LE PRESIDENT: Mesdames et Messieurs les délégués, j'ai l'honneur et le plaisir de présider la discussion de ce matin.
H. de HAEN (Assistant Director-General, Agriculture Department):
Mr Chairman, distinguished delegates, and observers: I am pleased to have the opportunity again to start a new item with you this morning. The main purpose, as I see it, is to bring you up-to-date on activities since the Conference discussed this item at its last session. With me on the podium again are Mr Papasolomontos, Director of the Plant Production and Protection Division, and Mr Van der Graaff, who is the Chief of the Service for Plant Protection.
The International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides has been in existence for almost six years now. Document 91/20 gives a description of the actions taken by the Organization to implement the Code.
The activities of FAO initially concentrated on the development of guidelines to assist Member Governments to implement this Code, and provide technical assistance through trust fund projects and through the Technical Cooperation Programme to strengthen pesticide management in member countries.
In 1989, the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) Clause was introduced into the Code, to ensure that international shipments of pesticides that are banned or severely restricted did not proceed without the agreement, where such agreement exists, or contrary to the decision of the designated national authority in the participating importing country. This Clause was introduced in order to protect both human health and/or the environment. To this end a PIC procedure has been established by which the decisions of importing countries are formally obtained and disseminated, in order to establish whether they wish to receive future shipments of such pesticides.
The introduction of the PIC Clause has meant that more resources were required to assist member countries and to implement the relevant procedures. I therefore wish to acknowledge with gratitude the generous provision from the Government of the Netherlands in this respect. I also wish on behalf of the Secretariat to stress the fruitful collaboration between FAO and UNEP, who have set up a joint programme for the
implementation of the PIC procedure. Despite the complicated nature of the preparatory steps, we believe that the process should proceed smoothly, as it has done so far. We have been encouraged by the fact that at present 109 member countries have appointed one or more Designated National Authorities (DNAs) (not to be confused with the genetic term DNA) to oversee matters related to pesticides and industrial chemicals.
The FAO/UNEP Joint Expert Group has met three times so far. It has worked out the procedure for implementing the PIC, and has provided advice as to what should be included under the procedure. At present the Group has recommended the inclusion of pesticides that have been banned or severely restricted, for reasons of health or the environment, by at least five countries. In addition, three pesticides have been included that are reported to present a human health problem or hazard. The initial list was based on UNEP's International Register of Potential Toxic Chemicals, which UNEP is at present updating. You will find information on those lists of pesticides in the Annex to the document distributed to you.
A "Guidance to Governments" document has been produced which includes information on which limitations to pesticide use should be notified to the joint FAO/UNEP Secretariat.
Further, FAO, on behalf of the Joint Secretariat, has sent out "Decision Guidance Documents" to the Designated National Authorities requesting decisions from their governments on these pesticides. A questionnaire was distributed in order to obtain information on other pesticides that may be hazardous in developing countries.
It is a pleasure for me to note in this context that the collaboration with UNEP has been excellent, and we hope it will soon be formalized by the signature of a mutual Memorandum of Understanding.
FAO has discussed the operation of PIC in regional and national workshops. It was mandated to do so by the last Conference. Recently a Joint FAO/UNEP Workshop was organized in Manila, at which 27 member countries from the Asia and Pacific Region participated. The Workshop considered the PIC procedures and various case studies, which have provided useful insights into the implementation of the procedure and which have drawn attention to some important issues that need to be addressed in more detail in the future.
In September 1991 - just recently - the OECD, in cooperation with FAO and UNEP, organized a workshop in Paris on Prior Informed Consent. Representatives of OECD and developing countries participated; the workshop provided very useful information on the status of pesticide management in developing countries and the difficulties that might be encountered with the implementation of PIC.
In addition to this, FAO has also been assisting member countries and Member Governments on other issues related to the implementation of the Code. A Japanese funded project is strengthening the infrastructure of pesticide management in the Asia and Pacific Region and is being extended to the Caribbean. A project for Central America is at an advanced stage of development. A project for Africa is funded by UNDP. Moreover, funding was made available by the Rockefeller Foundation and the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) of the United States for workshops in Santiago, Chile and in Uruguay. I am sure you will share our pleasure at the progress achieved so far.
Finally, let me address the issue of the conversion of the Code into a Convention. The June 1991 Session of the Council concurred with the view of the Joint FAO/UNEP panel that it was premature to consider the conversion of the Code into a Convention. In the longer term it would be beneficial to make the Code legally binding. It will, however, require several rounds of consultations and discussions to see which provisions of the Code could be amenable to such a conversion. The Organization will keep this issue under review and report to the relevant FAO bodies in future.
I hope that this brief introduction and the report itself will gain your interest and approval, and I look forward to your questions.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr de Haen. We have heard a very good introduction to this agenda item, and I look forward to an equally good discussion.
Oscar Sales PETINGA (Portugal): Le document C 91/20 relatif au Code international de conduite pour la distribution et l'utilisation des pesticides commence avec le rappel de la situation depuis la Résolution 10/85 de la vingt-troisième session de la Conférence de la FAO et poursuit avec des informations sur la mise en oeuvre du système d'ICP, ce qui nous permet d'avoir un bon aperçu des négociations et des éléments que comporte la phase préparatoire du système.
Après la vingt-cinquième session de la Conférence de la FAO, le Portugal a désigné le Centre national de la protection et de la production agricole en tant qu'autorité nationale compétente pour les pesticides. A l'heure actuelle, il existe une coopération entre ce centre et la FAO pour la mise en place du Programme conjoint FAO/PNUE sur l'ICP.
Le Centre national de la protection et de la production agricole a collaboré avec la FAO dans l'application du Code et continue à le mettre en pratique tant au niveau de notre pays que des pays africains avec lesquels le Portugal a des relations étroites de collaboration dans le domaine de la protection des plantes.
Dans l'ensemble, nous sommes d'accord avec les efforts faits par la FAO en ce qui concerne la réduction du commerce et de l'utilisation des produits chimiques très dangereux avec, notamment, les programmes, les informations et l'assistance technique fournis dans le cadre de l'ICP ainsi que l'application du Code.
Notre contribution à l'application du Code pour les pays importateurs s'est faite au moyen de notre collaboration avec les pays africains de langue officielle portugaise, notamment par l'élaboration de législations relatives aux produits phytopharmaceutiques.
Quant à la conversion du Code en un instrument juridique obligatoire, nous la considérons prématurée. Nous devons poursuivre les actions entreprises dans le cadre du programme conjoint FAO/PNUE sur l'ICP et attendre une occasion ultérieure pour prendre une décision de caractère plus profond.
Pascal BRIODIN (France): La France a soutenu, dès l'origine, le Code international de conduite pour la distribution et l'utilisation des pesticides. Ce Code constitue, en effet, à la fois un cadre pour la coopération internationale et une référence pour l'adoption de dispositions nationales en incitant à une utilisation des pesticides mieux adaptée aux besoins de l'agriculture et plus sure pour les hommes et pour 1'environnement.
Au moment où s'intensifient les préparatifs de la Conférence des Nations Unies sur l'environnement et le développement (CNUED), l'expérience acquise par la FAO dans la mise en oeuvre du Code des pesticides témoigne de la priorité accordée déjà depuis plusieurs années à la promotion par notre Organisation du concept de développement agricole durable.
La délégation française se félicite de ce que les principes de l'information et du consentement préalables (ICP) aient été inclus dans le Code lors de la Conférence de 1987 et que notre dernière Conférence, en 1989, ait pris les décisions permettant à la FAO, en collaboration avec le PNUE d'établir un programme opérationnel pour l'application des procédures ICP.
Nous constatons avec satisfaction que la coopération entre les deux Organisations est déjà bien engagée, qu'il s'agisse de la constitution de bases de données communes ou de la mise en place d'un groupe mixte d'experts chargés de donner des conseils et des avis sur l'application du système ICP.
L'action de la France dans ce domaine s'inscrit dans le cadre des dispositions prises par la Communauté européenne et, en particulier, de la directive adoptée par le Conseil des ministres, le 15 juillet 1991, concernant la mise sur le marché des produits phytopharmaceutiques destinés à la protection des végétaux.
Par ailleurs, mon pays a désigné le Ministère de l'agriculture et le Ministère de l'environnement en qualité d'autorités compétentes pour prendre les décisions en matière d'ICP. Le point de contact chargé de répondre aux demandes de la FAO est le Ministère de l'agriculture, qui dispose de l'ensemble des informations techniques et réglementaires en ce qui concerne l'utilisation des pesticides.
Pour conclure, permettez-moi de rappeler que la France partage pleinement le point de vue exprimé par le Conseil, lors de sa quatre-vingt-dix-neuvième session, selon lequel il est prématuré d'envisager la conversion du Code de conduite en un instrument juridique contraignant. La priorité est, en effet, à la mise en place des moyens techniques et réglementaires permettant l'application effective des textes adoptés lors des dernières Conférences.
