- International Plant Protection Convention (continued)
- Convention internationale pour la protection des végétaux (suite)
- Convención Internacional de Protección Fitosanitaria (continuación)
CHAIRMAN: I will give the floor to the Legal Counsel to make certain points.
LEGAL COUNSEL: During the lunch hour we have tried to get a somewhat synthetic picture of the debate this morning and to see whether what I might call a rescue operation could be attempted at the present stage.
There have been a number of delegations who said they were entirely satisfied with the amendments proposed by the International Plant Protection Convention Government Consultation, as reviewed by the CCLM who felt it would be preferable to accept them in the form in which they were presented.
Certain other delegations have expressed misgivings and reservations on parti ciliar provisions and on the Phytosanitary Certificate. The reservations were addressed mainly to the second part of Article II, paragraph 2, namely the definition, and in a way the introduction of the new concept, of "quarantine pests" which also'appears in the Phytosanitary Certificate.
The other criticisms viere addressed to the proposed nevi Phytosanitary Certificate itself. After having given some thought to this, we reached the conclusion that it might be possible to accommodate both the delegations who were in favour of maintaining the provisions or the amendments which were proposed, and those who had doubts as to whether they would he acceptable.
During the Government Consultation, the question of quarantine pests gave rise to some difficulties, as Mr. Chock has explained this morning, and at one time it was proposed that since the definition almost stood by itself in Article II it was not really necessary to have it, or else it could be transferred to the Phytosanitary Certificate itself, where it appeared to have some significance. It could be inserted there in the form of a footnote.
We have noted that in the Phytosanitary Certificate - and this point was made this morning during the debate - there appears to be some inconsistency between the English and French versions, in that the French does not refer to quarantine pests but refers to plants which "ont été insoectés et trouvés indemnes d'ennemis visés par la réglementation phytosani taire".
If the English text were aligned to the French, that would dispose of the use of the term "quarantine pests" in the Phytosanitary Certificate.
Moreover the only other place in the whole Convention, as far as we could ascertain, where this term is used is paragraph 4 of Article II. If you read this paragraph you will see that the provision itself indicates a general orientation of emphasis for the Convention. It does not by itself
constitute a mandatory provision involving any kind of obligation. We therefore felt it would probably not do any harm to the balance of the provisions if it were decided to revert, as far as Article II, paragraph 4 is concerned, to the original version, only deleting the term "and diseases" in the first line since the reference to diseases has been deleted throughout the Convention, as you will see if you look at Article I, paragraph 1 and other provisions. These, then, would be the main changes as far as the reference to quatantine pests is concerned.
Some reservations were expressed also with respect to the declaration contained in the Model Phytosanitary Certificate as devised by the Government Consultation, in particular, with regard to the somextfhat peremptory statement that "the plants and plants products have been inspected and found free" from pests. It was also felt that the whole consignment would not necessarily have to be inspected in all cases, but only a sample thereof. That depends partly on the regulations of the importing country, partly on the size of the consignment, and partly on the type of plant or plant products that are to be exported. The problem could be solved, perhaps, by inserting after "plant products described above'' in the first line, the words ''or representative samples thereof”.
Reverting to something I have said before, in the next line it would read "and found free from pests covered by phytosanitary regulations."
The last amendment is more in the sense of a corrigendum. "Substantially free from other injurious pests" should be simply "substantially free from other pests" - delete "injurious" because the term "pest" has been defined in Article II, paragraph 2, and there the definition refers to "injurious or potentially injurious to plants"; it would therefore seern preferable just to refer to "free from other pests" in the Phytosanitary Certificate.
I propose, if I may, to revert at a later stage to the question of new obligations which also has given rise to a number of interventions, but you may perhaps wish first to ascertain the reactions of the Commission to the minor modifications that I have suggested.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much; it is now open to the Floor to give its reaction to the changes proposed, by the Legal Counsel.
J.W. CURRIE (Canada): I would like to thank the Legal Counsel for the work that he has done during the lunch hour in trying to reach a compromise. He has satisfactorily addressed himself to the problem we raised this morning, and I must state we are satisfied with his proposals.
A.A.W. LANDYMORE (UnitedKingdom): Speaking as a representative of an importing country on a substantial scale, where we have considerable sensitivities on the subject and considerable vulnerability, I wish to say on behalf of my delegation that we can go along with the proposals which have been put forward by the Legal Coimsel and I should like to associate my delegation with Canada's expression of thanks to him.
E.D. LETTS (Australia): May I also express my thanks to the Legal Counsel and those helping him, also to Mr. Chock, for the work they have put in and the efforts that they have been making. Before addressing myself directly to the Legal Counsel's suggestion perhaps I could make two brief references to earlier interventions. The first was the Legal Counsel's intervention, where I understood him to say that Australia's proposals were for the deletion of the quarantine pest definition and for a re-wording of the proposed phytosanitary certificate. The second point was not our proposal.I have been trying to obtain the original of my notes which the secretary borrowed from me some hours ago and I have not got in front of me. But I think you will find that I pointed out that whereas a re-wording might be possible it was fraught with pitfalls and it was certainly not our proposal. Our proposal was and is two simple things - first, the deletion of the quarantine pest definition, and second, the retention of the existing model phytosanitary certificate.
The second point concerns the intervention of Mr. Chock. I would like to make a point of clarification there. As I followed him he made the point very strongly that the certificate already states that it is certified that the sample conformed to the phytosanitary regulations of the country of destination.
If I heard him correctly, I am sure that was just a momentary elision of one or two words, but as he stressed that member countries should take note of this point as a very significant one I think I must put the record, straight and say that the existing certificate does not state that the exporting country certifies that the plant and plant products conform to the phytosanitary regulations: it states that plants are believed to conform to those regulations, and that is a very significant difference.
I have heard most of the Legal Counsel's suggestions. Unfortunately again while he was making them there v/ere some messengers speaking to me and I was not able to get every word. But in reaction to them I wfould ask to come back on the question of quarantine pests. I am not sure whether he agreed with the proposal of the half sentence in Article II that removed quarantine pests as a definition. I take it that is so. I see him nodding and I thank him.
On the other question, that of the certificate, my country's preference is that we retain the existing one. Of course I do not wish to attempt to steamroll anybody or to set down something which is not agreeable to other delegations. So I can see that there may be a possibility for re-drafting if the re-drafting were able to meet the very real problems that people have. As I understood the re-drafting that he suggested, it would not meut the problems. It is very gratifying to hear the proposal that a provision similar to the existing one for sampling procedure to continue is being suggested. But there is another major problem in that sentence which relates to the fact that, as I understood the words he suggests, a certifying offjcer would still be expected to certify that those plants or plant products are free from the pests concerned. It is being said by some speakers here that the problem is that any certifying officer would have to certify that something is free in circumstances where he can say that they appeared to him to be free or that the sample is substantially free. But I do not think that anyone car. even say that the sample is free, given that there are pests that may emerge at a later time as having been present. So in simple words the sort of amendment which I would imagine would go a long, way towards meeting the problem is one which allows the samples and which says that the plants or plant products were found to be substantially free or, if you like, that it is considered that they were free, but not flatly to state that the plants were free or were found to be free of those pests. That is my initial reaction. I hope I heard sufficient of the Legal Counsel's proposals, to have read them accurately.
A.K.CHOCK (FAO Staff): The point that I was making was with respect to conforming to phytosanitary regulations and I did make that point strongly. The old version says "are believed", the new version says "are considered". The government consultation of 1976 with no dissenting votes indicated their preference for the current wording. They felt that the word "believed" was quite inappropriate. As a former inspector I would say that the way the new certificate is arranged places the emphasis on two different levels. One is the pests which are covered by phytosanitary regulations and the other is those which are common cosmopolitan pests, such asflourbeetles, and the intent at least of the draftsmen in the consultation was to place the emphasis on the quarantine pests and secondary emphasis on the other types of pests. I can recall that when I inspected products and was told that such-and-such a country did not want this particular pest in potatoes I would then go to the laboratory and look up the specimens concerned; then I knew what I was looking for. Having done this inspection before I would have no hesitation in signing it as it has just been revised, or even the other one.
There was a question raised concerning whether plant products applies to rubber, palm oil, tea and coffee. Here again, it is dependent upon what the importing country places as phytosanitary requirements. Let me give an example. I can recall inspecting rubber wrapped in burlap bags. The object that we were looking at was not rubber, it was the burlap bags. ;Inthe seams of the burlap bags there was this pest that I have mentioned previously, the khapra beetle. In that sense, yes. In the other sense, probably coffee or tea or palm oil would not be considered to be a plant product in the strict sense of the meaning of the convention.
A. LØCHEN (Norway): My question to Dr. Chock is, does this rescue operation give justice to the long work done by our experts in the government consultations and the other bodies which have been working on it? I wonder whether this is the time or the place to make such modifications. But before I say anything more I would like to have Dr. Chock's confirmation that this does justice to the preparatory work done.
