CHAIRMAN: We will take up for consideration Item 11, Progress Report on the Implementation of the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides. Before I request the Assistant Director-General, Mr Bonte-Friedheim, to present the subject for discussion, I would like to inform the delegates that the Plenary is scheduled to meet for their Sixteenth meeting at 10.00 hours in the Plenary Hall when the Programme of Work and Budget 1988/89 and Medium-Term Objectives will be approved by a roll call vote. To participate in the roll call vote it will be necessary for me to leave the Green Room to be present in the Plenary Hall. The Vice-Chairman, the delegate from Spain, who is the only Vice-Chairman available, has indicated that he also must be present in the Plenary Hall for the roll call vote. Therefore, after the presentation is completed by Mr Bonte-Friedheim, and depending on the necessary quorum and progress of work in the Plenary, we may have to recess this meeting and reassemble after the roll call vote is completed.
Paul Noel BAIGENT (New Zealand): I must record my regret that that to be the decision. I expressed my concern about this last night. There should be sufficient members here to continue this discussion. I simply wish to put on record that concern.
CHAIRMAN: I did not understand the suggestion being made, but your concern will be recorded. May I know what the suggestion is?
Paul Noel BAIGENT (New Zealand): I expressed last night the wish that, given that we need to press forward with our work, there should be no need for this Commission to adjurn while the Plenary is in session, as it concerns Commission II and not Commission I. I am now placing on record my regret that that has to occur.
C.H. BONTE-FRIEDHEIM (Assistant Director-General, Agriculture Department): In front of you, you will now have a paper that was originally prepared for the Council as document CL 92/2, and together with relevant parts of the Council Report has been reproduced as Conference document C 87/LIM/25. The Council in its deliberations recommended that this topic, the Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides, be added to the agenda of this 24th Session of the Conference.
It might be useful as an introduction to recall the main events that led to the establishment of the Code and its unanimous adoption by the 23th Conference in 1985.
The origin of the Code dates back to 1981 when the FAO Director-General suggested that such a Code would help to overcome a number of difficulties associated with pesticides. Subsequently the Second Government Consultation on International Harmonization of Pesticide Registration Requirements, convened by the FAO Secretariat in 1982, recommended that the Director-General, in consultation with appropriate UN organizations and bodies and international organizations outside the UN System, should prepare a Code of Conduct.
A first draft was prepared by the FAO Secretariat and was submitted to the FAO Panel of Experts on Pesticide Specifications,,. Registration Requirements and Application Standards. The Expert Panel reviewed the draft, added new parameters to it, strengthened its overall coverage, and unanimously agreed that the safe use and control of export of pesticides could best be dealt with through the adoption of an International Code of Conduct.
The Code went through a further process of consultations with about 90 FAO field experts in plant protection and their national counterparts, working in some 75 developing countries, and their comments were invited. A consensus of their comments was incorporated in a subsequent draft.
In September 1983 an informal consultation was held to discuss further the development of the Code. The following organizations participated: ILO, UNEP, UNESCO, UNIDO, WHO, the UN Centre on Transnational Corporations, Council of Europe, EEC, OECD and GIFAP, which is the International Group on National Associations of Agrochemical Manufacturers. The text of subsequent versions of the Code incorporated a consensus of the major concerns expressed during this consultation.
In September 1984 the Code was formally submitted by the FAO Secretariat to member Countries for consideration by appropriate national authorities, including agriculture, health, environment and trade authorities. The views of UN agencies and other international organizations were also again solicited. Eighty-eight countries responded to the Director-General's request for comments.
A revised draft was prepared, based on views expressed by all parties mentioned above, and was submitted to the 8th Session of the COAG in March- 1985. COAG Committee on Agriculture gave broad general support to the Code and agreed that it be presented to the Council. It was left up to the Director-General to reconcile a number of opposing views expressed during the Session, while maintaining the consensus achieved.
A slightly revised version of the Code was then submitted to the 87th Session of the Council in June 1985.
