EL PRESIDENTE: Como ustedes saben, para este Tema hay dos cuestiones que deben destacarse. La primera es que está a consideración del Consejo aprobar o no los métodos de trabajo propuestos por el Director General y posteriormente decidir sobre las fechas de la Conferencia y las reuniones del Consejo y sus Comités relacionados.
Esta segunda parte la vamos a revisar bajo el Tema 16. Sé que es un poco confuso el tratamiento del examen de los métodos de trabajo de la Conferencia con el calendario, pero deseo que tomen en cuenta que uno se refiere exclusivamente a las propuestas del Director General para la Conferencia y el otro aspecto se refiere al calendario de los Organos Rectores y los Comités del Consejo.
Para tratar de explicar la forma en que vamos a proceder y los puntos que estarán sometidos a debate para el Tema 19, le voy a pedir al Dr. Mahler que nos haga la presentación sobre el examen de los métodos de trabajo de la Conferencia.
LE SECRETAIRE GENERAL: Monsieur le Président, ma présentation sera très brève parce que le Secrétariat n'a pas d'éléments supplémentaires à ajouter, après l'introduction que vous venez de faire.
Le document CL 107/3 expose les méthodes actuelles de la Conférence. Il indique les changements qu'il serait bon d'apporter à ces méthodes. Il élabore des propositions qui ont été émises par le Directeur général; celles-ci sont contenues dans les paragraphes 16 à 24. Le Conseil est invité à examiner ces propositions et à formuler une décision. Comme vous l'avez dit, Monsieur le Président, cette décision concerne des principes directeurs pour l'organisation des prochaines Conférences de la FAO et non pas seulement celle de l'année prochaine: il s'agit de directives générales.
Les conclusions du Conseil seront prises en considération pour la préparation du document intitulé "Organisation de la 28ème session de la Conférence" qui sera examiné par la prochaine session du Conseil en mai-juin 1995. Autrement dit, nous verrons en mai-juin 1995 quelles pourraient être les modalités d'application des principes directeurs qui sont soumis à votre approbation aujourd'hui. Ces modalités devront tenir compte des circonstances assez particulières de l'année prochaine où nous auront la célébration du 50ème anniversaire de l'Organisation à Québec.
Après la conclusion de l'examen des méthodes de travail de la Conférence, le Conseil devra alors décider des dates et du lieu de la 28ème session de la Conférence. Ces propositions sont contenues dans le document CL 107/3-Sup.1-Rev.l.
Ricardo VELAZQUEZ HUERTA (México): Nos referimos brevemente al documento CL 107/3. Por supuesto la delegación de México no tiene ninguna objeción para adoptar las propuestas de la Dirección General que se contiene en los párrafos 16 siguientes. No tenemos dificultad con ello, Sr. Presidente; pero quisiéramos expresar nuestra opinión y dejar señalado los asuntos que representan alguna preocupación para nuestra delegación.
Estamos de acuerdo en que los períodos de sesiones de la Conferencia se acorten, que no sea tan amplia como en otras ocasiones, pero ello nos lleva a la consideración de la agenda, obviamente, porque la agenda es la que debe, a nuestro juicio, marcar el ritmo de los días que la Conferencia debe abarcar. Al analizar la cuestión de la agenda nos lleva a una selección de los temas que deben incluirse en la agenda. De manera que los asuntos que la Conferencia trate sean solamente aquéllos indispensables para que se puedan tratar en los términos propuestos por la Dirección General. Esto nos lleva a la situación o al análisis de la decisión de los
temas que, a nuestro juicio, se deben tratar en el Consejo de la FAO previo a la Conferencia. De manera que los Estados Miembros tengan la oportunidad de contribuir a la construcción de la agenda. Este es un punto que queremos dejar claro.
Otra preocupación es, obviamente, la necesidad de que los Estados Miembros construyamos esta agenda de la Conferencia, naturalmente en colaboración y en coordinación con la Secretaría; pero los temas de la Conferencia, a nuestro juicio, deben ser decididos por los Estados Miembros de la FAO.
En relación con la estructura de la Conferencia, también estamos de acuerdo con las propuestas del Sr. Director General de continuar con el esquema normal de que pueda haber una Plenaria y, además, las comisiones adecuadas; pero deseo simplemente señalar las dificultades de algunos países, principalmente de aquéllos en desarrollo, que tienen delegaciones muy pequeñas o que no tienen recursos para venir con delegaciones amplias a Roma y, a veces, enfrentan la dificultad de atender plenarias y comisiones al mismo tiempo.
Nosotros quisiéramos, Sr. Presidente, dejar esta preocupación en la Mesa para que nos hagan el favor de tomarla en cuenta, cuando se decida el tiempo de actuación tanto de la Plenaria como de las Comisiones.
Jürgen OESTREICH (Germany): I want to intervene on two points: first, on the working methods and then, as I have understood you, also on the calendar.
EL PRESIDENTE: Quizá no hubo una aclaración suficiente por mi parte. Respecto del calendario les voy a solicitar que esperen hasta tratar el Tema 16, seguramente esta tarde. Ya sé que este tema está muy ligado al otro, pero deseo que haya una definición muy específica sobre el calendario, una vez que hayamos tratado el tema del Examen de los Métodos de Trabajo de la Conferencia.
Le suplico al Sr. delegado de Alemania que no trate del tema del calendario.
Jürgen OESTREICH (Germany): As always, I will follow your advice, Mr Chairman. It would have been much more convenient for me personally to do it now.
The European Community and its member states have taken note with great interest of the Director-General's report regarding examination of the Conference working methods. We consider the report a response to the intervention of my neighbour, the Ambassador of the French Republic, at the last FAO Conference when he, supported by several delegations, voiced his concerns regarding the Conference working methods and subsequently made specific proposals within the European Community framework.
The European Community and its member states can endorse the Director-General's proposals to shorten the Conference and to improve the efficiency of its decisions and discussions. However, we wish to put forward to the Council a few additional thoughts for further consideration which, to a large degree, follow the lines just raised by the delegate of Mexico. Let me now touch on several points.
Reduction of costs. The principal measures consist of limiting the Conference to 12 working days, not necessarily starting with a Saturday. At the same time a move should be made towards more concise reports, with special attention to summaries, conclusions and recommendations. The presentation of the agenda items should be limited to new elements only. These reports could perhaps, depending on the subject, be prepared by rapporteurs, with assistance from the Secretariat, thus limiting the use of drafting committees.
Revitalizing the Plenary. The aim of the Plenary must be to give the discussions a political added value on the world food and agriculture situation and on subjects chosen in the light of the Organization's current activities. This means that statements on the national agricultural situation could be replaced by important topical subjects relating to world food security and agriculture and particularly topics relating to the functioning of the Organization. Heads of delegations should be able to set out their views in statements not exceeding ten minutes in length so that the opening Plenary as a whole should not exceed four days. I know this is a difficult proposal but we should make efforts to achieve this aim.
(c) Avoiding duplication of efforts between the Commissions and the Plenary. Commissions' discussions must not be sacrificed but they should be concentrated into five days, starting immediately after the end of the first substantive session of the Plenary. The number of agenda items should be reduced. Commission I should discuss subjects mentioned in paragraph 19 of the Director-General's document and other subjects referred back from the Plenary by heads of delegations by making recommendations and prepared decisions in the form of resolutions or under simplified procedures. Similarly Commission II should continue to target its discussions on financial and programme questions. It is that Commission which could, for example, be given the task of preparing decisions on the matter of the collection of contributions with reference both to incentives and sanctions. Commission III, which deals with constitutional and administrative matters, from auditing of the accounts to checking the legal conformity of texts referred to by the other Commissions, including staff matters, should last less than five days, other than in exceptional circumstances.
(D) The final series of sessions of the Plenary - that is, two days - should be in a position to take decisions on the matters prepared by the Commissions and endorsed by the Administration.
(E) Clearly, and as the Director-General recommends, votes for the election of Member Nations should be grouped together during the opening Plenary when a new Director-General has to be elected (Article VII.1). The opening Plenary would last two days longer at most. According to circumstances, the election of the Chairman of the Council (Article XXIII) could, in the event of difficulties, be completed during an extra day.
Kenji SEIMIZU (Japan): My delegation will address the issue from a slightly different angle. We have taken an important step to reform this Organization. As a result we have identified special programmes for LIFDCs and EMPRES as a priority area.
We are agreed on structural changes, as well as decentralization, including the establishment of sub-regional offices and the national professional officers as such. The reform as a whole is very significant in terms of its political dimension, of "bringing FAO closer to its members". Therefore, the reform would strengthen the participation of the Member Nations in their activities, based on a greater reflection of their interests.
However, the momentum for the reforms is still only beginning in terms of the participation process and should be promoted further, not only at the level of programme policies and structures, but also at the level of the decision-making process. In this context the limited members' committees, such as Drafting, Resolution, etc. should be looked into in terms of their reflectiveness, efficiency and effectiveness - in short, serving the growing interests of all Member Nations in all levels of activity of this Organization. The decision-making process has a legitimate importance and impact on individual members, which are now becoming less interested in the Organization, and as an example of this we see the growing number of overdue contributions to this Organization.
Such an angle of reform is also considered to revitalize this Organization under substantive challenges - in other words, the reform pressures facing this Organization.
In short, it seems to me that the time has come to consider more liberalized working methods for some decision-making functions of the limited members' fora of the Conference and the Council, and perhaps also the regional conferences. My delegation seeks some advice from the House on the foregoing concerns.
The reform is still incomplete in the area of financial and administrative departments. The departments are also the next target to be looked into. One solution may be to incorporate them into one department under severe financial constraints. My delegation finds difficulty in accepting the increased numbers of departments.
Srta. Virginia PEREZ PEREZ (Venezuela): Mi delegación quisiera agradecer a la Secretaría la elaboración clara y concisa del documento CL 107/3 sobre el Examen de los Métodos de Trabajo de la Conferencia. Todos sabemos que fue durante la Conferencia en 1993 cuando se comienza a considerar la reducción de los períodos de sesiones de la misma en consonancia, entre otras cosas, con el proceso de ordenación y racionalización de gastos que se adelanta en el sistema de Naciones Unidas. En este sentido creo, Sr. Presidente, que vamos por buen camino.
Mi gobierno ha puesto en práctica medidas de restricción del gasto público. Al mismo tiempo que está reorganizando y optimizando el funcionamiento del Estado para hacer más eficiente su actuación.
La disminución de gastos en las organizaciones internacionales es concominante con los esfuerzos que realizamos en muchos países para reducir el gasto público; por lo que la aplaudimos y la encomiamos, siempre y cuando lo que se persiga sea una racionalización que en definitiva beneficie el trabajo y los objetivos de la Organización.
Acogemos con agrado, Sr. Presidente, la propuesta presentada por el Director General para reducir la duración de los próximos períodos de sesiones de la Conferencia. Nos parece acertado que la duración de dichas sesiones no exceda los once días y que el programa se concentre en aquellos asuntos que necesiten una acción de la Conferencia, para lo cual es condición sine qua non que se optimice la labor preparatoria, que se realice en el Consejo y que realiza la Secretaría.
Estamos convencidos de que el debate sobre el tema del Estado Mundial de la Agricultura y la Alimentación, debe ser considerado en la Plenaria, por ser éste el escenario adecuado para que nuestros ministros se pronuncien sobre asuntos de tanta importancia para nuestros países. La idea, como lo expresó la delegación de Alemania, es revitalizar la Plenaria.
