CHAIRMAN: The 14th meeting of Commission I is called to order. As we all recall, we were dealing yesterday with C 89/I/REP/1, which is a draft report of Commission I part 1. Last night, we got stuck in paragraph 4, page 3 of the English text. This morning, the delegation from France presented an alternative to be submitted to our Commission that I will read to you in French. (Continue en français). L'idée est de maintenir le paragraphe 4 tel qu'il est et d'ajouter à la fin la sentence suivante. Je vais lire: "Cependant quelques délégations ont estimé que c'est en priorité au GATT qu'il appartient de se prononcer sur les mesures à prendre en vue d'améliorer les pratiques comerciales en matière agricole". Comme je viens de le dire l'idée est de maintenir le paragraphe 4 tel qu'il est. (Continues in English). Is this proposal acceptable to the Commission? If I see no objection, I take it that it is acceptable.
R.W.Ch. VAN DEN BERGH (Netherlands): I do not really get the gist of the text, but I would like to coment, anyhow, because I have the impression that some misunderstanding arose yesterday during the meeting on our position. If you allow me, I would like to make another proposal and that is the following one, to insert in paragraph 4 the last sentence starting with "In this connection, the Conference stressed the need for special anrential treatment for developing countries, expanded market access for agricultural and tropical products and substantial and progressive reductions in trade-distorting support and protection", to insert this sentence after the sentence we are discussing at the notent, "Countries could derive significant benefits", and not to change anything apart from that. As to our position, let there be no misunderstanding that the Dutch delegation fully supports trade liberalization. We put that in our own statement on this subject, only we do not know to what extent developing countries will derive benefits, and this is fully in accordance with what is stated in the Mid-Term Review of GATT, and according to that developing countries need special treatment. That is all.
CHAIRMAN: I'm afraid I did not quite get all your suggestion. You want to change the order of the sentences, is that so? And to have the last sentence after the third sentence?
Now we are facing two proposals: one from the delegation of France to insert the last sentence on paragraph 4 and not change the paragraph; and the other one is from the delegation of the Netherlands to change the order of the sentence within the paragrafai. So, do I have the last sentence as the fourth sentence of the paragraph and not change anything? Would the Dutch proposal be acceptable to the French delegation? France has the floor.
Stéphane MADAULE (France): Je pense qu'on pourrait maintenir les deux propositions mais je voudrais direum mot sur ces problèmes qui concernent la libéralisation des marchés. Notre délégation souhaite la libéralisation des marchés et la phrase que nous avons ajoutée ne remet pas en cause le bien-fondé de la libéralisation des marchés. Simplement nous disons que les pratiques commerciales en matière agricole doivent être en priorité étudiées au GATT. Voilà ce que nous disons.
CHAIRMAN: I think we should not re-open the debate. I think all delegations here are quite aware of the positions of the delegations that were expressed during the débate of the issue itself. I think perhaps we could concentrate on the proposal of amendments. The Netherlands has the floor.
R.W.Ch. VAN DEN BERGH (Netherlands): Concerning the French text, I have one remark. It says "however, some delegations considered the view" etc.; which are the "some delegations"?
CHAIRMAN: My understanding was that the European Common Market delegation, I see there is some dissent within the European Common Market.
Bernd VON SYDOW (Germany, Federal Republic of): I support the suggestion nade by the French delegation.
CHAIRMAN: The last suggestion of the French delegation vas to change the order and to add a new sentence. If I see no objection, I think that is quite a reasonable suggestion: we change the order suggested by the Dutch delegation and add the sentence suggested by France. When the paragraph referred to "some delegations", it is indicating a specific group of delegations. Is that acceptable? We change the order of the sentences in paragraph 4 so that the last sentence becomes the fourth sentence and at the end we add the French amendment. It is so decided.
We move to paragraph 5.
Carlos GARCIA DE ALEA (Mexico): Es simplemente una cuestión de forma. En el renglón quinto dice: "la producción de cereales sería inferior a la utilización por tercer año consecutivo". Simplemente considero que el término "utilización" es algo impreciso; quizás nos estamos refiriendo a "la demanda". Quisiera poner a consideración este cambio para hacer más precisa la oración.
Ernesto Pablo DE LA GUARDIA (Argentina) : Sí, me parece que en el texto en castellano quedaría bien si se pusiera "el consurto" en vez de "la utilización".
El PRESUMENTE: Yo veo que la delegación de México acepta la proposición de Argentina. No sé si esto es aceptable en los otros idiomas. (Continúa en inglés.) That is agreed. We move to paragraph 6. I hear no observations. we move to paragraph 7.
Víctor E. MACHINEA (Argentina): En el párrafo 7, en la tercera oración, se menciona: "Convino en que la subida de los precios... " - que en español podría ser el alza de los precios y no la subida - "de los cereales"; aquí, sí quisiéramos agregar unas palabras que serían: "axon sin alcanzar niveles satisfactorios". Voy a leer el total de la frase para comprender la propuesta. Quedaría: "Convino en que el alza de los precios de los cereales aun sin alcanzar niveles satisfactorios había beneficiado a los exportadores ... etc.", y quedaría la frase como está.
CHAIRMAN: Is there any objection to the amendment proposed by Argentina that we add "although without reaching satisfactory levels" in the fourth sentence of paragraph 7? I see no objection, so we approve paragraph 7 and move to paragraph 8?
No comments. Paragraph 9.
J. Dawson AHALT (United States of America) : We should like to suggest a minor change in paragraph 9. We should like to strike the "s" from "Palestinians" and insert the word "people" and move the word "territories" to after the word "occupied" and end the sentence there.
CHAIRMAN: We have a proposal by the United States that paragraph 9 should read: "Some Member Nations drew the attention of the Conference to the agricultural situation of the Palestinian people in the occupied territories."
Ali ARHOUMA (Libya) (original language Arabic): Libya would like to amend the proposed amendment to paragraph 9, and we shall be working from the English text.
We should like paragraph 9 to read: "Some Member Nations drew the attention of the Conference to the deteriorating agricultural situation in the Palestinian occupied territories and its relation to the negative effect on the agricultural production and hence the food security of the Palestinian people."
CHAIRMAN: Is there any reaction to the two amendments? I wonder if it would be acceptable to the Commission to have the two amendments, in which case paragraph 9 would read: "Sane Member Nations drew the attention of the Conference to the deteriorating agricultural situation of the Palestinian people in the occupied territories and its relation to the negative effect on the agricultural production and hence the food security of the Palestinian people."
How would the delegations which proposed amendments react to the third amendment proposed by the Chair?
J. Dawson AHAUT (United States of America) : We are taking a look at your proposal to see if it tracks the comment when this item was brought up. We believe it is feasible. We should like a few moments to check it out, please.
I had suggested that we accept the fusion of the proposed amendments by the United States and the Libyan delegations and the sentence that would read "Seme Member Nations drew the attention of the Conference to the deteriorating agricultural situation of the Palestinian people in the occupied territories and its relation to the negative effects on the agricultural production and hence the food security of the Palestinian people." Is that acceptable to the two delegations who proposed the amendment? The United States accepts the amendment.
Yosef HASSEN (Israel): The agricultural situation of the Palestinian farmers does not need attention. The concern expressed by some Arab members is based cai disinformation, so the text is really irrelevant.
Bashir El Mabrouk SAID (Libya) (original language Arabic) : We are somewhat late I believe with our work here. What the first Commission is doing is to approve this report of the discussions that actually went on here. I believe that the Drafting Committee should have reflected all the discussions that wait on here. Therefore, my country's delegation has been very careful to reflect the discussions that have been going on in the past two days on this very subject. If seme members in this Commission find that the disruption of agricultural lands, destroying trees and water resources, has absolutely no connection with the deteriorating agricultural circumstances, and therefore lower food security for the Palestinian people, what does this deterioration actually mean? Furthermore, my country's delegation would like to say that this topic was indeed submitted for discussion. It was referred to the Drafting Committee, but the Drafting Committee has not reflected faithfully the discussions that went on. Therefore, I insist on this amendment, so that we can reflect exactly on what was said here.
