LE PRESIDENT: Mesdames, Mesdemoiselles, Messieurs, bonjour. Nous commençons ce matin notre troisième séance. Nous avons un certain nombre d'orateurs sur la liste qui vont intervenir sur le point 7, à savoir le Sommet mondial de l'alimentation. Et je voudrais dire qu'à ce stade, j'arrête la liste des orateurs, personne ne pourra plus s'inscrire. Le Maroc a demandé à prendre la parole dès maintenant pour réagir à une déclaration qui a été faite hier par un délégué.
Abdesselem ARIFI (Maroc): Monsieur le Président, ma délégation souhaite tout d'abord vous adresser ses vives félicitations à l'occasion de votre brillante élection. Nos félicitations s'adressent également aux Vice-Présidents élus.
Je voudrais par la même occasion, au nom de mon pays, appuyer aujourd'hui - et on l'a déjà fait auparavant au cours d'autres occasions - l'idée du Sommet mondial de l'alimentation telle qu'initiée par le Directeur général et rendre hommage à l'organisation ainsi qu'au dévouement de l'équipe qui a été mise en place pour la préparation de ce Sommet.
Monsieur le Président, surpris par l'amendement proposé par la délégation algérienne à l'alinéa d) du paragraphe 6 du texte de la résolution objet de notre examen, ma délégation estime que cette proposition est inopportune pour les deux raisons principales suivantes:
L'invitation des mouvements de libération en tant qu'observateurs dans les différentes réunions et conférences de la FAO et des Nations Unies en général se fait conformément aux dispositions des résolutions et décisions pertinentes de la Conférence de la FAO et de l'Assemblée générale des Nations Unies. Ces institutions ont par ailleurs établi des critères bien définis et bien précis pour ce qui est de l'octroi du statut d'observateur à ces mouvements.
Deuxièmement, ma délégation estime que ce n'est ni le moment ni l'endroit d'avancer des propos de nature à nuire au caractère technique de cette enceinte en politisant ses débats, sachant que la référence faite au Sommet sur le développement économique et social de Copenhague constitue une information inexacte. Et nous sollicitons à cet effet un avis juridique de l'Organisation.
Monsieur le Président, au sujet du texte de la résolution, ma délégation souhaite faire les amendements suivants:
S'agissant du paragraphe 2, texte de la résolution, ma délégation estime que ce paragraphe est inutile et que les dispositions qui sont prises ici, dans le cadre de ce paragraphe 2, peuvent bien être couvertes dans le cadre de ce qui est prévu au paragraphe 9, au sujet duquel j'ai un amendement à proposer.
S'agissant du paragraphe 3, j'ai un petit amendement qui se lirait exactement comme suit: "reconnaît l'offre généreuse du Gouvernement italien d'accueillir ce Sommet" etc.... , sans mentionner le bout de phrase qui se lirait: "accepte avec reconnaissance", puisque l'acceptation est déjà faite.
Au sujet du paragraphe 9, ma délégation souhaite apporter le rajout suivant à ce paragraphe qui finit par "le cas échéant": "ainsi que pour tout autre aspect concernant la préparation de ce Sommet", sachant qu'il y a d'autres dispositions à prendre et d'autres aspects préparatoires du Sommet bien sûr.
Au sujet du paragraphe 14, nous estimons que ce paragraphe est incomplet et nous proposons un paragraphe 15. Mais avant de passer au nouveau paragraphe 15, ma délégation souhaite biffer la deuxième partie. Elle souhaite que le paragraphe 14 soit lu comme suit: "demande que le Comité de la sécurité alimentaire fasse rapport, par l' intermédiaire du Conseil, à la Conférence à sa vingt-neuvième session en 1997 sur tous les aspects du Sommet mondial de l'alimentation". Et là, il y a le paragraphe 15, qui constitue une sorte de complément à ce paragraphe 14. Le paragraphe 15 se lirait comme suit: "demande en outre que le Comité sur la sécurité alimentaire fasse rapport par l'intermédiaire du Conseil aux prochaines sessions de la Conférence sur le suivi du Sommet mondial de l'alimentation". Nous estimons que la question du suivi s'étalera sur les prochaines Conférences.
LEGAL COUNSEL: The delegate of Morocco has asked a question regarding the status of certain liberation movements in connection with possible invitations to the World Food Summit. I should state first of all that in matters regarding invitations to liberation movements and other matters involving political considerations, FAO follows strictly the practice of the United Nations as being the competent political body for such matters.
I understand yesterday that the delegate for Algeria raised a specific question regarding the Polisario Front. I have consulted with the UN Legal Office on this matter who have informed me that the Polisario Front has no legal status before the United Nations, other than that of petitioner before the Fourth Committee of the General Assembly, that is the committee dealing with matters of trusteeship and non self-governing territories. The Polisario Front is thus invited to UN meetings as an observer. I should add, according to our information and the information given to us by the United Nations Legal Office, the Polisario Front was not in fact invited to the Copenhagen Summit for Social Development, nor indeed to the 50th Anniversary celebrations of the United Nations which are now taking place.
In view of the above, I would not advise that the Polisario Front be included on the list of invitees to the FAO Summit.
LE PRESIDENT: Merci M. Moore et j'espère qu'avec votre intervention le débat sur cette question est clos. Je passe tout de suite au prochain orateur en invitant ceux qui prendront la parole à être aussi brefs, précis et concis sur les propositions qu'ils ont sur le projet de résolution, comme le délégué du Maroc et d'autres.
Pedro Alfonso MEDRANO ROJAS (Chile): Gracias, señor Presidente. En relación a la propuesta de resolución que se remite para aprobación por parte de la Conferencia para convocar a una Cumbre Mundial sobre alimentación a nivel de Jefes de Estado o de Gobierno que se celebrará en Roma del 13 al 17 de noviembre de 1996 quisiéramos hacer algunos comentarios.
En primer lugar queremos reafirmar nuestra convicción de la necesidad de una Cumbre Mundial sobre la alimentación por las razones que se señalan en el documento, y porque estamos firmemente convencidos que enfrentamos un nuevo orden alimentario mundial que requiere de la atención de nuestros líderes políticos y responsables de Gobierno.
Asimismo, estamos de acuerdo en que esta Cumbre Mundial utilice para su preparación, las reuniones normales de la FAO, asegurando una alta calidad técnica de la documentación y la reducción al mínimo necesario de los gastos.
Pero junto a la calidad técnica debe asegurarse el necesario respaldo político. Al respecto mi Delegación desea señalar la importancia que reviste la más plena participación posible de los Estados Miembros en las diferentes etapas preparatorias, debe ser una participación útil y permanente. A nivel nacional deben constituirse las secretarías nacionales o Comités preparatorios que integren efectivamente al sector público, privado, ONGs instituciones públicas, iglesias, sindicatos, etc. y que el trabajo de estos Comités tenga indicaciones o términos de referencia comunes de manera que la información que se prepare pueda ser comparable y complementaria.
La FAO podría proporcionar la información y estudios que dispone para facilitar estos trabajos.
El Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria Mundial podría en su próxima reunión precisar con mayor detalle el tipo de antecedentes o documentos que debería o podrían preparar los Comités Nacionales.
El documento del Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria Mundial sobre "elementos que podrían incluirse en un proyecto de declaración y plan de acción sobre la seguridad alimentaria universal" podrían servir de guía.
Del mismo modo, los documentos que preparen las Conferencias Regionales, deberían orientarse al esquema que finalmente sirva para la elaboración de la declaración y del plan de acción.
Asimismo, debe especificarse la contribución que se espera de los organismos internacionales del Sistema de Naciones Unidas y particularmente de las que operan en Roma, lo mismo del sector privado y las ONG.
Se trata de que los aportes sean útiles y no se malgasten esfuerzos.
Para ello, repito, hay que indicar claramente la información y antecedentes que se necesitan.
El Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria Mundial podría como ya hemos señalado, determinar los términos de referencia o guías para la cual la Secretaría podría preparar sugerencias para la próxima reunión de Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria Mundial en enero próximo.
El rol del Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria Mundial es de suma importancia para la participación de los Estados Miembros en el proceso preparatorio de la Cumbre, a través de las representaciones en Roma, el Comité podría interactuar con la Secretaría en aspectos de importancia para la preparación de la Cumbre. En lo que respecta al Proyecto mismo de Resolución, mi Delegación quiere hacer algunas observaciones de fondo y de forma.
De fondo: en lo que se respecta a los objetivos de la Cumbre contenidos en el numeral 4 del Proyecto de Resolución, nosotros quisiéramos hacer algunas observaciones. Nos parece que el propósito original y así aparece en el documento, era posibilitar un debate al más alto nivel político sobre la cuestión de la Seguridad Alimentaria Mundial, teniendo justamente en cuenta los considerandos, esto es el número de pobres, efectos en el medio ambiente, el problema de la seguridad, la paz mundial, etc.
Dos: era justamente sensibilizar a la opinión pública mundial sobre el problema del hambre y la malnutrition procurando una mayor toma de conciencia de la trascendencia que tienen para la estabilidad política, la paz, etc; y tres era, adoptar una declaración que refleje un compromiso político y un programa de acción, que contendría ciertamente indicaciones sobre la cooperación internacional, plan de acción, metas, indicadores de seguimiento, etc. La forma en que está redactado el número 4 del Proyecto de Resolución, nos parece que podría ser mejorado, ya que en su forma actual utiliza los propósitos de la Cumbre con la importancia de la seguridad alimentaria, que son dos cosas distintas, repito, una cosa es los objetivos de la Cumbre Mundial y otra cosa es la importancia de la seguridad alimentaria mundial.
