CHAIRMAN: As we indicated before we broke for lunch, we have reached a situation where a general trend of opinion has developed. I believe it is no use pretending that continuing with this general discussion will bring us any closer to a better formulation of the basis of the resolution which we are undertaking. Therefore, it seems to me that we need to finish our general statements quickly and take such action as will bring us closer to getting results on the undertaking itself.
I would request those speakers who have not yet registered their desire to speak not to request the floor in the interest of progress, since this is a complex subject. Before continuing with the debate I would like to ask Dr Bommer to reply to a few questions in order to clarify some of the misunderstandings and aspects of what is involved.
D.F.R. BOMMER (Assistant Director-General, Agriculture Department): Thank you Mr Chairman. I just wanted to reply to some statements made by a number of delegations, which apparently are caused by some misunderstandings still, on what is proposed by the Director-General in the Undertaking. I can only repeat here, as I did in my introductory statement, you will not find any clause in the Under‐taking which would justify the fear that the Undertaking would diminish, hinder or even destroy the very useful work done by the IBPGR in collaboration with FAO, on the contrary. As you will see, there are various references that the future development of the system is heavily reliant on the scientific and technical advice rendered and developed by the scientific community through the IBPGR. So the IBGPR has a tremendously important place within this Undertaking.
In addition, it is mentioned in the document that there are certainly other scientific bodies dealing with other aspects of genetic resources, which have to provide technical and scientific advice as well. It is mentioned here, the FAO Panel on Forest Genetic Resources which reports to the COFO and from there certainly to. any general view we have on genetic resources.
There are bodies dealing with micro-organisms genetic resources centred in Australia from which we would certainly be happy to receive views on this important area. The same is true for the IUCN dealing with NC2 conservation for tropical forests for instance, and in other important nature re‐serves in which genetic resources have to be found. In order to clarify this I repeat, there is nowhere in the report nor an understanding from which it could be interpreted that this Undertaking would try to diminish or change the work done by the IBPGR which would continue, and hopefully, would be strengthened as has been said in various paragraphs.
There was another point which is probably not clear enough to understand. The Undertaking does not say that FAO, through its members collectively or the Secretariat, would try through the Undertaking to get access to seed as its property. The property of this seed is with each programme, with the international institution, with the institution and the national gene bank where it is, but where areas of these collections have been contributed and built up, through international efforts, in other words with public funds coming from tax payers of other countries for the benefit of the whole world, they have been identified by the IBPGR and other bodies as base collections for important crops. These base collections, on the wish of the respective holder of these collections would be recognized within the Undertaking, and the wording says "would through the recognition, being at the disposal of FAO" which means of the Member Nations of FAO then requested, and where they would find difficulty in getting this material elsewhere, to turn to the base collection and then to get it from there, which at the same time places emphasis on the question when there are such important base collections (as for instance in Australia when the medic collection was in danger for some time), is in danger of being no longer supported by the respective body, countries, what else, that then action can be taken to change, to get support for it. To repeat, there is nothing in the Undertaking which would say that the FAO would try to get this material as its property. It remains the property of those having it, but at the same time it would be at the disposal of the free exchange, through offering this to FAO. These were two important points.
The other one I think, was mentioned by several delegations too. This was the famous budgetary allocation. I tried to make it clear in the introduction that there will be no additional budgetary allocation beyond the agreed Programme of Work and Budget for 1984-85, because the recognition of these base collections which are being financed by their respective home bodies, the government, the institution, whatever it might be, we are not providing them with any financial support. The agreement is an exchange of letters, which is an offering and agreement, a legal act done by our Legal Office with the respective institution in the respective country.
This is certainly something which does not cost very much. It costs the staff time, but I think that with re-assignment of activities within the Legal Office we can manage to meet it under the allocations made for the Legal Office. The other service which is provided is when such base collections are being recognized they should be visited if they fulfill the standard of quality which the IBPGR has developed for various food crops for instance, and others for other crops. This would be usually joint missions of IBPGR with FAO and needs some consultancy money, which is available in the budget of AGP.
The resources required are for the meeting of the intergovernmental bodies and these resources again is an amount which will be available to re-shift on the decision of the Director-General within the Programme, to facilitate this meeting and the necessary documentation for this meeting. When you have decided on this, certainly, he will consider in which way it will be made within the budgetary allocation. If you take a very exorbitant estimate, it might come in total for the two biennia together roughly between US$ 200-250 000 what is needed and what can be met. There will be no additional expense from the Regular Programme when the Conference in two years' time, or any other body would decide that FAO should then, after feasibility studies of the information system, take on additional activities in this field, but even then the decision should be that such an information system should be funded voluntarily and through extra-budgetary funds. So there is no commitment from the beginning on the Regular Programme for such an information system, because the Director-General proposes to have a feasibility study which certainly has to be presented to the intergovernmental bodies for their assessment and agreement.
Those, I think, were the main points which I wanted to make for clarification because I felt some of this was misunderstood when I read the report and its meaning.
CHAIRMAN: In the light of these clarifications and in the spirit in which this Commission has been operating up to now, I look forward to forthright, positive and constructive contributions. I now give the floor to Libya.
B. SAED (Libya) (original language Arabic): I would like to thank Dr Bommer for the excellent and clear presentation of this document. The subject of plant genetic resources is probably one of the most important items discussed during recent years. We hope that the discussion this time will lead to an agreement on the main elements of the subject. We will try in our statement to be positive in the opinions and proposals we present. I will be brief, as far as possible, and I will make some general comments without going into details at this stage. But you will understand that in the light of the discussion we might feel that we need to intervene once more, and therefore we would like to reserve for ourselves the right to do so.
We have participated in the discussion of this subject when it was discussed in the Committee on Agriculture and we have followed with great interest the discussions of the Council, and we have the opportunity to participate in the Working Group that met the Director-General twice last summer.
Allow me first of all, to present the following general observations. First, the Director-General has succeeded, even when he was outside Rome, to contribute positively and efficiently. Indeed his realistic understanding of the real dimensions of plant genetic resources, and his evaluation of the inter-linked interests and preoccupations, have contributed to a great extent to reach a consensus especially on the main issues. The report and the proposals of the Director-General which are presented in document C 83/25, according to my delegation, could be considered as a progress in the study of this issue. The proposal of the Director-General can be considered an appropriate basis to reach a consensus. We would like to take this opportunity to express our great appreciation for the Director-General and his leading role in this respect. Secondly, we consider Resolution 6/81 the basic starting point. The major principles contained in that Resolution and its affirmation of the rights and aspirations of the developing countries are still valid. We would like here to confirm our adherence to these principles. Therefore, any measure or step taken today or in the future should, according to us, be a step that will enable us to come closer to the objective, and to realist the aspirations of the Third World countries. We cannot go backwards.