CHAIRMAN: Distinguished Delegate of Libya, the amendment I proposed incorporates all - and I mean all - the words of your amendment, and some alterations of the United States' amendment. That is why I suggested that it could be accepted by the two delegations that intervened on the issue of paragraph 9. Therefore, it would read as follows, "Some Member Nations drew the attention of the Conference to the deteriorating agricultural situation of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Territories, and its relation to the negative effects on agricultural production and, hence, the food security of the Palestinian people." Is that acceptable to the Libyan delegation?
Bashir El Mabrouk SAID (Libya) (original language Arabic): Yes, we do accept that. Thank you very much. However, we must therefore look at the draft resolution from the Arab group on the agricultural situation in the Occupied Territories.
CHAIRMAN: We will look at the draft resolution in due time. Do not worry, we will get there. So we adopt paragraph 9 as amended by Libya and the USA. Let us move to paragraph 10, Any remarks? Paragraph 10 is approved. Paragraph 11. Approved. Paragraph 12?
Masayuki KOMATSU (Japan): I have to apologize that, although Japan has participated as a member of the Drafting Committee and agreed upon the draft presented before us, after consultation with the relevant people among the Japanese authorities I have some difficulty with the legal interpretation
with regard to the penultimte sentence in paragraph 12. The sentence reads: "The Conference recommended that, as far as it vas feasible, and in light of resolutions adopted by the UN General Assembly... " With regard to "resolutions adopted by the UN General Sentence", our legal interpretation is that there is significant debate and that the two draft resolutions have been put forward by the UN General Assembly but that the Assembly is still in the process of coning to a consensus.
And at this point and also by the end of this FAO Conference meeting, there is little possibility - maybe no possibility - in its physical meaning considering the timetable. This Resolution be adopted. Maybe some resolutions will be adopted after the FAO Conference has ended, so that in logic, since these resolutions are not existing we have a clear problem in its interpretation, not in the substance. So in that sense, our delegation would like to propose that the deletion of this paragraph which begins from "and in the light of resolutions adopted by the UN General Assembly, " so the sentence would read "The Conference recommended that, as far as it was feasible, FAO should undertake any further action, including analytic, scientific work to improve the information available."
David COUITS (Australia): I have two small amendments and one somewhat more substantial one which I would like to proprose for this paragraph, and then a coment on the Japanese suggestion.
The first suggestion is in the first sentence, and I propose that in the second line we add some words. I will read the whole sentence. "The Conference noted the serious concern expressed by seme Member Nations over the" and I would propose adding the words "dangers of the", and then go on to say "increasing use of" and I would then cross out the word "the", "large-scale pelagic driftnets". This is just better English I think Mr Chairman. So I'm proposing adding the words "dangers of the" after "Nations" in the second line: "Nations over the dangers of the increasing use of large-scale pelagic driftnets."
Do you want all the amendments at once Mr Chairman, or do you want each one separately?
CHAIRMAN: Each one. First, as a point of clarification that might solve the question raised by the Japanese delegation. Actually there has been a misprint here and the text as approved by the Drafting Committee, the Secretariat is saying to me here, should be in the text referred to by the Japanese delegation, should read: "The Conference recommended that, as far as it was feasible, and in the light of any resolutions adopted by the General Assembly, FAO should undertake", then we cross out "any", "further action, including... ". I think that might solve the problem raised by the Japanese delegation because it refers to resolutions adopted previously. It is not necessarily in this General Assembly, in the previous years, also.
As far as the proposal by the Australian delegation for the first sentence, I see it refers to the statement nade by his delegation and a few others of his area, and I think that could be accepted by the Commission.
David COUTTS (Australia): On the Japanese amendments, ray own suggestion was exactly the same as you in fact have said, so I can certainly agree to that. My second suggestion, and this again is a fairly small one, is that in the third sentence I would suggest that the word "handle" towards the end of that
sentence by the ward "study", "The Conference agreed that FAO was the roost appropriate technical Organization to study this matter." I have an associated suggestion and that is that that sentence and the next one I really think ought to be moved a little lower down the paragraph, and I would suggest that they comoin before the second last sentence. So the sentence starts: "The Conference recommended". I would suggest those two sentences be moved there, the reason being I think it is a bit of an interruption to the thought; you are talking about the problem, what same Members think about it and in the middle you put what FAO should be doing, and I think it connects better at the end of the paragrafai.
CHAIRMAN: So I understand the second suggestion by the Australian delegation is to change the word "handle" by "study". Is that acceptable?
Masayuki KOMATSU (Japan) : Sorry that I interrupt the debate right new, but I am not quite sure that I am following the debate that is put forward. First of all, you are turning to ray proposal in respect of "any". Before our delegation can clarify our position, I would like to knew is there any past resolution adopted by the UN Assembly, and on getting that I would respond, and I would also respond to the insertion of the "danger" put forward by the Australian delegation.
CHAIRMAN: I did not suggest any changes. I admit I vas doing a little correction, I should have done it before, to correct in the text that came from the drafting report: a misprint. So the text approved by Draft Committee says that "in the light of any resolution", and it does not speak of past resolutions and become "should undertake any further action", and I wonder if this proposal is acceptable by the Japanese delegation?
Masayuki KOMATSU (Japan): I am sorry to intervene quite often but our understanding is that to our knowledge there is no resolution yet in the past and at this current stage, but maybe I am mistaken, so in that sense this is something which we are talking about, long existing sense. If some delegations would like to touch upon any resolution this can be debated with no problem in the future with the Council or other opportunity, so I do not think it is appropriate to insert here which is to our understanding to talk about, which is not existing like now.
CHAIRMAN: A reference to past resolutions made by the Japanese delegate. So we move to Australia.
David COUTTS (Australia): Just on this point to help if it is bothering the Japanese that we may be incorrectly making some reference to non-existent or non-relevant past resolutions, it could say "and in the light of any resolutions that might be adopted, or any relevant resolutions that might be adopted". I am not quite clear what his worry is but if it is to restrict us to any future resolutions that they may adopt on this issue, then we could say "any future resolutions that might be adopted".
CHAIRMAN: I think the proposal made by the distinguished representative of Australia when you say "that might be adopted, or that might or might not be adopted", I think that might solve the question raised by the Japanese delegation.
Masayuki HOMATSU (Japan) : I do not want to prolong this debate but when we talk about "might or might not" we can talk about anything that could be happening in the future, so why do we not just await the next opportunity if it comes to the actual resolutions we can have in future at our Council meeting. In that case I think Australia could have no problem to incorporate this kind of sentence, but at this point we are talking about non-existing things, and if we talk about "might or might not" we can say anything whichever cones to our mind.
CHAIRMAN: So perhaps we can concentrate on this sentence. The proposal by the Japanese delegation is to delete the sentence "and in the light of any resolution adopted by the General Assembly", saying that no resolution has been yet adopted.
J. RYAN (New Zealand) : I am hesitant to weigh in on this because New Zealand was a member of the drafting group, but the significance of the sentence that the Japanese delegation would like removed is that it acknowledges that the General Assembly has this issue before it. If that sentence were removed the implication would be that the FAO is warning the General Assembly off this, which I think is not something Which any of us really wishes to accomplish. I would certainly think that the proposal is one that deserves support. I do not like the twist that you gave to it - "might or might not be". I think that the Australian phrasing "any future resolutions that might be adopted by the General Assembly" would cover the matter quite adequately. We do have to take account of the fact that there are two resolutions before the General Assembly.
David OCOTES (Australia): I had another attempt, but I am not sure, I am happy with what I originally proposed. I am not sure whether Japan can accept that or not. If they cannot, then I could make one more suggestion, but perhaps you would like to confirm whether they can accept my earlier suggestion that New Zealand just read out again, because that I think is the most sensible.
CHAIRMAN: Will Japan be prepared to accept the proposal by New Zealand that we put "any relevant resolution that might or might not be adopted", although if you put "relevant resolutions" I think that would be enough? Anyway, would Japan be prepared to accept this proposal?
Masayuki KOMATSU (Japan): I think the argument from our delegation remains the same but I am not quite sure. It seems probably sense to be giving something to us to take care of our concern. We have a concern that we do not
vent to talk about, which is non-existing, but still our position is we prefer, as we mentioned, that we would like to see the deletion in this paragraph.
CHAIRMAN: Before I give the floor to the United States, may the Chair try a proposal, with the help of the Secretariat, that we have the sentence "in e light of the outcome of UN General Assembly decisions on this issue". Would that be acceptable to Australia and to Japan, or to either one? It is acceptable to Australia, if I interpret his nod. Would that be acceptable to Japan? Would the United States accept that?
