P.J. MAHLER (Sous-Directeur général pour l'environnement et le développement durable/Conseiller spécial du Directeur général): Monsieur le Président, Mesdames, Messieurs les délégués et observateurs, le document C 93/10 intitulé "Activités relatives au développement durable et à l'environnement" n'est pas simplement un compte rendu d'activités du Secrétariat. S'il est présenté à la Commission I de la Conférence, c'est dans le but de susciter un débat de politique générale entre les pays membres sur le suivi de la CNUED dans les domaines de l'alimentation, de l'agriculture, des forêts et des pêches, à la fois aux niveaux national, régional et international, permettant ainsi aux délégations d'échanger leurs points de vue et leurs expériences. Ce débat de politique générale devrait permettre aussi de donner des orientations sur le rôle que doit jouer l'Organisation non seulement vis-à-vis de ses pays membres, mais aussi dans sa coopération avec d'autres organisations internationales.
D'autres documents de la Conférence rendent compte en détail de nos activités passées et de nos plans et programmes futurs dans les domaines du développement durable et de l'environnement. Vous n'avez pas été sans remarquer la place qui est faite à ces sujets dans l'étude Agriculture: Horizon 2010, le Plan à moyen terme et le Programme de travail et budget pour 1994-95.
A sa dernière session, la Conférence avait demandé au Secrétariat, dans la Résolution 2/91, "d'introduire des critères de durabilité dans tous ses programmes et activités" et de rendre compte au Conseil du suivi de la CNUED. En novembre 1992, à sa cent deuxième session, le Conseil a reçu un rapport et s'est montré satisfait des mesures prises par le Directeur général. Le Conseil a confirmé la priorité à donner à ces domaines et demandé le renforcement d'un certain nombre d'activités. Nos activités en 1993 et les propositions du Programme de travail et budget pour 1994-95 ont cherché à répondre à ces requêtes. Le Conseil avait demandé, en outre, de renforcer la coopération interinstitutions dans ces domaines et nous avons rendu compte à ce sujet à la session suivante du Conseil, la cent troisième, au mois de juin. Le Conseil - et là, je cite son rapport - "a souligné que, dans un certain nombre de domaines liés au suivi de la CNUED, la FAO avait naturellement un rôle de chef de file dans la collaboration avec d'autres institutions et avec des ONG et était capable de mobiliser les efforts multilatéraux axés sur les problèmes agro-environnementaux liés notamment à la lutte intégrée contre les ravageurs et aux ressources zoogénétiques".
Est-ce à dire que tout va pour le mieux dans le meilleur des mondes? Loin de là. Aussi le document qui vous est présenté a trois parties. Les deux premières parties sont essentiellement pour l'information de la Conférence: la première, sur le cadre général du suivi de la CNUED, et la deuxième plus spécifiquement sur le suivi assuré par la FAO. C'est dans la troisième
- 269 -
partie que sont soulevés un certain nombre de grands problèmes qui transcendent largement les secteurs d'activités de l'Organisation, mais qui les concernent aussi singuliérement; c'est cette derniére partie qui devrait permettre d'amorcer un débat de Politique générale entre nos pays members
Je voudrais toutefois mettre à jour les informations présentées dans la premiere partie sur trois points. Ce document a été préparé, comme vous le remarquerez, au mois d'août 1993.
Premièrement, la Commission I aura pris note du programme de travail pluriannuel de ce nouvel organe qui a été créé par la CNUED et qui s'appelle Commission du développement durable des Nations Unies. Cela est mentionné aux paragraphes 11 et 12 du document. Cette Commission a formulé un certain nombre de demandes de rapports de façon à examiner par tranches, un peu comme le fait ici notre Comité du programme, le suivi de la CNUED et la mise en oeuvre, en particulier, d'Action 21. Ces rapports sont demandés à la fois aux gouvernements individuels, aux institutions des Nations Unies et aux ONG.
En ce qui concerne les secteurs de l'agriculture et des forêts, ceux-ci viendront à l'examen de la Commission du développement durable principalement en 1995 - la session a normalement lieu aux mois de mai-juin de chaque année - et celui des pêches en 1996. Mais, depuis quelques mois déjà, les gouvernements et les institutions du système des Nations Unies reçoivent de multiples demandes de contribution à d'autres rapports sur d'autres aspects d'Action 21. En 1994, en particulier, la Commission examinera le sujet de l'eau douce, des produits toxiques et bien d'autres. Beaucoup de gouvernements et certainement la FAO ne sont pas en mesure actuellement de répondre à ces multiples demandes de rapports ou du moins d'y répondre d'une manière adéquate. Il s'agit d'activités supplémentaires demandées par les Nations Unies, pour lesquelles des ressources additionnelles n'ont pas été prévues à la mesure de ces requêtes. Je pense qu'il ne faudrait pas perdre de vue que, quelle que soit l'importance de ces rapports, nos ressources doivent aller en priorité à des actions sur le terrain.
Il en est de même pour le rôle de maître d'oeuvre confié par les Nations Unies à diverses agences du système pour certains chapitres d'Action 21; et c'est le deuxième point sur lequel je voudrais apporter de nouvelles informations. Le Comité interagences pour le développement durable s'est réuni en septembre dernier pour préciser les modalités de fonctionnement de ce dispositif de coordination décentralisée qui est indiqué au paragraphe 21 du document.
Le rôle de maître d'oeuvre devrait inclure pour l'agence ainsi désignée la collecte d'informations sur les activités du système des Nations Unies, la formulation d'un cadre commun de stratégies, la promotion d'activités de coopération entre plusieurs institutions et la réduction des chevauchements et des lacunes entre les programmes existants. La FAO s'est vue confier le rôle de maître d'oeuvre pour les chapitres 10, 11, 13 et 14 d'Action 21 indiqués à l'Annexe I - vous voudrez peut-être vous reporter à l'Annexe I du document qui donne tous les numéros et le contenu général de chacun des chapitres - c'est-à-dire la planification des terres, les forets, la montagne et, évidemment, l'agriculture et le développement durable. De la même manière, le Programême des Nations Unies pour l'environnement devra jouer ce rôle de maître d'oeuvre pour les chapitres 12 (desertification) et 15(biodiversité) entre autres; le PNUD, pour le développement des
- 270 -
capacités nationales, etc. J'insiste sur le fait que ce rôle de maître d'oeuvre n'est pas un rôle d'action exclusive par l'institution qui en reçoit la charge. Il s'agit d'orchestrer la coopération dans l'ensemble du système des Nations Unies à propos de ces domaines.
Pour les océans, y compris les pêches, il n'y a pas eu de désignation de maître d'oeuvre. Un sous-comité interagences a été établi, en octobre dernier, avec un secrétariat confié à la Commission océanographique internationale, à Paris. Et pour l'eau douce, il existe déjà un mécanisme; c'est également un sujet qui relève de nombreux mandats des agences des Nations Unies. Il s'est déjà réuni à Saint-Domingue et, pour le moment, c'est la FAO qui assure la présidence de ce groupe.
Je pourrais également signaler que nous sommes sollicités pour participer à l'organisation d'une conférence sur les petits Etats insulaires; et je sais que, la semaine dernière, un certain nombre de délégations de ces pays se sont réunies pour examiner comment les différents secteurs concernés pourraient participer d'une manière plus active à cette conférence qui aura lieu à la fin du mois d'avril prochain.
Un dernier complément d'information à la première partie à propos du programme Capacité 21 du PNUD qui est décrit dans l'encadré numéro 3: le PNUD a réuni une consultation de coordination interagences au Siège de la FAO au mois de septembre. La FAO y a présenté un document de stratégie pour le renforcement des capacités nationales pour l'agriculture, mais, pour le moment, je dois dire que les premiers projets financés par Capacité 21 s'orientent surtout vers le renforcement des capacités des Ministères de l'environnement et le développement de stratégies de conservation et de protection de l'environnement.
En ce qui concerne l'aperçu général des activités de la FAO en réponse à la CNUED présenté dans la deuxième partie, il s'agit essentiellement d'un tableau récapitulatif d'activités dont les détails sont fournis dans d'autres documents. Son but est de permettre aux gouvernements d'avoir une perspective générale de ce qui est fait par la FAO pour le suivi de la CNUED et d'orienter les priorités. Je m'abstiendrai donc d'essayer d'apporter des compléments d'information ou de mise à jour.
