CHAIRMAN: As members of the Council are well aware, this document will come up for discussion before the Conference in Commission II on Wednesday 20 November. We have the Chairman of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources here, the Ambassador of Costa Rica, Ambassador Carlo di Mottola Balestra. I will first request Dr Bommer to introduce the item briefly. Then we will hear the Chairman.
D. F. R. BOMMER (Assistant Director-General, Agriculture Department): I do not think the item needs any particularly long introduction because, as the Chairman rightly mentioned, it is a document for information and will be discussed in Commission II in detail.
I just wanted to mention that the document briefly recalls the establishment of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources and the views of the first session of the Commission, as well as the recommendations emanating from it.
The follow-up action to these recommendations is briefly described, and the document at the end discusses developments with respect to the International Board for Plant Genetic Resources. Further details of this will be presented in Commission II.
Carlo di MOTTOLA BALESTRA (Presidente de la Comisión de Recursos Fitogenéticos): Agradezco al Sr. Bommer su rapida, pero exhaustiva presentación, que ha hecho del tema. En mi calidad de Presidente de la Comisión no voy a entrar en el fondo de los problemas, ya que el fondo de los problemas va a ser examinado en la Comisión II durante la reuniónde la Conferencia y porque no me toca a mí hacerlo. Quisiera simplemente tratar un punto general. La Comisión está encargada de constituir un grupo de trabajo de 25 miembros, en consulta con los grupos regionales, cosa que se ha logrado y, por lo tanto, ya los países están avisados y los grupos y los nombres de los países integrantes están contenidos en el informe C 85/24.
La reunión del grupo de trabajo está prevista para mediados de febrero, más o menos. La Comisión formuló muchas recomendaciones y estamos trabajando con la Secretaría para dividir estas recomendaciones por grupos de tema; o sea la agenda que vamos a proponer está dividida por temas, ya que hay una cierta confusión en el contenido de cada una de esas recomendaciones. Haríamos una parte del período de sesiones del grupo de trabajo dedicado a temas jurídicos, después se pasaría a temas técnicos, a temas de información de capacitación y de follow-up. Pensamos que divididos por grupos de temas será más fácil el trabajo de la Comisión.
Desde el mes de marzo ha habido muchas adhesiones a la Comisión y unas adhesiones al compromiso. Yo creo que los dos problemas principales frente a los cuales se encontrará el grupo de trabajo, me permito decir esto, tal vez puedan ser meditados antes de la Conferencia y ya podría surgir una propuesta. Lo que nosotros queremos es hacer participar en los trabajos de la Comisión a los países que no son Miembros de la FAO; es un problema jurídico bastante complejo; por lo tanto yo ruego a las delegaciones de los países que estén interesados en este problema, y me gustaría que fuesen los más posibles, que estudien ellos mismos la resolución jurídica de este problema y aunque parece es un problema únicamente jurídico, prácticamente es un problema político, ya que si tenemos
todos los países que se interesan en los productos fitogeneticos y quien los produce, . el diálogo va a ser mucho más fecundo y mucho más amplio.
El otro problema que se tendrá que estudiar en el grupo de trabajo son las reservas. Ya algunos países se han adherido a este grupo de trabajo. Estas reservas las estudiaremos muy a fondo ya que entendiendo las reservas podremos estudiar qué fórmulas se pueden encontrar para eliminarlas y para obtener una acción incondicional al Compromiso.
Antes de terminar quería hacer un llamado para que los países que todavía no se han adherido ni a la Comisión ni al Compromiso, traten de hacerlo ya que prácticamente es sólo participar en un diálogo por tanto les exhorta para que se adhieran al Compromiso y para participar en este diálogo, aunque sólo sea para decir que no están de acuerdo, pero explicando el por qué no lo están. Deben adherirse antes que nada a la Comisión, y al Compromiso, si es posible, sin reservas. De lo contrario, las examinaremos con las reservas.
José Ramón LOPEZ PORTILLO ROMANO (México): Deseo expresar en nombre de la delegación mexicana nuestro agradecimiento al Sr. Bommer por la presentación que hizo del tema y, especialmente, al Presidente de la Comisión de Recursos Fitogenéticos por la magnífica exposición que nos ha presentado. Estamos totalmente de acuerdo con él en lo que se refiere a la invitación a los Estados Miembros para que participen en la Comisión y expresen sus disidencias o los problemas que enfrentan relativos al Código Internacional de Recursos Fitogenéticos.
La delegación de México otorga todo su apoyo al Informe y a las recomendaciones de la Comisión de Recursos Fitogenéticos. Ha sido un buen inicio de actividades y lamentamos que varios países no se hayan unido entonces a los trabajos de la Comisión y al Compromiso Internacional, pero esperamos que lo hagan pronto.
La delegación de México está dispuesta a colaborar para superar los inconvenientes y dificultades que esos países tienen. Propongo que este Consejo haga un llamado a todos los Estados Miembros para que se unan a esa Comisión y al Compromiso Internacional, o bien expresen cuáles son las razones de su resistencia. Debemos también profundizar en las alternativas existentes para permitir la participación de Estados no miembros de la FAO en los subgrupos de trabajo, como lo ha recomendado el Sr. Presidente de la Comisión de Recursos Fitogenéticos. La FAO debe hacer una labor de atracción por otra parte, de todos los países a estas cuestiones de recursos fitogenéticos que son tan importantes y estratégicos para lograr una mejor situación en la seguridad alimentaria, particularmente en los países en desarrollo. En este sentido debemos dar un contenido práctico al Artículo 7/1/a del Compromiso Internacional sobre la creación de una red internacional bajo la jurisdicción internacional.
Los estudios de carácter técnico y de carácter jurídico que deben estar en marcha, como fueron planteados en la primera reunión de la Comisión, sin duda arrojarán importantes elementos de juicio y permitirán evitar situaciones lamentables, como podría ser el caso de que ciertos países o bancos internacionales patenten los genes de las materias primas colectadas fundamentalmente en países en desarrollo o que, en virtud de las leyes de patentes existentes, ciertos países de origen de los recursos fotogenéticos tengamos que pagar por nuestro propio material genético existentes en bancos que cito.
Buscamos con todo esto garantizar el respeto a los principios de que los recursos fitogenèticos sean patrimonio de toda la humanidad y deben estar disponibles libremente. Para ello, la Delegación de México apoya la creación de un fondo internacional de recursos fitogenèticos.
Es indispensable, además, que la FAO apoye soluciones regionales y subregionales para la promoción de bancos, programas de información, de capacitación y de investigación. El ejemplo del Comité del Sudeste Asiático financiado por el CIRF es un magnífico ejemplo que deseamos ver reproducido en otras regiones. El CIRF ha hecho una buena labor, pero la consideramos aún incompleta e insuficiente y, por otro lado, creemos que perfectamente se acomoda al trabajo complementario y cualitativamente diverso que estamos emprendiendo a través de la Comisión y de los efectos del compromiso internacional.
Esperamos que, al ser congruentes con los principios que ha declarado, nos acompañen y se unan plenamente a nuestros esfuerzos en la FAO.
Debo advertir que al respecto hay problemas técnicos con obvias implicaciones políticas que debemos superar. Solamente subrayar algunas de ellas: Se le ha dado importancia relativa mucho mayor a cultivos de interés global que a aquellos de interés local y, digamos, de inversiones relativas del CIRF, y la cantidad de gente que depende de esos cultivos locales, así como la erosión genética o desconocimiento sobre ella derivada del cambio de cultivos, de consumo, de cultura alimentaria y en general de los cambios de estructura de la economía agrícola dan, entre otros, prueba de lo que decía yo.