The Council in its Session recalled that the Code was the end result of wide and extensive consultations with Member Countries, appropriate UN organizations, other international organizations, nongovernmental organizations, including international environmental groups, and the pesticide industry -over a period of more than three years. The main aim, as recommended by the Council, was further to clarify and improve the text, and not weaken its substance. However, in order to meet certain suggestions and to promote a consensus in the Conference, a few changes had been introduced in response to the Council's recommendations.
It was felt by the Council that the presented draft version of the Code struck a satisfactory balance among the diversity of views expressed by Member Countries and, above all, that it was technically sound and feasible to apply. The Council unanimously agreed that the Code should be considered as a dynamic text which must be brought up-to-date, from time to time as required, taking into account technical, economic and social requirements.
In order to facilitate Conference discussions, the Director-General submitted a slightly revised draft to the Eighty-eighth Session of the Council, immediately prior to the 23rd Conference. That Council again endorsed the draft, which was then submitted to the Conference in November 1985.
The Conference adopted a resolution incorporating a voluntary International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides as set up in the Annex of that Resolution. Furthermore, the Conference recommended that all FAO Member Nations promote the use of the Code, it requested governments to monitor the observance of the Code, in collaboration with the Director-General, who would report periodically to the Committee on Agriculture. The Conference invited UN agencies and other international organizations to collaborate in promoting the principles of the Code within their respective spheres of competence.
The usefulness of the Code Lies in its adoption by all Governments, by non-governmental organizations, by UN Agencies an by the pesticide industry. The text of the Code provides basic rules to enable countries to control pesticides more efficiently and assess the hazards which could result from their use or mis-use.
One of the issues raised in the report of the 92nd Council Session on this subject and submitted to this Conference covers the improved exchange of information on export and import of pesticides through Prior Informed Consent, otherwise known as PIC. PIC deals with the export and import of pesticides that are banned or severely restricted in use in the exporting country. Under PIC, no export of such pesticides can take place without the exporting country notifying the importing country of the domestic regulatory status of the pesticide and the hazard which led to restrictions in use. The exporter has to await the explicit consent of the importing country.
Prior Informed Consent was included in one of the earlier versions of the Code. However, it was deleted after this draft was circulated and commented upon by all Member Countries as comments and discussions revealed clearly that a consensus could not be reached. The amended Code was studied carefully by the Eight Session of the Committee on Agriculture in March 1985, as already reported. As a result of the discussions a number of further changes were introduced to the text, but due to lack of general agreement, the Prior Informed Consent clause was not reintroduced. The Code now stipulates the obligation of the exporting party to provide the necessary information, the reasons for a ban or restriction, I refer to Articles 9.1 and 9.3 of the current text of the Code. The approved Code does not explicitly require the country of import to confirm its agreement to the importation of the product, following receipt of relevant information.
During the final acceptance of the text by the 23rd Session of the FAO Conference two years ago, many delegates again stressed the importance of Prior Informed Consent and this was reported as follows: "While recognizing the significant improvements introduced in the text, the majority expressed deep concern that the principle of "Prior Informed Consent" no longer appeared in the present version of the Code. They feared that this could lead to an increased flow of highly toxic compounds, banned or severely restricted in the countries of manufacture, to developing countries which were not equipped to handle safely their supply and use. These members, however, recognized the need not to delay the adoption of the Code and accordingly, urged that the principle of "Prior Informed Consent" be considered for inclusion in any future first revision of the Code.
The Conference, in noting the additional proposals for amendments, recognized the dynamic nature of the Code, the need for monitoring its observance and for periodical revisions effectively to meet changed conditions. It therefore recommended that such revisions be made after some experience had been gained in the implementation of the Code. Most members suggested there be a first revision within the next biennium".
Since the adoption of the Code, the principle of Prior Informed Consent has been discussed in various international fora, and it may be helpful to present a brief overview of the results of these discussions.
