Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page

III. ACTIVITIES OF FAO AND WFP (continued)
III. ACTIVITES DE LA FAO ET DU PAM (suite)
III. ACTIVIDADES DE LA FAO Y DEL PMA (continuación)

7. Report of the Eighth Session of the Committee on Agriculture (Rome, 18-27 March 1985) (continued)
7. Rapport de la huitième session du Comité de l'agriculture (Rome, 18-27 mars 1985) (suite)
7. Informe del Octavo período de sesiones del Comité de Agricultura (Roma, 18-27 de marzo de 1985) (continuación)

L. ARIZA HIDALGO (Cuba): Perdóneme, Sr. Presidente, por haberme retrasado. Nuestra delegación ha escuchado atentamente la presentación que se ha hecho del tema. Agradecemos nuevamente a la Secretaría la última versión del Código Internacional de Conducta sobre Plaguicidas y nuevamente queremos reconocer los esfuerzos que se hacen por mejorarlo y porque su texto no dañe la sensibilidad de ningún país. Creo que es necesario en este específico material muy necesario para nuestra agricultura que logremos la urgencia que requiere este Código. Decimos esto porque realmente los mecanismos son mecanismos bastante retardatarios. ¿Por qué decimos esto? Porque el Código lo estamos discutiendo desde principios de año y repetiremos una discusión más fácil y tendremos que seguir preparándonos para discutirlo en la Conferencia.

Creo que esto debe analizarse teniendo en cuenta todo lo que se discutió y explicó en el Comité de Agricultura sobre la necesidad que tienen los países en desarrollo de poder contar con un código que garantice, si no totalmente, en algunas partes la utilización de este insumo. La nueva versión ha incluido pocas modificaciones, una de ellas el Artículo 1.1 donde la palabra "delinear" se sustituye por "enunciar", en español, por lo menos en la versión española refiriéndose a las responsabilidades . Después continúa estableciendo normas de conducta. Cuando hablamos del Código en el pasado COAG, nuestra representación y la de otros muchos países plantearon que había muchas observaciones que hacer al documento. Por lo general la versión que se presentó en el COAG, que ya era una versión modificada de dos o tres versiones anteriores tendía a disminuir cada vez más la responsabilidad de cada uno. En aras de su aprobación se prefirió no dedicar más tiempo a la discusión y aprobarlo de conjunto, siempre con la conciencia de que no era esa nuestra aspiración y de que éste era totalmente un Código de Conducta obligante.

Como ejemplo y por lo anteriormente dicho, creo que es una prueba fehaciente de ello el párrafo 207 del documento CL 87/9 cuando dice que: "la mayoría de los miembros del Comité, aun deseando que el Código incluyera disposiciones más estrictas, convinieron en que sería realista y práctico aceptarlo en su forma actual, con un espíritu de cooperación y buena voluntad por parte de todos los interesados". Nosotros en el Comité de Agricultura pasado expusimos con mucha fuerza la necesidad de que cada uno de los países en desarrollo que necesitan importar grandes cantidades de plaguicidas, tienen que establecer unas leyes nacionales, disposiciones sanitarias que deben utilizar para cumplimentar la transformación, el almacenamiento, el envase, la manipulación, así como la microlocaliza-ción de los almacenes, la construcción e instalación de fábricas específicas y una vigilancia que no puede dejarse a la arbitraria voluntad del que nos exporta. Debemos ser nosotros los que pongamos las condiciones de utilización en nuestros países, conscientes de que la legislación de los países exportadores no atienden los problemas específicos que tenga cada país importador. Nuestro Gobierno tiene en cuenta esto, tiene lo que nosotros llamamos reglamentos sanitarios de plaguicidas, donde se reglamentan estos casos, ya que consideramos que este problema es muy serio para las zonas tropicales donde realmente es necesario en estos momentos el plaguicida si queremos participar en rendimientos y en buena producción y se va haciendo más necesaria a medida que avanza la tecnifica-ción de la agricultura, a medida que se hace necesaria su intensidad por área.

Por eso consideramos que este Código internacional sometido a nuestra consideración representa la necesidad de la gran mayoría de países en desarrollo y subdesarrollados y que se ven en la imperiosa obligación de importar grandes cantidades para lograr buenos rendimientos y que son atacados por plagas y enfermedades.


Nuestra representación aquí en el Consejo está por apoyar en todas sus partes el Código en la version que se nos presenta. Tenetios dos o tres observaciones. La primera quisiéramos decir que no creemos que pueda seguir debilitándose el Cóligo con algunas palabras, porque sencillamente, lo que se está utilizando son algunas palabras. No vemos el objetivo de la proposición de incluir la palabra "voluntario", creemos que esto sea un problema voluntario ya que la utilización de plaguicidas para nosotros no es voluntaria, es necesaria para los países. Otra observación. Es necesario también cuidar a nuestras poblaciones de los efectos de una mala utilización y de una mala importación y, lamentablemente y finalmente, los que mueren por efecto de las plaguicidas no mueren voluntariamente tampoco, no pueden morir voluntariamente como no murieron los de napalm.

Creemos que no se debe abusar de la palabra "posible" ya que un Código de esta naturaleza puede tener elasticidad en su cumplimiento, pero lo que no podemos es dejar todo a la posibilidad porque volveremos a caer en el análisis de que esto no está sobre la base de lo posible, sino sobre la base de la necesidad.

En el párrafo 9.3 del Artículo 9 "Intercambio de información", quisiera que la versión española la uniformáramos con la versión francesa, porque a mí me gustaría la versión que tiene mi amigo de la izquierda J. Tchicaya. Este termina con la palabra "importador" y la versión mía no termina con la palabra "importador" y creemos que debe terminar con esa palabra, igualmente que en francés. La línea siguiente dice para faciliar la información pertinente, etc. etc., como dice la versión francesa.

En este mismo Artículo 9: "Intercambio de información" estamos de acuerdo con la proposición que hace la representación de Filipinas sobre la necesidad de eliminar del párrafo 9.6 la última frase a partir de "exportación", quinto renglón de la versión española. A partir de "exportación" donde dice: "si bien se reconoce que no siempre será posible hacerlo y que los procedimientos del país exportador tal vez no sean tales que permitan retrasar o controlar la exportación del producto en cuestión". Nosotros estamos de acuerdo con Filipinas en que debe eliminarse.

Ahora hablando del punto 7 otra vez, que hablábamos de una pequeña palabra, que era cambiar "enunciar" creemos que sigue disminuyendo las responsabilidades y no llegaremos a establecer normas de conducta, sino normas de arbitrio particular y éstas son normas de conducta que debemos aceptar o no, flexibilizando y discutiéndolas para buscar y verlas como formas enunciadas y no como normas delineadas. Es voluntario el Código, pero se tienen que establecer normas de conducta, pues no entendemos por qué es voluntaria su aplicación. Sin embargo en la introducción se remarca el carácter voluntario en el párrafo 2 y todo esto nos hace a nosotros pensar en la fragilidad de este Código.

Tenemos que destacar también que en el documento CL 87/9, que recoge el informe del COAG en lo relacionado con el Código de conducta, expresa claramente que el Comité ratificó entre los objetivos básicos del Código el establecer normas de conducta y definir responsabilidades.

Ahora, nos referiremos al párrafo 210 del documento CL 87/9. En él se expresa la preocupación de algunos miembros del Comité en relación con que no se hubiera incluido la cláusula del "consentimiento previo". Fue lo que planteó la distinguida representación de Filipinas.

Nos preguntamos entonces ¿tendrá facultades el Comité para hacer observaciones?. Porque, sencillamente creemos que si la Secretaría llegó a una propuesta de modificación y aquí se hace esta propuesta de modificación y sacamos otra propuesta de modificación con vistas a la Conferencia, yo quisiera preguntar ¿Cuándo vamos a tener un Código por estas observaciones?. Nuestra delegación propone la adopción del Código en la forma en que está, independientemente de que posteriormente su aplicación en la vida nos va a permitir hacer las correcciones que tengamos necesidad de hacer y no retrasar más su puesta en funcionamiento.

S. YAMAMOTO (Japon): To begin with I would like to thank Dr Bommer for his lucid introduction of the agenda item. We would also like to thank the Secretariat for the preparation of the documents that are before us.

I would like briefly to present our view on the proposal of the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides. My delegation fully recognizes the importance of safe and efficient use of pesticides. Consequently we believe that the formulation of the Code of Conduct on Pesticides is very useful. Furthermore, we believe that in order to further achieve the objectives of the Code, the Code should be adopted by consensus of all Member States. In this connection my delegation commends the Secretariat for its effort in improving the draft and submitting to us the revised version of the draft. We feel that the revised text is much more articulate, especially with regard to Article 2 on definition. We also support the introduction which specifies that the nature of the Code is voluntary. Therefore my delegation can go along with the revised text of the Code, even though our comments are not all accommodated. However, we are still open to any improvement of the Code if such improvement would facilitate the unanimous adoption of the Code.


REAZ RAHMAN (Bangladesh): We join our voice in the tributes paid to Dr Bommer for his clear and comprehensive introduction to item 7, including the focus issue engaging our specific attention, namely the draft International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides.

In approaching this issue we are conscious of several important factors. First, there is general unanimity on the need and urgency for establishing such a Code, whose basic thrust is to serve the interests of pesticides exporting and importing countries, the pesticides industry and users, by identifying hazards in its distribution and use, by establishing standards of control and defining responsibilities for all those engaged in the regulation, distribution and use of pesticides.

Secondly, the draft Code is the result of continuous and concerted efforts to breach an inherent dilemma involved in the use of pesticides, its increasing and indispensible use as an input to enhance food production, vis-à-vis human and environmental hazards that might result, and the competing interest between vested groups, espousing free market enterprise concerns on the one hand and environmental protectionism on the other. The resulting Code has been a painstaking compromise reflected inter alia in the fact that discussions and negotiations towards this end have spanned twenty-five years, that the views of all interested parties have been taken into account, that the draft itself has undergone eight different revisions, and finally that the Director-General himself, despite general support by the Eighth COAG Session, has undertaken a further effort to accommodate wider agreement.

Thirdly, it is also recognized that the present Code is to serve essentially as a point of reference. It is not a binding document but a voluntary international code, whose basic thrust is to define and clarify responsibilities of various parties involved, to supplement efforts of countries which already have some form of regulatory trade, and to help those who do not, and finally, most important of all, to serve as a useful guideline to inform public opinion so that they have greater understanding of the nature, property, uses and effects of pesticides.

It follows that the Code of Conduct cannot but be viewed as a fluid and flexible document, a living document, as the Philippines delegate characterized it, which must of necessity be subject to monitoring by governments and parties concerned and to a process of periodic review so as to adapt itself to advances in science and technology and to the extent to which new or adverse consequences may arise. It is in the light of these basic considerations that my delegation supported the draft submitted at the Eighth COAG Session.

We note with appreciation the further amendments made by the Director-General in the presentation of the present text CL 87/9-Sup.1 to take account of outstanding preoccupations. My delegation is fully prepared to join in the adoption by consensus by this Council now of the present text before us as well as the draft resolution.

Whilst we appreciate the spirit of conciliation and concerned awareness that has led many delegations to suggest amendments, we are also conscious of the danger that a plethora of amendments could give rise to, particularly in the methodology which will be needed to accommodate them. The end result could well lead to impasse, contrary to the palpable sense of urgency needed in adopting the Code of Conduct. We believe that the draft is a compromise, that it certainly could be improved, depending on the various facets under which it is viewed, but that such improvements should not by disagreement defeat the end purpose. If the Director-General feels that further accommodation would be possible within the time left to this Council perhaps an effort should be made on points of maximum convergence. However, my delegation could go along with the present text of the Code and the draft resolution as it stands.

M. GIFFORD (Canada): First, Canada supports the Code. Secondly, we have a small technical amendment that I believe was provided to the Secretariat in writing several weeks ago, but I will simply repeat for the information of the Council the minor modification that Canada is suggesting.

We note, for example, that Article 9 of the Code has been amended to incorporate the UNEP provisional notification scheme for banned or severely restricted chemicals, as adopted by the UNEP Governing Council in its decision of 28 May 1984. Canada fully supports the provisional notification scheme but recognizes that it is provisional and is likely to be revised in 1986 or 1987. Canada would like the Code to automatically reflect any future changes to the UNEP provisional notification scheme to facilitate a unified international approach to information exchange. We suggest simply that the Secretariat incorporate this aspect in an appropriate manner into Section 9 when the final document is presented to Conference.


As a closing comment, I cannot help but contrast the way in which the Organization has approached the Code on Pesticides as opposed to the Compact. Here, I believe we are on our eighth draft. Obviously there has been a considerable amount of give-and-take in the evolution of the Code of Pesticides. I think many would agree that the Code is better for it; it is unfortunate that we cannot say the same about the Compact.

M. SUBRAMANIAN (India): Representing a country which is largely based on agriculture and which is deeply devoted to the protection of the environment, we would like to congratulate the Director-General and the FAO Secretariat on having provided us with a draft Code of Conduct which, as I look round this Council I can see has been universally acclaimed. We in India have been through traumatic experiences in this regard and we would like, therefore, to consider this session of the FAO Council in the. fortieth year of FAO as a historic session for taking such a forward step, albeit by consent, albeit on the basis of protecting humanity in all parts of the world from the possible ill-effects of pesticides use.

It is inevitable in our thrust towards larger agricultural production that the use of pesticides will be encouraged, will be necessitated, but it is also necessary that by adopting this Code of Conduct we make the objectives of increased agricultural production coterminus with our aim of protecting the environment and the human race. May I therefore take this opportunity of giving our unqualified support to this effort. As several of my colleagues have mentioned, this is the eighth or ninth revision and it is time we went ahead and adopted this Code without any hesitation.

Here, I would like to bring to your notice, certain parts of the draft to which I think attention has to be drawn, not because we are keen to propose amendments which would delay the adoption of the Code of Conduct, because we are keen that it should be adopted, but because we want to ensure the draft does not cause misapprehension or misunderstanding on the basis of certain words used in certain parts of the draft.

I would draw your attention to the draft resolution for the Conference, particularly to paragraph 3 of the draft resolution which requests the Director-General "to assess the extent to which Member Nations are willing to give effect to the Code as a voluntary frame of reference". I am afraid that this no longer requires to be assessed. From what I have heard around this table, Member Nations are already willing to give effect to this Code on a voluntary basis. What needs to be done is to request the Director-General to fulfil obligations he has with reference to Articles 12.5, 12.6 and 12.7 which call upon the FAO, along with other competent international organizations, to give support to the full observance of the Code which calls upon the governments to monitor the observance of the code and report on progress made to the Director-General of FAO.

Therefore, I suggest that in order to correctly reflect the intentions of this Code, the resolution in paragraph 3 will have to be amended, to request the Director-General to monitor, in collaboration with governments, the observance of the Code and to report periodically to the Committee on Agriculture. I make this suggestion in order to reflect clearly what the Council, and subsequently Conference, will expect the Director-General to do in pursuance of this Code of Conduct.