Al respecto, subrayamos que, por tanto, los cultivos de interés económico tienen preferencia sobre los de interés social. En México, por ejemplo, a pesar de contar con un importante Instituto Internacional, no existe una oferta adecuada de semillas para la agricultura de temporada y la que existe requiere de un obligado paquete tecnológico de alto costo y con grave implicación de dependencia económica; resulta también que en la situación actual el lugar de multiplicación y evaluación genética no tiene en la gran mayoría de los casos características similares a las del lugar de recolección, porque los bancos de colección in situ se ubican en su gran mayoría en países desarrollados. Esto de por sí es grave, pero más grave es que casi inmediatamente se seleccionan automáticamente los genes que son útiles aplicados en esos lugares de multiplicación y de evaluación. Ello tiene un efecto negativo de carácter económico, social y político contra los países en desarrollo.
Por otra parte, la erosión genética de los bancos de germoplasma es superior a la del campo, posiblemente esto ocurre en perjuicio de los países en desarrollo porque al multiplicar esos recursos fitogenéticos se eliminan ciertos genes no representativos de la muestra a reproducir, pero quizá fundamentales para el clima, suelo y la organización socioeconómica del lugar de la recolección, esto termina beneficiando principalmente a los países desarrollados en tanto que desaparecen de la multiplicación de genes de interés para el tipo de ecosistema y organización social en los países en desarrollo.
Por eso, la Delegación de México enfatiza la importancia de la conservación in situ, pero advertimos que es necesario la creación de un fondo o de un sistema financiero para apoyarla. La creciente presión demográfica amenaza con reducir aún más la posibilidad de mantener, de conservar la diversidad genética en los genes en nuestros países.
Es cierto, por otro lado, que la conservación de germoplasma aprovechando condiciones naturales favorables tiene un coste de mantenimiento significativamente menor; todo esto está planteado en muy buena parte en el informe de nuestra Comisión, y la FAO deberá estudiarlo y presentarlo para el inicio de los trabajos de la Subcomisión y para la celebración de la segunda reunión de la Comisión de Recursos Fitogenéticos.
Solamente con esta información podremos llegar a conclusiones útiles, eso es lo que esperamos de estos esfuerzos.
Como complemento indispensable es prioritaria la integración del sistema de información y el impulso a la formación de especialistas en países en desarrollo principalmente. Como órgano técnico científico, el CIRF tiene una función de asesoría, pero no de carácter político, ésa la deben llevar todos los países miembros de FAO a través de la Comisión de Recursos Fitogenéticos con el marco del compromiso internacional.
Invitamos a todos los países a que se unan a estos esfuerzos honestos y positivos en favor de la seguridad alimentaria mundial.
José Manuel WATSON (Panamá): La Delegación de Panamá agradece al Sr. Bommer y al Sr. Embajador de Costa Rica, di Mottola, Presidente de la Comisión de Recursos Fitogenéticos, por la magnífica presentación del tema en examen.
Nuestro país, Panamá, no sólo apoyó y acogió la resolución 8|83 emanada del 22° período de sesiones de la Conferencia, por la cual se adoptó el compromiso internacional sobre recursos fitogenèticos, sino que también aceptó de manera rápida y entusiasta la invitación del Sr. Director General a ser miembro de la Comisión que el Consejo había establecido en su 85° período de sesiones, con el fin de vigilar los acuerdos del compromiso y examinar todas las cuestiones de la FAO relativas a los recursos fitogenéticos.
Asimismo, Panamá es uno de los países que integran el grupo de trabajo de la antes citada Comisión, tal como la había denunciado el Sr. Embajador de Costa Rica, di Mottola. Es dentro de este contexto y por la gran importancia que concedemos a este tema cinco de la agenda, que la Delegación de Panamá desea hacer unos breves comentarios al documento C 85|24 que trata sobre la aplicación de las Resoluciones 8|83 y 9|83 sobre las cuales hemos hecho referencia.
En primer lugar, deseamos destacar nuestra participación en la primera reunión de la Comisión de Recursos Fitogenéticos celebrada en esta Sede durante el mes de marzo del año en curso, y en este marco de referencias reiteramos nuestro apoyo a las recomendaciones emanadas de dicha reunión y de manera particular a las que se señalan en los párrafos 11, 12 y 13 del Documentoen análisis.
A este propósito, nuestra Delegación desea manifestar, tal como lo ha hecho en repetidas ocasiones, entre ellas durante el 22° período de sesiones de la Conferencia, que a nuestro juicio con el ánimo de ser realistas, el compromiso internacional sobre recursos fitogenéticos será tanto más completo cuanto mayor sea su número de adhérentes, en especial de aquellos que controlan la mayoría de dichos recursos. En tal sentido, apoyamos las medidas indicadas en el párrafo 15 y exhortamos a los países que han formulado reservas a partes concretas del compromiso a que comprendan y aprecien los esfuerzos que en tal sentido se realizan y puedan adherirse al mismo sin reservas.
Asimismo solicitamos a otros países que no se han adherido al compromiso para que expliquen en forma clara y objetiva los motivos de su disidencia, a fin de tratar de encontrar solución a la misma.
Por otra parte, la Delegación de Panamá está segura de que podrán encontrarse lo más rápidamente posible las alternativas que permitan la participación de países no miembros de la FAO.
Para terminar, y con el ánimo de ser breve, deseamos manifestar en forma global que compartimos las medidas a las que se refieren los párrafos 14, 16, 17, 18 y 19 del documento C 85|24.
Fot is G. POULIDES (Cyprus): First of all I wish to express our thanks to Dr Bommer and to the Ambassador for Costa Rica, Mr di Mottola Balestra, for their clear introductions to the subject under discussion. We have closely followed the developments leading to the establishment of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources. We participated in its first session, and we have no difficulty in fully endorsing its report.
Since the first session of the Commission was held in March this year, new developments have taken place which we note with either satisfaction or some scepticism. It is certainly encouraging to note that the numbers of members of the Commission increased during this period from 67 to 77, and that the growth of the international undertaking on plant genetics has also slightly increased. We welcome the establishment of a Secretariat TaskForce to initiate and follow-up actions following recommendations made by the Commission. And we are sure that by appropriate analysis of objections and doubts from either non-members of the Commission or countries unable to adhere to the Undertaking, both numbers can be further increased.
The undertaking of studies, as listed in paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of document C 85/24, covers most of the recommendations made by the Commission. We trust the results of those studies will be ready by the end of 1986, before the next session of the Commission. The results of these studies would provide the Commission with the information required for further action in the future. We look forward therefore to their completion, and we hope that the time frame outlined in the same paragraphs will be maintained.
We referred previously to some recent developments which have caused us some scepticism. This refers mainly to the working arrangements between FAO and the International Board for Plant Genetic Resources. Before the Commission on Plant Genetics was established some delegates had suggested that the work carried out in the field by the International Board for Plant Genetic Resources was sufficient. We do not want to suggest that the IBPGR did not carry out satisfactory work in this field, but the conclusions of the External Programme and Management Review commission by the Technical Advisory Committee of the CGIAR suggest that, at least in research evaluation and utilization of genetic resources, much more needs to be done.
But more important is the suggestion of the Review Panel, that IBPGR become a fully independant centre outside FAO. We do not know the justification which lies behind this recommendation, but we are hesitant to believe that it will serve to avoid duplication of efforts and overlapping of activities between FAO and the International Board for Plant Genetic Resources. We welcome therefore the response of the Director-General, in informing the International Board for Plant Genetic Resources that its association with FAO is still valid, and that the Organization is preparedto continue its support of the International Board for Plant Genetic Resources under the existing arrangement. We believe that the two bodies should work together towards implementation of the undertaking, avoiding duplication, and complementarity between their work.
