CHAIRMAN: The meeting of Commission I is called to order. As we decided yesterday, we will vote on the Arab Member Nations' Draft Resolution on Technical Assistance to the Palestinian People. Yesterday we postponed our voting because of the request of some French and Spanish-speaking countries on the need to have the text of the Resolution, together with the amendments proposed by Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia in their national languages.
Therefore, we shall proceed with the vote. Does the united States delegation wish to speak on the voting procedure?
David MoGAFFEY (United States of America): Yesterday my Government was accused of threatening the members of this Organization of using a big stick. I have denied that accusation, but in order to remove any suspicion of coercion, and to allow members to vote strictly on the principles, I would now request that the vote on this Resolution be taken by secret ballot.
CHAIRMAN: I will ask Legal Counsel to give us the procedure.
LEGAL COUNSEL: Should a delegate request a roll call vote, this is something which must then be done. However, if a delegate requests a secret ballot, this is something which the Conference or the Commission must decide upon. Therefore, it is a matter which has to be decided by the Commission.
Tawfik Ahmed Hassan Al MESH-HEDANI (Iraq) (original language Arabic):
Yesterday I proposed that a vote be taken on this draft and that proposal met with your acceptance. We heard the opinion of Legal Council yesterday and, moreover, the delegate frati Kuwait spoke, and it was proposed that we have a roll call vote. No one spoke about a secret vote. When the representative frcm the United States proposed a secret vote, he did so this morning. Whereas our proposal was nade yesterday.
CHAIRMAN: I would ask delegations that we should not engage in a discussion on procedure. If a proposal is nade on this procedure the Chair must accept it and submit it to the vote of the Commission. That is what Legal Counsel has just told us. It would save us time and energy if we submit the united States' proposal to this Commission. I propose that we take a decision.
Ihose delegations who wish to accept the United States' proposal that we vote on this Resolution by secret ballot, please indicate.
Those delegations opposing the United States, please indicate.
Those delegations abstaining, please indicate.
The United States' proposal is not carried.
we now proceed to the vote. Yesterday there was a request by the Kuwait delegation that we have a roll call. As established under our Rules of Procedure, if any delegation asks for a roll call, the Chair has to take that roll call.
Vote
Vote
Votación
RULE XII - 13(a) GRO
If a vote is equally divided en a ratter other than an election, a second vote shall he taken at a subsequent meeting to be held not less than one hour after the conclusion of the seating at which the equally divided vote occurred. If the second vote is also equally divided the proposal shall be regarded as rejected.
In cas de partage égal des vois lors d'un vote ne portant pas sur une élection, on procède à un deuxième vote en cours d'une slance ultérieure, qui ne peut avoir lieu soins d'une heure après la fin de celle à laquelle s!est produit le partage égal ces voix. Si les voix restent également partagées lors de ce second vote, la proposition est considérée comme repoussée.
Si hubiera erpate en un asunto que no sea una elección, se repetirá la votación en una sesión subsiguiente la cual no deberá celebrarse hasta que' haya transcurrido una hora, por lo renos, ctsát la conclusion de acuella en que se produjo el erpate. Si en la segunda votación hubiera tarbién erpate se considerará rechazada la prepuesta.
The draft resolution was adopted
Le projet de résolution est approuvé
El provecto de resolución es aprobado
Jacques WARIN (France): Les Etats Mentores de la Communauté européenne ont voté en faveur de la Résolution qui vient d'être adoptée. Nous étions en effet favorables aux propositions de substance qu'elle contient et qui consistent en une étude de la situation agricole dans les territoires palestiniens occupés et en un rapport aux organes directeurs sur la mise en oeuvre de cette étude. Nous aurions certes préféré que ce genre de décision puisse être prise à la faveur du Rapport de la Conférence, et ne prenne pas la forme plus solennelle d'une Résolution.
Cela dit, notre vote positif a été rendu possible par le soin qu'ont pris les co-auteurs de cette Résolution à en rendre le langage compatible avec celui qui est en usage dans d'autres enceintes du système des Nations Unies où de telles résolutions sont appropriées, et je les remercie à cet égard de l'esprit de coopération qu'ils ont manifesté. Je souhaite enfin préciser que de l'avis de mes partenaires de la Communauté européenne et de ma délégation, l'assistance de la FAO devrait en la circonstance être acheminée par les canaux les plus appropriés en coopération avec les instances compétentes du système des Nations Unies.