En otro aspecto de fondo está igualmente la propuesta de Estados Unidos sobre el título de la Cumbre. Lógicamente Estados Unidos tiene razón. En toda la Resolución y a lo largo de toda la Resolución se habla de la seguridad alimentaria, del problema de la seguridad o inseguridad alimentaria, etc, incluso en el considerando número 10 del Proyecto de Resolución se habla de la Cumbre Mundial de la Seguridad Alimentaria. Nuestra Delegación podría acoger positivamente esta propuesta, sin embargo, hay dos problemas que nos complican; uno, conceptualmente seguridad alimentaria puede ser más restrictivo que el término alimentación, más específico. Nuestra Delegación cree sin embargo, que podrían sostenerse argumentos en el sentido contrario, pero el punto dos al cual me quiero referir como argumento final es que este proceso ya empezó, que las invitaciones ya han sido cursadas y que muchos Jefes de Estado están respondiendo a la invitación de la Cumbre Mundial de la Alimentación, en consecuencia, a esta altura del proceso no nos parece aconsejable cambiar el título, y repito, simplemente por razones ya de tipo práctico.
Sobre cuestiones de forma, en la resolución misma se señalan en diferentes partes la terminología seguridad alimentaria, seguridad alimentaria mundial, seguridad alimentaria universal, inseguridad alimentaria, creo que los términos habría que simplificarlos. Esto como consideración general a cuestiones de forma.
Temas específicos, la consideración número dos. La forma en que está redactada, al menos en español no es adecuada. Pareciera que los recursos naturales fueran capaces de crear conflictos armados. Proponemos eliminar toda la frase que dice: "en los conflictos armados que tienen por origen los alimentos de recursos naturales" y dejarla, "reconociendo el hecho de que el hambre y la malnutrición constituyen una amenaza para la seguridad", etc., etc.
En el considerando 6, nuestra Delegación concuerda con la propuesta hecha por los Estados Unidos.
En el considerando número 7, se señala conscientes de que los dirigentes de todo el mundo no se han reunido nunca con anterioridad, etc., etc. Nosotros quisiéramos colocarla en términos positivos, que sería; "conscientes de la importancia de que los dirigentes de todo el mundo se reúnan para evaluar el estado de la seguridad alimentaria mundial", etc., etc.
En el considerando número 10, donde se señala acogiendo con satisfacción las manifestaciones de apoyo, en lugar de la parte final donde se señala "Cumbre Mundial sobre la Seguridad Alimentaria", creo que habría que colocar "Cumbre Mundial de la Alimentación".
Yendo a la resolución específica en el numeral 2, mi Delegación considera que este numeral 2 debería eliminarse. Hay una sola Cumbre, la forma que está planteado indicaría que habrían simultáneamente dos Cumbres; una para Jefes de Estado y de Gobiernos y otra para Ministros. Nos parece que esto atentaría al éxito mismo de la Cumbre. Hay una sola Cumbre Mundial, otra cosa es como la Secretaría hace los arreglos para que los Jefes de Estado puedan participar adecuadamente.
En el numeral 4, he señalado que nuestra Delegación considera que podría reformularse; propongo un texto nuevo que diría lo siguiente, uno: los objetivos de la Cumbre, "examinar y debatir al más alto nivel político mundial las cuestiones relacionadas con la alimentación y la seguridad alimentaria"; dos, "sensibilizar y procurar una mayor toma de conciencia por parte de la Comunidad Mundial del problema del hambre y la malnutrición"; tres, "lograr un compromiso y voluntad política de los Jefes de Estado y de Gobierno en torno a un programa de acción que permita erradicar el flagelo del hambre y la malnutrición".
En lo que respecta al numeral 7, nuestra Delegación considera que este párrafo podría eliminarse, ya en el numeral uno, se señala que se decía convocar a una Cumbre Mundial sobre Alimentación a Jefes de Estado o de Gobierno.
En lo que respecta al número 9, estando de acuerdo con la propuesta de Marruecos, quisiéramos, sin embargo, agregar al final del párrafo 9 la frase que diga y que presente su informe a la Cumbre Mundial de la Alimentación.
En el numeral 11, proponemos el siguiente cambio, se redactaría de la siguiente forma: "insta a los gobiernos a constituir comités nacionales preparatorios de la Cumbre Mundial en que se asegure la participación de organizaciones nacionales, públicas, del sector privado, del sector social, político, económico, etc., a fin de preparar la contribución nacional a las conferencias regionales y a la Cumbre Mundial, e invita a los países a que participen activamente en los preparativos y las actividades a todos los niveles apropiados". Esa es la observación que queríamos señalar.
LE PRESIDENT: Merci Monsieur l'Ambassadeur pour vos différentes propositions. J'espère que vous avez un texte écrit pour pouvoir remettre au Secrétariat les différentes propositions que vous venez de faire.
ZUO CHANGSHENG (China): The preparations for the World Food Summit have been going on for a time, and we would like to offer our thoughts on this. The Chinese delegation believes that to convene such a world food summit is highly necessary at present. Although great progress has been made in world food and agricultural production, and the food security situation has been improved in many of the regions of the world, we still clearly see the prevalence of hunger and malnutrition in the world. We are far from attaining the basic goal of Food for All. The access to food is a basic right of human beings, and we hope all Heads of State will be fully aware of this. We agree with the objectives of the summit contained in document C 95/17. In general, we hope that the convening of this World Food Summit will attract more international attention on the issue of food security and, in the meanwhile, enhance awareness that this is not only a matter of production but also a matter of circulation and distribution. We are glad to note that the Secretariat will prepare a series of technical documents for this Summit. Up until now we have received some of the documents, but the majority of the documents have not been obtained yet. We hope the preparation of these relevant documents can be accelerated so that the member nations can get prepared as soon as possible. Finally, the Chinese delegation would like to reiterate its support for the convening of this Summit.
Tibenu VASIESU (Romania): Thank you for giving me the floor, so as to convey and express the position of our country regarding this important event, the World Food Summit. But I'd like first to congratulate you, Mr Chairman, and the Presidium for your being elected to this position for Commission I. I would also like to congratulate the Secretariat for the papers presented. Romania agrees with the programme proposed by the FAO Council in June 1995 and will support the draft resolution for convening of the World Food Summit in Rome in November next year.
We consider that in order to make a good report for the Summit, updated information is needed and in this respect, for the evaluation of the situation of food and nutrition, we shall provide the necessary data when requested. We also agree with such a Conference, as it cannot be but beneficial for the setting up of some programmes regarding the development of the agricultural and food industry sectors.
This initiative of the World Food Summit has had a positive echo since the meeting of the Ministers of Agriculture of Central and Eastern Europe in Warsaw in 1994, and it will surely be backed up at the next meeting of the Ministers of Agriculture that will be held in Prague in November 1995.
Bhag MAL (India): First of all, on behalf of the Indian delegation, I would like to congratulate you on your election as the Chairman of this important Commission.
It is well known that the problem of food insecurity still exists in many parts of the world. It is unfortunate that even today there are almost 800 million people suffering from chronic undernutrition and that amongst them are 192 million children under the age of five, who suffer from acute or chronic protein and energy deficiencies. It is obvious that we still have a long way to go and there is a greater need for the international community to step up its efforts in this direction.
The FAO has done commendable work towards addressing the problems of food and agriculture in general, and food security in particular. My delegation would like to congratulate the Director-General of FAO, for bringing the issue of food security to the forefront of international agenda and initiating several measures to mitigate the problem of food insecurity.
A well-directed and mission-oriented approach needs to be adopted to ensure the food security at the global level. Therefore my delegation fully supports the World Food Summit.
Regarding the draft resolution for the World Food Summit, the Indian delegation feels that the proposed resolution should be called the "World Food Security Summit".
In paragraph 6 of the preamble of the document C 95/17, it has been stated that policies in many sectors have important impacts on national food security and that responsibility for guaranteeing a nation's food security belongs to the highest level of political leadership. The word "guaranteeing" should be replaced with "establishing the environment necessary for achieving national and household food security".
Paragraph 7 states that never before have the world's leaders come together to assess the state of global food security, and to focus their attention especially on securing the most basic of human needs, that is food. Since the world leaders have discussed the issues relating to global food security at earlier occasions also, the Indian delegation would like to suggest that this particular clause may well be deleted.
On page 4 of the document, Item 5 indicates the approval of arrangements to be made by the Director-General for the preparation of the World Food Summit. It would be appropriate if the details are appended with the resolution.
Regarding those invited to the Summit, our delegation feels that although larger participation gives the benefit of more meaningful discussions, the costs involved, however, need to be taken note of.
Item 10 needs to be modified. It should read as: "... calls upon the FAO Regional Conferences in 1996 to address food security issues, and especially those concerns which are region-specific in nature and to prepare regional annexes to the draft summit documents".
My delegation suggests that the governments be represented at the level of Heads of State or Government to make the delegations more effective. Finally, the Indian delegation feels that the resolution should also include a separate item, number 15, which should read: "Requests further that the Hundred and Twelfth and Hundred and Thirteenth Sessions of the Council Report to the Twenty-ninth Session of the Conference in 1997 on the follow-up to the World Food Summit".
Marcos I. NIETO LARA (Cuba): Permítame felicitarlo a usted y a los demás miembros de la Mesa por su elección para dirigir estos debates. Conocemos perfectamente su experiencia en las labores de la Organización y sabemos que llevará a buen término las deliberaciones de esta Comisión. Quisiéramos felicitar, igualmente, a la Secretaría por los documentos que nos ha presentado, que consideramos de gran utilidad.