Apoyamos la idea de que las votaciones se realicen a finales de la primera semana, ya que de esta forma se garantizaría la presencia de las delegaciones de todos los países en desarrollo y se permitiría el proceso de consultas necesarias que este tipo de actividades requieren.
Estamos de acuerdo, Sr. Presidente, con que las presentaciones de los temas se limiten a indicar la nueva información no contenida en los documentos, pero tememos que la documentación sea demasiado breve. Recuerdo que la brevedad es enemiga de la sustancia.
Por último, creo conveniente que todos los países puedan pronunciarse acerca del contenido de la agenda reducida que tendrá la Conferencia antes de que la misma sea adoptada.
Ms M. McCOWAN (United Kingdom): The UK delegation fully associates itself with the statement made on behalf of the European Community and its member states and in doing so welcomes the Director-General's report on an examination of the working methods of the Conference as set out in CL 107/3.
FAO is an elder statesman of the United Nations and its structures and procedures have served it well. But there is a reform movement in train within the United Nations which is resulting elsewhere in an approach to governance which allows for greater flexibility, less formality, a more business-like approach, and in all a greater recognition that governing bodies need to exercise their role of oversight in a more demonstrable way. When we return to our capitals from such events as this Council, we are asked to report on what we think we achieved.
It is with this in mind that we would hope to see Conference organized in a way that allows for maximum participation by the membership, aimed at doing business that results in clear decision-making and not simply the delivery of statements which are taken note of.
This means that we need to work to shorter agendas which should only contain items on which the Conference has competence. It means prompt delivery of all papers and an absence of items being issued too late for Conference Members to properly consider them.
Additionally, perhaps FAO should consider the use of informais each morning before conference. These have proved so useful to other organizations, like UNICEF, and give an opportunity for members to question the Secretariat in an informal way. I suggest that such a device would have been ideal for example, in relation to the Director-General's Progress Report. Specific questions on the Special Programmes could have been usefully dealt with in this way whereas, following the Plenary discussion, many of us will return home to explain that we do not have the answers to the questions we were asked to raise.
Finally, the changes we are referring to also mean that the platform needs to review its role. We welcome very much paragraph 22 of the Director-General's proposals which seeks to do this, but we would ask him to go even further. Too much time is taken up with the repetition of information already contained in documents and too much time in introductions and summings up. Other agencies do not follow these practices. As the EC statement said, we should also reconsider the need for the laborious work of the Drafting Committee -which relates to the existing need for a summing up. Again, in other fora the practice has been adopted of simply noting the decisions made and the points for action.
The Director-General's proposals which we are considering here have begun the process, but we suggest there is still a way to go before we have streamlined our machinery of governance within FAO.
Mrs Maria GALVÖLGYI (Hungary): The Hungarian delegation gives its enthusiastic support to the efforts to make the biennial Conference of FAO more efficient, dealing only with matters in its sole competence. Two weeks seems to be the right time period for future Conferences, provided that the measures referred to in paragraphs 15 to 24 on our Agenda, such as structure and Agenda items, would properly be observed.
May I mention at this juncture that the pilot agenda in the annex of the document could well serve the purpose of streamlining future proceedings. It is actually our belief that a number of items which have previously been on the Conference Agenda could either be issued for information only, or satisfactorily dealt with and decided upon by the Council, or ministerial meetings or permanent representatives meetings. In this respect, traditions can sometimes be of no help and therefore should not be fully observed.
It is felt that two additional remarks would not be out of place. The Secretariat may also have a role in this exercise by shortening the length of documents published for discussion, by both a more compact wording and a more extensive use of annexes complementing the text, and a strict observance and adequate advice as to the limits of delegates' interventions in terms of time. The Director-General may wish to issue a letter to all delegations to this effect prior to the 1995 Conference.
Vernon DOUGLAS (Trinidad and Tobago): As usual, my delegation speaks on behalf of the Member States of the CARICOM sub-region of Latin America and the Caribbean.
We have read document CL 107/3, and appreciate the proposals of the Director-General. My delegation endorses all of his proposals, but wishes to place special emphasis on two of them.
Firstly, that the duration of Conference should not exceed two weeks; secondly, that in view of the shorter duration of Conference, it is essential that the proposals for preparatory work outlined in paragraph 24 of CL 107/3 be implemented.
Finally, with respect to paragraph 24(c), it could be difficult for members who do not have Permanent Representatives based in Rome to participate fully in the proposed informal meetings. In the circumstances, we suggest that such members be informed of the outcome of these meetings as soon as possible after they have been held.
Tri WBBOWO (Indonesia): First of all, my delegation would like to congratulate the Director-General for his very comprehensive report under the Agenda item before us and also the Secretary-General of this Council for his brief and clear introduction to the Agenda item.
My delegation would like to share views with other Members of the Council in adopting the Director-General's proposals especially in paragraph 16 of the document CL 107/3. In my delegation's view the proposed working methods of the Conference will improve the efficiency of the Conference sessions and reduce both time and costs involved to both the Organization and the Member Governments.
These new working methods of the Conference can be only implemented if there are some changes in the preparation of the documents with more concentration on the programme and budget of the Organization as well as in introducing them to the Conference by the Secretariat focusing on the very important points and the new information, if any, only.
Finally, it would also be helpful if the Secretariat could send all documentation as early as possible to the Member Nations prior to the Conference.
Inge NORDANG (Norway): I have the honour of speaking on behalf of the Nordic countries, Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Norway.
The Nordic countries appreciate the Secretariat's response to the concerns expressed at the 1993 Conference about the working methods of the Conference. Without precluding a continued discussion in the future, including the desirability of the existing Conference structure, we would on this occasion just like to support the proposals made on behalf of the European Community and its Member States.
We also find the wise suggestions made by the United Kingdom under Item 4, to concentrate deliberations on the State of Food and Agriculture to selected issues, highly relevant in this connection.
Needless to say, we take it that a shortening of the Conference Session will not give rise to longer Council Sessions.
Thomas A. FORBORD (United States of America): The United States welcomes the changes in the timetable and working methods of the FAO Conference. We thank the FAO Secretariat for their efforts in preparing the document, and we concur with the revisions the Director-General has outlined here.
Whilst concurring with these proposals, like virtually all other delegations who have shared their views this morning, we feel the proposals do not yet go far enough. There are some other possibilities the Conference and Council could consider.
We agree with the European Community statement that, as a cost-saving measure for member countries, the Conference should not start on a Saturday. That would cost our delegations two extra days of time in Rome for one meeting day. If the meeting started on a Monday we could save a little money.
We believe serious consideration should be given to eliminating totally the country statements at the beginning of the Conference. This has been done by the UNDP and other UN bodies to very good effect in improving the efficiency and effectiveness of their meetings. The substitution of specific topics of interest is a possibility we would support.
Instead of country statements, even if limited to ten minutes, which would take four days for us to get through, those delegations that wish to make public statements could make those statements at press conferences scheduled here at FAO. We would also like to have consideration given to the total elimination from the agenda of information items.
These documents should be circulated to members. They can be listed in an annex and, if countries have questions on information items, those questions can be taken up in the informais that my colleague from the United Kingdom recommended, or directly with the Secretariat.
We do not need to take time during the Conference to read off the item and then not to discuss it. Take it off the Agenda totally.
We strongly support the remarks made by the United Kingdom that another important time-saver is to cut the repetition from the front table. The information that we will need should be very brief and very specific. The long introductions that we sometimes have, the summaries that we have, can in many cases be done away with totally.
We hope that this is not a one-time effort, that there will be a continuous review of all FAO meetings, to find further economies so that more of the Organization's funds can be allocated to delivering the important services it provides to its members, instead of spending time here in Rome.
Christophe KIEMTORE (Burkina Faso): Ma délégation voudrait tout d'abord féliciter le Secrétariat pour son document introductif. Nous concordons également avec la plupart des déclarations qui ont été faites sur ce point. Bien sûr, les propositions du Directeur général vont dans la bonne voie pour effectuer les réformes qui sont nécessaires afin de rendre efficace la FAO.
Plusieurs délégations ont insisté sur la nécessité de limiter le temps consacré à la Conférence et nous approuvons cet objectif tout en espérant pouvoir conserver tout de même le caractère unique de la Conférence, qui permet à un certain nombre de chefs de gouvernement ou de ministres de partager les préoccupations de leur pays en ce qui concerne les problèmes sociaux et de développement.
C'est pourquoi ma délégation est plutôt sceptique quant à la proposition de supprimer les déclarations générales. Ces déclarations générales devraient être effectivement le plus brèves possible mais nous pensons que la Conférence est un forum qui doit être offert à ces éminentes personnalités pour qu'elles puissent faire des commentaires sur la situation régionale et nationale.
Ma délégation voudrait également attirer l'attention du Conseil sur la nécessité de renforcer les travaux des comités restreints du Conseil, qui sont le Comité financier, le Comité du Programme et le Comité des questions constitutionnelles et juridiques. Toutes les questions ayant un caractère technique peuvent, la plupart du temps, trouver leur solution au sein de ces comités restreints. Il faut donc leur accorder plus d'importance et leur donner plus de pouvoir dans l'examen des questions qui leur sont soumises en vue de faire des recommandations claires au Conseil qui pourra les entériner sans passer trop de temps à examiner ces questions déjà traitées.
Atul SINHA (India): I also join the other countries in congratulating the Director-General on a very well-considered proposal for reviewing the working methods of the FAO Conference to make it more effective.
We also welcome the proposals contained in it and generally support all of them. In particular, I would like to support the proposal of Burkina Faso that we retain the system of country statements, because that gives an opportunity to countries to highlight their own views and also such matters of a general nature which might interest other Members of the Conference.
However, in order to make these country statements more specific, it might be a good idea to circulate in advance certain items which are coining up in the Conference, so that the country statements could be specifically geared to answering those questions and stating that country's position on those subjects.
It will not be a general statement, more a specific statement and, to that extent, quite useful.
With those remarks, the proposals contained in the paper CL 107/3 as amended have our support.
Carlos DI MOTTOLA BALESTRA (Observador de Costa Rica): En principio, este documento es apreciable y extremadamente interesante. Hay una parte que merece toda nuestra consideración y es mediante la cual se propone evitar duplicación entre lo que se hace en la Plenaria y lo que se hace en la Comisión I. La situación mundial de la agricultura debería ser determinada en una sola sede y no en dos. A veces, las declaraciones de los países reflejan demasiado la problemática de su propia agricultura, respecto a la cual podrían ser suficientes unas breves declaraciones. Por el contrario, para implicaciones más amplias, se puede facilitar mediante documentación. Mi delegación se muestra muy preocupada por lo expuesto en el documento en relación con las cuestiones de procedimiento ya que prácticamente disminuirían la capacidad de los países miembros de la Conferencia de llegar a un consenso, sobre todo, en lo relativo a tener una visión completa de lo que tiene que ser la situación política de la Conferencia.
Quiero recordar que el Consejo está integrado únicamente por una cuarta parte de los miembros de la Conferencia. Estos son hoy día muchos, casi 200, y tienen sólo una oportunidad de unirse, cada dos años, para examinar la totalidad de los problemas de la Conferencia; o sea, para llegar a una visión completa de lo que tiene que ser la política de la FAO. Por ello, cualquier forma de disminuir estas facultades, a nosotros nos preocupa muchísimo.
