Abdul Wahab Naji Ismail AL-SAMURRAI (Iraq) (Original language Arabic): I should like to start by saying how grateful we are to the Director-General for all the initiatives he has taken within this Programme to help developing countries, in particular by creating programmes which have made it possible to strengthen relations between Member Nations and the Organization. Strengthening these relations has extended to strengthening cooperation between developing countries. The Director-General himself has taken initiatives in this context which have made it possible for the organization to get closer to the needs of Member Nations and to meet those needs without increasing the funds allocated for this purpose and without overlapping with the activities of other organizations, while taking into account the necessary decentralization at the regional and country level. Quite clearly, the TCP, which we are reviewing now, is the best example of the Director-General's efforts in this field.
My delegation would also like to say a word of thanks to Mr Lignon for his presentation of this agenda item. I should also like to thank the Chairman of the Programme Committee and the expert group which presented the evaluation of the TCP covering all TCP activities, and who also made some very constructive proposals. My delegation wishes the recommendations in the experts report, CL 88/8, in particular those contained between paragraphs 45 and 47, to be taken into consideration because the criteria indicated are reasonable. We also agree with paragraphs 93 to 95, inclusive, in regard to action to be taken by the Director-General in order to activate the Programme and to increase the ceiling from US$250 000 to US$400 000. We also agree with the extension of the prerogatives of the country representatives.
Finally I should like to underline the importance of the technical assistance given, particularly to developing countries within the context of the TCP, and I should like to emphasize how necessary it is to ensure that TCP projects are followed up to ensure that the targets set are met in the long run.
In regard to the evaluation report, I should like to have this submitted to the Conference as well so that everyone can apprise themselves of the points included.
R. S. LIGNON (Sous-Directeur général, Département du développement): Tout d'abord, je voudrais, au terme de ce long débat, remercier les délégués qui ont tous, sans exception, apprécié la décision qu'a prise le Directeur général de procéder à cette évaluation, et tous, sans exception, ont reconnu le rôle irremplaçable du PCT qui a été créé à la suggestion du Directeur général en 1976. La plupart des délégations ont approuvé les recommandations contenues dans le rapport. Cependant, certaines d'entre elles n'ont pas cru pouvoir accepter ces propositions, notamment le réajustement du plafond des projets et la création d'une nouvelle catégorie. C'est en me référant à ces deux questions que je voudrais répondre aux objections et aux arguments qui ont été développés par ces délégués puisque, bien que ces arguments aient déjà reçu une réponse, lors de certaines des réunions du Comité des programmes et du Comité financier, en fait, je voudrais relever un certain nombre de contradictions qui existent dans cette argumentation.
Par exemple, lorsqu'une délégation souligne l'incapacité du PCT à réagir rapidement aux questions en matière d'urgence pour faire face à des situations imprévues, en même temps elle évoque la question des mécanismes de contrôle ou de contrôles préalables et supervisions, qui en fait n'aboutiront qu'à alourdir et retarder la capacité de réaction du Programme de coopération technique.
Je voudrais dire aussi que, parlant de l'urgence, on n'a pas approuvé de réajustements alors que s'il y a des cas où ce réajustement est particulièrement nécessaire, c'est bien dans le domaine de l'urgence. Notre point de vue c'est que la proposition d'ouvrir un second guichet est une reconnaissance, par là même, que les crédits du Programme de coopération technique sont insuffisants pour faire face aux demandes et par conséquent lorsqu'on s'aperçoit que le Programme de coopération technique, la part du Programme de coopération technique dans les programmes réguliers est passée en dix ans de 11 pour cent à 13 pour cent, on ne peut pas dire que les augmentations ont été considérables. Je pense que c'est un point important. D'autre part, la suggestion de recréer un second guichet par les fonds fiduciaires, qui sont donc par nature aléatoires, permettrait difficilement de faire face à des requêtes d'urgence, à des requêtes pour répondre à des situations imprévues, dans la mesure où la procédure d'utilisation des fonds fiduciaires comporte un certain nombre de contraintes ou de mécanismes et de procédures d'accords, qui ne permettraient pas de répondre rapidement à ces requêtes.
On a dit qu'il n'y avait pas de contrôle sur ce programme puisqu'il s'agissait d'un fonds non programmé. Il me semble qu'il convient là de regarder la situation d'un peu plus près et que la réalité est en fait bien différente. D'une part, il y a un certain nombre de critères qui ont été approuvés et qui sont bien définis. Je voudrais rappeler que les consultants extérieurs indépendants ont montré qu'ils étaient toujours respectés dans tous les cas. D'autre part, il y a des catégories qui sont aussi parfaitement définies. Enfin, l'ensemble des projets du programme de coopération technique qui fait partie du programme régulier de la FAO et une prolongation sur le terrain de l'action de la FAO, de la politique de la FAO, est en réalité, d'une certaine manière, le programme de coopération technique et l'application sur le terrain à une échelle très réduite mais c'est une application des politiques qui ont été approuvées par les organes directeurs de la FAO, et d'autre part, les comptes du Programme de coopération technique sont soumis régulièrement aux représentants des pays membres. Je pense que les informations qui sont livrées à ce sujet sont parfaitement claires et permettent de vérifier les mécanismes d'exécution et les contrôles de gestion du PCT. D'ailleurs il y a une terminologie bien définie qui a été établie par M. Shah et qui est disponible pour ceux que cela intéresserait. Je pense que lorsqu'on regarde de près le mécanisme du fonctionnement du programme de coopération technique, on s'aperçoit qu'il est extrêmement rigoureux et que la mise en oeuvre des projets va dans le sens de la mise en oeuvre des autres projets de développement à long terme, c'est-à-dire avec une mécanique très précise.
Enfin, je voudrais dire aussi, parce que cela a été signalé, qu'il a été noté que quelquefois il y avait du retard et que cela est très préjudiciable dans la fourniture d'équipements par le programme de coopération technique. Je voudrais dire au sujet des équipements qui sont fournis par les pays qui sont capables de les fournir, c'est-à-dire en général les pays développés, que bien souvent une partie de ces retards viennent de l'incapacité dans laquelle se trouvent des firmes auxquelles on s'adresse, de respecter toujours les délais de livraison. En ce qui concerne la Catégorie C, c'est-à-dire les projets qui s'appliquent à des programmes d'interpays, qui servent à promouvoir la coopération technique entre pays en développement, il me semble que ces projets présentent une importance de plus en plus grande. Le rapport des consultants le souligne et la tendance du PCT d'être un promoteur de la coopération technique entre pays en développement est de plus en plus claire. Alors, est-ce que l'on a dit qu'il était possible que ces programmes de coopération technique entre pays en développement ne relèvent pas de l'urgence? Je crois que là encore il y a des urgences liées à des catastrophes mais il y a des urgences liées à des actions qui n'ont pas été réputées d'"urgence" à l'avance mais qui prennent un caractère d'urgence compte tenu de la situation. Je crois que dans ce domaine il est important d'identifier le rôle que peut jouer le PCT dans ce domaine de la coopération technique entre pays en développement et dans la dimension des crédits qui sont affectés à cette intervention. Je dois dire aussi que les programmes interrégionaux ou interpays du PNUD ne constituent pas une part très importante des activités du PNUD et ont peut-être une place de plus en plus faible et que le programme de coopération technique peut jouer là un rôle particulièrement eminent.
J'ai répondu très brièvement aux principales questions qui ont été posées et je voudrais une fois encore rappeler que, alors qu'on reconnaît le caractère irremplaçable de la souplesse et de l'efficacité du programme de coopération technique, je pense que les mesures qui ont été proposées n'ont pour but et pour essence même que de renforcer cette souplesse et cette flexibilité.
Hartford T. JENNINGS (United States of America): We have not requested the floor to discuss the TCP any further. We have expressed our views on that point, but we hoped for better procedural guidance. My delegation is unclear about exactly what this Council is being asked to do at this time. You will recall that in our intervention, we said that it was our understanding that we had to make our views completely known here because our reading of document CL 88/8 was that the Council was being asked to make a decision. We understood from the interventions of other delegations that they did not have that understanding, and we note that the provisional agenda states that this question is for discussion. So, we are not clear whether the Council will consider this question further at another session. It was our understanding that it is not on the agenda of the Conference. So, if you can give us a bit of clarification, we will appreciate it.
Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Nos sorprende siempre esta insistencia negativa por parte del país cuya representante en el Comité del Programa ofreció su apoyo unánime a las propuestas de este Informe de Evaluación. Creemos que la situación es muy clara y debe tranquilizar a nuestro colega de Estados Unidos. En la Comisión II de la Conferencia, se discutirá el Programa de Labores y Presupuesto en cuyo Capítulo IV está comprendido el Programa de Cooperación Técnica, Luego, el segundo tema de la Comisión II será la revisión del Programa Ordinario, y en esa ocasión, la Comisión II dispondrá del extracto del Informe del Consejo sobre este punto.
De manera que puedo asegurarle al colega de los Estados Unidos que tendrá muchísimas ocasiones para que él siga oponiéndose a la voluntad de 125 Estados Miembros que están plenamenta satisfechos con el PCT.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: Leaving aside what might or might not happen at the Conference, the evaluation of the TCP and the conclusions to be drawn therefrom are matters before this Council and as indicated clearly at the end of the document CL 88/8, certain measures have already been taken and certain measures are now proposed by the Director-General to the Council for the Council's decision. I refer in particular to paragraph 94(a) and (b) on page 19 of the French text, where he asked specifically for the authorization of the Council to increase the permissable maximum for projects from US$250 000 to 400 000 and for the creation of a new category of projects. So, these are the matters which the Director-General has asked Council to take a decision on today.
He also suggests to the Council that it may wish to address two other recommendations to member governments and that it can also make a decision, if it wishes, on those two recommendations to member governments. So, in effect there are four recommendations here on which the Council is asked to take a decision today.
With your permission I would like to come back with some general comments at the end.
Mrs Millicent H. FENWICK (United States of America): I am not asking to intervene on behalf of these technical questions that have been very clearly, and I think properly, outlined by our representative here. I would like to comment just a word on the remarks of my dear friend and colleague from Colombia who mentioned my activities, feelings and opinions. He is absolutely right, I thought the evaluation document was extremely interesting, well prepared and a fine piece of work, and outlined, I think what all of us feel, that these programmes are very useful and helpful, as well as popular. In the Programme Committee at the time, however, I have repeatedly stated my Government's position, I think faithfully, I hope faithfully and accurately. We cannot approve the increase in the budget, and the fact that this excellent Programme rests on the assessed budget is a matter of regret to us. We feel that it could well manage with trust funds, popular as it is, and with everybody wishing to see it implemented. Those reservations appear thanks to our very careful and fair Chairman in the Programme Committee. Those reservations of my Government appear in the text.
M. TRKULJA (Chairman, Programme Committee): I will be very brief. I have listened With great interest to the arguments on the part of some of my distinguished friends against the proposed increase in ceiling and the insertion of a new category, based, as I realized, on the fear that it might lead to an increase in the average rate of TCP projects, a slight departure from the original concept of TCP. I am not going to offer any comment because such views were not expressed in the Programme Committee, but I am obliged to draw the attention of the Council to the totally opposite, a one-hundred percent diametrically opposite, fear that was expressed in the Programme Committee. Even before the evaluation report, the Committee was very well aware of the declining tendency in the average size of TCP projects, even in monetary terms. If you look at Table 1 you will see that this table gives a certain annual situation resulting from the large share of emergencies. Despite this, however, it is quite clear that the tendency in monetary terms is on the decline. In the Programme Committee we raised this issue, because we perceived the fear that further decreases in average size and average value might be counter-productive. We did not include this issue in our report, but it was very clearly mentioned in our normal dialogue with the Secretariat. I wanted just to inform the Council that the Programme Committee was aware of this, and feared that the reverse danger might become legitimate. On this basis we did not see any grounds to fear that increasing the ceiling and the insertion of a new category might lead to a departure from the original concept. On the contrary, we very clearly mentioned to the Secretariat that the declining tendency, at least in monetary terms, of the average size of TCP projects should not be allowed to continue.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: I do not want to hold you up, but I think in view of the importance of the subject and the intensity of the debate, I should make a few general remarks. It has been a remarkably intense and comprehensive debate which shows great interest in the Technical Cooperation Programme, not because of the differences expressed, but because of the remarkable consensus on the basic concept and value of the Programme. There are some exceptions, as we have heard, about certain points, but generally speaking I cannot think of another Programme in the United Nations System which is so free of controversy regarding the basic concepts, criteria, distribution, mode of operation and impact among groups of Member Nations, and I do not mean developed and developing, I mean among all groups of Member Nations. In other programmes there are differences, rivalries, competing interests, perhaps even between developing countries, but this is not the case here. I would like to note this because I think it is an exception, and a very significant exception, to the general rule about programmes of technical assistance, and the reasons for this, I think, are brought out in the report.
