CHAIRMAN: I am sorry not to have been present this morning, and I thank Mr. Landymore of the United Kingdom delegation who held the fort in my absence this morning. In this afternoon's meeting we have the adoption of the Report, Part III. The relevant document is C 77/III/REP/3. I will give the floor to the Rapporteur to introduce this document.
P. MASUD (Chairman Drafting Committee): In view of the large measure of agreement on the issues under consideration today, the Third Part of the Report of Commission III is short and self-explanatory.
CHAIRMAN: We will take it paragraph by paragraph as we did last time.
PARAGRAPHS 1-4
PARAGRAPHES 1 à 4
PÁRRAFOS 1 ä 4
O.O. SOMORIN (Nigeria): I think I have to say something about Paragraph 2. Inasmuch as my delegation agrees with every portion of it, I would just say by way of advice that in paragraph 2 the following should be omitted. The sentence starts with "The Council has accordingly agreed to recommend that the Conference should provide for the eligibility of the Director-General for re-appointment ..." and at that stage it says,"without limitation on number or variation in length of terms''. I think that should be expunged and continue thus,"and that the procedure for the nomination and selection of the Director-General in the Conference should remain unchanged''.
P. MASUD (Chairman Drafting Committee): This sentence starts with the words "The Council'' and what follows is exactly what the Council decided.Therefore I think it would not be right to change it at this stage, because the Council did decide this and what is stated has been lifted almost word for word from the proceedings of the Council.
CHAIRMAN: I take it that the reply satisfies the delegation of Nigeria and that everybody agrees that we should retain this phrase.
Paragraphs 1 to 4, including Resolution, adopted
Les paragraphes 1 à 4, y compris la résolution, sont adoptés
Los párrafos 1 a 4, includia la Resolución, son aprobados
Paragraphs 5 to 7, including Resolution, adopted
Les paragraphes 5 à 7, y compris la résolution, sont adoptés
Los párrafos 5 a 7, incluida la Resolución, son aprobados
Paragraphs 8 and 9, including Resolution, adopted
Les paragraphes 8 êt 9, y compris la résolution, sont adoptés
Los parrafos 8 y 9, incluida la Resolución, son aprobados
Paragraph 10, approved
Le paragraphe 10 est approuvé
El parrafo 10 es aprobado
Paragraphs 11 to 14, approved
Les paragraphes 11 à 14 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 11 a 14, son aprobados
PARAGRAPHS 15 and 16
PARAGRAPHES 15 et 16
PÁRRAFOS 15 y 16
E. DIAZ BUSTABAD (Cuba): Con respecto al párrafo 16, desearía plantear una pequeña cuestión que creo se debe a la traducción al español.
En las dos primeras líneas del párrafo 16, se dice: "Se informo a la Conferencia de que el Acuerdo había de ser aprobado aun por la Junta Ejecutiva del FIDA, una vez que el Fondo empezara a existir,"
Esta expresión ''empezara a existir" nos parece que no es la más apropiada. Consideramos que sería mejor que se dijera:”,,, una vez que el Fondo comenzara a funcionar."
CHAIRMAN: I do not think anyone has any objection.It is accepted.So we adopt paragraph 16 with the amendment suggested by the delegation of Cuba.
Paragraphs 15 and 16, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 15 et 16, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 15 y 16, así enmendados, son aprobados
PARAGRAPHS 17 to 19
PARAGRAPHES 17 à 19
PÁRRAFOS 17 a 19
Ms YU PING (China) (interpretation from Chinese): The Chinese delegation has noted the reference to the Chinese delegation's statement in paragraph 18, Rep 3.But I want to make it clear that the original wording of the statement is ''some groups or personnel controlled by the Chiang Kai Shek clique entrenched in Taiwan'', not ''some groups and individuals controlled by the regime entrenched in Taiwan'' as in the present paragraph 18, line 3. Therefore, the Chinese delegation requests that the original wording of the statement be used in paragraph 18, Rep 3.
P. MASUD (Chairman, Drafting Committee): The observation has been noted. The needful will be done and the amendment made according to the original wording of the statement.
CHAIRMAN: I hope that this satisfies the delegation of China.
Paragraps 17 to 19, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 17 à 19, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 17 a 19, así enmendados, son aprobados
Paragraphs 20 and 21, including resolution, adopted
Les paragraphes 20 et 21, y compris la résolution, sont adoptés
Los parrafos 20 y 21, incluida la resolución, son aprobados
Paragraphs 22 to 28, including resolution, adopted
Les paragraphes 22 à 28, y compris la résolution, sont adoptés
Los párrafos 22 a 28, incluida la resolución, son aprobados
Paragraphs 29 and 30 including resolution, adopted
Les paragraphes 29 à 30, y compris la résolution, sont adoptés
Los párrafos 29 a 30, incluida la resolución, son aprobados
Paragraphs 31 to 33, including resolution, adopted
Les paragraphes 31 à 33, y compris la résolution, sont adoptés
Los párrafos 31 a 33, incluida la resolución, son aprobados
Paragraph 34 is approved
Le paragraphe 34 est approuvé
El párrafo 34 es aprobado
Draft Report of Commission III - Part 3, as amended, was adopted
Le projet de rapport de la Commission III, partie 3, ainsi amendé, est adopté
El proyecto de informe de la Comisión III, Parte 3, así enmendado, es aprobado
CHAIRMAN: We now turn to item 20.4, We will resume our discussion on that.Before doing so I will summarize the position as it is up to now.
According to the notes which we took - I must say that this may not be quite complete but this is the best we could do - the following summary of the debate may be appropriate and perhaps help to conclude this item.There were two phases in the discussion, Friday morning and Friday afternoon.In the morning ten delegations were in favour of approving the amendments as proposed by government consultation with editorial improvements of the CCLM. About eight delegations expressed reservations on the definition of "quarantine pests" in Article II, second half of paragraph 2; one on the new model certificates, particularly the phytosanitary certificate; and one on the certificate of re-export. Two delegations thought that two provisions which have not been amended should have been amended.
