LE PRESIDENT: Je voudrais dire à tous les membres du Conseil que j'ai suivi avec beaucoup d'attention et beaucoup d'intérêt la discussion du point 5 de l'ordre du jour concernant le rapport de la dix-huitième session du Comité de la Sécurité alimentaire mondiale où un certain nombre d'idées particulièrement intéressantes ont été exprimées. Je voudrais également au moment où s'est ouverte une conférence internationale sur les droits de l'homme, souligner qu'à Rome, il y a trente ans, dès 1963, nous avions insisté sur l'un des droits humains les plus fondamentaux qui était le droit à une alimentation permettant un développement normal de l'être humain. Je crois aussi, que ce soit sur le plan de l'alimentation ou de la nutrition, qu'un des premiers droits de l'homme est d'être nourri convenablement. Certains diront que c'est un besoin de l'homme, je crois que c'est plus qu'un besoin. Dans l'organisation du monde le droit à-l’alimentation et à la nutrition équilibrée est incontestablement un droit fondamental. On a beaucoup parlé également de la réforme à l'heure actuelle en discussion du Conseil mondial de l'alimentation et des propositions diverses ont été exprimées. Je crois qu'il s'agit d'un problème important et il est essentiel qu'au niveau ministériel les ministres responsables à l'échelle du monde puissent se voir, se rencontrer et échanger leurs points de vue. La Conférence de la FAO est incontestablement le point de rencontre le plus important de tous les ministres de l'agriculture membres de l'Organisation et je crois que dans le cadre des activités de la FAO et de la Conférence il est souhaitable que l'on puisse en arriver à une confrontation des points de vue et des expériences de façon à en arriver progressivement à une meilleure association des politiques agricoles du monde. On a parlé plus spécifiquement du problème de la banane. D'autres problèmes importants se posent pour parvenir progressivement à un monde plus équilibré, plus humain, et qui permette le développement de tous.
Dans les années qui viennent nous allons être confrontés, compte tenu de l'accroissement de la population, à de véritables défis, en permanence. On a beaucoup parlé de la coordination entre les différentes organisations qui s'occupent des problèmes de l'agriculture - FIDA, PAM, Groupe consultatif de la recherche agronomique internationale et autres organisations telles la Banque mondiale, qui s'occupent de problèmes agricoles, je crois qu'il n'y a pas de coordination possible dans l'indépendance absolue des organisations; il ne peut y avoir coordination que dans leur interdépendance. Or, incontestablement, les grandes agences opérationnelles ont un rôle à jouer et l'Organisation pour l'alimentation et l'agriculture est, dans le cadre de la famille des Nations Unies, l'agence qui porte le maximum de responsabilités. Par conséquent, comme l'a signalé M. Hjort, Directeur général
adjoint, la discussion doit se poursuivre, mais dans l'esprit d'une articulation des activités de la grande agence opérationnelle de la famille des Nations Unies qui mérite de voir son action renforcée.
LE PRESIDENT: Nous allons maintenant passer, après cet intéressant débat sur tous les problèmes de sécurité alimentaire, à un point particulièrement important, le rapport de la douzième session du Comité de l'agriculture avec deux point annexes que j'ai soulignés hier matin: la suppression d'un groupe consultatif et d'un groupe d'experts ainsi que des procédures d'harmonisation mondiale du contrôle phytosanitaire.
Le Comité de l'agriculture s'est réuni récemment, du 26 avril au 4 mai 1993 et, à cet égard, je tiens à rendre hommage à Mme Amina Boudjelti qui a présidé ce Comité avec beaucoup de dextérité, beaucoup de diplomatie, beaucoup de compétence. Que le Comité ait abouti à des travaux particulièrement concrets et opérationnels est à l'honneur du pays qu'elle représente. Le rapport qui nous est soumis en est la preuve.
Je laisse maintenant la parole à M. le Directeur général adjoint pour présenter le rapport de la douzième session de ce que l'on appelle le COAG.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: I now have the pleasure to introduce Agenda Item 6, the report of the 12th Session of the Committee on Agriculture which met in Rome from 26 April to 4 May 1993. The report CL 103/9; the matters requiring the attention of the Council presented in a rather complete summary of the document appear on pages ii to viii.
The COAG considered, with respect to the major programme Agriculture, the implementation of the Programme of Work 1990-92, the Medium-Term, that is 1994 to 1999, the Perspectives in Food and Agriculture; the priorities for 1994-95; Implementation of the ICN Plan of Action; Livestock and Improvements of Pasture, Feed and Forage; role of Agricultural Education and Extension in Agricultural Development; role of financial services in rural development; and under other matters, the abolition of the Panel of Experts on Emergency Action against the Desert Locust and Other Crop Pests and of the Advisory Panel on Epizootiology and the Procedures for Global Harmonization of Plant Quarantine.
You will note that several of the matters covered in this report will be taken up under other agenda items, including in particular the implementation of the ICN Plan of Action, the Medium-Term Plan under item 16, the Summary Programme of Work and Budget under item 17. I therefore hesitate to take the time of the Committee to introduce these items and will simply call your attention to the summary and the paragraph in this document on those matters. I believe, in fact, the only matters that require the decisions of the Council are the two I mentioned under Other Business, the Abolition of the Panel of Experts on Emergency Action against the Desert Locust and Other Crop Pests.
In the course of their discussion the COAG not only agreed to the Director-General's recommendation that the Council request the Conference to abolish the Panel of Experts on Emergency Action against the Desert Locust and Other Crop Pests but recommended in that connection that the mechanism for access to the Working Capital Fund to finance initial control activities be maintained. I do not believe there was anything other than a consensus that this Panel should be abolished but that one preserve this opportunity or access to the Working Capital Fund to finance initial activities. Interestingly enough in considering this matter and looking at the enabling legislation/resolutions the COAG's attention was drawn to a second panel the Advisory Panel on Epizootiology and it requested that the Secretariat prepare a document proposing the abolishment of this body also. In this particular case it would appear that the same approach would be desirable, that is that access to the Working Capital Funds to finance initial activities, in this case also might be preserved but certainly we see no need to maintain either of these two bodies.
With respect to the procedures for global harmonization of plant quarantine, COAG first recognized the need for the development of international guidelines and standards for plant quarantine to facilitate international trade. I might refer you in this connection to paragraph 141 to 246 of the report. The COAG generally supported the principles of plant quarantine as related to international trade, but did suggest amendments to be considered at the next meeting of the Regional Plant Protection Organizations in May 1993 and brought to the attention of the next Council session. The COAG also recommended that the principles should be in conformity with the draft decision on sanitary and phytosanitary measures in the GATT and that this linkage should be clearly
indicated in the introductory paragraphs to the document. COAG called on those members who had not yet adhered to the International Plant Protection Convention to do so, recommended that the Conference establish an expert committee on phytosanitary measures to be appointed by the Director-General and consisting of experts nominated by the Regional Plant Protection Organizations and a number of experts not covered by these regional bodies and requested the Secretariat to consider the question of membership and make a proposal to the Council.
Finally, it requested regular progress reports from the International Plant Protection Commission on the experience gained with the implementation of these procedures and on the need for an amendment to the IPPC or a supplementary agreement. This essentially covers the matters that were covered by the COAG, and in view of this it is requested that the Council endorse the report of COAG on this issue and recommend the approval of the establishment of an expert committee by the FAO Conference. There will, of course, be cost implications to be included in future FAO budgets for the operation and servicing of such a committee. The eventual cost will depend on the size of the expert committee, the volume of work, and hence the number of meetings that this committee will be involved in, which is somewhat difficult to estimate at this stage. At the initial stages of this committee's operation, however, cost implications will have to be absorbed within the current and proposed budget ceiling for 1994-95 since expert consultations, which basically this committee would be replacing, were already budgeted for in the current biennium, and these budgetary provisions are being carried forward to the 1994-95 budget.
LE PRESIDENT: Je voudrais attirer l'attention des membres du Conseil sur le fait que nous discutons de l'entièreté du point 6, donc du rapport de la douzième session du Comité de l'agriculture, étant comprises la suppression du Groupe d'experts chargé des mesures d'urgence contre le criquet pèlerin et d'autres ennemis des cultures et la suppression du Groupe consultatif sur l'épizootiologie ainsi que les procédures d'harmonisation mondiale du contrôle phytosanitaire. Un document de travail concernant ce point 6.2 a été distribué, document qui concerne les principes de quarantaine végétale liés au commerce international.
Nous avons donc en discussion le document CL 103/9 et le document CL 103/LIM/2 ainsi qu'un document de travail.
Je vais maintenant demander à M. l'Assistant Directeur général de présenter le document de travail concernant les principes de quarantaine végétale liés au commerce international.
H. DE HAEN (Assistant Director - General, Agriculture Department): In addition to the document which the Chairman just explained to you, you will have found also a working paper which has no number but which is called Information for Agenda Item 6.2 entitled "Plant Quarantine Principles as related to International Trade". This document, Plant Quarantine Principles, was submitted to COAG, and during the session of the Committee on Agriculture some amendments were proposed which are bracketed in this document. So please, in
your interventions and considerations, you may make use of this which, in a sense, you have before, during the Committee on Agriculture, but now you also find some additional brackets which indicate the open questions which COAG left for your consideration.
LE PRESIDENT: Je voudrais insister sur le fait que ce document de travail a été soumis au Conseil pour information, il sera discuté avec tous les pays concernés. Le contenu de ce document et les résultats des consultations seront portés à la connaissance de la Conférence au mois de novembre.
LE PRESIDENT: Avant de prendre la liste des orateurs, je voudrais vous faire une communication au sujet de la composition du Comité de rédaction. Je voudrais que des consultations aient lieu entre les différents pays de façon à pouvoir aboutir à un large accord sur cette question, en respectant tous les équilibres voulus entre les langues et les différentes régions.
Les propositions concernant les pays membres du Comité de rédaction sont les suivantes: Bangladesh, Brésil, Egypte, France, Indonésie, Japon, Libye, Mexique, Espagne, Royaume de Suède, Tanzanie, Etats Unis d'Amérique et Zaïre.