In that connection I would like to say I do recall that there was considerable controversy when the Programme was first proposed to an FAO Council in July 1976, and a lot of that concern stemmed from the worries at that time of UNDP. Here, I should like to stress that the justification and value of the TCP have been amply borne out by developments which have taken place since that time. I refer to the difficulties of the UNDP, the decline in funding of the UNDP for agricultural projects at any rate if not generally speaking, as well as by the difficulties experienced in certain trust funds at the present time. I think it is a splendid idea to add trust fund contributions to the TCP-but to add funds, not to take them away-keeping in mind, however, that such trust funds are unlikely to be forthcoming from a generality of donors or in any large amounts. We only have to look at the state of postharvest losses or seeds programmes or other programmes to see how many member countries are having difficulties, despite their good intentions, and how their interest in the programmes and in providing adequate trust funds for them are totally without controversy, even regarding the size of projects, or whatever.
So if there are difficulties there, there would obviously be difficulties here. But if any Member Nation would like to make an additional contribution to the TCP in addition to the Regular Programme budget, I think we would be delighted to try to find a way of accommodating them, even though there are difficulties as explained by Mr Lignon.
I mentioned UNDP, but not in contrast. The TCP is in no sense a competitor or rival to the UNDP or trust funds. It is complementary, and this is clearly shown by the vital role it has played over the years, especially in recent years, in saving a number of very good UNDP projects from premature extinction and destruction so that their potential could be realized with just small-scale short-term help from the TCP. It has played a critically important role, which I did
not find to receive much attention in the discussion today, possibly because of the shortage of time, but I would like to emphasize the role it has played in saving UNDP projects in agriculture at a time when this is so vital, particularly to African countries but to other countries as well. I could also mention, although I will not dwell on it, the positive role it has played in promoting additional investment in agricultural development.
The TCP is in no sense a substitute, a rival, a competitor, -it is a promoter, a catalyst, a support, and this has been one of its unique contributions in the necessity of coping with food and agricultural development problems.
It is not surprising that some concerns have been expressed during the debate, particularly from those nations which were in opposition to the TCP from its inception, but I think these concerns should be put into perspective. I should like to stress what an intensive and highly professional daily activity TCP is. Some delegates referred to the number of projects, and worked out the figure in terms of projects per day. I never see TCP projects myself, but I do see the people who are working themselves into bad health because of their intense activity in ensuring that TCP projects are approved quickly-but only if they meet the criteria and are good projects. This is a highly professional activity. It is not one that lends itself to "over-views" or whatever they may be called at the diplomatic level.
In this connection I would stress another general point. The TCP is, in fact, receiving more overview, more supervision, more control, more evaluation, more review than many other sectors of the budget which are larger in size. Take for example publications, or meetings -- I am not asking you to take more interest in publications or meetings-please don't get me wrong! I am just saying that more money is spent on their projects but far less attention is paid to them than to TCP, so I think that the question of review should be kept in perspective.
Another point on perspective I would make is, if you look at other programmes outside FAO-if you take the delegated responsibilities of UNDP representatives, I think you then get a better appreciation of the subject. I understand that those representatives have a limit of $400 000 on each project. Consequently, the UNDP representative has more delegated authority without over-view than the Director-General or Mr Lignon on TCP. I need not refer to the WFP, which is a different kind of programme: but there I think one is thinking of delegated authority of millions, not hundreds of thousands, and in other organizations one sees the same.
I would like to keep in perspective the question of carry-over of funds from one biennium to another. This subject has come up repeatedly over the years and it has been a recurring subject in the Finance Committee-and I do sincerely hope that after two years in the Finance Committee I will have fully grasped the difference between obligations, commitments and expenditures. What I would like to say therefore on this subject is that the record of the TCP in performance and in delivery is remarkably good. Compared to the performance and delivery of virtually any other programme, multilateral, such as the Lomé Convention-I am not criticizing, just making a point of fact-or bilateral programmes-the rate of expenditure is very good, and the carry-over is really remarkably small under the circumstances.
Similarly, another point to keep in perspective is the question of the percentage of the budget occupied by the TCP. I have heard fears expressed that this is going to greatly increase, but the facts do not bear this out. The Director-General has always said that it is not his intention to increase the proportion of the TCP to the total on a continuing basis, and the facts confirm this. The proportion for 1986-87 is virtually the same as for the two previous biennia-if there are differences it is purely an arithmetical coincidence. If you take the proportion of the TCP to the total approved budget, the total approved budget has contained over the years very little in the way of programme increase. The main increases over the last few biennia for the Programme of Work and Budget have been in cost increases. The cost increases vary, from biennia to biennia; this time they are rather small in comparison to past biennia. Therefore the difference, or the percentage, of the TCP to the total budget is really a function of how much goes into the programme and how much goes in for cost increases, and is not a function of a policy of increasing the proportion, or anything like that. And the difference this time is virtually non-existent. So I think this can be kept in perspective, just as I would like to remind you again that there is no need for fear on this score. If the point is connected to the question of the provision in the Programme of Work and Budget of TCP, I suggest we leave that for the next item and for Conference, because it is an entirely different issue.
Lastly I come to the question of impact. One delegate raised the question of impact-they praised the evaluation report, but they said they would like to have seen more on impact. The evaluators did their best, but of course they were not dealing with large capital-intensive projects-they were dealing with very small technical assistance projects, and you cannot really make an assessment of impact for a project which costs $60 000. The rat catcher either went and poisoned the rats, or a teacher went and trained 20 people, or 50 people, or he didn't: and to try to say what effect that had on the economy of the country, you can spend US$400 000 in assessing the impact of a US$60 000 project, if you try to do that.
That was the negative point. My positive point on this, however, is what we hear a lot these days, particularly during the Fortieth Anniversary, about the impact of the United Nations System. We hear criticisms of other organizations because the bulk of their expenditure is concentrated in the capital and not enough is being spent on the ground. Here in the TCP you have a programme which, par excellence, without reservation has its impact on the ground. How ironic is it then for the same Member Nations to say "we don't like this programme, we want less of it". You cannot criticize the Regular Programme for not using money on the ground, and then ask for the removal of the one element which in the last ten years has had the most tremendous impact in the most practical and uncontroversial way on developments in agriculture on the ground in individual countries. You could say "here is a project, it was started, then, it cost so much, and it finished-and this was the result, and the governments are satisfied". So I would ask everybody to recognize that this is a unique programme, which has achieved the objective of all. Member Nations-to have an immense impact on the ground.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you Mr. West for that clear contribution explaining the features of TCP.
It is now my turn to sum up what has been a long and very important debate on this subject. I would like you to listen carefully so that if I do not convey the main points, there will then of course be an opportunity in the Drafting Committee to clarify matters. First of all, let me thank the 36 Council members and 5 observers who have made very valuable contributions to this important debate-and of course my thanks go to Mr. Lignon, Mr. West and the Chairman and members of the Programme Committee for their very detailed explanations. Also the Programme Committee spent a lot of time, as was mentioned by the Chairman, in considering the evaluation report.
Secondly, there has been unanimous appreciation in the Council of the unique features of TCP and of its value, particularly in the context of the relevance of the programme to the needs of developing countries, and the timeliness of the response.
Thirdly, there is again unanimous appreciation in the Council of the Director-General's action in getting an evaluation of the work done under TCP since its inception in 1976 by an independent panel of three eminent experts.
Fourthly, the Council fully endorses the findings and conclusions of the evaluation team.
Fifthly, on the question of the operative part of CL 88/8, the proposals have been divided into three groups of actions: firstly, with regard to paragraph 93 of that document, the Council endorses and welcomes the action already taken or planned by the Director-General within his own authority. Next, the Council supports and approves the actions for which the Director-General is seeking authority from the Council under paragraph 94. The two sub-components proposed for the approval of the Council in paragraph 94 of CL 88/8 are: "(a) Raising the limit for the maximum cost of a single TCP project from US$250 000 to US$400 000. (b) Establishment of a new category (C) for TCP projects intended to act as a catalyst for inter-country cooperation (ECDC/TCDC, research networks, twinning of institutions, etc. ). "
In this context I think for the record I should summarize the position within the Council based on those who intervened on this item. Those members who have given total and enthusiastic support to the recommendations, contained in paragraph 94 are: Lebanon, Pakistan, Brazil, Bulgaria, Afghanistan, Tunisia, Panama, Cuba, China, India, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Egypt, the Philippines, Trinidad and Tobago, Saudi Arabia, Congo, Mexico-who also spoke on behalf of the Group of 77-Argentina, Rwanda, France, Czechoslovakia, Senegal, Austria, Indonesia, Colombia, Venezuela, Malawi,
Cyprus and Iraq. Those who have expressed different kinds of reservations are Canada, United States of America, Japan, Denmark, the United Kingdom, Federal Republic of Germany and Australia. Among the Observers, Madagascar, Nicaragua, Libya, Niger and Angola have extended full support to the action for which the Director-General is seeking the authority of the Council.
Finally, paragraph 95 is the only operative part of CL 88/8, i. e., the recommendations of which the Council might wish to address to the FAO member countries, I find that there is divergence of opinion and it is my conclusion that the Council would prefer the wordings contained in paragraphs 2.42 and 2.43 of the Programme Committee's report, i. e., the report of the Forty-ninth Session of the Programme Committee, document CL 88/4. I would like to read it out so that there is no ambiguity as to what we are recommending in lieu of paragraph 95. Paragraph 2.42: With regard to the recommendations which the Council might wish to address to their FAO member countries, the Committee supported the idea that governments of developing countries wishing to engage in TCDC activities be asked to keep the Organization informed of the availability and experience of qualified experts and consultants and facilitate their prompt release for TCP assignments.
Paragraph 2.43: "Concerning the clearance of TCP experts and consultants for assignments of three months or less, the Committee recognized that in keeping with the emergency nature of TCP assistance, governments needed to take appropriate measures to reduce the time required for certain actions, It recommended to the Council to urge all governments concerned to take steps towards this end". I think the majority of members would like this formulation rather than what is proposed in paragraph 95 of document CL 88/8.
I would like to conclude my summing up by saying that almost all members are happy that this evaluation was undertaken. They would like to periodically see such evaluations in order to satisfy ourselves of the impact and value of this very important programme. Many members felt that the procedure adopted by the Director-General in commissioning a panel of independent experts has been very appropriate, while a few felt that the Joint Inspection Unit of the United Nations would be the appropriate agency to undertake such periodical evaluations.
This I think concludes the important points made during the debate. I want to thank you all very much for this comprehensive and very useful debate on this important item,
G. H. MUSGROVE (Canada): I am afraid I may have missed something. I appreciate your summing up and quite agree with it. Were conclusions or decisions reached?
CHAIRMAN: The decisions are that we approve the action proposed. The Director-General had, as Mr West also explained, wanted our recommendation particularly on the two proposals under paragraph 94 of CL 88/8, and the Council agrees with these requests of the Director-General, and I also indicated for the purposes of the record those members who had reservations and those who had not, because normally we make our decisions by majority.
Anwar Mohammed KHALED (Yemen, People's Democratic Republic of) (original language Arabic): Chairman, a point of clarification please as to how the Council reaches its decision. Now, regarding the countries that you have mentioned who accepted, or refused, or expressed reservations on the Technical Cooperation Programme, we know that many countries have not expressed their opinions regarding any project. This does not mean that they are silent or inactive compared to countries that have spoken, but simply that they did not have the opportunity, for example, to express their opinions. I do not really get the total image. Is this interpretation correct?
CHAIRMAN: As far as I am concerned it is correct since those who have not spoken have endorsed and given their support. You have given your support. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: Now we go on to item 6 of the agenda-Code of Conduct on Distribution and Use of Pesticides. You will recall that we deferred this item at the request of the Director-General. We have two papers for this item, C 85/25-International Code of Conduct on Distribution and Use of Pesticides, and I would also like you to look at CL 88/INF/12-International Code of Conduct on the Distribution of Pesticides, a communication received by the Director-General from the President of the Council of the European Community. Dr L. Brader will introduce this item.