A.K. CHOCK (FAO Staff): I do not think that this takes away from what was done at the consultations, because it incorporates the general thoughts, the general meanings, the general consensus of the group. On the other hand, I think it clarifies for the people who object to certain pointsi which they felt were a bit on the cloudy side and on which they were uncertain.
Mrs. P.P.M. van der TOGT (Netherlands): My government is prepared to accept the amendments to the Plant Protection Convention and the new certificates as they are presented in document C 77/IJK/26. Like some other delegations have done, I want .to draw your attention to the fact that after years of hard work and full and elaborate discussion this text has been agreed npon by the consultation of government experts.
Commission III being a Commission for legal questions and not a Commission of experts, I have my doubti about having technical discussions here. My delegation does not think it right to alter the intentioni of technical parts such as Article II-2 or the intentions of the- proposals for certificates.If Mr. Chock says that the intentions are not changed by the proposals of the Legal Adviser, we can go along but in general we should like to call upon the delegates to approve this amended text of the Conventioi landrequest the Director-General to transmit it to the contracting parties for acceptance.
M.R. LEAR (New Zealand): My main point is that 1 would like to associate the New Zealand delegation with the remarks made a few minutes ago by Australia. We,too, are principally concerned that the existing phytosanitary certificate model be retained; that is our basic position. However, Dr. Chock did comment that the Intergovernmental Consultation of 1976 were unanimous. A whole year has passed since then and there has been further time to examine the new model and the existing situation.
M. GUERRAOUI (Maroc): Je voudrais faire une proposition qui pourrait concilier les points de vue et qui s'inspire de la réalité de la pratique sur le terrain, car il est impossible de procéder à des inspections systématiques de la totalité des lots de produits végétaux. Ma proposition consisterait à introduire la mention des échantillons proposés par le Conseiller juridique, au début de la phrase qui se trouve au bas du modèle du certificat phytosanitaire.Le début de la phrase se lirait comme suit:''Il est certifié que des échantillons représentatifs des végétaux ou produits végétaux décrits ci-dessus ont été inspectés et trouvés indemnes...'' etc., le reste sans changement.
G. LIEBER (Germany, Fed. Rep. of) (interpretation from German): I would like to thank our Legal Adviser and Dr. Chock for the efforts they have made to reach a compromise solution.The results that have been attained seem quite logical and equitable. However, in view of the fact that I am a permanent member of my delegation here in Rome, I am not an expert in the field of plant protection and I would have to discuss these matters with the experts that have taken part in these Governmental Consultations.I hope that you will understand me if under these circumstances I feel compelled to reserve the position of my Government.
O. LUCO ECHEVERRÍA (Chile): En el año 1976 se celebro una reunion de expertos sobre esta materia, en cuya oportunidad a mí me correspondió representar a mi país.
Recuerdo perfectamente que fueron motivo de largo y cuidadoso debate los diferentes puntos de vista que se pusieron de manifiesto durante esa reunion, y al final de la misma, los expertos pudieron manifestar una opinion que revelaba un cierto consenso.
Creo que es arriesgado volver a abrir el debate sobre el particular tratándose en este momento de una reunion a la cual estamos asistiendo delegados de gobiernos que no somos expertos sobre la materia; por lo menos, todos no somos expertos sobre la materia.
Por consiguiente, mi delegación estima, en beneficio de los pasos que para el futuro hay que dar y de que no es conveniente dilatar esta situación, que sería oportuno apoyar la propuesta presentada por la Secretaría. Por lo menos, mi delegación así lo considera por creerlo lo más práctico.
CHAIRMAN: I think we have discussed this matter sufficiently and I will give the floor to one or two more speakers and then we have to summarize and conclude this item. We must do so within the next fifteen minutes because we have some other very important items coming up for discussion.
A. LØCHEN (Norway): I would like to thank Dr. Chock for the answer he gave to my question.I wonder whether it would not be best and serve all interests if we took a little more time on this, so that we now get the new text with the rescue operation written down, so that we can look at it and ask our governments for instructions. We have time; there is the whole week left of the Conference and if we had the weekend to look at it we could then take this up again and finish it very quickly early next week.
CHAIRMAN: I do not know whether this feeling is shared by the other delegates, because some of them have to leave by next week, but nevertheless we will give thought to it.
E.D. LETTS (Australia):There is an old saying that war is too serious a business to be left to the generals.I am not suggesting that because phytosanitary experts drafted a resolution or a text it should automatically not be acceptable and that other people should do something else. But I do wish to paint to the major economic implications that something which on the surface may appear to be a phytosanitary document has for most countries.
Let me put it another way.If a legal counsel or a legal section were asked to draft something and they suggested a modus operandi for some aspect of international trade - and we are talking about trade in plant products - and the people doing the trading found it quite unacceptable, the legal counsel would be asked to go back to the drawing board, or the traders would find their own way of doing it.
Now, let us not take this too far. There is a group of European, mainly European developed countries which appears to wish to see the amendments go through in toto. One of those delegates pointed out that less than half of the countries who are contracting parties were at the Consultation in 1976. That is one important aspect of how general the acceptance of these amendments can be considered to be, and some people in this meeting have told us that as there was general acceptance, it should go forward in toto.
Another point is that now those people with responsibility for the areas affected by the Convention, outside the narrow phytosanitary one, have a chance to comment. From Australia - if I can try to summarize the point we have reached - supported by a number of other countries, we have a proposal to accept the amendments to the Convention with only two changes. From some countries we have a desire expressed to see them accepted as they are. From the Secretariat we have a proposal for a somewhat different change.I do not know whether it is in order but I think we have to realize that whatever may be said about the group of experts, the fact is that the group of experts and the Council require the Conference to take decisions. The Conference by definition is not a group of phytosanitary experts: it is a group of people some of whom know something about phytosanitary matters and others who know something about other things.But I think we are all concerned with making bread, with supplying sufficient quantities of that bread to countries that need it and, where possible, at prices that are attainable and costs that can be managed.
Could I suggest, if it is in order, Mr. Chairman, that you may wish to name a small working group to discuss with the Secretariat experts the proposals that it is making in the light of the further discussion that has been taking place here and that, as quickly as possible, we see in front of us what the Secretariat is proposing so that we can try and arrive at something which may have a consensus, with a view to not delaying the matter any more if we can possibly avoid it.
CHAIRMAN: If we cannot dispose of this item we will have to postpone it to some later hour and probably that will give time for further consultation.
B.E. MATAMOROS HUECK (Nicaragua): Como han dicho varios de los colegas que me han precedido en el uso de la palabra, muchas delegaciones que estamos aquí presentes no somos expertos en cuestiones fitosani-tarias; sin embargo, las observaciones hechas por algunas delegaciones, entre las cuales se encuentran Australia y Nueva Zelandia y otras, además de mi delegación, han/ formado los elementos que han contribuido a expresar nuestro criterio, que no coincide en aprobar el nuevo texto del modelo de certificado fitosanitario que se nos presenta. Creemos que es una cuestión que, si bien fue indicada no en una forma total con el consenso unánime de parte del grupo de expertos, el Consejo y esta misma reunion nos dieron la responsabilidad a la Conferencia de que decidiéramos sobre esta materia.
Creemos que el procedimiento, un procedimiento sumario, no vendría a favorecer los intereses de todos los países y mucho menos la implernentacion y la vigencia de esta Convención.
En cuanto a las reservas expresadas por la delegación de Australia y que se referían específicamente al Artículo 12, nosotros las compartimos y creemos, que el modelo original o antiguo, como se ha llamado, debería ser conservado.
En cuanto a las otras disposiciones de la Convención, mi delegación y otras delegaciones en el curso del debate consideramos que el Artículo 9, en cuanto se refiere a la resolución de controversias, deberíatener algunas integraciones en las que se definieran en forma clara las atribuciones y responsabilidades de los gobiernos y los procedimientos a seguirse, en cuanto a solicitar pareceres técnicos de parte de la Organización y la línea de vinculación que este tipo de pareceres podría tener en relación a los Estados. Creo que ha sido una omisión involuntaria en base al recargo de trabajo que ha tenido que llevarse el que no se haya incluido este comentario que sobre la materia se plantea en el Artículo 9, y que debería haberse presentado esta mañana.
Mi delegación tiene propuestas concretas en relación al Artículo 9, y sus tres, párrafos, y creo que esta es la Sede y el momento oportunos de presentarlos. Si usted no tiene ningún inconveniente, mi delegación procedería a formularlos en este momento, para así abreviar el tiempo de nuestras discusio-nes y usted pueda tomar una decisión definitiva sobre el procedimiento a seguirse en la discusión general de este texto.