On nous propose, pour la présidence du Comité de rédaction, la candidature de M. Aboul-Naga d'Egypte. Avez-vous des remarques à faire en ce qui concerne le Comité de rédaction?
S'il n'y a pas de remarques, les propositions relatives au Comité de rédaction peuvent être considérées comme acceptées par notre Conseil.
It was so decided
Il en est ainsi décidé
Así se acuerda
John Bruce SHARPE (Australia) : Australia was pleased to be able to participate in the 12th session of COAG.
Looking at the report of the Committee, may we first say that we do not propose to offer detailed comments now on those matters in the report which are to be considered under separate agenda items at this Council. These include the Programme Evaluation Report, Medium-term Plan and the summary Programme of Work and Budget.
That said, there are a few remarks we would like to make about some of the other matters in the report.
Australia would like to acknowledge the work carried out by FAO in the agriculture area over the past few years. We are well aware of the financial constraints that have faced the organization and appreciate the steps FAO has taken to better manage its available resources and improve its effectiveness. Steps being taken such as streamlining procedures, introducing office automation, staff training and delegation of authority are commendable. It is also good to see that meetings and training sessions are being better managed and that more effective coordination mechanisms are being established within FAO.
Australia supports the priority to be given to follow-up to UNCED and the ICN in FAO's work programme for the next biennium. In carrying out this work we would encourage FAO to cooperate closely with other UN agencies, international organizations and NGOs and to seek to integrate activities. We would like to see greater reporting of FAO's efforts in collaboration with
other bodies and accordingly support the request in paragraph 7 of the report for an increase by the Secretariat of such reporting to the membership.
With regard to para 11 on project evaluations, we share the concern of the Committee that the results of some projects were not satisfactory and are pleased that FAO is aware of the need to improve project design and implementation. We support the Committee's recommendation that the Secretariat should work on ways to increase the ratio of projects evaluated.
There is no room for complacency. FAO must be able to demonstrate its effectiveness in field activities to be able to attract adequate funding under the new UNDP modalities. As we have said, FAO has already taken considerable steps to rationalize its operations and improve its effectiveness.
It must continue to respond to the challenge to ensure it is competitive for funding in its many areas of comparative advantage.
Moving on to the section of the report on agricultural education and extension, we share the concern expressed in paragraph 120 about the low level of participation of rural women in agricultural extension services and the low level of women's education in many countries. We agree with the report that increased efforts should be made to enrol girls and women in agricultural schools and that women farmers should be encouraged to become local farm leaders and be trained as extension workers.
With regard to the item on financial services in rural development, we support in particular the Committee's view that increased emphasis be. given to alternative rural financial systems based on cooperatives, NGOs and the non-formal sector. Such systems make credit available to the rural poor who are bypassed by the formal banking sector for reasons such as lack of collateral, illiteracy, and high administration costs associated with small-scale loans. We also support the areas of assistance on which FAO should place special emphasis, as set out in paragraph 134.
Concerning Item 6.1, Australia supports the abolition of the Panel of Experts on Emergency Action Against the Desert Locust and other Crop Pests. We note that the panel has been superseded by more effective bodies for advising on the allocation of funding for emergency operations against the desert locust. It is important that FAO maintains the most effective mechanisms to coordinate and implement preventive control measures against locusts and other similar pests. Similarly, we support the recommendation of the Director-General on the abolition of the Advisory Panel on Epizootiology.
I move now to Item 6.2, Procedures for Global Harmonization of Plant Quarantine. Australia strongly supports the endorsement of the document "Principles of Plant Quarantine as related to International Trade" in the form of the text originally submitted to the Committee on Agriculture as Annex 2 of COAG/39/93/11. Australia agrees with the majority of the delegates to the 5th Technical Consultation among Regional Plant Protection Organizations that the suggested changes, would, at the best not add value, and at the worst devalue the principles. It is important that Council delegates appreciate that the principles are intended to be read together in
making quarantine decisions, and not taken singly and in isolation. Australia seeks transmittal of the original document unchanged to the Conference for adoption. Australia sees international agreement on these principles as essential to the continuing, and more difficult, task of establishment of the international plant quarantine procedures.
Turning now to the Expert Committee on Phytosanitary Measures, Australia strongly supports the establishment of an Expert Committee on Phytosanitary Measures, which the need for early progress on international rules on plant quarantine decision-making demands the Committee approach at this time. Australia considers, the proposal a sound one for achieving the goal of international harmonization of plant quarantine principles and procedures which is necessary to prevent the unjustified use of quarantine as a trade barrier. Australia's view is that the proposals by the FAO Secretariat for the membership of the committees are fair and workable and that these proposals be included in the recommendation to the Conference.
I would like to finish my intervention with a suggestion that perhaps the length of COAG meetings should be looked at by the Secretariat.
E. Wayne DENNEY (United States of America): We endorse the report of COAG, and agree entirely with Mr Hjort's suggestion that we focus on matters requiring Council attention. We will do just that.
First, we support the abolition of both panels of experts. Second, regarding the Procedures for Global Harmonization of Plant Quarantine, COAG's lively and well-informed debate addressed a number of pertinent issues, but fell short of reaching consensus on all items. The United States supports the Principles of Plant Quarantine as related to International Trade, as originally presented to COAG, and would have to re-examine its position if any amendments were offered.
We noted in the meeting that several members, especially Japan and the EEC, had a number of modifications to suggest, but we have not to date seen those suggestions.
Like most other countries, we support the creation of an experts' committee rather than a commission as the most appropriate mechanism for furthering the development of trade guidelines. Whether a commission might eventually be appropriate is something which the Council should consider in the future.
Our colleague from Egypt made an excellent suggestion at the very end of COAG, by proposing that future COAG agendas be prepared on the basis of a five-day, rather than a seven-day, meeting. Such a move would actually save four days for delegates coming from capitals. Clearly, if future COAGs were run as smoothly as the last one, the meeting could be reduced without adversely affecting substantive discussion. Using a Rapporteur instead of a Drafting Committee could also save valuable time.
We fully recognize that COAG's programme purview is much wider than that of COFI or COFO, but we still believe that it can adequately be discussed in a week's time.
Finally, we would also agree with the idea of convening COAG at an earlier time during the year, so that its conclusions can be reflected in both the Medium-term Plan and the summary Programme of Work and Budget and we would very much appreciate knowing the Secretariat's reaction to that idea.
Supote DECHATES (Thailand): In this Agenda Item my delegation would focus only on 6.2, Procedures for Global Harmonization of Plant Quarantine (paragraphs 140-146). My delegation would like to congratulate Mr Hjort, the Deputy Director-General, for his introductory remarks as well as updating the progress development of the subject matter.
With regard to the Expert Committee, my delegation would like to support the establishment of an expert committee. At the same time, we would like to offer four comments.
First, the Committee must keep in mind that the establishment of a multilateral framework of rules and disciplines to guide the adoption, development and enforcement of sanitary and phytosanitary measures is aiming not only to protect human or animal life or health from risks arising from additives, contaminants, toxin or disease-causing organisms in foods, beverages or feedstuffs, but also to minimize their negative effects on international trade of agricultural products.
My second comment is that the sanitary and phytosanitary measures that aim to protect human or animal life or health must be based on scientific evidence.
My third comment is that it is widely known that unjustified sanitary and phytosanitary measures would definitely be used to limit the free flow of agricultural trade particularly from developing countries. Therefore the members of the expert committee must be equally representative of importing and exporting countries of agricultural products as well as developing and developed countries.
My fourth and last comment concerns the membership of the expert committee. My delegation would like to know how many experts could be nominated from each RPPO. At present there are eight RPPOs. Each of them has a different size of membership. I wonder how the Secretariat foresaw selection of the experts - for example, how many experts could be nominated from APPC?
Parviz KARBASI (Iran, Islamic Republic of): I would like to thank Mr Hjort for his introduction to this item. My delegation in general agrees with document CL 103/9.
We particularly support paragraph 68, concerning AGRIS and CARIS, and paragraph 70, concerning the need to put more emphasis on biotechnology.
In paragraph 10, regarding the TCP, I welcome the reference made by Mr Hjort, the Deputy Director-General, to the preparation of the list of experts from the Near East countries. They already have three-hundred experts on the computer roster who are ready to come for a short-term consultancy on the
basis of room and board and pocket money. This does not mean that these are experts of no quality, they are definitely very high-quality experts. They would like to make South-South cooperation a reality. It is very important, not only for TCP as it is now, but also for the improvement of TCP, that we can see that this movement is supported by FAO.
I would like to propose that FAO should allocate through some kind of budget, just for this year, a very small amount of money for air fares, so that these experts are able to move on a short-term consultancy for one or two weeks to developing countries.
I am sure that this would prove a very important step toward South-South cooperation, and I hope that distinguished members of Council will agree with me that some allocation of budget is desirable for this kind of activity.
Charles STOLL (Canada): Canada supports the report of the Committee on Agriculture as Canada was an active participant in the process. Much was accomplished at that meeting and we look forward to the implementation of the programmes that were approved.
I do not wish to repeat.what was said during COAG, but the Canadian delegation would like to make a few additional comments at this point.
Canada supports the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and commends FAO for the strong support it provides. The contribution of CGIAR and its national partners to increased productivity and natural resource conservation and management will be critically important for the foreseeable future. The current decline in core contribution causes concern. Canada recommends that, where possible, FAO seek opportunities through its field programmes and projects to increase its support for international and national agricultural research.
On the question of the abolition of the Panel of Experts against the Desert Locust, and also the Panel on Epizootiology, we would like to support the recommendations of the Secretariat.
Regarding the procedures for global harmonization of plant quarantine, the regional plant protection organizations met under the auspices of FAO on 17 to 21 May 1933. For the International Plant Protection Convention, amendments were considered but not accepted. The Canadian delegation would like to support the IPPC as originally presented to COAG in the hope that it will receive speedy approval through the next steps. We also support the creation of an expert group.
