CHAIRMAN: Distinguished delegates, good afternoon to you. We have before us for this afternoon three documents which we are going to deal with. Last night we dealt partly with two of these. The one that we have not dealt with but which was introduced in general terms last night is C 83/LIM/33 which is a new resolution. That is the first document we are going to deal with.
The second document that we shall deal with is C 83/II/REP/4 which contains the Draft Resolution on the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources and has an annex which is the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources, and in that document we will deal in the first part concerning the resolution with a footnote on reservations that were made last night, and on the second part we will deal with Article 9.2.
The final document that we shall deal with is C 83/II/REP/5 which is the report of Commission II on Plant Genetic Resources (Follow-up of Conference Resolution 6/81) and in that document I want you to note that this document has not gone to the Drafting Committee. It has come directly to this Commission because we do not have time to take it to the Drafting Committee and then back to the Commission, so we are going to consider it directly.
We start now with document C 83/LIM/33.
M. MOMBOULI (Congo): J'ai suivi avec intérêt l'ordre dans lequel vous souhaitez que le document soit examiné. Personnellement, je souhaiterais que cet ordre soit un peu bouleversé, c'est-à-dire que l'on commence par la dernière discussion que nous avons eue ensemble; nous pourrions regarder le nouveau texte qui est introduit, le document C 83/LIM/33, avant le dernier document. Je pense que dans le nouveau texte qui nous est proposé, il est fait allusion aux choses sur lesquelles nous ne nous sommes pas mis d'accord. Je suggérerai que l'examen du nouveau C 83/LIM/33 soit reporté à un peu plus tard, lorsque nous aurons épuisé les premières questions.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Congo, but I should rule that we will start with C 83/LIM/33, because last night we considered the resolution now contained in C 83/II/REP/4, and the only thing that is left on it is to get the wording of the reservations on the resolution, and we have dealt with the Undertaking and the only part of the Undertaking that has not been agreed upon is Article 9.2. All others were agreed upon last night, so we have considered those two documents except for those two aspects that I have mentioned, and unless in C 83/LIM/33 you have a cross reference to 9.2 then you are free to do so.
M.S. ZEHNI (Libya): I think the point just raised by Congo is a pertinent one which I think requires some explanation on my part. As this draft Resolution was thought of late yesterday or last night, at that time the only wording that was available was "any necessary mechanisms", so I am putting it here on the provision that whatever the final outcome of the discussion of 9.2 we would put the exact wording of 9.2 instead of this wording here, but this is the wording that was available up to last night so it should not be binding to anybody at this stage.
R. SALLERY (Canada): Assuming that we are dealing with C 83/LIM/33, I think it appropriate that we compliment our Libyan colleague and those who worked with him for the work which they have done on this resolution. You will recall that my delegation at one point had suggested that the IBPGR could report to COAG periodically, or that COAG could have as one of its agenda items for its sessions, an item on plant genetic resources. This Resolution meets many of our concerns and will, I believe, be acceptable to many of the delegations here.
You will recall, however, that the Government of Canada made a reservation on principle on the previous resolution and the undertaking itself. We will therefore have to make a similar reservation on this resolution, at least until our authorities in Ottawa have had an opportunity to consider it; and I would therefore request that a footnote to this effect appear in the resolution.
It would also greatly facilitate our consideration of this resolution if we could be assured from you, Mr Chairman, and the Secretariat that the resolution in no way interferes with the current mandate of the International Board of Plant Genetic Research, that the sub-committee as proposed would not seek to govern or direct the activities of IBPGR; that the costs of activities developed by the sub-committee or the secretariat in response to this resolution are to be borne by the voluntary signatories to the Convention itself.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for your continuing cooperation, Canada.
H. LOPEZ DE MORAL (Colombia): En realidad quería con su venia hacer una pregunta sobre el procedimiento solamente.
El Delegado del Congo hizo una propuesta sobre el orden en que íbamos a tratar los documentos aquí en el seno de esta Comisión. La propuesta de la Delegación del Congo fue apoyada por la Delegación de Libia que fue la Delegación que presentó este documento.
Antes de seguir adelante en el debate, me gustaría saber cuál es el documento que estamos discutiendo y a qué documento tenemos que hacer referencia en nuestra intervención.
CHAIRMAN: Since Libya had drafted the resolution, what the delegate was doing was to give an explanation of the words that are used which are corss-referenced into Article 9.2 of the proposed undertaking. We are now dealing with document C 83/LIM/33.
C.R. BENJAMIN (United States of America): Our delegation would join with certainly most of the comments from the Canadian delegation. We feel that the Libyan resolution is well done. We feel also that a if a new body is needed, the proposal to establish a sub-committee of COAG which would meet concurrently with COAG is probably the best arrangement. However, the United States is not convinced that a new sub-committee is necessary and, in any case, it would seem premature until the undertaking becomes operative.
Likewise, the decision on the need for a sub-committee would seem better left to the Director-General, the Council and the COAG, without mandating that it be set up.
For these reasons, and to be consistent with our policy on the undertaking, the United States wishes to reserve its position on this resolution and requests, like Canada, that our reservation be indicated in a footnote to the resolution.
S. GOTO (Japan): With regard to the proposed resolution we are of the view that the possible establishment of a subsidiary body of COAG on plant genetic resources should first be examined by the COAG itself, including the necessity of a new body or, if COAG considers it necessary, the terms of reference of the new body. We believe it is not appropriate for the Conference to pre-judge the future practice of the Director-General and of COAG. If the Conference wants to adopt this resolution, we would like to reserve our position on it and the reservation to be specified in a footnote.
M. MOMBOULI (Congo): Je vous remercie, M. le Président, d'avoir bien voulu me redonner la parole, et je remercie également la- délégation de la Libye qui a fait la proposition de résolution et qui m'a donné les explications que j'attendais.
.Si j'ai demandé que l'on change l'ordre dans lequel sont examinés les documents, c'est parce que j'ai constaté qu'au deuxième paragraphe de la résolution présentée par la Libye, on faisait également allusion au point 9.2, et je craignais que l'on puisse examiner un texte qui fasse allusion à un autre texte. Dans cette optique, je pensais qu'il était bon qu'on en finisse avec l'engagement d'abord, et ensuite que l'on examine la résolution après avoir réglé la question de l'engagement. J'ai donc suggéré que la résolution de la Libye soit examinée plus tard.
Si la Conférence estime que l'on peut faire autrement, pour moi, cela va aussi bien, en sachant d'avance que la question est ouverte pour la résolution du fait qu'on ne se serait pas mis d'accord sur l'engagement.
A. LUTZ (Finland): I have a question, namely: now we have this document C 83/LIM/33 and I see that it can be related to Article 11 of the undertaking when discussing the principles. I do not know whether this new committee or sub-committee which has been proposed can be interpreted as one of the principles. If it can be interpreted as one of the principles, then I see a certain danger that this would probably prevent some countries from joining in the undertaking.
H. FARAY (Maros): Notre délégation est parfaitement favorable à la résolution préséntee par la Libye. Nous l'appuyons à fond. Mais nous sommes obligés de faire des réserves qui vont non pas dans le sens de celles du Canada, mais dans le sens de celles du Congo. Etant donné que cette résolution fait allusion, et même référence, à l'engagement international, il nous paraît pour le moins curieux d'adopter la résolution avant de s'être mis d'accord sur les termes de l'engagement.
M. AHMAD (Pakistan): My delegation would like to compliment the Libyan delegation for bringing forward a very constructive resolution which has our wholehearted support. Yesterday the Pakistan delegation was one of those who insisted on mention being made of the inter-governmental Committee in Article 9.2 of the Undertaking. In view of the fact that this resolution has been moved, and subject to some slight amendments which we shall suggest when the substance of this resolution is discussed, we shall withdraw our opposition to the draft. suggested by the Contact Group.
CHAIRMAN: Do you have amendments that you would like to propose?
M. AHMAD (Pakistan): Is this the time for suggesting some minor amendments in this? I thought that the discussion was going to be on the general principle of this resolution, but perhaps a little later, if you so wish, I can suggest amendments.
CHAIRMAN: If you are ready with the amendments, we can take them right away.
M. AHMAD (Pakistan): I would suggest that in this operative paragraph starting with"requests" – I would suggest "requests the Council", the word "hereby" is not necessary - "requests the Council to establish a subsidiary body". The rest of the words need not be mentioned. This is the only amendment I had in view.
LEGAL COUNSEL: There is a slight technical difficulty, I am afraid, with the suggestion made by Pakistan. The words "and the Committee on Agriculture to take the necessary measures" are intended to cover the fact that the Council does not establish the subsidiary bodies of its own subsidiary bodies. In order to follow the hierarchy down the line, the Conference instructs the Council, the Council in turn instructs its own subsidiary body to create the body which you are trying to establish here.
I therefore think, with all due respect, that it would be preferable to leave the wording as proposed by Libya in this particular paragraph. The word "hereby" could, of course, very well be left out.
CHAIRMAN: Pakistan, are you happy with the explanation?
M. AHMAD (Pakistan): I am happy with the explanation but that only means that the words "and the COAG" need to be deleted. But I had suggested that my proposal that the words "take the necessary action to" may still be eliminated. I did not hear any clarification to that effect from the Podium.
LEGAL COUNSEL: Yes, I think that would be perfectly in order. The paragraph would then read: "Requests the Council and the Committee on Agriculture to establish" etc. I think that would meet the point raised by the delegate of Pakistan.
J. SONNEVELD (Netherlands): Generally we can agree with the proposed resolution. We have only one question and in fact a proposal. In paragraph 2.(b) it is stated that, it belongs to the Terms of Reference of the Sub-Committee "to take or recommend measures". My question is whether a subcommittee can take measures and that it should not be "recommend measures" and then "to recommend to" either to FAO or to national governments or to IBPGR or whatever other organization "to take measures".
LEGAL COUNSEL: In connection with the observations of the delegate of the Netherlands, the sub-sidiary bodies of the Committee on Agriculture, of course, report to that Committee, so you could leave just "recommend measures". Its reports will, of course, go to the Committee on Agriculture which is the only body to which it is competent to report.
CHAIRMAN: Netherlands, are you happy with that?
J. SONNEVELD (Netherlands): Yes.
CHAIRMAN: Any more requests for the floor? In that case I believe we have had our discussion on document C 83/LIM/33 and the resolution. The principle of the resolution is generally agreed but with the reservations as indicated by Canada, the United States and Japan.
Before we adopt this resolution, as we did this other one yesterday, we move to the next item so that we can get appropriate wording with respect to the second paragraph of this resolution. Going now to document C 83/II/REP/4, on page 2, which contains the resolution on International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources.
R. SALLERY (Canada): The question of the text of the footnote and the location for that footnote, I would like to propose that the footnote appear right after "Resolution /83", in other words at the top of the page. The footnote itself would read very simply as follows, "the Governments of Canada, Japan, Switzerland and the United States of America reserve their positions with respect to the Resolution and the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources".
CHAIRMAN: I should like to direct this question to the secretariat and the Legal Counsel. Is that arrangement proposed by Canada acceptable and in order?
LEGAL COUNSEL: The making of reservations is very common and there have been many precedents for doing so. The place where the reservation is inserted and where the footnote actually appears varies considerably and has many variants in the practice of FAO. I do not think there would be any objection, unless the Conference itself has any objection. From the Secretariat point of view, it would not be inadmissable to place it where the delegate of Canada suggested.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, that is in order.
E.J. STONYER (New Zealand): We expressed yesterday some difficulty with parts of the undertaking. I think I am asking for some guidance at this point. We feel there is still an omission in the undertaking as it is set out at the present time. Is this the correct place to put down the reservations for the other countries, is this the right approach?
CHAIRMAN: New Zealand, are you reserving your position on everything, Resolution and Undertaking?
E.J. STONYER (New Zealand): Not everything, no, certainly not.
CHAIRMAN: On what?
E.J. STONYER (New Zealand): As we pointed out yesterday we feel there is an omission in the undertaking which does not cover for the breeding material, from the compensation of breeders for the breeding material and it is this particular area where we have the difficulty.
CHAIRMAN: New Zealand, would you be happy if your reservation was recorded in the report.
E.J. STONYER (New Zealand): Yes, that would be satisfactory.
CHAIRMAN: In that case we move on to the Annex.
R. GUADARRAMA SISTOS (México): Antes de pasar al Compromiso, y dado que se han manifestado reservas para aprobar la resolución sobre Recursos Fitogenéticos, tal vez valdría la pena hacer una leve enmienda, leve enmienda, para tomar en consideración estos casos en el punto 4, al final de la resolución. Repito, para reconocer estas objeciones que han manifestado algunas delegaciones, propondríamos una redacción que diera cabida a esta situación. Al final del punto 4, el último de la resolución, tendríamos que sustituir "Estados interesados" por "Estados firmantes del Compromiso", "Estados firmantes del Compromiso", ya que nos estamos refiriendo al órgano o mecanismo intergubernamental, al cual pueden acogerse todos los Estados Miembros, en este caso particularmente, los que firmen o apoyen con su firma el Compromiso internacional. Esto es para responder simplemente a las notas al pie de página que se han incluido.
LEGAL COUNSEL: I should like a clarification from the delegate of Mexico. I am not entirely sure of how his proposed amendment fits in with the Resolution which had been proposed by Libya whereby an intergovernmental body, which would be a subsidiary body of the Committee on Agriculture, would be open to all Member Nations of FAO and also to non Member Nations of FAO. The amendment that he is proposing to paragraph 4 limits the Director-General's proposal to only those states that are signatories - perhaps signatories is not the right word, rather those who actually adhere to the Undertaking. Therefore there seems to be a conflict here. Maybe the delegate of Mexico could explain what he has in mind, because I might also point out that the Director-General's proposal in document C 83/25, as far as I recollect, does not limit membership of the body proposed there to those countries that adhere to the Undertaking. I would also draw attention to the fact that when adhering to the Undertaking, Article 11 specifically envisages governments indicating the extent to which they can give effect to the principles contained therein. Moreover, would "those who adhere" include those who adhere, but at the same time indicate that they had certain difficulties with one or more provisions?
CHAIRMAN: In the light of those explanations, Mexico, do you insist on your amendment?
R. GUADARRAMA SISTOS (México): Agradecemos la explicación del Asesor Jurídico, pero nos parece pertinente la observación y la propuesta de todos modos. Efectivamente, estamos hablando de un órgano auxiliar. En este caso estamos poniéndonos de acuerdo en que será dependiente del COAG para que puedan tomar o compartir, sería más apropiado decirlo, compartir, decisiones en materia de recursos fitogenéticos. La resolución y particularmente el Compromiso, se refieren a Estados e Instituciones no miembros de la FAO, como correctamente lo señaló el Asesor Jurídico, que tengan la voluntad, y subrayo voluntad, de firmar el Compromiso. Esto es simplemente lo que hay que mostrar: la de firmar y apoyar al Compromiso. En consecuencia, la constitución del órgano auxiliar tendrá acceso a aquellos que han firmado el Compromiso, y en consecuencia, se incorporen plenamente a las discusiones del órgano auxiliar.
Creo que la posición nuestra es muy clara, señor Presidente: la voluntad-estamos pidiendo que el Compromiso vaya acompañado de una firma inicial.
R. SALLERY (Canada): I just wanted to ask additional questions to the Legal Counsel, one, whether or not it would be possible to exclude membership, say, on this sub-committee to members who were already members of COAG, whether that is possible, and two, whether or not it is necessary for us to specify some kind of trigger, mechanism in order to make this resolution operative, i.e., do you need a minimum number of signatories?
J.M. ALLFREY (United Kingdom): I am afraid I have some difficulties with the Mexican suggestion. It had been my understanding that this intergovernmental committee which we have all now been arguing about for some time was intended to be a body open to all, not only Member Nations of COAG but to other countries and also other organizations. In this case even the original wording of point 4 is somewhat narrow, although I do not intend arguing with that, but I certainly have difficulties with the narrowing of the scope of the Committee as proposed by the Mexican delegation.
LEGAL COUNSEL: I should like to answer the two questions raised by the delegate of Canada. In paragraphs 12 and 13 of Rule XXXII, which relates to the Committee on Agriculture, it is laid down that the Committee may establish subsidiary bodies on an exceptional basis. Paragraph 13(a) in particular provides that the Committee may include in the membership of subsidiary bodies Member Nations that are not members of the Committee. Paragraph 13(b) goes on to refer to non-Member Nations of the Organization. Therefore, I think it is fairly clear from these provisions, that all subsidiary bodies would be open to those states that are members of COAG and, consequently one would not exclude members of COAG on the basis of whether or not a country had adhered to the Undertaking. That is the first point.
The second point relates to whether a trigger mechanism is required. The answer to that is no. The Undertaking is not a convention; it does not enter into force on ratification or any particular act by a certain number of governments. A government which adheres to the Undertaking is making a unilateral declaration which is strongly morally binding on it. But it is not a legal obligation vis-à-vis all the other governments, and this is explained in some detail in the basic document that you have been considering. The Undertaking will be circulated and any government may, at any time, write to the Director-General indicating that it is prepared to adhere to it and, as I said before, also indicating the extent to which it is in a position to apply the principles embodied in the Undertaking.
W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of) (original language German): Actually it was not the intention of my delegation to speak on this point. However, I think we have to. Having heard the reasons adduced by the delegate of the United Kingdom I should like to say that we too share them and find it difficult to accept Mexico's proposal for this paragraph 4. Perhaps I could add one further reason for our misgivings. It was our original view that COAG itself could perfom the tasks of this inter-governmental body. The majority view was that a decision had to be taken now on the setting up of a subsidiary body, that was the view that prevailed. We have our misgivings about that but we did not voice them.
There is one thing I want to say, however. Let us not forget that the attractiveness of the whole Undertaking is a point of quite considerable importance. The Undertaking as a whole can only be effective if it provides a basis for the cooperation of a large number of Member States. This is something I think we ought not to jeopardise.
CHAIRMAN: Apart from the difficulty that was expressed by the delegate of the United Kingdom and the one from the Federal Republic of Germany it would seem that in line with the explanations of the Legal Counsel the proposal you have made might be contrary to the provisions in the Basic Texts. Would you still like to insist on your amendment?
R. GUADARRAMA SISTOS (México): Nuestra intención en la propuesta fue fundamentalmente destacar la necesidad de buena voluntad que debe mover a los Estados en la firma del Compromiso. Hemos insistido, a lo largo de nuestras intervenciones, que los países en desarrollo hubieran aspirado a un convenio internacional donde las responsabilidades y los derechos de los participantes fueran
reconocidos y respaldados por todos, dentro de un marco legal. A lo largo de nuestras intervenciones hemos insistido en que, si no hay condiciones para ello, el Compromiso internacional que nos presenta el Director General es aceptable bajo el supuesto de buena voluntad de los participantes. En el momento en que algunas delegaciones se hacen reservas respecto a la resolución y tienen el derecho, como miembros del Comité de Agricultura, de participar en el órgano auxiliar que formamos, no observamos equivalencia de responsabilidades y derechos de todos aquellos miembros que, habiendo firmado el Compromiso, estamos también participando en el órgano auxiliar. Este fue el motivo, la razón que motivó nuestra recomendación. Si no hay delegaciones que apoyen nuestra moción, si se considera pertinente que existen más observaciones, nosotros retiramos nuestra propuesta.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your cooperation, Mexico.