Six delegations did not agree with the CCLM's conclusion that the revised text did not involve new obligations for contracting parties. That is what took place on the morning of Friday.
In the afternoon, as you all remember, the Secretariat submitted some possible modifications to Article II and the phytosanitary certificate, in an attempt to meet reservations expressed by delegations in the morning.Some of these delegations were satisfied while a few did not find the modifications were sufficient.Several delegations who had been willing to approve the amendments as originally submitted were not in a position to accept the modifications submitted by the Secretariat without consulting their governments.Towards the end five or six delegations proposed that the decision on approving the amendment be deferred to the next Session of the Conference. While four were opposed to postponement. According to our notes, 25 delegations participated in the debate; some spoke more than once, which is normal. This is considerably less than the number of countries who participated in the Governmental Consultation and reached, for all practical purposes, a consensus on the proposed revision.
So this was the position until Friday afternoon when we adjourned our work. Now, where do we go from here? What do we do now? As you know, time is very short and we have to reach a decision because it is an issue to which 77 contracting parties certainly attach great importance. There are three courses open to us.
First, the Commission could decide whether it would be desirable to go ahead with the approval of the text or follow the suggestion made by some delegates that a decision on approval be postponed to the next Session; and if so, what action should be taken in the meantime. So the first thing we have to decide is whether we take a decision on the text or we make a recommendation to the Conference that it should be postponed to the next Conference. Secondly, if the Commission feels that a decision on the revised provisions should be taken, we should know what text is to be approved. I am informed that the Secretariat does not wish to pursue the tentative proposals it put forward on Friday afternoon since no consensus has been achieved, with one exception. The clarification in the phytosanitary certificate about the inspection of representative samples of consignments seems to have been welcomed by all delegations who took the floor on the subject. Accordingly, with this minor modification the • text submitted for approval should be as submitted in document C 77/LIM/26.
Thirdly, a decision needs to be taken on the question of whether the revision involves new obligations for contracting parties. For the reasons explained by the CCLM it was for the Conference to decide on this, so that the procedure for the coming into force is clear for all contracting parties and for the Director-General who has to exercise depository functions regarding this Convention.
I have tried to summarize the position as briefly as possible as it existed on the afternoon of Friday and then I have raised three courses of action. One is whether to take a decision or to have it postponed to the next Conference; and second, what do we do in the meantime? I also pointed out that one modification about the Phytosanitary Certificate meets with the approval of practically everybody who took the floor. Thirdly, the Secretariat had submitted certain amendments to meet the points raised by some delegations. Now they cease to pursue the matter.
There is also the question of obligations for contracting parties.It is now open - we still have some time - for the floor to express its views and in the light of the views expressed we shall have to take some decision before we part this evening.
B. de AZEVEDO BRITO (Brazil): My delegation is inclined, as we said when we met on Friday, to be rather flexible on this issue. At the same time my delegation is also conscious of the very important considerations raised by a number of delegations during the day. I think your summing up. Sir, is absolutely perfect and reflects the balance of the situation. However, what we have here is not the adoption even of resolution having a recommendatory nature at best. We have here changes of the Convention which is signed by a number of countries, with a number of contracting parties. It is a very substantially different situation from what we usually approve in international meetings. Moreover, this Convention implies, in fact, obligations to States in matters of a very practical nature, whether new or old.
My delegation said- as I mentioned before - on Friday that we were rather flexible on the amendments as they are presented thus far and duly recognize the validity of many of the arguments presented on Friday. At the same time we are very much in favour of considering new obligations, the kind of amendments that have been proposed to us. The simple fact that the scope of the Convention will be substantially enlarged would seem to suggest that there are new obligations. Therefore in the event that we approve the amendments, most probably we will approve also the clause of new obligations. That would mean that once there is entry into force with two-thirds acceptance, you will have most probably a kind of dual system which will be in this case quite confusing and difficult in actual operations of sanity control.
I did not make a motion on Friday; I do not again make a formal motion today but I am very much inclined to believe - without really taking a position on the amendment, the new suggestion made -that it might be the most prudent and most cautious procedure to allow some time so that governments can review the situation in the light of the comments made. For instance, again, I tried to contact my own authorities this past weekend and it was hopeless for the simple reason that it was the weekend and because of the difference in time. So I have not been able to convey the very important point raised by the delegate of Australia in our deliberations.
We therefore have a feeling in our delegation that perhaps it is not a matter of urgency and I would ask again, as I did on Friday: is there any essential harm done if we delay action, or not? I did not get any reply to that. In the light of that I would be inclined to believe that we should perhaps be very careful and consider before taking a step which we might regret later on. I do not make a formal proposal for postponing decision because it is quite a serious question and we would like to hear what other delegations feel. We are quite open but at the same time we believe in dialogue and we feel that arguments made on Friday were very considerable in nature. The simple fact that the Secretariat put in amendments and withdrew them shows how shaky the situation is. I do not even have the exact words of the amendment to the draft Phytosanitary Certificate so I will be approving, in my case, something that my authorities do not know; and we are obliged to prepare these certificates from time to time. So it is very difficult and perhaps a bit unfair to press at this stage for an approval of the amendments.
To sum up, we are very inclined to believe - without making a formal proposal - that the wisest move at this stage is not to take action. And I repeat: this is not a simple resolution, a simple report; it is amendments to a Convention with a number of contracting parties.
B.E. MATAMOROS HUECK (Nicaragua): Ante todo, deseo felicitarle a usted por el magnífico resumen que hizo de la reunión del viernes.Eso, señor Presidente, es un estímulo para las delegaciones para tra-tar de ver en qué forma podemos responder a los planteamientos que usted nos ha hecho. Usted, señor Presidente, ha sugerido tres posibles alternativas: la primera, la aprobación del texto del Convenio o el rechazo del mismo con carácter temporal para ulteriores reflexiones o discusiones sobre dicho Con-venio; en segundo lugar, qué texto sería posible adoptar, y tercero, como usted dijo, las nuevas obliga-ciones que surgen de parte de este Convenio.