La France, pour sa part, est prête à apporter son soutien à la FAO et à renforcer la coopération déjà engagée avec d'autres Etats Membres dans ce domaine.
Inge GERREMO (Sweden): The Code of Conduct on Distribution and Use of Pesticides and the implementation of the Prior Informed Consent clause are of crucial importance when addressing human health and environmental problems caused by pesticides. The Swedish delegation notes with satisfaction that the adoption of the Code and the initial phase of the implementation of the PIC programme has been carried out in a very successful way. We note with satisfaction the close cooperation between FAO and UNEP, and welcome the fact that a Memorandum of Understanding between the two organizations has been elaborated.
In this context I would like to mention that twelve countries and nine international entities upon the invitation of the Swedish Chemical Inspectorate met in Sweden in October this year to discuss issues related to control of pesticides. The evaluation and adoption of the FAO Code of Conduct were mentioned as a landmark for increased safety in the use of pesticides.
There are many reports indicating that banned or severely restricted pesticides are exported from industrialized countries to developed countries. Farmers in these countries often have little knowledge of handling pesticides in a safe way, both for themselves and for the environment. Only the implementation of PIC will pave the way for the solving of these problems. The appointment of Designated National Authorities which function well is a prerequisite for the successful implementation of PIC. Therefore, it is encouraging that thus far 109 countries have nominated DNAs. Hopefully, most of the developing countries are included in this figure of 109. My delegation would like to stress that if DNAs have been appointed, there is no guarantee that they will be capable or even have the resources to implement PIC. This is probably the case in many of the developing countries. Therefore, emphasis has to be put on training and support for these DNAs. Seminars and workshops have already been initiated, and it is recommended that these should continue. Follow-up training in terms of in-service training and technical "backstopping" should also be considered. Even if PIC only deals with issues concerning the import and export of pesticides, we would also like to stress the importance of the fact that DNAs should have an in-country network functioning well both for the receipt and distribution of PIC-related information to the farming community, marketing organizations, extension and research institutions, the pesticide industry, and so on.
When it comes to the revision of Articles 2 and 9 of the Code of Conduct, my delegation supports what has been suggested in the document. The proposed guidelines on the operation of PIC-executing agencies seems also to be relevant, forming an important tool not least for the DNAs in the implementation of PIC.
H.E.J. JORRITSMA (Netherlands): I shall try to be as brief as possible. Earlier this week, in this same Conference room, we had a long and stimulating debate on sustainable agriculture and the elements of a policy framework to ensure the realization of sustainable agriculture.
One of the crucial conditions for sustainable agriculture is a more balanced and ecologically sound use of external inputs such as pesticides and the promotion of alternatives through integrated pest management and biological control.
The implementation of the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides is an essential step towards sustainable agriculture, as is the so-called Prior Informed Consent clause, which appeals to the responsibility of policy makers and governments in recipient countries and gives them the means to take decisions on the basis of valid information.
Therefore, the Netherlands delegation actively supports the measures necessary for the execution of the Code of Conduct and, more particularly, the procedures that are agreed upon regarding the import and export of forbidden or restricted pesticides.
It has taken some time to develop an acceptable and practical procedure, but the one that is proposed now gives the impression of a balanced piece of work. The time is ripe for its implementation and we look forward to an early report on the first results of this implementation.
According to my delegation, special attention should be given to those chemicals belonging to the Class IA of the WHO Hazard Classification, given the actual health situation in a certain number of developing countries. We cannot exclude the possibility that a specific policy for these chemicals might be required.
Discussion on the need to develop the Code of Conduct into a legally binding instrument is not new. Mr de Haen mentioned it in his introduction. Although at the moment this might be premature, we do not want to exclude the possibility that the need for such a legally binding instrument will be felt in the future. Apart from UNEP/FAO discussions on this matter, I would like to remind you of the ongoing discussions within ILO. Therefore, there really is an urgent need to implement the voluntary PIC procedure and to evaluate its effectiveness in time, in order to have a clear picture as to what extent it will have an impact on the distribution and use of pesticides in developing as well as developed countries.
Finally, allow me to briefly remind you of the problem raised by a number of developing countries during the Den Bosch Conference in Holland concerning the older stocks of pesticides in their countries which are sometimes really becoming a threat to the health situation in those countries.
It is our firm opinion that FAO is one of, maybe the best, placed organizations to develop a programme to work on proposals to solve this problem. We would recommend inviting the private sector to cooperate in such a programme. Several technologies have already been developed but an environmental impact assessment of these technologies is needed.
Ecologically sound project proposals in this field will be considered positively by the Dutch Government. Nevertheless, we would welcome a broad support from the donor side.
Mete BASCI (Turkey): There are seven different ecological regions in our country. Plant protection has great importance as many species and varieties of plants are being cultivated. A world average of 30-35 percent of the cultivated plants will be lost because of the diseases, pests and weeds if plant protection measurements are not taken in hand.
Pesticides have been widely used in our country since the 1950s. Besides many benefits, pesticide use has many negative effects on human and animal health, in other words, on the whole environment. This subject has always been very important in our plant protection activities.
Bearing in mind that the people living in rural areas are not educated, urgent precautions against the acute and chronic toxic effects of pesticides carry great importance. Because of these reasons, we are very pleased to hear that FAO and UNEP, in coordination with WHO and EPA, are reorganizing the use and distribution, importation and exportation of pesticides with a new regulation for human and environmental health.
There is no doubt that the most important precaution in order to minimize or to eliminate the adverse effects of pesticides is to forbid some pesticides or to limit the consumption of some of them.
In our country the use of many pesticides has been forbidden for a long time due to their chemical stabilities, toxicities and teratogenic effects.
The rules put forward by WHO, EPA, FAO, UNEP and such organizations were followed when consideration was given to forbidding these pesticides, and their production, importation and consumption have been forbidden without doubt.
whether or not the materials that are outside of the technical materials purity ratios have any environmental risk are also being considered carefully. For example, in order to use the PCNB technical material safely it must contain the HCB material lower than 0.1 percent.
We are investigating the negative effects of insecticides, fungicides and herbicides by carrying out projects. On the other hand, some studies to determine the effects on human and animal health and also to determine the effects on the natural balance and on the soil structure are being carried on.
It is very pleasing to see that a coding system is being applied indicating the PIC principles. We are supporting the proposals put forward at the Twenty-fifth Session of the FAO Conference.
London Guidelines for the Exchange of Information for Chemicals in International Trade is appreciated by us as a very important step. But implementing this guideline must be cleared with a more adaptable method for controlling the chemicals, and this method must have the power of international sanctions.
One more thing must be taken into consideration among the PIC application bases in the memorandum issued in respect of FAO's and UNEP's common programme. That is, if a pesticide is to be forbidden because of its great risk, and if this pesticide is a unique one for the area in which it is being used, alternative pesticides or control measures must be put forward
so as not to cause a problem or lack in control. This is possible with common attempts and support of the Member Nations to search for a suitable pesticide or method.
Wilberforce SAKIRA (Uganda): I would like to start by thanking the FAO Secretariat for the informative, concise and clear document for this agenda item, C 91/20.
Pesticides with high toxicity are a potential hazard to human health, livestock, fisheries and the environment. Some of the pesticides end up as residues in plant and animal tissues while others leach to lower horizons of the soil, join the water cycle, persist in appreciable lethal amounts and thus make drinking water dangerous.
Our main concern is mainly with regard to those pesticides which have high mammalian toxicity and persist as residues in water, plants and soil.
Our delegation would like to thank FAO for the efforts it has taken to create awareness and popularize the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides. My delegation regards this as an important step in the restriction of dangerous chemicals, something which, as you are aware, is of vital importance, particularly in developing countries which, unfortunately, have sometimes been used as dumping grounds for such dangerous chemicals.
FAO is commended for the PIC lists in Tables 1 and 2 in document C 91/20 on pages 6 and 7.
The Uganda Government attaches much importance to the safe use and handling of agricultural chemicals. Matters related to this aspect are handled by the Crop Protection Unit in the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries. The designated national authority to handle PIC is the Minister of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries spearheaded by the Commissioner for Agriculture himself. We therefore strongly support the implementation of the Prior Informed Consent clause.
However, we have the following observations: we concur with the FAO/UNEP Expert Panel that it is premature to convert the Code of Conduct into a binding legal instrument. I think we need more discussion before we come up with something that is a legal instrument.
Secondly, we believe that the success of the PIC will depend on the cooperation of different organizations. We are glad to hear that UNEP has been cooperative in this regard. We suggest that FAO continue its useful collaborative efforts in this regard.
This might sound a little out of place, but I would like to mention it because we feel it is important. We call upon FAO to intensify efforts in the area of integrated pest management with emphasis on biological control in order to avoid excessive use of pesticides that kill or destroy even non-target species.
Ms Guri GRONOLEN (Norway) : Norway has read with great interest the Director-General's paper on the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides - Implementation of the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) clause.
