mandate of the FAO Commission on Plant Genetic Resources to cover all genetic resources relevant to food and agriculture should not have too much impact on the International Undertaking.
Our delegation would like to suggest that the composition of the interim ad hoc technical groups should include expertise on planning as well as technical experts.
Lastly, concerning sectoral working groups of the broadened Commission, my delegation is in favour of option A. We are of the opinion that maximum participation of Member Countries will result in the most fruitful outcome.
Thailand is willing to participate in all working groups with both technical and policy expertise.
Harald HILDEBRAND (Alemania): Siendo el último quisiera ser breve y hacer alusión a la intervención de la Delegación de España, hecha en nombre de la Unión Europea y sus Estados Miembros.
Mi delegación se asocia plenamente a lo dicho y propuesto en esta declaración, específicamente en el párrafo 5 dado que no sabemos a que procedimiento vamos a llegar en cuanto a la constitución de la comisión ampliada.
Quería someter a la Secretaría, el texto inglés de nuestra intervención para ser incluido en el Verbatim.
El texto, contiene una variante que combina las opciones "A" y "C". Esta variante se podría considerar en caso de no plasmarse en realidad la propuesta de la Comunidad.
Gracias.LE PRESIDENT: Je vous remercie, distingué délégué de l'Allemagne. Et je crois que le texte espagnol également peut très bien figurer au verbatim.
Excellence, Mesdames, Messieurs, nous arrivons au terme du débat sur cette importante question qui est l'Elargissement du mandat de la Commission des ressources phytogénétiques. Je voudrais tout de suite passer la parole au Secrétariat pour donner des éclaircissements aux différentes questions qui ont été posées, ou faire les observations sur les remarques qui ont été faites.
M.S. ZEHNI (Director, Plant Production and Protection Division): I shall be very brief, but let me first record my appreciation and the appreciation of my colleagues for the many comments and interest shown by the various delegates.
Most of the interventions consisted of two parts, general comments and observations, which I can assure you we took very thorough note of and they will be reflected in the Commission.
The bulk of the interventions, as your Chairman directed, concerned the Resolution and its Annexes. We have been receiving a number of written comments and amendments from many delegates. Perhaps those who have not done so yet will let us receive their comments shortly. We are going to compile those comments very carefully and make them available to the Drafting Committee. In the process we will try to harmonize wherever possible the effects of the Resolution in the light of these comments. In the process of collecting some of the comments we were able to informally talk to the delegates, and I now understand better the intent of their comments.
There were very few questions directed to the Secretariat and to my recollection the one question which was asked by the delegate of the United States and reflected in different ways in the statements of other delegates was the one relating to the reporting of the Commission to the Director-General and how this relates to its reporting to the Council.
If you agree, Mr Chairman, I will ask Mr Moore to respond to that particular question.
LEGAL COUNSEL: I would like to reply to that and to another question regarding the Secretary of the Commission. I think that if I deal with the Secretary of the Commission and his appointment first it may be easier.
A comment was made by the delegate of the United States that the Secretary should not be appointed directly by the Director-General and administratively responsible to him but that he should be responsible to an Assistant Director-General. I should point out that this provision that he should be appointed by the Director-General and should be administratively responsible to him is taken from the original Terms of Reference of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources. It is merely repeated.
The reason for that is that all the staff of the Organization are in fact appointed by the Director-General and are administratively responsible to him. This does not mean to say that they all report directly to him. It is merely a term of convenience to ensure that if there is a restructuring or if the name of the department changes, it will not be necessary to adopt new statutes for the Commission. At present the Secretary of the Commission reports to the Assistant Director-General for the Agricultural Department and I do not believe that will change. In short, I do not think that this provision prevents the Secretary from fitting into the normal hierarchy of the Organization. I hope that explains and clarifies that question.
I turn to the question of the Commission reporting to the Director-General or reporting to the Council. Several delegates have made comments on this. Again, I should say that this is more of a formal requirement. You will note that the present suggested wording in the statutes follows the same kind of wording as in the present Terms of Reference in the Commission.
The reason is the following: we have a number of committees of the Council which are established under Article V of the Constitution, such as the Committee on Agriculture, the Committee on Fisheries and the Committee on Forestry. These report directly to the Council as they are Council Committees established under Article V of the Constitution.