CHAIRMAN: May I call the attention to the fact that the article to which we have just referred does not contain any proposed amendment. It is the old text. I am speaking on the instigation of the Legal Counsel and I believe this point is not so relevant because we are not discussing here proposed amendments.I allow him to speak but we must confine our debate to the subject matter in front of us. There seems to be some confusion in the minds of one or two delegates.
LEGAL COUNSEL: Indeed, I can confirm what you have just stated. What is before the Conference are amendments which were proposed by governments through government consultation. Article IX merely contains some slight editorial modification to bring it into line with the use of language, such as “government “' or "contracting party", which has been introduced in all the other provisions. Therefore, no amendment has been proposed to this Article by the government consultation or any individual government before.
CHAIRMAN: Does that satisfy the delegate of Nicaragua?
B.E. MATAMOROS HUECK (Nicaragua): Mi delegación desea hacer un comentario a lo expresado por el señor asesor jurídico. Primerodesearía saber cuándo termina el tiempo hábil en relación a la posibilidad de presentar enmiendas al texto de este convenio; segundo, desearía hacer una aclaración a lo dicho anteriormente, en el sentido de que si este Convenio ha sido aprobado en su totalidad, y el caso es que no es así, y esto es lo que a mí me parece, creo que es facuitar a uno de los Estados el poder formular enmiendas de carácter formal o sustantivo al texto del mismo Convenio.
LEGAL COUNSEL: I believe that the question that the delegate of Nicaragua has asked finds its answer in Article XIII, paragraph 13. It reads as follows:"Notice of any proposed amendment of this Convention shall be transmitted to the contracting parties by the Director-General not later than the time when the agenda of the session of the Conference at which the matter is to be considered is dispatched." The proposed amendments were contained in the report of the Government Consultation which was distributed quite some time ago since the consultation was held in 1976 and the minor modifications of an editorial nature which were made by the CCLM were contained in the CCLM report which is before you.
CHAIRMAN: I think that disposed of any problem in the point raised by the delegate of Nicaragua.
J.L. TOFFIN (France): Je voudrais simplement dire que ma Délégation se trouve dans une situation embarrassante car elle avait pour instruction de voter les propositions d'amendements qui ont été présentées par la Consultation gouvernementale de l'an dernier à la Convention sur la protection des
yégétaux; nous nous trouvons un peu embarrassés par la présentation d'amendements nouveaux. Le Conseiller juridique et le Secrétariat nous ont proposé quelques modifications aux amendements déjà présentés par la consultation gouvernementale et, comme l'ont rappelé d'ailleurs certaines délégations, notre Délégation ne dispose pas d'expert pour se prononcer a leur sujet. Une consultation de notre gouvernement est indispensable si, selon l'évolution du débat, on doit être amené à prendre position sur ces nouveaux amendements. C'est pourquoi je souhaiterais qu'on ne soit pas obligé de prendre position immédiatement mais qu'on nous laisse le temps de consulter notre gouvernement s'il y a lieu, A cet égard, il nous serait utile de disposer des amendements qui ont été proposés par le Conseiller juridique au cours de sa récente intervention.
P. SKOUFIS (Assistant Director-General, Administration and Finance Department): The first document to which we refer, C 77/LIM/9, contains an extract from the report of the Seventy-First Session of the Council and contains the Council's recommendation that the FAO scale for the coming biennium be derived directly from the UN scale of assessment enforced in 1977.
Document C 77/LIM/15-Rev.2 updates the scale recommended by the Council since it includes assessment rates for the eight countries admitted to membership in the Organization at this session of the Conference. The document also contains in the second paragraph the appropriate draft Conference resolution.It has to be noted that in the English version the word "directly" has inadvertently been dropped from the second line of the operative paragraph of the resolution. That paragraph should read ''Decides to adopt for use in 1978-79 the scale of contributions set out in the appendix which is derived directly from the United Nations scale of assessments as enforced in 1977''. A footnote should also be added to the Resolution regarding the assessment rate of Viet Nam which, with your permission, I shall ask Mr. Smith to explain. Mr. Smith is from our Office of Finance.
In summary the scales set out in C 77/LIM/15-Rev.2 are drawn up on the recommendations of the Seventy-First Session of the Council.
W.A. SMITH (FAO Staff): I should also mention that the Resolution in question also appears as a third item C 77/LIM/34, which is the fourth report of the Resolutions Committee. There are two other additions, however, which affect all languages; firstly a footnote 1/ should be entered at the end of the “Having noted" sentence. That is to say at the end of the sentence reading ''Having noted the recommendations of the Seventy-First Session of the Council 1/” that footnote is merely a cross reference to the paragraphs of the Seventy-First Session of the Council report.
A second change would be the addition of a footnote 2/ at the very end of the Resolution, that is to say after the words "as enforced in 1977. 2/" This footnote refers to the fact that the United Nations had not established an assessment rate for Viet Nam for 1977 and that is referred to in paragraph 4 of the LIM/15 document.
CHAIRMAN: Can I ask Mr. Smith to read again this amendment slowly so that all delegates could take it down in writing.
W.A. SMITH (FAO Staff): Certainly. Add the footnote symbol 1 at the end of the noted sentence. Footnote read "CL 71/REP para. 183. At the very end of the resolution, again insert a footnote symbol', footnote 2.Footnote 2 would read " since no UN rate of assessment forViet Nam has been established for 1977, that member is included in the FAO scale at 0.02 percent.
Β. de AZEVEDO BRITO (Brazil): Thank you Mr. Chairman. My delegation would like to make some very brief observations on the proposal of the scale of contributions. We understand that the Council, at its June session, had acted upon the basis of the scale of contributions adopted in the United Nations for the current year, 1977. That means a scale of contributions approved by the General Assembly at the end of 1976. We wonder, however, if it is really an appropriateiprocedure. Perhaps the Secretariat could help us by clarifying the situation since we have a Conference which meets,only every two years approve a scale that will affect the years 1978-79. I wonder if it would not be more appropriate to operate on the basis of the scale of contributions which has been approved, right now, by the United Nations General Assembly. I make this comment first in terms of adjusting this Organization as close as possible to the United Nations on this matter, which we understand to be the procedure. I say so with a certain observation, also, to the fact that already in the scale approved by the United Nations our contribution has very largely increased by an amount on which we are not really in full agreement, but as it is approved by- the United Nations General Assembly we, therefore, respect it.
Coming back to what I was saying, I wonder, sir, if it would not be more in line for our Conference to act on the basis of the scale of contributions just in process of being approved right now in the General Assembly. If my information is correct this meeting has already acted on the matter and, therefore, we have already started a basis of possible action. I make this point specially taking into account the situation of the least developed countries. If I understand correctly all of them having in the new assessment halved their percentages. If my information is correct - and I would like again to ask the Secretariat to confirm - from the scale of contributions approved by the General Assembly at the end of 1976. In the process of being approved right now, in 1977, the least developed go from 0.02 percent they start to have just half, 0.01 percent, and that is an important fact.I think it is not the final argument but I think it is a very important argument that perhaps this Conference should take into account.
I also go back to my first words when I started speaking that since the Conference meets only every two years it would be a little surprising that we skip last year's decision of the General Assembly in favour of one of a year before. Perhaps the Secretariat could enlighten us on that. Probably there is a point the possibility of using the scale of 1977, and I understand the Secretariat could enlighten us again. That means picking up the scale of contributions just.approved by the General Assembly. That, perhaps, is another point that could be clarified, if at all possible. Of course, my delegation would like to refer to this item later on in case of need. As far as Brazil is concerned, I would just repeat that in both scales we figure with precisely the same level so I am not speaking in any way as an interested party, we have been harmed by both because both represent a very large increase -practically fifty percent increase - which we do not feel, by the way, is fully justified, but we all understand that it is not to be discussed here.
E. DOUEK (Israël): Ma Delegation voudrait se référer au barème de contributions 1978/79 tel qu'il figure dans le document C 77/LIM/15-Rev.2. La quote-part de mon pays a été portée à 0,30 pour cent au lieu de 0,27 pour cent précédemment. En tenant compte du fait que le budget global de la FAO pour le prochain biennium a été porté à plus de 211 millions de dollars, cela signifie que mon pays devra assumer désormais une charge budgétaire supplémentaire d'environ 182 000 dollars, c'est-à-dire une augmentation de près de 40 pour cent. Mon pays pourra difficilement supporter cette augmentation étant donné les difficultés économiques auxquelles il doit faire face.
Récemment, mon Gouvernement a instauré une nouvelle politique économique et la livre israélienne a été dévaluée d'environ 45 pour cent par rapport au dollar; cela signifie que le revenu per capita exprimé en termes de dollars se trouve ainsi diminué de façon substantielle et en même temps que la participation budgétaire de mon pays au budget de la FAO exprimée en termes de livres israéliennes se trouve plus que doublée.
Je saisis cette occasion pour rappeler que le Comité de contributions des Nations Unies a ramené récemment, et indépendamment de cette dernière importante dévaluation, la participation d'Israël au budget des Nations Unies de 0,24 pour cent à 0,23 pour cent pour 1978/79.
