Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page

PART III - CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS (continued)
TROISIEME PARTIE - QUESTIONS CONSTITUTIONNELLES ET ADMINISTRATIVES
(suite)
PARTE III -ASUNTOS CONSTITUCIONALES Y ADMINISTRATIVOS
(continuación)

23. Other Financial and Administrative Questions (continued)
23. Autres questions administratives et financières (suite)
23. Otras cuestiones financieras y administrativas (continuación)

- Financial Position of the Organization - Status of Contributions
- Situation financière de l'Organisation - Etat des contributions
- Situation financiera de la Organización - Estado de las cuotas

P.J. SKOUFIS (Assistant Director-General, Administration and Finance Department): I will speak on the item, Financial Position of the Organization - Status of Contributions. The report of the Seventy-Seventh Session of the Council, CL 72-Rep., contains in paragraphs 73 - 79 comments on the Status of the Contributions as of 9 November 1977. Those comments and the related appendix are also to be found in document C 77/LIM/31. Attention is drawn particularly to paragraph 77 thereof wherein the Council suggested that the Conference might wish to appeal to Member Nations to make adjustments as necessary to their appropriation patterns so that the Organization might receive contributions when due. With your agreement, Mr. Chairman, we would include language to this effect in your draft report.

The question of voting rights referred to in paragraphs 78 and 79 is a matter which, as you know, has been handled by the Plenary of the Conference.

In the case of the Congo the Conference has already approved a Resolution whereby its arrears of contributions will be paid in ten equal instalments together with current contributions in the calendar year of assessment commencing in 1977.

With regard to the amounts of contribution outstanding at 9 November 1977 as set out in the appendix to C 77/LIM/31, I should mention that the following contributions have been received in the interim period. Contributions have been received from Bulgaria US $60 000, Ethiopia US $1 108, Guinea US $13 242, Haiti US $37 583, Honduras US $10 670, Mauritania US $9 678, Nigeria US $126 337, Pakistan US $109 448, Poland US $152 196, Qatar US $13 907, Venezuela US $283 386, Information has also been received from the Government of Mauritania that in addition to the payment of US $9 678 which I have just mentioned as having been received, a remittance equivalent to Fr.francs 90 000, which is approximately US $18 500, is on its way. Payment of the amount outstanding from Yugoslavia, US $309 124 is also expected shortly.

I should mention that in paragraph 48 of its Report the recent session of the Council noted, that subject to collection of oustanding contributions miscellaneous income in 1976/77 would exceed the amount budgeted by approximately US $5 million. In the event that such cash surplus does arise it would be released to Member Nations as at 1 January 1979, thus reducing the amounts that Member Nations would be called upon to pay as contributions in the coming biennium. Accordingly it is hoped that contributions presently outstanding will be settled by the end of the year, 31 December 1977.

O. LUCO ECHEVERRÍA (Chile): Como un aspecto ilustrativo , desearía solicitar dé la Secretaría que, si lo tiene a bien, informara sobre los estudios y acuerdos que se han hecho en las Naciones Unidas sobre los nuevos porcentajes de cuotas para los países. Tengo entendido que en las Naciones Unidas se aprobo hace poco una situación que creo que sería de interés para la FAO dar a conocer.

CHAIRMAN: I thank the Delegate of Chile. May I call rour attention to Item 22, in which we speak of Scale of Contribution, which we will take later on, and that would perhaps be the appropriate time to get the information.

P.J. BYRNES (United States of America): This is a good financial report. I think it indicates that the Organization has done well in terms of management during this biennium, and it is a very hopeful report in that sense.


I would like to ask with regard to the accumulation of miscellaneous income. Which we have heard it has far surpassed the estimation. Knowing that in the forthcoming biennium we are anticipating the same exact amount that has been budgeted for the current biennium, whether if the financial situation is such and if payments are being made at an earlier rate would it not be possible to estimate a larger amount of miscellaneous income for 1978/79?

CHAIRMAN: Before I give the floor to Mr. Skoufis to answer this! does any other delegate wish to speak on this matter? Then I give the floor to Mr. Skoufis.

P.J. SKOUFIS (Assistant Director-General, Administration and Finance Department): In response to the delegate of the United States of America, the miscellaneous income for the biennium 1976/77 was in excess of our estimates because of the better collection rate, as has already been stated, plus an increase in the interest rates, the interest rates during that year were higher than anticipated.

With regard to our estimates for the future biennium we were not able to confirm that these conditions would prevail, so we estimated on the basis of our previous figure and of course will have to adjust that accordingly as the circumstances permit.

A. LØCHEN (Norway): My delegation agrees with the delegate of the United States of America that this a good financial report and we agree with the suggestion of Mr. Skoufis that our report recommends that countries pay their contributions when due.

J.O. ALABI (Nigeria): The arrears on the payments due in respect of Nigeria have already been sent to the FAO. If by now it has not been received, it is on the way because I received a cable yesterday saying that this amount has been paid and the Central Bank had been authorized to pay the FAO this amount ·

CHAIRMAN: In the absence of any further comment I take it that the Commission adopts this item.

23. Other Financial and Administrative Questions (continued)
23. Autres questions administratives et financières (suite)
23. Otras cuestiones financieras y administrativas (continuación)

- Allocation of Cash Surplus
- Repartition de l'excédent de trésorerie
- Asignación del superávit de tesorería

E.M. WEST (Assistant Director-General, Office of Programme & Budget): As I think most delegates know, the question of the allocation of cash surplus is affected by two resolutions emerging from the Council. One resolution was for the establishment of a special reserve account which the Council adopted at its 71st Session and transmitted to the Conference; the other is for the prevention of food losses which was discussed at the 71st Session and again at the 72nd Session, when the Council transmitted a further resolution to the Conference. However, both these resolutions have been under intensive discussion informally in groups. They have, in fact, only just reached the Resolutions Committee and are to be discussed there at 11.00 a.m.

However, it seems - and I hope I am correct in saying this - that the extensive discussions in the informal groups and in contact groups involving also the Director-General have resulted in agreement of the groups on the scope and the wording of these provisions. I will indicate very briefly what the Scope of the resolution is in relation to the cash surplus, in the hope that when the Resolutions ' Committee does transmit the texts to you, there will be no problems of substance and the Commission can adopt their conclusion on the report which the Drafting Committee will then send back to the Commission for adoption. We need not then have any problems of substance.


Now, on the prevention of food losses, although the substance concerns Commission I, there is a provision therein by which, notwithstanding the provisions of Financial Regulation 6-1(b) the amounts which would otherwise be allocated to Member Nations under Regulation 35-75 which established a Suspense Account for this biennium will be withheld and transferred in an amount not exceeding $10 million to the special account established for the prevention of food losses, unless a Member Nation by written notification lodged with the Director-General before 31 January 1978 requests that its portion which has been so withheld shall be released and allocated in accordance with Financial Regulation 6-1(b).

Now, there are many other very important substantive provisions in that draft resolution which it will be the business of Commission I to discuss, which do not affect the allocation of the cash surplus, whereas the provision I have just described does. The result is that unless a Member Nation gives notice before 31 January, its share of $10 million which is expected to be in the cash surplus at the end of the biennium will be withheld and transferred to a special account for food losses. There will still be money left in the cash surplus, but here I turn to the proposal for a special reserve account, the substance of which I think will be discussed in Commission II. The special reserve account would be for certain purposes similar to the suspense account which was established for 1974-75. The important provision as regards the allocation of cash surplus is that, again, notwithstanding the provisions of Financial Regulation 6.1 (b) the Director-General will be directed to transfer, as of 31 December 1977, a sum of $5 million from the suspense account established under Regulation 35.75 to the special reserve account.