R.C. GUPTA (India): I have just heard the intervention of the delegate of Mexico, but we have certain difficulties with respect to operative paragraph 4 of the resolution under consideration. We feel that as a matter of principle any organization or country or body which does not undertake any responsibility with respect to this Undertaking inasmuch as it is not a signatory, with or without reservations, we do not see such an organization or state or body getting any right to monitor activities in respect of this Undertaking. This is a quid pro quo. If some body takes responsibilities or liabilities in respect of this Undertaking only such a state or body should have a right to monitor. We do not see how this could be left open to everybody that they get a right to monitor or supervise activities of organizations participating in this Undertaking, whereas they do not undertake any responsibility whatsoever. So we would like to limit the membership of this inter-governmental body to such organizations and countries which have something to do with the Undertaking and certain responsibilities under this Undertaking. Otherwise we will find it very difficult to agree.
CHAIRMAN: Before we go on with this discussion, the point of the matter is that you have suggested that this body should be a subsidiary of the COAG, and the Legal Counsel has just read the provisions that indicate what should happen in the event that COAG establishes a subsidiary body, and that is open, according to law, to all Member States who are members of COAG, including even others who are not Member States. There is no way that we can go against the provisions of the law as long as we say that this body should be a subsidiary of COAG.
A. CAVERO MONCANUT (España): Mi delegación no ve claras las cosas en este momento. Apoya la propuesta de México por que considera que igual que hay reservas para la firma del Compromiso debería haber reservas para formar parte del Grupo Intergubernamental a los países que no estén interesados en el compromiso.
Yo no sé legalmente si se podría hacer estas reservas para entrar en el grupo, pero no vemos que las cosas estén claras en este sentido.
CHAIRMAN: I think it should be clear. Members of the body who are participating in these deliberations all have a right to reserve. However, I would like once more to ask the Legal Counsel to explain very carefully what is in the Basic Texts relating to COAG and the establishment of subsidiary bodies thereof.
LEGAL COUNSEL: Paragraph 12 .of Rule XXXII of the General Rules of the Organization provides that COAG will define the terms of reference, composition and, as far as possible, the duration of the mandate of each subsidiary body. In this particular case the Conference is handing down instructions to COAG on how it is going to create its subsidiary body.
Paragraph 13 goes on to provide that the COAG may include in the membership of the subsidiary bodies, Member Nations that are not members of COAG, and it also provides that non-Member Nations of FAO may also be included in the membership of these subsidiary bodies. It would therefore appear that the subsidiary bodies should at least be open to the members of that Committee.
B.H. DJIBRIL (Bénin): Je dois dire que 1 ' explication donnée par le Conseiller juridique rend les choses plus confuses dans mon esprit et en tout cas le libellé du délégué du Mexique me paraît plus clair. Nous voulons tout simplement que ceux qui n'ont pas signé cet Engagement ne soient pas dans un organisme où, au fond, ils ne sont pas engagés. C'est cela le problème: nous voulons que les gens soient liés et que, par ce fait, ils puissent, au sein de ce comité intergouvernemental, avoir aussi des responsabilités allant dans le sens de l'engagement qu'ils ont pris. Je ne vois pas comment, sans être engagé, on peut être dans une institution. C'est pourquoi ma délégation appuie fortement la proposition du délégué du Mexique qui lui paraît plus claire.
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Nosotros entendemos que si hay países que han expresado reservas sobre la resolución y el Compromiso están indicando claramente que no van a participar en la implementación de las decisiones a que se llegue sobre este asunto.
El párrafo 4 dice "un Comité íntergubernamental u otro órgano". Esto no quiere decir que deba ser un Comité, un Organo completamente abierto a todos los países. Generalmente se establecen Comités u Organos limitados a un número de países y esto obviaría la reserva legal en que viene insistiendo el señor Roche, de manera que por estas consideraciones la delegación de Colombia apoya la propuesta de México, que es la única coherente.
M. MOMBOULI (Congo): Je suis désolé d'avoir attendu longtemps pour avoir la parole que j'avais demandée avant les deux précédents orateurs. Peut-être suis-je intervenu trop souvent, si cela a dérangé le Président j'en suis désolé.
Je voudrais dire un certain nombre de choses: premièrement, je suggère que, par votre intermédiaire, le Mexique puisse nous dicter le complément qu'il propose au point 4 de la résolution; ensuite, je voudrais rappeler que-, tout au long de notre débat général, toutes les délégations, sans exception, ont insisté sur l'importance du sujet dont nous débattions. Je pense que la création d'un comité intergouvernemental qui aura la responsabilité de coordonner les activités des institutions qui existent et de celles qui seront créées est primordiale. Sans être totalement opposés à la proposition de la création d'un comité qui serait dépendant du Comité de l'agriculture, nous pensons qu'il est indispensable de mettre en place un comité intergouvernemental.
Concernant le point de vue juridique, je voudrais savoir si la Conférence n'a pas la compétence pour décider de la création du comité intergouvernemental. Jusque là, nous avons évoqué un certain nombre de choses. En tant que Conférence, avons-nous la possibilité, la compétence, de suggérer la création .d'un comité intergouvernemental?
Pour terminer, si vous acceptez qu'un certain nombre de réserves soient retenues au point 4 pour ceux qui ne veulent pas souscrire à la Résolution pour les raisons qu'ils ont invoquées, nous pensons qu'à ce titre nous pouvons également faire des réserves en ce qui concerne ces deux résolutions, si l'on n'acceptait pas la création du comité intergouvernemental.
CHAIRMAN: So that the same question will not crop up again, I should like at this stape to meet the request of Congo by asking the distinguished delegate of Mexico to repeat the proposal and then giving the floor to the Legal Counsel to answer.
R. GUADARRAMA SISTOS (México): Como decía al principio de nuestra intervención, la nuestra es una enmienda pequeña. Al final del número 4, al pie, al final de la Resolución suprimir la palabra "interesados" y sustituirla por "firmantes del Compromiso". Repito, "firmantes del Compromiso" punto.
LEGAL COUNSEL: So far the Conference has been seized of the resolution proposed by Libya which endorsed the Director-General's proposal, contained in the basic document that you were discussing, that any subsidiary body that was created would be a subsidiary organ of COAG. In reply to the question raised by the delegate of Congo, I should mention that there are other types of body which the Conference may, if it so wishes, establish. They are bodies of a different kind and they are provided for in Article VI of the Constitution. Paragraph 1 of Article VI provides that the Conference or Council may establish Commissions, open to all Member Nations and Associate Members, or Regional Confissions, open to Member Nations of certain Regions. Paragraph 2 of Article VI provides for the establishment of Committees or Working Parties which are open to selected Member Nations. Those would be the only other alternatives open to the Conference at this stage and I leave you with that thought.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: I am reluctant to enter into an argument, particularly when so many legal views are being expressed, but I am more concerned with the practical aspects of this. The amendment, as I heard it, refers to signatories of the Undertaking. There may be many more signatories and non-signatories of the Organization than there are those reserving their position on the Resolution. Only four countries have reserved their position on the Resolution, but this does not mean that 146 countries are going to sign the Undertaking next year. Therefore, you may end up, when you want this body to meet, with a very small and unrepresentative membership, unrepresentative insofar as the totality of the membership of the Conference is concerned. I do not think this is something which is desired by anybody. We want this Committee to meet and to discuss, even though it may not be possible to achieve agreement, and even though some countries may not approve of what the Conference is doing with these two Resolutions.
Furthermore, I would observe that in the proposed terms of reference in C 83/LIM/33 it is not only the operation of the Undertaking which is in question but all matters relating to the policy, programmes and activities of FAO in the field of plant genetic resources, so that this Committee would have a somewhat wider scope than that covered by the Undertaking itself.
I repeat that I do not want to get into arguments with delegations on the merits or demerits of reservations. I would imagine that those who are reserving their position would observe due caution in committees in trying to impose their opinions on those who have not reserved their positions, but that is an entirely different question from excluding non-signatories. We might in that way exclude one-half or more of the membership of FAO from the Committees, so I would counsel caution in the further discussion of this issue.
J. GAZZO FERNANDEZ-DAVILA (Perú): Creo que en este momento es necesario etimológicamente saber lo que quiere decir "compromiso". Compromiso quiere decir comprometerse a algo, y es más, si leemos el párrafo 2 allí llega el momentum del compromiso; de todas maneras el Director General va a consultar, el párrafo 2 lo dice, va a consultar a los Estados Miembros, les va a pedir una fecha para la cual, digamos, estén de acuerdo con esto y lo van a integrar o no lo van a integrar; supongo que la respuesta que va a querer el Director General no va a ser verbal, va a ser una carta escrita, lo cual prácticamente es el compromiso que buscamos. Parece que no han leído ni han pesado bien el punto 2. En el punto 2 hay un momentum del cual ya no se puede escapar; cuando el Director General le pida a cada Estado Miembro "bueno, este es el compromiso internacional ¿qué reserva tiene usted, lo va usted a cumplir?". Supongo que no se va a quedar el Director General contento con una respuesta de palabra, va a tener que contestársele por escrito y eso prácticamente es un compromiso.
Por consiguiente, yo creo que esto es una cuestión de buena fe y de buena voluntad. Creemos que sea como un viaje en un bus que sale por primera vez y yo no quiero comprar el boleto sino a mitad del camino, cuando sé que el viaje es muy bonito. Si yo tengo confianza en que este bus debe caminar bien pues tomo el boleto cuando recién parte el bus y corro los riesgos y defiendo este viaje. Esta, digamos, medida tan importante en la cual yo sé que todos tienen buena fe, inclusive los que aparentemente no comprenden y creen que firmar el compromiso es una Letra en blanco, un cheque en blanco; yo no creo que lo sea, pero sí tiene que haber un momentum. De acuerdo con lo que dice el artículo 2 hay un momentum, y ahí se dice fecha entre paréntesis en la cual el Estado X va a decir: sí señor, solamente el punto 3 y el 2, con el resto me comprometo. Entonces por más que el Asesor Legal esté muy pegado a la letra y que diga que no hay necesidad de firmar, va ha haber necesidad de mandar una respuesta por escrito, lo cual es un documento escrito que va a comprometer al que lo firma.
Por consiguiente, yo en el punto 4 no quitaría la palabra "interesados", dejaría "todos los Estados interesados firmantes del compromiso".
Yo apoyo la idea de la delegación Mexicana y me parece que he expuesto algunos elementos relacionados con el punto 2 que en algún momento de toda esta mecánica operativa van a tener que contestar los países si se comprometen o no porque el Director General les va a hacer una consulta por escrito seguramente.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, distinguished delegate of Peru. I do not want you to make the mistake that I do not like you; I like you very much, but when members are going to sign the Undertaking that is a decision that will be taken in the individual countries and we have not even asked them to answer here.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: On that very point, to be absolutely clear about where you want to go, paragraph 2 of the Undertaking does not merely request you to get on the boat and pay your ticket in full the first time. On the contrary it says to inform the Director-General by a certain date
"of the extent to which they are in a position to give effect to the principles contained in the Undertaking". This means that even those, the majority, who have not entered reservations now at this meeting may still say that they accept some parts but not others, and even those who have entered reservations may still say that they accept all of them, but then you have a strange situation in which a hundred countries can be accepting different parts of the whole, and what do you do then? Do you exclude all of them who say there is one little word I don't like or exclude those who say there is one little paragraph I don't like. You end up with a committee of five people. This does not make sense from the Director-General's point of view. We want a committee who can make progress even though they may not one hundred percent endorse everything that is being adopted today by the Conference. It really does not make sense to exclude people who may or may not accept all or some of the parts of the Undertaking if and when they write to the Director-General by that date.
The concept here is totally at variance with that part of paragraph 2. I am not suggesting that you go back and change paragraph 2, God forbid at this stage. But I am suggesting that you might look at paragraph 4 in the light of paragraph 2 of the other document.
R.C. GUPTA (India): We have carefully listened to the clarification given by the Legal Counsel of the Organization and the explanation of the Deputy Director-General.
From what the Legal Counsel stated to be the provision of the relevant Rule, it seems to us that it is not binding upon COAG to include all the members of COAG into a particular sub-committee. The Committee on Agriculture has the power to constitute a sub-committee and may include from among all the members of the Committee, so it is not incumbent upon it to include all the members or the non-members. What the Director-General explained has relevance, but we are prepared to go to the extent that any country, while signing this Undertaking and indicating to what extent it will abide by it, even to the least extent - if they agree to two provisions, fine - we say include them in this intergovernment group, but some of the countries who have completely reserved their position, they dissociate themselves completely from this Undertaking. We cannot see how such countries should delegate to themselves the right of monitoring the activities of such of the countries or bodies who have signed this Undertaking. It is the simple principle of law that powers flow from responsibilities. Those who do not undertake any responsibility of any kind whatsoever, how do they get the power to monitor the activities. Again it is not a question of five or ten countries. I am quite sure and sanguine that lots of countries would indicate their willingness, maybe with reservation, that they agree with ten provisions, or five provisions or two provisions, but we are sanguine that lots of countries will agree to this, and whether, going to the extreme, - you see with two countries it's a question of principle; it is not a question of practicability purely; it is a question of principle. Those who do not undertake any responsibilities under this code of conduct, or moral responsibilities, we certainly cannot agree to give them any right to monitor the responsibilities.
G. STUYCK (Belgique): Ma question ne signifie nullement que je me désintéresse de ce passionant débat juridique, mais ma délégation, comme beaucoup d'autres, s'est toujours montrée soucieuse depuis de nombreuses années de savoir ce que les propositions qui nous étaient soumises par le secrétariat pour la constitution d'un nouvel organe ou pour l'adoption d'un programme par un organe de l'organisation pourraient représenter comme dépenses, quel serait le budget supplémentaire qui serait nécessaire pour financer de telles activités. Nous venons à peine d'adopter le budget de l'Organisation. Je me félicite qu'il ait pu être accueilli à l'unanimité par la Conférence, et je vois déjà que l'on nous propose un nouvel organe, qui devrait accroître ses dépenses, à moins que M. le Directeur général adjoint m'assure qu'il n'en sera pas ainsi. Toutefois, je serais reconaissant au Directeur général adjoint s'il était en mesure de nous indiquer quelles seraient éventuellement les dépenses supplémentaires que la création du Comité consultatif, ou d'un organe quel qu'il soit, pourrait représenter comme charge pour l'Organisation.
CHAIRMAN: I believe it would be proper to dispose of certain questions where possible as we go along, so that we can make some progress. Deputy Director-General, are you in a position to answer to Belgium?
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: I thought this point had been raised during the Commission's discussions and been disposed of there, but for the sake of helping this discussion along I would say that we would make our best efforts to fit the requirements of work on this subject into our work programme which already envisages work on plant and genetic resources. Instead of carrying out some of the activities which might have been carried out if there were no committee, we will carry them out in
connection with the committee. The additional work and expense involved in having a committee will be related almost entirely to the amount of discussion that goes on in the committee itself, so it really depends on how long Belgium and others want to speak in that sub-committee what the extra expense will be, but even so I think that we can absorb that by using flexibility and perhaps saving money on other discussions.
M. AHMAD (Pakistan): The Pakistan delegation does appreciate the sentiments expressed by the Mexican delegation, the Indian delegation, and the delegation of Colombia when they said that this committee should be confined and restricted to only those members who are signatories, but I thought that in paragraph 4 the word is not "all States”; it is "all interested States". It has been made clear that this Undertaking, if it is to be adhered to at all, will be a moral commitment, and I think those people, those States, who show interest to become members are ultimately prepared to take- on that moral responsibility, and we should have a framework under which we should encourage the states so that we can achieve universal membership for this very important body. The word "interested" I think does carry some kind of a minor moral obligation ultimately to take on this responsibility, and we should not bar the door on such States.
L. ARIZA HIDALGO (Cuba): Estando como están las cosas, nosotros en un momento al principio de la discusión vacilamos un poco en cuanto a la necesidad de esta proposición que hace la distinguida Delegación de México.
Pero nuestra Delegación esperaba que los que no desean participar del Compromiso, no tendrían tampoco interés de participar en el Subcomité, y qué función podría hacer un Asesor o Auxiliar del COAG, si no están mínimamente con deseos de participar. Por lo tanto, veo ahí una contradicción. México propone garantizar la plena función de este Subcomité o Comisión la tengan los que están dentro del Compromiso porque sería absurdo llevar la discusión dentro del Subcomité; esto sí es una vertiente práctica. Dentro del Subcomité van a participar los que tienen todavía cierta convicción cara a la función de esta situación. Consideramos que no debe haber problema.
Nosotros estamos muy claros desde la discusión del Comité de Agricultura de que hay una situación de intereses y que esto hay que irlo aceptando poco a poco; y lo lamentamos porque vemos que los que han hecho la reserva son países que podrían dar mucha ayuda por su valor técnico, por su poder y capacidad científica en esta rama que necesita de ellos. Pero creemos que en la medida en que avance el tiempo y que se le vaya contestando al Director General serán más los que deseen participar de lo acordado en esta Conferencia.
No vemos la preocupación de la exclusión. Creo que no hay interés por parte de México en excluir, sino que creo que sí hay una autoexclusion que viene previo a lo que México ha planteado. Además analizando lo que algunos de los que han reservado han dicho que comprenden en parte, pero que necesitan un análisis más profundo por la situación técnico-científica que esto conforma. Esto lo estamos discutiendo desde el COAG. Por lo tanto, esperamos que esto proporcione un aumento progresivo de los firmantes o de los aceptantes.
En este momento creemos que es pertinente la proposición de la Delegación de México.
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): La Delegación de Colombia piensa que empieza a aclararse un poco el desenlace de este debate.
En efecto, estamos muy agradecidos al Sr. Roche, nuestros Consejero Legal, quien al citar el párrafo 2 del Artículo VI de la Constitución que se refiere a Estados Miembros seleccionados, ha hecho desaparecer la reserva legal a este respecto. Por lo demás, los cuatro países que han hecho reservas, si bien lamentamos que ellos hayan asumido esa actitud, no han dicho aquí ninguno de esos cuatro países que quieran participar en ese Comité o en ese Organo. De manera que por lo menos debemos reconocerles los representantes de esos Estados que han sido sensatos y coherentes en su actitud.
Con respecto a los costos ya el Sr. West respondió al Embajador de Bélgica que hay necesidad de encuadrar esto dentro de la relación costo/beneficio. Es un asunto que interesa a una gran mayoría de los países del mundo. De manera que tal vez una redacción un poco más amplia podría atender las inquietudes planteadas por el Sr. West con respecto al párrafo 2 del Compromiso acerca del tiempo y la manera de cómo los distintos Estados van a ir aceptando las disposiciones de ese Compromiso.
Podríamos a caso complementar la propuesta del colega mexicano que fue explicada también por el colega Embajador del Perú y decir lo siguiente al final del párrafo 4: "Todos los Estados interesados signatarios del Compromiso y aquellos Estados que en cualquier momento se adhieran a éste."
R. SALLERY (Canada): I really do not know if I can be of any help at this time or not. I think it is unfortunate that the atmosphere has become somewhat confrontational. I would like to assure the delegate of Peru, who is a good friend of mine, that I certainly like him and also the delegate of the Congo and of Mexico and others; and that is not, of course, the issue at stake here. When the four countries put forward their reservations it was just that: a reservation. We dit not say a direct no, and that is our interpretation of it: that in situations like this, it is a sovereign right of governments to have hesitations, to take a bit of time to see how a mechanism is going to work. I think we would all do well to listen to the advice and the wisdom of Mr West in this case, that it would be difficult enough, signatories or not, to have people agree and to get this programme working.