Now I turn to the. very important clause, Article 9.6, about information exchange. Here I would commend to the Council the unanimous adoption of a proposal made by my distinguished colleague from the Philippines. Referring to his statement on the Code of Pesticides, I would support the last alternative put forward by the Philippines to eliminate from Article 9.6 all references to possibilities, that is, to delete from the penultimate sentence the words "... it is recognized that this may not alway be possible". But in order to be consistent with the spirit in which the delegations of the United States of America and the Philippines have made these suggestions, supported by the delegation from Cuba and others, I suggest that in the penultimate sentence the words "insofar as possible" should also be deleted.

I support the last alternative, alternative 3, in the amendment proposed by the delegation from the Philippines, with the deletion of the words "insofar as possible" so that the realms of possibility are not questioned here. Our intentions are clear, that while prior consent may not be insisted on at this point of time, prior information should be provided.

I think there is a reference in Article 9.1 to notification directly or indirectly. I am afraid that to provide for indirect notification without specifying what such channel of notification would be, would betray the very purpose of advance notification of export of pesticides which are banned or restricted. Therefore, I suggest for your consideration, and that of the Council, the omission of the words "or indirectly" and the substitution of the words "or through the International Register of Potentially Toxic Chemicals, IRPTC", to which reference has already been made in paragraph 9.5 of the draft Code. That would make paragraphs 9.1 and 9.5 of the Code consistent with each other.


In paragraph 9.3 of the Code it is mentioned that the country of export should ensure that necessary information is provided. This might be interpreted to mean that this responsibility will always be on the government of the country of export. But we have already taken the trouble in Article 2 to define what we call "the responsible authority". So I suggest, after the word "occurs" in Article 9.3, the words "the responsible authority in the country of export" should be added. By this I mean that intead of making the country of export responsible, we specify that the responsible authority in the country of export should ensure, because the responsible authority is already defined under this particular Code. This will enable us to identify the authority responsible in the exporting country for implementing this part of the Code.

Turning to Article 8 and paragraph 8.1.4 the reference there is only to technical grade pesticides. This is inconsistent with the overall tenor of the Article as well as the Code. The Code seeks to deal with all pesticides, as clearly defined in Article 2. Therefore I suggest that the reference here to pesticides in general should not be limited to technical grade pesticides, because it is quite customary - in fact, it is more often the case - that importing countries do take formulated pesticides as part of their imports from manufacturing companies.

I will leave a few points which I am sure the Secretariat will clarify in order that for the record there are no doubts in the minds of participating nations as to what exactly this Code means in terms of actual implementation. In terms of the definitions listed in Article 2, there are a number of definitions which need to be clarified, for example, the reference to extension service. This reference seems to indicate that only government agencies would be involved in the transfer of information and advice to farmers. I support the suggestion made by the delegate of the United States of America that the responsibility for disseminating information, educating people, and promoting the cause of this Code would be shared by Non-governmental Organizations. If it be the intention to associate Non-governmental Organizations may I say this: that in the definition of extension service, after the word "government" we should add "and Non-governmental Organizations"; and after the words "responsible for" we should add "and engaged in", so that both Non-governmental Organizations and governmental organizations would assist in this task as is specified in fact in other parts of the Code.

May I now turn to the definition of "maximum residue limit" on page 4. Here, there is reference to the maximum concentration which is permitted or recognized under law. But it is not clear who will be specifying, whether it will be the governments or, what is more important in my opinion, the international standards organizations, the international organizations charged with the responsibility of specifying such codes or standards for voluntary acceptance. They are more reliable in this regard. May I suggest, therefore, that the maximum residue limit mentioned here should be so defined as to refer to the permitted or recognized limits specified by internationally accepted codes of conduct rather than being related to local specifications which may not conform to internationally accepted codes. This is an area where perhaps the Secretariat can enlighten me.

Then I make a suggestion under the heading "Pesticide Legislation", which refers to all the activities related to pesticides, such as manufacturing, marketing, labelling, packaging and use, but it does not refer to storage. May I remind this Council that the tragedy to which reference was made in the Indian context was due to improper storage. Therefore, may I suggest the addition of the word "storage" after the word "manufacture" so that it is complete as it is intended to be.

In the definition of poison it states "leading to injury or death when absorbed in relatively small amounts". That could give the impression that it would be all right if it is absorbed in relatively large amounts. In order to remove any such impression, may I suggest the addition of the word "even", so that it would read "when absorbed even in relatively small amounts". If absorbed in large amounts, God forbid, but even if absorbed in small amounts the population would be grossly affected in varying degrees.

The last amendment refers to Registration, which refers to human health or the environment. I wonder whether the addition of the words "or animal" would not be appropriate. The sentence would then read "to human or animal health or the environment". We refer to human health because of our special concern, but I might suggest that our concern should be equally for animal health. If that is so, we could add those words to what is already mentioned here.

In conclusion, I would like to share the feelings of my colleagues that in trying to accommodate amendments in order to improve this draft, we should not lose time. Our delegation would call for the acceptance in this Council of the draft International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides and its transmission to the Conference for adoption. If it is possible for the Secretariat or for the Council to view the amendments suggested by us as improvements which reflect more clearly our common concern and do not raise any issues of substance, I would commend them for your acceptance. But regardless of what amendments are proposed and finally accepted, we would call upon the Council to hasten their acceptance of this Code of Conduct and to hasten its implementation and monitoring on an orderly basis, albeit on the basis of voluntary acceptance.


Thank you very much for the opportunity we have had of associating ourselves with this historic document and with this historic occasion.

D.R. GREGORY (Australia): As I indicated at the Committee on Agriculture, we consider that the area of pesticides is one in which FAO has played and has the ability to continue to play a leadership role. We do believe that adoption of the Code will ultimately lead to practical and useful results for all concerned. We think that the acceptance of the Code is a statement of the responsibility and standards to be followed by governments, industry and users and should be strongly supported.

We also agree that governments should be encouraged to promote the commitment of industry and trade to adopt and observe the Code. We strongly believe that any attempt to produce a formal internationally-binding legal agreement would be counterproductive. We agree that attention should be directed at practical means of seeking assistance for countries to introduce regulations for the registration of pesticides along the lines recommended in the guidelines to the Code.

I recognize that the Code presented to the Council represents a compromise between the preferred positions of various members on a number of issues. It will be remembered that the Committee on Agriculture charged the Director-General to take its comments into consideration and to take such initiative as he deemed favourable to achieve a consensus in Council. We did not propose any changes at the Eighth Session of the Committee on Agriculture. Proposals had been introduced for certain changes. However, on the basis of these proposals, we have provided some detailed comments on the text to the Secretariat in order to assist the widest possible acceptance of the Code. These changes are purely of a technical nature and relate to matters of definition in large part and to clarification of matters of fact. I have also provided information to the Secretariat and I would be pleased to provide any information or a list of these proposed changes to any delegation that requires a copy of these comments.

J. TCHICAYA (Congo): La delegation congolaise voudrait remercier M. Bommer pour l'excellente introduction qu'il a faite du Code. En abordant l'examen du Code international de conduite pour la distribution et l'utilisation des pesticides, nous voudrions dire combien nous sommes reconnaissants à la FAO et à son Directeur général pour cette initiative heureuse qui, à en juger par toutes les interventions, vient combler un vide qui, hélas, a déjà provoqué des catastrophes douleureuses.

Déjà au Comité de l'agriculture nous nous étions prononcés en faveur du texte qui nous était soumis tout en regrettant que ce texte soit faible sur certains points et ne reprenne pas toutes les préoccupations des pays en développement qui, somme toute, sont les premières victimes de cette situation. Ils pâtissent en effet le plus des effets négatifs de la distribution et de l'utilisation non réglementée des pesticides. Cependant, dans un esprit de compromis, nous avions dû accepter le texte afin qu'il soit transmis en l'état à notre Conseil.

Une nouvelle fois le Directeur général a recherché l'unanimité, tout au moins le consensus, et propose ici un texte révisé avec des amendements qui certainement ont dû faire plaisir à nombre d'entre nous. Ma délégation, tout en reconnaissant que ces amendements affaiblissent davantage ce Code dont l'acceptation et le respect par tous en seront les atouts majeurs, est prête à se rallier à ce nouveau compromis, pour autant qu'il en soit un, c'est-à-dire si les autres, ceux qui étaient opposés au premier, l'acceptent. Faute de quoi, nous pensons que le Conseil devrait se prononcer sur l'ancien texte.

La délégation congolaise, à la lumière de ce que nous venons de dire,pense qu'il est nécessaire pour nous de pouvoir adopter et transmettre le projet de résolution à la Conférence avec le projet de Code tel qu'il vient de nous être soumis. Le flot d'amendements m'inquiète quelque peu car je me demande comment cela va être agencé et je crains que notre Conseil ici ne soit transformé en comité de rédaction pour reprendre tous ces amendements. Mais au cas où certains de ces amendements pourraient recevoir l'unanimité du Conseil, je pense que je pourrais me rallier à ce genre d'amendements dans la mesure où cela ne pourrait soulever aucune objection des autres délégations.

LE PRESIDENT: Je suis également un peu préoccupé moi aussi. Finalement on fera la somme des amendements à la fin des interventions et l'on verra ce qu'il convient de faire.


A. ABDEL MALEK (Liban) (langue originale arabe): Je voudrais tout d'abord exprimer ma pleine satisfaction et mon appréciation de voir le Directeur général appliquer la recommandation du Comité de l'agriculture telle qu'elle a été présentée dans le paragraphe 218 de son rapport et de voir présenter le document CL 87/9 Sup. 1 qui contient le projet de résolution et une nouvelle version du Code de conduite avec les amendements apportés à la version précédente.

Il a été question dès le début d'élaborer un Code de conduite à caractère volontaire et le Directeur général l'a expliqué à maintes occasions. La situation n'a donc pas changé. Le caractère volontaire du Code est même encore plus net et plus prononcé après les amendements qui nous ont été proposés et j'espère que cela mettra fin aux craintes suscitées par ce point précis.

A cet égard certains de ces amendements n'étaient pas vraiment nécessaires mais je pense qu'ils ont été proposés afin de dissiper les doutes qui auraient pu subsister à ce sujet et c'est pour cela que je souhaite que nous en finissions très vite de cette discussion et que nous adoptions ce texte par consensus. J'ai remarqué par ailleurs que le paragraphe 3 du projet de résolution se limite à demander au Directeur général d'évaluer la mesure dans laquelle les Etats Membres sont disposés à adhérer au Code. En réalité ce qu'il est nécessaire de savoir c'est dans quelle mesure les pays membres sont prêts à s'engager à appliquer ce Code de conduite. Les paragraphes 12.6 et 12.7 le spécifient bien par ailleurs et c'est pour cela qu'il me semble que ce paragraphe 3 devrait demander au Directeur général de suivre de près cette application du code en coopération avec les pays membres et qu'il présente des rapports périodiques au COAG.

Le projet de résolution sera mis à l'étude au cours de la prochaine Conférence. Je m'en tiendrai donc à mon propos initial pour éviter d'entrer dans les détails au sujet de ce Code de conduite et c'est pour cela que je propose l'adoption intégrale de ce texte avec les amendements que j'ai proposés, l'adoption par consensus si possible avant de le porter à la connaissance de la Conférence générale.

J.M. WATSON (Panama): La delegación de Panamá considera que la pasada sesión del importante Comité de. Agricultura concentró su atención sobre temas de mucho interés, tal como se desprende del Informe que aparece en los documentos CL 87/9 y CL 87/9 Sup. 1, y no hay la menor duda de que uno de estos temas fue el relativo al Código Internacional de Conducta para la Distribución y la Utilización de Plaguicidas. A este respecto, los párrafos 217 y 218 del Informe reflejan muy claramente la posición y recomendaciones del Comité, y en base a estas recomendaciones el Director General de esta Organización nos somete a consideración el proyecto de Resolución, así como sus enmiendas al texto del proyecto del Código.

La delegación de Panamá no tiene ninguna dificultad en aprobar esta propuesta, y no tiene ninguna dificultad porque se trata de un texto que, como bien expresó el Director General en su declaración inaugural, es producto de un largo esfuerzo; no por algo se trata de una octava versión que puede ser aprobada por este Consejo y de esta forma puede ser remitida a la Conferencia. Es por lo que la delegación de Panamá, al dar su aprobación, lo hace convencida de que tal espíritu prevalecerá en todos los miembros de este Consejo.

Mme A. DELLA CROCE DI DOJOLA (Italy): On behalf of the ten Member Nations of the European Economic Community, in my capacity as representative of the Member Country currently holding the Presidency of the Community, I would like to ask you to give the floor to the representative of the Commission, who has a declaration to make on behalf of the Community on this very item.

LE PRESIDENT: Merci. Je pense que le Conseil n'a pas d'objection pour qu'on donne la parole au représentant à ce Conseil des dix pays de la Communauté économique européenne.

G. DESESQUELLES (Observateur de la Communauté économique européenne): la CEE et les Etats Membres qui la composent reconnaissent la nécessité d'un code et se félicite de l'initiative prise par la FAO en établissant le projet contenu dans le document CL 87/9 Sup. 1 de mai 1985.

En effet, nous approuvons les engagements moraux qu'il implique et nous nous efforcerons de respecter scrupuleusement les dispositions qu'il contient. Toutefois la Communauté et ses états membres attache la plus grande importance à la prise en compte des observations suivantes:

Tout d'abord sur un plan général, nous considérons que le texte final du code devrait reconnaître explicitement le principe de base selon lequel il appartient essentiellement à chaque pays de réglementer les conditions de distribution et d'utilisation sur son territoire des produits en cause et selon lequel le code est conçu comme une mesure intérimaire en attendant l'adoption de réglementation ad hoc dans tous les pays;


De reconnaître explicitement qu'un grand nombre de pays développés ont des législations qui peuvent différer dans une certaine mesure des normes contenues dans les diverses orientations de recommandations de la FAO et de l'OMS et qui sont néanmoins tout à fait conformes aux objectives du code.

En ce qui concerne le texte même du projet de résolution, nous considérons qu'il devrait être amendé dans les conditions suivantes. Il conviendrait d'ajouter un paragraphe 5 se lisant comme suit: "Estime que les activités de la FAO relatives au code devraient être financées dans le cadre des ressources budgétaires existantes ou par le moyen de contributions volontaires".

En ce qui concerne l'annexe du projet de résolution, il est proposé de modifier les points suivants :

Introduction de l'annexe: pour élargir la portée des dispositions du 7ème paragraphe, la deuxième phrase serait complétée par les termes "ainsi que pour l'environnement".

- Article 1, paragraphe 1: dans l'esprit même du code, seraient ajoutés après le verbe "énoncer", les mots "sur une base volontaire". On lirait donc: "énoncer sur une base volontaire les obligations de tous les organismes publics..."

