Mohamed Lamine CONTE (Guinée): Le document C 87/LIM/25 soumis à notre examen est complet et fait une analyse approfondie des différents articles.
Après étude, ma. délégation remercie le Secrétariat pour la qualité et la présentation de ce document. Elle appuie de façon générale les recommandations contenues dans le Code de conduite.
L'étude aborde les démarches à suivre pour résoudre un problème assez complexe. En effet, le but visé par le Code de conduite est d'attirer l'attention des Etats Membres sur la gravité de certaines pratiques et les moyens d'y remédier. Depuis la publication du Code de conduite et malgré l'inexistence de la législation nationale, et de laboratoire approprié pour faire certaines analyses de qualité afin de déterminer la stabilité des pesticides stockés dans les conditions tropicales, mon gouvernement a adopté certaines dispositions pour assurer l'application effective du Code de conduite, à savoir:
- inventaire et enregistrement des pesticides utilisés en Guinée;
- réglementation de la distribution et de l'utilisation des pesticides;
- création d'un service de contrôle et d'homologation des produits;
- interdiction du transport des pesticides par des transporteurs non agréés.
Par ailleurs, notre attention est particulièrement attirée par la question de la formation. Ma délégation attache un grand intérêt à la qualification du personnel d'encadrement à travers l'organisation périodique des séminaires au niveau régional et national. Il est évident que, sans formation solide des cadres nationaux chargés de la supervision et de l'encadrement des petits exploitants, il est impossible d'appréhender tous les aspects de la question.
Ma délégation approuve les chapitres 9, 13 et 14 du document et sollicite l'assistance de la FAO pour la réalisation des dispositions envisagées. S'agissant du chapitre 12, page 3, C 92.2, ma délégation est d'accord sur le renforcement des structures nationales. Concernant l'expérimentation des pesticides, chapitre 11, page 6, annexe A, ma délégation sollicite la collaboration des pays exportateurs pour la conduite des essais.
Il est indéniable que le Code de conduite correctement appliqué, tous les Etats Membres tireront des avantages certains: sauvegarde des vies humaines de l'intoxication, obtention de rendements élevés.
En conclusion, ma délégation voudrait assurer Monsieur le Directeur général de l'appui de mon gouvernement pour l'application et le respect du contenu du Code de conduite pour la distribution et l'utilisation des pesticides.
Leif FOBVELL (Norway): On this agenda item I have the pleasure to speak on behalf of the four Nordic countries, Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Norway. These Nordic countries welcome the fact that the 24th Conference has the opportunity to discuss the implementation of the Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides. We consider protection against the hazards of pesticides upon individual users and upon the environment as a whole to be extremely important. We appreciate this discussion because we recognize that the dynamic character of the distribution and use of pesticides makes it appropriate from time to time to review the progress made and to consider further improvements to the Code of Conduct.
The four Nordic countries have taken due note of the draft resolution on this item proposed by the delegations of Colombia, the Philippines, Venezuela and Zambia. The resolution invites this Conference to amend Article 9.3 of the Code of Conduct to incorporate the principle of Prior Informed Consent. The principle of Prior Informed Consent urges exporters of pesticides to make all relevant information on the actual pesticides available to importing countries. So far, experience has shown that developing countries especially are facing huge difficulties in establishing effective control measures concerning imported pesticides. One reason for this is that promotion and advertising materials describing pesticides still seem to fall short of the Guidelines laid down in the FAO Code of Conduct. Prior Informed Consent might therefore be a substantial help to importing countries, and particularly to developing countries, in dealing with the influx of hazardous pesticides. Thus the inclusion of the principle of Prior Informed Consent in FAO's Code of Conduct may be a relevant measure in order to protect both the environment and individual users.
Against the background just outlined, the Nordic countries will associate themselves with the intention of the resolution proposed by Colombia, the Philippines, Venezuela and Zambia, namely that the principle of "prior informed consent" should be incorporated in the Code of Conduct on Pesticides. As will be recalled, the 23rd Session of the FAO Conference also urged that the principle of Prior Informed Consent should be incorporated in the first revision of the Code within the next biennium. The Nordic countries are ready to give their acceptance to the proposed amendment to Article 9.3. Having stated our acceptance of this proposed resolution, the Nordic countries nevertheless feel it very important that this Conference should be able to reach a general consensus on this matter. In our opinion, the impact of international guidelines such as the Code of Conduct, depends on positive acceptance by member countries. Although we accept the proposed amendment to Article 9.3, we may also, if necessary, reach a general consensus that a thorough preparation of the text at technical level is carried out and presented to the 25th Conference. If this Conference should adopt such a procedure, we would take it for granted that in this undertaking FAO will collaborate closely with other appropriate UN agencies, in particular UNEP, WHO, UNIDO and ILO.
Almir F. DE SA BARBUDA (Brazil): Let me first congratulate Dr Bonte-Friedheim for the useful presentation of this item of the agenda and thank him for the explanations given in regard to the adoption of the PIC principle and its consequences in relation to GATT rules. We took note of this argument put forward during the last session of the Conference by a delegate from a major pesticide-producing country, but we regret that we disagree in this regard. The Brazilian delegation was among those which urged during the 23rd Session of the Conference that the first revision of this Code:should be made during the current biennium. Again, during the last Session of the Council, we joined many other countries in recommending that discussions on this issue should be added to the agenda of this Conference and that the introduction of the concept of the PIC principle to the Code be reexamined by Member Nations. We are convinced that its inclusion in the Code will contribute to the safer Use of pesticides, reducing hazards to human health and the environment. At this point I should like to welcome the support given by the Nordic countries to this resolution. We believe that we should approve this resolution now and not lose any more time by delaying its approval until the next Conference. To us it seems highly contradictory that some of the industrialized countries which always show a deep concern for the environment and urge a high priority for its protection should invoke reasons of excessive bureaucracy or of commercial interests to prevent the adoption of this principle.
I should like at this point to quote some part of the report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. In its Chapters V and VIII it recommends that "industrialized countries must tighten controls on pesticide exports" and that the major chemical producing countries should, among other steps, "strictly regulate the export to developing countries of those chemicals for which authorization for domestic sale has not been sought or given, by extending requirements for prior notification and information exchange to them.".
The report further notes that chemical control agencies of industrialized countries already share test results and notify each other of new restrictions on chemicals. As a rule, developing countries do not share in this system. Furthermore, it also seems contradictory that such countries that usually encourage the environmental activities of NGOs ignore the appeals in regard to the introduction of the PIC principle into the Code. On the other hand, we have just learned of discussions currently being held in Brussels by the European Community on the adoption of this principle. Countries opposed to the principle argue that the EEC cannot bring in controls while the other major producing
countries are free to export banned pesticides. This is, in ourview, another reason for the inclusion at FAO at international level of the principle which should be respected by all member countries.
The "SUNS", the Special United Nations Service, has just released a study on these discussion within the EC.
Finally, I would like to say that as regards the Progress Report prepared by the Secretariat, the replies to the questionnaire confirm the need for increasing FAO's assistance in the establishment of registration and control schemes and the strengthening of technical and physical national facilities to monitor the provisions of the Code.
We would like to stress that we consider the Code of Conduct one of the most important initiatives of FAO. In addití on to thë monitoring of the implementation of the Code, the Organization should, in our view, promote gradually and systematically the substitution of chemical pesticides by natural systems of pest control.
Turning to the resolution, I should not need to say that we strongly support the initiative but I have an addition to propose to the text. It would be an addition in the fifth paragraph in the introductory part of the resolution after the sentence starting "taking into account", we should add another sentence as follows: "Recallingthat the Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development has recommended that 'industrialised countries must tighten controls on pesticide exports', and that the major chemical-producing-countries should, among other steps, 'strictly regulate the export to developing countries of those chemicals for which authorization for domestic sale has not been sought or given, by extending requirements for prior notification and information exchange to them".
Finally, for the sake of clarity I would propose a change in the last sentence of the Resolution, which commences with the words, "If an export...", the addition of two small words so that it would read, "If an export of a banned or severely restricted pesticide is to occur...". That is just for the sake of clarity.
CHAIRMAN: In Appendix C of document C 87/LIM/39 which is also under consideration by the Commission, two changes have been suggested by the delegate from Brazil. One is that in the fifth paragraph, recalling what the Brundtland Commission has said, effectively in the operational portion, instead of "restricted pesticide occurs" it should read "restricted pesticide is to occur". That is the alteration recommended by Brazil.
Victor E. MACHINEA (Argentina): Mi delegación agradece la excelente introducción del Dr. Bonté Friedheim y desea explicar cuál es el sistema normativo de la República de Argentina para la comercialización y distribución de plaguicidas. Todos los plaguicidas, ya sean en su forma técnica o formulada, se encuentran registrados en la Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería y Pesca. La obtención de este registro es obligatoria e imprescindible y puede ser cancelado si este organismo lo considerara conveniente. Para su comercialización, el número de registro es exigido por inspectores que controlan firmemente la distribución.
Mi delegación considera que el Código Internacional de Conducta para la distribución y utilización de plaguicidas y su cumplimiento tienen un trasfondo moral sumamente importante. Es por ello que, con el fin de cumplir con esa obligación moral y ética es que nuestro país desea adherirse al Proyecto de Resolución respectiva con cierto párrafo adicional en la enmienda del Artículo 9.3 del Código mencionado. El proyecto de enmienda dice: "Si se produce...", con la digamos si la sugerencia de Brasil, se produjera, la cual apoyo, ..." la exportación de un plaguicida prohibido o severamente limitado, el país exportador deberá asegurarse de que se han tomado las medidas necesarias para facilitar la información pertinente a la correspondiente autoridad nacional del país, y de lograr el consentimiento previo de la autoridad nacional competente del país importador".
Mi delegación desearía adicionar un texto a continuación de la palabra "importador" que diga: "sin que ello implique demoras adicionales en los trámites de importación correspondientes". La razón de esta adición se basa en la necesidad de incrementar un sistema que no burocratice las operaciones comerciales ni que afecte la fluidez comercial de insumos necesarios para el producto final. Por todo ello, mi delegación está en un todo de acuerdo en la necesidad de que se implemente este sistema que, en definitiva, garantizará la salud de nuestros pueblos.
Benson MBOGOH (Kenya): My delegation would like to compliment the Secretariat on the Progress Report on the Implementation of the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides. In our view it presents a clear analysis of the constraints faced in the implementation of the Code and offers very useful suggestions for improvements.
The application of chemicals for the control of pests will continue to be an important agricultural practice as long as non-chemical methods so far developed offer no adequate solution to the pest problems. At present the use of pesticides in developing countries,' in particular, is very low, principally because of the low level of agricultural technology prevailing in this region.
However, with substantial improvement in technologies and production growth projected to reach the order of 60 percent of the current levels in the year 2000, assuming these projections . hold, of course, a great increase in the volume of pesticides should be expected in this region in the next 15 years.
This trend has some very serious implications for the distribution and use of this input. First, there is the health and environmental implication. Secondly, the risks of the development of chemical-induced resistance in pests and its consequences on production; thirdly, there is the education and extension support needed for the farmers, the majority, of whom are illiterate or semi-literate. Fourthly, there is the question of ethics in the pesticide trade which has to be addressed.
My delegation is convinced that in this Code lies a very strong instrument by which effectively to address the above concerns, at any rate under the present circumstances. We therefore wish to urge FAO to continue to seek international commitment to its implementation. In this context, and recognizing the important role of the agro-chemical industry, we propose that FAO continue its efforts to seek the firm cooperation of the agro-chemical industries, both through GIFAP and with individual exporting countries, in an effort to ensure the practical elimination of all unethical tendencies wherever they exist.
In this connection, the Kenyan delegation fully endorses the position in the proposed resolution jointly put forward by Zambia, the Philippines, Colombia, and Venezuela, to incorporate the principle of "Prior Information and Consent" in purchase agreements for all pesticides.
My country, Kenya, in support of the principle and practice of this Code, has already taken measures to rationalize pesticide distribution and use. A National Pesticide Control Board has been established to monitor the supply, demand and distribution of pesticides, and enforce appropriate quality standards and monitor the development of hazardous health and environmental effects associated with pesticide use.
Finally, being aware of the potentially deleterious effects of the extensive use of chemicals on humans, plant life and the environment in general, we would like to see more investment in research and development of safer and less hazardous ways of controlling disease and pests in agriculture. Areas of research to be explored in this connection would include, for example, integrated pest management techniques, biological control, development of disease and pest resistance in crops and livestock. We are aware that a number of agencies and governments are already engaged in some of this work such as ODA, and the International Centre for Insect Physiology and Entomology in Kenya. FAO should intensify its support of such programmes in collaboration with other agencies.
CHAIRMAN: May I take the liberty of reminding delegates that we have already 27 more participants in the discussion. Since we have already had the discussion in the last Conference and also in the recent Council and considering that the introduction given by the Assistant Director-General Mr Bonte-Friedheim spelled out clearly the issues, the pros and cons, may I request delegates to be as brief as possible, reacting mainly to the issues for our consideration, including the Resolution for adoption before us.
Srta. Marina BRICEÑO ZEHL (Venezuela): Mi delegación ve con satisfacción que la Resolución sometida a la consideración de esta Sala, está logrando uno de sus objetivos; o sea el de llegar a un debate franco, abierto y completo sobre el problema de los pesticidas que han sido prohibidos o severamente limitados.
Con su venia, voy a referirme a la introducción del tema presentado por la Secretaría, para aclarar algunos puntos sobre los cuales puede que haya alguna confusión.
En primer lugar, me disculpará, por favor, si al citar partes del texto de la declaración introduc-toria, tendré que revertir al inglés ya que no tengo la traducción en español. El Secretario dijo: el Dr. Bonte Friedheim dijo: "Thè Conference, in noting the additional proposals for amendments, recognize the dynamic nature of the Code, the need for monitoring its observance and for periodical revisions to effectively meet changed conditions."
Además citó partes. Esto es una situación del Informe de la Conferencia, de la 23 Conferencia durante la cual fue adoptado el Código. A este respecto, queremos aclarar que en realidad las condiciones, con respecto al problema que plantea la Resolución, o sea el principio de consentimiento previo, no han cambiado; no existen condiciones nuevas; no estamos discutiendo de condiciones nuevas aquí. Las condiciones que han hecho el PIC necesario existían en 1983, existían en 1985 y siguen existiendo en 1987. Los países que deseamos la inclusión de PIC en el Código, somos los que más fuertemente apoyamos el Código. Cuando se tuvieron las discusiones sobre la adopción del Código en la Conferencia de 1985, muchas delegaciones, la mayoría de ellas según el Informe, deseaban que se incluyera entonces el principio PIC.
Nosotros dejamos de un lado este deseo, en aras de la adopción del Código por consenso; no existe prueba más fuerte de que nosotros somos los principales sostenedores del Código. Entre otras cosas, habiendo reconocido que el Informe recoge el deseo de la mayoría de las Delegaciones, nosotros estamos aquí sencillamente para ratificar un acuerdo ya tomado hace dos años en la Conferencia pasada. En el Informe consta claramente que el principio PIC se incluiría en la primera revisión, la cual debería llevarse a cabo durante el bienio siguiente.
Mi próxima observación se refiere a lo mencionado por el Dr. Bonte Friedheim con relación al PNUMA. Es cierto que en junio de 1987, el PNUMA decidió adoptar el principio del consentimiento previo; estamos hablando aquí de un principio. Ese principio ha sido aceptado, repito, por el PNUMA. Esta Organización ha decidido que el PIC debe ser incluido en sus directivas sobre el intercambio de información en el comercio y la utilización de productos químicos potencialmente dañinos, incluyendo los pesticidas. Se nos ha recordado cómo en estas directivas, se considera el Código de conducta de la FAO como el instrumento guía principal para el manejo de los pesticidas a nivel internacional.
Esto es cierto, y así lo reconocemos. Y entonces, nos preguntamos, ¿cómo puede la FAO quedar atrás respecto a lo que se está haciendo y decidiendo ya en otros foros? Lo unico que pedimos aquí, es que nosotros adoptemos el principio. Solicitamos porque así lo creemos racional y conveniente, asimismo, que luego de haber adoptado aquí el principio, repito, la FAO coordine estrechamente sus actividades con el PNUMA y se valga, previamente de la reunión de marzo prevista para la incorpora-ción de PIC en las directivas, de todas las consultaciones técnicas que crea necesarias y oportunas; naturalmente, en las cuales, las partes interesadas, o sea países exportadores, países importadores y otras industrias y organizaciones no gubernamentales tengan igual oportunidad de estar represen-tadas.
Repetimos, que creemos conveniente se estreche la colaboración con el PNUMA para determinar las efectivas modalidades para implementar luego el PIC. Las sugerencias que surgirán serán luego dadas a conocer a los Estados Miembros a través de los canales normales, o sea las próximas sesiones del Comité de Agricultura, del Consejo y de la Conferencia.
En la declaración introductoria se hizo una referencia también al único ejemplo de aplicación práctica del principio PIC en un país, porque existen ya ejemplos de aplicación PIC a nivel de organizaciones internacionales o a nivel de acuerdos internacionales. Queremos referirnos a éste que es específicamente el esquema voluntario de la aplicación del principio PIC adoptado por los Países Bajos.
Y deseamos aclarar lo siguiente. En primer lugar, el Gobierno de los Países Bajos en calidad de promotor del esquema ha enviado, según se nos dice, la invitación a participar en él a 160 países con el deseo, evidentemente, de dar la información a nivel global, para luego proceder a su imple-mentación práctica por parte de la industria.
Ante todo, queremos decir que los canales de información utilizados no han demostrado ser los más efectivos para que la información llegue realmente a las personas directamente interesadas en los países importadores, en muchos de los cuales, entre otras cosas, aún no existe una autoridad nacional designada específicamente para asumirse la responsabilidad en materia de pesticidas.
En segundo lugar, habría que ver, de estos 160 países, cuántos son los que efectivamente importan pesticidas desde los Países Bajos, y por lo tanto, tienen real interés en el esquema, y cuántos entre aquéllos que recibieron la información a tiempo, han efectivamente comprendido la importancia y el valor del mismo.
Cabe recordar además que, concretamente, han sido sólo ocho las notificaciones enviadas por la industria. De estas ocho, aunque con la necesidad de una notificación ulterior recordatoria, cinco sí recibieron respuesta. No creo que se pueda considerar estos ejemplos como una razón para no adoptar el principio de consentimiento previo. Más bien, mi delegación cree que el esquema de notificación voluntaria adoptado por los Países Bajos beneficiaría enormemente del impulso que a este principio le podrían dar el PNUMA y la FAO en su calidad de Organización de portada internacional.
Más allá, la Secretaría se refirió específicamente al documento que constituye la esencia de nuestros trabajos aquí; el documento se basa, como todos sabemos, en un cuestionario enviado por la FAO a todos los países miembros para saber cuál es la situación real acerca de todo el problema de los pesticidas, el comercio de los pesticidas. El documento dice:
"of the replies from developing countries 65 percent indicated that they received such notification".
Se refiere a. una notificación relativa a procedimientos de prohibición, de registro, de control, o de limitación en un país que produce pesticida. En este caso me surge una duda; parecería un número muy alto pero, en realidad, si vamos a leer el documento un poquito más a fondo vemos que el cuestionario fue contestado por el 55 por ciento de los países a los cuales se les ha enviado. En total, si sacamos el 55 por ciento del 65 por ciento, pienso que estamos hablando en realidad de un 30 por ciento solamente de países en desarrollo que han respondido afirmativamente que sí reciben notifi-caciones. Me parece que en realidad es una cantidad mínima. Hay dos terceras partes de países en desarrollo de los cuales desconocemos su situación con respecto a una notificación.
En el párrafo 17 del mismo documento se dice -y esta vez lo cito yo-, que las dos terceras partes de los países en desarrollo no están satisfechas con las prácticas comerciales seguidas en la expor-tación de plaguicidas a su país. Esto nos da un cuadro bastante claro de cuál es la situación real.
Siguiendo siempre con su venia, señor Presidente, me permito citar una ulterior parte y es la siguiente:
"The Report of the 23rd Conference stated that the main concern over the absence of the prior informed consent 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 have no reason to believe that this has happened."
Contrariamente a lo que la Secretaría piensa., nosotros, los países en desarrollo, sí tememos, y en algunos casos sabemos, que puede ocurrir esto; pero no es eso lo que nos preocupa en este momento. Lo que nos preocupa no es el aumento futuro de los productos tóxicos; nosotros estamos preocupados por el actual flujo de estos tóxicos y es a éste al que nos estamos dirigiendo en este momento.
Para seguir específicamente refiriéndose al principio PIC, la Secretaría estableció su posición:
"Every country under its own laws has the right to establish unilaterally the prior informed consent clause which then becomes mandatory for all imports of these 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."
Aquí tenemos dos observaciones que hacer, que son fundamentales. En primer lugar todos nosotros apoyamos y adoptamos el Código, por considerarlo un instrumento necesario y muy valioso para reglamentar el comercio internacional de plaguicidas y establecer una normativa estable aceptada por todos y por la cual todas las partes interesadas se puedan regir.
En segundo lugar, si la Secretaría fuertemente aconseja a los países que así lo deseen para que establezcan unilateralmente el principio PIC en relación a sus importaciones de plaguicidas prohibidos o simplemente severamente limitados, ¿Cuál es la dificultad para la inclusión del principio en el Código, en caso de que la mayoría de los Estados Miembros así lo requieran? No puedo entender cuál pueda ser.
Siguiendo más adelante, la Secretaría menciona posibles dudas o inconsistencias con las disposiciones del. GATT:
"... analysis it seems that PIC might be incompatible with GATT regulations for a number of regions."
Muy brevemente señor Presidente, queremos decir a este respecto que las disposiciones del GATT, como todos sabemos, admiten en el artículo 20 que puede haber excepciones a la normativa comercial establecida en el GATT cuando se trate de productos que son peligrosos para la vida y la salud humana y vegetal. Este es el caso; estamos hablando de productos altamente tóxicos que han sido prohibidos o severamente limitados en los países de producción y exportación. Además, cuando un país decide no aceptar un producto por considerarlo demasiado peligroso yo no creo realmente que lo debería aceptar otro país. Si el país es consciente de que ese producto es peligroso para sus campesinos por una serie de razones, no lo comprará ni de a, ni de b, ni de c; el producto sigue siendo el mismo de cualquier fuente que provenga.