Los sistemas mediante los cuales se reducirían las facultades son las recomendaciones de procedimiento que se están haciendo. Uno refleja el concepto de que el Consejo, en ciertas materias, debería tomar decisiones finales. Nosotros no estamos de acuerdo con ello por dos razones: una es porque estas materias son muy pocas ya que, según la Constitución, el Consejo puede tomar decisiones finales sólo en campos que le son delegados por la Conferencia. La Conferencia, por el Artículo 5.3, puede delegar muy pocas de sus facultades, porque la marcha de la Organización, y todo lo relativo al Presupuesto, están exclusivamente reservados a la Conferencia.
Además si hubiese dudas en la opinión de la totalidad de los miembros del Consejo en materias técnicas, que sean competencia del Consejo por delegación de la Conferencia, al final esto sea visto por la Conferencia y no sea decidido apuradamente por el Consejo. Además se recomiendan decisiones apuradísimas y muy rápidas en problemas que hayan sido examinados o por el Consejo mismo o por reuniones de Ministros. Las reuniones de Ministros pueden desenvolverse únicamente a un nivel político y está expresamente prohibido por la Constitución que la Conferencia delegue decisiones a nivel político a otros que no sean la Conferencia misma. Es suficiente leer atentamente el Artículo 5.3 para ver que todo lo que concierne a la política es únicamente una prerrogativa de la Conferencia.
Recomiendo que todo eso sea tenido claramente a la vista en la redacción del documento final que va a ser presentado durante el mes de junio. Lo recomiendo a la Secretaría y lo recomiendo a los Miembros del Consejo, para que durante estos meses consideren un poco este asunto.
Igor Ν. MARINCEK (Observer for Switzerland): The aim of this exercise is obviously to improve governance. We have had the experience in the past that long conferences as such in themselves do not ensure better governance. We agree with shortening the duration of the Conference. We know also that squeezing the duration alone does not bring about improvements. It will only bring improvements if it is accompanied by restructuring, rationalization, and so forth. We also have to be sure that full participation of the members is always secured.
The lightening of the Conference Agenda is, therefore, one of the central points we have to consider. The Agenda items of the different FAO bodies are enumerated in the FAO Constitution. I therefore arrive at the following question: what could be the shortlist for a Conference Agenda? The second question is: what would be the consequences for the other bodies? If some Agenda items were removed from the Conference, we would need to place them with other bodies. What are the consequences of that?
In paragraph 24 some suggestions are made in this respect but no information is provided. In any future consideration of this question we need to have a little more specific information on what we ought to do under the different Agenda items and what the possibilities are of having them dealt with in Conference and in other FAO bodies.
Finally, I believe that we need to improve our information on this matter and we need to have further consideration of the issue at future Council meetings and possibly also in the Finance and Programme Committees.
EL PRESIDENTE: Si no hay ningún otro miembro del Consejo u observador que desee hacer uso de la palabra, le voy a pedir al Dr. Mahler que responda a las preguntas o cuestiones.
LE SECRETAIRE GENERAL: Je ne pense pas qu'il y ait vraiment des questions. Il y a eu des commentaires, des recommandations, et une de ces recommandations est d'éviter que le Secrétariat fasse de longs commentaires sur les commentaires des délégations. Donc, mon intervention sera aussi brève que l'a été mon introduction.
Je voudrais d'abord remercier de l'intérêt que le Conseil a porté aux propositions du Directeur général, de l'appui et du soutien qu'il a bien voulu donner à ces propositions. Les suggestions, les recommandations qui ont été faites ont été dûment notées par le Secrétariat, notamment celles qui nous demandent d'aller plus loin. J'y vois une sorte d'approbation et de confirmation qu'effectivement le Directeur général est dans la direction qui était souhaitée par la Conférence, et maintenant par le Conseil. Je peux vous assurer que toutes ces recommandations, toutes ces suggestions seront étudiées très attentivement par le Directeur général.
Nous allons présenter au mois de mai-juin, pour la prochaine session du Conseil, des propositions concrètes pour l'ordre du jour et le calendrier de la Conférence de 1995. Je pense que ce sera le moment pour le Conseil de voir si nous avons dûment tenu compte de ses recommandations. Comme l'a dit le délégué de la Norvège, il s'agit d'un processus par lequel les organes directeurs vont améliorer progressivement les conditions de travail de la Conférence. D'ailleurs il y a des recommandations qui s'adressent au Secrétariat, mais il y a aussi des recommandations qui s'adressent aux pays membres. Donc à la prochaine session du Conseil vous aurez l'occasion de reprendre ce sujet.
EL PRESIDENTE: Muchas gracias Dr. Mahler. Si no hay ningún punto adicional, me voy a permitir resumir nuestros debates de la siguiente manera:
El Consejo felicitó al Director General por el estudio realizado y sus propuestas para el Examen de los métodos de trabajo de la Conferencia.
El Consejo estuvo de acuerdo, en general, con dichas propuestas presentadas por el Director General respecto de los métodos de trabajo de la Conferencia y su programación por un período no superior a dos semanas -once días laborales-.
Se tomó nota de que estos nuevos métodos no deberían aplicarse por una sola ocasión y que éste era un trabajo de carácter progresivo y adaptativo.
También se observó que la Conferencia es la única ocasión donde, de manera bianual, se reúnen todos los Estados Miembros de la FAO y ello en sí mismo debía considerarse como importante y prioritario, pues es sólo allí donde se define la política de la Organización.
El Consejo decidió lo siguiente:
Primero. Mantener la estructura actual de una Plenaria con tres Comisiones y los actuales Comités. En relación a este punto se hicieron los siguientes comentarios: no duplicar temas entre Plenaria y Comisiones; reducir los puntos a discusión; se identificaron los objetivos y enfoques de los trabajos de cada Comisión y también la importancia de limitar el número de días de las sesiones de dichas comisiones. Todo esto con el propósito de que la aportación a los debates generales fuera más efectiva y concisa. Se manifestó la importancia de una amplia y más efectiva participación de todos los Miembros de la Organización, no sólo en los programas, estructura y política de la FAO sino en particular a nivel de decisiones. Todos los órganos vinculados a la toma de decisiones deberían, en consecuencia, fortalecerse.
Un tema específico a estudiar sería la forma para reducir atrasos en los pagos de las cuotas, así como métodos de trabajo más liberales y participativos. Otro, también, la importancia de estudiar las reformas financieras y programáticas de la FAO y sus implicaciones administrativais.
Se advirtió que la disminución de los trabajos de la Conferencia no debería llevar, sin embargo, a una expansión de los trabajos del Consejo y por tanto a compensar unos con los otros.
Se indicó también que la Conferencia no debería empezar el sábado y se destacó la importancia de fortalecer los comités técnicos del Consejo, en particular el del Programa, el de Finanzas y el CCLM.
El segundo punto que se decidió fue el de continuar la redacción de actas taquigráficas de las sesiones de la Plenaria y de las comisiones. Al respecto, varias delegaciones propusieron el uso de redactores para aligerar y reducir el trabajo, o inclusive sustituir el trabajo, de los Comités de Redacción. También se indicó al respecto
que los informes deberían concentrarse principalmente en las decisiones y conclusiones específicas. Otros consideraron, sin embargo, que era importante el rescatar en los informes la sustancia de los debates.
El tercer punto que se decidió fue el de abreviar lo más posible el programa y la documentación, limitándose las introducciones de la Secretaría a facilitar nueva información. Se observó que era la Agenda la que debería indicar el número de días a utilizar. Al revisar la Agenda deberían identificarse temas prioritarios a tratar y por tanto, el Consejo anterior a la Conferencia debería construir la Agenda de la misma con una alta participación de los Miembros de la FAO.
Se observó, por otra parte, que la información concisa no debería afectar la sustancia en el tratamiento de los temas. Se propuso que se discutieran, en principio, sólo temas cuya documentación se hubiera distribuido con la antelación suficiente. Es necesario que los temas que se plantean tengan la preparación suficiente, tanto por parte de la Secretaría como por parte de los gobiernos, a fin de que su discusión y las respuestas sean plausibles y útiles.
Algunas delegaciones indicaron que muchos temas que actualmente revisa la Conferencia deberían inscribirse sólo para información, en particular cuando ya haya habido discusiones relativas en el Consejo y en sus Comités Técnicos.
El cuarto punto que el Consejo decidió fue el de hacer examinar el Estado Mundial de la Agricultura y la Alimentación por la Plenaria y no por la Comisión I. Se reconoció que al hacerlo, esto le daría un valor político a dicho tratamiento, pues podrían reemplazarse temas de la situación nacional con otros ligados a los intereses específicos que hubiera marcado la Conferencia y que fueran de interés para la FAO.
Se enfatizó, por parte de muchos delegados, el que las declaraciones se redujeran a diez minutos. Sin embargo, otros más advirtieron que estas declaraciones tenían un valor político general para la Organización y también para los propios Estados Miembros. Algunos sugirieron, sin embargo, que las declaraciones que tuvieran una orientación principalmente de carácter nacional se refirieran de otra manera, por ejemplo, a través de Conferencia de prensa. Otros consideraron, sin embargo, que las declaraciones generales eran suficientemente importantes en sí mismas y deberían continuar revisándose completamente en la Plenaria.
El quinto punto que se decidió es el de programar todas las votaciones previstas durante la primera semana de la Conferencia, es decir, el segundo sábado si la Conferencia comienza el sábado. Sin embargo, al respecto, muchas delegaciones indicaron que las votaciones deberían agruparse, de preferencia al principio de las sesiones inaugurales de la Conferencia. Se señaló la dificultad de varias delegaciones, sobre todo de delegaciones pequeñas, para atender las múltiples reuniones de los trabajos, en particular reuniones oficiosas. Sería, por tanto, conveniente mantener ampliamente informadas a todas las delegaciones respecto de la forma en que se llevarían a cabo estos trabajos, las decisiones y los tiempos de su realización.
Finalmente, el Consejo decidió simplificar los procedimientos y debates en las sesiones e insistir más en la preparación de temas para decisiones y en la presentación de todos los proyectos de decisiones de forma que resulte fácil su aprobación.
Yo creo que, en principio, esto resume, quizá con excesivo detalle, los debates. Sé que he dejado algunos temas fuera. No significa esto que no vayan a ser incluidos o retomados en el Comité de Redacción.
Les pregunto si hay alguna observación.
Jacques LAUREAU (France): Monsieur le Président, je vous remercie de votre exposé qui est censé résumer nos travaux, mais je pense que vous avez ajouté quelques connotations personnelles à ce résumé. Je suis désolé de souligner ce point, mais je pense que la plupart des mes confrères autour de ces tables sont d'accord.
EL PRESIDENTE: Bien, si puede usted identificarlos podrá ser más útil. Lo que yo he colegido de los debates es que, en general, el Consejo ha apoyado las propuestas del Director General y por tanto los detalles específicos destacados en el Documento.
Si hay algún aspecto en particular que le preocupa, le suplico que me lo destaque.
Jacques LAURE AU (France): Vous avez parlé de l'importance des réformes administratives et financières qui doivent accompagner le raccourcissement de la Conférence. Nous sommes tout à fait d'accord, il n'empêche que cela n'a pas été véritablement détaillé.
Vous avez également considéré qu'il était important de définir très précisément l'ordre du jour, mais vous avez ajouté que certains souhaitaient au contraire revenir à une discussion très générale. Je pense qu'il n'y a pas de cohérence entre ces deux formes d'intervention.