Thirdly, our efforts to achieve progress in the plant genetic resources sector are based on our understanding of our interests and the interests of the international community as a whole. Therefore it is not directed against anyone. Our delegation has reiterated, on several occasions, its appreciation for all the efforts made whether at the IBPGR, the International Consultative Group on Agricultural Research or other organizations. We have also said that considering the numerous historical, technical and economic conditions, these efforts alone cannot enable us to meet our aspirations as developing countries. Therefore, a lot has to be done in order to improve the existing structures in a way that allows for better participation of the Third World countries, in a manner that would reaffirm the commitment of all in this vital sector.
Fourthly, we affirm once more our belief in the importance of genetic resources, and the risk of loss or erosion they are exposed to. These resources are a heritage for the whole of mankind and their exchange should be free among the countries and institutions concerned for scientific purposes. We would also like to add that the scientific and economic benefits to be drawn from these genetic resources have to be shared equally among all. These resources, in addition to being heritage for all mankind, are also a national heritage and wealth, and it would be illogical not to have a right to benefit from them, from their economic and scientific benefits. We would not dwell long on this last point but we might come back with more details later on if we feel the need to do so during the discussion.
After that, I would like to concentrate briefly on some of the main items of document C 83/25. We consider part II of the document, that is to say, Principles and Objectives Relative to Plant Genetic Resources, as an important part of the document. It has reviewed thoroughly the principles and objectives, particularly in paragraphs 9 to 35. We are very pleased that the document in paragraph 15 has focused on the importance of micro-organisms which are related to crops. This issue may seem to some to be beyond their reach, yet is is worthwhile to appeal for concerted efforts in order to explore these micro-organisms which are of great importance to crops and plants, and to collect, document and preserve them. We think that the Organization can play an important role in this field.
We would like to point to paragraph 19 which deals with the categories of genetic resources. We agree with the classification, and consider it an indivisable whole, especially concerning the freedom to exchange information and genetic resources. We also point, here, to paragraph 31, which points to the difficulty of accepting the principle of providing improved germplasms without restrictions. We consider these germplasms very important, and their free exchange is necessary for plant breeding. We know that this is linked to the legislations on the right of the plant breeders in certain countries. We may come back to this point later if we deem it necessary.
In the part concerning the activities related to genetic resources in paragraphs 36 to 73, there is an excellent review. We have a few remarks that we should have to mention here and which we might present directly to the Secretariat. However we would like to refer to paragraph 43, which states that international attention should be focused on the basic collection. Although this is valid for many practical reasons we think that active collections are very important, and therefore we should focus on both collections.
Part IV, paragraphs 88 to 143, review with realism and objectivity the existing measures and arrangements.
I would like to focus, in this last part of my statement, directly on the proposals made by the Director-General. I would like to take them up as a whole and as basic concepts. When we consider the details of the proposals, we might have the chance to intervene again. There are several basic elements in the proposal of the Director-General which are included in Part V. These are the following:
First of all, we totally agree with paragraph 147 and the proposal of the Committee on Agriculture in this respect because we consider the gene bank an international concept and not a physical structure. Other related activities should also be taken into account. We also agree in general with the description of the international network for the basic collection, and we welcome the new concept of the banks of genetic resources that belong directly to the Organization, as was mentioned by Spain. We agree here with this direction that appears in the proposal of the Director-General that we should resort to the international network for genetic resources as well as to genetic resources in the field.
Secondly, we raise a question. Should we have an international agreement or an undertaking as mentioned in paragraphs 77 to 83. We do not contradict or reject the result reached in paragraph 83 of this Report if there is a general agreement on this subject. However, we do prefer to have an international legally binding agreement, which we consider the legal, way out. What we mainly fear is that our effort to improve the present system and the arrangements in force, might lead in the same direction in one way or another. The basic point concerning the existing arrangements is that they need a legal nature or a legal character, and they lack the specific legal commitment. Our delegation does not think that any international undertaking as suggested, although some would like it to have less efficient form, will be a good alternative for international legally binding commitment. As I said, we are not against this direction if we understand from the debate that there is the desire and the will to put this undertaking into force. Of course, when we consider this undertaking, we will certainly make certain remarks on some of its paragraphs, especially concerning the categories of genetic resources which we consider, including breeding germplasms part of this convention. The specific genetic collections are not clear to us up to now, and their exclusion of any international arrangements will not receive the agreement of my delegation.
Thirdly, setting up a committee to belong to the Committee on Agriculture in order to follow up the genetic resources issues and the activities in this field, according to us, so an acceptable proposal, and when discussed in detail, we would like to make certain comments, especially concerning the proceedings of this Committee and the timing of its work.
Fourthly, the security and the financial support of this activity are very Important and necessary. We support the proposals of the Director-General in this respect in order to provide the aid and assistance to developing countries and in order to strengthen their national capacities.
Fifthly, it is natural to join my colleagues who have supported the International Information System concerning genetic resources, and we think that the normal place of this mechanism is the FAO.
Finally, I would like to end my statement as I began it, that is to say be expressing my apprecia‐tion for the Director-General's serious efforts in order to help this Conference to reach an agreement. As our colleague from Yugoslavia said at the beginning of this debate we think that the Director-General's proposals are a modest step towards affirming the rights and the interests of developing countries and towards affirming the role of the Organization as an international organization that belongs to the UN system in this field. The proposals of the Director-General form a good base for beginning a new era of international understanding based on an appreciation of the interests of developing countries and could also be the best place in order to put these plant genetic resources in their right place as a heritage for mankind and as a national heritage that should be exploited on an equal basis without constraints or restrictions.
H. REDL (Austria) (original language German): Mr. Chairman, I shall try and follow your advice and recommendations and be as brief as possible. I should first of all like to thank Dr Bommer for the very clear introduction to this point on the agenda and for he supplementary comments that we heard at the beginning of the afternoon session.
Austria has studied document C 83/25 very carefully indeed. As long ago as 1890 Austria, at the Agricultural Congress in Vienna, supported the idea of an inventory being drawn up of available country varieties of cereals. These were collected and tested. Now three Austrian institutions have gene banks. In principle, Austria welcomes the initiative of the Director-General of the FAO. I must say that in general terms we are satisfied with the technical activities of IBPGR. However, we realise that IBPGR is not an inter-governmental body and therefore it does not satisfy the necessary legal requirements that would allow it to get to grips with the problems which are inherent in the exchange of seeds internationally and of genetic material.
On behalf of the Austrian delegation, allow me to give our full support to the Nordic proposal which was made by the Swedish delegation this morning.
If we bring in the various categories of genetic resources, that is all right, but we cannot accept the idea of a breeder being forced to make his material available, particularly of his breeder lines which are nearly ready, unless these lines have already been made available to the gene bank by other breeders.
M. AHMAD (Pakistan): Mr. Chairman, let me first of all compliment the Director-General of FAO for his comprehensive report and his proposal for an international legalized framework for the collection, preservation and evaluation of plant genetic resources.
Conscious of the fact that plant genetic resources comprising natural variability, as well as one created by human endeavour, are in danger of being lost, Pakistan is convinced that a suitable arrangement for conservation of plant germ plasm for posterity, both of cultivated as well as wild species of potential use, should be established. The success of plant breeding programmes, present and future, is by and large dependent on the availability of genetic variability.