Paragraph 98 of the report proposes a study of an FAO Centre for Reference, Training and Research in Food Quality Control. We think this is a very interesting topic which deserves further work. We would like to receive more details when the feasibility study is undertaken. Of course, care will have to be taken that the terms of reference are sound and that all the difficult issues have been thoroughly examined.
COAG also examined the possibility of shortening the session to five days instead of seven and of making the next meeting earlier in the year so that Council documents could fully reflect the comments of the sectoral Committees. The Canadian delegation would like the Secretariat to look favourably at both of these ideas.
H. DE HAEN (Assistant Director-General, Agriculture Department): I refer to the intervention of the distinguished delegate of the United States. I am happy to give you some more explanation on the proposed amendments to the Plant Quarantine Principles as related to international trade. I would refer you to this document which was distributed earlier and to which I have already referred. In this document you find the original text of the principles as submitted to the Committee on Agriculture, plus the amendments which some members proposed at that session.
I think I understood the delegate of the United States as wishing to be informed as to who made those proposals. If you take the first page, there is in brackets at the bottom of that page a remark saying that the interpretation and implementation of these principles should be coherent with the provisions of the GATT agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary measures.
This was a remark made by the delegate of the EEC. We have not yet built this into the text because this agreement, although available in draft, is not official yet. Therefore, we took it as an indication for a later check, needed to be implemented once this agreement is official. It is a reminder, so to speak.
I now turn to the principles: under Principle 1, Sovereignty, you find the proposal to delete "quarantine pests" and replace it by "injurious pests". This was proposed by Japan. A similar amendment would then apply to the second Principle on Necessity.
On the third principle, Minimal Impact, you see in brackets in the second line an addition which would say that the least restrictive - and now I read the bracket - still fully effective measures available, and so on. This was a proposal made by Norway.
Then on the sixth principle, Harmonization, you see a longer text which refers to the need to allow differences between countries in the need for a phytosanitary measures. I will not read this long amendment. It was also proposed by Japan.
Another proposal was made by Japan to replace again "quarantine pest" with "injurious pest" in Principle 9. So this goes through the text: wherever you find "quarantine pest", Japan proposes to replace it with "injurious pest".
Finally, on the last page of this document you find the last sentence of Principle 16 on Non-discriminâtion, underlined, which means the proposal was made to delete this sentence. This refers to the use of discrimination or the use that that principle should be applied without discrimination. This proposal was also made by Japan.
Let me add that the proposed amendments were submitted to the meeting of the Regional Plant Protection Organizations, which was held in May this year. That means after COAG. This meeting of Plant Protection Organizations decided not to approve the proposed amendments, and recommended sticking to the original text.
Ellas REYES BRAVO (México): Mi delegación, señor Presidente, le saluda con aprecio y será breve al abordar este punto del Cuadro de expertos en medidas de urgencia contra la langosta del desierto y otras plagas, destacando que México está de acuerdo con la supresión de dicho Cuadro de expertos.
Al respecto mi delegación sugiere la conveniencia de que los esfuerzos de protección fitosanitaria que proporcionaba el Cuadro de expertos se encaucen por canales ágiles de solución; es decir, por el Centro de Operaciones de Emergencia contra la Langosta y por el Programa de Cooperación Técnica, cuyas actividades serían financiadas por el Fondo de Operaciones creado para atender situaciones de emergencias fitosanitarias en cualquier región del mundo, tal y como se acordó en la reunión del Comité de Agricultura.
Sobre este tema me permito mencionar que mi país ha logrado avances importantes en el establecimiento de procedimientos de armonización y equivalencia en el contexto de la Organización norteamericana para la protección de las plantas y también en el contexto del Organismo Internacional Regional de Sanidad Agropecuaria.
Los avances nuestros se reflejan en los resultados de los grupos de trabajo de ambos organismos, en los que México ha participado activamente.
Mi delegación expresa su acuerdo con los procedimientos descritos en el documento que sobre este tema examinó el Comité de Agricultura en su reciente período de sesiones.
Finalmente, expresamos nuestro interés en que el proceso de armonización se realice con apego a los lineamientos descritos en el texto de la Convención Internacional de Protección Fitosanitaria, como siempre con la finalidad de fundamentar legalmente cualquier acción operativa que se tome.
Mlle Maria de Lourdes MARTINS DUARTE (Cap-Vert) : Il est de notre devoir de vous féliciter, Monsieur le Président, pour la façon dont vous conduisez nos débats.
Les sous-points 6.1 et 6.2 ont fait l'objet de votre attention au cours des travaux du Comité de l'agriculture. A ce stade, nous aimerions vous faire part de notre accord pour soumettre à la décision de la Conférence la suppression du Groupe d'experts chargé des mesures d'urgence contre le criquet pèlerin et autres ennemis des cultures et du Groupe consultatif sur l’épizootiologie et, par conséquent, la résolution contenue, dans le document CL 103/LIM/2 dont il fait état.
Quant aux procédures d'harmonisation mondiale du contrôle phytosanitaire, tout en reconnaissant la nécessité de directives et normes internationales
de contrôle dans le commerce international, notre délégation souscrit aux principes liés au commerce international et appuie la recommandation, faite à la Conférence, de mettre en place un Comité d'experts pour l'élaboration de ces directives et de ces normes.
S'agissant d'autres questions découlant du rapport au COAG, permettez-nous de faire quelques remarques.
Pour ce qui est du Programme de travail 1994-95, nous réitérons:
- notre regret de constater la diminution des ressources allouées qui a affaibli la capacité de réponse de l'Organisation face aux besoins croissants de ses Etats Membres;
- la priorité accordée à l'environnement et au développement durable; et
- la recommandation de voir le Centre mondial d'information agricole le plus tôt possible à la disposition des utilisateurs.
En ce qui concerne l'élevage et l'amélioration des pâturages du bétail et fourrages, il est important de promouvoir des projets pilotes pour tester et adopter des techniques simples d'alimentation du bétail aux petits agriculteurs, suivis de projets de vulgarisation de ces technologies.
Quant au rôle de la formation et de la vulgarisation agricoles dans le développement de l'agriculture, nous tenons à souligner qu'une attention accrue doit être accordée aux programmes de vulgarisation agricole et que les systèmes de vulgarisation doivent assurer une plus large participation des femmes rurales aux activités de vulgarisation.
Joong In CHUN (Korea, Republic of): At this time my delegation will limit its comments on the procedure for Global Harmonization of Plant Quarantine. Regarding the elimination of pests, it should be recognised that the country can take the necessary measures to prevent some injurious pests in addition to the quarantine pest under thirteen framework.
I hold the view that the basic proposal of the International Plant Protection Convention is to effectively prevent the spread or introduction of pests over national boundaries when there exist significantly differing geological, ecological and quarantine conditions among different countries.
Secondly, my delegation fully supports the setting up of phytosanitary measures by the Expert Committee as interim measures through which to arrive at international guidelines and standards. However, the extent of difference in the Expert Committee should be based on the size of membership in the regional plant protection Organization. For example, in the case of the Asia and the Pacific Plant Protection Commission it would be appropriate to allow two or three members in the Expert Committee in order to ensure a better reflection of the different situations amongst its Member Countries.
Chadli LAROUSSI (Tunisie): Je me limiterai au point 6.1 relatif à la suppression du Groupe d'experts chargé des mesures d'urgence contre le criquet pèlerin. Nous approuvons la recommandation du COAG telle que mentionnée au paragraphe 138 du document CL 103/9. Toutefois, nous voudrions insister sur le fait que le criquet pèlerin constitue une menace potentielle.pour plusieurs pays essentiellement dans la région du Proche-Orient et de l'Afrique mais aussi dans d'autres régions du monde. A l'heure actuelle, le centre d'intervention antiacridienne d'urgence nous signale le développement d'essaims de criquets sur les côtes de la mer Rouge. Il y a une menace réelle et effective, je crois, à l'heure actuelle pour le Yémen et pour l'Arabie Saoudite et pour certains pays de l'UMA ou d'Afrique subsaharienne. C'est pourquoi nous sommes, au niveau des pays de l'UMA, particulièrement inquiets et nous appréhendons le fait d'être confrontés à plus ou moins court terme à une invasion acridienne similaire à celle que nous avions connue il y a cinq ans, en 1988, et qui avait commencé par un développement d'essaims deux années plus tôt et nous espérons donc que cela n'arrivera pas, mais il y a un risque que nous soyons confrontés à ce grave fléau probablement dans deux ou trois ans. C'est pourquoi nous approuvons la recommandation faite au paragraphe 137 du document CL 103/9 qui vise à "renforcer les activités antiacridiennes des commissions régionales concernées" comme l'a recommandé la Commission de lutte contre le criquet pèlerin à sa dernière session. Nous insistons au niveau de ce renforcement sur le problème de la prévention qui est, à notre avis, le meilleur moyen de faire face à ce fléau qui menace aujourd'hui le Proche-Orient et l'Afrique, mais il peut aussi, comme je l'avais mentionné tout-à-l'heure, menacer d'autres régions. On a pu voir, lors de la dernière invasion acridienne, des criquets traverser la Méditerranée et atteindre le sud de l'Europe. C'est pourquoi, à notre avis, la prévention est essentielle et évite de recourir à un traitement chimique qui a un impact très négatif sur l'environnement. Cette prévention inclut évidemment les programmes de recherche et de formation du personnel spécialisé mais également la consolidation des moyens qui sont mis à la disposition de notre Organisation pour mener ces programmes, que ce soit des moyens en personnel ou en ressources financières.
Concernant les ressources nécessaires à ces programmes, nous estimons que ces ressources méritent d'être réexaminées à la hausse. Nous faisons donc appel aux grands donateurs pour contribuer plus efficacement au fonds de dépôt qui, à l'heure actuelle, est seulement financé par les pays en voie de développement.