The most important were probably the discussions, with the FAO Secretariat's participation, of the so-called "London Guidelines" organized by UNEP in February 1987. That meeting concentrated on the preparation of Guidelines on the Exchange of Information relating to trade in, and use and handling of, potentially harmful chemicals, including pesticides. The Guidelines outline the establishment of procedures for the effective use of information on chemicals by Governments, but they do not include the Prior Informed Consent concept. They are complementary to the provisions of Article 9 of the FAO Code and include the statement that the FAO Code "provides the primary guidance for the management of pesticides internationally".
At its 14th meeting in June 1987, the Governing Council of UNEP decided inter aliawith respect to Exchange of Information on Chemicals in International Trade:
"3. Requests the Executive Director to convene an ad hocWorking Group of Experts with a view to:
(a) developing modalities of Prior Informed Consent and other approaches which could usefully supplement the modalities of the London Guidelines;
(b) recommending measures for incorporating the principle of Prior Informed Consent into the I Guidelines;
(c) reporting on its findings to the next regular Session of the Governing Council".
The next and fourth session of this UNEP Working Group is scheduled for March 1988.
I now come to some other international" discussions.
The OECD had already, in 1985, approved the Prior Informed Consent principle for the export of toxic wastes, but this does not apply to the export of pesticides.
The EEC Commission's proposal for a notification procedure included a "Prior Informed Choice" clause. The clause foresaw that, if an importing country did not reply to an export notification within 90 days, which was subsequently reduced to 60 days, the export could go ahead. The Commission's draft was not accepted by the EEC Council of Ministers and the principle of "Prior Informed Choice" was removed.
So far, the Netherlands is the only country that has taken specific steps. It has adopted a "voluntary reporting scheme" which applies to the export of banned and severely restricted substances. In this case the import notification and request for consent is made directly by the exporter to the importing country. According to our information the Dutch Government invited 160 countries to parti-cipate in this voluntary reporting scheme. Fifty-one countries indicated interest in receiving ex- port notification, but only 19 of these Wished to take part in the Prior Informed Consent part. These 19 countries are: Algeria, Burkina Faso, Colombia, Ghana, Cote d'Ivoire, Lesotho, Malta, Mozambique, Panama, Peru, the Republic of Nauru, the Republic of Vanuatu, St. Cristopher and Nevis, Anguilla, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Trinidad & Tobago and Zimbabwe. The scheme started to operate in June 1986.
Up to June of this year, during the period of one year, 8 notifications had been made by the exporters, but in five cases reminders were needed before an answer was received. In one case the import was refused, because the importing country was concerned about residues which might prevent export of their produce.
I now want to return to the questionnaire which was sent by the FAO Secretariat to member countries, and the replies received to two questions regarding the exchange of information. The first question, referring to Article 9.1, asked whether the importing country was receiving notification from the exporting country with respect to the reasons for the banning or restricting of use of certain pesticides. Of the replies from the developing countries, 65 percent indicated that they received such notification. With reference to Article 9.8 of the Code, information was sought whether national_ procedures for the receipt and handling of such notification from exporting countries existed in the importing countries. Of the replies from developing countries 43 percent were positive - they had such procedures - while 28 percent stated that it was planned to establish such facilities. Such facilities were not yet proposed in 22 percent of the developing countries which had completed the questionnaire.
As noted before the report of the 23rd Conference stated that the main concern over the absence of the Prior Informed Consent, the PIC clause in the Code was the fear that the omission of this principle "could lead to an increased flow of highly toxic compounds, banned or severely restricted in the countries of manufacture, to developing countries which were not equipped to handle safely their supply and use". We in the Secretariat have no reason to believe that this has happened; on the contrary the Code has in fact made countries much better aware of these problems and they may consequently have taken appropriate action. The replies to the FAO questionnaire show that over 70 percent of developing countries do apply restrictions on the use of such products, and 70 percent also indicated that prohibitions can be enforced.
May I finally state the Secretariat's position with regard to the Code and the discussions at this 24th Conference.
The Secretariat is proud of its achievements in the preparation of the Code and its adoption by consensus at the 23rd Conference Session. The Code is being supported by all parties concerned - international organizations, national Governments, industry and trade. A number of Governments have not only used the Code as the basis for their national legislation, but have also implemented a number of clauses of the Code.