L. BRADER (Director, Plant Production and Protection Division): In the Eighty-seventh Session the Council extensively discussed the Draft Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides and prepared a Draft Resolution for the Conference on the adoption of the Code. While doing so the Council noted in paragraph 123 of the report of the session and I quote "The Council gave broad general acceptance to the draft Code as submitted to it and decided to transmit it to the Conference. A number of amendments were, however, proposed by various members and recommended to the Director-General for consideration to the extent that the amendments would lead to further clarification and improvement, and not weaken the substance before the final version of the Code was considered by the Conference... ".
Consequently, the Director-General has carefully considered the various comments made by the Eighty-seventh Session of the Council and a slightly revised text, which is contained in document C 85/25, has been prepared. I would like to bring to your attention some of the changes included in this latest draft. They are the following:
In Article 1. 1 the word "voluntary" has been added before "standards of conduct". In Article 1. 2, second line, after "governments" the words "individually or in regional groupings" have been added. This is to cover the situation in which regional groupings can take specific action on behalf of member governments, such as is the case for EEC.
In paragraph 1. 6 we have a slight editorial change.
Article 2 on definitions, there are some editorial changes but I would like to draw your attention to the fact that under the definition of "Extension Service" after "entities" the words "of governments" have been replaced by "in the country concerned" because non-governments or institutions may also be involved in extension activities. And under the definition of "Registration" we have added the words "or animal" between "human health", so it now reads "human and/or animal health".
Article 4. 1 which deals with the testing of pesticides has been slightly modified. I would call that an editorial change.
In Article 8 dealing with the distribution and trade of pesticides, under Article 8. 1. 4 the words "technical grade" have been dropped before "pesticides", and this widens the scope of the article. In Article 8. 5 we have a slight editorial change at the end of this paragraph.
In Article 9. 1 dealing with information exchange, a reference has been added so as to make sure that attention is being paid to the UNEP provisional notification scheme for banned and severely restricted chemicals. Then Article 9. 6 on which there was very intensive discussion in the last Council session, this Article is now ending with the words "the information should be provided prior to export", and the various provisos which provided excuses for not doing so have been dropped. In addition the words "in-so-far as possible" in the middle of the last sentence have been deleted, and this strengthens the article.
In Article 12. 3 we have a slight editorial change, but Article 12. 7 has been extended with the words "The Code should be considered as a dynamic text which must be brought up-to-date as required, taking into account technical, economic and social progress".
All these changes have been included in the Draft which is before you.
Yesterday morning the Director-General received a telex from the President of the Council of the European Community and from the President of the Commission stressing the overall importance of the Code. However, in this telex it is also requested that a further change be introduced in the text, and as the Chairman announced, this text is available for you in document CL 88/INF/12. The change requested concerns Article 1. 2 where it is suggested to add the following sentence at the end of Article 1. 2 which deals with this matter. The Code describes the shared responsibility of many segments of society etc. It is suggested to add to that Article 1. 2, "To this end all reference in this Code to the government or governments shall be deemed to apply equally to the European Economic Community for matters falling within this area of competence. " This was the requested change from the EEC. The Director-General considers that in a code of global significance, no specific reference should be made to a certain regional grouping of states, but he also considers that a proposed addition could probably be acceptable if the words "European Economic Community" were replaced by "regional groupings of governments". In this sense it would strengthen the Code as it would also refer to the participation of the existing inter-governmental regional plant protection organization in the implementation of the Code. However, before taking any steps on this the Director-General would like to hear the opinion of the Council.
The Director-General considers that the changes already included in the Draft contained in document CL 85/25 are in line with the above mentioned recommendation of the last Council meeting, and do indeed lead to further clarification and improvement of the Code. Moreover, the amendment in paragraph 12. 7 stresses the dynamic character of the Code, and therefore allows us to up-date it in light of the experience gained during its implementation.
Ramesh Chander GUPTA (India): We would like to express our sincere thanks to Dr Brader for his comprehensive introduction, spelling out certain changes which have been included on the basis of our discussion in the last meeting of the Council. My only problem was that he was speaking a little too fast. I was not able to incorporate all the changes, or even to take note of all of the changes made in this draft against what was presented at the last meeting of the Council. Nevertheless, we feel that the efforts of the Organization and the Director-General to have this Code finalized is a very important step, particularly in an environment where the use of pesticides for increasing agricultural production has become a must. By their very nature, these pesticides are all poisons of varying toxicity; they are hazards, and they are all dangerous. Since they have to be used in developing countries, some of which may not have any infrastructure for appropriate evaluation and registration, this Code would provide some kind of framework for taking steps in the direction of more informed and judicious use of pesticides.
In the developing countries there is a very mixed picture. The use of pesticides is fairly low, or even non-existent in certain areas, but again within the same countries there is a different picture. Whereas certain crops do not receive any applications of pesticides, others, particularly commercial crops, are subjected to very heavy pesticide applications, and at times there is much wasteful use of pesticides. In my own country we have an extensive Code, but still I have seen 15 to 20 lots of pesticides being applied. In some cases the farmers do not know that too many applications are not so beneficial. They have been led to believe that the more pesticides they use the better their crops will be. So any extension of education to the farmers and to the users of pesticides is a step in the right direction.
Having made these introductory remarks, I would like to refer to the recent change proposed in the recommendation of the European Economic Community in Article 1. 2 where it is intended to say that any reference to government or governments is intended to be applied to the EEC within its overall competence. We feel that while the Code should have the widest coverage, it should apply to as many institutions, individuals and agencies as possible to make it more effective. We have certain problems in identifying one economic grouping, and there may be others, and to that extent the suggestion of the Director-General that this should include all regional groupings is welcomed. But we are apprehensive as to whether this is not an excuse to dilute the responsibilities of the governments. Whether we include these words or not, it should be clearly understood that ultimately it is the responsibility of national governments to ensure that where
pesticides are used, appropriate control measures and education extension activities will continue to be the responsibility of the national authority and to that extent their responsibility should not be diluted.
In our country, we have an elaborate system of pesticide registration and evaluation, and also laboratories, but with the level of general education being fairly low, the infrastructure being weak, and with the level of awareness of the farmers being what it is, we have had many instances of the wrong use of pesticides, with tragic consequences therefrom.
We are particularly concerned about the import and the manufacture of pesticides by multinational and transnational companies in developing countries. There are some ideas in Articles 5 and 9 of the Code of Conduct which deal with this problem. Particularly I would mention Article 5. 5 which says: "In establishing production facilities in developing countries manufacturers and governments should cooperate... to adopt engineering standards and safe operating practices appropriate to the nature of the manufacturing operations and the hazards involved. " We know that this is a kind of compromise and would have not wished for the working to be different in order to provide that the same rigorous engineering standards and precautions as are enforced in the manufacturing process in developing countries are applicable in the home countries where there may be similar pesticides. However, certain people have difficulties. There is a lack of will. If I go a step further, there is a lack of understanding of the value of the human lives and human health in developing countries, and perhaps it is thought these lives are slightly cheaper than lives in the developed and richer countries. This we cannot agree to.
With regard to the export of pesticides, I refer to Article 8. 1. 4 which says that industry "should undertake to see that pesticides which are manufactured for export are subject to the same quality requirements and standards as those applied by the manufacturer to comparable domestic products". Again, the use of the word "comparable" considerably weakens the text. However, as I said earlier, it is better to have something rather than nothing; best should not become the enemy of good. Since we feel this is a step in the right direction we think we have to live with this.
With regard to Article 9, Information Exchange, this Article borrows a number of ideas from a UNEP expert consultation held on FAO premises in December last year. If I may remind members of Council, that expert consultation was a lop-sided affair. Developing countries were very poorly represented and it was more or less a show of pesticide exporters. To that extent, whatever has been borrowed from the proceedings of that consultation is more or less one-sided.
Take, for example, Article 9. 1. All along we have insisted it should be the responsibility of the national government in exporting countries to inform the country which is importing pesticides about the various hazards involved, about technical data, and anything else. But even then, this Article now reads:
"The Government of a pesticide exporting country which takes act ion to ban or severly restrict use of handling of a pesticide in order to protect health or the environment domestically should notify directly or indirectly" and I emphasize the word "indirectly"; we still do not know what is intended to be conveyed by this. The national government of the exporting country is trying to avoid its responsibility and is perhaps expecting the multinational companies to do this work on their behalf-and the record of the multinational companies in the pesticide sector is too well known to inspire any faith. The use of this word "indirectly" causes us much concern.
In Article 9. 6 we have insisted all along that we must ensure that the importing country has advance information of the likely export of pesticides from a manufacturing or exporting country. But in Article 9. 6 all we have is:
"It is the intention that the information should be provided prior to export".
We have emphasized perhaps 50 times that we have a situation in this document where this is non-binding and voluntary; it is a kind of guideline, and advice. Even in this context of a voluntary activity, people are not willing to put this in. They want exemptions. This is our feeling about the draft. But as I said at the beginning, we have to accept it as a first step in the right direction. To that extent we wholeheartedly support this initiative of the Organization and the Director-General, and commend this Code to the Conference for acceptance.
Amin ABDEL-MALEK (Liban) (langue originale arabe): Je voudrais tout d'abord remercier, au nom de la délégation du Liban, le Docteur Brader pour la présentation rapide mais claire du Code international de conduite pour la distribution et l'utilisation des pesticides. Il faut noter tout de même que le Docteur Brader nous a fait cette présentation à une allure très rapide, ce qui ne nous a pas permis de prendre note de tous les amendements apportés au Code en question. Vous vous souvenez peut-être que le Conseil avait déjà discuté, au cours de la dernière session (la quatre-vingt-septième session), ainsi que le Comité de l'agriculture au cours de la dix-huitième session, de ce Code international de conduite et qu'il a été tenu compte de tous les points de vue des pays membres des organisations internationales et autres. Les consultations ont duré plus de trois années et le résultat de tout cela a permis au Directeur général, sur la base d'un certain nombre de propositions, d'apporter des amendements à ce Code international de conduite. De même, le Docteur Brader a fait actuellement référence à certains nouveaux amendements qui complètent ce Code international. Nous connaissons tous l'importance des pesticides pour l'augmentation de la production agricole et vivrière qui diminue de plus en plus d'année en année, vu l'augmentation de la population. C'est pour cela que ma délégation se voit dans l'obligation logique d'apporter son soutien et son appui à ce Code international tel qu'amendé pour le soumettre par la suite à la Conférence générale.
CHAIRMAN: The distinguished delegates of India and Lebanon have said that they could not follow fully all the changes made by Dr Brader. Is it the desire of Council that we should ask him to repeat the changes more slowly? I feel it would have been useful if this had been in the hands of Council members so that they could see it, but now we have this text. Perhaps Dr Brader would go through it once again.
L. BRADER (Director, Plant Production and Protection Division): I went through these changes rather quickly. The only one of these changes which has not been included before is a last minute one which the Director-General received yesterday from the EEC. That is why 1 read that one out more slowly, but all the others are in the text, and this is now the draft we are working from. It might have been relevant to give the change and compare it to the earlier draft, but if we had done that, it would have been difficult to know how far back we should go. There have been so many changes and suggestions in the past that I felt I should spell out the most important. I will go through them briefly and more slowly in order not to get any more remarks that I have gone too swiftly.
First, we had in the last Council meeting a rather long discussion on Article 1 on the point should 'voluntary' be included again or not. It was agreed by all that the Code of Conduct was an outline of voluntary activities of the various parties involved and although the word 'voluntary' was in the introduction, it was felt important that it should be included in the body of the text of the Articles of the Code. It is for that reason that we have now included under paragraph 1. 1 the word 'voluntary' before 'standards of conduct'. So it is a voluntary set of standards of conduct.
We have in article 1. 2 at the specific request of the EEC included in the second line after 'governments' the words 'individually or in regional groupings'. We felt that satisfied the request made then by the EEC but, as you can see from the later request, they now want this to be a little more specific. So that is a change in Article 1. 2.
Then in Article 1. 6 there was an editorial change. First this article read in the first line after the comma 'with due regard to the laws of the country' and legally it is felt better to read 'within the context of national law', and that is why we changed it that way.