Quant à la troisième et dernière partie, elle concerne les grands défis et nouveaux problèmes posés par la Conférence de Rio. Je dois dire à ce sujet qu'il nous a fallu faire un choix car les problèmes sont nombreux. En préparant ce texte, le Secrétariat a tenu compte de deux recommandations importantes des sessions précédentes: éviter les doubles emplois et les répétitions avec d'autres documents, en particulier sur le débat que vous avez eu à propos d'Agriculture: horizon 2010, et permettre un dialogue non pas entre les gouvernements et le Secrétariat, mais surtout entre les délégations elles-mêmes. Dans ce contexte du développement durable et de l'environnement il nous est apparu plus important d'aborder des relations entre les secteurs de l'agriculture, des forêts et des pêches d'une part, et les autres secteurs y compris les aspects institutionnels et économiques, plutôt que de pousser l'analyse des problèmes dans ces secteurs. Je rappellerai que nous avons présenté une telle analyse à la dernière session de la Conférence. Le document Agriculture: horizon 2010 pousse plus loin cette analyse.
En terminant, je voudrais attirer l'attention des délégations sur la dernière page de ce document où nous faisons des propositions d'action à l'intention de la Conférence, ceci à deux niveaux, d'une part au niveau des
- 271 -
gouvernements, et d'autre part au niveau du Secrétariat de la FAO. C'est sur ces points principalement que le Secrétariat souhaiterait recevoir les avis et recommandations des pays membres.
CHAIRMAN (Original language. German): Thank you, Dr Mahler, for that very detailed introduction to the document. I would particularly like to thank you for what you said regarding the future shaping of this item.
When we start our discussions we should particularly look at what is contained in paragraph 11 where it says quite expressly that in 1995 land, forests, desertification and biological diversity will be reviewed. We might be well-advised to see whether it would be a good idea if Council in November 1994, when it is putting together its agenda for that session, ought to discuss this matter in the light of the discussions which we are now going to have.
Mats DENNINGER (Sweden): First, I would like to thank Mr Mahler for his excellent introduction.
At the July Council Meeting the Nordic countries asked for a systematic analysis of all the 73 programme areas of Agenda 21 which are within the purview of FAO's mandate. It is needed in order to make priorities. It will outline actions and procedures necessary for the implementation of the Agenda.
The document before us is a useful first and preliminary analysis of contributions by FAO in priority areas and of cooperative efforts with other organizations. A number of new activities may be contemplated. FAO must thus demonstrate its willingness and preparedness to shoulder its responsibilities as the centre of excellence on the integration of environmental concerns in agriculture, forestry and fisheries. That is necessary.
FAO should, in the view of the Nordic countries, in close cooperation and partnership with the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD), and in mutual dialogue with UNEP, the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Convention on Climate, lay down a priority course of action to promote sustainable development in the three areas where it is the lead agency of the UN system: namely agriculture, forestry and fisheries. In the following, I will focus on three areas in the follow-up of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, the UNCED, where urgent action by FAO is imperative at this point in time. I refer first and foremost to forest management compatible with sustainable development, to conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture and, finally, to responsible fisheries.
The Rio conference adopted a "non-binding authoritative statement of principles for a global consensus on the management, conservation and development of all types of forests". The participating countries committed themselves to implement the UNCED decisions on forests. In the follow-up process of the conference the European Forestry Commission of FAO and the Timber Committee of the Economic Commission for Europe will be actively involved. Overlapping and repetition of work will be avoided.
The Commission on Sustainable Development was established to monitor and guide the follow-up of UNCED. At its first substantive session earlier this
- 272 -
year CSD put forward a close partnership with the relevant UN agencies as a prerequisite for success in the implementation process. In the field of forest-management, FAO is, by mandate, the lead agency in the UN family CSD and FAO should thus develop a close partnership in the important task to guide, support and monitor the implementation process. Active participation of other intergovernmental bodies, within and outside the UN system, is essential.
In the multi-year programme of work that the CSD adopted at its first substantive session earlier this year, the first CSD review of the progress of governments and international organization in the implementation of the forest principles will take place at its session in 1995.
FAO should make a major contribution to the intergovernmental cooperative preparations for that review. The time is short. The task is huge and complex. This Conference must take the necessary and urgent decisions to set-in train the process needed within FAO to produce that contribution.
The Nordic countries would like to propose major elements for such a process that would lead to a necessary strengthening of the role of forestry within FAO. They would lead to an FAO that could more effectively than today carry out the role as the leading world organization on forest management. The Nordic countries firmly believe that FAO should play that role.
The following steps should, in the view of the Nordic countries, be taken by FAO in order to better shoulder its responsibility in the preparation of the 1995 CSD review, as well as in a longer-term perspective.
Firstly, in connection with the next regular session of the FAO Committee on Forestry in 1995, ministers or high-level officials responsible for forests would meet and get the opportunity fully to consider and provide their essential contribution to the CSD review of both the national implementation of the forest principles and of the support provided by relevant international organizations.
Secondly, the high-level meeting should be prepared by the regional forest commissions of FAO. They should, in line with the recommendation by the FAO Council, in good time before the 1995 COFO-meeting, be convened for a first dialogue on national reporting, on action taken for the implementation of the UNCED forest principles.
The FAO should urgently develop and adopt guidelines for the reporting of the FAO Secretariat on national and international cooperative action, to implement the forest decisions of UNCED. The decisions from the first substantive session of CSD on this issue should be used as the basis for the development of such guidelines. Efforts should be made to assist developing countries, upon request, to prepare their national reports.
The Director-General of FAO should inform CSD at its next session in 1994 of the preparedness of FAO to make these contributions to the CSD review of steps taken to implement the forest principles and the commitments on forest management in Agenda 21.
Thirdly, the Director-General should further be requested to prepare, before the next session of the Council, a report on concrete proposals for action to strengthen the normative role of FAO on forest management, compatible with sustainable development and its role in a cooperative UN
- 273 -
mechanism, on the implementation of the UNCED forest principles. I would in this context like to submit some suggestions for action to be further studied for possible inclusion into the report: one, proposals for action by FAO in the building of a close partnership between CSD and FAO to provide a joint UN mechanism for review of, dialogue on, and support of national implementation of the UNCED decisions on forests; two, the establishment of a continuous mutual dialogue on the implementation of the principles between FAO, through COFO, and relevant intergovernmental bodies in the field of environment, such as UNEP, and in the field of environment and development such as the Conferences of the Parties of the Conventions on Biological Diversity and on Climate; three, measures to secure active involvement in the FAO work on forestry by ministers and high-level decision-makers responsible for forests; four, measures to improve the contributions of the FAO regional forestry commissions to the follow-up of the UNCED decisions on forests; five, the possible creation of an ad hoc mechanism within the framework of FAO to provide advice on sustainable management of forests; six, continuous monitoring and assessment of the status of world forests, including the establishment of the proposed intergovernmental panel of experts, in forest resource assessment and monitoring; seven, ways to integrate forestry issues into existing programmes in agriculture, where possible and appropriate.
Implementation of these proposals for the strengthening of the role of FAO in the sector of forestry would lead to needs for resource reallocations within FAO.
Agenda 21 also includes a chapter on sustainable agriculture. We would like to commend the FAO Secretariat for its major contributions to the development of that chapter, including the organization of the Den Bosch Conference on sustainalbe agriculture in developing countries.
We are basically satisfied with the UNCED recommendations on sustainable agriculture. However, we would have liked to see more recommendations referring to the developed countries. The demands of sustainable development should not only be directed towards the agricultural systems of the developing countries, but also to those of the developed countries. The Nordic countries would also have liked to see an inclusion of the role of agriculture as producer of environmental services which should be properly remunerated.
Of relevance for the further elaboration of the outcome of the Rio Conference, the FAO in its study "Agriculture: toward 2010" analyses in detail the multiple pressures which further demands in the agriculture, forestry and fisheries sectors will put on the natural resource base. We welcome this analysis. I would, however, like to stress that the agricultural forecasts do not fully reflect present uncertainty as concern the possible environmental consequences. That uncertainty and the strength of the associated risks call for a precautionary approach.
In Agenda 21 the programme area on plant genetic resources for food and agriculture countries contains recommendations for action with major implications for FAO. The Fourth International Conference on Plant Genetic Resources will be prepared and organized by FAO. The well-concerned country-driven preparatory process presented to the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources by the Secretariat should, in the view of the nordic countries, aim at decisive national action to conserve and sustainably use "agrobiodiversity". New approaches to plant breeding should be developed and introduced. The ongoing genetic erosion must be stopped. It is of
- 274 -
crucial importance in the global efforts to develop an agriculture that is compatible with sustainable development and that can ensure world food security in the future.