In our opinion the pursuit of a safer use of pesticides is of vital importance to reduce hazards to human health and the environment. The principle of Prior Informed Consent urges exporters of pesticides to make all relevant information on the actual pesticides available for importing countries. The inclusion of this principle into FAO's Code of Conduct may contribute to a safer use of pesticides and a protection both of the environment and of individual users.
From our point of view, international cooperation is of great importance to solve the environmental problems in the 1990s. In this respect it should be stressed that it is important that organizations coordinate their efforts for the protection of the environment.
We believe that close cooperation between international organizations will contribute to better resource allocation which in the long run may increase international organizations' involvement for the benefit of the environment. Thus, we are pleased to note that for the implementation of the PIC, FAO and UNEP have cooperated closely with each other and other relevant international organizations, including WHO, ILO and GATT.
The establishment by FAO and UNEP of the Joint Expert Group on Prior Informed Consent is of great importance in our opinion to the success of PIC, especially with regard to the developing countries.
So far experience has shown that the developing countries in particular are facing huge difficulties in establishing effective control measures concerning imported pesticides. We would therefore like to express our satisfaction with regard to the technical assistance in implementing the Code and the PIC clause which FAO and UNEP have already provided and the number of activities under way for the benefit of the developing countries.
The Twenty-fifth FAO Conference proposed to the Secretariat to explore the possibility of converting the FAO Code of Conduct into a legal instrument instead of the present voluntary code. Norway finds this proposal interesting but we still agree with FAO/UNEP Panel and the Council in its Ninety-ninth Session that the development of such binding instrument may be premature.
Jaime GARCIA Y BADIAS (España): Haremos uso de la palabra, pero no la habíamos solicitado, señor Presidente. En consecuencia, nuestra poco elaborada declaración puede ocasionar que no digamos todo aquello que teníamos previsto puntualizar en la misma.
Ante todo, deseamos agradecer a la Secretaría la elaboración y la presentación del documento que nos ha hecho. Por lo que respecta a nuestro país, la regulación del Código de Conducta y la aplicación de la cláusula relativa al Principio de Información y Consentimiento Previos es aceptada tal como se expone en el documento, pero desearíamos hacer alguna puntualización.
Creemos que es un poco prematura su aplicación, dadas la dificultades que entraña en algunos aspectos de la misma, al igual que han expuesto otras delegaciones aqui presentes, en sus intervenciones anteriores. Igualmente, para España es sumamente importante si hubiera alguna mención o se pudiera incluir el acuerdo aprobado en la Directriz de Londres para el intercambio de información acerca de productos químicos objeto de comercio internacional enmendado en 1989, en su punto 8, apartado Ci.3, que dice que "una estimación de la cantidad que se prevea exportar anualmente, así como cualquier información de que se disponga sobre envíos específicos". Este concepto, enmendado en Londres, creemos que es muy importante, por las dificultades que generalmente entraña todo cuanto hace referencia a las cantidades a exportar y que, dado que ya fue aprobado en el año 1989, podría servir de tónica y mejorar nuestro documento. Esto es todo por lo que respecta a nuestro país, señor Presidente, y a la espera de una nueva posible intervención.
LE PRESIDENT: Et voilà, ce sont les meilleures ... les improvisations, merci beaucoup. Je vous félicite car c'est une bonne intervention. Je donne la parole au représentant du Mexique.
Srta. Martha VAZQUEZ (México): En respuesta a su solicitud, trataré de ser breve, señor Presidente. México ha participado durante todo el proceso de aceptación del Principio de Información y Consentimiento Previos desde la aprobación, en 1985, del Código Internacional de Conducta para la Distribución y Utilización de Plaguicidas hasta la inclusión del PICP en este Código y su enmienda en 1989. Durante este tiempo se ha promovido la aplicación del Código para lograr una utilización más segura y eficaz de los plaguicidas y el aumento de la producción alimentaria. Esperamos que la adopción del Principio contribuya a un uso más inocuo de los plaguicidas, reduciendo los riesgos para la salud humana y para el medio ambiente.
En un principio, la participación de México en estas actividades se desarrolló con la participación de las Secretarías involucradas. Sin embargo, actualmente todas las actividades relacionadas con plaguicidas y sustancias tóxicas son revisadas por la Comisión Intersecretarial para el Control del Proceso y Uso de Plaguicidas, Fertilizantes y Sustancias Tóxicas, en la que participan diversos ministerios del Ejecutivo Federal, como son: de Comercio y Fomento Industrial, de Agricultura y Recursos Hidráulicos, de Desarrollo Urbano y Ecología, así como el ministerio de Salud. Esta Comisión Intersecretarial, con relación al Principio de Información y Consentimiento Previos acordó nombrar dos Autoridades Nacionales Designadas. Una de ellas, en la Secretaría de Agricultura y Recursos Hidráulicos y la otra en el Ministerio de Salud, para plaguicidas de uso diferente al agropecuario y forestal y sustancias tóxicas en general.
En relación al punto 8 del documento C 91/20, se nombraron las Autoridades Nacionales Designadas anteriormente mencionadas. A principios de 1991, se publicó una lista de plaguicidas prohibidos en el Diario Oficial de la Federación. Esta lista, de un total de veintiún plaguicidas, incluye los productos prohibidos para su importación, fabricación, formulación, comercialización y uso en México, lista que, en su oportunidad, será remitida a esa Secretaría.
Sería interesante para mi país contar a la brevedad con los programas que el PNUMA prepara para computadoras personales, con el fin de tener disponibilidad de la información y que sirvan como documento de orientación para la toma de decisiones, tal y como lo menciona el párrafo 11 del documento que nos ocupa.
Con relación al punto 12 del documento, cabe señalar que México tiene establecido como método de control de las importaciones contar con una autorización de importación expedida por la Comisión Internacional anteriormente aludida. Los requisitos para esta autorización exigen que los productos a importar cuenten con el registro que otorga el Gobierno mexicano y que la empresa importadora esté legalmente establecida. De acuerdo a este mecanismo, los plaguicidas prohibidos señalados anteriormente no podrán contar con autorización de importación a México.
Con respecto a lo señalado en el punto 15, México considera que los tres nuevos plaguicidas incluidos en la lista inicial de plaguicidas sujetos al procedimiento del PICP de la categoría "IA+" no deben ser incluidos en esta primera fase, ya que se considera que requieren un examen más profundo, debido a que no hay productos de la misma accesibilidad económica que puedan sustituirlos immediatamente.
México ha respondido y está atento a las diversas convocatorias de la FAO en donde se ha explicado el funcionamiento de los procedimientos de aplicación del PICP.
Finalmente, la delegación de México se adhiere al acuerdo en el 99o Consejo y a la recomendación del grupo mixto de expertos, así como a lo expuesto anteriormente por algunas delegaciones, en el sentido de que es prematuro convertir el Código de Conducta en un instrumento jurídicamente vinculante.
Salah BENNANI AHMED (Maroc): La délégation du Royaume du Maroc considère que le Code de conduite est une initiative de haute importance qui a fait l'objet d'une réflexion longue et profonde; nous saisissons donc l'occasion pour exprimer notre satisfaction des actions entreprises par la FAO dans la mise sur pied d'un système visant l'amélioration du circuit et de l'utilisation des pesticides. Ma délégation estime que ce Code est une directive fort utile qui aiderait beaucoup à renforcer la sécurité dans l'emploi des pesticides et à réduire les risques encourus pour la santé de l'homme et pour l'environnement.
En effet, si on se réfère à l'homologation des pesticides on constate que les décisions sont généralement prises à la lumière du dossier toxicologique et au vu des résultats d'essais d'efficacité conduits dans les conditions pédoclimatiques locales. Pour ce qui est des résidus, les données recueillies par les pays en développement restent le plus souvent tributaires de l'industrie.
On comprend donc aisément l'intérêt d'introduire dans le Code de conduite le principe de l'ICP dont la mise en oeuvre contribuerait à intensifier l'échange d'information et à renforcer les capacités des pays en développement à la prise de décisions concernant l'importation de chaque pesticide. C'est pourquoi la délégation du Royaume du Maroc apporte son soutien à la mise en oeuvre de l'ICP.
Il va sans dire que les autorités nationales compétentes (ANC) auxquelles sera confiée la tâche de mettre en application la procédure de l'ICP ne sont autres que celles qui ont été déjà notifiée à la FAO après son enquête mentionnée au point 10 de notre document.
Il s'agit du Ministère de l'Agriculture de la Réforme Agraire et plus particulièrement, la protection des végétaux, les contrôles techniques et les répressions des fraudes. Pour ce qui est de la mise en oeuvre de l'ICP, la délégation du Maroc ne saurait insister sur l'importance des activités entreprises conjointement par la FAO et le PNUE visant à expliquer le fonctionnement des procédures de l'ICP et à former les fonctionnaires nationaux en la matière. Il serait donc souhaitable que ces ateliers soient étendus aux régions qui n'en ont pas encore profité dans les pays du Maghreb. Il serait également souhaitable que la FAO élargisse la gamme des thèmes de ces ateliers et stages de formation afin de permettre aux autorités compétentes des pays en développement d'être en mesure d'évaluer les risques que font courir les pesticides en cause.