Then in the definitions there are some small editorial changes. For example, on the third definition 'Banned' the word 'regulatory' is changed for the word 'registration'. Regulatory is better because it has a wider scope and covers more activities, and here before 'registrations' in the second line we have added the word 'all', to cover all registrations, so that there can be no misunderstanding. Also in the third line under 'Banned' after the words 'equivalent action' the words 'for all users' has been added to make sure that this covers everything.
Then under 'Extension Service' the eighth definition dealt with in this paragraph, we have replaced the text which originally read 'Extension service means those entities of government', we have replaced those words by 'entities in the country concerned' to make sure that all extension activities can be used in this implementation.
Then to the end to these definitions we have a definition 'Pesticide Legistlation. We have added that legislation should also cover storage, which was not in the original text. It was proposed by the Council.
Then six definitions later under 'Registration' we have made the article more complete to ensure that animal health is covered. So after 'human' the words 'or animal' have been included, so that it now reads, 'to human or animal health or the environment'.
We have no changes in Article 3 compared with the draft that was last before the Council.
In Article 4, Testing of Pesticides, 4. 1. 1, the last line originally read 'with regard to the various anticipated conditions in regions or countries where the proposed use would take place' and we have changed these words to 'in regions or countries of use' to make this article more practical.
Article 5 there have been no changes, Article 6 no changes, Article 7 no changes.
Article 8, 'Distribution and Trade' in paragraph 8. 1. 5 at the end we have added 'with the requirements of the host country' the word 'host' has been added, 'and of the parent company', so both these requirements should be taken into consideration. I think it makes it stronger. There are no further changes in Article 8.
Article 9, Information Exchange, we have added the specific reference. We had various comments in the last Council meeting that we should make reference in this article to the provisional notification scheme for banned and severely restricted chemicals. It was agreed at the end of the Council meeting last time that by adding this reference it would cover the point, and this is what has been done.
In paragraph 9. 6 on Information Exchange we have already had the comments of the delegate of India about the change there was to make the article more explicit, more direct. We dropped all the provisos. The last sentence has now become more straightforward: "It is the intention that the information should be provided prior to export". We feel this strengthens this article considerably and seems to satisfy most of the parties involved.
There are no further changes in Article 10. Article 11, no change.
Article 12, Monitoring the Observance of the Code, there is a small change to paragraph 12. 3, which in the second sentence now reads "irrespective of any of the party's ability to observe the Code". I call that: an editorial change.
Then an important issue which was brought up at the last Council meeting that everybody felt we could go on discussing this text eternally and at the next meeting there would be new ideas about it and then We would come up with changes and in the light of experience we would certainly have to update it. The proposal was to put in something like that it was a dynamic text, and that has been done at the end in 12. 7, where the sentence has been added "The Code should be considered as a dynamic text which must be brought up-to-date as required, taking into account technical, economic and social progress. "
Then, as I said at the end of my introduction, we have had this specific request from the European Economic Community to make this reference to groupings of countries more specific. It is now the suggestion of the Director-General that that could be accepted if we would add at the end of Article 1. 2 a new sentence which would then read: "To this end all reference in this Code to a government or governments shall be deemed to apply equally to regional groupings of governments for matters falling within their area of competence. "
As I said, on purpose the Director-General felt that we should not refer this only to the European Economic Community, because the code is a document of global importance and there are other regional groupings of governments, such as the Regional Plant Protection Organization in Latin America and in other areas, which could partly implement certain activities of the Code. That is why on purpose it is now proposed to replace the proposal of the EEC by changing "EEC" to "regional groupings of governments". I think that clarifies the changes.
Hartford T. JENNINGS (United States of America): My delegation would like to join those who have spoken before us in thanking Dr Brader for his introduction of the subject.
My government has expressed previously its feeling that the use of monitoring in Article 12 of this proposed Code is not consistent with the explicitly voluntary nature of the Code. We have however studied this draft of the Code quite carefully and, given that the Code as a whole makes it plain that it is a voluntary instrument and that it shall be used in a voluntary manner, we are willing, with the changes that have been made, to support transmission of the Code as now presented to the Conference for adoption. We consider that the Code will benefit countries which lack the necessary regulatory infrastructure for the safe distribution and use of pesticides and therefore we think it is an important advance.
With your indulgence, Sir, I would like to add just a few more comments to the effect that the national experience of my country indicates that it is a very dangerous thing to differentially value human life. We therefore make every effort to avoid doing that in any instance and we certainly would not wish to do so when dealing with the distribution and use of pesticides. We feel, however, that the use and distribution of pesticides within a country should properly and best be regulated by that country's national law. We conceive of this Code as a new step toward a situation in which this will be the case with regard to all the countries which are members of this Organization and in the world. We regard it as a positive but an interim step because of its voluntary nature. We feel that it is necessary to enlist the cooperation of all parties involved in its observance. As I said, we consider that this Code in this current form is now a useful instrument and we are prepared to support its acceptance.
One additional point, my Government would be willing to agree to the addition of this other sentence as the Director-General has proposed that it be amended.
S. E. C. SHUMBA (Malawi): Malawi is in the final stages of the introduction of pesticide legislation. A draft legislation was submitted to the Attorney General for advice. The draft has since been returned and the suggested revisions are being discussed with all parties concerned. Malawi therefore supports the Code in principle, but the following amendements, changes and suggestions, etc. should be considered by Council.
In Article 2 in the definition of "Residue" there should be a broader meaning so that the environment is also treated as an entity in which residue can be found. The definition should therefore read "residue" means commodities, animal feed or environment resulting from the use of pesticides. The conjunction "or" after "commodities" to be removed after "feed" and the word "environment" added after "or".
In Article 3. 9 the phrase "and other competent bodies" should be inserted after "Organizations" so that the source of information should not be limited to the international organizations only.
At paragraph 3. 10 the point being addressed is the avoidance of development of resistance to pesticides. The paragraph in the Code emphasises the prolonging of the useful life of a pesticide, which may also mean prolonging the shelf life and reduction of adverse effects from development of resistance of a pest. The second part of the sentence is not addressing the avoidance of the development of resistance of a pest to a pesticide. The issue of avoiding development of resistance would be adequately addressed if the words "prolong the useful life of valuable pesticides and" were deleted immediately after "which will" and also delete the words "the adverse effects resulting from the" after the word "reduce". The second part of the sentence would read "in developing strategies which will reduce development of resistant species. "
Paragraph 4. 15 should read "on request, any active ingredient, residue or formulation to provide the necessary analytical standards". That we would like included.
Paragraph 10. 26, the phrase "and the date of expiry" should be added after the word "formulation". This is important in order to protect the user from buying expired pesticides. There might be need for the industry to indicate storage conditions in which the expiry date will have relevance.
The definition of pesticide legislation should include the word "storage". I think that has already been covered, "after packaging", remove the work "and" and after packaging, then add "and disposal" after use. That part should read "labelling, packaging, storage, use and disposal of pesticides".
With these proposed amendments or revisions, the document is acceptable to my delegation for adoption by the Council.
Róbert SEVCOVIC (Czechoslovakia): The International Code of Conduct on Distribution and Use of Pesticides adjusts the practical using of pesticides. We would welcome that after a discussion this document would become varied as, at least, generally keeping the regulation on a voluntary basis. In our country all these questions are being secured and defined in a legislative way to be able to influence all operations with pesticides and in case of occurrence of negative effects, to implement due measures to improve the situation.
As to the range of programmes concerning the handling, distribution and use of pesticides we expressed our views both in written form and again during the Eighth Session of the Committee of Agriculture and the last session of Council.
We regard this area as too technical to belong to special commissions to add them to the Eighty-ninth Session of the FAO Council. We support the International Code of Conduct on Distribution and Use of Pesticides which we regard as a very important document. Our two reservations are other reminders of recommendations regarding Articles 7. 2 and 10, and became the matter of discussion and explanation during the last session. I am authorized to assure you that all parts, on recommendations in this document are being fulfilled in our country and that the adoption of the document is in harmony with our interests.
HIDAYAT GANDA ATMADJA (Indonesia): As we all know pesticides is a vital element in agricultural development and therefore, based on our experience in meeting the country's food production, the role of pesticides to some extent is also recognized. However, my Government also realizes the possible side-effects of pesticides to human beings and to the environment. To this extent we fully agree that there should be a proper mechanism to minimize the harmful effects and, at the same time, to maximize the efficient use in order to achieve the safe conservation of human beings and the environment, as well as to accelerate the growth of food production. Therefore, after carefully scrutinizing the document before us and the information that has been added to the first draft, our delegation believes that this document reflects a sufficient balance on the efficient safe use and safe approach to maintain the environment as well as for the human needs. Therefore my delegation endorses the draft report for adoption by the Council.
Leopoldo ARIZA HIDALGO (Cuba): Queremos expresar, Sr. Presidente, nuestro agradecimiento al Sr. Brader por su doble presentación de este tema y queremos expresarle también que para nosotros no fue difícil entender la primera presentación porque tenemos delante las dos últimas versiones de este Código, Código que ha tenido varias versiones, y nos parece uno de los instrumentos que más se han discutido y con más cuidado. No tenemos ningún tipo de preocupación en cuanto al análisis que se ha hecho para llegar a estos resultados.
Nuestra delegación, en relación con este Código lo considera fundamental para la distribución y utilización de plaguicidas, así como la resolución a la cual se anexa, o que podríamos anexar en el momento de su aprobación. Nosotros nos sentimos satisfechos ya que de este Código puede salir
una buena resolución, porque esta ultima versión que nos han presentado incluye muchas modificaciones que mejoran los textos y los hacen más precisos. Nosotros teníamos algunos otros intereses un poco más definidos, sin embargo creemos que esta última versión es digna de que la apoyemos en todas sus partes. Creemos que las necesidades de aplicación de este Código ya se han planteado en el anterior Comité de Agricultura, así como en el pasado Consejo 87; por lo tanto, considero que su aplicación efectiva puede contribuir a mejorar la agricultura de muchos países fundamentalmente subdesarrollados, a la vez que salvaguardar y proteger la vida y el medio ambiente en los mismos, que creo que es lo más importante de este Código. Estamos convencidos que éste es un instrumento útil en cuanto a la salvaguardia y protección de la vida y del medio ambiente, aunque a veces olvidamos esto porque el ansia de ganancias nos hacen olvidar que el futuro necesita que lo analicemos con mucho cuidado.
Tenemos confianza, sobre todo, en que los países más necesitados de este Código sean los mejores cumplidores de sus principios. Decimos esto porque creemos que para los países en desarrollo es una fórmula de base para implementar sus propias legislaciones que son las que lo van a salvaguardar. Pensamos que todos los países tienen interés por el bien de sus ciudadanos, por su patrimonio natural fundamentalmente, y que serán los primeros en promover las legislaciones nacionales consecuentes que regulen esta importante cuestión que asegura el uso eficaz de los plaguicidas y la forma de entrar en cada país, porque es una cuestión de soberanía sencillamente. La legislación nuestra trata de 10 años y en nuestro país entran los plaguicidas que nosotros consideramos de antemano que son necesarios.
Hay una afirmación aquí que yo considero que es totalmente errónea, Sr. Presidente, no vamos a proponer eliminarla, pero creemos que es errónea porque no da la verdad.
Creemos que cuando se comenzó a discutir este Código se tuvo in mente la necesidad de controlar sus efectos y sus consecuencias, pero no podemos decir, como decimos en el documento que la industria deberá ensayar todos los productos plaguicidas antes de su comercialización para evitar o para evaluar la inocuidad para la salud humana y el ambiente. La inocuidad contra la salud humana y el ambiente no la tiene ninguno, pero absolutamente ninguno, científicamente ningún producto pesticida; no podemos decir eso. Creo que específicamente buscando la salvaguardia de la salud humana y el ambiente, estamos tratando de discutir con bastante cuidado el mecanismo de control y la legislación de utilización; pero no creo que podemos decir así, con esta facilidad, que van a ser inocuos, ninguno es inócuo, el más sencillo matamoscas no se puede decir que es inócuo para el ser humano, el más sencillo matamoscas.
Creo que es necesario esto porque nos parece que esta afirmación es bastante encubridora y no nos da la realidad.