Nous sommes évidemment conscients que la proposition du Conseil pour 1978/79 est basée sur le barème^ de répartition des Nations Unies pour 1977. Ma Délégation tient cependant à souligner les difficultés que signifie pour son pays la présente procédure et désire marquer sa réserve à ce sujet.
W.A. SMITH (FAO Staff): The question put to the Secretariat was whether it would be appropriate for the Conference to adopt a scale of the next two years based on an earlier United Nations scale when, in fact, a new United Nations scale is about to be adopted.
I think it would probably be inappropriate for me to comment on that for it is indeed up to the Con-ference to determine the basis on which it wants to adopt its scale. I would mention in passing that the Eighth Session of the Conference in 1955 determined that in future the FAO scale would be based on the scale of the United Nations in force during the calendar year of the Conference session. However, on four occasions since that debate the Conference has seen fit to base the new FAO scale on a forth-coming United Nations scale. This information was set out in the Report of the Finance Committee to the Seventy-First Session of the Council and as has been indicated the Council made the determination as to which basis the scale should be presented to the Conference. The question was asked:''Where does the new United Nations scale stand in New York?". It has been approved by the Fifth Committee on the 24th October but it is not expected to be before the General Assembly itself until the 14th December. That new United Nations scale, as proposed, does reflect the decision of the General Assembly to reduce the minimum assessment rate from 0.2 percent to 0.1 percent. As regards whether the Con-ference should use that as a basis, or the 1977 United Nations scale, is of course for the Conference to decide.
A. BEN KHAYAL (Libya)(interpretation from Arabic): This is the scale in C 77/LIM/9. There is a difference in our contribution, despite the fact this was based on the United Nations scale. I would like to say our contribution to the United Nations is 0.16 percent for 1978/79, and here we read that it is 0.21 percent. Our contribution to the United Nations in 1976/77 was 0.17 percent, and this year it is down to 0.16.
I would therefore like to correct the figure in the document I quoted, namely C 77/LIM/9.
W.A. SMITH (FAO Staff): The figures in C 77/LIM/9 are superseded of course by those in C 77/LIM/15/Rev.2 which reflects the admission of new Member Nations. However, I should point out to the delegate of Libya that the assessment rates in the United Nations are not the same as those in the FAO, although we base our assessment rates on the UN. The assessment rates are higher in the FAO because we do not have the same membership as the United Nations.
There is a difference in membership which requires the FAO members to pays a higher rate in the FAO in order to allow the scales to come to 100 percent. United Nations rates are increased by approximately 25 percent in order to arrive at the FAO scale. This is true of all members of FAO except the minimum and the maximum contributor. That would explain the difference between the 0.16 percent as referred to in United Nations and 0.21 percent in FAO, It is a 25 percent increase which is borne by all other members.
CHAIRMAN: Do I take it the explanation given by Mr. Smith satisfies the delegates who took the floor, and that in the light of the silence this scale is approved by the Commission?
B. de AZEVEDO BRITO (Brazil):I made my question rather mild as I wanted to have the chance to hear the explanation. What the Secretariat has explained to us is clear.
There was, it seems, a decision by Conference. There is nothing sacrosanct which has not been follow-ed on the two occasions, therefore the Conference can choose to move to the other scale if it so decides. There is nothing to prevent it doing this.
Undoubtedly there is the fact that although in the records of the votes in the Fifth Committee in Plenary the scale has not been passed, there is no doubt that it will be approved. There may be some changes of votes - in the usual way the negative votes may change to assents or something like that, but the scale will be approved, so it is up to the Conference to see what is the best approach.
In our case we did not change our scales in precisely the same way as other countries, as some will have their contribution halved, and in our view that would be a very strong argument in favour of adopting the new scale. I do not know if you feel that the Commission should take a little more time to talk it over? Perhaps we should take some time and refer to it later in the afternoon if you wish to be better informed.I would agree to that; but I would not like to dispose so quickly and easily of something which has a lot of significance for Member States.
P.A. MORALES CARBALLO (Cuba): Esta delegación participa del mismo criterio. Pensamos que se trata de un asunto muy serio sobre el cual las delegaciones necesitan tiempo para reflexionar.
Hay que tener presente que si decidimos aplicar, como en las cuatro ocasiones anteriores, la escala que han de decidir este año las Naciones Unidas, podrían verse afectados ni más ni menos que unos ochenta países, en su mayoría países subdesarrollados.
Queremos también hacer el ruego de que se vea si este tema es posible tratarlo en otra ocasión posterior para que las delegaciones mediten sobre el mismo.
En el caso de mi delegación, tenemos una declaración preparada, pero no pensamos hacerla en este mo-mento ,
Tal vez pudiera la Secretaría darnos alguna sugerencia al respecto y facilitarnos posiblemente el documento de la Quinta Comisión de las Naciones Unidas. Si este documento se pudiera distribuir a las delegaciones serviría para que todos tuviéramos una idea más exacta de qué es lo que podrá suceder.
En este momento no se plantea nada nuevo.En cuatro ocasiones anteriores, como ya se ha dicho por el Sr. Smith - en el 55, en el 57, en el 61 y en el 73 -, estuvimos en una situación igual, exactamente igual a la de ahora, y entonces se tomó una nueva decisión. Esta nueva decisión que pretendemos tomar es una decisión que había de cumplir un mandato de la propia Asamblea cuando se dijo que se debía tratar de que el mínimo de los países subdesarrollados pasara del 0,02 al 0,01.
Tal vez nosotros pudiéramos aplicar esta decisión, que es una decisión justa, en el ámbito de la FAO para elpróximo bienio.
Estas son las ideas que sobre este punto tiene esta delegación. Nosotros nos asociamos a la propuesta de Brasil en el sentido de que se dé más tiempo para estudiar este tema, y agradeceríamos al señor Presidente, para el caso de que fuese necesario, que nos permitiera nuevamente hacer uso de la palabra.
B.E. MATAMOROS HUECK (Nicaragua): Intervengo únicamente para apoyar la propuesta presentada por las delegaciones de Brasil y de Cuba.
Las informaciones preliminares que sobre el asunto nos han dado, por algunos no las estimamos suficientes; consideramos que algunas delegaciones desean tener mayores elementos de juicio.
Por lo tanto, señor Presidente, dado que es una cuestión sobre la cual ya existen antecedentes y que no hay tampoco una urgencia inmediata de decidir sobre ella, esta delegación estima que sería conveniente aceptar la sugerencia hecha por las delegaciones de Brasil y de Cuba.
KIM KWANG HEE (Republic of Korea): I would like the Secretariat to give some clarification concerning footnote d/ on page 5. This footnote states that the contribution rates of those members which are not members of the United Nations are derived from the percentage rate at which they contribute to certain UN activities.
My question is, whether the percentage rates at which we contribute to certain UN activities are the same or different.I hope the Secretariat understands me.
A. BEN KHAYAL (Libya) (interpretation from Arabic): The reply that I have just heard has not convinced me. Yesterday I received a telex from our delegation in New York regarding Libya's contribution. Here at the bottom of the page you say this contribution was based on the United Nations scale, and I really cannot understand this. There is a difference here between what you have told us and what is contained in the United Nations scale.
W. A.SMITH (FAO staff): With regard to the question of the delegate of the Republic of Korea, the report of the United Nations Contributions Committee to the Fifth Committee contains not only a scale of assessments for United Nations members, but assessment rates for other states which are not members of the United Nations but which participate in certain United Nations activities. We use these rates just as we use the United Nations scale rates.They are considered equivalent, but have the 125 percent factor added on to arrive at the 100 percent FAO scale. We take the rates out of the book as approved by the General Assembly and as for other FAO members, we apply the differences in the grants of membership - and I repeat for the delegate of Libya, one cannot expect to see the same assessment rate in FAO for a country as one sees in the United Nations, as FAO has a smaller membership.In FAO we do not have Russia, for example.
As a consequence, in order to have a scale which adds up to 100 percent, and because we do not have Russia, we have to increase the rates for everybody. That amounts to approximately 23 percent, and I will explain further to the delegate of Libya if he wishes, now or at the end of the meeting.I have the figures in front of me.
CHAIRMAN: Distinguished delegates, we have a request from Brazil seconded by the delegates from Cuba and Nicaragua, for time to consider in order to get the United Nations scale circulated. It will take about an hour or a little more for the document to be ready to be circulated. After consulting with the Secretariat, we feel it can be done. Once this is agreed, we feel it will be easy for us to come to a decision, and I would very much like to dispose of this item tonight. In the meantime we can go back to the Plant Protection item which we have not yet concluded.
P.A. MORALES CARBALLO (Cuba): Pido excusas por hacer uso nuevamente de la palabra.