So those two sums - $10 million and $5 million - if these resolutions are agreed, will not be available in the cash surplus.

This is the position which, as I have indicated, has been agreed in the very extensive group meetings and contact group meetings. There will still be, in our estimate, some further cash surplus of smaller amounts to be transferred, but I think the essential information this morning is what I have just given you. As I have indicated, when the resolutions come from the Resolutions Committee I hope they can be, as it were, placed immediately into the Draft Report and come back to you as part of the Draft Report on those items .

CHAIRMAN: Any comments? There being none, I take it the explanation given by Mr. West is accepted and we now have to wait for the resolution; I hope that points of substance will not then be raised because this has probably already been dealt with.

E. DIAZ BUSTABAD (Cuba): Desearía, señor Presidente, que se me aclarara cuál es el tema que vamos a tratar: si es el 22 6 el 20.

M.A. BENDIENNA (Algérie): J'appuie la proposition de l'honorable délégué de Cuba. Je voudrais que cette question soit retardée pour que nous puissions nous consulter encore.

CHAIRMAN: Is there any other delegation wishing to take the floor on the proposal of the delegate of Cuba to postpone this item?

E. DIAZ BUSΓABAD (Cuba): Nos agradaría, señor Presidente, que este tema se pospusiera porque algunas delegaciones, no solo la nuestra, quisiéramos efectuar previamente unas consultas con respecto a esta temática de las cuotas que se nos plantea.

Reitero que nos gustaría que del tema nos ocupásemos por la tarde porque deseamos que este particular sea tratado antes dentro de los grupos de contacto.

CHAIRMAN: May I ask the delegate of Cuba whether a break of half an hour will be sufficient for him to finish with the consultation and then we could come back and take this item.


It is the general feeling that we postpone item 22 until this afternoon. We will now take item 20, the International Poplar Convention if there is no objection.

20. Other Constitutional and Legal Questions (continued)
20. Autres questions constitutionnelles et juridiques (suite)
20. Otras cuestiones constitucionales y jurfdicas (continuación)

20.4 Amendmentsto Conventions concluded under Article XIV of the FAO Constitution
20.4 Amendements aux Conventions conclues en vertu de l,Articîe XIVde l’Acte constitutif de la FAO
20.4 Enmiendas a los convenios concluidos en virtud de~Artículo XIV de la Constitución de la FAO

- International Poplar Convention
- Convention internationale sur les peupliers
- Convención Internacional del Alamo

LEGAL COUNSEL: The document before you on this sub-item of item 20 is, as indicated in the Journal of the Conference, document C 77/LIM 27. It deals with four amendments of the Convention placing the International Poplar Commission within the framework of FAO. This Convention is a multilateral treaty concluded in accordance with Article XIV of the Constitution under which the International Poplar Commission was established in its present structure.

Two of these amendments, namely the amendments to Article VI, paragraph 2 and Article VIII, paragraph 2 of the Convention, were proposed by the government of France for two purposes: first to change the intervals between regular sessions of the Commission from two to four years and secondly to change the term of office of members of this Executive Committee from six to four years in order to synchronise the terms of office of members of the Executive Committee with the new timing of sessions.

The remaining amendments, namely those to Article II, paragraph 2 and Article XI of the Convention are related to two issues; first the extension of the eligibility for participation in FAO bodies and meetings of non-Member States of FAO that are members of the United Nations Specialized Agencies or of the International Atomic Energy Agency; secondly the elimination of the requirements of confirmation by the Conference or the Council of the Rules of Procedure and amendments thereto of FAO bodies, including in particular bodies established under Article XIV of the Constitution. The introduction of these amendments was necessary in order to give effect to the decisions laid down in Conference resolutions 10/73 and 26/75 respectively.

The proposed four amendments which were adopted by the International Poplar Commission at its Third Special Session held here in Rome on the 15th November 1977, by a two-thirds majority of the Commission's membership, in accordance with Article XII, paragraph 1 of the Convention. Since under Article XII, paragraph 3 of the Convention, amendments become effective only after concurrence of the Conference, the afore-mentioned amendments are now submitted to the Conference for endorsement. The Draft Resolution regarding the concurrence by the Conference has been reviewed by the Resolutions Committee and is contained in document C 77/LIM/38.

CHAIRMAN: I invite comments on the proposed amendments. In the absence of any comments from the floor I take it that the proposed amendments are accepted.

- International Plant Protection Convention
- Convention internationale pour la protection des végétaux
- Convención Internacional de Protección Fitosanitaria


LEGAL COUNSEL: This item concerns the amendments to the International Plant Protection Convention. The relevant papers are contained in the Report of Council which has transmitted to the Conference the proposed amendments set forth in Appendix J of the Council's report, and also the earlier report of the CCLM on the proposed amendment. The extracts from the Council Report and from the report of the CCLM, (document CL 72/5, paragraphs 37 to 52) are reproduced in the document you have just mentioned, namely C 77/LIM/26.

The Convention at present in force is itself a revised version of the International Plant Protection Convention of 1929 which was administered by FAO's predecessor, the former International Institute of Agriculture. It was approved in its present from by the FAO Conference in 1951 as a convention concluded under Article XIV of the Constitution. The Convention has obviously been recognized as an important instrument both for controlling plant pests and for faciliting movement of plants and plant products across international borders. To date 77 states have ratified or acceeded to the Convention: a number far exceeding that of the contracting parties to any other Article XIV convention or agreement. The list of contracting parties is given in the Director-General's Report on the Status of Conventions and Agreements, document C 77/10, which was submitted to the Conference and considered by this Commission yesterday.

In view of the technical changes and the increase in the volume of international trade in plants and plant products over the last 25 years there can be no doubt that the Convention is in need of revision. Indeed, this need was recognized by the Conference in 1969 and reiterated in 1971 when the Conference recommended that the provisions of the Convention be examined.

LEGAL COUNSEL: In 1973 the process of consultation began with contracting parties and the Regional Plant Protection organizations. It culminated in the 1976 Government Consultation on the International Plant Protection Convention which was attended by the experts representing the governments of contracting parties. This Consultation proposed a series of amendments to bring the Convention up to date, including two new model types of phytosanitary certificates to replace the certificate at present annexed to the Convention. The Report of the 1976 Consultation containing those amendments has been transmitted to all contracting parties and to other Member Nations of FAO. I understand that copies of the Report of the consultation (AGP:1976/M/13) are available on request at the Document Desk.

Appendix J of the Council Report as reproduced in Document C 77/LIM/26 sets out for your convenience a consolidated version of the revised text of the Convention showing exactly what amendments have been proposed. This text also incorporates some drafting changes that have been suggested by the CCLM in order to ensure consistency and to eliminate possible ambiguities, The proposed new text of the Convention is followed by, first, the existing model Phytosanitary Certificate and then the two new certificates proposed.

Mr.Chairman, I think I ought to say a few words on the question of the procedure that has to be followed.The revised text which has been collectively proposed by the contracting parties represented at the Government Consultation is now submitted to the Conference for approval in accordance with Article XIII of the Convention.It should be noted that, unlike the other Conventions and Agreements adopted under Article XIV of the Constitution, the International Blant Protection Convention has not established any commission or other body empowered to adopt amendments.This has two consequences. First, as pointed out by the CCLM, the final form which the proposed amendments are to take for the Conference to determine.Secondly, the amendments will not enter into force immediately upon approval by the Conference.

