CODE 18-77
UNCLASSIFIED
Mr Armstrong
UN Department (B)
ODA
Your
Reference
CC: NTD HKD
INT524/613/03
Ref Armstrong's unoated minute, copico to you.
PLANT PROTECTION AGREEMENT FOR THE ASIA AND PACIFIC REGION
1. The attached minute invites comments on the question of formal approval of amendments to the above Agreement.
2. I agree that the Pitcairn Islands are too sparsley populated to be interested in the Commission's activities: certainly the small Pitcairn community would have severe difficulty in trying to fulfil the obligations imposed by the agreement. I am therefore inclined to agree to the idea of excluding Pitcairn (though - cf the inclusion of the CPR this could take some time to effect).
3.
(a)
(b)
(c)
4.
Some related points occur to me:
Despite the suggestion above, it may be desirable to look at the current basis for the UK's adherence to the agree- ment. Is it, for instance, based on our possession of dependencies in the area? If so, and if Pitcairn were excluded, would there remain a valid basis for the UK's continued status if we wanted this as a contracting party (presumably there would, based on Hong Kong's partici- pation)?
-
―
Until it is known what level of contribution is decided upon, and upon what basis, it will be hard to judge whether the contribution by the UK would cover British dependent territories as well as the UK, or whether there would have to be a contribution from each individual territory. (I suspect the former will be the case, since the agreement speaks of Members of the Commission, and these are presumably sovereign contracting parties; nevertheless the agreement's "definitions" article refers in the description of the geographical scope of the agreement to "territories" as meaning "State" or "Territory". This could be carried over into the financial aspect of the agreement given the wide powers of definition the Commission will receive if the amendment is carried.)
Since there is a monetary aspect to this exercise, there may be point in letting Finance Department (or their ODA equivalent if expenditure would lie from their vote) see the papers.
If, after consideration of the points in paragraph 3 above, you wish us to reconsider the position of Pitcairn we shall be glad to do so, though I imagine that the arguments against Pitcairn's inclusion (paragraph 1 above) will remain valid; they are not, however, insuperable.
/5.