Atif Y. BUKHARI (Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of) (original language Arabic): On
behalf of the Arab Group as a whole, Mr Chairman, permit me to express my thanks and highest appreciation to you for the exemplary manner in which you have guided our débate on this natter and our vote on the resolution. On behalf of the Arab group, on behalf of the Near East group, on behalf of the Palestinian people, on behalf of Palestinian farmers, on behalf of the entire Palestinian agricultural sector, permit me to express my thanks to all of the participants in this meeting and to express to them my thanks and recognition for the full and complete support they have put behind this resolution.
we do not feel that this is the victory of one group or party or trend over another group or party or trend. We feel this is the victory of international awareness of right and reason. We feel that it is also a victory for those who are fighting on their own land, farmers who vent to assure their own subsistence.
We fully appreciate this admirable attitude of our brothers and sisters .who have voted in favour of the resolution, and we would reassure them once again that this resolution was in no way intended to be a political resolution. We would be strongly opposed to that, particularly in this Organization which works to promote food and agriculture in the world, and we strive constantly to ensure that it can continue its pioneer role in the world.
Finally, to you, Sir, as Chairman of this Commission, to the FAO, to the Director-General and to the members of the Commission, I would once again repeat my thanks.
David COUTTS (Australia): I will confine my statement to an explanation of the vote. We feel obliged to give some explanation, for two basic reasons. First, WB have not had the opportunity to receive instructions on the view we should take on the draft we received last night and on which we voted, but sane of the difficulties which I mentioned in relation to the earlier draft remain. I could not get in touch with the authorities in Canberra to discuss this, and thus Australia felt obliged to abstain, particularly considering the very sensitive nature of the issues involved.
Secondly, our difficulty in taking a firm position is exacerbated by the feeling that it might not be appropriate for this matter - or at least some aspects of it - to be put as a resolution at the Conference. We would have been perfectly happy to have seen all these issues covered in the report of Commission I, as appropriate.
I.C. FERGUSON (Canada): We agree with the general intention of this resolution and we support the provision of technical assistance to the Palestinians. We have regrettably been constrained to abstain because of reservations about some language of a political nature remaining in the text. We acknowledge that the sponsors of the resolution wait a considerable distance to take account of the misgivings expressed about the earlier version. We, do, however, very much regret that this resolution has been introduced at a conference designed to deal with technical questions and in an organization which has been relatively free of political issues in the past. We would have preferred to have seen the matter dealt with in the report of the Conference rather than by resolution.
David McGAFFEY (United States of Anerica): The united States voted "no" to this resolution. Our vote should not and cannot be construed as objecting to technical assistance to the Palestinian people since the US provides significant technical and humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people. We voted against the extreme political language in the resolution and regret very much that this body has decided to open FAO to political debate. We will attempt to minimize any negative consequences of that action by pointing out that this resolution was approved by less than half of the membership of FAO.
I would make one additional point. We have just approved a budget for 1990-91 which has no provisions for the expenditures proposed in this resolution. My delegation presumes that any costs of this resolution will be met by taking resources from other activities proposed in the Programme of work and Budget.
R.G. PETTITT (United Kingdom): The delegate of France has already spoken for the united Kingdom. I would, however, reinforce his explanation of our vote by adding that the Uhited Kingdom deplores the introduction of political resolutions into governing bodies of this Organization. Our action in not opposing the resolution has only been because of the care which the sponsors have taken to ensure that the language is compatible with that used, often without objection, in other fora where such resolutions are appropriate.
Mohammad ABÜ-KOASH (observer for Palestine) : In the light of What has been said by the delegate of Saudi Arabia, I am left with very little to say except to associate our delegation with expressions of thanks to you and to the members who have supported the draft resolution. At the same time, we hope that those ráio could not support the draft resolution at this stage will be able to do so at the Plenary.
With regard to what was said by the delegate of the United States, we would like to affirm, that, as all of you know, the delegation of Palestine has been an Observer in the various UN bodies since 1974, The draft resolution just adopted is not something novel or new. The mere fact that the delegation of Palestine, along with the Arab group, has chosen not to introduce draft resolutions in the past does not mean that their right to do so is removed or ignored.