De estas tres hipótesis, mi delegación desea hacer algunos comentarios. Nosotros, en líneas generales, desearíamos que la aprobación de este Convenio fuera pospuesta, ya que mi delegación no tiene los sufi-cientes elementos de juicio ni la base técnica necesaria para pronunciarse en relación con las nuevas obligaciones que, a nuestro criterio, surgen en los aspectos formales del Convenio al adoptar nuevas disposiciones técnicas. En estas circunstancias, creo solamente en la capacidad de formular una opinión o referéndum sujeto a una ulterior disposición que pudiera tomar mi gobierno en relación con lo que yo expresara, pues, como ha dicho la delegación de Brasil, por razones objetivas, consultas pertinentes no pudieran haber sido hechas durante este fin de semana por obvias razones.Creo también que debemos tomar en consideración otros aspectos, ya que se trata de la aprobación de un Convenio al que han de adherirse los Estados, con el deseo de darle vigencia, y me preocuparía que nosotros pudiéramos llegar a tomar una decisión apresurada y que el Convenio en sí mismo fuera una letra muerta, porque podríamos estar tomando medidas de carácter técnico que no podríamos implementar suficientemente, y porque hay disposiciones de carácter formal sobre las que los Estados podrían o desean hacer modificaciones.
El procedimiento a seguir sería que el órgano competente de la FAO, me parece que el Comité de Agricul-tura, en relación a los aspectos que se refieren a este Convenio, podría proceder a un ulterior estudio en su próximo período de sesiones de los problemas de los productos básicos. Posteriormente creo que los Estados ya estarían maduros, pues habrán podido apreciar todas sus explicaciones de carácter técni-co y jurídico para su definitiva aprobación en la próxima Conferencia de la FAO.
E.D. LETTS (Australia):Without going back into any detail, the Australian delegations' concerns would have been largely met if one single page, the form of the existing model certificate which is annexed to the Convention, had been retained. Now in an effort to see whether there was an alternative route out of the impasse we have spoken to other delegations and taken counsel on the home front. Those soundings have led us to conclude that the several approaches which you have outlined, Mr. Chairman, the idea of taking the text in toto and approving it, the one of inserting amendments and any other items, such as the new thoughts that have been put forward on other articles of the Convention, I think Article VI and I think most importantly Article IX by several delegations, are such that they are not simply subtle refinments of a position of general agreement but rather a reflection of certain fundamental differences which appear incapable of resolution here and now in the short period at our disposal.
Let me say that this does not lead us to a pessimistic conclusion. On Friday the Legal Counsel expressed some pessimism on the success of the Secretariat's rescue efforts. In fairness to him and his colleagues I think it emerges from our later discussions with other members that the Secretariat's efforts were much closer to a solution to some of the main problems than the Secretariat itself dared to hope but this is an important matter and something which most would agree cannot be resolved off the cuff. That very fact lead the delegate of Brazil to put the position I think quite succinctly that the time was not right and that the IPPC item might be deferred to allow mature consideration in member countries.
Discussions with a broad cross section of delegations since the Friday meeting have led to some thoughts which I hope will be seen as a positive approach. We want to avoid losing completely the impetus to improve the Convention. Therefore, we put forward two thoughts which may be alternative or they may be both obtainable. The first is that the Secretariat might be able to circulate member countries with a memo that highlights the alternatives and draws to attention the issues raised at this Conference. Instead of the expense of calling a new consultation, which as we saw was rather poorly attended last time, in any case this method might keep the matter alive and kicking and help it to come to the attention of all those government bodies in member countries who need to know. This might stimulate comment which could be invited by a given deadline. The second thought was that rather than wait two years for an opportunity to discuss the Convention in the FAO we would see it as useful if an appropriate committee, I think the previous delegate has mentioned the Committee for Agriculture, there may be other bodies that could be appropriate, some aspects may be of interest to the Committee on Commodity Problems for instance, an appropriate committee could have it as an agenda item for its next meeting.
Now if anyone says to me that those are not expert committees on plant protection that may be so but it has become clear that more than one field of expert knowledge is involved in this problem. At least that way we would have occasion for resolving points in advance of the biennial conference.
Mr. Chairman, if you need a formal motion I would certainly be prepared to move that we report to the Conference Plenary in those terms but that is chiefly for informal consideration and further discussion at an appropriate meeting before the next biennial conference.
A. LØCHEN (Norway): My delegation is very happy with the flexible position taken by the delegate of Brazil in this important matter.
What do we have here? We have a situation where the contracting parties of the International Plant Protection Convention have assembled and drafted a new text and to come into effect it has to be approved by the FAO Conference. This text is long overdue. All the arguments that have been presented in Commission III against the present text, present draft text, which is a compromise text, were also presented in the government consultation. They were evaluated there and, as I said, a compromise was reached.
My delegation would recommend that the draft amendment be approved with the slight amendment which the Legal Counsel, or the Secretariat, I understand still proposes in the certificate and I hope that we can reach an agreement on this in the Commission so that we can make a clear recommendation to the Plenary.
J.W, CURRIE (Canada): In your summing up I am not too certain which side of the fence you place Canada, possibly on the middle.I think it is appropriate at this time that we make our position a little bit more clear. We have been one of the most concerned countries since, I believe, 1969 for having the Convention amended. A lot of work has gone into the proposal before us. A lot of time has been spent; experts have met in inter-governmental consultations; other discussions have been carried out with FAO to try and reach the best possible amendments to the Convention. None of us, or probably none of us, are 100 percent satisfied with what we have in front of us. We have, however, in front of us a compromise document which was approved one year ago by a large number of members of FAO. My instructions are fairly flexible on this subject. We have had our reservations, I mentioned them on Friday. The Secretariat has been able to accomodate our concerns. Consequently we are prepared to accept what is in front of us, with the one change in the certificate. I realize that a large number of countries here find difficulty either with the wordings or with the legal interpretation of new obligations.I realize that I am skating on thin ice, to use Canadian terminology, when I raise the subject of new obligations so I will speak for ourselves only.