J. Dawson AHAELT (United States of America) : We would prefer that the word "resolution" retain in that phrase. We agreed with the intervention by New Zealand, and that is what I wanted to express to the Chair. I think that your proposal is a positive one, and we would simply like to see the word "resolution" included.
CHAIRMAN: In fact, "resolution" is included in a previous sentence, where we say "being currently considered in the UN General Assembly, which had draft resolutions before it". So when we speak of decisions on the issue we are referring to resolutions. Perhaps it would be better to put the two sentences closer to make the paragraph clearer.
David CRAKE (Canada) : I should like to support what the Australian, New Zealand and United States delegations have said. It seems to me that the General Assembly operates by resolution rather than decision. We were part of the drafting group and would have had some difficulty accepting this sentence if there had not been a reference to the UN General Assembly resolutions.
CHAIRMAN: If we said "in the light of the outcome of the UN General Assembly decision on the above-mentioned resolutions on the issue", would that be acceptable to Japan, because we have mentioned the resolutions before?
Masayuki KOMATSU (Japan): Before responding to your quesiton, I should like to hear from other delegations, particularly the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, whether it is acceptable or not. If we could add to your suggested sentence "draft resolutions" as is written in the previous sentence that is one possibility that we can accept. But it is contingent upon others, and if others do not accept this I have to come back to my original position.
CHAIRMAN: So my proposal would be the following: to substitute the sentence we are studying now by the following sentence "in the light of the outcome of the UN General Assembly debate on the above-mentioned draft resolutions", because we have mentioned draft resolutions and we do not have any resolutions so far. Would that be acceptable to the United States and Australia? I understand that is acceptable by them. It is acceptable by Japan.
•Then we go back to the two proposals nade by Australia. The first one is to include in the first sentence at the beginning of the paragraph after the words "Member Nations" the words "over the dangers of the increasing use of large-scale pelagic driftnets". This refers to their own statement, so I believe that that could be acceptable by other Member Nations.
Masayuki KOMATSU (Japan): We oppose the insertion of that because there is no evidence.
CHAIRMAN: I do not think it is a question of whether there is evidence or not. We are referring to a statement by some delegations. We are not discussing the issue itself.
David COUPES (Australia): Mr Chairman, your observation was perfectly correct. In my view the sentence is complete. It is what we and others said. It is as simple as that.
Masayuki KOMATSU (Japan): This is a really important point for my delegation. Maybe Australia, Canada and New Zealand mentioned that statement, but my delegation mentioned that our fleets are properly controlled. They are not a danger, to our understanding, and I think another delegation, the Korean delegation, took the same line as we did. This sentence says the Conference noted the danger, but if you are going to say some delegations said that, why do you not say what other delegations said. I cannot accept this sentence which begins "The Conference noted ... the danger of the increasing use".
David DRAKE (Canada): This sentence describes the concern expressed by some members. I would like to reiterate that my delegation was one of the countries that mentioned the damaging impact, so I think it is more than just the Australian delegation. Would the words "damaging impact" be more acceptable? I throw out that suggestion for consideration.
CHAIRMAN: Would the amendment proposed by Canada be acceptable to Japan?
Masayuki KOMATSU (Japan): No, definitely not.
David COUTTS (Australia): To prevent our staying too long on this paragraph, I will not myself push that amendment, although I do not know if anyone else wants to, but I would reserve the right to come back to it if my last amendment, which I have not yet given you, is not acceptable.
CHAIRMAN: Perhaps it would be best for you to give us your last amendment then.
David COUTTS (Australia): I am looking now at the sentence in the middle of the paragraph which starts "Some Member Nations stated that already there was sufficient evidence of the negative impact of large-scale high seas driftnets". I should like to add to that sentence "to warrant the international community supporting an immediate ban on their use. They also stressed that this action should not be delayed pending the outcome of any further analysis". I would just comment that Japan is one country that is
obviously very sensitive about this issue, but we think the Conference must remember that although what Japan says is quite true, and they have nade significant efforts to reduce their activities, there is another nation out there. It is not just Japan that is involved, so the mere fact that Japan is making efforts it does not necessarily solve the problem. I think the Japanese delegate is focusing too much on what Japan is doing. There is another nation which is not a member of this Organization which is very large-scale, and that has to be taken into account as well.
CHAIRMAN: We have a proposal by the delegate of Australia to add some wording to the sentence that reflects his and other delegations' concerns on the subject. Is that acceptable to other delegations?
Masayuki KOMATSU (Japan): My response to the proposal put forward by the Australian delegation is that, since this is the opinion and the view of seme members, our delegation does not have any problem in accepting this, if it is mentioned as the opinion of seme members, contingent upon one thing; because this stresses the opinion of one other group which does not share the opinion of our delegation. Therefore, if this sentence is incorporated, it will need some sentence which will balance this sentence in the sentence which begins "Some other Member Nations". But I could not quickly come up with the counter-balancing sentence. I am sorry that I am not a native speaker of English but the idea is that we would like to counter-balance this by inserting an idea such as that some other Member Nations were of the view that little scientific evidence was available on this issue; particularly there is a lack of evidence to any nations to ask for a moratorium at this stage; and further, serious measures have already been taken to respond to the concerns of the coastal countries to this issue.
CHAIRMAN: Could I perhaps ask the delegate of Japan to draft his proposal, and we will accept the paragraph with the amendments that we have just accepted. He will then como back later with a specific proposal for a sentence to be added to this sentence that starts: "Seme Member Nations"? Would that be acceptable?
Masayuki KOMATSU (Japan): Just for clarification, at a later stage the Australian delegation and I will como up with an exact sentence for the proposal and we shall discuss it? Is that a clear understanding?
CHAIRMAN: That is my understanding, but I understand that the Australian delegation has already presented a specific text. We are only awaiting your text.
Masayuki KOMATSU (Japan): Yes, that is fine.
CHAIRMAN: So we adopt paragraph 12 with the following amendments: on the second line of the English text we take out the word "the". On the sixth line of the English text, in the sentence starting "The Conference agreed", we substitute the verb "handle" with "study". In the phrase starting "and in the light of any resolutions" should now read "and in the light of the outcome of the united Nations General Assembly debate on the above-mentioned draft
resolutions". Then we change the order of the sentence, putting the recommendations at the end and the reference at the beginning. So the sentences starting "The Conference agreed" and "The Conference noted" would cane at the end.
Víctor E. MACHENEA (Argentina): Muy simple: en la versión en español, en la primera oración se habla sobre "artes de deriva pelágicos". Supongo que será "redes de deriva pelágicos".
CHAIRMAN: That would be taken care of by the translators. It is basically a Spanish text problem. If I did not rake myself clear on the order of the sentences, those two sentences "The Conference agreed" and "The Conference noted" would como before the sentence that starts "The Conference recommended".
Masayuki KOMATSU (Japan): With regard to my proposal, seven lines from the bottom, the sentence "However, sane other Member Nations were of the view that little scientific evidence was available on this issue", "to justify a ban of large-scale pelagic driftnet and that some measures..."
CHAIRMAN: Would the delegation of Japan repeat his amendment slowly?
Masayuki KOMATSU (Japan): After "on this issue", "to justify the ban of use of driftnets and measures had been already taken by some countries on this matter".
CHAIRMAN: If I can read the sentence proposed by Japan with a small suggestion, it is that we add at the end of the sentence that starts with "However" and ends with "Oft this issue", "To justify a ban on the use of driftnets" - and perhaps we could add a verb - "and referred to measures which have already been taken by those countries". Is that correct?
Masayuki KOMATSU (Japan): Yes, I would say that maybe we can just have "measures"; and also you say "by those countries" but I would just like to see "some œuntries".
J. RYAN (New Zealand): In the first version of that drafting that Japan gave us the reference was to a ban on the use of large-scale pelagic driftnets. In the second version it became a ban on the use of driftnets. To my knowledge, there is no proposal for a ban on driftnets generally, and I would much prefer the qualification "large-scale pelagic" to stay in. It gets away from reality if we talk about a ban on driftnets in general.
CHAIRMAN: Could we have a final version from Japan then?
Masayiki KOMATSU (Japan): Yes, I can accept New Zealand's position with no problem.