The distinguished delegate of the United States knows very well that similar resolutions have been adopted in the ILO and the UNIDO, UNCTAD, WHO and elsewhere. However, the words of a threat by the delegation of the United States has filled this room. We are a people who believe in democracy and our people are struggling for freedom and democracy, and the United States was one of the countries Which put down the rules for the procedure conceining all the UN bodies including the FAO. These rules call for a one-œuntry, one-vote. We respect that democracy and the author of these rules, the United States itself, should respect it and refrain in action and not merely in talk - refrain from threats. We have reason to believe, Mr Chairman, that the pattern of the vote reflects part of the threats which have been sounded by the United States.
To sum up, is it really that the United States is worried about the financial consequences of this draft resolution which costs $ 100 000. I have reason to believe that the United States would contribute annually more than $ 4 billion to Israel to occupy our homeland. We have reason to believe, if the United States wants to help us, we do not want this $ 100 000 Sir. If the United States help us in obtaining our freedom and agreeing to the peace initiatives launched by our people, and in helping us in getting rid of the Israeli occupation which the United States depicted as if occupation brings prosperity, after all, we Palestinians are learning from our predecessors, those who fought against occupation including the United States.
POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN
CHAIRMAN: I thank the distinguished Observer from Palestine. I think this Commission is aware that we should concentrate our statements on the agenda and not digress on items and issues that are alien to our agenda.
I apologize to the distinguished delegates from two Member Nations as they had expressed the wish to speak before I gave the floor to an Observer, because I did not see their flags before. I now give the floor to the delegate of Norway and then the delegate of Israel.
Eivind S. HOMME (Norway): Norway voted in favour of draft resolution C 89/LIM/44. We would however like to stress that we viewed the raising in this forum of a highly politicized issue as unwarranted and regrettable. The issue pertains to a conflict whose solution can only be found through negotiations leading to a comprehensive settlement.
Norway is a considerable contributor of aid to the Palestinian people -US$ 11.5 million in 1989, which is allocated for humanitarian assistance. This assistance is provided through various channels of our choice including UN, RWA and non-governmental organizations.
RIGHT OF REPLY
DROIT DE REPONSE
DERECHO DE REPLICA
Ilan HARTUV (Israel): I just want to answer as the distinguished delegate of Iran asked yesterday why do we not allow FAO delegations free access to the territories administered by Israel, and hinted that we feel that we have something to hide. Well this is a little bit ridiculous because, first of all, anybody can visit the territories. There is no need for a special permit.
As to specialist delegations, we encourage, as we have said, any delegation that wishes to fund aid projects or administer aid in any way, and right now the distinguished representative of Norway - and before that the distinguished representative of USA have said they channel a lot of aid to those territories. Delegations have cote to do fact-finding before, but as everyone knows, there have been dozens of delegations of the UNDP who do fund many aid projects in the administered territories, and so do the Italians, the Swedes, the Canadians, the EEC and mny other countries and organizations, including many NGO's. We shall continue to welcome anybody coming to help or for fact-finding without any preconceived ideas. We are not sure we will welcome any delegations coming with preconceived ideas Which we feel will only add oil into a troubled area, and hinder the peace process.
RIGHT OF REPLY
DROIT DE REPONSE
DERECHO DE REPLICA
David MoGAFFEY (United States of Anerica) : A previous speaker has been using the name of my country. I would just like to point out to the members of this Organization that the Observer from the Palestine Liberation Organization has just confirmed to the Members of this body that they have just voted for the introduction of political speeches and political divisions into the proceedings of FAO.
I would like to repeat and emphasize that the US has never made any threats against FAO or against the Members of FAO. We are confirmed in our support of FAO and hope, that despite these differences, FAO can continue and thrive.
CHAIRMAN: So we conclude our debate on the draft resolution, "Technical Assistance to the Palestinian People" and we move to the draft resolution proposed by the Nordic Member Nations on "FAO Activities related to Sustainable Development". There is an amendment draft resolution contained in document in C 89/LIM/27-Rev 1, and I will ask the distinguished delegate of Norway to present this revised text.
Ms Birgit SCHJERVEN (Norway): The Drafting Group on this resolution net, as we were asked to last night, to work on the possibility on having a consensus text taking into consideration all the amendments proposed under the discussion of this resolution. During our work we reached consensus on most of the matters we were discussing yesterday, so the text before you is a consensus text except for one point, and here I would like to make all the delegations aware of a little technical matter that in para 4(b), that paragrafai should be in brackets. On this point, the Drafting Committee could not reach agreement so we put it before the Commission for their consideration, with the emphasis on the agreement of all the other amendments proposed yesterday.