Quiero referirme ahora a un punto planteado por el señor Bonte Friedheim. Dice .que el hecho de que un pesticida haya sido prohibido o severamente limitado en el país exportador se debe a condiciones agroecológicas y sociales presentes en ese país, las cuales no siempre se encuentran en el país receptor. Si bien esto, en principio, es muy cierto, ya que estamos hablando de países desarrollados con climas muy atemperados y de países en desarrollo, con climas preferentemente tropicales, hay que considerar lo siguiente: el efecto de la aplicación de un pesticida en un país tropical no ha sido suficiente investigado, por lo cual, es tan posible que sus efectos no sean tan nefastos, como lo'son en el país exportador, como que lo sean mucho más. Falta investigación sobre este punto. No está dicho que un plaguicida que tenga efectos nefastos en un país de clima atemperado, actúe mucho mejor en un país de clima tropical. Puede que tenga efectos más dañinos en un clima tropical. Esto en relación, únicamente, con el potencial de contaminación ambiental. Pero un producto que es tóxico para el ser humano -y en este caso estamos enfrentando el segundo problema que estos plaguicidas • tienen en cuanto posibles contaminantes ambientales y en cuanto peligrosos para la salud humana-, repito, un producto que es tóxico para un ser humano, lo es para cualquier ser humano, independien-temente de cuál es su nacionalidad, su color de piel o el país de proveniencia, y, si lo consideramos peligroso para el ser humano en el país exportador, con más razón en los países en desarrollo donde las condiciones sociales, culturales, y el elevado grado de analfabetismo, impiden su utilización segura y con un mínimo- nivel de riesgos, poniendo, por lo tanto a nuestros campesinos en riesgo del envenenamiento y de la muerte.
Para finalizar la intervención de mi delegación, quiero, solamente, resumir un poquito cuáles fueron las ideas que llevaron a la presentación de esta resolución.
En primer lugar, nosotros reconocemos y felicitamos a la Secretaría por toda la labor que ha hecho, y que ha hecho posible que se llegue a la adopción de un Código de esta naturaleza que es un instrumento bastante único en el panorama mundial y que lo tenemos gracias a los esfuerzos de la Secretaría.
En segundo lugar, nosotros somos plenamente conscientes del carácter voluntario del Código; no estamos forzando nada; este proyecto será inclusive para aquel que mantiene su carácter voluntario, y nosotros creemos, que, en realidad, es la buena voluntad de todas las partes interesadas el elemento que mayormente puede hacer que funcione un código de esta naturaleza y es con esta buena voluntad con la que nosotros contamos.
Un otro punto es que, como usted habrá notado, en mi intervención he hablado siempre de plaguicidas prohibidos y seriamente limitados en los países de importación, y la resolución, mi intervención y las intervenciones de todas las delegaciones que la apoyan, se dirige única y exclusivamente a estos pesticidas; no estamos poniendo bajo acusación a toda la categoría de pesticidas; no estamos diciendo que esto se debería aplicar a todos los pesticidas. Existen miles de formulaciones que son muy efectivas; estamos sólo rechazando un concepto de doble estándar en relación a los pesticidas que han demostrado ser altamente tóxicos. Si son prohibidos en unos países no deben ser vendidos a otros sin que, por lo menos estos países lo acepten.
Para finalizar, señor Presidente, nosotros no tenemos ningún inconveniente para apoyar plenamente las enmiendas propuestas por la delegación de Brasil.
CHAIRMAN: I thank the delegate of Venezuela for that detailed intervention, which is an effective and eloquent exposition from one of the sponsors of the resolution. However, on the GATT point I have the feeling that what the delegate is talking about and what Dr Bonte-Friedheim referred to were possibly different things, but I am sure that Dr Bonte-Friedheim will answer that when the opportunity arises.
Two representatives, one from Burma and one from Equatorial Guinea, have requested that the interventions which they would have delivered here be incorporated in the verbatim records. With your permission, I will agree to that. I also hope that because of the paucity of time this example will be followed by more delegations.
Shigeki YAMAMOTO (Japan): My delegation has already expressed its view at the last Council, but let me briefly intervene once again.
Although my delegation appreciates the goodwill of the countries that proposed the revision of the Code, we do not feel it necessary to insert the new sentence because the Code is a voluntary guideline and not an international convention so as to legally bind member countries. Therefore, its adoption should be flexible for all countries.
Clearly in this case I consider that the decision of whether prior consent is needed or not is subject to decision of importing countries. Furthermore, as only two years have passed since the Code was put into effect, there should be a longer period of time to observe the progress of its implementation. In addition, we have not been informed if any inconveniences have occurred or are occurring due to lack of the proposed prior consent in the Code. My delegation considers that it is too early to discuss the revision of the Code, and therefore is not in a position to positively support the revision.
Japan earnestly acknowledges the significance of the existing Code. Therefore, Japan has just begun a contribution by way of a trust fund to FAO for a project to help developing countries to follow up the Code. The project will commence in the near future in Asia.
Horacio CARANDANG (Philippines): I should like to say that the Secretariat can indeed be very proud of its achievement in establishing this Code, which I think has given a lot of good effects, particu-larly for the safe use of pesticides. I should also like to commend the Secretariat for the initiative taken to promote the implementation of the Code and to assess its impact. And I should also like to express my appreciation for the efforts taken by the Secretariat to establish and to strengthen national pesticide regulatory arrangements and to develop national strategies in the field of pesticides, particularly in relation to the Code, by encouraging projects and the engagement of consultants.
Furthermore, I should like to thank Japan for financing the regional project for Asia that envisages the provision of training and strengthening of national infrastructures, including expert services and laboratory facilities.
I should also like to thank the Government of Netherlands for pioneering an integrated pest control project in the Philippines, which has been doing very well.
These projects and the initiatives of the Secretariat can only lead to the development of policies that will promote the most important objective of the Code, which is the safe and efficient use of pesticides as envisaged in the Code.
With regard to the Code itself, I should like to refer to the report of the previous session of the FAO Conference which approved the international code on the use of pesticides, and particularly that portion regarding Prior Informed Consent. As previously quoted by the Assistant Director-General, paragraphs 300 to 303 of the report of the previous Conference, states: "that while recognizing improvement has been introducted in the text, the majority of members" - I repeat, the majority - "expressed deep concern that the principle of Prior Informed Consent appeared no longer in the present version of the Code. They urge that the principle of Prior Informed Consent be considered for inclusion in the first revision of the Code. Most members suggested that there be a first revision within the next biennium." These three sentences which I quoted from the report indicate that even two years ago the majority wanted to introduce the principle of Prior Informed Consent, and they indicated that the first revision should be done in the next biennium. Now is the next biennium, but now that the next biennium is here, we are being told that we should wait. We are being told that we should wait until tomorrow, and when tomorrow comes we are told tomorrow. I think this is not a very serious way of proceeding.
I think that I should congratulate the Secretariat for its extensive presentation of this item. I should like to refer to the concluding paragraph wherein it stated that the conditions of developing countries situated in tropical and semi-tropical regions have different 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. I agree up to that point, when it concludes that therefore exporting countries are not in a position to judge the suitability or the efficacy, I agree. Perhaps the pesticides that are effective in the developed countries may not be effective in our developing countries. But when they say that they cannot judge the safety of the pesticides, I disagree, because if pesticides are harmful to human beings, toxic to human beings in the country of manufacture they are also going to be toxic and harmful to human beings in the developing countries. The human beings in the developed countries are not different from the human beings that are in the developing countries. If pesticides will poison people in the developed countries, they will also poison people in the developing countries. I think there is a fault of logic here.
It is precisely because of the importance of safeguarding the environment and safeguarding human life that we are persevering to stress the importance of incorporating Prior Informed Consent into the Code. If pesticides are severely restricted in countries of manufacture, it is because these pesticides are dangerous and can cause harm to human beings and to the environment. If they are dangerous and harmful in the developed countries where they are manufactured, they are all the more dangerous in the developing countries. In the developed countries the farmers are usually better trained. For example, their farmers usually have to obtain a sort of licence and undergo a training course before they are allowed to use certain kinds of pesticides as here in this country. Despite the fact that the farmers are better equipped to handle pesticides, it is not a rare occurrence that we hear about ecological disasters. I hesitate to cite examples of our host country but I am more familiar with what is going on in this country. For example, in the month of March early this year we read in the papers about the alarm raised in the territory of Alexandria, Vercelli, Novara and Perugia with a population of 500 000 people because the water supplies had been contaminated by pesticides.
In Vigevano, a town near Milano, the municipal services began to drill 250 meters deep in search of uncontaminated water because the shallower water tables were already contaminated with pesticides.
We have heard about the irreversible contamination of the great River Po by atrozine. As is well known, the River Po irrigates the Po Valley and provides water to many municipalities. Atrozine is a herbicide applied to corn in the spring, and when the rains come some is washed off into the River Po. Therefore, many ecological disasters have been caused in towns along the river and in the water supply of many municipalities along the river basin.
For the reasons that it is dangerous to human life and can be dangerous to the environment, we think prior informed consent is important to increase awareness and would help all countries to become aware of the danger of some pesticides. We are not asking that the pesticides be banned in the country of manufacture, the principle of Prior Informed Consent does not prohibit their export to developing countries. But prior consent of the appropriate authority in the importing countries must be obtained because human life and ecology have to be protected.
It has been said that the regulations of GATT would be violated if prior informed consent were introduced into the Code because it would constitute an arbitrary discrimination between countries. I do not believe that that can be so, first of all, because the Code is a voluntary Code of Conduct; it does not bind a country. If the importing countries are consistent in applying refusals to import a particular pesticide from any exporting country, then there can be no GATT violation.
UNEP has decided to incorporate this principle in its guidelines. I understand the European Parliament has recently passed a resolution approving the principle of Prior Informed Consent so that it would be applied by 31 December 1988.
I think I should like to appeal to all the members of this Commission to vote for the resolution because I believe that the safe use of pesticides should prevail over commercial interests and the desire for gain and profit.
CHAIRMAN: Congo has requested that their written intervention be included in the verbatim record although not delivered in the meeting. I will agree to this proposition subject to approval of the meeting.
POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN
Horacio CARANDANG (Philippines): I hope that when these statements are submitted for inclusion in the Report, although they have not been read in the hall, the contents of the statements will be taken into account in arriving at this Commission's decisions.
CHAIRMAN: I understand that this is a very well-established procedure in FAO. I do not think we are striking new ground.
Michael Joseph RYAN (Australia): Australia has supported the development of the Code and we are encouraged by the results of the preliminary survey and its implications. After a recent review of our position, Australia supports the inclusion of Prior Informed' Consent in the Code of Conduct to ensure that developing countries are not subjected to malpractice in the distribution and use of pesticides.
Having said that, we are concerned that, in introducing Prior Informed Consent, encumberances are not placed on those countries where there are developed regulatory schemes already in place. We also recognize that this issue of Prior Informed Consent is rather more complicated than may appear on the surface. We believe that much more thought must be given to it, particularly in terms of its practical application, and the consequences both to industry and to agriculture in the importing countries. For instance, we believe there is a need to develop procedures for ensuring Prior Informed Consent from importing countries, and also to identify specific training needs to introduce Prior Informed Consent and/or extension of current training programmes to facilitate the implementation of the Code. Thus, we would urge the Secretariat to examine and report on the matters relating to the practical implementation of Prior Informed Consent among member countries. Lastly, Australia supports the Resolution on this item as it stands before the Commission.
Nguen SRISURUKSA (Thailand): The subject of pesticides which is being discussed is of great importance, because it is not only related to increased food and agricultural production, but is also harmful to human beings, especially the farmers who use them. The evidence shows that a large number of farmers in developing countries, for instance in my country's experience, who do not know how to use pesticides properly and effectively, die each year.
In this respect, I should like to draw your attention, Mr Chairman, to the fact that the World Health Organization estimates that at least ten thousand people die each year in Third World countries after accidental exposure to pesticides.
The global problems related to the mis-use. and over-use of pesticides have become widely recognized and documented in recent years. This recognition has led to strong public demand for a solution in the form of an exchange of information, assistance in the development of legislation in developing countries, guidelines on advertising and labelling, both in importing and exporting countries; particular emphasis should be given to countries importing pesticides. In Thailand, for instance, we imported thirty thousand tons of pesticides in 1984, while twenty thousand tons were imported in 1977. Of that total, 99 percent is used by our farmers for farming. This statistic shows how important farm pesticides are for increasing food and agricultural production. It is also expected that a large amount of pesticide is going to be imported by our country in the future. We, therefore, take this input into account with great interest and concern.
Although the Poisonous Articles Act was passed in 1967 and amended in 1973, the main aims of the Act which are to prevent danger to people, animals, crops and others from pesticides, are still not covered in many respects as indicated in the FAO Code of Conduct. We are, therefore, willing to take the FAO Code into account.
My delegation has considered the Resolution presented by the delegations of Colombia, Philippines, Venezuela and Zambia regarding Item 11, which appears in document C 87/LIM/39, Appendix C, "Code of Conduct on Distribution and Use of Pesticides". My delegation is well aware of the great importance and high concern of the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides. Therefore, my delegation strongly supports the above-mentioned draft Resolution.
CHAIRMAN: The delegate from El Salvador has also indicated that their intervention be included in the verbatim records without being read out in this room.
Raul LOPEZ LIRA (México): Muchas gracias, señor Presidente. Ante todo quiero pedir disculpas por mi retraso. De acuerdo con su sugerencia sobre pasar por escrito el texto, voy a someterlo por escrito. Sin embargo quisiera, antes de dejar el uso de la palabra, hacer mías las palabras de Venezuela y Filipinas y expresar que nuestra opinión es favorable a la inclusión del principio del consentimiento previo, por lo cual apoyamos el proyecto de resolución que está en la mesa. Muchas gracias, señor Presidente.
Permítaseme felicitarlo por su designación como Presidente de esta Comisión, al igual que a la Secretaría por la presentación del documento base, el C 87/LIM/25, a pesar de haber contado con muy poco tiempo para su integración en esta Conferencia.
Mi Gobierno concede gran importancia a la observancia del Código Internacional de Conducta para la Distribución y Utilización de Plaguicidas como iniciativa internacional para la regulación del uso de los productos químicos plaguicidas.
Partiendo de la base de que existe un consenso generalizado, tanto en países desarrollados como en los que estamos en desarrollo, de los beneficios del Código de Conducta, es necesario canalizar esfuerzos para que aquellos países que no están en condiciones de aplicarlo, se les proporcione la asistencia necesaria para que a la brevedad puedan incorporarlo a sus procedimientos regulatorios. De esta manera, podrán estos países disfrutar también de los beneficios que reporta el empleo racio-nal de plaguicidas, sin arriesgar su salud ni afectar negativamente las relaciones ecológicas.
A continuación me permito hacer algunos comentarios generales sobre el Código y algunos aspectos fitosanitarios en general, para luego comentar la situación de México.
La delegación mexicana le da gran importancia a este tema y coincide totalmente con "La Conferencia que en 1985 reconoció el carácter dinámico del Código, la necesidad de supervisar su cumplimiento y de efectuar revisiones periódicas para adaptarlo de manera eficaz a nuevas condiciones". En efecto, el Código no necesita cambiar cada caso, sino su aplicación deberáadaptarse a las condiciones de cada agroecosistema, considerando que la importancia económica y ecológica de los cultivos y de sus plagas varían no sólo entre países sino dentro de un país entre regiones. De la misma manera, deben adaptarse las modalidades de control fitosanitario.
Consideramos necesario que los países en desarrollo profundicemos en el conocimiento del concepto y de las prácticas del Manejo Integrado de Plagas, enfermedades y malezas de nuestros cultivos para las diversas áreas agroecológicas, como una manera efectiva de evitar o atenuar la dependencia del control químico. En esta materia, la FAO podría constituir un importante apoyo con especialistas calificados en Manejo Integrado de Plagas a los países que así lo requieran.
Asimismo, consideramos necesario mantener activo el flujo de información tanto de nuevos plaguicidas como de nuevas tácticas no químicasque puedan resolver problemas fitosanitarios. Apoyamos la recomendación de promover que el contenido del Código de Conducta que nos ocupa, sea enseñado en las facultades, escuelas o universidades donde se forman especialistas en áreas fitosanitarias. Asimismo, sentimos que debe hacerse un esfuerzo mayor para la capacitación de los médicos, en las áreas de diagnóstico y terapia de intoxicaciones por plaguicidas.
Dados los beneficios y rentabilidad de las empresas productoras por un amplio uso que La producción agrícola requiere que éstos sean empleados en forma segura, adecuada, racional. Lo anterior conlleva a que los países establezcan actividades o campanas permanentes de información sobre cómo evitar los peligros o resultados indeseables del empleo de plaguicidas. Las circunstancias en que éstos pueden ser muy peligrosos, son múltiples: durante su fabricación, formulación, distribución, transporte, almacenamiento, venta, aplicación, etc.
Al respecto, en México se tiene una campaña permanente para lograr que el uso de plaguicidas sea seguro, en la que participa el gobierno federal y los gobiernos estatales en el área agrícola, de salud pública y de protección ambiental. Toman parte también varias universidades, la Asociación Mexicana de Fabricantes y Formuladores de Plaguicidas, la Confederación de Asociaciones de Pilotos y la Asociación Nacional de Ingenieros Agrónomos Especialistas en Parasitología (IAP).
México, país en desarrollo, ha estado especialmente activo en la década actual para poner orden en los aspectos que aborda el Código de Conducta en discusión. Existe en nuestro país el conocimiento, la convicción, la voluntad y las. leyes y normas que regulan el registro y uso de los plaguicidas. Pero también existen infractores a estas leyes, como los hay ahora mismo frente a los letreros de no fumar o de no estacionarse en lugares prohibidos o a la luz roja del semáforo.
En nuestro país la producción, formulación, distribución, venta, aplicación, publicidad, etc. de los plaguicidas ha sido ampliamente analizada y plasmada en su Ley General de Sanidad Fitopecuaria y su Reglamento respectivo de 1984. Asimismo, hay control por parte de las Leyes de Salud y de Protección Ambiental. Las fallas o deficiencias que pueda adolecer su puesta en práctica están en proceso de superación. Requerimos reforzar cualitativa y cuantitativamente nuestros cuadros de técnicos de asis-tencia técnica y de supervisión, que se someten constantemnte a cursos de actualización. Rechazamos la aseveración que hace el Centro de Enlace para el Medio Ambiente, organización no gubernamental internacional, de la existencia de retraso entre la legislación de otros países y el correspondiente cambio de las leyes en México. Para la observancia de los preceptos del manejo de plaguicidas a nivel oficial, la Secretaría de Agricultura y Recursos Hidráulicos tiene una importante Dirección General de Sanidad y Protección Agropecuaria y Forestal en su nivel central y las correspondientes Delega-ciones en cada estado del país. Y, repito, además se está generalizando la conciencia del problema de los usos, beneficios y peligros de los plaguicidas por parte de otras Secretarías de estado, par-ticularmente la de Desarrollo Urbano y Ecología y la de Salubridad y Asistencia Pública, universidades, asociaciones científicas y profesionales y la industria de plaguicidas.
México tiene zonas de alta tecnificación agrícola donde produce hortalizas y algodón, ambos motivo de exportación, sujetos al ataque de múltiples plagas y enfermedades que frecuentemente ponen en peligro la cantidad y calidad de la cosecha. Para su control, desafortunada pero necesariamente, todavía requiere de varias aplicaciones de insecticidas, fungicidas y/o herbicidas. En estas zonas, sobre todo es donde se dan casos de que se aplique un plaguicida en un cultivo donde no está aprobado su uso, o en dosis o frecuencias mayores de las necesarias o sin la protección corporal debida a los aplicadores. Estas infracciones, cuando se detectan, son motivos de sanciones diversas. Es un hecho también que nos falta más personal para la asistencia técnica, la supervisión, la persuasión o la aplicación del peso de la ley.
Un problema de consideración que encontramos es en la detección de residuos de plaguicidas en productos agrícolas o en el suelo. Esta es el área en donde se requiere de un mayor número de laboratorios de análisis de residuos, así como la capacitación o actualización de un mayor número de técnicos de alta calificación para dichos análisis.
Concluimos expresando nuestro voto de confianza al Código Internacional de Conducta sobre la Distribución y Uso de Plaguicidas, seguros de los beneficios que su implementación traerá a los países donde aún no han alcanzado el control de la problemática multifacética del manejo de los plaguicidas.
Expresamos asimismo, nuestra opinión favorable a la inclusión del principio del Consentimiento Previo de las disposiciones del Código relativas al intercambio de informaciones. 1/
Ousseini SIDIBE (Niger): Ma délégation a suivi avec un vif intérêt la présentation du document C 87/LIM/25 sur le Rapport de situation sur l'application volontaire du Code international de conduite pour la distribution et l'utilisation de pesticides élaboré par le Secrétariat auquel ma délégation tient à exprimer toute sa satisfaction.
Dans son introduction, le Secrétariat a répondu à plusieurs questions que posait ma délégation; néanmoins, au risque de nous répéter vis-à-vis de ceux qui nous ont précédés, nous tenons à faire part des constatations suivantes:
Le Code international de conduite pour la distribution et l'utilisation de pesticides a permis a de nombreux pays d'Afrique subsaharienne de prendre des dispositions techniques de contrôle de distribution de pesticides. Pour nombre de nos pays, le Code international constitue un document d'information et a inauguré un début de cycle de formation et de sensibilisation des vulgarisateurs et des paysans. Le Code a aussi permis d'instaurer un début d'échange d'informations et même d'expériences entre nos pays en matière d'harmonisation, d'homologation, de contrôle des pesticides et d'identification des laboratoires pouvant être utilisés soit pour des analyses, soit pour assurer une formation aux cadres de nos Etats. Cette situation est d'ailleurs confirmée par le paragraphe 47 du document C 87/LIM/25 et nous notons les possibilités de renforcement de capacités nationales par la formation des cadres, la mise à disposition de matériel et d'équipements de laboratoires, services d'experts, etc.
Ceci signifie en clair que, par le biais du Code et de tout ce qu'il a suscité, les Etats seront appuyés pour mieux organiser leurs structures et prendre toutes les dispositions tant en amont qu'en aval pour pouvoir être en mesure d'appliquer le Code.
Le Code même a été adopté depuis 1985. Les discussions présentes portent essentiellement sur les résultats obtenus à l'issue de l'application du Code dans certains Etats et sa mise à jour périodique.
S'agissant du premier point, ma délégation pense qu'il faudrait encourager la FAO à faire adopter et appliquer le Code dans les pays qui n'en ont pas encore. Pour les pays qui possèdent des Codes, examiner les voies et moyens pour assurer l'harmonisation nécessaire de leur Code avec celui dont nous discutons actuellement.
Pour ce qui est du second point, il faudrait souligner que les propositions actuelles d'amendement du Code, propositions faites tant par le Secrétariat que par les Etats, gagneraient, dans la nouvelle version, à être corroborées par la collecte et l'examen des propositions d'autres Etats et organisations.
En toute logique, après l'application du Code dans nombre des pays, il apparaîtra certainement d'autres propositions du Code.
Marcos I. NIETO LARA. (Cuba): Gracias, señor Presidente. En primer lugar quisiera agradecer al Dr. Bonte Friedheim su exposición que nos ha permitido obtener suficientes elementos de juicio para nuestro debate. También expreso mi agradecimiento a la Secretaría por haber preparado un documento viable y suficientemente claro que nos permita este debate a pesar de que hubo premura en su preparación, por cuanto fue una decisión del último Consejo que se trajera a la Conferencia.
Como se recordará, en el 92° período de sesiones del Consejo, la delegación de Cuba pidió que este tema fuera incluido en los debates de este período de sesiones de la Conferencia, consciente de la importancia de este tema y por los valiosos resultados alcanzados para toda la comunidad, pero de manera particular para los países en desarrollo.