There have been some references to the commitment of Member States to this issue. Well, certainly there would be no question of commitment of the four Member States to this Organization. If you look at Conference document C 83/LIM/13 which has the status contributions, you will certainly see that all four of those States are paid up. They have been strongly supportive members of this institution, which occasional disagreements - that is to be expected. In our own case, even though we may have difficulties at times with the FAO, we insist on paying our contribution the first day it is due; we could pay it the last day. So I do not think our interest and support for this Organization should come into question at this time.
The advice which Mr West has given us is I think good and important. I would much rather be wooed than spurned in this situation. That is up to this new Committee or whatever it is going to be, to attempt to develop its programme and rationale for its existence and to convince those or other members who have not become signatories, to do so. If, however, we insist on limiting the membership to signatories of some type, clause 4 states in the second line "within the framework of the FAO". Now, given the fact that I know, at least in our case - I am not speaking for all four - but if I have to go back to Ottawa and say there is going to be this Committee which we are barred from, even though it is going to be in the FAO and we do pay our dues and fees and everything on time, I know we will have a lot more difficulty. We pay our fees for specific reasons in order to participate in the activities of this institution and surely you would not expect to have complete consensus at all times. If we are going to penalize people there may be good reason to penalize the other 57 members who, for one, two, three or four years have not paid their dues.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: I am not going to get into the question of paying dues; I have had enough of that in Commission III! But I do want to draw attention again to paragraph 2 because I am concerned that we are talking loosely about signatories and adhering, and I cannot see anything here which leads to the conclusion that there are going to be signatories or non-signatories. If you read the paragraph you will see that it refers not only to Member States but also to non-Member Nations that are members of the United Nations, its specialized agencies and autonomous international institutions; and all these people are asked to inform the Director-General of the extent to which they are in a position to give effect to the principles contained in the Undertaking. They are not asked to sign the Undertaking. They are asked to inform the Director-General of the extent to which they are in a position to give effect to the principle and they may well do so, saying: I can give effect 99 percent, or 75 percent, or 15 percent.
Therefore you cannot define a class of people as signatories or anything else because that kind of situation will not arise. There will be a number of letters, each with its own statement of what their position is on the principles, and some may not even reply, for some time at any rate. So I do not see how you can, in fact, give effect to the idea of excluding those who have reserved their position or who have "signed" because that kind of clear-cut situation is not going to arise. And, as I.said before, if you want to exclude everybody who has not accepted these principles 100 percent, you will have no Committee; and that would be no good to anybody. We want a Committee in which the majority of Member Nations can reach a consensus. Some may disagree but we will make some progress, and it is progress we want. And if in that progress we can convince those who have reserved their position or who in their letters say there are some parts they do not accept, to accept all of it, we shall have achieved a great step.
J. SONNEVELD (Netherlands): My delegation is really concerned with the course the debate is taking. I think we were all of the opinion that this Organization should work and be constructive on the matter of conservation of plant genetic resources and the understanding means precisely that we want to join forces. And I think the way we are now discussing each others, participation is exactly the opposite, and that we should take such decisions as will facilitate the members of this Organization and others joining. This discussion about having members excluded from activities which should serve a precise purpose, I really do not understand that this can be a valid exercise.
R.C. GUPTA (India): In so far as the wording suggested by the Mexican delegation, my delegation would wholeheartedly agree with the Deputy Director-General that in paragraph 2 it is not that the countries or organizations are required to be signatories to any particular thing and abide by it 100 percent. Paragraph 2 makes it very clear that countries or organizations have to indicate the extent to which they are in a position to give effect to the principle contained in the undertaking. We clearly understand that some countries or organizations can indicate their position without adhering to this undertaking in its entirety, but our argument is that they have to show some interest in the sense that they have to indicate to what extent they are in a position to participate in these activities.
If I may, I would like to react to the comments of my colleague from Canada. It is not a question of contributions to the Organization. We would not for a moment suggest excluding any honourable sovereign member of the Organization from its activities; that is far from our hearts and there is absolutely no question of excluding anybody. All we are trying to say is that such of the organizations or States who indicate their interest should be a part of this inter-governmental group. The delegate of the Netherlands said that we are trying to exclude somebody. That is not so: certain countries are excluding themselves from this Undertaking by reserving their position. We would urge them and warmly welcome them to participate in the activities under this Undertaking. We would benefit from their participation, we would be happy with their participation but if they choose to exclude themselves from all activities under the Undertaking, we find it difficult to see how they would be able to monitor the activities under the Undertaking.
W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of) (original language German): I am very hesitant about speaking once again on this question but, as I said earlier, we have to proceed very carefully in this matter. That was the view also of the Secretariat and of some other delegations who thought along similar lines. I think we also have to think in practical terms about what we are doing. If what we really want is for this Undertaking to be dealt with by a subsidiary body of COAG - if that is what we really want - then we must fully realize that that subsidiary body will report to COAG itself. For that reason I think that we have to proceed very warily if we do not want to be inconsistent and to exclude some countries from a COAG subsidiary which will subsequently, as members of COAG, be addressing themselves to the whole nexus of issues.
It is our view that at all events it should be a specialized body, either COAG or a COAG subsidiary, that deals with these matters. Should other delegations take the view that another intergovernmental committee needs to be set up, then I can say here and now that my delegation will not go along with that.
M. B. SY (Sénégal): Le problème que nous sommes en train d'examiner est particulièrement complexe. Il est complexe parce qu!on soumet à notre approbation un engagement international qui n'emporte pas l'adhésion de certains pays. Et voilà que ces mêmes pays souhaitent participer à un organisme qui sera chargé de suivre l'application de cet engagement. C'est une situation difficilement compréhensible dans une optique logique, mais qui se comprend parfaitement dans le cadre d'un jeu d'intérêts. Il faut craindre que celui qui n'est pas convaincu d'une entreprise, celui qui n'a pas l'intention précise de participer à une oeuvre, s'il doit par ailleurs contrôler l'exécution de cette oeuvre, il est certain que la bonne volonté n'est pas de mise, en tout cas d'une manière garantie. C'est un jeu de commencer par la discussion de la résolution et de finir par le problème que nous voulons esquiver. Dans ce cas, on va nous faire accepter a priori que tout Etat peut participer au Comité intergouvernemental et finalement on va refuser cet organe intergouvernemental.
Qu'est-ce que cela veut dire? Cela veut dire maintenir les pays en développement qui voudront lutter contre un phénomène grave, à savoir l'érosion des ressources phytogénétiques qui se pose plus dans leur pays que dans d'autres qui ont réussi à régler ce problème à leur niveau, cela veut dire •maintenir ces pays dans leurs difficultés et dans une situation de dépendance.
Il n'est pas question ici de participation financière, il s'agit de coopération, de collaboration, de solidarité. A partir de ce moment là, que chaque pays veuille, pour des considérations économiques ou financières, s'imposer, cette situation doit cesser. Dans une organisation internationale qui ne réunit que des pays souverains sur une base égalitaire et de solidarité humaine, il faut faire table rase de ces considérations économiques et qu'on se souvienne que l'équilibre de ce monde ne dépendra que de la volonté de tous les pays d'oeuvrer dans un sens de compréhensions mutuelle et d'entraide. Cela ne pose aucun problème. Que les pays qui ne sont pas vraiment convaincus de l'utilité de l'engagement n'essaient pas d'entraver la marche en avant des pays en développement; qu'ils maintiennent leur position de réserve mais qu'ils reconnaissent qu'on ne peut pas contrôler quelque chose dont l'utilité n'est pas suffisamment perçue à ce niveau.
CHAIRMAN: I believe delegates that as we go along things must remain clear. In the written text of the reservation of the four countries there is no indication or suggestion that those countries that reserve want to monitor the activities of a body to which they have reserved the formation of and therefore I think it is right that as we make our discussions we should realize that it is the law of the Organization that says on the basis of the suggestion made in the proposed resolution, the kind of body that is suggested, the law says, allows those member states to participate. I have not heard that they want to participate or they want to monitor the activities in that body but the law allows them to do so. So I'm not quite sure we are right in talking about self-exclusion, or some such suggestion. So I think delegates should make their points and their arguments clear but let us not take words out of other peoples' mouths.
A. LUTZ (Finland): I want to bring up one aspect to this discussion, namely what has been said in paragraph 9.2, in either of these versions, namely that this body whatever it will be, has to recommend measures that are necessary or desirable in order to ensure the comprehensiveness of the global system. Well, if we want to establish the verbal system then we should not exclude anybody from this group. I think this should be the logical outcome of what we are going to decide in either of these propositions for 9.2.
R. GUADARRAMA SISTOS (México): No habíamos solicitado el uso de la palabra, pero ya que nos invita a tomar el microfono, lo hacemos con todo gusto.
La delegación de la India ha señalado con toda precision que no hay ninguna intención de excluir a ninguna delegación, a ningún país, en la conformación del Organismo o Grupo Intergubernamental que estamos conformando en este momento. Su última intervención, señor Presidente, fue pertinente. La Organización está abierta a todos, y ésta es, repito, la voluntad y lo que nos movió a precisar que serán los países signatarios, los países que se adhieran al Compromiso, todos aquellos que podrán participar en el Grupo Intergubernamental.
Quiero parafrasear a los delegados que me han precedido en el uso de la palabra para decir que, efectivamente, hay que andar con pies de plomo. Todos apoyamos el Compromiso, y el doctor West nos ha señalado que el artículo 11 señala las limitaciones que los países notificarán que tienen en este momento y que no han podido superar, y pese a su voluntad, tienen restricciones para aceptar en pleno el compromiso propuesto. Esto no excluye su apoyo, esto no excluye la voluntad de apoyar en algunos de sus artículos, en algunas de sus cláusulas, el Compromiso. Los cuatro países que han tenido reservas para aceptar la resolución no nos han dicho que se opondrán finalmente al Compromiso. Simplemente - y tienen todo su derecho - han dicho que quieren revisar cuidadosamente, con toda responsabilidad, la resolución y el Compromiso que vamos a aceptar. Nos parece, efectivamente, una responsabilidad que todos compartimos. Ellos, con toda seguridad, estarán incorporándose con su apoyo al Compromiso, y consecuentemente, al Grupo Intergubernamental.
Quiero hacer una precisión. Hasta este momento ha habido muy pocas delegaciones que han guardado reservas respecto a nuestra inicial propuesta, mostrando con ello una voluntad mayoritaria para apoyar el Compromiso y la resolución. Hago esta salvedad porque me pareció entender, a través de la traducción, en la intervención del Director General Adjunto, que muy pocos países estarían apoyando el Compromiso. Nuestro parecer es opuesto. Nuestro parecer es que la mayoría está dispuesta a mostrar su voluntad y que es cuestión de tiempo para que los cuatro países que han mostrado reservas lo hagan también.
En consecuencia, no es admisible que alguien pretenda excluir a nadie de la Organización. Pretendemos, sí, que haya una conjunción, que los países seamos consecuentes, entre nuestra voluntad y el apoyo con firmas o con una notificación, de la intención de llevar a la práctica el compromiso que adoptemos. El mecanismo puede no ser, como nos lo aclaró el doctor West, la firma, la rúbrica, pero sí una notificación, demostrar la intención de llevar a la práctica el compromiso que se adopte, y esto podría sustituir a mi propuesta original y la enmienda hecha por Colombia. Al final del párrafo incluir la siguiente frase. El punto 4 quedaría como está y adicionaríamos la siguiente frase: "que hayan notificado su intención de llevar a la práctica el Compromiso que se adopte". Punto final. Repito a velocidad de dictado: "que Hayan notificado su intención de llevar a la práctica el Compromiso que se adopte". Punto final. Repito: Si la propuesta es mantener el párrafo original como esta, adicionarle la siguiente frase.
CHAIRMAN: Does anyone have a problem with that amendment?
M. TRKULJA (Yugoslavia): I have another type of problem so I would like to address Libya, through you, because Libya submitted this resolution originally. I would like to hear the Libyan views on the issue we are discussing now in the light of 2 (c), how it is to be understood. Under (c) I see that one of the Terms of Reference would be for the sub-committee to review all matters relating to the policy matters and activities of FAO. I think it also merits being taken into account.
.J.M. ALLFREY (United Kingdom): In respect of the Mexican amendment I am afraid the new wording does dot help me at all. The United Kingdom delegation cannot accept that we should establish a sub-committee of COAG which is going to be discussing matters relating to the global system of plant genetic resources, not simply to the system under FAO juristiction and should restrict the membership of that Committee in the way it is being discussed.
I must admit I am somewhat puzzled at the cause of the discussion here this afternoon because I had been under the impression that we had agreed the whole of this document, apart from one point, yesterday evening.
R. SALLERY (Canada): We, like the United Kingdom, could not accept the last Mexican proposal, although the first part of his introduction I find very useful. I think the wording as we have it now is the best wording we could come up with, "open to all interested parties". Surely that would be the criteria which determines whether or not people participate or not.
CHAIRMAN: I was going to ask Mexico whether he does not think the word "interested" is not all embracing and would cover, as Canada says, all those who were interested and all who would have to indicate one way or another their interest in the Undertaking.
R. GUADARRAMA SISTOS (México): Después al menos de una hora de intercambio de comentarios es obvio, es evidente que no es suficiente el párrafo come está. Tratamos de ser consecuentes con lo que hemos mantenido a lo largo de las discusiones e invitaría a la Mesa, al señor Presidente, a que considere que hasta este momento la mayoría de las voces que se han pronunciado lo han hecho a favor de una enmienda; la mayoría de las voces que se han pronunciado lo han hecho a favor de una enmienda de dicho párrafo.
I.P. ALVARENGA (El Salvador): Indudablemente estamos en un atascadero del cual resulta difícil salir. Trataré de dar una contribución que probablemente no haga ningún daño, si es que no hace un bien.
Nos parece que en este momento hay dos posiciones aparentemente contradictorias pero que en realidad se concilian perfectamente entre sí. De una parte está el interés de que lo relativo a los recursos fitogenéticos tenga la posibilidad de ser considerado por el más amplio número de países posible, es decir que no se restrinja a nadie de antemano la posibilidad de intervenir en la materia relativa a recursos fitogenéticos. Por otra parte, existe el interés, que parece también legítimo, de que en algún modo quede delimitado quiénes son los que están actuando dentro del Compromiso que se plantea.
Yo encuentro que no debiera de haber contradicción en ambas posiciones y pienso que una forma de salvar ambas dificultades sería en el párrafo 2 donde dice que se invita a comunicar al Director General en qué medida están en condiiones de aplicar los principios, se añada "y el interés de participar en el Comité que se menc .ona en el párrafo 4". De esa manera estamos diciendo que incluso aquellos que digan "noso tros no participamos del compromiso, no lo aceptamos pero nos gustaría estar en el Comité para analizar nuestra posibilidad de formar parte del Compromiso" podían formar parte de ese grupo; pero tampoco está abierto en general sin ninguna delimitación. Sería necesario por lo menos que manifiesten su opinión y su deseo de participar. Y el último párrafo, el 4o, quedaría tal como está o agregando "los Estados interesados que hagan expresión de su interés conforme el párrado 2". Una cosa parecida.
M. MOMBOULI (Congo): J'ai suivi avec une attention soutenue les explications complémentaires ainsi que celles du conseiller juridique. Je voudrais simplement rappeler qu'à la question posée de davoir si nous avions le droit de mettre en place un comité, le conseiller juridique nous a répondu de façon affirmative. Au stade actuel, après quelque temps de discussion, nous nous demandons si le texte tel que libellé n'était pas suffisant. Nous pensions qu'il ne susciterait pas de discussion particulière, mais la question est revenue sur la table parce que des réserves ont été émises. Dans ce cas, effectivement, il y avait lieu de compléter le texte, dans la mesure où le Comité de l'agriculture est ouvert à tous les Etats Membres alors que le comité que nous envisageons de mettre en place nécessiterait un intéressement individuel de chaque Etat. Tout le monde pense que si le texte est suffisant les réserves ne peuvent être retenues; si des réserves sont émises elles nécessiteront qu'un complément soit ajouté, dans ce cas nous mettrons le complément tel que proposé par le Mexique. C'est une proposition que nous soutenons de façon claire.
J. ZIMMERMANN (Denmark): I would like at this stage of the negotiations to make a little intervention. What you have heard now is that some delegations tried to limit the invitations which the Director-General had to make to all members of the United Nations system to participate in these arrangements. It has been in the scope of the Nordic countries and it was made very clear in our intervention that these invitations should be open to all members of the United Nations system.
I would like to state here at this stage of the intervention that it is still our point of view that these invitations should be open to all members states of the United Nations. I think this is to the benefit of all partners in these arrangements. We still want to maintain this point of view.
As a supplementary, I would like to add that the Swedish delegate participated in this Contact Group. We have worked very hard. We tried to reach a compromise and we thought we had reached a compromise. Therefore it might seem that we have been quiet in the negotiations. This is because in our imagination we should capture that compromise. In other words, the word of a gentleman is his bond. We still support this compromise of the Contact Group because we see it as a benefit for all. You know our point of view, that we want to maintain the present system and improve it, also improve it to the benefit of the developing countries and to see it developed and expanded.
Having seen the performance of the meetings last night and the meetings until now we cannot see real difficulties. In our imagination we have gone a long way through. A year or two ago we were still miles apart from each other. I think now we are close to a really good compromise, to a really good basis for further improvement. I think we should stick to this basis, a very sound basis. I can see promise ahead. So, I would like to appeal to you and to the delegates that we do not lose the track that we are very close to.
Coming to the Nordic point, these invitations, these possibilities for coming to this arrangement, should be open to all Member States of the United Nations.
H. LOPEZ DE MORAL (Colombia): Realmente he dudado mucho en intervenir nuevamente porque la voz de Colombia se ha oído bastantes veces, tanto anoche come esta tarde. Sin embargo, en la forma en que se ha ido desarrollando el debate me insta a insistir nuevamente para tratar de puntualizar un poco la situación.
Tal como yo veo las cosas, México hizo una propuesta de enmienda; esa propuesta fue apoyada y luego ampliada por Colombia, propuesta que fue aceptada por una gran mayoría de países que se pronunciaron en forma muy explícita y clara en favor de esta enmienda.
Sin embargo, durante varias oportunidades se ha pedido el parecer del nuestro Asesor Jurídico que, con todo respeto acojo, evidentemente, lo que él nos ha dicho; luego se plantearon cuatro reservas de países importantes que además han tenido la amabilidad de recordarnos la cuantía de sus cuotas y la rapidez con que las pagan. Luego, en vista de todo esto, México ha presentado una nueva propuesta que se ajusta, si se podría decir, mejor a las disposiciones jurídicas que nuestro Asesor Jurídico nos ha lefdo con tanta precisión.
En vista de todo esto quisiera expresar muy claramente que nuestra Delegación apoya nuevamente la posición expresada por México,
Dicho esto insisto en que ninguna de nuestras delegaciones, muy lejos de ello, están en contra de una participación lo más amplia posible en este Grupo Intergubernamental y en el Compromiso; por el contrario, el párrafo 2 dice my claramente que este Compromiso está abierto a todos los Estados Miembros de la FAO, a los Estados no miembros de la FAO que pertenecen a las Naciones Unidas, a algumo de sus organismos especializados o a organismos internacionales tales como el de la Energía Atómica, y a las instituciones internacionales autónomas que tengan responsabilidades con respecto a los recursos fotogenéticos. Esto aparece my claramente expresado en el párrafo 2 al cual nunca, en ningún momento ninguna de las delegaciones que se han pronunciado en favor de la propuesta de México han hecho alusión a esto ni le han puesto ninguna limitación.