Parece que vamos llegando a un acuerdo; pero esta delegación se pregunta si una hora solamente será suficiente, tratándose como se trata de un asunto de tanta importancia.
Sería preferible, a nuestro juicio, que esta cuestión la pudiéramos tratar tal vez el lunes por la mañana .
Las delegaciones, recibiendo hoy ese documento, tendrían la posibilidad de analizar el problema y de llegar a una conclusión como, por ejemplo, a la que ha llegado nuestra delegación, que ha tenido la oportuni-dad de conocer elddocumento de la Quinta Comisión.
Creo que no es un problema de horas; que una hora es muy poco tiempo y que tal vez sería más util que tratáramos de esto el lunes por la mañana, porque es un problema trascendente que afecta a muchos países. Esa sería nuestra propuesta.
Rogamos a la Secretaría que reconsidere la situación y reiteramos que sería preferible que lo dejáramos para el lunes por ser un asunto de vital importancia, y que puede redundar en beneficio de un sinnúmero de países.
W.A. SMITH (FAO Staff): We think we can have in your hands within an hour a document demonstrating what the FAO scale would be if it were to be based on the new United Nations scale of assessment. On the other hand, we have a problem on our side, which is that only when the Commission decides on the scale can we proceed with other work which has to be available for part of the budget regulation for adoption by the Plenary meeting at the beginning of the week. Perhaps if we are still in session when this document becomes available you can make your decision whether to deal with it then or next week, but we do have a small problem on the Secretariat side.
CHAIRMAN:I am just trying to get the views of the delegates.If the document is made available within one hour and if we do not come to a decision this evening is it possible for us to meet tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock? Will this give you sufficient time?
P.A. MORALES CARBALLO (Cuba):He de decir con toda franqueza que nuestra delegación piensa que si nosotros dejamos esto para mañana a las 10, tampoco vamos a lograr nada. Mañana es sábado.Posible-mente muchos delegados ya han hecho sus planes para visitar Roma, a la que vienen cada dos años.Creo que mañana por la mañana sería muy difícil que pudiéramos contar con quorum suficiente para tratar un asunto tan importante. A mi parecer, lo más sensato sería aplazar el tema para el lunes por la mañana.
Aprovecho la ocasión para hacer una observación. No sé si será porque no lo haya entendido bien, pero estoy confundido respecto al documento que nos va a presentar la Secretaría: no sé si se trata de una copia de la resolución adoptada por la Quinta Comisión o si se trata de un nuevo documento que propone la Secretaría, o bien si serían los dos. A mi juicio, lo más oportuno sería que se nos entregaran los dos documentos.
W.A. SMITH (FAO Staff): I had envisaged circulating a paper similar to C 77/LIM/15-Rev.2 with a third column added to it showing the other alternative of basing the FAO scale on the new UN scale. The report of the Contributions Committee as considered by the General Assembly is a very big document. I do not know if the resolution on its own would be of help. We could perhaps have that produced within an hour, but it will merely cite UN rates of assessment and I believe what you are involved in are FAO rates of assessment ensuing from those UN rates of assessment.
H.L. CLAVERIE RODRIGUEZ (Venezuela): Definitivamente mi delegación piensa que no sería operante de ninguna manera el volver a estudiar el punto en el día de hoy, ni quizá en el de mañana.
Agradezco muchísimo a la Secretaría su esfuerzo por entregarnos el documento que desea preparar, pero la materia parece de tal importancia, incide en un numero tan considerable de países en desarrollo que mi delegación se permite proponer a la Secretaría que estudiara la posibilidad de volver sobre este punto el lunes. Entonces los países tendrían una idea más clara y habrían tenido oportunidad de cele-brar consultas.
Nosotros estimamos que se trata de una cuestión muy seria y participamos de los criterios expuestos por las delegaciones de Brasil y Cuba.
Reitero el ruego a la Mesa en el sentido de que si es posible se deje este tema para el lunes por la mañana, pues no creo que de aquí a mañana se pueda adelantar mucho, pese al interés de la Secretaría en preparar el documento que nos ha explicado.
CHAIRMAN: It will not be possible to have a meeting on this on Monday morning. We have to be ready with the report of this Commission on Tuesday to submit for adoption by the Plenary meeting.So the only alternative is to have a meeting tomorrow morning. Perhaps after you have seen the document it will be easy for you to come to a conclusion.
B. de AZEVEDO BRITO (Brazil):I think it is very important to take a decision here. The scale of FAO being an adaptation for reasons we all know, it is very good that we have before us, as suggested by the Secretariat, the three columns - what we pay now, what we would have paid according to the first proposal and the alternative. I do not know how long the Secretariat will take to make the calculations, I think they are very fast. My comments were just on the timing.I fully agree that it might not be very easy for many people to be here tomorrow, but anyway I am flexible.
CHAIRMAN: I understand that the document could be made available within an hour so we still have time. We will see your reaction after we have received the document but I must again stress that it will not be possible to have a meeting on Monday morning. If there is to be a meeting it must be tomorrow morning,
J. GARCIA E. (El Salvador): Nosotros hemos escuchado con gran atención los comentarios vertidos sobre el tema, y somos de la opinión de que, dado el gran interés que representa para muchos países, debe ser analizado en profundidad. No podemos opinar acerca de algo sobre lo cual realmente, de momento, no disponemos de información.
Queda claro con estas palabras que me muestro partidario de lo que han propuesto las delegaciones de Cuba y Venezuela en el sentido de que se nos deje meditar sobre el tema para discutirlo posteriormente.
El señor Presidente ha manifestado que el proximo lunes hay problemas que impedirían discutir este asunto por la mañana; pero estos son problemas técnicos que la Secretaría con la Presidencia puede tratar de resolver.
Tenemos gran interés en el tema y nos mostramos de acuerdo con la nueva escala de cuotas, pero creemos necesario disponer de nueva información; es necesario que todos estemos en el mismo nivel de información.
CHAIRMAN: I take it that the document will be circulated as soon as it is ready, that in the meantime we postpone discussion on this subject until we have received the document, and we resume discussion on plant protection. After that we have the report, Part II.
O. LUCO ECHEVERRÍA (Chile): Yo me permitiría rogar al señor Presidente - no sé si sería posible - que accediera a levantar la sesión por diez minutos a fin de que las delegaciones podamos intercambiar opiniones.
CHAIRMAN: I have no objection if this is the wish of the Commission. We will have a break and we will resume in about 10 minutes.
The meeting was suspended from 17.25 hours to 17.40 hours
La séance est suspendue de 17 h 25 à 17 h 40
Se suspende la sesión desde las 17.25 a las 17.40 horas
ADOPTION OF REPORT
ADOPTION DU RAPPORT
APROBACTION DEL INFORME
DRAFT REPORT OF COMMISSION III - PART 2
PROJET DE RAPPORT DE LA COMMISSION III - DEUXIEME PARTIE
PROYECTO DE INFORME DE LA COMISIÓN III - PARTE 2
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): You have before you document C 77/III/REP/2 which contains the Commission's draft report for three of the sub-items under Item 18 of the agenda. The first part relates to the composition of the Programme Committee and the Finance Committee. In this draft I have attempted - and I would like to repeat the word attempted - to take into consideration all of the viewpoints expressed during our discussions. I was considerably aided in my task by the clear summary given by the Chairman of our Commission at the beginning of our meeting on Wednesday on the points on which agreement or a consensus had been reached.
I would like to draw the attention of the Commission to the Draft Conference Resolution which has been approved by the Resolutions Committee. The draft amendments contained in the Resolution reflect the points of substance on which there seemed to be agreement in the Commission.
The next part of the report deals with the sub-items dealing with the authentic Chinese text of the Constitution and with the status and use of languages in FAO. Both items received unanimous support from delegates. With this introduction I present part 2 of the report of Commission III.
CHAIRMAN: I hope you have the report in front of you and that your comments will be as brief as possible, as we do not have much time.
A.A.W. LANDYMORE (United Kingdom):Mr. Chairman, could I just enquire - I do have three points, they are very short and small - whether you are inviting comments on the whole or paragraph by paragraph?
CHAIRMAN: I think that we can take it paragraph by paragraph if this is more convenient to the Commission.
PARAGRAPHS 1 TO 8, INCLUDING RESOLUTION
LES PARAGRAPHES 1 A 8, Y-COPRIS LÀ RESOLUTION
LOS PÁRRAFOS 1 A 8, INCLUIDA LA RESOLUCION
A.A.W. LANDYMORE (United Kingdom): I should like to preface my remarks by congratulating Mr. Masud on the excellent job he has done on this. There is, however, just one little point of clarification which I think is required as regards the last sentence of paragraph 5, comparing it with paragraph 2 of the Draft Resolution to which it relates, on page 5 of the draft as we have it. The last sentence of paragraph 5 says:"The Conference decided that the latter procedure", etc. I think "latter procedure" entails three main things: one is supplying the name of the country; the second is supplying a curriculum vitae of the proposed candidate; and the third thing is doing those two things in good time, that is to say with a particular time limit.