Although existing efforts, both by national as well as international organizations, particularly IBPGR, to conserve plant germ plasm are commendable, nevertheless these are either individual efforts or such collective processes'as have been able to take care of only part of the needs. There is lack of adequate infrastructure and trained manpower within the national institutes to do the job, besides which the sharing of collected and preserved germ plasm is more or less voluntary. The shortcomings of the existing system have been very nicely brought out in this report in Section IV and summarised in paragraph 192 of the report.
There is urgency to ensure on a global basis that:
1. The threatened habitats of natural diversity are identified and expeditious steps taken for their conservation.
2. Necessary infrastructure is developed, both at the national as well as international level, for appropriate short and long-term storage of the germ plasm.
3. A suitable evaluation and documentation process is implemented for the collected germ plasm.
4. A provision is made for unrestricted free exchange of the germ plasm among members of the inter‐national community.
Pakistan therefore fully supports the establishment of a network of gene banks within a legalized arrangement to fulfill these needs, as proposed by the Director-General. We hope that the establishment of such a network would be helpful in mobilizing the needed resources to establish adequate infrastructure at the national and international level for germ plasm exploration, collection, preservation, evaluation, and free dissemination.
We are very grateful to Dr Bommer not only for his lucid presentation but also for his subsequent clarification. In fact, we had already noted with satisfaction that IBPGR was to continue to play a scientific and exploratory role within the mechanism now proposed by the Director-General. There was no doubt about it, right from the very beginning. Of course, the transition to this final network has been very nicely dealt with in paragraphs 166 and 167 of the report. We also note that the intention is not to harm the commercial interests of any individual or institute, because, as is clear from Article 3.1 of the proposed undertaking at page 33, the qualification is that these resources are in danger of becoming extinct in the country concerned, or those whose existence or essential characteristics are at present unknown, so the question of any conflict with any commercial interest does not seem to be intended by this undertaking.
We have set up a very small plant genetic resources unit. We have 10,000 accessions to that unit of 25 crops. Quite a few of them have already been evaluated according to IBPGR standards and we should be most happy to make it a part of the international network.
B.O.M. CHIYABWE (Zambia): Mr. Chairman, I shall paraphrase my presentation. I should like to report here that my Government attaches great importance to the programme of plant genetic resources. We are directly and actively involved both with in situ and ex situ plant genetic conservation. In our case emphasis is directly placed on the potential of natural forest to act as a base for genetic material which can be adapted to present and future human requirements. This is certainly a viable justification for conservation of germ plasm in the natural setting, given a sample of undisturbed natural forest area.
We therefore support the proposal of the Director-General to set up a plant genetic resource bank which, in our view, will complement and strengthen existing local and national efforts in the conservation, collection and exchange of plant germ plasm for the interest and benefit of member nations of FAO and particularly those of us who are in the developing world.
In conclusion, we are satisfied with the way that forest species are being handled by the FAO Forestry Department, and it is our wish that the present arrangements should continue.
J. SCHWARZ (Czechoslovakia): Mr. Chairman, I should like to make some general comments and suggestions.
My delegation welcomes this initiative to en large the field of cooperation regarding the conservation and exchange of plant genetic resources. We consider genetic resources as the most important element for the future development of genetic engineering and, consequently, for more intensive agricultural production, especially in developing countries.
Nevertheless, the problem is very complex. We believe that the example of Europe during the first phase of the FAO/UNDP Regional Cooperative Programme for the Conservation and Exchange of Crop Genetic Resources is encouraging. Until now, my country cooperated through the EUCARPIA Gene Bank Committee, but this year we have officially entered the FAO/UNDP programme. We think that strengthening and improving this regional cooperation and giving it a good geographical balance might represent a positive input for future extension to a global programme.
I would like to give you some information on the present status of the study on plant genetic resources in Czechoslovakia which may be useful to our discussion.
Czechoslovakia pays great attention to the study of genetic resources of cultivated p lands, their improvement, and selection of the best donors for combination crossing. These efforts have a long-established tradition in Czechoslovakia. They have been pursued on a large scale for more than 50 years by all specialized research institutes active in the field of crop production. For the majority of species, Czechoslovak local and improved varieties have been maintained since the beginning of this century. Our collection of domestic and foreign varieties now includes 5 4 000 varieties of field and garden crops. Efforts are focused mainly on cereals, particularly wheat and barley and on vegetables. Centralized exchange of varieties is maintained with other countries. A computerized information system on resources is being developed.
Czechoslovakia has been involved in efficient international cooperation in this field for many years, particularly with the Soviet Union and other socialist countries within the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance. The sum of collections coming from these countries is now almost 700 000 varieties. However, there is also a long-continued cooperation between our specialized institutions and the leading research institutes throughout the world.
Czechoslovakia is beginning to build her own national gene bank for long-term storage in air-conditioned facilities, with a planned capacity of 100 000 varieties. In this way, Czechoslovakia will join the network of European gene banks and contribute to the efforts of FAO aimed at saving world genetic resources. The Czechoslovak contribution includes a large team - about 50 highly qualified specialists - involved in collecting expeditions, storage in Czechoslovakia for developing countries, training, provision of stocks and assistance on methodology.
I consider it necessary, Mr. Chairman, to express our point of view concerning the world gene bank. The idea of establishing such a world center is interesting and useful, and the formation of the Czechoslovak gene bank is, after all, inspired by this idea.
However, the actual formation of a world gene bank requires advanced and perfect contacts with all the cooperating countries in which genetic resources are collected. We have reason to fear that restrictions in individual countries may cause the effort for such perfect contacts to fail.
Therefore we propose restructuring a suitable national gene bank into a regional bank which would ensure cooperation within a given continent and act together with other regional banks, under central management as part of the worldwide programme.
We know that some of the national banks already have the character of a regional bank. Further development of the work of these regional banks would cost less than the operation of a central world gene bank.
In any case it is necessary to build a unified and central information system on all collections, their storage and distribution. This centralized system would have to be located in a single place, as a "roof" over the activities of the regional banks. In our view such a perfect information system could, to some extent, fulfill the task of the proposed centralized world gene bank.
E.P. ALLEYNE (Trinidad and Tobago): May I compliment the Director-General on the document before us this afternoon and Dr Bommer for his introductory remarks to us. May I say that we also endorse in principle the remarks made by the delegate of Mexico, who was speaking on behalf of the Latin American and Caribbean Group. This Conference, and indeed this Commission, is now dealing with an agenda item which is crucial, and we all note the level of attendance. As we said yesterday, the basic issue of achieving success with the world's food problem is also crucial. The matter of an international gene bank is not strictly technical; it is quite obviously also political, and it is perhaps one of the, if not THE, clearest examples] of an almost evenly yoked technical/political issue before this Conference. '
There are two simple questions; do we regard the matter of an international gene bank as being crucial to the issues of quantity, quality and reliability of global food supplies? And secondly, do we agree that in dealing with these specific issues that it ils necessary - in fact, there is no alternative -to constantly search and harness the variation in germ plasm from all corners of the globe? If the answer to both questions is "yes", how can any country come to this Conference and even suggest that it is not necessary to obtain some kind of global understanding, undertaking, even in principle in the first instance? - Indeed, any kind of commitment for organized and synchronized action on the matter of germ plasm identification, preservation and distribution.