As requested at the Ninth Session of COAG and at the 91st Council Session, in June, the FAO Secretariat reported on the progress in the implementation of the Code to the 92nd Session of the Council. During the last 18 months FAO undertook a detailed survey of the situation in developing countries. At the same time, the Secretariat negotiated with international donor organizations and national donor Governments the possible financing of technical assistance programmes to support developing countries in their ability to fully implement the Code, and, as we have reported to Council, we have been partly successful in this.
Following the decision of the 92nd Council Session two weeks ago, the Secretariat was not in a position to review prior to this meeting today the proposals for amendment with technical experts and other parties who had supported the Code and whose endorsement is required to reach a new consensus. The Secretariat again underlines the voluntarynature of the present Code.
We believe that more time is required to evaluate the effects the present Code has in exporting and in importing countries. Furthermore, technical discussions and negotiations will be required for amendments to be introduced through the normal channels - the Committee on Agriculture (COAG), Council and Conference.
With regard to PIC, the Secretariat takes the following position.
Firstly, every country under its own laws has the right to establish unilaterally the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) clause which then becomes mandatory for all imports of those pesticides which are severely restricted or banned in the exporting country; we strongly advise all countries concerned about possible negative effects of pesticide imports to take such unilateral action. The Secretariat is willing to establish a register of all countries that have applied in their own countries the PIC clause and to inform exporting countries, industries and other interested parties in each case.
Secondly, the Secretariat is also suggesting that the negotiation of the PIC clause into the Code should be preceded by consultations with GATT to ensure that the provisions are consistent with its principles. From a preliminary analysis it seems that PIC might be incompatible with GATT's regulations for a number of reasons. Under GATT, restrictions on imports are only permissible if they are applied equally to all exporters. A pesticide produced in two countries, but only banned in one of them, under the PIC principles could be freely exported from the second country without any restrictions.
Thirdly, there are a number of pesticides which are produced for export only and are therefore never registered in the producing country. They might or might not be harmful. Similarly, pesticides are being exported for which applications for registration are pending. Prior Informed Consent cannot deal with these cases.
In closing I Should like to read part of the introduction as printed in the Code. I quote:
"The role of the exporting country needs to be considered. Much emphasis has been given recently to the desirability of regulating the export of pesticides from producing countries. It is generally accepted that no company should trade in pesticides without a proper and thorough evaluation of the pesticide, including any risks. However, the fact that a product is not used or registered in a particular exporting country is not necessarily a valid reason for prohibiting the export of that pesticide. Developing countries are mostly situated in tropical and semi-tropical regions. Their climatic, ecological, agronomic, social, economic and environmental conditions and therefore their pest problems are usually quite different from those prevailing in countries in which pesticides are manufactured and exported. The government of the exporting country, therefore, is in no position to judge the suitability, efficacy, safety or fate of the pesticide under the conditions in the country where it may ultimately be used. Such a judgement must, therefore, be made by the responsible authority in the importing country in consultation with industry and other government authorities in the light of the scientific evaluation that has been made and a detailed knowledge of the conditions prevailing in the country of proposed use".
It is certainly hoped that my rather lengthy introduction will provide the Conference with sufficient background information for a thorough discussion on this important item.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Bonte Friedheim, for that detailed presentation and for having brought out in very clear and unambiguous terms the position of the Secretariat on Prior Informed Consent. You have indicated that PIC could result in certain problems, and these are particularly relevant in the context of the document C 87/LIM/39, which delegates must have seen, where in Appendix C we have a resolution presented by the delegations of Colombia, Philippines, Venezuela and Zambia on this item.
The Assistant Director-General has clearly brought out certain difficulties that might arise in implementing PIC, particularly where pesticides are produced only for export or where they are produced in two countries, with their being banned in one country but with no such restrictions in the other, how it conflicts with GATT, and, thirdly, where registrations in the country of manufacture are still pending.
I would request delegations to take the resolution into consideration in the presentations that they will be making.