I am confident the FAO representatives at the inter-governmental consultations, when they discussed the amendments to the Convention, when they agreed to the new wordings, were prepared to accept the obligations which came with the new wordings. I do not think that our people at least were concerned whether or not these were new obligations or merely old obligations in new words. What they had done was agreed to what was being put forward to this Conference so I think that without going into the legal niceties we would accept those obligations ipso facto, as we have accepted the changed wordings of the Convention.
There have been proposals put forward by a number of delegations that maybe we should postpone the decision. I am not advocating the postponement of a decision out of fear of what might happen. If we have another inter-governmental consultation we will probably end up with the same document as we have now only with a two or possibly four year delay.I mentioned that we have been trying since 1969, or possibly earlier to change the Convention. Another four years from now, maybe another six years before we get around to something that is agreeable or acceptable, not to the inter-governmental consultation but to all the members who are sitting here at the FAO Conference. If we can afford to look forward to a two, a four, or a six year delay should we really treat this matter as being urgent? Does it matter whether or not we get around to changing it? I think that we should be looking at this matter with some degree of urgency.If delegates cannot agree with what is in front of them then I am enamoured with the proposal made by the Australian delegation, that we should look at this maybe in other fora, with the Secretariat putting forward proposals. We do not have to wait years for another meeting. We can use the postal system. We might be able to use COAG or other bodies but certainly I would feel much better if I knew we were not able to accept this proposal, that we had something, some positive indication, that we could put something forward within two years. If we went beyond two years I think that would be a sad mistake.
M.A. MAKKI (Saudi Arabia) (interpretation from Arabic): The summary which you presented to us was an excellent one and it showed to us quite clearly what happened at the earlier meetings. My delegation is of the opinion that we have to study this question thoroughly and since these amendments do not appear to us to be very urgent and since this proposal is not in contradiction with the systems existing in countries at present, we feel that it is better to defer this question until later. We quite agree with what was said by the delegate of Australia when he proposed the Secretariat should contact governments in order to arrive at a draft text which can be accepted by everybody.
T. HAYAKAWA (Japon): J'ai consulté mon Gouvernement durant le week-end, en particulier en ce qui concerne les nouveaux amendements proposés par le Conseiller juridique, amendements que notre gouvernement déclare pouvoir accepter. Nous avons à l'heure actuelle une petite difficulté en ce qui concerne l'article 5 relatif à l'exportation des végétaux:le décret du Ministère de l'.agriculture doit être modifié afin de permettre au Japon d'adapter sa législation à la Convention. Cependant, si la majorité de la Commission se déclare en faveur de la Convention, mon gouvernement s'associera à toutes les autres délégations pour l'accepter.
Ainsi que je l'ai dit à plusieurs reprises, cette convention nous impose une nouvelle obligation de caractère juridique. Je pense que l'article 13, par. 4 doit être appliqué avec plus de vigueur par chaque partie contractante.
G. LIEBER (Germany, Fed. Rep. of) (interpretation from German):Our Commission obviously finds itself in a difficult and rather delicate position. My delegation does not have any solution to offer but I do feel that I have to tell you that during the weekend I had the opportunity of discussing this matter with representatives of the Ministry concerned in my country, especially with regard to the attempt at saving the Convention made by the Legal Counsel. My Government, still, is ready to accept the wording as it is presented to us. The improvements proposed by the Legal Counsel would also be acceptable to us. As far as the amendments to the certificate are concerned the Ministry concerned feels that this would represent a true improvement.
E. DIAZ BUSTABAD (Cuba): Solamente referirme a que en la ultima intervención nuestra expresamos que la posición inicial de nuestro gobierno era apoyar el documento tal y como se había presentado. Dada esta circunstancia que se plantea de hacer enmiendas, nosotros nos vemos imposibilitados de poder manifestar-nos con respecto a la aprobación de estas enmiendas, y por esta razón solicitamos se posponga el tema, como ha sido propuesto por otras delegaciones.De lo que sí quisiéramos que se tomara debida nota es de lo que hemos expresado con respecto a los artículos nueve y once, y que se haga constar en el acta de esta Comisión, sobre todo la segunda intervención, en la que manifestamos claramente la posición de nuestro gobierno.
A. CRUIT (United States of America): My delegation was one of those which on Friday expressed some concern about the proposed Convention. Upon reflection we find that our situation is quite similar to that of Canada. I think it is important to remember that the work of this Convention has proceeded for a number of years. There have been a series of meetings and it would be tragic to waste the time that has been spent on this Convention. My delegation can support the text as it has been proposed, with the modification that was suggested for the certificate -which is actually a clarification. Thank you.
