Biotechnology and intellectual property
Mr Wolfgang Wodarg was the rapporteur for the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on this issue. You find here his report and also the adopted text of the recommendation on developments in biotechnology and their consequences for agriculture.
Doc. 8459
9 July 1999
Biotechnology and intellectual property Report
Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development
Rapporteur: Mr Wolfgang Wodarg, Germany, Socialist Group
Summary
Biotechnological research raises problems concerning the protection of intellectual property of innovations in this field, beyond the legal and ethical questions of patentability. Such problems arise because living organisms are able to reproduce themselves and patents may undermine the value of genetic resources and traditional knowledge. The interests of farmers and those of the developing countries are particularly concerned.
Methods other than patents have to be found in order to achieve a balanced system for protecting both intellectual property and the common heritage of mankind. Progress in agriculture should benefit as many people as possible. The Assembly advocates new procedures that are transparent for all concerned and a biotechnological innovation protection system that will promote lasting world food security.
I. Draft recommendation
1. The Assembly recalls its Recommendation 1213 (1993) on developments in biotechnology and the consequences for agriculture.
2. It is aware that the patent system, as a system for the protection of intellectual property, is an integral part of market economy and therefore can be a driving force for innovation in many technological questions.
3. A guideline on patents legislation should help to develop criteria for granting patents continuously according to technological progress in favour of both the interests of the claiming party, as well as the interests of the public in regard to public order, morality and general aspects of state economy.
4. Living organisms are able to reproduce themselves even if they are patented and in view of this special quality of living organisms, the scope of a patent is difficult to define, which makes it nearly impossible to find a balance between private and public interests.
5. The Assembly deems it necessary to oblige scientists, as well as scientific research and development units working in the field of biotechnology, to conform with the Convention on Biological Diversity (Rio de Janeiro, 1992), guaranteeing both the principle of free scientific approach to world-wide genetic resources and the interests of developing countries in sharing the benefits of technological progress.
6. However, it is aware that for ethical reasons there are also severe reservations against patenting living organisms.
7. It considers that the issue of patenting living organisms could conflict with provisions of international treaties such as the Convention on Biological Diversity or the agreement on Trade Related Property Rights (Marrakech, 1994) of the World Trade Organization.
8. The Assembly has taken note that Directive 98/44/EEC on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions of 6 July 1998 (Bio-Patenting Directive of the European Community) was challenged at the European Court of Justice by the governments of the Netherlands and Italy, and that Norway is considering not implementing it.
9. The Assembly considers that monopolies granted by patent authorities may undermine the value of regional and world-wide genetic resources and of traditional knowledge in those countries that provide access to the these resources.
10. It considers that the aim of sharing the benefits from the utilisation of genetic resources on this broader view does not necessarily require patent-holding but requires a balanced system for protecting both intellectual property and the “common heritage of mankind”.
11. It also considers that the many outstanding questions regarding the patentability and the scope of protection of patents on living organisms in the agro-food sector must be solved swiftly taking into account all interests concerned, not least those of farmers and developing countries.
12. The Assembly therefore believes that neither plant, animal nor human derived genes, cells, tissues or organs can be considered as inventions nor be subject to monopolies granted by patents.
13. For these reasons, the Assembly recommends that the Committee of Ministers, in co-operation with the World Intellectual Property Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Trade Organization and in accordance with the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD):
i. study in detail all aspects linked to the protection of intellectual property in biotechnological innovations with a view to further improving international legislation in this field;
ii. assess and review the effects of granting patents on a broad scope as regards the progress of research and development and the free market;
iii. develop a code of conduct for scientists and scientific units working in the field of biotechnology which guarantees both free scientific approach to world-wide genetic resources and benefit-sharing with developing countries;
iv. discuss a suitable system of protecting intellectual property in the field of biotechnology fitting the purposes of the CBD and meeting the needs of world-wide private as well as public interests.
