II. ACTIVITIES AND PROGRAMMES OF THE ORGANIZATION (continued)
II. ACTIVITES ET PROGRAMMES DE L'ORGANISATION (suite)
II. ACTIVIDADES Y PROGRAMAS DE LA ORGANIZACION (continuación)

CHAIRMAN: I apologise for this late start. We were waiting for document C 83/LIM/32 that is the amended draft Undertaking which was worked upon by the Contact Group. It will not be ready for another 45 minutes to one hour, basically because it has to come out in all languages; the text is ready so far in English and Arabic but not yet in Spanish and French.

Document C 83/LIM/31, which is the Report of the Resolutions Committee, reflects that that Committee has found the draft resolution receivable but we may not discuss it until we have discussed the amended draft Undertaking which is going to be part of the Resolution.

We could make good use of our time while we are waiting for the documents to be distributed by continuing the general discussions.

V. ESPINOSA (Nicaragua): Nuestra Delegación considera de mucha importancia el informe del Director General de la FAO sobre el tema de Recursos Fitogenéticos. Esta importancia refleja voluntad y esperanza, para que los pueblos del mundo, principalmente los países en vías de desarrollo, tengan la oportunidad de contar con una amplia posibilidad de utilización de genes potenciales en el mejoramiento de cultivos alimenticios, asegurando un recurso vital para el desarrollo agrícola mundial.

Las semillas mejoradas son conceptual y pragmáticamente el factor básico para sostener incrementos de productividad y producción deseadas por nuestros países.

El desarrollo científico en el campo de mejoramiento de plantas determina como base fundamental la utilización racional y técnica de los recursos genéticos. Esto, en su potencialidad de obtener variedades con alta respuesta a la tecnología de producción, resistentes a factores adversos de clima como la sequía y bajas temperaturas y resistentes a plagas y enfermedades.

Los avances metodológicos y técnicos en el desarrollo de nuevas variedades y su propio sostenimiento dependen del grado de protección de los recursos genéticos a nivel mundial. Estos avances tendrán mayores perspectivas de éxito en la medida en que la diversidad y variabilidad genética se aproveche con equidad y justeza en todos los países del mundo. Esto es, propiciando y asegurando la conservación, mantenimiento y libre intercambio de los recursos genéticos de interés agrícola.

Es preocupación técnico-científica, que el desarrollo de variedades con características uniformes en morfología, fisiología y productividad derivan una tendencia de estrechez de la base genética. Ello ha determinado la necesidad de establecer y promover el rescate y aprovechamiento efectivo de la amplia variabilidad genética la exploración, recolección y conservación de dichos materiales; como fuente de combinaciones genéticas deseadas por los productores y los países en función a sus características agroecológicas y bióticas presentes.

Nuestra Delegación apoya y es consecuente con el criterio de que los recursos fitogenéticos son un patrimonio y que por lo tanto deben ser objeto de libre intercambio entre'los países y sus respectivas instituciones para fines científicos y para su utilización en programas de mejoramientogenético.

Consideramos que esta es la base idónea para asegurar un crecimiento apropiado de la agricultura. No es deseable para los países del mundo, en particular los que están en vías de desarrollo, mantener una agricultura dependiente a través de importaciones de semillas para llevar a cabo sus programas de producción.

Por ello apoyamos el establecimiento de un acuerdo internacional con base jurídica que asegure la conservación y el libre intercambio de recursos fitogenéticos. Esto fundamentado también con la creación, bajo los auspicios de la FAO, de un banco internacional de dichos recursos de interés agrícola, caracterizado por una red internacional de libre acceso al intercambio de recursos fitogeneticos en diferentes estados de desarrollo y niveles de generación.

Apoyamos el principio, en que se fundamenta la Resolución 6/81 del 22° período de sesiones de la FAO, de que los recursos fitogenéticos constituyen un patrimonio común de la humanidad y deben estar libremente a la disposición de la comunidad internacional y de cada Gobierno mediante un compromiso firme de cooperación e intercambio.

Estamos conscientes que el desarrollo de un principio de esta naturaleza involucra acciones y medidas progresivas para alcanzar el objetivo deseado. Por ello, estamos de acuerdo en que las actividades básicas, propuestas en el Informe del Director General de la FAO, relativo a los recursos fitogenéticos en cuanto a prioridad de la prospección y la recolección, conservación de los recursos fitogenéticos, mantenimiento de dichos recursos, documentación y evaluación, medidas de seguridad y su utilización.

Para cumplir con estas actividades y medidas, también es importante la cooperación internacional para el fortalecimiento de programas nacionales de mejoramiento genético, principalmente en aquellos países que adolecen de las infraestructuras mínimas de conservación genética, que requieren más apoyo en equipo y recursos humanos calificados y mayor asistencia financiera y capacitación para el desarrollo efectivo de acuerdos de manejo internacional de los recursos fitogenéticos.

Es muy importante reconocer los esfuerzos y acciones realizados por otros Organismos en materia de normas y protección de los recursos fitogenéticos, lo cual se debe considerar como un elemento fundamental para reafirmar y fortalecer el principio del derecho universal sobre la utilización de los recursos fitogenéticos, señor Presidente.'

Para finalizar, reafirmamos nuestra posición de apoyo a los conceptos, acciones y medidas, así como también a la propuesta de Proyecto o Resolución indicada en el informe del Director General de la FAO.

Hacemos un llamamiento a todos los países presentes para que apoyen el principio de que el patrimonio universal sobre los recursos genéticos es un derecho inviolable de los pueblos que luchan para un desarrollo económico y social más justo. Asimismo que los mecanismos de solidaridad internacional juegan un papel importante para mantener un status favorable de este principio.

Queremos hacer una mención especial de la disposición de España y México de hacer accesible su materia prima genética en beneficio de la comunidad internacional. Nuestro país se solidariza con esta posición y estamos anuentes, dentro de nuestras grandes limitaciones, a poner a la orden nuestros recursos genéticos. Muchas gracias, señor Presidente.

S. ZAHARIEV (Bulgaria): First of all I want to follow the previous speakers and congratulate the Director-General for including this very vital item on the agenda of the Conference. I would also like to congratulate Dr Bommer for the very good introduction of the item to us and prefacing this Resolution, which we find a very fine document.

My country has no problem in supporting the draft Resolution we are discussing now in its general terms. The spirit of this Resolution is very near to our understanding how such an important item shall be discussed and resolved by an international organization such as FAO. I think I have a good reason to say this because we in Bulgaria have created already a National Centre for Genetic Resources with some 260 expert personnel, storage rooms, research fields and all other necessary facilities. We will be happy to exchange our experience and knowledge with other countries and if FAO wish so to put all this facility at its disposal to use as a training base for the experts in the other countries and free exchange of the genetic resources.

Speaking at the end of the debate on this item does not give much chance to say more on much of the discussion as many of the delegates before me expressed the interesting view which was very much like ours and need not be repeated now.

I would like also once again to confirm our support to the present Resolution having in mind its great importance to the future of this very important item, genetic resources.

KYO-EUN KIM (Republic of Korea): The Republic of Korea would like to join the previous speakers in expressing their compliments to FAO and to Dr Bommer for his excellent work on this important subject.

Since the Republic of Korea has not stated its position on this subject, I will make our brief position on this subject, even though its chief delegate expressed his hope that the proposed Undertaking should be favorably considered for reaching an agreement.

The Republic of Korea would like to give its full support to the principles of this Undertaking. However, it is not in a position to make any commitments at this stage to the responsibilities of adhering governments which are described in paragraph 7 and 8 in particular in the field of financial matters.

Two aspects are not clear to our mind and we have not thoroughly looked at those two aspects, the first, how we propose the new system would work under the auspices of FAO and the second, to what extent the adhering government should take financial responsibilities both for strengthening the national institutes to serve as an effective network within the proposed framework and a better international cooperation. In conclusion, we support the Undertaking in principle.

A. ALLAIN (Observer for International Organization of Consumers' Unions): We have been looking forward to the opportunity of addressing this Conference on behalf of the IOCU, the International Organization of Consumers' Unions. The IOCU today has 121 members in 50 countries all over the world. It is the spokesman and advocate for consumers at the international level.

The IOCU also has a long tradition of cooperating with FAO, particularly in the fields of food safety, nutrition and food standards, through the Codex Alimentarius Commission.

You may recall that at the 1981 FAO Conference and at this year's COAG meeting we expressed our views on the conservation and utilization of plant genetic resources. Although we had hoped and expected to speak earlier in this debate we would still like to make some brief comments on the paper in front of us.

It is worth noting that this subject and particularly the concern about genetic erosion, the free exchange of germplasm and the consequences of the adoption of so-called "Plant Breeder's Rights", was raised several years ago by a non-governmental non-profit organization and I would like to thank the International Coalition for Development Action, ICDA, for the valuable work they have done over the past years to create better understanding of this complex issue among the public and among policy makers. The research done by ICDA has been very useful for this purpose and much of it is contained in the document by the Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation of which many of you have received copies.