The preparatory process for that Fourth International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources to ensure its consistency, synergy and complementarity with the Convention on Biological Diversity that will enter into force on 29 December of this year. A major issue in this context will, in the view of the Nordic countries, be the introduction of the regulated access to genetic resources as laid down in the Biodiversity Convention.
The preparation of a multilateral agreement on the terms of access to the plant genetic resources should form a major part of the negotiations. These intergovernmental negotiations will be a major challenge for the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources. They will have to be carried out in close consultation with the Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity and with the UN Commission on Sustainable Development. Major contributions should be sought from the IBPGR and the other CGIÀR institutes. The role of the Working Group of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources in the negotiation process should be clearly, defined.
This Conference must adopt the draft resolution recommended by the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources in this important matter. The preparations for the Fourth International Conference on Plant Genetic Resources should now shift into a higher gear in the FAO Secretariat, in the individual countries, and in the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources. The Commission will form the preparatory committee of the Conference and also be the intergovernmental negotiation committee on the revision of the undertaking, including the preparation of the agreement on terms of access to plant genetic resources for food and agriculture.
I would like to end by speaking only on behalf of my own country, Sweden, on the issue of fisheries.
Action to promote sustainable use of the marine living resources formed part of the chapter on oceans in Agenda 21. Such action is needed to secure maintenance and sustainable use of fish resources, which provide 40 percent of the protein intake for nearly two-thirds of the world's human population. Today the whole ocean is fished to capacity. The area that is overfished is steadily expanding. This poses a serious threat to world food security.
FAO has a major role to play in support of the implementation of the recommendations in this field in Agenda 21 and in their further development. Sweden would like to commend FAO for its important contributions to the first substantive session of the UN Conference on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks.
The breakthrough in the negotiations of an "Agreement on the Flagging of Vessels Fishing on the High Seas" which is in fact a full-fledged Compliance Agreement is another highly commendable result of the efficient work of FAO in the field of fisheries.
Efforts should now be made by FAO to prepare for the urgent implementation of the recommendations from the Straddling Stocks Conference. The major negotiations will take place in March next year. Before that FAO has been invited to prepare a document on the precautionary approach, elaborating this useful instrument for fisheries management and improving the
- 275 -
scientific and technical basis for applying it in various forms of management. Sweden is ready to play an active role in the preparation within the FAO framework of the important and urgently needed document. The existing regional fisheries management organizations supported by FAO should in the view of Sweden be mobilized as soon as possible for urgent action in the follow-up process. The need for and interest in establishing new regional fisheries management organizations or arrangements should be investigated and identified. The aim should be to establish a global system of such bodies with a compulsory membership of all states fishing straddling and highly migratory fish stocks.
The role of the Committee on Fisheries in future efforts to harmonize the efforts of the regional organizations or arrangements of such a global system should be clearly defined and established.
The efforts to conclude an ambitious international code of conduct for responsible fishing should be intensified, aiming at adoption not later than 1995.
The degradation of the marine environment in coastal areas caused by land-based activities is posing a major threat to fisheries in many parts of the world. Sustainable development in coastal areas preconditions an active participation by national institutions responsible for agriculture, forestry, fisheries and rural development in integrated decision-making, planning and management of coastal zones. Sweden strongly recommends the efforts by FAO to prepare sectoral guidelines for the integration of agricultural, forestry and fishery concerns in coastal area management planning and development. That would provide an important contribution by FAO to the 1995 Conference on Marine Environmental Degradation Caused by Landbased Activities, to be held in Washington.
Paul Neville ROSS (Australia): We would firstly like to thank the Secretariat for the preparation of the document before us and to thank Dr Mahler for his detailed introduction. In our statement, we would like to outline the action we have taken in addressing issues of environmental protection and sustainable development within Australia, to describe briefly some of the contributions we are making to UNCED follow-up, and to offer some comments on FAO's role, and on some of the specific issues raised in the document.
First, let me describe what we have done to address sustainability issues at our national level. In December 1992 the Council of Australian Governments - that is, the Federal Government together with the State and Territory Governments - agreed on the national strategy for ecologically sustainable development and a national greenhouse response strategy. These strategies provide comprehensive frameworks through which all the levels of government seek to integrate environmental, economic and social elements and to improve decision-making.
Important issues which are being progressed nationally through these overall frameworks include furthering the use of community-group approaches to improve agricultural resource management. For example through the National Landcare Programme, a partnership between government and landholders, which is an example of how Australia encourages integrated strategies for land water and related vegetation issues; implementation of a national forest policy statement; development and implementation of the national water quality strategy; movement towards the management of
- 276 -
fisheries on an ecosystem basis; and development of national strategies for the coastal zone, conservation of biological diversity and endangered species.
Australian governments are also examining and progressing as appropriate outcomes from the UNCED process. Australia has ratified both the Framework Convention on Climate Change in December 1992 and the International Convention on Biological Diversity in June 1993. We are close to finalizing a national strategy for the conservation of biological diversity. Australia is also currently preparing a report for the next session of the Commission on Sustainable Development in respect of the cluster of Agenda 21 issues to be reviewed in 1994.
Australia is also playing an active role in the development, of the convention to combat desertification referred to in paragraph 18 of the Document. If the convention is to be effective, we believe it needs to focus on the underlying socio-economic causes of desertification. About 70 percent of Australia is range-land and we have developed considerable expertise in the management of these regions. We believe that Australian technology and skills, knowledge and experience in managing arid areas can be of considerable assistance in the development of an effective convention. Australia is also a strong supporter of FAO participation in the UN-sponsored Inter-Governmental Negotiating Committee developing the convention.
Another UNCED outcome in which we are playing an active role is in the Global Conference on Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States to be held in Barbados in April 1994. The Conference is mentioned in paragraph 19 of the Document and was mentioned by Dr Malher in his introduction. Australia is chairing the preparatory process for this Conference. The Conference will be the first opportunity for the international community to implement an action programme addressing the sustainable development commitments made at UNCED. The decisions made at Barbados will be seen by many as precedents for the UNCED follow-up process.
Australia encourages FAO Member States to play an active and creative role in seeking for small island developing states a negotiated plan of action and effective means of implementation consistent with Agenda 21 and the Rio Declaration. FAO has proposed holding a second inter-regional conference on small island states in September 1994. This Conference can provide a logical and useful form in which to progress the implementation of the outcomes from Barbados.
Turning to the role of FAO in UNCED follow-up, Australia strongly supports the recognition by FAO of the need to focus its activities on the achievement of sustainability and the implementation of UNCED outcomes. This includes implementation of Agenda 21 and matters relating to the Convention on Biological Diversity, the International Convention on Climate Change and work towards a framework instrument to combat desertification, as already mentioned.
Much of the focus on FAO's work in the area of sustainable development and the environment is already closely linked to Agenda 21. We recognize the significant contribution of FAO to Agenda 21 and believe it provides a sound basis for FAO to plan future action in areas identified. We commend the efforts undertaken by FAO, so far to integrate the follow-up to Agenda 21 into its work programme.
- 277 -
We would stress that it is important in undertaking the follow-up work to UNCED that FAO establishes strong links with other UN bodies - including the Commission on Sustainable Development - and other organizationns to avoid duplication and ensure effective delivery of programmes within the overall UN system. We would encourage FAO to continue to cooperate with other UN organizations through the Inter-Agency Committee on Sustainable Development.
It is also important that available resources are effectively targeted. The focus should be on providing basic tools from which individual countries can develop their own individual approaches, to address their own individual country problems.
At the FAO programme level, Australia would stress the need to maintain close links among the constitutent sub-programmes. Integrated approaches are likely to provide the most effective means of delivering sustainability objectives. This is particularly the case in respect of the management of agricultural resources where integrated and holistic approaches to water, soil and pest management can provide significant benefits, as we have learnt through our own experience in Australia.
Finally, we would like to touch on some of the issues raised in Part III of the document. First, with regard to the need for better tools for sustainability assessment and monitoring mentioned in paragraphs 41 to 43, recent research by Australian agronomists within our Bureau of Resource Sciences has led to the development of indicators to monitor sustainability of agricultural practices. This research is now being further tested and extended for application in South-east Asia with support from FAO. The methodology is under consideration by the World Bank for assessment of agricultural and resource management projects.
This work is providing some of the tools for the assessment and monitoring of environmental factors critical to sustainable land use. It allows the detection of inappropriate practices before irreparable environmental damage occurs. Much work is still required to adapt the methodology for use in a wider range of environments and land uses and Australia, through FAO, will be pleased to share its experience and expertise and to work in collaboration with other countries in addressing this urgent problem.