CHAIRMAN: I thank the distinguished delegate from Norway. We have a document before us that contains a lot of agreement on the text after negotiations between interested parties, and that could accept our endorsement and our consensus approval if only we could accept that the one point of non-agreement could be dropped in the name of compromise and in the name of understanding among ourselves. I understand that this point raised on paragraph 4(b) has already been introduced and there are a number of paragraphs in the revised text, so it would be in the interest of the Commission if the delegation táio is proposing this amendment, and in the interest of compromise, if he could find it possible to waive his interest in the voting of this so that we could accept the resolution as a whole.
Carlos GARCIA DE ALBA (Mexico) : De acuerdo con la exposición que nos acaba de hacer la distinguida delegada del Gobierno de Noruega, queremos dejar constancia de que la delegación de México ha colaborado para encontrar un punto de acuerdo y de consenso que satisfaga los requerimientos de las diferentes delegaciones, sobre lo que se entiende entre el vínculo que existe entre desarrollo sostenible y conservación biológica.
La delegación de México ha mostrado fehacientemente su voluntad de diálogo y en aras de introducir lo que a nuestro juicio es inprescindible, queremos plantear la necesidad de que la propuesta de resolución introduzca un apartado (b) en el punto 4 de la parte operativa.
Consideramos, como delegación representante de un pais en desarrollo, que es fundamental tener claro el vínculo que la FAO, como Agencia de desarrollo, debe tener en los debates de cualquier instrumento jurídico que se relacione con las actividades de conservación de la diversidad biológica.
La FAO tiene una larga experiencia que se prolonga por espacio de casi 40 años, en actividades no sólo de desarrollo como lo señala su mandato constitucional, sino también de conservación.
No está pues por demás en que insistamos que es necesario que una Agencia de desarrollo colabore con otras agencias de Naciones Unidas, y específicamente con el PNUMA, en la preparación de un instrumento que tome en cuenta la experiencia acumulada por FAO en materia de conservación de la diversidad biológica y genética.
Es por eso, que consideramos pertinente presentar ante el pleno de esta Comisión, esta propuesta de introducción de un Sub-párrafo (b).
D.A. BUCKLE (United Kingdom) : I should say at the outset that I have no problem with the resolution as originally introduced by the Nordic countries. It is the introduction of the text concerning plant genetic resources that concerns me. There are several reasons for this. First, there are points of principle on the question of introducing specific issues on plant genetic resources or, for that matter, anything else into a general resolution on sustainable development. I presume that to do so is within the resolution rules, and would be glad for confirmation of the natter.
The point is that we could all do this, and presumably we still could. The resolution could be lost due to lack of time. we could formulate amendments on all manner of things: land usef farming systems, population control, women in development, trade, tropical forestry, to mention a few. All can be related to sustainable development. I have deliberately included in my examples subjects which have already been the subject of resolutions. In the case of plant genetic resources we have already had not just one resolution but two.
During our earlier discussions several issues were raised which we agreed to refer to a separate working group. Dr Bonte-Friedheim noted them and specifically read out a list of issues that he would refer to the working group in the very near future. I did not catch everything that he read out as he went at quite a pace, but if this item was not included I really cannot see any reason why that should not be the appropriate forum for discussing this issue.
If I have understood correctly what is now being said, we are now thinking of deleting paragrafai 4(b) from the resolution that we have in front of us. If that is so, I think we need to consider references in other parts of the preamble and the text which need to be brought into line with my concept of what this resolution should really state.
Noboru SATTO (Japan): I should like to suport the proposal just made by the United Kingdom delegation. As pointed out, there are two other resolutions considering plant genetic resources, and this draft resolution is mainly for the general purpose of sustainable development.
I fully understand the idea of this draft resolution and I have no difficulty in supporting it. Actually, we are trying to support this draft resolution but I think it is a little out of balance to introduce so many things on plant genetic resources. That is one point.
The other point concerns financial difficulty. Yesterday there was an explanation from the Secretariat about extra funds for this draft resolution. From our point of view, of course we must have money in some sense but those kind of costs should be absorbed within the budget just approved or funded by extra-budgetary resources, as far as I understood.