K. N. ARDHANAREESWARAN (India): In the first place I would like to compliment the distinguished Ambassador of Costa Rica for preparing such an excellent report. He has brought the issues forward very clearly, and we would like to thank him for this report. I would like to emphasize the need for participation by the non-members who have certain reservations. It is necessary to open a dialogue with them, and ensure that they also become members of the Commission. We should take all possible steps to initiate the dialogue and also to remove their misgivings.
I would also like to emphasize the need for conservation of our genetic resources. These constitut the heritage of mankind, and every effort should be made to preserve this heritage for all time to come.
In paragraph 17 there is a reference to in situ Conservation. It is reported that guidelines on management of in situ Conservation are being completed. In this connection my delegation would like to suggest that where rn situ Conservation involves abandonment or postponement of any development project, those countries concerned should be compensated for this in situ Conservation which may involve a cost in real terms to the developing countries. The question of compensating them for the loss should be considered.
We would like to compliment the International Board for Plant Genetic Resources. They have done excellent work. We would like to see meaningful collaboration and meaningful interaction between the Commission and the International Board. The workplan on complementarity should be completed as soon as possible, and we would suggest that the two Organizations should collaborate closely and take all action required to complete the workplan at the earliest possible moment.
We would also suggest that the legal questions relating to the setting up of the collection centres should be resolved as soon as possible. The collection work should begin, and there should not be any impediment or difficulty in taking up the collection.
We would also suggest that the information systems should be set up. There should be free access to the resources of the Commission. The launching of FAO's seed information system has been proposed and we would point out that access to the resources of the Commission is important. Access can improve only if there is a meaningful information system.
We would also emphasize the need for training. The requirements should be properly assessed, and we should prepare a detailed plan. In this connection we would also support the suggestion by the distinguished delegate of Mexico and we would welcome the setting up of an international fund for development of genetic resources. This is a very valid and useful suggestion, and we recommend that it be pursued. We would also suggest that some regional centres be set up and that the work c the fund be strengthened and made more meaningful.
With these suggestions we would like to support the report of the Ambassador of Costa Rica.
kosei SHIOZAWA (Japan): To begin with I would like to associate myself with many of the previous speakers in congratulating the three Vice-Chairmen on their unanimous election.
I have listened to the short and excellent presentation made by Dr Bommer, supplemented by the excellent report of the Chairman of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources with interest. My Government recognizes the need to enhance international activities related to plant genetic resources since many valuable plant genetic resources, it has been recorded, are disappearing from the earth. From this point of view Japan has been actively participating and supporting the voluntary activities of IBPGR and we believe that these activities have been fully satisfactory in terms of the international exchange and protection of plant genetic resources.
My delegation welcomes the fact that the First Session of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources, which a Japanese delegation attended as an observer, recommended that, as was mentioned in paragraph 12 of the document, special attention be given to avoiding duplication or overlapping of activities, and that the letter of agreement between FAO and IBPGR be reviewed. I would like to reiterate, however, that the approaches whichweakened the current activities of IBPGR should be strictly reframed. Since CGIAR is also reviewing the future activities of IBPGR, as mentioned in paragraphs 20 to 23 of the document, a close exchange of views between FAO and CGIAR is necessary in order to make the activities of both organizations run more effectively and efficiently.
My Government earnestly hopes that the Working Group which was referred to in paragraph 13 of the document will thoroughly consider ways of finding a solution to the following questions for implementation of the undertaking. Firstly, optimum efforts to avoid duplication of activities and to ensure better cooperation between IBPGR and FAO should be made. Secondly, my Government believes that plant genetic resources, in principle, should be voluntarily exchanged by the countries concerned since legal binding of these activities may not be acceptable to many countries. Thirdly, plant genetic resources defined in the undertaking, including the newest varieties which breeders have managed to create, is feared to infringe on the rights of the breeders.
Elio PASCARELLI (Italy): I want to thank and congratulate Dr Bommer and Ambassador di Mottola for their concise and very concrete introduction of the subject, and furthermore I want to tell Ambassador di Mottola that the excellent report of his Commission has led my Governmentto reconsider its absence from the Commission. So I really want to announce that my Government is going to join the Commission, and possibly later the international compromise, hopefully without reservations.
Joachim WINKEL (Germany, Federal Republic of): I would like first to thank Mr Ambassador of Costa Rica and his group for the work that has been done in this report.
My delegation has taken note with interest of the progress made since the adoption of the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources as described in the document before us. We welcome particularly the statements in paragraph 11 of the document, according to which the FAO Secretariat was requested to investigate ways and means to increase participation in the Commission by non-member nations.
Beyond that we are of the opinion that the International Undertaking can only be implemented if those nations still taking a negative attitude will also adhere to the Undertaking. This will only be possible through serious work in the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources and the Working Group. The need to avoid duplication or overlapping of activities with the work of IBPGR, as stated in paragraph 12 of the document, is also one of our concerns. We are of the same opinion that the IBPGR, with which we are working closely, has done qualified work in the last few years. We will therefore continue to support the work of the IBPGR. We feel that only those changes which are absolutely necessary should be made regarding the solution which has proved its worth so far, and which was chosen for relations between FAO and IBPGR.
Henrique da SILVEIRA SARDINHA PINTO (Brazil): First of all my delegation wishes to thank Dr Bommer and Ambassador di Mottola of Costa Rica for the introduction of this item. Brazil has given and gives great attention to the preservation, study and development of its plant genetic resources, and in this connection is very happy to participate in the Commission established in FAO. My delegation is also pleased to verify that the recommendations of the First Session of the Commission are being satisfactorily implemented.
As regards recent developments with respect to IBPGR, the Brazilian delegation commends this institution for the excellent work it has been performing. In fact the Brazilian National Centre on Plant Genetic Resources has had extremely fruitful cooperation from IBPGR and we would like to continue to do so. Based on our previous experience, Brazil believes that IBPGR should not become a fully independent centre outside FAO. The current statutes of this institution have proved to be valid and we urge FAO and IBPGR to continue to work in close cooperation within the present management structure. We are prepared to examine further modifications in the relationship pattern of both institutions provided that theylead to real improvement in the work of IBPGR.
With these short comments, my delegation wishes to support the report of the First Session of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources.
R. Mohammad BAHRAM (Afghanistan): The delegation of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan supports the report on plant genetic resources. My country is rich in plant genetic resources, and for the best utilization of genetic resources certainly needs technical cooperation, particularly in training. We believe that genetic resources are very vital for agriculture production since potential productivity depends on germ plasm.
The delegation of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan supports the establishment of an international fund for collection, preservation and use of germ plasm. We believe that such a fund will certainly promote the development of plant genetic resources, particularly in the developing countries.
K. M. EJAZUL HUQ (Bangladesh): My delegation would like to first thank Dr Bommer and the Chairman of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources for their very lucid introduction of this important subject. We have already subscribed to the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources and have become members of the Commission and also the Working Group. Consequently, we attended the First Session of the Plant Genetic Resources Commission and entirely supported the recommendations and the report of the Commission. We also ask all those countries who have not yet subscribed to the Undertaking, not yet joined the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources, to do so in order to make it more universal for the benefit of the whole of humanity.
We welcome the establishment of the Secretariat Task Force to take prompt action on the recommendations of the Commission in this connection, and we express our sincere appreciation to the FAO for their quick action taken so far in the matter. We also support the proposal for the establishment of the additional fund for plant genetic resources.