M.R. LEAR (New Zealand): I think over the last few days we have had quite a substantial discussion on the Convention and the proposed amendments to it. I think it is fairly obvious, Mr. Chairman, that there are quite a substantial number of countries, covering a fairly wide cross-section of viewpoints .-developing countries and developed countries, countries from different- regions, countries which are exporters of plants and plant products and countries which are importers who have some difficulties with the amendments as suggested by the Government Consultation.I think it is obvious that most of the problems have centred around the new model phytosanitary certificate suggested. I think it also has become obvious to us that we cannot tamper with the wording now. We cannot reach agreement, consensus now, on the type of wording that it should have, particularly for the Certificate. It seems to us, therefore, that in the meantime, until we can reach some consensus that it would be preferable to retain the old Certificate which has worked well for a number of years. I would support, therefore, the proposal of the delegate of Brazil, and the motion of Australia to defer a final decision on the Convention and the new Certificate until the next Conference, With the proviso that -as suggested by the delegate of Australia- we have this particular matter as an agenda item for the next COAG meeting, or the next scheduled meeting of the Committeee of Commodity Problems, whichever is thought to be the most appropriate body to deal with this, and we can there discuss the problems. This will give governments time to consider in detail all the implications of the proposed amendments and to work on reaching some sort of compromise and consensus. And then for the COAG. or the CCP, whichever body, or both, discusses the Convention, to then refer the Convention with their recommendations to the next Conference for the final decision.I think in this way the impetus is maintained. As a number of countries have stated it would be a shame -and I agree fully- it would be a shame if the good work done at Government Consultation lapsed, if it didn't go any further. I think the suggestion of Australia and Brazil is a good way round the problem. It means that the small problem -there is after all only limited disagreement I think ther is broad consensus that at the Convention as modified on Friday, the Convention itself is acceptable now to everyone and the only problem we have now, in effet, is the wording of the model phytosanitary certificate, and this I don't think will prove an insurmountable problem. I think, therefore, at the next session of COAG, or CCP, this can be fairly readily resolved and then referred to the next session of the Conference for final decision. To repeat I do not believe that there is any particular rush. There is no particular urgency to resolve this problem.It should be resolved in the fulness of time with consensus.After all, in the meantime we are not going to be left with a void, a vacuum, we are not going to be left without a Convention. All that is going to happen is that for another year, perhaps, the old Convention, and the old Certificate -which has worked well for many, many years- will be retained. I think, Mr. Chairman, that is all that I wish to say at this time. In effect, I wish to second the proposal of the delegate of Australia that this problem be referred for discussion at the next meeting of COAG or the CCP, and their recommendation be passed on to the next Conference for final decision.Thank you.
M.A. BENDJENNA (Algérie): C'est la première fois que ma délégation prend la parole sur cette question, et ceci pour deux raisons.Tout d'abord, notre pays n'est pas partie à cette Convention. En deuxième lieu, nous n'avons pas participé à la consultation intergouvernementale. Nous tenons cependant à souligner que le gouvernement algérien, lors de son adhésion, envisagera de nombreuses réserves, notamment aux articles 9 et 11.
Enfin, nous estimons qu'une convention, pour être revisée, doit l'être par les Etats parties à cette convention et que les amendements doivent explicitement être acceptés par lesdites parties contractantes ou par une Assemblee plénière des parties.
G.K. GRAHAM (Papua New Guinea): May I congratulate you for your succinct summary of Friday's meeting. Originally my delegation inclined to the acceptance of the Convention, subject to the deletion of paragraph 2 of Article II. We were prepared to accept subsequent amendment to that as suggested by the Secretariat but also we wish to retain the present model phytosanitary certificate. On further reflection my delegation is now inclined to the views expressed by Brazil that no urgency confronts us,
that a deferment of this matter be considered. My delegation would agree with the proposals or the movement made by the delegation of Australia that this matter be considered rather than left for another two years, and be considered by some suitable interim committee which could consider the implications of the new Convention, and that this would then be submitted to the next meeting of the Council for a decision as suggested by the delegate of New Zealand.
H. CURTZ (Denmark): Just a very small comment -we should all bear in mind now what many delegations before me have stated, that we have in front of us a text which is a compromise.It is a compromise which has been reached through very long efforts by specialists and government representatives, and we all know this has been a compromise very difficult to arrive at.
Fundamentally, therefore, it would not seem right to me a general commission like ours should make amendments to a technical document like the one in front of us unless we have reached a consensus, and it seems to me, after our deliberations have been going on for three meetings, there should not be the possibility of them being tried once more.
The world does not stand still, New situations create new viewpoints in member countries, and I therefore have some doubts as to whether we would not, in two years' time, find ourselves in exactly the same position in which we find ourselves today.Therefore, I doubt very much whether we gain anything by referring the matter to the next Conference.
I therefore associate myself with what has been put forward by the delegate for Norway:try to adopt the minimum number of amendments suggested by the Convention at this Conference.
Ms. A. BERQUIST (Sweden): I see a certain danger in postponing further decision in this matter, as discussion has been going on for quite a long time.So our delegation would add our voice to the delegations which want a decision taken now, and we support what has been said by the delegations of Norway and Denmark.
H. MAURIA (Finland): I briefly take the floor in order to announce we would be very much in favour of the proposal made by the delegate of Norway, supported by Denmark and Sweden.
CHAIRMAN: I have no other speaker on my list.So far, the situation that has emerged from the discussion in as follows: 7 delegations have spoken in favour of a postponment until the next Conference, subject to intermediate consultation, as suggested by the delegate of Australia;7 delegations have spoken in favour of accepting the proposed amendment to the Convention as it is in front of us, subject to the modification to the phytosanitary certificate as proposed by the Legal Counsel. That means a large number of delegations have not spoken, and it is difficult to interpret their silence.So the best thing for us would be to take a vote, as we have to decide this issue once and for all.
So I will put the question.It is a simple one, whether we accept the proposal of Australia -postpone until the next Conference, subject to consultation in the meantime with either the COAG or another body of FAO, or adopt the amendment as proposed by the Government Consultation, subject to the slight amendment of the phytosanitary certificate.I give the floor to Norway at the moment, but we will have to take a vote as it is at present 7 for and 7 against the amendment.
A. LØCHEN (Norway): I would like to ask if the Secretariat could explain to us what the implications would be, legal and otherwise, of the proposal of the delegate of Australia.
E.D. LETTS (Australia): It is only right that we should have the benefit of the answer of the Secretariat to this question before I make my brief comments, if that is in order.
CHAIRMAN: There are two aspects of the question, one legal and the other technical, I give the floor first to the Legal Counsel, and after tbat to Dr. Chock.
LEGAL COUNSEL: From a legal point of view, Article XIII provides what the procedure would be in the event that amendments are proposed. The one provision which is pertinent is Article XIII, paragraph 2, which specifies that any amendment to this Convention shall be presented to a regular or Special Session of the Conference for approval and, if the amendment involves important technical changes or imposes additional obligations on the contracting parties, it should be preceded by an advisory committee of specialists convened by FAO prior to the Conference. This is a mandatory provision.