There are a number of other commissions, bodies, etc., established by the Conference or the Council under Article VI of our Constitution. Traditionally all of these report to the Director-General who then, as the occasion arises, brings their recommendations to the attention of the Council or the Conference through the Council, as the case may be, and as the situation requires. This is the case with all the commissions set up under Article VI.
I hope that clarifies the situation. In fact, what happens is that the report is adopted by the Commission and then the Director-General brings the salient points of the report to the attention of the Council and, if necessary, to the attention of the Conference.
There was one further point I could make a comment on. The delegate of Malaysia made a number of suggestions regarding the Terms of Reference of the Commission. One of them was that the words "to negotiate" were perhaps not appropriate in small paragraph ii of the Terms of Reference of the Commission. His suggestion was to use the words "to harmonize". I think there would be difficulty in using the word "harmonize" when one is talking about codes of conduct or other legal instruments. I understand the reason why he was seeking to use the word "harmonize" since the Commission has been asked to bring the International Undertaking in line with the Convention of Biological Diversity.
May I perhaps suggest, and I did mention it to the delegate of Malaysia, that it may be desirable perhaps to fall back on the words used by the Conference when it adopted Resolution 7/93 regarding the negotiations which it asked to take place in the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources on the International Undertaking and there it used the expression "to provide a forum for negotiations".
E. Wayne DENNEY (United States of America): A couple of thoughts; I noticed that no-one acknowledged the frequent reference to establishing an ad hoc group and am I to assume, perhaps, that the Chairman will do that. Also I understand especially what Mr Moore was saying about the reporting requirements of the Secretary and the requirements of the Commission going to the Director-General rather than reporting to the Council. I am wondering if that necessarily precludes having language in the Commission Report that we will adopt that suggests, presuming that there is agreement with what the normal course of action might be with regard to reporting, either the Commission's results or who the Secretary might report to. But a more important omission to me is that we asked about cost information. We suggested that having a series of matrix of Xs is not very definitive in the terms of degree of cost, and for us to agree to any of these options we would appreciate being able to go back to our government and indicate what the relative costs would be, if that was possible. I know it is a difficult thing to do and your little box of Xs is a very convenient mechanism, but not especially helpful.
M.S. ZEHNI (Director, Plant Production and Protection Division): I appreciate that the delegate of the United States realizes that it is not easy at this stage to provide the financial estimates of the various options, but in the course of our meetings we would have to discuss this with him and my colleagues and see what we can provide at this stage.
LE PRESIDENT: Merci, Docteur Zehni. Et d'autre part, Monsieur Moore, je me demande si vous pouvez répondre à la question posée par le délégué américain sur la question de l'instance ou de la personne à qui le Secrétaire de la Commission doit faire rapport, parce que je crois que les membres de la Commission ont tous ou presque proposé que la Commission puisse faire rapport aux organes directeurs de l'Organisation. Est-ce que les explications que vous avez données excluent que l'on fasse référence à cette situation dans le mandat de la Commission? Monsieur Moore, si vous pouvez nous éclairer là-dessus.
LEGAL COUNSEL: Article VI of the Constitution indicates that the Conference, Council, Director-General on the authority of the Conference, Council shall determine the Terms of Reference and the reporting procedures of the various commissions established under Article VI. It is, of course, for the Conference to determine the reporting procedures. I have merely drawn to your attention that the tradition is to make a distinction between Article V bodies which are Committees of the Council, and Article VI bodies which are commissions established outside the normal hierarchy of the Council Committees. It is up to you to choose your own reporting procedures. I will not say that it is impossible that you choose for the broadened Commission to report directly to the Council. However, I would point out that it would then bring it out of line with the normal reporting procedures that we have adopted for other Article VI bodies who normally would report to the Director-General who brings the report, or the matters requiring attention, to the Council or the Conference. I should point out that it may seem to be more important than it is. It is more a question of form than anything else, because all matters requiring decision by the Council do get brought automatically by the Director-General to the attention of the Council or the Conference. If you wish to force the position, I would not say you could not do so, but I would be a little unhappy with it, as it would be out of line with the rest of the commissions established under Article VI.