Troisième point: informer les petites délégations. Je suis d'accord, mais cela n'a pas été le coeur de certaines interventions.
Ce n'est pas une critique générale du travail du Président. Mais ce n'est pas la première fois que j'observe, depuis que je suis ici, certaines interprétations faites par le Président. Cela est normal et cela n'a rien de scandaleux. Mais je voulais, sur cette question du raccourcissement de la durée de la Conférence, vous le signaler.
EL PRESIDENTE: Creo que es muy útil aclarar las cosas. Cada cual interpreta lo que escucha de diversas maneras.
Yo quiero hacer referencia a lo siguiente: cuando hablé de la importancia de revisar en particular los trabajos financieros y programáticos de la Organización me referí, entre otros, a los planteamientos formulados por Japón; en lo que se refiere a la importancia de las declaraciones y su valor a nivel nacional y la necesidad de que continúen realizándose en Plenaria, me referí, por ejemplo, a lo que planteó el distinguido delegado de Burkina Faso; en lo que se refiere a las declaraciones relativas a mantener informados a los gobiernos, en particular a los que no pueden formar delegaciones amplias, me referí a las declaraciones de México, Trinidad y Tabago y de Costa Rica, como observador. Quizás aquellas delegaciones pensarán que no recogí suficientemente sus puntos de vista, pero creo que mi función aquí era la de asegurar que todos sintieran que sus puntos de vista habían sido recogidos.
Yo no deseo entablar un debate respecto de mis interpretaciones o las suyas, es simplemente una declaración de la forma en que, desde la Presidencia, he recogido sus debates. En nada afecta al Informe, que al final de cuentas, el Consejo decidirá y, desde luego, si le sirve de indicación al Comité de Redacción, lo podrá utilizar. De otra forma simplemente queda para el consumo interno en los verbatim.
Ms M. McCOWAN (United Kingdom): I do not want to take up too much time on this, but I have to agree with my colleague from France. I feel that somehow in the summing up you missed the spirit that was expressed by a number of delegates for greater flexibility, greater change, more, if you like, demonstrable democratic participation of the Council Members. That, for my delegation, was what we found missing from the summing up.
EL PRESIDENTE: Yo estoy seguro, y aquí tengo mis notas, de haber mencionado la importancia de una participación preparatoria y una mayor participación no solamente en la realización de la agenda, sino también en los trabajos de la Conferencia.
Si no recibió usted la traducción le pido disculpas pero, desde luego es un punto que destaqué en dos ocasiones por lo menos. Quizá valdría la pena al respecto indicar que si el resumen del Presidente va a causar un debate, es mejor que no lo haga. Sería mejor que en el futuro me refiriera exclusivamente a las cuestiones generales, pero también creo, distinguida delegada, que es importante que haya un reflejo, que ustedes se vean en el espejo de la Presidencia, y que todas las delegaciones tengan la oportunidad de escuchar al final algunos puntos de vista de, por lo menos, cómo sucedió el debate. Quizá podría ser esto también parte de los métodos de trabajo de la Conferencia si el Presidente debe hacer resúmenes o no.
Ricardo VELAZQUEZ HUERTA (México): Sin entrar en debate, yo quiero decir que la delegación de México está conforme con el resumen que usted, Sr. Presidente, ha hecho. Entendemos de manera muy clara que los resúmenes de la Presidencia tratan de recoger lo que se dice en esta Asamblea por cada una de las delegaciones. Mi delegación le hubiera pedido la palabra y señalado si usted, Sr. Presidente, hubiera omitido lo que la delegación de México dijo. Como mi delegación hizo un planteamiento y usted lo recogió y escuchamos de sus labios que los planteamientos formulados por otras delegaciones están recogidos, nosotros estamos conformes con sus planteamientos.
EL PRESIDENTE: Además de los Métodos de Trabajo de la Conferencia estamos revisando los métodos de trabajo de la Presidencia independiente que, por otra parte, por ser independiente, puedo atreverme a hacer mis comentarios y mi propia interpretación de los debates sin necesidad de que esto prejuzgue la forma en que se recoge.
Christophe KIEMTORE (Burkina Faso): Monsieur le Président, en effet, c'est ainsi que nous comprenons votre rôle mais nous comprenons aussi les observations formulées par les délégués de la France et du Royaume-Uni. Depuis longtemps nous apprécions vos résumés. Certes, les résumés peuvent être très brefs ou très longs, ou encore rester à mi-chemin et c'est là que réside le risque d'être complet ou moins complet. De toute façon le Président doit avoir la possibilité d'exprimer la couleur de la manière dont il entend gérer le Conseil et quant à nous, nous approuvons la façon dont vous procédez.
Kenji SHIMIZU (Japan): My delegation also agrees on the summary made by you in general, and I think the concerns expressed by the two delegates may be reflected in the Drafting Committee, actually. I do not know about the proceeding of this Council, but the summaries are made by the independent Chairman at his own discretion, so we cannot challenge it.
EL PRESIDENTE: Creo que usted lo ha dicho muy bien, ese es el caso, y vuelvo a subrayar que mis resúmenes no prejuzgan el informe del Consejo. Pueden guiarlo o no, pero no lo prejuzgan.
Si no hay ninguna cuestión al respecto pasamos al siguiente punto del orden del día que son los Temas 9.1 y 9.2; es decir: Informe de la Reunión Extraordinaria de la Comisión de Recursos Fitogenéticos y Ampliación del Mandato de la Comisión de Recursos Fitogenéticos.
Respecto del Tema 9.1, hago notar que en el Informe de la Reunión Extraordinaria de la Comisión de Recursos Fitogenéticos, se plantean o recogen principalmente cuatro cuestiones. La primera es la relativa a los progresos logrados hasta la fecha y otros planes para negociar la revisión del Compromiso Internacional de Recursos Fitogenéticos. Al hacerlo se indica la conveniencia de que se realicen ulteriores reuniones, quizá más largas, de la Comisión de Recursos Fitogenéticos durante los próximos dos años, incrementando la participación de expertos de países en desarrollo.
Otro aspecto que destaco del informe, es el relativo a que en esta ocasión no se examinó a fondo la posibilidad de que el Compromiso Internacional se convierta en un protocolo del Convenio sobre Biodiversidad. El Consejo, por tanto, quizá podría expresar su opinión al respecto y también aprobar el ofrecimiento de la FAO de participar en la Secretaría del Convenio.
El tercer aspecto que destaco del Informe, es el relativo al estado que guardan los preparativos de la Conferencia Técnica Internacional sobre Recursos Fitogenéticos y la coordinación con la Comisión de Recursos Fitogenéticos, en tanto su función de guiar, examinar e incluso aprobar proyectos de informes antes de someternos a la Conferencia Técnica. Hay una sugerencia de la posibilidad de una reunión de alto nivel inmediatamente después de la Conferencia Técnica.
Finalmente, el cuarto punto que deseo destacar es el relativo a la firma de acuerdo con los centros de investigación agrícola internacional bajo el GCIAI y que ahora se hayan, como ustedes pueden tomar nota, bajo los auspicios de la FAO. Estos acuerdos reconocen la autoridad de la FAO en el establecimiento de dichas políticas para dicha red.
El Consejo, teniendo presente este hecho quizá podría pedir a la FAO que desempeñe una función activa en la llamada reunión de Belaggio II que se celebrará en Lausana y que constituirá una reunión de alto nivel del GCIAI para determinar sus futuras direcciones.
Es todo sobre el Tema 9.1. Como les había dicho mi propuesta es que se traten conjuntamente ese Tema con el 9.2 para simplificar nuestros debates.
Perdón, hay un punto de orden de Brasil.
POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN
Marco António DINIZ BRANDO (Brazil): My delegation wishes to thank you for calling our attention to some points contained in the report. However, those points were discussed in the Commission and we have the report of the Commission before us. It might be more useful not to have some points picked up but to have the whole report discussed. It is also our feeling that we should discuss the two items separately. We have two documents and the items are not necessarily related. Some arguments may be made on one item which are not related to the other. Our delegation would prefer to have the two items dealt with separately.
EL PRESIDENTE: Muchas gracias por su opinión, señor delegado del Brasil. Pregunto si hay otros puntos de vista respecto de la discusión.
Jürgen OESTREICH (Germany): I share the view that we should discuss 9.1 and 9.2 separately. However, I am of the opinion that it is the right of the Council, since it is on the Agenda, also to discuss the report.
EL PRESIDENTE: Yo no pienso imponer mi decisión y si a ustedes les parece bien, procederíamos a discutirlos por separado. Yo he destacado algunos puntos del informe considerando que podrían servirles de guía sobre algunas cuestiones que se podrían discutir, pero ustedes, desde luego, están en plena libertad para destacar, puntualizar o no decir nada, respecto del contenido del informe.
Para presentar el Tema le paso la palabra al Dr. De Haen.
H. DE HAEN (Assistant Director-General, Agriculture Department): I will begin by referring to Conference Resolution 7/93 which dealt with the revision of the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources. This resolution requested the Director-General to provide the forum for negotiations among governments for the revision of this International Undertaking and in doing so to include the follow-up to Resolution 3 of the Nairobi Final Act of the Convention on Biological Diversity. The Conference urged that this process be carried out through regular and extraordinary sessions of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources, in close collaboration with the Convention on Biological Diversity.
To implement this resolution FAO has planned a number of regular and extraordinary sessions of the Commission and its Working Group and has made available from Regular Programme sources the necessary funds for the preparation and running of these extraordinary sessions for the current biennium. For this last session, the first extraordinary session of the Commission, one generous donor, Canada, also made it possible to finance the participation of some additional representatives from developing countries.
I should say that the first negotiating extraordinary session of the Commission, which took place last week, did so in a very constructive negotiating atmosphere. The session discussed the following subjects. The main subject was, of course, the revision of the Undertaking. Following the recommendation of the FAO Conference, this negotiating process is being carried out as a step-by-step process. I think it may be necessary to remind delegates of this step-by-step process. Stage one deals with the consolidation of the Undertaking by incorporating the annexes and by harmonizing the language with the language of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Stage two would deal with the further development of the Undertaking to include two important issues: (1) the access to plant genetic resources for food and agriculture by those who wish to make use of them; (2) the realization of farmers' rights. Stage three would then be the consideration of possible legal and institutional status of this International Undertaking, once revised, in particular with relation to the Convention on Biological Diversity and possible protocols.
On the basis of the discussions and comments from its Working Group, this last session of the Commission initiated negotiations for a revised text under stage one. The text of the Undertaking was discussed paragraph by paragraph and bracketed as appropriate. Countries also suggested alternative wordings, identified subjects for further negotiation and made proposals for modifications. At the end of the session the Secretariat was requested to incorporate all these changes into a new consolidated draft text which is to be discussed by the next negotiating session.
Unfortunately, the Commission did not have enough time to discuss the documents which the Secretariat had prepared for stage two of the revision, although some statements were made, and there was no comprehensive debate about stage two. It was agreed that these would also be considered during the next session. You will find these stages described in more detail in the documents which were submitted to the Commission.
The Commission proposed that, in order to have enough time to carry out its negotiating task and finalize it, hopefully before mid-1996, its next regular session, which is planned for June 1995, should last for two weeks instead of one and should be preceded two months before by a three-day meeting of the Working Group. This will, of course, have financial implications which the Council may wish to consider. The Council's guidance is needed with regard to the proposed two weeks' duration. If the Council is in favour, then the Director-General will look into making the necessary Regular Programme funds available for that extended duration.