May I request the delegate from Lebanon to state his views?
Amin ABDEL-MALEK (Lebanon): The Lebanese delegation is very pleased to note the various activities undertaken with respect to the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides and considers that the Code is one of the best examples of new initiatives undertaken by FAO in recent years. It addresses problems that are of major concern to all parties involved and the result will, in the end, directly benefit small farmers. In addition, this work is clearly in line with the various efforts to reduce environmental pollution.
It is certainly useful that the Conference should discuss the matter again, but this should not detract from the significance of the progress made.
It is quite clear to us that such a voluntary Code can only serve its important purpose if it is supported by everybody concerned. We realize that there is considerable scope for improvement, and this is normal, because the important matters dealt with in the Code cannot be solved in one or two years' time. It will be a long process. If this were not the case, it would not have taken us so long to adopt the Code in its present form. Therefore, we should like, to maintain the text as it is, but request the Secretariat to look for practical arrangements to accomodate the wishes of certain member countries, in particular with respect to the matter of information exchange.
The Lebanese delegation maintains its position concerning the Code of Conduct which is a very important activity of FAO, and considers that we should avoid taking hasty decisions without a proper study of the matter by the appropriate technical bodies.
N. MUKUTU (Zambia): My delegation is delighted with the detailed explanation given by Mr Bonte-Friedheim and the elaborate information given. However, my delegation is dismayed to observe that the Secretariat appears to be decided as to its own views. My delegation has followed the papers under discussion and is concerned that there is a need for an element of PIC to be inserted. In this regard, my delegation is presenting a resolution, which is supported by Colombia, Ecuador, Lesotho, Philippines and Venezuela.
There are some occasions when developed countries have confrontations with developing countries. Most of the time, however, there is harmony between the two groups. We, the sponsors of this resolution on pesticides, believe firmly that this is one of the occasions when we are united on a common principle. We have followed environmental concerns in the developed countries. We have noted that the majority of people in these developed countries are not only concerned about the use of dangerous pesticides in their own countries but are even more concerned about the export of dangerous chemicals to developing countries. These concerns are fully supported by us, the importers. We are fully aware that, for one reason or another, a number of factories have a surplus of some of these pesticides. It is useful to observe that these dangerous pesticides are also produced in some developing countries, so this is not a question of the north versus the south. Our concern is not the issue of who produces and distributes them. The issue is that, if they are pronounced dangerous in one country, then that country should consult the other formally before such pesticides are exported.
The sponsors of this resolution are aware that for some crops in some developing countries alternative substitutes have not been found to replace some of these pesticides in crop protection. Such countries will therefore be willing to import limited quantities of the pesticides provided they have been consulted in the first instance.
It has come to our attention that one of the main concerns of those who are against the introduction of the principle of Prior Informed Consent in the implementation of the International Code of : Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides is that the introduction of PIC will not deter those who are determined to off-load the pesticides into the developing countries. In fact, they argue that PIC will encourage more importation of dangerous pesticides through illegal channels, thus jeopardizing business opportunities of those who are prepared to operate ethically.
We are also aware of arguments by some people, mostly those who represent companies or affiliates of particular companies dealing with pesticides that the introduction of PIC will contradict some of the provisions of GATT. We have researched thoroughly the provisions of GATT and are unanimous that the introduction of PIC is allowed under those provisions. It is useful to observe that knowledge of the articles of GATT is not limited to a few people, we are all member countries of GATT and read the articles.
The purpose of this resolution is to. appeal to the conscience of all people, to mankind, to remember that we are all made of the same flesh, the same organic and chemical composition. What is dangerous to somebody in Europe or Asia is also equally dangerous to somebody in Latin America, the Caribbean or Africa. Dangerous pesticides are much worse in the developing countries where people are mostly illiterate and do not appreciate fully the implications and the requirements for proper care and adequate application rates.
In recent years in my own country it has become dangerous to eat vegetables, it has become dangerous to eat dried fish because the fishermen just dip the fish in the pesticide for preservation. Vegetables are. now sprayed, prior to being sold in the markets.