Lastly, we support what has been stated by the distinguished delegates of Mexico and India.
Vincent MOE (Trinidad and Tobago): I thank you for giving me an opportunity to speak on this important topic, and particularlybecausethis is the first occasion on which I have had the opportunity to represent my country at an FAO Council meeting. The delegation of Trinidad and Tobago wishes to congratulate Dr Bommer on the tremendous work and effort put into the formulation of this report and the establishment of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources, and especially its significance to small developing states like Trinidad and Tobago.
In many instances countries like my own do not have the technical expertise and infrastructural development required to establish an adequate genetic resource base for crops that are vital to agricultural development and economic survival. We therefore view this as an essential aspect to world food security, since it provides the opportunity to small nations to tap technological advancements in other more developed countries.
Trinidad and Tobago therefore supports the report and establishment of the Commission, and has instituted measures to become a member of the Commission. Like the delegate of Panama, we wish to particularly support the recommendations made in paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of the report.
G. H. MUSGROVE (Canada): We too would like to thank Dr Bommer for his intervention and thank the Chairman of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources for the report on the activities of that organization.
My Government has not found it possible to participate either in the Undertaking or in the work of the Commission, in large part because of our concern about the character of that work and its potential for duplication with existing work undertaken by the International Board for Plant Genetic Resources. It has often been said that while the FAO is a specialized agency dealing with technical problems, it has become somewhat politicized, and I think the topic that we are looking at today is one of those areas which has not been devoid of perception governed by political sentiment. This is not necessarily something to be regretted. Being a multinational agency such as weare, it certainly has the potential for political observation and percept ion which sometimes creep into our interventions. Be that as it may, we are talking again about the concept of a commission on plant genetic resources governing and directing the work of the Food and Agriculture Organization, which in turn has an undue impact with respect to the independent Board funded by independent means already working actively in thisfield. While there have been many pious hopes expressed that duplication is to be avoided, one feels from having listened and participated in some of the conversation that that task will be difficult at best. The concept of a joint work plan between the Board and the Commission, I think, is a good one depending on the quality of the partnership in establishing sucha work plan. It is in this sense where the Board must answer forits funding and its activity to its fundersand that it must have the degree of independence to make such'decisions.
Nevertheless, my purpose in intervening at this stage was to query, on the basis of document C 85/24, whether there is further to report with respect to developments in the CGIAR. I note in particular in paragraph 25 of document C 85/24 that the Director-General is to provide us with up-to-date information regarding the developments. It is my understanding that there has been a meeting of the Consultative Group in the last few weeks. Perhaps we could be informed of such developments that have taken place which may be helpful in our consideration of this particular item.
Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Participamos como miembros en la reunión de la Comisión de Recursos Fitogenéticos que se celebró en marzo pasado bajo la presidencia dinámica y competente de nuestro distinguido colega y amigo, el Embajador di Mottola de Costa Rica, quien ha hecho una excelente y clara presentación. Ya el Dr. Bommer, Subdirector General del Departamento de Agricultura había anticipado algunas adecuadas consideraciones de orden técnico. Como lo dijo nuestro colega, Embajador Poulides, de Chipre, es satisfactorio registrar el hecho de que después de esa reunión, tres meses después, al 31 de julio de 1985, el número de miembros de la Comisión haya aumentado de 67 a 78 ó 79, tal vez más, gracias a las actitudes positivas que nos ha comunicado el distinguido Embajador Pascarelli, de Italia, y nuestro colega y amigo representante de Trinidad y Tabago.
Creemos que actitudes positivas como éstas deben ser buenos ejemplos dignos de imitar por otros estados. Esto confirma el interés de los gobiernos por vincularse a estas actividades que deben estar dirigidas principalmente a preservar los recursos fitogenéticos y asegurar su libre distribución ya que esos recursos son patrimonio de la humanidad y deben estar a la libre disposición de todos.
Lamentamos que algunos importantes Estados Miembros aún no hayan pedido entrar a hacer parte de la Comisión de Recursos Fitogenéticos ni hayan adherido el Compromiso. Su presencia en estas actividades sería importante ya que son países que desempeñan funciones esenciales en el campo de los recursos fitogenéticos, y cuyas contribuciones positivas todos apreciamos sinceramente.
Como ejemplos, desearíamos vivamente, los representantes de Colombia, que países, entre otros, como Estados Unidos, Suiza y Canadá se asociaran cuanto antes a estas actividades que llevamos a cabo de la manera más positiva y constructiva posible.
Creemos que a la luz de estas consideraciones y de otras intervenciones de colegas que han hablado anteriormente, en nuestro Informe el Consejo debería hacer un llamado muy cordial y respetuoso a esos importantes países para que cuanto antes superen las dificultades y limitaciones que tienen y se asocien con nosotros en este campo.
Estamos también reconocidos al Director General quien ha seguido insistiendo ante los países para que se adhieran al Compromiso, aquellos estados que aún no lo han hecho. Pensamos que también el Consejo debe apoyar ese esfuerzo del Director General e instarlo a que siga haciendo esos llamados a esos países.
La cifra al 31 de julio de 1985, de 83 Estados Miembros es significativa y debe incrementarse. La delegación de Colombia apoya particularmente la recomendación de la Comisión que aparece en el párrafo 12 de este documento, sobre la necesidad de tener sumo cuidado para evitar la duplicación o superposición de actividades y para lograr una complementariedad entre la labor del CIRF y de la Comisión en la aplicación del Compromiso. Creemos que esta cooperación debe estar delimitada dentro de los marcos y las funciones respectivas, tal como lo ha dicho muy bien el colega López Portillo, de México. Hemos oído con atención a algunos colegas, sobre todo al Sr. Musgrove, de Canadá, y creemos que si esa concepción clara y definida ha de regir la cooperación entre el CIRF, la FAO y la Comisión, podrían disiparse las dudas que algunos colegas han expresado al respecto.
Consecuentemente apoyamos la opinión de la FAO en el sentido de que no convendría que el Consejo se convierta en un centro plenamente independiente ajeno a la FAO. Apoyamos el párrafo 24 en el sentido de que nuestra Organización debe seguir apoyando al CIRF en el marco de los acuerdos existentes. Esperamos que el grupo de trabajo pueda reunirse en febrero de 1986, y no 1985 como se dice en el párrafo 13 del documento en español. Grupo de trabajo que se reunirá bajo la presidencia del distinguido y capaz Presidente de nuestra Comisión, el Embajador di Mottola, de Costa Rica.
Finalmente, ya habíamos compartido en nuestras notas la inquietud que ha planteado nuestro casi vecino de la izquierda Musgrove, del Canadá, sobre el párrafo 25. Tal vez el Doctor Bommer por su brevedad en la presentación, se abstuvo de actualizarnos la evolución ulterior de la cuestión que habla el párrafo 25, aunque la reunión tuvo lugar hace pocos días, podría ser conveniente, si la Secretaría está en capacidad de hacerlo, que se nos transmita alguna información acerca del resultado del subgrupo que fue creado.