The question therefore arises whether, as the conditions set forth in this paragraph have been met, it would be contrary to regular and legal procedures to refer the matter, and in particular the amendments proposed and considered by a government consultation, to other standing subsidiary bodies of FAO. The Convention itself is silent on the subject.
It could be argued that as the Director-General, in view of a number of legal shortcomings of an editorial nature in the text elaborated by the Government Consultation, did refer it to the CCLM, there would be nothing which would prevent the Conference from requiring one or the other standing Committee of the Council to look into the provisions from their point of view. This would, of course, amplify to some extent the original procedure envisaged by Article XIII, paragraph 2, but I cannot for myself see anything that would be unconstitutional. Therefore, I believe this would be acceptable from a legal point of view.
If this is accepted, the question of referral would be primarily a policy question which this Conference is in the best position to decide upon.
A.K. CHOCK (FAO Staff): I would like to go just a little bit into history, if I may, because this is becoming history. The 1969 and the 1971 FAO Conferences recommended that the International Plant Protection Convention be re-examined, especially in connection with the phytosanitary certificate. As a result of these resolutions passed by the FAO Conferences of 1969 and 1971, an ad hoc Consultation was held here in Rome in July, 1973.At that particular consultation, it was pointed out the model phytosanitary certificate presented some difficulties with regard to export and import of large quantities of cereals, fruits and vegetables for consumption, etc., and also that trade and the re-export of certain agricultural commodities was increasing; therefore the need for additional certification for re-exports should be considered.
It was also pointed out by several delegates that in some cases the phytosanitary certificate is being used as a commercial document, a practice which should be discouraged.
A number of delegates considered that over the years a more precise definition of some of the terms such as "plant product'',''pests",''disease" was required.Some delegates pointed out that the additional declarations included in the phytosanitary certificates are being abused.
What are the significances of the amendments proposed by the Government Consultation of 1976? I should point out that at the Consultation in 1 973, the report was distributed to the countries concerned, who were requested to submit their comments to FAO not later than the 1st April, 1974. These comments were received in April, May, June, July, August and September of 1974.Since the position which I hold was vacant at that time, nothing more was done.In 1975, when I first came to FAO, within the month afterwards we went over the comments with a consultant who was also present here in 1973. We went over the comments, tried to gather a consensus from these comments, and this was presented in a paper which went to the different governments concerned - both to the parties who were contracting parties to the Convention, as well as to non-contracting parties.It went to all FAO Member States.
A Consultation was held here in November 1976, with thirty-eight parties to the Convention and eleven more countries who were not parties to the Convention, as well as representatives from five regional organizations.There were some 75 people here in Rome for that Consultation.As was indicated by one of the delegates, the amendments proposed represented a compromise. They represented much debate and much discussion of things that are urgent in the proposed amendments.
Some of the governments have been concerned about what is sometimes referred to as ''miscellaneous cargoes.'' These are such things which by their nature may carry plant pests, and they wanted a little bit of impetus from the Convention to justify the fact that they should look for certain things which ordinarily they would not look at because they would not fall within the strict definition of plants and plant products, things which might carry the Khapra beetle, which might carry snails and slugs. They wanted a definition of pests which was not necessarily specific but fairly all-inclusive.They wanted a certificate for re-export, which does not exist at the present time. As I said, this certificate for re-export actually does not entail extra work, it presents less work.They also wanted a declaration in the Convention itself that said, ''additional declarations in the phytosanitary Certificate should be kept to a minimum'', which of course means for the exporting country less work.
There was also concern about the importation of insects and diseases, both for beneficial purposes and other purposes, and concern that the Convention should provide some guidance with respect to this.
There was also concern - and here is a new obligation in a sense, not for the countries concerned but for FAO - FAO had in years past published a ''Digest of Plant Quarantine Regulations''. This had been more or less dropped to some degree and the Government Consultation wanted FAO to have this obligation placed in the Convention itself. They wanted greater emphasis placed that governments should disseminate information concerning their plant quarantine regulations. So as a result of that we have a revised certificate proposed and also a re-export certificate proposed.This process has now been going on, if my arithmetic is correct, for some eight years.Ordinarily approval of something would probably take another two years.So if this were approved today it would take some 10 years to put into effect from the time it started. You can be the judge of whether you should do it now or wait another two or four or six years.
CHAIRMAN: As I indicated earlier, we have now come to a point where we will have to take the vote, unless there is a shift in position from one side or the other. But so far I have no alternative but to take the vote.So we will have a break of 5 minutes, but I make a special appeal to you not to leave this Commission; otherwise we will have difficulty even in taking the vote because of the quorum.Before we have the break I will give the floor to Australia.
E.P. LETTS (Australia): I would like to say something before a vote is taken.There have been so many contrary views put here that I would like to answer them all. Of course I will not even attempt that, but there are two things that I should say. You have given us the numbers that seven dele-gations were for pushing the Convention through with the amendments suggested by the Secretariat. I think it is of some importance to point out that four of those seven delegations have a view which needs a word said on it.In the words of the Danish delegation, it was not right for the Conference to reject a specialist text - I am not sure if that includes the idea of deferring it.But I think it should be pointed out that this is precisely the function and obligation of this Conference, to consult and decide what we will do with this text, not simply to accept or reject it.The government consultation itself has pointed out that this Conference must have that role.Please remember that this is the first meeting since the poorly attended government consultation which has had the chance to consider the Convention at all. One delegation said that it would be tragic if we lost more time in this instance. We have a Convention, the Convention is operating.If there are problems with the existing form of certificate I think we should know what the countries which are proposing pushing the Convention through now find as problems.We have heard some history from Mr. Chock, but if history has inadequately taken account of fact and principle and developments I think this Conference must not invoke history to push through a Convention which subsequent inquiry has shown does have bugs in it.Those countries which have difficulties with the new text have told, clearly I hope, the problems that the new Convention would represent.Let us have some input from those who are dissatisfied enough to wish to push a new Convention through.Those delegations have not told this Conference what the difficulties caused.The input they have could be in the form of a memorandum or some other way in which they join in with the suggestions that we have made for further discussion on this point, and their points could be distributed and discussed at the next meeting which has the matter on its agenda.