We all know and understand some of the special concerns of various countries. But let us be quite clear - both the developed and the developing countries have an interest in what happens to germ plasm material. In some respects, the developing countries more so, because that is where the basic material is largely located,. And no one is going to challenge this. But we have entered into a new era of technology, with gene splicing and bioengineering, and so on, and, it would seem, we are on the threshold of a new kind of power play. At the expense of what? - the millions of hungry and starving people of the world.
If we mean what we have been saying during the last few weeks with regard to the world food problem, we cannot fail to agree on the need for a kind of global commitment on sharing, access and exchange of germ plasm where food for mankind is concerned. Some delegations seemed to suggest that the exchange of germ plasm is an easy matter today, and there is no need for any unusual kind of action at this time. It is not true. There are even suggestions that the statements in paragraph 117 to 119 are not altogether correct.
Mr. Chairman, problems are likely to arise with some crops which are not even basic food, but they are nevertheless critical to the well being of many countries; for example, coffee. Our country, Trinidad and Tobago, has one of the best collections of cocoa germ plasm in the world, and we have shared it with the world. Some of the earliest work on cotton breeding was also done in Trinidad and Tobago, and we have shared it with the world. But I cannot see that our own experience in recent times is the same, and we would like to get some germ plasm of a particular crop - coffee - and it is such an important issue that if, before I leave this room, someone can come to me and promise delivery of such germ plasm at a reasonable price, I would be very happy.
The need for dealing with an international gene bank is an urgent issue. There are indications that the CGIAR system does not have at this time the overall level of funding required. We have no proof that we can simply leave the matter to be dealt with by the CGIAR. The Director-General of FAO proposes in paragraph 162, that as far as possible we build on the existing network. We see no difficulty in this proposal. There is nothing in it as far as we can see to suggest that professional ethics will go by the wayside and breeders will be forced to release material, which is not necessary. On the other hand, private trade within a privileged group will be a matter for concern. Our delegation recommends approval of the basic recommendations or proposals for an international agreement, as put forward by the Director-General.
S.P. MUKERJI (India): I am sorry I could not make an intervention before for certain inevitable reasons, but I will try to be as brief as possible. My delegation thanks Dr Bommer and the Secretariat of the FAO for the excellent document they have prepared. I have benefited greatly by it and have been educated by the information given in the document. In very simple language the document has given a lucid exposition of a difficult, intricate and technical subject on genetic resources, basic to the future of agriculture on this planet. The draft Undertaking given as Appendix A is the quintessence of the various issues involved, and one would do well to go through this Appendix, which is brief, but which gives in a few pages the various issues involved.
Future generations will remember FAO for many constructive things, but one of the most important for which posterity will thank FAO will be the action they have taken on the protection and development of genetic resources. The statement that genetic resource is a common heritage of mankind should resound throughout the world as one of the seminal statements of this Organization. India has a great stake in the subject for no other reason than the fact that it will help all countries in increasing their food production through conservation and development of genetic resource. India is one of the richest reservoirs of natural, cultivated, wild and primitive plant species and cultivars. Agro-climatic regions are all there in India, varying from polar to temperate, from sub-tropical to tropical climate, with perennial sunshine in most parts of the country. Since we are also one of the oldest civilisations of the world, the interaction between man and plant has been taking place in the sub-continent from the very earliest days and this has accelerated the evolution of the various plant species.
India is also the third largest reservoir in the world insofar as scientific and technical personnel are concerned. We have more than 100 agricultural universities of international repute where various varieties of plants are being bred continuously. India has been participating in the International Board of Plant Genetic Resources and we have accepted the philosophy of international cooperation in genetic resources as one of the measures for collective self-reliance amongst deve‐loping countries in particular, and all countries in general. We would like to expand this inter‐national cooperation on a global scale in universally acceptable terms through FAO.
FAO has been concerned with plant genetic resources ever since 1946, when the first session of the Advisory Committee on Agriculture took place. After more than 35 years, it is a very good thing that matters relating to this important item are being brought to a head under the dynamic leader‐ship of the Director-General of FAO in the various fora of FAO, namely the Conference, the Council, the Working Party, and the Committee on Agriculture. All this has aroused, if nothing else, a uni‐versal consciousness amongst the various countries about the need to protect their genetic resources.
However, I shall fail in my duty if I do not congratulate the CGIAR and the IBPGR for doing pioneering work within their limited sphere in establishing gene banks and centres, and bringing together communities of scientists, administrators, institutions and governments in order to save the priceless germ plasms. Their work will act as a guiding light in extending international cooperation on a global scale in this sphere through FAO.
My delegation congratulates FAO for designating the genetic resources in nature as a common heritage of mankind. However, FAO has to reassure the developing and developed countries both that arrange‐ments will be made to set at rest their fears on internationalism in plant genetics. They have to assure the developing countries that their germ plasms will not be exploited by others. They have to assure the developed countries also that their newly evolved varieties, evolved by their scientists, will not be exploited by others for undue commercial gain. Any plant gene internation‐alism on a global scale is much needed for pressing reasons. The first reason why there should be global cooperation is that a survey and identification of the various endangered germ plasms are very, very urgent. The second reason for global cooperation is the need for standardization of codes, standardization of maintenance norms, standardization of equipment, and standardization of training on a uniform basis. Still another reason for international cooperation on a global scale -and I emphasize "global scale" - is the need to have a central data bank and information service; still another reason is to have a worldwide exchange of research reserves on plant genetics and last but not least, there is a need to avoid exploitation of the developing countries, through the protection of FAO.
I have a few suggestions to offer, and I will put them briefly. My first suggestion is that we should recognize in clear terms that FAO should be a model agency for all international activities on genetic resources. That means that all requests for exchanges of information on germ plasm, flow of funds, and flow of information should be through the medium of FAO. This is not a very revolutionary idea, because FAO is already involved with the CGIAR and IBPGR, as indicated in paragraph 119 of this document, through various means. FAO has an agreement with the CGIAR; FAO provides secretariat services to the IBPGR; the Executive Secretary of IBPGR is an official of FAO; FAO is represented on the IBPGR and its Executive Committee; the Chairman of IBPGR is appointed in consultation with the Director-General of FAO; IBPGR reports to the FAO and other member countries through FAO, but unfortunately FAO has little effective say in the work and programme of the IBPGR. Agreements of the FAO with the IBPGR have not been ratified by the FAO Conference. It is time this Conference reviewed, or had another look at, the relationship between FAO and IBPGR so that this relationship is made more attractive, more clear, and more attuned to the needs of developing countries.
My delegation feels that the existing arrangements should continue at the national, regional, sub-regional and institutional level under the overall umbrella of the FAO. The national efforts in developing countries should be fully supported, strengthened and funded by the FAO. All developing countries should be assisted in plant breeding, plant gene survey, identification of endangered germplasms and in the establishment of a national gene bank.