Sra. Mercedes FERMIN GOMEZ (Venezuela) : Nosotros vamos a apoyar las modificaciones presentadas por México a este Proyecto de Resolución; y damos los argumentos que caben en relación con la posición que la FAO ha mantenido por su derecho propio, expresado en su Constitución y asignado luego en la Conferencia Mundial del Medio Ambiente en 1972, en cuanto a conservación y desarrollo de los recursos genéticos que son exactamente los de la diversidad biologica.
No podemos nosotros asimilar la importancia de la diversidad biológica y de los recursos genéticos con cualquiera oteo de los programs que han sido mencionados aquí y que podrían tener ingerencia en esta Resolución, porque la diversidad biológica y los recursos fitogenéticos están incidiendo en cualquiera de los proyectos y de los programs que se puedan desarrollar en Naciones Unidas en relación con el medio ambiente, en relación con los ¡recursos naturales. Es lógico que cualquiera resolución que vaya a afectar esta situación de recursos naturales tenga que tarar en cuenta, aun cuando no fuera de manera expresa, los criterios y los principios en relación con la diversidad biológica, a los cuales debe atender la FAO.
Y si esta es una Resolución que se va a aceptar en una Conferencia de la FAO, es lógico que no se olvide este principio de la diversidad biológica. Por eso, nosotros vamos a apoyar la modificación que está presentando México, y que se refiere justamente a juntar sus esfuerzos con las otras organizaciones para atender todo lo relativo al eventual instrumento legal que en relación con la conservación de la diversidad biológica del planeta pueda desarrollarse.
Es una previsión de cualquiera de los programas que en el futuro puedan desarrollarse en relación con los recursos en este campo. Nosotros estamos presenciando actualmente, en relación con los recursos genéticos, un similar problema. La FAO había venido prestando atención a los recursos fitogenéticos, y había llegado a crear un programa de acción en relación a los recursos fitogenéticos. Pero ya vimos cómo en una Comisión pasada se presentó la observación de que no habíamos incluido en este Compromiso de los Recursos Fitogenético a los recursos zoogenéticos y a los peces, que forman parte exactamente de la diversidad biológica.
Por esta razón, el Grupo de Trabajo de la Comisión de Recursos Fitogenéticos estuvo estudiando el problema para considerar la posibilidad de incluir en esos recursos los zoogenéticos y los peces. Esto lo presento como un ejemplo de la necesidad de prever hacia el futuro la cobertura de ese problema de la diversidad biológica. Porque precisamente cualquiera de los elementos que caben dentro de ese campo deben ser atendidos por la FAO, que es a quien las Naciones Unidas por su Constitución le asigna la conservación y el desarrollo de estos recursos, y posteriormente también asignados por la Conferencia Mundial del Medio Ambiente desde 1972.
Entonces, si la FAO tiene elementos asignados a ella para su preocupación por estos problemas, es lógico que se junte con cualquiera otra Organización de Naciones Unidas que quiera atender a estos problemas. Por esa razón pues, estamos de acuerdo con la modificación de la parte (b) en la parte resolutoria de lo que estamos estudiando, redactado en la forma en que lo ha presentado México, y que yo me permito leer: "Que una sus esfuerzos a fin de asegurar que los conceptos de conservación y desarrollo sean debidamente tenidos en cuenta en la asociación de un eventual instrumento legal para la conservación de la diversidad biológica del planeta". Es xana previsión hacia el futuro que no impide que la FAO pueda colaborar, cooperar, juntar sus esfuerzos con cualquier otro de los organismos que se van a ocupar del mismo problema.
Por eso, yo presento mi apoyo a la proposición mexicana en este sentido.