En beneficio de la brevedad, diré que respaldamos plenamente la iniciativa del Director General de convocar una cumbre sobre la alimentación, una cumbre sobre la seguridad alimentaria, una cumbre para adoptar decisiones políticas del máximo nivel en el combate permanente contra el hambre y la malnutrición. Mi Delegación considera que la cumbre, a estas alturas, es ya un hecho. Tengo ante mí un documento que refleja que 13 importantes reuniones de carácter regional, inclusive la última 21a Sesión del SELA, del Sistema Económico Latinoamericano, ha refrendado la celebración de esta cumbre. Igualmente, otros foros importantes y de alto nivel han brindado el apoyo a la FAO para celebrar la Cumbre Mundial sobre la Alimentación. En esta serie de reuniones que han tenido lugar en los últimos tiempos, si hubiera algo que mencionar, diríamos que esta Cumbre se realiza con un cierto atraso, es decir, con posterioridad a otros foros tan importantes como fue la Cumbre sobre el Medio Ambiente, la Cumbre sobre Desarrollo Sostenible y otros foros de igual magnitud. Esta, señor Presidente, consideramos que es una cumbre muy urgente porque estamos en el umbral del siglo XXI y nosotros tenemos que asumir la responsabilidad histórica de garantizar que las generaciones futuras no tengan que enfrentar la vergüenza de vivir en un mundo plagado de hambre, de pobreza y de miseria.
Refiriéndonos a algunos aspectos particulares de la resolución que se encuentra en debate, quisiéramos apoyar en toda su extensión la declaración formulada por la distinguida Delegación de Chile, y, de manera específica, queremos abundar sobre dos o tres aspectos que consideramos de capital importancia. El numeral 2 de la parte resolutiva de la resolución debería ser modificado, porque no podemos crear alternativas ni confusiones, y debemos ser explícitos, específicos en esto: o es la Cumbre de Jefes de Estado o no es una cumbre. No debe haber lugar a alternativas posibles.
El numeral 7 nos parece que debería ser suprimido porque es un tanto redundante. La sugerencia formulada por el numeral 11 consideramos que debe ser ampliada al máximo. ¿Qué quisiera la Delegación cubana en esto? Que no solamente se celebre una reunión más como la Cumbre Mundial sino que exista un movimiento universal en torno al problema de la seguridad alimentaria, y para eso se requiere un proceso de amplia animación social, un proceso de gran actividad a nivel de todos los países, a nivel de los gobiernos, a nivel de la sociedad civil, a nivel del sector privado y de todos aquellos que están verdaderamente interesados en solucionar los problemas del hambre y la malnutrición.
También quisiéramos apoyar la declaración de la distinguida Delegación de la India en cuanto a ciertas reformas o agregaciones que se están proponiendo a la resolución. Considero, naturalmente, que tal vez sería necesario establecer negociaciones directas en algunos grupos oficiosos para ultimar una redacción de esta resolución que convenga a todas las delegaciones y que la iniciativa del Director General de convocar esta cumbre quede plenamente refrendada por la voluntad de las delegaciones aquí presentes.
Yun Su CHANG (Democratic People's Republic of Korea): It is my great pleasure to see you in the Chair of this important Commission I.
At the 1974 World Food Conference, the governments examined the global problem of food production and consumption, and solemnly proclaimed that everyone has the right to be free from hunger and malnutrition in order to develop their physical and mental faculties. However, more than 20 years later, the goals of eradicating hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition within a decade, as expressed by that Conference, have not been reached.
Among a total world population of 5.7 billion, 800 million people are still chronically undernourished and 192 million children, under the age of five, suffer from hunger and malnutrition.
The Director-General of FAO has proposed the initiative to convene a World Food Summit in November 1996 in Rome, with the aim of renewing the commitment of world leaders at the highest level to the eradication of hunger and malnutrition, and the achievement of food security for all through the adoption of concerted policies and actions at global, regional and national level.
The Director-General and Secretariat of FAO have made a good plan for the preparation of the Summit and have taken all necessary measures and actions to carry out successfully the preparation work, including the formulation of draft texts of the Summit, emphasizing that the technical underpinning would be of high quality, while expenditure would be kept to a minimum.
I think that the Summit initiative was both timely and pertinent in light of the challenges facing individual countries and international communities in the field of food and agriculture.
We have no doubt that the Summit will be a most significant event and a milestone in the history of FAO, ensuring food security for all.
Therefore, in the name of my government, my delegation welcomes and fully supports the proposal to convene the World Food Summit initiated by the Director-General of FAO and the draft declaration and plan of action of the Summit, which will be completed for consultation in the preparatory stages.
My Government deeply appreciates the efforts of the Director-General and the Secretariat of FAO for all the hard work involved in preparations for the Summit. I would like to say that the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea will cooperate with FAO and will make their own contributions and efforts in the fight for global food security for all.
Pisan LUETONGCHARG (Thailand): I shall be brief, Mr Chairman. As stated to the Plenary by the Minister of Agriculture and Cooperatives, the Head of my delegation to this session of the Conference, Thailand fully supports the initiative of the Director-General of FAO in convening the World Food Summit. We are looking forward to active participation in this very important Summit.
Turning to the draft resolution for the World Food Summit contained in document C 95/17 before us, Mr Chairman, Thailand would like to support countries who have spoken before us that paragraph 2 on page 4 of this document should be deleted.
We are of the view that it is quite difficult to anticipate the number of Ministers and Heads of State or Government who will participate in the Summit.
César Augusto André MONTEIRO (Cap-Vert): Monsieur le Président, la lutte contre la faim et la sous-alimentation exige l'engagement décisif et concerté de la communauté internationale et le renforcement de la coopération internationale dans cet important domaine. A cet égard, la délégation du Cap-Vert appuie et félicite l'initiative opportune et très intéressante du Directeur général de convoquer le Sommet mondial de l'alimentation à Rome, en novembre 1996, qui permettra aux Etats Membres de l'Organisation représentés au plus haut niveau d'analyser la complexe question de la sécurité alimentaire mondiale et de trouver des solutions adéquates à ce problème.
Ma Délégation exprime aussi son appui aux objectifs contenus dans le projet de résolution, notamment d'adoption de politiques et stratégies et d'un plan d'action visant à améliorer constamment la sécurité alimentaire mondiale, en vue de leur exécution.
Nous apprécions aussi la qualité et l'état d'avancement des préparatifs et tous les efforts de l'Organisation pour que cet important forum de réflexion réponde aux expectatives, maintenant les coûts à leur strict minimum, tel que le prévoit le projet de résolution qui mérite notre soutien général.
Ms Razane MAHFOUZ (Syria) (Original language Arabic): On behalf of my country's delegation I would like to congratulate you on your election to lead our deliberations here and I would also like to thank the Secretariat for the excellent documents submitted to us. The Government of the Arab Republic of Syria does indeed accord great importance to the question of food security. We believe that the right to food is one of the basic human rights.
We fully support the initiative which has been taken by the Director-General, i.e. the convening of the Summit on food security which is going to be held here in Rome from 13 to 17 November 1996. We believe it is going to be the ideal forum to deal with the greatest problem facing humanity which is food security.
My country's delegation would like to reiterate that this question of food and world food security is one of the enormous responsibilities which all leaders of the world have to bear. This Summit is going to provide an ample opportunity to look at present circumstances and concentrate on basic needs.
Once again, Mr Chairman, we would like to express our approval of the draft resolution submitted in C 95/17 and again we congratulate the Director-General on his initiative. Our President has expressed personally to the Director-General his commitment to support the Summit.
Ms Barbara DINHAM (Observer for Consumers International): In having the privilege of speaking last, I have been rewarded by hearing very many delegates call on their interest in NGO involvement in the World Food Summit.
The informal meeting of representatives of international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) who are attending this Conference as observers was convened on Saturday, 21st October 1995, where the World Food Summit was discussed.
There is much support among NGOs for the initiative of the Director-General in holding the World Food Summit and very much welcome for the FAO commitment to involve a broad spectrum of NGOs in the World Food Summit and in the dialogue on food security and development issues. Over 200 NGOs attended the Global Assembly in Quebec held before the FAO's 50th Anniversary celebration and the Assembly endorsed the need for an NGO meeting in Rome immediately before, and overlapping with, the World Food Summit.
Participants at the International NGO meeting indicated their strong commitment to providing an input to all levels of the World Food Summit in the preparatory proposals through local, national and regional participation. The international NGO meeting stressed that it is most important to ensure that organizations of farmers, peasant farmers, indigenous people, rural women and other rural communities have a voice at the World Food Summit and recognized the role of consumer organizations in defending the need for healthy food and healthy environment as well as the role of trade unions and professional organizations.
The meeting requests Conference to consider innovative structures for achieving a dialogue between NGOs with governments and Heads of State during the World Food Summit rather than conforming to the established pattern of making statements as observers at the end of government statements. NGOs and governments need to collaborate as partners though with different responsibilities in solving the problems of world food security.
The meeting also welcomed FAO's invitation to governments to include NGOs in national delegations and hopes that governments will take measures to make this possible. We feel that as many avenues as can be explored for including NGOs in the dialogue will really have a positive outcome.
In the preparatory phases NGOs will be providing written comments and elements for possible inclusion in policy documents as well as in technical papers and will participate in other ways. Already, many national and regional meetings are being planned by NGOs.
The federation of Italian development NGOs have undertaken a commitment to hold a meeting in Rome immediately before and overlapping with the World Food Summit with the particular aim of bringing to Rome the voices of farmers and indigenous people's organizations and NGOs with a history of supporting concrete local development food security initiatives. The meeting requested FAO to consider ways of supporting the Italian NGO initiative to ensure a full civil voice at the Summit. A strong alliance between governments, international agencies and civil society could truly tackle the problems of food insecurity.
The international NGO meeting also identified many issues and approaches which it will bring to the discussions during the preparation for the World Food Summit through the technical meetings and at the Summit itself. These are elaborated upon in the report of the meeting which should be available to delegates tomorrow.
I would also like to draw attention to an FAO initiative within the development exchange - education papers which have been prepared by NGOs as a contribution to the debate. These are available outside the Conference room.
We look forward very much to working together within FAO and with the international agencies in the struggle to achieve food security for all.
LE PRESIDENT: C'est moi qui vous remercie, Madame, de votre importante contribution.
Avec cette intervention, nous en avons fini avec les déclarations des délégués et observateurs sur ce point de l'ordre du jour.