Par ailleurs, en ce qui concerne la conversion du Code en instrument juridique contraignant, ma délégation estime que cette proposition est prématurée compte tenu de la complexité du problème.
En conclusion la délégation du Royaume du Maroc salue les efforts accomplis conjointement par la FAO et le PNUE, apprécie l'intérêt de l'ICP et en conséquence souscrit à sa mise en oeuvre.
HUANG YONG-NING (China) (Original language Chinese): Document C 91/20 prepared by the Secretariat gives us a comprehensive review of the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides - Implementation of the Prior Informed Consent Clause. It is obvious that the FAO has done a lot of work in this respect and certain achievements have been obtained.
To implement an International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides is something of a highly technical nature and it is very necessary to provide technical assistance to the countries concerned in order to enhance their ability and competence to conduct their own work. The Chinese delegation is happy to note that over the past years this work has already done by FAO, and we hope it will be further strengthened in the future.
The point in paragraph 19 of document C 91/20 is in line with reality, that is that it is still premature to convert the FAO Code of Conduct into a binding legal instrument. However, we believe that in terms of protecting the environment and human health, it is highly necessary to enhance the sense of self-discipline in implementing the Code of Conduct. Additionally, the use of and trade in pesticides in all countries should be conducted in an acceptable manner.
SECRETARY (Commission I): We understand the position in Plenary is critical, so we have been requested to adjourn the meeting for fifteen minutes so that our delegates can help them reach a quorum.
CHAIRMAN: Our meeting will then be suspended for a few minutes.
Meeting is suspended from 10.45 to 11.30.
La session est levée de 10 h 45 à 11 h 30.
Se suspende la sesión de las 10.45 a las 11.30 horas.
Ms Heather AMYS (Canada): In the interests of time our message will be brief. First of all, we wish to associate ourselves with the Member Nations who have spoken before us on the crucial importance of this Code of Conduct and specifically on the PIC clause. We are satisfied with the progress the Secretariat has made in implementing the Code and promoting awareness in this important field. We support the rapid implementation of the PIC clause, and encourage the Secretariat to achieve their goal of full implementation in 1992.
As members of the Conference will recall, the concept of PIC is based on the development of a data base on banned and severely restricted pesticides and other chemicals. Canada is concerned that this data base is incomplete. This is by no means the fault of the Secretariat but rather stems from gaps in contributions by Member Nations. Countries with established pesticides regulatory systems, particularly those with regulatory systems which are highly respected, regard control actions to ban or severely restrict pesticide products as critical to the effectiveness of the PIC clause. With this in mind, Canada wishes to take this opportunity to remind the members of the Commission of their commitment - indeed, their consensus regarding this item of drawing attention to paragraph 2 of the document C 91/20 which is before us. This paragraph recounts the grave concerns expressed by the Eighty-seventh Conference on the continuing health and environmental problems caused by pesticides, the serious problems arising out of the continued importation of banned or severely restricted pesticides, and so on. Thus, Canada appeals to the Member Nations of this Conference to contribute information to FAO on their control actions as soon as possible.
Hans-Dietrich VON BOTHMER (Germany) (Original language German): First of all, I would like to thank Prof, de Haen for his brief but very exhaustive introduction of this document.
We welcome and support the inclusion of the PIC procedure in the FAO International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides. The German legislators have, in fact, taken up this Code in their own legislation in paragraph 23 of our specific law, and I quote: Furthermore, in export international agreements, most particularly the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides adopted by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, should be taken into account.
Furthermore, the export of certain pesticides can be banned by this legislation in order to prevent considerable risk to the health of humans, animals, or other risks, particularly for the environment.
In addition, the Association of German Pesticides Producers, to which most producers belong, has taken up the principles of the FAO Code in their Association Statutes and through declaration have committed themselves to maintaining its principles.
By the Conference document before us we have been informed about the setting up of a Joint Expert Group between FAO and UNEP on PIC. We believe that the contribution of this Expert Group should be notified to the Member Nations of FAO. We also believe that the pesticides Parathion ethyl, Parathion methyl and Paraquat should not be included in the list of prohibited pesticides in the PIC list. Because these active substances are not banned or severely restricted but do represent certain difficulties in manipulation in developing countries, we believe that they should be included in a separate list under the PIC procedure.
We also give our express support to the setting up of a Secretariat for International Fund Protection Convention in the years 1992-93. We believe that it is in the interest of everyone that the Secretariat should be set up as soon as possible. Also, we should know what staff it is given and when we can count on it starting to work.
Praphas WEERAPAT (Thailand): The Thai delegation would like to inform the Conference that we are aware of the problems concerning the use of pesticides and hazardous chemicals. The Government of Thailand issued the Poisonous Article Act 1967 for control of the distribution and use of these toxic substances. The responsibility of this Act is shared by three ministries: the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives is responsible for pesticides and plant growth regulators used in agricultural; the Ministry of Industry is responsible for hazardous chemicals used in industrial use; the Ministry of Public Health is responsible for pesticides and hazardous chemicals in household use.
The Thai Government adopted the principle of the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides in 1985. In 1988 FAO and Member Nations in Asia and the Pacific set up a project to implement the Code of Conduct. The Regional Office is located at the Department of Agriculture in Bangkok. After implementation of the project we harmonized our regulations with the principle of the Code and FAO's guidelines as follows: set up ministerial notification for the control of all kinds of pesticides and plant growth regulators in 1989; adopted the WHO pesticide classification by hazard, which was announced in a ministerial notification in 1989; adopted the colour code band and pictograms on pesticide labels according to the FAO guideline in 1990; introduced the FAO specification for analysis for the control of the quality of pesticide products in 1990; and introduced the phased registration system for the control of pesticides in 1991.
Since the Prior Informed Consent was added in the Code (Article 2 and Article 9) in 1989, Thailand has shared the activity as an importing country and the Department of Agriculture was appointed as the Designated National Authority for pesticides under FAO/UNEP joint programme on PIC to cooperate and implement PIC procedure.
Now many tasks on PIC are being done such as: collecting and reviewing the data of the banned and severely restricted pesticdes in the country for IRPTC data base; collecting the data for pesticides in the initial list and candidate chemicals for decision-making as to whether or not these pesticides will be allowed for importation in the future; and responding to communications from the FAO/UNEP joint programme as importing country.
Since the Thai Government has adopted the principle of the International Code of Conduct the recommendations of the FAO Guidelines have been harmonized with our regulations for the purpose of the achievement of efficiency and safety to users and consumers according to the Act and the Code of Conduct. The Thai Government participates in the PIC in the Code and, therefore, its processes and procedures have been implemented.
Finally, the Thai delegation appreciates the Secretariat's efforts in preparation of document C 91/20, which leads to the protection of human health and environment. The Thai delegation supports the deliberations of the Code of Conduct as they appear in paragraph 19 of the document. We believe that the document should not be converted into a legal binding document at the present time because it needs further consideration and implementation for international cooperation.
Hassan AL AHMAD (Syria) (Original language Arabic): My country has committed itself to the implementation of the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides and the PIC Clause.
Since danger to the environment, as well as to human health, are of continuous concern to us, we hope to be assured that all these steps can be taken.
We also hope that we will be able to participate in the preparation of data bases for use of personal computers, as well as government steps that should be taken on PIC. We hope that this type of information will be available, if possible, in Arabic.
We also hope that regional or national workshops can be organized by FAO to explain in further detail the implementation of the PIC to national authorities in order that they can be properly trained and informed, as well as supporting national efforts.
We also hope that FAO may be able to organize Near East meetings to help governments to implement their own activities and procedures as indicated in the Code.
E.K. KANDIE (Kenya): The Kenya delegation wishes to commend the FAO for all its efforts since the last Conference in implementing the PIC Clause jointly with UNEP, and in consultation with other international organizations.
The Kenya Government has already endorsed the adoption of the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides, and has implemented its provisions through the Pest Control Products Act of the laws of Kenya. It also supports the principle of Prior Informed Consent and its inclusion in the Code.
We have already taken action in implementing certain relevant aspects such as the appointment of a Designated National Authority, namely, the Pest Control Products Board, which is legally responsible for all aspects of pesticides. A similar body is now proposed for industrial and other chemicals headed by the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Industry, and others that use dangerous chemicals. We have prepared an inventory of pesticides used and those registered, banned or restricted. On the initial PIC list Kenya has banned or severely restricted the use of 14 out of the 15 pesticides identified for action. Other candidate pesticides not in the initial PIC list are now the subject of scrutiny by the relevant authorities and more than half are already not recommended for use.
The Kenya delegation appreciates the efforts in the provision of technical assistance to implement the Code and PIC Clause. It notes, however, that no training or regional workshops have been held in East Africa for the benefit of the region. We hope this will be rectified soon. We appreciate the preparation of the computer data base for eventual use by the developing countries, and would welcome efforts to strengthen the capabilities of the developing countries in implementing the Code through provision of manpower training, laboratory use and other forms of technical assistance.