The issue before this Commission today is of critical importance, as has been stressed by several delegations as well as in the excellent report by the Director-General. The continuing and rapid erosion of the genetic base of food crops threatens the survival of future generations. If we don't act now, in a few years time it may be too late. If Member States are serious about world food security and the need for developing countries to become self-sufficient in food production, then they must adopt an instrument and the means in the field of plant genetic resources which will indeed enable those countries to become self-sufficient. The present situation threatens developing countries with an additional dependence, apart from the dependence on food imports, and that is the dependence on seed imports.

The Director-General's report under discussion deserves our appreciation, for having combined the most important aspects of the issue in a succinct manner. The resolution attached to it, however, presents a voluntary Undertaking which allows signatory States to make exceptions which in practice only apply to industrialised nations. We think this is dangerous and do not believe that such an Undertaking would change much in the present unsatisfactory situation. It would probably do no more than legitimize the right of the industrialised countries to have access to the germplasm of the Third World without guaranteeing developing nations access to the genetic material obtained on the basis of that germplasm.

That genetic material, for instance the so-called advanced breeder lines, could be excluded from the Undertaking when signing it. However, we all know that such specialist stocks, advanced breeder lines and the final product they lead to, are obtained by using germplasm collected mainly in the Third World. Plants are not the invention of man; they are the result of thousands of years of evolution and of the gifts of nature to all the inhabitants of planet Earth. We believe it is unfair and unacceptable that the results of the use of this gift of nature to all mankind be reserved for a few only. Hence, we strongly support, as we did in 1981, the call made by the Mexican delegation on behalf of many developing nations for a legally binding Convention. The rule of law in the protection and free exchange of genetic resources should not be forsaken at this Conference.

Practically every developing country we have heard has stressed the need for a legal framework. From the discussion it is now abundantly clear that the present loose and ambiguous system works for some but not for all. When those who have power say there is no problem and those who have no power say there is, one can safely assume that there is a problem. Why is it that those who have power are suddenly becoming legalistic, discussing differences between words like auspices and jurisdiction, and between centres and institutions? Such delaying tactics should be recognized for what they are.

We understand the need for some kind of reward for the researchers who discover and develop new varieties which enrich the world's food resources. But let us not fool ourselves: by far the most important work in this field has been and is still being done by small peasant farmers, mostly in Third World nations. The so-called advanced breeder lines of today would not exist were it not for these silent breeders and safe-keepers. The "new" varieties of the 20th century are sometimes no more than accidental discoveries or relatively simple crossings with accessions found in gene-rich depositories. For instance, the zera-zera sorghum cultivated for centuries by African peasants and donated by the Sudan is now the basis for all hybrid grain sorghums used today. Or take a particular variety of barley, very popular in Germany today, which was bred directly from a farmer's field in the Near East.

The IOCU, as a consumer defense body, is firmly opposed to the granting of monopolies to private interests, because these are not to the benefit of consumers. In the case of Plant Breeders' Rights, which we see as a form of monopoly control, neither would they benefit the farmers nor food production, which is the concern of FAO Member States. "Plant Breeders' Rights," at least in the English language, is quite a misnomer: the breeder is actually earning a standard salary while his or her company often reaps enormous profits on a particularly successful variety. For example, a flower native to Guatemala which was patented in the USA without improvement now yields profits to a private company.

A more fitting word for Plant Breeders' Rights would be "Seed Company's Rights". They are a form of patent that may last from 12 to 30 years and amount to granting monopolies to the companies concerned. We doubt that such monopolistic conditions actually improve food production and security. It is tragic that as zera-zera sorghum is vanishing, international chemical companies have become dominant in sorghum breeding and in fact one company attempted to market a hybrid grain sorghum based upon zera-zera sorghum back to the Sudan, endangering the remaining genetic diversity. It is especially sad that the particular hybrid seed was only offered coated in three chemicals, the third one of which was there only to neutralize the toxic effect of the same company's leading herbicide, thus enhancing the company's herbicide spray sales.

Such seed "packages", because of their high cost, make the new varieties less accessible to poor peasant farmers who, unlike the companies, are not protected by patents, but who provide the raw material for the "new" seed. And it is these very farmers who still grow the food for the majority of the world's people and who deserve most recognition and reward.

Furthermore, a substantial part of the basic research leading up to new varieties is done by universities and other publicly funded institutions. Frequently such institutions develop excellent new varieties with valuable characteristics, such as resistance to drought, to disease and pests, particularly suited to Third World conditions. And yet, such varieties may not be marketed by seed companies, because they already hold the rights to a competing variety, which may be less productive or resistant, but which is highly profitable.

There is thus no incentive to sell an even better variety.

You will recall, Mr. Chairman, the applause that the Canadian Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Whelan, got in Plenary when he said how important the FAO Conference was as a forum where governments could make their views known and could give political direction to the work of FAO. We believe that the same kind of participation by governments is necessary in the overview and political direction of the IBPGR, the International Board for Plant Genetic Resources. We respect the good scientific work done by the IBPGR over the years and believe it should continue doing this. However, the IBPGR is only a technical body and its members act in their personal capacity. We believe that when we deal with such a fundamental resource, which is the heritage of all mankind, there is a clear need for a political body comprised of government representatives to set guidelines and oversee the work that is being done. We therefore support the view of FAO's Director-General and that of several countries, that an Intergovernmental Committee as a subsidiary body of the Council of FAO be set up to deal with plant genetic security. This Committee, as a subsidiary body to the Council, should be responsible for all aspects of plant genetic resources conservation and use. This would include the proposed Gene Fund, the IBPGR and an international gene bank system.

As part of its effort to finance and expand the work of the IBPGR, the new Committee should enthusiastically further the formation of an international gene bank system, as proposed by the Government of Mexico. We also applaud the Government of Spain for the outstanding leadership it has taken on this issue since 1979, when it raised the matter in the Council, and for having Offered to place the material in its own gene bank under the authority of FAO. We strongly encourage other countries to follow that positive example. Such a gene bank system is needed in order to guarantee that the germplasm presently stored in national and private banks, or duplicates thereof, are always available to the world community as a whole. This is such an important resource that it cannot be left to the moods of national parliaments or governments to decide whether or not, at any moment, they will or will not exchange the germplasm held in their countries. Duplicates held in an international bank system would be international property held under the auspices of the FAO for the benefit of all humanity.

To summarize, we would urge delegations at this Conference to confirm the following elements as the system for protection, conservation and use of plant genetic resources:

a) an International Convention on Plant Genetic Resources the legal body.

I know that we are presently discussing an Undertaking, but I think that everybody in this room realizes that eventually we will have to move to something more binding and that is why we strongly urge the need for a Convention.

b) an Intergovernmental Committee the political body

c) the IBPGR –the scientific body

d) a World Gene Fund –the financial; body

e) an International Gene Bank System the material body.

Such a structure would do justice to the importance of these resources and its legal foundation could be included in the International Convention. The Fund and the IBPGR could improve the technical capacity of developing countries to collect, document and utilize germplasm and thus increase food production and world food security. The best place to conserve is the place where traditional varieties are found. All of this will promote agricultural development, particularly in Third World countries, as well as preserve much-needed germplasm for cross-breeding beyond the birthplace of the variety.

I have dealt at some length with this issue because consumers everywhere must be concerned with it. What we have heard here is that all Member States without exception have agreed to the principle that plant genetic resources are the common heritage of mankind and that they should be exchanged freely. The only difference in the debate I note is that developing countries want industrialized countries to put that principle and that agreement into writing in an honest and straightforward manner.

H. MAST (Observer for International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants): I am speaking for the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, UPOV. UPOV is an intergovernmental organization, having its headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland. It comprises 17 Member States. Most of these States are represented in this Conference and have spoken at this Conference, so I can be very brief.

Before I start my talk I would like to say that I think that this is not a session in which to discuss the pros and cons of Plant Breeders' Rights. Therefore I do not want to go into this question in this place. Besides, it would take too long to answer the many remarks and many attacks which were issued by the lady who talked before me.

Let me at the beginning thank FAO for inviting UPOV and me, as its Vice-Secretary-General, to this Conference.

In listening to the delegates, I have learnt a number of things which I will report on when going back to Geneva, report on to my own Union, as well as to the World Intellectual Property Organization.