- Article 1, paragraphe 2: Le code devrait prévoir la possibilité d'une participation de la Communauté. A cet effet, l'article 1er, paragraphe 2 devrait être libellé ainsi:

"1.2 Le code proclame l'obligation commune, pour différents membres du corps social -gouvernements, milieux industriels et commerciaux et institutions internationales - d'oeuvrer ensemble pour faire en sorte que les avantages décolant de l'utilisation nécessaire et acceptable des pesticides ne soient pas obtenus au prix d'effets trop préjudiciables aux personnes ou au milieu. A cette fin, toute référence à des gouvernements vaut également pour les groupements régionaux d'état dans la mesure où ils ont compétence dans les domaines couverts par le présent code."

- Article 1, paragraphe 6: la version anglaise devrait être adaptée et l'on devrait lire: "in the context of national legislation", au lieu de "with due regard to the laws of the country".

Parmi les termes dont il est donné une définition, les qualificatifs "interdit" et "sévèrement réglementé", devraient être supprimés. En effet, ni l'Assemblée générale des Nations Unies ni le Programme des Nations Unies pour l'environnement n'ont accepté une définition satisfaisante et internationalement reconnue. A cet égard, il nous semble préférable que les autorités responsables de la mise en oeuvre du code, satisfassent aussi étroitement que possible aux efforts entrepris pour parvenir à des définitions acceptables par tous.

- 8.1.5- Il est proposé de compléter le dernier membre de phrase, qui deviendrait : "qui soient compatibles avec les exigences du pays hôte de la société mère". En effet, notre proposition nous paraît apporter une clarification dans les responsabilités respectives des acteurs en cause.

L'article 9, qui constitue une partie essentielle du code, nous paraît bien équilibré quant au fond et précis dans sa rédaction. C'est pourquoi nous souhaiterions qu'il ne fût pas changé.

Dans un souci de compromis, s'il fallait supprimer la dernière phrase du paragraphe 9.6, nous considérons, comme d'autres délégations, qu'il faudrait également supprimer la dernière partie de l'avant-dernière phrase, à savoir les mots : "mais il est admis qu'il n'est pas toujours possible de le faire".

- Article 10.3.1 : il nous semble plus réaliste de demander aux industries de veiller au conditionnement et à l'entreposage dans les pays importateurs, car ce n'est pas seulement la responsabilité des industries; il vaudrait mieux affirmer leurs responsabilités en matière d'information et donc lire le début du paragraphe ainsi : "L'industrie doit veiller à ce que les informations concernant la sécurité du conditionnement, de l'entreposage et de l'élimination des pesticides, soient transmises de façon adéquate et conformément aux directives FAO...", le reste du texte reste sans changement.

- Article 11.2 : dans le texte anglais nous proposons de remplacer les termes : "call attention to departure from" par "promote the objectives". Par ailleurs, le texte français n'est pas conforme dans le fond à la version anglaise, qui devrait être adaptée.

- Article 11.3 : il est proposé de compléter la liste des mesures de publicité concernant l'utilisation sans danger des pesticides par les termes suivants : "les premiers soins à donner, les centres antipoison à contacter en cas d'accident".


- Article 12.6 : compte tenu que le code ne constitue pas un instrument juridique contraignant mais qu'il est d'application volontaire, nous estimons que le libellé du paragraphe devrait être modifié dans le sens suivant :

"12.6 Les gouvernements devraient examiner périodiquement avec la FAO et les autres organisations internationales compétentes les progrès réalisés dans la mise en oeuvre du code".

Article 12.7 : il serait opportun de reconnaître le caractère évolutif du code sous la forme suivante : "le code doit être considéré comme un texte vivant qui doit être mis à jour régulièrement en tenant compte des progrès techniques, économiques et sociaux".

En ce qui concerne les références, comme nous l'avions souligné lors du Comité de l'agriculture, les références énumérées à la page 15 sont inconnues de la communauté, au moins dans leur version de 1985, et n'ont pas encore été formellement notifiées et agréées comme instruments internationaux. La communauté ne pourra faire siennes ces normes tant qu'elles n'auront pas été définies de manière plus formelle et que les procédures ad hoc permettant leur finalisation ne seront pas achevées.

Par ailleurs, nous avons relevé quelques différences d'ordre linguistique entre les versions française et anglaise en particulier, qui seront signalées directement au Secrétariat afin de ne pas prolonger le débat.

Telles sont les observations de la CEE et de ses états membres que nous voulons constructives et qui ont été présentées avec un souci de clarification et de coopération.

DATO ALWI JANIAN (Malaysia): I would like to join the other delegations in welcoming you to the chair, and also to thank Dr. Bommer for his clear and comprehensive introduction to the documents before us. This matter of the known practice of some producers and exporters in damming their products which are considered hazardous to their own communities in developing countries has been of concern to my country for a number of years. We have repeatedly raised this issue at FAO Regional Conferences.

We therefore welcome and fully support the implementation of the Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides and we hope that it should be implemented as soon as possible after acceptance by the FAO Conference. Since the Code is voluntary in nature and not legally binding on anyone, it is essential that the text be made known as widely as possible to ensure worldwide adoption and compliance.

So far as my country is concerned we will study this Code very closely with a view to incorporating its provisions wherever appropriate into our pesticide legislation. We would urge on the producers that they should do more research in the countries where these chemicals are to be marketed to determine the possible hazards these chemicals may have under local climatic conditions and to social-cultural practices. The collaborative work with the national research institutions would enhance the acceptability and proper application of these chemicals.

We support the suggestion of the distinguished Philippine delegation that the Secretariat and all countries should monitor closely the reimplementation of the Code, particularly Article 9. My delegation is prepared to accept the Code in its present form in order to facilitate its adoption by the Council by consensus. However, if further refinements can be accepted we would support the third alternative suggestion by the Philippine delegation with regard to Article 9.6.

C. LOIZIDES (Cyprus): First of all I would like to thank Dr. Bommer for his clear and comprehensive introduction to the report of the Eighth Session of the Committee on Agriculture. I shall be short and brief , and 1 shall limit my comments only on thelnternational Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides. In particular I wish to note that the action by FAO to develop an International Code of Conduct provides enhanced confidence to the international community in the distribution and use of pesticides. Cyprus, a developing country, in her efforts during the past ten to fifteen years to develop legislation and a regulatory infrastructure for pesticides, has felt strongly the lack of such a code and has very often looked upon FAO as a source of information and guidance.

The amendments introduced in the text of the Code, as presented in document CL 87/9-Sup.1 aim at achieving a consensus during the. Session of the Council. The Delegation of Cyprus is in full agreement with the text of the Code and endorses the draft resolution to be presented for consideration by the Conference.


LI ZHENHUAN (China) (Original language Chinese): I'll be very brief. Last March the Chinese Delegation attended the Eighth Session of COAG. We think that document CL 87/9 very well summed up the views expressed by Member Countries on various subjects and it is a true reflection of the proceedings. It is in general a good report and we agree with it. Now I would like to take this opportunity to dwell on one point on the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides.

The Secretariat had made full preparations for the drafting before the Session, and the draft was thoroughly discussed during the Session. This has helped to improve the text and paved the way for the implementation of the Code in the years to come. It was unanimously agreed by COAG that considering the increasingly wide use of agro-chemical techniques, the establishment of the Code was highly necessary to ensure the safety of human health and safe production, distribution and utilization of pesticides. The report stated that the Code is neither compulsory nor legally binding and fully respects the laws and regulations of respective countries. We believe that its flexible nature will facilitate its universal acceptance in the world. Therefore, we don't think there should be any problem for the Council to approve it, which will provide guidelines for national governments to follow in pesticide operations in the light of their specific conditions. We agree with the revised Code and the drafting resolution in the document CL 87/O-Sup.1. We suggest, after deliberations, it be proposed to the 23rd Conference. The revised amendments put forward by the Philippine Delegate in paragraph 9 on the Code, we think, is worth considering.

J. MUSHARRAF (Pakistan): In spite of the obvious limitations in practice of any code of conduct anywhere, in some situations a code of conduct may be a specially good thing - or perhaps the only thing to go by. For example, let us draw a picture in our minds, a caricature, of a starving man with a cup in his hand eager to pour out something for himself out of several taps before him. But the problem is that his are not the only hands controlling the taps. There are several other hands on the taps as well more powerful than his own, and, moreover, the taps contain various liquids ranging from pure milk to pure poison, and the man knows little how to identify which one is which. Nov in such a situation where the stakes are high, that is the man either starves or takes poison, or takes milk and survives, where there are other hands and minds on the taps, more powerful and less ignorant than his and moreover where there is no law to ensure the most healthy and least destructive outcome from the taps, some code of conduct to regulate the conduct of the various hands and minds may be the most useful and perhaps the only instrument to pin ones hopes on. Of course we are assuming, if we may, that none of the minds are evil in intent - all are basically decent though at times susceptible to follow some divergent, or even petty interest of their own.

Keeping in mind that this is a caricature, we would venture to say that this is in fact the sort of situation we have in the world of pesticides. The starving man is of course the developing countries which, without the various pesticides - represented by the taps - would starve. The other hands are the other parties mentioned in the draft Code of Conduct before us. One should straight away add that there are shades of opinion who would not agree with this characterisation of the situation. For example, at one extreme there is an opinion that no milk comes out of any of these taps; they are all poison. One can do away with all chemical pesticides altogether and the man would still not starve because there are other, better ways of pest control. Some other shades of opinion, while assigning an important role to chemical pesticides, would question the very utility or practicality or advisability of a Code of Conduct. The thinking behind the document before us and the Code of Conduct, on the other hand, is that chemical pesticides have in fact come to play an important role and it is likely to stay so. And although in a long run strategy, increasing emphasis should be given to an integrated pest management system, for the present as well as for the future the dependence of the developing countries on imported pesticides continues to be increasingly so, and since these countries lack the infrastructure and the trained personnel for an effective registration and control system, the pesticide industry itself and the exporting industrialized countries (who at present have the monopoly of the knowledge and of the means) must be persuaded to accept some responsibility for promoting the safe and efficient use of the often lethal chemicals in order to protect the people and the environment in all countries, especially the most vulnerable developing countries. Of course, in the meantime also, attempts should continue to build up the capabilities within the developing countries so that their dependence in all these aspects is progressively reduced.

We consider this a sound and realistic philosophy, and for this reason we support the idea and content of the Code of Conduct. In spite of its shortcomings and weaknesses one, for example, pointed out at paragraph 205 of the Committee report, we may now accept the revised text of the Code unanimously as well as the draft resolution and transmit it to FAO Conference.

The role and utility of the Code would be similar to the other international undertakings which have no legally binding force but are rather like pledges based on mutual trust and good faith, embodying the desire of governments to achieve certain agreed objectives by concerted national and international action. The Code would have an educative value as well as an energizing role, possibly stimulating administrative and legislative action within countries, and in any case increasing awareness on the part of everyone on vital ethical and technical issues.


For those who tend to sometimes decry or underrate such moral instruments as opposed to legislative instruments, though none have done so today, it may be added that in a sense the Code of Conduct can be said to arise from an international legally binding instrument, namely the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights adopted in 1957, Article 11 of which as it now stands, recognizes the right to food and freedom from hunger as a fundamental human right, and enjoins upon all signatory States, among other things, to improve methods of conservation of food by making full use of technical and scientific knowledge, etc. The Code of Conduct being relevant to the conservation of food and sources of food, fits into the framework of the rights and obligations instituted by this Covenant of 1957 which is a legally binding international instrument.

As regards the specific contents of the Code, there are many aspects which can be stressed or commented upon. To take a few which we regard as significant or important: We would like to stress Article 3.8 which calls for the promotion of pest management systems. This should include the re-discovery, as it were, of organic pesticides and of traditional cultural practices used for pest control, such as crop rotation, flooding of rice stubbles, uprooting of maize stubbles, etc. The modern techniques of biological control which hold the greatest potential are yet of limited use at present in developing countries, due to their high research requirements and sophistication requirements on matters such as predator/parasite relationships etc.

We would therefore have preferred this Article 3.8 to be more elaborately stated. Chemical pesticides alone would lead to a dead-end - even a self-destructive end to our conservation efforts. Other more effective methods have to be substituted if the race against the pests is not to be lost, and if an insect pest is not to be the last surviving living thing on planet Earth - beating man by a long margin. The harmful and persistent residual effects of the chlorinated hydrocarbons have been recognized, leading to the banning of DDT in many countries. But the effects of other chemicals on the ecology of plant and animal life, their destruction of useful forms of life, such as pollinating insects, and other friendly bugs, the pollution of the agro-ecosystem, and indeed the entire ecosystem, are still to be fully discovered. Of course the benefits of the chemical pesticides have also to be recognized, some of them can contribute greatly to our fight against population increase by making us all sterile.

The importance of Registration is brought out well in the Code, and is inherent in the very definition of the word where it is defined on page 4 as meaning the process whereby the responsible national government authority approves the sale and the use of a pesticide following the evaluation of comprehensive scientific data demonstrating that the product is effective for the purposes intended and not unduly hazardous to human health or the environment. Registration therefore is the important instrument of control and it cannot be done without "comprehensive scientific data".

In this respect to ensure that such data is made available the Code of Conduct lays down some of its most important provisions in several articles, for example, Article 4.1.3, Article 6.2.1, Article 8.1.2 and Article 9.1, making it the responsibility of manufacturers and the exporting countries to provide technical information. Furthermore, since many countries at the present stage of their technical capabilities may not be in a position to even use the information provided, responsibility for providing technical assistance is provided at Article 3.3. And Article 3.4.4 on page 6 goes as far as to say that the manufacturers should retain an active interest in following their products to the ultimate consumer. Though obviously the manufacturer cannot follow up and guarantee the safety of the last individual user and the last inhabitant, the companies should nevertheless have some overall responsibility towards ensuring the safety of their products by the final users, in matters such as the right packaging and the right clothing.

In all these matters the success of the Code will depend on the cooperation and goodwill which is shown on all sides. Like any written instrument, even legally binding and sanctimonious ones like law books and constitutions, they can be reduced to a mere heap of paper if parties fail to honour it in practice. But we would like to avoid making this cynical assumption.

Finally, referring to Article 11.1.8 at page 13 of the Code, one should be warned against the self-absolving role that the phrase "safe when used as directed" can play in reference to some very dangerous chemicals. The injunction "use as directed" may sometimes be too sophisticated and too complicated to be easily implemented by the poor and illiterate farmers. So the use of some pesticides may in actuality prove too dangerous in all practical circumstances.

Before closing, we would like to refer to some of the amendments suggested by the Ambassador of the United States of America. Article 11.2, page 14, "International organizations and public sector groups should call attention to departures from this Article". The proposed amendment, we feel, tends to weaken the article by couching it in terms of a general overall purpose instead of a more specific and definite exhortation.


The difference between the amendment proposed and the original one is like saying, "1 would like to feed the whole world" instead of saying, "When 1 see a single hungry little boy in the street 1 will call him in". Thus the proposed amendment is like looking at the ceiling in a general way and aiming at the maximum, while the other looks down at the floor ready to pick up anybody who falls low. So we would like to see Article 11.2 remain as it is now.