Natigor SIAGIAN (Indonesia): Allow me to express my thanks and appreciation to the Committee for the substantive report under document CL 103/9. I would like also to convey our thanks to the Deputy Director-General for his informative introductory remarks.
My delegation took note of paragraph 7 of the report and welcomed warmly the strengthening of the cooperative arrangement between FAO and other international agencies on this major programme. We express the hope that this cooperation will assist FAO in optimizing the assessment of its limited resources, therefore avoiding unnecessary duplication.
With regard to paragraph 9 of the report, my delegation is of the view that necessary efforts should be undertaken in order to prevent the downward trend in the implementation of FAO workshop training courses, etc. We note with concern the down turn in the number of training courses, as well as in the number of participants from the developing countries taking part in COAG training and workshops during the previous biennia particularly in the Asian and Pacific region.
We support the views on the importance of FAO in maintaining and even increasing regional training and consultancies. We also note with concern the global reduction in the number of women trainees, despite the growing importance accorded to women in development.
Turning to paragraph 10 we have followed the development of major national execution and the new UNDP Support Costs Successor Arrangements. We express the hope that these Arrangements will stimulate and increase efficiency in the full programme. We are pleased to note the increasing use of professionals in projects in their own countries as well as in developing countries for the implementation of agricultural projects. We fully support any possible action to be undertaken by FAO and others for strengthening such implementation.
We welcome the endorsement of the Committee of the priority given to the development of sustainable crop production systems, in particular to the intensification of major staple foodgrains. From this will come the continuance of FAO services rendered to strengthen national works related to international plant management and the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides.
With regard to the views expressed by COAG on the Programme of Work and Budget we will reserve our comments on that subject until we have the debate on the Summary Programme of Work and Budget.
We join with the Committee on Agriculture in drawing attention to strengthening national capabilities in developing genetic resources. We have paid great attention to the work of FAO on animal genetic resources, in particular to the proposed establishment of the Centre for Domestic Animal Diversity. We considered closely the recommendations of the Committee regarding the activities on the integration of women in agriculture and rural development and support the recommendation of the committee regarding the aforesaid matters. We request FAO to take any possible action to intensify its efforts to assist Member Countries to develop and implement policy and plans of action for women, and appeal to donors to consider providing major budgetary resources for these important proposals. We welcome the words of FAO in strengthening the national resource capabilities and for strengthening cooperation within the national centres under the auspices of the CGIAR.
With regard to ASEAN we will make our comments on that in relation to the later budget items.
Turning to global harmonization and plant quarantine, we support the recommendations of the Committee that the principle of plant quarantine as related to international trade should be in conformity with the decision on
sanitary and phytosanitary measures in GATT, and that this linkage should be clearly embodied in the necessary paragraph of the document.
Referringto paragraph 145 regarding the establishment of an Expert Committee on Phytosanitary Measures under Article VI. 2 of the Constitution, we reiterate our views that we can see the necessity for considering the enlargement of the membership of the expert committee in order better to accommodate balanced representation. We look forward to the proposals to this Council of the Secretariat mentioned in paragraph 145 of document, CL 103/9.
Ms Jindra Linda DEMETERIO (Philippines): Once again I shall be very brief and confine myself to remarks related to two items, one of which is the procedures for global harmonization of plant quarantine.
The Philippines have worked closely with FAO and IPPC on the harmonization of phytosanitary measures. Furthermore, we are an active participant in the ASEAN Plant Protection Programme on the harmonization of plant quarantine procedures in the region.
My country has always been against all kinds of non-tariff barriers to trade and therefore considers plant quarantine principles as related to international trade as a very urgent matter. We wholeheartedly support the formation of an Expert Committee on Phytosanitary Measures as an ad interim mechanism for addressing these matters.
In addition, as I mentioned during the last COAG meeting, my delegation reiterates that the total membership of the expert committee should be larger than proposed so that sub-regional groupings can also be represented.
Finally, my delegation supports the delegate of Iran with regard to the need to make provision for the travel expenses of experts, particularly those from the developing countries.
M. MAJID-UL-HAQ (Bangladesh): In Bangladesh agricultural growth rate in 1991-92 was recorded at 2.7 percent compared to 2.5 percent over the period 1985-90. Although significant progress has been achieved in the per capita availability of cereals from 15.6 ounces per day in 1982 to 16 ounces per day in 1992, mainly due to increased production of food grains, adequate availability of other nutritional crops like oil seeds, pulses, vegetables, fruits and spices have yet to be realized. In order to sustain agricultural production on nutritional lines the Government have given high priority to crop desertification. The internal rice market has suffered a set back due to overproduction. As elsewhere in the developing world there are problems within the agricultural sector itself. However, efforts have been made to overcome the problems confronting the farmers. Emphasis has been given to construction of rural infrastructure and facilities, promotion of exportable agricultural commodities and desertification in agricultural production. The Government have been pushing the policy of encouraging the private sector in agricultural business and technology transfer.
Before I conclude I would like to say that FAO has played its due role in promoting agricultural development all over the world, particularly in the developing countries. I would like to mention one programme which has been a great success in Bangladesh. This is the integrated pest management. The success of this programme has been helped considerably by reducing the pest insecticides and consequentially environmental hazards. We support the recommendations of the Secretariat for Items 6.1 and 6.2 adding that we would also support the proposal of Iran as far as the travel concessions for the experts from developing countries are concerned.
Ulrich KNÜPPEL (EEC): I will address myself only to Agenda Item 6.2 on the organizational matters: I expect that Member States representatives will still ask for the floor.
Regarding the list of principles, the Community and its Member States accept the list of principles as suggested by the Secretariat originally, subject to the clarifications, that is the interpretation of these principles should be coherent with the provisions established in the context of GATT. You may have noted in this statement I am speaking more generally and not speaking specifically about the draft GATT agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary measures. Depending on the date when the final document should be adopted we can either refer to what is still now the draft agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary measures or we could in more general terms speak about principles established in the context of GATT. So I think there we have a certain flexibility depending on the time when the document shall be published.
Secondly, the community and Member States agree to the establishment of an expert committee subject to an assessment report after a certain period, as already recorded with the agreement of the entire Committee on Agriculture. Furthermore the committee should make recommendations on the basis of consensus. That is a point that has not been taken up in the report of the COAG meeting and we very well understand the reasons. There is no provision that such consensus should happen in the Basic Rules of the Institution. On the other hand, the fact that we are coming back to this particular aspect is testimony of the importance we give to this question because if any recommendations from the committee to COAG or Conference, or wherever shall be successful we think it is very important that the expert committee come to conclusions which can be supported by all participants.
Then the Community which has now the responsibility for legislation on plant health matters within its sphere but is not yet a member of IPPC or EPPO should be allowed to nominate a Community expert without prejudice to the attendance of national experts nominated by EPPO, the reason being that in view of the great responsibilities the Community has now in those areas it would be quite difficult to expect the Community to join in a general consensus if it did not have the possibility to work on it and to allow its experts to reflect its views there. We think it would be very constructive if that could be done.
Finally, the number of experts in the committee should be related to the number of members of each EPPO with the minimum of one expert per EPPO in order to have a generally balanced composition making up this committee.
LE PRESIDENT: Je remercie le Représentant de la CEE de son intervention mais je me permettrai une toute petite remarque: le rôle d'un Groupe ou d'un Comité d'experts n'est pas de prendre des décisions mais de les préparer en essayant de dégager, dans la mesure du possible, un large accord qui doit être soumis aux instances compétentes.
Toshiyuki KATO (Japan) : My delegation would like to make a brief comment on the principle of plant quarantine as related to international trade. We shall request some amendments as introduced by Dr De Haen; one to change "quarantine pests" in number 1, 2 and 9 into "injurious pests"; two is an additional sentence to Principle 6; three is to cut the last sentence from Principle 16 from the view of the improvement of the principle.
Concerning the result of discussions at the last COAG and the Fifth Consultative Consultations among RPPOs held in Rome, my delegation would like to reserve our position until we see the best way to improve them through the way including the request for some clarification.
Jacques LAUREAU (France): Mon intention n'était pas d'intervenir sur le fond mais tout simplement de souligner la remarque faite par un certain nombre de délégués ici sur la nécessité de réduire les sessions du COAG à une semaine et si possible de les tenir plus tôt dans l'année. Nous avons en effet un mois de janvier un peu creux ainsi d'ailleurs que février alors qu'au cours des mois suivants nous avons un enchaînement de réunions qui est un peu lourd à gérer pour tout le monde. Je pense que pour le Secrétariat comme pour les Etats Membres, une mesure d'économie générale de ce type serait la bienvenue.
LE PRESIDENT: Je remercie le Représentant de la France de son intervention. Je sais que le printemps romain a son charme et je sais que le Représentant de l'Italie défendra le charme de Rome au printemps. Je voudrais maintenant passer la parole au Kenya.
Benson C. MBOGOrI (Kenya): I will confine my brief intervention to only two issues, one the Panel of Experts on Emergency Action against the Desert Locust and the Procedures for Global Harmonization of Plant Quarantine; my delegation participated in the last session of the COAG and we generally gave our qualified support to the broad recommendations of this report, particularly on the two issues I have already mentioned. We say qualify in the sense that the existing panel arrangements we believe have largely been out-lived. We, however, reiterate the need to maintain the deployment capabilities of the regional Desert Locust Commissions and on the proposal of Procedures for Global Harmonization of Plant Quarantine, we express the strong interest of the Kenyan government in the need to harmonize quarantine procedures. However, the practical modalities of the newprocedures are still under active
consideration by the government and we therefore reserve the right to make further comments on this important matter at the later sessions of the Council.
Amin ABDEL-MALEK (Liban) (Langue originale arabe) : La délégation du Liban voudrait appuyer la proposition de suppression du Groupe d'experts chargé des mesures d'urgence contre le criquet pèlerin et autres ennemis des cultures ainsi que la suggestion relative aux réunions du COAG qui devraient être écourtées et ramenées à une semaine seulement.