Nosotros creemos también que los gobiernos deben tener muy en cuenta a la hora de aplicar el Código y al momento de dictar las disposiciones legales nacionales el tema de la capacitación que para nosotros sigue siendo el más importante, porque no son las resoluciones ni los decretos ni los ruegos, ni las solicitudes, sino sólo capacitando es como vamos a hacer que nuestros campesinos, en la forma en que difundamos los conocimientos, los puedan comprender para que los apliquen consecuentemente a los productos y ellos se preserven sabiéndolos utilizar. Se les está dando un bombeo de propaganda sobre las facultades de estos productos para hacer crecer la cosecha y, sencillamente, ellos van detrás de la necesidad de hacer crecer las cosechas y se despreocupan de problemas, y conocemos muchos casos graves de problemas de mal manejo y creemos que en eso la capacitación es fundamental.
Por tanto, las legislaciones nacionales que se editen deberán insistir en el tema de la capacitación; no podemos subestimar esta importancia, no entendemos, por lo tanto, porque' se eliminó del artículo 3 el subpárrafo 3. 6 que dice específicamente lo siguiente, nos parece, esto sí, nos parece totalmente inocuo para todos porque no hace nada más que solicitar, "que las organizaciones nacionales, internacionales, los gobiernos, las industrias deberían colaborar en esfuerzos conjuntos con la cosa más bella que es ésta, el esfuerzo conjunto para difundir materiales educativos y de todo tipo a los usuarios de plaguicidas, agricultores, organizaciones de agricultores, trabajadores agrícolas, sindicatos y otras partes interesadas. De igual forma, las partes afectadas deberían recurrir a los materiales educativos y entenderlo antes de utilizar los plaguicidas y deberían seguir los procedimientos adecuados. "
Este párrafo se ha eliminado y no sabemos por qué. Se han eliminado los 3. 7, 3. 9 y 3. 10 de la última versión, la anterior, con la cual no tenemos problemas, creo que su eliminación está justificada porque están incluidos en todo tipo de precisiones que tiene la versión. Sin embargo, este párrafo 3. 6 sí consideramos que debemos analizar que no tenga ningún problema porque creemos que es la forma de difundir y que todos los participantes en esto apoyen la difusión y que constituye una noble actividad mancomunada de todos los factores. Somos de la opinión sinceramente que debe reconsiderarse la obligación de este párrafo.
Consideramos también importante el tema de la publicidad en el Artículo 11 en toda su extensión, y apoyamos su implementación, ya que desgraciadamente sucede que en aras de aumentar el comercio, y por ende de ganancias, se sacrifica el producto y se engaña al consumidor con productos sin base científica.
Es necesario, además, indicar que es impresdindible la voluntad de los fabricantes y distribuidores de plaguicidas de observar los principios de este Código para que la obra se complete.
Nos complace que se considere este Código como un texto dinámico, dialéctico, susceptible de cambio cuando las condiciones lo aconsejen; confiamos que así sea, y ello significará que se ha utilizado y que la práctica ha determinado sus mejoras, sus cambios, aunque también aspiramos a que todos los países dicten sus legislaciones correspondientes protegiendo los intereses nacionales.
Por todo lo expresado, nuestra Delegación considera que esta versión debe ser aprobada en todas sus partes en este Consejo, y pasarla a la consideración de la Conferencia. La apoyamos.
José Ramón LOPEZ PORTILLO ROMANO (México): Agradecemos al Dr. Brader por su presentación, y al apoyar enteramente el proyecto de Código señalamos la importancia que representa su aprobación como un marco para el control de plaguicidas, especialmente en aquellos países que no tienen planes adecuados de registro y control de los mismos.
Este proyecto representa un compromiso mínimo entre las partes después de muchos intentos para tratar de controlar el uso y distribución de plaguicidas.
Al apoyar la Resolución que sustenta este proyecto invitamos a todos los Estados Miembros a que lo hagan sin reservas.
Instamos a la FAO a que asista, en los casos en que así lo decidan los países miembros, en la formulación de las legislaciones respectivas, en el análisis de casos específicos, en el proporciona-miento de información y en todo caso a que sirva de instancia para notificar a todos los países las medidas que se toman en países productores y exportadores respecto a la prohibición o limitación en el uso o manipulación de plaguicidas.
Este último, Señor Presidente, debería quedar plasmado en el artículo 9. 1 agregando quizá después de, y cito, "debería notificarse, directa o indirectamente, " el siguiente término "preferentemente a través de la FAO" a las correspondientes autoridades etcétera".
La aplicación efectiva de este Código, su alcance práctico, tendrá sin duda importantes efectos en la seguridad alimentaria mundial.
Coincidimos con la preocupación del Delegado de Cuba, en cuanto a la eliminación del párrafo 3. 6 que debería reconsiderarse su reinclusión.
La versión en español presenta ciertas imprecisiones en los términos usados al ser traducida del inglés; sin pretender hacer aquí referencia a todas ellas deseo que pueda usted, Señor Presidente, tomar nota de nuestra intención de remitir a la Secretaría las precisiones que sólo afectarán a la versión en español.
Finalmente, nos sorprende notificaciones de modificaciones que vienen acompañadas de advertencias como las contenidas en el documento CL 88/INF/12. Estas fórmulas nos parecen de última hora y son advertencias, repito, poco corteses pero podríamos estar de acuerdo con la enmienda propuesta siempre y cuando no se hable de la Comunidad Económica Europea, y si en vez de ello se usa la fórmula presentada o recomendada por el Director General para incluir a las Organizaciones Regionales y Subregionales.
Horacio MALTEZ (Panamá): Permítanos, Señor Presidente, antes de iniciar nuestra intervención agradecer al Dr. Brader por la presentación del tema que estamos analizando.
Con referencia al tema 6 de nuestra Agenda, documento CL 85/25 que trata sobre la conducta para la distribución y utilización de plaguicidas, la Delegación de Panamá desea intervenir muy brevemente con el propósito fundamental de apoyar firmemente la decisión del Director General de dejar, en general, prácticamente, inalterado el proyecto de Código aceptado por el Consejo en su 87° período de sesiones.
A tal efecto, nuestra Delegación no estima oportuno repetir en esta ocasión las consideraciones que hiciésemos en su oportunidad para respaldar dicho proyecto de Código, pues ello significaría alargar innecesariamente el debate; deseamos evidenciar la forma amplia y general con que el Consejo expresó su aceptación del proyecto y su decisión de remitirlo a la Conferencia.
Al respecto, nuestra Delegación estima que el proyecto de Código en general es balanceado, recoge las observaciones no sólo de una gran parte de los Estados Miembros, sino la opinión especializada de organismos internacionales apropiados, así como de la industria de plaguicidas, razón por la cual se puede recabar el máximo apoyo.
Para la Delegación de mi país se han introducido en el texto aquellas propuestas constructivas que respetan el espíritu de lo indicado en el párrafo 123 del Informe del 87° período de sesiones en el sentido de que no menoscaban su contenido, contribuyen por lo tanto a favorecer al consenso. Por tales motivos no tenemos dificultad en aceptarlas.
Asimismo, la Delegación de Panamá desea reiterar su apoyo al proyecto de Resolución recomendado por el Consejo en su anterior período para terminar refiriéndose al documento CL 88/INF/12 con la propuesta de los países de la Comisión Europea. Coincidimos con lo expresado por India y México, sin embargo no tenemos dificultad en aceptar la redacción propuesta por el Director General ya que estimamos que esta podría satisfacer a la CEE.
MANIRUZZAMAN CHOUDHURY (Bangladesh): The Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh deems it appropriate to lend its strong support to the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides, as per draft put forward for consideration before this Council by the Director-General of FAO.
We have no hesitation in extending this support to the proposal as it is apparent to everyone that the proposed Code of Conduct is the outcome of a considerable amount of debate and deliberations conducted over a period of time, and not based on the whims and caprices of an individual or an attempt by a small interest group to take advantage of a situation.
While making this observation, we have not failed to take note, however, of the reservations made by some governments and organizations which are mainly based on the strength of the argument that supplying pesticides to countries having inadequate infrastructural facilities to register and record the flow may not meet the international standard safety requirements. But I would earnestly make an appeal to the members of this Council to take a dispassionate view of the subject for the following reasons: firstly, the proposed international Code is the result of long drawn consultations with appropriate United Nations agencies and others; secondly, the Conduct is designed to benefit the international community as a whole, though on a strictly voluntary basis,
through making pesticides increasingly available to all nations of the world. Besides, international confidence on the subject will grow due to the chain reaction that will be created through it, despite difficulties posed by various regulations and marketing problems etc. Thus, general improvement in agriculture, public health and personal comforts will far outweigh the above limitations in terms of benefits to national and international communities.
Thirdly, the proposed legislation, being voluntary in nature, will for the time being serve as a reference point till such time as the adequate infrastructural facilities are developed by the countries which do not have it as present. We have found from the discussions and the reactions that after long debate on this subject in this body, and also in the past, that this Council should not hesitate in taking a positive view on the subject, that is, going through the process of making a voluntary Code of Conduct on Distribution and Use of Pesticides with adequate safety measures thereof.
It deserves a fair trial, and we should not hesitate to take this step.
J. D. AITKEN (United Kingdom): At the last Council meeting the United Kingdom expressed its general support for the Code. I can confirm this support continues and confirm the acceptability of the present text before us.
The distribution and use of pesticides is a subject for which we have transferred certain responsibilities to within the competence of the European Community. I should be grateful therefore Mr. Chairman, if you would kindly give the floor to the representative of the Commission who will make a statement on behalf of the Community.
CHAIRMAN: I will certainly give it to him after the Council members have spoken. Normally we give the Observers an opportunity to speak after the Council members have spoken.
J. D. AITKEN (United Kingdom): Mr Chairman I think this is one of the circumstances in which it is perhaps appropriate that the statement should be made within the body of the meeting because of the particular nature of the status of the Community. Therefore I think it would be more appropriate if he could speak now.
Cilles DESESQUELLES (CEE): La Communauté économique européenne et ses dix Etats Membres ont présenté lors de la dernière session du Conseil, en juin de cette année, quelques amendements et en particulier une clause d'assimilation pour la Communauté afin d'améliorer les dispositions du Code international de conduite pour la disposition et l'utilisation des pesticides. Nous avons constaté avec satisfaction que plusieurs de ces propositions ont été reprises dans le projet que le Directeur général nous soumet aujourd'hui. Toutefois, nous avons relevé que certains de nos amendements n'ont pas été pris en considération, notamment la clause d'assimilation dans la forme et la portée juridique que nous souhaitions. Néanmoins, je peux vous assurer que, dans un esprit de collaboration et parce que nous attachons un grand intérêt à l'adoption du Code, la Communauté et ses Etats Membres sont prêts à accepter le Code tel quel, si, et c'est pour nous une condition essentielle, le Code contient une disposition permettant à la Communauté de participer pleinement.
Comme l'a annoncé ce matin M. Brader, le Conseil des Ministres des Communautés européennes souhaite que l'article premier, paragraphe 2 du Code, spécifie que "toute référence dans le présent Code à un gouvernement ou à des gouvernements est réputée valoir pour la CEE s'agissant de questions relevant de sa compétence". Cette clause existant déjà dans de nombreux accords internationaux, j'y reviendrai à la fin de mon intervention.
M. Brader, dans son introduction a déclaré, que le Directeur général estimait que pour des considérations générales et dans l'intérêt d'une portée aussi large que possible du Code, il serait préférable de dire "groupement régionaux d'Etats" au lieu de "Communauté économique européenne". L'amendement se lirait donc: "toute référence dans le présent Code à un gouvernement ou des gouvernements est réputée valoir pour les groupements régionaux d'Etat s'agissant des questions relevant de leur compétence".
Cette solution, qui correspond d'ailleurs à ce que nous avions demandé lors du Comité de l'agriculture et du Conseil de juin dernier, nous conviendrait car la Communauté n'a jamais recherché une réglementation particulière en ce qui la concerne, mais seulement la reconnaissance de ses compétences. Cette clause renforcera l'application du Code.
D'ailleurs, il ne s'agit pas d'une innovation. En effet, une clause de même nature existe déjà dans de nombreux accords internationaux de produits de base, négociés à la CNUCED: accord étain, accord cacao, accord caoutchouc, accord jute, accord bois tropicaux, blé, sucre, huile d'olive... De même que dans le Code des pratiques restrictives de la CNUCED ainsi que dans la Convention sur le droit de la mer et cette enumeration n'est pas, bien entendu, limitative.
Si cette clause a été si souvent retenue, c'est en raison de la structure particulière et des compétences propres de la Communauté.
Pour terminer, je voudrais indiquer que l'acceptation de cette clause est indispensable pour nous permettre d'approuver le Code tel qu'il est formulé actuellement.