There were, as I see it, two subjects treated under item 15 of this Conference. These two subjects are inter-connected but still different objectives. The first subject I see is the need to conserve plant genetic resources, mainly in gene banks. I think there is no one here in this room who could favour and endorse the importance of this subject more than UPOV does. UPOV has been created for the benefit of the breeders and, as I have said already in the COAG meeting, genetic resources are the raw material of the breeders. So breeders, and thus also UPOV, are in favour of doing everything to conserve genetic resources and to prevent genetic resources from being eroded or getting lost. In UPOV some years ago we conducted a symposium, a meeting on genetic resources, and it was the general view that everything should be done to preserve genetic resources. So we in UPOV are fully in agreement with the objective followed by this Conference as far as the conservation of genetic resources is concerned. As I see this Conference and this Meeting it has a second objective, namely to grant free access to genetic resources for everybody, for people in developed countries as well as in developing countries. Here again I must say that as a principle UPOV shares the concern expressed in the meeting, and as a principle we are in favour of assuring to everybody such free access. In saying this I believe and hope, of course, that the thought that breeders, or breeding institutes should be forced to turn over to gene banks, and to the public, material in their private possession, material that they still use for their breeding work, is not followed. I think this would be against the private property system. It: would have nothing to do with UPOV, or with plant breeders' rights, it. would be simply against the normal private law provisions. Therefore, it would be illegal, and even unconstitutional in some countries, and it would also be unrealistic. I think this line should not be followed, and I think it is not necessary to follow it.

I believe that breeding material is available in great amount. We heard from CIMMYT about the thousands and thousands of lines which are released by this institution, which are rendered to the public. I think what is needed is to install a system, or to develop a system, by which this material is made available to the user. I think the problem you are confronted with here in FAO is a purely technical problem, namely how these lines, how this material wich exists in several gene banks, how this material is properly registered, properly described, properly brought to the attention of the public, and made available to the public. And this is a question of the staffing of gene banks, and institutions which are storing the material because to make available the material to the public you need personnel, who after having registered it, keeps it available to the public, and renders it to the public on request. These are the type of questions you are confronted with,

and these are exactly the type of questions we are confronted with in UPOV too. The offices in the UPOV Member States competent for the granting of plant breeders rights, have to compare the varieties for which protection is sought, with the existing varieties, varieties already known. The offices of UPOV Member States test the new varieties, they test it here in Europe, usually over two years in testing plots. They describe the varieties, and I think the most reliable description of cultivars comes from the offices of UPOV Member States and, of course, the offices of UPOV Member States store the material. So, you see from this that the same tasks, the same technical tasks which are to be tackled by FAO in the coming months, and the coming years, are tasks which have to be tackled also by UPOV, and we have just set up a working party for automation and for computer programmes, which will see to it that these tasks are tackled with the help of the computers, and I hear that the same thing is done in FAO. What I would like to propose, and the reason I have come here to this meeting, is to propose to FAO that it continues to cooperate in the registration and in the storing and retrieval of plant material, as has been done in the past, and in particular that agree‐ment is reached on the various descriptor lists to avoid duplication of work, and to avoid confusion.

I also want to mention that UPOV works together with the World Intellectual Property Organization, an organization which has achieved already great progress. First of all, in the so-called patent documentation. That means making patents, the patents stored in the various patent offices, available to the public. There are systems of computerization in this field, which are very progressed. In the technical field of patents it is possible for industrialists in one part of the country, with the help of computers, to get the necessary information from all other parts of the world, and I think this is something we should have in the field of agriculture in some years too. Also I would like to mention that in the World Intellectual Property Organization, working in the same building as UPOV, also a programme is developed, or many programmes are developed, to help the developing countries in this respect.

The time is very short and I want to finish here. I want to offer to everybody here in the Conference to discuss with them the importance of matters which are concerned with these topics.

CHAIRMAN: I thank the distinguished observer from the International Union for the Protection of New Varities of Plants. That exhausts my list of Speakers. I would like to urge distinguished delegates to believe me that the translators and typists, and everybody concerned, are working at full speed to try and bring the documents here, but we still do not have them yet.

Unless there is anyone who wants to continue the general discussion for a few minutes, I would suggest that we recess for a few minutes.

The meeting was suspended from 11.10 to 12.35 hours
La séance est suspendue de 11 h 10 à 12 h 35
Se suspende la sesión de las 11.10 horas a las 12.35 horas

CHAIRMAN: Distinguished delegates, once more we apologize for this delay but you realize we are not dealing with a very easy problem here. It requires time for consultation so that we can arrive at some agreement among the delegations.

At the end of the debate on the Director-General's Reports on Friday there were varying opinions. It therefore became necessary to establish a small Contact Group of about 13 to reconcile these various shades of opinion. The Contact Group then further deliberated the matter on Friday the 18th, during the night and the whole of Saturday the 19th. In its deliberations, the Contact Group focused attention on the proposed Undertaking. Therefore on average each article of the proposed Undertaking was deliberated upon for more than one hour.

The draft Undertaking before the Commission in C 83/LIM/32 is a product arrived at in a cordial spirit of cooperation and compromise. It is important to note that the explanations offered by the Secretariat went a long way to clarify that the thrust of the Undertaking is to establish a framework within which Member Nations will be able to freely exchange plant genetic resources without restrictions. The Undertaking will further facilitate the gradual development of a network of gene banks that will constitute a global system under the auspices of FAO. Under this Undertaking all the previous and current work on plant genetic resources will be taken due account of and will continue to be supported and strengthened. It has been fully recognized that the Undertaking only provides a basis on which further and more specific Undertakings can be developed. There is therefore ample scope to refine and improve this document as work and international collaboration enfolds in the future. The freedom of nations to accede to the proposed Undertaking on their own terms is a feature which should leave everyone at ease about the intentions and implications of the contents of this document. It would be foolhardy to imagine that because of this document all other initiatives in the field of plant genetic resources development would be retarded. However, the provisions of the Undertaking will naturally require systematic conformity to agreed standards and will therefore entail a code of conduct on those who participate.

I therefore invite the Commission to consider this document with a clear understanding that as much as necessary has been said and done on it.

At this point, distinguished delegates, I would hope that we can support the efforts of the Contact Group and accept the document as it stands. However, before we do that I would like to ask the Secretary to indicate some of the corrections that have to be made and some results of further consultations.

K. KILLINGSWORTH (Secretary, Commission II): The first applies to all the language versions and it is in sub-Para (d) of Paragraph 2.1 of the Annex. In sub-Para (d), which is a definition of the word "institution", several words should be added in all the languages and these are the words: "with or without legal personality". They were in the original draft and have been left out of this draft. So (d) should read: " 'institution' means an entity established at the international or national level, with or without legal personality", and the rest of the sub-para would remain unchanged.

We have a very few errors in the English text and some translation changes to suggest. In the haste of producing this document I am afraid errors did creep in. The first in the English text is in para 2.2. It is a typographical error and it should read, "This Undertaking relates", not "related". There is also a typographical error in sub-paragraph (b) of Article 6 which should read in the second sentence "in the UN system". A third in paragraph 7.1, sub-para (a) in the third line - this is the English text - should read "under the auspices or the jurisdiction", rather than "under the auspices of the jurisdiction". It is a typographical error.

There are a few more, but I think they are obviously of punctuation and misplaced letters. However, in the Spanish text we have a few changes which I would like to announce for the benefit of all those who are reading the Spanish text, and the Assistant-Secretary will announce some changes in the French version.

(Continua en español) En el párrafo 1, artículo 1, "Objetivo", en el penúltimo renglón la palabra "herencia" debería leerse "patrimonio", y la palabra "disposición", en el final del renglón, debería leerse "disponibilidad". En el artículo 5 y en diferentes párrafos del artículo 8, donde está escrito "los Gobiernos adheridos", se debería leer "los Gobiernos adhérentes". Y finalmente, señor Presidente, en el artículo 7, en el último renglón del párrafo 7.1, última frase, debería leerse "para desarrollar un sistema global". En la pequeña "e" del párrafo 7.1, de nuevo "un sistema global de información", y el segundo renglón, en el final del renglón "en las colecciones antes mencionadas", se debería quitar la palabra "base", que se ha quitado en las otras versiones. Finalmente, en el párrafo 7.2, debería leerse de nuevo "sistema global" y no "sistema mundial". Y finalmente, el párrafo 9.2, en la segunda frase, debería empezar en español con las palabras "la FAO tomará o recomendará".

FORTHOMME (Secrétaire adjointe de la Commission II): Au paragraphe 7.1 a) il est dit: "Il se crée un réseau..." au lieu de: "Il se développe un réseau ...".

Au paragraphe g), au lieu de: "le CIRPG poursuive et étende ses activités actuelles, dans les limites de son mandat", il faut lire: "Dans le cadre de son mandat".

Au point h) ii), au lieu de "L'ensemble des activités menées dans le cadre de l'Arrangement assure une nette amélioration de la capacité des pays en développement à produire et à distribuer ...", il faut lire: "... à créer et à distribuer."

CHAIRMAN: One can anticipate that there may be comments from other delegations but in order that we . may make some progress and dispose of those things on which there is total agreement, perhaps, since you have had time to look at the document, we should check with you article by article, to see whether there are any comments and then we will know exactly what the position is on each article. Are there any observations on Article No. 1?