Je voudrais passer la parole au Secrétariat pour répondre aux questions qui ont été posées et fournir des éclaircissements sur certains points.
Il a une question qui a été posée hier par une délégation à l'adresse de la délégation américaine. Je ne sais pas si la délégation américaine est disposée à lui fournir une réponse sur ce qu'elle entendait par le mot "sécurité alimentaire", notamment au sujet de sa proposition de modification du titre du Sommet qui devrait s'appeler "Sommet de la sécurité alimentaire mondiale". Si la délégation américaine est disposée à répondre à la question belge, je pourrais lui donner la parole avant que le Secrétariat ne fournisse les éclaircissements nécessaires ou, si elle veut, elle pourrait peut-être répondre après l'intervention du Secrétariat.
Délégation américaine, si vous avez quelque chose à dire, je vous passe la parole sur cette question qui vous a été posée hier par la délégation belge.
Thomas A. FORBORD (United States of America): I assure you the United States of America is not defining food security any differently than this Organization has defined food security for many, many years. Our concern is that this very important meeting which will be held here next year should not be confused with a convention of gourmets or restauranteurs. The Rome Convention on Food will not look very good to our public. It would not help the image of the Organization. A concentration on food security is what this meeting is about and I certainly see no reason why the title should not accurately reflect our concerns.
LE PRESIDENT: Je vous remercie, honorable Délégué, de ces explications. Sur ce, je passe la parole au Secrétariat, en commençant par M. Hjort pour répondre aux différentes questions et demandes d'éclaircissements qui ont été posées pendant les débats. M. Hjort, vous avez la parole.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: First of all on behalf of the Director-General I wish to express deep appreciation for the universal support for a World Food Summit at the level of Heads of State or Government that has been expressed yesterday and today. Next, I wish very briefly to address the many positive and helpful suggestions referring to the substance or perhaps the scope of the Summit.
Those suggestions, according to my ears, were fully in accord with those that we have received from the Committee on Food Security, the Council, the Quebec Ministerial and the Plenary that we are hearing these days, and at this Commission. In other words, I heard no suggestion that was at odds with the recommendations and suggestions that have been made for content and scope. Therefore, I will simply again express appreciation for your suggestions.
Let me turn to the statements that have been made with respect to the objectives of the Summit, in most cases those in reference to paragraph 4 of the Resolution.
Firstly, I wish to note that that statement of objectives was drawn from the guidance you provided at the Committee of Food Security and the Council. It is obvious that that paragraph can stand some fine tuning, and I would assume that the Drafting Committee will have received appropriate guidance from the Commission to engage in that effort. I wanted in this context to stress two points that were made, one concerning the importance of the Plan of Action and then to speak briefly about the comments on poverty alleviation.
It is essential to have the Heads of State and Governments embrace the set of policies that are most likely to ensure food for all, but perhaps it is even more essential that there be agreement on a Plan of Action to implement those policies. Those policies, of course, cannot be implemented by government alone nor by intergovernmental organizations. They can only be implemented if they have the full support of the non-governmental community, including the private sector.
With respect to poverty, there is an obvious relationship between food for all and the alleviation or elimination of poverty. However, as I have stated at the Council and at the Committee on Food Security, there is evidence that nations have been able to ensure food for all before they have been able to eliminate poverty.
I would hope that at the World Food Summit the focus would continue to be on food and food security. You have engaged upon a large effort concerning poverty alleviation at the Social Summit. The Social Summit was where you focused your attention on poverty alleviation and made certain commitments thereto. Those commitments as implemented will make easier the task of ensuring food for all, but let us make certain that we keep the focus here on universal food security, and to keep in mind that we need not wait for poverty to be eliminated before we ensure universal food security.
There were a number of comments about the involvement of intergovernmental organizations. Several delegations recognized their importance, and in this manner again it appeared to me that those views were fully in accord with those of the Director-General. As you know, he has taken extraordinary measures to involve all the concerned and relevant intergovernmental organizations in the preparation of the substantive documents. That appears to me at least to be the necessary way to involve those organizations. Of course, it is up to the Governing Bodies of those organizations to insist that they play their role in the implementation of the Plan of Action that will come out of the Summit.
There were comments about extra-budgetary resources. As you have heard at these sessions, the Director-General has received a number of offers and enquiries from governments and non-governmental sources that wish to ensure a successful World Food Summit. I am confident that the Conference will wish to welcome such offers of assistance. The purposes for which these funds will be used will be specified by Ms Killingsworth.
I do not wish to go directly into the many proposed amendments to the Resolution. Some parts of it will have to be addressed by Ms Killingsworth, but I did want to recall that we have been involved in preparing for this Summit for a greater number of months than we have from now until the conclusion of the Summit.
With regard to the point that was made about the title of the Summit, the title has been used for at least 18 months, World Food Summit. It may be confusing, to say the least, to make a change in mid-course.
A final comment on suggestions that were made about the length of the 1996 Committee on Food Security and Council Sessions. I would simply note for the Commission that the length of these meetings will, of course, be determined in accordance with the Rules and Procedures of the Organization. There are matters other than the World Food Summit that must be attended to by the Committee on Food Security and, of course, the Council at its 1996 Session and, as you are aware, there are clear Rules and Procedures with respect to the establishment of the agenda and the time that it will take to handle those matters.
Ms K. KILLINGSWORTH (Secretary-General, World Food Summit): I have one comment and some responses to some of the questions that have been raised during the debates.
I would like to say how pleased the Secretariat has been to hear the reports from a number of delegations on the preparations they are undertaking at national level and their support of initiatives taken by the Director-General, including the establishment of a Board of Patrons and the request to designate national secretaries. When the Conference began a few days ago we had counted 86 total countries that had already named national secretaries or had established national committees. As a result of this debate we have a number of additional countries who have done so. The Secretariat hopes that all of those countries that have not done so will consider establishing national committees in the near future and notifying us so that we can be in close touch with them as the preparatory process evolves. I know that a number of delegations have made specific suggestions as to how we should do that and we will be taking these suggestions into account.
A number of questions have been raised concerning the preparatory process for this Summit, as well as with regard to specific provisions of the Draft Resolution.
I think the first that I should deal with is the question of the Trust Fund which is mentioned in the Resolution. As you know, it is a normal practice for the Director-General to establish trust funds to receive voluntary contributions of an extrabudgetary nature for various purposes. This has always been done for conferences. We had significant contributions for the International Conference on Nutrition, for instance. The main purposes of the Trust Fund proposed here would be to help defray the participation costs of some of the poorer countries. The Director-General's proposal to use meetings already scheduled to prepare for the Summit is, of course, intended to keep the costs to a minimum, not only for the FAO Regular Programme Budget but also for delegations. Still it is recognized that a number of countries may need support to participate in these meetings.
Yesterday the Government of Italy announced that it would be contributing to help defray such costs, as well as to make some very welcome improvements to the headquarters complex which we are confident will also enhance the receptivity of the complex for the Summit.
Now, I believe the delegate of Japan and others wish to know what other kinds of activities might be funded from that Trust Fund. One of the other major types of activity where we could most effectively use voluntary contributions from various sources would be in promoting closer involvement of non-governmental organizations, particularly, I would add, from the developing world and we have been very much encouraged to promote this kind of cooperation. Resources for this purpose would be very welcome. Another area would be information and communication where, as you know, everything that can be done to reach out with the Summit's messages to target audiences of various types all over the world will, of course, enhance the impact and the resonance of the event. We have already approached some countries to ascertain whether they could provide contributions, not only financially but in kind, in terms of high-level expertise, of people who might work with us in the area of communication.
Another area where we feel it would be useful to mobilize some extrabudgetary resources would be for possibly translating some or all of the technical documents we are preparing, to make them available to wider readerships in countries which do not have one of our five official languages.
I mentioned we would be seeking contributions in kind. I also would mention, because I think it is very important to be specific about it, that we have had a number of countries encourage us to look for sponsorship from private sources, including commercial firms. We do expect that we could develop very good cooperation of this type, with the appropriate criteria. That basically I think would cover the types of activities which we hope donors, both governmental and non-governmental would want to cooperate with us in carrying out.
There are some other questions with regard to the Resolution itself. One was with regard to operative paragraph 5 which refers to the arrangements made by the Director-General for the preparation of the Summit. A question was raised as to what are in fact these arrangements. They are all reported in the Annex to the document and they include some of the points I have just made. We are using already scheduled meetings to the extent possible; the ones listed in the note are those which are foreseen, primarily for intergovernmental discussion of the Summit documentation, but other meetings are also mentioned; that includes the Fourth Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources in Leipzig, Germany. I apologize for the fact that the document says Berlin. That is an oversight, but the conference in Leipzig will obviously deal with a very important aspect of the whole issue and those results will in fact be fed into the Summit process.
We are also canvassing widely for comments and input in the preparation both of the Summit documentation and the technical papers, as already encouraged by the CFS and the Council.
This, I believe, would be a general summary of what we would consider to be the arrangements so far made by the Director-General and for which we have heard a great deal of support in the last day and a half.
Operative paragraph 8: the purpose of that paragraph was simply to encourage the widest possible representation within delegations both for the regional conferences as well as the Summit, including NGOs and representatives of private sector associations for which we have heard a good deal of support this morning.