The national, regional, international gene banks should, in the opinion of my delegation, be in the world grid of gene banks which have to be supervised through the FAO.
We support the ideas given in paragraph 186 of document C 83/25 that there should be an international data bank and information service. We feel that the IBPGR should help FAO in establishing it. We feel that it should be more than a concept, there should be a time bound programme and the sugges‐tion in paragraphs 144 to 146 that there should be a pioneer gene bank should be welcomed and the pioneer gene bank should be with FAO and should retain and protect the most endangered germ plasms in the world.
We would request that the FAO Secretariat should examine the factors which have led to the alleged exploitation of developing countries and try to correct them in the existing and proposed systems.
My delegation fully supports the draft international undertaking, but there may be certain clauses which may not be acceptable to some countries. We suggest that a contact group should be appointed for reconciling the different views of various countries in so far as the international undertaking is concerned.
We also feel that considering the importance of plant genetic resources and the various intricate issues involved, there should be a separate committee on plant genetic .resources of the FAO Council which would devote itself and dedicate itself completely to the various issues involved in this sphere.
My delegation supports the concept of a world gene fund, as there is a World Wildlife Fund, both of these are endangered. The World Gene Fund should be specially created for the protection of the endangered genes of the world.
Finally, we support the various proposals made and summarized in paragraph 195 of the document, with the following few additional suggestions which I have already made. The suggestions which we want to add to paragraph 195 are are follows. First, FAO should help the developing countries in the management of their germ plasms and their protection in situ and ex situ, and subject to the sovereign rights and interests of the developing countries, should fully protect them. Secondly, FAO should be the modal agency and deal with the governments and international bodies and all activities should be through FAO.
Thirdly, a pioneering gene bank should be established under FAO for severely endangered species as a measure of world gene security. Fourthly, there should be a separate committee on plant genetic resources. Fifthly, there should be a feasibility study on establishing a "World Gene Fund".
We congratulate FAO on taking up a noble task and we wish it and the Director-General success in establishing a universally acceptable system of gene security and gene development.
G. CAMELARIS (Cyprus): When during the Twenty-first session of the FAO Conference in 1981 we requested the Director-General, through Resolution 6/81, first to prepare the elements of a draft international convention on plant genetic resources; and secondly to prepare a study on the establishment of an international gene bank no one could claim that this would be an easy task.
We were all aware of the international complexities of the issue and of the potential controversies that might arise. But I believe we were all fully convinced that the issue of plant genetic resources is at the heart of world food security and constitutes the basis upon which an effective struggle against world hunger can be launched.
I believe that until relatively recently the international community, for one reason or another did not look into the international institutional structure through which plant genetic resources are developed, stored, conserved and circulated. It is to the credit of the international community that as from the beginning of this decade - and the Twenty-first Session of the FAO Conference has in this respect been an important landmark - the international community has started to care so much about the narrowing of the base of plant genetic resources, the real risks of genetic erosion, the conservation and storage of our planet's plant genetic resources and the free and unconditional availability of such resources as the most basic single factor for maintaining life on earth as in the words "a common heritage of mankind".
It is within this context that the Twenty-first session of the FAO Conference took up the subject and concluded with Resoultion 6/81. It is in fulfilment of that resolution that the FAO's Director-General presented the report C 83/25 now before us at this Conference. Given the com‐plexities and difficulties of the issue, this is a good report and the Director-General and his staff who undertook the job deserve our appreciation.
Perhaps it may not be to the full satisfaction of all Member Nations, but how otherwise could such a complex issue be handled? Its intentions, nevertheless, and the principles upon which the whole issue stands cannot and have not been questioned by anybody.
It is therefore a matter of the technicalities, of training, improving and establishing these appro‐priate international institutions and the appropriate international infrastructure that will safe‐guard the conservation and free availability of this heritage of mankind to all people at all times and in all places.
My delegation looks upon the proposals contained in the report before us as a good channel of action in that direction which will enhance mankind's efforts to conserve, store and make available these things for all those who need the earth's plant genetic resources. We look upon the proposals sub‐mitted in the report before us, that is on the establishment of an international bank of plant genetic resources and on the international undertaking on plant genetic resources, as the initiation of a new era in international cooperation in the field of plant genetic resources, and as such they have our approval, because ultimately such arrangements as are proposed will be to the benefit of all member countries, developing and developed.
E. SCHRÖDER (Germany, Federal Republic of) (original language German): I would like to congratulate the Secretariat and Dr Bommer in particular on the excellent document C 83/25 and the informative introduction. I would also like to thank the Working Group whose members have dealt so intensively with the existing problems and have worked out a markedly improved proposal which increases the possibilities for an agreed solution.
My delegation supports the principles mentioned in the preamble of the undertaking. We are con‐vinced that an improved network of plant genetic collections and an improved worldwide information system, serves the common aim of preserving and making adequate use of the wide variety of plant genetic resources. This is the aim of the valuable work being done by the IBPGR.
The Federal Republic of Germany would like to express here its satisfaction with the work and re‐sults of that institution. In the IBPGR we see a body, which does useful scientific work, on account of its decentralized form of organization it has mobilized significant financial support an. brought together successfully a worldwide, growing network of gene banks.
In our assessment the cooperation with the has been fruitful so it is not our intention to reduce this work and our contribution to it.
The proposal for an international undertaking raises some important questions for us and contains in particular one area which is not acceptable to us. The questions refer, on the one hand, to the financial implications for the FAO and on the other hand they refer to the question as to how the undertaking can be complementary to the work of the IBPGR without extending bureaucracy and without diminishing the efficiency and independence of the IBPGR.
Not acceptable is - as for many other speakers before me -line (v) of paragraph 2.1 (a) on page 33 of document C 83/25. We cannot agree to the inclusion of breeding material into the Undertaking because of our legal regulations. In addition, this would be a danger for private initiative which is urgently needed in this area.
H. POPP (Switzerland): We would first like to thank FAO for this very fine report and its efforts to work out the proposal before us and we would especially thank Dr Bommer for his excellent presentation.
I would like to sum up the position of the Swiss delegation as follows.
We support the concept of free exchange of germ plasm. We do see the need for international cooperation. We note, however, that there is enough collection of genes at regional and at country level. We see no need for an international gene bank. We note further that gene banks cooperate already; that the possibilities of exchange between scientists exists, and that such cooperation goes on. We note further that the IBPGR works satisfactorily. We have here no major criticism. It is trusted by the scientific community in my country.
The aim of our endeavour is to reach the largest participation possible. This presupposes, as has been said before, a climate of confidence. We should be careful, therefore, in introducing new structures, new political supervision or new bureaucratic devices which would endanger this climate of confidence.
We have some doubts as to the usefulness of the proposal before us, especially, we feel that the additional resources required for the implementation of this proposal could be used more rapidly, more efficiently and effectively by strengthening and/or improving the present system by still wider cooperation, by pragmatic improvement of the various activities going on, and especially by helping those countries who so far, are not able to make the necessary efforts. The Government of my country is ready to increase its Development Aid in this direction.