S.P. MUKERJI (India): On Article 1 I have only two minor suggestions. First, on the third line, "and made available for plant breeding" full stop, instead of stopping at that "plant breeding" I would suggest "plant management" also, because the objective is not merely breeding as such but also plant protection. And, in certain circumstances, we might have to identify certain plants for the purpose of developing a proper plant protection material or compounds. So we should not confine availability only for plant breeding purposes, there may be some other aspects of plant protection and plant development. I would therefore say "for plant breeding and plant management" which would include all aspects of protection, etc.

Further on in the same Article, the last sentence, where it is stated in the fourth line: "resources are a heritage of humanity", I would say "of mankind" instead because that occurs in the Resolution itself and it is a more acceptable and a more popular term.

CHAIRMAN: Could I ask at this stage Dr Bommer to comment on the addition of "plant management": is it in line with the intentions and spirit of the Undertaking?

D.F.R. BOMMER (Assistant Director-General, Agriculture Department): It is certainly in line with the Undertaking, in fact it is more than I had thought about, that somewhat unusual term of management, it broadens it but perhaps we can find a better term. Otherwise I think it should be adopted this way.

R. SALLERY (Canada): In our initial intervention we indicated that this was indeed a difficult issue, that there were honest differences of view as to whether or not a problem really existed and if it did, what were we going to do about it. We believe there is disagreement in principle and would not therefore wish to engage in a clause by clause analysis and agreement. We shall therefore not participate in this debate but will enter our comments in the adoptive resolution.

D. ÖBST (EEC): I have a question to the last part of Article 1. I wonder whether this particular wording is not in contradiction with Article 10 which gives the reservation to plant health issues. I refer to the words "and consequently should be available without restriction". We have in the Undertaking itself the restriction on plant health grounds. I wonder whether a better wording could not be found.

CHAIRMAN: I believe this wording was deliberately agreed on by the Contact Group. It had nothing to do with restrictions such as health or other things. It was to clarify the use of the phrase "freely available". It was agreed in the Contact Group that it would be better to use the words "without restriction" instead of free availability of plant genetic resources. So it is not in contradiction to what is in Article 10, which also is without prejudice to measures on phyto-sanitary grounds.

Are there any further comments on Article 1?

E. MARTENS (Belgique): Je crois que la remarque du représentant de la CEE tient quand même, puisqu'il m'apparaît qu'il y a une certaine contradiction avec la dernière phrase de l'article 5 où l'on parle sous réserve de réciprocité, ou à des conditions approuvées d'un commun accord. Alors que je crois qu'ici il y a quand même certaines restrictions qui sont incluses.

R. GUADARRAMA SISTOS (Mexico): Como miembros del Grupo de Contacto y dado que estos comentarios se hicieron en su oportunidad en la sesión del sábado por la tarde, respondemos a los comentarios hechos por las delegaciones que han insistido en la contradicción entre el artículo 10, "medidas fitosanitarias", y eventualmente el 1 y el 5. La respuesta fue que estamos en el marco de un compromiso, en el cual los Estados establecerán las limitaciones del caso para los diversos recursos, o categorías de recursos fitogenéticos que contiene el compromiso.

En consecuencia, el acuerdo logrado en el Grupo de Contacto fue el de no restringir el contenido del compromiso en el entendido de que los países estarían manifestando su voluntad y posibilidad, como lo señala claramente el artículo 11, en el momento de firmar dicho compromiso.

A la luz, pues, del artículo 11, las restricciones del caso se establecerán por países y en consecuencia invitamos a los delegados a que no nos lleven a un debate prolongado sobre el punto. Son dos aspectos distintos: uno el de las medidas fitosanitarias que hay que reconocer, y otro el de los principios que dan base a la Resolución, y el artículo 5 se refiere específicamente a la disponibilidad.

CHAIRMAN: I believe that clarifies the point for Belgium and the EEC.

M. B. SY (Sénégal): En tout cas le texte français est très clair, parce qu'il s'agit de poser des principes. Là on a dit que c'est un bien de la communauté qui devrait, dans les conditions normales, et maintenant dans les dispositions du champ d'application on peut amener des pratiques d'adoption ou de mise en oeuvre de principe. Il s'agit de dégager un principe, il est tout à fait normal que l'on dise "devrait". Naturellement, dans la pratique on essaie d'aménager, mais il n'y a aucune contradiction à mon sens, même sans parler de compromis.

D.F.R. BOMMER (Assistant Director-General, Agriculture Department): I would recommend to say "for plant breeding and scientific purposes" which is wide enough, I think, for what you intended to say. Will the delegate of India accept that?

CHAIRMAN: That accepted, we now move to Article 2. We come to Article 2. No comments. Then that is accepted. We come to Article 3.

P. HOYOS (Austria): I wanted to ask whether "the active collection" is mentioned somewhere later in the other articles. "The active collection" seems not to be mentioned later on so could be deleted.

CHAIRMAN: Yes, it is mentioned in other Articles, for example 7, and I think you will find it later on. It is definitely used. Any further comments? We are on Article 3. No comments. Thank you. Article 4, no comments, accepted. Article 5.

S.P. MUKERJI (India): I have only a small minor suggestion. I think it will be more acceptable to most of the countries if instead of saying "It will be the policy of adhering governments" we say "It will be the general policy of adhering governments".

R. GUADARRAMA SISTOS (México): Nos parece que la forma de redacción presentada por la Secretaría es más Clara. No tengo fuerte oposición a aceptar incluir la palabra "general", pero la redacción actual es más precisa. Le pediría al distinguido representante de la India que lo tomara en cuenta. Queremos ser precisos en nuestro compromiso.

S.P. MUKERJI (India): It is for the purpose of not making it too specific and too narrow that I wanted to use the world "general" because the national policies are determined by the governments accountable to parliament. It will be very difficult for any government, especially in a parliamentary set-up, to give an undertaking on a specific policy narrowed down to specific items. In order to make the wording as less offensive or as less provocative as possible, I thought the word "general" should be more acceptable.

M. S. ZEHNI (Libya): Perhaps you note that it says "of the adhering governments" so this will be their policy after they indicate that they will adhere to this policy.

CHAIRMAN: Thank you, I think that is important. I was going to add to India that governments having adhered to the Undertaking would then of course bind themselves with this kind of policy.

S.P. MUKERJI (India): Without forecasting what the action of my own Government will be I thought that even the process of adherence will be facilitated if the word "general" is added because it might repel a number of governments from signing the document.

CHAIRMAN: Does anyone have strong feelings about "general"? No, I do not see any and there are no more comments on 5, therefore I will take it as accepted, as amended. Article 6.

M. B. SY (Sénégal): Je m'excuse mais je pensais que l'article 5 tel qu'il est présenté était adopté, mais compte tenu de l’amendement c'est une restriction que des pays ne doivent pas accepter. Vraiment je me demande s'il y a un consensus pour que 1'on ajoute "généralement"; cela n'apporte rien, sinon une restriction, or nous ne sommes pas intéressés par une restriction. Je ne sais pas si c'est le cas de certaines délegations.

H. FARAJ (Maroc): Je crois que c'est un problème de rédaction de langue à langue. En français, lorsqu'on ajoute un épithète ou une précision, on limite le sens du texte. Donc là si on adopte en français l'amendement proposé par l'Inde cela veut dire que l'on restreint le principe que nous défendons tous. Par conséquent, j'appuie la position du Sénégal.

CHAIRMAN: On the basis of the explanation given would India not consider being cooperative?

S.P. MUKERJI (India): I would like to be as cooperative as possible. I have no objection to the present text.

CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much indeed. Now Article 6.

S.P. MUKERJI (India): As I had indicated earlier I would like to see in the wording of clause (a) of article 6 a reference to plant survey and plant identification because that is the first step that any developing country, or any country, has to take in order to protect its genetic resource. It is very important and I would suggest that this must find a place here, plant survey and plant identification.

CHAIRMAN: Where exactly would you like that to go in?

In the third line "resource activity, including" then we add "plant survey and identification, plant breeding" etc. etc.

CHAIRMAN: Any comments?

M. MOMBOULI (Congo): Je voudrais quelques in formations sur les activités du GCRAI. On cite les autres institutions du système des Nations Unies, et on fait une phrase spéciale pour cet organisme. J'aimerais savoir de quoi il s'occupe.

D.F.R. BOMMER (Assistant Director-General, Agriculture Department): Actually it is explained at length in the Report of the Director-General but I am happy to add this information that the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research is a group of sponsoring agencies and countries with equal sponsorhip of the World Bank, the United Nations Development Programme and FAO channeling roughly $180 million to agricultural research in which a large share is devoted to plant breeding, germplasm development and germplasm maintenance in 13 international agricultural research institutions, one of those is this International Board of Plant Genetic Resources which operates in close collaboration with FAO, very closely and specifically in the field of plant genetic resources.

CHAIRMAN: Are you happy, Congo?