As indicated in paragraph 60 of the document we wish to reiterate that successful implementation of UNCED outcomes will also be dependent on further trade liberalization, including a successful conclusion to the Uruguay Round. Without such liberalization it will not be possible to move towards globally sustainable production and resource systems.
The final issue we would draw attention to briefly is with regard to paragraph 61 of the document. We fully support the comment in this paragraph that trade policy measures for environmental purposes and sustainability objectives should not create new arbitrary or unjustified discrimination, or disguised restrictions on international trade.
Carlos BASCO (Argentina): Quisiera, señor Presidente, agradecer a la Secretaría por la presentación del documento y hacer algunas observaciones al mismo.
La Delegación considera que el documento carece de un enfoque macro sobre el compromiso que tiene la FAO respecto del fomento de una agricultura
- 278 -
orientada al desarrollo sustentable, y elude los aspectos concretos más críticos de la Agenda 21. En igual sentido expresamos que si bien el documento describe una extensa relación de acciones requeridas por la mencionada Agenda 21 a los organismos intergubernamentales, incluidas, entre otras, las que corresponden a la FAO, no identifica claramente aquellas que son de su propia competencia.
Se manifiesta además preocupación por la interacción necesaria entre las instituciones nacionales del sector agrícola y otras instituciones, y entre los órganos de la FAO y otros órganos intergubernamentales, pero diluye igualmente las responsabilidades primarias de la FAO.
La Delegación, en apoyo de lo expresado, recuerda los capítulos de la Agenda 21 que se refieren a temas agrícolas: Capítulo 11 "Lucha contra la deforestación", Capítulos 12 y 13: "Ordenación de ecosistemas frágiles" y, particularmente, el 14 "Fomento de la agricultura y del desarrollo rural sostenible", y propone que sean tomados como marco de la tarea que en este campo debe desarrollar la FAO.
Destacamos además que durante la negociación del texto de la Agenda 21, se procuró incluir entre los diferentes capítulos, y especialmente en el 14, conceptos que permitieran orientar la atención sobre la depredación de recursos naturales producida por el uso intensivo de pesticidas y agroquímicos, financiados con subsidios agrícolas. A ello tienden, por ejemplo, algunas consideraciones que aparecen en las secciones sobre "Lucha integrada contra las plagas agrícolas", párrafos 14.74 y siguientes y "Nutrición sostenible de las plantas", párrafos 14.83 y siguientes.
En este mismo contexto recordamos que, por ejemplo, el párrafo 14.9(b) requiere de las organizaciones internacionales en apoyo a los gobiernos "analizar la política agrícola nacional y regional en relación, entre otras cosas, con el comercio exterior, las subvenciones e impuestos a la agricultura". La FAO debería, en consecuencia, centrar su acción sobre un desarrollo agrícola sustentable en estos puntos.
La Delegación manifiesta que lo expresado encuentra su sustento en el hecho de que la adecuada presentación de estas materias en el marco de la protección de los recursos naturales y preservación del medio ambiente, concurre a reforzar posiciones asumidas en otros foros contra la persistencia de políticas de subsidios.
Se insiste en que la distorsión de los mercados causada por ofertas de productos subsidiados, ha forzado la instalación de sistemas de producción vulnerables en países en desarrollo, que se ven obligados a abandonar prácticas ambientalmente eficientes para compensar los bajos rendimientos de sus exportaciones.
Sería además aconsejable enfatizar la relación que debe establecerse entre consumidores y productores de alimentos, y otros productos de la agricultura, la silvicultura y la pesca, cuya sustentabilidad requiere a menudo mayor diversificación e impone límites a la intensificación y al aumento de la productividad.
Respecto al posible conflicto entre los sectores agrícola y forestal, señalados en el documento, párrafo 46, la Delegación expresa su preocupación por la creciente demanda de tierras e insta a la FAO a continuar analizando eventuales soluciones al mismo. En ese contexto, apoya
- 279 -
la adopción de un enfoque similar al de la interrelación entre agricultura y ecosistemas frágiles.
Con relación a nuevos mecanismos institucionales para hacer frente a la cuestión del desarrollo sostenible, párrafos 55 y siguientes, se destaca la necesidad y conveniencia de aprovechar al máximo instituciones ya existentes y promover una mejor interrelación entre las mismas, antes de pensar en la posibilidad de nuevos organismos.
Respecto a los costos adicionales del desarrollo sostenible, párrafos 59 y siguientes, la Delegación expresa su preocupación al respecto. La presión poblacional sobre ecosistemas frágiles y zonas marginales podría verse muy disminuida si hubiera libertad de circulación de personas. Sin embargo, en un mundo donde sólo se habla de libertades de mercado, de circulación de bienes y servicios, de capitales, de apertura de economías, de caída de barreras tarifarias y no tarifarias, etc., se ponen cada vez más trabas a la libre circulación de las personas. En consecuencia, los costos adicionales que en algunos casos provoca el desarrollo sostenible, deben adjudicarse en cierta medida a esa gran asimetría que se observa actualmente en el mundo.
Estos costos adicionales no se verán compensados por la variación de los términos de intercambio, aunque, por cierto, una mejora de los mismos los aliviaría. Pareciera entonces que la única solución a largo plazo se encuentra en la transferencia de recursos que compense las restricciones señaladas a la libre circulación de las personas.
Chrysanthos LOIZIDES (Cyprus): I wish to thank Mr Mahler for introducing this item and the Secretariat for preparing document C 93/10.
Cyprus has endorsed the principles of sustainable development and has undertaken a methodical process to integrate the goals of its environment policy with those of its development policy. Likewise, Cyprus shares with many other countries the awareness and concern that, within the context of the present unequal world food production and trade systems, increasing ecological stress and environmental destruction are causing severe problems, such as soil erosion and degradation, acidification, the greenhouse effect, ozone depletion, desertification, the transformation of fertile crop land into other uses, and the destruction of the world's forests, advancing at unprecedented rates, leading to disruption of the global environment and food security.
FAO's role in the context of the work of the Inter-Agency Committee on Sustainable Development is much appreciated. It is very important that this Committee pursues a more clear delineation of responsibilities and activities between agencies of the UN system, since considerable overlaps have been created in their efforts to promote Agenda 21 issues, which has placed strain on national capacities and created national coordination problems, as each agency has its own separate national focal point.
The action-oriented programme pursued by FAO widens the road opened at Rio and targets sectors of prime concern to most of its member countries. The proposal to concentrate FAO's efforts in those Agenda 21 areas where FAO has a definite mandate and comparative advantage is prudent and wise, as it would enable the Organization to concentrate on addressing some of the major sustainable development priorities. For small States with limited land and water resources, like Cyprus, the agriculture/forestry interface,
- 280 -
coastal areas and producer/consumer relationships are particularly important. Changing life styles of the more affluent segments of society, particularly in the developed countries, should definitely be targeted as an issue of prime concern - and this was one of the major issues at Rio -as consumption patterns are largely responsible for the current unacceptable state of the global environment and development situation.
With regard to the broader international context, efforts should be concentrated on ameliorating the underlying causes of under-development, as not much can be achieved until stable incomes for farmers are safeguarded, skewed income distribution and other inequalities are alleviated and a supportive international economic environment is secured. All countries should undertake their common but differentiated responsibilities on the pressing issues of poverty, hunger and malnutrition.
Particular emphasis should be placed on improving the situation with regard to the access of developing countries to environmentally sound technology. In the national contexts, the foremost activities to be encouraged and assisted are education, information dissemination, public awareness, grass-roots support activities and initiatives and addressing the special problems of the more vulnerable groups, such as the poor, children and rural women.
Technical assistance should also be provided in the area of implementing international conventions, such as the Biological Diversity Convention and the Climate Change Convention.
FAO could assist agricultural sustainability efforts by preparing detailed guidelines for the new type of data required to take stock of the situations and monitor progress, to be incorporated in agricultural censuses which should reflect contemporary concerns, i.e. quality of soil and water resources, rates of application of agro-chemicals, biomass potentials, cultural attitudes towards land and resources, pressures on agricultural lands and encroachment on public lands, rural energy use, stock and resource depletion, etc.
Environmental impact assessment of major agricultural development projects can play a catalytic role towards securing sustainability in the rural sector. Simple and simplified processes and assessment methodologies, based on national contexts and the weaknesses of the information and administrative structures, could be developed by FAO.