Regarding Article 9.6, page 12, two proposals were made for the deletion of the last portion of this Article, one by the USA and one by the Philippines. We would prefer the one by the Philippines, not only that the last sentence should be deleted, as proposed by the USA, but also the last part of the second last sentence should be deleted.

With regard to the so many other amendments, 1 would like to submit that it has been difficult to keep track of all of them, and one could comment on many. But as a general observation, one can perhaps be guided on how this can be handled, whether there should be a discussion on each of them now, or whether it should be taken up by the Drafting Committee. With these observations, we submit that the draft Code be endorsed by consensus and transmitted to the FAO Conference for adoption.

LE PRESIDENT: Quant à nos travaux et à la façon d'aborder les amendements qui ont été présentés, je pense que nous pourrons décider lorsqu'on aura entendu tous les orateurs. Mais il ne faudrait pas transformer cette séance plénière en comité de rédaction, donc il faut choisir une autre méthode. On pourrait peut-être confier la tâche au Comité de rédaction lui-même ou confier au Secrétariat l'évaluation des amendements. Je suis optimiste, je pense qu'il y a des amendements qui ont un caractère purement formel et technique et peut-être pourraient-ils être incorporés sans grande difficulté. Mais cela, on le décidera à la fin de nos discussions.

MAME BALLA SY (Sénégal) : Monsieur le Président, je dois vous féliciter et plaindre le Secrétariat. Vous féliciter Monsieur le Président, parce que présider une séance de cette nature, où il aurait fallu un ordinateur pour retenir tout ce qui a été dit, nécessite effectivement beaucoup de courage. Je plains le Secrétariat parce que mettre en forme tout ce qui a été demandé pour un texte qui apparemment n'aurait pas dû soulever beaucoup de difficultés est une tâche particulièrement hardie et complexe.

Beaucoup de délégués n'ont pas pu, à juste raison compte tenu de ce que je viens de dire, se prononcer sur les amendements qui ont été présentés, de sorte que renvoyer ces amendements au niveau du Comité de rédaction ne fera que repousser les complications parce que l'on ne se souviendra pas de tout ce qui a été dit. Cela va prolonger nos discussions finales.

Tout à l'heure, vous avez dit quelque chose d'assez intéressant à propos de ces amendements. J'ai essayé moi-même de les noter et je me suis rendu compte que pour la plupart il s'agit de tentatives d'amélioration du texte qui, même si elles n'étaient pas retenues, ne devraient pas empêcher l'adoption du Code. C'est pourquoi je pense personnellement, et ma délégation également, que nous devrions adopter le texte. Naturellement, le Secrétariat, en présentant ce document à la Conférence, essayera de le faire dans la meilleure forme possible. Mais il y a certains amendements sur lesquels il faudrait quand même s'entendre.

Je commencerai d'abord par l'un des amendements présentés par le représentant de la Communauté concernant l'article 1.1 quand il dit que les objectifs de ce Code sont d'énoncer "sur une base volontaire" ... Je dois dire que j'ai discuté avec lui et je pense qu'il n'avait pas suffisamment étudié le texte. Si on dit que les objectifs du Code sont d'énoncer sur une base volontaire, juridiquement on ne peut pas comprendre. Le représentant de la CEE lui-même très humblement, et je l'en félicite, m'a dit que c'était un amendement difficile à retenir. 11 faut que nous soyons précis. Donc s'il le veut bien, et je pense que cela ne fera pas de difficulté, on pourra écarter purement et simplement cet amendement, sinon on n'a pas besoin d'un code. Parler de base volontaire vis-à-vis de qui? Personne ne saurait répondre.

Cela dit je crois que le deuxième amendement de fond, qui est assez intéressant et que je voudrais appuyer, est celui de l'Article 6 parce qu'effectivement la dernière partie de l'avant-dernière phrase ôte tout son sens à ce par. 9.6. Je crois que là, si on le supprimait, ça ne ferait pas de mal. Personnellement j'aurais pu, si je ne voulais pas respecter mon attitude qui serait d'adopter le texte en l'état; parce que déjà, comme l'a dit le délégué du Congo, c'est un texte qui n'est pas suffisamment satisfaisant pour les pays en développement.


Mais dans un esprit de compromis il faudrait le retenir tel quel parce que nous sommes au moins sûrs d'une chose: tous les pays ici représentés sont d'accord sur le principe d'avoir ce Code parce que, en effet, il n'est pas possible d'accepter que la communauté internationale exige sur le plan pharmaceutique que certaines dispositions soient prises pour que les médicaments n'entraînent pas certaines conséquences pour l'être humain et que pour les plantes, pour lesquelles les pesticides jouent le même rôle que les médicaments pour l'homme, il n'y ait pas certaines précautions à prendre aussi bien au niveau de la fabrication, de la distribution que de l'emploi.

Ce serait peut-être une incohérence de la part de l'être humain parce qu'en fait les plantes dans ce domaine courent les mêmes risques que les êtres humains. Sans compter que les pesticides présentent des dangers pour nous mêmes et nos familles dans nos campagnes. Je tenais à dire cela mais la décision de mon pays, en tout cas de ma délégation, est que l'on adopte le texte tel qu'il aura été présenté et que le Secrétariat ne manquera pas, comme il l'a déjà fait présentement, de tenir compte de toutes les améliorations de forme pour le présenter à la Conférence.

Je voudrais enfin faire une demande pour conclure, c'est, en ma qualité de membre du Conseil et membre du Groupe des 77, que l'on puisse permettre au cours de ce débat au Président du Groupe des 77 de faire une très brève déclaration sur ce point.

LE PRESIDENT: Le représentant du Groupe des 77 pourra faire sa déclaration quand il le demandera.

Sra. M. BRICENO ZEHL (Venezuela) Estamos hablando de insumos, el plaguicida fundamental para el efectivo desarrollo de la agricultura en un país, un insumo que a través del aumento de la productividad que, cuando usado adecuadamente, contribuye a aumentar el nivel de vida de nuestra población rural.

Lamentablemente las características sociales de esa misma población cuya modificación requiere mucho tiempo, muchas veces no permiten la real evaluación por parte del campesino de los riesgos que entraña el manejo de un plaguicida. Por estos motivos queremos agradecer a la FAO la preparación de este código tan importante y darle toda nuestra consideración y apoyo. Entendemos las dificultades que se tuvieron que enfrentar en el intento de tomar en consideración durante su preparación los múltiples aspectos de problemas y los puntos de vista de los países productores y receptores.

Prueba de ésto es el hecho de que este conjunto de normas, tal como nos ha sido presentado en este Consejo, es el producto de varias fases de elaboración a raíz de consultas intergubernamentales y de expertos altamente cualificados. No ponemos en duda que puede ser perfectible, ¿pero existe acaso ejemplo de perfección lograda en un primer momento? Creemos que este código responde a una necesidad impelente y actual de poner de relieve todos los aspectos del problema considerado. Es, como siempre, una cuestión de concienciación de todas las partes implicadas y, por ende, de colaboración.

Así lo consideramos y así nos hacemos partícipes de ella. No puede ser otra cosa un código cuya característica fundamental es la voluntariedad en su aplicación. Nosotros, en Venezuela, hemos tenido casos de envenenamiento grave de campesinos por ignorante manejo de plaguicidas, y es nuestro deber ante todo hacer todo lo posible por evitar que en el futuro esto vuelva a ocurrir.

No creemos en riesgos razonables, y menos cuando se habla de vidas humanas. Me refiero a este propósito al proyecto de Resolución sobre el Código que nos ha sido presentado. Teníamos, en fin, ciertas dudas, al igual que las delegaciones de Filipinas, la India, y otras, sobre el Artículo 9 y las definiciones contenidas en el Artículo 2, pero consideramos más constructivo en este momento dejar a la Secretaría la posibilidad de aportar mejoras tomando en cuenta todo lo que se ha sugerido durante nuestros debates. Concentrarnos sobre los puntos de convergencia que permitan la adopción del código y su tramitación a la Conferencia.

CA. FERREIRA GUIMARAES (Brazil): My delegation wishes to express its support for the Report of the Eighth Session of the Committee on Agriculture, as presented in document CL 87/9. 1 also want to give our support to the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides. These objectives are in line with our concern for the protection of humans and the environment. We should also contemplate the immediate interest of the developing countries, and suggest a testing requirement for pesticides before their exportation to other countries.


R. SEVCOVIC (Czechoslovakia): On behalf of my delegation 1 would like to thank Mr Bommer for his excellent introduction of this item. As to the range of programmes concerning the handling, distribution and use of pesticides, we have expressed our views both in written form and during the Eighth Session of the Committee on Agriculture. We regarded this as an area too technical for the Eighth Session; these technical subjects should be discussed in special commissions.

We fully support the Draft International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides, which will be a very important document. But I would like to make some recommendations. First, in Article 7.2 of the Code should not an amendment be made so that the medium toxic pesticides, which are already in the guidelines of the World Health Organization, are classified as second-class because they might be released to small producers and gardeners on the assumption that these people would be regularly trained in the use and effects of these materials.

Secondly, on behalf of my delegation, I would like to recommend in Article 10 of the draft Code that labels on the packages of supplies be written in the language of the importing country so that the correct use may be duly explained both as to the composition of the material, its dosage, use and effect, thus excluding any confusion.

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Con su competencia habitual, el Sr. Bommer hizo una excelente presentación de este documente. " En primer lugar, queremos apoyar particularmente a las delegaciones de nuestros distinguidos colegas de Venezuela, Cuba y Congo, quienes expresaron razones morales y humanas, por medio de las cuales hemos llegado al convencimiento de que este Código llena un vacío que puede contribuir a evitar graves riesgos para la salud del hombre como resultado de la mala aplicación de los plaguicidas por falta de criterios de información, abuso de su utilidad o cualquier deficiencia. La COAG (se supone que es el Comité Técnico del Consejo en este caso) expresó su aceptación general del código; sin embargo, el Director General atendió debidamente la recomendación de la COAG y tuvo en cuenta algunas de las observaciones que se plantearon allá para redactar ahora el proyecto de Resolución que se nos presenta, dirigida a la Conferencia.

Pero constatamos que no ha bastado la buena voluntad ni los grandes esfuerzos del Director General para preparar una y otra versión. En efecto, hemos asistido a un debate paradójico y simpático a la vez. Todos los miembros del Consejo han reiterado su apoyo moral al código, todos han jurado solemnemente que quieren el Código y cumplirán sus principios, todos han dicho que desean que el Consejo adopte este Código por consenso, y al mismo tiempo todos han hecho propuestas y han sugerido modificaciones. Nosotros creemos que realmente esa situación no es objetiva ni es realista ni positivista. Hemos oído aquí interesantes declaraciones de muchas delegaciones cuyos gobiernos (lo sabemos por el contacto que tenemos con nuestros colegas) han hecho llegar observaciones a la Secretaría y a nosotros y ahora repiten aquí esa misma marea inmensa de modificaciones. Han creado realmente una confusión.

No bastaría lo que falta de este período de sesiones ni tal vez el resto de este año incurso hasta la Conferencia de noviembre para presentar, para medio analizar o tener en cuenta todas las propuestas que se han hecho. Posiblemente podríamos calcular que en el año 2000 adoptaríamos el Código. Se han presentado 49 textos, 49 proyectos de código y todavía faltan los observadores, que pueden ser 107 para completar los 156 Estados Miembros de la Organización.

Pero no todo ha sido negativo. Creemos que es un privilegio participar en el diálogo interesante que se está llevando a cabo en esta sala. Por ejemplo, nos atrajeron mucho las interesantes y bien elaboradas ideas de nuestro distinguido amigo el señor Desesquelles, quien habló en nombre de los diez y los doce países de la Comunidad Económica Europea. Si nosotros aceptáramos siquiera una sola de las ideas que expresó aquí el observador de la CEE, habríamos perdido todo el esfuerzo que se ha realizado a través de todo este proceso. Es evidente que hay que respetar la soberanía de los gobiernos, pero si vamos a decir en el Código que cada gobierno puede seguir por su propia cuenta, orondo, tranquilo, sin tener en cuenta el texto del Código, ¿para qué entonces estamos tratando de elaborar un texto? Sinceramente, tampoco entendemos cómo es posible que a lo que ya había dicho una muy respetable delegación esta mañana se haya sumado ahora la opinión de la CEE al tratar de dar excesiva importancia a los aspectos materiales y prosaicos del costo que tendría la aplicación de este Código. ¿Es esa actitud acaso alguna excusa, una simplificación inaceptable del problema, para reducirlo a aspectos que no corresponden a los principios en los que nosotros queremos inspirarnos?

Nosotros sabemos (porque tenemos muchos amigos en los diez - o doce - países de la CEE) que esa Comunidad se ha preocupado muchísimo por este texto del Código y les estamos agradecidos que ellos tengan interés en que se produzca un buen documento porque esencialmente va a favorecer a los países en desarrollo, pero por eso mismo nos extraña que, además de todo lo que ya se ha hecho por distinguidos colegas de la CEE, esta tarde su observador haya vaciado aquí, en esta sala, toneladas y más toneladas todavía de ideas y de propuestas.


Nosotros reconocemos, repetimos, ese empeño positivo de la CEE y, naturalmente, cada uno de sus países, y todos, los Diez o Doce juntos, serán muy bienvenidos cuando quieran sumarse a nosotros para adoptar el Código e implementar sus principios. Son países muy importantes y muy respetables y la Comunidad en sí también lo es, pero no por ésto señor Presidente, nosotros creemos que se puede llegar al extremo de proponer una enmienda con nombre propio. No creemos que sea procedente que se proponga una enmienda a un texto de contexto internacional como éste sólo para que la CEE pueda participar.

Creemos que el observador de la CEE redactó un nuevo código, preparó un nuevo texto, pero lo hizo con tanta autoridad, con tanta competencia y con tanto dogmatismo cuando dijo "nosotros no podemos aceptar ésto y lo otro", que en realidad pensamos que el observador de la CEE se le olvidó algo en su declaración; él no nos dijo si ese nuevo proyecto de código que proponía debería ser aplicado solamente en los diez o doce países de la Comunidad o en todos los demás países del mundo.

Mis colegas de la delegación de Colombia y yo estamos preocupados, porque a la luz de lo que ha sucedido hoy en este debate, corremos el riesgo de perder nuestros puestos, porque tenemos instrucciones muy firmes y muy serias de expertas autoridades colombianas en el sentido de proponer nuevas y radicales medidas a este texto, pero, naturalmente, preferimos afrontar ese riesgo y seguir el buen ejemplo de los países nórdicos, siempre pragmáticos, para no proponer aquí nada que pueda aún aumentar más esta inmensa confusión. Nos limitaremos, pues, a reafirmar un principio del Gobierno colombiano, según el cual lo esencial es que los gobiernos observen estos principios del Código, que lo apliquen, que pongan en práctica, que implementen estos principios.