M. MOMBOULI (Congo): En principe, cela devrait être compris dans les institutions du système des Nations Unies. Je voudrais savoir pourquoi on lui a consacré une phrase à part, ce qui fait d'ailleurs une répétition. Est-ce qu'il est important en raison des fonds qu'il distribue? Pourquoi n'est-il pas compris dans le libellé qui précède, et est-il spécifié de manière explicite?

D.F.R. BOMMER (Assistant Director-General, Agriculture Department): It is mentioned separately because it is not a body of the UN system in the strict sense. As I explained, there are three international agencies belonging to the United Nations system acting as co-sponsors. There is another United Nations agency, or two other United Nations agencies, IFAD and the United Nations Environmental Programme being among the sponsors and then you have a number of donor countries, you have the World Bank, you have many others not belonging to the UN system, so it is a funding group and so it is not easy to define it here as saying belonging to the United Nations system and therefore it is being mentioned separately.

R. GUADARRAMA SISTOS (México): Tratando de darle elementos al distinguido delegado del Congo, completaría la explicación hecha por el doctor Bommer: del Grupo Consultivo también son miembros fundaciones privadas que tienen un papel destacado en el mismo; me estoy refiriendo a la Kelloog a la Rockefeller y algunas otras que omitió mencionar el doctor Bommer. Es importante esta distinción porque el control del Grupo Consultivo no lo tienen las instancias o instituciones de Naciones Unidas. Tal vez esto le permita al distinguido representante del Congo no insistir en su postura.

CHAIRMAN: I can see that the delegate is now happy. Are there any comments on 6?

E. MARTENS (Belgique): A l'article 6 (b), sixième ligne, ma délégation voudrait voir ajouter après le mot "GCRAI": "et en particulier le CIRP". Dans le même sens, il faudrait le noter aussi dans l'article 7.1.

CHAIRMAN: Are there any observations on that proposed amendment?

R. GUADARRAMA SISTOS (México): Me disculpo ante la Comisión por el uso del micrófono pero, ante la ausencia de representantes de países en desarrollo que seguramente estarían tomando en este momento la palabra, me veo en la obligación de insistir en el uso del microfono.

Se insistió en el Grupo de Contacto sobre la inclusión del Grupo Consultivo y del CIRF y los argumentos que se dieron fueron fundamentalmente que no son los únicos elementos activos en materia de recursos fitogenéticos; que existían otros agentes, otras instituciones.

Se mencionó que en términos de los recursos que maneja puede na ser tampoco el principal.

A manera de transacción aceptamos incluir el término del Grupo Consultivo pero que no se nos pida incluir también al IBPGR. Le repito, no sé si por procedimiento sería conveniente tener un mayor número de delegados para evitar que uno o dos países tomen la palabra.

CHAIRMAN: I hope with that explanation Belgium will realize that this is all-embracing. But would you insist, or do you agree? Belgium agrees. Thank you very much. Are there any other comments on Article 6? Then we come to Article 7.

M. MOMBOULI (Congo): J'ai deux observations à faire sur l'article 7. Au point a), le libellé soumet à notre examen deux terminologies: "sous les auspices ou la juridiction de la FAO". J'aimerais que l'on se prononce sur l'un des deux termes. Personnellement, je préférerais: "la juridiction de la FAO".

Au point g), on parle du CIRPG et l'on dit également: "... étende ses activités actuelles, dans les limites de son mandat, en liaison avec la FAO." Je ne vois pas pourquoi on hésite à dire: "sous les auspices ou la juridiction de la FAO."

On devrait savoir ce que l'on veut mettre dans le texte. Il s'agit d'un engagement, il ne faut pas laisser la possibilité de reculer une fois qu'on s'est engagé. Je suis moi-même pour: "la juridiction de la FAO", dans les deux cas.

CHAIRMAN: I think with respect to 7.1(a) it should really be "the auspices or the jurisdiction". That is a typographical error. I would like to ask Dr Bommer to comment on 7.1(g).

D.F.R. BOMMER (Asistant Director-General, Agriculture Department): I can’ only explain that in the Contact Group this paragraph was introduced and adopted. "Liaison with FAO" could read "cooperation with FAO".

CHAIRMAN: Congo, is that all right?

M. MOMBOULI (Congo): Pour le point a), je ne sais pas s'il y a un choix possible ou si les deux termes: "sous les auspices ou la juridiction" doivent être retenus. Personnellement, je serais pour "la juridiction".

Pour le point g), on peut mettre: "en liaison ou en coopération avec la FAO", mais pourquoi ne met-on pas: "sous les auspices de la FAO"? Je sais bien qu'il s'agit d'un consensus, mais il faut quand même tenir compte de ce que l'on veut mettre dans un texte d'engagement, puisqu'il s'agit d'un engagement.

CHAIRMAN: Perhaps we could finish with this. I just want to indicate that we spent more than two hours on this one in the Contact Group and we ended up agreeing that for purposes of serving all languages - because, for example, it seems clear that the English "auspices" were not the same as the Spanish "auspices". So we agreed that it should be "auspices or jurisdiction" to accommodate everybody. But if you insist we can refer to Legal Counsel. Do you insist?

M. MOMBOULI (Congo): Si vous voulez laisser la porte ouverte, chacun choisira. Si vous pensez qu'il y a un choix à faire, on peut laisser le texte tel quel. Mais personnellement, je pensais qu'un terme devait être retenu qui serait valable pour tout le monde, car pour un engagement, c'est tout de même un peu vague, il faut le reconnaître, juridiquement parlant.

CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for your cooperation. You still have problems with 7.1(g). Dr Bommer, could you clarify that?

D.F.R. BOMMER (Assistant Director-General, Agriculture Department): I think "liaison" could be changed to "collaboration". "Auspices" would not be correct reflecting the status.

CHAIRMAN: Congo, are you happy that IBPGR is not under the auspices of FAO?

M. MOMBOULI (Congo): Je ne veux pas tirer les choses en longueur, mais j'essaie de comprendre ce que cela veut dire. Enfin, on peut accepter cela comme ça.

CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for your cooperation again. Are there any more comments on Article 7?

J.M. BOLIVAR SALCEDO (España): Unicamente no nos ha quedado claro si se ha modificado el texto del artículo 7.1 g), si se mantiene la palabra "conexión" o se cambia por "coordinación".

CHAIRMAN: I think we are going to leave it as it is.

J.J. HARDON (Netherlands): We expect that Article 7, notably 7.1 (a) and 7.1 (e), may cause some confusion in the respective responsibilities of FAO and IBPGR and their mutual relationship. We do feel that this should be clarified because it is precisely ambiguities of this kind, which may have a bad effect on the Organization and its activities. Especially in a time of shortage of funds we cannot accept that. We would like to make a proposal. It: is that FAO and IBPGR or CGIAR are asked jointly to prepare a study which surveys what is being done in the field of genetic conservation, or perhaps more interestingly what is not being done in the field of genetic conser‐vation. When we have a clear picture of the total requirements we can define how we are going to solve these problems. Also this will clarify the role that IBPGR can play in the total field of genetic conservation and also clarify the role of FAO. But if nothing else is being done we feel this may cause some confusion and we feel this is bad for the Organization.

CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I think your proposal is a legitimate one, which definitely should be dealt with. But in the meantime can we leave these words as they are on the understanding that your request will be met by those three organizations? Are there any more comments on Article 7?

R. GUADARRAMA SISTOS (México): Me voy a referir a una omisión involuntaria, totalmente involuntaria, de parte de la Secretaría, de un acuerdo al que llegamos el sábado por la noche en el Grupo de Contacto.

Se omitió por error la parte final del artículo 7.2 con lo cual habría que completar, y repito esto es una simple omisión de la Secretaría lo que nos presenta el Documento 83/LIM/32 con la siguiente oración (aparece originalmente en el Reporter del Director General y aceptamos el párrafo en su forma original) que diría: "El Centro pertinente deberá, siempre que así se lo pida la FAO, poner a disposición de la Organización material de la colección base y permitirá su acceso a los locales e instalaciones de la colección".

Señor Presidente, repito que esto es una omisión involuntaria de la Secretaría y que habría que incorporarla en el Documento que estamos revisando.

D.F. SMITH (Australia): Our clear understanding was that it was agreed to omit that. I have consulted a number of other representatives on the Contact Group who agree. In view of the fact that the Secretariat did not write that in as an amendment, I presume that is their position as well.

CHAIRMAN: Thank you. The Secretariat is not supposed to have any position in this. If we were trying to arrive at some agreement, is it the words "access to the premises and facilities" that really cause problems?

D.F. SMITH (Australia): No. It is simply our own notes, which clearly show an agreement that that portion was to be excluded, and I understand that other members have made that same note.

J. M. ALLFREY (United Kingdom): I should just like to intervene briefly to say that my notes accord with those of the delegate of Australia, and having just conferred with the delegate of the United States his notes also accord with those of the delegate of Australia.