Yo no creo que la nueva propuesta de México en forma alguna limite la participación de ninguno de estos Estadas Miembros, no miembros, organizaciones, etc. que se mencionan en el párrafo 2. Lo único es que esta enmienda presentada por México nos permite simplemente en todo momento saber con precisión quiénes forman parte del organismo, en qué forman entran a participar en él y con quiénes y con cuántos contamos en cada momento.
En vista de elle reitero el apoyo de Colombia a la propuesta de México.
J. SONNEVELD (Netherlands). First of all I would like to say that what has been said by the delegate of Yugoslavia is very valid. He pointed out that in the resolution put forward by Libya, Article 2(c), this sub-committee should review all matters relating to the policy, programmes and activities of FAO in the field of plant genetic resources. There you have already a wider scope than the Undertaking. So I think we should take that into consideration.
There was a specific question by the delegate of Yugoslavia to Libya whether he had in mind to limit the membership to those adhering to the Undertaking, because I think specifically with Article 2(c) in mind that would be impossible.
I listened to the delegate of El Salvador and I think he made a very valid suggestion to mention nations adhering to the Undertaking and other nations interested in the conservation of plant genetic resources. If I understood the delegate of El Salvador well, I would like to support that suggestion, because I think that will cover the two elements of the Resolution of the Libyan delegation, those matters which relate to the Undertaking and all other policy matters and activities of FAO in the field of plant genetic resources. So I think the suggestion made by El Salvador might be a good compromise.
CHAIRMAN: After I give the floor to Belgium, I will request the distingushed delegate of Libya to answer the question for Yugoslavia, and then we will come back to the Netherlands' proposal.
E. MARTENS (Belgique): La délégation belge préfère le texte comme il apparaît maintenant dans le point 4 et comme le Groupe de contact l'a formulé, c'est-à-dire sans aucune modification.
M.S. ZEHNI (Libya): I think the discussion we have had so far should be taken to help the so-called Libyan resolution, and it is not the other way round, because I made it clear that we made our suggestion late last night, based on the state of discussion at that stage. At that stage, the question of an amendment to Article 4 of the resolution was not discussed, and we did not have advance knowledge of it. So, as I said last night, our intention in submitting the Draft Resolution for your consideration is first, to cater for the time requirement sometimes necessary on resolutions, so you have something on hand at least 20 or 24 hours before.
The second base of our resolution was, it was our understanding that there is perhaps a wide acceptance of the Director-General's proposal in his Report. So, at that time we thought a subsidiary of COAG is a possible mechanism or body for this Undertaking. When we thought of the membership of COAG we were aware that this body will be discussing various things, some relating to the Undertaking, and some relating to the activities of the FAO which are wide activities, and can cover many areas and many other organizations, other than the FAO.
As I said last night, this is perhaps not the most effective or the best way, it is not the best body, but we thought under the circumstances that perhaps this sort of arrangement could be given a try. Perhaps, in the final analysis it will work as a strong lobbying forum or pressure forum, to put some pressure on those countries who are still reluctant to join the Undertaking. So, we thought that by having them all together in the same body perhaps there would be this dialogue, and an attempt to encourage as wide as possible participation in the Undertaking.
So, I repeat, when we thought of this resolution, the amendment which is proposed by Mexico was not in sight at that time, and we were more or less occupied by what we thought was the wide acceptance of the Director-General's proposal which was included in the Report.
CHAIRMAN: Therefore, Libya, you were trying to devise a mechanism which would invite the widest possible participation in the Undertaking.
M. TRKULJA (Yugoslavia): I could drag on and on, on procedural matters. First of all, we all are, I hope, fully aware of how the selection of COAG membership is arranged. We know it should be on formal indication. In that case, still on a procedural matter - though I do not think procedure is important - I doubt very much that a subsidiary body of COAG could be fair from the rules that are applied formally to the senior body itself.
Secondly, I referred already to 2(c). I cannot see how we can omit from the Terms of Reference "to review all matters relating to the policy, programmes and activities of FAO". It it is allowed to stand, I think there is no point in excluding everybody again on a purely procedural basis. But, the point I want to bring out is much more substantive, I think, and I believe really that this Conference has made a step forward in the right direction.
The position has narrowed down quite appreciably. We hope very much once we start with the sub-committee of COAG, that some members that are still reluctant at this stage at least - and who all promised as I understood, to carefully study the whole matter - I hope very much that in both Bodies we will create a conducive atmosphere and finally win them in. By words or formal text I do not think we will be anymore successful. Plant genetic resources are I think of such vital importance that we should perhaps invite everybody to participate. Whoever is interested should apply the same procedure as I applied in the case of COAG, with the hope as I stressed, that even though these countries which are still in the process of reviewing their position, vis-à-vis the whole Undertaking would join in in the near future.
R. ZUÑIGA (Honduras): He escuchado con sumo interés las diferentes opiniones planteadas por los países participantes en este debate. He encontrado muy lógica y aceptable la proposición hecha por la Delegación de Colombia. Por consiguiente, la Delegación de Honduras apoya la propuesta de enmienda presentada por México.
H. MALTEZ (Panamá): No le parece a nuestra Delegación que la intención de México sea la de limitar la participación de los Miembros de la Organización ya que estamos convencidos que un Comité sin la participación de países de elevada tecnología, como lo son los que han manifestado su reserva, sin lugar a dudas será un Comité en donde se sentiría su ausencia. Lo que a nuestro juicio México plantea es que participen en el inicio aquellos países que así hayan manifestado su intención de hacerlo y aquellas otras que lo deseen se vayan integrando al mismo.
Por lo tanto, nuestra Delegación apoya decididamente la propuesta de enmienda de México.
M. B. SY (Sénégal): Il me semble que la résolution de la Libye, C 83/LIM/33, a été adoptée. Si c'est le cas, je trouve étonnant, après avoir accepté que ce sous-comité soit un organe subsidiaire du COAG, que l'on discute maintenant sur un terme assez vague. Le COAG est ouvert à tous les Etats, et s'agissant d'un organe subsidiaire du COAG, tout Etat pourrait participer aux travaux de ce sous-comité.
Donc, si tel est le cas, je pense que nous devrions cesser de discuter, parce que cela ne sert à rien. Mon problème est donc de savoir si la résolution présentée par la délégation de la Libye a été acceptée ou non. Si elle a été acceptée, le Sénégal ne voit pas l'intérêt de discuter du paragraphe 4 de la résolution générale.
CHAIRMAN: Distinguished delegates, we are now on this point. After very lengthy discussions yesterday it was clear that there was difficulty in arriving at common ground and we adopted the approach that since some members would have difficulty in agreeing to what would seem to be a majority view, especially on the Undertaking and on the resolution, that they would register in writing by way of reservation in a footnote, and that they would not stand in the way of consensus. Today, we have a situation where those countries that press ahead for what other countries have to reserve on, are making new amendments to what we had already agreed, which is this resolution, yesterday.
There are members in this body who have opposed this amendment, they may be few, but there is no consensus on that. I do not know if the suggestion of those who keep saying "majority" is that we should move to a vote. But, as far as I can recall, it has been common agreement within this Organization that we do not want to resolve things by voting, as far as possible, we try to reach a consensus. The mechanism we adopted yesterday with members saying instead of going to a vote on the resolution, they would not stand in the way of consensus, but they registered their reservation. I think that in the spirit of this Organization we are trying as far as possible to move to agree on things by consensus.
Now, we have had a lengthy discussion on this matter. It was necessary that we should discuss the Libyan resolution which was seeking to spell out in detail the kind of mechanism or intergovernmental body, agency or entity required to oversee and to direct, and discuss and monitor the activity under the plant genetic resources. This suggestion, or this proposed resolution by Libya was discussed so that all members in this Commission would gain a better understanding of what was necessary, and therefore the full implication and then arrive at an understanding of the kind of body that we need to set up, or that most people would like to see set up. So, that resolution was discussed first and I think that we are very clear what it is - whether we like it or not - and it has helped our better understanding of the kind of Body that gave us difficulties in the main body of the Undertaking, which is Article 9.2. Now we have not yet adopted that resolution but we have used it to better our understanding.
I think we should now make progress. The only thing that was holding us up on making progress, in other words in dealing with documents and putting them aside, was the little thing in the Undertaking 9.2. We have in the Bureau a suggested wording which would seem to be a compromise of compromises because compromises could not go through yesterday. Now we have a compromise of compromises and this wording is - I should like to ask the Secretary to read so that everybody will understand what it suggested, and after she has read I would like to get an indication of any who oppose that suggested compromise of compromises, and if there is no opposition then we shall immediately take it that the document on the Undertaking is acceptable to all of us in the spirit again of arriving at a consensus, and then we will move on to the other parts.
Will the Secretary please read 9.2 as suggested.
K. KILLINGSWORTH (Secretary, Commission II): This suggestion involves making some small changes in the first version of paragraph 9.2 which appears in Article 9 in REP/4 in the Draft Undertaking. The two versions of paragraph 9.2 in the first version the changes involve deleting the brackets and changing one word in the phrase which is at present within brackets, so that the sentence would read, "FAO will, in particular, establish an intergovernmental mechanism which will monitor the operation of the arrangements referred to in Article 7". At this point, a comma would be placed instead of the full stop, and the rest of the paragraph would continue after the insertion of the word "and", so it would become all one sentence - "Article 7, and will take or recommend measures etc.".
CHAIRMAN: Do I see any opposition to that compromise of compromises? If not, I will then take it that we are agreed on all the Articles of C 83/II/REP/4 which is the annex of that document.
M. B. SY (Sénégal): Le Senegal doit être la seule delegation à ne pas être satisfaite de cette proposition, nous nous rallions sans observation à la majorité.
Cependant, nous tenons à signaler que la notion de mécanisme est abstraite. Cela ne répond pas en tout cas à ce que nous avions retenu. Depuis longtemps, nous aurions dû accepter la formule d'hier: "mettre en oeuvre les mécanismes appropriés". C'est la même chose. Un mécanisme, c'est abstrait, cela ne représente rien.
Mais si tout le monde est d'accord, si personne ne présente d'observation particulière, nous nous rallions à la majorité. Mais je dois dire que c'est la même chose que nous avons refusée hier.
CHAIRMAN: I thank you for your cooperation, Senegal.
R. GUADARRAMA SISTOS (México): Para responder a la preoccupación del Senegal, que seguramente comparten otros delegados. La transacción se logró porque el Asesor Jurídico nos aseguró qué mecanismo podía comprender al grupo intergubernamental, al comité intergubernamental, a un cuerpo intergubernamental. Con ese espíritu llegamos a la transacción. No excluye el cuerpo, comité, subcomité o grupo intergubernamental. ¿Es ésto correcto, señor Asesor Jurídico? Esto fue lo entendido y por eso fue la transacción.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. I can see confirmation from the Legal Counsel.
M. MOMBOULI (Congo): Je ne suis pas d'accord sur le dernier compromis proposé. Je serais plutôt favorable à l'expression utilisée au point 4 de la résolution que nous venons d'adopter. On enlèverait les mots entre crochets et on dirait: "En particulier, la FAO créera un groupe intergouvernemental ou un autre organisme ..." au lieu d'employer le terme "mécanisme" qui, comme l'a dit le délégué du Sénégal est très vague. Un mécanisme est quelque chose d'abstrait.
CHAIRMAN: Congo, you realise you are all on your own, you are the only one, because Senegal has said if the majority supported we are willing to go along. Now you are all on your own.
M. MOMBOULI (Congo): Je préfère être tout seul de mon avis, mais qu'il soit mentionné.
CHAIRMAN: So we will reflect that situation in the report.
M. B. SY (Senegal): J'ai été le premier à prendre la parole pour dire que si je devais être le seul à trouver que la rédaction proposée n'est pas convenable, je me rallierais à la majorité. Mais il se trouve que je ne suis pas le seul. Il y a aussi le Congo. Il y a donc deux seuls. Je ne vois pas pourquoi ayant été le premier à dire que le mot "mécanisme" ne me satisfait pas, on ne me mentionnerait pas.
CHAIRMAN: Before I give the floor to others I would be agreeing with Congo and Senegal that perhaps their dissatisfaction could be registered in a manner which will be indicated in the verbatims and everywhere else in the Conference documents where it is necessary, but we could adopt the Undertaking with the amendments as indicated.
B.H. DJIBRIL (Bénin): Le texte proposé ne nous satisfait pas non plus. La délégation du Bénin émet aussi des réserves.
M.S. ZEHNI (Libya): I do not think it is quite correct to say that either Senegal or Congo are alone. I do not think they are alone in their concern to be absolutely clear in their mind that what we mean by "mechanism" is the nearest thing to "intergovernmental group", and I think the Mexican delegation based their acceptance of this on the understanding that this is the case. Now you accepted the nod of the Legal Advisor. Perhaps if we had it in very concrete terms from the Legal Counsel himself, perhaps our friends from Congo and Senegal and the others will reconsider, because frankly I do not want to see them alone and if it is a matter of being alone or not alone we will join their company.
LEGAL COUNSEL: The delegate of Mexico said the word "mechanism" is a flexible one; it would include any appropriate form of body. The important thing is that the adjective "intergovernmental" is there. It will be a mechanism, whichever one is found to be the most appropriate, which will be of an intergovernmental nature. I do not know what the best translation into French would be, but "mécanisme" could certainly include any form of "organisme" and, therefore, I do not think that the delegates of Senegal and Congo should have any misgivings as to the compromise text which has been found acceptable by the rest of their colleagues.
E.P. ALLEYNE (Trinidad and Tobago): I was going to say that if we do not accept some measure of compromise in this meeting we will all be here in time for the next biennium, and my understanding of the word "mechanism" in English is that it is perhaps the one word which will allow us to move on because it covers a multitude of things. I would strongly recommend that we give it serious consideration, and our acceptance of that wording I think would allow everybody to be in at this point. I do not know what would happen afterwards.
M. MAHI (Cameroun): Il s'agit d'un problème linguistique. Nous qui avons appris le français pendant 40 ans, nous ne croyons pas que l'expression " mécanisme intergouvememental" ait un sens. Nous pensons qu'il conviendrait de trouver un autre mot à la place de "mécanisme". Ne pourrait-on pas dire: "organe" ou "organisme", quelque chose de plus concret. Ce qui joue ici, c'est le fait que ce soit fluide. Sans être français, je ne pense pas que le terme "mécanisme intergouvernemental" soit français. Néanmoins, nous acceptons le compromis parce que nous sommes pour le compromis.
E. EMMANOUILIDIS (Grèce): Le mot "mécanisme" n'est pas français, il est plutôt grec. De plus, je voudrais assurer mes collègues que ce n'est pas un terme abstrait. Je crois que le mot "mécanisme" peut inclure des groupes ou toute autre chose, et je crois qu'on peut l'accepter.
M. B. SY (Sénégal): Je ne suis ni Grec ni Français, mais il est certain qu'un mécanisme est. toujours supporté par quelque chose. Pour qu'il puisse faire un mouvement, une action, quel est donc ce moteur qui va faire bouger le mécanisme? Ce n'est pas parce qu'on a ajouté le terme "intergouvenemental" encore que ce mot, juridiquement parlant, qu'est-ce que cela veut dire? C'est une action entre deux organismes. Quand deux Etats constituent un organe, cela a un caractère intergouvernemental. Il n'est pas besoin d'être grand juriste, ni très fort en latin pour connaître l'étymologie des mots, mais un mécanisme est mû par quelque chose.
Nous nous sommes réunis hier soir jusqu'à 21 heures et nous avons refusé de dire: La FAO mettra en oeuvre toutes sortes de mécanismes nécessaires , on aurait dû accepter cette rédaction.
CHAIRMAN: I realize that people want to take the floor to explain or ask about "mechanism" and "body" and so on and so forth. The other side of the coin is, of course, that we have had very clear views coming from very many delegations indicating that the term "inter-governmental body"would have been preferable to anything else, even if that anything else is the only one that will ensure that when this undertaking has been agreed upon, it invites the widest participation. Therefore we could even be prepared to forego the widest participation only to have the word "inter-governmental body" in the document of the undertaking.
On that note I would like to ask, so that we are clear as to where we stand at this time, in case we are belabouring a point that we should not really be belabouring: are there still any very strong feelings against "inter-governmental body"? I repeat: are there still any very strong feelings against "inter-governmental body"?
Now, for the last time: are there still any very strong feelings against "inter-governmental body"?
R.F.J: NETO (Angola): Je pense que notre avis n'est pas très valable. Nous ne sommes pas francophones, mais je pense que même en portugais, "mécanisme intergouvernemental" c'est vague. Nous préférons: "Organe intergouvernemental".
CHAIRMAN: I had asked for people who have strong feelings against "inter-governmental body". Distinguished delegates, I think it is necessary that we make progress. If I do not see an indication of very, very strong feelings against "inter-governmental body" I would seek your permission that we adopt this annex with the inclusion of the words "inter-governmental body", and if I do not see any more indications, it is adopted.
It was so decided
Il en est ainsi decidé
Así se acuerda
Applause
Applaudissements
Aplausos
CHAIRMAN: I want to remind the Commission that this Report, owing to the circumstances that prevailed over genetic resources, did not go to the Drafting Committee and therefore it has come directly to the Commission for consideration and adoption. Let me draw attention to some features of it. On page 3, paragraph 11, we would be inserting there the resolution on the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources, which is the resolution that we have discussed for a very long time, especially operative paragraph 4 thereof. The resolution has an Annex, which is the text of the actual Undertaking. Resolution and Annex are now C 83/II/REP/4 and will be incorporated in Draft Report Part 5, C 83/II/REP/5. I believe that when we come to that, because of our treatment of the Undertaking, it should then be easy to deal with it.
Now regarding paragraph 12. When we have finished with that, if the "Libyan resolution" is agreed and adopted by this Commission, then we will have a resolution under paragraph 13, a new paragraph. We shall be saying that "the Conference adopted the following resolution ...". If we have agreed, then that will be the complete structure of our Report.
PARAGRAHS 1 to 10
PARAGRAPHES 1 à 10
PARRAFOS 1 a 10
H. LOPEZ DE MORAL (Colombia): En el párrafo 3 hay una frase sobre la cual quisiera pedir una explicación, con su venia señor Presidente, al Asesor Jurídico. Aquí se habla de una red internacional bajo los auspicios a la jurisdicción de la FAO. Como auspicios y jurisdicción son dos términos jurídicos que si bien no se oponen sí son ambiguos y crean una pequeña dificultad de comprensión o de interpretación, me gustaría entender exactamente que es lo que aquí se ha querido decir.
LEGAL COUNSEL: I think these terms have been used advisedly because, quite clearly, the arrangements that will be made with individual governments or centres regarding the way in which the collections would be placed within the network, will depend very much on negotiations in each case. Obviously the arrangements cannot be identical in every single case. They may even develop over the years because this network is obviously designed to be a dynamic process which may take some years to develop. Therefore the language which - as the delegate of Colombia rightly pointed out - is perhaps somewhat inprecise from a legal point of view, is designed on purpose to cover all the possible arrangements that governments may be prepared to make in order to place the networks which are under their control, within the network.
CHAIRMAN: Colombia, are you satisfied? Than you very much for your cooperation.
J. GAZZO FERNANDEZ-DAVILA (Peru): Estoy de acuerdo, pero en ese caso para completar el concepto que se ponga y/o la jurisdicción, por que la palabra "o" es excluyente del otro y puede ser que sean los dos: auspicios y jurisdicción cuando un país lo acepte, y en el otro lado solo auspicios.