H. DE HAEN (Assistant Director-General, Agriculture Department): There are not so many questions that I have to answer because first of all we have noticed a great deal of support for the report about the session of the Committee on Agriculture and also unanimity about a number of questions which were put forward for your decision.
Firstly, we have noted a total consensus on the proposed abolishment of the two expert panels, one on Desert Locust and the other on Epizootiology. Secondly, we have noted total consensus on the adoption of the Expert Committee out of the three options which were discussed by COAG regarding the procedures for the Global Harmonization of Plant Quarantine. The Expert Committee got the support of all those who spoke on this item.
The only need for final clarification is on the size and composition of the Expert Committee and the Secretariat was asked to comment on this. Let me first say that this question, the size and composition of the committee was discussed by the meeting on the regional Plant Protection Organizations and it was proposed and the Secretariat will support this, to be flexible but apply a rule of one member per regional Plant Protection Organization with the flexibility of two members for the Expert Committee from larger regional Plant Protection Organizations.
We have noted the request from the EEC to be a member, but you understand that we will submit this to the Conference and will not give you a definite reply at this very moment. The only point which needs further clarification is, then, the one related to the intervention of the distinguished delegate of Japan. We have noted that Japan reserves its position on the proposed amendments on the principles, but it has indicated that it reserves the position until further clarification is given, which, if we interpret this statement correctly, would mean that Japan would not be in opposition to the procedure along the lines proposed in the original document. This is apparently what we, then, conclude and what the Chairman may conclude at the end as a result of the discussions regarding the proposed amendments. All the other interventions on this question of the formulation of the principles support the original text which was submitted to COAG. So I repeat: Japan was the only country which reserved a position but did not seem to disagree with the further progress along the lines proposed.
I think this is about all the interventions to which I had to reply. The remainder will be taken up by the Deputy Director-General.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: The specific point that had been mentioned by more than one delegation is that part of the report that was speaking to the length, the duration of COAG meetings and the possible timing. To take the latter first, the reason for that suggestion was to give time for the conclusions of COAG to be entered into the process of formulation of the Programme of Work and Budget, the Medium-Term Plan and so forth. Under the present timing, the COAG completes its work so late that there is not time to get that into the process. In the provisional calendar for 1995 there is a possibility that the Council may wish to consider. The Committee on Food Security is tentatively scheduled to meet the week of 27 March. That is right between COFI and COFO. These three technical committees all review these medium-term documents and so forth. The COAG is scheduled for 19-28 April. There would therefore be a possibility to consider, to switch the CFS and COAG. However, this brings one to the question of the duration because the provision of time is one week for the Committee on Food Security. There are some members who have suggested that the time for COAG be reduced from seven to five days. There is only one week for CFS - the following Monday the COFO starts, so that would be a factor to consider. The Council could decide, for example, if necessary, to have a Saturday session. A six-day week perhaps. But this would be a matter for the Council to consider. I just wanted to point out that there is that possibility of switching, but if there is the switch then you are also simultaneously taking a decision on limiting the sessions to a maximum, I would say, of six days, including a Saturday, should you wish to do so. The threat of a Saturday session, however, may induce the members to complete their work on Friday afternoon. Other than that, I think I heard no comments that would suggest that the body wishes to make any amendments to the report and that it endorsed the report, I gather, and I believe there were no other questions that I recall that need to be attended.
Mustapha SINACEUR (Observateur du Maroc): Monsieur le Président, notre collègue de Tunisie s'est exprimé en notre nom sur la question de la suppression du Groupe d'experts, aussi je ne m'attarderai pas là-dessus. Par contre, j'aimerais m'arrêter un instant sur le projet de résolution dont nous sommes saisis et qui est proposé à la Conférence justement pour finaliser cette question de suppression du Groupe d'experts.
Dans la partie "considérant" de ce projet de résolution, à la page 3 du texte français, il est dit:
"constatant que le Groupe consultatif sur l’épizootiologie ne s'est réuni qu'une seule fois et que le Groupe d'experts chargé des mesures d'urgence contre le criquet pèlerin et autres ennemis des cultures, n'ayant pas rempli ses fonctions, a été supplanté par des mécanismes plus efficaces".
Monsieur le Président, je souhaiterais une clarification de la part du Secrétariat.
En effet, si notre mémoire ne nous fait pas défaut, lors des discussions au cours du COAG, je crois me souvenir que le Secrétariat nous avait dit que ce Groupe consultatif sur l’épizootiologie ne s'était en fait jamais réuni; c'est le Groupe d'experts chargé des mesures d'urgence contre le criquet pèlerin qui ne se serait réuni qu'une seule fois. Je crois qu'il convient de
clarifier cette partie de la résolution avant de la soumettre à la Conférence pour approbation.
LE PRESIDENT: Je remercie M. Sinaceur et cède immédiatement la parole à M. De Haen qui va nous dire si le Groupe consultatif sur l'épizootiologie s'est réuni une seule fois ou pas une seule fois et si le Groupe d'experts chargé des mesures d'urgence contre le criquet pèlerin s'est réuni une fois ou pas une fois, de manière à mettre ce considérant parfaitement au point.
H. DE HAEN (Assistant Director-General, Agriculture Department): According to our research which we undertook meanwhile, the Panel on Desert Locusts was once consulted by telephone, and the Panel on Epizootiology met once. Please do not ask me when it was. I would have to consult my colleagues, but it was some time ago.
LE PRESIDENT: Je remercie M. De Haen de son intervention. Je crois qu'une communication téléphonique n'est pas encore considérée comme une réunion et de toute façon, on n'évoque pas le nombre de réunions dans le "considérant".
E. Wayne DENNEY (United States of America): I would not want this Council to fail in its responsibilities of giving the Secretariat the guidance that I believe that Mr Hjort was requesting, and that is with respect to the scheduling at this time of the next session of COAG, I believe the week of 27 March. I would suggest that since there seems to be consensus on the matter from all of those who addressed it here that was a logical thing to do, that we go ahead and include that in the report of this Council meeting.
LE PRESIDENT: Je remercie l'honorable délégué des Etats-Unis mais le calendrier provisoire concernant les sessions 1994-95 doit être adopté par le Conseil non pas à la présente mais à sa prochaine session, donc nous avons tout le temps avant la prochaine session que j'aurai encore l'honneur de présider, si Dieu me prête vie; ce calendrier prévisionnel sera soumis à ce moment. Il ne vous est pas soumis à ce moment-ci. Le Secrétariat, en concertation avec tous les membres du Conseil, pourra préparer un document indicatif sur lequel le Conseil sera amené à se prononcer.
Je crois comprendre que cette réponse est de nature à satisfaire le Représentant des Etats-Unis d'Amérique.
Après un intéressant débat, le Conseil donne son accord sur la transmission du projet de résolution se rapportant simultanément au Groupe consultatif sur l’épizootiologie et au Groupe d'experts chargé des mesures d'urgence contre le criquet pèlerin et autres ennemis des cultures. Ce projet de résolution sera transmis à la Conférence de novembre, seule habilitée à prendre la décision que votre Conseil propose. Texte donc sans modifications. Il a été répondu à la question posée par le Représentant du Royaume du Maroc. Le projet de résolution qui figure au document CL 103/LIM/2 sera transmis pour décision à la Conférence de novembre.
En ce qui concerne le rapport de la douzième session du Comité de l'agriculture, après le débat tel qu'il s'est déroulé, nous pouvons considérer que notre Conseil avalise toutes les propositions du Comité, étant entendu que diverses propositions ont été faites en ce qui concerne la composition du Comité d'experts appelé à examiner les procédures d'harmonisation mondiale du contrôle phytosanitaire. Le Secrétariat a fait part de sa réaction, l'empire du Japon nous a fait part de ses réserves, mais je crois que le Comité d'experts trouvera son chemin pour les travaux qu'il aura à son ordre du jour, étant entendu qu'un comité d'experts ou qu'un groupe d'experts - il n'y a pas de différence entre les deux - n'a aucun pouvoir décisionnel, donc ce Comité sera chargé de faire des propositions et de tenter de dégager un accord entre les différents participants.
A ce stade, il est prématuré de tracer des lignes en ce qui concerne les décisions que ce Comité serait appelé à prendre. De toute façon, le Secrétariat de la FAO, en contact avec les membres du Conseil, veillera à la composition équilibrée de ce Groupe d'experts et s'efforcera de rencontrer les préoccupations du Japon.
S'il n'y a pas d'autres remarques sur le point 6 de notre ordre du jour concernant le Comité de l'agriculture, nous pouvons considérer qu'il a été examiné de manière approfondie par notre Conseil, lequel entérine le rapport de la douzième session avec les deux remarques qui ont été faites en ce qui concerne le projet de résolution à transmettre à la Conférence et la création du Comité d'experts.
LE PRESIDENT: S'il n'y a pas d'autres remarques en ce qui concerne le point 6, il nous reste à passer au point 7 de notre ordre du jour, "Questions découlant des travaux de la Commission des ressources phytogénétiques". Un pays a déjà abordé cette question, l'Australie.
Je me réfère, en ce qui concerné les questions issues de la Commission des ressources phytogénétiques, à deux documents: le document CL 103/16 qui contient le rapport in extenso de la cinquième session de la Commission des ressources phytogénétiques et son annexe, le document CL 103/16-Sup.1 qui contient le texte convenu du projet de code international de conduite pour la collecte et le transfert de matériel phytogénétique.
Je demanderai, à propos du point 7 de notre ordre du jour, à M. De Haen, Sous-Directeur général du Département de l'agriculture, de bien vouloir présenter le sujet.
H. DE HAEN (Assistant Director - General, Agriculture Department): The Fifth Session of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources marked the tenth anniversary of this Commission, a commission which has become the permanent intergovernmental forum for debate and discussion on the technical, social,
economical, legal, ethical and political issues - a long list, which I think is impressive - that inevitably surround the conservation and the utilization of plant genetic resources.