J.M. BOLIVAR SALCEDO (España): Se da la circunstancia de que nuestras notas coinciden completamente, al parecer, con las de la Delegación de México.

G. ANDRE (Sweden): Our notes coincide with those of the United Kingdom and so on. I have noted it in my manuscript.

B. H. DJIBRIL (Bénin): Je ne sais pas s'il a été dit expressément de supprimer ce passage. J'ai pris moi-même des notes et ne me souviens pas qu'on ait dit de le supprimer. Personnellement, je ne l'ai pas supprimé. Il faut que d'autres délégations se prononcent.

W. E. ADERO (Kenya): My notes agree with those of Australia, United Kingdom and United States of America.

CHAIRMAN: Distinguished delegates who are not with the Contact Group, you realize we have conflicting notes from the Contact Group. Perhaps you might bring your weight to bear on a quick arrival at a decision on this matter.

M. B. SY (Sénégal): Ma délégation n'a pas participé au groupe de contact. A la lecture de l'article 7.2, et d'après la discussion en séance, il semble que si on n'amende pas cet article d'après la proposition du Mexique et autres, on risque d'avoir un texte qui soit la négation de tout ce que nous avons dit. Il est dit notamment: "Tous gouvernements ou instituts ayant accepté de participer à l'Arrangement peuvent en outre informer le Directeur général de la FAO qu'íls souhaitent que la ou les collections de base dont ils sont responsables soient considérées comme faisant partie..." Ils peuvent donc refuser ou accepter, selon leur désir, que les collections soient une propriété de l'humanité. Je pense qu'il faudrait laisser de côté ces contradictions, suspendre l'examen de cet article et qu'on l'amende selon les propositions qui nous ont été faites.

R. GUADARRAMA SISTOS (México): Señor Presidente: Para compartir con los delegados en la Comisión lo que sucedió en el Grupo de contacto y brevemente reseñaré que, después de un prolongado debate del artículo 7.1, y dado que había una serie de puntos a discutir, decidimos hacer un pequeño inter‐valo con posterioridad. La Secretaría, en la persona del Doctor Bommer, llevó dicha propuesta específica para el 7.2, en el que se diluía el término "Banco Internacional" por una "Red Internacional de Colecciones Base", y él, la Secretaría, propuso poner un punto final en el artículo 7.2, inmediatamente después de "Red Internacional", punto final. Qudaba totalmente al margen, ignorado, que dicha Red Internacional estaría bajo los auspicios o jurisdicción de la FAO, y el resto del párrafo se eliminaba. Fue la propuesta de la Secretaría a la que inmediatamente la delegación de México se opuso, argumentando que habíamos incorporado ya en el 7.1, inciso a), la noción de "Red Interna‐cional de Colecciones Base bajo los auspicios o jurisdicción de la FAO", como aparece en el documento, y de acuerdo a un intercambio de opiniones con el distinguido delegado de la Gran Bretaña, habíamos aceptado hacer un cruzamiento, refiriéndolo nuevamente en los mismos términos en el artículo 7.2. La misma expresión que empleamos en el 7.1, a), para el Banco Internacional, lo emplearíamos idéntico en el 7.2. Como consecuencia, no procede la recomendación, que así la entendemos, efectivamente, la Secretaría recomienda "los Gobiernos toman decisiones". La decisión fue de hacer una referencia cruzada y utilizar el mismo término y continuar con la oración del párrafo en su forma original, porque .nos permitía establecer las modalidades en el establecimiento del Banco. De otra manera, como el distinguido representante del Senegal ha mencionado, queda totalmente desdibujada, totalmente en el aire, dicha propuesta, y no logramos el objetivo deseado.

Esto fue lo que sucedió en la Comisión del Grupo de contacto el sábado por la noche. En consecuencia, la propuesta nuestra fue simplemente destacar una omisión involuntaria de la Secretaría. No creo que sea un problema de traducción. Muchas gracias.

CHAIRMAN: I see that Australia would like to take the floor. It looks like we are back in the Contact Group. Therefore, after Nicaragua I will be suggesting that if the Commission is not able to take a definite decision on this, since we also will not have this room after 2.30, we will have to go on to the other parts and then go back, or take the matter back to the Contact Group, and then have a night session.

V. ESPINOSA (Nicaragua): Mi delegación solamente quería referirse al asunto éste de las notas, ya que nosotros no tenemos ninguna, pero, además nos parece que no se trata de que esté en las notas o no esté en las notas, sino, como han dicho los delegados del Senegal y México, el párrafo 5, parte segunda, queda virtualmente en las nubes, por lo que apoyamos que se incluya.

D.R. GREGORY (Australia): I take the floor in the hope that we can achieve some progress on this. As everybody has pointed out this was a very difficult document to come to grips with, and it took us some eleven hours, from memory. It is a pity that we seem to have floundered on this particular sentence. I will have to indicate at the start that Australia just cannot accept that sentence. It has two parts. One concerns making material available to FAO as such, and the other concerns the policing arrangements that would be introduced. I feel we all have a measure of compromise in trying to agree, and find acceptance for this, and we have always said that we should try to have an agreement that most people can adhere to, because that is the only way we are going to have something that is effective. I feel that some of the parts that are in that sentence are actually subsumed in other articles. I refer in particular to Article 9.3 which, in fact, can be fairly widely interpreted, because it refers us back to the fairly comprehensive treatment of what various agencies and bodies will do in Article 7, which again it is possible to have fairly wide interpretation. I feel that a way around this tremendous difficulty which we have with this second sentence of 7.2, which we honestly believed had been excluded, and I remember also that the paragraphs in 7(h) were added somewhat to overcome the concerns of some delegates. Possibly that Article 9.3, and looking at the particular parts of 7, such as 7(f) which concerns the early warning aspects of FAO, which I think are very useful and a very valuable contribution to identifying where problems may arise, and then leaves open the question of how we make material available to other governments. I mean, do you actually pass to FAO? Do you have a system which works through FAO, which I think has always been the Australian point of view, that you have a useful information system, an early warning system that FAO coordinates and operates, and we thought that was the really valuable contribution that can be made by such an organization as FAO, and the sorts of facilities it provides and operates. So I would hope they we can get around the difficulty of this sentence without further meetings of the Contact Group and so forth.

CHAIRMAN: As you are aware I am very reluctant to go on with this kind of debate, because we do not seem to be getting anywhere. However, before I give the floor to Congo let me make a last desperate effort to ask whether it is - because I hear the word "policing" coming from the delegation of Australia - whether it is that final part which says "and will permit FAO to have access to premises and facilities of the collection".

D.R. GREGORY (Australia): Both parts.

M. MOMBOULI (Congo): Je n^!ai pas l'intention de prolonger la discussion, mais je voudrais simplement souligner que le texte que nous avons adopté est suffisamment souple (je le trouve même trop large). Nous faisons l'effort d'être corrects les uns vis-à-vis des autres, même lorsque nos avis ne sont pas partagés. Ainsi que l'ont dit ceux qui m'ont précédé, je pense que le texte qui nous est proposé devrait être complété selon les propositions des délégations du Mexique et autres. Il y a évidemment beaucoup d'idées qu'on pourrait inclure, mais il faut parvenir à un compromis.

CHAIRMAN: Before we pass on to 8 are there any views or other delegations that could be of benefit to the Contact Group when it reconvenes? Mexico, you are in the Contact Group, and unless there is going to be an improvement on the situation maybe we should allow other people. You are contributing something positive.

R. GUADARRAMA SISTOS (México): Gracias, señor Presidente: la delegación de México siempre hace sus intervenciones con el mejor de los ánimos y tratando de construir; nuestro ánimo es llegar a un arreglo, y reconociendo el argumento de la delegación australiana, la última oración tiene dos ideas: la primera, que es la que nos preocupa, es la del mecanismo que permite establecer el Banco Internacional. Primera idea. Y la segunda, que es la que le preocupa a la delegación australiana, es el acceso y restricto a los locales de las instalaciones. Si ponemos un punto final inmediatamente después de la primera idea, creo que Australia podría aceptar incorporar esta recomendación. En otras palabras, en la versión en español quedaría punto final después de "colecciones base".

CHAIRMAN: We seem to be getting somewhere. I will ask the Secretary to read what is suggested, so that we know exactly what we are talking about.

K. KILLINGSWORTH (Secretary, Commission II): This would be added to the end of the present paragraph 7.2, and as amended by the delegate from Mexico would read, "The centre concerned will, whenever so requested by FAO, make material in the base collection available to FAO".

CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. How does that go down with you, Australia?

D.R. GREGORY (Australia): I have to confer with perhaps other members of the Contact Group, as you rightly suggested, mainly because it was not only Australia who had an opinion about this. I think there was a fairly strong opinion throughout the Contact Group. Perhaps if I could take your suggestion on board, I think as a first reaction I would prefer to see the full stop after the word "available".