In conclusion, Kenya concurs with the recommendation of the Joint FAO/UNEP Expert Panel that it is still premature to convert the Code of Conduct into a binding legal instrument.
Jung Sup CHOI (Korea, Republic of): I thank Mr de Haen for his excellent presentation on this important subject.
As we are all aware, a safer and more efficient use of pesticides deserves one of the top priority concerns in terms of our health and the environment. The steps taken by FAO in conjunction with the UNEP, namely the adoption of Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides in 1985, the discussion of the principle of "Prior Informed Consent" in 1987, and the amendment of Articles 2 and 9 of the Code in 1989, show us vividly the continuous progress made on this subject.
We know that we are on the right track; we welcome the full implementation of PIC procedure to be effective by 1 January 1992.
The Korean delegation appreciates the Netherlands and Japanese Governments' actions of financing Trust Funds in order to facilitate projects on the implementation of the International Code of Conduct. I hope that many other nations will participate in these activities and help FAO in this important project.
Let me briefly explain the Korean Government's domestic efforts in terms of safe application of pesticides. First of all, under the "Law of Pesticide Management", every container of pesticide is enforced to attach a label which clearly shows the limits in terms of the number and timing of pesticide application. It helps to minimize the crop residual of pesticides and human intoxication. As a matter of fact it is extremely difficult for Korean farmers to tell one foreign named pesticide from another.
Furthermore, in order to prevent pesticide intoxication, the Korean Government operates a continuous educational programme for farmers, pesticide dealers, and extension workers.
In addition, the Government supplies detoxification tablets through the National Agricultural Cooperation Federation, and subsidizes farmers' purchasing of protection gears.
Pesticides are both good and bad. In order to help countries, especially developing countries, to use pesticides properly and to protect their peoples' health, FAO and other international organizations should devote more effort in the preparation of standards that may be applied in all countries. Also, FAO should consider ways to help developing countries to measure the pesticide residuals.
The Korean delegation supports all activities that FAO has been doing in these regards. The Korean Government has every intention to promote the PIC procedure.
E. Wayne DENNEY (United States of America): The United States strongly supports the PIC procedures and is taking appropriate actions to implement it within current US legislation.
We applaud FAO and UNEP for approaching this as a joint programme which will avoid duplication of effort and confusion among participating countries. We are particularly pleased that the implementation of the procedure has actually begun with the issuance of the Guidance for Governments document and Decision Guidance documents for the first six PIC pesticides.
We commend FAO for developing and distributing a questionnaire to determine which pesticides might need to be included in PIC because of this acute toxicity in use concern.
The United States has taken and continues to take steps to implement PIC within its national regulatory programmes and respond to the requests of the FAO/UNEP Joint Programme.
The United States always believed that technical assistance and development of national capacity in developing countries to control imports of pesticides and the storage, transportation, use and disposal of those admitted into the country is essential to the long-term solution of problems resulting from pesticide use. We have been active in supporting FAO workshops and training in these areas through the provision of some funding and of technical resources persons. We have also provided support to the Joint Experts Group and cooperated closely on several projects with Central America and Mexico.
The recent and unique OECD meeting on importing hazardous chemicals, unique in that it included 33 developing country representatives in addition to OECD member country representatives from both government and environmental assistance agencies, reached conclusions regarding the need for an expanded role for donor agencies in the area of chemicals management. In this regard, we would encourage FAO to expand its collaborative efforts with the International Programme on Chemical Safety.
Mohammad Hanif QUAZI (Pakistan) : The Government of Pakistan attaches prime importance to the FAO Code of Conduct which is designed to avoid the adverse effects of pesticides on human life and the environment and to prevent accidental poisoning from their improper use.
The Government of Pakistan fully supported the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) which was deleted from the agreed Code of Conduct, but re-introduced for inclusion by the FAO Consultation held on 10-13 January 1989. Since then the Government of Pakistan has continuously extended its support to the inclusion of the PIC Clause in the FAO Code of Conduct at different FAO fora.
The Government of Pakistan in the Twenty-fifth Session of FAO Conference held in Rome from 11-30 November 1989 extended its support to the inclusion of PIC Clause by revising Articles 2 and 9 of the International Code of Conduct on Distribution and Use of Pesticides.
The implementation of PIC Clause in the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides has been recently supported by the Government of Pakistan in the 99th Session of the FAO Council in Rome during June 1991.
The Government of Pakistan supports the revised Article 2 and 9 (Annex A) of the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides and approves the guidelines on the operation of Prior Informed Consent.
The Government of Pakistan has designated the Plant Protection Adviser and Director, Department of Plant Protection, Karachi to act as the Designated National Authority for PIC operations concerning pesticides. The Designated National Authority will supply FAO with the notices of control actions taken by the Government of Pakistan and will be responsible for receiving and issuing notices on the decisions whether Pakistan wishes to receive import of pesticides included in the PIC procedure.
José V. ROMERO, Jr. (Philippines): Thank you very much for giving me an opportunity to address this body on a subject that is very important to the Philippines, although we have moved away somewhat from the use of petroleum-based fertilizers into an organic fertilizer, which is what we are encouraging. Still, in all, it is very important to us to have some guidelines in the use of fertilizer which we have found in the past to have some rather adverse effects on the condition of soil and nutrition.
First of all, let me congratulate the author of this very important paper which we are using as a framework for today's discussions. As far as the Philippines is concerned, our fertilizer and pesticide authority has through the years taken an active role in regional activities related to pesticide regulation and has been recognized for its contribution towards helping other developing countries, especially in the Asia and Pacific region, in developing and implementing regulatory policies on pesticides through study tours, training, and conferences. For a basically importing pesticide country the Philippines' thorough understanding of the concept and implementation of PIC, both technically and legally, is paramount so as
not to pose a barrier to the country's import-export, local production, distribution and use of pesticide, hence our active interest in the subject at hand.
We support these actions taken by this august body and we hope that we will have more initiatives like this in the future.
Kiala KIA MATEVA (Angola): M. le Président, je vous demande tout d'abord d'excuser mon absence de la salle. Je suis allé participer au vote du budget que nous considérons tous prioritaire et qui a été adopté par consensus. Je constate d'ailleurs que de nombreux délégués se trouvent encore en salle plénière.
Pour en revenir au point 11 de l'ordre du jour, qui fait l'objet de notre examen, le document C 91/20 a mérité une attention de mon Gouvernement, compte tenu des renseignements qu'il contient. C'est pourquoi, comme ceux qui m'ont précédé, je félicite le Secrétariat de son excellent travail et, en particulier, M. de Haen, pour le bref résumé qu'il nous a présenté. Je fais miennes les paroles que le Président lui a adressées.
Le document C 91/20, dont l'intitulé est "Mise en oeuvre de la clause de l'information et du consentement préalables (ICP) contenue dans le Code international de conduite pour la distribution et l'utilisation des pesticides", est composé de quatre parties: le rappel des faits, la mise en oeuvre du système d'ICP depuis la vingt-cinquième session de la Conférence en 1989, l'assistance technique pour la mise en oeuvre du Code et de la clause d'ICP et, enfin, la conversion du Code en un instrument juridique contraignant; sans oublier trois tableaux présentant les pesticides déjà identifiés.
La première partie nous brosse un tableau des faits depuis l'adoption du Code par consensus dans la Résolution 10/85 de la vingt-troisième session de la Conférence de la FAO, en passant par les discussions et l'introduction de la clause d'ICP pour arriver enfin à sa mise en oeuvre après la vingt-cinquième session de la Conférence.
Avec ce tableau, ma délégation constate la coopération et la collaboration qui ont toujours caractérisé les relations de la FAO avec les autres institutions des Nations Unies, notamment le Programme des Nations Unies pour l'environnement et autres. Nous ne pouvons que saluer l'initiative prise par les deux organisations concernant la base de données communes FAO/PNUE sur l'ICP, tel qu'indiqué au paragraphe 11 du document.
Dans sa deuxième partie, ce document nous montre quelles sont les différentes phases pour la mise en oeuvre du système d'ICP. Le nombre de pays qui ont répondu à l'invitation de la FAO de désigner une autorité nationale compétente démontrent la préoccupation grandissante des Etats Membres, d'une part, d'accroitre la production alimentaire et, d'autre part, de réduire les risques pour la santé humaine et l'environnement. L'Angola se trouve parmi les pays qui ont désigné leur ANC.
En ce moment où tous les pays se préparent à participer à la Conférence des Nations Unies sur l'environnement et le développement, je m'étonne de voir qu'il existe encore des pays - je ne sais pas s'ils sont exportateurs ou importateurs puisque le rapport ne nous donne pas la liste actuelle - qui
n'ont pas encore répondu oui au bien-être de l'humanité. Les effets néfastes de l'utilisation sur l'environnement ne s'arrêtent pas aux frontières de nos pays.