II. Explanatory memorandum by Mr Wodarg
1. Introduction
1. Developments in biotechnology and their impact on agriculture were debated by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in 1986 and 1993. Those discussions resulted in the adoption of Recommendation 1213 (1993), which deals with both the rich potential of biotechnology and its dangers and long-term effects on agriculture as a whole and the development of rural regions. With regard to protection of intellectual property in the sphere of biootechnological research, the Assembly at that time called on the member states and the European Union “to adopt a cautious policy with regard to the granting of patents for biotechnological inventions and applications, so as to take due account of ethical considerations and environmental safety concerns”.
2. In February 1995, the European Commission first proposed a draft directive on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions. After intense discussion and public criticism, this draft was adopted by the European Parliament, in revised form but basically unchanged, as Directive 98/44/EC. For the first time, plants, animals, cells and genes were explicitly classified as patentable.
3. As soon as the first draft of the directive was tabled by the Commission in 1995, members of the Parliamentary Assembly began to take an interest in the protection of intellectual property in the sphere of biotechnology. As a result, in May and October 1995, the Council of Europe held two hearings and in January 1996, the two rapporteurs, Mr Scheer (Germany – SOC) and Mr Szakal (Hungary – EDG), submitted their “Introductory memorandum on the patenting of biotechnological inventions”.
4. The present report is based on that early draft and was made possible by the important preliminary efforts of Mr Scheer and Mr Szakal. It also relies on the experts’ comments sought at the time by the rapporteurs.
5. Numerous new developments of direct or indirect relevance to the subject of the Council of Europe’s draft recommendation have also had to be taken into account. Discussion of the scope and effects of protection of intellectual property in the sphere of biotechnological research has become more diversified in recent years and is no longer confined to legal and ethical questions of patentability.
6. In the meantime, the European Patent Office (EPO) has stopped issuing plant and animal patents for the time being, on the grounds that this is contrary to the European Patent Convention. A decision of principle is to be taken in 1999. The European Patent Convention may be amended and brought into line with the European Union Directive. In the USA, a court ruling is expected shortly on the patentability of plants. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) is expected to decide by the end of 1999 in the Dutch and Italian case against the European Union directive. Norway has also explained in detail that it will not apply the EU Directive, because it is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)1 and because the transformation of the Patent Directive into national legislation will constitute a major obstacle to countries’ ability to implement the CBD through national and international measures, activities and co-operation. The CBD provides for appropriate involvement of the countries of origin in the utilisation of natural resources. There is currently controversial discussion of these provisions at many levels. The World Trade organisation (WTO) has also reopened discussion of commercial trademarks and patents, since 1999. Plan and animal patents are the main focus of these discussions.
7. Southern countries in particular have been critical of patenting natural resources, as have the Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) and the World Bank.
8. Most recently, in May 1999 at Oviedo (Spain), the Conference on Ethical Issues arising from the Application of Biotechnology drew attention to fundamental problems in relation to the protection of intellectual property in biotechnological innovations, ranging from human rights issues, through possible widening of the gap between the southern hemisphere and the industrial nations to the continuous blurring of boundaries in the use of biotechnological processes in medicine and agriculture (xenotransplantation, gene-pharming, drug-pharming).
9. Against the background of this dynamic development, the Council of Europe must endeavour in its Recommendation to do justice to the complexity of the subject. That is why the title of the Introductory memorandum reads “Biotechnology and intellectual property”.
2. General remarks on the protection of intellectual property by means of patents
10. The granting of patents is basically subject to the three criteria: novelty, inventiveness and industrial applicability. Patent law makes a strict distinction between discovery and invention. What distinguishes an invention from an innovation is the “spark of genius”; only then is a patent granted, whether for a product or a process.
11. Patent law is intended to afford the inventor protection against unauthorised claims on his intellectual feat and also to protect costly investment in research and development and the industrial application of research findings. At the same time, the public description of the technical novelty, including its manufacture and purpose, in a patent is intended to satisfy society’s claim to comprehensive knowledge of all new inventions.
12. The effect of patents on economic development, innovation, research and development is complex. On the one hand, investment is stimulated by the prospect of an exclusive right to the use of an invention; on the other hand, patent law can also be used “defensively”, ie to prevent competition and innovation through the monopoly it grants. For example, first “basic patents” can be applied for, and then “follow-up patents” which protect the operational field of a firm and so become the core of a competitive strategy. If a competitor has got in first with his patent, he can be cut off from the further development of his invention by “a patent net”. Examples of this were quoted in the European Patent Office’s 1995 Annual Report.