CHAIRMAN: We are moving very close to it. Mexico?

R. GUADARRAMA SISTOS (México): Señor Presidente: En español no tiene sentido. Tal vez sea un problema del punto en inglés.

CHAIRMAN: I will ask the Secretary to read out in Spanish.

K. KILLINGSWORTH (Secretaria de la Comisión II): Gracias Señor Presidente: la frase debería leerse con la enmienda como sigue: "El Centro pertinente deberá, siempre que así se lo pida la FAO, poner a disposición material de la colección base".

R. GUADARRAMA SISTOS (Mexico): ¿A disposición de quién, de la Organización de la FAO?

D.R. GREGORY (Australia): Obviously, to make the material available to the network it provides us with considerable difficulty; it raises this physical question again which I thought we had all rejected, this question of a physical bank, and I also note at the beginning of the sentence I would draw your attention to the beginning of the sentence - which refers to governments or institutions that agree to participate in the Undertaking. This is restricting that requirement to those governments. If we make the restriction too strong we are going to have less chance of some governments participating because they see this as a greaher difficulty, and I would appeal to other delegates .... well, leave a degree of looseness if you like, but obviously to whom it is made available, it is made available to the network that we were talking about earlier in "7", I think. Yes, 7 (a) takes the view "develops an internationally coordinated network".

CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Obviously I do not like to interpret your words but if Mexico is listening what you say is that the availability should not be restricted to FAO. FAO could have to request the material but then it should be made available to whoever requested it, and therefore it means it can only facilitate bilateral agreements in the making available of the material.

R. GUADARRAMA SISTOS (Mexico): Le pediría que nos diese un minuto para respirar y poner en orden nuestras ideas. Efectivamente, no estamos pretendiendo que la FAO solicite material para ella, pero sí estamos pretendiendo que la FAO solicite material para un tercero, y la entidad o Banco al que se le solicite, deberá acceder a ello, deberá acceder a esta solicitud. En español, repito omitir "Organización" no tiene la fuerza, el sentido que le queremos dar a la parte final de este párrafo.

CHAIRMAN: I think your point is understood, Mexico, and Australia suggested that instead of leaving a blank there, we should put the word "network". Now I will ask the Secretary to read that amendment with the word "network" in Spanish.

K. KILLINGSWORTH (Secretaria de la Comisión II): Podría leerse: El Centro pertinente deberá, siempre que así se lo pida la FAO, poner a disposición de la red o de la red internacional material de la colección base.

M. MOMBOULI (Congo): Pour la commodité du texte peut-être, mais, dans la pratique, quand nous mettons "mettre à la disposition du réseau ",si un Etat bien précis voulait du matériel du Mexique, comment va-t-il s organiser? A qui va-t-il s'adresser? Le réseau, c'est qui? C'est la FAO? Au moins on connaît la FAO, on peut faire une demande auprès d'elle, mais le réseau, c'est vague. Par où va-t-on commencer? Le réseau, c'est tout le monde à la fois. Vous comprenez peut-être, mais je ne comprends pas comment on pourrait le confier à ce réseau dont on ne connaît pas les éléments. Qui est le représentant du réseau?

Ma proposition concrète est celle que vous connaissez, c'est-à-dire qu'on mette "à la disposition de l'Organisation".

CHAIRMAN: Do you have a suggestion which could lead us to a more specific situation?

D.R. GREGORY (Australia): That is why I think my first preference is still the better one; to make the material available. It leaves it suitably undefined and I think that would meet our requirements. We do not have to be too specific in this regard; it is an undertaking, not a legally binding intention; that is the whole idea of what we have been working on and because of the nature in which it is drafted I think that would adequately meet the requirements on other developments.

H. FARAJ (Maroc): Je vous propose d'ajouter le mot "réseau", le réseau visé au paragraphe 7.1.a).

CHAIRMAN: How does that go down with you, Australia?

D.R. GREGORY (Australia): I think that is where we are.at I also agree with Mexico that at least some members of the Contact Group should try and confer together for ten or fifteen minutes.

CHAIRMAN: Distinguished delegates, we have not got anywhere on this one. We shall leave it for a while and let the Contact Group have another go at it and then we will have a night session. Now Article 8.

S.P. MUKERJI (India): I have a suggestion insofar as clause 8.4 on page 6 is concerned. This clause says, "The funding of. the establishment and operation of the international network, insofar as it imposes additional costs on FAO, in the main will be funded from extra-budgetary resources".

Mr. Chairman I feel that since FAO is going to undertake not only the establishment and operation of the international network but some other duties and obligations also as per Article 7.1, I would suggest that either this sub-clause should be amplified to include not only "international network" in the first line of this sub-clause, but also "global information service and early warning system". Then it will read like this: "the funding of the establishment and operation of the international network, global information service and early warning system, insofar as it imposes" and so on and so forth, or this clause might be redrafted to say, "The funding of the operations obligated on the FAO under Article 7.1, insofar as they impose additional costs on FAO, in the main will be funded from extra-budgetary resources". There are some substances, Mr. Chairman, not merely the international network, but there are other items which are to be undertaken by FAO which may need funding, and therefore to isolate only "international network" and leave out "global information service and early warning system" or other such obligations which will flow from Article 7.1 will not be desirable. Therefore I would suggest that this sub-clause may be amp lified in re lation to Article 7.

D.R. GREGORY (Australia): I am not really opposing what the distinguished delegate of India is putting forward but I want to refer back to our discussions on Saturday evening. It seems to me that in part the most important value we wish in this convention or one of the most important functions for FAO is this early warning system, if you like, and that is referred to in 7.1 (f), and consequently 8.3 really covers that because it refers in 8.3 to 7.1 (f), which is the early warning system.

I think most of the other concerns of the delegate from India are covered by the word "operation" in 8.4, and again this was a clause which was meant to be all embracing, so the "establishment and operation" was very much meant to mean that most of the ideas and thoughts are not covered in 7. 1 (f) already exist in 7.1, but I am not opposing what the distinguished delegate of India is saying; I think it is already covered.

S.P. MUKERJI (India): I am grateful to the distinguished delegate of Australia for drawing my attention to Article 8.3, even if we accept that the "global information service" which is included in sub-clause 7.1 (e) has not yet been covered either by 8.3 or 8.4. Therefore I have no serious objection if, apart from "international network" the words "global information service" are also added to it. But I would still feel that early warning system may need some funding and it should come specifically in Article 8.4.

C.R. BENJAMIN (United States of America): If we are talking about including "global information service" in 8.4 it seems to me that it would be a little premature yet, because back in the body of the Report the Director-General says he wants to make a study, the feasibility of that and the cost, and then make recommendations. If we make a recommendation here it seems to me we are preempting the Director-General and his Report.

CHAIRMAN: It looks to me like there is not really any disagreement between Australia and India. India, would you not take it that the cross-reference made covers the sense?

M. FARAJ (Maroc): Je voudrais ajouter quatre petits mots au 8.4 en disant: "le financement de la création et du fonctionnement du réseau international, dans la mesure où il impose des frais sup‐plémentaires à la FAO, sera assuré pour l'essentiel et dans l'immédiat par des ressources extra‐budgétaires’’.

CHAIRMAN: This is another idea; but could we get a meeting of minds between Australia and India?

S.P. MUKERJI (India): I simply wanted to facilitate the funding problems of FAO, but if the FAO Secretariat feels that the wording as it stands now in Article 8.4 will not pose any serious problems to the Undertaking at any point of time in future, either the global information service or early warning system, I have no objection to the existing wording. But I would leave it to the Secretariat of FAO to satisfy them that this will not be a roadblock in the Undertaking, this very important task of the global information service in future, or the early warning system.

CHAIRMAN: Can Dr Bommer please confirm?

D.F.R. BOMMER (Assistant Director-General, Agriculture Department): I think the present wording takes care of this.

CHAIRMAN: India, you have been assured. Then we have no more problems on Article 8. Morocco suggested "for the time being". Could you explain it a little, "for the time being"?

M. FARAJ (Maroc): Elle est parfaitement justifiée. Il s'agit de ne pas laisser ce type d'opéra‐tion ad vitam aeternam par des ressources extra-budgétaires, et laisser dans le futur au Directeur général de la FAO, lorsque le'projet se développera, la possibilité de puiser et d'utiliser d'autres ressources. Voilà la modification de cet amendement.

D.R. GREGORY (Australia): We seem to be in the position of Mexico, apologising for taking the Hoc all the time, but being a member of the Contact Group I thought we had more or less hammered out something we could all agree to. As far as I am concerned, the inclusion of those words makes Article 8.4 completely redundant and you might as well remove it altogether. The absence of 8. would make the position for Australia extremely difficult, that is all I can say. I had noted already that it is fairly loose in the main as a qualifying statement: we recognize that it may be useful from time to time to call on funds from, say the TCP which is part of the Regular Programme; hence the use of that phrase. I think it is a fairly mildly worded clause and so I could not agree with the suggested words, for the obvious implications they have.