Por ello, creemos que la Parte 3 del proyecto de Resolución es sumamente débil y que debería reforzarse a la luz de lo que dicen los puntos 12.6 y 12.7, pero naturalmente, no vamos a entrar en contradicción con lo que estamos afirmando y por eso queremos concluir para manifestar nuestro acuerdo, señor Presidente, porque usted, con el buen sentido que le caracteriza, ya anticipó una parte del resumen que va a hacer sobre este tema, aunque no había concluido la discusión. Le concedemos razón a usted cuando, en medio de todo este maremagnun de ideas y de propuestas, usted se vio forzado a reaccionar, a decir alguna otra cosa y anticipó ya lo que manifestó también nuestro colega Baila Sy, de Senegal, de que, ante lo que ha ocurrido hoy, no hay más remedio, no hay otra alternativa que adoptar este texto en la forma en que nos lo ha presentado el Director General. Ninguna otra solución sería seria ni objetiva como conclusión de este debate. Creemos que el texto debe adoptarse tal como está en el Comité de Redacción, donde afortunadamente sólo participamos 13 países. Por lo tanto, el riesgo de nuevas propuestas es menor. Allá, en ese Comité de Redacción, se consignarán, en el proyecto de Informe, los comentarios y las propuestas, y, naturalmente, hasta donde sea posible y a la luz de esa conclusión, el Director General decidirá libremente cuál será su actitud y posición final ante la Conferencia.

LE PRESIDENT: Naturellement la solution idéale serait d ' approuver le code dans l'état présent, mais ce n'est pas possible. Peut-être aurons-nous à faire tous les efforts possibles pour découvrir l'importance que les différentes délégations donnent aux amendements. Sans doute pourrait-on en éliminer "beaucoup, mais pas tous malheureusement. Je pense que notre tâche maintenant est d'en terminer avec les interventions, et je voudrais adresser un appel aux orateurs qui vont prendre la parole d'être très brefs et surtout de ne pas présenter d'autres amendements.

M. MAHDI (Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of) (Original language Arabic): Thank you for giving me the floor after having listened to the distinguished delegate from Colombia. First of all, with regard to the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides, we should like to thank the Director-General and the FAO staff for the formulation of this Code, which we consider among the most important issues put before our Council.

After having listened to the comprehensive introduction given by Dr Bommer, we emphasize that this Code has been well prepared, that it covers all the aspects of this issue, and that it should be the object of the attention of all countries, exporters and importers of pesticides, together with all concerned, and should assist them in working together for the benefit of mankind and for the improvement of agriculture. We share the view of the Director-General that this Code can assist in overcoming the various problems related to pesticides.

The delegation of my country participated in the Session of the COAG and endorsed the text as presented to the COAG, which is considered to be a compromise. However, we commend the efforts of the Director-General and the spirit of cooperation he has displayed through the amendments proposed to the text contained in Document CL 87/9 Sup.1.


These chemicals are hazardous materials so how can we possibly engage in the trade of such toxic materials without establishing standards to ensure the appropriate use of such materials? We have stated in the COAG session that there are some pesticides which have been restricted in some industrialized countries due to the hazards they pose to human life, animals and or the environment, these pesticides are readily exported to developing countries. We called for a termination of such practices together with the provision of all necessary information on these pesticides. We now stress the importance of this issue and endorse monitoring on the part of the Secretariat of the implementation of the Code, in particular as relates to Article 9, and endorse the deletion of the last part of Article 9.6 starting with "but it is recognized that this may not always be possible" up to the end of the Article. We agree with previous speakers that such materials are a double-edged weapon and that limitations should be put on their export and trade in addition to standards and controls on their use. This Code attempts to cover all of these aspects.

We wish to stress the need for training and the choice of pesticides, as was rightly said by my colleague from Indonesia. Such pesticides should be safe and proper. Of course, there may be some constraints and problems facing the developing countries. Here we stress the role of our Organization as well as other interested organizations. Finally, and out of this spirit of cooperation, we support the Code as it now stands for the good interest of humanity at large.

J. GLISTRUP (Denmark): Mr Chairman in complying with your ruling, I wish in particular to comment on the Draft Code of Conduct concerning pesticides, but before doing so allow me to express the satisfaction of my delegation with the way in which the Eighth Session of COAG was conducted. Most delegations present were highly qualified experts, thanks to whom the debate was conducted in a technical, professional and constructive manner. In our view this is most stimulating for the participating delegations and, above all, for the FAO Secretariat.

Turning to the Draft International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides, my delegation wishes to express its acceptance of the text as presented to the Council.

Like you my delegation is somewhat confused by the many amendments proposed. Some of them I am prepared to accept straightaway; others I am not in a position to evaluate here. We would not like to turn the Council into a drafting committee. I am sure that the proposals made were in a constructive spirit and as such will be useful to the Secretariat.

Therefore, I will confine myself to stating that my government fully supports the initiatives and efforts made by FAO in this field. In this respect I would like to mention that the Danish Minister for the Environment in several international fora has stressed the considerable need for the exchange of information concerning international trade in pesticides.

In our view the text now presented to us satisfies one of the main purposes of the Code, which is to assist developing countries which do not have appropriate administrative and organizational infrastructure to better cope with imports, distribution and handling of pesticides. In order to provide this assistance initiatives are required of governments, international organizations, industry and others. We believe that the Code provides a useful framework for creating maximum cooperation between these bodies.

My Government also notes with satisfaction that the Code now clearly stands as a voluntary document. Let me add, however, that in my country the major elements of the Code are already covered by our national legislation and to a certain extent by European Economic Community provisions.

In supporting the transmittal of the Draft Code of Conduct to the Council my delegation would also support the proposal that the observance of the Code be monitored with a view to discussing the possible revision of the Code at a later stage. In conclusion, my delegation hopes that the Code of Conduct may be a first step towards solving problems with the distribution and use of pesticides.

LE PRESIDENT: Je remercie le Danemark pour cette proposition très constructive et très sage et j'espère que cela aura un certain effet sur l'assemblée.


J. GARCIA DEL CASTILLO (España): Primeramente mi felicitación a usted, Sr. Presidente, por ocupar tan dignamente en este momento la presidencia del Consejo. Felicito igualmente al Dr. Bommer Dor la presentación clara y exhaustiva de los documentos que nos han sido presentados. Damos la maxima importancia al documento CL 87/9 relativo al Informe del octavo período de sesiones del Comité de Agricultura y estamos, en su conjunto, plenamente de acuerdo.

Siguiendo su recomendación voy a ser breve en mi declaración. Respecto al Código Internacional de Conducta para la Distribución y Utilización de Plaguicidas, hemos oído con el máximo interés las observaciones propuestas por algunas delegaciones y consideramos que algunas de ellas serán tenidas en cuenta por la Secretaría para la definitiva redacción del documento. Por tanto vemos con el máximo interés y valor el proyecto de Código que se ha presentado al Consejo.

J.R. LOPEZ PORTILLO (Mexico): Agradecemos al Dr. Bommer por la excelente presentación de este tema. La delegación mexicana de manera breve, pero firme, desea expresar su apoyo al Código Internacional de Conducta para la Distribución y Utilización de Plaguicidas, como ya lo hizo durante el Comité de Agricultura recientemente celebrado.

Considera que es indispensable la existencia'de un instrumento que trate de regular este insumo que debe permitir evitar perdidas en las cosechas y con ello coadyuvar a la producción agrícola, pero que también debe evitar perdidas humanas y afecciones graves o permanentes en quienes lo usan y manejan o entre consumidores que ingieren productos contaminados y coadyuvar a la vez a evitar trabas en la comercialización de productos agrícolas de los países en desarrollo. Si bien es cierto que hay grandes intereses económicos detrás de este asunto, también es cierto que es importante y fundamental el principio de convivencia que consiste en tratar a los otros como quisieran ser tratados.

En los países en desarrollo la mayor parte de plaguicidas son producidos por empresas transnacionales o proveniente de transferencias de patentes en desuso debido a los riesgos que implicaban a los países de origen en donde se comprobó su efecto en perdidas de vidas, enfermedades o malformaciones, generalmente irreversibles o transmisibles.

El Código lo consideramos débil porque no identifica responsabilidad material y ni siquiera moral de las empresas y los gobiernos que favorecen la situación actual y carece de precisiones sobre cierta terminología empleada, definiciones y otros elementos constitutivos que a nuestro juicio sería importante corregir. Destacamos en particular la propuesta del delegado de Colombia de for-talacer el párrafo 3 de las recomendaciones, cambiando los párrafos 12.6 y 12.7 sobre la observancia del Código y su examen periódico.

Sin embargo mi delegación como lo han hecho muchas otras, no insistirá en reformar el texto para fortalecerlo porque entendemos que esta version es el resultado de largos tratados y transacciones. Como se ha mencionado también, muchas delegaciones han propuesto cambios al texto del Proyecto. Cada quien parece tener un Proyecto propio y distinto y así como la Comunidad Económica Europea, por ejemplo, tuvo la oportunidad de hacer una gran cantidad de cambios, igualmente otras organizaciones similares podrían formular cambios. Los de la Comunidad, a nosotros nos parecen inaceptables en los futuros tratamientos de este Proyecto de Código. Sin embargo todas las delegaciones que han hablado han aceptado el dialogo. Las observaciones correspondientes podrían, por tanto, aparecer en el Informe de nuestro Consejo como se ha propuesto por el delegado de Colombia y dejar el texto de este Proyecto como esta para que pase por consenso a la Conferencia. La Secretaría de la FAO en ultima instancia podría estudiar las correcciones de terminología y aquellas técnicas que sean fácilmente incorporables y que mejoren el texto sin debilitarlo.

Nosotros consideramos que esta es la mejor manera de contribuir a este debate y de que este Código pase a la Conferencia para su discusión y que tenga este tratamiento un efecto constructivo.

P. ALLEYNE (Trinidad and Tobago): The delegation of Trinidad and Tobago wishes to convey our appreciation of the total effort involved in the evaluation of the draft Code on such a very important matter. It is virtually impossible to maintain current levels of agricultural production, much less to move on to the higher levels at which we aim, without the use of pesticides.

My delegation considers it necessary to add our voice to some of the previous speakers in commenting briefly at least on Article 9.6. We are also very much concerned at the wording which suggests after "control action", "it must always be possible" to provide this very critical information to the importing country. We feel that this flexibility is potentially dangerous if left to what may well prove to be an unscrupulous administration. We already have the voluntary aspect of this Code emphasized in Article 4, where it is to be noted that "Pesticide manufacturers are expected to", not that they "must", ensure testing of their products along scientific lines. However, perhaps we have to live with that for the time being if we are to arrive at adoption of the draft.


This aspect of the Code (and I refer again to 9.6) we feel cannot be ignored, because every so often what is involved is human life and at times serious damage to the environment which can take a considerable length of time to correct. In this regard, the proposal of the Philippine and some other delegations to eliminate that particular section of the Article which begins "but it is recognized ..." and concludes "... the product in question.", or the whole of the sentence, must,we think, be given serious consideration.

In a more general sense, interventions on this particular item indicate clearly that there is real concern from some delegations. The situation is such that your skill as Chairman and the accumulated wisdom and expertise of the Secretariat must be fully utilized in attempting to mould a document which could be accepted by the largest number, if not by all, of the delegations at the November Conference.

LE PRESIDENT: Avec la permission du Conseil, je voudrais donner la parole au représentant de Madagascar qui a le statut d'observateur mais qui ne pourra pas participer plus tard à nos travaux. Donc, avec votre permission, je lui donne la parole.

R. RABE (Observateur de Madagascar): Je vous remercie, Monsieur le Président. La délégation malgache est heureuse de vous voir présider l'examen de ce point très important de notre ordre du jour. Nous vous remercions de nous avoir donné l'occasion d'apporter notre modeste contribution à vos travaux.

Notre délégation adresse ses félicitations au Secrétariat pour la qualité du document soumis à notre examen. M. Bommer par ailleurs en fait une présentation très brillante. L'actuelle version du document du Code est vraiment le fruit de l'esprit de synthèse, du savoir-faire et de la persévérance du Secrétariat. Elle a fait l'objet d'amples et profondes consultations. Vous-même, Monsieur le Président, vous avez signalé qu'il s'agit là de la huitième version de ce document.

Pour notre part, nous déclarons d'entrée de jeu que nous appuyons sans réserve ce projet de Code pour les raisons suivantes qui sont d'ailleurs loin d'être exhaustives. D'abord, le projet qui nous est soumis rencontre dans sa forme actuelle l'avis favorable, sinon de la quasi-totalité, du moins de la majorité des Etats membres. Dans son élaboration, il a été tenu grandement compte des avis et recommandations des organismes non gouvernementaux, des fabricants et des industriels intéressés par les pesticides. Notre pays ne dispose pas encore de réglementation adéquate et de système de contrôle approprié, il a donc grand besoin de ce Code de conduite. Nous apportons notre plein appui à ce projet, car nous avons encore présents à l'esprit les graves accidents ayant occa- sionné d ' importantes pertes de vies humaines dans certains pays comme l'Inde. Aussi, à notre sens, il serait mal à propos de ne pas être ferme, de chercher à rendre ambiguës certaines dispositions déjà pertinentes de ce document.

Il est absolument indispensable d'éviter que les catastrophes précédentes se reproduisent à nouveau. L'objectif de la FAO est de donner la possibilité à tout être humain de manger à sa faim. Cependant, les voies et moyens utilisés pour atteindre ce noble objectif ne doivent en aucune façon hypothéquer l'avenir de l'homme, porter atteinte à sa santé et à son bien-être. C'est la raison pour laquelle le Secrétariat a eu l'heureuse initiative de ce Code.

Nous aussi nous aurions souhaité que le Code contienne des dispositions plus rigoureuses dans plusieurs de ses articles, notamment à l'article 9, et qu'il soit un peu plus élaboré pour satisfaire surtout les petits paysans en tenant compte de leur niveau encore peu élevé de technicité. Mais nous sommes convaincus que des amendements appropriés peuvent lui être apportés lors de sa mise en application effective.

Aussi, à notre sens, y a-t-il lieu de l'adopter sans perdre de temps, afin de pouvoir le mettre en oeuvre dans les plus brefs délais.

P. PIOTET (France): Lors de la réunion de la huitième session du Comité de l'agriculture, la délégation française avait donné son accord aux grandes lignes du projet de Code international de conduite pour la distribution et l'utilisation des pesticides, en se réservant toutefois de présenter au Conseil quelques observations de détail après examen approfondi du document par les administrations françaises concernées.

La délégation française mesure toute l'importance du sujet dont nous traitons aujourd'hui. Il s'agit là d'un problème complexe sur les plans technique et économique. Il s'agit surtout d'un aspect du développement agricole tout à fait essentiel pour l'homme, sa santé et son environnement.