CHAIRMAN: I thank Ambassador Bula Hoyos for his contribution. I was about to draw attention to an error in document C 85/24, and am happy that Ambassador Bula Hoyos has already done this. It is in paragraph 13 of the document where it says: "The Working Group will meet in February 1985.... "-that obviously should read 1986, so the text will read: "The Working Group will meet in February 1986 to review the on-going follow-up actions. "
I. NYOWAN ARDHA (Indonesia): My delegation would like to congratulate the work of the Commission and wish to stress that Indonesia not only supports the resol ut i on, but is ready to implement activities to enable the Undertaking to be implemented in a realistic and useful manner. We realize that the Undertaking with regard to plant genetic resources is of great importance for agricultural deployment, including support for world food security which we all wish to attain. My country is also a member of the Working Group of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources. Therefore, I reiterate our support of the Undertaking and recommendation of the First Session of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources. The delegation of Indonesia also supports the appeals for close cooperation between the Commission and IBPGR as suggested by other delegations before me.
Leopoldo ARIZA HIDALGO (Cuba): Queremos expresar primeramente nuestra felicitación al Sr. Bommer y al distinguido Embajador di Mottola por la presentación que han hecho del tema tan objetiva y claramente.
Los recursos fitogenéticos y su Comisión es un tema que ha venido discutiéndose con bastante fuerza y creemos que hemos avanzadobastante. Por primera vez el Comité de Agricultura discutió este tema y se han ido aclarando una serie de aspectos que ya ponen en condiciones de poder expresar que el trabajo lleva buen ritmo. Nuestro país es miembro de la Comisión y se ha adherido al Compromiso plenamente; para nosotros las actividades sobre recursos fitogenéticos tienen una importancia como la que le damos a la agricultura. Creemos que la agricultura, tanto en la actualidad como en el futuro, necesita del desarrollo técnico de estos recursos, pero tanto la preservación y la distribución libremente son dos principios fundamentales en las actividades del recurso.
Pensamos que la delegación de la India y la delegación de México, específicamente los primeros que han hablado, hicieron una exposición completa de este documento y nosotros la apoyamos en todas sus partes y consideramos que también debemos plantear conjuntamente con el Embajador di Mottola, la esperanza de que los miembros que no estén integrados se adhieran a la Comisión sobre la base firme y segura de que la entrada no es el que se tenga que adoptar un criterio, sino que son las discusiones, los análisis, la investigación que tomamos lo que hace que dentro de la Comisión son los que van a garantizar que podamos ir adelante en este trabajo tan importante.
Nosotros queremos expresar también que nos interesa conocer las consecuencias de la última reunión que tuvo el Comité Asesor Técnico. Creo que es muy útil para nuestros trabajos sobre todo antes de entrar en el punto específico dentro de la Conferencia conocer esta situación.
Por nuestra parte apoyamos totalmente el criterio que FAO ha aconsejado de que no se convierta el Consejo en un centro plenamente independiente ajeno a la FAO.
Finalmente, felicitamos a la representación de Trinidad y Tabago y a la República italiana por su acción. Creo que son ejemplos dignos de seguir como ha dicho nuestro amigo el Embajador de Colombia.
John GLISTRUP (Denmark): On the document now before us, the Follow-up of Conference Resolutions 8/83 and 9/83 on Plant Genetic Resources, I would like to offer a few very brief comments. To begin with, we note with satisfaction that the number of members of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources has increased considerably since its first session. This is an important development since the effectiveness of the undertaking will depend on global participation.
Turning to the proposed follow-up on the recommendations of the two resolutions, the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources at its First Session suggested that several measures be taken. As to the studies proposed in paragraph 15 about legal matters, it is evident that the reservations made when the undertaking was adhered to were well-founded in the national legal systems of the member countries, and will not be changed by the studies carried out by FAO. The same thing applies to the problems mentioned under paragraph 16 about legal questions in connection with gene collections.
We agree that the question of NC2 conservation is getting increasingly important and that the existing gene banks and systems should give every possible support to new institutions. We do however doubt that FAO should take an active part in this. The same is true about our opinion of FAO's involvement in special information systems, which can only duplicate what is already being done by the IBPGR and the European Cooperative Programme for Genetic Resources and other institutions.
The document raises the issue of the present institutional arrangement between IBPGR and FAO. In this connection my delegation would like to mention that we have received information from our experts and Nordic gene bank members indicating that there is room for considerable improvement in the coordination between the two organizations. In this respect it has been noted that they have, during the past two years, received communications enquiring about matters of which the IBPGR was already fully informed and, as such, the information requested was regularly available here in the FAO buildings.
May I conclude by stating that my Government is not happy with the process leading to the establishment of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources. The fact that this has led to the excluding of large geographical areas from participating in the work is a matter which will need the most urgent attention. These matters can, in our opinion, only be tackled with full global participation.
Mame Balla SY (Sènègal): Je vous remercie de me donner l'opportunité d'intervenir sur cette importante question. Je voudrais au préalable, par votre intermédiaire, adresser mes vives félicitations au Docteur Bommer pour la présentation claire et intelligente faite sur le document C 85/24 relatif aux suites données aux résolutions 8/83 et 9/83 portant sur les ressources phytogénétiques, ainsi qu'au Président de la Commission sur les ressources phytogénétiques, l'Ambassadeur di Mottola (que nous avons pu en tout cas voir à l'oeuvre durant la réunion de cette Commission) pour nous conduire aux résultats très satisfaisants et encourageants qui sont relatés dans ce document. Je voudrais également témoigner de notre considération pour son doigté et son habileté qui ont permis ces résultats.
L'initiative prise par le Directeur général de faire adopter un engagement international sur les ressources phytogénétiques a retenu toute l'attention de mon pays qui a adhéré à cet engagement et nous sommes également membres, aussi bien de la Commission du Comité que du Comité consultatif. Aussi voudrais-je lancer un appel à tous les pays qui hésitent encore à adhérer à cet engagement et leur dire de le faire, car je suis persuadé et les délégués qui m'ont précédé savent également que la sélection et la conservation des ressources phytogénétiques constituent, à n'en point douter, des moyens sûrs d'améliorer la production agricole. C'est une des meilleures formes de collaboration scientifique au service de l'agriculture. Permettez-moi de souligner également ici les efforts appréciables réalisés par le CIRPG et le GCRAI qui ont, en tout cas dans ce domaine, fourni des efforts très appréciables. Noussouhaitons donc que la collaboration entre ces institutions et la FAO, dans le sens des intérêts de l'humanité, soit renforcée. Nous tenons aussi à dire ici le soutien de notre pays aux efforts déployés par la FAO pour créer un fonds pour les ressources phytogénétiques. Nous aimerions également mettre l'accent sur les programmes de recherche et de formation de manière à permettre aux pays en développement qui disposent d'important matériel génétique de participer plus efficacement à sa sélection et à son utilisation rationnelle. La conservation constitue également, à notre sens, un champ d'action important qui mérite d'être pris en compte afin que tout le potentiel génétique local soit pleinement mis à profit. Tout ceci pour vous dire que nous appuyons le rapport de la Commission internationale sur les ressources phytogénétiques avec l'espoir que très bientôt les recommandations de celle-ci seront prises en considération par tous les pays membres de notre Organisation, comme viennent de le faire d'ailleurs, et nous voudrions nous en féliciter, l'Italie et Trinidad-et-Tobago.
Enfin, nous passons, en donnant notre appui à ce rapport, à l'article 12 relatif aux relations entre la FAO et le CIRPG pour dire que pour notre pays l'intérêt est que plus que de mettre, en tout cas, un accent sur les divergences, ces deux organisations devraient renforcer leur collaboration pour en faire bénéficier les pays en voie de développement, parmi lesquels le nôtre. L'article 16 également est relatif à un domaine très important puisque pour nous la libération des échanges du matériel génétique provenant des collections de base ex situ devrait être encouragée de manière à ce que ce potentiel puisse bénéficier à tous les pays qui en ont besoin. L'article 24 mérite une attention particulière puisqu'il tend à encourager le renforcement de la coopération entre la FAO et toutes les institutions concernées dans ce domaine.