13. In this way, patents can be used to construct worldwide systems of economic control that have little to do with a “free” market economy. Patents are used to protect export markets, to erect trade barriers, monopolise new technologies, as assets to trade in co-operation between firms and as a lever with which to stifle the economic development of competitors. Patents are often systematically used to shut out competition. Whole national economies, of developing countries for example, can be stifled because of market control exercised on the basis of patents. This can also be seen in the agricultural sector, which has become interesting from the patent point of view with the advent of biotechnology.
14. Patent law can sometimes cause the opposite of what it is intended to achieve. Instead of encouraging competition and innovation, it leads to the sealing off of markets and the protection of competition-free zones.
15. As patent law has developed, freelance inventors have lost in importance. Instead of them, the beneficiaries have been big rich concerns which have been able, through their research departments and production programme, by means of a network of patents, to turn themselves into technical development centres.
16. However, the importance of granting patents for products or processes, based on feats of invention, should not be underestimated. Without the guarantee of exclusive application rights, many developments might never have reached fruition.
17. Self-reproducing organisms make the problem of the applicability of exclusive rights, such as they are granted by patents, difficult, if not insoluble. This casts no doubt on the patent system as such, but along with the patent-law problem of determining “inventiveness” in self-reproducing organisms, it raises the question of whether patents are an appropriate means of protecting intellectual property in the sphere of biotechnology.
3. Innovation in the sphere of biotechnology and the question of protection of intellectual property by patents
18. The ability to reproduce is a characteristic feature of patented organisms in the sphere of biotechnology. Consequently, the manufacturing process means something quite different by comparison with other technologies. The question of defining the inventive activity, eg in the isolation of a gene or its insertion in another cell, when the techniques employed are those of the current state of the art, has repeatedly given rise to controversy.
19. The Council of Europe, realising that describing biotechnological feats as “inventions” confines discussion of intellectual property protection systems to questions of patent law, has tended to talk more generally of biotechnological innovations. This is intended to take into account the special importance to humanity of the diversity of genetic resources. This concept does not diminish the intrinsic value of plants and animals.
20. The application of patent law has proved particularly difficult in agriculture. Farmers and many small breeders possess neither the necessary knowledge nor the technical and financial resources to cope with this legal instrument. Furthermore, patents as such only protect novelty, while conservation of what exists goes economically unrewarded. This could have a lasting detrimental effect on the conservation of species diversity, because for example the patent system makes no provision for the breeder’s exemption traditionally provided for in the protection of varieties.
21. Meanwhile, in biotechnology, the defensive aspect of patent law described above has gained the upper hand in many areas. Extensive patents could in some spheres give rise to a anti-innovative situation in medicine, agriculture and plant breeding.
22. Legislators have always seen a need for compromise between the interests of patent holders and society, because patents can have a negative effect for society. In some areas, patents have been prohibited on principle. For instance, human therapeutic and diagnostic methods cannot be patented. The European Patent Convention of 1977 excludes “essentially biological processes”, “plant or animal varieties” and “discoveries” and requires conformity with “ordre public” and “morality”. Corresponding provisions are to be found in WTO and NAFTA (North American Free Trade Area) rules, the latter using the same wording.
23. Despite this, European patents for plant and animal varieties were still granted until they were prohibited by a ruling of the EPO Board of Appeal in 1995.
24. Even human body cells and genes are being patented. At the EPO, over 2,000 human gene patents have been applied for; about 300 have already been granted. Worldwide, there are about 1,500 human gene patents. Of some 500 applications for animals, about a dozen have been granted. Over 1,000 patent applications have been filed for plants and of those over 100 granted.
25. By this means, not only actual fully researched industrial applications, but also potential applications are protected. This is in line with traditional patent practice, whereby not yet (completely) known applications can be protected. But patenting genes opens entirely new horizons. Anyone holding a gene patent can control all possible applications of that gene. This applies to pharmaceutical applications and also to plant and animal breeding.