Nedilson Ricardo JORGE (Brazil): I would like to put a question to Dr Moore since he mentioned that the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources has a different nature from the Committee on Agriculture and other committees established under a different Article. My first question is what other examples could you inform this Commission of of commissions established under the Article VI so that we can at least have a comparison with what other commissions we are talking about, which report directly to the Director-General.
My next question is whether it will be feasible, if this Commission believes that this might be the best way, to change the nature of the Commission instead and from now on establish a broadened Commission under Article V and under Article VI.
LEGAL COUNSEL: I am reaching deep into my memory on this one. There is the Commission on Fertilizers. I think I will have to have notice of this question and to provide you later with a full list of those Commissions established under Article VI. There are a number of commissions and other working parties established under Article VI, and we did go into this question recently and look into those reporting procedures, and they do in fact all report to the Director-General who then brings the matters to the attention of the Council and Conference. As I say, I believe the Commission on Fertilizers is one example. I will check the others and I will let you know after the session and give you a complete list of those commissions.
Yes, of course it is also open to the Conference to decide to establish the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources or the broadened Commission under Article V of the Constitution. However, this would entail an amendment to the Constitution. I believe this matter was discussed at one time in the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources and it was felt not necessary or desirable, if I recall correctly, to do it this way. It would require an amendment to the Constitution. This would then require 120 days notice to be given of the proposal amendment to the Constitution. It would thus have to be done at the next session of the Conference, not this session; we would not be able to meet the time delays.
LE PRESIDENT: Merci, Monsieur Moore, et je dois dire que vos réponses suscitent certainement d'autres questions. Je voudrais demander à l'assistance s'il y a d'autres demandes de clarification au Secrétariat ou sur d'autres questions avant que nous puissions clôturer l'examen de cette question. La délégation du Canada, lève sa pancarte. Canada, vous avez la parole.
Ms Susan MILLS (Canada): I wanted to direct a question again to Mr Zehni with regard to the question of the delegate from the United States with regard to an informal working group that was raised by a number of delegations.
M.S. ZEHNI (Director, Plant Production and Protection Division): I thought this is a question for the Chairman and the Commission to settle. Should you decide to have a contact group, I can assure you that we would work closely with the working group and contact group and provide all the necessary input needed to it. Obviously there is the constraint of time. If we have to have a working group, it has to work almost immediately and quickly in order to be able to provide the agreed text or agreed compromise to the drafting committee in time.
LE PRESIDENT: Y a-t-il d'autres demandes de clarification ou d'interventions? S'il n'y en a pas, je vais essayer de conclure notre débat sur cette question. Je voudrais tout d'abord évoquer la question de ce groupe de contact ou la manière avec laquelle nous comptons procéder pour essayer d'obtenir le consensus sur la résolution. Avant tout, vous comprendrez peut-être ma réserve quant à la création d'un groupe de contact dans la mesure où, sur le point précédent, la même proposition a été faite et n'a pas été retenue. Je crains qu'en la retenant nous puissions avoir des groupes de contact sur tous les points de l'ordre du jour parce que tous ces points appellent une décision de la Commission. Nous avons soit des projets de décisions soit des projets de résolution à examiner. Donc, mis à part le premier point sur les normes phytosanitaires que nous avons examiné hier et pour lequel le Conseil avait expressément demandé à la Commission d'établir un groupe de contact, je voudrais éviter autant que possible de créer des groupes de contact car on risque d'en avoir sur tous les points et je pense que, vu le temps qui nous est imparti et la taille de certaines délégations, il va falloir peut-être ouvrir un débat sur la composition de ce groupe de contact et le mandat qu'il aura à assumer. Donc, à la lumière de ce que je viens de dire et ayant écouté attentivement les débats et notamment les propositions d'amendement faites sur la résolution - peut-être parce que c'est un avis de néophyte - je ne pense pas qu'il y ait des divergences très profondes sur les propositions d'amendement qui ont été présentées, à l'exception de la question sur la nature du groupe de travail. Sinon, personnellement, j'estime que les autres amendements qui ont été