Desde que se inició el análisis del Código internacional de conducta para la distribución y utili-zación de plaguicidas, mi país ha brindado todo su apoyo reconociendo los beneficios que, de la aplicación del mismo, se derivan.
Reconocemos también los esfuerzos realizados por el Director General para introducir progresivamente mejoras a este Código. Mi país es también un importante importador y consumidor de productos pla-guicidas, y en atención a la salud de las personas, de la protección del medio ambiente y del equilibrio biológico, ha establecido un sistema de control y una legislación que exige el cumplimiento de las medidas expuestas en el Código.
En consecuencia, señor Presidente, mi delegación opina que la FAO merece nuestro respaldo para que siga asistiendo a los países en materia de legislación y capacitación en cuanto a importaciones, manejo y uso de pesticidas.
Señor Presidente, mi delegación deplora que, a pesar del llamado que implica el Código para la salud de las personas, se hayan detectado violaciones a causa de intereses puramente comerciales.
Para concluir, señor Presidente, la delegación de Cuba apoya la resolución que se somete a nuestra consideración incluyendo el principio de conocimiento previo, el cual sin duda constituirá una importante mejora al Código.
Esperamos que no se dilate más la aplicación de estas mejoras y nos asociamos a lo expresado por las delegaciones de Venezuela y Filipinas en el sentido de que esto debe ser decidido por esta Conferencia y que se actúe con prontitud en beneficio de que cada día mueran menos personas a consecuencia de un uso indiscriminado y del mal manejo de los pesticidas.
Peter A. WIESMANN (Suisse): J'aimerais tout d'abord remercier M. Bonte-Friedheim pour son excellente introduction dans le sujet à l'ordre du jour.
Nous avons réfléchi aussi sur ces propositions de résolution mais, après mûre réflexion, nous soutenons plutôt ce qu'a proposé le Secrétariat.. Pour le moment, nous voyons que beaucoup de problèmes subsistent dans ce domaine, nous ne les nions pas du tout mais pour des questions pratiques et actuellement, après seulement deux ans d'expérience avec ce code, la proposition avancée par M. Bonte-Friedheim au nom du Secrétariat nous convient entièrement.
Ms Patricia WEST (United Kingdom): As the United Kingdom delegate has already pointed out in' the discussions on the implementation of the Pesticides Code which took place in the 92nd Session of the Council, we regard it as extremely important that adequate safeguards are provided both for man and the environment against pesticides misuse. For this reason the United Kingdom was very closely involved in the preparation of the Code and will continue to play a positive role in discussions on it.
We recognize that the resolution put forward in the names of Colombia, the Philippines, Venezuela and Zambia stems from their very real concern at the safety hazards that exist in the use of pesticides and from their laudable wish to protect vulnerable markets. But we feel that any consideration of the introduction of Prior Informed Consent at this stage would be premature. We think it would be preferable to wait until more experience is available of the operation of the export notification schemes and the UNEP/London Guidelines so as to be able to judge whether or how these can be improved.
The UNEP Working Group is due to meet in 1988 to consider how Prior Informed Consent may be incorporated into the London Guidelines and we suggest that the results for their deliberations be awaited before any decision is taken.
Furthermore, it is clear to us from the Progress Report, document CL 92/2, that many developing countries do not have the technical capacity or approved legislative authority to enable them to regulate the distribution or the use of pesticides. Until they can do so and can enforce the existing Code in its entirety, it seems to the United Kingdom that the most urgent need is to provide training and resources to regulators and operators of pesticides on their appropriate choice and correct use. We think this is extremely important and that the international community should concentrate on this aspect at present rather than try to introduce further bureaucratic controls which could cause practical problems and lead to a distortion of trade.
Finally I would point out that agreement on the Code of Practice was reached in 1985 only after long and detailed technical discussion and consultation. It does not appear to the UK practical to think that it can be amended in the way suggested without further similar consultation.
We would instead request that any consideration of Prior Informed Consent should first take place in' a technical working party which should report to COAG and from there to Council and Conference on the lines suggested by the Deputy Director-General during the discussion at Council prior to this Conference and reiterated by Dr Bonte-Friedheim in his introduction to this item. We think this procedure is preferable to any attempt to amend a document like the Code of Practice in the way presently proposed. The UK therefore opposes this resolution.
John COOK (United States of America): The United States is very sensitive to the human health and environmental safety implications of pesticides, not only from a national but also from an international perspective. Recognizing the global significance of agriculture and the attendant need for plant protection products, the United States amended its law regulating pesticides in 1972. That amendment required that the enforcement agency, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, notify all governments when a major regulatory action is taken by the U.S. Government to ban or severely restrict a pesticide product for human health or environmental safety reasons. The law was further amended in 1979 to add an export notification requirement by which other governments are notified, before shipment, that pesticide products not registered in the United States will be shipped to their countries. According to that law, the products will be labelled as not registered in the United States, and they will also be labelled in the language of the importing country, with any labelling requirements imposed by the importing country.
Consequently, as information and export notification guidelines emerged for international consideration in the OECD, UNEP, and the FAO, the United States was supportive of such initiatives.
It is important to recognize the procedure by which such guidelines were formulated, because it was that procedure which makes them acceptable, and which has offered the best chance for them to be implemented by member countries. That procedure was one of consultation and consensus. Under that procedure, when technical questions and uncertain matters arose, they were assigned to appropriate expert groups for investigation and deliberation to provide advice and recommendations on which reasonable judgments could be made and reasonable decisions could be reached by consensus.
The FAO Code of Conduct on the distribution and use of pesticides evolved under the same procedure, and it exists as a viable international code because it was developed through consultation and consensus. It would be an affront to the integrity of the Code to seek abrupt changes without first following the established procedures of seeking the advice of an expert group.
The matter of Prior Informed Consent deserves the attention of an expert group to conduct a thorough examination of its possible merits and potential effectiveness. The Governing Council of the UN Environmental Programme has recognized this and has already decided to convene such a group in March of next year to evaluate the concept of Prior Informed Consent and other modes of export notification. It would seem imprudent for FAO to amend its Code at this time, without awaiting the conclusions and recommendations of the UNEP expert group.
Pending consideration of the concept of Prior Informed Consent by the UNEP expert group, countries that feel an urgent need for additional protection regarding the importation of pesticides could address that need by adopting their own national regulations on pesticide importation. In fact, that is what provisions of the Code already encourage individual Member States to do - that is, to adopt national regulations considered neccessary to provide adequate protection on the importation of pesticides in view of the particular circumstances of their countries.
The United States recognizes the limitations that some countries may experience in amplifying and effecting domestic regulatory procedures on the use of pesticides. For that reason, the United States Government presently has under proposal a project for providing technical assistance to developing countries on formulating pesticide regulatory procedures. This project would be carried out in collaboration with international and multilateral organizations, including FAO. Under this project, workshops would be established in Africa, the Latin America and Caribbean Region and the Asia/Pacific Region to provide training to those attending on formulation and effective implementation of pesticide regulations. The first workshop is proposed for March 1988. The tentative list of countries to be invited to these workshops includes 16 countries from the Asia/Pacific Region, 25 countries from the Latin America and Caribbean Region, and 20 countries from Africa.
We believe that the approaches we have mentioned - that is, the US project for training workshops on pesticides, the initiatives that member countries can take on their own to adopt domestic guidelines and regulations on pesticide importation and use, and the planned evaluation by a UNEP expert group of the concept of Prior Informed Consent - are the best measures that can be taken at this time to strengthen., international cooperation and provide for the best protection of member countries in regard to the distribution and use of pesticides.
A final point, but perhaps the most telling argument against the adoption of Prior Informed Consent into the Code of Conduct, concerns the evident violations of Article 20 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade that could result, and the implications of such violations for member countries of FAO which also subscribe to the GATT. Mr Bonte-Friedheim has already made reference to the GATT in his presentation, and I would like to reinforce his comments. The United States Government has carefully studied the implications of Prior Informed Consent in relation to the GATT and has concluded that inclusion of Prior Informed Consent into the Code of Conduct would put countries subscribing to the GATT in a position in which they could not effectively follow the Prior Informed Consent procedure without in the process violating the provisions of Article 20 of the GATT. As a consequence, such countries', in order to fulfil, their commitments under the GATT, would be forced to ignore the Prior Informed Consent procedure. The result, if Prior Informed Consent were to be included in the Code, would be a general weakening of observance of the Code because of the reservation that GATT countries would be forced to take on the Prior Informed Consent provision.
The Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides was adopted in its present form by consensus, and, according to the results of the study conducted by the Secretariat, the Code has has a commendable record of success in its implementation and effectiveness during the two years since its adoption.
To amend the Code with the controversial provision of Prior Informed Consent, with such an amendment lacking the strong consensus with which the Code was originally adopted would result in a weakening rather than strengthening of the Code and that would not be in the interests of member countries.
The United States concurs in general with the presentation by the Secretariat on the Code of Conduct and on the question of Prior Informed Consent. For the reasons which we have just provided, the United States opposes the resolution to amend the Code by the inclusion of the provision on Prior Informed Consent.
CHAIRMAN: Nicaragua has indicated that, with the approval of the Commission, its intervention will not be delivered but will be included in the verbatim report.
Wolfgang A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of) (original language German): First of all we would like to thank Mr Bonte-Friedheim for his introduction and also the Secretariat for preparing the document before us. I have a very detailed statement before me regarding the document and various items but I would like to set it aside for the time being and only go into the most important points. Perhaps later on I might ask for the floor once again.
One of the points which we wished to take up has already been touched upon by other delegations, and therefore only the most important points will be dealt with now. My delegation considers the proposed amendment to the Code of Conduct without a further examination is not necessary and hardly enforceable. The proposal goes far beyond the present Code of Conduct, it concerns so many matters of principle that it must be examined thoroughly from the technical point of view. This could take place, for instance, on the occasion of the next meeting of the Committee on Agriculture. We understand that some countries are worried about the fact that in this particular field not enough has been done so far. On the other hand, my country has already incorporated the Code of Conduct adopted two years ago with our full support by consensus into our national legislation so that we have complied with the objective of this important international instrument. Member States and the Secretariat of FAO were notified of this fact.
The experience which has been gained elsewhere seems to be good, as shown by the replies to the questionnaire. Therefore we think that we should not amend the provisions, of the Code of Conduct but I think we should see to it that the Code should be applied consequently and everywhere in its existing form. The suggested amendment could also lead to the fact that countries which so far have stayed away could refrain from acceding to the Code of Conduct.
I think that the text adopted at the last FAO Conference makes it an obligation to see to it that all the information on the products concerned should be available above all to importing countries. The responsibility as to whether and which products a country would like to import must remain with the government of the importing country concerned.
For these reasons, my delegation is not in a position to give its agreement to the Draft Resolution. If there were a majority in favour, we would have to voice a reservation.
Mme Maria de Lourdes MARTINS DUARTE (Cap-Vert): L'utilité du Code international de conduite pour la distribution et l'utilisation des pesticides n'a jamais été contestée, et il est même reconnu comme un moyen d'aide inestimable pour tous les pays. Toutefois, les pays en développement rencontrent des difficultés dans son application, dues au besoin d'assistance technique, de formation du personnel concerné, et de moyens matériels.
Depuis son adoption en 1985 il a été, en effet, convenu de la nécessité de suivre de très près son application et de procéder à des révisions périodiques. L'analyse de la récente enquête menée par la FAO a permis de faire un premier inventaire des domaines qui manquent dans l'amélioration, tels que législations appropriées, amélioration des pratiques commerciales, formation, etc. et ma délégation, à l'instar d'autres et de l'avis de la Quatre-vingt-douzième session du Conseil, est elle aussi convaincue qu'il est temps d'amender le code, en vue d'introduire la notion "d'information et de consentement préalables".
Dans ce contexte, la délégation du Cap-Vert souscrit à la résolution, objet de l'annexe C du. document C 87/LIM/39 présentée par les délégations de la Colombie, des Philippines, du Venezuela et de la Zambie.
Mme Malika SACI (Algérie): La délégation algérienne voudrait dire combien elle apprécie la présentation du point 11 faite par M. Bonté-Friedheim.
L'adoption du Code international de conduite pour la distribution et l'utilisation des pesticides en 1985 a été unanime, comme a été unanimement reconnu son caractère dynamique.
Lors de la vingt-troisième Conférence (je cite) "La majorité a vivement regretté que le principe d'information et de consentement préalables n'apparaisse plus dans la version finale du code". Il était instamment demandé donc que ce concept soit retenu. Le caractère perfectible du code doit nous aider à l'amender pour l'adapter à la situation et à l'évolution des technologies. Cette adaptation doit en particulier aider les pays en voie de développement qui n'ont pas de structures de contrôle ou des structures médicales adéquates à ne pas subir les effets néfastes des pesticides interdits ou présentant un grand degré de toxicité.
En l'absence d'un système institutionnel spécifique, il revenait à la FAO de mettre en place un dispositif de protection.
Dans le processus d'acquisition des pesticides, la phase commerciale exportation/importation est la plus adéquate pour établir un contrôle. Deux parties sont concernées: le pays exportateur et le pays importateur. La surveillance des exportations des pesticides ainsi que leur utilisation par l'importateur doivent obéir à une véritable éthique. Il y a obligation morale à informer, et à s'entourer de toutes les garanties institutionnelles et physiques, si nous ne voulons pas que se reproduisent des catastrophes dont ont souffert des milliers d'êtres humains et leur environnement.
Mon pays a été l'un de ceux qui ont souhaité que le concept d'information et de consentement préalables soit expressément inscrit dans le Code, et qu'il soit examiné par notre Conférence.
Le fait que les directives de Londres, en février 1987, n'aient pas retenu ce concept et que le GATT ait son interprétation en la matière nous incite au .contraire à demander ici que la FAO comble cette lacune en incluant la clause de l'information et du consentement préalables. S'il en était ainsi, le marché des pesticides ne serait pas affaibli; au contraire, nous introduirions un élément de confiance dans ce secteur et la demande n'en serait que plus accrue,.
Parce que notre devenir est commun, et notre développement solidaire, nous demandons instamment a notre Organisation d'amender le Code de conduite pour la distribution et l'utilisation des pesticides.
Ma délégation appuie la Résolution présentée dans le document C 87/LIM/39 par la Colombie, les Philippines, le Venezuela et la Zambie.
A.H. Mofazzal KARIM (Bangladesh): My delegation congratulates Mr Bonte-Friedheim for his very clear and elaborate presentation of the subject. I have a few brief comments to make in this regard.
Before us is a very important as well as sensitive subject which is unique in nature. It involves moral and ethical issues which perhaps no other item on the agenda does. The International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides is undoubtedly a useful instrument to ensure safe and proper use of pesticides. But unless all member countries respect and follow this Code to the letter and spirit, its very purpose will be defeated. My delegation feels that its implementation is not an exercise to be undertaken unilaterally and all alone by an individual country. In fact, users in many developing countries are not aware of the vicious effects of many dangerous pesticides. Many gullible users are easily carried away by the ads and labels only, and the illiterate farmer grabs at anything and everything he gets to save his crops from pest attack.
The possibility of the damage that may be caused by some pesticides to human beings and the environment is hardly made known by the manufacturers and the sellers to the consumers. This is, to say the least, most unethical, particularly when the item is not used in the country where manufactured. The item is passed on as if at owner's own risk without giving even a hint that there is an element of risk involved. We want agriculture to thrive but we certainly do not want it at the cost of death, disease and squalor.
My delegation therefore very strongly suggests incorporation of the concept of "prior informed consent" in the Code. We firmly believe that in the line of universally accepted norms and principles of marketing, it is the moral and ethical obligation of the manufacturer and the seller to provide the buyer and the consumer with all relevant information including all possible effects of using the product.
We also underline the importance of technical assistance and training for the developing countries for successful implementation of the Code.
Finally, my delegation believes that if there is a strong will on the part of all concerned including such UN bodies as FAO, UNEP, WHO and ILO, there is no reason why we cannot make progress in agriculture in an atmosphere free from pollution and germs without jeopardising our own existence.
Let us try to respect the consumer's right a little more and also remember what the old frog said to the stone-pelting boys in Aesop's fable: "What is play to you is death to us."
P.N. BAIGENT (New Zealand): The representative of Zambia referred in his intervention this morning to the need to respect a common principle, that of safeguarding the people and environment of all countries from serious damage arising from the use of pesticides. We in New Zealand believe in that principle, and I want to emphasize from the outset that we were closely associated with the evolution of the Code of Conduct and strongly supported its adoption at the Conference two years ago.
We welcome the Secretariat's view of the effects of the Code. We are pleased to see progress has been made. The programme that FAO has with Japan to finance the creation of national regulatory systems in developing countries and its planned programme with UNDP are further positive steps.
We understand the real concerns that have prompted the creation of the PIC concept but we believe there is a better approach. Prior informed consent will not provide the safeguards being sought if countries do not have systems to control the import and use of pesticides as recommended in the Code. Such countries will still be exposed to dangerous imports from the many countries which have no pesticide control and which could not therefore enforce prior informed consent. Prior informed consent is no substitute for effective national systems to ensure safe import of pesticides, and it would be wrong for countries or agencies to think that prior informed consent will make them safe from harmful pesticide imports.
As the Secretariat pointed out in introducing this item, every country has the sovereign right to legislate against damaging pesticide imports. They should be given all possible assistance to set up systems which enable them to do just that. In this respect, we note that as well as FAO and UNDP both IPTC and UNEP provide advice to governments on regulatory actions taken on chemicals.
We hope that member countries will take advantage of this assistance and move quickly to implement the pesticides code in their countries. Regulation of imports is the only effective way, in our view, of protecting against damaging pesticides.
If awareness is needed of the pesticide problem in member countries or more information is required, then FAO should bridge that gap. But we oppose any action which will erode support for the Code or the vigour with which its implementation is pursued.
To conclude, we are opposed to the inclusion of Prior Informed Consent in the Code, but not because we disagree with the concerns of those who propose the concept. We fully agree with those concerns. It is absolutely essential that all countries are able to protect their people and environment from the dangers associated with the use of pesticides, but we believe that this goal will be better served by more urgent and vigorous implementation of the Code. The priority must be to preserve unanimous support for the Code.
Hawisi MWIAYIGOHA (Tanzania): My delegation would like to commend the Secretariat for the preparation of the document, which informs us of the progress attained in the implementation of the Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides. My delegation would also like to congratulate Dr Bonte-Friedheim on his clear presentation of this document.
The Code of Conduct is almost complete but, because of its dynamic nature, from time to time it needs to be amended. The amendments become more apparent as the Code ages in the implementation phase.
My delegation would like to commend FAO on its efforts to provide assistance to ensure effective implementation of the Code, and 1 appeal to the Director-General to continue to provide more of such facilities despite the present financial problems the FAO is facing.
We need to implement vigorously the International Code of Conduct to slow down the dangers we are facing. Unfortunately, we have to use pesticides if we want to produce our food and cash crops efficiently. We need to be made more and more aware, through periodic information, of the dangers involved in handling, contact and pollution of our environment.
Through education we can provide a foundation for the effective implementation of the Code, and I appeal to the international community further to assist the FAO in providing facilities to enable FAO to increase its areas of involvement in enhancing the effective implementation of the Code.
My delegation is also of the opinion that the importing countries have by far the greatest share of contribution in making the implementation of the Code most effective through legislation on imports, and on use and handling of pesticides. This is another area where assistance is required to enable those countries to implement the Code effectively. Unfortunately, most of the importing countries do not know how to deal with the short and long-term implications of the indiscriminate use of pesticides.
The countries of manufacture should also realize that they have obligations in providing the necessary information, good or bad, on the chemicals they are providing for export.
The effective implementation of the Code needs a true team spirit and the sincerity of all those concerned. My country would like to assure the international community of our full cooperation in the implementation of this particular Code.
Also, we should strongly support the resolution sponsored by Colombia, Zambia, Venezuela and the Philippines on the principle of prior consent. I should like to stress that this should be incorporated now, without any further delays.
Petrus A.L. DE RIJK (Netherlands) : The questionnaire in the FAO Code of Conduct gives a good picture of its functioning as well as the still large gaps in its adequate application in many developing countries. My country strongly supports all efforts to improve the notification of the pesticides concerned as well as the global harmonization of the implementation and establishment of a proper notification system in the developing countries.
Therefore, we are prepared to assist through our Development Cooperation Programme in the solutions of bottlenecks for the application of the Code. For these activities we need continuing advice from and technical cooperation with FAO.
The draft resolution concerning the Code Of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides aims at including the principle of Prior Informed Consent in the Code. The Netherlands strongly supports this principle.
As Mr Bonte-Friedheim has already indicated, we even have an operational form of prior informed consent in a voluntary arrangement of the private business concerns. This system implies that prior to export of prohibited or strictly restricted pesticides and other chemicals consent is requested from the receiving country. This country can decide on the basis of information provided concerning the nature of the restrictions applied in the Netherlands. This arrangement is only in operation in countries which have indicated that they want to work with our country. However, in spite of a request from our Government, sent through our embassies to 160 countries, only 90 countries so far participate. Therefore, we invite all countries which do not participate at the moment to join. For the countries which did not answer the above appeal, the exchange of information processes adopted in UNEP and FAO is being followed.
In view of the numerous problems which still exist with the application of the Code in developing countries,, in view of the need for further technical collaboration, and also in view of the ongoing discussion in various international bodies, our delegation supports the view of the FAO Secretariat that the inclusion at this stage of the principle of Prior Informed Consent, which we would interpret for our part as an obligation, would not be appropriate. Our delegation therefore suggests that the proposal be reconsidered at the next Conference or occasion when more progress will be made in developing countries in resolving the problems concerning the application of the Code. However, our delegation would like to stress that the Netherlands will continue to strive for incorporation of the principles of prior consent in the Code as soon as this is appropriate. In order to speed up this incorporation, we suggest that technical working groups be established. At the same time, we appeal for wider application of the principle on a voluntary and unilateral basis.
Jalaladdin HABIBI (Iran, Islamic Republic of): I would like to express my appreciation to the Secretariat for the presentation of document C 87/LIM/25 on the very important and controversial document on the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides.
Our country benefits from diverse and extreme climatic conditions, and therefore is very rich in its fauna and flora. The existence of this diversity has always played a very important role in the prevalence of destructive agents, both pests and disease pathogens, in agriculture. The import of food commodities from other, countries has worsened the situation and enhanced the number of these agents.
The outcome of this action is that that trend has increased.
Unfortunately among the different methods of control in the past the application of pesticides gained prevalence and every day a new chemical was introduced into the country. After farmers became aware of the consequences of pesticides, after a short while of using them it became very common to use them on a large scale.
This practice led to increased poisoning of the workers and the death of more animals was the sad outcome of over-sprayed agricultural commodities.
Fortunately during the past two decades measures have been implemented to restrict the application of pesticides, and non-chemical means of control have been introduced. For instance, in the case of spraying cotton for cotton pests, along with the use of a surveillance network, the number of sprayings has fallen from eight to two, and in the rice paddies from three to one.