Nous le souhaitons d'autant plus que nous considérons le Code comme une initiative particulièrement bienvenue de la FAO et à laquelle la Communauté économique européenne attache une grande importance. La Communauté espère que toutes les pratiques concernées prendront sans délais les dispositions nécessaires pour une mise en oeuvre rapide du Code.
LI ZHENHUAN (China): We consider that the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides is a very important international document. After three years' efforts by various sides concerned, it is now submitted to us as a complete document generally acceptable by all countries. We appreciate the hard work done by FAO in drafting this important document. The Chinese Government attaches great importance to this work, and sent a delegate to attend the relevant inter-governmental consultations. We also made suggestions for the document "submitted to the COAG session last March for consideration. In our view, the International Code of Conduct is not only a document for the entire international community to follow, but also a document of valuable reference to the countries which are promulgating or finalizing their national legislation governing the use of pesticides. We support the draft resolution and annex contained in document C 85/25. Now I wish to make a few observations.
(1) As the version of the International Code basically conforms to that considered at the March COAG session with only several amendments, we endorse this text.
(2) Article Two of the Code more clearly defines the meaning of "banned" and at the same time brings in a new element of "risk". This is very appropriate. And these two points are both essential.
(3) Paragraphs 6. 1 and 6. 2 of Article Six of the Code-Regulatory and Technical Requirements make it clear that pesticide products must be registered prior to domestic use. In our view, this is of great importance. And our country's existing regulations concerning the registration of pesticides also includes an explicit article to this effect.
(4) Article 12 states that not only the pesticide industry should observe the Code, but also all concerned such as international organizations, governments, users, as well as environment protection organizations, consumer groups also need to abide by the Code. We think this concept is important for our experience proves that pesticide management should not be the sheer responsibility of the management sectors, but that awareness and coordination of all concerned government institutions as well as users is called for. Otherwise it will be unimaginable for pesticide management to achieve the envisaged good results.
Finally, the Chinese delegation suggests that the Council submit the draft resolution and the Annex to the Code to the Conference for adoption.
Almir Franco de SA BARBUDA (Brazil): I will be very brief. As has been stated at the last Council session, we have some suggestions and proposals in order to improve the Code and to render it more effective and restrictive. However, following the great majority of member countries who abstained from presenting these proposals and realizing we should not re-open long negotiations, the adoption of these moral standards of conduct deserves urgent action and should not be delayed. This is still our position even if some of the amendments proposed by a few countries introduced in the latest revision have, in our view, further weakened the Code. We refer for instance to the insertion of the word "voluntary" to Article 1. 1 and to the Commission of important specifications in some articles. Nevertheless we still think that we should refrain from proposing amendments at this point. We are prepared to support the amendment for Article 1. 1 as proposed by the Director-General, and we join other previous speakers in recommending the Code for adoption by the Conference. As it is, the Code represents a minimum guarantee of some order and safety on the distribution and use of pesticides, but it still is an initial and right step of major importance.
CLOSURE OF DEBATE
CLOTURE DU DEBAT
CIERRE DEL DEBATE
Michel MOMBOULI (Congo): Je dois m'excuser auprès des membres de notre Conseil. Je ne suis pas inscrit sur la liste mais je tiens à faire une proposition. Nous avons à notre ordre du jour beaucoup de points importants. Nous sommes en train d'examiner un travail qui a été vu plusieurs fois par nous-mêmes ici présents. Nous avons reçu effectivement des propositions écrites de la CEE et des contrepropositions ont été faites. Il semble qu'il y ait eu accord entre les propositions du Directeur général par rapport à l'exigence de la CEE. Je souhaite vivement que, si le Conseil n'y voit pas d'objection, nous puissions en finir avec ce point rapidement, parce que nous risquons de recommencer à dire des choses inutiles. En fait, le point d'objection a trouvé sa solution et je souhaite que l'on mette fin à cette discussion pour passer à un autre point de l'ordre du jour. Je propose cela à l'ensemble de notre Conseil.
Atif Y. BUKHARI (Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of): I want to adduce simply on the side of the proposal made by the distinguished Ambassador from the Congo. We should have settled that proposal firstly, we should have seen if the other distinguished members of the Council accepted the proposal or not. In fact we are dwelling on details which are most inappropriate at this particular stage, and until now no delegation whatsoever said that it refused the Code in its present form. This is the reason why the delegation of my country heartily supports the proposal made by the honourable member from the Congo to put an end to the discussion and accept unanimously the International Code of Conduct, after which we can start dealing with the other very important points included on our agenda, especially as time is running out, and fast.
CHAIRMAN: The distinguished delegate of the Congo has moved a motion for closure. Saudi Arabia has supported it. According to the rules, two can speak for and two against before we take a vote on the closure motion. Saudi Arabia has spoken for the closure.
Ricardo MARTINEZ MUÑOZ (Colombia): Había solicitado el uso de la palabra para hacer una breve exposición sobre el tema, pero estoy convencido de que la propuesta del distinguido Embajador del Congo es muy importante y que acelera los trabajos de esta Conferencia, y por consiguiente la delegación de Colombia la apoya firmemente.
Elio PASCARELLI (Italy): I want to be clear, because I have just taken my seat here, whether the proposal of the distinguished delegate of the Congo for closure of the discussion would imply that the assimilation clause as proposed by the representative of the European Community would be included or not. It is not clear to me. Before I can oppose or approve the motion for closure, may I know whether this implies that the assimilation clause would not be in the text of the Code, or does it imply that it is accepted, or is it an amendment?
CHAIRMAN: It is not an amendment. We have accepted it, and are unanimous in our view not to spend more time on this. That is all he is saying.
Joseph S. MTENGA (Tanzania): I am for the closure but, Mr Chairman, I would like you to clarify the point that this amendment by the representative of the EEC is in the form you proposed as a group of countries.
CHAIRMAN: We agree that there is unanimous agreement on the proposal by the Director-General read out by Dr Brader.
Hartford T. JENNINGS (United States of America): My delegation opposes the imposition of closure at this point. My delegation fully shares the concern of the distinguished delegate of the Congo and others that we have a great number of issues to deal with in this Council and that we appear to have reached agreement on this one. My delegation shares the hope that we might conclude our discussion of this item. However, we consider it so important that all members of the Council have the opportunity to express their views when they wish, that we cannot support and, indeed, must oppose this motion for closure.
Joachim WINKEL (Germany, Federal Republic of): I have not much to add to what the distinguished delegate of the United States of America has just said. This is such an important item on our agenda that we should have been told earlier this morning that there was a proposal to close very soon. I am against closure.
CHAIRMAN: According to the rules we have allowed two speakers for and two against. Therefore, I will have to follow the rules now and seek the view of the Council members. Those who are in favour of the closure motion of the distinguished delegate of the Congo kindly raise your hands. Thank you. Now those who are against.
The closure of debate was adopted by 23 votes to 10.
La cloture du débat est adoptée par 23 voix contre 10.
Se cierra el debate por 23 votos contra 10.
CHAIRMAN: Since this is an important item, those who wanted to make specific comments perhaps could pass them on to Dr Brader so that the Secretariat, is not denied the opportunity of having the valuable comments of members. The Federal Republic of Germany and Spain have asked for their statements to be inserted in the verbatim records. There will be an opportunity in Conference to take up the matter again.
Joachim WINKEL (Germany, Federal Republic of): May I draw your attention to the fact that the Federal Republic of Germany is a Member State of the European Community. In full respect of the treaties and as legal consequence of the competence of the European Economic Community in the field we are discussing now, my delegation fully supports the demand of the Council of Ministers of the EEC transferred by letter to the Director-General of FAO as cited in document CL 88/INF/12.
We appreciate that this demand has been taken into account by the addendum to para. 1. 2 in document C 85/25 mentioned before by Mr. Brader. 1/
Ismael DIAZ YUBERO (España): Me complace comunicar al Sr. Presidente la satisfacción de mi país porque próximamente podamos disponer de este Código que, sin duda alguna representa una adecuada solución a los problemas derivados de la utilización de los plaguicidas, problemas que preocupan profundamente a las Autoridades, al sector agrario, a la industria química y a la población en general.
Nuestra valoración de este proyecto es altamente positiva y nos complacemos de que se llegue a este pacto de colaboración, cuya aplicación permitirá potenciar los medios actuales disponibles para el conocimiento y la divulgación de los riesgos que entrañan los plaguicidas y de las directrices para su correcta manipulación y utilización, lo cual presenta gran interés para todos los países, independientemente de su grado de desarrollo.
En la sesión de hoy se han hecho interesantes aportaciones. La más señalada y comentada ha sido la de la Comunidad Económica Europea que nosotros aceptamos y apoyamos.
Suscribimos también la propuesta del Sr. Embajador de los Estados Unidos de México en el sentido de que se explicite la intervención de la FAO en el artículo 9. 1 del proyecto de Código.
La justificación de esta propuesta se basa en el propio espíritu del proyecto de Código que expresa, en el párrafo 6 de la Introducción, que la diversidad de factores climáticos, ecológicos, agronómicos, sociales, económicos y ambientales, en las diferentes áreas geográficas, impide que el país exportador pueda juzgar acerca de la utilidad y grado de riesgo de un plaguicida en el país importador.
Recíprocamente el país importador, que no siempre dispone de prestigiosos cuadros de expertos y de una adecuada infraestructura para el control de los plaguicidas, puede tener gran dificultad para apreciar las diferencias de utilidad y riesgo de un plaguicida en sus propias condiciones y en las del otro país donde este plaguicida haya sido prohibido.
El papel de la FAO podría consistir en la prestación de asistencia de sus servicios técnicos, a los gobiernos que lo soliciten, mediante informes que puedan servir de soporte técnico y científico para las decisiones de estos gobiernos sobre prohibición o restricción de algún plaguicida.
En esta misma línea subrayamos la importancia de los artículos 12. 5, 12. 6 y 12. 7, donde se determina la colaboración de FAO con los países en el seguimiento de la aplicación del Código y se declara que éste debe ser un instrumento vivo que se actualizará mediante las oportunas revisiones.
1/ Statement inserted in the verbatim records on request.
Ricardo MARTINEZ MUÑOZ (Colombia): Había solicitado el uso de la palabra para hacer una breve exposición sobre el tema, pero estoy convencido de que la propuesta del distinguido Embajador del Congo es muy importante y que acelera los trabajos de esta Conferencia, y por consiguiente la delegación de Colombia la apoya firmemente.
Elio PASCARELLI (Italy): I want to be clear, because I have just taken my seat here, whether the proposal of the distinguished delegate of the Congo for closure of the discussion would imply that the assimilation clause as proposed by the representative of the European Community would be included or not. It is not clear to me. Before I can oppose or approve the motion for closure, may I know whether this implies that the assimilation clause would not be in the text of the Code, or does it imply that it is accepted, or is it an amendment?
CHAIRMAN: It is not an amendment. We have accepted it, and are unanimous in our view not to spend more time on this. That is all he is saying.
Joseph S. MTENGA (Tanzania): I am for the closure but, Mr Chairman, I would like you to clarify the point that this amendment by the representative of the EEC is in the form you proposed as a group of countries.
CHAIRMAN: We agree that there is unanimous agreement on the proposal by the Director-General read out by Dr Brader.
Hartford T. JENNINGS (United States of America): My delegation opposes the imposition of closure at this point. My delegation fully shares the concern of the distinguished delegate of the Congo and others that we have a great number of issues to deal with in this Council and that we appear to have reached agreement on this one. My delegation shares the hope that we might conclude our discussion of this item. However, we consider it so important that all members of the Council have the opportunity to express their views when they wish, that we cannot support and, indeed, must oppose this motion for closure.
Joachim WINKEL (Germany, Federal Republic of): I have not much to add to what the distinguished delegate of the United States of America has just said. This is such an important item on our agenda that we should have been told earlier this morning that there was a proposal to close very soon. I am against closure.
CHAIRMAN: According to the rules we have allowed two speakers for and two against. Therefore, I will have to follow the rules now and seek the view of the Council members. Those who are in favour of the closure motion of the distinguished delegate of the Congo kindly raise your hands. Thank you. Now those who are against.
The closure of debate was adopted by 23 votes to 10.
La cloture du débat est adoptée par 23 voix contre 10.
Se cierra el debate por 23 votos contra 10.