José Miguel BOLIVAR SALCEDO (España): Mi delegación desea felicitar al Dr. Bommer y al Embajador di Mottola por la excelente introducción y presentación que han hecho del tema.
Deseamos expresar nuestro convencimiento de que tanto el CIRF como la Comisión de Recursos Fitogenéticos son totalmente complementarios y de que no existe un riesgo de duplicación, puesto que el uno es un cuerpo técnico y la otra un cuerpo político. Estamos convencidos de la necesidad de que ambos cuerpos se complementen. En este sentido queremos expresar nuestra esperanza de que la colaboración entre el CIRF y la Comisión de Recursos Fitogenéticos se estrechen fuertemente en un próximo futuro; en caso contrario deseamos expresar también nuestra grave preocupación si esta cooperación no llega a ser así de fuerte.
Creemos que las Resoluciones 8/83 y 1/85 marcaron un hito importante en la historia de esta Organización, y esperamos que este Consejo y la próxima Conferencia sirvan para darles un ultimo y decisivo impulso.
Apoyamos también la creación de un fondo internacional de recursos fitogenéticos bajo los auspicios o la jurisdicción de la FAO.
Ajmal Mahmood QURESHI (Pakistan): First my delegation would like to address its compliments to DrBommer and the distinguished Ambassador of Costa Rica for the presentation of this Report contained in document C 85/24. We have carefully studied this report and would like to make a few brief comments.
The main concept of plant genetic resources is to arrest the diversity of crop plants developed in sites in sanctuaries and to save it from extinction due to the introduction of improved varieties. It is the common heritage of mankind and the duty of all FAO Member Nations to further the cause of the Commission on Plan Genetic Resources. It is encouraging to observe that the membership of the Commission has increased from 67 to 77. We welcome the statements made by the delegates of Italy and Trinidad and Tobago that their governments will soon be joining the fold of this Commission. We hope to have the same statement from the delegate of Canada and others in the not very distant future. The cooperation of all nations is the key to the success of the work initiated by the Commission on Plan Genetic Resources. Therefore my delegation emphasizes the urgent need to open discussions with those countries which have not yet declared their intention to join in this task of vital concern to mankind.
We would like to commend also the good work done by the IBPGR. We also hope that the complementarity between the work of IBPGR and the Commission in the implementation of the Undertaking will be strengthened and that any legal issues in this regard will be amicably settled. We also support the establishment of an international fund for furthering the work of the Undertaking.
My delegation would also like to welcome paragraph 19 of the report, bearing on the follow-up action on training, including assessment of capabilities, manpower resources, training needs in plant breeding, genetic resources and seed production.
With these words my delegation has no difficulty in fully endorsing the report, documentC 85/24, and the future work programme of the Commission.
David R. GREGORY (Australia): May I say at the outset in considering this document that I was not entirely clear about what we were taking a decision on, but I think in fact what we are doing is noting the work that has been done since the resolutions. We note the report on the follow-up action of the recommendations of the Commission. We do find and agree that many of the issues are complex, particularly those raised by members this afternoon. As has been noted, these will be, at least in part, the subject of discussion at the Conference.
Perhaps I should note in relation to the establishment of the working group, which includes Australia as a member, that we would still see the work of that group as very much subordinate to the work of the Commission itself.
We would not be willing to lend our support to some of the proposals being made at this session of the Council, certainly not without detailed consideration of the issues involved. As I said, perhaps we can take up some of the issues where appropriate during the discussion of this topic at the Conference.
Just to reiterate, Australia has joined the Commission on Plan Genetic Resources. However, we have not seen our way clear to signing the Undertaking, and we have indicated to the Director-General that we are not in a position to become a signatory until the Australian government
has finalized its own domestic policy on several significant aspects of plant breeding. However, we have indicated that we do abide by the principlesexpressed in Article I of the Undertaking itself.
As far as the Commission itself is concerned, quite frankly I do not think it is purely a question of numbers; I think the Commission has to show itself to be effective and responsible in its work and this in itself will be a landmark of its success or otherwise.
As far as our own attitude about the development of plant genetic resources is concerned, we do hold in collection throughout Australia plant genetic resources which are freely made available to bonafide research organizations worldwide. Secondly, the Australian Government has embarked on a programe to upgrade plant genetic resource facilities which form the Australian network of plant genetic resource centres. In fact, we are spending 1. 5 to 2 million Australian Dollars over the next five years for this purpose.
Concerning the developments with respect to IBPGR and its relationship with FAO, I will reserve our position at this time and discuss the matter during the Conference, but can I repeat that it is our view that it is necessary that these two organizations cooperate to the utmost extent and acknowledge together that the needs of research and conservation in plant genetic resources go far beyond the resources of the two institutions combined. They are both required with their respective skills and interest to complement each other to the utmost. As I have indicated previously it is our view that it is necessary to obtain the widest possible acceptance of the undertaking and to this end we have noted previously that some changes in the undertaking or format of the undertaking may be necessary. For that reason we welcome the references made in the document, in paragraph 14 on follow-up action, that there is an analysis being made of the reasons behind countries reservations, and also, of course, the proposals on ways and means of obtaining wider participation.
Since the subject has been raised by my colleague of Denmark I think we should remember that some undue haste at the last Conference in both preparing the undertaking and in the formation of the body that was concerned has made the first part of paragraph 15 necessary. Perhaps that is cautionary to future decisions and activities that we might undertake.
Finally, I think as further development of this question about the relationship between FAO and IBPGR, which I have noticed and which we consider with some importance, I also would be interested in any further information as was indicated would be provided in paragraph 25.
ZHU PEIRONG (China) (original language Chinese): We would like to thank the two gentlemen who have given us a very lucid introduction of the work which has been done as China sends its delegate to attend the first session of the Commission on Plan Genetic Resources. We endorsed the decision at the meeting to set up a working group of 23 member countries, which was given the mandate of monitoring the implementation of the Commission's work programmes and other relevant matters. At the same time we believe that the establishment of an ad hoc group of the Secretariat and the mandate it has been entrusted with are essential for the implementation of the Commission's proposals.
Regarding the relationship of the FAO's Commmission on Plant Genetic Resources and the International Board for Plant Genetic Resources, we endorse the views embodied in Paragraph 12 of the document, that is, the. evidence of the duplication or overlapping of the activities of the two bodies to ensure their complementarity. We think that thesetwo points should be regarded as our guiding principles in adjusting the relationship between the two bodies.
H. M. MBALE (Malawi): Since I am speaking for the first time, I wish to congratulate the three vice chairmen on their unanimous election and wish also to congratulate Dr. Bommer and the Ambassador of Costa Rica for their lucid introduction of the topic under discussion. Considering the important role that plant genetic material plays in the development of agriculture, FAO should be congratulated on the establishment by Council Resolution 1/85 ofa Commission on Plant Genetic Resources.
My delegation welcomes the terms of reference of the Commission as we consider that these are relevant in furthering the improvement of plant genetic materials throughout the world.
My delegation also welcomes the open invitation to join the working group of the Commission, and we will be working towards this goal. The study mentioned in paragraph 16 is timely and therefore most welcome. My delegation considers that while the International Board of Plant Genetic Resources has done an outstanding job in providing germplasm and training in germplasm conservation, its role and collaboration with FAO has been in a way overshadowed by the latter. We therefore consider that the proposals by the Technical Advisory Committee of the Consultative Group on International Agriculture Research that the IBPGR be established as a fully independent centre outside FAO, but with a liaison unit at FAO, is a step in the right direction.