Entonces, para que no sea excluyente, que se ponga "bajo los auspicios y/o la jurisdicción".
CHAIRMAN: Before I give the floor back to the Legal Counsel, I would like to ask: why would he not wish countries, at that point in time, to decide what happened, instead of determining it now and preempting their decisions and arrangements with FAO?
LEGAL COUNSEL: I have no serious difficulty with the proposal of the delegate of Peru. In English legal drafting "and/or" is not used because "or" means the possibility of one or the other or both. Perhaps it is different in Spanish drafting, but I do not think that in the long run it would make very much difference. I think it is more likely to be one or the other, rather than both, in the particular circumstances envisaged here, but the amendment proposed by the delegate of Peru would be quite acceptable.
R. GUADARRAMA SISTOS (México): Ninguna objeción, simplemente una solicitud de aclaración al Asesor Jurídico de una duda que surgió en el Grupo de Contacto respecto al término de "jurisdicción". ¿Cual es el sentido y el alcance de "jurisdicción" entendido por un jurista anglosajón? Y lo digo porque, efectivamente, es un problema de precisión. Nos preocupa la vaguedad; aquí estamos hablando de la red international de colecciones base que forman el Banco Internacional bajo jurisdicción de la FAO, no es cualquier red, es la red de colecciones base que se forman con las donaciones, como el caso de España, de sus colecciones base para que estén bajo la jurisdicción de la FAO.
Nos preocupa, entonces, aquí sí la precisión. Le pediría al Asesor Jurídico nos explicara este punto.
LEGAL COUNSEL: I think that the word "jurisdiction" is perhaps not, in any language, the ideal one in the context, since jurisdiction implies that a person or object is under the control of an entity with a legal system and courts to enforce that legal system. Therefore it may not be the ideal legal term, but I believe it has become accepted, in the context of your discussions as meaning "control". The measure of control that would be exercised by FAO over the base collections would obviously vary, but I think probably the underlying idea behind the term "jurisdiction" is that the collections would be under the full control of and would be administered by FAO which would put them at the disposal of all those countries chat wish to benefit from such collections. That is what I understand by the term "jurisdiction" in this context.
CHAIRMAN: It looks as though Mexico is happy.
J. M. BOLIVAR SALCEDO (España): Unicamente quería preguntar al señor Asesor legal si esta interpretación de la palabra "jurisdicción" que nos acaba de dar significa, como nosostros la interpretamos, que esas colecciones no estarían bajo ninguna soberanía nacional.
LEGAL COUNSEL: The degree of the so-called jurisdiction of FAO would depend entirely on the arrangements made in each case with the governments concerned. If the government wished FAO to conduct all the functions connected with having a collection under its control and if this is possible in the circumstances, then of course it could be subtracted from the jurisdiction of any national legal system. I concede that this would be a rather extreme case and perhaps a very unlikely one, because there would obviously be considerable problems. However, I would not exclude the possibility of some method of doing this being found, I would leave that question open, and say that at this stage that it would be entirely a question of entering into arrangements with the government which is within the bounds of the FAO Constitution and within the bounds of the legal system of the government concerned.
CHAIRMAN: Are you happy, Spain? Thank you. Any other observations on paragraph 3?
G. ANDRE (Sweden): In Article 7.1 (a) we have used the expression "under the auspices of the jurisdiction of FAO". Now we are in our Report referring to the amendment as by the colleague from Peru. I wonder whether the Report should reflect what we had discussed in the Undertaking.
LEGAL COUNSEL: I suppose that, as all lawyers, I like consistency, I therefore believe it would be preferable to use exactly the same wording in all the parts of the Report and the Undertaking that refer to exactly the same thing.
CHAIRMAN: That is understood. What we have in the Undertaking which we have just adopted, and we are not going to open discussions on it again is "or". Any observations on paragraph 3? Paragraph 3 is approved. Any comments on paragraph 4?
J.M. ALLFREY (United Kingdom): I believe the language that has been used in paragraph 4 could be misleading and I would like to suggest a more general wording which seems to be more in line with the resolutions we are adopting, "the Conference noted that the Director-General's proposals also envisaged the establishment of an intergovernmental committee or other body which would review the intergovernmental situation regarding plant genetic resources.
W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of) (original language German): My delegation would like to give its support to the proposal which has just been made by the representative of the United Kingdom. Indeed we do have a little addition to propose. If we want to be consistent with what we have already done then perhaps in paragraph 4 we should also say "the establishment of an intergovernmental body" and then carry on from there, instead of "intergovernmental committee". This would be in line with what we have already decided elsewhere.
CHAIRMAN: Are there any observations?
R. GUADARRAMA SISTOS (México): En el mismo sentido del comentario hecho por el distinguido delegado de Alemania nosotros creemos que es conveniente, para evitar confusiones, suprimir el término "u otro organo". Suprimir el término "u otro órgano" inmediatemente después de "organo intergubernamental", como lo popuso Alemania.
CHAIRMAN: I said are there any other observations.
M. B. SY (Sénégal): Je crois que la délégation de la République fédérale d'Allemagne a soulevé un problème de cohérence très pertinent, qui ne présente apparemment pas d'objection. Mais, si l'on veut continuer dans cette logique, au point de dire également qu'ont doit supprimer "ou d'un autre organisme", on se rendra compte que le rapport a non seulement pour objectif de résumer l'Engagement mais la résolution. Or, dans la résolution, on retrouve le terme "Ou d'un autre organisme". Par conséquent, nous pouvons accepter ce qu'ont dit le Royaume-Uni et la République fédérale d'Allemagne, si on laisse "ou d'un autre organisme" parce que figurant dans la résolution.
D.F.R. BOMMER (Assistant Director-General, Agriculture Department): I just wanted to remind you that we are discussing "the Conference noted the Director-General's proposal" and if you go to the text of the Director-General's proposal you will find the words as being used here where I think you put the emphasis of your discussion on the wrong paragraph.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you for that clarification. So we will let it stand as originally written because these are not the words of the Commission but of the Report. Any other observations on paragraph 4?
J. ZIMMERMANN (Denmark): Reading the lines in paragraph 4 I recall the resolution where it is stated that such a committee should be open for all members of the United Nations system and it is stated by the Secretariat that it is the old text in the old document but I have a feeling that it should be inserted here after the words "of an intergovernmental committee" and then we could insert "open for all members of the United Nations system" and then go on because then we have stated that it is in fact open for all members of the system. It is not otherwise stated in the text in paragraph 4 and I think it should be said here because this paragraph deals with the establishment of such a committee. I think it should be stated also here.
D.F.R. BOMMER (Assistant Director-General, Agriculture Department): I think that is certainly in line with the proposal of the Director-General. If you wish to insert it then it should be inserted.
J.M. ALLFREY (United Kingdom): It may be that I am looking at the wrong part of the Director-General's Report but I am not entirely happy that paragraph 4 is in fact in line with it. As printed paragraph 4 would read that the intergovernmental body is directly reviewing IBPGR and other organizations, which I am not sure is quite correct. Looking at paragraph 173 of the Director-General's report this refers to the intergovernmental committee doing such tasks as the examination of the Report of the IBPGR which are received by FAO. I therefore would ask again whether we might not be better with a more general wording along the lines that I suggested originally.
W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of) (original language German): I thought I understood that this proposal made by the representative of the United Kingdom had already been adopted and therefore it did not need to be discussed any further. I hope that this is the case. I had certainly supported it.
G. CAMELARIS (Cyprus): It is on this issue of the review which the inter-governmental committee or body will do. I suggest. we could use the exact phraseology in Article 9 of the Undertaking, which says that the body would keep under continuous review the international situation concerning the exploration, collection and conservation of plant genetic resources. It is a sentence which we have accepted in Article 9 of the Undertaking and this refers exactly to the functions of this body.
CHAIRMAN: Mr Bommer, could you please say again what: you have said concerning the Director-General's Report?
D.F.R. BOMMER (Assistant Director-General, Agriculture Department): This paragraph tries to reflect the proposals made by the Director-General. I am certainly not now in a clear position if the suggestion proposed by the United Kingdom has been adopted by you. This' is in your hands to decide But this was my proposition. If the United Kingdom delegate feels that it is not a fair reflection additional changes of words should be introduced.
CHAIRMAN: Delegate of the United Kingdom, did you say that what is reflected in paragraph 4 does not reflect the Director-General's report on this matter?
J.M. ALLFREY (United Kingdom): Yes. I feel it does not quite reflect the right nuances but I could accept the wording suggested by the delegate of Cyprus.
CHAIRMAN: Are there any objections to the proposal of Cyprus, which is supported by the United Kingdom? Let me ask the Secretary to read what is proposed.
K. KILLINGSWORTH (Secretary, Commission II): As I understand it, the change would be introduced in the second part of the sentence and incorporating an earlier amendment. The sentence would read: "The Conference noted that the Director-General's proposals also envisaged the establishment of an intergovernmental committee or other body open to all interested states which would ..." and at this point we would pick up the wording in paragraph 9.1 of the Undertaking and say: "keep under continuous review the international situation concerning the exploration, collection, conservation, documentation, exchange and use of plant genetic resources".
D.F.R. BOMMER (Assistant Director-General, Agriculture Department): I can only repeat that it is customary that it is left to the Director-General to summarize his proposal in the form he sees it best summarized. I do not think it is fair for delegations to correct the Director-General's summary.
CHAIRMAN: Could you please explain what you have just said?
D.F.R. BOMMER (Assistant Director-General, Agriculture Department): In this paragraph the Director-General summarizes the proposal he has made in the Report. Some delegations may feel it is a good summary, or it could have been better and something has been left out, but I think it is not correct for delegations to try and improve his summary. It is his wording and I think it would be fair for the Commission to accept it, as all the concerns and all the wording which have been used would come anyway in the text which had been agreed on. So why now try to correct the summary of the Director-General and amend it to something which has been later discussed?
G. CAMELARIS (Cyprus): The comment I made I was going to make in the Drafting Committee, of which I was a member, if the Report had gone to the Drafting Committee. My intention was only to help. I do not have any difficulties at all with the suggestion of the Assistant Director-General. If the wording is being kept as it is in the Report I have no problem at all.
M. B. SY (Sénégal): A la lumière de ce qu'a dit M. Bommer, le Sénégal ne peut effectivement accepter, quand on veut. reproduire l'idée de quelqu'un sur laquelle il faut prendre une décision, que l'on n'ait pas l'honnêteté de lui donner l'entière responsabilité de ce qu'il a dit. En ce qui concerne le rapport du Directeur général, il a envisagé certaines choses que nous avons notées. Nous ne devons rien changer à ce qu'il a envisagé.
C'est une lecture inattentive du texte qui m'a fait approuver la proposition du Royaume-Uni. Pour le moment, nous ne pouvons que noter. Dans le corps du rapport, nous déciderons ce que nous voulons.
R. GUADARRAMA SISTOS (México): En el párrafo 12 del informe que estamos revisando, podemos manifestar efectivamente los acuerdos a los que hemos llegado en materia de formación del Organismo Intergubernamental. Podemos, en consecuencia, respetar el párrafo 4 en su original redacción como señaló atinadamente el Delegado del Senegal, tomando nota la Conferencia de esta propuesta hecha por el Director General en su informe, pero yendo adelante en precisar cuáles son las recomendaciones y decisiones que ha tomado en cuenta la Conferencia, que en el caso particular del Organismo Intergubernamental aparecen en el párrafo 12.
En síntesis, aprobemos el párrafo 4 come está y hagamos nuestras observaciones del Grupo Intergubernamental en el párrafo 12.
J. M. ALLFREY (United Kingdom): I do not wish to distort the views of the Director-General, but nevertheless I feel that the summary does not quite reflect his Report. In this case perhaps the best solution would be to quote the whole of sub-paragraphs (a) to (d) of paragraph 173 of his Report. This way we would be all quoting exactly the Director-General's full and considered views.
CHAIRMAN: Are there any objections to the inclusion of (a) to (d) as the quotation of what the Director-General has in his Report? If we are agreed on the summary we could agree on the full text. Thank you. Paragraph 4 is approved, as amended according to the suggestion of the United Kingdom. Paragraph 5?
R. GUADARRAMA SISTOS (México): La referencia entre paréntesis de los últinos dos renglones ¿son para que el Comité los discuta? ¿Es una propuesta de la Secretaria? ¿Por qué se hace esta insistencia o insistente referencia al CIRF? En la versión en español está entre paréntesis en la última oración del párrafo 5. Y mi pregunta es por qué aparece entre paréntesis y, en todo caso, por qué hay esa reiterada referencia al CIRF. En consecuencia propongo un punto final inmediatamente después de "particularmente el CIRF" punto.
K. KILLINGSWORTH (Secretary, Commission II): To clarify the first question by the delegate of Mexico, there are typographical errors in both the Spanish and the French texts with these brackets around the last sentence, but they are not in the English text.
R. SALLERY (Canada): Just to respond to the second comment of Mexico, the continued references to IBPGR, I think it is in the Report because that was the factual occurrence in our discussions. Many members have recalled the good work of the IBPGR. It is as simple as that.
J. M. ALLFREY (United Kingdom): Further to what the delegate of Canada has said, I should like to point out that the first sentence refers to the effective role played by FAO and its contribution to IBPGR. It is only the second sentence which recognizes, as did many delegations, the effective role played by IBPGR. I therefore believe that we need both sentences in this Report.
CHAIRMAN: Are there any other observations on paragrah 5?
E. MARTENS (Belgique): Je voudrais tout d'abord revenir au paragraphe 5. Je ne sais pas ce qui a été décidé finalement. Est-ce que l'on conserve les parenthèses ou est-ce qu'on les annule?
CHAIRMAN: I am told that the brackets are deleted because they are mistakes, but otherwise without the brackets the paragraph stands. Paragraph 5 is approved, as amended. Any comments on paragraph 6?
E. MARTENS (Belgique): Je voudrais faire une intervention concernant le paragraphe 6. Ce paragraphe commence par les mots "Certains membres". Je crois que cela ne reflète pas exactement le nombre important de délégations qui ont insisté sur le rôle du CIRPG. Il y avait, outre les Etats Membres, les représentants du Comité européen de l'OCDE qui ont exprimé leur satisfaction sur l'activité du CIRPG. Je propose donc que l'on remplace les mots "Certains membres" par "Un grand nombre de membres"
R. F. J. NETO (Angola): Je suis du mêne avis que notre collègue de la Belgique pour dire que "Certains membres" doit être remplacé par "Bon nombre de membres", parce que l'on connaît le nombre de membres qui sont intervenus.
Lorsque nous arriverons au paragraphe 7, je ferai une intervention dans le même sens.
M. B. SY (Sénégal): A la lumière de ce qui a été dit, il faut tout de même observer une certaine prudence. Nous avons été presque tous unanimes à reconnaître les efforts et les prouesses du CIRPG. Là où se situe la divergence c'est dans les derniers membres de la phrase. Certains ont dit que le cadre actuel devrait être amélioré.
Il convient de dire que les membres de la Commission ont été d'avis que les activités scientifiques et techniques actuelles du CIRPG ont été particulièrement rentables mais que certains membres souhaitent que le système actuel soit amélioré. Mais il n'est pas question de mettre en doute que cet organisme a été efficace.
CHAIRMAN: Senegal, the secretary is trying to re-write the paragraph. Can you be specific on what you are proposing?
M. B. SY (Sénégal): Je disais que pour la delegation sénégalaise la proposition reflétant notre avis devrait être la suivante:
"Les membres ont été d'avis que les activités scientifiques et techniques actuelles de conservation et d'échange de ressources phytogénétiques qui sont encouragées par le CIRPG en collaboration avec la FAO soit satisfaisante à notre avis. Cependant, certains d'entre eux ont souhaité que le système existant soit seulement amélioré."
J'ai désiré faire cette observation, sinon cela remettrait en cause notre décision de créer un autre champ d'application, un cadre juridique. C'est de cela qu'il était question, Mais nous avons tous reconnu les qualités du CIRPG.
CHAIRMAN: Are there any objections to this proposal?
H. LOPEZ DE MORAL (Colombia): Pido realmente excusas por intervenir nuevamente. Yo había pedido la palabra antes de que Senegal interviniera por segunda vez. Tal vez usted no me vio. Sea en todo mi propuesta complemento un poco de la propuesta de Senegal y me parece que puede tal vez solucionar la situación. Yo iba a proponer que, en vista de que en el párrafo 7 y en el Compromiso y en la Resolución se. habla de encuadrar todo ese sistema de recursos fitogenéticos mundiales dentro del marco jurídico o bajo otros auspicios de la FAO, tal vez convendría terminar el párrafo 6 en "satisfactorias", es decir, penúltimo párrafo "en colaboración con la FAO eran satisfactorias". Y ahí terminaría el párrafo 6, simplemente, puesto que en el párrafo 7, immediatamente abajo, se habla de que en la segunda oración se dice "ese sistema debía encuadrarse en un marco jurídico bajo los auspicios o la jurisdicción de la FAO. Se habla también de que "la mayoría de los Estados Miembros recomendó, etc." luego todo lo que propone el delegago del Senegal para ampliar el párrafo 6 ya está contenido y figura con mucha claridad en el párrafo 7.
M. MOMBOULI (Congo): Je voudrais améliorer la proposition faite par le Sénégal. Si nous sommes tous d'avis que le CIRPG a obtenu des résultats satisfaisants, je propose qu'au lieu de mettre "certains membres", on dise: "La Conférence a été d'avis que les activités scientifiques et techniques, etc. jusqu'à sont satisfaisantes". Evidemment cela s'entend si personne ne soulève d'objection.
M. S. ZEHNI (Libya) : I think there is a slight confusion here because paragraph 5 is addressing the happiness of the Conference with IBPGR and the FAO-related activities, but I think 6 and 7 are trying to show that there was a different opinion. In 6 it talks about those who thought that the present arrangements were satisfactory and we did not need anything else, while 7 is talking about the majority opinion. So, I think the phrase and the connotation was made in 5 and does not need to be repeated. I suggest that 6 should be allowed to stand as it is, perhaps with the amendments of "some" to "many", because this just reflects the views of those who thought the present arrangements were satisfactory, and 7 goes on to expand the other side of the coin.
CHAIRMAN: Are there any objections to the Senegalese amendment as again amended by the Congo, starting with the words "The Conference"? Are there any objections? Libya, United States, Yugoslavia, Mexico. I had Canada on my list first.
R. SALLERY (Canada): I was going to take the floor to support the Senegalese and Congo delegations who, I think, have accurately reflected what happened, and also now the delegate of Libya who put it in the right perspective. Actually, the report is quite well written.
M. B. SY (Sénégal): Je crois que le délégué de la Libye a effectivement fait du rapport une lecture plus complète que la nôtre. La réalité, c'est que le paragraphe 5 avait déjà traduit l'appréciation générale de tout le monde et qu'on commençait le débat par les paragraphes 6 et 7. A part l'introduction faite par la délégation de la Colombie qui pouvait nous amener à supprimer la partie du texte adressant de nouveaux éloges au CIRPG, on pourrait peut-être maintenir le paragraphe 6 en commençant par dire: "L'avis contraire de certains membres ...
Je peux me rallier à l'idée générale formulée par la Libye.
CHAIRMAN: In other words Senegal, are you withdrawing your suggestion?
M. B. SY (Sénégal): Oui Monsieur.
CHAIRMAN: So, if the Senegalese suggestion is withdrawn then we go back to the sentence as it stood before. Let us have comments on the paragraph as' it stands.