proposés peuvent être facilement traités et, à la lumière des explications données par le Conseiller juridique, peuvent être facilement examinés et incorporés dans un texte qui pourra être transmis au Comité de rédaction. Mais toutefois je suis entre vos mains si vous insistez pour avoir ce groupe de travail, nous pourrons éventuellement en discuter et ouvrir un débat sur sa composition, son mandat. Mais je voulais vous proposer que le Secrétariat reçoive donc copie de toutes vos déclarations et des amendements proposés afin qu'il puisse reproduire une nouvelle résolution. Il y a essentiellement un ou deux paragraphes que l'on a demandé d'amender, notamment le dernier paragraphe et, à la limite, c'est surtout le dernier paragraphe qui est important pour la résolution. Sur l'annexe et sur le mandat de la Commission, je crois aussi que les amendements proposés peuvent facilement être incorporés dans la mesure où cela ne soulève pas de problème d'ordre juridique ou n'a pas d'implication financière en tant que telle. Donc je voulais proposer que nous puissions reprendre ces amendements dans un nouveau texte qui sera soumis au Comité de rédaction et je vois déjà le Président du Comité de rédaction qui lève sa pancarte. Le Comité examinera ce nouveau texte. Mais si on ne pouvait pas arriver à un consensus, nous envisageons de mettre sur pied un groupe de travail informel des amis du Président pour examiner ce projet. De toute façon, groupe de travail ou pas, il faut avoir un nouveau texte qui n'incorpore peut-être pas tous les amendements mais seulement les amendements essentiels que vous avez proposés afin de voir si les délégués sont satisfaits ou ont encore des questions ou des objections sur certains libellés. Voilà la proposition que je vous fais: que le Secrétariat reprenne le texte, notamment le mandat, en essayant d'incorporer autant que possible tout amendement qui ne soulève pas de problème. Il sera transmis au Comité de rédaction. Et si au Comité de rédaction il y a une difficulté, alors nous mettrons sur pied un groupe de travail qui devra s'activer peut-être pendant le week-end pour essayer de parvenir à un consensus. C'est là la proposition que je vous fais et je voudrais avoir votre réaction sur cette proposition. Les Pays-Bas demandent la parole.
C.B. HOUTMAN (Netherlands): Before you started your statement to the Commission on this issue, I had some different opinions in mind. But I think you made a good suggestion, because I would not exclude the possibility of having a working group because this is a technical matter and I sometimes feel that on technical issues it could be very helpful to have a working group that is very much aware of the issues that are to be dealt with in such a group. So as you say, you can give it to the drafting committee and see whether they can work out a few things, and then we may be going to some members who have had certain amendments and see whether they could live with it. If not, I think then your suggestion is very good to have a working group after it has been proved that the drafting group cannot properly work out a consensus and a resolution.
Nedilson Ricardo JORGE (Brazil): We will not oppose your suggestion, although we must stress that we would prefer to discuss the contact group where all interested countries could participate. Of course, we are ready to discuss all amendments during the adoption of the report of Commission I, although that might take a very long time if the Drafting Committee is not able to reflect all the issues at stake. I must express also my reservations regarding the Drafting Committee negotiating the text of a resolution instead of only reflecting what has been discussed in Commission I. We would prefer the Drafting Committee to limit its work to reporting on what has been discussed and not negotiating the text of the resolution that has had many, many different suggestions that unfortunately, at least to my delegation, does not seem that easy to integrate without careful negotiation. Of course, if there is a contact group, we would also prefer to hold its meeting before the Drafting Committee, not after the Drafting Committee, if the Drafting Committee does not reach a conclusion. I think that it would be difficult for those who are not part of the Drafting Committee to follow what is going on in the Drafting Committee and then take up a matter that is sometimes halfway in the wrong direction. So either you trust the Drafting Committee to negotiate and we will spend some time on adopting the report, or we create a contact group before the Drafting Committee meets. We of course, as I said, do not oppose your suggestion which we certainly believe was based on your perception of the discussion. I just wanted to register our position.
E. Wayne DENNEY (United States of America): I completely support what Brazil has said. I think that is the best approach. I think that only with a contact group can we make certain compromises and agree to things that may be different from what has been said so far, whereas the Drafting Committee would not have that capability. I would like to second what Brazil has proposed.