To sum up, it is our firm conviction that we reach the common goal expressed in this Assembly, namely the collection of genes through the exchange of germ plasm and more international cooperation, much better by working within existing institutions along the lines which have proved successful and trustworthy rather than by creating new institutions; that we try to assure greater cooperation and that we put additional funds into the pragmatic improvement of what has to be done in the intermediate future. My country is ready to make its contribution in this direction, in the future, as it did in the past.
M. ABDULAZIZ MOHAMED (United Arab Emirates) (original language Arabic): We would like to express our thanks to Dr Bommer for the presentation of document C 83/25. We would also like to thank the Director-General of FAO for the efforts made in order to prepare this document. Since we consider the plant genetic resources a heritage of mankind that should be preserved and should be exploited so that the benefits could be equally shared without constraints, through the exploration, collection and conservation, storage and evaluation of these resources under the umbrella of an International Institution that could implement these principles. Because we fear that we might lose these priceless resources, especially the loss by the developing countries of these resources before the end of this century and because we feel that the subject of plant genetic resources is a political issue as well as an environmental problem and an economic chance in the international effort in this field.
To be brief, Mr. Chairman, we support the proposal made by the Director-General in the document concerning the International Undertaking on the plant genetic resources and the role of FAO in this field and thus we avoid further debate concerning a subject on which a resolution has been taken, especially concerning scientific progress, the technological level and the responsibility of all countries to facilitate the access of developing countries to the achievements of modern science and technology. This was stated in the United Nations Resolution at its Twenty-ninth session, Resolution 3281, we also avoid a debate on the right of each country to exercise its sovereignty of its natural resources as stated in Resolution 1803/18 of the Eighteenth United Nations General Assembly and on the necessity to exercise this right for the well-being and development of the country concerned. We hope that this proposal by the Director-General will have the agreement of all the participants.
LI ZHENHUAN (China) (original language Chinese): My intervention will be very brief.
With regard to the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources and the International Gene Bank, the Chinese delegation already made clear its position at the Seventh Session of the Committee on Agriculture held last March. I, therefore, deem it unnecessary to repeat it here.
We would like to thank the Director-General and the Secretariat for the draft resolution on the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources, and the annexed draft Undertaking. This draft resolution and the draft Undertaking, therefore, are positive in their spirit, and the Chinese delegation is in a position to support, in principle, the aforementioned documents.
J.B. JACKMAN (New Zealand): New Zealand supports the basic principle that plant genetic resources are the common heritage of mankind. Following this we seek the free exchange of germ plasm for use in research and plant breeding. We are alarmed at the erosion of the gene pool, which is continuing to occur, and give our full support to the IBPGR in its efforts to collect and conserve this material in an integrated network of gene banks.
The next level of our concern is to improve the information aspect on the genetic characters of material held in gene banks. The effectiveness of plant breeders can be enhanced by sharing this information and we would include training as a component of information flows.
At a higher level still, all countries need to make full use of the potential of plant breeding in their efforts to improve free production. The collaborative effort of IARC' s has been spectacularly effective, we feel it might be possible to encourage the considerable expertise of breeders in the developed countries, to be directly applied to breeding for developing country climatic environment. To achieve this some mechanism of directly rewarding the breeder would be needed.
Against this hierarchy of issues can I now put the New Zealand position. In balancing the need for urgent action to conserve endangered germ plasm, we view with concern any constraints which would hinder operations of IBPGR. Operational flexibility is a very important consideration, but I must say we are encouraged by the flexibility which has been shown by FAO and all the participants in this debate. We see merit in the concept of an International Undertaking which enshrines the principle of free exchange, provided there is no hindrance to IBPGR's operational flexibility. Furthermore, we believe that any compulsion on commercial breeders to deposit advance breeders lines would be counter-productive. Breeders do exchange material, and in the case of my country I can say that we have many cooperative arrangements in which farm breeders send selections to our country for evaluation in our environment. We fear that this source of valuable material could be closed off if those breeders saw any risk that material could be made available to their competitors.
New Zealand therefore supports the underlying principle embodied in this proposal, with qualifications on the scope of the Undertaking, and in the hope that we will address our minds in the future to finding universal mechanisms which reward the plant breeder. We believe, at the present time, that the conservation of endangered wild species, the free exchange of wild genetic material, and the development of an information service and training, are the proper focus of this Undertaking.
M. MOMBOULI (Congo): Comme l'ont fait les autres delegations qui se sont exprimées avant nous,nous voudrions nous aussi une fois de plus adsser nos félicitations à M. Bommer ainsi qu'au Directeur général de la FAO pour la clarté de leurs exposés. Nous estimons nous aussi que les ressources phytogénétiques sont le patrimoine commun de l'humanité et qu'elles doivent être préservées et librement accessibles pour être utilisées dans l'intérêt des générations présentes et futures. En vertu de quoi nous renouvelons notre accord total aux principes de création d'une banque de ressources phytogénétiques en raison des nombreux avantages que pourra présenter cette institution. En matière de coopération intergouvernementale relative à cette banque que nous voulons créer, nous insistons particulièrement pour que l'accent soit mis sur le contenu des paragraphes 71, 72 et 73 du rapport qui nous est présenté et à ce titre nous souscrivons à l'idée de la mise en place d'une instance intergouvernementale qui serait chargée de la coordination et du suivi de l'exécution des activités de cette banque, des ressources phytogénétiques.
Dans le même ordre, nous exigeons qu'un rôle important soit accordé aux pays en développement dans le réseau intergouvernemental envisagé et nous tenons particulièrement à ce qu'une aide substantielle soit envisagée pour les pays en développement qui ont cruellement besoin de sélectionneurs exprimentés, des ressources financières et d'équipement pour exploiter le large éventail de diversités génétiques existant sur leur territoire et concernant le type de textes juridiques à retenir pour consacrer l'existence de la Banque des ressources phytogénétiques; nous pensons à première vue qu'un instrument du type d'un engagement international qui impliquerait la participation à la fois des gouvernements ainsi que celle des institutions internationales pourrait convenir. Mais compte tenu de l'importance du sujet,si la Conférence, comme l'a recommandé le Comité pour l'agriculture au paragraphe 227 de
son rapport, document C 83/9, pense que l’étude sur le type d'accord doit encore suivre son cours pour que tous les aspects soient tenus en consideration, nous pouvons encore faire preuve de patience. Mais dans tous les cas, quel que sera le type de cadre juridique qui pourra être définitivement retenu, il devra être fait une marge préalable nette entre les fins commerciales et celles purement scientifiques dont nous voulons confier la paternité à la banque que nous voulons créer.
Par ailleurs, nous pensons qu'étant le principal institut des Nations Unies qui s'occupe de l'ali‐mentation et de l'agriculture, la FAO doit reprendre en main la coordination des activités de tous les organismes qui traitent des sujets relevant de son champ d'action et à plus forte raison des banques des ressources phytogénétiques, fussent-elles sous-régionales ou régionales, existantes ou à créer. Un comité spécial diligent et efficace de la FAO pourrait être créé à cette fin.