CHAIRMAN: So the sentence proposed by Japan would read "to justify a ban on the use of large-scale pelagic driftnets and measures that have been taken by sane countries". I think something is missing in the sentence. I propose that we add here, "and referred to measures" because I believe that if we have the sentence as proposed by Japan a verb is missing. However, if Japan insists, that is his own text.
Masayuki KOMATSU (Japan) : I am sorry, but I am not a native speaker of English, so if the construction of the sentence is then grammatically correct, I have no problem.
CHAIRMAN: "and referred to measures that have been taken by some countries" -is that all right?
Masayuki KOMATSU (Japan) : Again, I must apologize that my delegation intervenes so many times, but since I could not entirely follow what the Australian delegation put forward as a proposal, I could not understnad what was going on - the proposal of the insertion of "danger" - I do not know what has happened. Something is missing as far as my delegation is concerned. However, this is an important issue, and I should like to get sane clarification and a final version from the Secretariat and I could then respond.
CHAIRMAN: The Australian delegation had dropped its proposal on the dangers sane time ago. So, as I mentioned, the paragraph would read: in the second line of the English text the word "the" in "the large-scale" would be dropped, as far as I could understand from our Ehglish-speaking colleagues. It is more gramatical, than factual or substantive (I am not an English speaker myself; my language is Portuguese and this can be very hard to understand). The second amendment is that the verb "handle" in the sentence starting "The Conference agreed" would be substituted by "study". This sentence together with the next sentence starting '"The Conference noted", would come imttediately before the sentence starting "The Conference recommended".
Third, the sentence starting "Some Member Nations already had sufficient evidence", will have the addition by Australia at the end of it, say "to warrant the international community supporting an immediate ban on their use, and they also stressed that the action should not be delayed pending the outcome of any further analysis". The next sentence starting "However, some other Member Nations" will have the addition of the sentence proposed by Japan that reads: "to justify a ban on the use of large-scale pelagic driftnets and referred to measures that had been already taken by sane countries". "In the light of resolutions" would read: "and in the light of the outcome of the United Nations general débate on the above-mentioned draft resolution". Brat is it. Is that acceptable? Is that clear, at least? We move to paragraph 13. Any remarks on paragraph 13?
J. Dawson AHALT (United States of America) : The sentence beginning on the top of page 6, our delegation would like to propose sane alternative phrasing. We would like to remove or replace the wording beginning with "poverty" and ending in the second line with "countries". We would like to insert in place, "the limited availability of scarce resources in relation to heavy utilization".
CHAIRMAN: What is the reaction to the amendment proposed by the US delegation?
Paulo Estivallet HE MESQUITk (Brazil): I am not sure if I get the sense of the change that is being proposed. I think it is a significant change in the sense that it gives the idea that the causes of environmental degradation in developed and developing countries would be the same. I do not think that is exactly the outcome of our debate. I think the text as it stands reflects more accurately the sense of What we discussed here, because the suggestion by the American delegation draws a parallel, in effect, to it saying that environmental degradation is being caused by the same factors in developed and developing countries, and I think it should at least be mentioned that there is a difference in the kind and in the reasons and the causes of environmental degradation in developed and developing countries.
CHAIRMAN: I see the point raised by the delegation of Brazil. It is my assumption that he would rather have the original text.
J. Dawson AHALT (United States of America) : I understood the delegate from Brazil's point. You could leave the words "developing countries" in the phrase. My concern with the original construction was that it talks about the poverty of resources in developing countries, and that is not the situation in all developing countries. There are some developing countries that are rich in resources; there are other problems. What I was trying to do was to correct that point. If it would help my suggestion, I think you could insert, "the limited availability of scarce resources in developing countries".
CHAIRMAN: Just a question to the delegation of the USA. Do we keep the expression "and consumerism in the developed countries" or do we strike it out?
J. Dawson AHALT (United States of America): I would propose to strike that, partly because I do not understand what it means. Consumerism means different things to different people. That is why I proposed the point to substitute "in relation to heavy utilization".
R.C.A. JAIN (India): I think the modified stand of the US delegation seems to be irrelevant to the phrase you can accept. I think the phrase could read "the limited availability of scarce resources in the developing countries and their over-utilization in the developed countries". Probably that would be acceptable to the US delegation.
Ms Sin BALKISH SHARIEF (Malaysia): The Malaysian delegation supports the arguments put forward by the distinguished delegate from Brazil. We would prefer the original text as it is. Víctor E. MACEHNEA (Argentina): En un intento de tratar de interpretar lo expresado por el distinguido delegado de los Estados Unidos, mi propuesta sería: "Se consideró que la limitada disponibilidad de recursos tanto técnicos como económicos ..." y sigue "en los países en desarrollo". Y no tengo inconveniente en aceptar "el exceso de utilización en los países
desarrollados". No sé si fue interpretada mi propuesta. Voy a volver a repetir: "Se consideró que la limitada disponibilidad de recursos tanto técnicos como económicos en los países en desarrollo y el exceso de utilización en los países desarrollados ...", y sigue la expresión cerno está.
CHAIRMAN: The proposal by the distinguished delegate of Argentina goes in a good direction. One that is acceptable to the USA?
J. Dawson AHALT (United States of America) : Vite would be in agreement with itf except for the "excessive utilization in developed countries". I would prefer the original wording of "consumerism in developed countries" and to say "heavy utilization in developed countries". My original phrase vas "heavy utilization". One could make the point that there is heavy utilization and resources in developing countries. But if it pleases the Commission, I would in the second part of the phrase accept "and consumerism in the developed countries".
CHAIRMAN: Before I give the floor to Canada, perhaps we will try to see valere we are now. The sentence would read, "It agreed that the limited availability of resources both technical and economic in developing countries and consumerism in the developed countries were the main causes" etc. This is the proposal that is accepted by the USA. Does Canada want to make any remark on this proposal? No, just to support it.
Is the US proposal acceptable then? So the sentence would read "It agreed that limited availability of resources both technical and economic in developing countries and consumerism in the developing countries were the main causes of environmental degradation", and so on. The rest of the paragraph would continue the same. Paragraph 14.
Paulo Estivallet DE MESQUITA (Brazil) : I have a minor change to the proposal and it is the deletion in the first sentence of the particular reference to "tropical forests". we could have a comma after "loss of forests" and delete the part which goes from "in gelerai and tropical forests in particular and those", so that the sentence would read, "lamenting the prevailing rapid rates of loss of forests, which contained irreplaceable genetic resources" and so on.
CHAIRMAN: The proposal by Brazil is to delete the sentence starting "in general" up to "those".
Doddy SURACHMAN (Indonesia): we support the statement proposed by Brazil and we would like to propose another sentence which is in line 4 from the top. It states there, "climate and the atmosphere, the Conference considered". I would like to propose a change of the word "considered" to "is of the view". So the words would read as follows, "climate and the atmosphere, the Conference is of the view that" etc.
CHAIRMAN: we have a proposal by Indonesia to substitute the word "considered" in the fourth line by the words "is of the view". Is that acceptable?
Víctor E. MACHINEA (Argentina): Disculpe, señor Presidente, porque acabo de descubrir algo que surge de un error del informe del Comité de Redacción. Recuerdo que yo había criticado en el documento, cuando se habla de que "sustentan de forma sostenible a muchas poblaciones indígenas", y había propuesto, aceptándose por el Comite de Redacción, eliminar esa mención específica. En la versión inglesa no está; está en la versión española.
CHAIRMAN: In the Spanish version that will be taken care of.
D.A. BUCKLE (united Kingdom): With regard to the words "tropical forests" in the second line, which are concerning the delegate of Brazil, we think that the real point at issue here is the loss of natural forests, and we propose replacing the word "tropical" by "natural" and further along, in the same line, after "particular" changing "and" to "as".
Paulo Estivallet DE MESQUITA (Brazil): would we then return to the sentence as it was and change "tropical" for "natural"? It would read, "forests in general and natural forests in particular". Is that what is being suggested?
CHAIRMAN: That is it. Indonesia also referred to the Brazilian suggestion. Is that UK proposal acceptable to the delegate of Indonesia, who supported the Brazilian proposal? The proposal is that we substitute the word "natural" for "tropical" and the word "as" for "and".
Doddy SURACHMAN (Indonesia): Yes, that is acceptable.