Sra. Graziella DUBRA (Uruguay): Quiero asociarme a la declaración de Brasil y EE.UU. Creo que de cualquier manera existirían dos grupos de contacto porque el Comité de Redacción no puede negociar sino que tiene que recoger lo dicho en la Comisión. Por tanto, preferiría que el grupo de contacto se constituyera antes, y se elevaran al Comité de Redacción los resultados de ese grupo de contacto.
LE PRESIDENT: Je voudrais rappeler que le Délégué du Brésil ne s'est pas opposé à ma proposition; tout en acceptant, il nous a fait part de ce qu'il aurait préféré, sans s'opposer à ma proposition. Donc, comme je vous l'ai dit, je n'ai pas de problème particulier avec les groupes de contact. Je vous ai dit que si tel était le sentiment de la Commission, je suis prêt à me rallier à cette idée. Toutefois, je veux souligner déjà que si à chaque point de l'ordre du jour il resurgit, il faudra établir cinq ou six groupes de contact et je crois que ce sera difficilement gérable pour certaines délégations. Et s'il nous faut aller sur cette voie, il va nous falloir maintenant définir qui sera membre de ce groupe et quel sera le mandat, et j'ai peur que cela ne nous prenne encore une heure ou trente minutes, temps que nous pourrions consacrer à l'examen du point suivant afin peut-être de finir assez tôt pour que le Comité de rédaction puisse examiner tous ces projets de résolution rapidement et s'il n'y a pas de compromis, s'il y a des questions en suspens, alors on établira un Groupe de contact sachant exactement sur quels sujets précis il y a problème et on se mettra à négocier.
Nedilson Ricardo JORGE (Brazil): I have two brief comments. First, I think that in the future this might be avoided by submitting the text of the resolution, whenever possible, to the Council. Then we may be able to discuss the text of the resolution in the Council and come to the Conference with more or less agreed text, maybe with one or more brackets but an almost agreed text. That would certainly save us time in the Conference and avoid this problem that we face now.
My second brief comment was to ask kindly the Secretariat to provide enough hours of interpreters when adopting this part of the report of Commission I so that we may negotiate the resolution calmly in this Commission if it has not been agreed by the Drafting Committee.
LE PRESIDENT: Je vous remercie infiniment, honorable Délégué du Brésil, pour votre compréhension et je vous garantis que nous consacrerons le temps nécessaire pour essayer de parvenir à un compromis sur ces résolutions, parce qu'il y en a d'autres et les sujets que nous aborderons aussi comportent pratiquement le même problème.
Je voudrais également appuyer ce que vous avez dit sur la nécessité de disposer à temps, et peut-être pendant la Session du Conseil, des différents projets de résolution, ce qui aurait permis déjà de déblayer le terrain et d'arriver à la Conférence avec un minimum de sujets de divergence.
Je voudrais aussi vous assurer que si, au Comité de rédaction, il y avait des difficultés, nous prendrions toutes les dispositions nécessaires, quitte à établir un groupe de contact qui travaillerait autant qu'il le faudrait pour essayer d'aplanir toutes les difficultés.
Je suggère que nous terminions l'examen du point 9. Je ne me risquerai pas à essayer de résumer les débats. Je crois que les différentes interventions ont toutes fait état de l'appui que la Commission apporte à l'élargissement du mandat de la Commission phytogénétique, mais aussi du fait que cet élargissement devra être progressif, en commençant par les ressources zoogénétiques.
Aussi, cet élargissement ne doit pas influencer, de quelque façon que ce soit, la préparation de la quatrième Conférence internationale sur les ressources génétiques et la révision de l'engagement international sur les ressources phytogénétiques, bref, sur tous les importants travaux que la Commission devra entreprendre dans les mois à venir.
Je me limite là, en guise de conclusion principale; je ne me hasarderai pas à d'autres domaines. Nous essaierons, avec le Secrétariat, de reprendre toutes les suggestions qui ont été faites, dans un texte qui sera soumis au Comité de rédaction et si celui-ci ne peut parvenir à un compromis, nous prendrons les dispositions nécessaires pour présenter à la plénière de la Conférence un texte de consensus.
Sur ce, nous terminons l'examen du point 9 et passons au point 8, "Ajustement agricole international".