We are reliably informed that it is now dangerous to eat fish from Lake Kariba, one of the biggest man-made lakes in the world. The lake is now full of DDT taken there by rivers and streams flowing from farming areas in both Zambia and Zimbabwe. Birds whose habitat is Lake Kariba are now laying infertile eggs or hatching deformed chicks.
We, the sponsors, are certain that our recommendations to include the principle of Prior Informed Consent in the Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides represents the wishes of the majority of mankind and that this august gathering in Commission I will give this resolution its unequivocal support.
I reserve my right to come back on this issue since I have further information to support my statement.
CHAIRMAN: The delegate of Malaysia has made available his intervention on Item 11 and this will be incorporated in the verbatim report, subject to our approval.
Dato'Abu Bakar MAHMUD (Malaysia): My delegation wishes to congratulate the Secretariat for preparing the brief but informative report on the Implementation of the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides.
My delegation is totally in agreement with the report that the Implementation of the Code has been and shall continue to be useful in assisting member countries to improve the safe and effective use of pesticides. On account of the dynamic nature of the Code, there is the need for monitoring its observance by all concerned parties and for periodic revisions to effectively meet changing conditions.
To date, my country has registered a total of 1 200 pesticides, comprising about 200 active ingredients. Mishandling and misuse of pesticides has been of great concern to us. In view of this, there is now an ongoing campaign (launched in August 1984), on the safe and proper handling and effective application of pesticides in the country. The mass-media, as well as the extension agents in the country are mobilised to educate users of pesticides not only to minimize hazards to themselves, but to produce crops that comply with the Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs), stipulated under the country's Food Regulations. These MRL's are based on those set by the Codex Alimentarius Commission. My delegation, therefore, fully supports the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides passed by the Coference in 1985.
I am happy to note that steps have been and are being taken to implement various sections of the Code with the collaboration of the government, the pesticide industry, the consumers and environmental groups and research institutions. It is our view that slowness in the implementation of the Code is attributable to its voluntary nature, and that success would largely depend on the mutual trust and confidence of all those concerned.
Malaysia has supported the principle of Prior Informed Consent in a global effort to ensure safe distribution and use of 'pesticides. We do not depart from this position of support, in principle. However, it is my delegation's view that any proposed implementation of the PIC within the present Code should require an in-depth study on all aspects and facets as to how the PIC could be put into practice. The PIC is indeed a very complex mechanism to adopt and practise, not only because of the parties involved, but because of its implications on trade and investments in relation to pesticides.
PIC might not be achieved in totality, but various forms or modalities of it could be implemented in stages. Malaysia's experience in controlling and regulating the entry of pesticides into the country since 1976, through the Regulation of Pesticides under our Pesticides Act (1974) is worthy of mention. Through this National Registration Scheme detailed information on pesticides is provided to the Pesticide Board, before any product could be registered and subsequently imported. To all intents and purposes, our National Registration Scheme is a form of PIC itself. It might, therefore, be worthwhile to member countries, which have not done so, to contemplate on initating such a Scheme for a start. My country would be ever willing to share our experiences with any country interested in this matter. 1/
Srta. Marina BRICEÑO ZEHL (Venezuela): No sé si se trata propiamente de una moción de orden, o es una moción que busca una aclaración. No estoy segura Ce haber entendido cómo se va a desarrollar nuestro debate en esta mañana. La Plenaria ha comenzado ya la discusión del tema ¿Hemos decidido que vamos a suspender para ir a la Plenaria o no? Hay muchas delegaciones que únicamente tienen un representante.
CHAIRMAN: The delegate of Venezuela's point of order is anticipating what I was about to announce. We shall now recess and re-assemble at 2.30 p.m. If we should be able to re-assemble earlier, the time for the .meeting will be announced to the Chairman of the Conference in the Plenary Meeting. The Session is recessed.
The meeting rose at 10.30 hours
La séance est levée à 10 h 30
Se levanta la sesión a las 10.30 horas
__________
1/ Statement inserted in the verbation records on request.