If this Conference hesitates to refer the matter to other FAO standing bodies which have a vital interest in the effects of the Convention, which are not of course purely phytosanitary effects, it would make a mockery of the role of the Conference and reduce it to a rubber-stamping operation. Let us not take that risk. It would, on the contrary, be irresponsible, in view of the number of reservations entered by countries here, to steamroll a text through. We thought that the intention of the phytosanitary experts was to have the maximum number of countries participating in this inter-national Convention. The Convention has little chance of achieving that if it is going to ignore the problems that have been put forward and which any prospective jqining members would feel that they have not had a chance to fully discuss and consider.
I would simply like to make this point and to suggest that in the interests of a sensible treatment of the reservations put forward the motion to defer the matter should be accepted.
H. CURTZ (Denmark): The Australian delegate is certainly right when he points out that the Convention has and should have a possibility of adopting amendments to any text which is put before it.What I meant to say before was just that now that we have a very technical paper in front of us it would be preferable,if we make changes in this document that we find a consensus on these changes.
Finally, could I make a point of order? As you have so rightly pointed out, Mr. Chairman, we have in these recent days had considerable difficulty in getting a quorum on this Commission.I would there-fore suggest that we take the vote directly now, instead of having a five-minute pause, which might turn into a thirty-minute pause.
CHAIRMAN: I give the floor to Pakistan, but I retain the suggestion made by the delegate of Denmark.
P. MASUD (Pakistan): Since there is a possibility of the various delegations present being asked to vote, I would like to seek clarification from the Secretariat, particularly from Dr. Chock. He has given a long history of the whole affair.I would like to know whether this delay in making the amendments has in any way contributed to an increase in the pests in plants and plant products and to the prevention of this crossing national boundaries.This is a valid question because if the delay has not contributed in any way to the spread of these diseases we can of course take the other point of view into consideration also'and ponder a little more.
G.V.K. RAO (India): We had no intention of intervening, because we thought that a paper prepared by technical experts would automatically get adopted here. Dr. Chock has given us the full history of what has happened in the past and he has indicated that even if we approve this today it would take quite a long time for some of these very desirable things to be implemented. We would therefore take the view that what has been considered in great detail by technical experts and has had a long history does get approved now.There are always provisions, in fact in Appendix A itself there are provisions, for the modification and even denunciation by Member States, not that Member States should denounce an agreement which has been entered into here.
Some of these things have a habit of not getting decided at all, due to some of the differences of opinion coming up now and then.
I would therefore submit that the balance of convenience, advantage and purposeful action would lie in favour of the technical paper now prepared and presented to us being adopted.
CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, we still need to hear from two or three more delegations in order to be able to proceed to the vote.
Β.E. MATAMOROS HUECK (Nicaragua): Mi delegación ha oído algunos comentarios sobre la facultad que tiene la Conferencia de tomar una decision en relación a este texto sobre el Convenio internacional de protección fitosanitaria. En el párrafo introductivo 137, página seis, se dice expresamente que el Consejo transmite a la Conferencia estas enmiendas para su consideración y decisión, según proceda.
A nuestra vista, es pleno atributo de la Conferencia decidir si aprueba este texto en su totalidad sin aportar enmiendas parciales o totales, o posponer su aprobación. Además, el secretario nos ha dado elementos de información sobre el número de países que atendieron a la consulta especial, y que no se corresponde con el número de miembros de esta organización. Creemos que las enmiendas propuestas sobre este texto no han sido solamente las presentadas por la Secretaría, sino que concretamente varios países presentaron reservas en relación a los artículos de la misma.
Mi delegación hizo algunos comentarios y tiene reservas específicas sobre el artículo nueve, en lo que se refiere a los aspectos jurídicos que de él se desprenden; sin embargo, en relación a los aspectos técnicos que están involucrados en este Convenio, como ya hemos expresado y creo que es la situación de otras delegaciones, no estamos en la capacidad de poder formular una opinión sobre el mismo. Por lo tanto, nosotros creemos que es trágico no aprobar, como dicen algunas otras delegaciones, este texto. A nuestro criterio, sería muy trágico aprobar un texto, un documento, sobre el que no tenemos plenos elementos de juicio.
A. CRUIT (United States of America): I am sorry to intervene again for a second time. However, I should indicate that my delegation shares many of the concerns that the Australian delegate has expressed. In my earlier intervention I said that it would be tragic if we lost the momentum that we have gained but it would be equally tragic if we were to adopt a Convention about which a number of delegations here, who should or would join, have serious reservations.
I think we need to have a clear understanding of what we are about. My concern about the delay is what procedures would be used to review this Convention. I think it would jeopardize things to arbitrarily say that we want to postpone it to the next Conference. We should, when we are voting on this, have a clear idea of what path we will follow in order to seek the clarifications and possible amendments that other delegations require.
B.E. PHIRI (Zambia): Mr. Chock has told us what happened for the past eight or ten years to the Plant Protection Convention amendment, what prompted this, amongst which was an assertion that certain governments - or certain contracting parties were not very happy with the way some of the clauses were interpreted. It was felt that certain governments were using those as an excuse for rejecting to buy commodities from certain other governments, and now we find that in the present text the same sort of thing could be used. This phytosanitary certificate could still be used even in the present context by certain governments to refuse to buy commodities coming out of certain countries.
During the preparation of the present Convention, I take it that there was a consultation of experts who sat, considered and recommended it to this Commission and then to the Conference before it was adopted but, because there were certain reservations, it was decided to have the Convention amended and from the history that has been given, a group of experts - an expert consultation - looked at the Convention and proposed the amendments; and here we are now: there are reservations even to this amendment.