Still, much is left to be achieved for full success in the field, but we are very optimistic that the day is not too far away when we will be witnessing the replacement of the use of large amounts of pesticides by non-chemical means of control.
We have always supported the contents of the Code of Conduct, and we would like to state our views as follows.
Regarding the diverse hazards of pesticides resulting from the misuse of them in agriculture, the impairing effects they have on our environment, on human beings and animals, are worthy of mention, lack of well-equipped laboratories for physico-chemical analysis. The lack of facilities for pesticide residue research, and similar research, which we have been proposing to various sessions of COAG, to the Council and to Conference are of proper significance.
We do urge that FAO fully support the idea of introducing non-chemical means of controlling harmful pests as at least one method of integrated control instead of the utilization of large amounts of chemicals.
Unfortunately, according to the data available there exist some pesticides that lack efficient qualities and that are banned in the country of production, but which nevertheless are being exported. For instance, one of these exporting countries managed to export 161 million pounds unregistered out of a production of 552 million pounds and 31 million pounds were suspended or cancelled.
It seems that most of the developing countries do not reply to the questionnaire forwarded by FAO. In this respect we do insist that FAO is the best organization to further the activities and, as described in paragraph 13 of document CL 92/2, should fully support the preparation of legislation in this regard.
Despite the significance of labelling, it is sad to say that there are still many cases where labelling is not practised. FAO should take serious action in this respect. We support the contents of paragraph 35 of the document as we deeply believe that much is left to be done in this important area.
With regard to paragraph 37, we would be grateful if the Secretariat would inquire as to which regions the workshops have been organized.
As has been stated in Article 10 of the Code, labels should be in accordance with applicable international guidelines. However, evidence collected from various countries reveals that so far as the pesticide industry is concerned this practice has not been implemented fully. In this regard we would be grateful if the Secretariat could inform us if FAO has tried to impose on them guidelines provided by FAO.
Article 3.2 of the FAO Code states that: "The pesticide industry should adhere to the provisions of this Code as standard for the manufacture, distribution and advertising of pesticides, particularly in countries lacking the appropriate legislation and advisory services". Unfortunately, evidence shows that this Article has not been implemented. In this field we believe that the industries do not have an interest in complying with the provisions of the Code. Therefore, FAO should encourage the close cooperation of governments and NGOs. We would appreciate it if the Secretariat could provide us with more information in this regard. We would like to support the work of NGOs and we request that FAO extend its collaboration with those organizations towards better implementation of the Code.
CHAIRMAN: Ethiopia has requested that its written intervention be included in the verbatim record, although it has not been presented in this meeting. Mexico, which made a brief oral intervention, has requested that the full text of their intervention be incorporated in the verbatim record.
Mme Josefa COELHO DA CRUZ (Angola): Notre delegation veut ajouter sa voix à celles qui nous ont précédés pour féliciter le Secrétariat de la présentation claire et succincte du document. Le docu-ment CL 92/2 soumis au dernier Conseil pour information a reçu l'appui de la majorité des partici-pants sur le fait que le Code aide les pays à utiliser les pesticides efficacement et sans danger. D'autre part, il a souligné la nécessité pour la FAO de donner un suivi aux questions relatives au Code afin de permettre son application correcte.
Ainsi, notre délégation est d'accord avec les paragraphes 34, 35 et 47 du document et considère également qu'une coopération étroite avec les autres institutions des Nations Unies, telles que le PNUD, l'ONUDI et l'OMS et d'autres organisations internationales comme le GIFAP, doit être maintenue.
Pour terminer, la délégation angolaise voudrait appuyer la résolution présentée ce matin par la délégation zambienne et coparrainée par la Colombie, les Philippines et le Venezuela.
Washington ZUÑIGA TRELLES (Perú): Gracias, señor Presidente. Las felicitaciones las hago extensivas tanto a la Secretaría como al Dr. Bonte Friedheim por su exposición, así como a uno de los ponentes, la delegada de Venezuela, por su brillante exposición. También quiero hacer llegar mis felicitaciones a las organizaciones no gubernamentales, que están haciendo una excelente y sacrificada labor para crear una conciencia clara y precisa sobre la importancia del tema que nos ocupa.
Las exposiciones anteriores me eximen de hacer muchas consideraciones. Por ello solamente quiero decir dos o tres cosas.
Todos tenemos una conciencia clara del peligro que significan los plaguicidas; además todos sabemos -sobre todo aquellos que procedemos de los países subdesarrollados- que estos plaguicidas son exce-sivamente caros en nuestros países debido a la estrechez del mercado y a la enorme cantidad de distri-buidores de estos plaguicidas que existen, cuyos costos son elevados y por ello tienen que cobrar precios exorbitantes.
Creo señor Presidente que, si bien en la FAO, nos estamos preocupando por el efecto que producen los plaguicidas y por su control, fundamentalmente nos debemos dirigir hacia una labor encaminada a conseguir el control de las plagas y enfermedades por otros sistemas, principalmente el de la genética vegetal, el de crear especies resistentes a las plagas y enfermedades, el del sistema de cultivos por rotaciones cuando existen monocultivos. Por ejemplo, cuando las plagas se hacen extensivas y se desarrollan mucho más, a veces se hace muy difícil el control. Hay una serie de sistemas que pueden evitar esto, pero creo que fundamentalmente debemos desarrollar la genética vegetal.
Todos aquellos profesionales que hemos estudiado las ciencias agrícolas sabemos que a medida que los genetistas crean las plantas más productivas, esta se hacen más susceptibles a la plagas y enfermedades; aparecen nuevas plagas y enfermedades asociadas con este aumento de la productividad de las plantas. Repito, la tendencia de las plantas a producir más hace que éstas sean cada vez más delicadas. Por consiguiente, a medida que hacemos estas mejoras a las plantas, éstas requieren mayores cantidades de plaguicidas y fertilizantes.
No quiero que se entienda que nos opongamos -sería una tontería- al mejoramiento de estas plantas, pero este mejoramiento debe ir unido a la preservación de nuestros recursos fitogenéticos para poder mantener, hasta cierto punto, cierta rusticidad en la planta que haga favorable el control de esas plagas y enfermedades. Pero si en nuestro mundo -sobre todo en el tercer mundo, que somos los dueños de los recursos genéticos- van a ir desapareciendo estas especies, cada vez vamos a estar más condenados a que no existan los genes necesarios para poder mantener esa rusticidad .o hacer cruzamientos que puedan crear especies resistentes a plagas y enfermedades.
Para finalizar, señor Presidente, mi delegación apoya el proyecto de resolución presentado por varios países para la modificación del artículo 9 del Código de conducta, y que se incluya el consentimiento previo en todos los países. Esto es lo que quería decir con brevedad, señor Presidente, en aras al tiempo.
CHAIRMAN: Indonesia has requested that its written intervention be included in the verbatim record.
Mohamed El Bashir MUFARAH (Sudan) (original language Arabic): The use of pesticides in Sudan has been going on for a long time. We started by using the chemical products to deal with parasites on animals and in malaria control, but their use did not lead to any great danger because it was done under medical supervision or under the supervision of medical or veterinarian trainees.
The danger appeared when these pesticides began to be used in agriculture. The number of pesticides in use increased and the greater part of their use was carried out by spraying from the air. That sometimes affected areas beyond that being sprayed, which exposed animals to diseases and illnesses that usually were fatal. Some pesticides remained. in the soil for a long time particularly if the land was not irrigated, and therefore exposed animals grazing in those fields to diseases or to death.
In addition, cows and goats which had grazed in those fields were milked and these products were transmitted to children and adults. Likewise, fish were found floating dead in the rivers.
The pesticides that had been banned in developed countries were exported to the developing countries, and my intention was to ask for the extension to all countries equally. But after having discussed this with some of the countries that had proposed the amendment I became convinced of the need to revise the Code as it had been presented. Those countries that import the pesticides that are banned in certain exporting countries should also ban the import of those products into their country.
The Progress Report gives us a clear view of the sanitary situation in developing countries. The economical and technological conditions of newly independent countries have not made it possible for these countries to establish institutions which would allow them to be responsible for the control and analysis of those pesticides, and to ensure that they are correctly used. Therefore, the countries who produce and export these pesticides should assume their responsibilities in order to draw up and legislate provisions which would make clear what the chemical composition of the pesticides is in their effectiveness on insects, and what their damaging effects are on che environment, on animals and on man. All this information should be written out and there should be pictograms drawn on the envelope or the parcel in Which they are put.
Having looked at the Progress Report and the proposal we have before us, I wish to express my country's support for this amendment.
CHAIRMAN: Nigeria and Trinidad and Tobago have also indicated that their interventions be incorporated in the verbatim record without being read in the Commission room.
Lautaro POZO MALO (Ecuador): Acatando su llamado, seré sumamente breve. Felicitamos a la Secreta-ría por la preparación y presentación del tema que nos ocupa.
La delegación de Ecuador apoya los medios y fines señalados en el Código Internacional de Conducta para el uso y distribución de plaguicidas. Es él un instrumento válido para regular el comercio y el uso de esos productos químicos cuya exagerada o errónea aplicación a suelos y plantas produce efectos desastrosos para la salud humana.
No solamente los agricultores que usan plaguicidas son sujetos de alto riesgo de males, sino también los consumidores de los productos agrícolas. Se ha comprobado que muchos plaguicidas están presen-tes, con todo su poder dañino, en los alimentos que llegan a las poblaciones.
El Código, como se recordará, fue aprobado sin un elemento trascendental, cual es el del consentimiento previo. Se trata del interés de muchos países de que se cumpla con un elemental principio ético, mediante el cual se vigile que quien compra ciertos plaguicidas prohibidos, restrigidos o voluntariamente retirados de los países productores por su peligrosidad, obtengan todas las informaciones que indujeron a adoptar tales determinaciones. Esta información permitirá decidir sobre la conveniencia o no de adquirirlos y dar expresamente su consentimiento.
El comercio de los plaguicidas peligrosos no significa para los países productores sino un pequeñí-simo porcentaje del total de sus ventas de plaguicidas.
Por ello, no entendemos su posición terminante en contra del PIC. Llamamos la atención sobre el hecho de que todos los estados productores de plaguicidas han dictado normas internas que contienen el principio, y lo han hecho en defensa de sus habitantes.
Luego de estos breves razonamientos, queremos expresar nuestro decidido apoyo a la Resolución que se encuentra a conocimiento de esta Comisión, y no tenemos problemas en aceptar la modificación sugerida por el Brasil.
Finalmente, quisiéramos reiterar lo que sostuvimos en la Conferencia de 1985; es decir, que no es de ninguna manera negativo que el comercio interior de plaguicidas peligrosos, algunos los llaman venenos, pueda limitarse como consecuencia de la inclusión del PIC en el Código, ni consideramos tampoco que ello constituya una barrera no arancelaria.
Patrick O'QUIN (France): La France a toujours soutenu le Code international de conduite pour la distribution et l'utilisation des pesticides, qu'elle considère comme un outil utile pour permettre aux pays membres de prendre des dispositions nationales dans un domaine particulièrement complexe. Il s'agit en effet pour chaque pays, compte tenu des conditions d'utilisation particulières qui sont les siennes, de disposer de produits qui soient tout à la fois efficaces et sans danger pour les hommes et pour l'environnement.
Mon pays dispose à cet égard d'une législation nationale qui remonte à 1946 ainsi que de moyens techniques et administratifs pour l'appliquer. Il a fourni au Secrétariat tous les renseignements nécessaires à ce sujet en répondant au questionnaire dont les résultats sont aujourd'hui soumis à l'appréciation de cette commission.
Ma délégation considère en outre qu'il est important de disposer d'un Code international pour l'utilisation des pesticides mais qu'il est encore plus nécessaire que celui-ci soit effectivement appliqué. Cela implique que les pays disposent certes d'un cadre réglementaire et administratif mais aussi de techniciens compétents et de laboratoires suffisamment équipés.
La France, dans ce domaine, est prête à coopérer avec les pays qui le souhaitent afin de leur permettre de s'assurer que, dans leur propre contexte d'utilisation, les pesticides qu'ils envisagent d'employer correspondent bien à leurs besoins et ne sont dangereux ni pour les populations, ni pour le milieu naturel.
En ce qui concerne le projet de résolution proprement dit relatif à un amendement à l'article 9.3 du Code, je voudrais souligner l'intérêt que cette proposition présente à nos yeux, notamment pour la santé et l'environnement. Nous pouvons donc marquer notre accord sur la nécessité de fournir aux autorités compétentes des pays importateurs toutes les informations nécessaires pour les produits en cause.
Cependant, il convient de remarquer que la proposition de résolution qui nous est soumise intéresse également des questions qui, dans d'autres enceintes, notamment au GATT, à la Communauté européenne • ou au PNUE ont fait l'objet d'études, de propositions ou de négociations.
Ma délégation rappelle également la nécessité en la matière de ne pas agir avec précipitation. Je renvoie sur ce point au débat que nous avons eu dans cette même commission lors de la quatrième session, lorsqu'il s'agissait de la lutte anti-acridienne, consigné dans le procès-verbal de cette quatrième session.
La délégation française appuie en conséquence pleinement les observations de M. Bonte-Friedheim et considère comme prématurée l'adoption de la résolution telle qu'elle est actuellement formulée.
Je rappellerai enfin pour appuyer cette observation que lors de sa vingt-troisième session, la Conférence en 1985 a adopté le Code des pesticides en considérant qu'il s'agissait d'un compromis acceptable par tous les Etats Membres dans la mesure où il comportait un juste équilibre entre des points de vue au départ assez divergents. C'est pourquoi ce Code a été adopté par consensus.
En conséquence, nous estimerions normal que si le Code devait . être modifié, il le soit également par consensus.
Ma délégation considère sur ce sujet important que l'adoption de nouvelles dispositions doit être précédée de discussions et d'analyses des premiers enseignements tirés de l'application du Code. Je rappellerai à cette commission que le Code lui-même n'est effectivement entré en application que récemment, nous n'avons donc qu'une expérience très limitée de son application.
C'est pourquoi ma délégation est d'avis que, faute d'obtenir un consensus, ce sujet serait plus utilement traité lors de la vingt-cinquième Conférence.
CHA CHOL MA (Democratic Republic of Korea): As you know the majority of member countries at the Twenty-third Session of the FAO Conference and also at the Ninety-second Session of the Council, unanimously urged the necessity of including the principle of Prior Informed Consent by importing countries into the provisions of the Code dealing with the exchange of information on agricultural chemicals in international trade.
The United Nations Environment Programme has already recognized the necessity of Prior Informed Consent and has decided to establish a working group for it.
It is the view of the delegation of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea that the conclusion of this provision into the Code is one of the important factors in further ensuring the safety of agricultural chemicals in international trade, and in preventing pollution of the environment.
Thus, the delegation of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea fully supports the amendment to Article 9.3 of the Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides, to incorporate the principle of Prior Informed Consent by the delegations of Colombia,. Philippines, Venezuela and Zambia.
Emile DETRAUX (Belgique): La Belgique veut vous confirmer tout l'intérêt qu'elle porte au Code international de conduite sur les pesticides adopté lors de la Conférence de la FAO en novembre 1985. Elle peut ici porter témoignage des efforts qu'elle a accomplis au sein de la Communauté économique européenne pour jusqu'à présent assurer, dans des conditions optimales, la mise en oeuvre dudit Code.
Lors de la présentation, M. Bonte-Friedheim, dans ses conclusions, nous a signalé que l'inclusion du concept de l'information et du consentement préalable n'était pas opportune dans l'état actuel des choses, notamment par le fait qu'il est nécessaire de s'assurer que cette disposition soit compatible avec les règles du GATT.
D'autre part, étant donné que la Communauté économique européenne, consciente de son rôle en la matière, examine la question du commerce des produits chimiques dangereux au niveau du Conseil des ministres, nous continuons à plaider le consensus pour un problème d'une aussi grande importance, ce qui permettrait par ailleurs de lui assurer des assises irréfutables.
Malheureusement, nous constatons qu'il n'est pas possible à ce stade d'atteindre ce consensus. J'attire particuliérement votre attention sur le fait que c'est à la lumière des considérations que nous venons d'annoncer, et donc en fin de compte, en fonction de conditions d'ordre technique, que la Belgique n'est pas en mesure à ce stade d'approuver la résolution et, à son vif regret, doit émettre un avis négatif tout en préconisant toutefois des discussions plus approfondies sur la question afin d'arriver au consensus souhaité, lors de la prochaine Conférence.
Mrs Hannelore H. BENJAMIN (Dominica): My delegation feels that this item on the agenda is very important because of its possible impact on the human population, animals and the environment.
My delegation strongly supports the position of Venezuela, Bangladesh, the Philippines and Zambia on this matter, and the résolution which considers the inclusion of Prior Informed Consent into the Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides.
It is not acceptable that the pesticides which do not qualify for sale and use in their country of origin, be considered for export to, and use in, developing countries without their governments' acceptance. It must be remembered that a large number of farmers in these countries is illiterate, so it is useless to think that they can benefit from the directions for the use of these pesticides when they cannot even read. Purely on a moral basis, we cannot expose them to such a high-risk situation.
My delegation feels that it is essential to stress the importance of the fact that there is no justification for us to accept the practice of double standards which is implied in this situation.
Oscar PETINGA (Portugal): Tout d'abord, je dois féliciter le Secrétariat pour l'introduction du thème. La vingt-troisième Conférence de la FAO a apprécié et approuvé en 1985 le Code de conduite pour la distribution et l'utilisation des pesticides. Nous pensons que ce Code a été une décision très importante et constructive. Comme nous le savons, l'augmentation de la production agricole est fortement dépendante de l'augmentation de la production unitaire. Cependant, pour que cela soit possible, il est nécessaire d'augmenter l'utilisation des engrais et des pesticides car la région des tropiques, face à son climat assez chaud et humide, est favorable à des maladies qui réduisent considérablement les récoltes.
Ainsi, il faut employer des pesticides, ce qui implique des précautions spéciales quant à leur application et aussi aux écarts entre celle-ci et la consommation des produits agricoles.
A la vingt-cinquième session de la Conférence, il s'est établi que les industries productrices des pesticides et les exportateurs doivent fournir tous les éléments indispensables aux pays importateurs: la composition chimique, les intervalles de sécurité, les aspects toxiques primaires et secondaires, afin de renseigner les pays sur les dangers de l'emploi de certains pesticides.
Ainsi, nous pensons qu'il faudrait tout d'abord évaluer les effets de l'application de ce Code international de conduite sur les pesticides adopté par la Conférence de la FAO en novembre 1985. D'un autre côté, nous pensons que la FAO doit pousser à la création dans les pays en développement de structures d'homologation des pesticides et de laboratoires de contrôle ainsi que la formation de personnel spécialisé dans ce domaine.
Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Como es bien conocido, la delegación de Colombia tuvo el honor de asociarse a las distinguidas delegaciones de Ecuador, Zambia, Filipinas y Venezuela para presentar este Proyecto de Resolución.
Nuestra declaración se facilita por el hecho de que ya casi al final del debate sobre este tema, se ha confirmado una gran mayoría en favor de la adopción de este Proyecto de Resolución. Además, podemos apoyar plenamente las declaraciones que han hecho numerosos miembros de esta Comisión, pero sobre todo, las intervenciones elocuentes y fundadas de las distinguidas colegas de Venezuela y Argelia.
La delegación de Colombia reconoce los esfuerzos que ha hecho la Secretaría de la FAO para presentarnos este primer Informe sobre la aplicación del Código. Lamentablemente, como lo indica el documento, los resultados son exiguos, son mínimos. La gran mayoría de los países en desarrollo carecen de medios y recursos para lograr la aplicación del Código y entender los principios de su aplicación. Es consecuencia lógica este proyecto de resolución que está dirigido, justamente, a proteger a esos países. Queremos destacar la actitud constructiva original del Japón a la cual se han sumado ahora los Estados Unidos. Pensamos también que el PNUD -como se dice en el documento en un proyecto para Africa- y sobre todo las ONG, pueden ser importantes y vitales puntos de apoyo para las tareas de nuestra Organización.
En el curso del debate sobre el proyecto de resolución nos ha llamado la atención alguna tendencia prevaleciente en algunas delegaciones, que parece han querido tratar de demostrar que el PIC es un aparecido, es un elemento nuevo que ha caído en paracaídas en esta sala verde; que el PIC no fuera nunca antes discutido, sino que un mago se metió la mano en el bolsillo y lo sacó colgado del pico de una paloma blanca de la paz. Convendrá recordar que el PIC ha figurado en muchísimas, si no en todas las distintas versiones que se han hecho del Código y que fue uno de los puntos más controvertidos en la Conferencia pasada, de manera que carecen de validez los argumentos de que se necesita explorar más, a través de expertos y más profundos análisis, la naturaleza misma del PIC, que ya es bien conocida.
Justamente en la Conferencia pasada, como lo recordó la distinguida delegada de Argelia, la gran mayoría de los miembros estaba a favor de la introducción del PIC en el texto del Código. Al final cedimos en ese propósito nuestro, justamente para lograr el consenso. Ahora en la última reunión del Consejo se ha reconocido también -lo dice este documento- que la mayoría estuvo en favor de introducir el PIC. Por ello pensamos nosotros que es el momento de hacerlo porque nunca obtendremos el consenso completo, y siempre la mayoría estará en favor de ese propósito que ya es hora de aplicarlo para corresponder al carácter dinámico que la Conferencia reconoció a este Código.
Pensamos que la introducción del PIC está dirigida esencialmente a proteger a aquellos países que carecen de medios y de recursos para reconocer el carácter nocivo de los productos que se exportan a esos países.
No se ha explicado adecuadamente ni en forma concreta cuál es la relación que hay entre el artículo 20 del GATT y la introducción del PIC en el Código. Nosotros oímos también con atención al colega de Bélgica lo que dijo en relación con las discusiones que tienen lugar en el seno de la Comunidad Económica Europea. Nosotros creemos, por el contrario, que la introducción del PIC puede contribuir a estimular y a lograr efectos positivos en esas negociaciones, en esas actividades que se están realizando en el seno del GATT y en el seno de la Comunidad Económica Europea.
Señor Presidente, quisiéramos hacer un llamado muy cordial y respetuoso, pero profundamente conven-cido, a países como Francia, Países Bajos y otros países desarrollados que han expresado argumentos cuyo contenido serio nos induce a la meditación, pero quisiéramos pedirles que entendieran lo que significa para los países en desarrollo esta disposición y que nos acompañaran para adoptar este proyecto de resolución. No pretendemos restar méritos a los argumentos que han expresado aquí esos distinguidos colegas; por el contrario, será nuestro interés mismo, y el de ellos también, que todos esos argumentos, que todas esas cuestiones que ellos han planteado, que son pertinentes en muchos casos, aparezcan en el informe para que la FAO lo siga considerando y la comunidad internacional lo siga teniendo en cuenta.