26. Patent claims in the biotechnological sphere, insofar as they concern genes capable of self-reproduction, can comprise the following:
• all variations of the gene sequence,
• use for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes,
• production of vaccines,
• all micro-organisms into which the gene can be transplanted,
• all plants and plant varieties into which the gene can be transplanted,
• all as yet unknown uses of the gene,
• all proteins that can be produced using the gene and all uses of them, eg for medical purposes.
27. These possibilities of extensive patent claims based on biotechnological innovations are not without consequences for agriculture, especially in the species-rich developing countries.
4. Patents on genetic resources – effects on agriculture and the developing countries
28. Although the protection of intellectual property in the field of biotechnology, especially gene technology, has only been provided by patent law for a few years, serious unprecedented difficulties have come to light concerning the balance between public and private interests.
29. It is in the area of plant breeding that the clearest evidence has emerged of the great difficulty of weighing up legitimate claims for the protection of innovations on the one hand, and mankind’s entitlement to free access to the genetic resources that make up humanity’s common heritage on the other. In the meantime, there are now patented hybrid seeds that as a result of genetic modification have lost the ability to reproduce. This makes it not only legally, but biologically impossible to repeat the crop by self-seeding. Control of the seed market in southern countries is economically interesting also because in India, Asia, Africa and South America, up to 80% of the harvest is used for resowing. Especially China and Brazil, but also Mexico, Morocco, India and Pakistan are regarded as important growth markets for commercial seed.
30. Not only plants, but also animals, insects and micro-organisms are systematically catalogued and analysed with a view to securing patents. Nor can it be ruled out that similar developments may occur in animal breeding and in the therapeutically and economically interesting combination of farming and pharmaceuticals (gene pharming e.g. of valuable proteins in the milk of transgenic animals).
31. Furthermore, cultural knowledge about the use of biological diversity, e.g. the use of medicinal plants or plant breeding, may also be affected.
32. Perhaps the best-known illustration is the case of the Neem tree, which was discussed at length at the Conference organised by the Council of Europe in May 1999 at Oviedo (Spain) on “ethical issues arising from the application of biotechnology”. The substances contained in the tree, once technically isolated, can be patented. The tree’s pre-existing uses for medicinal and pesticidal purposes cannot be patented. Yet in India the Neem tree has for centuries played a key role in agriculture, in public health, medicine, cosmetics, in protecting domestic animals and in religious ceremonies. Its medical uses include tooth care, treatment of skin infections, parasites, inflammations of the eyes and ears and much more besides. In India, the Neem tree is regarded as the “village dispensary”. It is also used successfully in various ways to combat plant pests. For one of its main active substances, Azadirechtin, several patents have been granted in the USA and Europe. Critics point out that the use of substances from the Neem tree can in no way be regarded as an invention. In 1993 hundreds of thousands of farmers demonstrated against it.
33. One of the key problems in this respect is that only what has been isolated (“invented”) in the laboratory can be patented. The collectively acquired knowledge of generations and the related innovations, eg in the use of medicinal plants, enjoys no protection. These patents shift the profit from the countries where they have hitherto been used, including economically, to the industrial nations. For the countries of origin, this can have additional direct effects: Because industry buys up the seeds of such plants, there is a risk that these may become scarce and more expensive for traditional use.
34. If the patenting of cultivated plants after genetic modification were to become standard procedure for protecting intellectual property in plant breeding, it would be only a matter of time before all cultivated plants of direct or indirect value as human food were patented. Attention was drawn to this and to the possible consequences, a breeding stoppage, by the European farming bodies (COPA Committee of Agricultural Organisations in the European Union)and COGECA (General Committee of Agricultural Co-operation in the European Union) in 1998. They called for full acceptance of the breeders’ exemption in the patent directive. “However, this legal European framework must be balanced so as to enable the industry to be fully involved in this development, thereby ensuring the maintenance of a certain number of medium-sized plant and animal breeding enterprises under competitive conditions. Therefore, COPA requests the introduction of the ‘breeder’s privilege’ concept.”
35. At the Conference of states parties to the CBD in Bratislava in May 1998, forthright criticism was made of the European Union’s Patent Directive and in particular of the removal from the text, under pressure from industry, of reference to a legally binding rule of origin.