What I cannot understand is: was it justifiable for the whole thing to be reviewed previously when there were reservations to the Convention? There is no need now for reviewing amendments which have been proposed despite the fact that there are certain governments which have reservations about the amendments. I take it we should possibly proceed with caution and not be pushed into a vote where we are going to either adopt the Convention or reject it and regret it only a few moments later. If we adopt it with reservations we may find ourselves having to meet again, possibly in another two years, to change the Convention.
I therefore think we should not be pushed into a vote right away now, if there are reservations.
J.N. KERRIGAN (Ireland): We in this delegation find ourselves in a dilemma, mainly because we would prefer to accept the text of the phytosanitary .certificate as contained in document C 77/LIM/26, and not the amendments put forward by the Secretariat. We are now faced with a situation of having to vote on the amendments put forward by the Secretariat. But to make our position clear, we do not favour postponing this whole matter; and in that regard I should point out that according to a Council document issued today the next meeting of the CCP is not being held until January 1979 and the COAG meeting will not be held until March, I think, of that year.
M.A. MAKKI (Saudi Arabia) (interpretation from Arabic): I apologize if I ask for the floor again in this discussion but I would like to clarify a point. There are a large number of countries which are not parties to this Convention, and there are a large number of countries which have only been members of FAO for a short time. I therefore think it would be only fair to those countries to give them an opportunity of expressing their point of view, after the introduction of the amendments. Since the present Convention is still in effect, as well as its Plant Protection Certificate - as was pointed out by the delegate of Australia in his last statement - my delegation feels that there is actually no danger in deferring a decision in order to give an opportunity to everybody to study this Convention.
If, on the other hand, we adopt this Convention with the amendments which have been proposed, we would be able to know exactly what we are talking about.
The Legal Counsel has also provided us with some information which should make it possible for us to reaffirm our conviction that we could defer a decision.
CHAIRMAN: As I said earlier, we find ourselves in a position where we have no choice but to take a vote on this matter. I appreciate very much the difficulty of some delegations who did not participate in the Governmental Consultation but we have to decide this matter today. We could not take the vote earlier because we did not have a quorum. It seems that we have a quorum now.
LEGAL COUNSEL: The first proposal which has been submitted to the Conference consists of a set of draft amendments prepared by the Government Consultation and reviewed by the CCLM. Subsequently, in the course of the debate, a proposal has been made that a decision by the Conference on the draft amendments be deferred or postponed until the next Session of the Conference, subject to interim review by COAG and possibly CCP. The first decision, therefore, which this Commission appears to be called upon to make is the decision on whether a postponement should be proposed to Plenary until the next Session, or whether there should be no such postponement.
That is the first issue on which the Commission is called upon to take a position. If the decision were not to postpone a decision on the substance of the amendments, then and only then, would a decision have to be taken, possibly again by a vote, on the approval of the draft amendments themselves.
Vote
Votation
Votatión
CHAIRMAN: It should be understood that this decision is at the Commission level, it has still to go to the Conference. The position arrived at is that this must be postponed until the next Conference but in the meantime there has been a suggestion from Australia on which we will not take a vote but I think this is a matter which will be the responsibility of the Secretariat for them to find the best way of dealing with the matter so that a decisión could be taken at the next Conference.
V.M. GAETANI (Italie): Je pense que nous avons pris la décision la meilleure. Mon pays a voté contre l'ajournement parce qu'il pensait qu'il valait mieux adopter quelque chose et prendre une décision à la présente session. Il me semblait avoir compris qu'une convention avait été signée à Rome il y a cinquante ans environ. En définitive, je pense qu'il vaut mieux que nous soyons en accord avec la majorité des Etats Membres présents à cette Conférence.
A. CRUIT (United States of America): I assume that the suggestion of the Australian delegation concerning the possible referral of this matter to the COAG or the CCP will be reflected in the report.
B.E. MATAMOROS HUECK (Nicaragua): Mi delegación desearía hacer una petición: que el texto de la Convención, tal como figura, sea circulado a todos los Estados Miembros de la Organización.
CHAIRMAN: There have been one or two points raised by certain delegations, including the USA. I will give the floor to Legal Counsel to explain how we will proceed now that the decision has been taken to postpone consideration of the Convention until the next Conference. What will happen between now and the next Conference in 1979.
LEGAL COUNSEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe the proposals which were made by some speakers in favour of postponing consideration of the proposed amendments to the next session of the Conference werefairly clear, and we shall endeavour to reflect them in the Report. If it understood correctly, it was suggested that the Secretariat should circulate to all Member Nations, and to all Contracting Parties to the Plant Protection Convention, the text of the amendments which is contained in the document LIM/26, together with a document that reflects the points made during the Conference. That could be the report of the Conference;it could also include the verbatim records of the debates that took place on this subject during the meetings of Commission III. The Secretariat would then invite these governments to submit their comments and proposals which would, presumably, be gathered in a document to be submitted to the Committee on Agriculture at its next session. I do not know the exact dates of the COAG and CCP sessions but the document might also be submitted for comment to the CCP. It would be expected that if appropriate arrangements could be made to have all contracting parties to the Convention appropriately represented at the discussion of the document, a final paper would then be presented (as a result of the consideration of the Committee on Agriculture and, possibly, the Committee on Commodity Problems), to the Conference at its next session this enabling it to proceed with the amendments - or modified amendments - that may emerge from these further consultations. There is one difficulty which I think I should allude to. If new amendments were proposed that were of a technical nature, the question may arise whether the Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on Commodity Problems, or either of them, could be considered as being a technical consultation within the meaning of Article XIII, paragraph 2. But I assume that with some further reflection a solution could be found to this particular problem. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Legal Counsel. That concludes our discussion for today. We will have to meet tomorrow morning.
The meeting rose at 17.05 hours
La séance est levée à 17.05
Se levanta la sesión a las 17.05 horas