Under Article XIII, para, 4 of the Convention, amendments enter into force thirty days after they have been accepted by two-thirds of the contracting parties.There will, thus, inevitably be some delay before the present am e n dirent s enter into force.

Another question partly concerning procedure and partly substance relates to the concept of new obligations. Normally, after acceptance by two-thirds majority amendments enter into force for all contracting parties. However, the second sentence of Article XIII, Para. 4 of the Convention provides that amendments which involve new obligations for contracting parties only enter into force for those countries which have actually accepted them.In this case, the unamended text would continue to apply to the other contracting parties.In order that the Director-General in his capacity as depository of the Convention should know which of these two procedures should be observed, the CCLM considered that it would be necessary for the Conference to determine whether or not new obligations were involved. This question is not an easy one since no definite criteria have yet been laid down as to when the variation of an existing obligation can be said to be a new obligation.


The CCLM considered the matter very carefully indeed and itself elaborated some criteria designed to achieve a just balance between two interests to be protected. On the one hand, one has to bear in mind the interests of the minority of contracting parties in not suffering any hardship as a result of acceptance of the amendments by a two-thirds majority of the contracting parties. On the other hand, there is the interest of the international community in avoiding a further delay if the full entry into force of the amendments were to be subjected to acceptance by each of the contracting parties, of avoiding also the inconvenience of having a dual system under which some contracting parties would be bound by one text of the Convention and others by another text.

You will find the CCLM criteria set out in para. 46 of its report. Basically, the CCLM approach was to compact the overall burden to be borne by the contracting parties in the implementation of their existing obligations, with the overall burden they would have to bear as a result of the proposed amendments.

Adopting this approach, the CCLM carried out a detailed review of the substantive amendments proposed. It found that at least two of the amendments were significant in this context. These are dealt with in para. 48-51 of the CCLM Report. One of these amendments related to the proposed new definition of plant products, which might be considered as broadening to some extent the original scope of the Convention.In recommending the new definition, however, the Government Consultation had expressed the view that the amendments would not extend existing obligations. This view was confirmed by the CCLM which found that in practice the effect Of new definitions on existing obligations would be minimal.The other proposed amendment considered significant in the context of the question of new obligations was the introduction of a model Phytosanitary Certificate for Re-export which could, in fact, reduce the existing burden on contracting parties.

The CCLM, therefore, came to the conclusion that the overall burden on contracting parties would remain substantially the same and that eventually none of the proposed amendments involved obligations that would fall within the concept of new obligations, which the drafters of the Convention presumably had in mind when they provided for a separate and more cumbersome procedure for the entry into force of amendments involving new obligations.

Mr. Chairman, the questions to be considered by the Commission at this stage may be summarized as follows.First the question whether or not new obligations are involved deserves the commissions atten-tion.Secondly, the desirability of the approval of the amendments proposed will have to be examined.

The third question that might be discussed is what action could be taken to minimise the delay in the entry into force of these much needed amendments.As I have already stated, even under normal proce procedure, amendments do not enter into force until they have been accepted by two-thirds of the contr-acting parties. As seventy-seven countries are now parties to the Convention, the required number of acceptances to bring the amendment into force is at present fifty-two.

It may be somewhat premature but I should perhaps mention it at this stage nevertheless.It is custo-mary for the Conference to adopt a resolution for the purpose of concurring with, or approving, amend-ments to Article XIV Conventions or Agreements. The draft resolution will be incorporated in the report, after having been examined by the Resolutions Committee. I believe it would be useful to include in the draft resolution an operative paragraph urging contracting parties to accept the revised version of the Convention at an early date so as to expedite the coming into force of the proposed amendments.

Needless to say, I shall gladly attempt to answer any question of a legal nature delegates may wish to ask on this subject. However, legal and technical aspects are closely interwoven.If the questions were to be of a technical nature my colleague, Mr, Chock from our Plant Protection Service, who is sitting beside me, would be available to answer them.

E.D. LETTS (Australia): If what we are considering is a major revision of the International Plant Protection Convention, a glance at Document C 77/LIM/26 will show that every Article, and almost every paragraph and sub-paragraph of each Article are being changed in some way. Also proposed is a new version of the model Phytosanitary Cerifícate, and a complete addition to the previous provisions in the form of a model Phytosanitary Certificate for re-export.

Australia takes a positive view of the work which has gone on to revise the Convention, and can support most of the amendments suggested by the 1976 Government Consultation, including the wholly new re-export certificate, because we can appreciate that many members, many contracting parties - in particular, I suppose, importing members - felt that up to now there could have been loopholes in the protective arrangements when goods were re-exported and subject to the possibility of infestation en-route.


Australia also supports the recommendation made by the Consultation on general organizational matters on page 17 of its report AGP: 1976/M/13, including those relating to international plant germplasm exchange.

Given our concurrence with most of the changes before us - and our readiness to cooperate by accepting changes which were not much to our liking but which we can live with - the important thing is to come to the points which we see as of major significance and not acceptable in their present form. We are aware of several countries who are not satisfied with certain changes, and it is perhaps timely to point out to this Commission that now is the last chance to make a contribution or express a view since the Council confirmed that any decisions on this International Agreement are to be made by the Conference.

The two major issues which worry us are these. The proposed new wording for the statement of cer-tification in the Model Phytosanitary Certificate is to be found in the middle of page J.9 of document number C 77/LIM/26. That statement makes the flat unqualified requirement that the consignor must certify that the plant products have been inspected and found free from quarantine pests.

First, a conscientious exporter would find it difficult: to rebut the argument that on that basis he would have to inspect every bit of every single consignment to sign a statement in those terms, that is that his goods have been completely inspected and found completely free. We maintain that that is an unrealistic, and therefore an untenable, position in which to place a member.It contrasts sharply with the existing requirements for thorough examination on a sampling basis, which is the current practice and one which works well.Indeed, any other inspection procedure than the sampling one, which we understand is practised in all the bulk grain trades, for instance, would be inoperable for that area.

Second, the requirement of freedom from quarantine pests would bring in a new dimension which could cause difficulties of a practical nature that may not have been fully appreciated so far. The pro-posals to introduce this quite new concept defines a quarantine pest as ''a pest of potential economic importance to the country endangered thereby and not yet present there, or present but not widely distributed and being actively controlled''.

The prior government consultation of 1973 commended the original drafters for their wisdom in avoiding a proliferation of definitions. Apart from the definitional problem per se, it is the importing country which decides what constitutes a quarantine pest, and exporting countries would find it very difficult to attest to freedom from such pests if details are not readily available for all the many markets which may be involved.

We therefore do not favour the inclusion of a definition of quarantine pests in the convention.

As to the draft Model Certificate text, it might be possible to reword the certification statement of the proposed new Certificate, but that appears fraught with pitfalls.I said earlier I was aware that other countries were dissatisfied with some of the draft. Some of the alternative formulations put to me in discussions outside this room are not attractive to us, and would probably be even less attractive to certain importers.