During the Fifth Session of the Commission, it received reports from the FAO Secretariat and from 16 other organizations including UN Agencies, CGIAR Centres, and relevant international non-governmental organizations, on their respective programmes on plant genetic resources and activities, and made recommendations as appropriate.
The Commission noted the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development's recommendations to strengthen the FAO Global System on Plant Genetic Resources.
In this context the Commission discussed and endorsed a document put forward by the Secretariat which sets out the aims and strategies of a two and a half year work programme that would culminate with a fourth International Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources, and includes the development of a comprehensive "State of the World's Plant Genetic Resources" report and a costed Plan of Action on Plant Genetic Resources. The Commission emphasized the urgent need to initiate the work indicated in this programme, and to do this in a participatory, country-driven process. I underline these terms because they were emphasized, I would say unanimously, by the members of the Commission. Germany's earlier pledge and offer to host the Conference was complemented on the occasion of the Commission and shortly thereafter by pledges of financial support from The Netherlands, Spain and Sweden. Since then, we have had indications of more support. But we are still US$2.5 - 3 million short of the estimated total cost of US$7.5 million for the International Programme and Conference. I stress this very much: it is a programme, and at the end will be a conference. However, a number of other donors are positively considering their potential contribution to this process. If I have not mentioned all of them, please forgive me. It is hoped that the donors will agree to make some pledged resources available soon, so that the work related to the preparation of the State of the World's Plant Genetic Resources can commence immediately, ideally in July 1993. Of course, preparatory work is underway, but that is limited to what we can do with the resources at our disposal through Regular Programme activities and capacity.
The Commission recommended that FAO should collaborate with the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity and agreed that the FAO Conference could provide recommendations to the Conference of the Parties to the Convention. It should be noted here that by the end of May the Convention on Biodiversity was signed by 160 countries plus the EEC and was ratified by 19 countries. A first meeting of the Interim Intergovernmental Committee for the Convention on Biodiversity is being convened by UNEP for next September.
Still in relation to UNCED, the Commission adopted a resolution recommending that negotiations be carried out among governments for adaptation of the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources, in harmony with the Convention on Biological Diversity, for consideration of the issues of access to Plant Genetic Resources on mutually agreed terms and for the realization of Farmers' Rights, which are used in the International Undertaking. The Commission urged that regular and extraordinary sessions of the Commission be
convened for this process of adaptation of the International Agreement. The Commission proposes for your consideration and eventual endorsement a draft Resolution, set out in Appendix A of document CL 103/16. The Secretariat recognises that your endorsement of this Resolution would have considerable financial implications which would have to be taken into account in the full Programme of Work and Budget for 1994-95.
Further, the Commission agreed that the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development should be periodically informed of progress made by the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources in the implementation of relevant parts and aspects of Agenda 21.
In relation to the ex situ base collections stored in the International Agricultural Research Centres, the Commission considered and welcomed an offer made by the CGIAR Centres to place their base and active germplasm collections under the auspices of FAO. While requesting clarification on the concepts of trusteeship and ownership of the material stored as well as on the role of the Commission on policy decisions regarding the CGIAR collections, it requested the Director-General to negotiate agreements with the Centres. The Commission also endorsed the technical Standards for Genebanks prepared by an FAO/IBPGR Experts Group.
On the legal side the Commission endorsed the Draft International Code of Conduct for Germplasm Collecting and Transfer, and requested the Director-General to submit this Draft Code and the accompanying Draft Resolution to the Conference through the Council for its decision. This code was requested by the FAO Conference in 1989 and a previous version was considered by the 1991 Session of the FAO Conference which, in general, agreed with its contents and returned it to the Commission for further elaboration. The current version which has been presented to you as document CL 103/16-Sup.1 is the final result of long and difficult negotiations, and in the Secretariat's view represents the common denominator acceptable to all countries. This voluntary code will be especially useful to Member Nations that have not yet developed their own national legislations on regulatory mechanisms for the collection, handling and transfer of germplasm.
The Commission also reviewed a preliminary Draft Code of Conduct on Biotechnology as it affects the conservation and utilization of Plant Genetic Resources. Taking into account recent developments in other fora, the Commission recommended that the element on biosafety contained in that Draft Code should constitute an input from FAO to the work of the Interim Intergovernmental Committee for the Convention on Biological Diversity on this matter, possible for the development of a protocol on biosafety - which, by the way, this Convention foresees. The Commission agreed that other parts of the preliminary Draft Code should form the basis of a revised Draft Code for the consideration of later Sessions of the Commission.
Finally, the Council is kindly requested to consider and endorse the Draft Resolution set out in Appendix A of document CL 103/16, which I mentioned earlier, and to comment on the other recommendations of the Commission for the benefit of the next FAO Conference.
LE PRESIDENT: Je demanderai aux membres du Conseil qui désirent intervenir de se faire inscrire et si possible de se prononcer sur le Rapport de la cinquième session de la Commission des ressources phytogénétiques et de nous faire savoir s'ils ont des remarques à faire sur le projet de résolution que notre Conseil devrait transmettre à la Conférence de la FAO, relatif au code international de conduite pour la collecte et le transfert de matériel phytogénétique.
Raphaël RABE (Madagascar): La délégation de Madagascar voudrait tout d'abord remercier M. De Haen pour la présentation très claire du sujet qui est soumis à notre examen. Mon intervention sera très brève car Madagascar est membre du Groupe de travail sur les ressources phytogénétiques et a participé aux travaux de la cinquième session de la Commission. En outre, nous sommes membres de la Commission et nous avons adhéré à l'Engagement international. Nous n'avons donc aucune difficulté à faire nôtres les conclusions, propositions, suggestions, contenues dans le document CL 103/16, et bien entendu les projets de résolution qui font l'objet du document CL 103/16-Sup.1. Cependant, nous aurions préféré que le Code de conduite international pour les biotechnologies végétales, notamment la partie relative à l'utilisation des nouvelles biotechnologies, pour la production de matériel végétal et produits végétaux hautement performants et remplaçant malheureusement ceux normalement produits par nos petits agriculteurs, fasse l'objet d'un examen plus approfondi et que la préparation du projet de code correspondant soit plus rapide. C'est d'ailleurs dans cet esprit que des délégations ou groupes de travail étaient convenus qu'il s'avérait extrêmement urgent de disposer d'un code sur les biotechnologies avant l'arrivée sur le marché des produits d'application des nouvelles biotechnologies. Ceci serait imminent d'après les informations dont nous disposons. Il n'est pas difficile de comprendre nos préoccupations quand nos principales cultures et nos principaux produits d'exportation comme la vanille et le sucre entre autres sont gravement menacés avec toutes les conséquences dramatiques que cela entraine pour des dizaines de milliers de nos petits agriculteurs.
Nous devrions réitérer au Conseil le souhait que nous avons formulé à la Commission, de traiter en priorité et de toute urgence un projet de code régissant directement les questions relatives à l'alimentation et l'agriculture, les avantages et les risques que peuvent encourir les pays en voie de développement dans l'utilisation des biotechnologies. Nous signalons également qu'il serait utile de mentionner dans ledit projet des sujets d'importance comme le transfert de technologies, le développement des capacités nationales dans les pays en développement en matière d'évaluation des recherches relatives à la gestion rationnelle et durable des ressources phytogénétiques locales.
E. Wayne DENNEY (United States of America): We add our thanks to Dr De Haen for his succinct introduction.
The United States has participated in the last two sessions of the Commission as a member. It has also been our privilege to represent North America on the working group. We endorse the report of the Fifth Session of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources. However, we see no particular value in discussing
the many items that were fully debated by the Commission. We will restrict our comments to a few key items.
In our opinion, FAO has a lot of work to do on plant genetic resources activities during the next biennium. Resources must be allocated accordingly. We do not support FAO's increased involvement in bureaucratic, regulatory activity as the best mechanism to solve problems. While the code of conduct for plant collecting and transfer has some valuable points, and we can accept it, codes of any type are viewed in a regulatory way. The proposed bio technology code transgresses international activities being conducted elsewhere in the UN system. Such duplicatory activity is expensive and unnecessary. The Council should send a clear message that FAO's appropriate role in this area is to collect, maintain and provide relevant information to Member Countries in a speedy fashion.
A key recommendation from the Commission was to develop a mechanism for re negotiating the International Undertaking. The present Undertaking is cumbersome with its three annexes. It needs to be reworked to accommodate language adopted in the Convention on Biological Diversity. The re-negotiated International Undertaking should only contain essential provisions already agreed to. Even this will not be easy. We cannot afford to reopen divisive issues which provoked disharmony during the negotiations of the Bio-diversity Convention. Issues pertaining to farmers' rights, plant breeders' rights, national sovereignty and access to genetic material will have to be dealt with delicately in order to preserve the consensus already achieved. The Commission's Working Group must address this matter when it convenes, and this hopefully will be in this coming October.
The United States is disappointed with the progress made toward the Fourth International Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources. This Conference deserves to have Regular Programme funding, despite the 1991 Conference decision to fund it extra-budgetarily. The reason is simple. The project document now encompasses programme elements, as noted by Dr De Haen, which were not originally envisaged. It includes activities FAO is responsible for carrying out under Agenda 21. Noteworthy among these are preparation of the state of the world's plant genetic resources and developing a costed global plan of action. We were encouraged yesterday by the attention given to this Conference by the Director-General. We hope that his personal interest will result in FAO being much more aggressive in preparing for this Conference, which should be held in 1995, if possible.
We believe it is a mistake to forego implementation of the project relating to the International Technical Conference until US$7.5 million is raised. The generosity of those countries which have committed funds amounting to some US$4.2 or perhaps US$4.5 million is greatly appreciated. We do not want those funds to evaporate. Instead, FAO should proceed on the basis of funds already committed, with the assumption - and we believe reasonable one - that additional regular and extra-budgetary funds will be forthcoming. This is precisely how FAO proceeded when developing the International Conference on Nutrition. Should FAO fail to deliver this Conference, its global credibility in the field of plant genetic resources will be severely eroded.