In paragraph 2 of the Draft Resolution we waive only the time limit. Is it the intention - and I think Mr. Masud can answer this for us - also to waive the requirement of the curriculum vitae? The United Kingdom does not mind, but we do think that we ought to be clear about this.
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): The point raised by the delegate of the United Kingdom is valid. I think that the intention is to relax all three provisions because-relaxing just one would be meaningless. Therefore both the time and the curriculum vitae, as well as the name in this case - if I am not mistaken - would not be necessary, particularly for this meeting because after this the ten days rule would apply.
LEGAL COUNSEL: Where there is a narrative section and a draft resolution, the draft resolution is generally more precise than the narrative and I am afraid that the Secretariat has to take the blame for having misled the rapporteur. The term "the latter procedure" is, somewhat vague but what was intended to refer to is the last element of the procedure that was mentioned, namely the ten-day limit, as is stated in the Draft Conference Resolution.
Perhaps it might be an idea to clarify this ambiguity, which very rightly has been pointed out by the United Kingdom delegate, by substituting the words "the aforementioned time limit" for the words "the latter procedure."
A. GOMEZ ORBANEJA (España): La delegación española anunció, cuando la discusión de este tema, que se presentaría por escrito una enmienda al apéndice de esta resolución, es decir a la redacción del artículo veintiséis del reglamento. Así lo hizo. La Presidencia ha tenido a bien no circular esta enmienda. Lo lamentamos. Y como presentar una enmienda ahora complicaría y alargaría el tiempo de que disponemos, decidimos no presentarla. Lo lamentamos porque lo hemos hecho honradamente, creyendo que el procedimiento que se presenta así es equivocado y confuso. Y lo decimos claramente porque España no tiene la intención ni de presentarse al Consejo ni a ninguno de los Comités. De manera que nuestra contribución fue honrada. Queríamos aclarar la situación. Lo lamentamos y nada más.
Paragraphs 1 to 7, as amended, adopted
Les paragraphes 1 à 7, ainsi amendés, adopté
Los párrafos 1 a 7, así enmendados, son aprobados
Paragraph 8, including Resolution, approved
Le paragraphe 8, y compris la resolution, est approuvé
El párrafo 87 incluida la Resolución, es aprobado
PARAGRAPHS 9 TO 12, INCLUDING RESOLUTION
LES PARAGRAPHES 9 A 12, Y COMPRIS LA RESOLUTION
LOS PÁRRAFOS 9 A 12, INCLUIDA LA RESOLUCIÓN
A.A.W. LANDYMORE (United Kingdom): This is a very small matter on paragraph 11.I refer to the wo "all delegates who took the floor''.In the interest of cutting down on time my delegation did no take the floor and if we include the words "who took the floor" the implication might tend to be that those who did not take the floor did not support the proposed amendment. Now, as a matter of fact I did not take the floor but I do, and did, support the proposed amendment so I should like to move the deletion of the words ''who took the floor".Since my last point is exactly the same one in relation to paragraph 19 perhaps you would allow me to anticipate by saying I have exactly the same proposal there.
CHAIRMAN:I think that is a valid point.No objection.
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): The point is well taken and I totally agree with the delegate of the United Kingdom who has had inore experience than I have in drafting such reports and it is true that there was absolute unanimity on this and in fact we could report that very easily.
Paragraphs 9 to 11, as amended, adopted
Les paragraphes 9 à 11, ainsi amendés, adopté
Los párrafos 9 a 11, así enmendados, son aprobados
Paragraph 12, including Resolution, adopted
Le paragraphe 12, y compris la résolution, adopte
El párrafo 12, incluida la Resolución, es aprobado
PARAGRAPHS 13 TO 20, INCLUDING RESOLUTION
LES PARAGRAPHES 13 A 20, Y COMPRIS LA RESOLUTION
LOS PÁRRAFOS 13 A 20,INCLUIDA LA RESOLUCIÓN
A. LØCHEN (Norway): Just a small amendment to the amendment proposed and accepted by the house. I wonder if it would not be right, both in paragraph 19 and paragraph 11 on page 6 in the English te to say "the Conference fully supported".
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee):I think this suggestion is also an extremely good one. I have absolutely no objection.This would be reflecting exactly what went on.
P.J. BYRNES (United States of America):I fully support the changes proposed by the United Kingdom Norway but we are in the habit here, and I have just: used it now in my introduction, of saying "fu support".Elsewhere in our report we were saying "the Conference supported" and in paragraph 19 are saying ''fully supported". So that we do not draw a distinction could we just say "the Conference supported?''
Paragraph 13 to 19, as amended, adoρted
Les paragraphes 13 à 19, ainsi amendés, adopté
Los párrafos 13 a 19, así enmendados, son aprobados
Paragraph 20, including Resolution, approved
Le paragraphe 20, y compris la résolution, est approuvé
El párrafo 20, incluida la Resolución, es aprobado
Draft Report of Commission III - Part 2, as amended, was adopted
Le projet de rapport de la Commisssion III, deuxième partie, ainsi amendé, est approuvé
El proyecto de informe - Parte 2, así enmendado, es aprobado
- International Plant Protection Convention (continued)
- Convention internationale-pour la protection des végétaux (suite)
- Convención Internacional de Protección Fitosanitaria (continuación)
CHAIRMAN: We now resume our discussion on the item 20.4 International Plant Protection Convention.
LEGAL COUNSEL: As suggested previously, some preliminary consultations were held to find out, whether a consensus might be possible on the modifications which we proposed earlier this afternoon.We were faced with two difficulties. The first was one of substance, namely at least one delegation was in doubt as to whether in the phytosanitary certificate it would not go too far to adopt the phrase proposed by the government consultation to the effect that the plants or plant products had been inspected and found free from pests covered by phytosanitary regulations.I believe that our colleagues in the Secretariat have been able to explain that ''found free'' is not necessarily an assertion that such plants or plant products are free but simply that they were found free by the inspector. The consultation had not quite been completed when the Commission came back to this point.
The second difficulty that we met was that at least one delegation pointed out that the text that had been read out by the Secretariat was not quite clear or that some delegations may not have been in a position to take exact note of it; moreover certain delegations felt that they ought to contact their governments to ascertain whether the modifications proposed today would be acceptable.This problem has not yet been resolved.
CHAIRMAN: Well, we are in the hands of the Commission now. We thought that matter could be resolved and we could reach a consensus but it looks as though one or two countries are still having difficulties. Probably if I ask the Secretariat to read out slowly the proposed modification in the text, this might help you to make up your minds whether the modification proposed by the Legal Counsel meets the difficulties raised by Australia and New Zealand, and will also be acceptable to the other delegations who have reserved their position on this point.The best thing would be to ask Legal Counsel himself to read at dictation speed.
LEGAL COUNSEL: In the text of the proposed revised version, Appendix J in Document C 77/LIM/26, Article II para. 2, no change up to the semi-colon. After the words "or plant products",replace the semi-colon by a full stop. Delete the remainder of the paragraph 2 starting with "and the term'quaranti.ne pest' ".
The second change concerns Article II para. 4 on page J2 of the English text. Delete what is underlined, delete the square brackets and in the bracketed phrase, the words "and diseases". So that paragraph 4 would read "This Convention shall have particular reference to pests of importance to international trade full-stop".
In the Phytosanitary Certificate proposed by the Government Consultation, reproduced in the Annex document, page J9 of the English text, in the middle of the page there is a ,single-spaced statement "This is to certify that the plants or plant products described above.,," and at this point insert the following words: "comma or representative samples thereof comma". The text as it stands now continues "have been inspected and found free from..." delete the words "quarantine pests" and insert "pests covered by phytosanitary regulations", and the present text goes on ''and substantially free from other" delete "injurious" and leave "pests semi-colon". There is no change to the last phrase.
These are the changes, Mr. Chairman.
M. GUEKRAOUI (Maroc): Monsieur le Président, pouvez-vous demander au Conseiller juridique de bien vouloir lire, comme il l!a fait en ce qui concerne le paragraphe 4 de l'article 2, le nouveau paragraphe 2 tel qu'il est proposé.
LEGAL COUNSEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe the delegate from Morocco wanted me to repeat how Article II, para.2 should read. I said, Mr. Chairman, there is no change in the first sentence. I vail read it. "for the purposes of this Convention, the term 'pest' means any form of plant or animal life comma or any pathogenic agent comma injurious or potentially injurious to plants or plant products". That is the end of the paragraph.
M. GUEKPiAOUI (Maroc): Je voudrais également que le Conseiller juridique signale que j'avais fait une proposition en ce qui concerne le texte qui figure en bas de la page 11 du texte français "modèle de certificat phytosanitaire" et j'avais proposé que la mention des échantillons figure en début de la phrase et le texte se lirait de la façon suivante:
"Il est certifié que des échantillons représentée i f s de végétaux ou produits végétaux décrits ci-dessus ont été inspectés",
le reste sans changement.