S. PADMANAGARA (Indonesia): The Indonesian delegation would like to compliment the Director-General for the able discharge of his task in the follow-up of Resolution 6/81, as was adopted by the Twenty-first session of the FAO Conference, the result of which we have before us as document C 83/25.
We would also like to thank the Assistant Director-General of the Agriculture Department for his enlightening introduction this morning. We are grateful for the clear picture given of the report C 83/25 which has enabled us to better understand the current state of affairs concerning the world community in its efforts of launching the plant genetic resources for the welfare of mankind. No efforts should be spared if the welfare of mankind is at stake. Therefore, any attempt leading to the culmination of those efforts will have our support.
The Indonesian delegation concurs with the conclusions of the report of the Director-General as contained in document C 83/25, pages 28 and 29. The Indonesian delegation would therefore like to join those delegations who lent their full support for the draft Resolution on the International Undertaking of Plant Genetic Resources as proposed by the Director-General.
A. DAALOUL (Tunisie) (langue originale arabe): Permettez-moi tout d'abord de présenter mes compli‐ments au Directeur général pour le projet de résolution qui est inclus dans ce document sur la conservation des ressources phytogénétiques. Nous attachons une très grande importance en Tunisie à ce sujet. C'est pour cela que nous avons eu le souci de créer un centre national de conservation des ressources phytogénétiques il y a trois ans. Nous avons pu faire des collections concernant certaines expèces végétales comme le blé, l'orge et les fèves entre autres. Nous avons également eu le souci de maintenir des relations officielles et officieuses avec le CICRG et certains instituts de la Méditerrannée. Nous avons également des accords bilatéraux avec des centres internationaux de recherche comme le CIMIT et l'ICARDA, et en plus de tout cela nous constatons que toutes ces institutions et ces centres n'ont pas un véritable statut juridique international comme c'est le cas pour la FAO. C'est pour cela que la constitution d'une banque internationale des ressources phytogénétiques sous l'égide de la FAO constitue une évolution normale et naturelle de la dynamique de ce sujet et nous considérons que le contrôle par la FAO représente une garantie juri‐dique du libre échange de ces ressources phytogènes.
C'est pour cela que nous insistons dans ce domaine sur la nécessité de créer ce centre inter‐national des ressources phytogénétiques sous le contrôle de la FAO.
L. AL-ANSI (Yemen Arab Republic) (original language Arabic): On behalf of my country, I would like to give our warmest thanks to the Director-General. I wish to thank him for the report which has been submitted to us in document C 83/25. I would also like thank Dr Bommer for all his elucidations on plant genetic resources. We believe that this document is exhaustive, and convincing. It faith‐fully records the importance of the main objectives and principles which pertain to plant genetic resources and their use.
We also give our full support to the Draft Resolution as regards the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources and all the measures that can be taken on the basis of needs and objectives. We believe that everything included in the document mentioned above is a very serious step which will be fruitful and which will benefit all countries, particularly if there is effective cooperation.
J.GAZZO F.D. (Perú): Quiero iniciar esta intervención felicitando, muy de veras, al doctor Bommer por la magnífica exposición que ha hecho, y al Director General por el enfoque secuencial del pro‐blema de los Recursos Fitogenéticos que llega a una conclusión logica.
Tengo la impresión que no obstante la doble intervención del doctor Bommer explicando claramente los alcances de este acuerdo, de esta propuesta, no ha sido entendido por muchos delegados. Esta reunion se ha esforzado en defender al CIRF, yo también lo defiendo, en lo técnico. Por consiguien‐te, lo que se quiere es crear un Sistema de Recursos Fitogenéticos, y si alguna institución o país se ha irrogado la representación total del Sistema, está muy equivocado. El Sistema de Recursos Fitoge-néticos que nosotros, que el Director General propicia con el grupo de estudio, es un sistema poli-factorial, en el cual el componente técnico es una de las partes del Sistema, pero no es todo el Sistema.
El Sistema Integral de Recursos Fitogenéticos, en realidad debería contener, o según mi modesto entender, el componente técnico, el componente político, el componente económico, y por qué no en este mundo de interrelaciones, el componente social, y finalmente el componente informático, el componente de información.
Muchos países aunque están de acuerdo en la mayoría de los puntos, han hecho algunas objeciones. Uno de ellos dice en la parte económica. Entonces, mi pregunta sería a aquellos países que sola‐mente han puesto como factor limitante a la ejecución·de todo este magnífico paquete, el aspecto económico, yo les pondría la pregunta ¿y qué tal si conseguimos el dinero, apoyarían ustedes este proyecto? Quedo en espera de la respuesta.
En segundo punto, algunos otros países se han esmerado en decir que sería este Convenio Internacio‐nal, que tendría muchos inconvenientes y algunos peligros; pero se han olvidado de mencionar cuáles son las ventajas que podría tener. 0 sea que han visto la moneda sólo por un lado, pero no por el otro.
Yo creo que, en realidad, tenemos que entendernos claramente. Lo que perseguimos no es duplicar ni que nadie trabaje en lugar de otros, sino que va a trabajar además de otro, sin quitar ninguna de las funciones de otro, pero sin permitir que se irroguen atribuciones que, siendo organismo de carácter técnico, tiene implicancias políticas; porque esas atribuciones, nosotros los países sobe‐ranos, no se las vamos a dar ni se las damos.
Esas atribuciones son propias de cada país soberano, y lo que el Director General ha querido con este magnífico documento, es juntar esfuerzos. Hay centenares de bancos de germoplasma por todo el mundo, pululando, dando vueltas sin que haya un coordinador. Yo puedo mencionar el caso de mi país en el que tenemos infinidad de bancos y teníamos alrededor de 1.500 especies preincaicas en cajas que se han erosionado, y que sólo quedan 50. Todo esto es sencillamente mastodontico, para hacer despertar conciencias.
Si la mayoría de los usuarios decimos que el Sistema no trabaja, no es porque estemos locos; es porque no trabaja. Si trabajara, no estaríamos aquí y este tema no se hubiera presentado. No se trabaja desde el punto de vista integral del sistema. En este momento, lo que se quiere es una se‐cuencia lógica; se quiere pasar del Banco Nacional al Banco Regional, del Banco Regional quizás al Banco Continental, y finalmente al Banco Mundial. Y quisiéramos que el Centro Internacional de Recursos Fitogenéticos (CIRF) fuera el Centro Mundial de Recursos Fitogenéticos (CMRF), y como des‐graciadamente, en el CIRF no tenemos representatividad la mayoría de los países, y principalmente, aquéllos que somos centros de origen normalmente.