Philippe PIOTET (France): Je ne reprendrai pas l'intervention que j'avais faite hier en disant qu'il suffisait de lire le titre du projet de résolution qui nous est soumis pour voir que l'on parle du développement durable. Je crois qu'il est important que la FAO ait une résolution sur ce sujet. Je crois aussi qu'il est important que cette résolution soit équilibrée. Or il suffit de constater le texte actuel pour s'apercevoir que si les ressources phytogénétiques sont un sujet important, on pourrait traiter dans cette résolution (qui pourrait avoir une dizaine de pages) tous les autres sujets qui sont visés notamment par le Considérant No 2. Pourquoi ne pas parler aussi des dégradations du sol, du déboisement, de la désertification, de la pollution du sol et de l'eau? Il n'y a aucune raison pour que l'on fasse une part aussi importante aux ressources phytogénétiques. D'autant plus que ce sujet a déjà fait l'objet de deux résolutions et d'une décision concernant la mise en place d'un groupe de travail. Je conçois fort bien que l'on puisse ajouter quelques éléments sur les ressources phytogénétiques, nais dans le texte actuel, elles sont citées quatre ou même cinq fois. Donc je crois que c'est trop, et nous allons totalement déséquilibrer le texte si nous conservons notamment le paragraphe b) du No 4, qui confie à l'Organisation des laissions nouvelles en liaison avec l'Organisation des Nations Unies et qui fait référence également à un système mondial déjà rais en place sur la FAO. A ma connaissance, le système mondial n'a pas lieu d'être cité ici puisqu'il fait l'objet d'autres résolutions. Donc mon souhait est, au moins, que l'on ne parle pas du paragraphe b) du No 4 et qu'on revoit également certains "considérant" et "reconnaissant" qui figurent en introduction de la résolution.
José TUBINO (Canada) : We share some difficulties already expressed by the delegations of UK, Japan, France and seme others. We should like to see a clear-cut resolution on sustainable development. We understand that this is a very important issue. We are very happy that the delegation of Norway brought forward this Resolution. We are willing to support it, but in its current form we find that it is a distorted resolution. We are one of those countries which proposed seme amendments to the Plant Genetic Resources Resolutions that were presented to this Commission a few days ago. We accepted that those proposals should follow the path which was proposed by the Secretariat, because we thought it was a logical way in which to go. The Commission agreed with it, and we went along with it. We can see seme similarity between our proposed amendments and the amendments that are being proposed now by the delegate of Mexico. For that reason, we do not want to see this meeting being delayed. We knew that we are short of time.
I should like to plea to the Mexican delegation to realize that seme of these amendments really belong to Plant Genetic Resources. Perhaps they would be so kind as to include seme of those amendments with the list that the Secretariat now has for preparing the Report which will go to the Ccranission on Plant Genetic Resources, and to deal with these issues in the proper body. However, we do not believe that many of these amendments belong in this resolution.
Muhammad Salean KHAN (Pakistan) : In the spirit in which you opened this discussion, Mr Chairman, I thought what you were basically saying was that we take the Resolution as it has emerged from the mechanism you set up for a consensus basis, and that we concentrate on paragraph 4 b). I note that new we are opening a discussion on this, there are not many countries present here. I even wonder if there is a quorum present. If you intend to open up a discussion I think it would be better to wait until more countries are present and then discuss this issue.
Availing myself of this opportunity, I should like to propose one or two editorial changes which would not alter the substance of the Resolution. I would propose that in the second paragraph in the preamble, starting from "Considering", in the last line after "policies and priorities" we could also add "and practices", because agricultural practices also have a relationship with environmental degradation.
At the top of page 2 in the paragraph "Agreeing that in order to promote sustainable development, ERO must in all its activities", I think this needs more qualification by putting in the word "relevant", because FAO has many activities. Therefore, I propose that we put in the word "relevant activities".
Coming to the two earlier suggestions on paragraph 4 b)f we could go along with those suggestions for its total deletion. Barring that, I think my delegation would like to support what Mexico has said.
CHAIRMAN: Before I give the floor to the last two speakers on my list, I have a suggestion. I do not believe we are getting very far with this debate. we are having opinions expressed for some sections of the Resolution, and others for the amendments put forward by Mexico. I really do not believe that we shall reach any conclusion in this forum on the merits or demerits of these amendments.
Therefore I propose that we once again ask the distinguished delegate from Norway to make an extra effort, as she so kindly agreed to do before, and to get together with those delegations which have expressed their views on this Resolution, to see whether it would be possible before, say, four o'clock this afternoon, to have seme kind of text which could be agreed.
Otherwise we shall be forced to have a vote on the Resolution, which is something, we would rather avoid. We hope that there is still room for compromise and understanding amongst the delegations.
Ms Birgit SCHJERVEN (Norway) : Of course I will do everything in my power to ease the way towards the consensus that we all want. I might add that we had a thorough discussion yesterday. We also continued during the evening and we had some talks this morning, in a very good spirit of cooperation. However, there are some differences between us, but I am happy to try again and I ask the others to join me in making a last effort.