R. SALLERY (Canada): In that case then, I support the delegate of Belgium that we use the word "many", "Many members consider that the present scientific and technical activities of plant genetic resources conservation and exchange as promoted by the IBPGF in collaboration with FAO were satisfactory". Then "some members thought that possible improvements should be sought within the existing system", which is a clear reflection of the situation.
H. LOPEZ DE MORAL (Colombia): Si el Senegal retira su propuesta, en el fondo quedaría en pie la propuesta de Colombia de eliminar la última parte del párrafo 6. No me opondría a que se pusieran al principio las palabras "La Conferencia", puesto que esta mención ya figura en el párrafo 7, señor Presidente.
W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of) (original language German) : If paragraph 6 is supposed to reflect the discussion as it took place then I believe we should adopt the proposal made by Belgium and Libya, and should leave the paragraph as it stands, with one small improvement and that would be to put instead of "some" as the first word of the paragraph, replace it by "many", and say "Many members considered", and otherwise leave the paragraph unchanged.
R.F.J. NETO (Angola): Si nous devons accepter la proposition formulée par la Belgique, il ne s'agit pas de supprimer les mots "Certains membres" pour les remplacer par "Un grand nombre", mais bien par "Bon nombre de membres". Il y a équilibre.
CHAIRMAN: The Belgian proposal is supported, as amended by the Federal Republic of Germany and by Angola.
F. BREWSTER (Barbados): Just to support the Belgian proposal. I think the delegate of Libya put the case very clearly. So far as the situation in paragraphs 5,6 and 7, they are three paragraphs running together and if they are right together I think paragraph 6 as it stands, as amended by Belgium, would be a better rendition.
CHAIRMAN: Distinguished delegate of Colombia, do you still insist on that?
H. LOPEZ DE MORAL (Colombia): Bueno, si efectivamente hay un consenso un sentido contrario, señor Presidente, en aras de la transacción retiro mi propuesta.
G. CAMELARIS (Cyprus): With respect to paragraphs 5,6 and 7, as we have seen they are related. Paragraph 5 recalls the effectiveness of the role and so on; paragraph 6 expresses the view by member countries or some countries' minority view, and paragraph 7 expresses the majority view. I am concerned about paragraphs 6 and 7, and ask the question is it right to put the minority view before the majority view? In that case paragraphs 6 and 7 cannot stay in the sequence they are in in the report.
D.F.R. BOMMER (Assistant Director-General, Agriculture Department): I hate to intervene, but certainly in the Report we have tried to put things in a logical sequence. Some people think you have improved it, and some people think you can go even further, so there is a kind of logical thinking about it. If you wish to turn it round, you can do so, but that was the purpose in trying to put it this way.
G. CAMELARIS (Cyprus): Thank you for the explanation, the point I raised was only referring to the sequence of the sentences. I am quite happy.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, everybody is happy.
R. GUADARRAMA SISTOS (México): Para unirme a la satisfacción general. Como quedamos en el párrafo 6, ¿cuál es la redacción final¿
K. KILLINGSWORTH (Secretary, Commission II): The revision would involve putting the word "many", so that it would read: "Many members considered ..." up to the end of the sentence where it says: "as promoted by the IBPGR in collaboration with FAO were satisfactory". Then there would be a full stop, and another sentence: "Some members thought that ..." and the rest of the sentence would continue. So, it would be: "Some members thought that possible improvements should be sought within the existing system ."
C.R. BENJAMIN (United States of America): I thought we were going on the basis of the Belgian and Libyan amendments which most people seem to be supporting. My view of what they proposed was to change the "some" to "many" and let the rest of the sentence stand as it was originally.
R. GUADARRAMA SISTOS (México): A la luz de los comentarios que se han hecho se nota que, efecti-vamente, existe una unidad entre los párrafos 5, 6 y 7, que tienen que ser vistos en conjunto, porque tienden simplemente a reforzarse mutuamente. Fue por ello que yo insistí en eliminar los últimos dos renglones del párrafo 5. Si mantenemos el párrafo 6 original, estamos repitiendo casi a la letra los últimos dos renglones del párrafo 5. Nos referimos a que "La Conferencia reconoció que el CIRF había desarrollado una considerable variedad de actividadés en el campo de los recursos fitogenéticos, y elogió estos esfuerzos y sus resultados". ¿Cuál es la diferencia con relación a los primeros tres renglones del párrafo 6? Si lo que queremos es, en el párrafo 6, destacar que algunos delegados recomendaron que debía intentarse esta mejora dentro del sistema existente, esta es otra idea que habrá que destacar, pero que queda confusa porque hay una repetición o duplicación entre la parte final del párrafo 5 y el inicio del párrafo.
CHAIRMAN: Might it help if we left the sentence as it was originally drafted? Is that what the Congo was going to suggest?
M. MOMBOULI (Congo): Je voulais proposer une autre rédaction, compte tenu des avis qui ont déjà été exprimés et en tenant compte de ce qui précède. Peut-être accepterez-vous que j'en donne lecture avant que vous rejetiez ou pas ma proposition?
Le paragraphe 6 pourrait être libellé ainsi: "Bien que la Conférence ait été d'avis que les activités scientifiques et techniques actuelles de conservation et d'échange de ressources phytogénétiques qui sont encouragées par le CIRPG en collaboration avec la FAO sont satisfaisantes, certains membres ont cependant estimé qu'il faudrait rechercher à réaliser des améliorations du système existant".
CHAIRMAN: Are there any serious objections to that suggestion.by the Congo?
M. TRKULJA (Yugoslavia): This is not very serious, but if we take paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 and if a balance is established in those three paragraphs, the interpretation given by Libya is correct. Here I would go along with "many", with certain reservations. For example-, I would prefer "A number of members", to strike the proper balance. If we said by and large were satisfied with the FAO and the IBPGR collaboration, we could say "some members stated" or "Many members", or however many you want, "thought it was satisfactory and that possible improvements should be sought within the existing system."
What we have been doing for days is that the majority felt that the framework should be changed or modified to allow even further improvements in the newly established framework. So I could not accept in Conference the beginning of paragraph 6 anyhow.
CHAIRMAN: We shall go on for another two hours debating which word to use at this rate. Might it not help to accept the paragraph as it stands? In any case, it does reflect the views and the balance. Is that agreed? Thank you. Paragraph 6 is approved as stands. Any comments on paragraph 7?
M.S. ZEHNI (Libya): I do not think the first sentence here conveys the views of the majority and it could give the wrong impression, that we want to expand the activities of the IBPGR. It says here that: "The majority of members, however, recommended that present activities should be expanded in order to develop...". So I do not think we are asking for the expansion of the present arrangements as they stand. I am suggesting the following amendment: "The majority of members, however, considered that present activities -" I recommend "considered" - "are not sufficient and that they should be complemented ...". I suggest not "expanded" but "complemented in order to develop a global system ...". Then the sentence carries on to repeat: "The majority of members however considered -" I do not feel very strongly about this, but the rest I feel strongly about -"considered that present activities are not sufficient and that they should be complemented in order to develop a global system on plant genetic resources..." and so on to the end of the sentence. I hope the English is correct.
CHAIRMAN: Are there any objections to those amendments? I see none. Are there any more comments on paragraph 7?
J.M. ALLFREY (United Kingdom): I should like to comment on the second sentence of paragraph 7. As drafted at present, it would seem to restrict the scope of the global system to the network under the auspices or jurisdiction of FAO. Perhaps I could suggest a re-draft with the following words: "Such a system should -" then we delete the next section - "enable governments to fully collaborate in all aspects of plant genetic resources activities and to monitor new developments in this important field", then we add: "and should include an international network of base collections in genebanks under the auspices or jurisdiction of FAO."
CHAIRMAN: Are there any objections to those amendments?
M. NIETO Y LARA (Cuba): No es para referirme a la enmienda ésta, sino que quiero hacer otro planteo sobre otro tema. Bien, si es así, no sé si realmente cabría aquí en este párrafo 7, pero es el único párrafo de todo el Informe donde se trata la cooperación de los países. Nos parece que sería útil señalar que algunas delegaciones reconocieron con cierta satisfacción las ofertas generosas que hicieron algunos países, en el sentido de ofrecer sus Bancos Fitogenéticos y ponerlos a disposición de esta RED. Creo debe destacarlo de alguna manera en el Informe.
M. B. SY (Sénégal): Je suis d'avis que la délégation du Royaume-Uni a raison de vouloir compléter ce paragraphe 7. Il est cependant assez difficile pour nous de souscrire à la modification du début du paragraphe parce qu'il nous semble assez contradictoire que la Conférence, dans son intégralité, ait reconnu d'une manière particulièrement élogieuse les performances du système du CIRPG et que nous disions ensuite que les activités sont néanmoins insuffisantes. Je pense que ce que nous avons effectivement souhaité, en tout cas notre délégation, c'est que ces activités soient effectivement élargies dans le cadre d'un autre système, d'un autre cadre juridique. C'est pourquoi nous souhaitons vraiment que l'on maintienne les élargissements des activités dans un autre cadre juridique plutôt que de dire que cela est insuffisant, puisque par ailleurs, nous avons sans réserve dit que c'était excellent et satisfaisant.
R. GUADARRAMA SISTOS (México): Nuestra intervención es para apoyar la propuesta hecha por la distinguida delegación de Libia, y unirnos también a la modificación propuesta por Gran Bretaña. Apoyamos también la propuesta de Cuba, y nos unimos a la preocupación de Senegal en el sentido de que hay que dejar muy claramente establecido, en este párrafo, en el párrafo 7, que fue la mayoría la que se expresó no en contra del CIRF; ya lo manifestamos en el párrafo 5. La Conferencia dio su pleno reconocimiento, pero en el párrafo 7, tenemos que ser muy claros en manifestar la expresión de la mayoría; la mayoría mencionó que era necesario establecer o desarrollar un sistema global de recursos fitogenéticos, la propuesta de Libia, y que también era importante establecer una RED de colecciones bases en Bancos fitogenéticos bajo la jurisdicción de la FAO. Y si esto no queda suficientemente claro, si no queda claro en esta Comisión en donde nos estamos refiriendo al Banco Internacional de Recursos Fitogenéticos, habrá que ser más explícitos. Muchas delegaciones se refirieron en particular al Banco Internacional, dieron su apoyo, y tal vez esto se preste a confusiones.
En consecuencia, nuestra propuesta concreta es la redacción del párrafo sugerida, con la enmienda de Libia, incorporar la propuesta de Gran Bretaña, tal vez destacando Banco Internacional en lugar de Red Internacional, y hacer una referencia explícita a la oferta española de ceder su colección base y ponerla bajo la jurisdicción de la FAO.
CHAIRMAN: Mexico, there is something quite contradictory in your statements. You are supporting the Libyan formulation as well as that of the Senegalese. I think I should ask the Secretary to read what we have here so that, as we go on with Spain and the United States and so on, we know what has been proposed.
K. KILLINGSWORTH (Secretary, Commission II): I have taken down the amendments proposed by Libya and the United Kingdom. I do not have a complete formulation for the amendment proposed by Cuba, which in any case would come at the end of the paragraph if I understand correctly.
The present paragraph with the two earlier amendments would read as follows: "The majority of members however considered that present activities were not sufficient and that they should be complemented in order to develop a global system on plant genetic resources. Such a system should enable Governments to fully collaborate in all aspects of plant genetic resources activities and to monitor new developments in- this important field".
Then we would add the following phrase, "- and should include an international network of base collections in gene banks under the auspices or jurisdiction of FAO".
Those are the two proposals. Cuba had then suggested that we have a formulation referring to the offers, but if we can have a specific text it would be easier.
CHAIRMAN: If you have it ready, Cuba, please read it out.
M. NIETO Y LARA (Cuba): Dice: "Varias delegaciones reconocieron con satisfacción las ofertas de algunos países para poner a disposición de la Red Internacional sus Bancos de Recursos Fitogenéticos"
CHAIRMAN: Should we adopt this paragraph as it is or does anyone else wish to intervene?
M. MOMBOULI (Congo): Je voudrais intervenir sur la proposition de Cuba. Je ne sais pas si la traduction est fidèle, le délégué a dit "plusieurs délégations ont reconnu..." mais en fait, "plusieurs délégations ont accueilli avec satisfaction" au lieu de "reconnu" on mettrait "nous avons accueilli avec satisfaction...".
CHAIRMAN: Paragraph 7 is approved as recommended. Are there any comments on paragraph 8?
S.P. MUKERJI (India): On paragraph 8 I have a minor addition to make. In the second line of paragraph 8, in conformity with what we discussed earlier, we might add a few words such as - and I will read the sentence - "The Conference stressed the need for expanded assistance to developing countries in the strengthening of national plant -" I would like to add the words, "- plant survey and identification and plant breeding capabilities with regard to training...". This will be in conformity with the preamble of the resolution which we have been discussing in the past.
CHAIRMAN: If there are no more comments on paragraph 8, it is approved. Paragraph 9?
J. M. ALLFREY (United Kingdom): I should like to comment on the second sentence of paragraph 9. I had a feeling during our debate that financial aspects were, in fact, touched on very little. I should, therefore, like to suggest that we delete this second suggestion which concerns a recommendation of Conference. I should explain that I am not trying to express a view either way as to whether or not the Director-General should seek the views of donor governments etc, as it says in the Report, but I simply feel that the discussion in Conference did not really give us the ground for saying that Conference recommended anything on this subject.
S.P. MUKERJI (India): I have a suggestion on the second sentence of this paragraph. It would read like this , "It is therefore recommended that the Director-General seek the views of donor governments and financing agencies with respect to strengthening existing funding mechanisms through the allocation of funds specifically for - "here I would like to add the words" - in situ and ex situ conservation activities at national and international levels."
Why I am worrying about this is because normally conservation activities are generally interpreted as conservation in nature in situ, but in the case of plant genetic resources ex situ conservation is also very important, especially to those species which are endangered or are near extinction. I would like to emphasize and amplify conservation activities to comprehend both in situ as well as ex situ systems.
CHAIRMAN: We have two proposals, one to take the second sentence completely out; the other proposal is to reinforce it with the additions of in situ and ex situ. Now let us quickly come to some agreement, something which will come from the Commission.
C.R. BENJAMIN (United States): I would support the United Kingdom's proposed deletion of that second sentence, because I agree that this was not any recommendation of the Conference that I recall. Therefore it would not reflect the discussion.
W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of) (original language German): If we had had a drafting committee to deal with this part of the Report, then may be this sentence would not appear in our draft. Therefore we can agree with the proposal to delete this sentence.
M. NIETO Y LARA (Cuba): Realmente coincidimos con las delegaciones que nos han precedido en el uso de la palabra sobre ese punto en el sentido de que no fue ampliamente debatido, pero si realmente, de alguna u otra forma, este aspecto queda implícito en las discusiones que sostuvimos, realmente no nos parece que esto dañe, ni obligue, ni cree ningún compromiso. Sencillamente, es una recomendación al Director General de tratar de movilizar, de acuerdo con las posibilidades de los diferentes países y organismos, movilizar los recursos que sean posibles y en dependencia de las posibilidad de cada país.
D.R. GREGORY (Australia): I was actually going to support the idea that our Report should reflect the debate that went on in the Commission. To my recollection there was certainly little or no discussion - none that I remember - on this aspect. So it is rather optimistic to try to say that the Commission recommended something, given the commitment to that discussion.
M.S. ZEHNI (Libya): While I have no problem in deleting the sentence because the concern is expressed that there is no long-term commitment, and I am sure efforts should be made to correct this if it is true, but I am unhappy to see this out completely, because I think the delegate of India made a very good point concerning in situ and ex situ. So I suggest that if we decide to delete this sentence, if and when, we could put a comma after "activities" and delete the three lines, and retain "activities especially for in situ and ex situ conservation activities at national and international levels". This is just to tie the two together. This is where we see the funding is lacking. Perhaps amendment of the English of it could be done by our efficient Secretary.
CHAIRMAN: I will ask the Secretary to read what we have now.
K. KILLINGSWORTH (Secretary, Commission II): With the amendment proposed by Libya, paragraph 9 would read: The first sentence unchanged, but a comma instead of a full stop. We would then delete the largest part of the second sentence and link it to the first with the word "especially". So that it would read "genetic resources activities especially for in situ and ex situ conservation activities at national and international levels."
CHAIRMAN: Is there any objection to that formulation?
W.E. ADERO (Kenya): I do not seriously object, but going back to article 8, and also in the spirit of consistency, I see that at paragraph 8.4 we made reference to financing, and we made it specific that the financing will be from extra-budgetary sources, and although I agree that not much was said from the floor while we were discussing this in the Commission, it was dwelt on quite a bit in the Contact Group, and that is what made us have that paragraph in, and I do not think that it will be all that good if we remain completely silent on financing. Because of that I would be happier if that sentence is left in, with the amendment of the distinguished delegate from India.
CHAIRMAN: Are you, in other words, rejecting the proposal by Libya to link the first sentence with the last part of sentence 2? You said you did not have any serious objection.
W.E. ADERO (Kenya): I would rather have the sentence as it is, with the amendments of the Indian delegation.
S.P. MUKERJI (India): Though I have no quarrel with the amendment suggested by the distinguished delegates from Kenya and Libya, I do feel today that we are sitting not in the capacity of a Drafting Committee, but also Commission. So that there is nothing to prevent us from filling up the gap in our discussions of the last day, or last few hours, in case we feel strongly that this gap has to be filled, and the gap is undesirable to be kept. Therefore, I feel that we should not be over-concerned with the procedural matters, and since the whole Commission is sitting we should try to amplify the first sentence of this paragraph by the second sentence. Because the first sentence, "showing concern", or "noting with concern", if left at that will be absolutely inconsequential, and having shown the concern we must try to make a suggestion as to how that infirmity in the existing system should be corrected. I have no objection if the second sentence could be reworded to meet the reservations which some delegates may be having but, nonetheless, some reference to funding mechanisms to correct the weakness in the existing system will go very well in this paragraph.
M. TRKULJA (Yugoslavia): I asked for the floor simply to say that we fully agree with what India has said just now. May I also say that the phrase is very, very carefully worded here. But, what we are recommending the Director-General, in fact, is to seek the views. I could not imagine that it could be more carefully worded. It is very inocuous anyhow . So I feel a bit strongly on the issue, it should be retained. Otherwise the whole context is destroyed. In 8 we are just speaking that national systems should be strengthened. Then we expressed concern with regard to the financial arrangements, and then what kind of action we are to pursue. So I would, as I said, like the sentence to be allowed to stand.
D.R. GREGORY (Australia): I just have a problem with the procedure. I thought the idea when we meet to consider a report at the end of a session is just to reflect what the debate was. All right, many members of the Commission are here, but that is not the way we normally operate. Many members of the Commission have also gone home. I think we should be reflecting what they were focussing on at the time they were discussing the issues, and the issues they were focussing on may place greater weight elsewhere. I think our Summary Report should reflect that. So it is a question of procedure.
G. CAMELARIS (Cyprus): I am referring to the same point as the distinguished delegate of Yugoslavia raised. In paragraph 8 we stress the need for expanded assistance, and in the first sentence of paragraph 9 we express our concern that there is no firm commitment on these financial requirements. If we stop at the first sentence then it is something which is left in the air, I could say, and though I take into consideration the views of other delegates, it seems to me that there must be something of a concrete proposal, recommendation of the Conference, and it may be that the Commission has not gone in to depth in discussing this aspect, but definitely it has been discussed on various occasions during the last two days when we discussed the subject. Therefore, I consider that if we stop at "activities" we leave something in the air without the concrete recommendation, and I would say that with the wording of the second sentence there should be something of the recommendation remaining in the draft report.