CHAIRMAN: The UK proposal is acceptable to both Indonesia and Brazil, which have proposed amendments. The first sentence would read: "Lamenting the prevailing rapid rates of loss of forests in general and natural forests in particular as those which contained irreplaceable genetic resources..." The phrase beginning "the Conference" in the fourth line would read, "the Conference was of the view", rather than "the Conference considered". This is acceptable.
Grégoire NKBCXJA (Congo): Je voulais intervenir sur la 5éme ligne, je voulais qu'on laisse la nuance car s'il s'agit du boycott des bois tropicaux par les mouvements écologistes, j'aurais souhaité que l'on soit un peu plus clair, parce que tel que libellé on a l'impression qu'il y aurait des gouvernements ou des organisations qui auraient décrété carme une interdiction du commerce international. J'aurais souhaité que l'on soit plus clair en utilisant le terme: "boycott des bois tropicaux par des mouvements écologistes".
D.A. BUCKLE (United Kingdom): My point is quite a minor one. With reference to my earlier suggestion, I think we need to clean up the English a little by deleting "which" and changing "provided" to "proving".
CHAIRMAN: The Secretariat has already raised the same point with me. You must pardon my mistakes of English. We can now move to the proposal by the delegation of Congo that we substitute the word "embargoes" by the word "boycotts" and add the words "by ecological groups" so that the last part of the sentence would read "boycotts by ecological groups on international trade in timber products were not a useful method for slowing deforestation".
José TUBINO (Canada) : It is our belief that we are shifting the focus of the actors on this point. We are talking about governments now, and that is why we are referring to embargoes. If we are going to drop the action of governments and put the attention on the action of environmental groups, we believe that this gives a completely different meaning to the sentence. For that reason, we would like to maintain the text put forward by the Secretariat. we do not see how the Congolese proposal fits within the context of this sentence.
CHAIRMAN: I see your point very clearly.
Paulo Estivallet DE MESQUITA (Brésil): Je suis d'accord avec la proposition de maintenir le texte comme il est, car si l'on fait une référence particulière à d'autres organisations, en réalité, là on sera en train de mettre une nuance. Ici il s'agit aussi de faire le point, il n'est pas utile pour les gouvernements d'empêcher le commerce des produits des forets tropicales.
Victor E. MftQHNEA (Argentina): Tratando de hacer un esfuerzo para unir posiciones, nuestra Delegación sugiere que se podría incluir lo propuesto por el Congo, pero sin quitar lo que dice la frase. Por tanto, diríamos: "la Conferencia consideró que los embargos del comercio internacional de productos madereros y/o los boicots por movimientos ecológicos no eran método útil para desacelerar la deforestación", etcétera.
CHAIRMAN: What would the proposal be?
Grégoire NKBOUA (Congp): Cela peut être une information qu'il faut demander: Est-ce qu'en dehors des mouvements écologiques qui pratiquent le boycott des bois tropicaux, il y a des gouvernements ou d'autres organisations qui ont interdit le commerce des bois tropicaux? A ma connaissance, je crois qu'il s'agit d'un boycott des bois tropicaux par des mouvements écologistes. Si l'on m'apporte des informations selon lesquelles il y a des gouvernements ou d'autres organisations qui ont interdit le commerce des bois tropicaux, j'accepterais cet amendement. Sinon, je me rangerais à ma proposition.
LE PRESIDENT: Monsieur le délégué du Congo, l'intention de la Commission et de la Conférence est d'éviter ces embargos. Quand elle dit le boycott, les embargos sur les produits des pays tropicaux, ce n'est pas la meilleure méthode, elle veut avertir les gouvernements contre l'imposition de ces embargos. C'est pour cela que l'on a mis embargo au lieu de boycott. On peut aussi mettre ce qu'a proposé le délégué de l'Argentine. On ne parle pas de choses qui ont déjà existé, mais on avertit les gouvernements de la possibilité que cela puisse arriver. Est-ce que je suis clair maintenant? Est-ce que la proposition argentine qui réunit les deux propositions pourrait être acceptée par la délégation du Congo?
Grégoire NKBOUA (Congo) : Mais dans ce cas-là il faudra inéluctablement changer les verbes ou les temps utilisés, parce qu'il s'agit d'un boycott qui se fait actuellement, et ce que vous dites serait en prévision. J'accepte donc la proposition si on change les temps des verbes pour les deux actes. Je vous remercie.
LE PRESIDENT: Quelle est la proposition de changement du verbe que propose le Congo?
Grégoire NKEOUA (Congo): "estime que le boycott pratiqué par les mouvements écologistes et l'interdiction du commerce international ne seraient pas un bon moyen".
LE PRESIDENT: Est-ce cela qu'il y a dans le texte? "estime" au lieu d'"a estimé". Quand on parle de la Conférence dans le rapport, on parle toujours au passé parce que la Conférence a fini ses travaux. "La Conférence a estimé" vous pouvez voir que l'on parle toujours au passé, mais si vous préférez "estime", pas de problème. Quelle est la proposition de la délégation du Congo?
Grégoire NKEOUA (Gongo): J'accepte votre amendement.
LE PRESIDENT: Merci. Le texte tel qu'amendé par l'Argentine est donc accepté. Est-ce que la délégation de l'Argentine veut prendre la parole?
Victor E. MACHINEA (Argentina): Quisiera aclarar que en la version leída, por lo menos, se puso primero los boicots de los movimientos ecológicos, y después los embargos del comercio internacional. Creo que hay que poner primero los embargos y después los boicots.
Quisiera aclarar eso.
D.A. BUCKLE (United Kingdom) : Can we be quite clear what we are agreeing to on this? I am afraid I am confused. I have got to the point where I believe we have text which says that the Conference took the view that boycotting by conservation groups ... etc., which I do not think is a representative view.
CHAIRMAN: No, the idea was that it would read, "the Conference was of the view that embargoes on international trade in timber products and boycotts by ecological groups on those products were not a useful method for slowing down deforestation". Is that clear now?
D.A. BUCKLE (United Kingdom): Yes, that is clear.
J. Dawson AHALT (United States of America): We believe, along with the Canadian delegation, that the wording in the draft report as presented to us is the preferable language. Unfortunately I was not in the room for all the discussion here, but I do not remember this item being discussed earlier during the Commission. Therefore my delegation would prefer to remain with the original language which discusses embargoes on trade.
R.C.A. JAIN (India): We can go along with the agreed formulation except that I would suggest with a slight amount of tentativeness, this formulation would be more a consequence of this Conference if instead of saying "international trade in timber products were not", we could make it "may not", because this is a very sensitive natter for governments who have already taken a decision. We could say "may not be a useful natter".
D.A. BUCKLE (United Kingdom) : May I support the US proposal on the ground that I do not believe that the Conference as a whole took the view, or even discussed in any great length, the question of bans by ecological groups. If it did, I do not remember a significant discussion along that line.
José Ramon RAPADO ERRAZTI (España): Nosotros queríamos, señor Presidente, matizar simplemente una palabra en el sentido de que, por supuesto, los boicots de movimientos ecologistas o el embargo decretado, digamos a nivel de Estado, más que métodos útiles, se podría sustituir por suficientes. En vez de útil, poner suficiente.
Víctor E. MACHINEA (Argentina): Ante todo, señor Presidente, no tenemos inconveniente en aceptar que el teta de los boicots no se ponga. Simplemente fue una sugerencia para tratar de equilibrar el documento. Pero, desde ya, no podríamos aceptar poner en condicional el verbo, porque los embargos no son métodos, eso creo que está claro para todos o solamente para el área forestal sino para lo cereal, o para lo que fuera.
Por lo tanto, no podríamos aceptar ponerlo en condicional y mucho menos aceptar que sean suficientes, porque parece que el embargo no alcanza para poder eliminar la deforestacián. Yo creo que quizá haya un error de interpretación.
CHAIRMAN: I understand from some suggestions, that they could see from here, that the delegation from Spain is not pressing on his proposal.
José Ramón RAPADO ERRAZTI (España): Nosotros, señor Preidente, queríamos recalcar que no era suficiente.
Paulo ESTIVALLET DE MESQUITA (Brasil): Yo señor Presidente, estoy totalmente de acuerdo con la Delegación Argentina. Creo que cambiar útil por suficiente sería un cambio totalmente sin sentido. Soy totalmente contrario a la proposición de España.