Sinceramente señor Presidente pensamos que no va a haber ninguna preocupación, ningún prejuicio. Si los exportadores de plaguicidas tienen recta intención; si en realidad van a proceder de buena fe, como lo esperamos y esto lo decimos con mucha sinceridad; si ninguna de las industrias va a exportar productos tóxicos; si en todo se va a proceder con corrección y ajustados a los más elementales principios sociales y humanos. ¿Porqué, entonces, tener temor a la aplicación del PIC, que dará un resultado plenamente satisfactorio para todos?
Después de lo que acabamos de decir espero que resultará obvio que la delegación de Colombia reitera su apoyo a este proyecto de resolucción, considera que la adición de Brasil lo mejora y, pensamos que así, señor Presidente podemos adoptar este proyecto de resolución y, naturalmente, incluiremos en el informe las partes sobresalientes de las declaraciones de aquellos colegas que en un principio no estuvieron en condiciones de acompañarnos pero que, esperamos, van a permitir que esta Comisión adopte este proyecto de resolución.
Masuhla Humphrey LETEKA (Lesotho): First, allow me to commend the Secretariat for the preparation of their report and to thank Dr. Bonte-Friedheim for his lucid introduction of the paper before us, which, in our opinion, correctly highlights and addresses the problems of pesticides, their distribution and use, particularly in the developing countries.
My delegation would like to register its support for the fears and concerns expressed by developing countries that donor countries in most cases dump their obsolete technology on to ignorant, small, poor and vulnerable countries.
My delegation would like to support the strategy of consultation and mutual agreement between the • countries that are providing pesticides and those that receive them. The agreement should be more favourable to the recipient because, as the Conference has advocated, and continues to advocate, the only basis for achieving productivity in food and agriculture is through a healthy environment. It becomes imperative, therefore, that there should be a prior informed consent by the recipients, which are the developing countries, while the problem of malnutrition, hunger and poverty seems to be taking the upper hand. In this spirit, we would promote the transfer of appropriate technology in our efforts for development.
The developing countries are now aware of the problems facing food and agricultural production where pesticides are not applied. But all these chemicals can be fruitfully used if they are ; conducive and suitable to the environmental aspects of the recipient country. We would therefore support and endorse the draft resolution as proposed by Colombia, Venezuela, Zambia and the Philippines on the proper distribution and use of pesticides, and we feel this should be incorporated in the final report.
It is imperative that the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides should be implemented and should be observed by all member countries. A joint effort by all could help prevent the hazardous effects of pesticides if wrongly applied,
Robert J. PRINS (Canada): The Canadian delegation compliments the FAO on the follow-up that has taken place in the implementation of the Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides We are grateful for the progress report that was submitted to the Council and for the very informative report which the Commission received this morning from Mr. Bonte-Friedheim. On the basis of the various arguments put forward, we are convinced that further experience in the implementation of the Code is required before consideration be given to introducing changes to the Code. When the time comes to consider changes, we urge that the appropriate and recognized processes of technical consultation take place in arriving at a consensus viewpoint, as was done in submitting the Code for approval to the Conference in 1985.
We encourage FAO to continue to play an active and positive role in the implementation of the Code, particularly with respect to the much needed technical assistance in improving regulatory capabilities and training of personnel in member countries. Canada has already made its expertise in this field available to a few member countries. We urge FAO to continue to give high priority in its programmes- to the implementation of the Code, particularly for those activities where implementation of the Code is constrained and in those countries where implementation of the Code has not yet been possible.
We refer to the 31 percent of reporting countries mentioned in paragraph 11 of document CL 92/2. We feel the proposed resolution is premature at this stage, particularly in the light of the alternatives which this debate has brought forward, such as in the New Zealand intervention earlier. We feel it is perhaps more important to have a thorough review of the experience with the Code before a substantial change or addition is contemplated, as was also suggested by France and other countries. In the interim, we encourage FAO to continue, as it has already done, to contribute to the dialogue on this subject at other international fora.
Finally, we should like to note the voluntary nature of this Code which requires full cooperation and goodwill from all parties, including the private sector, for success. We should therefore like to encourage all parties to this Code to move together with consensus and goodwill.
Yiadom K. ATSA-KONADU (Ghana): My delegation would also like to thank the Secretariat for the document and Mr Bonte-Friedheim for his eloquent presentation.
We are very much aware of the scarce resources which farmers in developing countries have to mobilise to raise crops. We are also equally aware that the growing crops or the harvested crops have to be protected from insect infestation, rodents and all other scourges. Agriculture cannot do away with pesticides, but it is important that the users of pesticides have full information on the proper use of pesticides and are provided with the necessary protective clothing to avoid the incidence of toxic contamination.
It is also very necessary that there should be a national regulatory body to ensure that dangerous chemicals are neither produced locally nor imported for use by farmers. This national regulatory body should be well equipped to render useful service and also be in a position to assemble and analyse all the necessary information needed to establish the cost-benefit aspects of the use of a particular pesticide.
My delegation is therefore supportive of FAO's efforts to use the Code and to implement the provisions in the Code. We are happy to observe that the international community has also whole-heartedly accepted the Code of Conduct for implementation.
My delegation is particularly impressed by the efforts being made by some pesticide-exporting countries to propose for consideration at the GATT negotiations certain provisions such as the Export Notification Guidelines to regulate trading in pesticides in the wider interest of importing countries. We are also deeply impressed by the emphasis being placed here, as elsewhere, on the need for training of nationals to improve their capabilities in pesticide testing and particularly the training programmes in the pesticide regulatory procedure which is being put in place by the US Government, as outlined by the delegate of the US. We feel that this measure will enhance our national preparedness in arriving at better-informed decisions regarding the importation of a particular type of pesticides.
Finally, having said this, my delegation wishes to affirm that it is in total agreement with the spirit of the resolution before us. The resolution has emphasized the need for "prior informed consent" and we wholeheartedly accept the amendment as an essential input into the decision-making process affecting pesticide importation. However, it is the contention of my delegation that the proposed amendment does not seem at this time to go far enough to accommodate all the necessary safeguards needed for the effective implementation of the Code as amended. It seems to us, therefore, that the resolution would better serve our interests if it were pidgeon-holed and introduced at the 25th Session of the FAO Conference. The postponement would enable the international community to put in place certain safeguards which would make the resolution more workable and meaningful.
Neil O. PIERRE (Guyana): My delegation would like to commend the excellent manner in which the matter under consideration has been presented to the Commission.
The question of the distribution and use of pesticides is of major concern to my country. It is an established fact that the majority of developing country farmers and peoples at large are at greater risk of being affected by the misuse of dangerous pesticides and chemicals, for one reason: the levels of education and awareness, including the dissemination of information are infortunately lower than those of developed countries. In addition, our governments are by and large poorly equipped with limited resources for effectively monitoring the importation and use of such goods.
My country's recent experience attests to this limitation and to the potential dangers involved in the importations and use of dangerous pesticides. This experience relates to the importation of a pesticide, the use of which had been effectively outlawed in most developed countries, but the manufacture and export of which still continued. The risk to life and the environment was significant in this case and grave danger was only averted in a very timely way.
My delegation therefore welcomes the introduction of the Code and endorses the attempt at strengthen-ing it in the resolution now before us. We are aware of the need in many developing countries to strengthen the administrative and technical capacities to implement the Code, including the "prior informed consent" clause. We urge that the appropriate mechanisms be implemented to assist in the effective introduction of the Code, including the PIC.
The amendment would, in our view, require notification of the importing country by the exporting country, in the case of banned or severely restricted pesticides. The impact of this on the GATT would to our mind, involve the extension of similar treatment to other countries wishing to export or import the commodity. The GATT mechanisms for this are already in place, but in any event are overridden by the moral and humanitarian concerns which are at issue. My delegation is therefore in full support of the proposed resolution.
Leif FORVELL (Norway): On behalf of the four Nordic Countries, Denmark, Finland, Sweden and my own country, Norway, I should like to present a formal proposal for consideration by this Commission. As outlined in my intervention earlier in this debate, the Nordic countries support the suggestion that the principle of "prior informed consent" should be amended into the Code of Conduct on Pesticides. Furthermore, I also stated that the Nordic countries were ready to accept the proposed text of the amendment in Article 9.3. The condition for our support, however, was that the Conference should reach a general consensus on this matter.
Unfortunately our debate already clearly shows that it is not possible to reach such a consensus. With this background and along the lines of what several delegations have mentioned in their statements, we should like to propose three paragraphs which would replace the last paragraph in the resolution before us from "AmendsArticle 9.3" on. I would now like to read but our specific proposal for the amendment to the resolution concerning the Code of Conduct: "Emphasizesthat in the Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides the principle of Prior Informed Consent should be incorporated.
"Emphasizes, however, the need for further collection of experiences on the implementation of the Code of Conduct before making specific amendments.
"Calls uponthe FAO Secretariat to arrange for the establishment of a working group for technical consideration of the principle of Prior Informed Consent, and that the results of the work should be presented through the COAG and the Council to the 25th FAO Conference."
I shall be happy to provide the Secretariat with a copy of our proposal.
Ismaël DIAZ YUBERO (España): Muchas gracias, señor Presidente. Voy a procurar ser muy breve. Estamos a favor de la capacitación de expertos para adecuar la legislación y controlar las importaciones. Apoyamos la formación de técnicos de los países en vías de desarrollo en forma de cursos. Apoyamos el diálogo y la creación del comité de expertos. Apoyamos todo lo que sea necesario para una mayor información. Pero, además de eso, apoyamos también la resolución.
Consideramos que no es aceptable que ninguna de estas cosas a las que nos hemos referido antes - y que estamos dispuestos a apoyar - sufran cualquier clase de retraso. No debe ser motivo de retraso algo que consideramos necesario y urgente.
Podemos aprobar la resolución en la redacción actual o, si es necesario, proceder a modificaciones o posibles fórmulas que pudiesen llevarnos a un consenso. En cualquier caso, lo que sí apoyamos claramente, señor Presidente, es la cláusula PIC.
Javed MUSHARRAF (Pakistan): We merely want to add our voice to what has already been said by many delegates. Our government attached the highest priority to the implementation of the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides. However, like many other developing countries we also have practical problems in actually implementing the Code, arising from lack of infrastructure, trained personnel and so on.
We therefore welcome all assistance to overcome these constraints, both multilateral assistance with FAO and so on, as well as bilateral assistance such as Japan and the United States have been willing to offer, as was announced by their delegation in their interventions today.
Regarding any amendments to the Code of Conduct, specifically the draft resolution by Zambia, Venezuela, Philippines and Colombia on the inclusion of the principle of Prior Informed Consent in the Code, my government will be considering this issue and this resolution in much greater detail before adopting perhaps a more formal position on it.
Nevertheless, after listening to the various delegations in the last two hours, our delegation can exercise at least that much of plenipotentiary power in expressing our opinion on this matter. Our delegation supports the resolution and the very detailed and well argued statements made by the sponsors of the resolution, Venezuela, Philippines, Colombia and Zambia, especially the multilingual intervention of the delegate of Venezuela.
We believe that one does not have to be against pesticides in order to recognize their hazards or place a high value on human health and life. For a decade or so there has been in place a growing awakening and a sort of disequilibrium in thinking on this issue. Whereas previously we were swamped in our thinking about pesticides being the main method of plant protection we have now moved towards a more balanced view which we can call a new equilibrium towards integrated pest management.
The adoption of this Code itself is a manifestation of a move towards a new equilibrium, development of a national capabilities, and so on. This very proposal, that is to amend the Code and incorporate the principle of Prior Informed Consent, is itself a move towards that new equilibrium. It is in fact perhaps an inevitable move towards an inevitable new equilibrium in thinking on this entire new subject. Therefore, everything should be done by the international community to facilitate the move towards this new equilibrium in our thinking and in our practice.
It was heartening to see that over the last few days or weeks, many countries, including industrial ones, have revised their opinions on the subject, it seems. We note especially the statements of the Netherlands, the Nordic countries and Australia in this respect.
However, it has been said that this might be a premature move, premature not only in time but also in content. Considering the matter I think we are swayed by what was said by the delegate of the Philippines as regards its prematurity in time I think he quoted verbatim from the previous contents in which it was brought out that the previous Conference had decided that revisions would be considered within this biennium, so we doubt whether in fact this whole issue is premature in time.
As regards its prematurity in content, it has been said by at least one delegate that the Prior Informed Consent is actually no substitute for the safety systems. That may be true. In that sense perhaps it is putting the cart before the horse. Before actually we adopt the safety systems, adopting this amendment may not carry us too far. Perhaps that is the thrust of the argument. In this respect, we would like to suggest that sometimes it is necessary to put the cart before the horse. Sometimes, to put the cart before the horse gives an incentive and spurs the horse to move faster. This seems to be such a case. In comparison with the existing system of mere notification, prior consent, not just notification, in fact would spur the horse to move forward in the sense that if you only have notification it is like saying you can knock at the door and enter - the sort of doors we have in FAO - whereas if you have prior informed consent you knock and wait to be asked to enter. That seems to be significant because then the person opening the door is forced to look through the spy glass, as it where, and examine the person who is entering, assess him and then decide. That very act of being forced to look through spurs some sort of activity of assessing and appraising. That if the sort of activity which is lacking in our countries.
The whole point I am making is that by putting the cart before the horse you will in fact be giving an incentive and a spur to certain developments in the developing countries whereby the system of safety can, in fact, be put in place; so that here putting the cart before the horse maybe a good thing.
The side effects have been mentioned, especially the trade effect, the destruction of trade and so on. The delegate of Venezuela made two very pertinent comments in this respect, when he said that the amendment does not prohibit trade, and secondly that not all pesticides are affected. Perhaps we might want to know what percentage of pesticides are going to be affected. If it is a very small percentage, and the very harmful ones constitute a small percentage, the trade argument is weakened thereby to that extent.
It is not just a question of trade but of trade versus health. If you attach greater value to health and life, and if there is discrimination against trade there can be also discrimination against health and we have to choose between the two. We were reminded by the delegate of the Philippines that even in developed countries some hazards cannot be guarded against, and that argument is even stronger for developing countries.
Finally, as regards GATT, we are not the body to be very clear about GATT rules, but perhaps we could be enlightened by the appropriate forum or by the Secretariat whether this does not really violate GATT rules. If it does violate GATT rules, how many other rules of GATT have been violated, left and right, and for what purpose? This is another issue that we might keep in mind in order to have a balanced view on this.
Haris ZANNETIS (Cyprus): Let me first express my delegation's satisfaction with the steps taken by the Secretariat in relation to the implementation of the Code. We are also grateful to Mr Bonte-Friedheim for his detailed introduction to the matter.
The Prior Informed Consent clause is of paramount importance, as is indeed the exchange of precise information. Keeping in mind the voluntary nature of the Code, unanimous agreement is also important if all parties concerned will cooperate in accordance with the provision of the Code.
As is obvious from the discussion here, the time is not yet ripe for the introduction of this concept in the Code if we are to insist on the unanimity which was reached in the 1985 Conference. Therefore, my delegation supports the idea that we should discuss any changes or revisions of the Code in the forthcoming Conference.
Sra. Delia CHEVALIER VILLAMONTE (Panama): Gracias, señor Presidente. Antes que nada, señor, pido excusas a la sala por hacer uso de la palabra en hora tan tardía, pero debíamos cumplir con la re-presentación en la Comisión III.
Ante todo, señor Presidente, deseamos agradecer al señor Bonte-Friedheim su clara presentación del tema.
La delegación de Panamá considera que el tema en examen es fundamental para el control y protección del medio ambiente, así como también en sus repercusiones en la salud humana. Por ello unimos nuestra voz a las de otras delegaciones que se han expresado en este sentido. El problema de la protección vegetal y animal es cada vez mayor y lo será aún más en la medida que se intensifique la producción agropecuaria.
A tal propósito y en virtud de que el incremento de la producción de alimentos es un objetivo prio-ritario para nuestro país y otros muchos países en desarrollo, la utilización de insumos agrícolas, tales como los plaguicidas, adquiere una particular relevancia.
En este sentido mi delegación es favorable a todos aquellos aspectos que se relacionan con los procedimientos propios para el control y la regulación de la fabricación, uso y distribución de los plaguicidas.
Tal como hemos manifestado en otras ocasiones, al referirnos al Código internacional de conducta para la distribución y utilización de plaguicidas, reiteramos nuestro apoyo al mismo.
Es conocido que en las exportaciones de plaguicidas al tercer mundo se envían productos químicos tóxicos, prohibidos, restringidos o retirados del mercado por parte del país productos al ser considerados no sólo tóxicos para la salud humana o animal, sino también por afectar peligrosamente al medio ambiente al contaminar suelo, agua y aire.
Por ello, consideramos que dicho Código de conducta no puede ser completo y realista mientras no se introduzca el principio de consentimiento e información previo conocido por sus siglas en inglés "PIC".
En este contexto manifestamos nuestro apoyo total y decidido al proyecto de resolución presentado por Venezuela y otros países con las modificaciones indicadas por la delegación de Brasil.
De igual manera, señor Presidente, deseamos resaltar los aspectos contenidos en el párrafo 4 del LIM/25 y que se refieren a la necesidad de que la FAO prosiga manteniendo la cooperación estrecha con los otros organismos del sistema de las Naciones Unidas que se ocupan de este importante tema.
Para terminar, manifestamos nuestro acuerdo con la necesidad de dar un seguimiento continuo y eficaz al Código en cuestión a fin de supervisar su cumplimiento y efectuar las revisiones periódicas que sirvan para adaptarlo a la evolución de las condiciones tecnológico-ambientales de los servicios económicos internacionales.
Magalela NGWENYA (Swaziland): I too must apologise for taking the floor so late, but I had to go to Commission III.
I wish to associate my delegation with the sentiments of other delegations in respect to the presentation of the implementation of the Code of Conduct. We consider that the implementation of this Code is very important in view of the environmental factors.
Secondly, I should like to put on record my delegation's strong support for the resolution now before us. In our view, the resolution is appropriate both in time and in content, and we fully support it.
Horacio CARANDANG (Philippines): I have not been here all afternoon to listen to all the arguments but I understand that some people are saying it is premature to adopt the Code because it is a voluntary Code. Therefore, we have to wait for a consensus. Everything in FAO is voluntary. All decisions that we make in FAO, like the Food Security one, are voluntary. If we have to wait for everybody to agree to this I think we shall wait till Doomsday. Two years ago we said it would be this year; now it is already the second year and we say wait for another two years, but if after two years they again tell us it is voluntary and let us wait for an absolute consensus, we will never introduce any amendments to this Code of the kind that is being produced now. I do not think that this is a valid argument. I think we should request all those who have reservations about this Code to agree to the adoption of this resolution, and if they are required by their governments to enter reservations, I wish they could do so in the interests of sustainable agriculture and in the higher interests of the safe use of pesticides, which I think is the primary objective of the Code.
Number two, some people are saying that we must have adequate infrastructure in the countries to implement the Code before prior informed consent is included. If we have to wait for that, then it will probably take another generation and by that time prior informed consent will be no longer necessary perhaps. As the survey conducted by FAO indicated, 46 or 48 percent of African countries did not have that kind of infrastructure. All over the world 26 percent did not have that kind of infrastructure. If we have to wait for all of those countries to put such infrastructure in place, by that time this Code probably will be obsolete, because we will need another kind of code to renew the environment, not to protect the environment. And probably we would need another resolution on how to reclaim the environment after our lakes, our rivers, our water reserves, our water tables have been poisoned by pesticides.
I think that is the primary consideration. I do not think this is a valid argument because the inclusion of prior informed consent would help, in my honest opinion, the establishment of the needed infrastructures for the implementation of the Code.
With regard to trade, the delegate of Pakistan has already presented the arguments in favour of this but this does not mean that once this is implemented that countries will discriminate against those that have banned pesticides, against those that have not banned pesticides in their own territory. I think that if countries have determined that inside their own countries that pesticides are banned or restricted, they know that they are also going to be harmful to the citizens of other countries. Therefore, they should have the courtesy, the humanity and the morality to at least inform the importing countries that the pesticides they are importing have been banned in the country of manu-facture. Therefore, are they agreeable to accepting the pesticides. It is like a shipment of arms, time bombs; nobody can send explosives or materials that can have a double effect. It could be useful, it could be harmful, but everybody should be conscious of the effects of these things. These are not apples, these are not regular merchandise but, as you know, are like dangerous arms that can be used for good or can be harmful. I think countries will take the same attitude once they are aware of the harmful effects of pesticides, and then would not be discriminatory because they would apply the same rules for all countries and not discriminate against the trade of one country or another.
Therefore, I plead with all Members to accept the resolution as tabled so that we can go ahead and take the appropriate decision now and not postpone it forever.
CHAIRMAN: Does the representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran wish to speak for a second time? Grenada has also indicated a wish to speak. Following those interventions shall we close the list of speakers or continue the debate?
I am now closing the list after the intervention of the following: Iran, Grenada, Colombia and Venezuela.
Hamid Reza NIKKAR ESFAHANI (Iran, Islamic Republic of): I am so sorry that my delegation is taking the floor for a second time but I want to intervene again to support what has been said by the delegate of the Philippines, and urge all governments to support the resolution that has been
presented by several countries to the Commission.
In supporting this resolution, I wish to ask the Secretariat if it is possible to give us some up-to-date information concerning Article 11 of the Code.
Denis NOEL (Grenada): I regret intervening at this late stage but I cannot help but thank the Secretariat for the presentation of its report on the progress being made.
I would like to add my delegation's voice in support of the draft resolution being presented by the delegations of Colombia, the Philippines, Venezuela and Zambia.
My delegation feels that FAO must be seen to be a dynamic and flexible organization. We must be able to respond swiftly to issues, particularly where lives are at risk daily. My delegation feels that immediate action to save users of pesticides in the developing countries from unnecessary exposure must be taken and must not be subjected to the technical procedure being advanced against the amend-ment to this Code, which is being proposed in this resolution.
My delegation, therefore, wishes to support the draft resolution with the hope that a consensus can be reached.
Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Brevísimo Sr. Presidente. Sobre todo porque la última intervención del distinguido colega de Granada confirma la opinión mayoritaria de la Comisión. Pero estoy seguro de interpretar el sentimiento de los cinco países que hemos propuesto este Proyecto de Resolución al decir que no es nuestro interés ni el de la Comunidad Internacional, el tratar de imponer abruptamente por mayoría unas ideas que, si bien están dirigidas a beneficiar a países en desarrollo, son de interés general.
Por ello, quisiéramos dar una muestra de buena voluntad, de comprensión, y sobre todo de atención a los argumentos que han expresado algunos colegas, sobre todo los Países Nórdicos. Quisiéramos hacer una propuesta concreta basada en los tres puntos que han hecho los Países Nórdicos acogiendo el último de estos tres puntos, y complementándolo con la referencia al COAG que hizo nuestro colega GRABISH de la República Federal de Alemania, porque pensamos que el COAG falta en la tercera parte de la proposición nórdica.