A.K. CHOCK (FAO Staff): I would say that that statement would not be completely acceptable to all peoples concerned from the technical point of view in that you are deleting that portion which says that everything has been inspected. There xvi 11 be cases where some things might be inspected one hundred percent, and by just having representative samples then you remove that choice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
B.E. MATAMOROS HUECK (Nicaragua): No voy a pronunciarme en relación con la propuesta hecha por el Asesor Legal; solamente deseo una aclaración desde el punto de vista del procedimiento.
Desearía saber, señor Presidente, si estas enmiendas o modificaciones que se nos están presentando son de carácter semántico o sustantivo.
Señor Presidente, estoy bastante confundido con relación al procedimiento que estamos siguiendo, puesto que no se nos ha informado respecto a los criterios en que debemos pronunciarnos.
Agradecerla que antes de que continuáramos examinand.o estas propuestas, semánticas o sustantivas, se aclarara este punto.
LEGAL COUNSEL: Mr, Chairman, while admitting that in some cases the borderline between the two concepts is floating, I should say that, taking as a starting point the Phytosanitary Certificate where the term "quarantine pests" in English has been rendered by the term "vise par la réglementation phyto-sanitaire", the alignment of the English text with the French text would seem to eliminate the need for an explicit definition of "quarantine pests". It is from this point that most of the other modifica-tions seem to flow, insofar as in Article II, paragraph 2 the definition of "quarantine pests" should be dispensed with since it would not be used any more in the Phytosanitary Certificate after it has been aligned to the French version. Likewise, in the only other provision where reference is made to "quarantine pests", namely in Article II paragraph 4, we have merely reverted to the version which did not contain a reference to "quarantino pests". Subject to anything that my colleagues who are technically more versed on this than I am may have to say, I believe that the changes made are predominantly of a drafting nature without any significant substantive implications.
B.E. MATAMOROS HUECK (Nicaragua): Tenemos la impresión de que el contexto, en el aspecto formal y sustantivo del Artículo II, ha sufrido una modificación sustantiva.
La interpretación que nos da la Asesoría Jurídica creemos que es muy optimista. No sabemos si a un individuo al cual se le han amputado las dos piernas se le considera una persona hábil para correr o un inválido. Quizá se nos de una nueva definición sobre esto, y nosotros estaríamos dispuestos a compartir lo que diga la Secretaría.
Desearía llamar la atención sobre lo que dice el párrafo 137. Dice así:"El Consejo decidió trans-mitir a la Conferencia las enmiendas propuestas para su consideración y decision, según proceda."
Esto considero que da el suficiente margen jurídico para que esta Comisión pueda aportar enmiendas de carácter formal o sustantivo a este texto.
Creo que se está adoptando un procedimiento - no sabría como definirlo - con el cual se trata de limitar algunas modificaciones que, a criterio nuestro, perfeccionarían el texto.
Las enmiendas que ha presentado la Secretaría las consideramos ortodoxas y consecuentes con lo dispuesto en este párrafo, pero también estimamos que es atribución de las delegaciones pronunciarse en este mismo sentido; es decir, que cuando crean pertinente los países pueden perfeccionar el texto del Convenio.
CHAIRMAN: Before I give the floor to Brazil and Morocco,Iinvite Dr. Chock to clarify this point.
A.K. CHOCK (FAO staff): From my point of view, if this were to be considered substantive, instead of amputating both legs of the person, possibly one millimetre of his heel - and I repeat, one millimetre of his heel - has been removed.
B. de AZEVEDO BRITO (Brazil):I thank Dr. Chock because we are near to orthopaedics, but we were dealing with this subject in my delegation some time before today and I just want to make one observa-tion - that we are inclined to believe, and I underline these words, that the proposals in fact represent new obligations.Because of the simple fact that the scope of the Convention was being sub-stantially amplified, of necessity new obligations would be involved.
In Article XIII, paragraph 4 the procedure for entering into new obligations would be relevant. We have heard the debate so far, and as far as this goes my delegation feels there is additional and sub-stantial reason for thinking that this matter is not yet fully ripe for consideration.
We have an important Convention involving a number of implications, including economic implications. A number of amendments have been formulated which are very important and probably well-founded. Argu-ments of a very valid nature have been advanced, but since we are not a technical conference and have not come here prepared for that I wonder if the wisest thing to do at this stage is simply to defer action to the next Conference.
The arguments involved in defining suggestions call for a lot more reflection rather than just waiting a couple of hours here. I ask if there is a quorum. We are going to change a Convention, with the CCLM's ruling, and if two-thirds acceptance is reached it would be valid for those who have not
accepted. Here is an empty room, some of us have attended two meetings, and we did not come here pre-pared to debate a Plant Convention, and I do not feel we would be doing the right thing to proceed to act at this stage. What would happen if amendments or changes that might be necessary are put into force in two years' time? It is not quite clear to me, and perhaps some of my colleagues here who have larger delegations could elucidate that for me.
CHAIRMAN: I should like to inform the distinquished delegate of Brazil that we have a quorum.
E. HITAYEZU (Rwanda): Oui, le Rwanda a demandé la parole et constate que lorsque l'on est placé derrière, on n'est, pas facilement vu. Nous pensons que les amendements que nous sommes en train d'apporter amputent le fond. Je voudrais revenir sur le paragraphe 2 de l'Article II.En effet, dans ce paragraphe nous définissons les "ennemis" qui sont visés par la Convention, Nous supprimons cela mais nous y revenons dans la formule qui est proposée.
Dans le modèle de ces certificats phytosanitaires on dit que "les ennemis ont été inspectés''. Il faudrait trouver un terme visé par la réglementation phytosanitaire. Nous y faisons allusion alors qu'on l'a supprimée dans notre texte.
T. HAYAKAWA (Japon): Je tiens tout simplement à dire que je partage entièrement le point de vue exprimé par le délégué du Brésil. J'ai déjà indiqué ce matin devant cette Commission, que l'Article V, qui prévoit le certificat d'exportation affectera notre système juridique et notre Gouvernement devra apporter les modifications nécessaires au règlement interne du Japon sur la production des végétaux. Je prescrirais que l'Article XIII paragraphe 4 soit appliqué de la même manière que les procédures en ce qui concerne l'entrée en vigueur de ces amendements. Quant aux nouveaux amendements qui ont été proposés par le Conseiller juridique, étant donné qu'il n'y a pas d'expert au sein de notre délégation, je ne suis pas en mesure d'adopter une position valable et il me faut donc référer ces nouveaux amende-ments à ma capitale.
B.E. MATAMOROS HUECK (Nicaragua): Con particular atención ha escuchado esta delegación las interven-ciones de los distinguidos delegados del Brasil y de Rwanda.
Al igual que estas dos delegaciones citadas, nosotros estimamos las propuestas de enmiendas al certificado fitosanitario con un criterio muy amplio; las consideramos muy sustantivas. Y digo amplio, señor Presidente, porque estamos en el mismo caso que Brasil y Rwanda: nosotros no tenemos un experto que pudiera evaluar el exacto alcance de las enmiendas propuestas por la Secretaría. Y sería un acto de irresponsabilidad por mi parte avalar el alcance de estas enmiendas sin conocer exactamente su contenido.
En cuanto al artículo IX de esta Convención, en su párrafo 1, a juicio nuestro no está definida en forma expresa la función de los gobiernos en el caso de que se presente controversia. Se refiere en una forma muy marginal, y creemos que, salvo los casos contractuales, debería figurar de una forma clara y estricta.
También pensamos que el procedimiento que se establece respecto a la función que va a desarrollar la FAO en estas circunstancias, no les deja a los Estados la facultad de en qué forma deberían presentarlo o plantearlo, sino que prácticamente se presenta una especie de procedimiento casi automático.
Por consiguiente, señor Presidente, yo creo que el abandono de la decision de este tema quizá sería la medida más oportuna y conveniente para todos los países.
Una decision apresurada sobre un asunto tan grave quizá llevaría a producir más efectos negativos que todos los efectos positivos que pudiéramos esperar de una aplicación de esta Convención, en la cual participa gran numero de Estados con la específica voluntad política de adherirse a ella.
P.A. MORALES CARBALLO (Cuba): Es la tercera vez que hacemos uso de la palabra, pero no queremos dejar de expresar nuestra opinion con respecto a las observaciones que se han emitido, ya que en nuestra
intervención inicial habíamos señalado que en líneas generales estábamos de acuerdo con el documento y expresamos nuestra posición con respecto a dos de los párrafos.
Se han expuesto aquí una serie de opiniones con respecto a cambios o modificaciones en este documento que realmente requieren ser consultadas con nuestro Gobierno. Por eso nosotros opinamos como otras delegaciones que no se debe tomar una decision en este momento, que debe posponerse la decision al respecto.