That leads me to the question of paragraph 2. First of all, I would like to say that in case there are any misunderstandings of the intention in tabling this text for your consideration, we certainly are talking about one event and I think that comes out clearly in paragraph 1. The Summit will take place from 13-17 November 1996, therefore it is one event. I should perhaps give a short explanation of why the text in paragraph 2 is there. Some guidance is needed from this Conference for the Committee on World Food Security and the Secretariat in preparing the practical aspects of the format of the Summit over the coming year. Now, a question was asked yesterday, had the Secretariat looked at the experiences of other conferences and summits. I would like to reassure you that it is in fact on the basis of the experience we have gained of other conferences and summits that a proposal was made to you to take ministerial participation, as well as the participation of observers, before the part of the Summit at which Heads of State or Government would speak. There is a normal protocol which is followed in all such meetings. In any particular session normally it would be the Heads of State who would speak first, followed by Heads of Government and then other high-ranking officials. This has led in some recent conferences to very unfortunate situations in which those countries which were not able to be represented at the level of State or Government ended up speaking at midnight or 1 am in the morning at the end of the debate, after the Heads of State or Government had intervened. So the proposal here before you was in fact to make it clear that the Conference would agree to a format which would leave open the possibility of allowing observers and countries which might for one reason or another not be represented at the highest political level to intervene at an appropriate early moment in the debate, and to finish, on the days in which Heads of State or Government would be heard, at a reasonable hour on Sunday afternoon, not having an 18-hour marathon on the last day. So that is with regard to the experience of others. I should also say that, in line with the experience of other summits, Vice-Presidents and Deputy Prime Ministers are normally considered to have the rank of Head of State or Government for the purposes of these meetings. So I hope that whatever you decide, you will not feel that this proposal was attempting to designate, as I believe was said, an A-team and a B-team but simply to get a format that we think would work well under the circumstances.
I should also point out that we have heard a lot during this debate about how important it will be to involve other organizations. Mr Hjort has already addressed the issue of how they will be involved during the preparatory process. We have also been very much encouraged to ensure that NGOs can appropriately address the Summit proceedings. I would just like to point out that, if we have the number of countries we expect to have, plus the number of intergovernmental observers and non-governmental observers that we would also expect, three days would not be enough to accommodate them all.
Finally, the actual listing of those to be invited to the Summit as contained in paragraph 6. Again this is based on the resolutions adopted by our own fora (the Conference) and others, but it actually contains the provisions to invite all of the institutions and organizations which have been mentioned during the debate and in the order in which the UN normally recognizes their participation.
I would just point out that under paragraph 6 c) the Bretton Woods institutions which are part of the United Nations system are included while under paragraph 6 f) concerning intergovernmental organizations, you would have the other international financing institutions, such as regional development banks, which are not technically part of the UN system. So I would hope that, although it is very detailed, you would understand that this would be a very valuable piece of guidance to the CFS in determining other arrangements which will need to be made over the coming year for the holding of the Summit in the most appropriate fashion.
I think that that covers all the points on which I can provide some clarification. I hope that has been helpful to the Commission but if I have overlooked anything I would be happy to try and come back and answer it.
LE PRESIDENT: Merci, Madame Killingsworth. Messieurs les délégués, vous avez écouté les réponses et les commentaires du Secrétariat. Est-ce qu'il y a d'autres demandes d'éclaircissement supplémentaires que vous voudriez faire sur notre point 7 de l'ordre du jour auprès du Secrétariat. Je vois que la Belgique lève sa pancarte.
Christian LEPAGE (Belgique): Merci, Monsieur le Président. Je voudrais tout d'abord remercier la délégation des Etats-Unis pour la réponse qu'elle a donnée à la question que la délégation belge avait posée hier. Je remercie également le Secrétariat pour ses réponses fournies, et Mme Killingsworth a souligné à juste titre que le point 4 du dispositif a fait l'objet de nombreux commentaires. Voulant combiner les remarques faites ce matin par le Représentant des Etats-Unis et celles formulées par le Secrétariat, je voudrais, si vous me le permettez, apporter un petit amendement supplémentaire ou complémentaire à ce point 4 c).
Vous vous rappelerez qu'hier nous avions déjà apporté un amendement. Je voudrais encore le préciser. Le petit point c du paragraphe 4 du dispositif se lirait de la façon suivante: "adopter des politiques et stratégies ainsi qu'un plan d'action visant à améliorer constamment la sécurité alimentaire mondiale au niveau familial tant du point de vue quantitatif que qualitatif" et je mettrais ici entre parenthèses (nutritionnel) dans le cadre d'un développement durable des économies, en vue de leur exécution unilatérale, bilatérale ou multilatérale par les gouvernements, les institutions internationales et tous les secteurs de la société civile. Cela, c'est pour le dispositif. Dans le préambule, au septième alinéa, je souhaiterais le préciser de la façon suivante: après, à savoir "le besoin de nourriture", j'ajouterais: "dans le cadre d'une garantie de subsistance par l'utilisation de techniques agricoles durables". Voilà, ce sont les commentaires que je voulais formuler. En réalité, comme vous le constaterez, ce qu'il faut bien préciser, à mon avis, dans la résolution, c'est que la sécurité alimentaire mondiale doit être prise dans un sens large et qu'elle doit aussi s'exécuter dans le cadre d'un développement durable. Le développement durable n'a pas été suffisamment souligné dans cette résolution. C'est pourquoi j'estime important de le voir inclure au point que j'ai mentionné.
Enfin je voudrais conclure: en ce qui concerne les secrétaires nationaux, je peux informer le Secrétariat que la Belgique a désigné son secrétaire national pas plus tard qu'aujourd'hui. Vous recevrez la lettre incessamment.
Anton KOHLER (Switzerland): I thank Mr Hjort and Ms Killingsworth for their clarifications and explanations. I have just one point to refer to once more. On point 6 of the Resolution, I would like to raise the question once more: under which organization would CGIAR be invited?
Ms K. KILLINGSWORTH (Secretary-General, World Food Summit): Sometimes I wish we had the Legal Counsel here for that particular question. As you know, the CGIAR is an unusual animal. However, we would normally invite it under the provision for observers from non-governmental organizations as it is a consultative group, with a unique and specific statute.
LE PRESIDENT: J'espère que cette réponse donne satisfaction au Délégué de la Suisse.
Excellences, Mesdames et Messieurs, à ce stade, nous avons pratiquement terminé l'examen du point 7. Je vais me lancer dans un exercice très périlleux consistant à vous faire part du sentiment personnel que je retire du long et très riche débat que nous avons eu sur le point 7, qui - je le précise - ne doit en aucun cas se substituer au rapport de Comité de rédaction. Si cela peut lui être utile, j'en serai très heureux.
Je note que nous avons eu un long débat auquel quarante-huit orateurs ont participé. J'en retiens que la Commission a appuyé pratiquement à l'unanimité la proposition pertinente et opportune du Directeur général de convoquer, au niveau des Chefs d'Etat et de Gouvernement, un Sommet mondial sur l'alimentation, en novembre 1996.
La Commission s'est félicitée des efforts déployés par le Directeur général afin que le coût de ce Sommet soit limité au strict minimum.
A cet égard, elle a appuyé la proposition de faire du Comité de la sécurité alimentaire mondiale le point focal et l'instance préparatoire privilégiée de ce Sommet.
La Commission a aussi appuyé de façon globale les objectifs assignés au Sommet. Toutefois, il a été suggéré que ces objectifs soient reformulés afin d'être plus concrets et quantifiables dans la perspective d'un meilleur suivi. De même, il a été suggéré qu'un meilleur équilibre soit établi entre les aspects qualitatifs et quantitatifs de ces objectifs.
La Commission est convenue que le Sommet mondial de l'alimentation devait prendre en considération le consensus auquel sont arrivées d'autres conférences internationales sur des sujets se rapprochant des problèmes de sécurité alimentaire, sans avoir besoin d'ouvrir de nouveau le débat sur ces questions.
La Commission a aussi demandé que le Sommet attache l'importance nécessaire à l'aspect multidisciplinaire des problèmes de sécurité alimentaire et à la dualité du défi durabilité et production alimentaire.
La Commission a souhaité - je dirai même recommandé - que la participation de tous les groupes sociaux, en particulier les femmes et les jeunes, et des autres partenaires de la FAO, à savoir les organisations internationales, les ONG, les institutions financières internationales et régionales et le secteur privé, soit assurée à tous les stades de préparation du Sommet.
De même, il a été recommandé qu'un mécanisme de suivi du résultat du Sommet puisse être inclus dans la résolution.
Des suggestions ont été faites concernant le plan d'action et la déclaration qui sera soumise au Sommet, qui normalement devront être discutés par le Comité de la sécurité alimentaire mondiale.
La majorité des intervenants se sont prononcés en faveur du texte du projet de résolution tel que proposé dans le document C 95/17.
Certains délégués ont proposé des amendements aussi bien sur le titre du Sommet, que le préambule et les paragraphes 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 et 14 du dispositif de la résolution soumise à la Conférence.
Ces amendements portent essentiellement sur les paragraphes concernant la durée du Sommet, le niveau et la composition de la représentation au Sommet, le rôle et la contribution des conférences régionales dans la poursuite de la préparation et le suivi de résultat du Sommet.
Des éclaircissements ont été demandés sur le fonds fiduciaire volontaire envisagé dans le projet de résolution et des informations ont été fournies par le Secrétariat. Il a été noté qu'un des objectifs de ce fonds fiduciaire serait d'attirer des contributions volontaires pour couvrir les coûts de participation des délégations des pays en voie de développement et d'autres frais tels que - des exemples ont été fournis par le Secrétariat - la promotion de la participation des Organisations non gouvernementales, des activités d'information et de communication, l'éventuelle traduction dans des langues non-officielles des projets de document du Sommet et des textes techniques et les activités au niveau des pays.
La Commission a pris note des contributions en espèces ou en nature qui seraient sollicitées du secteur privé, y compris des promoteurs commerciaux, et des préparatifs que certains pays ont déjà entamés au niveau national. Un nombre considérable de pays ont désigné leur Secrétaire national pour coordonner ces activités. Quelques pays ont annoncé leur intention de fournir un soutien matériel au Sommet, soit sous forme d'appui financier, soit sous forme d'expertise mise à la disposition du Secrétariat pour accomplir les tâches de préparation.
Dans le même ordre d'idée, la Commission a pris note avec plaisir de l'offre généreuse du Gouvernement italien d'accueillir le Sommet, ainsi que de sa contribution envisagée pour la préparation du Sommet.