Nuestra propuesta consiste en los siguiente; agregar un párrafo que diga así; agregar a este texto de la Resolución un párrago que diga así: "Se pide al Director General la creación de un Grupo de Expertos que analicen la repercusión de la inclusión del PIC en el Código para que trate de armonizar la introducción de esa disposición con las disposiciones que al respecto se adopten en el PNUMA, en el GATT e inclusive en la Comunidad Económica Europea y en todos los demás organismos en donde se trate de este asunto."
Ese grupo de Expertos informará al COAG en su próxima sesión; el COAG, se reúne cada dos anos, al Consejo y luego el Consejo presentará un Informe al respecto a la Conferencia de 1989.
Esto permitirá abrir un compás, un margen de protección a los países en desarrollo y al mismo tiempo, luego armonizar esas disposiciones para atender, repito, los argumentos expresados por. algunos colegas que son muy respetables y que merecen nuestra atención y respeto.
Srta. Marina BRICEÑO ZEHL (Venezuela): Entiendo muy bien su llamado por una intervención breve.
En realidad, yo quería mencionar aquí algunos puntos en respuesta a los planteamientos que han hecho las delegaciones que se oponen a la inclusión del principio PIC y a esta Resolución.
Creo que en este momento quizás no sea necesario. Me conformaría con que se adopte, y en esto apoyo lo dicho por el Embajador de Colombia, en este momento con que se adopte la Resolución con la enmien-da propuesta por Colombia, de la creación de un Grupo de Expertos que armonicen la incorporación de PIC y la implementación de PIC con lo que saldrá de la reunión de expertos del PNUMA. Sobre todo, ésta ha sido la preocupación principal, ya que nosostros seguimos teniendo muchas dudas sobre la in-consistencia de este principio con las disposiciones del GATT.
Pero de todas maneras queremos abrir la posibilidad. Queremos responder a las dudas que aquí se han expresado. Creemos que en realidad, además existe un consenso alrededor del principio PIC y aquí se ha expresado un consenso.
Nadie ha dicho que está en contra del principio PIC. Lo que se ha dicho es que es prematuro, o que habría que ver cómo incorporarlo técnicamente. Por lo tanto, creo que hay un consenso sobre la inclusión del principio PIC en el Código.
Se puede tratar de resolver los problemas que las delegaciones han planteado con la propuesta de Colombia de un grupo de expertos que busque la armonización y la mejor manera de enmendar el Código; no de enmendarlo, quedaría enmendado, pero de incluir el principio PIC y de incorporarlo y de aplicarlo. Muchas gracias, por ahora.
CHAIRMAN: The discussion on this item is at an end.
C.H. BONTE-FRIEDHEIM (AssistantDirector-General, Department of Agriculture): I am sorry if I disap-point you and many others by not attempting to respond to over 50 speakers, who have given many very useful comments.
I think the discussion to the Secretariat shows the importance of the voluntary Code, the importance of pesticides today and, unfortunately, also in the future for agricultural production, the importance of safeguarding the health of people first and foremost, of life around us, of the total environment.
The role of the Secretariat is to implement the decisions of our governing bodies. We are waiting for those decisions in order to implement them. The role of the Secretariat in introducing the paper for discussion was to highlight various points of it. We have also said that we will in future cooperate closely with all other international organizations, national organizations, industry, and non-governmental organizations.
In the discussion there were really three points. One is that there was general praise and pride in the Code. We are pleased to note that it is not only the Secretariat which is proud of the Code, but it is the members who had pride in the adoption of the Code two years ago.
There seemed to be some misunderstanding by some who spoke with regard to the content of paragraphs 9.3 and 9.8. I would just like to read them. 9.3 says, "If an export of a banned or severely restricted pesticide occurs, the country of export should ensure that necessary steps are taken to provide the designated national authority of the country of import with relevant information". That is for those who, as exporters, adopted the Code - something they have to do.
On the importing countries' side, 9.8 says, "Governments of importing countries should: establish internal procedures for the receipt and handling of such information from the exporting country; - and ensure that such information received is not used in any manner which would be inconsistent with the provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)". That is the approved Code.
A second point I should like to make is that we are pleased with the general comments we heard about the progress made for farmers, not only in the implementation, but also with FAO following up with a questionnaire and trying to collect baseline datas
There is a third point I should like to make. This is really on a few specific questions, as well as where I have maybe been misunderstood with regards to my introduction. I do not think I have said that FAO believes that PIC is in contradiction to GATT. My statement says, "The Secretariat is also suggesting that the negotiations of the PIC clause into the Code should be preceded by consultations with GATT to ensure that the provisions are consistent with the principles". Therefore, we have not taken sides, either for or against.
Second, the delegate of Venezuela has taken me up on some of the statistics. I accept the criticism, but I would also say that if only sixty percent of a small group answer in one way, it does not mean that all the rest will answer the other way. One has to be very careful with all statistics, and I am the first to admit it.
With regard to my final clause in which I again quoted from the introduction to the Code itself, I should just like to make our point clear on the safety or fate of the pesticide under conditions. The delegate of the Philippines is quite correct, if you eat poison it makes no difference where you eat it and what the colour of your skin is or your gender or whatever. I think what this part means is something different; it means that under different conditions the residue increase or decrease is a different one, and that different pesticides react differently under those conditions. You might have a fast build-up under one climatic condition and a slow one under another. I just wanted to make that point for clarification.
With regard to Iran, some questions have been raised. Let me answer those. The Guidelines are not imposed, they are technical documents. The regional workshops which have been held have been in Asia and the Pacific, as well as Central America.
With regard to paragraph 11 of the Code, something is said about paragraph 30 in our report which is in front of you. I must admit - and I am willing to admit - that we are not very pleased either with paragraph 30 in our report because it is very skinny, it has very little meat in it, nor with the information we have. There is no doubt that a large number of non-governmental organizations have quite clearly pointed out that not everything is being done, and much more needs to be done. There is no doubt about it.
My final point is with regard to PIC. The Organization's Secretariat cannot, and will not, take a position on the various resolutions in front of you: I would like only to point out to members the difference between the discussions in 1985 and 1987. In November 1985 those who wanted to include the PIC in the Code were clearly in the majority. There was no doubt about it. It is so reported in the report of the Conference two years ago. They could have included it but they would not have had a consensus. There is very little change in that respect between 1985 and 1987. However, there is a very major change between two years ago and now, and I am glad that the delegates of Norway, as well as of Colombia have pointed this out. I think there are proposals for action in front of this Commission on how to proceed now. There was nothing two years ago on how to proceed with PIC. Now you have general agreement that something needs to be done, and you have proposals on how to do it. In our view, that is considerable progress on two years ago.
With that, Mr Chairman, I have one final comment: sitting here for a very interesting debate over a number of hours, I was very tempted to intervene very often, but, as Secretariat, I had to refrain from doing so.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, "Mr Bonte-Friedheim. Before we take up the resolutions which are now before us, with your permission I would make a few observations on the discussion which started this morning but which had to be interrupted for some time because of the roll call vote in Plenary. I regret the inconvenience which must have been caused to the delegates.
Forty-eight delegations, some of whom spoke twice, participated in the discussion. In addition, we have had nine delegations who have handed in their interventions for inclusion in the verbatim record. This nine does not include Mexico who made a brief intervention but gave their fuller text for incorporation in the verbatim record.
The discussion which we have had today has clearly brought out the dilemmas faced by all of us when we deal with pesticides, all of which involve inevitably a certain amount of risk. As has appropriately been compared by one of the delegates, the pesticides are comparable to lethal weapons which could be sources of protection but could also be sources of danger and damage. These have to be handled with due care and circumspection. The quantum of care and the type of precautions which we take in handling the lethal weapons or the pesticides will have to be modulated depending on the lethality of the weapons we are handling. Ideally speaking, if one were to imagine a situation, possibly in the field of agriculture, one would think of an agricultural scene without any pesticides, if only our scientists were capable of evolving in all the major crops varieties which are resistent to all pests. But we still seem to be far away from that.
The second ideal situation - assuming that the first one is not possible- is that we rely entirely on biological control so that we introduce the predators and, as far as possible, we avoid taking recourse to chemical pesticides.
In the third one, which is a reality with which all of us have to live, we try to have a situation where we deal with integrated pest management, for keeping constant surveillance and watch over the pest levels, and we try to introduce the pesticides only when that particular threshold, limit is crossed.
Now the real situation is that for certain crops the use of pesticides becomes inevitable and unavoidable. Whether the pesticides are of the banned variety - although it is paradoxical that a banned variety should also be used - or are of a severely restricted variety, or any other category, it is clear that certain precautions are in order and are called for. Training is essential, regulation is needed for all these pesticides. Possibly in the developing countries we should also ensure that the farmer is not taken for a ride by being sold pesticides whose time and validity has expired, but
that is another story.
About what our policy should be in relation to pesticides which are not banned or severely restricted. there is absolutely no controversy. However, when we deal with the pesticides which are banned, or whose use is severely restricted in the originating countries, the discussion has indicated that there is no unanimity. When this question is posed, either in ethical or moral terms, as some of the delegates have done, PIC looks as if it is unavoidable; indeed it is desirable and must be brought in.
However, on the other side, on pragmatic considerations it has been urged that doing it rapidly in relation to a voluntary Code possibly may not be desirable. Should we rush in the incoroporation of the PIC in what is essentially a voluntary code or should we hasten slowly? This really is the question. While there is unanimity about the need for introducing PIC, the debate seemed to be whether we should have it here and now, or, while agreeing in principle now, should we try to have it so that it is introduced at the next Conference. Against this background, we now have two approaches which are placed before us. These were sought to be harmonized towards the end of the debate by the delegates from Colombia and Venezuela. This would seem to indicate that, while Commission I is of the view that PIC needs to be introduced and written into the Code on pesticides, the modalities of doing it should be decided after the Director-General has conducted a consultation with the experts, and the procedures, and modalities are finalized through COAG and the respective committees of the Council of FAO, and then will finally come before the next Conference. If that viewpoint is generally agreed, then I would suggest that a suitable resolution incorporating this approach should be worked out by the Drafting Committee in consultation with the Nordic countries on the one hand, and the other four countries which have sponsored the resolution.
Another alternative is that we try to finalize a draft here. The third alternative is that we vote on the drafts as they are placed before us.
The matter is open for dicussion.
Srta. Marina BRICEÑO ZEHL (Venezuela): Señor Presidente, es para aclarar una duda que tengo porque puede ser que yo lo haya entendido mal, pero la propuesta de Colombia, apoyada por Venezuela, es de que se adopte, se incluya, el principio PIC en el Código ahora; es decir que existe consenso en que el principio PIC es necesario, pero que las modalidades de su inclusión, de su incorporación y su implementación práctica serán determinadas por un grupo de expertos, o por consultas técnicas - llámelo como quiera, lo podemos discutir aquí y determinar cuáles pueden ser - de manera que se armonicen estas disposiciones con las del PNUMA, ya que el PNUMA va a discutir en marzo cómo incorporar el principio PIC, que el PNUMA ya ha aceptado, y cómo lo va a incorporar en sus directivas Después el Código, enmendado ya, pasará al COAG, al Consejo y a la Conferencia para información, dicusión, ulterior debate o lo que sea preciso.
Si yo entendí bien - la delegación de Colombia estoy segura de que sí - estaríamos adoptando el
PIC.Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Las indicaciones dela distinguida colega Marina Briceño de Venezuela interpretaron adecuadamente mi propuesta. Usted, como siempre, hizo un excelente resumen pero, con mucho respeto, quisiera decirle que tuve la impresión de que su interpretación personal del debate contrasta con la opinión de la gran mayoría de los miembros de la Comisión. Por eso pedimos la palabra, porque si hubiéramos aceptado sus conclusiones no habría ni siquiera necesidad de haber pasado a discutir el proyecto de resolución que ha sido ampliamente aprobado por la gran mayoría, repito, de los miembros de esta Comisión.
Señor Presidente, hemos hecho una propuesta de compromiso y hemos pedido la comprensión y la coope-ración de todos los demás miembros de la Comisión; pensamos que podemos lograr el consenso en torno a la propuesta nuestra, que recoge el tercer párrafo de la propuesta nórdica, que es la parte más constructiva, señor Presidente. Quisiéramos que usted preguntara a la Comisión si los demás miembros aceptarían esta propuesta de compromiso que, repetimos, está dirigida a lograr el consenso. Hemos demostrado que somos mayoría, pero no nos interesa imponernos por el número, señor Presidente, sino por la solidez, la consistencia y el fundamento de nuestros argumentos. ¡Ojalá que usted entienda señor Presidente, que la adopción de este proyecto de resolución, con la adición del tercer párrafo de la propuesta nórdica, representa un compromiso, y a nuestro juicio ofrece por lo menos un margen de seguridad a la comunidad internacional en el sentido de que si todos estamos convencidos de que hay que introducir el PIC no estaremos perdiendo el tiempo! Le ruego me excuse, señor Presidente, pero necesitaba decir esto con franqueza y claridad.
CHAIRMAN: May I have your permission to state what I understand the position to be? The resolution stands as in Appendix C, with whatever modifications that have been suggested by Brazil, with the addition of a paragraph towards the end which, in a sense, will be the third paragraph of the resolution proposed by Norway on behalf of the Nordic countries. Is my interpretation right?
Srta. Marina BRICEÑO ZEHL (Venezuela): Estamos de acuerdo con lo que usted acaba de decir, pero ha pasado tanto tiempo desde que la escuchamos, que nos gustaría volver a oír la formulación del tercer párrafo de la propuesta de Noruega. Gracias.
CHAIRMAN: Since I have a copy, may I read it out? The proposal would be that at the end of Appendix C, after whatever changes were made during the course of the morning's discussion, this paragraph should be added: "Calls upon the FAO Secretariat to arrange for the establishment of a working group for technical consideration of the principle of Prior Informed Consent and that the results of the work should be presented, through the COAG and the Council, to the 25th Conference."
Srta. Marina BRICEÑO ZEHL (Venezuela): Discúlpeme señor Presidente por tomar la palabra tantas veces pero tenía razón, en tener tantas dudas. La idea fundamental contenida en el párrafo 3 de la propues-ta de Noruega nos es perfectamente aceptable, y así lo hemos dicho; es decir para que la inclusion del principio PIC sea una inclusion realmente eficaz, racional y armonizada con la forma en la cual este principio se ha incluido en otras organizaciones internacionales, creemos conveniente convocar un grupo de trabajo, como lo ha propuesto la delegación de Noruega. Con lo que no estamos de acuerdo es con que la delegación de Noruega me parece que implica que esto es un procedimiento previo a la adopción del principio PIC, la cual se llevará a cabo en la próxima Conferencia dentro de dos años. Nosotros hemos invertido el orden; nosotros estamos adoptando ahora el PIC, y para llegar a un com-promiso con las delegaciones que han expresado dudas acerca de cómo se podría hacer eficazmente, estamos proponiendo la creación de este grupo de trabajo. Gracias señor Presidente.
CHAIRMAN: It is not quite clear to me as to what stage we are at in the debate. Shall we do the drafting here, or shall we refer it to a small group? If the intention is that we write in the PIC now and also incorporate the suggestion in paragraph three of the Nordic proposal, one way could be that we should straight away decide that this is the one and request the Secretariat to finalize the draft. Have we consensus that the resolution as in Appendix C, as amended by Brazil, stands, with the addition of a last paragraph which will incorporate this particular suggestion of a working group for working on the modalities to come through COAG and Council to the next Conference?
Srta. Marina BRICEÑO ZEHL (Venezuela): Señor Presidente, no lo entiendo bien; no me parece que cabe la consideración de este párrafo en estos términos para la consideración de COAG, Consejo y Conferen-cia; o sea, el resultado enmendado con la inclusión del principio PIC con las modalidades que serán determinadas por el grupo de trabajo será sencillamente presentado luego a COAG, Consejo y Conferencia. No es que COAG, Consejo y Conferencia tengan después que debatir si aceptarlo o no -se está aceptando aquí-, sino que se informará y será presentado luego el resultado concreto a COAG, Consejo y Conferencia. Así lo entiendo yo. Gracias.
CHAIRMAN: May I request the delegate of Colombia to favour me with his views and his interpretation?
Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Señor Presidente, yo concuerdo perfectamente con la colega de Venezuela y creo también -y esto lo digo de manera muy humilde y respetuosa- que el silencio de la sala parece coincidir con la acción positiva y constructiva de los Países Nórdicos, señor Presidente. Bastaría simplemente, después del texto actual del proyecto de resolución, agregar lo que han propuesto como párrafo tercero los Países Nórdicos. Lo puedo redactar rápidamente porque los Países Nórdicos ya lo han hecho: "Se pide al Director General la creación de un grupo de expertos para que analice las implicaciones de la introducción del PIC en el Código y trate de armonizar esa disposición con los resultados de actividades en el PNUMA, en el GATT y en los demás organismos que se ocupen de estos asuntos." Yo creo que está todo claro, señor Presidente, y es un compromiso que debe aparecer en la secuencia en que lo ha indicado nuestra colega Marina Briceño, de Venezuela.
Wolfgang A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of): It was not possible for me to note down the text of what is proposed. You went too fast. I should be glad to have it in writing. I should particularly like to see the Nordic proposal in writing. The important point is that we think we should proceed the other way round. We should first consider the whole issue. Whether it is a working group that does it or COAG or whatever, the whole matter must be studied and analysed as regards its feasibility and its implications in general. Only after this consideration can we decide whether to incorporate this principle in the existing Code. If we do it now, we are putting the cart before the horse.
CHAIRMAN: As far as I could make out, the deliniations of the speakers and their viewpoints in the consideration of the discussion were clear: the majority supported the resolution tabled. What we are now trying to find out is some sort of a median which meets the approval of everybody. If it meets with the approval of the house, I would suggest a ten to fifteen minute recess so that the delegates who have sponsored this, along with the delegates from the Nordic countries, could get together and work out an agreed draft. We could then meet after fifteen minutes to clear it for voting or approval.
Emile DETRAUX (Belgique): Je pense tout de même qu'il faut dire de façon très claire, dès à présent, qu'il nous est extrêmement difficile, voire impossible, d'accepter la voie préconisée par le Venezuela et la Colombie. Je pense que ce qui a été dit par la RFA nous agrée entièrement et par conséquent, nous ne pouvons accepter le renversement des propositions.
John COOK (United States of America): The United States would have to agree with what the delegates from the Federal Republic of Germany and Belgium have just said. It seems impossible for us to adopt this measure into the Code and for us to go back to our countries and proceed to implement this measure when the delegates from Venezuela and Colombia and the Nordic group seem to be agreeing that there need to be further studies of the modalities of this implementation, yet at the same time we have the Code with the PIC provision included already and, as of the day that we adopt it, it is in effect. How are we to proceed? We would support the reverse way whereby we would study the modality before adopting the provision.
Patrick O'QUIN (France): Je serai extrêmement bref. Je suis parfaitement d'accord avec les décla-rations précédentes, il paraît plus logique de s'intéresser aux modalités d'application avant d'appliquer ces modalités. Cela me paraît une question de bon sens.
Omoefe James OYAIDE (Nigeria): I think we are going back again to the same debate. Degelates are putting the points that they made before. I had thought that we where making progress when the Chairman summarized what looked like the train of discussion and made some attempt to bring together the two resolutions. I think that is a better way to proceed than to reopen the debate. I think we shall have to look at whether or not we should accept the resolution now and later on think about the third clause in the Nordic proposal. I think the Chairman's earlier suggestion that some break is called for to allow the two delegations to look at the possibility of marrying the two resolutions so that we can move forward is a valid one, otherwise we shall be repeating the debate, everybody having their own position.
Raúl LOPEZ LIRA (Mexico): Gracias, señor Presidente. Intervengo solamente para apoyar la propuesta que se ha dado en este momento, ya que, de no ser así, vamos a tener que volver a abrir el debate.
Tenía entendido que habíamos llegado a un consenso y quisiéramos respetar esa posición y no alargar más la cosa. Muchas gracias.
Srta. Marina BRICEÑO ZEHL (Venezuela): Gracias, señor Presidente. Creo que las dos delegaciones que me han precedido han sido hasta demasiado gentiles. ¿Qué estamos haciendo y hablando aquí? No estamos jugando. Este es un argumento sumamente serio y nosotros debemos ser personas serias y honestas. No estamos jugando al ratón y al gato. Nosotros hemos escuchado el debate y hay una gran mayoría de de-legados que piden que este principio se incluya en el Código, que lo pidieron ya en 1985 cuando se adoptó el Código, y renunciaron a ello en aras de un consenso y porque creían en este Código y siguen creyendo en él. ¿Qué estamos haciendo aquí? Tenemos que llegar a una conclusion. La mayoría se ha expresado en una dirección; un numero de países -tienen el derecho de hacerlo- se han opuesto a la resolución dando ciertos argumentos. Nosotros estamos sencillamente respondiendo a estos argumentos y tratando de llegar a un compromiso, y ahora se nos dice que no se quiere cumplir. ¿Qué es lo que se quiere? Yo creo que lo más sensato, señor Presidente, es que se haga lo que usted ha dicho, el receso, que se trate de considerar la manera de formular el segundo nuevo párrafo de la resolución, cuya aceptación creo no debería presentar ninguna dificultad para todas las delegaciones presentes.
Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Señor Presidente, para facilitar su trabajo apoyo plenamente lo que ha dicho Venezuela.
CHAIRMAN: I suggest that we have a recess and reassemble at 7.30 p.m. Meanwhile I would request delegations to hold consultations in order to arrive at a consensus which we could be asked to considet.
The meeting was suspended from 19.15 to 20.15 hours
La séance est suspendue de 19 h 15 à 20 h 15
Se suspende la sesión de las 19.15 a las 20.15 horas
CHAIRMAN: The meeting is reconvened. During the recess there have been consultations. Would any of the delegates who participated in the consultations inform us if there has been any progress in reaching a consensus on an agreed resolution?
Leif FORVELL (Norway): The Nordic countries would like to withdraw our first proposal and then sub-mit an alternative amendment to the resolution that we are discussing.
Our proposal is to delete the last paragraph from Article 9.3 onward. Our amendment is:
Decides that in the Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticidesthe principle of Prior Informed Consent should be incorporated;
Calls upon the FAO Secretariat to arrange for the establishment of a working group to consider the issues involved in the incorporation of PIC in the Code, including those of implementation, in order to advise member countries on how best to give effect to the principle.
The results of the work should be presented to the COAG and the Council and the Twenty-fifth Conference.
CHAIRMAN: I presume that all delegates are aware of the changes that have been made as a result of the discussions. The solution before us for consideration as presented by the delegate of Norway is to make some changes in the draft resolution under consideration. The resolution as proposed is that PIC would be incorporated in the Code and that the Secretariat would arrange the establishment of a working group to consider the issues involved in incorporating PIC in the Code in order to advise the members. In brief, that is the proposal.
Are there any reactions to this?
John COOK (United States of America): The United States would consider this proposal to have some promising aspects but there is one minor change that I would suggest.
This is because it appears to create somewhat of a contradiction in the phrasing as it is right now. That change would be in the first sentence, in which we would substitute the words "could" for the word "should". The reason we make this suggestion is that, by stating "should" there seems to be a contradiction, because if we have already decided that it "should" be incorporated, then why are we still studying it? Our position is that it "could" be incorporated if, after sufficient study is given to the matter, convincing arguments can be proposed by the expert group which does the study, that in fact this would be the best course of action. We would suggest substituting the word "could" for the word "should".