Regional and bilateral cooperation is very important and can be further intensified in sustainable agricultural research, integrated watershed and coastal zone management, waste recycling and reuse, preservation of biological diversity, emergency response at accidents, elaboration of principles for taxing negative externalities, prevention of illegal traffic in dangerous wastes, environmental applications of remote sensing, alternative energy sources, etc.
At this point we fully support the proposed action by the Conference as stated on page 21 of document C 93/10.
Cyprus, for its part, will continue to offer educational, technical and professional training to students and professionals from other countries in various fields associated with the broader agricultural and natural resources sectors and will exert all possible efforts to further encourage and promote such cooperation.
- 281 -
Finally, Cyprus will do its utmost to assist FAO to bear the fruits to which it aspires: that is, to secure an environment conducive to the health of man as well as to the vitality of the systems which sustain him.
Ms Faith INNERARITY (Jamaica): I should like to commend FAO for the documentation. I have found not just this document, C 93/10, to be useful; there is a companion document, "FAO at the Crossroads", which is very incisive.
The issue of sustainable development is not a simple one, but contains many contradictions. Man's relationship with the environment has undergone significant changes over time, from veneration to over-exploitation and now reassessment and repair. Today there are many environmental problems which result from economic advancement, and there are also those for which poverty is a root cause. It is to the latter that I would like to address my major comments. The pressure exerted by the rural poor on forestry, fisheries and land resource is enormous, resulting in degradation of these resources. However, this is usually not deliberate, but represents an effort to meet subsistence needs.
Consequently, alternate systems of income generation must be an integral part of plans to stem environmental degradation. If these alternate systems are not in place, then the battle is lost. The peasant who has to consider food for his family, income to provide his basic needs, will not be very interested in Agenda 21 For him this is just the work or product of intellectuals, of those who sit around conference tables. But he is interested in his day-to-day needs. Hence, very often, short-term decisions are taken at the expense of long-term ones.
Therefore, in dealing with this issue of sustainable development, alternative systems of income for peasants in the rural sector must be in place. This relates equally to land utilization. There are many farmers who cultivate land on the hillsides. They clear forests in order to plant crops. This is necessary. How do we get around this? We cannot simply say, "Do not clear the forests", when the land is needed to plant crops. We must come to some compromise.
In my own country at this time we have introduced some hillside farming development systems whereby farmers are encouraged to plant fruit trees and other economic crops on the hillside. This is not just the traditional forest reserve, but these are trees from which farmers can gain income, and, at the same time, the soil is being preserved, reducing soil run-off and so on. There is an emphasis on watershed protection and development.
In the area of fisheries there is a problem with over-exploitation of marine resources. There are many poor fishermen who have no alternate source of income. In order to overcome this, we have been introducing fish farming as an alternate source. This is a little more expensive, but, with proper support and resources, it is possible. I am saying this to emphasize the point that there must be alternatives. Poverty breeds environmental degradation. In order to remove the degradation, poverty must be dealt with.
There is another issue to which I need to bring attention in terms of technology and the environment. Chemicals, pesticides and fertilizers are normally used in order to improve production, with serious consequences for the environment.
- 282 -
What are the alternatives? I believe that FAO should place greater emphasis on research into organic farming and also biological systems of pest management. Much more focus is needed in this area if we are to deal with chemical pollution of underground water resources and so on.
More research is also needed on domestic food crops. In many developing countries such as my own, the research is focused largely on crops for export. Hence, for domestic crops, yields are low and farmers cannot continue to depend on fertilizers. There is need for more adaptive research in the area of domestic food crops. The assistance of FAO would be greatly appreciated in this area.
I should also like to examine the matter of legislation. More and more within the international and the national context there is emphasis on legislation to implement or to achieve environmental growth. However, there is, in fact, a very serious limitation as far as legislation is concerned. It is one thing to put legislation into place, but it is another to enforce it. If legislation is not enforced or if it is not enforceable, then it becomes just a piece of paper.
In this regard I think that both at international and national level there needs to be greater emphasis on moral persuasion, public education, education within the school system, education among farmers, education among fishermen, education among the population at large - everyone who has the responsibility for the environment, because unless attitudes are changed we shall be fighting a losing battle.
Carlos FONTES (Portugal): Je voudrais tout d'abord remercier le Secrétariat pour l'excellent document qu'il nous a présenté. Il ne s'agit pas d'un remerciement de pure forme. Ce document est très bien présenté, avec un recueil d'informations systématisées définissant nettement les options et les tâches à accomplir dans l'avenir.
Le développement durable n'est plus aujourd'hui un concept nouveau. Depuis quelques années, on discute et on améliore sa vraie signification. Mais la discussion sur les actions concrètes à adopter pour sa réalisation doit être encore considérablement améliorée; et l'objectif de ce document est bien de mener une discussion sur les activités à mettre en oeuvre suite à la Conférence de Rio.
On reconnaît l'importance de la décision du Conseil de 1992 d'intégrer le critère de durabilité dans toutes les activités de la FAO. En réalité, le développement durable n'est pas compatible avec l'approche sectorielle souvent suivie dans le passé. La globalité écologique, économique et sociale doit toujours être présente. Mais la globalité dans l'approche ne signifie pas une dispersion des efforts. Suite à la CNUED et à la réunion du Comité interinstitutions du développement durable (CIDD), la FAO a été nommée maître d'oeuvre pour les éléments d'Action 21 relatifs aux terres, notamment l'agriculture et les forêts. Il faut donc se concentrer sur les programmes clés au sein de l'Organisation.
Nous sommes très intéressés par le point relatif aux forêts, domaine auquel le Portugal accorde une importance particulière. Je voudrais souligner l'importance de la Conférence ministérielle pour la protection des forêts en Europe. Cette Conférence s'est réunie à Helsinki au mois de juin 1993 pour mettre en oeuvre en Europe les grands principes adoptés à Rio.
- 283 -
Pour combattre la dégradation des forêts méditerranéennes et tropicales, on a établi au sein de la FAO des programmes-cadres d'une grande importance. A partir de ces programmes-cadres, les pays définiront des plans nationaux. Nous sommes heureux de constater que 18 pays subsahéliens ont déjà élaboré des plans d'action avec l'appui du PAFT.
Pour conclure, je voudrais donner mon appui aux propositions présentées à la fin du document relatives au rôle de l'Organisation et, en particulier, à la deuxième, qui souligne le renforcement de la coopération avec d'autres organisations.
Alejandro TRUEBA CARRANZA (México): La delegación mexicana expresa su agradecimiento al señor Mahler por la presentación del documento de trabajo, el cual contiene información completa sobre las acciones de la CNUMAD para la alimentación, la agricultura, la silvicultura y la pesca. Asimismo presenta consideraciones sobre como la FAO ha integrado las cuestiones relativas al medio ambiente y al desarrollo sostenible en sus actuales y futuras actividades.
Al respecto, esta Delegación destaca el amplio campo de actividades para un organismo como la FAO, y en tal sentido lo necesario de adecuar su estructura y sus sistemas de trabajo a fin de fomentar en la sociedad, y principalmente en el sector campesino, un desarrollo agricola y rural sostenible.
Ante la gran diversidad de acciones que el desarrollo sostenible demanda en el campo de la agricultura y la alimentación, la delegación mexicana considera necesario definir prioridades y establecer una distribución adecuada de responsabilidades tanto entre las instituciones internacionales como a nivel de cada país.
Asimismo se coincide con la necesidad de que el medio ambiente y el desarrollo sostenible se consideren una prioridad dentro del Plan de Mediano Plazo. Sería conveniente definir prioridades de acuerdo a las necesidades de los países en desarrollo, así como a los recursos financieros existentes. Tratar de abarcar una gama de actividades muy amplia podría llevar a dispersar los esfuerzos realizados por la Organización. En este sentido se coincide con las áreas identificadas en el Plan de Mediano Plazo.
En relación a la investigación y la enseñanza, la sostenibilidad agropecuaria y forestal requiere que la FAO aporte su experiencia bajo una dimensión de globalidad e interdisciplinariedad. El enfoque de sostenibilidad agropecuaria y forestal requiere una nueva mentalidad tecnológica y sensibilidad social dado que la capacidad de hacer un manejo efectivo de los nuevos desarrollos en esos campos, son aspectos en los que los sistemas educativos de hoy deben ciertamente progresar.