CHAIRMAN: I would like to plead with Morocco here that this really is the basis of all the divergence of opinion on this whole matter and if we can afford it, please let us just take it that we have time to amend and refine this document. Let us live with what we have; do you mind? Thank you very much for your cooperation.

Any more comments on Article 8? None that I see. Let us take Article 9.

M. MOMBOULI (Congo): A l'article 9.2 j'imagine que vous savez pourquoi je demande la parole. Il y a une petite étoile dans ce paragraphe et une note en bas de page qui indique pourquoi elle existe. Je voudrais dire que l'on devrait simplement au moins enlever cette étoile et le crochet, et le minimum serait que ce texte soit gardé en l'état, en éliminant la note qui figure en bas de page.

CHAIRMAN: Does the United Kingdom delegate have any comment to make on this?

J.M. ALLFREY (United Kingdom): In the Contact Group we expressed reservations about this inter-governmental committee. In the interests of obtaining agreement we are prepared to remove those reservations although, in view of what the FAO Secretariat have told us about the difficulties of putting such a committee actually into the body of the Undertaking, we should prefer to see it in the Resolution rather than in the Undertaking, if that is at all possible.

Furthermore, I think we should perhaps like to make the positive suggestion that this inter-governmental committee should report to COAG, although that is really a matter for further discussion rather than a matter for this Undertaking itself.

CHAIRMAN: Now, on the words in parentheses.

D.R. GREGORY (Australia): On the question of the IGG, as far as we are concerned I think we suggested on Saturday that it might be useful. We do not have any great problems with the idea of the body, let us put it that way. We thought it might have been more useful to overcome this legal problem if it was put in the Resolution, and I therefore thought it was better to state the position which the Contact Group was aware of; to have a Resolution asking the Director-General to consider the establishment of inter-governmental group to réport to an appropriate body of the Council. That would leave the way clear for the appropriate considerations and legal problems to be sorted out by the Secretariat. I think all we need to do is give the Director-General the authority, and that is fine, I would have thought it was most satisfactorily handled in the. Resolution itself.

CHAIRMAN: In the light of those explanations, Congo, would you like to speak again?

M. MOMBOULI (Congo): Je pense d'abord que le groupe intergouvernemental doit se créer, si nous tenons absolument à créer la Banque internationale de ressources phytogénétiques d'une part. D'autre part, je pense qu'abondance de biens ne nuit pas et puisque l'Australie et un certain nombre d'honorables délégués ne semblent pas être dérangés outre mesure par ce libellé, on peut le mettre d'abord ici et ensuite dans la résolution. Je ne vois pas pourquoi il faudrait le supprimer ici pour le mettre dans la résolution, puisque pour nous c'est un point important.

B. SY (Sénégal): Il s'agit de la surveillance des activités. On nous a dit que le Groupe de tact avait eu de longues discussions pour introduire cette phrase dans la résolution, alors que place se trouve ici. Il faut qu'il y ait une institution intergouvernementale, nommée par la ·/?/rence et les Etats eux-mêmes, non seulement pour suivre mais contrôler les arrangements de /?/éicle 7. Il faudrait que l'on dise que cette institution contrôlera le fonctionnement, car si /?/ne fait que suivre, je me demande quelle serait sa raison d'être.

CHAIRMAN: It seems to me there are no strong feelings about having it here or in the Resolution. I would like the Legal Counsel to clear our minds.

LEGAL COUNSEL: I think if you leave this within the Undertaking, it. tends to be somewhat confusing, in the sense that it is not clear whether it is an integral part of the Undertaking, whether the creation of this body is contingent upon a wide measure of support for the Undertaking expressed by adhering States, or what the exact object is. On the other hand, if — as I think the delegate of the United Kingdom suggested and I think other delegates have agreed — it was placed elsewhere in the Resolution, that would be a possibility. Or, a second alternative would be to have a Reso‐lution quite independently but connected with the Resolution on the Undertaking, but a specific Resolution, establishing a particular body; or, if you do not want to specify exactly at this stage the type of body that you would like to have established at the inter-governmental level, then giving instructions of what further measures should be taken in order to bring this about. But I would suggest that the least desirable place for this idea is in the middle of the Undertaking itself.

R. GUADARRAMA SISTOS (México): Con todo el respeto que nos merece el consejo del Asesor Jurídico, estamos de acuerdo con el distinguido Delegado del Senegal y lo destacamos insistentemente en nues‐tras intervenciones durante el Grupo de Contacto, incorporar en el compromiso al Grupo Integuberna-mental es entender que el compromiso tiene diversos elementos y pretendemos que los Gobiernos aquí representados tengan también la capacidad de discutir en relación a los recursos fitogenéticos en el futuro.

El Grupo Intergubernamental es una pieza importante, podría decir vital, del sistema global al que aspiramos. Un sistema que incluye evidentemente bancos, pero también los cuerpos de decisión y en este sentido el Grupo Intergubernamental es la única, y quiero subrayarlo, la única instancia que tenemos los representantes de Gobiernos para poder discutir sobre la materia. De ahí la importan‐cia de incorporarlo en el cuerpo del compromiso. Pero además, y esto es obvio, el compromiso es voluntario.

No estamos hablando como lo propusimos inicialmente de un convenio con fuerza legal; estamos ha‐blando de un compromiso voluntario. La cláusula o el artículo 11 es muy claro y específico en ello.

En consecuencia apoyamos, fuimos nosotros, la Delegación de México la que incorporó este párrafo y queremos insistir en mantenerlo.

Habíamos llegado a un acuerdo en el Grupo de Contacto. Me sorprende ahora el cambio y por eso nos atrevimos a tomar nuevamente el micrófono. Además de eso, señor Presidente, inmediatamente después del artículo 7, en el mismo artículo 9.2 hay un problema de interpretación de la Secretaría. Nadie, y repito nadie, aprobó incorporar "la FAO". Se dice "tomarán o recomendarán las medidas necesarias", inmediatamente después del artículo 7. Me estoy refiriendo al Grupo Intergubernamental y a la Se‐cretaría de la FAO.

CHAIRMAN: Are there any comments on the "intergovernmental group"?

B. H. DJIBRIL (Bénin): Etant donné l'importance que plusieurs délégations, y compris la mienne, attachent à la création d'un comité intergouvernemental, et compte tenu des discussions que nous avons eues au niveau du Groupe de contact, ma délégation suggère la solution suivante:

Qu'un comité intergouvernemental soit créé comme organe subsidiaire du Conseil afin qu'il puisse se réunir dès la prochaine séance du Conseil. Ceci pour plusieurs raisons:

1. Parce que le temps presse. En effet, il faut engager les moyens nécessaires pour sauvegarder le matériel phytogénétique qui est, comme nous l'avons tous remarqué, en voie de disparition. Si nous attendons la prochaine séance du Comité de l'agriculture, ce ne sera qu'en 1985 car le COAG ne siège que tous les deux ans alors que le Conseil se réunit bien plus souvent.

2. Selon la rédaction adoptée par le Groupe de contact, dont ma délégation fait partie, la conser‐vation doit concerner toutes les espèces d'importance économique et sociale, et non pas seulement les plants cultivés qui tombent sous le mandat du Comité de l'agriculture. Le mandat du Comité intergouvernemental à créer doit donc dépasser le champ d'activité du COAG. Il apparaît plus logique que le Comité intergouvernemental soit directement rattaché au Conseil.

Ma délégation propose concrètement à notre Commission que le Comité intergouvernemental soit tout aussi bien mentionné dans l'engagement international que dans la résolution. Elle suggère à notre Commission d'approuver ce point de vue que le Comité intergouvernemental est partie intégrante du système mondial de ressources vitales. L'article 5, alinéa 6 de la Constitution,autorise bien un tel Comité intergouvernemental.

CHAIRMAN: I do not see anywhere on the horizon a meeting of minds on this and therefore we will push it aside for the Contact Group until we reconvene at 6.00 in the Green Room. Are there any problems on Article 10? None that I see, therefore that is accepted. Article 11?

R. GUADARRAMA SISTOS (México): En un afán de llegar a soluciones por la tarde en el Grupo de Con‐tacto recuerdo el contenido del artículo 11 en el cual los diversos Gobiernos establecerán las condiciones para llevar a práctica el Compromiso; cada Gobierno se reserva el evidente derecho de aceptar, y en qué grado, el Compromiso. Esto es importante. No estamos imponiendo nada a nadie. Lo digo para la revisión de los artículos que nos merecen la formación del Grupo de Contacto por la tarde.

Falta el título en español del artículo 11.

CHAIRMAN: Then with an addition to the Spanish version, Article 11 is also accepted. Therefore Articles 1 to 6 have been accepted and also 8, 10 and 11.

The meeting rose at 14.30 hours
Le séance est levée à 14h 30
Se levanta la sesión a las 14.30 horas