36. Worldwide, there are some 1,500 seed suppliers; already today 60% of the market is controlled by only 35 competitors. Of over 30 such firms active in gene technology in 1990, only 7 remained in 1997. Experts estimate that this concentration process will continue and the gap between North and South will grow. About 90% of patents granted in the Third World belong to firms whose headquarters are in the industrial states.
37. China, India, Brazil and others recently restricted access to their genetic resources (TIME, 30 November 1998, p 46). India, referring to the CBD, passed a specific Biodiversity Act prohibiting the unauthorised export of biological material and making the acquisition of inventor’s rights subject to prior authorisation.
38. Meanwhile, the World Bank has urged the developing countries to defend their interests more strongly at the WTO’s TRIPS negotiations2. It pointed out that the extension of patent protection carried a risk of “shifting bargaining power towards the producers of knowledge and increasing the knowledge gap” (Nature, Vol 395, 8 October 1998). Leading representatives of the World Bank publicly championed "serious dialogue between the public and the private sectors in order to ensure that there is adequate attention to the poor, and that the issue of proprietary science does not become a real threat. Proprietary science also could exacerbate the gap between the haves and have-nots, with the risk of creating a “scientific apartheid” in the next century. We have to design the system in a way that reflects the mutual interests of all.” (Newsweek, 24 August 1998, p 52)
5. Conclusions
39. The patent system as one system for the protection of intellectual property is an integral part of the market economy and can therefore be a driving force for innovation in many areas of technology. The problems caused by the application of patent laws to biotechnological innovations arise because living organisms are able to reproduce themselves even if they are patented. In regard to this special quality of living organisms the scope of a patent is difficult to define, which makes it nearly impossible to find a balance between public and private interests.
40. Monopolies granted by patent authorities may undermine the value of regional and worldwide genetic resources and of the traditional knowledge in those countries that provide access to biological resources. The many outstanding questions in regard to the patentability of living organisms in the agro-food sector and the extent of protection provided by such patents must be solved swiftly and with regard to all interests involved, not least those of farmers and of the developing countries. Furthermore, the patenting of living organisms could conflict with the provisions of international treaties such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) or the Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement of the World Trade Organisation (WTO).
41. The aim of sharing benefits related to the utilisation of genetic resources has to be addressed in broader terms. Bearing in mind the many unsolved questions, it is clear that methods other than patents have to be found in order to achieve a balanced system for protecting both intellectual property and the common heritage of mankind.
42. The Council of Europe therefore advocates organising rights to exploit biological resources according to procedures that are transparent for all concerned. Allowance must be made for ethical or religious objections to particular applications or particular protection rights. All measures to enhance biological diversity should focus on conserving existing species diversity and natural habitats. Forms of knowledge and traditional methods which are not patentable (eg the use of medicinal plants in the tropical forest) must not be overridden by patent law.
43. The FAO recently agreed that “the responsibility for realising Farmers’ Rights, as they relate to Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, rests with national governments. In accordance with their needs and priorities, each Party should, as appropriate, and subject to its national legislation, take measures to protect and promote Farmers’ Rights, including:
(a) protection of traditional knowledge relevant to plant genetic resources for food and agriculture,
(b) the right to equitably participate in benefit-sharing arising for the utilisation of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture,
(c) the right to participate in making decisions, at the national level, on matters related to the conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture.
44. Nothing in this article shall be interpreted to limit any rights that farmers have to save, use, exchange and sell farm-saved seed/propagating material, subject to national law and as appropriate.” (FAO, Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Report of the Contact group, Part V – Farmers’ Rights. Article 15.2, 15.3, April 1999).
45. The FAO wishes to disseminate knowledge and use of biological diversity, support projects for preserving it, encourage technology transfer and help produce and market specific agricultural produce. The aim is not to satisfy individual claims, but to secure global systems for preserving and enhancing biological diversity. This supports cultural and economic areas in the exploitation of their traditional local resources and protects them against bio-colonialism. Corresponding provisions should now be introduced in the revision of the CBD.
46. These FAO ideas could also set an example for the “sui generis” systems for the protection of intellectual property in biotechnology now under discussion in the WTO.