CHAIRMAN: Having heard from the delegate of Norway, I wonder if it would not be the best solution for us to interrupt our meeting here so that the delegations of Norway, Venezuela, Mexico, the UK, Canada, France and perhaps Brazil, can get together to prepare a text. Would that be acceptable? Do you want to object to that proposal?
Angel BARBERO MARTIN (España): No quiero hacer objeciones, quiero simplemente unirme al grupo de contacto.
CHAIRMAN: I do not think the Chairman of the Group will have any problem in accepting into the Group any members who would like to participate, in order to have a fruitful débate.
Sra. Mercedes FERMÍN GOMEZ (Venezuela): Yo simplemente quiero expresar que no veo que haya diferencias profundas entre la delegación de Noruega, que es la proponente, y lo que nosotros estamos observando. Ella dice que es excesiva la mención de los recursos fitogenéticos en los párrafos en que se ha incluido, pero eso es una consecuencia derivada del texto de la iniciación del párrafo, y permítame, señor Presidente, que le dé un ejemplo. Dice: "Subrayando que la FAO debería desempeñar una función directiva internacional, como centro por excelencia del sistema de las Naciones Unidas en varios sectores relacionados con el medio ambiente y el desarrollo sostenible, es decir, la conservación del suelo y la ordenación de las cuencas hidrográficas". Se le agrega esto, que es una consecuencia inmediata: "La conservación de la diversidad biológica y genética, de importancia actual y potencial para el sistena agrícola ganadero forestal".
Es lógico. Si se van a conservar las cuencas hidrográficas, hay el peligro de que en la pretendida conservación de cuencas hidrográficas pueda dañarse toda la diversidad geológica que existe en eso. Y le voy a poner un ejemplo, señor Presidente, y perdóname, que lo voy a usar de su país, como lo puedo explicar del mío. Cuando se trata de trabajar en la conservación de cuencas de ríos tan grandes como el Amazonas o el Orinoco, hay el peligro de que allí se dañen infinidad de recursos potencialmente extraordinarios, que son los de la diversidad biológica y que están representados en las plantas, en los animales, en los pequeños seres existentes allí.
Si no se hace esta advertencia de que hay que cuidar la diversidad biológica, es muy posible que, tratando de hacer la conservación de una cuenca hidrográfica, sencillamente se dañe el resto de lo que se llamaría la diversidad biológica. Porque cuando los ingenieros tratan de hacer una carretera o una vía de communicación, ellos no están pensando en la diversidad biológica; ellos están pensando en sus criterior técnicos: cómo pueden hacer una carretera más eficiente o menos eficiente. Es ahí donde sufre la diversidad biológica y donde sufren los recursos fitogenétioos, que, con perdón de la Delegada de Noruega, no son otra cosa. Si la diversidad biológica está implicando los recursos fitogenéticos y zoogenéticos y queremos conservar esto, tenemos que expresarlo en cada una de las actividades en las cuales corre peligro esta diversidad biológica, que hoy la humanidad está interesada en conservar y que se halla en peligro siempre que nosotros nos ponemos a realizar trabajos, por ejemplo, de ingeniería para la construcción de carreteras o de desarrollo, aun del desarrollo sostenible, porque el desarrollo sostenible no es otra cosa que el propio desarrollo de las actividades que el hombre realiza a través de la agricultura y que han sido siempre muy dañinas para la diversidad biológica.
De modo que no es excesivo, si se le agrega lo relativo a la diversidad biológica, para hacer un "remainding" en la conciencia de quienes están en efecto eso. No es agregar una materia nueva, porque este concepto debe estar subyacente en todo lo que significa desarrollo desde el punto de vista físico o desde el punto de vista biológico, sea forestal, sean peces, sean recursos fitogenéticos. De manera que no hay contradicción, señor Presidente.
EL PRESIDENTE: Yo creo que está claro que si seguimos en el débate, por interesante que sea el tema, no llegaremos a ninguna conclusión sobre la resolución, que es sobre la que tenemos que decidir ahora. Reabrirlos todo el tema y toda la importancia que el tema tiene, pero no llegaremos a lo que nos importa.
The meeting rose at 13.30 h
La séance est levée à 13 h 30
Se levanta la sesión a las 13.30 horas