With great respect to the drafters of the proposed Model Certificate, it seems to take inadequate account of the practical needs of shippers of plant products, and especially those foodstuffs needed to nourish a hungry world.I would like to make this clear. Australia recognizes the right of importing countries to set conditions to prevent the entry of pests and diseases, but we would resist the idea that on top of that all the procedures of inspection should be set from outside. Similarly, I do not think that, for example, East African vegetable suppliers, Asian and Caribbean fruit exporters, or South American shippers of grain, sorghum and wheat would find it reasonable to be told to use, say, bushel measures instead of litres or vice versa, or to make a whole series of different inspections varying in sample size and ranging, if required, up to 100 percent of the produce shipped for perhaps 40 or 50 different markets.

Our misgivings do not merely revolve really around exporters and their needs.Consumers, too, want security of supply of food without delays and at the cheapest possible cost.

The existing Model Certificate is not perfect - no document ever was - but it has served the world well, and, if replaced needs to be replaced with something better, and not with something which at worst could serve as an inducement to be less than conscientious, and at best runs the risk of imposing injustified economic burdens on exporters of plant products, and by extension, on those receiving and paying for the products.


Therefore, Australia proposes as the most satisfactory course that this Conference agrees to retain the existing Model Certificate. We should be glad to hear the views of others on this question.

It is only fair to mention now that if a solution on those lines is not agreed, we would see the need to move to the alternative of proposing that the whole issue be looked at further in the light of the points which are of genuine concern to several countries, including Australia. That would, of course, have the regrettable effect of delaying considerably the introduction of a number of other commendable amendments.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, you might feel disposed to ask why Australia or others are speaking in this way now, a year after the consultation occured. Changes in a Convention like this affect not only those working in the specialized field of plant protection, but whole areas of government, industry and commerce.It must be remembered that this Model Certificate is used not only to cover plants for propagation - indeed the Conference or FAO organs might like to consider in due course whether there is merit in working out separate provisions of a narrower kind to apply to nursery stock and like products - but the Certificate is also for other commodities like grains in which there is a substantial international trade of great economic significance to many of the developed and developing countries at this Conference.

So the implications of these proposed changes did need mature consideration.But in addition, Mr. Chairman, you will know that the report on the Convention by the Committee on Constitutional and Legal Matters became available only a matter of days ago. Until then, we had no hesitation in assuming that Article XIII.4 of the Convention applied, and that the new obligations involved in the amendments would Only come into force upon acceptance by an individual party to the Convention.

The CCLM report now concludes, by some unspecified formula, that the "overall burden" - whatever that means - would not change substantially. We are quite unable to accept the CCLM's opinion that only two amendments are significant in the ''new obligations" sense. The words of Article XIII.4 seemed clear to us, and the burden of costs and practical difficulties which might flow from a changed inspection pattern illustrate the new obligations to be assumed.The CCL:I has now cast doubts on the rights which we and others attached to our signing of the original, the. existing Convention. We are certainly of the view that the rights of contracting parties should not be in any way diminished because of administrative convenience.

Perhaps those legal doubts can be resolved in the foreseeable future.But in the circumstances, and for the reasons I have given, Australia proposes that the safest and the most generally excitable course is to retain the existing Model Certificate, whilst introducing the new re-export certificate.

E. DIAZ BUSTABAD (Cuba): Nuestra delegación manifiesta estar de acuerdo, en general, con el contenido del documento C 77/LIM/26, que a su vez tiene su antecedente en el AGP/176/M13, denominado "Informe de la Consulta íntergubernamental sobre la Convención Internacional de Protección Fitosanitaria'', resultante de la reunion celebrada en Roma entre los días 15 y 19 de noviembre de 1976.Exceptuamos de esta aceptación los Artículos 9 y 11, sobre los que nuestro gobierno planteó declaraciones y reservas en el instrumento de ratificación de la Convención, por ser nuestra opinión, con relación al Artículo 9, que la solución de controversia debe ventilarse por la vía diplomática entre las partes interesadas. Y con relación al Artículo 11, nuestra delegación entiende que el mismo contiene aspectos de legítima situación colonial que son contrarios a la Resolución 1514 de diciembre de 1960 de la Organización de las Naciones Unidas.

J.W. CURRIE (Canada): As the delegate of Australia has already mentioned there are a number of countries which have reservations about the wording of the proposed amendments.Canada is one of those countries.In 1976 we, as members of the North American Plant Protection Organization voiced our opposition to the proposed phytosanitary certificate, the certificate which certifies that plants and plant products described have been inspected and found free of quarantine pests. It is our position now, as it was then, that this statement is impossible, that it is impossible to ensure that all pests of quarantine significance are absent from a commercial consignment. This applies particularly to bulk shipment of cereals, vegetables and fruits, where 100 percent inspection is not possible.It was our hope then, and it still is, that there is a possibility of having this section either amended or interpreted in such a manner that current practice of sampling will meet the terms of the certificate.


H.A. ISMET HAKIM (Indonesia): We would like to thank the Secretariat for the introduction of this matter. After having heard the statements made by the delegates before me I would like to ask some questions. They concern the terms and the meaning of the plant products and the model phytosanitary certificate.If we look at Article II of the Plant Protection Convention we see the following ''and the term 'plant products' shall comprise unmanufactured material of plant origin (including seeds in so far as they are not included in the term 'plants') and those manufactured products which by their nature or that of their processing may create a risk for the spread of pests".

I have two questions. First, does this definition include many of our export commodities, like coffee, tea, palm oil, rubber and others? The second point is if the explanation made by the delegate of Australia on the model phytosanitary certificate implies that when we give this certificate we would make calculations not after sampling but on the bulk of these commodities. Is this interpretation correct? I would like to have an answer to these two questions.

CD. SANCHEZ AVALOS (Argentina): En opinión de mi delegación, las enmiendas a la Convención Internacional de Protección Fitosanitaria introducen, respecto al texto actual, cambios que sin duda implican nuevas obligaciones a las partes contratantes, especialmente para los países exportadores al establecer un modelo de certificado fitosanitario con exigencias que introducen innovaciones en cuanto a su contenido.

En este sentido apoyamos los términos del detenido examen y la opinión del distinguido delegado de Australia.

Por esta observación, mi país no puede menos de dejar planteada su reserva respecto a las enmiendas proyectadas, ya que, en virtud de su ordenamiento jurídico interno, requiere que, en casos como el que consideramos, la decisión nacional debe ajustarse a un trámite con intervención de los superiores niveles gubernamentales.

T. HAYAKAWA (Japon):En ce qui concerne cette Convention qui a été présentée par le Conseil devant nous, la plupart des amendements sont, à notre avis, appropriés et acceptables; mais en ce qui concerne la question, si ces amendements imposent de nouvelles obligations aux pays contractants ou n'imposent pas de nouvelles obligations, sur cette question notre délégation est d'avis que quelques-uns des amendements imposent juridiquement une nouvelle obligation, tout particulièrement l'Article V de cette Convention prévoit un certificat pour l'exportation des végétaux.Cet Article tout particulièrement impose une nouvelle obligation a notre pays.

A. LØCHEN (Norway): My delegation can accept the new amendments as.drafted. At this stage of consideration of these changes I think we should not make any new amendments.This has been considered by expert bodies in the Council and in the CCLM, and if the Conference adopts the new Convention it will later be submitted to the contracting parties and, as explained by the Legal Counsel, it will go into force soon after two-thirds of the contracting parties,have accepted it.If it should come to the stage that further amendments should be considered, then it must certainly be sent back to the experts for consideration. But my Government can accept the draft amendments as they are and we recommend that the Conference also accept them, as the Council have done.