Tels sont, Mesdames et Messieurs les Délégués, les quelques éléments que j'ai retenus de ce débat. Comme je l'ai dit, ce sont mes sentiments personnels sur ce débat et je ne veux me substituer en aucune façon au Comité de rédaction.
S'agissant du sort qui sera fait à la résolution, qui était le sujet principal soumis à l'examen de notre Commission, je suggère qu'à la lumière des différentes propositions précises et concrètes faites sur les différents chapitres de ce projet, le Secrétariat propose un autre projet de résolution tenant compte, autant que possible, des points de convergence afin de recueillir le consensus le plus large sur les différentes parties de la résolution.
Ce projet sera soumis au Comité de rédaction qui l'examinera et dont j'espère qu'il parviendra à un consensus sur l'ensemble de la résolution. La Commission réexaminera le projet que le Comité de rédaction aura, j'espère, pu fournir, sur lequel il y aurait un consensus et nous espérons que nous pourrons transmettre à la séance plénière de la Conférence un projet de résolution sur lequel il y aura un consensus au sein de notre Commission.
Donc, le Secrétariat préparera un projet de résolution tenant compte, dans toute la mesure du possible, des observations et des amendements qui ont été proposés, afin d'obtenir le consensus le plus large en tenant compte des avis exprimés dans le débat. Le Comité de rédaction l'examinera et essaiera de lever toutes les divergences, ce qui lui permettra, je l'espère, de nous présenter un projet de résolution sur lequel nous aurons un consensus, ce qui nous permettra de le transmettre à la plénière de la Conférence qui l'adoptera.
Je cède la parole à Madame Killingsworth qui va apporter une clarification.
Ms K. KILLINGSWORTH (Secretary-General, World Food Summit): Just to clarify, Sir, that I think what we could prepare, which could be of assistance to the drafting committee, would be a summary of the amendments which have been proposed during the session. It would then be up to the Drafting Committee to decide how to handle that summary.
LE PRESIDENT: Cette précision étant apportée, je reformule la proposition que je vous ai faite. Le Secrétariat préparera un résumé des différents amendements qui ont été formulés pendant le débat et le transmettra avec le projet de résolution au Comité de rédaction qui les examinera et s'efforcera de parvenir à un consensus sur l'ensemble du projet de résolution, préambule et dispositif, projet qui pourrait être adopté par consensus au niveau de la Conférence.
Le Délégué des Etats-Unis demande la parole, je la lui donne.
Thomas A. FORBORD (United States of America): Quite a number of delegations who are not represented on the Drafting Committee had proposed some significant amendments. I wonder if you would permit other delegations, for the purpose of working on the draft resolution, to participate in the work of the drafting group.
LE PRESIDENT: Je vous remercie, Monsieur le Délégué des Etats-Unis. Je me demande si cela est possible sur le plan juridique. Les membres du Comité de rédaction ont été élus et désignés par notre Commission. Je crois que nous pouvons leur faire confiance. Le Secrétariat a pris note de tous les amendements suggérés et je fais confiance au Comité de rédaction pour les examiner à la lumière des déclarations qui ont été faites ici car, comme vous le dites, un certain nombre de pays ont déposé des amendements, mais d'autres, en appuyant la résolution telle quelle, ont exprimé le sentiment qu'ils n'étaient pas prêts à examiner ces amendements.
Je crois que le Comité de rédaction, dans sa sagesse, pourra examiner ces amendements et voir lesquels pourraient faire l'objet d'un consensus en son sein et probablement au niveau de la Commission. Faisons confiance au Comité de rédaction qui examinera tous les amendements, en espérant qu'il parviendra à un consensus sur ces derniers. Voilà ce que je peux répondre à votre demande, honorable Délégué des Etats-Unis.
Pedro Alfonso MEDRANO ROJAS (Chile): Personalmente no sé si hay disposiciones reglamentarias que impidan, a una delegación que no forme parte del Comité de Redacción, participar en ese Comité de Redacción. En todo caso creo que el espíritu de la propuesta que ha hecho el Delegado de los EE.UU. es justamente evitar que al final del trabajo, ante la propuesta que presente el Comité de Redacción, esta Comisión se transforme en un Comité de Redacción, y creo que ahí vamos a perder mucho más tiempo. Creo que es preferible dar la posibilidad a las delegaciones que han hecho sugerencias, de participar en los trabajos del Comité de Redacción en lugar de esperar a que estas propuestas se analicen por la Comisión, en cuyo caso, ciertamente, tendríamos más posibilidades de perder el tiempo.
LE PRESIDENT: Je vous remercie honorable Délégué. Je voudrais passer la parole au Conseiller juridique pour qu'il nous éclaire sur cet aspect du problème: des Membres qui n'ont pas été élus au Comité de rédaction peuvent-ils participer aux travaux du Comité pour la discussion d'un point que le Comité aura à examiner?
LEGAL COUNSEL: The Drafting Committee has, of course, already been elected. If you were going to suggest that the Drafting Committee be enlarged for one particular purpose, it would no longer be the duly elected Drafting Committee; it would be another body. If you are entrusting the task to the Drafting Committee, then it should be the Drafting Committee as has been duly elected.
LE PRESIDENT: Honorable Délégué, vous avez entendu l'avis du Conseiller juridique, mais je suis à votre disposition.
Un certain nombre de délégations se sont inscrites: Japon, Jamaïque, Canada, Algérie et Allemagne. Je prie les orateurs d'être brefs et concis afin que nous avancions car nous sommes déjà en retard d'une demi-journée sur notre programme.
Kenji SHIMIZU (Japan): I will be very brief as my delegation is just making suggestions or indications as to our amendments or our difficulties with the drafting resolutions.
My delegation did not spell out specifically our suggestions in the course of the debate. Therefore, my delegation is ready to submit our written suggestions in order to help the Secretariat in drafting the summary.
Ms Faith INNERARITY (Jamaica): I believe that once the Drafting Committee has completed its work, the reformulated draft would be presented again to this Commission. Would it not then give an opportunity for those delegations that have suggested substantive changes to give their input at that time?
I believe that the Drafting Committee, as constituted, should go ahead with its work. The reformulated draft should be brought back to the Commission and then additional comments could be made. I think that would be the appropriate procedure.
Ms Susan MILLS (Canada): I support the recommendation made previously by the United States and Chile. There were a large number of recommendations made with regard to changes to the various paragraphs of the document, and if Legal Counsel recommends that the Drafting Committee should stay as it is, then perhaps we can constitute another body in order to ensure that we hear the full voice of all those who had comments to make. In such a way, we could save time by avoiding a further Plenary discussion of the Commission.
Nasreddine RIMOUCHE (Algérie): Nous sommes d'avis que les propositions d'amendement faites par les délégations soient remises au Secrétariat qui les soumettra au Comité de rédaction. Et il y aurait après un nouveau projet qui serait discuté au niveau de la Plénière pour faciliter la tâche et de la Commission, et du Comité de rédaction. Je vous remercie.
Goenke ROSCHER (Germany): My delegation would like to support the suggestion made by the delegate from Jamaica, if there is enough time to discuss the revised draft here in Commission I. Otherwise, we would like to know from Legal Counsel whether the Canadian suggestion would also be a possibility to work on a revised draft resolution.
LE PRESIDENT: Avant de passer la parole au Conseiller juridique pour vous répondre, je voudrais dire que la procédure telle qu'annoncée par le délégué de la Jamaïque est celle que nous suivrons en principe. Mais le Conseiller juridique pourra peut-être répondre à la deuxième partie de votre question. Monsieur Moore, vous avez la parole.
LEGAL COUNSEL: My comment was merely with respect to the Drafting Committee, which has been duly constituted. Should your Commission wish to set up an additional group with a different composition from the Drafting Committee, this is, of course, entirely open to your Commission. You have the possibility of doing this if, of course, you have sufficient time, because it would then need to go on to the Drafting Committee in any case.
LE PRESIDENT: Je vous remercie, Monsieur Moore, de cet avis. Avant de passer la parole aux orateurs suivants, je voudrais dire qu'il est évident que, au sein de la Commission, il y en a certains qui sont favorables à une procédure par laquelle le Comité de rédaction pourrait être élargi à d'autres membres, en particulier ceux qui ont proposé des amendements, ou être transformé en un groupe de travail informel pour discuter de cette résolution et également, comme cela a déjà été dit, certains délégués sont opposés à cette procédure-là. Donc voilà la situation que nous avons.
C.B. HOUTMAN (Netherlands): I am just trying to find a solution to this problem. What has been said is that there will be a list of all amendments given to the drafting group, and from that there will be another draft resolution made.
What I suggest, and could do as Chairman of the Drafting Committee, is this: when we have formulated a new draft resolution, we could informally circulate it between the Commission members here. They all have colleagues in the drafting group to whom they can indicate whether they can agree or not, and we can then see whether further discussion is necessary.
If there is something insurmountable, then we will have to come back here in Plenary and see whether we can deal with it then. However, if there are simply little things, I think it is better and less costly to deal with those in the drafting group.
LE PRESIDENT: Merci Monsieur le Président du Comité de rédaction pour cette suggestion qui, à mon avis, nous permet de sortir de ce dilemme et que je propose à l'intention des orateurs qui suivront afin qu'ils en tiennent compte dans leurs interventions pour permettre de terminer ce point.
Sra. María Cristina FERRARI (Argentina): Argentina, no se manifesto durante la discusión del tratamiento de la Cumbre, porque ya otros países habían hecho sugerencias con las cuales nos sentíamos en general identificados. El Representante de Chile, el Representante de Estados Unidos, el Representante de Nueva Zelandia.
De todas maneras, Argentina cualquiera sea el mecanismo que se utilice para la revisión del texto de resolución, apoyará un texto que surja del consenso y que contemple aquellas modificaciones que hagan un texto respaldado por la mayoría de los miembros de esta Comisión.