Entre los puntos prioritarios en los cuales se requiere un apoyo de la FAO, se debe destacar la formación y la gestión, ya que en muchos casos la tecnología ambientalmente sana tiende a depender menos de los recursos de capital y a ser más intensiva en conocimientos, manejo y organización. No se puede olvidar que el desarrollo de tecnología, apropiadas al campo requiere conocer de manera profunda las características y funcionamiento de los distintos ecosistemas, así como la capacidad de integrar diferentes perspectivas disciplinarias y la investigación agrícola, pecuaria y forestal. La FAO tiene, pues, la posibilidad de impulsar la investigación y
- 284 -
la formación en el proceso de sostenibilidad y contribuir a la transferencia de tecnologías adecuadas.
A continuación, me permitiré realizar comentarios sobre algunos aspectos del documento:
En el inciso (iii) del punto 5, se plantea la reorientación de la investigación hacia objetivos que propicien el desarrollo con protección del medio ambiente. Al respecto en México, a través de su Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Agropecuarias, se está en un proceso intenso de reorientación de sus actividades con este enfoque.
En relación al punto 7, México apoya el esfuerzo sectorial de dar una mejor planificación y orden al uso del recurso tierra.
Respecto al punto 8, también se tiene en operación un programa de investigación sobre la agricultura sostenible y otro que contempla estas acciones, enfocado a la evaluación del impacto ecológico de la tecnología agrícola, este programa está estrechamente vinculado con el servicio de extensión agrícola para su promoción ante el sector productivo.
Con relación a la propuesta contenida en la página 9 del documento, mi Delegación manifiesta el interés de México en participar en la Red Internacional de Desarrollo Sostenible.
Sobre el punto 30, nuestro país expresa su interés en tener acceso al servicio de Sistemas de Información Geográfica que desarrolla la FAO. Coincidimos en la necesidad de ampliar y mejorar las bases de datos para una planificación más adecuada del desarrollo.
La delegación mexicana reconoce que tal y como se señala en el tema 4, la pobreza, el desempleo y la migración son consideraciones que deben ser tomadas en cuenta para el diseño de los objetivos y actividades de la investigación.
Dada la complejidad y la importancia del tema, mi Delegación plantea la necesidad de coordinar adecuadamente las labores de la FAO con otros foros en los cuales se analiza esta misma materia, como la Comisión de Desarrollo Sostenible.
Finalmente, consideramos oportuno señalar la conveniencia de que la FAO, en colaboración estrecha con la ONUDI, contribuya con los países en desarrollo en el fortalecimiento de las agroindustrias, a fin de fortalecer su productividad y competitividad con el objeto de inducir el concepto de sostenibilidad en su más amplio alcance ecológico, económico, político y social.
Paolo VICENTINI (Italie): L'Italie a lu avec beaucoup d'intérêt le document C 93/10 sur les activités liées au développement durable et à l'environnement.
Le sujet est lié aux points 6.1 et 6.3, en particulier pour ce qui concerne la situation présente, le plan d'action à moyen terme et l'étude sur Horizon 2010. Nous croyons que la mise en place, à la suite de la résolution de l'Assemblée générale de l'ONU, de la Commission du développement durable est fondamentale. Comme organisme technique du Conseil social et de l'économie, cette commission a commencé son travail en
- 285 -
juin 1993, en approuvant un programme de travail pluriannuel qui prévoit pour la période 1994-97 l'examen spécifique, chaque année, des problèmes indiqués dans l'Agenda 21.
On prévoit que l'étude de chaque sujet sera effectuée grâce à des rapports nationaux et aux contributions techniques de nombreux organismes des Nations Unies. Parmis ces derniers, la FAO joue un rôle de chef de file pour les matières prévues au programme de 1995, c'est-à-dire la gestion des terres, les forêts, la désertification et la diversité biologique dans l'agriculture et le développement rural durable. Toutefois, les contributions de la FAO seront certainement d'une grande importance même dans les sujets prévus pour 1994, 1996 et 1997, lorsqu'ils concernent spécifiquement les secteurs de l'agriculture, l'alimentation et les forêts. Nous trouvons importante la décision prise par la commission de développement durable de créer des groupes de travail intersessions, dans le but de donner des recommandations sur les problèmes les plus graves concernant cette matière, comme la mobilisation des ressources financières et le transfert de technologies, la coopération et le renforcement des capacités de gestion.
Ce sont de graves problèmes qui demandent la juste solidarité de la Communauté internationale et la constante incitation de réponses concrètes et efficaces, même par les sources de financement comme le FEM (Fond pour l'environnement mondial), l'IDA (Association internationale de développement), le Programme "Capacité 21" du PNUD et les fonds pour l'environnement du PNUE.
De toute façon la coopération internationale a obtenu déjà des résultats fort intéressants, à savoir la Convention sur la diversité biologique, signée aussi par mon pays, qui devrait entrer en vigueur cette année après ratification minimum de 30 Etats; les indications données par les groupes d'experts sur l'étude des changements climatiques, pour une meilleure connaissance du phénomène et de ses solutions possibles; la phase avancée d'élaboration de la Convention internationale pour la lutte contre la désertification et la sécheresse.
Il faut aussi souligner l'importance des indications provenant de deux réunions interinstitutions, convoquées par la FAO à l'occasion des travaux du Comité des forêts et du Comité d'agriculture, dans le but d'examiner la suite de la CNUE par rapport aux chapitres 11 et 14 de l'Agenda 21.
Enfin la délégation italienne apprécie beaucoup l'activité que déploie la FAO dans une matière aussi importante, et nous souhaitons que cette activité puisse continuer selon les directives données par le document dont il est question.
Abdul Jamil MOHD.ALI (Malaysia): I thank the Chairman and Mr Mahler for their presentations.
Malaysia played a constructive and proactive role in the negotiations leading to the adoption of the historic UNCED Global Commitments on Environment and Development. My Government is equally committed to the implementation and realization of the goals adopted at Rio.
Malysia has signed the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Framework Convention on Climate Change. We are in the process of ratification of these Conventions which we hope to do very soon.
- 286 -
Inmediately following UNCED, a National Seminar on UNCED implementation was held in September 1992, presided over by our Prime Minister himself, to review and plan the implementation of our commitments of the resolutions adopted at Rio, especially Agenda 21. The Seminar recommended, among other things, the creation of an institutional structure, headed at the highest political level in order effectively to implement the provisions of UNCED.
Taking into consideration the need to integrate environmental considerations in the development process, the Malaysian Government has decided to enlarge the composition of the existing National Development Council to include Ministers responsible for environment and related matters. The National Development Council is chaired by the Prime Minister himself and oversees planning and implementation of development projects in the country as a whole. We do not favour a separate structure for environment or sustainable development as this would only perpetuate the dichotomy between environment and development.
As regards implementation of the various conventions, we are pleased to inform you that concrete steps have been taken to implement their provisions. For example, we are at an advanced stage of adopting a National Policy, Strategy and Action Plan for Biodiversity Management in Malaysia. A National Committee on Biodiversity is being formed under the auspices of the Ministry of Science, Technology and the Environment to oversee the implementation of this Convention.
We are also currently reviewing the National Environmental Quality Act to emphasize preventive measures rather than control and enforcement. A total of 19 activities is currently subject to Environmental Impact Analysis procedures and this list is being enlarged to include other critical activities.
While conservation and environmental measures are taken at the planning level, it is an undeniable fact that most damage is done at the micro or project implementation level. This occurs because environmental considerations are not translated into specific measures at the project implementation level, especially in work specifications. Considering this fact, my Government has agreed that all projects, irrespective of size, would include a "conservation clause" to ensure that these provisions are translated into concrete measures at the implementation level.
Regarding preparation of national sustainability reports for the CSD, we have commissioned a consultancy team to undertake the review and preparation of this report. We realize the importance of this report for a comprehensive coverage of all pertinent national activities to ensure that well-informed decisions could be taken by the CSD in its role as a coordination mechanism for Agenda 21 implementation. We sincerely hope that all countries, especially developed countries, would show full commitment in preparing their national reports.
As all of us realize, the resolutions made at Rio represent a delicate and well balanced negotiated arrangement whereby each nation agreed to fulfil its obligations and commitments. The North especially agreed to provide, among other things, new and additional sources of funds, to facilitate technology transfer and to take concrete measures to remedy adverse economic relationships in terms of trade, aid and debt. My delegation is quite disheartened to note that such obligations have not turned into reality. In fact, after Rio many developed countries made the surprising decision of reducing their overseas development assistance.
- 287 -
I would strongly urge FAO to highlight this disturbing trend and urge developed countries to fulfil their commitments agreed at Rio. The continued debate on the commitments at Rio only serves to prove that the much touted "global partnership on environment and development" may became merely verbiage.