P.J. BYRNES (United States of America):The issues and the problem which we are facing here I think have been very fully and very eloquently expressed by the delegate of Australia. He has said that many of the amendments proposed are fully acceptable. We share this view. He said that some of the amendments proposed are fully acceptable. We share this view. He said that some of the amendments will cause his Government and other governments some difficulty.It poses the same problem for us and we fully concur in his views. The CCLM report was received late and, quite honestly, the interpretations which the CCLM has reached we cannot concur in.

CHAIRMAN: I have two other speakers on my list. As the presence of the Legal Counsel is urgently required in another Commission I will ask him at this stage to reply to some of the points raised. Then we will continue with the discussion by giving the floor to the two other speakers on my list.


LEGAL COUNSEL: Most of the points that have'been raised concern technical questions and I believe that my colleagues froà the Plant Protection Service will be in the best position to answer those.

From a legal and procedural point of view I think I should make a very few points only. It seems to me, in the light of the discussion that has taken place in the Commission until now, that the Commission and thereby the Conference finds itself at a crossroad. Three possibilities can be envisaged. The first one is to adopt the amendments, as the delegate of Norway has suggested, and for individual governments later on to suggest further amendments. From an overall legal economy and for considerations of practical application of the Convention I am not certain whether this would be the most suitable procedure.

The second possibility would be to attempt to deal with the specific questions that were raised by the Australian delegation, namely introducing, if that is technically feasible, the idea of inspection of samples as meeting the requirements of the revised model phytosanitary certificate by way of a change of the wording in the Declaration appearing in these proposed new certificates, and possibly, if that were more or less the consensus of the Commission, to eliminate the new concept of quarantine pests from Article II of the Convention and from the proposed new model phytosanitary certificate, particularly if these were to remain the only objections or reservations that have been expressed on the proposals made by the Consultation.

The third possibility is that of deferring final consideration of the proposed revision and requesting the Secretariat to hold a new consultation.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, every meeting and every consultation involves costs, nor am I in a position at this stage to say whether the Secretariat could make arrangements for having a new consultation during the forthcoming biennium.

I should like to make two more points. First, it seems to me that the CCLM has tried hard, in a new field, in a new way to ascertain whether new obligations were involved.I do not think that the CCLM tended, as was said, simply for reasons of administrative convenience, to neglect the interests of individual contracting parties and I regret that this impression mighf have been caused by the somewhat succinct version of the CCLM's considerations which appear in its report.

As regards the reservations expressed by the delegate of Cuba, these provisions -namely, Article IX and Article XI- that you mentioned have not been amended from a substantive point of view, but merely from an editorial point of view. Therefore I do not think I need to take a position on this question, since it is not addressed to amendments which have been proposed by the Governmental Consultation or by the CCLM.If any further amendments, or any amendments at all, to these provisions were required, I believe an opportunity was given to all Member States, by way of invitations to make comments and subsequently circulation of comments and then the Governmental Consultation, to present their observations. This should not be interpreted in any way as discarding any merits that may attach to the observations made this morning by the delegate of Cuba.

There is one last question and this concerns the additional obligations.In this field it is the impression -which may be mistaken- that as regards import and export controls, sanitary or phytosanitary concerns, legislative amendments to keep up with technical developments and new products being traded, it is fairly frequent that governments have to introduce new legislation or amend their existing regulations more or less as a matter of course and a fairly frequent exercise. The CCLM felt that a slight adjustment of legislation regulations, although it might be incumbent on contracting parties to do so in order to adhere fully to the provisions of the Convention, would not by itself be a new obligation.

I would like to repeat something which I said in my introduction.It may well be that individual countries consider this or any other amendment as involving a new obligation. However, in order to know which of the two procedures should be followed for considering acceptances, the Director-General in his capacity as depository of the Convention would need to know from the outset -that is to say by way of a decision of the Conference- whether he must consider amendments to constitute new obligations, or whether this is not the case.

G. LIEBER (Germany, Fed. Rep. of)(interpretation from German): Above all, I wish to thank the Legal Adviear for having explained with his usual clarity to the Commission the existing position and I thank him also for having pointed to the alternative solution that we have for our further work.I will therefore speak only on the alternatives.


To begin with, my Government is prepared and is in a position to agree to the additions and amendments to the International Plant Protection Convention, and we can do so in toto. In this connection my Government will confirm this Convention once it has been accepted by the Conference.

As far as the second alternative is concerned, that was mentioned by the Legal Adviser, my delegation would have to consult with the relevant ministries in Bonn before being able to take up a firm position in respect of the technical matters contained in the document. All this has been subject to a very long-winded consultation process. We believe that all governments concerned were able to participate in this; my Government at least has made full use of this possibility and therefore considers that the result of the work so far, contained in document C 77/LIM/26, is now ready for a decision.

As far as the third alternative is concerned I wish only to point out the waste of time that is connected with it. The Legal Adviser told us that a postponement of the final decision would most certainly give rise to a further waste of time of two years at least and probably more.I do not now wish to dwell on any further details. My delegation finds itself in precisely the same position as the Norwegian delegation. That is why we would like to ask that those delegations which were unable to agree to the result of the working group so far and who have worked on the International Plant Protection Convention, review their position once again so that the Commission might then be able at least to endorse the work that has been done over such a long time.

B. de AZEVEDO BRITO (Brazil): My delegation has heard with very much attention the comments thus far in the debate on this issue which we understand to be very important. We are particularly attentive to the observations made by Australia on the actual implications of the changes, in particular of the new model of the Phytosanitary Certificate. However, I shall not address myself to the substance of the amendments but to the procedural aspect, and I must say that my delegation is inclined -I underline the word inclined- not to agree with the comments of the CCLM to the effect that there are no new obligations. Even just the fact that the scope of the Convention would change substantially in terms of the object to be treated by the Convention so as to include my manufactured products, that change would suggest that there are new obligations. We would therefore be inclined to agree with Australia also on the point that the procedure for entry into force for the country concerned should follow the specific procedures envisaged when there are new obligations. That means only entry into force by acceptance by the contracting party in question. We feel that it is absolutely correct and wé do not agree> to put it more mildly, we are inclined not to agree with the CCLM on his judgment of this particular issue,

M.R, LEAR (New Zealand): New Zealand would like to commend the Governmental Consultation which met last year to review the International Plant Protection Convention on the valuable work it did in clarifying, amending and modernizing the Convention.By and large we have no problems with the Convention as such and can accept the recommendations put forward by the Governmental Consultation. Further, we have no problems with the re-export certificate as it is at present worded.

However, like Australia and a number of other speakers we would prefer the retention of the original, that is, the current model phytosanitary certificate.In the English version this is on page 8 of the document that we are discussing. We would prefer that the new model phytosanitary certificate on page J-9 not be adopted. We have a number of reasons for this and, if I may say so, it is not just because of the sampling issue. Our objections go far wider than this. New Zealand, as you know, is not an exporter of grains and when we export plants and plant products we examine them in total, we do not employ sampling methods to any extent, so we have much wider objections than just the sampling issue.

Our problems are, that in our view the original, the old model phytosanitary certificate is clear and simple in its wording and it has worked well for many years.The new certificate, I would urge countries to look at the wording very carefully, seems to us to have substantial double wording which could make exporting and conscientious signing of that document more difficult for exporting countries, especially I think developing countries.