Complexe, le problème de la bonne utilisation des pesticides l'est également en raison de la multiplicité des intervenants: fabricants, exportateurs, importateurs, distributeurs, utilisateurs, tous ont une responsabilité spécifique à assumer. L'un des principaux mérites du Code est précisément, aux yeux de la délégation française, de fixer clairement les responsabilités de chacun; celles des exportateurs ne sont pas les mêmes de celles des importateurs. Il est essentiel que chacun puisse assumer pleinement ses propres responsabilités. Il est essentiel aussi, et le Code y incite, que tous les intervenants coopèrent pour une utilisation plus satisfaisante des pesticides.

La France pour sa part est toute disposée à coopérer pour la réalisation, par les importateurs, de recherches et expérimentations leur permettant de définir les caractéristiques optimales des pesticides dont ils ont besoin. En ce qui concerne le texte même du projet de Code, la délégation française fait siennes toutes les observations du représentant de la Communauté européenne.

D. MARSICO (Argentina): El Código es para nosotros aceptable, evidentemente puede ser perfectible; pero creemos que debía ser adoptado en esta reunión. Es en el fondo una base de regulación muy válida para el empleo de estos productos. Argentina tiene bastante experiencia en este tema y tiene además una reglamentación a nivel nacional para el uso de pesticidas que encuadra prácticamente dentro de este proyecto de Código.

Sin embargo, tenemos algunas dudas y las expresamos con el deseo de que su espíritu sea tenido en

cuenta por quienes redacten el proyecto final. Nuestra preocupación se centra en el carácter o

nivel de compromiso, por voluntario que ello sea, que debiera señalarse concretamente por una parte al país productor y exportador y por otra al que lo emplea.

Parece, a través de una lectura general del Código, que el país que importa debiera estar preparado para recibir una serie de productos tóxicos para el hombre y para el medio y también estar preparado para adoptar rápidamente y exhaustivamente una serie de medidas para poder usarlos sin riesgo. Sabemos que esto no es prácticamente posible; muchos países en desarrollo, y aun otros, ante la creciente y continua aparición de productos de este tipo no están organizados o no están tampoco en condiciones de organizarse rápidamente para armar por sí solos un sistema de prevención de defensa y de control. Por eso pensamos que conviene tener más en cuenta en la redacción final que debiera hacer la Secretaría, la necesidad de que a quienes producen y exportan se les indique una serie de conductas destinadas a informar con mayor precisión a los gobiernos de los países adquirentes sobre el empleo de esos productos y de sus riesgos.

Esto no es sólo válido para los países en desarrollo, sino también para otros ante la enorme avalancha de nuevos productos potencialmente cada vez más activos, más destructibles e incapaces de eliminar residuos, lo que obliga a mantener una eficiencia actualizada en todos nosotros.

Finalmente, creemos que el texto propuesto debe ser aprobado ya por consenso, con la expresa opinión de que se tenga en cuenta las observaciones expuestas, en la medida que ello sea posible, y siempre que las mismas vayan dirigidas a incluir mayores exigencias para quienes producen y exportan estos productos en relación con los países que los emplean, pues son aquéllos, en definitiva, quienes están en el origen de estos problemas.

J. D. AITKEN (United Kingdom): The Government of the United Kingdom welcomes this voluntary Code. The Director-General and the Secretariat are to be congratulated for their initiative in presenting this proposal. My Government places considerable importance on the safe handling, storage and use of pesticides. In Britain we have a long established system of laws and regulations covering this subject.

We welcome recognition in the discussion of the Code that these are issues which should be appropriately dealt with by national legislation, and some existing national legislation is more rigorous than the Code. I listened with considerable sympathy to the comments about the difficulty of obtaining information and using the information on pesticides which were made by, among others, the distinguished Delegate of Pakistan. We have long appreciated these problems and under our aid programme we fund a scientific unit which has the specific task of advising developing countries on all aspects of pesticide management and use. Under our aid programme we also provide specialist advisers and training courses in Britain and overseas concerning the safe storage, handling and use of pesticides. We would be very happy to collaborate with FAO in our programme to make these services as widely available as possible.

Turning now to the text before us, our position on the text of the Code is similar to that of the Delegation of France. We generally approve the text but we must reserve our right to comment and propose amendments to the final text which may be sent to Conference. At this stage we have no additional comments on the substance of the operational paragraphs of the draft but we believe there remains a need to improve some of the definitions to avoid confusion. First, on page 4 we consider that the. phrase "maximum residue limit" using initial "MRL" should not be used in this FAO text because the same phrase is used in the Codex Alimentarius in which it has a different meaning. We suggest that instead the term "maximum residue permitted" is used.


Secondly, we consider the definition of "residue" should contain a reference to timber since residues in timber have been known to affect people living in timber houses.

We also notice some inconsistencies of languages between the English and French texts but we feel that these can be covered in a written comment which we will send to the Secretariat. Finally, we would like to support your proposal that the Secretariat should let us have a paper clearly summarizing the proposed amendments.

MAME BALLA SY (Senegal): Monsieur le Président, je vous avais soumis une proposition que vous aviez agréée qui était d'inviter le Président du Groupe des 77, à la demande de mon pays et peut-être d'autres pays également, et avec la permission des membres du Conseil, à venir nous donner son avis. Je voudrais simplement réitérer cette proposition.

LE PRESIDENT: Je donnerai donc la parole au représentant de la Thaïlande et je donnerai ensuite la parole au représentant de la Libye en tant que représentant du Groupe des 77.

C. SUVIPAKIT (Thailand): My delegation attended the Committee on Agriculture and would like to endorse the report of this Committee. I will confine myself to the topic under discussion, the draft International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides. We would associate ourselves with the delegations of Philippines and Indonesia. We see that the intention of the importing country must be protected. However, we must make clear at the beginning that we endorse the draft Code in the present form. What we would like to request is that the Director-General in the future revision would also take into account the revision of Article 9, which we agree with the Philippine delegation should eliminate the last sentence of Article 9.6.

B. SAID (Chairman, Group of 77) (Original language Arabic): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have been called upon by the members of the Group of 77 to intervene on their behalf. Some of them have seen that discussion on this Code is not satisfactory. It we go back a little, this issue has been discussed in the COAG Session and the Group of 77 at that time indicated its wish that all would reach a consensus on the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides.

In spite of the fact that many of us see this Code should be strengthened in formulation and should be more precise, however by a spirit of understanding and cooperation with the other group we found that it would be appropriate to accept this Code, and the Director-General since that session has taken the initiative, taking into consideration all the discussions that took place in the COAG Session, in order for the Council to accept the Code unanimously or by consensus.

However, we find that some wish to reopen discussion on this issue. Therefore the Council will be turned into a COAG or into a drafting committee, and if we follow this path, this session will take one month or even more. The Group of 77, taking into consideration all the statements and interventions by the various members sees the following: the Secretariat has exerted an effort which should be commended and it has taken into consideration the various viewpoints which have been expressed by the various heads of delegations through the previous sessions of COAG, and this Code in the present form represents the goodwill, away from the law of the jungle, in the. manufacturing and marketing of pesticides on the one hand and the continuation of the spread of toxic materials all over the world on the other.

The second point is that the matter relates to morals, and ideals, and it relates also to the health of man and the safety of the environment. It also relates to our life and to our food. Our life is exposed to hazards and the tragic events which took place in some of our countries is ample proof of this. The third point; the Code in its present form is a declaration of the basic principles and it is a gentleman's agreement between the concerned parties. It respects fully the right of sovereignty for each country to formulate its own regulations and legislations, and it constitutes a general framework and a reference to be guided within our national regulations. It regulates the relationship between the producer and the consumer, and consequently will create a kind of confidence between them, and for the benefit of all. Four: The Group of 77 which represents the developing and affected countries, those that are affected by the use of pesticides will not be able to condone what is taking place now.

It is time for the Organization to put this Code into practice. Therefore the Group of 77 is of the view that the Code should be approved and endorsed in a spirit of understanding and cooperation and not to continue this futile exercise, and to accept it in its present form, noting in our report the observations that have been presented by some delegations, like Philippines and other delegations.


LE PRESIDENT: Je comprends votre état d'esprit, mais je pense malheureusement, que les discussions qui se passent actuellement sont appropriées. Elles ne sont peut-être pas opportunes, mais appropriées certainement parce que nous sommes en présence d'un Code de conduite et les différentes délégations ont le droit de manifester leur avis. Il est vrai qu'il y a un consensus général sur la nécessité d'adopter ce Code, mais je pense qu'il faut quand même donner une chance aux délégations pour manifester leur point de vue à ce sujet. Moi, j'espère toujours que comme résultat de ces discussions nous pourrons dégager le terrain de bien des amendements et confier au Secrétariat le soin d'apporter, sans édulcorer le texte, certains perfectionnements et certaines améliorations à ce texte.

J.S. MTENGA (Tanzania): I like the way you put it, Mr Chairman, that the Secretariat should put the finishing touches where they deem it fit. A lot of effort has been exerted in bringing about the Code of Conduct now under discussion. This is an attempt by the Secretariat to see the Code through to its logical end.

Many amendments suggested here today are aimed at making the present Code perfect before it comes into force. Unfortunately, nothing man-made is perfect. If this state of affairs prevailed elsewhere no single agreement, no single convention, code or whatever would be possible, that means would be implemented. Why should this Code of Conduct be the first of its kind in that regard?

It is the view of my delegation that many of the amendments are aimed at delaying the implementation of this Code which the world has long been waiting for. My delegation therefore humbly submits that the only logical step to take now is to implement the Code of Conduct as presented and to improve it further should the need arise in the future.

My delegation therefore supports the views given by many previous speakers here that the draft be sent to the Conference in its present form. Of course the Secretariat should feel free to incorporate any positive views arising out of our discussion that they think will improve the text that they will present to the Conference. Points like the one raised by the delegate of Philippines arising out of Article 9.6 are obvious. These are the kind of improvements that should go into it, because we have to be specific and not leave it to individual nations to do as they wish. This time they say they release a pesticide which has been banned in their own countries and then they say, "It was not possible to inform you, so unfortunately we sent you a poisonous pesticide that will kill people". We cannot allow this genocide to go on. So such an improvement is essential.

I close my statement by saying, "The death of your neighbour is your death; the sorrow of your neighbour is your sorrow". This is exactly what this Code is meant to be.

C. KAREKEZI (Rwanda): La délégation rwandaise a examiné le document du code international de conduite pour la distribution et l'utilisation des pesticides. Elle est satisfaite de constater qu'il a été sagement révisé par la FAO pour essayer d'obtenir un compromis de la part de ce Conseil. Aussi ma délégation soutient l'adoption de ce document sans modification. S'agissant des modifications de forme elles peuvent être confiées au Secrétariat.

Mme. M. LOURDES DUARTE (Observateur du Cap-Vert): La délégation de mon pays voudrait avant tout féliciter le Secrétariat et le Dr. Bommer pour la présentation du document CL 87/9 et ensuite elle tient à réaffirmer son appui au projet de Code international de conduite pour la distribution et l'utilisation des pesticides.

A.J.M. OOMEN (Observer for Netherlands): The Netherlands are very much in favour of an International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides. We think that although the general spirit which it is reflecting is a very positive step towards a future global agreement on this very important issue, it can still be improved. Pesticides can contribute in an essential way to the benefit of mankind but they can also damage man and the environment. It is with that in view that the Netherlands made several proposals during the last COAG session. In the Netherlands it is felt that notification of environmentally hazardous substances should be made both to the national authorities and the authorities of the countries to which the substance or preparation is to be exported prior to the date of export. At this time and from this observer's seat I will not insist on further changes or amendments from our side, but I want to express the serious interest of the Netherlands in this Code, also recently expressed in our national Parliament, and I declare that we give full support to the amendments with the justifications made this afternoon by the representative of the European Economic Community.


On several other points the Netherlands would prefer more restrictive formulations hut we do not think it is of any use to discuss it once again at this moment. We think that after a couple of years we can evaluate the Code and I hope that we will agree upon this now. Therefore we want to make it clear that especially the point of reviewing and updating the Code, as suggested by the representative of the Philippines and also the European Economic Community, has our strong support. We do not want to dictate anything to anyone, nor try to write a new Code, but we want a good Code which can be accepted by as many countries and organizations as possible.

T.F.F. MALUZA (Observer for Zambia): As happened with the Global Early Warning System and the early warnings and alarms of the food crisis in Africa, the Director-General of FAO has again come up with a timely suggestion in proposing the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides. My delegation fully supports the Code, not only because it will help several human and animal lives but also because of its check on the effects on the environment. My delegation would wish that the Code might have been stronger, but due to the spirit of consensus we accept the Code as it is. Of course we would accommodate any improvements which could be made to the Code as a result of the deliberations of this Council today. Be that as it may, my delegation feels that pesticides which are banned in the country of origin should not be exported to Third World countries who might have limited understanding of the pros and cons of the drug in question and who might not have remedial action to counter its effects on humans, animals or the environment. Anyway, Article 9.3 on page 11 is acceptable to us as it is.

My delegation also supports the need to monitor the acceptance of the Code and that the subject of monitoring requirements should be placed on the agenda for the 1985 FAO Conference, as in document CL 87/9. My delegation agrees with what was said by the delegate of Canada earlier on this subject with the acceptance and implementation of this Code, the need for research and human resource training in the use of pesticides should have been intensified. The Director-General is best equipped to see this realised and my delegation requests FAO to start working on this subject. My delegation requests this august house to accept this Code and to pass it on to the Conference in November this year for adoption and ultimate implementation of its principles.

P. WIESMANN (Observer for Switzerland): I would like to state that Switzerland attaches very great importance to the adoption of such a code. We can endorse fully what the delegate of the Netherlands explained.

As we are not part of the EEC, may I be permitted to make a few suggestions, and I hope they will not weaken the text but rather make it more comprehensive and wider. My delegation would like to propose the following: at the end of the introduction chapter we would like to add the following sentence: "Article 9 on information exchange does not interfere with procedures and provisions laid down in the UNEP scheme for banned or severely restricted chemicals, nor replace them". Then Article 9 would read as follows: after "should notify" we should say "in conformity with UNEP notification scheme for banned or severely restricted chemicals".

We would like to propose a small alteration in Article 4.4. We suggest the Article should begin as follows: "International organizations with the support of governments of exporting countries must play ..." etc.

Mrs A. BERGQUIST (Observer for Sweden): At the. COAG meeting we have stated already our strong support for a code of conduct on pesticides. At that time we accepted the text before us, and now, like others, my delegation supports the redrafted text prepared by the Secretariat.

Like the Danish delegation, my delegation supports the suggestion that the observance of the Code be monitored with a view to possible revision at a later stage.

Mme M.T. GUICCIARDI (Observateur de la Confédération internationale des syndicats libres); Monsieur le Président, la Confédération internationale des syndicats libres, et la Fédération internationale des travailleurs des plantations, de l'agriculture et de secteurs connexes (FITPASC) apprécient la décision de la FAO d'établir un Code International de Conduite pour la Distribution et l'Utilisation des Pesticides.