CHAIRMAN: Before I give the floor to the United Kingdom, let me say that it is true normally when the Commission considers its report there should not be new ideas being thrown in, but we also want to recognize the fact that we did not take this report to the Drafting Committee, which would otherwise have debated the points as we are debating them, and perhaps would have wanted to reflect those ideas, even if they were just traces. I think the truth of the matter is that mention was made of desires to have financing for certain things, but, of course, there are no specific formulations of words to that effect. Therefore I think it should be within the competence of the Commission to find some way to reflect, maybe not in the strongest terms as we have here, but I think it would be unfortunate if we left out the fact that there was some desire that something should be done about funding some of these activities.
D.F.R. BOMMER (Assistant Director-General, Agriculture Department): I wanted to make a suggestion. First of all, I recall very well that financial issues have been discussed because I had to answer several times pertinent questions about how much is financed from regular budget, and how much should be financed from extra-budgetary resources, so there was some concern about financial issues, including the undertaking we have. On financial security there are four paragraphs. I think with the present text, and the amendment of the Indian delegation, I think it could read and be easily
acceptable if we could say instead of, "It therefore" "It was therefore recommended", which I think has been used several times in other reports, and is very general. It does not mean that the Conference as such, or the Committee as a whole, has made this recommendation.
M. TRKULJA (Yugoslavia): Just to add something to what Mr Bommer has stated now. I can recollect really a very great number of speakers who said that they fully supported the proposals of the Director-General in the document. It was stated by my delegation for one. And the document certainly at length described the financial situation at present, and how it could be improved. So I really do not want to be involved in purely procedural matters, but really it is much more than a little unfair to say that in our debate the issue was not discussed. It was covered this or the other way.
CHAIRMAN: Are we accepting the proposal of Mr Bommer? All right. Thank you. This approves paragraph 9, as amended. Any observations on paragraph 10?
R. GUADARRAMA SISTOS (México): Sobre el párrafo 10 nosotros tenemos reservas sobre la redacción propuesta en la segunda parte del párrafo. Se entiende que es la Conferencia la que recomendó al Director General el inicio. Dice textualmente: "que iniciara la preparación de un estudio sobre viabilidad etc. etc.". Que nosotros hayamos interpretado bien las intervenciones a lo largo de la Conferencia, no fue realmente eso lo que se recomendó, e inclusive si nos referimos al mismo (reporter del Director, párrafos 181-189, en el mismo Compromiso, en el Artículo 7 inciso e) que se menciona textualmente, "se organice un sistema global de información", creemos que realmente se rebasa la recomendación de iniciar la preparación de un estudio sobre viabilidad.
Nosotros también hemos destacado a lo largo de las discusiones la importancia que tiene como parte de un sistema global la organización de un sistema de información. Por lo tanto sugeriríamos la siguiente redacción:
Recomendó, por consiguiente, al Director General que iniciara la adopción de medidas encaminadas a la instalación de un Sistema Internacional de Información sobre Recursos Fitogenéticos coordinado por la FAO. (Y aquí estoy en concreto refiriéndome al texto que utilizamos en el inciso e) del Artículo 7 del Compromiso) "Coordinado por la FAO", y terminaría el párrafo como originalmente está en el Informe.
CHAIRMAN: Are there any objections to that formulation? Paragraph 10, as amended, is approved.
Paragraphs 1 to 10, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 1 à 10, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 1 a 10, así enmendados, son aprobados
PARAGRAPH 11 OF C 83/11/REP/5 AND THE DRAFT RESOLUTION IN DRAFT REPORT OF COMMISSION II - PART 4
PARAGRAPHE 11 DE C 83/11/REP/5 ET LE PROJET DE RESOLUTION DU PROJET DE RAPPORT DE LA COMMISSION II -QUARTATEME PARTIE
PARRAFO 11 DE C 83/11/REP/5 Y EL PROYECTO DE RESOLUCION DEL PROYECTO DE INFORME DE LA COMISION II -PARTE 4
Here we go back to C 83/II/REP/4, where we find that resolution.
R.C. GUPTA (India): I just wanted to know whether we have cleared paragraph 12 also, or whether we will come back to that.
CHAIRMAN: We will come back to paragraph 12, because it gives rise to the other resolution. I think we can go a long way on this resolution. Could we quickly complete our discussions on this? I will ask the Secretary to read the latest formulation of paragraph 4 of the resolution which was suggested.
K. KILLINGSWORTH (Secretary, Commission II): In operative paragraph 4 of the resolution, I believe the formulation I have was the latest formulation proposed by the delegate of Mexico. It involved adding a clause at the end of the sentence which presently ends "open to all interested States". We would add the words "that have notified their intention to give effect to the principles contained in the undertaking."
However, the Secretariat would like to point out here that the beginning of operative paragraph 4 says "Endorses the Director-General's proposal for..." and since that proposal did not contain the words now suggested, if this particular amendment is adopted it would perhaps be necessary to begin operative paragraph 4 by saying "Endorses the establishment..." It would thus read "Endorses the establishment as soon as possible, within the framework of FAO, of an intergovernmental committee or other body on plant genetic resources open to all interested States that have notified their intention to give effect to the principles contained in the Undertaking".
J. M. ALLFREY (United Kingdom): I was under the impression that paragraph 4 had been left as printed. Up to now, the United Kingdom delegation has been very ready to compromise and accommodate other people's wishes in an effort to get an agreement. However, when it comes to this, we have all had legal advice that the committee and the COAG should be open to all.
We have also had practical advice from the Deputy Director-General about the difficulties which could arise from a wording of this sort. It has been pointed out that the intergovernmental committee will cover a very wide range of activities, not simply the Undertaking, and delegates have pointed to the advantages of encouraging people to participate in this activity so they can sort out their difficulties with the Undertaking and ultimately adhere to it.
If we are going to adopt this wording, I regret I am going to have to ask you to add the United Kingdom's name to that of the United States, Canada and Japan in the reservations to this document. I very much regret having to take this step, and I hope that perhaps we may still be able to consider returning to the original draft of this resolution.
J.M. BOLIVAR SALCEDO (España): Pensamos, que quizá esta discusión fuera posible zanjarla si simplemente después de "interesados" añadiéramos "en el compromiso". Es decir, "interesados en el compromiso".
D.R. GREGORY (Australia): We also have given consideration to this proposed amendment. I think all along Australia has supported the general idea that is behind the international Undertaking. We continue to do so, but we see great difficulties with the proposed amendment.
I would draw the attention of members of this Commission to the fact that the word used is "interested" States. That is really the operative word as far as participating in this proposed body is concerned.
Obviously, many Member States have difficulties with this international Undertaking, for various reasons. Unlike Australia, some of them are members of UPOV, or they have plant variety rights legislations. They do not know how this affects their own national situation. Some of those countries are developing countries, some are developed countries, but although this does not affect Australia we can understand that others do have these strong concerns. There is a great deal of uncertainty about how the Undertaking would affect them, and there is also concern that they would like to have the matter examined in their capitals. I think the more we can encourage people to participate in this intergovernmental group or body, or whatever you wish to call it, the more we might tend to allay these concerns.
To try to bring pressure to get all to participate could, in fact, have a perverse effect and encourage governments, some of whom are not members of FAO, to pursue other activities or to pursue their interests in this field elsewhere.
It is really a question of principle about how we operate, and how we operate in FAO. We would see this amended proposal as counter-productive. In fact, we feel so strongly about it that we feel forced to join the United Kingdom in also joining with other countries that have reservations on the Undertaking. I would urge those considering this proposal to look at the wording very carefully before they come to a final decision.
J. SONNEVELD (Netherlands): As I pointed out earlier in the debate, my delegation could not agree on any limitation on the membership of this sub-committee. I pointed out also that it would not be logical, looking at the terms of reference of the sub-committee and specifically at paragraph 2(c), in which it is stated that the sub-committee should review all matters relating to the policy, programmes and activities of FAO in the field of plant: genetic resources. These activities of FAO are not necessarily under the Undertaking. That means that here you probably have activities of FAO financed from the regular budget, and there is no possibility of excluding any member which is interested in the activities of FAO from participating in any debate on such activities.
Therefore, my delegation would support either the suggestion made by the United Kingdom to leave it as it stands, or I would come back to my suggestion made earlier, more or less inspired by the delegate of El Salvador. That suggestion was to delete the word "interested" in the last line so that it would then read "... open to all States adhering to the Undertaking and other States interested in the conservation of plant genetic resources".
CHAIRMAN: I have indications from several delegations that they wish to speak. There is no pretending that we have not begun once more to walk on very thin ice. Might it not help to leave paragraph 4 as it is in the interests of progress and for the benefit of all?
R.C. GUPTA (India): We find it difficult to accept that Member States and organizations who have no interest in this Undertaking should be monitoring the work of this network. It is difficult for us, I reiterate, to accept this position.
CHAIRMAN: Now, I have four other speakers and we are proceeding to increase the list of those countries who are going to reserve on this resolution and probably on the whole Undertaking. Let us go on to do that, if that is your wish.
M. TRKULJA (Yugoslavia): I will not repeat the arguments that I have previously stated, and I want to support fully your view that there is perhaps no better solution than to leave the paragraph as it was originally drafted.
F. BREWSTER (Barbados): I have refrained from coming in on this one for some time. It seemed to me Senegal raised the issue earlier as to whether or not the resolution by Libya was to be accepted as it is, and his view with which I agree, is, if we are going to accept Libya's resolution then we have little choice but to accept paragraph 4 as it is.
M. B. SY (Sénégal): Je crois que nous ne devrons pas perdre beaucoup de temps pour ce paragraphe, car en préambule nous avons reconnu que les ressources phytogénétiques sont le patrimoine commun de l'humanité. A partir de ce moment-là il suffit simplement à mon avis de trouver un compromis que je souhaite vous proposer, c'est-à-dire "ouvert à tous les Etats qui en feront la demande".
En effet, à partir du moment où un Etat est conscient de ce que les ressources phytogénétiques sont le patrimoine commun de l'humanité, à partir du moment où il y a tentative de réglementer, l'Etat qui peut se mettre en marge de l'engagement peut demander à participer à un moment donné à un Comité intergouvernemental qui s'en occupe. Cela constitue déjà un processus pour récupérer pas mal d'Etats qui, par la suite, verront que l'oeuvre est intéressante. C'est pourquoi nous proposons de mettre à la place de "Etats intéressés", "tous les Etats qui en font la demande".
M. MOMBOULI (Congo): J'ai suivi les interventions des délégations qui m'ont précédé, et je note -(si j'ai bien compris) - que si on gardait le texte en l'état les réserves qui avaient été faites auraient été retirées. Si tel est le cas, si effectivement ceux qui avaient émis des réserves les retirent, dans un esprit de compromis, nous pourrions garder le texte en l'état tel qu'il est au point 4: mais sous cette condition absolument.
CHAIRMAN: I want to clarify the Congo's statement, the reservations or inclinations to reserve that we make now, those that were already written in the text, taken as they stand. I think the later ones come from the United Kingdom and Australia, this is what the Congo is referring to.
W.A.F. GRADISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of) (original language German): My delegation was somewhat surprised that we actually took up this paragraph 4 again. We too had the impression that all of us had adopted this text as it stands, without any amendment. I do not want to repeat the reasons for which we would like this text not to be amended. I think we should not waste time on this, but
I must say that if we were not to adopt the text as it stands now, and as it has been recognized as the best common denominator by many delegations, if we are to change this in line with the proposals that have been made, then, I would have to ask you to add my delegation to the list of those who would appear in a footnote as having reserved their position.
G. ANDRE (Sweden): My delegation has great difficulties in accepting the Mexican proposal, and my delegation's suggestion is that the text should be adopted as it stands.
M. NIETO Y LARA (Cuba): Quizá con ánimo de buscar una posible transacción en este asunto, nos atraveríamos proponer que se agreguen al final del párrafo solamente tres palabras que dijeran "los Estados interesados en el compromiso".
De esta forma daríamos quizá un marco más general y menos restrictivo al planteamiento.
J.P. NEME (France): Ma délégation tient également à conserver le texte initial tel qu'il a été préparé par le Groupe de contact. Il nous paraît en effet indispensable que tous les pays puissent participer à ce Groupe intergouvernemental.
J. ZIMMERMANN (Denmark): We also want to join the delegates who want the present text maintained without any amendments. I think we have to make this clause No. 4 really operational just like the other three clauses, because when the Director-General has to carry out those activities he should have a clear answer, a clear responsibility and not having heard the proposals until now, in fact, if I could recall two of them, the first is that "interested partners should have notified an interest". I ask myself what does that mean - to notify an interest? How should the Director-General judge some words on a paper, whether there is 100 percent notified interest or not.
Another proposal was it should only be for governments who have made the request for membership. I ask myself what does that imply? Does that imply that member governments without any limitations themselves should find out when such a committee is established? How they should apply for a membership or not, without any limitations? Such proposals are not operational. I think the present text is very operational, it gives the Director-General a clear line to operate on.
I.P. ALVARENGA (El Salvador): Nosotros quisiéramos volver sobre la observación que hicimos anteriormente, en el sentido de que vemos dos intereses, a nuestro juicio, igualmente legítimos y que debieran poderse conciliar.
El primer interés, decíamos, es que la discusión a propósito de los recursos fitogenéticos, particularmente como está recogido en la Propuesta de Resolución presentada por la delegación de Libia, ese interés digo, es obvio que no puede quedar nadie excluido de participar en esas discusiones.
Pero por otra parte, hay el interés a nuestro juicio también legítimo de que se delimite, en cierto modo, quiénes tienen un interés en el Compromiso y quiénes no lo tienen. Porque si hay alguien que no tiene absolutamente ningún interés en este Compromiso, entonces es otro nivel de discusión, está en otro campo distinto del que aquí estamos tratando de delimitar.
Ahora bien, los que tengan interés en el Compromiso pueden encontrarse en dos situaciones: que adhieran, así sea con todas las reservas que señale el artículo 11 del .Compromiso mismo; o que simplemente consideren interesante la posibilidad y decidan analizar su posible participación, como lo ha señalado el delegado de Canadá o de Australia, no recuerdo bien.
Para cubrir todas esas posibles situaciones, nosotros pensamos en una modificación que ojalá no complique más las cosas. Si se pudiera poner, en el párrafo 2 del Proyecto de Resolución soore el Compromiso, donde dice: "... a los recursos fitogenéticos, y los invite a comunicarle para", suprimir la fecha a fin de no dejar plazo establecido, y "y los invite a comunicarle si están o no interesados en el Compromiso y en qué medida están en condiciones de aplicar los principios que figuran en el Compromiso". El estado diría: nosotros estamos interesados en el Compromiso; no lo suscribimos, pero estamos interesados y tenemos tales y tales reservas.
Y el párrafo final dejarlo como está, diciendo: "... recursos fitogenéticos en el que puedan participar todos los estados interesados". ¿Cuáles son? Son los que han manifestado al Director General que están interesados en el Compromiso y en participar en el grupo respectivo.
M. MAHI (Cameroun): Je crois que finalement on commence à friser un peu la chinoiserie, excusez-moi le mot. Je trouve personnellement que la version que l'on a sous les yeux est la meilleure parce que si on est intéressé par les ressources phytogénétiques on finira toujours par faire un pas. Bien sûr on ne va pas marquer ici que l'on viendra ou que peut-être on ne viendra pas à ce Comité. Je pense que finalement la version que l'on a sous les yeux est la meilleure. Tous les points et tous les Etats sont intéressés. Il suffit qu'ils soient intéressés par les ressources ou l'engage‐ment. Ce sont les Etats qui sont intéressés.
R. GUADARRAMAS SISTOS (México): En vista de que la delegación de México con su propuesta ha motivado estas distintas manifestaciones, estas distintas opiniones en torno a la voluntad de los estados para adherirse al Compromiso, queremos hacer una propuesta de transacción, una propuesta en la que, recogiendo el comentario hecho por El Salvador, terminemos el párrafo 4 simplemente incorporando, como lo propuso España y Cuba, "Estados interesados en el Compromiso". Punto. Evidentemente, con la necesaria incorporación de los comentarios de El Salvador en el punto 2. Una preocupación general es que los firmantes del Compromiso acatan los 11 artículos del mismo, y esto no es así. El artículo 11 es muy claro en señalar los términos o condiciones en los que cada estado está dispuesto a aplicar el Compromiso. Lo que se requiere es mostrar voluntad, y la adhesión al Compromiso implica el derecho que tienen todos los Estados de especificar en qué artículo se adhieren y cuáles son sus restricciones.
Repito que en un ánimo positivo de transacción, hacemos la propuesta de incorporar en el párrafo 2 el comentario o recomendación hecha por El Salvador, y terminar el párrafo 4 con las palabras "en el Compromiso". Punto. Esperamos que esto sea aceptable para las delegaciones presentes, y de esta manera, puedan retirar sus objeciones, sus reservas.
CHAIRMAN: Before I check with delegations who have difficulties, I would like to ask the Secretary to read the latest suggested amendments.
K. KILLINGSWORTH (Secretary, Commission II): I believe the first amendment would be to operative paragraph 2 of the resolution. Referring to the Director-General, it begins with the clause: "and to invite them to inform him of their interest in the Undertaking and in what way they could participate", or "to what extent they could participate..." That would be the approximate translation of the Spanish.
Then the second amendment in operative paragraph 4 would simply involve removing the word "interested" before "States" at the end of the sentence and saying "States interested in the Undertaking".
CHAIRMAN: Are there any difficulties with the latest formulation?
J. M. ALLFREY (United Kingdom): I find the change to paragraph 2 a little difficult. It does not seem quite to make sense. We have to inform the Director-General of our interest in the Undertaking, but does this mean we write and say we are a little interested, we are very interested or we are not interested at all? Or do we just send a little letter saying: "Thank you very much for sending us the Undertaking. We are interested?". I think I would sooner leave paragraph 2 as drafted, although I could accept the change to paragraph 4 as suggested by the Mexican delegation.
CHAIRMAN: The United Kingdom is suggesting we leave paragraph 2 as it stands, and accept the amendment to paragraph 4. Can we check with those delegations that have difficulties so that we can save time?
J. ZIMMERMANN (Denmark): Perhaps it would save time if we could clarify the meaning of the proposed words in paragraph 4, "interested in the Undertaking". What does that mean? Thinking aloud, I could imagine a country which has a positive attitude to the Undertaking but has temporarily expressed a general reservation about most of the articles. Such a country is still interested in being a member of such a committee, because somebody had to take a decision as to whether a Member State should be a member or not, and that decision had to be taken by the Director-General. Now we opt for a really weak measure for such membership.
I do not oppose the proposal as such, but I think we should make this paragraph more operational. Perhaps you could ask Legal Counsel what is the real meaning of the words "interested in the Undertaking".
CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the Legal Counsel could tell us how that would be interpreted.
POINT OF ORDER.
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN
I.P. ALVARENGA (El Salvador): Es que quisiera para aclarar nuestra propuesta, que fue aceptada por la delegación mexicana, para aclararla porque la traducción, es decir, la redacción en inglés, porque la escuché cuando la estaba diciendo la señora secretaria, no corresponde a nuestra propuesta. Ella dijo: "To express their interest".
Realmente, nosotros habíamos visto que expresen si están o no interesados. O sea, las posiciones son dos; en respuesta al Director General si dicen, señor Director General, no estamos interesados en absoluto en ese Compromiso; y entonces, no vemos por qué participar en el Comité.