Le paragraphe 10 du document nous donne le nombre de réponses reçues mais se tait quant aux résultats obtenus à la suite des contacts établis par les représentants de la FAO avec les gouvernements n'ayant pas encore répondu positivement. Le Secrétariat peut-il nous fournir quelques renseignements pour essayer de dissiper la peur qui peut élire domicile dans nos pays?
En lisant le paragraphe 12, je crois comprendre que le document qui a été rédigé, revu et amendé n'a pas encore été envoyé aux autorités nationales compétentes pour leur permettre de communiquer l'inventaire de leurs mesures de contrôle.
En ce qui concerne la troisième partie, la délégation angolaise félicite, une fois de plus, la FAO pour les actions concrètes qu'elle a réalisées en Afrique, en Asie, en Amérique latine, et aux Caraïbes, avec les autres organisations internationales. Nos félicitations s'adressent également aux pays qui, comme le Japon et les Pays-Bas, ont joint l'acte à la parole, afin de permettre à la FAO de mettre en oeuvre des programmes dans certaines régions de notre planète. Nous espérons que d'autres pays suivront leur exemple.
L'Angola, qui a participé à la quatre-vingt-dix-neuvième session du Conseil de la FAO, souscrit à la recommandation du Groupe mixte d'experts FAO/PNUE, contenue dans le paragraphe 19, relative à la conversion du Code en instrument juridique contraignant.
Nous félicitons M. de Haen pour avoir donné des informations complémentaires qui ne se trouvent pas dans le document C 91/20.
Robert LAMB (Suisse): Nous tenons d'abord à féliciter le Secrétariat pour la qualité du document C 91/20 fort complet et riche en informations. La FAO a rempli un de ses rôles importants dans l'activité qui concerne l'établissement de normes. Cette activité pour nous revêt un rôle prioritaire; à notre avis, elle s'intègre dans une stratégie générale de développement de l'agriculture durable. Le Code de conduite n'est donc pas un instrument isolé, mais il doit soutenir, être le complément d'autres activités telle la lutte intégrée. Nous saluons, à cet effet, les efforts entrepris par la FAO dans ce dernier domaine, notamment en Indonésie, où le programme qui a eu beaucoup de succès concernant ce champ d'activités a permis de réduire un usage abusif des pesticides pour leur bonne utilisation, grâce également au Gouvernement indonésien qui est très actif dans ce domaine.
En ce qui concerne certains points particuliers du document, nous nous félicitons de la modification du Code international de conduite par la clause du principe du consentement préalable que nous soutenons et que nous nous attachons à mettre en oeuvre au niveau national.
Cependant, nous aimerions rappeler que cette clause n'est qu'un élément du Code et ne doit pas faire oublier d'autres principes importants dans la mise en oeuvre de ce Code. Ce principe concerne l'assistance technique qui doit être complémentaire aux efforts des pays concernés.
Quant à la mise en oeuvre du Code, il me paraît important que la rigueur regardant les pesticides importés soit également appliquée aux pesticides produits localement.
Concernant la conversion du Code en instrument contraignant, nous approuvons la recommandation du Conseil. Il est prématuré de transformer le Code en instrument contraignant. Nous aimerions souligner que la forme non contraignante du Code permet un contrôle par les médias et les ONG qui permettraient une évaluation de ce Code et qui ont un rôle important à jouer dans ce domaine. La forme juridique contraignante ne permettrait peut-être pas à ce rôle de s'exprimer. Il est important également que la FAO procède, avant de considérer une conversion en instrument contraignant, à une évaluation de l'efficacité et de l'efficience actuelles et futures du Code.
Un autre élément important que nous aimerions voir renforcé concerne l'évaluation des risques pour pouvoir définir des politiques au niveau national. Cet aspect concerne notamment une évaluation quantitative et une information sur les problèmes et accidents liés aux pesticides sur le terrain. Une telle évaluation devrait permettre de déterminer où et dans quel contexte les risques sont plus élevés pour l'environnement. En ce sens, la collaboration avec l'OMS et le PNUE devrait être renforcée.
Jaime GARCIA Y BADIAS (España): Gracias, señor Presidente, por permitirme volver a intervenir en segundo lugar y, a su vez, ruego disculpen esta nueva intervención mía. Queríamos hacer uso de la palabra para indicar que en España, por su pertenencia a la Comunidad Económica Europea en la actualidad, al igual que los otros países miembros de la Comunidad, están afectados por el Reglamento 1734/88 que regula las importaciones y exportaciones actualmente en vigor hacia los países que perciben estos productos. Dicho Reglamento, que actualmente está en previsión de modificación y que la regula en la actualidad, no obstante desearíamos que se tuviera en cuenta, o se intentara mejorar en la medida de lo posible algunas de las situaciones que en estos momentos se producen, tales como la ausencia o el desconocimiento en numerosísimas ocasiones del responsable o la autoridad local que debe recibir los productos que, en ocasiones, están afectados con la categoría de peligrosos o de nocivos.
Desearíamos, dentro de las posibilidades de esta Organización, se recomendara que los países que en la actualidad no han indicado o suministrado el nombre del organismo, de la autoridad o de las personas responsables a nivel sanitario de la recepción de estos productos, hicieran llegar a la FAO, para incorporarlo en los documentos, los nombres de las personas afectadas o, repito, del organismo afectado al objeto de mejorar en la medida de lo posible todas estas particularidades.
Igualmente desearía indicar que en nuestro país la responsabilidad de los productos de pesticidas afectados por el PICP está compartida por los Ministerios de Agricultura y de Sanidad, que es de quien depende todo lo que concierne a los efectos toxicológicos y ecotoxicológicos de los productos pesticidas.
Finalmente, señor Presidente, desearía agradecer a la FAO y al UNEP la elaboración de los dos magníficos documentos conocidos como "Guía para los Gobiernos" y "Guía de documentos", por su magnífica elaboración y su completa y perfecta documentación en su interior.
Kiyoshi SAWADA (Japan): My Government appreciates the Secretariat's continuing efforts which have brought the PIC clause to the point of implementation.
My Government sincerely hopes that the harmful effects of pesticides on human health and the environment will be reduced through the safer and correct use of pesticides and the implementation of PIC. To support FAO's activities on this matter, my Government has been financing a trust fund such as was introduced by the Secretariat.
In my country, the marketing of pesticides has been strictly controlled based on a Pesticide Control Law through a registration system for produced and imported pesticides. To prevent the exportation of unregistered pesticides from my country to other countries, we provide custom officers with the list of registered pesticides to check the applicable pesticides, as well as issuing instructions to private companies.
My country is happy to cooperate with the countries who need technical assistance on pesticide management, whether it is from an institutional or scientific perspective.
Parviz KARBASI (Iran, Islamic Republic of): The delegation of the Islamic Republic of Iran would like to congratulate FAO for the informative document C 91/20, and also Dr de Haen for his useful introduction.
We believe in, and generally support, the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides - Implementation of the Prior Informed Consent Clause. I would, however, like to make a few comments.
Smoking is not good. It is hazardous to health. Many national and international governmental and non-governmental institutions and organizations alarm people to the hazardous effects of smoking. Smoking will hurt one individual, but pesticides destroy the environment and endanger the lives of many people as well as living things.
I have some data which may interest you. The amount of active ingredient pesticides in the whole world in 1985 was 2 425 000 metric tons. The developing countries used 507 000 metric tons of that total in the same year. That means that the developed countries are using nearly five times more pesticides than developing countries, and are destroying the environment to a far greater extent than are the developing countries. I am sure we all agree that they have to pay for it.
PIC will inform us about the pesticides which are banned, the nature of the chemical, and so on. That is good, no doubt, but I hope that the Conference will appeal to the people of all the exporter countries of pesticides not to produce the banned pesticides and not to bring them to the market. If there are such banned pesticides, they should be eliminated with the help of the exporter countries.
In this connection the delegation of the Islamic Republic of Iran would like to make a suggestion parallel to the PIC, which I hope will receive the support of delegations here at the Conference. The suggestion is for the establishment of a very strong international cooperation on biological control of pests, and that FAO should take the initiative for such a suggestion. It is vital to all aspects of human life, to the environment, and to all living creatures.
It is our hope that more attention will be given to the improvement of extension services, particularly in the use of pesticides.
Mohd. Fadzil AKRAM (Malaysia): My delegation would like to thank and congratulate Dr de Haen for the introduction and the Secretariat for the preparation of the Report.
Malaysia supported the adoption of the Code of Conduct on the Distribution of Pesticides during the Twenty-third Session of the FAO Conference by way of Resolution 10/85. In addition, during the Twenty-fourth Session of the Conference in 1987, Malaysia supported the adoption of Resolution 5/87 calling for the incorporation of the principle of PIC in the Code. Malaysia also supported the adoption of Resolution 6/89 on the amendment of Articles 2 and 9 of the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides. In this Conference, Malaysia wishes for the fourth consecutive time to give its full support to the adoption of the Code and the inclusion of the principle of PIC. At the same time, the Malaysian delegation wishes to inform the Conference of recent actions taken by our country in implementing the Code.