Nous exprimons notre inquiétude au sujet des graves menaces pour la vie et la santé, causées par l'utilisation de produits chimiques dangereux, en augmentation au cours des dernières années, et en raison de l'absence de mesures adéquates pour la santé et la sécurité. Par conséquent l'action de la FAO est très souhaitable. Il est important que les syndicats soient mentionnés parmi les institutions nommées par le code, article 1.4 et, parmi ces organisations, celles qui devraient veiller à l'observation du code. Nous croyons toutefois que la publicité - article 11 - devrait être une responsabilité des gouvernements et des industries.

Aussi, nous vous proposons que l'introduction à l'article 11,1 soit: "l'industrie et les gouvernements devraient veiller à ce que la CISL et le PITPASC expriment leur appui complet à l'initiative de la FAO" avec l'espoir que le code soit approuvé par le Conseil et adopté à l'unanimité par la Conférence biennale en novembre 1985.

J. HUISMANS (United Nations Environment Programme): Over the past several years we have worked closely with FAO and the Secretariats of other internationa organizations of the United Nations

system on the gradual development of the Code. From the UNEP point of view we have particularly ensured that requirements with reference to information exchanged, as developed under the Code, were consistent with other mechanisms and procedures being developed in the United Nations Environment Programme and elsewhere in the United Nations system at the request of governments.

UNEP is happy to see that the draft Code is now nearing adoption, and that although not all parties are fully satisfied with its actual contents, this unique new deal will now be put into practice by all parties involved to the best of their capabilities.

Article 9 of the draft Code covering information exchange specifically on banned and severely restricted pesticides is consistent with the requirements of the provisional notification scheme on banned and severely restricted chemicals adopted by our Governing Council in May 1984. Our Secretariat, in particular the International Register of Potentially Toxic Chemicals, now works closely with governments in implementing the provisional notification scheme. Approximately 60 governments have already taken steps to ensure their effective participation. Therefore, it would be useful if paragraph 9.1 could carry a reference to the existence of the scheme. At the same time, this would also accommodate the comments made, inter alia, by the delegates of India and Canada.

The Governing Council of UNEP requested an evaluation report on the provisional notification scheme, and on problems and difficulties experienced in this particular field. The report will have to be submitted to the Governing Council at its Fourteenth Session in 1987. We will ensure that at this period close contacts will be maintained with the Secretariat of the FAO on this matter should governments decide to adopt the Code in its present form.

I will provide the Secretariat of the FAO with the precise text of the additional reference which I have just proposed if such an addition would be acceptable to the Council. I will also leave with the Secretariat of FAO a limited number of copies of the provisional notification scheme and other related papers in case delegates would like to see relevant details. I am grateful for being given the opportunity to speak on this particular item.

A. YILALA (Observer for Ethiopia).: My delegation would like to thank Dr Bommer for his excellent review and summary, and the Secretariat for its untiring effort in producing this document for the eighth time.

The Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides in its present form is a good start, and can be improved as and when required if it is found to be difficult to adhere to. As it now stands we have no such thing as an international label and thus I see the millions of rural poor who may be using pesticides adding this hazard to poverty and hunger. Our objective should be to minimize the danger. We sincerely believe we would be better with the Code as it is presented rather than without it. Therefore, we would accept this Code as it is for submission to the Conference and we congratulate the Director-General and FAO for their efforts and initiative.

LE PRESIDENT: Je donne la parole au représentant de Sao Tomé-et-Principe qui me demande l'autorisation de s'exprimer en portugais.

T.D. DA COSTA (Sao Tomé-et-Principe) (langue originale portugaise): Je dois dire que je suis limité à la langue portugaise car je parle très peu le français et l'anglais, c'est la raison pour laquelle j'ai demandé de m'exprimer en portugais.


Je voudrais tout d'abord donner mon plein appui au document présenté par le Secrétariat et nous voudrions féliciter ce Secrétariat de nous avoir présenté un excellent travail dont l'importance est reconnue par tous.

Nous savons que l'idée est d'accroître la production agricole et nous pensons que ce code, pour la distribution et l'utilisation des pesticides; est particulièrement vital, Nous veillerons tous à ce que ce code soit respecté} si adopté. Nous devons également veiller à ce que les objectifs de ce code soient effectivement atteints.

La délégation de Sao Tomé-et-Principe propose l'adoption de ce document et nous souhaitons qu'il soit appliqué.

LE PRESIDENT: Je remercie le représentant de Sao Tomé-et-Principe.

Il y a deux organisations qui ont l'intention de faire des déclarations conjointes, Il s'agit du Centre de liaison pour l'environnement et de l'Organisation internationale des unions de consommateurs.

S. MUCAIRU (Observer of the Environment Liaison Center and the International Organization of Consumer's Unions): I make this statement on behalf of two organizations, the International Organization of Consumer's Unions and the Environment Liaison Center, representative of two of the international organizations of the kind mentioned in the Code in Article 1.4. We represent hundreds of organizations and many thousands of consumers world-wide and share a common concern about the harmful effects of misuse and over-use of pesticides.

The reason for our concern is that our members are often the ones who suffer; they take their fair share of the risks of pesticides in terms of health and the environment. While we recognize that pesticide use is necessary for increasing food production, we are also aware that they are often widely used for cash crops which are of little direct benefit to those whose work it is to apply the pesticides. Therefore, we strongly support the Code as a necessary and sincere attempt to increase confidence in the use of pesticides, and hope for its early adoption.

As participants in the community of Non-governmental Organizations as mentioned in Article 12.1 we will be closely involved in publishing and monitoring the observance of the Code. Indeed, the nongovernmental community already plays an important part in disseminating information through educational material on the safe use of pesticides and alternative methods of pest control.

If I may digress for a moment, I would like to welcome most warmly the remarks of the Chairman, Dr Swaminathan, in an earlier session on the necessity for closer involvement in FAO programmes of the voluntary organizations, particularly farmers'groups. We also deeply appreciate the recognition by other delegates of the need to involve Non-governmental Organizations in the process of observing and publicizing the Code of Conduct. We will do our best to galvanize the Nongovernmental Organizations to become active where necessary.

However, we feel we must register our disappointment that the Code does not go further towards meeting our concern. In particular, we believe that Article 9 was weakened in the later draft by the deletion of the clause in relation to informed consent prior to export. This provision in the Code would have encouraged exporting countries to discharge their responsibility in this area and would have led to enhancing their status as responsible trading partners. Therefore, we strongly support the proposal of the delegate of the Philippines and others for a review of the provisions in Article 9.

Finally, we associate ourselves with the statements made earlier by the ICFTU and UNEP. Consumers and environmentalists around the world should cooperate with the objectives and implementation of this Code.

LE PRESIDENT : Nous avons terminé avec les interventions et à ce point des travaux je voudrais prier M.L. Brader, Directeur de la Division de la Production et de la Protection des Plantes des'exprimer sur les amendements qui ont été présentés pour voir comment nous pourrions les affronter. Je crois que c'est la façon la plus rapide et la plus efficace pour faire faire un grand pas en avant à ce code. Je pense que la solution la meilleure serait de confier au Secrétariat tous les amendements qui ont d'ailleurs un caractère purement grammatical, de traduction ou technique, aussi bien que les amendements qui ont pour but d'améliorer et d'éclaircir certaines parties du texte. Nous pourrons également voir les amendements qui posent réellement des problèmes.


L. BRADER (Director, Plant Production and Protection Division): I would like to comment on the technical aspects of the various comments made, but before doing so I would like to point out that the text of the Code now before the Council was prepared in line with the recommendations of COAG asking the Director-General to take comments into consideration and to take such initiatives as he deems favourable to achieving a consensus in the Council. The Council is aware that the Secretariat has carried out a very careful review of the earlier amendments made, and the Director-General had subsequently decided to include certain of those changes which were of a non-substantial nature and which would not change the objectives of the Code or would not weaken the Code.

In that respect I would also like to draw the attention of the Council to the fact that we have been working jointly with you and with various organizations represented here since 1981 on this matter. The very first draft of this Code was written about November 1981, so we are almost at the fourth anniversary. Since then there have been expert meetings, interagency discussions, and each country has been individually asked for comments. Those comments were taken into full consideration when the eighth draft was prepared for submission to the Committee on Agriculture. In fact, it could be said that you have the ninth draft before you. It is, therefore, the feeling of the Director-General that we may put all these efforts at risk and defeat the purpose of the Code if we now start introducing again very substantial changes.

It is with these thoughts in mind that I would like to comment on the various matters raised by the Council. Before doing so, I would like to stress that I suppose that the various constructive proposals will be included by the Drafting Committee in the Report in order to serve as a basis for matters that have to be taken into consideration by monitoring the implementation of the Code. As has been said, the Code should be regularly updated.

Mr Chairman, you and some of the delegates present have called the Code a living document. I think this debate has proved it. Various delegations who made comment three, four months ago are now coming up with new ones, and on one or two occasions some of the proposals made three months ago by certain delegations are now being revised by the same delegations again. In that sense I see I am fully in line with the Representative of Colombia if he starts discussing the Code again. Let me briefly attempt on an Article-by-Article basis to give our technical ideas on some of these suggestions made.

First of all, with respect to the Draft Resolution, a very specific textual change was proposed by the delegate of India. This was to put number 3 of the recommendations more in line with Article 12.6 and 12.7 of the Code. This proposal by India was supported by Lebanon, Colombia and Mexico. I feel that on the technical point of view it indeed stresses this recommendation because it gives a much clearer definition of what the Director-General exactly should do with respect to the monitoring of the implementation of the Code.

The delegations of the United States and the EEC made a proposal to refer in this recommendation also to the budgetary implications. I feel from a technical point of view that this takes some attention away from the objectives of this recommendation and is probably somewhat out of context, and could perhaps be better handled in the report of the Council. Of course, that is up to the Drafting Committee.

If I have noted all of the comments correctly, there have not been substantial proposals with respect to the introduction to the various Articles. I would like, however, to remind the Council that it is also said in the introduction that the Code is voluntary in nature. But I can see the point that it might be useful, at least in Article I, to refer again to that voluntary aspect because these Articles might sometimes be read apart from the introduction. In that context, from a technical point of view, I feel that the proposal as made by the United States of America might be a useful one by introducing the word "voluntary" before the word "standards". I agree in that respect with the delegate of Senegal that the proposal of the EEC might not be technically a very positive one.

On Article 1.2 the EEC delegate asked that specific reference be made to groupings of States. I would like to draw his attention to Article 12.1 where it is clearly stated that the Code "should be observed through collaborative action among delegates, individually or in regional groupings". It would seem to me that this takes care of the suggestion that he made.

The observer from the World Federation of Trade Unions requested that specific reference be made to trade unions. Trade unions are mentioned as the last two words in Article 1.4.

We have a specific recommendation from the United States and from the EEC to make it quite clear in Article 1.6 that the Code is designed to be used within the context of national law. It seems to me that this will strengthen the Code and make the text much clearer.


We have received comments on the Definitions. I will abstain from commenting here in the Council on every detail of them. When we have received the comments in writing, we will review them very carefully, see how they fit and if they are indeed positive and could help to strengthen these recommendations. I would like to comment, however, that virtually all of these definitions come from internationally agreed documents with the exception of the definitions on Banned and Severely Restricted. I feel that there should be definitions on Banned and Severely Restricted as there is often reference in the text of the Code to these two terms and it would be rather confusing not to give a definition, although not a currently generally accepted one. Perhaps the Code will set the example. I prefer not to go into detail on the other Definitions because I think we have to compare them with the written text and see how they fit in with the existing documents.

On Article 3 there was a comment from the delegate from Pakistan who would like to see Article 3.8 further strengthened on integrated pest management. It is my feeling that that Article is very straightforward, and I think it would dilute the overall content of the Code if it went into special aspects of integrated pest management. It seems to me that the approach of integrated pest management is well taken care of in the text as it stands here.

Going back to Article 2, I will say straightaway that the word "Registration" should be replaced by "Regulatory Action" because that gives a better sense of what is meant in this Article.

With respect to Article 4, it is suggested by the United States of America that Article 4.1.1 be changed so that the words "in regions or countries" be inserted after the word "conditions". From a technical point of view it is my opinion that this changes the meaning of this Article, and I would like to emphasize that this change, "efficacy in regions or countries where the proposed use would take place", was specifically inserted following discussions in COAG where certain developing countries insisted that the efficacy of compounds should be proved in the countries where the pesticides have to be applied. It is for that reason that we specifically added "regions or countries" after "efficacy". From a technical point of view I feel that the original text is better than the one proposed by the USA. I think that deals with Article 4. I have not noted any specific comments on Article 5, Article 6 or Article 7.

We have received from the floor a number of comments on Article 8. In Article 8.1.4 India requests that the word "technical grade" before the word "pesticides". My technical appraisal is that it would improve the text to include all pesticides, formulated and non-formulated products.

We also have a proposal for Article 8.1.5 to modify the text and to write at the end of the Article "the host country and the parent country". I think that would better reflect what is needed and in that sense would be a technical strengthening of the text. I think I have dealt with the comments made on Article 8.

By far the most comments from the various delegations were on Article 9. We have from a number of delegations, including Canada if my memory is correct, India, and some others reference to that article. It was felt that it should be more specifically indicated here that this Article was consistent with the Provisional Modification Scheme for Banned and Severely Restricted Chemicals of UNEP. In fact, this Article is taken almost verbatim from that Provisional Modification Scheme, and it seems to me that the suggestion made by the delegate from UNEP would probably be the best one, that is, to make reference in this article to the fact that it comes from the Provisional Modification Scheme. The delegate for Canada proposed that we should widen this text and say that automatically every change in the Provisional Modification Scheme should be followed in this text. I feel that technically this is a somewhat delicate matter because it is difficult to say that every change will be adopted here without knowing what changes will come forward. It seems to me to go a little far, and particularly if we take into account that it has been proposed to regularly update the Code. I think it would be better to check with the already adopted Modification Scheme to determine if this Article is still in line.

It will certainly be appreciated very much if all of these various recommendations made could be submitted to us in writing by the various delegations. I hope you will accept my apologies that I have not been able to note every recommendation in every detail. It is certainly our intention to work very closely together on this matter of information exchange with The International Register of Potentially Toxic Chemicals.

Just a minor question in paragraph 9.3, where the word "import" was forgotten, and this was highlighted by the delegate for Cuba. I take it this needs no further comment.


Then we have this proposal from the delegate for the Philippines with respect to the change of text of para.. 9.6. Having listened carefully to the various comments made by various delegates, including the representative of the European Economic Community, it seems to me that this Article should probably be changed to the extent that the last line is taken out and also the words following "but it is recognized ..." - and indeed I feel that technically this might be an improvement. However, it is up to the Council at the end to see whether it is satisfied.

In the context of Article 10 a comment was made by the representative for Czechoslovakia that labels should be in the local language. I do not think that it is necessary to explicitly state that here, because it is clearly stated at the beginning that "All pesticide containers should be clearly labelled in accordance with applicable international guidelines, such as the FAO Guidelines ...". In fact, these guidelines stress very strongly the need for having these labels in local language, so it is not really necessary to include it again here.