CHAIRMAN: Since this is an important item, those who wanted to make specific comments perhaps could pass them on to Dr Brader so that the Secretariat, is not denied the opportunity of having the valuable comments of members. The Federal Republic of Germany and Spain have asked for their statements to be inserted in the verbatim records. There will be an opportunity in Conference to take up the matter again.
Joachim WINKEL (Germany, Federal Republic of): May I draw your attention to the fact that the Federal Republic of Germany is a Member State of the European Community. In full respect of the treaties and as legal consequence of the competence of the European Economic Community in the field we are discussing now, my delegation fully supports the demand of the Council of Ministers of the EEC transferred by letter to the Director-General of FAO as cited in document CL 88/INF/12.
We appreciate that this demand has been taken into account by the addendum to para. 1. 2 in document C 85/25 mentioned before by Mr Brader. 1/
Ismael DIAZ YUBERO (España): Me complace comunicar al Sr. Presidente la satisfacción de mi país porque próximamente podamos disponer de este Código que, sin duda alguna representa una adecuada solución a los problemas derivados de la utilización de los plaguicidas, problemas que preocupan profundamente a las Autoridades, al sector agrario, a la industria química y a la población en general.
Nuestra valoración de este proyecto es altamente positiva y nos complacemos de que se llegue a este pacto de colaboración, cuya aplicación permitirá potenciar los medios actuales disponibles para el conocimiento y la divulgación de los riesgos que entrañan los plaguicidas y de las directrices para su correcta manipulación y utilización, lo cual presenta gran interés para todos los países, independientemente de su grado de desarrollo.
En la sesión de hoy se han hecho interesantes aportaciones. La más señalada y comentada ha sido la de la Comunidad Económica Europea que nosotros aceptamos y apoyamos.
Suscribimos también la propuesta del Sr. Embajador de los Estados Unidos de México en el sentido de que se explicite la intervención de la FAO en el artículo 9. 1 del proyecto de Código.
La justificación de esta propuesta se basa en el propio espíritu del proyecto de Código que expresa, en el párrafo 6 de la Introducción, que la diversidad de factores climáticos, ecológicos, agronómicos, sociales, económicos y ambientales, en las diferentes áreas geográficas, impide que el país exportador pueda juzgar acerca de la utilidad y grado de riesgo de un plaguicida en el país importador.
Recíprocamente el país importador, que no siempre dispone de prestigiosos cuadros de expertos y de una adecuada infraestructura para el control de los plaguicidas, puede tener gran dificultad para apreciar las diferencias de utilidad y riesgo de un plaguicida en sus propias condiciones y en las del otro país donde este plaguicida haya sido prohibido.
El papel de la FAO podría consistir en la prestación de asistencia de sus servicios técnicos, a los gobiernos que lo soliciten, mediante informes que puedan servir de soporte técnico y científico para las decisiones de estos gobiernos sobre prohibición o restricción de algún plaguicida.
En esta misma línea subrayamos la importancia de los artículos 12. 5, 12. 6 y 12. 7, donde se determina la colaboración de FAO con los países en el seguimiento de la aplicación del Código y se declara que éste debe ser un instrumento vivo que se actualizará mediante las oportunas revisiones.
1/ Statement inserted in the verbatim records on request.
En relación con ello, me permito señalar la conveniencia de que se estableciera una determinada periodicidad para estas revisiones, al menos durante la primera etapa de su aplicación en la que podrían ser necesarias mayor número de adaptaciones técnicas. Sería deseable que desde el principio se fijara la fecha o plazo para la primera revisión.
Hemos detectado también pequeños errores de traducción en el texto en lengua española, ya mencionados por el Sr. Embajador de los Estados Unidos de México, en cuya aportación nos brindamos gustosos a colaborar para que el documento tenga en nuestro idioma el mismo significado que en francés o en inglés.
Encontramos correcta la modificación efectuada por la Secretaría sobre la definición de Registro e incluso pensamos que podría completarse indicando la necesidad de demostrar que existen "métodos analíticos adecuados para el posterior control del plaguicida".
Deseo finalmente repetir nuestra aceptación y apoyo a este proyecto de Código y expresar mis votos para que su aplicación permita que los agricultores obtengan mejores cosechas y queden satisfechas las exigencias de la salud pública y el medio ambiente, y agradecer nuevamente al Sr. Presidente por su amabilidad. 1/
Robert PRINS (Canada): On a point of clarification, can you tell us, Mr Chairman, how many speakers there were still on the list?
CHAIRMAN: The Federal Republic of Germany, Senegal, Benin, Spain, Venezuela, Cyprus, Japan, France, Colombia, Canada and Saudi Arabia. But this is now an academic question.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: When this point was made I did not think it was being made as a formal motion with restrictions-two speakers for two speakers against, and no opportunity of commenting. However, apparently it was taken as a formal closure motion, but I hope it is clear to everyone that this was not an attempt in any way by anyone to shut off discussion in the Council. We are going to have a discussion in Conference, so it does not really matter, but I do hope it is clear it was not an attempt-and the distinguished delegate of the Congo can confirm this-to stop anyone saying what they wanted. Rather, it was an understanding that we were all agreed, and could save time. Whilst we will receive any points which delegations wish to make, I trust it is quite clear that we are not going to receive points which criticize the document or oppose what is in it, but rather that people who wanted to make clear their views on why they were accepting rather than rejecting should be able to do so. So I hope that is understood in the fullest, most positive sense, and not in any negative sense.
CHAIRMAN: This is an important item which has to be implemented by all governments. It is not an item on which I myself would have liked to deny anyone the opportunity to speak, so I am equally sorry, and hope that members of Council will give their views to the Secretariat so that we can forward this item to the Conference with the amendment proposed by Dr Brader this morning-that is, the text with the single additional amendment in paragraph 1. 2.
V. J. SHAH (Director, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): The Council has before it some important documents on this important item. The main document is C 85/3 the Director-General's proposed Programme of Work and Budget for 1986-87 which is supplemented by two documents, Supplement 1 which gives a list of publications, main documents and working papers for the next biennium, and Supplement 2 which gives a list of sessions. There is also document C 85/3, Corregendum 1, which refers to one of the tables in the Annexes and to which I will make reference in due course.
I need not dwell at great length on the debate which took place at the last session of the Council in June on the Summary Programme of Work and Budget proposed by the Director-General, but I need to refer to it because that debate in the Council set in train some important changes which the Director-General decided to make in formulating his full Programme of Work and Budget. The Council had expressed unanimity in support of the strategies, the priorities and the Programme proposals which had been outlined in the Summary Programme of Work and Budget. However, there was not the same complete unanimity with regard to the proposed budget level. Taking all these factors into account and after sober and serious reflection, the Director-General decided to make some important changes in his proposals for the full Programme of Work and Budget. The first part of my intervention will now deal with the changes of substance between the Summary and the full Programme of Work and Budget.
The net Programme increase proposed in the summary document amounted to US$ 6. 2 million. The net Programme increase now before Council in the full document amounts to US$ 5 030 000, a reduction hence of US$ 1. 2 million. I should briefly explain what this reduction consists of. The easiest to explain is the reduction in the provision which had been proposed for contingencies. You will recall, Mr Chairman, that the contingencies provision had been proposed to be increased from US$ 600 000 which is its present level for the biennium to US$ 800 000. There was quite an interesting debate in the Council. I will not repeat the arguments which we had advanced and which we can still maintain for a contingency provision at a higher level. The fact of the matter is that in arriving at his decision on the full budget, the Director-General decided if he had to reduce the Programme increase at all, this was certainly one area in which he would have to retain the provision at its present level, so the contingency provision would not be increased and would remain at its present level of US$ 600 000.
The second item of reduction is an amount of US$ 300 000 under Programme 111 of Conference and Council.
You will recall that a reduction of some US $700 000 has been proposed in the Summary Programme of Work and Budget under this item. A review and a more detailed assessment of the document requirements following the Spring session of the Council Committees and the last session of the Council itself enabled the Director-General to decide on a reduction of US $1 million. So the reduction here is increased from US $700 000 to US $1 million.
The third area of reduction is under Programme 3. 4, FAO Representatives. Here you will recall that a reduction of US $600 000 had already been proposed in the summary and this has been increased by US $300 000 to the present proposal of a total reduction of US $900 000. The reason for this decrease is that in order to bring down the programme increase it was decided to accelerate certain activities during this biennium, in fact during this year, which would preclude the necessity for budgetary provision in the next biennium. Very specifically, it refers to the programme of installation of libraries and information centres in the offices of FAO representatives, which is a programme that has been going on for some time and that was supposed to have continued into the next biennium. In order to reduce the budgetary provision of the next biennium, however, it has been accelerated this year.
The final reduction is of US $400 000 under Common Services, Chapter 6 of the budget, which deals with maintenance and support facilities. This reduction is possible by also undertaking certain activities such as repairs of electrical systems in the buildings here during this year so as to preclude the need for the budgetary provision in the next biennium. The total reduction in the programme increase then amounts to US $1. 2 million.
I should emphasize here that there has been no tampering with any of the technical and economic programmes, because this represents the heart, the core and soul of the Organization. The Director-General was convinced by your own debate and the support extended to his proposals in the Programme
and Finance Committees that the technical and economic programmes represented an area which could not be further reduced. If there had been the wish of the Council to see them expanded I have no hesitation in assuring you that the programme increase in the technical and economic areas could have been even higher, but the Director-General maintained his proposal to the level he had made in the summary budget.
There has also been an important change between the summary and the full budget in the area of cost increases. For the present biennium the cost increases amounted to US $52 million over the previous budgetary base and represented some 14 percent of the previous base. In the Summary Programme of Work and Budget the cost increases were estimated at US $24 million, barely 5. 7 percent of the present budgetary base. But in the summary we had indicated that price indicators and trends in expenditure would continue to be monitored so as to determine whether the provision for cost increases had to be maintained, increased or reduced, and in fact the developments have enabled us to reduce the provision of cost increases by US $2 million, so the provision now amounts to US $22 million.
Having dealt with the changes of substance between the summary and the full Programme of Work and Budget, may I now turn to the second part of my intervention dealing with changes in form because some comments may be useful to members of the Council.
In form the Summary Programme of Work and Budget was a fairly brief document of some 100 pages, whereas the full budget document is some 330 pages. But there are some parts of the document which will facilitate consideration by the Council, if you will allow me to draw attention to them.
First, the Director-General's introduction. This is a very comprehensive introduction which gives his approach in the formulation of the budget which calls for no comment by me.
This is followed by a chapter on the programme framework which tries to give an analysis of the programme budget proposals which may be useful to the Council and subsequently to the Conference. It. discusses the question of posts, the proportion of expenditure on posts as a part of the total budget, changes in other objects of expenditure, details of cost increases and other financial aspects of the proposals. It brings us to a part of the document which amounts to no more than 3 pages, which is rather crucial to the discussion. I refer to the English text of the document. On page 32 there is a section dealing with the currency factor to indicate what the budget level would be at different rates of exchange. On page 33 there is a table showing a comparison of the present budget with the proposed budget, and on page 34 an explanation showing what would be the effect of the various budget levels on contributions of Member Nations. I would like to return to this aspect at the conclusion of my remarks.
There is a draft resolution provided in the document which is the text as will be considered by the Conference when it adopts the Programme of Work and Budget in Plenary. I should indicate that the figures given in the draft resolution are given at the rate of Lire 1 615 to the dollar, the present rate for the present biennium as adopted by the last Conference, and the text of the draft resolution which will be before the Conference will of course be updated on the actual day to permit the Conference to decide on the rate of exchange which it will adopt together with the Programme of Work and Budget.
The main part of the document, the Programme budget itself, is in essence on the same lines as has been presented in the last Programme of Work and Budget. That is to say, it describes clearly the medium-term objectives, the programme activities proposed, and the changes, the plan of action by sub-programme in as specific a way as possible.
The tables which relate to the programme budget are in the format which had been approved by the Council itself at its Eighty-seventh Session.
The three annexes in the document are more for information, and yet they are an integral part of the document because reference to them is necessary by our governing bodies.
Annex I gives the proposed programme by regions, and I emphasize here that it does not deal only with the activities of regional offices, because the whole technical and economic programme of FAO is on an integrated basis whether the activities are carried out at headquarters, in regional, offices or at country levels. Annex II deals with the budget by organizational unit, giving all information by objects of expenditure, both for the present biennium and the next biennium, together with organizational charts. Annex III deals with salary schedules and staffing tables.