Also, if FAO does not demonstrate progress towards a fully-fledged, programme-related mid-1995 Conference, how will FAO effectively implement Agenda 21 with respect to plant genetic resources issues? Clearly, FAO has an obligation in my delegation's view, to move quickly and effectively in beginning serious preparations for the 1995 Technical Conference. Putting a qualified secretariat in place is an essential first step.
LE PRESIDENT: Je rappelle aux participants qui souhaiteraient faire une demande de contributions qu'il serait bon de la faire dès maintenant, ce qui faciliterait le travail du Secrétariat. L'organisation de pareilles conférences est également fonction des moyens extrabudgétaires dont la FAO pourra disposer.
Elias REYES BRAVO (México): Mi delegación, señor Presidente, expresa su convicción de la importancia que tiene el documento CL 103/16 relativo al informe de la quinta reunión de la Comisión de Recursos Fitogenéticos de abril pasado. Este informe refleja un avance importante en los debates de la Comisión, asi como en la posibilidad de avanzar en este campo, tanto en el ámbito político y normativo como en el de las acciones concretas de coooperación y desarrollo. De modo particular mi delegación quiere referirse al punto 8 del informe, que trata de lo referente al proyecto de código internacional de conducta para la recolección y transferencia de germoplasma vegetal, para reiterar nuestro acuerdo con dicho proyecto, el cual se presenta como texto concertado en el documento CL 103/16, y para proponer que en la resolución que se proponga a la Conferencia sobre este código se incluya el texto: "Se considere el texto de la Resolución CPGR 93/1 intitulado 'Revisión del compromiso internacional sobre recursos fitogenéticos' contenido en el Apéndice A del documento CL 103/16".
En relación con el punto 9 del documento intitulado: "Hacia un código internacional de conducta para la biotecnología vegetal", en cuanto que afecta a la conservación y utilización de los recursos fitogenéticos, mi delegación considera que el proyecto, en términos generales, es muy completo y contempla prácticamente todos los puntos relacionados con la conservación y utilización de los recursos fitogenéticos. De este proyecto de código, mi delegación destaca los siguientes puntos como de particular interés: el código es voluntario y sería deseable que para la sexta reunión de la Comisión en 1995 se pudiera considerar un instrumento algo más que voluntario - nos permitimos subrayar la importancia del concepto de biotecnología apropiado a agricultura sostenible - ; que los derechos de propiedad intelectual no vayan a convertirse en un obstáculo para el intercambio de germoplasma, y tener en cuenta los derechos de los agricultores; y la conveniencia de que los gobiernos organicen sistemas de vigilancia y evaluación para la prevención de efectos negativos en la biotecnología.
Sería conveniente esclarecer que, con el inevitable ingreso a la era de las patentes, las empresas privadas y aun las universidades o instituciones públicas con proyectos financiados con fondos privados, difícilmente podrán aceptar códigos de conducta que afecten sus intereses económicos. Mi delegación insiste en que con este posible código se busca primordialmente complementar, contribuiryreforzar lacooperación y lacoordinaciónde
mecanismos institucionales que se ocupan de la conservación y la utilización sostenible de los recursos fitogenéticos entre los que podríamos citar la Comisión de Desarrollo Sustentable, la Conferencia de las Partes del Convenio sobre Diversidad Biológica, la Asamblea de participantes del Fondo Mundial para el Medio Ambiente y la propia Comisión de Recursos Fitogenéticos. Lo anterior tiene por objeto facilitar la aplicación de objetivos de la CNUMAD, en particular los contenidos en los capítulos 14, 15 y 16, relativos al fomento del desarrollo agrícola y rural sostenible, la conservación de la diversidad biológica y la aplicación de la biotecnología.
Mi delegación también desea mencionar que en el marco de la CNUMAD realiza diversas acciones. En México se estableció una Comisión nacional para el conocimiento y uso de la diversidad biológica con objeto de establecer un eje de acción coordinado para estudiar, investigar y analizar la biodiversidad y así poder ofrecer alternativas que permitan su conservación, además de una explotación racional de los recursos naturales para no afectar los ecosistemas del país. Con apego a la CNUMAD y a su Agenda 21, México elabora actualmente un documento intitulado "Programa México 21", que contendrá los lineamientos, objetivos y estrategias que nuestro país instrumentará en materia de agricultura sustentable, diversidad biológica y biotecnología. Confiamos en que los trabajos próximos de la Comisión nos permitan continuar avanzando en este tema.
Parviz KARBASI (Iran, Islamic Republic of): My delegation had the honour of participating in a very active manner in the Committee on Plant Genetic Resources and would endorse the contents of document CL 103/16. We particularly welcome the offer of CGIAR centres to place their base and active collections under the auspices of FAO. We fully support paragraphs 71 to 76.
The delegation of the Islamic Republic of Iran hope to see speedy action for the Fourth International Conference and Programme on the Conservation and Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources.
M. MAJID-UL-HAQ (Bangladesh): There is a rich reserve of genetic diversity of our wild and cultivated plant species. Bangladesh has vast genetic resources, about 5 000 species of angiosperms alone. This is almost twice the number of species in Europe. Of the vast flora, 500 species are reported to be of medicinal importance. In addition to the examples of genetic diversity of plant species indicated above, one may note that bamboo resources in the country consist of not less than 18 taxa; there are about 130 species of fibre resources, both wild and cultivated, at least eight species of rattans, numerous protein-rich legumes out of which about 70 woody species have been recorded.In homesteads, about 150 trees species are still grown.
This has imparted characteristic features in our traditional crops that belong to a wide number of families, genera and species with enormous genetic variability within a single crop species. For example, there are about 2 500 land races of cultivated jute, over 4 000 indigenous cultivars of rice that have been lying scattered over the landmass of the country. These examples point to the nature and extent of the reserve of genetic resources not only
of our crop plants, but also of non-crop plant species - the herbs, the shrubs and the trees of the region.
Needless to say the plant species are no less threatened than animals due to land depletion, degradation and desertification. Unfortunately, information on genetic erosion and/or extinction of plant species is scanty in Bangladesh. A recent study by the Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council in collaboration with IUCN revealed that at least 25 species of angiosperms and at least two species of pteridophytes are on the way to extinction from this delta. We might have already lost many species of plants and hundreds of germplasm. We can hardly overemphasize our concern for collection, conservation and evaluation of germplasm not only of the cultivated crops and their wild relatives, but also of non-crop plant species. Those plant species, along with their genetic diversity, would be useful in the future within the country as well as world-wide.
However, we have made some limited efforts to collect and preserve these germplasms. The Gene Bank of the Bangladesh Jute Research Institute, the Genetic Resources Centre of the Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute, the Genetic Resources Unit of Bangladesh and the Bangladesh Rice Research Institute were established only in the 1980s with limited facilities.
Many countries have maintained reservations about the International Undertaking for a systematic flow and/or exchange of germplasm between countries. The reservation, on the basis of plant breeder's rights, is in the main a de facto control of germplasm by developed countries. In view of this, in situ conservation of germplasm has assumed a higher priority, putting pressure on undeveloped countries like Bangladesh where land, material and skilled human resources are scarce.
Incidentally, conservation of germplasm in so-called "test tubes" as cultured cells tissues has opened up better prospects for ex situ preservation of germplasm which can be used for regeneration and multiplication through somatic embryogenesis.
My delegation fully endorses the establishment of a follow-up to the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources and we hope that FAO will assist us in: (i) establishment of gene banks and infrastructure development, (ii) development of manpower, (iii) strengthening international linkage in order to enlarge the germplasm base through exchange with international organizations and Member Countries, and (iv) information dissemination.
Inge GERREMO (Sweden) : I have the honour to speak on behalf of the Nordic countries Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden. First I would like to thank Dr De Haen for his clear and comprehensive introduction. The Nordic countries appreciate the work of FAO on plant genetic resources.
The Nordic countries appreciate FAO's work on plant genetic resources. Already during the negotiation process of the Convention on Biological Diversity the Nordic countries have underlined strongly the connections between the Convention and FAO's Undertaking on plant genetic resources. We therefore welcome and fully endorse the unanimous recommendation from the Commission to
revise the Undertaking and if possible convert it into a legally binding instrument. The process of revision should be carried out in close collaboration with the governing body of the Convention. The purpose of this is inter alia to facilitate for the Conference the Parties consideration of the option of transforming the renegotiated undertaking into a Protocol to the Convention on Biological Diversity. This process should safeguard the achievements by the Undertaking and, especially, not put at risk the continuity of the support by the countries that have adhered to it.
The Nordic countries fully endorse the Resolution presented in Appendix A of the Commission's report and hope that the Council will support the recommendation made to the Conference, "that the Director-General be requested to provide a forum for negotiations among governments". The task of these negotiations would be twofold. The first would be to adapt the Undertaking in harmony with the Convention on Biological Diversity. The second would be to consider the issue of access to plant genetic resources on mutually agreed terms, including ex situ collections not addressed by the Convention, and the issue of realization of farmers' rights.
The forum for these important negotiations would be the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources in regular sessions and probably in extraordinary sessions in order to conclude the negotiations in time for the FAO International Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources. The negotiations should be carried out in close cooperation with the governing body of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the UN Commission on Sustainable Development.
The Commission also reconfirmed the decision of convening the Fourth Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources. The Nordic countries fully support the Conference and its preparation. The country-driven approach to the preparatory process as suggested by the Commission is a pre-condition for a successful conference. At the same time we share the concern expressed by the delegation of the United States of America on progress so far. We find the compiling of the state of the world plant genetic resources and the development of a Plan of Action for PGR to be important tasks which FAO is well equipped to carry out. The preparation of the Technical Conference should be closely linked to the revision process of the Undertaking.
The Nordic countries would like to underline the importance of demonstrating high priority to the Technical Conference and its preparations by allocating additional funds for this purpose on the regular budget of FAO. Furthermore, we are happy to inform the Council that some of us have even been able to pledge extra-budgetary financing for this Conference.