On Article 11 we have a suggestion from the United States of America and also from the European Economic Community to change Article 11.2. Originally, Article 11.2 read "... call attention to violations of this Article." It was at the suggestion of certain delegations then changed to "... departures from this Article." It is now requested to "promote" - that "International organizations and public sector groups should promote the objectives." From a technical point of view, I feel that this weakens this article.

In this respect, I am sure that the Council is well aware that the international organizations and public sector groups have been very active in taking care of developments and noting certain practices that have occurred in the use of pesticides. In my opinion, the way the Article now stands best reflects what these groups could from a technical point of view contribute. I think that the word "promote" is a rather weak expression.

Article 12 - Monitoring the observance of the Code - in my opinion, from a technical point of view there is no problem with what I would call the editorial changes proposed by the United States of America in saying in 12.3 "irrespective- of other parties ability to observe the Code.", and to end the Article with "...to observe", and to add "the Code", as suggested by the United States.

We have also a comment from, I think, both the United States and the European Economic Community to widen somewhat Article 12.6 and 12.7, to make it more general - not so much drawing attention to the work only to be done by the Director-General. I would like to point out that it clearly says that FAO should do this in collaboration with all organizations, with Member Governments, United Nations Agencies, international organizations and Non-governmental Organizations.

In respect to this Article, I would also like to draw to the attention of the Council to the fact that right from the beginning when we started work on this Code of Conduct there has been an exchange of letters with the Heads of other UN Agencies, asking them what role they wished to play, and they asked FAO to take the leadership in this. In my opinion, from a technical point of view, if we leave this article open-ended no action might be taken at all and it may be very useful to know clearly which Agency takes the leadership and how it can do it, in order to make sure that the reporting of the observance of the Code is properly done. I hope that with that I have answered, and made some comments on, most of the comments made by the Council.

D.F.R. BOMMER (Assistant Director-General, Agriculture Department): On behalf of the Director-General I would like very briefly to thank the Council for this very constructive debate. As Dr Brader mentioned, we have gone a long way in preparing the text which we have been discussing, and your very wide-ranging and thorough discussion is taken very seriously by the Director-General. Your attempt to come closer to a full consensus - and often even the ideals of the Code - is well understood, but some of you have clearly said it will be difficult to reach an ideal, particularly in the first stage when we try to bring all Member Nations of the Organization together to adopt such an important Code.

There was overwhelming support for a need for the objectives of this Code, and I would say that you have also reached a consensus on the text, and and that this text should be presented to the Conference. There are certainly various ideas - as reflected by Dr Brader - for further improvements, which could be reflected in your report. Depending on your decision Mr Chairman, the Director-General could well look carefully into this together with the Secretariat to see in which way improvements - particularly in technical formulation - could still be reached, and even which wording is accepted, without destroying the existing consensus, in order to come up with the text which will make full use of all the positive proposals made during the debate.


I hope you can come to a good decision on this matter, Mr Chairman, because it would certainly not be wished by the Council, and certainly felt to be impossible by the Director-General, to have to go from one draft to another and then on to a ninth, or tenth or eleventh draft - we have to say "Yes, even if it is not ideal, let's adopt it." It will be monitored and under revision anyway - and probably the first monitoring report will be with the FAO Conference in 1987.

Le PRESIDENT : Je pense qu'après les évaluations faites par M. Bommer et par M. Brader nous pouvons avoir l'espoir de voir confirmé le consensus sur le texte du Code. La grande majorité des amendements qui ont été proposés ont bien souvent un caractère technique et positif en ce sens qu'ils éclaircissent la portée de certains articles et de certaines définitions.

Je pense, comme beaucoup de délégués l'ont dit, qu'il faudrait éviter de transformer cette assemblée en comité de rédaction. La méthode la plus utile serait de présenter au Secrétariat, dans un texte écrit, les propositions qui ont été faites, en faisant confiance au Secrétariat sur la possibilité d'intégrer ces propositions dans le texte qui sera transmis à la Conférence. De toute façon, c'est la Conférence qui devra approuver ce Code de conduite.

Donc, si vous en êtes d'accord, nous pourrions dès maintenant confirmer notre consensus sur le texte du Code en l'accompagnant par les suggestions que vous avez faites, et donner la tâche au Secrétariat et au Directeur général d'incorporer ces propositions, sans naturellement affaiblir le texte ou l'édulcorer, mais simplement en rendant plus claires certaines parties du texte. Je voudrais avoir l'avis du Conseil sur ce que je viens de proposer.

M. SUBRAMANIAN (India): May I congratulate you on summing up very succinctly and clearly the consensus of this Council as a result of the excellent and useful debate which we have had on the Code of Conduct. It is my privilege to support the proposal that you have made on the way in which we should deal with the subject before us, and I commend to my colleagues that we accept your proposal and approve it by acclamation.

Mame BALLA SY (Sénégal) : Je voudrais féliciter le Secrétariat pour les éclaircissements qui nous ont été donnés à la suite du débat intéressant que nous avons eu cet après-midi, et également reconnaître votre perspicacité dans la recherche d'une solution.

Je suis à peu près d'accord avec votre décision qui consiste à demander au Conseil d'adopter le texte du Code en mentionnant, dans le rapport de notre Conseil, les différentes propositions d'amélioration, et en invitant le Secrétariat à en tenir compte, dans la mesure où ces propositions ne traduiraient pas un affaiblissement du texte mais une amélioration. Donc ma délégation est d'accord pour l'adoption du texte, elle est d'accord pour que l'on tienne compte de toutes les observations dans le rapport, et elle est également d'accord pour que l'on recommande au Secrétariat, quand cela est techniquement possible et n'affaiblit pas davantage le texte, de tenir compte des observations.

LE PRESIDENT: Je voudrais assurer le représentant du Sénégal que jeme suis exprimé dans ce sens, nous donnons la tâche au Secrétariat et au Directeur général de considérer les amendements et les suggestions qui ont été présentés ici à la condition très nette qu'il s'agissait d'améliorer le texte, de le rendre plus clair et non de l'affaiblir. D'autre part, je voudrais rappeler aussi qu'il ne s'agit pas d'un code provisoire, il sera soumis à l'expérience^donc nous aurons toutes les possibilités dans un avenir très proche de revenir sur le fonctionnement de ce Code de conduite.

J.TCHICAYA (Congo): Je voudrais à mon tour féliciter le Secrétariat pour le tour de force qu'il vient de réussir. Je crois que lorsque je suis intervenu sur la question j'avais dit que les amendements étaient en grand nombre, un nombre tel que personnellement je ne m'y retrouvais plus, mais je constate que le Secrétariat a bien sérié toutes les questions et a répondu avec beaucoup d'à propos. Je crois que les réponses qu'il a pu donner ont convaincu ceux qui avaient présenté jesdits amendements et je voudrais également vous féliciter, Monsieur le Président, pour le résumé que vous venez de faire du débat, un résumé bref mais concis. Néanmoins, je voudrais exprimer mes inquiétudes sur ces renvois perpétuels, ces


demandes perpétuelles au Directeur général de remanier le texte pour tenir compte de tel ou tel amendement. Bien sûr cela est une bonne procédure mais je crois que ce que nous devons faire c'est de laisser les mains libres à présent au Directeur général pour qu'il puisse voir dans tous ces amendements ce qui peut être incorporé parce que je crois que lorsque l'on a bien suivi les amendements qui ont été proposés ici on ne peut pas dire qu'ils soient tous d'ordre technique. Je crois que ce serait se tromper. Il y a des amendements de fond qui ont pour objectif d'édulcorer le texte et je crois que nous devons ici dire d'une manière claire que nous n'accepterons pas que ce texte soit édulcoré ni affadi.

LE PRESIDENT: En effet il y a des amendements qui tendent à édulcorer mais il y en a d'autres qui tendent à renforcer le Code, donc il faut suivre une voie assez étroite.

H. CARANDANG (Philippines) : Mr Chairman, I think that you have made a conclusion that we can agree very well with. 1 think perhaps it is the only conclusion that the Council could arrive at. We can accept the text as you have proposed. Likewise we accept that Dr Brader has given us a rendering of what he thought technical and feasible and had the consensus of the group on the amendments that could be incorporated. I believe that we trust the wisdom of the Director-General in following what you have ruled, and with that I would conclude my remarks.

D.R. GREGORY (Australia): I think also I would like to join with the other delegations that have spoken before us in congratulating the Secretariat on what in fact has been a very difficult job over what has been quite a long time, and we have indicated that we see this sort of agreement, this Code, as having some significance, being of considerable benefit and use, considerable practical advantage, and I think we do have to recognize the difficulties that are involved in trying to bring together so many different shades of opinion, so many different interests involved. It is not just governments but other interests as well.

I think, of course, this sort of exercise requires quite a large degree of sensitivity and care, and I hope that the Secretariat has demonstrated that. 1 think we can be confident that in carrying this forward to the Conference the Secretariat will continue to exercise this good judgement and sensitivity and recognize the interests, but I do not think we can forget the comment that Dr Bommer has made that this isn't the end of the procedure, that this is a living Code and its implementation will have to be monitored, and it may be necessary to respond to change over time, and in fact the following the Conference might need to consider additional changes.

So 1 think I have a considerable degree of confidence in the Secretariat's ability to take into account the comments, as they have demonstrated just now in taking into account the comments made at this meeting, and we look forward to the further developments in this process through to the Conference.

DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: I would like to thank you and the distinguished delegates for what has been a very constructive and useful debate, and for its conclusion. On the conclusion I would like to add a comment in the light of what has just been said. I hope the Council will agree to leave open and flexible what in fact it says about the next stage, rather on the lines on what the distinguished Delegate of the Congo said. It would in fact be impossible for the Director-General to take into account - I use those words - to take into account all the suggestions that have been made. Some of them cancel each other out. Obviously we will study what has been said and it should be carefully recorded in the report. He will study it in the light of the technical appraisal that Mr Brader has made and he will come to his conclusions. But I trust the Council will not say that he has got to produce a new draft taking into account all the suggestions you made, because that would be an impossible task and would simply invite another round of disagreement.

LE PRESIDENT: Je pense que le moment est arrivé pour moi de vous remercier tous pour votre esprit de coopération et de collaboration. Le Code sera présenté à la Conférence... Mais les Etats-Unis demandent la parole.


Mrs M. FENWICK (United States of America): My Government very much supports the idea of this Code and as you know we have been very anxious to see it through. I would like to say that as I interpret 4.1.1 concerning which my Government had some question - but let us deal first with 12.6 because I think we can finish that. As I interpret 12.6, it means that the governments - and of course it would be the governments which are in a position to do so - would observe and communicate with the Director-General and others to provide conclusions of progress to the Director-General. In other words, I interpret that to mean, because there may be some countries that are not in a position properly to monitor, but every government should be encouraged to do so and to prepare their reports periodically on progress concerning compliance with the Code.

Now with 4.1.1 we have a little more difficulty because I fear I do agree with my Government. Well, of course, I always do, or they agree with me! But in any case I really think that if that 4.1.1 means that before you can send a known pesticide to an area which is in an emergency such as we had (it was a different thing; of course that was vaccine) with rinderpest - but some pest emergency like that - if you cannot literally test it in that dry locus let us say, but it has been tested in another similar place, that you cannot send it where there is an emergency. If it really means that particular pesticide for that particular place and time has to be tested there and monitored and tested, I think it is not sensible.

The same thing is true; for example you can test it in one area of a country, and we know in Africa particularly how one area varies from another. The southern part of one nation has plenty of rain and is green and lush. Elsewhere they have to do herding; it is an entirely different climate, entirely different soil, entirely different insects, and this is the one place where I think we are not being very practical if we say that every pesticide has to be tested in every place before it can be used. I mean, look at this. I wish we would reconsider because the anticipated conditions do not vary conuntry by country only; they vary region by region, and to request that this be done before something can be used if there should be an emergency, there is absolutely no validity to that point of view.

So there I am afraid that a reservation on that particular point, 4.1.1, would have to be entered. And I think it is a sensible one, and if it were reconsidered by all here I think they might all agree. Look at India. I see India looking at me. It couldn't possibly be tested in all parts of India, e.g. in Sikkim where you have an entirely different condition from Tamil Nadu.

DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: I thought we had finished Mr Chairmanm but there seems to be a danger of starting another debate. I hope this will not be the case. The United States' suggested amendment can be recorded as such in the report or they can modify it and put it in the report in a modified form, and it will be looked at along with all the other suggestions made. Mr Brader gave an off-the-cuff technical response. It is not the final answer. As I said the Director-General is going to look at the proposals that have been made but I do not think we can settle that problem by debating it here in the Council. It is a rather complex one and needs a complex technical discussion and then perhaps a simple change of wording which might solve the problem; but might not. I cannot say.

Sra. M. FERMIN GOMEZ (Venezuela) : Yo simplemente quiero decir que por este camino de seguir otorgando la palabra a los delegados vamos a repetir el debate completamente. Yo creo que ya hay un consenso bastante claro en relación a las bondades de este código y que lo único que deberíamos hacer es atender a los requerimientos que nos ha planteado el señor Presidente, que nos ha dicho el representante del Director General, y aprobarlo de una vez por aclamación, como sugirió nuestro delegado de Africa, que es el primero que hablo, y me sumo a esa posición.

LE PRESIDENT : Ce n'est pas de ma faute, j'étais en train de remercier les délégués. La faute en revient à Mme Fenwick. Je voudrais sincèrement remercier les délégués et le Conseil tout entier pour la collaboration qu'ils ont montrée dans cette affaire qui était assez difficile et nous a causé bien souvent quelques préoccupations très vives. Mais le résultat a été positif. Nous avons ici rénové notre consensus au texte qui sera accompagné des suggestions qui ont été faites. Ensuite ce texte sera amélioré par le Secrétariat et par le Directeur général puis il sera présenté à la Conférence. Je m'interrompts une deuxième fois, M. West me demandant la parole.


DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL : Sorry Mr Chairman, you have not finished the discussion on the report of COAG and you have not discussed fertilizers and you have not discussed fisheries. But if we go on with those tomorrow we either will not reach the Programme of Work and Budget or we will reach it very late when some people want to leave Rome either for the weekend or for their own countries. It is up to you whether you would prefer to start with the Programme of Work and Budget tomorrow morning, as originally foreseen, and come back later on to these unfinished items. The Director-General will be very happy to be here tomorrow morning to introduce the Summary Programme of Work and Budget if that is your wish.

LE PRESIDENT : Nous sommes donc en présence de cette proposition sur le point 14. On commencera demain par ce point, si vous êtes d'accord.

S. M. MATIUR RAHMAN (Bangladesh) : Mr Chairman, my delegation entirely supports the proposal made by the Deputy Director-General and also made by you.

A. M. QURESHI (Pakistan) : I endorse the remarks of the delegate of Bangladesh that we should start with item 14 in the morning and close the session now.

The meeting rose at 18.30 hours.
La seance est levée à 18 h 30.
Se levanta la sesión a las 18.30 horas.


Previous Page Top of Page Next Page