Pero si dicen, sí estamos interesados, lo vamos a considerar, tal vez no lo podemos firmar ahora pero vamos a ver después, entonces, bienvenidos al Comité. Y yo digo que así se satisface el interés tan fuertemente abogado por la delegación mexicana y por otras muchas delegaciones que la han apoyado, en el sentido de que haya una delimitación de quiénes pueden eventualmente participar en el Convenio y quiénes no. Era para corregir la redacción.
CHAIRMAN: Before I pass on to the Legal Counsel, does the United Kingdom still have difficulty with paragraph 2 as explained by El Salvador?
J.M. ALLFREY (United Kingdom): Subject to the detailed wording, I think I would be able to accept the suggestion as explained by El Salvador, although it will, of course, be subject to what is finally agreed on the Libyan resolution.
CHAIRMAN: I shall ask the Secretary to read what we have now, after El Salvador's explanation. Then we shall call on the Legal Counsel.
K. KILLINGSWORTH (Secretary, Commission II): The last clause of operative paragraph 2 would then read: "and to invite them to inform him whether or not they are interested in the Undertaking, and of the extent to which they could participate in it". Or, "the extent to which they are in position to give effect to the principles contained in the Undertaking". Then the text would be as it is at present.
CHAIRMAN: The United Kingdom is willing to accept that. Are there any difficulties with what we now have in paragraphs 2 and 4?
R. SALLERY (Canada): This is not a difficulty, it is just a question of clarity. If a Member State were to say to the Director-General: "We are indeed interested in the Undertaking" or "We are indeed interested in plant genetic research and so on", if we were not prepared to sign, to what extent would that still entitle us to attend these meetings?
CHAIRMAN: I think the question of interest will have to be interpreted by Legal Counsel.
LEGAL COUNSEL: I do not think it is so much a question of defining the word "interest" as the way in which some communication of interest is received by the Director-General. This technique is very far from being new in FAO; in all the Standing Committees of the Council that are open to all Member Nations, only those States that express their desire to be a member actually become members of these committees. This applies also to a number of other bodies established under Article VI of the Constitution. Therefore it requires, on the part of a government, some manifestation of its interest in being a member.
In this particular case, the government would indicate whether it is interested in the Undertaking. This would be sufficient. One must interpret the words of a government, if it says that it is interested, as really meaning what has been said. No serious government that was not interested in the Undertaking would actually say that it was. Therefore, all that is required is an indication, preferably in written form, that a government is interested in the Undertaking. I consider that would be sufficient and I hope this will dispel the doubts expressed by the delegate of Denmark.
CHAIRMAN: With that clear explanation, do we still have any difficulties with the proposed amendments?
W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of) (original language German): To be absolutely frank -and no doubt you wish me to be absolutely frank - my delegation does not really see any need for these two amendments. Paragraph 2 has already been adopted, and it states quite clearly: "to invite them to inform him by (date)...". So this already implies that there will have to be a very clear indication to the Director-General and we do not really think that it is necessary to change anything there. With regard to paragraph 4, after having heard the Legal Counsel just now, we feel that it is not necessary to introduce an amendment. As Yugoslavia said, half an hour or an hour ago, we believe that this text really meets all interests.
M. S. ZEHNI (Libya): I do not know if this will help, but I think the Mexican proposal and the proposal from El Salvador are really trying to differentiate between two categories of countries: those who say flatly "No, we are not interested, we don't want to have anything to do with it", and the other group which will say "We are interested, but not now. We are interested but...".
As I understand it, I think with those countries who will have a flat "No" for the Undertaking, "We don't want anything to do with it", it is a moral question whether they should be sitting in judgment on those who show some interest or great interest or little interest. This is the distinction and I offer it if it helps.
CHAIRMAN: Could the Federal Republic of Germany make an effort to live with that after the explanation of Libya?
W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of) (original language German): If everybody feels that this exact wording is absolutely necessary, we are not going to object, but we feel that it is in any case perfectly clear that if we are invited to inform the Director-General whether one is interested, we do not think any further wording is necessary. But if everybody feels that we should add this wording, we are not going to object to it.
D.R. GREGORY (Australia): I was going to agree with my colleague from Germany that no change in the wording is really necessary. Why we need any change I cannot understand. As regards the intervention of my colleague from Libya, obviously by definition what is in the wording already is that it is participation by interested States. If they are not interested they will not participate and that has been made perfectly clear by my colleague from Cameroon. It is self-evident in the definition. So long as I can have a categoric assurance from the Legal Counsel that the fact that a signature or an agreement to participate in the undertaking is not a requirement to participate in the intergovernmental body, then if it makes people happier to have a more convoluted wording I guess I can go along with it. But it is that question I want resolved, not the question of how the words sit.
CHAIRMAN: So all the delegations are willing to live with this. But the Legal Counsel would like to answer Australia's question.
LEGAL COUNSEL: It is the Conference that has adopted and drafted this text, and I am interpreting it as it is drafted now. I am quite certain that it would not require any formal adherence to become a member of this intergovernmental body. It seems quite clear that the intention of the Conference was that countries should be interested, not that they should be adhering countries. Therefore it is my interpretation that the delegate of Australia need not have any fears on that count. But, as I said, the Conference is supreme, and this is my interpretation.
CHAIRMAN: I hope you are happy with that, Australia? Everybody is happy. Are you still happy, Mexico?
R. GUADARRAMAS SISTOS (México): No, señor Presidente, nos parece inadecuada la interpretación del Asesor Jurídico al interés mostrado por los países respecto al Compromiso. Evidentemente, no estamos esperando que envíen tarjetas postales para indicar que están interesados en el tema desde Hawaii. Esperamos una notificación formal de los gobiernos una vez que ellos, responsablemente, lo hayan evaluado como correctamente lo sugiere Canadá, y después manifiesten, de acuerdo al Artículo 11, su adhesión al Compromiso en los términos y con las restricciones que sus condiciones particulares, sus legislaciones nacionales les imponen.
En este sentido, se demostró el interés en el Compromiso. La explicación del Asesor Jurídico no nos es satisfactoria. Estamos esperando que haya congruencia en los actos y las decisiones que tomen los Estados Miembros; si no están interesados en el Compromiso ¿cómo van a participar en el Grupo u organismo intergubernamental? Eso es lo que queremos indicar con "interesados", señor Asesor Jurídico. En consecuencia, repito, nuestra transacción tiene que entenderse como interesados en los términos del Artículo 11 del Compromiso, que no ata, no ata a nadie que no quiera aceptar. Voy a leer textualmente el párrafo del Artículo 11: "Artículo 11. Información sobre la aplicación del presente Compromiso. En el momento de su adhesión, los gobiernos e instituciones harán saber al Director General de la FAO hasta qué punto están en condiciones de llevar a la práctica los principios contenidos en el Compromiso" repito, hasta qué punto están en condiciones de llevar a la práctica los principios contenidos en el Compromiso. "Anualmente informarán al Director General de la FAO de las medidas que hayan tomado o tengan el propósito de tomar para alcanzar el objetivo del presente Compromiso", repito, la adhesión al Compromiso no implica la aceptación tácita del Artículo 11, artículo que lo contiene.
Hay capacidad para que cada Estado manifieste las restricciones del caso. Lo que queremos, en consecuencia, es voluntad, que se muestre voluntad con la adhesión al Compromiso; esto es, evidentemente, un problema de congruencia, entre lo que queremos y lo que debemos de hacer. El interés, por consiguiente, debe demostrarse adhiriéndose al Compromiso y participar en los organismos intergubernamentales, no yéndonos a nadar a Hawaii. Esperamos congruencia, repito, en el acto y decisiones que tomemos.
CHAIRMAN: Modalities of postcards are not part of the resolution. The resolution is approved as amended.
Distinguished delegate of New Zealand, we received your note and you are going to propose the wording of your reservation to be added in the Report.
E.J. STONYER (New Zealand): We wanted to express in a limited form our reservation with regard to this proposal, the Undertaking. We have a form of words which we would like adding to the other reservations, if possible. New Zealand reserves its position on the text of the International Undertaking on genetic resources because there is no provision which takes account of plant breeders' rights. Perhaps if we could add this to the text of the Report it would cover our situation.
Paragraph 11, including draft resolution, as amended, approved
Le paragraphe 11, y compris le projet de résolution, ainsi amendé, est approuvé
El párrafo 11, incluido el proyecto de resolución, así enmendado, es aprobado
Paragraph 12 approved
Le paragraphe 12 est approuvé
El párrafo 12 es aprobado
C 83/LIM/33 PARAGRAPH(13), INCLUDING DRAFT RESOLUTION, ADDED TO DRAFT REPORT OF COMMISSION II - PART 5
C 83/LIM/33 PARAGRAPHE(13) Y COMPRIS LE PROJET DE RESOLUTION, AJOUTE AU RAPPORT DE LA COMMISSION II - CINQUIEME PARTIE
C 83/LIM/33 PARRAFO(13) INCLUIDO EL PROYECTO DE RESOLUCION, AGREGADO AL PROYECTO DE INFORME DE LA COMISION II - PARTE 5
CHAIRMAN: In moving towards the adoption of the Libyan resolution, which is C 83/LIM/33, I would like to indicate that we need, therefore, to change the wording in paragraph 2 to take account of what was agreed in Article 9.2. That is the first one. Then I will ask the Secretary to indicate all other changes that have been made so that we can now adopt the resolution.
K. KILLINGSWORTH (Secretary, Commission II): Regarding C 83/LIM/33 we had statements by three delegations that they would like to place a note at the top, next to the number of the resolution, expressing their reservations. We do not have an exact text which we would appreciate.
The other changes so far introduced were, one in the third preambular paragraph of the resolution. It was suggested that the word "hereby" be deleted and that the paragraph thus begin with "Requests". Later on that the words "take the necessary measures to" be deleted, so the sentence would read "request the Council and the COAG to establish a subsidiary body".
It was also suggested in operative paragraph 2, Terms of Reference, small paragraph (b), that the words "take or" in the first line be deleted. So that it would read "To recommend".
Those are the only two specific amendments I have.
R.C. GUPTA (India): If I understood correctly, in the undertaking in Article 9.2 the word was to establish an intergovernmental body. Now in this resolution we have reference to Article 9.2, but we are still talking of mechanism ...
CHAIRMAN: Distinguished delegate of India, at the beginning I said in my explanation that we would have to change those words to which you are referring to take account of what we agreed in the undertaking.
M. B. SY (Sénégal): Au troisième paragraphe il y a quand même quelque chose qui est gênant et qui risque de paralyser même le fonctionnement de l'organe que l'on veut créer.
En fait, on demande au Conseil et au COAG de prendre les mesures nécessaires pour créer un organe subsidiaire du COAG.
Tout d'abord une question de procédure: à mon sens, je crois que l'on devrait peut-être demander au Conseil de prendre des mesures pour créer cet organe qui ne serait pas forcément subsidiaire au COAG parce que, sinon, le calendrier des deux réunions du Comité serait très difficile à réaliser compte tenu du délai qui serait fixé. Je pense qu'il faudrait peut-être le rattacher à un organe qui se réunit plus souvent, puisqu'il s'agit de problèmes assez importants et souvent conjoncturels.
C'est pour cela que nous voudrions que l'on invite le Conseil à créer un organe sur les ressources phytogénétiques qui pourrait se réunir à une périodicité plus rapprochée que celle qui existerait si c'était un organe subsidiaire du COAG.
CHAIRMAN: Before I give the floor to Libya, I would request distinguished delegates - I know you are tired - please to try and listen. Senegal, the words "take the necessary measures" have been deleted.
M.S. ZEHNI (Libya): I wanted firstly to point out that the words "take the necessary measures" were deleted earlier on, but many colleagues around the room came to me and enquired about a couple of things: that the Council and COAG will establish this body, but there is no indication that it will be established at the next meeting of COAG. They said this could be the following year, or the following meeting or the other meeting. This is one. Should the meeting, the establishment of this subsidiary body, should it take place in the next meeting then this body will have no document, or no material to work in. So if there is an agreement that it should be established in the next meeting of COAG, then it should have the documentation and the material, and matters to discuss at its first meeting. So these are two things which have been brought to my attention, and I think if they can be incorporated would improve the text.
R. SALLERY (Canada): I am responding to the Secretary's request for wording, if I understood her correctly, for the three or four, was it, countries who asked to have their reservations noted. May I present that wording? It is very brief. "The Governments of Canada, Japan and the United States of America reserve their positions with respect to this Resolution". I would like to ask whether Switzerland was included in that, or not.
F. ROHNER (Switzerland): Yes. In order to be consistent with the position we took on the other resolution, we will have to ask you to add the name of our country to this reservation.
CHAIRMAN: Now, distinguished delegate of Libya, do you have the wording ready to accommodate those ideas?
M. S. ZEHNI (Libya): I do not have the wording, but I thought they would be very easy for the Secretariat, and perhaps if the Legal Counsel think this is possible to suggest the date, and I wanted the reaction of the Secretariat to the documentation and preparation for the first meeting if it takes place next time. So I was not prepared.
D.R. GREGORY (Australia): I cannot find it at the moment, but I thought there were some words which would take account of this request, that the body be established as a matter of urgency, or as quickly as possible, that I saw somewhere there, and I just cannot find them again. Does that not then require the Council bodies, or necessary implementing bodies do all the necessary procedure at the earliest possible opportunity? This may be a way of overcoming the requirement, but it does not concern me which way it is done.
D.F.R. BOMMER (Assistant Director-General, Agriculture Department): I think with due respect and all understanding of the Libyan delegation's wishes to give further advice to the Director-General, I would like to say on behalf of the Director-General that he is used to reacting as soon as possible, and as quickly and as speedily as his inter-governmental bodies wish him to do this, and to add in addition some kind of instructions to the Director-General what he has to do, sounds to me a little bit of a curious approach.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. The indication of establishment of the .body as soon as possible is in the resolution of the Undertaking.
M. S. ZEHNI (Libya): I have no problems with the Director-General. I know he will take action. I have a problem with COAG, for example. Let us say COAG for some reason decided that it would not like to establish that body at that particular time or procedure. So, I mean, I do not think it is a matter of a problem with the Director-General. It is unfortunate that this was brought in here. I do not think that was the point of the question.
D.R.F. BOMMER (Assistant Director-General, Agriculture Department): If you desire it so then the wording could read "requests the Council and the Committee on Agriculture at the next session to establish".
R. GUADARRAMA SISTOS (México): Antes de hacer una propuesta concreta, nos gustaría escuchar la opinión de la asesoría jurídica respecto de subcomités, o cualquier otra forma de grupo intergubernamental que se establezca en FAO. ¿Es posible hacerlos depender directamente del Consejo?
Es evidente que el Consejo, la Conferencia pueden establecer estos organismos.
La pregunta específica es: ¿Es posible hacer depender directamente y no a través del COAG, un grupo o subcomité, sea cualquiera la fórmula que adoptemos de organismo, directamente del Consejo?
Antes de hacer mis observaciones, nos gustaría escuchar la respuesta de la Asesoría legal.
LEGAL COUNSEL: There is one possibility, which cannot be envisaged at this particular Conference, that would consist of creating a standing committee of the Council. But that would require an amendment to the Constitution, and that is obviously out of the question at this stage. A standing committee would be on the same level as the Committee on Agriculture, the Committee on Forestry, and so on. Such a body would depend directly on the Council, but there is no question of adopting any such measure now, because an amendment to paragraph 6 of Article V of the Constitution would be needed.
Other possibilities, which I mentioned, I believe, in answer to the delegate of Colombia earlier on, are a commission established under paragraph 1 of Article VI of the Constitution, or a committee or working party of selected Member Nations, under paragraph 2 of Article VI. Article VI bodies, in fact, report to the Director-General and the Director-General in turn passes on the recommendations of these bodies to the governing bodies when they affect the policies, the programme or the finances of the Organization. That is laid down in the Basic Texts of the Organization.
These are the only alternatives which are open to you and, as I said, I mentioned them earlier on this afternoon.
CHAIRMAN: I think we have talked about the major changes in this, and unfortunately because we have to close at 9, on your instruction that there should be no interpreters at 9 o'clock, those who have problems will be requested maybe they might want to consider reserving on the resolution, and then we go ahead to Plenary tomorrow.
R. GUADARRAMA SISTOS (México): En vista de la respuesta de la asesoría jurídica, nos proponemos para agilizar y ganar tiempo en el establecimiento del órgano auxiliar del COAG que sea el Consejo en su próxima sesión él que establezca dicho órgano.
La propuesta concreta sería suprimir "y al COAG", y pedir al Consejo que establezca un órgano auxiliar del Comité de Agricultura sobre recursos fitogenéticos, etc.
De esta manera podríamos superar el problema de la limitación de tiempo y permitir trabajar con celeridad a dicho organismo.
LEGAL COUNSEL: Maybe I did not express myself clearly enough last time. The Council cannot establish subsidiary bodies of other bodies. It can establish, as I said, commissions or committees under Article VI of the Constitution. That is not the same thing as creating a subsidiary body of the Committee on Agriculture. It is the Council that can give instructions to its Committee on Agriculture to establish a particular body. This is what we had originally envisaged. But, I repeat, the Council cannot create a subsidiary body of one of its own subsidiary bodies. I hope that is clear now.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. It seems the text as it stands is the only possible way we can do things.
M. Balla. SY (Sénégal): Compte tenu de l'avis juridique du Conseil qui vient de nous être donné et qui m'a gêné au début, il n'est pas possible d'adopter cette résolution. En fait, nous voulons créer des organes subsidiaires au COAG. Le COAG ne peut pas le faire, ni le Conseil. Puisque nous avons déjà suggéré la création d'un groupe, d'un groupe intergouvernemental, au Directeur de voir pour les prochaines conférences comment mettre en pratique l'opération.
CHAIRMAN: One last time I would like to give the Legal Counsel the opportunity to make a desperate effort to explain what can happen and what cannot happen.
LEGAL COUNSEL: The possibilities are as follows: the Council can establish a commission under Article VI. It can establish a committee or a working party, also under VI, but under a different paragraph. of that Article. The Council can also give instructions to the Committee on Agriculture to set up a subsidiary body. Maybe the delegate of Senegal did not quite understand what I said. The Committee on Agriculture can certainly establish a subsidiary body, and will have to do so if it receives instructions to do so from its parent body, which is the Council. So you have three possibilities, the subsidiary body of COAG, which cannot be established before COAG meets, and the possibility of a commission or a committee under Article VI, which can be established by the Council.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. On that note I believe we can adopt the resolution as it stands.
M. MOMBOULI (Congo): J'ai suivi le Conseil juridique. Je pense pour ma part, que nous ne pouvons pas adopter cette résolution. A la limite nous pouvons ordonner qu'une commission préparatoire à la création du comité intergouvernemental soit mise en place. C'est tout ce que je voulais dire.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. The resolution as amended, is approved.
Paragraph 13, including draft resolution, as amended, approved
Le paragraphe 13, y compris le projet de résolution, ainsi amendé, est approuvé
El párrafo 13, incluido el proyecto de resolución, así enmendado, es aprobado
Applause
Applaudissements
Aplausos
Draft Report of Commission II, Part 5, as amended, was adopted
Projet de rapport de la Commission II, cinquième partie, ainsi amendée, est adoptée
El proyecto de informe de la Comisión II, parte 5, así enmendado, es aprobado
The meeting rose at 21.00 hours
La séance est levée à 21 heures
Se levanta la sesión a las 21.00 horas