LE PRESIDENT: Je remercie le délégué de Suède pour ce qu'il vient de dire notamment en ce qui concerne la contribution de certains pays nordiques aux fonds extrabudgétaires qui sont la condition sine qua non de la réussite d'une conférence internationale.
Harald HILDEBRAND (Germany) : My country played an active part in the Fifth Session of CPGR last April and therefore has no difficulty in endorsing document CL 103/16 as it duly reflectsthe proceedingsof that meeting.
However, a condensed presentation of its major results, which would have been interesting to this Council in particular, might have facilitated our work. Fortunately, Mr De Haen has just given us an excellent overview of the matters of major interest to our Session.
In our view, the Council should attach foremost attention to the following questions - UNCED follow-up and FAO's Global System on CPGR; the Draft International Code of Conduct for Plant Germplasm Collecting and Transfer; the Fourth International Technical Conference and Programme on PGR Conservation and Utilization; the International Code of Conduct for Plant Biotechnology with regard to PGR, and finally, the future of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources and of its working group.
Let me now refer to the UNCED follow-up and FAO's global system on PGR. The Fifth Session of the Commission has clearly noted the close relationship between the Convention on Biological Diversity and Chapters 14 and 15 of Agenda 21 on the one hand, and the various components of FAO's global system on plant genetic resources on the other.
This fact implies the need for FAO to act. Resolution CPGR 93/1 attached as Appendix A to the document, under consideration, the report of the Commission, provides a good guideline for action in three directions: to attain the required harmony and complementarity between the International Undertaking and the Convention; to solve important questions still pending, such as access to plant genetic resources stored in pre-existing genebanks, definition and ways to realize farmers' rights; and thirdly, to give the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources a more binding character, e.g. under the Convention, to strengthen at the same time FAO's role in this specific field and to make the global system more effective.
My delegation is fully aware of one specific problem still unsolved which is a general problem of Agenda 21 implementation: financing.
My Government strongly favours the mentioned Resolution which should be endorsed by the Council for subsequent approval by the 27th Session of the FAO Conference.
Now let me refer to the draft International Code of Conduct for Plant Germplasm Collection and Transfer. This draft has, in our view, reached the stage of maturity for being approved by the next FAO Conference. Special note should be taken of its future adaptability to changing situations as expressed in item 59 of the document.
Thirdly, the Programme and the Fourth International Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources (ICPGR) with its two major outputs, State of the World's Plant Genetic Resources and on that basis, a costed Global Plan of Action for conservation and sustainable use of Plant Genetic Resources is one globally vital and concrete follow-up measure by FAO and its Member Nations to the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development which met in Rio de Janeiro just one year ago. Therefore, my delegation cannot but fully subscribe to what is said in item 78 about speeding up concrete preparations in matter for the Conference.
With regard to this Conference, this Council session happens to coincide with the first Substantive Session of the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) in New York. CSD will approve inter alia its multi-year thematic Work Programme. According to the respective draft document, CSD is planning to review sectoral cluster G - Land, desertification, forests and biodiversity, i.e. Chapters 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of Agenda 21, at the 1995 Session.
Apart from the general urgency to act in the field of PGR, this linkage to the Commission on Sustainable Development which has the mandate of monitoring UNCED follow-up, is another important reason for doing everything to implement the programme and to hold the Conference, if possible, in 1995 with the best possible outcome. My Government would welcome a decision soon by FAO's Governing Bodies on the definite date of the Conference. In addition, we think it is feasible and appropriate for the Secretariat to advance the required funds from the current regular budget in order to finance preparatory work as long as the money pledged has not yet been deposited.
As you know, Germany has offered to host the Conference, provides US$2.5 million for its financing and has made some national arrangements already for this great event. This we think might be another reason why we need a decision, although it is not the primary reason. The main concern is the time left for a proper and technically adequate national and regional bottom-up preparatory process. Two years are the utmost minimum if the Conference is to be held as my country proposes, in the first half of July 1995. Hopefully the Secretariat will receive on time the required national cooperation and inputs for the World's State Report. With the funding issue on the way to solution we are sure that further work at Headquarters and with Member Nations will receive a new impetus.
Now I shall be brief in ending my statement by making some reference to the International Code of Conduct for Plant Biotechnology with regard to Plant Genetic Resources. My delegation would like to reiterate the German position expressed during the Comrifission's Session; the Secretariat should carry on in the further study of those issues still controversial and present an improved draft Code of Conduct for Plant Biotechnology. This, of course, requires contributions from Member Countries and in particular cooperation and coordination with those UN agencies and international scientific institutions involved in UNCED follow-up. My country would support an enquiry of the Member Nations by FAO on the different aspects involved in this issue.
As regards the future work of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources and its working group let me say the following: in view of the considerable work to be done by the Commission over the next two years or so, just think of the forthcoming International Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources and of the renegotiation of the International Undertaking, my delegation strongly favours steps to strengthen the activities of the Commission's Working Group. Therefore we fully subscribe to what is said in item 86 of the report. Germany is willing to be a member of the working group and has decided to contribute to the fulfilment of its task.
On the whole my delegation gives its approval to the report of the Fifth Session of the CPGR
Jaime GARCIA Y BADIAS (España): En primer lugar deseo felicitar al Sr. De Haen por la exposición del documento que, aunque breve, ha sido claro y conciso. España, señor Presidente, se complace en participar en esta sesión que coincide con el décimo aniversario de la creación de la Comisión de Recursos Fitogenéticos. Durante este largo periodo de tiempo hemos podido observar un cambio sustancial en sus comportamientos, ya que se pasó de una situación de enfrentamiento en sus inicios a otra de colaboración entre los países que en estos momentos estamos viviendo.
Creemos que nuestro país, señor Presidente, ha prestado su máxima colaboración a la FAO y a la Comisión de Recursos Fitogenéticos a través del Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria y su banco de germoplasma puesto a disposición de la FAO.
En consecuencia, estamos plenamente convencidos de haber prestado una buena colaboración para llevar a buen puerto este barco y su Comisión de Recursos Fitogenéticos y de haber actuado de puente entre continentes. Así estamos plenamente convencidos de haber ayudado a una mejor comprensión de toda esta problemática entre Europa, América y Africa. Todo ello ha contribuido a trabajar para un futuro mejor, futuro que va en esta dirección y que nos indica plenamente el Convenio de diversidad biológica, la Agenda 21 y que la próxima Conferencia Técnica Internacional a celebrarse en 1995, tal como indicó el Sr. De Haen, debe contribuir a mejorar toda esta problemática y a la cual nuestro país, tal como indicó el Sr. De Haen, se sumó mediante la aportación de fondos extrapresupuestarios.
Finalmente deseo señalar que España ha participado activamente en las labores de la Comisión y apoya el informe de su quinta sesión de Recursos Fitogenéticos y sus recomendaciones.
EL PRESIDENTE: Quisiera agradecer al distinguido Representante de España por su clara intervención. Todos sabemos que España tuvo una colaboración muy dinámica.
David SHERWOOD (Canada): I would like to thank Dr De Haen for his clear and concise presentation of the subject. Canada is pleased with the progress made by the FAO in the field of Plant Genetic Resources. The recent Session of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources produced many useful results, such as the endorsement of a voluntary code of conduct for germplasm collecting and transfer and consensus on genebank standards. The report of the Commission is very informative on these different matters.
One of the stated objectives of the Commission is to advise FAO on its own activities in plant genetic resources. We are pleased that FAO has promised to provide more information on these activities to Commission members, since it would make their work in this respect more significant.
One very important proposal emanating from the Commission was to provide a forum for intergovernmental negotiations to refine the International Undertaking of Plant Genetic Resources and harmonize it with the Convention of Biological Diversity.Canada supports this enterprise, as expressed in
resolution CPGR 93/1 before us. We hope that the results will allow countries, such as Canada, which have not yet signed the Undertaking, to do so. We look forward to the work of the Commission's Working Group, which will coordinate these negotiations. They must be flexible and open in order to ensure the full participation and commitment of Member Governments.
We understand that the revision of the International Undertaking will be part of the preparation of the International Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources to be held in 1995. We support the goals of this Conference, particularly the bottom-up country-driven approach to the elaboration of a costed, realistic global plan of action and state of the world report on plant genetic resources.
We would also like to support the comments made by the United States and Germany concerning the use of FAO's regular funds should that be necessary in order to allow the Conference to take place. This is an important event and we would like to ensure that it proceeds as planned. In this context we suggest that every opportunity for inter-agency collaboration should be actively pursued. In particular the proposed country studies on plant genetic resources for food and agriculture should be coordinated with the biodiversity country studies carried out by the United Nations Environmental Programme in the context of the Biodiversity Convention. Recourse can then be made to the Convention's funding mechanism for this purpose. A positive response should also be given to UNEP's invitation for FAO to participate actively in the Biodiversity Convention's Secretariat.
Canada supports a resolution approving the voluntary International Code of Conduct for germplasm collection and transfer.
In summary we are pleased with the progress made by the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources, which is one of the FAO bodies most directly addressing the linkage between development and environment issues identified during last year's Earth Summit. We count on continuing our involvement in the Commission and its Working Group in preparation for the International Conference and revising the International Undertaking. Thank you Mr Chairman.
LE PRESIDENT: Je crois que lorsque nous discuterons du Programme de travail et budget il sera loisible aux pays qui ont fait certaines suggestions de proposer l'augmentation d'un budget ordinaire de facon à combler le voeu de ces pays pour l'organisation de la Conférence internationale. Il est clair que le Programme de travail et budget depend de votre compétence et de la compétence de la Conference et qu'il est loisible aux Etats Membres de proposer une augmentation du budget ordinaire et, à défaut de contributions substantielles un programme de fonds fiduciares pour permettre l'organisation de de la conférence souhaitée.
The meeting rose at 17.30 hours.
La séance est levée à 17 h 30.
Se levanta la sesión a las 17.30 horas.