On forestry, we are of the view that necessary preparations have to be made to ensure a substantive and useful review of the forestry issues by the CSD in 1995. In order to have an effective discussion on the implementation of the forest principles adopted at Rio, Malaysia has called for the establishment of an inter-governmental task force on forestry under the aegis of the CSD to undertake the necessary preparations and consultations for the CSD review in 1995. In this respect, we wish to see FAO playing a supportive role to provide the technical input.
We are particularly concerned that all types of forests, temperate, boreal and tropical, should be sustainably managed and utilized. We wish to see the application of sustainable forest management and the sustainability criteria to all types of forest and timbers. It would be a basic contradiction to the decisions at Rio if temperate forest and timbers are left out of the sustainability commitment and standard. As we all know, the only set of internationally agreed standards on sustainability is the one adopted by the International Tropical Timber Organisation (ITTO) which applies exclusively to tropical forests. We are making all efforts in the current ITTA negotiations to urge all temperate forest countries to abide by a similar set of sustainability standards for their forest and timber, so that they can join tropical forest countries in their commitment to achieve the sustainability target of ITTO by the year 2000. We would like to urge an early compliance to sustainability because we know that the practice of clear felling of miles and miles of temperate forests causes more environmental damage than the controlled selective logging practised in tropical forests.
For sustainability in agriculture, forestry and fisheries, we agree with the observation in document C 93/10 that "improved management and conservation practices often increase cost and/or limit yields". It is evident, as noted, that additional costs especially of Sustainable Agricultural and Rural Development (SARD) "may include those of land use planning, land reform, rural settlement and diversification programmes". Therefore, the provision of financial resources and know-how is indispensable to the process.
We can only achieve sustainability in our various endeavours if we move forward in partnership on a level playing-field. If we wish to see long-term results for a better environment, there must be a genuine desire to create a supportive international economic climate and to eliminate conditionalities and discriminatory measures and labels which promote self-interest rather than the environment. We appeal for good sense and fair play for a sustainable future on the same planet.
Alim FAWZI (Indonesia): My delegation would like to commend the Secretariat for the excellent preparation of document C 93/INF/4 on the topic being discussed. Our brief comment on these matters will concentrate on a few items which we consider important for future follow-up actions.
Paragraph 33 elaborated activities under the Special Action Programme of FAO started in 1991. We welcome the report and are pleased with the
- 288 -
progress of various activities related to forestry and fisheries. In this respect, Indonesia has managed its forestry and plans its programme toward the year 2000 by adopting the results of ITTO and the Earth Summit of 1992. We should like to urge that more activities be implemented under this Special Action Programme.
Referring to paragraph 42 of this document on the gaps and discrepancies in the avilable data that make it difficult to broaden the scope of environmental impact analyses in addressing sustainability issues, my delegation considers it important to carry out cross-sectoral studies. My delegation also supports the obligation of every country to apply environmental impact analysis.
Paragraph 46 mentions that the Forest Principles and Agenda 21 adopted in Rio de Janeiro address agriculture and forestry separately and do not give sufficient recognition to the fact that deforestation in tropical and subtropical areas is due principally to expansion of the agricultural frontier in various forms, such as shifting cultivation with decreasing fallow periods, ranching, and subsistence or crash-crop production. In this respect, my delegation considers that it is important to prepare a plan of action to anticipate problems relating to allocation of land for the two sectors. FAO should provide technical assistance to developing countries in solving these problems.
Referring to paragraph 47, my delegation is of the view that FAO plays an important role in facilitating the integration of agriculture and forestry policies and plan formulation by cooperating with the relevant international institutions and by preparing contributions for the forthcoming review by the CSD in 1995.
With reference to paragraphs 50 and 51 on coastal areas and small islands, my delegation is of the view that synergy among sectors should be sought more systematically. In-depth studies are needed because a recommended model based on the conditions of an area or island is not always applicable in other areas or islands.
Referring to paragraph 55 of the document and also Chapter 24 of Agenda 21, one of the "major groups" is women who have a very strategic role in sustainable and equitable development. Rural women are very much concerned with family food security. If family food security cannot be maintained, women become abusers of the environment. A systematic education for women is therefore very important in maintaining sustainable development.
To conclude, the Indonesian delegation share the view expressed by the distinguished delegates from Sweden that the Organization should take any step necessary to increase FAO's role in forestry. Resource needs arising out of the proposal should be carefully considered by the Organization so that it would not implicate the present difficulties in budget resources experienced by the Organization and many member countries.
Tae-Jin KWON (Korea, Republic of): Mr Chairman, may I thank you for giving me a chance to speak on these important issues.
My delegation agrees with other delegations on FAO's resolution to integrate sustainability criteria in all its programmes and activities. We know that FAO significantly contributed to the preparation of UNCED, in
- 289 -
particular the Den Bosch Declaration and Agenda for Action adopted by the FAO/Netherlands Conference on Agriculture and the Environment.
As far as concerns sustainable agricultural development and environmental issues, we may interface with many challenges in undertaking these efforts. The agricultural sector has institutional and economic interactions with other sectors. Member countries have their own national development plans through country-driven processes. As UNCED's recognition of these aspects, FAO has to give technical assistance to Member Governments as required to introduce the necessary adjustments in policies, strategies and planning frameworks through inter-agency consultative processes. However, it takes time to adjust conflicting interests among sectors at country level as well as at regional level. We worry that implementing follow-up actions of UNCED agreements may significantly increase production costs of food when government support is unavailable. We are also aware that agricultural budgets are very tight in many developing countries. If the same standard is applied to all member countries, food security problems may not be overcome. In this context, sustainable agriculture and environmental issues are required to be processed gradually. In addition, we would like to ask FAO to prepare tangible guidelines for the development of environmentally sustainable agriculture.
With regard to food security and the environment, my delegation requests that the safe use of agro-chemicals is monitored. One method is to develop technologies related to the effective use of agro-chemicals; another is to regulate the amount of timing of applications for food safety. In addition to these methods, the preparation of an international standard for food safety is necessary. This process will reduce controversy regarding non-tariff measures in the food trade.
My delegation is pleased to announce that we have reduced significantly the amounts of pesticides used through integrated pest management in paddy rice production. We shall prepare more effective and rigorous measures to follow up UNCED agreements.
Finally, my delegation extends our full support for your efforts.
Dixon NILAWEERA (Sri Lanka): The Secretariat should indeed be commended for the excellent presentation of this document, Activities Related to Sustainable Development and Environment. My delegation supports the FAO's endeavours to approach this important subject as reflected on page 21. However, I would wish to focus attention on only one aspect, namely people's participation in sustainable development. It is indeed heartening to observe that in paragraphs 22, 33 and 55 specific reference has been made to people's participation and in particular to the FAO Action Plan for People's Participation in Rural Development.
Mr Chairman, you will recall that the 26th FAO Conference in November 1991 unanimously approved the FAO Action Plan for People's Participation in Rural Development. Sustainable Development, Agricultural Development and Rural Development are by and large synonymous and are, in fact, intrinsically interlocked. It has been established through several field programmes and research studies that, without people's full participation, sustainable development cannot be brought about. It is for this reason that the 26th FAO Conference adopted the Plan of Action.
- 290 -
This Plan of Action has put forward seven points which ranged from the promotion of greater public awareness of people's participation to the decentralization of decision-making. These are two very important items in this Plan: one, the interaction of appropriate operational procedures and methods; two, the monitoring and evaluation of people's participation. Since my delegation attaches special importance to people's participation as a vechicle of sustainable development, it is of great importance to ascertain the progress made in regard to the FAO Plan of Action.
We understand that the ESH Division of FAO, which is primarily in charge of this area of work, has in fact prepared a progress report on the implementation of the Plan of Action on People's Participation in Rural Development. My delegation would have expected this Plan of Action to be discussed at this Conference, particularly the progress made in achieving the objectives and the types of problems encountered. My delegation would urge this Conference to consider taking this matter up for closer examination at an appropriate level, perhaps at the next Council Session or the next Conference.
Abdul-Razzak AL-HASSAN (Syria) (Original language Arabic): Document C 93/10, as all the other documents we have discussed, is a high level document containing a lot of information dealing with the important matter of undertaking effective activities related to sustainable development and the environment. Many speakers have referred to some aspects of this document and in the observations they have made we have found some very important ideas. We would like to add to them further points which we consider important.