CHAIRMAN: I think we are staying too long on this issue, not that the loss of forests is a minor one, but the fact that we are discussing boycotts and embargoes, and I have the same feeling as the delegation of the UK and USA. I did not see any discussion here of boycotts by ecological groupings. I voider if the delegation of Congo has nade any specific remarks on that issue during the débate. I cannot recall having heard any remarks from any other delegations, so what we are doing here is trying to warn that boycotts are not a useful method for slowing down deforestation. We are not discussing any boycotts that were implemented by any countries, so I believe that if the delegation from Congo could have that in mind, I think they could accept our formulation and we could move on.
Grégoire NKBOUA (Congo): Je crois qu'on n'a pas fait allusion à ce texte. J'avais justement posé la question avant de faire cet amendement. Je vous ai demandé, tel que présenté, si on voulait faire allusion au boycott des bois tropicaux pratiqué par les mouvements des écologistes ou s'il y avait des gouvernements ou d'autres organisations qui appliquent l'interdiction. C'est vous qui m'avez tendu la perche pour faire cette proposition.
Si on ne fait pas allusion au boycott des bois tropicaux, je suis d'accord pour retirer cette proposition. Il s'agissait beaucoup plus de ma part de préciser les choses, pour qu'on soit bien clair sur le fait qu'il s'agit d'une interdiction des gouvernements ou des autres groupes ou si on fait allusion ici au boycott proposé par les mouvements des écologistes.
CHAIRMAN: I was misinterpreting his questions and I gave him the wrong impression. So with that explanation, we might move to the next paragraph with the amendments that we have mentioned before.
So paragraph 15? No contents.
Paragraphs 1 to 15, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 1 à 15 ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 1 a 15, así enmendados, son aprobados
CHAIRMAN: Shall we move to paragraph 16, which of course we cannot discuss because we do not have the resolutions so far.
Paragraph 16, including the draft resolution, not concluded
Le paragraphe 16, y compris le projet de résolution, est en suspens
Párrafo 16, incluido el provecto de resolución, gueda pendiente
PARAGRAPHS 17 TO 26
PARAGRAPHES 17 A 26
PÁRRAFOS 17 A 26
CHAIRMAN: Paragraphs 17, 18, 19, 20? Approved.
PARAGRAPH 21
PARAGRAPHE 21
PARRAFO 21
Carlos GARCIA DE ALBA (México): Sin desmerecer, señor Presidente, el excelente trabajo realizado por el Comité de Redacción, simplemente quisiera que se nos precisase un poco más qué se entiende con la afirmación presentada en el cuarto renglón del texto español: la Secretaría analizará la repercusión de la creación del comercio.
Nos gustaría que se nos especificase qué se entiende por creación de comercio. Qué entiende el comité de Redacción.
Paulo ESTIVALLET DE MESQUITA (Brasil): Yo creo, señor Presidente, que lo que debería estar en el texto español, no son las repercusiones, sino los defectos de creación de comercio ya que es un estudio de comercio que va a ser creado, y no de las repercusiones porque ni siquiera se sabe si va a haber una creación de comercio.
Creo, señor Presidente, que en el texto español lo que debería figurar son los efectos de creación de comercio y desplazamiento. Algo así; quizá alguna de las delegaciones de países de lengua española pudieran sugerir algo mejor. Eso quizá también pudiera ser cambiado en los otros textos, no los impactos, sino los efectos o algo así.
Carlos GARCÍA DE ALBA (México): Sí, señor Presidente, ahora me resulta más lógico el sentido de esta afirmación y en ese caso creo que tendríamos que hablar más bien de los efectos de la activación de la ampliación del comercio, o de comercio.
Creo que ahí tendría más sentido la oración sin afectar al fondo del párrafo.
Sí, señor Presidente, los efectos de la activación del camercio.
EL PRESIDENTE: ¿No sería más lógico, los efectos sobre la activación del comercio?
Carlos GARCÍA DE ALBA (México): 0 sobre la activación, señor Presidente, lo que simplemente quiero hacer notar es que sea lógica la afirmación. Estoy de acuerdo con lo que usted propone.
EL PRESIDENTE: En español leería: los efectos sobre la activación del comercio. No sé como sale en las otras lenguas.
Paulo ESTIVALLET DE MESQUITA (Brasil): En realidad, señor Presidente, yo hice una mención a esto durante el debate, y la cuestión es que es una preocupación en que esos nuevos agrupamientos comerciales, no desplacen las inportaciones que son provenientes de países en desarrollo hacia otros países desarrollados del mismo agrupamiento, y por eso se hace una referencia a la cuestión de la creación y del desplazamiento del comercio. Me parece inportante mantener las dos palabras creación y desplazamiento.
EL PRESIDENTE: No estamos omitiendo la palabra desplazamiento, se está manteniendo.
D.A. BUCKLE (United Kingdom): Mr Chairman, I voider whether it would not be simpler altogether to renove the words "the trade creation and trade displacement impacts", and merely replace them with "the implications for trade".
CHAIRMAN: I can see by the general feeling that that is a much better acceptable solution, so we move t the proposal by the UK delegation "the implications for trade", replacing the whole sentence to "particularly on developing countries". It keeps them in. Okay?
Victor E. MMHCNEA (Argentina): Yo no tengo inconveniente, señor Presidente, en la primera corrección, eliminar la palabra "creación" por "desplazamiento". Yo no eliminaría lo del desplazamiento porque la concentración del comercio en la región correspondiente, ya sea en Estados Unidos, Canadá o en la Comunidad Económica Europea, inevitablemente llevará a un desplazamiento de comercio. Yo no estaría de acuerdo en eliminar el desplazamiento del mismo.
CHAIRMAN: I understand the feeling was that "implications" would also involve displacement and other effects on trade.
D.A. BUCKLE (United Kingdom): Perhaps we could extend what I suggested to "implications for gains and losses in trade, particularly by developing countries".
CHAIRMAN: Do we need that addition? I think "implication" is an ample word which accommodates effects of any kind. Would that be acceptable? Agreed. Paragraphs 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 approved.
Paragraphs 23 to 26, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 23 à 26, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 23 a 26, asi enmendados, son aprobados
Paragraph 27 approved
Le paragraphe 27 est approuvé
El párrafo 27 es aprobado
PARAGRAPHS 28 TO 40
PARAGRAPHES 28 A 40
PARRAFOS 28 A 40
François ROUX (Belgique): La délégation belge aimerait introduire dans la dernière phrase du paragrafile 32 le mot "indépendante". Je relis la dernière phrase: "La Conférence a souligné que la FAO est exceptionnellment bien placée pour fournir des avis et une assistance indépendante au GATT dans ces domaines",
CHAIRMAN: Is there any reaction to the Belgian proposal?
D.A. BUCKLE (united Kingdom): I think we lost the translation on that. Could I be sure whether "independent" is going between "providing" and "advice" or before "GATT"?
CHAIRMAN: I believe that in the English text it would be much better to have "providing independent advice". I do not know whether it would be acceptable in the French text to have... "fournit des avis et une assistance indépendants".
François ROCK (Belgique): Si je comprends bien, ce serait: "les avis autant que l'assistance qui seraient indépendants"? Ce serait tout à fait acceptable pour la Belgique.
CHAIRMAN: The English text would read "to provide independent advice and assistance", and the French text would read... "fournit des avis et une assistance indépendants".
So we move to paragraph 33.
François ROUX (Belgique): Là aussi dans la dernière phrase la Belgique aimerait introduire un amendement qui rendrait la phrase comme suit: "Elle a noté avec satisfaction les mesures prises par le Directeur général à la suite de la demande d'assistance technique du Directeur général du GATT pour promouvoir de manière indépendante (et ceci est l'amendement que propose la Belgique) l'harmonisation dans le domaine du contrôle phytosanitaire".
Victor E. MACHINEA (Argentina): Si me podria explicar la propuesta realizada por el distinguido Delegado de Bélgica, si no me equivoco. Porque no entiendo cuál es el objetivo de incluir aqui "armonización independiente"; porque si parece independiente no parece armonización. Por lo menos en la versión española no me queda claro.
CHAIRMAN: I believe that when we speak of harmonization we do not need any independent way of providing harmonization, so I think the delegate of Argentina has a point.