Malaysia has nominated the Pesticides Board as its Designated National Authority (DNA) to handle pesticides, and the Department of Environment as its DNA to handle other chemicals.
Malaysia is an active participant in FAO's Asia and the Pacific Regional Project for the implementation of the Code. In addition to participating in the various workshops organized by the project, Malaysia has also contributed experts in the sphere of various pesticides, in support of the activities of the Project.
With regard to the principle of PIC, although Malaysia will not benefit by it as much as other developing countries, primarily due to its pesticide registration system, Malaysia will give its wholehearted support to the implementation of PIC in the form proposed.
The Malaysian delegation also supports Category IA+ for chemicals included in the PIC list, as these are particularly hazardous to farmers in developing countries.
Ms Katalin BAKK (Hungary): I would like to support the suggestion made by the distinguished delegate from Iran. I thank that it is very important, and an excellent idea, to establish international cooperation on biological pest control.
Mme Ioanna EFSTATHIOU (Greece): I intend to make a brief statement on the item concerning the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides, including the PIC Clause.
We welcome the close cooperation between FAO and UNEP, as well as their efforts to assist the countries through the exchange of information for chemicals and pesticides.
We also support the different phases that are proposed in paragraph 8 for the implementation of PIC.
My country intends to further promote its cooperation with the PIC procedure, because we are very much aware of the negative effects of the rise of chemicals and pesticides.
As my country is a full member of the EEC, we have to ensure that the harmonization of the legislation within the Community will lead to a common pesticide control concerning all Member States.
Another point that should be underlined is the withdrawal of banned and severely restricted pesticides.
Undoubtedly the rise of chemicals and pesticides causes severe problems. However the question of their stocking when they are withdrawn needs also to be examined, as it causes equal damage in the regions where they are stored.
We believe the conversion of the Code to a binding legal instrument to be premature, as is mentioned in the document in front of us. Under this framework the Code is more flexible, providing mutual understanding and promoting cooperation among Member Nations.
CHAIRMAN: The list of speakers is now exhausted. The delegations of Yugoslavia, Australia, Myanmar and Venezuela have provided the texts of their interventions to be included in the verbatim report of this sitting.
Ms Ljiljana VELASEVIC (Yugoslavia): On behalf of the Yugoslav delegation I would like to express our support to the work of the Joint FAO/UNEP Expert Group on Prior Informed Consent. Thanks to their work, conditions have been created for the implementation of the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides. We are also pleased to note from Mr de Haen's statement that FAO will be ready to officially start the programme. Yugoslavia agrees with the findings of the FAO/UNEP Expert Group that it would be premature to introduce a legally binding instrument on PIC at this stage.
As a country signatory of the International FAO Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides, Yugoslavia has ensured conditions in its legislation for implementing the provisions of the Code, which also refers to its Article 2 on Prior Informed Consent (PIC) on pesticides in international trade.
Before pesticides may be traded in Yugoslavia, certain obligatory testing has to be carried out (determining the chemical and physical properties and biological effects of every preparation, as well as toxicological assessments of preparations produced on the basis of a new active substance for Yugoslavia). This has been stipulated by the Law on the Protection of Plants Against Diseases and Pests Affecting the Whole Country as well as the Law on Trade in Poisons, as well as the by-laws adopted on the basis of those laws. Licences for trading pesticides as plant protection agents are issued by the Federal Secretariat for Agriculture, while those for their use in public hygiene are issued by the Federal Secretariat for Labour, Health, Veterans' Affairs and Social Policy. In addition, the import of final plant protection products must be preceded by the granting of a special approval of the Federal Secretariat for Agriculture for each individual imported shipment. This implies that the given product has already been registered for trade in our country. That was one of the reasons for setting up national focal centres attached to these bodies, about which FAO has been informed immediately upon the receipt of the letter.
The procedure for the registration of plant protection chemicals prior to their marketing has been in effect since 1954. Thus, the adoption of the FAO Code on Pesticides and its implementation in our country does not cause difficulties.
The number of registered preparations and active pesticide substances used for their formulation varies from year to year: in 1991 some 730 preparations and about 270 active substances - out of which 20 are synthesized in the country - were registered. Out of the 18 pesticides from the initial PIC list only 3 are in reduced use in our country. They are preparations with organic mercury (liquid formulations for wheat seed disinfection only and exclusively until the end of 1992), parathion-ethyl and paraquat. Preparations containing inorganic mercury, fluoracetamyde and EDB were not even registered, while for the other pesticides licences were revoked (for chlorinated hydrocarbons) in the period between 1972 and 1987. I would like to point out that, from the initial PIC list until 1972, Yugoslavia synthesized only DDT in the country.
Yugoslavia expects that the revival of the implementation of the Code tenets, particularly those related to the prohibition or limitation of the use of certain pesticides in the importing countries will considerably contribute to human and environmental health protection in countries importers of pesticides. We further express the readiness of our competent authorities to take an active part in and cooperate actively with the FAO/UNEP in the implementation of the Code.1
Michael CARROLL (Australia): Australia supports the principle of Prior Informed Consent (PIC) and is encouraged by the progress that has been made to date in developing guidance documentation, data bases and providing advice and assistance to countries who have indicated their intention to participate.
1 Statement inserted in the Verbatim Records on request.
The continuing community desire for more information on pesticide hazards, concern over the possible adverse effects of pesticide use and occasionally the trade in sub-standard products makes the exchange of information between governments essential. PIC will significantly help in this process.
Moves within Australia to provide for a single national registration authority under Commonwealth administration will help to ensure that timely information is made available to countries through FAO under the PIC provisions of the Code of Conduct.1
U. Tin HTUT OO (Myanmar) : Mr Chairman, may I, on behalf of the Myanmar delegation, express our satisfaction to FAO for its outstanding activities in this field of crucial importance. We are also very pleased to note that FAO is closely collaborating with other related agencies, and now will sign with UNEP in the near future.
Mr Chairman, may I now make a brief statement on PIC activities in our country.
Pesticide business in Myanmar was in the hands of the Government till the time of deregulation in 1989. Pesticide manufacture, importation and marketing has been opened to both private and foreign participation since then. With the anticipated increasing involvement of the private sector and ultimate free access to various chemicals, the safe and efficient use of pesticides has become more critical in the country. As a measure toward conmesurate administrative control, necessary laws and regulations were enacted in 1990 and 1991.
The Government has approved for the formation of the Pesticide Registration Board to grant use permits for various pesticides. The registration will be based upon evaluation of comprehensive scientific data demonstrating that the product is effective and not unduly hazardous to human health or the environment. Unregistered products will not be allowed to be marketed in the country. The Pesticide Registration Board may withdraw registration or restrict the use of any pesticide in the event that the data obtained either in the country or abroad indicates that the pesticide is harmful to human beings, animals, crops and environment. Information received under Prior Informed Consent procedure may be considered by the Registration Board for banning or restricting the use of any particular pesticide.
Mr Chairman, Myanmar is willing to participate in the PIC procedure and consequently has participated in the regional workshop on the implementation of PIC held in Manila this year.
We would also like to support the distinguished delegate of Switzerland ip pointing out the need to strengthen the capabilities and efficiency of DNAs in the developing countries, particularly through the in-service training and technical backstopping, while regular training and seminars should be continued.
1 Statement inserted in the Verbatim Records on request.
Mr Chairman, in conclusion, the Myanmar delegation reaffirms our country's support to FAO in its deliberations on the Code of Conduct and the PIC procedure, and endorses the Ninety-ninth Council Session's recommendation that it was premature to consider the conversion of the Code of Conduct into a binding legal instrument.1
Sra. Mercedes FERMIN-GOMEZ (Venezuela): La delegación de Venezuela mantiene su respaldo al documento presentado por Secretaria.
Apoya los conceptos presentados por la delegación de México en cuanto a los procedimientos a seguir en la práctica de la Aplicación del "Principio de Importación Previo Consentimiento", conocido como PIPC.
Quiere hacer énfasis en la necesidad de solicitar de aquellos gobiernos de países desarrollados en los cuales existan empresas fabricantes y exportadoras de los plaguicidas, insecticidas y fertilizantes a que se refiere este Compromiso, que urjan a sus empresas nacionales para que cumplan y se sometan a los requerimientos que demanda el Compromiso de la FAO, como una manera de contribuir a la salud de las poblaciones que habitan y trabajan en la agricultura en el medio rural.
Queremos así ser consecuentes con la posición que hemos mantenido a lo largo de las discusiones de este proyecto.2
CHAIRMAN: With your permission I now offer the floor to the distinguished representative of the Environment Liaison Centre International.
Ms Barbara DINHAM (Observer for the Environment Liaison Centre International): The Environment Liaison Centre International is a participant in the Pesticides Action Network and would like to welcome the progress made in developing, and making the PIC provisions of the Code operational. We believe this is a very practical and workable scheme to transfer information, and to allow governments the choice of prohibiting the import of hazardous pesticides.