Joseph TCHICAYA (Congo): La delegation congolaise a participé en tant que membre à la première session de la Commission des ressources phytogénétiques organisée en mars dernier; cela, pour vous dire que le Congo appuie entièrement le mandat qui a été confié à cette Commission.
Nous voudrions d'ailleurs à cette occasion rendre hommage à l'ambassadeur Carlos di Mottola qui a eu la charge de présider cette première session; et nous voudrions dire combien il a bien accompli le mandat qui lui a été confié.
Nous sommes également reconnaissants à M. Bommer pour la présentation brève et concise qu'il a faite dans son introduction de ce document.
Participant à cette Commission nous avons montré l'intérêt qu'attache notre pays au développement des ressources phytogénétiques; en effet, nous mesurons toute l'importance que les ressources phytogénétiques ont sur la production agricole et par conséquent leur contribution à la sécurité alimentaire mondiale.
C'est pour cette raison que nous appuyons entièrement les sujets sur lesquels ont porté les délibérations de la Commission, notamment la conservation in situ des ressources phytogénétiques, ainsi que les activités et les besoins de formation.
Je crois qu'il s'agit là de points extrêmement importants pour nos pays en développement qui contribueront à promouvoir le développement des ressources phytogénétiques.
Nous souscrivons également aux recommandations faites par la Commission parmi lesquelles nous relevons ce qui est écrit au paragraphe 12 concernant les efforts qui devront être faits pour que les activités du CIRPG et de la FAO ne se chevauchent pas; nous sommes certains à cet égard que la Commission remplira entièrement sa mission sans pour autant empiéter sur les activités du CIRPG.
Nous disons également que nous appuyons ce qui est écrit au paragraphe 17: nous l'avons d'ailleurs déjà dit; la conservation in situ est à notre avis un élément important pour le développement des ressources phytogénétiques et tout devra être mis en oeuvre par la FAO pour la promouvoir.
Enfin, nous voudrions dire que nous partageons ce qui est écrit au paragraphe 24; nous sommes certains que le CIRPG et la FAO continueront à collaborer pour renforcer leurs relations et de ce qu'un tel renforcement aura des effets positifs sur nos pays.
Ronald F. R. DEARE (United Kingdom): Like others who have preceded me I think I can be fairly brief on this item. I simply wanted to record the support of my delegation for the activities and proposals outlined in paragraphs 16, 17, 18 and 19 of this report. We think that what is proposed there, all the activities proposed there, are very important and we endorse them very strongly.
In relation to the IBPGR we very much agree with the conclusion which was reached by the Technical Advisory Committee as recorded in paragraph 23 of the report, that is, thatthere should be a small, fully autonomous institution working in close association with FAO. I emphasize the last
point about "close association" because I share the view of other delegates who have spoken of the need to avoid overlapping the functions which is mentioned earlier in the report.
Finally, we also endorse the Technical Advisory Committee's recommendation that the IBPGR should shift and expand its activities into research and into evaluation and utilization of plant genetic resources.
Róbert SEVCOVIC (Czeckoslovakia): On behalf of the Czeckoslovak Delegation I would like to congratulate Dr Bommer for his excellent statement.
I would like to express appreciation of the fact that the question of plant genetic resources has been receiving continued attention in the overall work of FAO and that the range of the specific questions has been constantly improved and expanded. This procedure is fully in accord with the importance of plant genetic resources which are to be inter alia conserved for future generations. As to document C 85/24, we support it. I would like to inform you from this rostrum that we attach great importance to the question of plant genetic resources in the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic. Since 1980 to 1981 when we joined this programme, we have been collaborating with FAO. Thanks to this we have managed to gain a large amount of valuable information. Moreover, our specialists have had the possibility of becoming acquainted with top technology and standards applied in other countries and selected work places. We for our part are likewise ready to make available our achievements and experience.
I would like to document our approach to and cooperation in this field with the International Board of Plant Genetic Resources by informing you that this year we have prepared in Prague a session of The Genebank of Czechechos lovakia, with broad international participation, on questions relating to genetic resources and with a symposium on raising the standards of genetic resource Studies.
Finally I would like to inform you that next January, our Republic will be the venue of a meeting with FAO, IBPGR and the European Programme of Protection and Exchange of Plant Genetic Resources.
D. F. R. BOMMER (Assistant Director-General, Agriculture Department): I must apologise for being very brief in introducing this item, because I was under the assumption that a full discussion on this item would take place in Commission II of the Conference, and we would come back to all these issues.
As you have requested, I am happy to provide the information which I had actually intended to give to the Commission to up-date the information contained in the report which you have received. In paragraph 25 it is mentioned that the CGIAR had set up a committee to look into the question. This committee met in September and accepted with some reluctance the argument put forward by the Technical Advisory Committee that IBPGR should be restructured into a small but fully autonomous institution, separate from but in close association with FAO. The mandate of the restructured IBPGR should be flexible enough to enable IBPGR to provide any required technical support to FAO, and particularly to the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources. The Chairman of CGIAR saw the Director-General of FAO in mid-October, seeking his views on his recommendations which were discussed in the CGIAR meeting preceeding the FAO Council. The Director-General reported that he had continously insisted on the need for close links between IBPGR and FAO, and in his opinion the present arrangements served this purpose best. The Commission on Plant Genetic Resources in its first session has urged that FAO and the bodies involved give particular attention to the formal and working relationship between FAO and IBPGR, the role which IBPGR could play in implementing the Undertaking, and the manner in which any duplication and overlap with FAO's activities could be avoided. The Director-General therefore requested the CGIAR to let him have in writing their proposals for further development to enable him to consult on the required changes with the FAO Governing Bodies.
The CGIAR, which met last week, discussed this item again, and agreed that the Chairman of the CGIAR should write such a letter, which is now in preparation. The general feeling is the CGIAR meeting is very much in line with the further thinking of the committee, but at the same
time there are quite a large number of members in the CGIAR who feel that it would be quite an advantage to keep CGIAR within FAO, and to see if there would be any possibility of achieving this. The Director-General is now waiting for this approach from the CGIAR, and will further the matter from then on.
Just to reply to one question, or remark, made by the delegate of Denmark, who raised, I think, a rather critical point on overlapping activities: I think he probably is not fully informed on this matter, because he referred to a particular questionnaire sent to governments. This questionnaire was said to be prepared jointly between the IBPGR and FAO, and we were seeking up-dated information. All similar information had been provided to the IBPGR two years ago, so there is certainly no overlap in this close collaboration.
Carlo di MOTTOLA BALESTRA (Presidente de la Comisión de Recursos Fitogenéticos): Quisiera simplemente agradecer a todos los delegados por el interés que han venido manifestando en este tema. Como decía el Sr. Bommer, éste va a ser un tema examinado ampliamente durante la reunión de la Segunda Comisión de la Conferencia, pero estoy convencido que el debate que se hizo hoy va a facilitar la profundización de la situación. Muchas delegaciones han manifestado el concepto de que podría haber duplicación en el trabajo de la Comisión y el trabajo del CIRF. Yo me permito simplemente tomar nota de una síntesis muy brillante que hizo el representante de España, diciendo que son dos cuestiones de naturaleza completamente diferente; o sea, uno es en sentido muy amplio un cuerpo político que es la Comisión, y el otro es un cuerpo técnico. Entonces, ya por su naturaleza yo no veo que haya una duplicación sino que hay una integración y una complementariza-ción. Esto es algo que me parece poder adelantar como idea más de mi delegación que digamos de la persona del Presidente, y de todas maneras va a ser profundizado durante los debates de la conferencia.