47. Progress in agriculture should benefit as many people as possible. The Council of Europe advocates a biotechnological innovation protection system that will promote lasting world food security.
Reporting committee: Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development
Budgetary implications for the Assembly: none
Reference to committee: Doc. 7351 and Reference No. 2020 of 25 September 1995 Draft recommendation unanimously adopted by the committee on 24 June 1999
Recommendation 1425 (1999)[1]
Biotechnology and intellectual property (Extract from the Official Gazette of the Council of Europe - September 1999)
1.
The Assembly recalls its Recommendation 1213 (1993) on developments in biotechnology and their consequences for agriculture. 2.
It is aware that the patent system, as a system for the protection of intellectual property, is an integral part of the market economy and therefore can be a driving force for innovation in many technological questions. 3.
A guideline on patent legislation should help to develop criteria for granting patents continuously according to technological progress, in favour of both the interests of the claiming party and the interests of the public in regard to public order, morality and general aspects of the state economy. 4.
Living organisms are able to reproduce themselves even if they are patented, and in view of this special quality of living organisms the scope of a patent is difficult to define, which makes it nearly impossible to find a balance between private and public interests. 5.
The Assembly deems it necessary to oblige scientists, as well as scientific research and development units working in the field of biotechnology, to conform with the Convention on Biological Diversity (Rio de Janeiro, 1992), guaranteeing both the principle of free scientific access to worldwide genetic resources and the interests of developing countries in sharing the benefits of technological progress. 6.
However, it is aware that for ethical reasons there are also severe reservations against patenting living organisms. 7.
It considers that the issue of patenting living organisms should comply with the provisions of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and that greater account should be taken of the interests of developing countries in the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (Trips Agreement) of the World Trade Organisation; it asks the World Trade Organisation to comply with the Convention on Biological Diversity. 8.
The Assembly has taken note that Directive 98/44/EEC on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions of 6 July 1998 (Bio-Patenting Directive of the European Community) was challenged at the Court of Justice of the European Communities by the governments of the Netherlands and Italy, and that Norway is considering not implementing it. 9.
The Assembly considers that monopolies granted by patent authorities may undermine the value of regional and worldwide genetic resources and of traditional knowledge in those countries that provide access to these resources. 10.
It considers that the aim of sharing the benefits from the utilisation of genetic resources within this broader view does not necessarily require patent-holding but requires a balanced system for protecting both intellectual property and the "common heritage of mankind". 11.
It also considers that the many outstanding questions regarding the patentability and the scope of protection of patents on living organisms in the agro-food sector must be solved swiftly taking into account all interests concerned, not least those of farmers and developing countries. 12.
The Assembly therefore believes that neither plant-, animal- nor human-derived genes, cells, tissues or organs can be considered as inventions, nor be subject to monopolies granted by patents. 13.
For these reasons the Assembly recommends that the Committee of Ministers, in co-operation with the European Union, the World Intellectual Property Organisation, the Food and Agriculture Organisation, the World Trade Organisation, Unesco and in accordance with the Convention on Biological Diversity:
1.
study in detail all aspects linked to the protection of intellectual property in biotechnological innovations with a view to further improving international legislation in this field; 2.
assess and review the effects of granting patents with a broad scope as regards the progress of research and development and the free market; 3.
develop a code of conduct for scientists and scientific units working in the field of biotechnology which guarantees both free scientific access to worldwide genetic resources and benefit-sharing with developing countries; 4.
discuss a suitable alternative system of protecting intellectual property in the field of biotechnology which would fit the purposes of the Convention on Biological Diversity and meet the needs of worldwide interests both private and public; 5.
encourage the ratification by those member states that have not yet done so of the Council of Europe’s 1963 Convention on the Unification of Certain Points of Substantive Law on Patents for Invention, and envisage updating the convention in the light of the conclusions of the report; 6.
consider the ethical aspects of the patentability of inventions involving biological and, in particular, human material.
Assembly debate on 20 September 1999 (25th Sitting) (see Doc. 8459, report of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, rapporteur: Mr Wodarg; and Doc. 8532, opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, rapporteur: Mr Vishnyakov).
Text adopted by the Assembly on 23 September 1999.