E.D. LETTS (Australia): I have two main impressions of the debate we have heard so far. My main impression on the positive matters we have discussed and the matters we have been able to look at in the improving of the Convention is that there is something of a consensus on what we have suggested.
However, the other impression is that possibly the only element on which we have a real consensus is the point made by the Brazilian delegate - that the matter is not yet ripe for final resolution. My own inclination, based on my own first positive impression, would be that in the spirit of trying to be cooperative and to meet the parties on both sides, I would agree with the idea of giving ourselves some time to think and check and meet again during this Conference.
I have two doubts there. One is whether delegations can meet that sort of deadline. The other is that I understand that there may be no place, no time, to put us in for further meetings in any case.I imagine that was the implication of the Brazilian delegate's intervention.If we cannot find another place and we cannot take time for further consideration during this Conference I would have no alterna-tive but to incline also to the view that the only course we are left with is to defer the matter for further review.
G. LIEBER (Germany, Fed. Rep. of)(interpretation from German):I apologise for speaking once again but in view of the course of the discussion so far I want to take advantage of this opportunity once again to sum up the position of my delegation. As I said before, my government is prepared to accept the Convention as it now stands and I would be agreeable to its adoption by the Conference. We heard with interest the proposals of the Legal Counsel. However, my delegation is unfortunately not in a position to make a technical statement on the subject, but we are prepared to turn to the competent authorities in my country within a very short period concerning technical consultations. We agree with the procedure that Commission III should adopt this document. However, if that were done we would have to make that reservation but we could state that within a very brief period of time we would either make this reservation specific or we would withdraw it.
J.O. ALABI (Nigeria): From the way this debate is going it would appear that we will have to postpone a decision on this amendment.I agree with delegates who expressed their inability to commit their governments to a document which had been prepared by experts.In the event of postponement may I ask how we want further action on the documents. Do we have to summon all the experts to Rome again with all the costs involved or will we have to circulate this and ask governments to comment?
CHAIRMAN: May I inform delegates that we can have a meeting on Monday for one and a half hours, from nine o'clock to half past ten, if we have not disposed of this item, and I see that we cannot dispose of it, so we can take it on Monday morning. But it depends how fast we can go on the item that still remains on the Agenda - that is, Scale of Contributions. A document is being circulated giving the third column derived from the UN scale. We shall be able to dispose of both items on Monday morning. But for the time being I think we have no choice but to postpone. Before doing that I give the floor to Norway, and after that to New Zealand.
A. LØCHEN (Norway): My delegation thinks that it would be unfortunate if the Conference could not finalize the amendments to the International Plant Protection Convention at this Session.I would like to propose that the Commission stops the discussion on thisissue, that a report is made on what we have been doing under this item and that the final decision is taken in the Plenary meeting. As far as I remember this has been done on issues before where for some reason a decision could not be reached in this Commission.
M.R. LEAR (New Zealand): The New Zealand delegation has studied with interest the appendix to the new model phytosanitary certificate and we have listened carefully to the comments of the delegates who have just spoken. To be frank, the instructions of my government do not permit the New Zealand delegation to support the new model certificate as amended. Further, my delegation is not able to obtain instructions from its government by Monday. However, we do agree with the views of the delegates of Japan, Australia and what appears to be the majority of other speakers that the proposals of Brazil to defer the item to the next session of the Conference might well be an interim solution of benefit to us all.
CHAIRMAN: I will give the floor to the Legal Counsel.I have to inform you that we cannot take a decision as to whether we will postpone it or not. We will meet on Monday morning and then we will see what is the feeling of the delegations.
LEGAL COUNSEL: I will not start on a new rescue operation, since the first one was obviously not very successful.If the Commission and then the Plenary of the Conference were to postpone the consideration and approval of the amendments before you, Mr. Chairman, obviously that would mean postponement for two years. One of the arguments adduced in favour of this solution was that delegations were not accompanied by experts, that the Conference could not act as a drafting organ, that this had to be left to consult-ations of experts.I wonder whether the Conference will not be in exactly the same situation two years from now and whether some delegations might not find themselves unable to approve the text or any modifications thereto, exactly as it was with the text proposed by the government consultation. Perhaps a similar proposal of postponement for another two years might again be made. This observation should in no way be construed as an attempt of the Secretariat to force the hands of any delegations, let alone the Conference as a whole.
I would like to end with just one small observation regarding the comment made by the delegate of Japan. He finds that the re-export certificates would be difficult to accept because they might involve new obligations inasmuch as they would have to be reflected in national legislation. Subject to anything that my colleagues from the technical division may say, I believe that the re-export certificate is intended to facilitate the work of the plant protection organizations of exporting countries. Nothing would prevent them from continuing to issue full phytosanitary certificates, if they so desire, in cases where re-export certificates would be insufficient.
CHAIRMAN: As I indicated, we will have to postpone any further discussion on this item. We will meet on Monday morning and then we will take a decision whether we are going to postpone consideration or submit it to the Conference,as proposed by the delegate of Norway. We will decide on the procedure to follow.
- Scale of Contributions 1978-79 (continued)
- Barème des contributions,1978-79 (suite)
- Escala de cuotas para 1978-79 (continuación)
CHAIRMAN: I will ask delegates to inform me whether they have gone through the documents on Scale of Contributions under Item 22 and whether we can reach agreement now before we adjourn this meeting, because I believe there is some urgency regarding this matter. Does any delegate wish to take the floor and make any comments now that you have the middle column derived from the UN scale?
We will give you about five minutes to read the document.
I hope delegates have had time to go through all the figures and are in a position now to offer some comments.It would be much appreciated if we could dispose of this item within the next five or ten minutes. This is an urgent matter because it concerns the budget. You have in front of you two scales and you have to choose one of them. There is the first column a/ and there is a note which explains: "Derived directly from the United Nations Scale of Assessments as in force in 1977 as recommended by the Seventy-First Session of the Council", etc. So this is a recommendation of the Council and derives from the United Nations Scale as in force in 1977.
Column b/ is derived directly from the United Nations Scale of Assessments for 1978-79 as recommended by the Fifth Committee of the General Assembly of the United Nations, plus Viet Nam at minimum rate of 0.01 percent.
So I think that you have to make up your minds whether you accept this scale in a/ or the scale in b/. I understand that many members expressed the wish to have the scale in b/ in order to compare, and now that you have all of the figures in front of you you have been able to look at it and compare it and I do not think there will be any difficulty in coming to any conclusion. So it is now up to the Commission to decide and to offer comments.
B. SAMANEZ CONCHA (Perú): Pienso que este es un asunto bastante delicado y posiblemente todos los aquí presentes habrán informado a sus gobiernos, tal como hemos hecho nosotros, sobre la escala de cuotas que nos ha sido propuesta por la Organización. Tomar un acuerdo en nombre de los gobiernos, con modi-ficaciones que aparecen en esta nueva escala prevista, yo creo que no es una atribución nuestra y deberíamos tener el tiempo necesario para hacer la consulta a nuestros ministerios de Economía y Fi-nanzas. En segundo termino, vemos que la sala está totalmente rala, y yo pido que se conmute el quorum para ver si es posible seguir esta sesión, porque un asunto como este creo que de ninguna manera puede ser discutido y llevarse adelante para tomar una decision sin el quorum reglamentario.
CHAIRMAN: Since the question of a quorum has been raised we will let the Secretary count whether we have the required number.
M.A. BENDJENNA (Algérie): La preference de la Delegation algérienne va à la colonne b/, pour la simple raison que la question des contributions à l'ONU a fait l'objet d'un examen approfondi par le Comité des contributions aussi bien que par la 5e Commission, et que le résultat de cet examen a été que la plupart, pour ne pas dire tous les pays les plus gravement touches ont vu leurs contributions baisser, certes c'est une baisse minime, mais qui quand même était très importante étant donné que ce sont des pays très pauvres et qui se débattent dans des difficultés financières considérables devant le peu de rentrées de devises.
C'est pour cela que nous estimons que dans un élan de solidarité internationale, il est souhaitable d'approuver ce bareme b/ conformément aux décisions de l'Assemblée générale; je comprends les préoccupations de certaines délégations qui voudraient durant le week-end consulter leur gouvernement, mais quant à nous, nous ne voyons aucun inconvénient à approuver la partie b/, nous estimons qu'elle va dans le sens de l'intérêt de la majorité des pays en voie de développement.
P. SKOUFIS (Assistant Director-General, Administration and Finance Department): I wanted to be sure that the delegate for Peru understood that neither column a/ nor column b/represents the Secretariat's recommendation. These are the recommendations of the Council at its last session and also of the Fifth Committee in the General Assembly.
The meeting rose at 19.05 hours
La séance est levee a 19 h 05
Se levanta la sesión a las 19.05 horas