The importance of ensuring the presence of representatives from developing countries in the negotiating process was again stressed at this meeting and potential donors were invited to contribute to this purpose by the provision of extra-budgetary funds. The Secretariat has agreed to make all efforts to solicit such contributions.
The other item on the agenda of the Commission, which the Chairman has already mentioned, was the progress report on the preparatory process for the Fourth International Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources. The Commission supported the participatory country-driven approach taken by this programme and by the Secretariat which is in place to run the process and prepare the conference. It welcomed the direct contacts which the Secretariat had made with technical experts and policy-makers in countries of all regions through intensive traveling as the provision of guidelines and practical arrangements made to support developing countries in the preparation of their country reports. Some developing countries announced their
offers to host sub-regional meetings, which are foreseen for the next stage of the process, and this was warmly welcomed by the Commission.
The Commission identified the utilization of plant genetic resources as the major objective of the Global Plan of Action which the whole process is to prepare and which the Technical Conference will hopefully then consider and adopt.
The need for the International Technical Conference to have a high-level participation was stressed, as was the clear link between the preparations for this 1996 Technical Conference to be held in Germany, on the one hand, and the negotiations within the Commission of the revision of the International Undertaking, on the other hand, and also the collaboration with the Convention on Biological Diversity.
The Commission expressed gratitude to all donors to the process, from both developed and developing countries. I might add that, while the funding of this process has been gradually improving, a considerable gap in funding still remains and we are in contact with potential donors to bridge this gap.
I will briefly make a few closing remarks on other matters discussed and considered by the Commission. One was the progress report on Resolution 3 of the Nairobi Final Act which was submitted to the First Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity, a meeting in the first two weeks of December in the Bahamas. The fact that the Commission considered this progress report is in line with the recommendations of the FAO Conference, which called for close collaboration with the Convention.
The Commission agreed that, in order to update the information in the document, already sent to the Conference of the Parties, the report of the Commission session, which is before you now as document CL 107/8, should also be transmitted through the normal channels to the Conference of the Parties, together with one of the documents prepared by the Secretariat dealing with the economic, technical and legal aspects to be considered in stage two of the revision. The Commission also expressed the wish that its deliberations be submitted to the Commission on Sustainable Development for its next session in April next year.
Still under this sub-item, the Commission was informed of FAO's offer to take part in a Joint Secretariat for the Convention on Biodiversity in line with the decision taken by the second session of the Intergovernmental Committee of the Convention on Biological Diversity to include the option of a Joint Secretariat to the Convention, to be provided not only by one but by several UN agencies. The FAO offer aims to ensure cooperation and complementarity with UNEP and other relevant organizations, such as Unesco, and to better serve the interests of the agricultural sector. The text of the offer made by the Secretariat has also been distributed for this session.
It should be noted that during the last two years FAO has participated fully and actively in the Interim Secretariat and the Commission has expressed firm support to FAO's proposal for the Permanent Secretariat and suggested that the document CPGR-Ex/1/94/INF/8 entitled "Participation of FAO in the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity" be brought to the attention of the FAO Council. The Council may wish to endorse the offer made by the Secretariat to participate in a Joint Secretariat to the Convention.
The Commission finally also discussed the international network of ex situ germplasm collections and discussed a progress report on agreements with the International Agricultural Research Centres. You will remember that in 1992 the centres accepted the invitation expressed by the Director-General and a draft agreement has since then been developed and negotiated by the parties involved.
The Commission was informed, and, through this report, I also inform the Council now that FAO and the Chairman of CGIAR, the latter on behalf of 12 international agricultural research centres, have signed the agreement on 26 October 1994 and therefore now place their germplasm collections in the international network under the auspices of FAO.
I should add that the Commission warmly congratulated FAO and IPGRI, whose Director-General is present in the room to give further explanations if required, as well as the other CGIAR centres for taking this important step which would strengthen the global system in line with the recommendations of Agenda 21. It was also considered to be an important contribution to the process of revising the International Undertaking.
As a final remark, I would say that the Commission should actively monitor the functioning of the agreements between FAO and the CGIAR centres. In this context it was noted that Article VI of the Agreement provided the signatories recognize the intergovernmental authority of FAO and the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources in setting policies for this international network. I thought this remark was also of interest in the context of the ongoing rethinking about the CGIAR, to which you, Mr Chairman, made reference in your introductory statement.
My introduction to this item has been somewhat lengthy, because the Commission had its session only last week and delegates may not have had time to study the documents in sufficient detail.
EL PRESIDENTE: Gracias Dr. de Haen. Creo que el Consejo aprecia mucho la guía, la utilidad de sus comentarios introductorios, en particular, por lo que acaba usted de señalar a la Comisión que se acaba de reunir.
Jürgen OESTREICH (Germany): The European Community and its Member States would like to congratulate the Secretariat on the excellent quality of documents submitted to the recent Extraordinary Session of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources, and also on the organization of that Session. We also want to thank Mr De Haen for his very comprehensive introduction which, as you, Mr Chairman, have correctly mentioned, must have been a great help to those who have not yet read the report.
The European Community and its member states recognize that Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture constitute a most important part of biological diversity and agree on the "two stages" revision process of the current Undertaking. They note that the terms of access to ex situ collections should be agreed, ideally, on a multilateral basis and the concept of Farmers' Rights should be defined legally and technically. In addition, procedures for implementation of the International Fund and conditions for its utilization should be further specified and agreed before the sources of, and the condition for, funding can be explored.
The European Community and its member states recognize the complexity of the issues to be negotiated and appreciate the substantial progress made on stage 1 of the revision preparations for the 4th International Technical Conference. We welcome the Memorandum established between FAO and the International Plant Genetic Resources Institute for the preparation for this Conference as well as the agreement between FAO and the International Agricultural Research Centres of the Consultative Group according to which these place their collections under the International Network under the auspices of FAO and of an intergovernmental body, the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources, giving policy advice. This is an important step in giving effect to FAO's Global System on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.
The European Community and its member states, however, note that a considerable work load remains, and in our opinion a general exchange of views is urgently needed in order to make further progress in drafting the final text of the Undertaking. Therefore, we approve the schedule recommended by the Commission for further meetings. Important issues such as the scope of the Undertaking, terms of access to ex situ collections, the concept of Farmers' Rights and the funding mechanisms, being identified as stage 2 issues, have been only partially discussed, if at all. We have presented our initial position on these important issues and we reaffirm that it will be desirable that the process of revising the International Undertaking can be completed in time for the 1996 International Technical Conference and that the revised Undertaking will be available together with the report of the State of the World's Plant Genetic Resources and the Global Plan of Action.
Another major issue on the agenda of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources, the arrangements for the Fourth International Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources to be held in Leipzig in 1996, requires a balanced and thorough consideration. The time available to ensure a smooth and successful preparation, including the participatory, country-driven approach which the Assistant Director-General just mentioned, is short. Therefore, increased efforts should be made to speed up this process. Likewise additional funds must be mobilized to bridge the still existing financial gap. Much could be achieved in this respect through cooperation between existing institutions active in this field.
For these reasons efforts should be intensified and sufficient funds be sought to cover the costs of additional and/or prolonged subsequent sessions of the Commission from extraordinary funds as well as from the core budget of FAO.
Fernando GERBASI (Venezuela): Mi país asigna prioridad a la conservación y utilización de los recursos fitogenéticos, y a tal fin ha desarrollado un vasto programa de investigación que conduce actualmente el Fondo Nacional de Investigaciones Agrícolas y Pecuarias. El FONAIAP posee un Centro Nacional de Investigaciones para llevar adelante estas actividades en todo el país y para el desarrollo de acciones tendentes a implantar programas nacionales relacionados con la colecta, caracterización, evaluación, regeneración, conservación, documentación y utilización de los recursos fitogenéticos.En este Centro, se mantiene el mayor número de especies anuales y perennes, las cuales se han venido enriqueciendo mediante el intercambio nacional e internacional y, más aún, por las recientes expediciones realizadas para salvaguardar las especies autóctonas en peligro de extinción.
El acervo genético de este Centro alcanza un total de 14 597 variedades que aumentan paulatinamente.
Mi delegación concede importancia primordial a los trabajos que la Comisión de Recursos Fitogenéticos está llevando a cabo para la revisión del compromiso internacional y, al respecto, deseamos hacer presente la necesidad de considerar, para el futuro, algunas observaciones de carácter general que deberían guiar las negociaciones de la Comisión para lograr la conclusión favorable de la revisión del compromiso internacional sobre los recursos fitogenéticos para la agricultura y la alimentación.
Ante todo, pensamos que es necesario no perder de vista los avances y logros alcanzados por el Convenio sobre la Diversidad Biológica, sin olvidar la incorporación de conceptos presentes en él, que no han sido reflejados apropiadamente en el compromiso, en particular, el uso sostenible de los recursos fitogenéticos.
La justa y equitativa distribución de los beneficios, la soberanía de los Estados sobre sus propios recursos fitogenéticos, el acceso a los mismos sometido a la legislación nacional y al consentimiento fundamentado previo, la prioridad que debe darse a la conservación in situ y, complementariamente, ex situ en el país de origen de los recursos, la canalización de la ayuda técnica y financiera para lograr esos objetivos, la transferencia de tecnologías punta, la participación de los países proveedores de los recursos fitogenéticos en la investigaciones biotecnológicas, garantizando el acceso a los resultados de las mismas, y la asignación de nuevos y adicionales recursos financieros para atender a las necesidades de los países en desarrollo.
En lo que se refiere al carácter jurídico del compromiso internacional, consideramos que ésta es una cuestión de máxima importancia, que requiere, tal como fue indicado en la propia Comisión, de mayores estudios y análisis por parte de la Secretaría, que permitan a los distintos gobiernos pronunciarse oportunamente sobre esta cuestión.
Concedemos especial importancia a la cuestión del acceso a las colecciones ex situ no adquiridas de conformidad con el Convenio y también de forma muy especial a la ejecución o puesta en práctica de los derechos del agricultor y su conveniente reflejo en la revisión del compromiso.
Quiero resaltar el contenido del informe respecto a la conveniencia de ampliar la duración de las sesiones de la Comisión, en especial en las que se negocie la revisión del compromiso internacional y se prepare a la Conferencia Técnica Internacional para la utilización sostenible de los recursos fitogenéticos para la agricultura y la alimentación, puesto que la importancia y la complejidad de estas dos tareas así lo merita.
Me parece muy importante también que se procure conseguir fondos extrapresupuestarios suficientes para asegurar la participación de los delegados de los países en desarrollo en las sesiones de la Comisión.
Sr. Presidente, para finalizar, quiero expresar la conformidad de mi delegación con el informe de la Comisión, tal como ha sido sometido a la consideración de este Consejo. Muchas gracias.
Francis J. VACCA (United States of America): I wish to thank Dr De Haen for his very informative introduction. The United States participated fully in the Extraordinary Session of the Commission, and endorses its report. A significant amount of the Commission's time was devoted to renegotiating the international undertaking, but not enough time to achieving appreciable progress.
The initial negotiating session was an opportunity for members to list their views on the draft text, but nothing more. Much remains to be done before there is genuine hope of having a text which we can agree on by June 1996. It is essential that ample time be provided in FAO's 1995 calendar for the Working Group to meet for at least three days and for the Commission to meet for a two-week session.