The main problem in the new certificate is the phrase ''found free from quarantine pests and substantially free from other injurious pests".Now in my interpretation ''found free of quarantine pests'' means founds completely free, found totally free and I think you will agree that this makes it a little bit difficult for a conscientious inspecting officer to sign this certificate in good faith, especially since he knows there always is a risk, a chance of there being undetected pests and diseases present which there is a possibility will become manifest during shipment.I think this imposes too strong an obligation on him.


Further on this phrase "found free of quarantine pests'' we have perhaps a more substantial objection. "Found free of quarantine pests" means found free of the quarantine pests listed by the importing country. This is because the new model phytosanitary certificate you will notice is addressed to the Plant Protection Authority of the importing country and it is quite clear that when you certify that your plants or plant products are free from quarantine pests it is the quarantine pests of the importing country. You will notice the old certificate, incidentally, does not address itself to a specific importing authority; the new one does. Now if you are certifying that your consignment is free of the quarantine pests of the importing country this implies a number of things. This implies, first of all, that importing countries have in fact defined and s pecified which pests it considers are quarantine pests.Now I suspect a number of importing countries have not done this and perhaps would not wish to. Furthermore I do not think it is particularly, desirable that they do so, firstly because there are problems of finance; exactly what is a quarantine pest for a country and furthermore, more substantaially, if quarantine pests are defined and written into the regulations of an importing country not only do you have the problem of definition but once they are actually written into the laws it is very difficult to get them removed, even if the pests that are originally specified as quarantine pests become benign, no longer constitute a major threat, change its nature.It then becomes very difficult to remove that specification or specified pest from the law which means that forever .more the exporting country is required to specify that his consignment is free of that pest even though that is no longer a malignant pest.

Furthermore, I think that when importing countries define what pests are quarantine pests, they would normally, I think, include a "catch-all" regulation, a regulation to cover emergencies that would say quarantine pests of such and such and such and such and also whatever the director of, say, the plant protection service may say is a quarantine pest.In other words he is the director, say, of the plant protection service and can nominate what is a quarantine pest very quickly.

Now this leads to our second objection to this phrase''free of quarantine pests"and that is it then becomes extremely difficult for exporters to know for certain what are the quarantine pests listed by importing countries and their regulations and it becomes difficult, I think, for a conscientious officer in an exporting country, especially in a secondary port, to be sure that he knows exactly what are the quarantine pests that he is certifying that the consignment is totally free of.

It may be argued, and I think this is probably one of the main reasons why a number of countries disliktthe old phytosanitary certificate, that it used the words "substantially free of injurious pests and diseases".It does not use the word "free" implying completely free of injurious pests and diseases, but there are two points I woulds make; firstly, the current certificate or the old certificate if you like, does allow for and encourage countries to make additional declarations or additional endorsements which they can attach to their original certificates. This allows the exporter to adapt the certificate to fit the precise needs of the importer if these are known. In other words, the exporter can add substantial certificates that the consignment is free of a particular pest of concern to the importer.

In other words what I am saying is that the old certificate is flexible, it is adaptable and it allows countries to make certification as rigid as required by the importing country.However, the new certificate is inflexible, does not encourage this.

The other point that I would make that these words "substantially free" do not mean tolerably free and I think the wording as it stands in the old phytosanitary certificate has worked well and been acceptable for many years.

On the business of new obligations we have no particular problem except that I suspect that if the new phytosanitary certificate is adopted we would consider that that involved new obligations because the wording is so much more difficult.

I would urge then that we should adopt the convention, or may I put it this way, my recommendation is that the convention, as amended, as recommended by the government consultation be accepted, although taking into account the objection raised by Australia that the definition of quarantine pests should be deleted, which I believe.would involve also the deletion of the second half of Article II, paragraph 2.I think that is a fairly simple amendment and I believe, although I am not certain, that that would take care fully of the objections of the delegate of Australia and secondly that once that has been done we adopt the convention provided that we retain the original model phytosanitary certificate and not adopt a new one. That would seem to me by far the simplest of the courses available to us. I believe it would get us around all the objections.It would mean that we would not have to have another consultation, which I agree would be time-consuming and expensive, and I think we could accept that without any problems.


E. DIAZ BUSTABAD (Cuba): No seré breve en este caso. Consideramos que para que quede clara la posición de nuestro gobierno, y por la explicación que nos dio el asesor legal, nos vemos obligados a ampliar nuestra intervención.En primer lugar la nota que presento el Director General con fecha 28 de mayo de 1976 expresa lo siguiente:"El Director General ha recibido, el 14 de abril de 1976, del gobierno de la República de Cuba el instrumento de ratificación de la Convención arriba citada. El instrumento de fecha 18 de febrero de 1976, instrumento de ratificación, estaba acompañado de una reserva en la declaración referente a los Artículos 9 y 11 de la Convención, respectivamente, cuyos textos se reproducen en el anexo adjunto”.

Con respecto al Artículo 9 (Reserva), el gobierno de la República de Cuba no se considera obligado por las disposiciones contenidas en el Artículo 9? pues entiende que la diferencia en cuanto a la interpretación y aplicación de la Convención por las partes debe ser resuelta mediante negociación directa por las partes por la vía diplomática.Si sacamos esto a colación, al final del párrafo se señala: ''El gobierno o gobiernos interesados pueden pedir al Director General de la FAO que designe un comité para que estudie la cuestión controvertida lo que quiere decir que sólo se deja a la facultad de la FAO el crear un Comité para discutir estas controversias.

Con respecto al párrafo 11. la declaración de nuestro gobierno fue la siguiente:''El gobierno de la República de Cuba declara que la disposición contenida en el Artículo 11 de la Convención Interna-cional de Protección Fitosanitaria es contraria a la declaración sobre la concesión de independencia a los países y pueblos coloniales'' (Resolución 1514 adoptada por la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas el 14 de diciembre de 1960, en la que se proclama la necesidad de poner fin rápida e incondicio-nalmente al colonialismo en todas sus formas y manifestaciones).

Vamos a pasar ahora el párrafo 11 gue se nos propone, y leemos:''Todo gobierno o estado, en el momen-to de la ratificación y adhesión, puede enviar al Director General de la FAO la declaración de que esta Convención se extenderá a todos o algunos de los territorios de cuya relación internacional sea responsable". Repito: ' Ά alguno de los territorios de cuya relación internacional sea responsable". Esta Convención se aplicará a todos los territorios específicos que tienen declaración a partir .del 13, día en que se haya sido recibido por el Director General de FAO.

Evidentemente, esta es la traza, que está en contra de la resolución adoptada por la Asamblea General, hs por esto que nuestro gobierno ratifica la posición de no estar de acuerdo con estos dos artículos, y solo hemos querido intervenir para que se tenga clara la oposición nuestra.

J.W.S. MALECENA (Tanzania):To start with I would like to say that the Tanzanian delegation does agree completely with the delegate of Norway that we ought to adopt the Convention. Mr.Chairman- it would appear that what we are arguing now is really not the matter of the Convention but concerns a procedual point which we all seem to forget.

First of all the way some delegations suggested that we go back to the old Convention. My delegation does not accept this because if we do so we will be going contrary to what we had decided earlier. I believe we agreed to review the whole Convention because we were all convinced that it was inadequate. And during that process of reviewing quite a number of countries, at very great expense, did send experts here, in Rome, to come and review this Convention. Therefore, the results which we have before us are the results of consultations between governments which were done here in Rome. It would appear, listening to some of the statements, that the impression is that this document has been prepared by the FAO Secretariat and, consequently, governments were not involved. I would like to assure you, Mr. Chairman, that if this Convention is not adopted at this meeting I am afraid it will never be adopted, because I do not think some of our governments will be prepared to incur a lot of expense again to come and do a job which, we think, has been done.