Me permito hablar en esta forma porque yo soy parte de todo esto, puesto que yo he sido miembro del Consejo Directivo del CHA, por dos años representando a América Latina, he sido miembro y Director del Centro Internacional de la Papa. Y sin embargo, he criticado duramente, a veces, algunos pro‐yectos; como por ejemplo, recuerdo un proyecto que quisieron hacer, siquiera intentar con una audacia increíble, llevar la papa a la zona de la Amazonia, donde llueve tres metros y la temperatura no baja de 30 grados. Sencillamente, yo les dije que es como traer un oso polar y ponerlo en Africa; se va a morir ese pobre animal. Y así sucedió; esos centros de alto nivel tuvieron - y el Dick Sawyer no me deja mentir- tuvieron, digamos, el presagio de este pájaro de mal agüero que fui yo, que les dije que eso iba a ser un fracaso; pero es cuestión sólo de sentido común, es cuestión de hábitats.
Yo lo que quiero invocar a todos los países, porque dentro de los que han tomado la palabra, he oído mucha sensatez en la Gran Bretaña, mucha sensatez en Canadá, y en algunos países, son tantos, que veo que se están acercando, y que quizás cuando se llegue a un F-8, a un F-5, donde la habilidad del genetista tiene su valor propio porque es un inventor, un descubridor, bueno, se le otorgue un premio, así como una especie de Premio Nòbel de genética que sea sustantivo pero que no esté a merced del mercantilismo, que no esté a merced de sacar variedades de alto requerimiento energético, que están asociadas y consociadas con las empresas que venden fertilizantes y que venden insecticidas, y que venden bombas para riego. Y entonces, ¿qué pasa con los problemas de nosotros, los países en vías de desarrollo? ¿Cuánto tiempo hace que invocamos por una variedad de trigo tropical, que nunca lo encuentran? ¿Cuánto tiempo que pedimos que refuercen en proteínas los tubérculos como la yuca y el camote para poder usarlos como harina, en sustituto en parte de la harina de trigo que es mucho más rica en proteínas? Pues no hay respuesta. Eso duerme el sueño de los justos.
Entonces, lo que quisiéramos sencillamente es que haya un acercamiento, porque yo creo en la buena fe de todos los países del mundo; somos los mismos seres humanos con el mismo sistema sanguíneo, corazón; y si uno está en el lado de los desarrollados y otro está en el lado de los de en vías de desarrollo, todos tenemos la misma inquietud y a todos nos inquieta el problema del hambre.
Por consiguiente, estoy seguro que aquí nadie ha atacado el CIRF. Parece que todo se centre en una defensa del CIRF; el CIRF sigue y además tendrá más dinero todavía. Pero lo que queremos sencilla‐mente es que cumpla cada organismo, y este sistema, que en realidad sería un centro de coordinación mundial de recursos fitogenéticos, coordinación del aprovechamiento mundial. Y por supuesto, las implicancias políticas son innegables; son innegables, y habría que declarar con toda hidalguía y con toda firmeza que han habido algunos de estos centros que han tenido pruebas fehacientes, escritas, que se han negado recursos fitogenéticos a algunos países por razones políticas, y no han tenido la honestidad de manifestarle a los miembros que tal o cual país no quiere dar la semilla. Entonces, han actuado con falta de fuerza o con mucho temor o no se con qué.
Por consiguiente, yo creo que la creación de un organismo a nivel mundial, en nada le quita autoridad, en nada le quita ninguna atribución ni al CIRF, ni al Banco del IRRI, ni al Banco del CIIA, ni a ninguno de ellos. Vamos a reforzarlos; queremos complementarlos; pero queremos que cuando un ciuda‐dano se identifique y exhiba un pasaporte, ese pasaporte sea real y diga todas las características. Y cada semilla debe tener un pasaporte en el cual diga origen, etc.... con todas las características. Eso es lo único que pedimos, y creo interpreto el sentir unánime de la Sala. Lo siento como un mensaje maravilloso. Todos estamos de acuerdo con este estudio que es perfectible; es perfectible, no es perfecto así como es perfectible el CIRF y como es perfectible el Programa Mundial de Alimentos y todos queremos perfeccionarnos.
Entonces, yo creo que este documento, por lo menos en cuanto concierne a un país tan afectado, centro de origen de la papa, país -que ha perdido más de 1 400 especies preincaicas que ya se fueron, yo apoyo decididamente y con todo calor, y con todo sentir humano, y con todo sentido de país soberano este documento.
CHAIRMAN: Distinguished delegates, we have not quite finished our work. As you will realise, we have not even touched in any great detail on the improvement of the undertaking with a view to its adoption as part of the Resolution before us.
I realise that there are some observers that have requested to take the floor. Unfortunately, in the light of the fact that member countries still have to finish the substantive work, we shall defer giving them the floor until such time as we have made significant progress on what should go into our final report.
At this stage, we can briefly say that all delegations recognize the progress made in the development of the concept of internationalization of conservation and exchange of genetic resources as a common heritage of mankind. The valuable work done so far by IBPGR was fully recognized by all. However, the limitations of the existing systems were stressed and the need to effect improvement was common opinion. Whether or not such improvements should be tailored within the framework, and under the aegis, of FAO, was discussed at length.- The necessity to reconcile positions still remained.
This necessity still remains, and I therefore wish to propose to the Commission that we establish a contact group to do more detailed work on this. If you agree, I should like to offer the following suggestions. I suggest that we do it in a manner that may be representative of the interests of member nations of FAO, and therefore original representation is normally the broadly accepted one. Or course, we shall try also to accommodate different shades of opinion on the subject. For Africa, we would propose Kenya and Benin; for the Near East , Libya; for Latin America and the Caribbean, Mexico and Trinidad and Tobago; for the Nordic countries, Sweden; for the South West Pacific, Australia; for Europe, United Kingdom, France and Spain; for Asia, Bangladesh; for North America, the United States of America.
We wish and recommend that the Contact Group should be kept as small as possible in order to allow the group to do more meaningful work. If you agree, we should try to limit it to a maximum of 13. That would include part of the Secretariat, which would provide some clarification and some guidance.
We have made arrangements that the Contact Group should meet as soon as we adjourn. We must also remember that the Drafting Committee will have to have its meeting, because there is work to be done. Of course, we will not be in a position to consider what we have done today. This is why we have tried, as much as possible, to avoid pulling into the Contact Group those countries that are already represented in the Drafting Committee.
At this stage, I believe we all have the desire to adjourn and let these people, to whom we have given so much work, start their meeting while we go and enjoy our weekend.
The Contact Group will meet immediately in the Sudan Room. The Drafting Committee will meet in the Philippines Room at six o'clock.
B.O.M. CHIYABWE (Zambia): Mr. Chairman I am sorry to come in at this late hour. I should like to ask whether people who are interested in attending the deliberations of the Contact Group would be allowed to do so, without taking part in the discussions.
CHAIRMAN: If the Commission agrees, I think it might: only confuse the issue if we make a large group. This subject is difficult. These people will have to sit until midnight or 2 o'clock in the morning. Maybe we should go and enjoy our weekend and they will report to us on Monday.
The meeting rose at 16.55 hours
La seance est levée à 16 h 55
Se levanta la sesión a las 16.55 horas