We agree that developing country participation is essential to achieving a successful renegotiation. Extra-budgetary resources should be sought to assist in this effort. However, we expect FAO to find Regular Programme funds to prepare for, and to conduct, these important sessions.
The United States is pleased to see the good cooperation between FAO and the Interim Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, as requested by Resolution 2 of the Nairobi Final Act.
In line with decisions taken by the Second Session of the Intergovernmental Committee of the CBD, we support the offer made by FAO to form a Joint Secretariat between FAO and ICCBD to ensure that agricultural interests are sufficiently represented.
We agree with the Commission's positive statements concerning preparations under way for the 1996 International Conference and Programme for Plant Genetic Resources. Unfortunately, more funding is required to complete the Secretariat, to assist in preparing country reports, to develop the report of the State of the World's Plant Genetic Resources and, finally, to prepare a costed global Plan of Action. We encourage all countries to consider ways of contributing to this important project.
The issue of widening the mandate of the Commission will be a separate item on our Agenda and we will offer comments at that time. Finally, we support the recent agreement between FAO and the CGIAR centres on the Trustee arrangements for ex situ connections.
Ms. Rosanne ELAVA (Australia): We thank Dr De Haen for his excellent introduction. We are also grateful to Mr Esquinas and his staff for their efforts in preparing documents for the Commission's discussion, as well as for consideration by the Council.
At the Extraordinary Session of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources a solid start was made on the revision on the Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources. The first reading of the Undertaking gave all members the opportunity to put issues on the table and the range of views expressed reflected the complex and sensitive nature of the issues under consideration. It will be important that future sessions of the Commission, be they regular or extraordinary, supported by meetings of its working group as required, continue to build, and build rapidly, on the foundation that has been laid.
With regard to the preparations for the next meeting of the Commission, we have three comments:
First, on the administrative side, efforts should be made to settle Bureau positions and working methods for the meeting as early as possible. Delays and confusion which occurred at the First Extraordinary Session should be avoided as far as possible.
Secondly, the revision of the Undertaking should form the main focus of the Commission's work, particularly those areas in stage 2 which the Commission has not yet had the opportunity to discuss. In this context, we note the preparatory work to be undertaken by the Working Group on the scope, on access and on Farmer's Rights, prior to the next regular session of the Commission.
We stress the importance of resolving early the scope of the Undertaking in the context of the revision process, as this will be critical to renegotiating the text.
Previous speakers have highlighted the importance of early and urgent preparations for the forthcoming Fourth International Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources.
Our third comment is, therefore, that a report on progress on the arrangements for the Conference will be another important item to be considered by the Commission.
We note that the legal status of the Undertaking to be considered under Stage III of the revision has not yet been discussed by the Commission. Of course, this aspect relates to your request for members' views on whether or not the revised undertaking should form a protocol for a Convention on Biodiversity. Delegations may be better placed to comment on this aspect after the next Commission meeting.
In conclusion, Australia is pleased to endorse the Report of the First Extraordinary Session of the CPGR, including the proposed schedule of meetings.
Dato' Ahmad Zabri IBRAHIM (Malaysia): My delegation would like to record our decision and to welcome warmly the progress made by FAO on its revision of the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources in harmony with the Convention on Biological Diversity, as reported in document CL 107/8.
This is in line with Resolution 7/93 of the Twenty-seventh FAO Conference which requested the Director-General of FAO to provide a forum for negotiations among governments for: (a) the adaptation of the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources in harmony with the Convention on Biological Diversity; (b) consideration of the issue of access on mutually agreed terms to plant genetic resources including ex situ collections not addressed by the Convention on Biodiversity; and (c) the issue of realization of Farmers' Rights.
Malaysia is a signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity, a broad and legally-binding Convention which came into force on 29 December 1993. Under the Convention, it is provided in Article 1 that there should be fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources, including appropriate access to genetic resources and appropriate transfer of relevant technologies. The Convention supports national sovereignty and the right of countries to benefit from their bio-resources.
My delegation would like to elaborate on two issues which are of great concern to Malaysia: firstly, Farmers' Rights; and secondly the problem of ex situ collections before the Convention of Biodiversity came into force.
Farmers' Rights was firstly espoused at the founding meeting of the FAO Commission on Plant Genetic Resources in 1985. It was then incorporated into an annex to FAO's International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources. Resolution 3 of the Nairobi Final Act, confirming the text of the Convention on Biological Diversity, notes the importance of Farmers' Rights and calls upon governments to consider its incorporation into the Convention itself.
There are various definitions of Farmers' Rights: that by FAO, that by the Third World Network and that defined by the Government of India. As the definition is an important and integral part of the revised International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources, my delegation attaches great importance to the fact that it should be properly examined in the coming meetings of the Working Group and Sessions of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources.
My delegation is of the view that the definition of the Farmers' Rights should include among others: (a) rights of farmers' and farming communities; (b) vested in national governments; (c) to benefit fully, that is to receive equitable and appropriate compensation; (d) conserving and improving; (e) knowledge, innovations and practices; and finally, (f) centres of origin and diversity, which is the country of origin.
The means of implementation of Farmers' Rights should not centre solely on the question of having an international fund as a compensation for farmers, for the use of their genetic resources, but also on protecting the knowledge, innovations and practices which the farmers have painstakingly developed over the years of their farming life.
If we are to consider the inclusion of Plant Breeders' Rights or Plant Variety Protection offered by the Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, especially with the amendment of their Convention in 1991 to accommodate Intellectual Property Rights, then Farmers' Rights should be defined along similar lines to include their rights to benefit fully from the knowledge, innovations and practices they have contributed and will continue to contribute in the field of agriculture.
Intellectual Property Rights, when combined with patent law, would be a stumbling block in terms of getting the suitable breeding and planting material for farmers to improve their food and agricultural production, especially if they have to pay royalties over a long period of time. This would be extremely unfair if those materials which they have to buy in order to improve their production were, in fact, taken from their farms or countries.
My delegation would like to propose several choices in dealing with this inequity: first, to develop a sui generìs system of protection or, second, to propose mechanisms which will protect the intellectual achievements of indigenous people and rural communities within the Intellectual Property Protection System, or third, to propose an alternative sui generìs system of intellectual recognition which may be outside intellectual property protection or, fourth, to elaborate on Farmers' Rights as a means of intellectual property protection.
My delegation has great hopes that the negotiation meetings of the Working Group and Commission on Plant Genetic Resources would be responsive enough to take care of the need to protect farmers' knowledge, innovations and practices in line with the aspirations of the FAO Conference and the Convention on Biodiversity of which we are all parties. Thus, the funding mechanism, which no doubt is important, is not the only subject in contention towards realizing the question of Farmers' Rights.
With regard to the issue of ex situ collections, especially those materials which were stored in the gene banks and botanic gardens before the coming into force of the Convention on Biodiversity, my delegation would like the International Undertaking to include a specific article on this subject. This is in view of the fact that these bio-materials would be most likely to be commercialized in the coming decades by those who have the technology, whilst those developing countries which are the donors of the collections are left out of the actual benefits and, at the same time, are not protected by the Convention on Biodiversity.
My country, especially the Ministry of Agriculture which is responsible for the conservation and sustainable development of genetic resources for food and agriculture, places high importance on the progress of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources, including its working group in restructuring and revision of the International Undertaking.
Hans ZANNETIS (Cyprus): I wish first of all to thank the Secretariat for the quality of the documents presented to the Extraordinary Session of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources, and also to thank Mr de Haen for his detailed introduction to this subject.
My delegation has participated in the works of the Extraordinary Session of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources and has no difficulty in endorsing its report. In doing so, we wish to refer to the International Ten-Year Conference and Programme for Plant Genetic Resources to be organized in Germany in 1996. As is stated in the report of the Commission, much progress has been achieved in the preparation of the Conference and its Secretariat should be congratulated. Whilst expressing our appreciation for the achievements made in a relatively short period regarding the preparation of the International Conference and Programme, we recognize that much work needs to be done and perhaps the Secretariat of the ICPPGR should be strengthened. We would expect this International Conference to achieve concrete results as it is expected to adopt the revised International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources and the Global Plan of Action which will hopefully be prepared following the required negotiating process.
Therefore, every effort should be made to enable the Secretariat to prepare the full range of agreements and proposals from the revised Undertaking to the Global Plan by the time of the Conference to enable it to act upon them.
One important element for the success of the Conference is the availability of financial resources. In this respect, we wish to thank those countries which have already made or stated their contribution. We wish also to support paragraph 29 of the Commission's report suggesting that multilateral funding institutions be approached to seek assistance in the funding of the ICPPGR as well as for the funding of projects which will be identified during the elaboration of the Global Plan.
Regarding the participation of FAO in the Joint Secretariat on the Convention on Biological Diversity, we believe that it is very important for FAO to remain involved in matters relating to plant genetic resources and we support such participation.
D. SANDS SMITH (United Kingdom): We feel the meeting of the Extraordinary Session of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources held the week before last made a useful start on the work of the revision of the International Undertaking. However, let us be clear, it was no more than a start with proposals being noted but not discussed. Clearly, there is a great deal of work still to be done on stage 1 and we still have to start work on stage 2 before we can begin to reflect on stage 3.
The next meeting of the Commission will be most important. It will be essential to adopt a well-structured and, I stress, a well-disciplined approach. Here I would refer to the comments made by my Australian colleague regarding the need to avoid the sort of delay we had at the meeting the week before last in appointing a bureau which took the whole of the first morning.
The United Kingdom will continue to play a positive part in the whole of this process. As far as our discussion today is concerned, it is indeed useful and proper to review the progress that has been made so far but we must be careful in this debate not to try to take over the very complex work of the Commission.
Inge NORDANG (Norway): I have the pleasure to speak on behalf of the Nordic countries - Denmark, Finland, Sweden and my own country of Norway.
The Commission on Plant Genetic Resources has the important task of promoting national, regional and global action for the conservation and sustainable use of plan genetic resources. It is the governing body of the Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources and provides policy guidance to the emerging Global System on Plant Genetic Resources. Its activities are focused on action to stop the alarming erosion of the world's plant genetic resources that are of crucial importance for plant breeding necessary to sustain world food security.
Starting with its Extraordinary Session last week, the Commission now has two major tasks. It is the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for the negotiation of a major new international legal instrument based on the Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources and on the Convention on Biological Diversity. The new instrument will contain the mutually agreed terms of access to plant genetic resources. In the view of the Nordic countries, this instrument should become a protocol for the Convention on Biological Diversity.
The Commission is also the Preparatory Committee for a major Intergovernmental Conference on Plant Genetic Resources which will take place in Germany in 1996. At the Conference - which we agree should be renamed the 1996 Conference on Plant Genetic Resources - the first ever Global Plan of Action on Plant Genetic Resources and the first State of the World Report on Plant Genetic Resources will be adopted. The new legal instrument on plant genetic resources should, in the view of the Nordic countries, be signed at the conference.
The preparations for the Conference are country-driven. It is essential that governments be actively involved at a high level in these preparations and that country studies be prepared, preferably through national committees.
The three important documents that would be submitted to the Conference have, however, to be prepared and negotiated in the Commission.
In order to carry out these huge tasks, the Commission will - in the view of the Nordic countries - have to hold three more sessions, as a minimum, each of a duration of two weeks. Negotiation should be prepared in two working groups, one on substantive matters regarding Plant Genetic Resources and one on the matters
concerning the financial mechanism and technology matters. The full participation of developing countries must be secured.