Mr. Chairman, when I say a job which has been done I have seen a number of international conventions. Let me say, very sincerely, I know of no international convention that has been accepted by all countries, in an organization like FAO, to be accepted unanimously. There is always one government or another which has got reservations on one paragraph or another. Consequently I am not surprised to see that even in this review we do have some governments which have reservations.

Therefore I think, Mr. Chairman, what we should do is first of all solve the question of procedure. Now the procedure I would like to suggest is that for those governments around this hall which have very strong objections on certain paragraphs, submit their objections, or their amendments, to the Secretariat, and then the Secretariat puts up a small document which would contain some of the amendments. Then we either adopt them or reject them, and then we could take up this problem again. Otherwise if we go on on details, I am afraid some delegations have commented even paragraph by paragraph, of! some of the detala which some of us would find extremely difficult to accept.


I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, we will certainly get nowhere, therefore let me once again assure you that my delegation would like to propose that we accept this. Naturally there will be some reservations, and this is usual in an international organization like ours. Those delegations which have a strong point, let these points be collected by the Secretariat and then put in a document so that we can see whether we can accept them or not. Because I feel some of these points which have been given by some of the delegations must have been points which were given at consultation but were rejected by the others, and in this particular case may be they were rejected by the majority. So really to what extent when a delegation gives a point, whether that point is accepted by the majority, or, perhaps, he belonged to a minority, remains to be answered. Therefore, I would like to suggest that perhaps we could stop the discussion, let the delegates who have amendments, make them, and then we could look at them later so that we can be in a position to see whether we wish to accept. If we do not accept we can then leave it to the delegates to say whether they would like to go along or not. Otherwise if we do not follow this procedure I am afraid we will be discussing - assuming that the time is going to come - when this Conference will unanimously accept the amendments and I doubt that this situation will ever come,

CHAIRMAN: I agree with Mr. Malecena on many points. So far there is one point of substance which has been raised and objected to.It is the question of Phytosanitary Certificates and is linked with Article II sub-clause 2, otherwise the general trend has been to accept the recommendations of inter-government consultation.

Before giving the floor to Dr. Chock, who has to answer some technical points, I will give the floor to Papua New Guinea.

G.K. GRAHAM (Papua New Guinea): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I will take heed of your comments and be quite brief. I think, in fact, you have just summed up the real position that I think has been ably put forward by the delegation from Australia and amplified by the delegation from New Zealand. Papua New Guinea finds itself in substantial agreement with the view expressed by those two countries, and to some extent the view expressed by Brazil - although we have not been in a position to examine the implications of that particular aspect of the amendments.

However, the two areas which do concern us are the rather ambiguous terms of quarantine pests, which we would like to see eliminated. The second point which I would like to make is the question of the current model Phytosanitary Certificate, rather than the proposed one for reasons that have already been outlined in detail by both Australia and New Zealand.

M. ISHQUE (Bangladesh): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the floor at this late hour. As you suggested, I will be very brief. I have only point for clarification. Under Article II paragraph 1 it says: "the term 'plants products' shall comprise unmanufactured material of plant origin, including seeds in sofar as they are not included in the term 'plants' and those manufactured products, which, by their nature or that of their processing, may create a risk for the spread of pests". Having accepted this scope of Article II paragraph 1, we are accepting that given the fruit of the plant, the whole plant or the roots of the plant - if transported acrossnational borders, will require Phytosanitary certificates. Now let us say that a country is exporting tomatoes, or mangoes, or for that matter cabbage, if both countries have accepted this Convention they may ask for the relevant Phytosanitary Certificate.This may hinder the transportation of such food items which one country can very well accept and get from the neighbouring country. This can be simplified if we had developed, under the auspices of FAO - or any other world-body - that such and such a country has, or has not, this list of pests, including disease organisms, insect pests and so on.If the organisms are common - organisms on tomatoes, orfungi on tomatoes - in both countries, this may go through.If the fungus is not in existence in one country, but is in existence in the other, this will mean complications if we insist upon having Phytosanitary Certificates on the transportation of food products.Plant fruits, a thing like that, we ought to have these lists developed if we want to enforce them. If we have not yet developed them,until that time there may be some sort of clause whereby this Phytosanitary Certificate may not be asked for. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


Β.E. MATAMOROS HUECK (Nicaragua): Mi delegación ha seguido con mucha atención los debates que han tenido lugar esta mañana sobre un tema tan complejo como éste y que envuelve dos cuestiones; primera, los aspectos jurídicos, y segunda, las cuestiones de orden técnico.

Es opinión de mi delegación que las recomendaciones y conclusiones a que ha llegado el Comité de Asuntos Constitucionales y Jurídicos aportan nuevos elementos a este Convenio, incluyen nuevas obligaciones para los Estados Miembros.

En este sentido, estimamos que el nuevo texto propuesto de Modelo de certificado fitosanitario no es aceptable para mi país porque, tal como lo expresaron de forma elocuente los ilustres delegados de Australia y Nueva Zelandia, la introducción de nuevos elementos y conceptos, tales como ''las plagas de cuarentena", etcétera, entorpece la posibilidad del libre comercio: primero, por la dificultad de aplicar desde el punto de vista práctico tales disposiciones, y segundo, por la extrema variabilidad dinámica de estas plagas - y teniendo en cuenta también las distintas disposiciones vigentes en los países exportadores - que, como muy justamente dijo el distinguido delegado de Nueva Zelandia, debieran ser objeto de unas listas actualizadas y de comunicaciones amplias y continuas a los países exportadores.

Desde el punto de vista práctico, el análisis de todos estos aspectos demuestra claramente cuál difícil sería cumplirlos por parte de los países exportadores, responsables de esta disposición.

Creemos que los aspectos técnicos van íntimamente vinculados con las cuestiones jurídicas y, por tanto, son interdependientes.

Consideramos que la medida más adecuada al respecto sería mantener el texto original existente en relación con estas disposiciones, que es el modelo antiguo, viejo si se quiere, de la Convención Internacional de Protección Fitosanitaria.

Respecto a los artículos del Convenio, señor Presidente, habría que cancelar en el Artículo II lo relativo a la introducción de modificaciones al artículo mismo, que estarían en contradicción con el Convenio existente.

En cuanto a las observaciones formuladas por otras delegaciones referentes al artículo IX acerca del ajuste de diferencias entre los países, me parece que la solución de la advertencia es facultad soberana de los Estados dirimirla entre las partes interesadas, y solamente a través de una renuncia expresa de este derecho, podría delegarse en otros órganos. Y, a nuestro entender, en ese artículo no se incorporan exactamente estos conceptos, que por una parte tutelan el derecho soberano de los Estados, y por otra, llegado el caso, si se considerara conveniente podrían delegar la solución de la advertencia a otros órganos.

J. N. KERRIGEN (Ireland):First of all, I would merely like to say on behalf of my delegation we fully endorse the remarkspassed by the delegates of Norway and the Federal Republic of Germany, and in particular those expressed by the delegate of Tanzania. We urge all delegates to endorse the revised text.