Kiala Kia MATEVA (Angola): Je me limiterai seulement à ce que la délégation japonaise a proposé et celle de la Jamaïque. Merci.
Christian LEPAGE (Belgique): La Belgique souhaite confier la tâche de la rédaction des amendements uniquement au Comité de rédaction. Et elle se félicite par ailleurs de la proposition des Pays-Bas qu'elle appuie en totalité. Merci.
Edward S. KABUYE (Malawi): My delegation is supporting the view that we should leave it to the Drafting Committee to look into the matter. I advise that the Drafting Committee members should consider all the comments which have been indicated by other members.
LE PRESIDENT: Je passe la parole à l'honorable délégué des Etats-Unis, en lui rappelant la proposition faite par le Président du Comité de rédaction. S'il peut l'accepter pour nous permettre d'avancer. Je vous remercie.
Thomas A. FORBORD (United States of America): Given the Legal Counsel's view on the drafting committee, I withdraw my suggestion that we have the drafting committee expanded to deal with the subject. I appreciate the attempt by Netherlands to try to reduce the amount of work that we have but I really must echo the very wise statement made by the Ambassador from Chile. What we are trying to do is save some time of this Commission and the proposal to have the drafting committee deal with this, in the absence of members who have proposed significant amendments, will make this Commission a drafting committee on the resolution after we get the report from the drafting committee itself.
I would support the recommendation that has been made that a working group be set up to elaborate upon the resolution.
Neil FRASER (New Zealand): It seems to me that regrettably the US delegate is correct. It will go to the drafting committee, it will then come back here, and if the views of quite a few are not on the drafting committee, were not taken into consideration, it would certainly be opened up here.
It seems to me, to save the time of this Commission I, to save the time of the drafting committee, if it could be pre-cooked or taken forward as far as possible by some working group where all interests are expressed through the mouth of the proponents, and not through somebody else in the drafting committee acting on their behalf, then that would be the most useful approach.
LE PRESIDENT: Je vous remercie. Monsieur Hjort a une précision à faire. Monsieur Hjort, vous avez la parole.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: This obviously is a matter for the Commission itself to decide. However, I would wish to point out that the election of a Drafting Committee would ensure regional representation. Over the years I have participated in quite a number of drafting committees. I have observed that members who are not on the Drafting Committee have found a way of getting their amendments before the drafting committee.
What is being proposed here, as I understand it, is that there are more countries which have made amendments than those on the drafting committee. In other words, one wishes to have a larger body; a larger body takes more time and a larger body will cost more. It will not replace the need for a drafting committee and so I would encourage you to follow the normal procedures.
As has been repeatedly stated, the Secretariat has offered to take every comment, every suggested amendment, that has been made by anybody - member of the Drafting Committee or not - and to put them before the Drafting Committee so all of them will be there. I believe that it is reasonable to assume that the members of the drafting committee will be contacted by those who are not on the drafting committee who have proposed an amendment to encourage them to insist upon their amendment.
You would have a smaller body to work with. The views will certainly all be there. You have another chance, when it comes back through the normal process for the report adoption session, to see if your views were not adequately taken into account, and you can at that stage propose amendments, and then the report will go to the Conference. Of course, the Conference will also have the opportunity should it feel necessary to make further amendments, so it does seem to me that instead of making the process more efficient, the proposal to have another group in addition to the Drafting Committee is simply one that will add to the cost and the time that it will take to resolve the matter.
LE PRESIDENT: Merci, Monsieur Hjort, de cet éclairage. Et sur ce, nous allons clore les débats sur ce point 7 sur le Sommet mondial, avec la décision que le Secrétariat fera remettre au Comité de rédaction l'ensemble des amendements qui ont été proposés. Et le Comité de rédaction essaiera de les examiner et de parvenir à un consensus sur ces amendements. Et nous espérons qu'ils pourront nous ramener une résolution acceptable pour tout le monde.
Sur ce, les débats sont terminés sur le point 7. Et nous passons au point 9 qui concerne l'Elargissement du mandat de la Commission des ressources phytogénétiques.
LE PRESIDENT: Mesdames et Messieurs, nous entamons notre débat sur le point 9 de notre ordre du jour qui porte sur l'Elargissement du mandat de la Commission des normes phytogénétiques. Je voudrais attirer votre attention sur les documents de base qui soutiendront notre débat qui porte les cotes suivantes: C 95/19, C 95/INF/19, C 95/INF/19 Sup.l, C 95/INF/19 Sup.2 et C 95/LIM/20. Le projet de résolution sur lequel j'aimerais que vous concentriez vos interventions figure dans le document C 95/19 et, à ce propos, je voudrais attirer votre attention sur le document C 95/LIM/20, qui est le premier rapport du Comité de résolution qui a examiné ce projet de résolution qui figure dans le document 19 et qui a fait un certain nombre de commentaires et d'observations dont il serait bon que vous preniez connaissance pour en tenir compte dans vos déclarations et vos observations sur le projet de résolution. Donc, je vous invite à vous concentrer sur le projet de résolution qui figure dans ce paragraphe 19 et à tenir aussi compte des observations formulées par le Comité de résolution. Avant cela, M. Hjort va introduire ce point de notre ordre du jour et nous allons établir la liste des interventions.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: In 1983 FAO established the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources, the first intergovernmental forum in the United Nations system to deal with plant genetic resources for food and agriculture.
In view of the important developments since then, and particularly during the last few years, especially the entry into force of the Convention on Biological Diversity and, by UNCED, the adoption of Agenda 21 and following technical advice from the Committees on Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries as well as from the Commission itself, the 108th Session of the Council recommend that this session of the Conference "agree to broaden the mandate of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources to that of a Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture".
The Council advises that subsequent to the broadening of the mandate the implementation should be undertaken through a step-by-step approach beginning with animal genetic resources. It further agreed that the broadened Commission should be assisted by sectoral working groups with appropriate geographical balance.
So far so good! However, the Council did not reach consensus with regard to the nature and composition of the sectoral working groups and it therefore decided to refer that matter to the Conference.
Appendix 2 of Document C 95/19 includes a comparative analysis of various options for the structure and composition of the sectoral working groups and the budgetary implications.
Document C 95/19 also includes a draft resolution to implement the Council's recommendations and an annex giving the proposed statutes of the broadened Commission as an aid to discussion and hopefully to formulate a Conference decision.
As the Chairman has pointed out, the Resolutions Committee has considered this resolution and its findings are reported in Document C 95/LIM/20.
Therefore, I would hope that in view of the long history and the positive recommendations of the Committee on Agriculture, the Committee on Forestry, the Committee on Fisheries, the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources and the Council that the task of broadening the mandate of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources to a Commission on Plant Resources for Food and Agriculture can be adopted quickly and by consensus. The matter has been amply discussed and there is universal agreement on this point I think.
Alvaro GURGEL DE ALENCAR (Brazil): Mr Chairman, I shall wait for my turn to make my statement. However, there is a matter of procedure that I would like to address.
I think it would be wise if we could separate the discussion because I think there are some issues that need to be clarified regarding the procedure. Our understanding is that document C 95/19, Supplements 1 and 2 are for information, and although they can be addressed, of course, by Members of this Commission, they should not initiate, they should not be the subject of substantive discussion. Otherwise, we would be here for a much longer time.
The item under discussion in our understanding is broadening the mandate of the FAO Commission on Plant Genetic Resources. The other procedural question regards the text of the Resolution and of its Annex.
From our point of view our delegation have substantive suggestions on the text of the Resolution. We would like to have your point of view, Mr Chairman, on whether we should address this during our statement or address this separately in the Commission, or whether it would be wise to establish an informal contact group to examine all possible suggestions for changing the text of the resolution in order to then present it again to the Commission as agreed in the informal contact group. That might save a lot of time in the Commission.
LE PRESIDENT: Merci, Monsieur le délégué du Brésil. Sur le premier point de votre intervention, je voudrais confirmer que vous avez parfaitement raison. Les documents C 95/19/INF/l et C 95/19/INF/2 sont des documents d'information. Le projet de résolution se trouve dans le document C 95/19. Concernant le projet de résolution, je pense qu'il serait utile que vous fassiez part de vos amendements ici en plénière afin que tous les membres de la Commission puissent en prendre connaissance et, si possible, réagir face à ces amendements, et d'autre part, s'agissant, de l'idée de création d'un groupe de travail, lors du point précédent nous avions essayé autant que possible d'éviter de recourir à ce genre de mécanisme, donc je voudrais vous proposer que nous écoutions tous les amendements que les différentes délégations ont à nous présenter et nous procéderons comme nous l'avons fait pour le point précédent. Je vois le Comité de rédaction qui me regarde. Je pense que nous les transmettons au Comité de rédaction qui pourrait éventuellement trouver un compromis. Car je crois que tous les points de l'ordre du jour ont une résolution ou un projet de résolution. Je crois qu'il faudrait peut-être établir quatre ou cinq groupes de travail. Donc je vous invite à inclure vos propositions et amendements au Comité de rédaction. Ceci dit, nous avons vingt-cinq minutes d'interprétation et la parole est aux orateurs qui sont sur la liste des intervenants. Le premier est le délégué de l'Espagne.
José Luis MILAS (España): En nombre de la Comunidad Europea y de sus Estados Miembros presento la siguiente declaración. Estamos en principio, señor Presidente, de acuerdo con la idea de ampliar el mandato de la Comisión de Recursos Fitogenéticos siempre que se tengan en cuenta las siguientes consideraciones y condiciones. No han de subestimarse las dificultades políticas, científicas, técnicas y financieras de la ampliación del mandato de la Comisión de Recursos Fitogenéticos. En cuanto a las dificultades de orden técnico, convendrá orientar bien las actuaciones dado que los problemas de los recursos fitogenéticos de la ganadería, no son de la misma naturaleza que los que presentan los recursos genéticos vegetales.