François ROUX (Belgique): Oui la Belgique est intervenue aussi bien pour le paragraphe 32 que pour le paragraphe 33 parce qu'en ce qui concerne les normes d'une part, au paragraphe 32 et le contrôle phytosanitaire d'autre part, au paragrafile 33, il y a des interprétations qui sont liées et quL sont apparentées dans les négociations du GAST, ce qui les rend si difficiles. Donc on aimerait insister pour que les avis de la FAO soient indépendants dans ce domaine, neutres.
CHAIRMAN: I do not know whether it would respond to the question raised by the delegate of Belgium if wesaid (continues in French) "Les mesures prises par le Directeur général d'une manière indépendante et d'une façon indépendante".
José TUBINO (Canada): Perhaps we could help with some wording here. Could we say "to independently address the issue of harmonization within the field of plant quarantine".
CHAIRMAN: Would that be acceptable to Belgium?
François ROUX (Belgique): Dans ce cas, je préfère retirer mon amendement. Je ne veux pas que la manière indépendante se raccroche au Directeur général mais dans la proposition elle-même.
CHAIRMAN: So we adopt paragraph 33 as it has been drafted by the Committee, and go to paragraphs 34, 35, 36, 37, 38.
Victor E. MACHINEA (Argentina): Perdón, pero por la velocidad de aprobación yo me quedé con el 38. Yo sugeriría poner aquí en condicional el verbo. Dice: "La Conferencia recalcó la necesidad de suministrar asistencia técnica a los países en desarrollo a fin de que éstos pudieran", en vez de "puedan", "pudieran cumplir los reglamentos....". Porque pareciera cono que no se cumplen los reglamentos aquí. Lo que yo intentaría es cambiar "puedan" por "pudieran cumplir los reglamentos y procedimientos de armonización.... ".
CHAIRMAN: Are there any comments on the proposal by Argentina? - 39, approved, 40 approved.
Paragraphs 28 to 40, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 28 à 40, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 28 a 40, así enmendados, son aprobados
Draft Report of Commission I, Part 1, not concluded
Projet de rapport de la Commission I, Partie 1, est en suspens
El Proyecto de Informe de la Comisión I, Parte 1, gueda pendiente
DRAFT REPORT OF COMMISSION I - PART 2
PROJET DE RAPPORT DE LA COMMISSION I - PARTIE 2
PROYECTO DE INFORME DE LA COMISION I - PARTE 2
CHAIRMAN: we move to document C 89/I/REP/2. It is the intention of the chair to proceed with the discussion of our Report until the end of this morning's session, and move to the Resolutions at the beginning of the afternoon session, even if we have not finished the Report
PARAGRAPHS 1 TO 20
PARAGRAPHES 1 A 20
PÁRRAFOS 1 A 20
CHAIRMAN: Paragraphs 1 to 9 approved. There is a slight mistake in the printing of paragraph 10.
SECRETORY, Commission I: In the second sentence, in English only - it does not apply to the other languages - the first word should be "It" and not "If".
CHAIRMAN: If there is no objection, paragraph 10 is approved. Paragraphs 10 to 14 approved.
Paragraph 15?D.A, BUCKLE (United Kingdom): This is not very substantial. Could I just go back to paragraph 14? I think the second to last word should be "of" rather than "or".
CHAIRMAN: So, with the correction, 14 is approved. Paragraphs 14 to 20 approved.
The delegation of the Congo has proposed an amendment. It is the addition of a new paragraph after 20. on tropical forests and agro-forestry. It is a very substantial text of two pages. I propose that we have this text typed and translated before we discuss it, rather than reading it all and finding imperfections. Therefore, we will come back to that later if the Commission so decides.
Paragraphs 1-20 not concluded
Les paragraphes 1-20 sont en suspens
Los párrafos 1-20 guedan pendientes
PARAGRAPHS 21 TO 32 INCLUDING DRAFT RESOLUTIONS
PARAGRAPHES 21 A 32 Y COMPRIS LES PROJETS DE RESOLUTION
PÁRRAFOS 21 A 32 INCLUIDOS LOS PROYECTOS DE RESOLUCION
Manuel VIVADO (Bolivia) : Es solamente para aclaración de una sola palabra en la última frase del párrafo 3. Donde dice: "Varios pai ss miembros expresaron su opinión de que la financiación del Fondo continuara basándose en aportaciones voluntarias", mi delegación propone que se añada la palabra "aun" después de "continuara".
Carlos GARCIA DE ALBA (México) : Nosotros queremos hacer referencia a la parte final de la segunda oración. Vemos reflejado un cierto sentido negativo en la expresión que se refiere al uso del Fondo Internacional, cosa que considero no fue lo que se puso en consideración en los debates de la Comisión, de tal suerte que nosotros propondríamos que se pusiese la frase de la siguente forra: "En ese sentido, se insistió en la necesidad de prestar asistencia técnica a muchos países en desarrollo y se subrayó la función útil que podría desempeñar el Fondo Internacional". Es decir, nos basamos en el hecho de que no hay delegaciones que no consideren que el Fondo no deba cumplir una función útil.
CHAIRMAN: I see that at first view of the proposal by Mexico, that the French text does not contain the word "possible", but both the Spanish and the English texts contain the word "possible". Therefore, I believe it will be possible for us to delete the word "possible". I see no objection to the deletion of "possible".
We have the proposal by the distinguished delegate from Bolivia to add the word "still", hence "should still remain", and the sentence would start with the world "However". "However, several Member Nations expressed the notion that the financing of the Fund should still remain on a voluntary basis".
D.A. BUCKLE (United Kingdom): Two points. I think "still remain" is tautologous, really, and is unnecessary. Could I suggest that the word "notion" is a rather curious one, and could we not replace it by "view".
CHAIRMAN: We have the proposal by the United Kingdom to inprove the English to substitute "notion" by "view". I think that can be expected. Then we have the proposal by Bolivia to add the word "still". (Continues in Spanish). La delegación de Bolivia cree que sea necesario introducir la palabra "aún" en el texto español.
Manuel VIVADO (Bolivia): El propósito de incluir la palabra "aún" o "todavía" es el de establecer el hecho de que la financiación del Fondo eventualmente tomará otras formas de financiación. Si es que no se incluye esta pequeña palabra aclaratoria, bien se puede interpretar que varios países menteos habrían expresado su opinión de que la financiación del Fondo continuara indefiniblemente en base a aportaciones voluntarias.
D.A. BUCKLE (United Kingdom) : Might the point be met by changing the word "expressed" for "emphasized"?
CHAIRMAN: Not in Spanish. I see the point raised by the distinguished delegate of Bolivia. Perhaps after "remain" we could use "for the time being". Would that be acceptable? It is acceptable to Bolivia - "should remain for the time being on a voluntary basis".
D.A. BUCKLE (United Kingdom): No, I do not think we were really looking at it quite in that temporary way. Could we just say, "should continue on a voluntary basis".
EL PRESIDENTE: Solamente para un esclarecimiento a la Delegación de Bolivia: esta frase se refiere a una opinión de minoría, no es la opinión de la mayoría, es la opinión específica de un grupo de países que creen que la financiación debe continuar basándose en aportaciones voluntarias. Por eso se dice "varios países" y no "la Conferencia". Si fuera una opinión total de la Conferencia, ahí tendríamos que cualificarla de una u otra manera; pero como se refiere a una opinión de un grupo de países, me parece justo que este grupo de países quiera expresarlo de la manera que le parece más conveniente. Y este grupo de países cree que no se debe poner la palabra "aún".
Manuel VIVADO (Bolivia): En ese caso, Señor Presidente, mi Delegación desearía proponer que se aumente una línea después de "aportaciones voluntarias", en punto y seguido, que diga: "Otros países consideran necesario planificar la obtención de recursos para el Fondo."
CHAIRMAN: Is that acceptable to all? I see no objections. We move to paragraph 24. Paragraph 24 adopted. Paragraph 25.
Alberto MURILLO (Venezuela) : Nuestra Delegación quisiera agregar una frase al final del párrafo, que sería más o menos así: "En cuanto a la aplicación de las nuevas biotecnologías, se tendrá también que informar oportunamente, a través del sistema global de la FAO de información de alerta rápida de recursos fitogenéticos, cuando el uso de las nuevas biotecnologías pueda suponer un riesgo o afectar negativamente los países miembros."
CHAIRMAN: Any reaction? Dr Bonte-Frieciheim.