Srta. Marina BRICEÑO ZEHL (Venezuela): Gracias, señor Presidente. Cuando el delegado de Estados Unidos comenzó a hablar, realmente se me abrió el corazón. Creía que estábamos llegando a un acuer- do y cuando él propuso su enmienda de cambiar la palabra "should" por "could", si hubiese habido un argumento realmente razonable y aceptable a favor de esta enmienda, no hubiéramos tenido ningún in-conveniente en aceptarla. No entendemos la explicación de tal enmienda, y tal como está no creemos que esto refleje lo que se ha dicho aquí durante el debate de este tema. El delegado de Estados Unidos está diciendo que será este grupo de trabajo el que decidirá si es posible y conveniente incluir el principio PIC en el Código. No es ese punto. El principio PIC ya está aceptado que debe ser incluido; nadie se ha pronunciado en oposición al principio PIC. Lo que estamos tratanto de hacer es incluirlo de una forma técnicamente sana, razonable y eficaz.
Nosotros no somos expertos en la materia. Lo que queremos es dar una oportunidad a las personas que saben del tema para encontrar la manera mejor de incluirlo, la manera efectiva, la manera racional de incluir el principio. Esto es lo que el grupo de trabajo debe considerar, además naturalmente, de las modalidades de implementación y de asesorar a los Estados Miembros acerca de cómo mejor implementarlo. Gracias, señor Presidente.
T.F.F. MALUZA (Zambia): The amendment proposed by Norway is acceptable to my delegation, although we fell it is a very weakened version of the original. However, in view of the consensus, we do agree.
The proposal of the delegation of the United States is not acceptable. The majority of the members of this Conference who have spoken on the subject have actually accepted the principle of informative consent. That is accepted. What we are saying now is that this should be in. What we do not know is the technicality of the issues at stake. As the delegate of Venezuela has said, we are not technicians. We have technicians who come later to see how this proposal could actually be put into effect. Therefore we do not accept the amendment of the delegation of the United States.
John COOK (United States of America): I really de not quite understand the delegate from Venezuela in stating that the principle of PIC has already been included in the Code. My understanding is that that is what we have been discussing all afternoon, and a number of countries have expressed their reservations on that question. In fact, as I remember what has been expressed this afternoon, none of the countries has categorically said that the principle of PIC should never be included in the Code, but those of us who are not prepared at the present time to adopt it into the Code have said that this is a matter which requires further study. If we state categorically that it should be included in the Code, then why are we studying it further? Our point is simply that we are willing to state that it "could" be included in the Code if, after further study by a group of experts, strong convincing reasons are presented that it is both workable and in the best interests of all member countries to have the principle included in the Code.
CHAIRMAN: As I understood the trend of the discussion during this afternoon, the Commission discussed Appendix 6 which contained a resolution which clearly specifies that PIC shall be incorporated in the Code of Conduct in a particular manner. The views expressed were that a majority of them were in favour of this incorporation. From this position, we are now coming to a compromise which has been hammered out, indicating the two paragraphs which have been presented by the delegate from Norway. The trend of the discussion, according to me, left us in no doubt about the viewpoint of the majority of the participants in the discussion, that PIC shall be incorporated. Since, at that time, we were discussing the resolution which was tabled by the four countries, it also specifically indicated the manner in which that incorporation should be effected.
Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Señor Presidente, deseamos expresar nuestro reconocimiento al distinguido colega de Noruega quien, a nombre de los países nórdicos, ha hecho un esfuerzo adicional que apreciamos. Usted, señor Presidente, interpretó muy bien el contenido de la declaración de la colega de Venezuela. Se trata de un hecho, de una realidad, señor Presidente, y lo que estamos pretendiendo es lograr un compromiso para que se refleje también la opinión de la minoría. Es decir, la propuesta nórdica, a nuestro juicio, tiene el mérito esencial de que, al tiempo que se introduce el PIC en el Código, garantiza que el efecto de esa introducción del PIC se logre de la manera más ordenada, razonable y técnica posible.
Creo sinceramente, señor Presidente, que éste es un compromiso y quisiéramos rogar al colega de Estados Unidos - y también a otros distinguidos y respetables miembros de la Comisión que pudieren no estar completamente satisfechos con la última propuesta nórdica - que nos acompañen en esto para que haya un consenso ya que el texto nórdico es equilibrado. Para nosotros, autores de la resolución, representa muchos pasos atrás. Sin embargo, estamos dispuestos a ceder para que todos trabajemos, en conjunto por el bien de la humanidad, señor Presidente.
Magalela NGWENYA (Swaziland): It is unfortunate that we have been here so long. I have to put it on record that my view is that we are taking an unnecessarily long time. We have been working out compromises. The break itself was a compromise. I think we must move forward. It is clear that the principle of PIC is accepted. Please let us move forward. I beg you, Sir, we must move forward.
Do not let us go back to our original positions. We have stated ours, and I feel that the process of justice and the aims of justice and democracy are defeated if you let people go back to their original statements. Theirs are known and ours are known. Let us move forward.
CHAIRMAN: May I point out that the process of compromise involves giving and taking. It is ultimately a question of moving from one's position to meet somewhere in between.
Horacio CARANDANG (Philippines): An amendment to the amendment put up by Norway has just been proposed, and it would seem that we are transferring the decision of putting the principle of Prior Informed Consent from sovereign countries represented here in this room, to a group of experts who will see whether it is technically viable or feasible. I do not know what, but other technical requirements would be needed. I think this is a proposition which is not only absurd, but illogical. Decisions like this have to be made by sovereign governments and not by a group of technicians. The question here is whether industries which are exporting pesticides which are banned in their own countries would be willing to ask the consent of their government as to whether they can be exported or not. I do not think this is too much to ask. It is a question of moving in a sense of civilization and humanity. I think we have to move forward. We have to move forward from the time when the prime consideration was gain and, therefore, slavery was legitimate, and all the other things which civilized people would now think were inhuman and unthinkable. I wish that those who are advocating such could make up their minds and join the majority for the sake of consensus.
CHAIRMAN: All of us are anxious to move forward, but unfortunately moving forward depends on the direction which you are facing when you start moving. Here we have a situation where there are two points of view which are facing in opposite directions. Our idea is to try to hammer out a compromise.
Wolfgang A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of) (original Language German): One of the
difficulties we have here seems to me to be the fact that we do not have a printed text, that notes we are taking may perhaps not be the whole text when it was read out. Therefore, I have a lot of understanding for what the delegate of the Philippines has just been saying. As I understood the text read out, it seems to me that it will be governments which take the decision at the next Conference, the Twenty-fifth session. Before that we now have the process of further consideration and the working out of the modalities and procedures, so that the sovereign state can take a decision in the full knowledge of all the implications of the introduction of this principle, hopefully by consensus.
Having said this, Sir, I should like, through you, to ask the delegate of Norway why he has dropped the part of his proposal that we had heard from him before the break that refers to the implications before specific proposals could be made.
Raúl LOPEZ LIRA (México): Realmente mi delegación lamenta todo este tiempo perdido por lo que veo. Se suspendió el debate para llegar a un compromiso; entendíamos que se había llegado a ese compromiso en donde cedíamos gran parte de nuestra posición. Y ahora vemos que se retoman los nuevos compromisos. Yo quisiera hablar a esas delegaciones para que aceptaran esta negociación a la cual se ha llegado, en donde hemos cedido de ambas partes nuestras posturas para tratar de lograr una solución.
Si alargamos esto, podemos estar aquí toda la noche, todo el día de mañana y el domingo y no vamos a llegar a ningún arreglo, que no es el caso, pues hay otras soluciones que no quisiera mencionarlas antes de ver su reacción.
Pero, señor Presidente, yo rogaría a Ud. hiciera un llamado a todas estas delegaciones que están insistiendo en unas posiciones absurdas para que retiren su posición.
Ton A.J.M; ODMEN (Netherlands): It is of vital importance for our delegation to reach consensus on this very important item. As you may know, Mr Chairman, the principle that PIC will be .incorporated in the Code is completely accepted by the Netherlands Government in our national legislation. It is also our opinion that a technical working party should propose a time framework to the Committee on Agriculture which can put it forward to the Council to make this important arrangement a productive mechanism for FAO and the Code itself.
Mohamed El Bashir MUFARAH (Sudan)(original language Arabic): We know that the countries which proposed this amendment are developed countries. It is a Nordic amendment. They are countries which apply all sorts of principles to protect the environment and to protect nature. These same countries are producing pesticides and certain chemical products, and certain pesticides are banned in those countries because of their negative impact, yet they are exported to other countries.
I should like to raise a point with regard to the proposal made by the United States of America about amending the amendment that is before us. In Arabic we could translate the term "could" by something that means that something might be done but it might also not be done. It means that you are leaving an open option there. "Should", translated into Arabic, means that something has to be done. There is a world of difference between an option which you may take or leave and something that is mandatory. I think the amendment to replace "should" by "could" is certainly not acceptable in this resolution, which had already been approved and supported by the majority of the Commission with the Nordic amendment that was read out. I plead for the maintenance of "should" and that it should not be changed to "could".
P.N. BAIGENT (New Zealand): We do not want to stand in the way of consensus. We should like to see consensus reached, and we very much appreciate the efforts that are being made to try to achieve this. As I said in my statement, I think we need to be quite clear on where we stand, and that is on a matter of principle. We are not at this stage in a position to agree that the principle of PIC be firmly incorporated into the Code. That is why we would support the suggestion that the word "should" be "could". We feel that this discussion has perhaps helped enlighten us further today. We have heard of a lot of groups that are studying this question. If we set up a group here to study it as well, that may well then enable us to be convinced that this is the correct way to proceed, but it is purely on technical grounds. We are not big exporters of chemicals, as some are suggesting the defenders of this position are but we genuinely believe at this stage that the principle should not be incorporated into the Code. I want to be sure that we are clear on that. I do not wish to be obstructive, but that is the position that we hold at this stage.
If, following the technical consideration, the advice to this group was that we proceed, we would of course make decisions on that advice, and I would point out that it would be this group or one of the FAO bodies, and not a technical group, that would be making those decisions.
O.F.J. OYAIDE (Nigeria): It appears to me that we are playing with words. I would have thought that we should be very clear in what decisions we want to take and that the language in writing what we have decided should be left to those who know how to play around with words. My understanding is that the resolution before us is that the PIC should be incorporated into the Code but that, in putting this resolution forward, the delegate from Venezuela said that we were not experts and that we needed experts to sit down and work out the modalities for the implementation of that decision, and when these have been worked out, it should be brought to the next Session for approval. If this is the clear understanding, then we should not be playing around with words, as to whether we should be using "could" or "should" or whatever. I am suggesting that we should be very clear on what we want. I believe that we have two options before us. One is to decide whether we have accepted that PIC should be incorporated into the Code, and the tone of the debate was very clear. The second is the amendment which the Nordic countries have brought forward that there is need for consultation on the mode of implementation of that decision. I think this is the way we should move forward.
James AITKEN (United Kingdom): I have listened with great interest to the comments made by the delegates of Nigeria and New Zealand. To begin with, on a point of clarification, I should like to make it clear that the UNEP/London Guidelines do not include Prior Informed Consent, although the Council's decision which adopted the Guidelines did include a statement in favour of Prior Informed Consent. The reason I raise this is because I think what we need here is a text which is consonant with what is happening in a number of different fora at the same time. We have to be careful here because there are a number of other organizations, other groupings, looking at the question of PIC, and we believe that our approach here should ensure that we are in step with this. I believe there is a UNEP working party to take place next year in Senegal which will consider this.
We would favour the formulation proposed by our Nordic colleagues because it seems to have a number of things in favour of it, especially the idea of a working party, with one minor alteration. This is simply to make it clear that we are not pre-empting any decisions. Therefore we, too, would prefer that instead of saying, "Prior Informed Consent should be incorporated", it should say, "Prior Informed Consent could be incorporated".
The reasons why we suggest this are twofold. Firstly, I think it is helpful to other organizations if they can see that it is possible for the FAO Code to be amended. We are giving a clear signal that the FAO Code is capable of being amended should they decide to change their guidelines. The other reason - and here I was interested in the comments of the delegate of Sudan - is that the difficulty is that while "should" has a degree of flexibility in its nuances of meaning in English, I am sorry to have to say that my understanding is that in French this would be translated into "devoir", which means "must", which is a much stronger expression than "should" is in English. For this reason, we think it would make this proposal more generally acceptable in consensus and more effective internationally if it used the word "could" rather than "should".
Neil O. PIERRE (Guyana): I must confess to a growing sense of personal confusion. However, at the same time, I must admit that my confusion has been abated somewhat by some of the very illuminating interventions that have just been made. Part of that confusion stems from my misunderstanding of whether we are at this Conference taking a decision that the principle must be included in the Code of Conduct or whether in effect what we are doing is saying that we agree that it should be included but that we will set up a working group to consider the modalities for its effective implementation and, furthermore, deferring final approval to the 25th Conference. My interpretation of the last point, based on the amendment tabled by Norway, is that what we shall be doing with regard to the 25th Conference of FAO is simply presenting the results of the working group for their information. I say this because my understanding of the Norwegian proposal is that this Conference will be deciding that it should be included and that we are not in effect deferring an inclusion to the 25th Conference. The word "decision" to my mind is very clear. It is a decision being taken by this Conference. What we will be doing with regard to the 25th Conference is simply submitting the result of the working group, which will focus its attention on the modalities, or whatever you want to call it, for a more effective implementation of the decision we are taking at this Conference.
I hope to be corrected if I am wrong, but that is my understanding of it, that is the way I read the discussion. If I am correct, I should say that my delegation is fully in support of the amendment recently proposed by Norway, in other words "should" must remain as it is.
John COOK (United States of America): I agree that we should try to reach a compromise and not waste too much time over the matter of "should" and "could", if it can possibly be avoided. For that reason, I would like to find a formula to leave the word "should" in this amendment. Consequently I would propose the following wording: "The Conference, in view of the strong arguments presented that 'prior informed consent' should be incorporated in the Code of Conduct, calls upon the FAO Secretariat to establish ...". The rest of the wording would be the same. Strong arguments have been presented here today that PIC should be included in the Code and I think that represents what has taken place here today.
Hawisi MWIAYIGOHA (Tanzania): My delegation is very anxious to see that a consensus is reached, to get this matter out of the way. I would like to remind delegates that the principle of PIC is very much applied even in the countries of manufacture, between the manufacturer and the consumers. It should therefore present no problem to adapt this at an international level, unless of course it is maintained that consumers are classified, which I do not think is true. So I appeal to delegates to get this matter out of the way as soon as we can.
Igor MARINCEK (Switzerland): Let me confirm again that from the point of view of my delegation we cannot join in the consensus on this proposed text. In the view of my delegation, this PIC principle is not helping the issue. We share totally the comments made by the Secretariat and already given by the Director-General at the Council Meeting. We believe that it endangers the voluntary aspects of the Code and would be counter-productive at this early stage, only two years after the adoption of the Code. So my country cannot support either of the formulae which bring us into the actions of PIC.
CHAIRMAN: Our endeavour the entire evening has been to see whether, on the basis of consultations we can arrive at a position which is widely acceptable among all the delegates present in the meeting, Before I sum up the position as I see it and indicate the further course of action, I would submit that there is a lot of force in what the delegate from Nigeria has said. Stripped of all the frills, what is the date from which we want to see PIC in the Guidelines? Is it 1/1/1988? Is it when the Conference ends on 27 November 1987? Or is it on 1/1/1990 after the next Conference?
In a situation where we are clear that certain work must proceed in terms of technical analysis and things like that before PIC is incorporated in the Guidelines, we could possibly recognize that by saying that this is the target date we set for incorporating PIC in the Code of Conduct and prior to that date all the modalities and steps which must be proceeded with must be worked out so that the target date could be achieved. If that is done, there will be no beating about the bush and the issue will be clear.
There are two propositions before us and it is clear that we are not likely to reach any consensus on them. The first is the resolution as tabled by the four countries which is before us in Appendix C, with the suggestions which have been made by Brazil about the changes. The second, unless Norway wants to keep to the original resolution which has been withdrawn, if I understand Norway correctly, is the revised resolution which according to the Nordic countries indicates the meeting ground which is acceptable to them.
It is clear that neither of these two positions is uniformly acceptable to all the delegates present. I would therefore suggest two alternatives: first, on Monday or Tuesday, whenever we meet in Com-mission I, we take up the issue where we left off, and depending on the quorum, we take a vote and decide the issue. The second alternative is that I would prefer a consensus so that if those del-egates who are interested in arriving at a consensus could join the Drafting Committee's meeting which is scheduled for Sunday or Monday, then possibly a revised draft could emerge. I shall leave it to the house to decide which of the courses of action they would like to follow.
Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Señor Presidente, vamos a tratar de ayudarle. Hemos hecho algunas consultas muy rápidamente y a nivel muy escaso del grupo de nuestros colegas señor Presidente; lo" que a nosotros nos preocupa es la permanente dilación en el tiempo y que nunca se va a determinar cuándo vamos a introducir el PIC aunque todos confiesen que están de acuerdo en introducirlo. Es un hecho, señor Presidente, que la gran mayoría de los miembros de esta Comisión, al igual que la mayo-ría de los miembros del Consejo último, estuvieron de acuerdo en incorporar el PIC al Código. Vamos a hacer un esfuerzo, señor Presidente, acogidos a las posibilidades que usted ha sugerido; lo máximo, lo que más podemos dar, señor Presidente: "La Conferencia decide que se incluya el PIC en el Código o con efectos a partir de la Conferencia 25 y que, mientras tanto, se pida al Director General que cree el grupo de trabajo, etc., etc." Esto, al menos, nos da la seguridad, señor Presidente, de que en un término máximo de dos años se va a incorporar el PIC, porque tenemos las dudas y el temor de que en la próxima Conferencia se diga, igualmente, que no tenemos experiencias, que no ha habido tiempo de estudiarlo etc. Esto es lo máximo que podemos dar, señor Presidente. De lo contrario, nuestro proyecto de resolución que sea sometido a votación. Reiteramos nuestro reconocimiento a los países nórdicos, señor Presidente.
CHAIRMAN: I thank Colombia for the helpful and conciliatory suggestion.
James AITKEN (United Kingdom): I have been listening to the debate with interest. It strikes me that the formulation provided by the delegate of the United States presents an area of consensus within the discussion, meeting both the requirements of the Colombian delegation's point of view and also delegations like myself and the Nordic delegations who realise that this is a technical issue and has to be considered through working parties.
I would like to propose, if I may, that there is another option. If we could have the proposed American text married with the Nordic text in writing at the beginning of next week, most delegates would find this helpful, I am sure and it would help to provide a consensus for us all. I therefore propose this and suggest that you might now wish to adjourn the meeting.
Horacio CARANDANG (Philippines): I think the proposal which has been tabled by the Colombian del-egation is a move backwards. It is leaning back very much. It means postponing the inclusions of PIC by two years. All the reasons which have been given here, that there is not enough study on how the modalities should be implemented, are no longer valid because within those two years, if anything can be studied it should be able to be studied within two years. If it cannot be studied within two years it will never be done.
Then the proposal which is now being tabled by the United Kingdom for us is unacceptable. It will only mean that the PIC will never be introduced into the Code. As the delegate of Colombia stated, this is the last position we are willing to accept. If not, I propose that we go to the vote.
Emile DETRAUX (Belgique): Monsieur le Président, vous voudrez bien vous souvenir que, dans notre déclaration initiale, nous avons beaucoup insisté sur le consensus. Nous remercions donc toutes les délégations qui font des efforts, et, afin de pouvoir arriver à ce consensus, je dirais au-delà de ce qu'a dit notre collègue du Royaume-Uni, que pour notre part, avec l'amélioration telle qu'elle a été présentée par le délégué des Etats-Unis, nous pourrions avoir un préjugé hautement favorable. Donc nous faisons un grand pas, Monsieur le Président, pour essayer d'obtenir ce que nous estimons être essentiel, c'est-à-dire le consensus.
Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Señor Presidente, nosotros no pretendemos ahora promover una controversia y sólo queremos decir que admiramos muchísimo la terquedad y la obsesión del colega del Reino Unido que a través de todas las Conferencias cree que sólo sus puntos de vista deben ser tenidos en cuenta.
La propuesta que hemos presentado, señor Presidente, contiene dos partes: la primera es evidente, somos la mayoría de los miembros, la gran mayoría de los miembros de la Comisión los que queremos que el PIC se incorpore ya en el Código. Sin embargo, señor Presidente, no ha habido el consenso; estamos tratando de recoger la actitud positiva y constructiva de los países nórdicos. Estamos dando el máximo señor Presidente, dos años de intervalo, de meditación, de espacio para que se analicen las consecuencias. Dos años es el máximo señor Presidente, de lo contrario pido a usted que aplique el reglamento y llame a votación sobre el proyecto original de resolución que fue presentado por cinco países.
Srta. Marina BRICEÑO ZEHL (Venezuela): En realidad mucho de lo que yo quería decir ha sido dicho ya por el delegado de Filipinas. Creo que la propuesta que ha sido hecha por los Estados Unidos nos demuestra que los Estados Unidos, realmente, están comenzando a entender que se puede tratar de llegar a un acuerdo y que nosotros lo que estamos haciendo es un esfuerzo por acomodar los problemas y los inconvenientes que ellos han planteado sobre el asunto.
En realidad como lo ha dicho Filipinas y como lo ha dicho Colombia, nosotros hemos hecho muchas concesiones respecto a nuestra propuesta original, y las estamos haciendo únicamente en virtud de un consenso. Creo que queda muy claro que nadie, que ninguna de las delegaciones que proponen y apoyan el PIC quieren imponerlo por la fuerza y hacemos un llamado a las delegaciones de Estados Unidos y del Reino Unido para que traten de entender esta posición; estamos dando dos años para que se estu-dien las modalidades de incorporación del PIC. Creo que es más que suficiente, lo harán técnicos y no creo que sea necesario ir más allá de esto. No tengo nada más que decir por ahora.
POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN
James AITKEN (United Kingdom): Mr Chairman, at this point I would just say that I have listened to the two preceding interventions, and it seems to me that there is a misunderstanding in the position of both the United Kingdom and.
CHAIRMAN: Is this a point of order?
James AITKEN (United Kingdom): My point of order is this: that it would be much more healthy if we could continue this discussion with a written text in front of us. I would appeal to the meeting, through yourself Sir, to agree to this, because otherwise it seems to me that the position of our country, certainly, is being misinterpreted. I am sure this could be clarified if we could have the text of the Nordic resolution married with the second United States' proposal. I think it would become clear that we are, in fact, trying to promote a consensus that can meet everybody's views. I would propose we adjourn this meeting and have a written text at the beginning of the week.
CHAIRMAN: The delegate of the United Kingdom raised this point earlier and I had the position verified. I have been told that there must be a required strength present for the motion for adjournment that you move to be taken into consideration. That is why I did not react on that.