En primer lugar, los compromisos futuros sólo podrán materializarse partiendo de la certeza de que será posible movilizar de forma adecuada los recursos necesarios. A este respecto, deberán tenerse en cuenta los recursos indispensables para los programas en vías de aplicación, en particular la revisión del Acuerdo Internacional sobre los Recursos Fitogenéticos que debe ser simultánea a la ampliación del mandato de la Comisión, para que ésta alcance todo su sentido y a la preparación de la Conferencia Técnica Internacional de Recursos Fitogenéticos de Leipzig 1996. También será necesario tener en cuenta los resultados de esta Conferencia Técnica Internacional, en la que se elaborará un programa mundial de acción en torno a los recursos fitogenéticos. Los resultados serán de gran utilidad para determinar el coste global del programa básico. La Comunidad Europea y sus Estados Miembros se reservan sus posiciones en la materia, tanto por lo que respecta a la financiación necesaria, como en lo referente a una posible participación en la misma.
En segundo lugar, la ampliación del mandato de la Comisión deberá efectuarse por etapas, considerando en un primer tiempo los recursos de la producción animal. En efecto, ya hay grupo de trabajo especializado en los sectores forestal y pesquero que está reflexionando de forma global sobre estas cuestiones y no conviene frenarlos.
La Comisión ampliada deberá basarse en las competencias actualmente movilizadas y en los trabajos sobre los recursos genéticos animales, pesqueros y forestales en curso o ya realizados por otras comisiones o grupos de la FAO, para así evitar duplicidades o repeticiones de estudios ya financiados.
En tercer lugar, por lo que respecta a los trabajos preparatorios para los trabajos de la Comisión ampliada, consideramos por razones de eficacia y economía, que deberían encomendarse en una primera fase a un grupo de trabajo compuesto por expertos técnicos similar al grupo de expertos de recursos genéticos forestales de la FAO, que sería apoyado por expertos adicionales cuando fuera necesario. El grupo de trabajo tendría una edición limitada y debería someter sus conclusiones a la primera reunión de la Comisión ampliada. En una fase ulterior los trabajos se encomendarían a un grupo de trabajo intergubernamental de comprensión limitada, tal como se propone en la opción B, del apartado octavo, del Documento C 95/19.
Alvaro GURGEL DE ALENCAR (Brazil): The issue before us of the broadening of the mandate of the FAO Commission on Plant Genetic Resources is very important to us and it must be carefully considered and carefully decided upon.
As we have already expressed in the 108th Session of the Council, Brazil considers it premature to discuss the broadening of the mandate of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources at a time when that body is very busy discussing complex and delicate questions, namely, preparations for the Fourth International Technical Conference for Food and Agriculture and the revision of the International Undertaking.
The preparatory process for the Fourth International Technical Conference will come to an end, of course, in June 1996 when the conference will be held, but after that the Commission will have the heavy workload on the follow-up process of the Conference of Leipzig, in particular related to the Global Plan of Action, which we fully support.
The revision of the International Undertaking and other important tasks of the Commission still have a long way to go. We are still far from reaching agreement, as it now seems, on some key issues at stake. Given the most optimistic guess, the revision probably will not end before 1997. We may even go beyond that, particularly if some very critical issues that have already been agreed upon and answered and included Convention on Biological Diversity are questioned and put under discussion. In view of the delicate questions discussed on the revision of the Undertaking, it is not possible to speed up this process or establish guidelines for its conclusion.
Mr Chairman, having in mind the current activities of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources, it is clear that until 1997 the task before the Commission is huge and the workload very heavy, to say the least.
Bearing in mind that since the first time we discussed the possible broadening of the mandate of the Commission Brazil has expressed its view that the broadening of the mandate would have to be a very cautious one, in a step-by-step manner, possibly beginning with animal genetic resources so as not to disturb or disrupt the current activities of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources.
Bearing in mind also the important aspects that need to be discussed on animal genetic resources, we would then be prepared to accept the inclusion of animal genetic resources in the mandate of the Commission now and the establishment of an intergovernmental working group for animal genetic resources. However, we feel that this matter should not be brought to the attention of the Commission until we can be sure that the important work under way will not be jeopardized. Therefore, from our point of view the intergovernmental working group on animal genetic resources would bring its decision to the Commission for final views and eventual decisions probably only after 1997, although we can agree with holding meetings of this working group for animal genetic resources starting next year.
Brazil would prefer to approve in this Conference only the inclusion of animal genetic resources in the mandate of the Commission. This is what we understand by a step by step broadening of the mandate. Then in a later conference we might be able to review the situation of the work of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources and then decide upon the inclusion, or not, of fish genetic resources. We think fish genetic resources require a very different approach and will impose a heavy burden on the Commission. We would prefer to postpone a decision on that. The eventual approval of the inclusion of fish genetic resources in the mandate of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources as proposed to us now has the reservation of my country. Brazil reserves its position in this matter because we are very concerned about the possible impact of broadening the mandate to include not only animal but also fish genetic resources on the current work of the Commission, as well as the financial and administrative implications of this decision.
It must be clearly understood by all that broadening the mandate of the Commission has absolutely no relation to the scope of the International Undertaking and the revision. In our opinion any attempt to mix these two questions would certainly lead to disaster in the current negotiations of the International Undertaking and possibly throw away all progress already achieved.
Regarding the sectoral working groups to help the Commission to fill its mandate, Brazil favours their establishment. We must emphasize, however, that the nature and composition of these groups have not only budgetary and administrative implications but also political ones. We strongly support an intergovernmental composition of those working groups. Only in such a way can we expect a full and democratic representation and participation of the Member Countries of the Commission who have clear vested interests as governments in the matters under discussion and would like to follow all those discussions closely. We do not see actually other possible solutions since the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources is an intergovernmental body but its working groups should also be intergovernmental. The size and frequency of meetings of these intergovernmental groups might be decided later on after we can review a more detailed report and its possible financial implications.
Turning briefly to the options presented to us in document C 95/19, Appendix II and page 15 of the English version, C 95/19, we have three options A, B and C. That has been explained in appendix 2. We would prefer option A or B due to the intergovernmental nature of the working groups. We have no particular preference for option A or B. However, in option B we will have a limited composition of the working groups and in this case we will favour the possibility of observers participating in the work of this group, maybe upon request, so that all interested countries will be able to listen and follow the discussions underway in these intergovernmental bodies.
Turning to the text of the resolution and of the status, we find it unfortunate that we did not have an opportunity to review this text before. Even an informal group created before the beginning of this Conference might have been very handy and helpful in reaching a consensus on the text of the resolution and the status. In fact, we have never discussed the status before; this is the first time we have an opportunity to do so. That is why we have proposed to you an informal, even a contact group, to review some aspects of the draft resolution.
I have many suggestions to change. I refer to only two aspects in general first. The first general aspect is that we would prefer to have the word "intergovernmental" before reference to "sectoral working groups". This would apply both to the resolution and to the appendix that has the status of the Commission. As we also prefer not to delay the decision on inclusion of fish genetic resources, we would also have to make the necessary amendments if there is an agreement on it in this Commission. In the draft resolution itself, the last preambulatory paragraph that begins by recognizing that the technical approaches to plant, forestry, animal and fisheries are different, etc., we would prefer, for instance, to have a more general statement somewhat along the following lines. Our suggestion for this paragraph would be "Recognizing that plant, forestry, animal and fisheries biological diversity required different approaches best supplied to a number of intergovernmental sectoral working groups".
Turning to the status of the Commission, the annex to the resolution presented to us on point ii) when it says "to negotiate or oversee the development" we suggest to delete the words "as appropriate" and instead replace it with "upon request by the FAO governing bodies" and then the rest of ii) continues as proposed.
On iii) we would also prefer more positive drafting and we would suggest the following amendment "to recommend such measures as would be necessary or desirable to ensure the development of a comprehensive global system or systems on genetic resources for food and agriculture and to monitor the operation of its/their components." And here comes the change "in line with the Convention on Biological Diversity and other international instruments adopted in this area" and it continues.
On iv), still on this item 2, we would suggest to replace the word "including the Conference of the Parties" etc. by "in particular with the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity and the UN Commission on Sustainable Development." The whole text also when it refers to sectoral groups should refer to intergovernmental sectoral groups, although we might be prepared to examine alternatives to those as long as it is clearly stated that they are intergovernmental groups.
On number 5 i), when it says "It may also decide to convene extraordinary sessions as necessary", we would add "subject to the approval of the FAO Council." We think it is important that the FAO Council reviews all extraordinary sessions and bearing in mind all financial constraints and possible interests of other extraordinary sessions of the committees of FAO.
On item 5 ii), we would replace the word "normally", instead of saying "actually", "shall normally hold one session annually." We would prefer to have "should hold no more than one session annually."
On item 7, Reporting, we do not have a specific draft but we would prefer that the Commission submit a report on the text on all its activities. Actually the Commission should submit its report to the FAO Council and not to the Director-General. We do not have a specific draft on this but I am sure we could propose something later on. There are also some other minor changes but they are not really important so I will limit my contribution at this stage to these suggestions that we deem important. Having said that, I wind up my statement now and I may intervene later to respond to some of the other suggestions made.
LE PRESIDENT: Je vous remercie, honorable Délégué du Brésil, pour votre intervention très détaillée et qui va dans le sens souhaité: faire part à l'ensemble des Membres de la Commission des amendements que l'on a sur ce projet de résolution de l'annexe et des autres éléments sur lesquels l'attention de la Commission est attirée.
Vous êtes le dernier orateur de la matinée car nous avons épuisé notre temps d'interprétation; nous reprendrons cet après midi à 15 heures.
J'annonce que le Président du Groupe des 77 convoque une réunion du Groupe à 13 h 30, dans la Salle de la Malaisie.
The meeting rose at 12.45 hours.
La séance est levée à 12 h 45.
Se levanta la sesión a las 12.45 horas.