Mientras tanto, quiero agradecer al Embajador de Italia que veo vuelto a su puesto por la adhesión que ha manifestado y al representante de Trinidad y Tobago que es siempre provechoso, y espero que sea seguido por muchas otras delegaciones en un futuro muy próximo.
CHAIRMAN: I am glad that although this topic is going to be discussed in great depth and in great length at the Conference in Commission II, members have shared their views on this very important topic. I would like to join all of you in thanking the Ambassador of Costa Rica and all the members of the Commission for the excellent start they have given to the work of the Commission, as well as to Dr Bommer. Of course, Dr Bommer has practically devoted his whole life to the question of conservation of plant genetic resources, and I would like to thank him for his invaluable work. I would like to add a few comments which may perhaps stimulate some thought during the Conference.
Many speakers here have made an important point, namely that gene security is important for crop security, and therefore for food security - just as grain reserves are important for food security, gene reserves are absolutely essential for crop security. It has therefore given me immense pleasure over the past four years to hear again and again of this tremendous growth of interest in plant genetic resources conservation. I think the time has come, and I hope that the working group of the Commission will give some thought to this quest ion, to develop an integrated conservation strategy.
Reference has been made in the proceedings of the Commission to in situ Conservation. For many years Unesco, FAO, the United Nations Environment Programme, International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and other bodies, had worked on what is called the Man and Biosphere Programme - usually shortened to MAB. They have worked out detailed guidelines for biosphere reserves, national parks and protected areas. This is certainly a very important method of conservation of populations, but we also know that inspite of all the urgings of political and professional leaders, there are many habitats which are threatened, particularly forest ecosystems, mountain ecosystems and coastal ecosystems - many of them are threatened with various kinds of degradation. This was also clear at the Forestry Congress in Mexico, where many foresters drew attention to the vanishing tropical rain forest species. There is a book published periodically by the IUCN Commission - the Species Survival Commission of the International Union for Conservation of Nature -called "The Red Data Book", and it gives information on threatened species.
We also have today an opportunity to preserve genetic material at the molecular level. So from the population to the molecular level - populations, individual plants, cells, and organs, particularly in vegetatively propagated plants through tissue culture; and finally at the level of the DNA molecule. We can establish a molecular library, the gene library or the DNA library, as it is called. I think that the Commission and the Working Group should give particular attention to these important new possibilities because of the fact that whatever we may do, there are species which are going to become extinct. We should do something to preserve them at the molecular level - later on, we can revive them from the molecular level to the plants. So I hope this Working Group and the Commission can give some thought to an integrated conservation strategy from the biosphere reserves to the DNA libraries so that we can preserve some of the species for posterity, particularly the forest tree species from tropical rain forests, and particularly the medicinal plants which occur in the canopies of endangered habitats. In the Himalayan ecosystem there are many species which have already been lost and which can be lost, and the Working Group would serve a great purpose by trying to promote conservation at all levels.
May I also say that I fully endorse the plea and hope that the complementary and mutual beneficial collaboration between the International Board for Plant Genetic Resources (IBPGR) which has done tremendous work in the past ten years, and FAO's work, which dates back more than 25 years in the field of plant genetic conservation, will not only continue but become strengthened. I recall attending meetings in the late 1950s and early 1960s chaired by Dr Vallega of Argentina, who has done so much work in the field of plant protection and production here - so this has been an on-going work, and there is so much work to be done. Hence we must ensure that whatever financial resources and whatever technical skills are available, they must be pooled together in a mutually supportive manner and made to work for the ends which we all want to achieve.
Finally, may I say a word about the proposed International Fund for Gene Conservation. I think the original document prepared by the Director-General also makes a mention of a Netherlands Government proposal for a world gene fund, which the Mexican Ambassador has also proposed. 1 personally feel that in addition to governmental resources there is enormous potential for attracting nongovernmental resources. I have seen in the last two years when the World Wildlife Fund and IUCN launched the Plants Conservation Campaign that there was enormous support from the public. One should therefore alsotry to tap the growing interest of the general public and the non-governmental organizations also in conservation. Let me conclude by saying that gene banks have a unique feature. Unlike the financial banks where money value always depreciates, in the gene banks the genes will always appreciate in their value because tomorrow's ideal gene pool is going to be very different from today's. Whether in terms of diseases or in terms of processing or in terms of foods for the future, enormous changes are on the horizon and this is why it is very important that we conserve these genes. What may be useless today may become exceedingly valuable tomorrow. So the gene banks are unique banks where there will always be appreciation. A thousand years from now their value will be greater in contrast to the financial banks, and therefore it will be very prudent to put some funds into this work because we are going to put them into an appreciating concern, not into a depreciating concern. So I do hope that whatever it may be called - World Gene Fund, International Fund for Gene Banks or whatever it is called - I do hope that whatever financial, professional and political resources we can mobilize, all of them can be canalized for this very important purpose of security of the food crops of the future.
I want to thank again all the speakers, 27 of them, who have made very valuable contributions and again Ambassador Balestra, Dr Bommer and all their colleagues for the excellent curtain raiser for a Conference preliminary discussion here.
LE SECRETAIRE GENERAL: Vous vous souviendrez qu'à la quatre-vingt-septième session du Conseil vous avez eu à examiner le document CL 87/11 qui portait sur l'organisation de la vingt-troisième session de la Conférence. Ce document traitait notamment de la désignation de candidats aux postes de président de la Conférence et de président des trois commissions de la Conférence.
Au cours d'une réunion informelle des chefs de délégation, il a été convenu que le Ministre de l'agriculture du Cameroun serait proposé pour l'élection au poste de président de la vingt-troisième session de la Conférence,
Au cours de cette réunion informelle, ont été également proposées les candidatures suivantes: - pour la présidence de la Commission I: M. l'Ambassadeur Roger Martin, représentant permanent de la Belgique auprès de la FAO; - pour la présidence de la Commission II: M. l'Ambassadeur Gonzalo Bula Hoyos, représentant permanent de la Colombie auprès de la FAO; - pour la présidence de la Commission III: M. Gamal Mohamed Ahmed, représentant permanent du Soudan auprès de la FAO.
Le Conseil a été informé des résultats de cette réunion informelle et il a pris note de ces propositions. Il a été convenu que le Directeur général prendrait contact avec les gouvernements des pays des différents candidats pour s'assurer que ceux-ci seraient disponibles et pourraient effectivement occuper les fonctions pour lesquelles ils ont été proposés.
Le Directeur général a reçu des réponses positives à cet égard, et il est maintenant demandé au Conseil d'examiner ces candidatures, de les entériner officiellement et de les proposer à la Conférence.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much Mr Savary. You have heard the conclusions of our recommendations in the June meeting. The Director-General has got confirmation from the Minister of Agriculture of Cameroon whom we had the privilege of welcoming this morning that he will serve as Chairman of the Conference; the Ambassador of Belgium, the Ambassador of Colombia and the Ambassador of Sudan respectively as Chairmen for Commissions I, II and III. I am sure the Council will be very happy to hear this and I hope will unanimously welcome the nominations.
Under item 3. 2 Election of the Nominations Committee, I have a note from the Ambassador of Mexico which says that we shall be ready to announce the members of the Committee tomorrow morning. The members of the Nominations Committee can be chosen on Wednesday because only on that day the Near East and African groups will have their meetings.
Well, if there is no other business today we have come to the close of this session.
The meeting rose at 16. 45 hours
La séance est levée à 16 h 45
Se levanta la sesión a las 16. 45 horas