This document was reviewed by the Programme and Finance Committees at their recent session in September. The views, the recommendations, of these two committees are in their reports, and I do not need to dwell on them but only to draw your attention to the fact that the joint session of the Programme and Finance Committees expressed its views very clearly in paragraphs 1. 1 to 1. 7 of document CL 88/4. This section of the report indicates all views as expressed in the committees, both of the majority of members of these committees and of those who had some views which did not coincide with the views of the majority. It ends by recognizing all the views and by stating that the Committees recommended to the Council to endorse the Director-General's proposed Programme of Work and Budget for 1986-87 as presented in document C 85/3.
There are two specific aspects which I need to draw to your attention as regards the Programme and Finance Committees. The Programme Committee reviewed in considerable detail the programme proposals in order to define the extent to which its own recommendations and the recommendations and views of the Council had been taken into account, and the report of the Programme Committee speaks for itself in commenting on these aspects.
The Finance Committee, according to its mandate, concentrated particularly on the cost increases and received detailed explanations both of the composition of the provision and the reason for the changes between the summary and the full budget. The provision as made and presented in this document has been endorsed by the Finance Committee.
To conclude-and may I come to the last part of my introduction of this item-it may assist the Council if I were to draw attention to three financial and budgetary aspects. Figures become a stock in trade for some, but figures are not without meaning, and in this case I would commend to you that the Council may need and may wish to distinguish between three different aspects. One is the aspect of the programme increase. Our methodology for defining the net programme increase which has been approved by our governing bodies is to take the present budget base, to recost it at the rates which will be applicable for the next biennium, and then to express the programme increase as a percentage of that. This is shown in the table on page 33 of the English text, and this is the first aspect of the budgetary presentation which shows that the net programme increase proposed is 1. 1 percent of the present recosted base. If I may remind Council, as I said at the beginning in the Summary Programme of Work and Budget the increase was 1. 416% which has now been reduced. The second aspect of these figures is that the whole document gives figures at the rate of exchange approved by Conference for the present biennium, for the present budget, I repeat It. L 1 615 to the US dollar. The Conference will adopt the new Programme of Work and Budget and will define the exchange rate which will be applicable to it. Therefore, to take the proposed Programme of Work and Budget at the total figure of US$448 million as given in the document is, if I may say so, somewhat academic. We gave it at that rate in order to be completely clear and transparent and to promote comparison of the proposals with the present budget. However, for sovereign member Nations who are interested in seeing what the budget levels will be for the next biennium, it will not be US$448 million or anywhere near.
At the time the document was sent for processing, in fact on the day it was sent for processing, 26 July, the rate was It. L. 1 921 to the dollar. So, the Director-General decided to indicate in the document what the effective budget level would be at It. L 1 900 and then instead of US$448 million you can see that the budget level would be US$429. 7 million. The Council may wish to know what put the effective budget level at the rate of exchange which we now see. To ask me to give any forecast of the budget level, would be to put me in an impossible situation and I would not presume to give such a forecast. However, the average rate of exchange from January to September was It. L 1 844. The average rate of exchange for 1-31 October was It. L 1 785, so at It. L 1 785 to the US dollar the effective working budget would be US$435. 5 million.
The third aspect, the final aspect, of these budgetary figures is what is the impact on Member Nations' contributions? As shown in the table on page 34 of the document, to arrive at the Member Nations' contributions one takes the effective working budget level and deducts the estimated miscellaneous income. The Council will note that the estimate of miscellaneous income for the next biennium is indicated at US$41 million, a considerable increase over the present biennium. The composition of this estimate has been explained and was gone into by the Finance Committee and is, of course, given in the document itself. If one were to take a current rate of exchange, the average for October of It. L 1 785 to the US dollar, the share of Member Nations' contributions would amount to US$394 520 000 which is a very small decrease over the contributions for the present biennium.
I have tried to be brief in this introduction but I hope I have drawn the Council's attention to those aspects which may be of greatest interest and I remain fully available to you to provide any clarifications you may wish.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much Mr Shah for this very clear and brilliant introduction. I now request Professor Trkulja, Chairman of the Programme Committee to speak.
M. TRKULJA (Chairman, Programme Committee): I have hardly anything to add of substance to what I have referred to you last time, and I will attempt to be very brief indeed. It is now my turn to present in a very brief fashion indeed, the joint views of the Programme and Finance Committees. First, the Committees fully recognized the fact that the Director-General consistently pursued the line, as made out at the last session of Council, to develop final proposals on the basis of the Summary Programme of Work and Budget and to take into account views expressed at the last Council session.
The Committees unanimously expressed their appreciation for the further efforts of the Director-General to present to the FAO membership the Programme of Work and Budget for the next biennium, one that would most likely be met with the full agreement of all the FAO membership. I will not refer to the figures, Mr Shah explained in all details the figures. It is enough to say that in the final version, the Director-General proposes a further decrease in net programme growth of about $1. 2 million expressed by Mr Shah, as well as the further revision of the cost increases.
Well, let me just highlight again that the Committees were fully aware of the full agreement in the Council of the strategies, priorities and programme frameworks, and the same agreement and same harmony was fully retained in our joint session. I will not even reflect on the last point that Mr Shah made. He explained the recent tendency that prevailed after our meeting in the rate between lire and dollars and he has given you the figures at present on the average rate for October.
It is understandable that since full unanimity has always existed in FAO about basic policy guidelines, strategies, priorities for the last nine years, the issue of overall budgetary level is bound to dominate them as it has dominated our joint and separate sessions. Here again the situation remains more or less the same. It means some members of the committee reach their traditional position, a position with regard to the principle of zero programme growth, or well off in the budgetary provisions in real terms, because it is very difficult to see semantically how something could increase "zerolly". It is perhaps a matter of semantics. But these Members stress that this policy of zero growth has to be understood as a consequence of the corollary on the limitations that many countries impose on their domestic public spending. They appreciate the additional effort by the Director-General and in September expressed the hope that he may be able to propose some further reductions in programme growth to the Council. Consequently, four countries reserved their position on the budget level at that stage. However, the majority of members in both Committees first stressed the fact that they fully agreed and supported the proposed level in that summary form. They were prepared at that time to support an even higher increase in the budgetary allocations given the serious world food situation and in particular the very acute and gripping food crisis in Africa. The majority expressed
certain concern regarding the reduction proposed by the Director-General and, in particular, that it might hamper the adequacy and level of the FAO administration and support services to a certain extent. However, the majority was prepared to endorse the Director-General's proposals in their final form, with the strong hope that the budget level, as proposed, would now be approved unanimously at the forthcoming Conference.
With these views the Committees recommended the Council to endorse the Director-General's proposals; all that means is to endorse the Programme of Work and Budget for 1986-87.
Now coming to the Programme Committee's views, I will try not to repeat some of the quite well-known positions. First of all, there is no question; I am not going to go into detail to explain why it is more consistent with better-framed and more visible links. While the Director-General's introduction was in general agreement with his views, the Programme Committee concluded that additional emphasis should be placed on the uncertainties regarding economic recovery, especially the effects of recovery on developing countries and, in particular, the least developed ones.
The food crisis in Africa was again very much underlined. I do not need to refer to the full endorsement of the statutory priorities; it is very visible from our report. We then, again, refer to the substantial uncertainties regarding extra-budgetary resources at this stage, and to the proposed deductions by the Director-General in both programme increases and costs. The Programme Committee again warned against the continuing decline of statutory provisions for administration and support services, though it was fully assured by the Director-General that the reduction he had proposed would not hamper the FAO capacity, quality and quantity of its administrative and support services to any measurable degree.
The Committee fully shared the proposal to modestly increase the number of posts and it felt that it was fully justified in doing so, with a further note that a modest increase in cost would not arrest the tendency of further reduction in the total budget of the share of established posts. On the question of levels, the majority of members even regretted that the Director-General had felt obliged to propose a decrease in budget level, and with the same kind of concern, they finally agreed to recommend that the Council give its full support to the proposed Programme of Work and Budget, and expressed the hope that the Conference would approve it unanimously. I have to add that one member, while sharing the Committee's appreciation for the recommended proposals and in particular because of the additional efforts made by him to decrease the huge demand for additional resources, reiterated that the position of his government with regard to zero growth applied not only to FAO but to all organizations in the United Nations System. Consequently, one member reserved the position of his government regarding the budget level at this stage,
I cannot obviously go into all the details with regard to major programmes and sub-programmes. Our views are-I believe, I hope-clearly expressed. In our deliberations we mainly concentrated on the issues not covered in summary form-that means the nature of the problems at all levels, then relative or approximate ranks of priorities and medium term objectives.
I do not need to assure you that we very carefully reviewed all details at the level of all programmes and sub-programmes, and we were in fact in agreement with the proposed activities for the next biennium.
D. H. J. ABEYAGOONASEKERA (Chairman, Finance Committee): I am grateful to you Mr Chairman for giving me the floor to address the Council on behalf of my Committee-in fact my task has been made very much easier by the two previous interventions by Mr Shah and the Chairman of the Programme Committee. In my intervention on this item at the last session of the Council I indicated to the Council the views of the Committee on the Summary Programme of Work and Budget. At our last meeting, when we examined the full. Programme of Work and Budget for 1986-87, it reiterated its appreciation of the Director-General's efforts to review once more the proposals he had made in an attempt to find a consensus eventually. This was a clear indication of the responsiveness of the head of this institution to abide by the wishes of its members to the extent possible without compromising the important and pertinent objectives of the Organization which
have been endorsed for the past 40 years by its governing body. The clear, concise and informative presentation in document C 85/3, both in the narrative sections and in the tabular information, together with the lucid explanations provided orally by the Secretariat, enabled our Committee to consider these proposals more easily.
Our discussions were not so much on the format, strategies, objectives, priorities and world background, since these had been dealt with thoroughly and endorsed at the previous meeting. We sought and obtained clear explanations of the changes, propositions and estimates now presented to us in the full Programme of Work and Budget. These related to components in the provisions made for cost and programme increases. The Committee noted that while cost increases had been reduced by some US$2 million, programme increases too had been pruned from the original 1. 4 percent to 1. 1 percent, enabling a total reduction of US$3. 2 million. It noted that this amount included further reductions in the provision previously made in Chapters 1, 6 and 7. For further information on these reductions, your attention is drawn to the Table in Summary of Estimates by Chapters and Major Programmes appearing at page 35 of CL 85/3, which has already been referred to by Mr Shah, and the document which you have before you-page 38 of C 85/3.
The Committee commended these efforts by the Director-General, and particularly appreciated the efforts to retain the limited increase, in resources for FAO's technical and economic programmes by effecting further cuts in the administrative and supportive areas. The Committee was also informed of the probability of reduced US dollar assessments on Member Nations in the next biennium: that has already been dealt with by Mr Shah. The Committee took into consideration the advantages of such a possibility for countries which have currencies with a favourable relationship vis-à-vis the dollar, and concluded that the fulfillment of the statutory obligation for assessed contributions would place a burden on developing countries which do not have a favourable relation vis-à-vis the dollar.
In the deliberations on the likely income accruing to the Organization under Miscellaneous Income, the Committee considered the very close link between receipt of contributions and miscellaneous income, and noted that the calculation of the amount of miscellaneous income for 1986-87 was based on assumptions regarding the rate of receipt of contributions and expectations of rates of interest to be obtained from these deposits. The Council is aware of the experience of the past in this regard, and I mention it here only as a reminder that the Budget carries with it the fulfillment of obligations of the Member Nations regarding punctuality of payment for assessed contributions. This aspect was covered under the item on alternative measures to deal with the problem of delayed payment of contributions, and the Council will be informed of the outcome of our deliberations on this aspect at the time the report of the Finance Committee is discussed.
The re was considerable discussion on the budget level -- this has also been referred to by Mr Shah-and the views of the Committee are reflected in paragraphs 3. 11 and 3. 12. Overall, the Committee accepted the thrust and focus of the Director-General's proposal, the emphasis on Africa, the weight given to the technical and evaluation programmes, and endorsed his proposals. Barring three members who could not commit themselves to the budget level and therefore reserved their governments' position, the Committee agreed to recommend to the Council the endorsement of the Director-General's proposals as presented to the Council and Conference in document C 85/3.
The, meeting rose at 13. 00 hours
La seance est levée à 13 heures
Se levanta la sesión a las 13. 00 horas
_________
1/ Texto incluido en las actas a petición expresa.