In the same way as in the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Biodiversity, Climate and Desertification Convention, a bureau with one chairman, three vice-chairmen and a rapporteur should be elected by the Commission for the whole period that it constitutes an Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plant Genetic Resources and a Preparatory Committee for the 1996 International Conference on Plant Genetic Resources.
Provided that solid national preparations are carried out and the negotiations and preparations in the Commission are successful, the FAO Council should, in the view of the Nordic countries, seriously consider a brief, high-level meeting to be convened at the end of the conference for the adoption and signatures of the three important documents. The costs needed to finance the suggested expansion of the preparatory process should primarily be covered from the regular budget of the FAO.
The Commission on Plant Genetic Resources has, through the agreement signed between FAO and twelve of the international agricultural research centres of the CGIAR system, been given the authority to decide on policies as concerns the important collections of plant genetic resources held at these centres. The Consultative Group has decided to convene a meeting at ministerial level in Lucerne in February next year to consider the funding of the system and important policy changes. The Nordic countries welcome this meeting and suggest that it be invited to report on its results to the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources for its consideration.
It is the hope and the conviction of the Nordic countries that the international agricultural research centres and IPGRI will participate actively in the country-driven process of preparations for the 1996 International Conference.
EL PRESIDENTE: ¿Se refiere usted a la reunión de alto nivel de la Comisión?
Inge NORDANG (Norway): I am referring to a high-level meeting to sign and wrap-up at the end of the conference if, hopefully, the documents are ready for the conference, to convene a high-level meeting with necessary authority to sign the agreements.
EL PRESIDENTE: Esa parte la he entendido bien, distinguido delegado, lo que no entiendo es quién convoca la reunión de alto nivel y en qué contexto se da la reunión de alto nivel; es decir si se va a tratar de una reunión a alto nivel dentro de la Comisión, dentro de la FAO o de una reunión que convoca Naciones Unidas. No entiendo en que concepto se debería dar.
Me gustaría, por favor, que fuera usted más explícito para poder tomar su punto.
Inge NORDANG (Norway): I appreciate your efforts, Mr Chairman, but I think the details of that high-level meeting will have to be decided on the evaluation of negotiation. We have made suggestions here that we want this to be a convention and in that case it is a different thing.
Julio LUCINI CASALES (España): La delegación española, Sr. Presidente, quiere hacer patente su felicitación a la Secretaría de la FAO por la presentación del informe de la Reunión Extraordinaria de la Comisión de Recursos Fitogenéticos que tuvo lugar en Roma los pasados días 7 al 11 de noviembre.
Con relación a la misma, nuestro país considera que la primera reunión negociadora para la revisión del Compromiso Internacional de Recursos Fitogenéticos está en línea con el Convenio de Diversidad Biológica.
Con respecto a la revisión del Compromiso, la delegación española quiere hacer algunas observaciones que consideramos de interés en dicha revisión.
Primera. En primer lugar, éste es un proceso importante y necesario para fortalecer el sector agrícola bis-à-bis con sectores más conservacionistas.
Segunda. Qué duda cabe que este proceso incluye aspectos esenciales no cubiertos por el Convenio de Diversidad Biológica, tales como:
a) el acceso a las colecciones existentes ex-situ;
b) y la puesta en práctica de los derechos del agricultor.
Tercera. Para nuestra delegación el Compromiso revisado debería ser vinculante y posiblemente cabría considerarlo un protocolo del convenio de Diversidad Biológica.
Cuarta. Para llevar a cabo este proceso en línea con las recomendaciones de la Conferencia de la FAO y de la Comisión de Recursos Fitogenéticos, la delegación española, cree que se necesitan reuniones negociadoras Extraordinarias y Regulares ampliadas, lo que conllevará aportaciones financieras para su ejecución, tanto para la realización de las reuniones, como para el fortalecimiento del Secretariado.
A fin de no gravar económicamente a los países donantes, consideramos que estas aportaciones financieras deberían cubrirse mediante una redistribución del Programa Regular. Complementariamente es preciso asegurar con la aportación de fondos extra-presupuestarios la participación de los países en vías de desarrollo en todas las negociaciones que tengan lugar.
Por otra parte, y refiriéndonos a otro tema, la Cuarta Conferencia Técnica Internacional sobre Recursos Fitogenéticos es para España un elemento básico en sus prioridades, y en consecuencia, apoya la preparación del Primer Informe sobre el Estado Mundial de los Recursos Fitogenéticos y del Primer Plan de Acción Global sobre los mismos, para su presentación en la Conferencia Técnica Internacional que tendrá lugar en Leipzig para su aprobación. Consideramos que se trata de instrumentos esenciales para la realización del Programa 21 del PNUMA y para hacer más eficiente el sistema global de la FAO sobre Recursos Fitogenéticos.
Nuestro país, consciente de la importancia que tienen los recursos fitogenéticos para el futuro de la humanidad, y siendo a la vez uno de los países con mayor variedad en los mismos, dado que alberga tres diferentes regiones bio-geográficas florísticas, con un total de especies de flora micologica en torno a las 15 000, unas 8 500 especies de flora y entre 50 y 60 000 especies de fauna, ha comprometido 100 000 dólares USA para sufragar parte de los gastos de la futura Conferencia Técnica Internacional sobre Recursos Fitogenéticos que tendrá lugar en Alemania en 1996.
Marco Antonio DINIZ BRANDÄO (Brazil): My delegation would like first to thank Mr de Haen for his very comprehensive report. My delegation would also like first to make some very brief comments on the text of the report of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources as presented to us in document CL 107/8. Our first comment refers to the title inserted between paragraphs 15 and 16, which relates to the preparatory process for the Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources. It is my delegation's clear recollection that it was decided in the Commission that in this report and other official documents that the conference should be mentioned by its proper and official title, which is the Fourth International Conference for Conservation and Sustainable Use of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. This is not just a formal observation since the title of the conference gives political guidance to its results and to its proceedings.
The other observation we have refers to paragraph 26. My delegation cannot recall having seen the word "clear" in the first line discussed or decided upon in the report of the Conference. As a matter of fact, our record shows that paragraph 26 should read "the link between the preparations for the 1996 International Technical Conference" without the word "clear". We really are very confused about that.
Our third observation will refer to paragraph 28. There it seems to be a very clear error in the last phrase where we refer to a regular contact with the Conference of the parties to the Conference. We think it should be "regular contact with the Conference of the parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity".
Brazil attaches enormous importance to the matter of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture and has always fully participated in the work of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources. In this field FAO has already accomplished an important task, and its role for the future in this area must be strengthened. Care must be taken, however, not to duplicate efforts or to interfere with the Mandate of other fora. The Rio Conference opened new fields for multilateral activities on plant genetic resources and has already disciplined and dealt with many of the aspects in this field. In this new framework, the Convention on Biological Diversity, which deals with all genetic resources including plant genetic resources, is the result of a lengthy negotiation process and is a balanced text with many important concepts that must be respected as previously indicated by the distinguished delegations of Venezuela and Malaysia.
The work of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources must follow strictly the terms of the results already achieved under the umbrella of UNCED and the Convention on Biological Diversity, which is a legally-binding agreement. We must not modify what has already been agreed, and we have to abide by the agreed texts in order to implement the decisions taken and preserve a spirit of collaboration that has already proven very fruitful.
The revision of the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources should be carried out strictly in line with the provisions, concepts and objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity. It must be a cautious and precise exercise, and it should not be hastened by considerations of a purely temporal dimension. The process of revision of the undertaking should not have a time limit and therefore should not be linked with the preparations for the International Technical Conference. The legal and constitutional status of the revised undertaking should be examined only in stage 3 after we can see the results of the revision process and verify the appropriate harmonization with the Convention. The objectives of the undertaking should not be expanded in the process and should continue to target plant genetic resources for food and sustainable agriculture. The process of harmonizing the undertaking with the convention has no relation with the discussion on broadening the mandate of the Commission.
Attention must be given to the terms of Resolution 7/93 of FAO, which is supposed to be a mere follow-up of Resolution 3 of Nairobi. Resolution 3 of Nairobi refers only to the question of access to ex situ actions not acquired in concordance with the Convention, while Resolution 7/93 mentions the consideration of the issue of access through plant genetic resources. In general, the application of Resolution 7/93 should be done consistently with the Convention on Biological Diversity and must not in any way go against the spirit and the provisions of that Convention. In fact, the Commission cannot go beyond the mandate given by Resolution 3 of Nairobi and should not try to interpret or redefine the concepts and provisions of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
In order to facilitate our future discussions in the CPRG, we suggest that together with the report given by FAO, the Conference of parties on the implementation of Resolution 3 of Nairobi, this Council requests clarification of the mandate given by Resolution 3 of Nairobi and by the Conference of parties for the negotiations currently being conducted in FAO in the context of the revision of the international undertaking on plant genetic resources.
Brazil supports the decision taken by the Commission in regard to the date and length of its next session and of the working group as set out in paragraphs 52 and 54 of the report. The Council should endorse these decisions which were taken by consensus and were the results of extensive negotiations between all interested parties. Brazil fully supports the Fourth Technical Conference and the work of FAO in preparation for that important conference. We strongly recommend that FAO continue to encourage the full participation of developing countries in the preparation of this conference, which is a unique opportunity for developing countries to influence the nature and direction of the global plan of action. My delegation does not consider it appropriate at this stage to consider any change in the format of this conference and cannot support any suggestion that a high level conference be attached to it.
The documents to be examined by the conference, the State of the World Plant Genetic Resources and the Global Plan of Action on Plant Genetic Resources, should not include forestry genetic resources since forestry genetic resources must be examined in conjunction with the situation of forests: conservation, management, deforestation, trade, sustainable use, and not separately. Besides, the CPGR should not deal with forestry genetic resources, which are presently under the mandate of the Committee of Forestry.
Finally, I would like to make reference to the Latin American Conference on Biological Diversity held in Lima, Peru on 7 and 8 November, 1994. I would like to read in the original language some of the relevant parts of the conclusions and recommendations of that conference, which was attended by representatives from Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Cuba, Chile, El Salvador, Ecuador, Honduras, Mexico, Peru, Dominican Republic, Uruguay and Venezuela. I will switch to Spanish to read some of the paragraphs of this conference.
(continúa en español) Los países de América Latina y el Caribe participantes en la Conferencia Latinoamericana sobre Diversidad Biológica, subsiguientemente llamados los países, consideran que el Convenio sobre Diversidad Biológica constituye el marco apropiado para promover la cooperación regional e internacional en materia de diversidad biológica. El Convenio incorpora un conjunto de derechos y obligaciones que no deben ser objeto de interpretaciones, tendentes a la modificación del contenido y alcance de las mismas. Al respecto, los países manifiestan preocupación ante la existencia de entendimientos bilaterales y multilaterales, particularmente en materia de acceso a los recursos genéticos, en contra de lo dispuesto en el Convenio.
Adicionalmente, los países consideran que es necesario desarrollar en cada país normas que regulen el acceso a sus recursos genéticos.
Los países enfatizan la importancia de los temas abordados en la segunda reunión del Comité Intergubernamental, celebrada en Nairobi, en particular aquellos aspectos de la conservación de la diversidad biológica y su uso sostenible relacionados con la bioseguridad, acceso a los recursos genéticos y al desarrollo y/o transferencias de tecnología, incluyendo la biotecnología.