C.H. BONTE-FRIEDHEIM (Assistant Director-General, Agriculture Department): I would just like for the English to have the clarification that the Early Warning System must be the Early Warning System on Plant Genetic Resources because, otherwise, we have two Early Warning Systems. So this one refers to the Early Warning on Plant Genetic Resources and must be included in the English text.
CHAIRMAN: With this clarification, any reaction?
José TUBINO (Canada): Maybe we can get some clarification from the Venezuelan delegation. The term "biotechnology" is very broad and we do not know how this particular procedure, which is being suggested here, would apply to the particular issues we are discussing here, which is plant genetic resources conservation. Maybe the Venezuelan delegation could explain.
Alberto MURILLO (Venezuela): Precisamente, señor Presidente, por ser tan amplia la materia de la biotecnología, que pudiese cubrir demasiados temas, hay ciertas cosas dentro de ella que pudieran generar ciertos contratiempos a los recursos fitogenéticos, caro por ejemplo pudiera ser la manipulación de los virus. Se pudieran estar desarrollando ciertas investigaciones con virus y que por algún descuido haya un escape. Puede crear realmente desastres dentro de los recursos. Por lo tanto, sería conveniente tener una posibilidad de alerta para evitar cualquier tipo de catástrofe.
José TUBINO (Canada): Perhaps we could qualify the term "negative impact", and just add a few words there - "negative impact on plant genetic resources conservation".
CHAIRMAN: Is the proposal by Canada acceptable to Venezuela?
Alberto MURILLO (Venezuela); Sería un matiz muy tímido, señor Presidente, ya que en realidad la amenaza sería no solamente para los recursos fitogenéticos, sino para la misma humanidad. Cuando en cualquier tipo de virus como es el caso del AIDS, con una manipulación poco controlada se ha generado realmente una tragedia, así también se puede generar con otros tipos de especies de virus. No hay que olvidar que, por ejemplo, en el año 1950 cuando se empieza a intensificar el uso de los fertilizantes no había problemas en el uso de los fertilizantes hasta que posteriormente empezaron a hacerse los análisis y se vio que en realidad estaba cercenando y se estaban creando problemas graves y serios en la biosfera. Por lo tanto, esto también debería adelantarse y no posteriormente, cuando los problemas sean suficientemente graves para no poder solucionarlos.
D.A. BUCKLE (United Kingdom): I have two points. The first is that the additional contribution comes across as the view of the Conference, and I am not sure that that was so. It may be the view of one or two delegations, but I did not think that the Conference as a whole took this view.
My second point is that I agree with the points made by Canada that risk and negative impacts surely need sane kind of qualification as to precisely what it is we are getting at.
EL PRESIDENTE: Se podría transformar en alguna opinión de las delegaciones. (Continúa en inglés.) Is it cceptable that this should read, "Some Member Nations emphasize that ... "? We adopt the text proposed by Argentina.
Víctor E. MACHINEA (Argentina): En la versión española hay que quitar dos palabras ya que no queda bien. Donde dice: "la Conferencia estimuló a la FAO a iniciar y llevar a cabo las medidas procedentes para asegurar que todos los países". Dice aquí "se aprovecharan plenamente de las diversas actividades". Debe decir aprovecharan plenamente: las diversas; o sea hay que quitar las palabras: se y de. Es solamente un problema de expresión idiomàtica.
Carlos GARCIA DE AL£A (México): Lamentamos, señor Presidente, tener que intervenir nuevamente, pero se trata de una cuestión de forma.
La última oración del párrafo 26 no queda clara en la redacción actual. Por lo tanto propondríamos a fin de cerrar correctamente el concepto la siguiente redacción:
En cambio, otros estimaron que los mecanismos actuales para recursos fitogenéticos ofrecían un narco adecuado que podrían eventualmente modificarse para incluir los recursos zoogenéticos. Hacemos esta observación simplemente con afán de claridad.
D.A. BUCKLE (United Kingdom): I am no expert in this area, but could somebody who is an expert confirm that that statement is factually correct?
C.H. BONTE-FRIEDHEIM (Assistant Director-General Agriculture Department) : In
answer to the question from the United Kingdom, we are talking about the arrangements, and the arrangements as you have them in the Undertaking could be amended, enlarged or modified, whatever you want, to include animal genetic resources. Yes, it is possible.
CHAIRMAN: It is suggested that we keep the text as it was originally drafted by the Drafting Committee. If that is acceptable to the Commission, we will return to the text adopted by the Drafting Committee. Therefore, the last sentence of paragraph 26 reads, "Others, however, consider that the present arrangements for plant genetic resources provided an adequate framework which could be amended to include animal genetic resources". The text should read, "and should be amended". It is so agreed.
We now move on to paragraphs 27, 28, 29, 30.
J. Dawson AHALT (United States of America) : In the third line from the end we should like to substitute the words "a non-member" with "some non-members".
CHAIRMAN: Is there any objection to the US amendment? I see none.
Paragraphs 21 to 30, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 21 à 30, ainsi amendés , sont approuvés
Los párrafos 21 a 30, asi enmens, son aprobados
CHAIRMAN: Paragraph 31 contains the draft resolutions, which we will discuss this afternoon.
Paragraph 31, including Draft Resolutions, not concluded
Le paragraphe 31, y compris les projets de résolution, est en suspens
El párrafo 31, incluidos los provectos de resolución, gueda pendiente
Draft Report of Commission I, Part 2, not concluded
Projet de rapport de la Commission I, Partie 2, est en suspens
Provecto de informe de la Comisión I, Parte 2, gueda pendiente
C.H. BONTE-FRIEDHEIM (Assistant Director-General, Agriculture Département) : The statement refers to the draft resolution which will be considered this afternoon with regard to farmers' rights.
I was requested by you, Mr Chairman, to summarize those concerns or amendments which were mentioned during the debate.
These proposals will be included in a report which the Secretariat will prepare for consideration by the Working Group of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources at its next meeting. The report of the Working Group will of course later be considered by the Commision itself.
There were seven specific points raised by distinguished delegates who indicated possible amendments, some of them similar and related to the same paragraphs. I would like to list the following items for full consideration by the Working Group.
1. The term "Farmers' Rights" is to be reviewed, as there are many farmers rights. Alternative proposals which were nade include "Recognition of the Contributions of Farmers" and "Farmers's Genetic Rights".
2. In view of the fact that during active plant breeding work there are breeders' lines and germplasm which are not yet covered by breeders' rights, what are the possibilities of finding a way to exclude this material from those genetic resources to be made freely available?
3. In the Farmers' Rights Resolution the section entitled "Considering" might be cleared regarding two notions, i.e. the origin of plant genetic resources and the particular needs of developing countries. As an alternative it was proposed to use wording such as "these resources often come from countries different from those that have used them to develop their agriculture".
4. The resolution on Farmers' Rights also foresees assistance to farmers and farming communities in all regions of the world. These terms seem restrictive to some delegations. They have proposed widening the concept to "assist qualified groups engaged in genetic resources conservation".
5. The wording in the resolution on Farmers' Rights endorses "supporting the continuation of farmers' contributions". It has been pointed out that this might be changed to read "ensuring full benefits to farmers and supporting the continuation of plant genetic resources conservation".
6. The argument has been forwarded that benefits derived from the Undertaking should not be limited to countries adhering to the Undertaking. The working Group will have to look at the wording.
My personal feeling is that one might also add that it should be ensured that -the responsibilities assumed by countries adhering to the Undertaking should not be limited to those alone but assumed by all other countries as well.
7. The final point which might benefit from some further discussions in order to achieve wider acceptance of the International Undertaking centres around a clear definition of the use of the resources in the International Fund. A few countries insisted that contributions to this fund should be on a voluntary basis only.
These are the seven major points which will be submitted to the Working Group for consideration, together with FAO's views for the next meeting.
CHAIRMAN: I thank Dr Bonte-Friedheim for his statement.
Before we close our morning meeting, I believe the Commission would wish me to express to the Drafting Committee and its Chairman, Dr Hamdi, our most sincere appreciation for the extremely well formulated report which has been presented to us, as evidenced by the fact that we have accepted and adopted it with a very few minor changes. I think the Commission should thank and compliment the Drafting Committee and its Chairman on this remarkable work.
The meeting rose at 12.45 hours
La séance est levée à 12 h 45
Se levanta la sesión a las 12.45 horas