We would like to stress that such measures are increasingly important against WHO estimates of 20 000 unintentional deaths from pesticides each year. Pesticide use is also estimated to expand in developing countries over the next 20 years. Without intense and committed measures, the health and environmental problems associated with pesticide use will continue to increase. Pesticide Action Network participants in 19 countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America have been carrying out research which confirms that this problem is not diminishing and indeed shows severe health and environmental problems caused by pesticides not yet on the PIC list.
We believe the only way forward is through a commitment to reduce pesticide use. We therefore welcome the initiatives to introduce the International Cooperative Programme Framework for SARD. We support the points raised by
1 Statement inserted in the Verbatim Records on request.
2 Texto incluido en las actas a petición expresa
the delegates from Netherlands and Switzerland, and the PIC provisions should be seen in the context of the need to develop a truly sustainable agriculture, based on integrated pest management and low external inputs.
To support this, donor governments need to prioritize funding for work on non-chemical alternatives and sound agricultural practice to increasingly replace chemical pesticides. This recommendation was put to the OECD Workshop, which has been referred to several times, which was held in Paris in September, with a request to go forward to Development Assistant Committees. Without this work, countries wishing to prohibit the import of PIC chemicals will be severely hampered and sustainable agriculture will just remain an abstract ideal.
We also support the observation made by the Netherlands on the problem of disposal of unwanted stocks. This leads to the conclusion that in future much greater care must be taken in pesticide trade to ensure that orders for hazardous pesticides and excessive orders or donations are avoided.
We support the ongoing work for further implementation of the Code, and the need to keep fully under review the possibility of legally binding instruments to further strengthen measures to protect health, safety and the environment.
H. de HAEN (Assistant Director-General, Agriculture Department): First of all, on behalf of the Secretariat I would like to thank all those who unanimously supported and encouraged FAO to proceed with the work of the Code of Conduct and the PIC procedure. We have witnessed an outstanding example of consensus in the various comments, explanations and declarations that have been made.
Secondly, we note our activities in implementing the Code received the approval of the Commission, including the implementation of the PIC procedures, activities in training, support of our activities in helping developing countries, institutional thinking for decision making, regulatory policy making and implementation. Those who spoke underlined that you consider success in the implementation of the Code as a step towards sustainable, environmentally friendly and human health supporting agriculture.
In this context, I am pleased to report in reply in particular to the delegate of Uganda, that one particular technology of environmentally friendly agricultural production, IPM - Integrated Pest Management - is in fact receiving high priority in the FAO Plant Protection Programme. With regard to your question whether we should not do more in support of IPM in African countries, I can say that FAO has a project on IPM for cotton in the Sudan supported by the Netherlands. FAO is taking steps to enlarge the IPM programme in African countries. It is currently making an initial study of pesticides use and misuse on vegetables in African countries. We hope this will finally result in an IPM programme for vegetables in those countries.
Also, FAO is supporting an international working group on IPM which will organize, meetings in West and East Africa on IPM, and finally a national project to strengthen plant protection purposes. FAO aims at stimulating IPM in the African countries.
In summary, I can confirm that particularly with regard to IPM we are trying to support efforts towards more sustainable agricultural practices using less pesticides.
May I just comment on some particular questions which we have recorded, and also on comments which delegates have offered. Regarding the intervention by the delegate of the Netherlands, we noted with gratitude the indication given to us that they would support our programme on the disposal of obsolete pesticides. We will be in contact with the Government of the Netherlands and I can confirm such a programme is already under preparation. We are consulting with other donors as was suggested in the intervention. We consider this programme - particularly in African countries - which would aim at the disposal of large quantities of obsolete pesticides stored in several of these countries, has and should have a high priority and importance.
The delegate of Canada mentioned that she found the data base on existing pesticides and existing bans or severe restrictions incomplete. We agree with this, but can report that UNEP on behalf of the joint Secretariat of FAO/UNEP has requested an update of this list of banned and severely restricted pesticides. I take this opportunity to ask all countries who receive this UNEP request and questionnaire to reply to it at their earliest convenience.
Regarding the intervention made by the delegate of Germany, seconded by the delegate of Mexico, who expressed concern as to the justification for the three pesticides parathion ethyl, parathion methyl and paraquat to be on the initial PIC list, this group of three pesticides was identified by the Panel of Experts. This panel consists of experts representing a wide range of recognized expertise who also represent a wide geographical distribution. FAO does not normally give countries such lists officially, but in reply to the question from the delegate of Germany, the names are not secret and we are happy to offer them to those of you wanting a list, if you so wish.
In this context I would mention that industry and environment group observers were present at the final sessions. The inclusion of pesticides of acute toxicity which give problems in developing countries - and these three fall into that category - was decided by the last Conference. I thought it important to underline this in this context. The Panel of Experts, in reply to a request from this Conference, has reviewed such substances and accordingly has recommended that these three compounds be included in the initial PIC list. Other highly toxic compounds that may be considered in future are the subject of a questionnaire sent to developing countries in October this year.
The delegate of the United States proposed that FAO should cooperate closely with the International Programme on Chemical Safety - IPCS - and the delegate of Switzerland supported this suggestion. In reply, may I say that such cooperation exists. There is also the issue of cooperation on chemical risk assessment; the two things have to be separately considered but looked at in conjunction. This cooperation has been considered in the UNCED process. There will be a meeting in London of government-designated experts at the invitation of the Executive Director of UNEP on behalf of this International Programme on Chemical Safety. The meeting will discuss the establishment of an inter-governmental mechanism on chemical risk
assessment and management and on inter-agency cooperation. FAO recognizes the need for cooperation between agencies, and will actively participate in the discussions on strengthening the existing structures, and future arrangements. FAO will participate in that meeting.
The delegate of Angola had a question regarding paragraph 12, in which documentation including updates of national control measures is mentioned. Guidance to Governments is now available in English, French and Spanish. The English and French versions of our document have a slightly different wording on this but I can now inform you that Guidance to Governments is available in these three languages. The request for updates on rights of national pesticide control action has been sent out by UNEP on behalf of the Joint Secretariat to English-speaking countries, and are now being sent out to French- and Spanish-speaking countries.
Finally, let me give a first reply to the proposal made by the delegate of Iran concerning an international organization for the biological control of pests. There already exists such an international organization. It is an international professional and non-governmental organization and is called the International Organization for Biological Control. We cooperate closely with this organization, and it has recently organized a joint expert meeting on the introduction of biological-control agents. Biological control is part of IPM, of course, and therefore has had the full attention of the Organization for quite some time. We continue to actively cooperate with this and other organizations, agencies and institutions working towards the banning of pesticides and the more environmentally friendly application of pesticides.
I hope I have answered all the questions put forward by delegates.
CHAIRMAN: Throughout the discussion this morning we have had the general approval for the measures undertaken by FAO in the implementation of this International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides including the PIC clause. Many speakers have praised the cooperation between FAO, UNEP, WHO, GATT and possibly other organizations in thE United Nations system, and possibly some other non-governmental organizations in the implementation of this question.
The point has been raised in the discussion that it would be premature to convert the Code now to a binding legal instrument.
Robert LAMB (Suisse): Excusez-moi d'intervenir à cette heure tardive. Ma question s'adresse à M. de Haen qui a répondu de manière exhaustive à de nombreuses questions, ce qui explique peut-être qu'un ou deux commentaires et questions que j'avais exprimés n'ont pas trouvé de réponse. Nous aimerions avoir la précision, en ce qui concerne l'évaluation future de la mise en oeuvre du Code. Ceci est une question que j'avais posée. Et nous aimerions savoir comment la FAO compte évaluer la mise en oeuvre de ce Code.
Le second point: nous avons exprimé également quelques commentaires concernant un aspect qui nous semblait important sur l'évaluation quantitative et l'information sur l'étendue des problèmes liés aux accidents des pesticides sur le terrain. Je suis persuadé que cette
information existe. Mais je pense que lorsque nous traitons ces questions un résumé devrait exister, ou au moins une information dans ce domaine.
H. de HAEN (Assistant Director-General, Agriculture Department): I regret that my first response was not fully satisfactory, and I fully accept your point that on your particular question regarding future intentions to evaluate the Code, I did not give an exhaustive answer.
FAO evaluated the Code about four years ago by sending out questionnaires and by assembling comments and experiences with the Code. It is intended to repeat this exercise next year. At this point in time we cannot yet say which particular questions and criteria for evaluation will be used, but with the increased attention on the risks to human health, as well as to the environment, arising from inappropriate use of pesticides or from misuse of pesticides, I can assure you that this will be part of the evaluation.
As regards accidents by the improper use or misuse of pesticides, we will have to do this in close cooperation with the WHO. We also expect to be able to draw conclusions from the meeting that I mentioned on risk assessment to be held in London. We think that we should wait for a further period of months in order to be as up-to-date as possible based on the experience of ongoing and future negotiations dealing with risks, in the use of pesticides. To be brief, this evaluation is planned for next year.
The meeting rose at 12.45 hours.
La séance est levée à 12 h 45.
Se levanta la sesión a las 12.45 horas.