EL PRESIDENTE: Tengo una duda, porque no pude anotar, correspondiente al nombre que usted quisiera que se registrara para la Conferencia. ¿Podría usted repetirlo, por favor?
Marco Antonio DINIZ BRANDÄO (Brazil): Yes, it is the official one, and I think it is the name that was previously presented to the Conference, and it is the Fourth International Conference for Conservation and Sustainable Use of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.
EL PRESIDENTE: Creo que omitió cuarta conferencia técnica o cuarta conferencia internacional.
Marco António DINIZ BRANDÄO (Brazil): You are quite right. There is "technical" in there.
EL PRESIDENTE: Muy bien, distinguido delegado del Brasil. No sé si el Dr. de Haen quiere hacer algún comentario al respecto.
H. DE HAEN (Assistant Director-General, Agriculture Department): The name used consistently in the report of the session of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources is the name which is contained in the FAO Resolution 7/93, which was Fourth International Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources. The name to which the distinguished delegate to Brazil is referring was the one used in an earlier FAO report, and that is in the report of the 26th Session of FAO in 1991.
Now we have two. We preferred to take the younger version of the name. The older name, that used in the 1991 Report of the FAO Conference, which contains the words "conservation and utilization", is not fully consistent with the wording of the Convention on Biological Diversity, where the word "utilization" does not exist and where repeated reference is instead made to "sustainable use". In order to avoid such confusion we have consistently used the text and wording contained in later decisions of the FAO Conference, i.e., the text contained in Resolution 7/93, which is "Fourth International Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources".
EL PRESIDENTE: Pregunto al delegado del Brasil si está satisfecho.
Marco Antonio DINIZ BRANDÄO (Brazil): The name we have here, with "Technical" included, was provided by the Secretariat during the meetings of the Commission. It was pointed out that this was the official title, as I read it, of the Conference. Maybe in order to avoid confusion we should use the earlier version. It would be preferable to use an earlier version in order to avoid confusion with other plant genetic resources not connected with food and agriculture.
EL PRESIDENTE: Una vez más, para hacer un comentario aclaratorio, tiene la palabra el Dr. de Haen.
H. DE HAEN (Assistant Director-General, Agriculture Department): If it is the case that we provided the name which includes the words "conservation and utilization" in the last session of the Commission, I regret that. Maybe Legal Counsel can provide further explanation. As a matter of fact, the draft report which the Commission adopted contained a different and inconsistent use of the name. Subsequent to the Commission meeting we have reviewed the wording and have reviewed the archives. The concluion was, first of all, that one name must be used throughout the documents and that it made more sense to use the name contained in FAO Resolution 7/93 because that gives the mandate to hold this conference and was also formulated at a time when the text of the Convention on Biological Diversity was available, which was not the case in 1991. However, if the Council now wishes to use the name as proposed by Brazil, we are in your hands.
EL PRESIDENTE: Espero hayan tomado nota. Podríamos referirnos a esto más adelante en nuestros trabajos. Si la distinguida delegación de Brasil no tiene ningún comentario que hacer, le voy a otorgar la palabra a la distinguida delegación de Japón.
Akihiko UDOGUCHI (Japan): I should like to comment briefly on Item 9.1. My delegation appreciates the efforts made by the Secretariat of FAO and the FAO Commission on Plant Genetic Resources and by participating member countries of that Commission in the intense discussions of the last extraordinary session of the Commission immediately preceding this Council meeting. We welcome the Commission's continued discussion by ensuring a two-week period in the forthcoming June session in order to have full consideration of this important issue.
Alan AMEY (Canada): Like Germany and Cyprus, the Canadian delegation would like to thank Dr de Haen for presenting the report of the extraordinary session of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources. We are pleased to endorse the report and, as the United States and other delegations have mentioned, we recognize that, although significant time was allocated to the renegotiation of the International Undertaking, much remains to be done.
As the delegations from the Nordic Group and Spain have stated, we agree that this instrument, once negotiated, should become a protocol to the Convention on Biodiversity. We concur with the conclusions expressed by the Commission in paragraph 21 of its report concerning its role in respect to the Fourth Technical Conference. We firmly believe that the CPGR must be an authoritative voice in the preparation leading up to the Fourth International Technical Conference.
We appreciate the plans of the Government of Germany to host the Fourth International Technical Conference in Leipzig, Germany, in June of 1996. As far as funding arrangements are concerned, we would hope that all countries here present and even FAO from its Regular Programme resources will contribute to filling the financial gap identified.
In order for the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources to be revised in a timely fashion, there will have to be sufficient attention devoted to the next meeting of the CPGR on the FAO calendar of events to complete those vital negotiations. We support the report's recommendation that at least three days will be
devoted to another meeting of the Working Group and two full weeks to the next CPGR session itself in 1995.
We would like to join with the CPGR in welcoming the signature of the agreement between the CGIAR centres and FAO on the trusteeship of plant genetic resources in ex situ collections. We would underline the policy role of the CPGR as indicated in paragraph 44 of the report.
As far as working arrangements are concerned, we welcome the close collaboration between FAO and the Interim Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. We believe it important that FAO participate in the Secretariat of the CBD. We would urge the FAO Secretariat to be flexible in its negotiations of the applicable arrangements aimed at effecting such cooperation.
Canada has been pleased to provide funding for Third World delegates, thereby tangibly demonstrating our support. We were also pleased to provide the Chairman of the meeting, Dr. Brad Fraleigh. We hope future meetings would conclude the negotiations according to the schedule established.
Mme Maria de Lourdes MARTIN DUARTE (Cap-Vert): Monsieur le Président, nos remerciements, félicitations et encouragements s'adressent tout d'abord au Secrétariat des ressources phytogénétiques. Ensuite, nous aimerions féliciter M. de Haen pour la présentation de point ainsi que le Bureau de la session extraordinaire et le Rapporteur pour avoir su guider avec talent nos travaux.
La session extraordinaire de la Commission des ressources phytogénétiques dont nous fait part le document CL 107/8 a permis aux gouvernements d'initier la série de négociations, tel que prévu par la Résolution 7/93 de la Conférence, pour réviser l'Engagement international. A cet égard, nous remercions la FAO pour la réallocation de crédits du budget ordinaire ainsi que le Canada pour sa contribution à la participation des pays en développement.
Notre délégation appuie le rapport de la Commission et notre intervention ne comprendra donc que quelques observations d'ordre général. Malgré la priorité accordée au point de l'ordre du jour relatif à la révision de l'Engagement, le temps s'est avéré trop court et l'examen de ce point par la Commission s'est pratiquement limité au stade I, le Secrétariat ayant été chargé de présenter un nouveau texte pour faciliter les négociations lors des sessions ultérieures.
La révision de l'Engagement et la préparation du plan d'action mondial - qui met l'accent sur l'utilisation durable des ressources phytogénétiques et dont les directives ont déjà été envoyées aux pays pour les aider à préparer les rapports nationaux et pour guider les discussions au niveau régional - s'encadrent dans les préparatifs de la Conférence technique internationale sur les ressources phytogénétiques qui aura lieu en Allemagne en 1996; et le paragraphe 23 nous montre que, dans le cadre du processus préparatoire, il existe un déficit financier de l'ordre d'un million de dollars des Etats-Unis. Par ailleurs, le temps presse, même si la Commission estime que la révision doit être conduite avec soin.
Nous appuyons les paragraphes 55 et 56 visant à poursuivre les négociations et à assurer la participation des scientifiques et décideurs des pays en développement tout au long du processus de négociation ainsi qu'une participation au plus haut niveau à la Conférence technique internationale.
Nous aimerions aussi vous faire part de notre accord pour que la Conférence des parties à la Convention sur la diversité biologique soit informée du rapport à l'examen et du document sur la phase II de la révision de l'Engagement, tel que proposé par la Commission.
Ricardo VELAZQUEZ HUERTA (México): Aunamos nuestra voz a otras delegaciones para felicitar calurosamente a la Secretaría. Gracias al Dr. de Haen y a Don José Esquinas Alcázar por un trabajo extraordinariamente hecho.
En este mismo foro hemos expresado con anterioridad la necesidad de que la Secretaría se fortalezca, tanto en términos de recursos humanos como de recursos financieros, y queremos reiterarlo de nuevo.
El documento de informe, a nuestro juicio, no tiene desperdicio y aprobamos sin reserva sus 58 párrafos.
Sin embargo, haremos algunas observaciones generales. Entendemos con claridad que estamos inmersos en un proceso delicado que requiere de todo el conocimiento de nuestros expertos y de la voluntad política de nuestros gobiernos. El camino andado hasta ahora en la primera fase, a juicio de nuestra delegación, es correcto. No abundaremos en detalles porque ya los hemos expresado en los foros correspondientes en que hemos participado.
La segunda fase debe prepararse con mucho cuidado, puesto que su temática involucra conceptos nacionales fundamentales de orden social y de orden político que deben protegerse, salvaguardarse. En este sentido, México ya ha iniciado un proceso para recoger y proteger los derechos del agricultor. Del documento en cuestión, sólo destacaremos dos asuntos: el primero, es el relativo a los párrafos 45 al 51, que se refieren a la posible ampliación de las facultades de la Comisión. En este sentido, hacemos nuestro exactamente lo que dicen los párrafos 48 y 51. Creemos que, aunque haya asuntos de carácter general que pueden aplicarse a todo el ámbito de las cuestiones genéticas, en primer lugar debemos dedicarnos a los recursos fitogenéticos, que es la competencia de nuestra Comisión. En segundo lugar, analizar con muchísimo detalle cualquier otro asunto que debamos acometer porque cada uno tiene su especificidad, su especialidad, los cuales tenemos que considerar antes de tomar decisiones a la ligera.
En segundo lugar, el segundo punto es el que se refiere al financiamiento. Esta es también una cuestión que siempre ha sido delicada en el seno de la FAO: cómo obtener los recursos suficientes para atender los asuntos de competencia de nuestra Organización. Siempre hemos sido de la opinión de que en este sentido, independientemente de los recursos que la FAO pone, debemos hacer un esfuerzo mayor para conseguir recursos adicionales que no afecten de manera grave el Programa Ordinario de nuestra Institución.
Finalmente, deseamos reiterar nuestra decisión de continuar el esfuerzo en este tema, que es de enorme interés para nuestro país.
Tri WBBOWO (Indonesia): Since Indonesia is one of the Commission's members and actively participated in all the work of the Commission, including the First Extraordinary Session held here in Rome between 7th and 11th November 1994, the Indonesian delegation to this Council Session welcomes and endorses the report of the Commission contained in document CL 107/8.
In responding to para. 48 of the document before us, my delegation would like to request the Secretariat to study in depth all questions presented in para. 48 and to submit its report to the next Council Session for consideration and decision.
My delegation is in support of para. 52 of CL 107/8, especially on the point that the regular session of the Working Group should be held two months beforehand, especially to discuss farmers' rights.
My delegation would also like to join previous speakers on this agenda item, especially in supporting and endorsing the participation of FAO in the Secretariat of the Conventions on biological diversity.
My delegation would also like to join other members of this Council in congratulating the Secretariat for an excellent preparation of the documentation and for its excellent introduction.
The meeting rose at 12:30 hours.
La séance est levée à 12 h 30.
Se levanta la sesión a las 12.30 horas.