My suggestion would be that our aim is to arrive at a consensus if that is possible, and avoid the vote. I have three or more speakers on the list. We will exhaust the list, and then the positions will be clear. As I see them now, three positions have emerged. One is the original resolution; the second is the Nordic resolution; the third is what the delegate of Colombia said about fixing a particular date and working towards that. These are the three alternatives.
If there is not going to be a consensus maybe there will have to, be a vote, but today we do not have the required members present for the vote to take place. Hopefully, in the next five to ten minutes, if members are brief, we will hear what they say and then we will adjourn.
Cuba has the floor on a point of order.
POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
UNTO DE ORDEN
Leopoldo ARIZA HIDALGO (Cuba): Yo pedí mi palabra normalmente. Señor Presidente, nosotros lamentamos que en estos momentos, a esta hora, después de tantas dilaciones, se nos quiera decir que necesitan más. Nosotros pensamos, como Filipinas y como Venezuela, que lo que ha propuesto la representación de Colombia es el mínimo que podemos aceptar. Usted sabe lo que significa ese mínimo señor Presidente; que durante dos años van a seguir muriendo, repito, muriendo, campesinos y obreros agrícolas de intoxicación; que vamos a seguir dos años de inquinamiento ecológico; que vamos a seguir dos años de despilfarro en nuestros campos...
CHAIRMAN: May I request you to state your point of order.
Leopoldo ARIZA HIDALGO (Cuba): ...entonces, señor Presidente, como vamos a pedir eso. No, no es una moción de orden, es una explicación de que no podemos aceptar menos, y es que durante dos años...
CHAIRMAN: If you will permit me, I will give you a chance after Zambia speaks. Zambia has the floor.
N. MUKUTU (Zambia): I have no doubt that, given the opportunity, the developed North will never allow us to have PIC at any given time. I think the strategy appears to be to continue to defer PIC indefinitely, ad infinitum.
What, the Commission has agreed upon during the debate is that the principle of PIC is completely and fully accepted by the Commission. The issue is the modalities. How do we incorporate PIC into the system? That is the main issue. There is no doubt about whether the Commission accepts PIC. It should be incorporated. What must be discussed is how this must be done. That is why a Committee of officials will work and discuss and arrive at the modalities.
The United States' proposal puts doubt on whether or not this can be accepted by the next Conference. Really, by now PIC is accepted; it must be incorporated. A Committee of officials will work on this, whether it is FAO or whoever it is, to elaborate the modalities of implementation. There is no question on whether or not PIC will be accepted. That is accepted. The modalities are what are at stake.
The American proposal is unacceptable to my delegation. There is no question of "could"; it must be "should". A Committee will be appointed or FAO will work on it and then through COAG and through the next Conference it will be implemented. No one can tell me that it is not possible for this Organization to find ways of implementing PIC. Surely it can find a method of implementing PIC?
CHAIRMAN: If I may interrupt you, from which date do you expect this to be implemented?
N. MUKUTU (Zambia): At the maximum in the next two years. That is Colombia and Venezuela's suggestion.
CHAIRMAN: I would suggest for the consideration of the Commission that following the four names I have listed here we close the discussion for tonight, because we do not seem to be arriving at a consensus.
Leopoldo ARIZA HIDALGO (Cuba): Gracias, señor Presidente. Discúlpeme porque pensé que me había dado la palabra y no sabía que la distinguida delegación de Zambia estaba en uso de la misma.
Para terminar, señor Presidente, lo que quiero expresar es que no estamos en presencia de análisis serios, no estamos en presencia de análisis con objetividad. Es de una obstrucción palpable. Esto se viene discutiendo desde hace dos años, señor Presidente, y vamos a seguir discutiendo otros dos años más la misma situación.
Nosotros creemos que debe aceptarse la proposición de Colombia porque es bastante generosa y porque vamos a seguir soportando dos años de muerte y de Inquinamiento. Esto dela única manera que se puede calificar es de egoísmo de las grandes potencias y de las grandes empresas que desconocen los problemas. Es seguir vendiendo con el objeto de vaciar sus almacenes ignorando los problemas. Esto no tiene otro nombre señor Presidente, ya que se ha hablado de ello con bastante tiempo. Creo que no hay otra calificación más que la de decirles egoístas.
Wolfgang A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of) (original language German): So far I have had the impression that we are all endeavouring to achieve a consensus. The previous speaker made this a little more difficult. I should like to add as regards my own country that we are doing everything we can to avoid what was just described a moment ago. In fact, our legislation imposes the necessity of providing all the information about these products.On the basis of this information available. everybody can take his own decision.
I feel that the earlier proposal of the United Kingdom delegate, followed by the response of the Belgian delegate, was made with a view to achieving a consensus. The difficulty we are up against is that none of us has a written text in front of us. This can lead to a whole series of misunderstandings. Therefore, I really do believe it would be in the interest of all of us if we could endeavour to work out a text before Monday, taking up the useful points which were proposed by Norway and the United States. If they could be incorporated in a written text, we should be able to continue our discussions.
That being said, I would like to add that I regret that I cannot go along with the proposal of the delegate of Colombia, that is, that we should take a decision that would have an impact on the 25th Conference.
John COOK (United States of America): I was encouraged by the words of the delegate of Venezuela and I also believe that we are moving in the direction of a consensus. I would like to clarify that when I spoke before I said that I saw the proposal by the delegate of Norway to be a promising one leading us towards consensus. I had a minor problem with a word; I suggested a change. That was unacceptable to the persons with whom we are trying to reach consensus. Consequently, I retracted that change. I have returned to the use of the word "should" and at the present time that is the word that, as the delegate of the United Kingdom suggested, we intend to put into the proposal that we would like to spend the weekend discussing with the delegate of Norway. We are no longer suggest-ing the use of the word "could", as the delegate of Zambia apparently believes, and I sincerely believe that we will be able to word this in a manner that will be acceptable, and -that we can reach consensus on a proposal which is very nearly the wording which the delegate of Norway has already submitted.
I should also like to concur with what the delegate of the Federal Republic of Germany has just said. I think it will make it a lot easier for us on Monday if we have the text in writing. It will avoid confusion.
CHAIRMAN: May I then suggest that over the weekend, when the Drafting Committee is likely to meet, we shall have simultaneously two efforts going. We will request the Drafting Committee to try and produce a draft which incorporates the various points of view. Along with this, the efforts to which the United States delegate has made reference could continue so that on Monday when we meet we can consider the original draft from the four countries with modifications, the draft as tabled by Norway, the revised draft as will hopefully be tabled by the United States in consultation with the others, on Monday morning, whenever we meet, and then take a view on which one to take. If we can avoid the vote, that will be better; if not we will go through the democratic process.
Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Señor Presidente, apoyamos lo que usted acaba de decir pero tal vez por la prisa con que habló no incluyó también la propuesta de Colombia.
Vamos a insistir en nuestra propuesta, porque la reacción negativa del señor Grabish, de la República Federal de Alemania, demuestra, señor Presidente, que ni en dos años ni en 2 000 años vamos a estar incluidos en el PIC. La actitud negativa de la República Federal de Alemania así lo demuestra y confirma. De manera que todo esfuerzo en busca de consenso va a ser inútil, pero aceptamos que todas las propuestas pasen al Comité de Redacción, incluida la de Colombia.
CHAIRMAN: Subject to the agreement of delegates and members here, we could go on for two or three hours longer, provided we are sure that a consensus is likely to emerge. Because that does not seem to be in sight, I suggest that on this note the Drafting Committee, when it meets, will attempt a draft which we hope will harmonize the viewpoints which have been expressed. Similarly, the United States delegation, in consultation with others, will possibly table a draft which we will consider when we meet. We will then have (a) the draft of the four countries as amended by Brazil; (b) the draft tabled by Norway; (c) the Colombian formulation; and (d) what the United States delegation will be tabling hopefully in consultation with the others; plus anything from the Drafting Committee. We will consider this on Monday or Tuesday, whenever we are meeting, in the plenary of the Commission once again.
Belgium has the floor on a point of order.
POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN
Antoine SAINTRAINT (Belgique): Nous avons écouté ce débat avec beaucoup d'attention. Nous partageons le point de vue de la République fédérale d'Allemagne qui ne me paraît pas du tout inconciliable avec un certain nombre de déclarations qui ont été faites et nous voudrions dire de manière très claire...
CHAIRMAN: May I point out that this is not a point of order.
Antoine SAINTRAINT (Belgique): C'est une motion d'ordre dans ce sens que nous devons éclairer la façon; dont nous allons procéder au cours des travaux du Comité de rédaction et si nous n'avons pas l'occasion d'exposer nos-points de vue concernant la manière dont le Comité de rédaction abordera le pro-blème, le débat aura été étranglé. Il me paraît normal que nous puissions exprimer notre point de vue pour que le Comité de rédaction puisse travailler. Si vous estimez qu'il n'a pas à être éclairé sur nos problèmes, il faut nous le dire et nous en tirerons les conclusions.
CHAIRMAN: With due respect to your point of view, I would submit that almost all of the points of view in relation to this proposition have been gone into from about 3 o'clock until now. If you are making any point which has not been expressed earlier, I shall be pleased to hear you.
Antoine SAINTRAINT (Belgique): Vous avez dit que les protagonistes - encore faudrait-il définir ce terme - pourraient participer au Comité de rédaction. Pourrais-je vous demander de nous dire ce que vous entendez par là?
CHAIRMAN: I stand corrected. I understand the conventions are that no persons other than the members of the Drafting Committee attend the Drafting Committee meetings. I received different advice earlier.
TIN HLAING (Burma): First of all I should like to thank the Secretariat for presenting the progress report that enables us for discussion regarding the implementation of the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides.
The Burmese delegation considers that the discussion of this subject is quite important at such a time when modern crop production techniques are being extensively used in most of the member countries for increased agricultural production. Increasing agricultural production is often associated with the use of hazardous chemicals. These chemicals can do harm to humans, to animals and also to the environment, and accordingly their use should be observed properly.
In our own country, we are taking legislative and regulatory measures to observe the proper use of these chemicals. A plant protection service has been established in the Extension Department, which is responsible for the transfer of appropriate technology of plant protection and the safe use of chemicals to the farmers. We have also conducted trainings for the extension staff and also for the farmers. The plant protection service is also assigned with the duties to monitor the effect of the use of the pesticidal chemicals on pests, crops and environment. As a result of this monitoring system, some of the chemicals which are found not to be suitable for our environment have already been banned in our country.
In view of the above stated facts and realizing the importance of safeguarding the national ecosystem, the Burmese delegation supports the Document C 87/LIM/25 and also the resolution as contained in Appendix C of the Document C 87/LIM/39. 1/
Alejandro NDJOLI MEDIKO (Guinea Ecuatorial): Señor Presidente, quiero aprovechar este momento para felicitarle por la inteligencia y equilibrio con que está dirigiendo los debates y trabajos de esta comisión.
Asimismo, queremos felicitar a la Secretaría por la calidad y puntualidad de los documentos que someten a nuestra apreciación.
Hemos estudiado los documentos concernientes al punto 11 del Orden del Día, referentes a la aplica-ción del Código Internacional de Conducta para la distribución y utilización de plaguicidas.
Al análisis de estos documentos, y comparándolos con el tema de los insumos (abonos, etc.), llegamos a una conclusión común, y es que los países en vías de desarrollo, los países receptores y consumi-dores de estos productos deben ciertamente realizar grandes esfuerzos por su parte para corregir los defectos que hasta ahora se han venido produciendo en el orden de la adquisición y utilización de los plaguicidas, queremos decir con ello de que, se tendrían que llegar a una concertación de medidas por las cuales, el consumidor debería de tener una autorización previa del Departamento de Agricul-tura, la cual le permita importar o consumir este o aquel plaguicida.
Pero para que este mecanismo pueda ser útil, efectivo, parece ser que a primera vista bastaría y sería suficiente con la circulación de la información adecuada procedente del país fabricante y dirigido al país consumidor.
Pero en realidad ¿qué sucede?, la mayoría de las veces, esta información no llega o en el mejor de los casos, si llega, está distorsionada y con bastante retraso.
Otro de los elementos que actúa e influyen grandemente es que estos productos, en la mayoría de las veces suelen estar ya prohibidos, fuera de uso en sus países de origen; nos llegan eso sí, con unos precios bajos, de saldo, verdaderamente tentadores, pero que convierten nuestros campos de cultivos en verdaderos basureros de productos fitosanitarios, degradando cada vez más nuestros suelos, disminuyendo nuestros rendimientos y sobre todo lesionando la salud de tanta gente por sus efectos residuales.
Por eso pensamos que las medidas que puedan llevarse a cabo en los países consumidores no serán sufi-cientes si no van apoyadas de otras, tomadas a su vez desde los países de origen.
Un producto de efectos nocivos, negativos, en un punto del globo, no tiene por qué ser bueno en otro punto, simplemente por la diferencia kilométrica.
En consecuencia, la responsabilidad debería de ser compartida entre unos y otros.
Pensamos que una medida coherente sería que los países productores no permitan la exportación de aquellos productos que se encuentran en sus listas negras, aparte además del principio del "consenti-miento previo".
Si no se toman las medidas en ambas direcciones, resultará que unos estarán permitiendo la venta de productos cuyos efectos serán los de aumentar cada vez más el grado de endeudamiento de los países pobres, haciéndolos más pobres a costa de quemar sus cosechas.
Para terminar y si nos lo permite, proponemos que la lista de productos prohibidos en un país debe-ría de ponerse a la disposición de la FAO, y esta vez se encargaría de distribuirlas a todos los Estados.
En consecuencia, apoyamos el principio del "consentimiento previo" que se propone incluir en el Código de Conducta para la distribución y utilización de plaguicidas..
Para terminar, quisiera invitar a los países productores que tomen el compromiso de no autorizar la exportación de plaguicidas hasta tanto que el país receptor/consumidor no disponga de la total información sobre el mismo y de su consentimiento previo. 1/
Jean BANTSIMBA (Congo): La délégation congolaise félicite M. Brader et le Secrétariat pour la clarté et le sérieux du rapport sur l'application du Code International de conduite pour la distribution et l'utilisation des pesticides.
Il ressort de l'examen de ce rapport que des progrès notables ont été réalisés dans le cadre de l'application du code, mais qu'il reste beaucoup à faire, notamment pour amener la plupart des pays en développement à maîtriser les mécanismes en permettant un usage efficace.
La République Populaire du Congo est en train de préparer un projet de loi sur l'homologation des pesticides; mais elle ne dispose pas des structures techniques et des moyens lui permettant d'appliquer effectivement les dispositions du Code.
Elle sollicite auprès de la FAO et des ONG:
- un appui pour la préparation d'un cours national de formation sur l'application du code,
- une aide pour la mise en place de dispositifs nationaux d'homologation et de contrôle de pesti-cides (incluant les infrastructures appropriées pour l'application du code).
Enfin, ma délégation appuie le projet de résolution relatif à l'insertion du principe de l'infor-mation et du consentement préalable au code 2/.
Sra. María Eulalia JIMENEZ (El Salvador): En forma muy breve la delegación de El Salvador desea apo-yar la declaración hecha hace unos momentos por la distinguida delegada de Venezuela, quien con toda claridad ha expuesto los motivos que nos llevan a plantear esta cuestión en esta Comisión.
Ya en el pasado período de sesiones de esta Conferencia, cuando aprobamos el Código de Conducta, la delegación de mi país planteó la importancia de incluir en el Código, el Principio de Consentimiento Previo. En esa oportunidad planteamos que para no entorpecer su aprobación, consentimos en que su inclusión se analizara en la primera revisión del mismo y es la que en esta ocasión estamos realizando.
Por ello apoyamos plenamente el proyecto de resolución contenido en el documento LIM/39 intitulado "Código de Conducta para la utilización y distribución de plaguicidas", con las enmiendas propuestas por Brasil. 1/
C. Reynaldo TREMINIO CHAVARRIA (Nicaragua): En diferentes sesiones de la Comisión I, la mayoría de los países se han pronunciado sobre la necesidad de proteger el ambiente.
Los insecticidas y su utilización no regulada atenta contra la vida humana, constituye graves ries-gos de contaminación ambiental, pérdidas invalorables de la fauna benéfica y, lo más grave, la conta-minación de productos alimenticios vegetales y animales.
Por ello, hemos apoyado siempre la aplicación del Código Internacional de Conducta para la Distribución y Utilización de Plaguicidas.
Diferentes grupos de plaguicidas presentan diferentes índices de toxicidad. Los riesgos por estos productos no sólo deben minimizarse sino también someterlos a estricto control ante una eventualidad de uso en un país determinado.
Por ello, apoyamos el principio del "Consentimiento Previo", y el proyecto de resolución presentado en el documento C 87/LIM/39. 1/
Asefa WOLDEGIORGIS (Ethiopia): May I first express my appreciation for the fine presentation of the report on the Implementation of the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides. The report does give systematic analysis of the problems in the distribution and use of pesticides, particularly in Third World countries.
A number of developing countries have taken measures to ensure practical and safe use of these pesticides. Despite these measures they have taken already and great concern on the judicious use of pesticides, they are faced with difficulties in the implementation.
The major problem arises from the fact that information supplied by many manufacturers fails to satisfy the basic desirable standards. Secondly, most developing countries have limited capacities in carrying out bio-assays and other necessary tests to ensure the efficacy or effectiveness and advise the end users accordingly in the interests of all.
Moreover, the farmers, I am sorry to say, do not have adequate training in the safe use of pesticides. The majority just do not appreciate the adverse effects.
Proper distribution and safe use of pesticides directly attribute towards protection of our environment and safeguard both plant and animal life.
With this in mind, I do not see any issue of principle in the resolution put forward in this connection. I see the concept in the resolution as a useful instrument towards ensuring safe distribution and judicious use of pesticides. With this in view my delegation supports the resolution as it stands. 1/
Hidayat Ganda ATMADJA (Indonesia): Indonesia consistently and continuously supports the implementation of the FAO Resolution No. 10/85 regarding the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides.
Along the line with this, my Government has recently decided to ban the use and distribution of several kinds of pesticides, merely for the interest of sound environment for human beings and animal life.
First of all, my delegation would like to extend its appreciation to the work that FAO has carried out in stepping up further the implementation of the Resolution, the report of which (C 87/LIM/25) is now before us for discussion.
Although we consider that the progress report is still in a preliminary state, in the sense that it will be updated over time, my delegation is happy to note that the report provides a thorough analysis related to the stage of implementation of the Code and in particular related to the capacity of the developing countries in controlling and monitoring the distribution and use of pesticides. We could see clearly that the capacity of the developing countries in this regard still needs further improvement and strengthening, particularly in the following areas:
(1) Pesticides legislation, guidelines, and technical as well as physical facilities in many developing countries remain considerably weak. Further assistance from FAO and other aid agencies in this regard would therefore be necessary to enable them to monitor and control properly the implementation of the Code.
(2) My delegation is of the view that research and training aspects on the effective and safe use of pesticides should receive due emphasis, and should be given not only to the officials involved in policy formulation but, more importantly, to those directly involved in the distribution and application of pesticides in -the field such as traders, retailers, extension workers, and the farmers themselves. We believe that these areas should be the responsibility of the pesticide producers/exporters, in close cooperation with the governments of importing countries. The involvement of private business sectors engaged in pesticides and NGOs in the countries concerned in the areas of pesticides research and training programmes should be regarded as an important supplement.
(3) We believe also that national campaigns on the safe use of pesticides including emergency treatment of pesticide poisoning is of considerable importance.
My delegation is of the opinion that external assistance on the three areas I have just mentioned would be equally important. In this regard, the contribution made by the Government of Japan to the Trust Fund for the provision of support to Member Governments to implement the Code, is worth appreciation. We hope that the same approach will be followed by other donors.
With regard to the draft resolution for the amendment of the Article 9.3 of the Code of Conduct, as in Appendix C, Document C 87/LIM/39, my delegation strongly supports this proposal. My delegation believes that incorporating the principle of "Prior Informed Consent" into the Code would be a pre-requisite to ensure sound environment, human health and animal life, which has been advocated by various delegations which spoke before. I would like to stress also that the most important aspect of the Code is that it should become a moral binding of all parties concerned in the implementation of the conduct. 1/
O.J. OYAIDE (Nigeria): My delegation has listened with interest to the comments of colleagues from different countries on this all-important topic on the Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides. It is apparent that all delegations share the concern about the health and environmental hazards of the distribution and use of pesticides without proper control and regulation. Every speaker so far has agreed with the need for an exporting country to inform importing countries about products banned or severely restricted in the exporting country. The only point of disagreement appears to relate to the need for the importing country to consent before such products can be sold in that country.
In view of the severe consequences of the abuse of some of these chemicals already referred to by many distinguished delegates, the arguments put forward so far by delegates against the introduction of prior informed consent are weak and unconvincing. These arguments appear to be guided only by self-interest rather than the real issues at stake.
While exporting governments may have the best of intentions, the private companies. which produce and market these chemicals may not be that honest. It is well known that many companies from these countries dump expired drugs in many developing countries without giving any thought as to the risk to which they expose lives that would otherwise have been saved.
My delegation strongly supports the resolution to include prior informed consent in the Code of Conduct. 1/
E. Patrick ALLEYNE (Trinidad and Tobago): Our delegation considers this agenda item to be one of crucial importance in respect of food production on a global basis. However, beyond this, it is to be emphasized that decisions taken by the international community on this matter will affect the general health, the welfare of mankind - persons in every walk of life - for many generations.
FAO is to be congratulated on its initiatives on this Code of Conduct and we appeal to all Member Nations to adopt a positive approach to the matter.
Our delegation is very much concerned with the nature of the reservations being expressed on the resolution before us - relating to prior information and comment. All that the resolution asks of the exporters of pesticides is to do unto others as you would like for yourself. If a nation state does not consider a pesticide suitable for use within its own borders, then at least be fair, be scientifically honest with the potentially recipient country.
My delegation further draws special attention to the seriousness of this matter in relation to small island states, for example, the Caribbean. It is very easy to reach high and dangerous levels of pollution within small island boundaries and, of course, the spill-over into our seas and very few rivers or waterways can readily lead to national disasters.
There is, in a real sense, a thrust towards the ideal in the resolution before us. We know that participation is voluntary, but the basic principles are sound, and we support the resolution. We trust that time, human conscience and moral fortitude will, over time, prevail.
One final point: We suggest that FAO identify selected scientific/research/training centres in different regions for intensive training on the use and management of pesticides. 1/
CHAIRMAN: Commission I stands adjourned.
The meeting rose at 21.20 hours
La séance est levée à 21 h 20
Se levanta la sesión a las 21.20 horas
__________
1/ Texto incluido en las actas a petición expresa.
1/ Statement inserted in the verbatim records on request.
1/ Texto incluido en las actas a petición expresa.
2/ Texte reçu avec demande d'insertion au procès-verbal.
1/ Texto incluido en las actas a petición expresa.
1/ Statement inserted in the verbatim records on request.
1/ Statement inserted in the verbatim records on request.