With regard to the suggestion made relating to a further meeting to be held to discuss this topic, I should remind delegates that the revised text and the revised Certificate were produced after quite considerable deliberations in the meeting held in Rome last year.

At the time, there were some 74 member countries in the Convention, and less than 50 percent attended that meeting. If we were to have a further meeting, perhaps the same thing would occur.

I would again like to say my delegation would ask all delegates to endorse this particular resolution.

A.K. CHOCK (FAO staff): One thing that needs to be clarified is that the International Plant Protection Convention deals with two aspects, imports and exports, and sometimes these two aspects are somewhat confused. One deals with the import of various types of goods which may contain-plant pests and may therefore endanger the importing country's agriculture.


For this reason, countries will either prohibit or restrict the importation of certain goods. Generally, this is made a part, not of their legislation, but of their regulatory process, one which does not require passage by Parliament, but requires a hearing in some cases or proclamation and then becomes effective 30 days after, dependent on that particular country's method of enforcing regulations.

In these regulations which prohibit or restrict the importation of certain goods, generally the countries - both developed and developing - list the reasons why they are making the prohibition or restriction. This gots axong with that part of the Convention which is found in Article VI, paragraph 2 on page J.4 of the English version. The present text, in sub-paragraph (a), reads that "contracting parties shall not, under their plant protection legislation, take any of the measures specified in paragraph 1 unless such measures are made necessary by phytosanitary considerations.'' Sub-paragraph (c) further states that "if a contracting government prohibits, under the provisions of its plant protection legislation, the importation of any plants or plant products, it shall publish its decision with reasons...'' which means if there is a prohibition it will not be one as a trade barrier or for economic reasons, but because of sound phytosanitary or biological considerations. That should be borne in mind.

That is the spirit of the Convention as it is presently written, which means that countries do, in their regulatory process, prohibit, for example, the importation of corn because of the presence of corn borer or other such diseases or insects, and this is something which is found in the current regulations. For anyone who doubts that, they can come to my office and look at about three drawers of file cabinets. So much for the imports.

Exports are provided for by the use of the Phytosanitary Certificate. With increased trade and increased traffic of goods, including fruits and vegetables as well as plants, this Convention addresses itself not only to propagative plant material but also to fruits and vegetables and other such items. Because of this it was felt there was a need to go over this Phytosanitary Certificate as far back as 1969. This was reinforced by the FAO Conferences of 1969 and 1971. A Consultation met in 1973 and another met in 1976, consisting of for the most part plant quarantine experts. Some countries chose to utilise their Permanent Representatives instead of their plant quarantine representatives, but there were some 49 countries represented with some 68 people at that Consultation.

At that Consultation, I might mention we spent most of two afternoons in Plenary Session and the better part of two late afternoons and evenings discussing how to go about making this certifying statement.

When the certifying statement was finally decided upon, there was only one dissenting vote. This is the statement as found in these various documents. The Phytosanitary Certificate provides eventually for the exporting countries to look at the goods before they are sent, which in turn actually avoids the rejection of a shipment if the inspection is done correctly. That I should point out.

I would also like to draw attention to the fact that the Certificate, regardless of whether the old or new one is used, has two conditions. One is inspection, and that inspection is done by someone who is technically qualified and duly authorised. That is point one of the Certificate, and the certifying statement, regardless of whether you look at the old or the new one.

The second part of it which some people forget is that the shipment conforms to the current phytosanitary regulations of the importing country, and unfortunately that particular second portion is sometimes also overlooked by the exporting country in the discussions on the merits and demerits of the Certificate, but it is there - even in the old version.

The Consultation decided that they did not like that portion which spoke about the consignment being looked at or representative samples examined, for two reasons. One, it was felt that the requirements for inspection are by and large dictated by the importing country regardless of whether the exporting country likes it or not. The importing country makes the regulations and requirements and if you are going to export to that country you have to conform to those requirements.

The other point is, if the importing country did not specify the exact requirements of how the inspection was to be conducted, then it would be done basically in the manner in which the exporting country normally does it. The question regarding inspection came up at the Consultation in a definition.It was decided not to have it as a definition in the Convention itself because it was felt that one should keep definitions to a minimum, but it was printed in the report, and the definition of "inspection" or "inspected" as decided by the Consultation states it is "an officially authorised examination either in whole or in part to fulfil the requirements of the Phytosanitary Certificate ".


So:"whole" - 100 percent;"in part" - meaning less than 100 percent;"sampling" - however you want it, but again, to fulfil the requirements of the Certificate. In other words, whatever is required by that country.

The Consultation was against any additional declarations because of this. The importing country states what the requirements are, either in the regulations or the import permit. The Certificate states that it conforms to the phytosanitary requirements of the importing country. Again, please bear that in mind, it is a very important factor which is unfortunately overlooked.

With respect to additional declarations, the Consultation felt burdened when one had to state all sorts of reasons which were actually contained in the import permit or that country's phytosanitary regulations, and therefore it felt very strongly that additional declarations should be kept to a minimum.

To go over some of the questions which were raised concerning Article II paragraph 1 concerning plant products, I should go into the background a little bit more. The reason for this particular question was not necessarily to have additional phytosanitary certificates for these types of goods, but to provide for countries in a better sense, to give the right outlook on certain goods.

Actually, when you come down to it, these countries do look at whatever they would like to look at, but they wanted some international reinforcement. They were particularly concerned about a stored product pest of grains known as "khapra beetle" or Trogoderma granarium which is quite a bad pest in certain tropical lands inasmuch as it will eat grains. This particular pest can even survive in cold conditions for a great length of time. So these were the primary concerns for the extension of the term "plant products".

Concerning the re-export certificate and its possibility of adding any new obligations, I think it is the other way round. If you issue the present phytosanitary certificate you have to carry out an inspection and also determine that it conforms to the regulations. The re-export certificate, on the other hand, allows you to state that it has been in a situation where it is not subject to infestation So that means less work. The obligation of inspection has been removed. So for those countries that re-export, and there are not that many of them, it means less work. I was an inspector for some eleven years. So if I were back as an inspector it would mean less work looking at some of the things that are looked at.

On the questions concerning Article IX,I would like to mention one point about the settlement of disputes. As I read it, and perhaps Legal Counsel will reinforce this, it says that the governments ma; request, which means that they do not have to do it, they are not obligated to do it. In paragraph 3 it says whatever decision is made by the experts that FAO may select, the decision is not binding. But that is beside the point. The point is that Article IX has never been used at all in the history of the Convention. If countries have disagreed with each other they have discussed it with each other. If country A has something which is infested with pests it says, "What is the matter with your inspectors This is full of bugs." This is the way to solve it. If a country finds an infested shipment it says, "This shipment came on such-and-such a boat and had certificate number such-and-such. We found pest X and pest Y." The chances are that the exporting country can do something about it. But countries must be specific and provide details.

I hope I have answered the questions raised by the delegates. If not, I am still here.

CHAIRMAN: This matter will have to be continued this afternoon because there are certain points on which the Legal Counsel would like to give clarification. It looks as if there is general agreement on the proposed text except on one or two minior points, for instance on Article I, clause 2 and on the model to be adopted regarding the phytosanitary certificate. I think we will have to give some attention to it and try to see if we can come to a consensus before submitting the whole thing to the Conference.

The meeting rose at 12.50 hours
La séance est levée à 12 h 50
Se levanta la-sesiön a las 12.50 horas


Previous Page Top of Page Next Page