First, we should call upon every human being wherever he is - because the human being is the most important factor in the deterioration of the environment - to preserve and conserve this environment and to leave it in a sound condition for the next generation, while trying to satisfy his own needs at the present time.
Secondly, this Organization as well as other UN Agencies, should make it clear how this environment can be preserved. They should help countries understand and assimilate methods for conserving it. The Organization should also help countries to devise plans for sustainable development, putting emphasis, of course, on the protection of the environment.
Thirdly, since poverty constitutes pressure on natural resources and is the cause of the deterioration of the environment and natural resources, it is important to deal with the root cause of this poverty. Combatting poverty is an important measure which will help the small farmers to rationally manage natural resources. It will also help to achieve sustainable development.
Fourthly, since combatting poverty requires an increase in the production of agricultural products in general, and the use of new technologies in developing countries in particular, the rich countries therefore should provide more technical and material assistance to the needy ones, and should help them have access to those technologies.
Fifthly, international cooperation should be strengthened in the sphere of protection of the environment, particularly with regard to implementing Agenda 21, foremost of which is to provide finance for reactivating the work to be undertaken by the organizations and agencies working in this
- 291 -
field. In this respect, we support all the appeals made to the international organizations and the UN Agencies in order to undertake a more positive and effective role in providing funding and finance for the implementation of Agenda 21, and in order to achieve more progress towards integrating all that has been referred to in Agenda 21 in the national plans.
Finally, we call on all countries to adopt and sign the two agreements recommended by the Rio Conference on Climate Change and Biodiversity.
Angel BARBERO MARTIN (España): En primer lugar, la Delegación Española reconoce el esfuerzo y los buenos resultados de la Secretaría en la elaboración del documento que nos ocupa. Es un documento que refleja fielmente la extensión y la complejidad de los problemas derivados del seguimiento de la Conferencia de Río y de las dificultades de aplicación de sus objetivos.
Nos queda un camino muy duro que recorrer todavía. Hay muchas lagunas y sobre todo falta de información suficiente de tecnología y de adecuación de las estructuras para completar los objetivos que se definieron en Río. El mismo desarrollo de la Conferencia lo puso de manifiesto y yo creo que ahora toca a todos los países, pero sobre todo a las organizaciones internacionales, y muy en especial a la FAO, tener un papel preponderante en resolver estas dificultades, en allanar los obstáculos de este camino.
En el documento, muchas de las propuestas que se han hecho son realmente retos que están por resolver. Ahí es donde nosotros vemos que la FAO tiene la posibilidad de intervenir con eficacia y donde se puede reconocer la necesidad de su presencia. Elijamos, por ejemplo, el tema de los bosques dentro de todos estos aspectos que se han tratado. El papel de los bosques en todos los problemas del medio ambiente y del desarrollo sostenible ha cobrado cada vez más importancia. Sin embargo, es precisamente en el aspecto en que más dificultades existen para lograr acuerdos y también para poner en práctica todas las recomendaciones que se han realizado en la Agenda 21.
Falta una información fiable sobre la extensión de la desforestación, y sobre los ecosistemas deforestados. Falta, por ejemplo, en la debilitación de los bosques por los agentes climáticos, una investigación que sea más global, que no se dedique a establecer solamente aspectos particulares en cada caso. Faltan pruebas científicas rigurosas de la relación causal entre la presencia de contaminantes y el cambio climático o la pérdida de la superficie vegetal.
Ante los resultados, se dijo ya en la Conferencia, del tipo cero-infinito, es decir de probabilidad escasa de que se realicen, pero una vez que se realizan, de consecuencias incalculables, se recomienda una estrategia alejada del riesgo. Pero a veces esta estrategia lleva a soluciones muy costosas y a veces muy difíciles de aplicar, sobre todo en países con dificultades económicas y de otro tipo. El mismo problema de la biodiversidad, el concepto de biodiversidad en prácticas como pueden ser la ordenación de recursos forestales, etc., puede originar también unos desequilibrios que pueden redundar de forma inmediata en las poblaciones que se benefician de forma económica de estos productos.
La evolución, por ejemplo, de las técnicas agrícolas y sobre todo la tendencia a la liberalización de los mercados en ciertos productos que son
- 292 -
básicos va a llevar a que sólo tierras muy fértiles y con la aplicación de unas técnicas cada vez más sofisticadas sean las que puedan producir estos productos de forma que sean competitivos en el mercado. Esto llevará a marginar a muchas zonas rurales y a muchas poblaciones que verán como no pueden continuar con sus cultivos habituales porque éstos no son rentables. Hay que darles las alternativas más adecuadas y evitar que desaparezcan de las zonas, porque su desaparición puede incrementar los fenómenos de desertificación y de deterioro del medio ambiente.
El proceso de industrialización para países en vías de desarrollo es un proceso fundamental en su salida del estancamiento en ese subdesarrollo. Pero si ahora mismo se constriñe el uso de combustibles fósiles, etc., esto puede implicar un paro en este proceso de industrialización. Hay que encontrar estrategias que permitan explotar los recursos naturales y regenerar estos recursos sin que ello constituya un detrimento o un atraso en el proceso en desarrollo de todas estas poblaciones.
En la cooperación para el desarrollo muchas veces se han empleado modelos rígidos, tecnologías no apropiadas. Siempre existe por parte de los países donantes una ignorancia sobre los problemas institucionales. Muchas instituciones sobre las que se carga esta tarea en los países que reciben esta ayuda están mal dotadas, el personal es escaso o poco adiestrado y aquí es donde vemos que continúa teniendo extrema importancia el papel de la FAO.
Asociar sobre todo las políticas ambientales, y más concretamente las forestales, a las estructuras sociales es otra de las tareas que tiene que asumir el Departamento Forestal de la FAO.
Entramos en el problema de la desertificación, que es un problema que a España atañe muy directamente. Sin embargo, es un problema de alcance mundial, que afecta a todos los continentes y en el que interviene una compleja combinación de factores que deben ser estudiados y atacados en su origen. No sólo el Sahel sufre desertificación. La Cuenca Mediterránea, zonas áridas de la América Latina, también se ven afectadas por estos procesos. España, que ha firmado el Convenio sobre Desertificación y que piensa en breve ratificarlo, cree que su aplicación debería conducir hacia más protección y mejora de las condiciones ambientales, que no se limite a una mera canalización de recursos de ayudas al desarrollo. Tenemos que tener en cuenta que la desertificación se produce por las acciones humanas. Las sequías, los cambios climáticos influyen, pero en definitiva quien causa la desertificación es el hombre y es ahí donde nosotros queremos que se incida y las acciones en el desarrollo de este Convenio se apliquen.
En cuanto a nuestras políticas que tienen relación con el medio ambiente y sobre todo con la desertificación que, como digo, es un fenómeno que nos atañe; el 44 por ciento de nuestro territorio está afectado por procesos erosivos importantes; el 2,2 por ciento sufre una extrema erosión que sube más allá de las 200 toneladas por hectárea y año y más del 5 por ciento de nuestro territorio tiene una erosión muy alta, entre las 100 y las 200 toneladas por hectárea y año. El World Watch Institute, en su informe de 1992 sobre la situación en el mundo, señalaba que la erosión en España es la mayor en términos porcentuales entre los países desarrollados.
De no tomar urgentes medidas, como se está haciendo para restaurar el suelo, la desertificación avanzará no sólo en nuestro país sino en otras regiones, como hemos apuntado anteriormente. Nos preocupa especialmente en el Mediterráneo. Para ello España ha diseñado un Plan Nacional de
- 293 -
Restauración Hidrológico Forestal, para el control de la erosión, que se elaboró en 1991. Queda abierto además constantemente a la introducción de nuevos conocimientos y experiencias. Abordamos con este Plan la reconstrucción de 2 millones de hectáreas con la regeneración de la cubierta vegetal, obras de hidrotecnia, construcciones de suelo agrícola sobre 1,3 millones. Esto se acompaña con un ambicioso plan de reforestación que pretende alargarse durante 20 y 40 años en dos fases que nos hemos fijado. Se espera que en 5 años se repueblen 800 mil hectáreas y hay una inversión anual de 200 a 300 millones de dólares para desarrollar este Plan que será cofinanciado además por la Comunidad Económica Europea.
En el Mediterráneo el PNUMA aprobó, dentro del Programa de Acción del Mediterráneo, un plan prioritario de acciones de lucha contra la erosión que se inició en 1989 y que concluirá en 1996, en el que España, con esta preocupación que hemos ya señalado sobre la cuenca del Mediterráneo, ha intervenido de forma importante. El Plan pretende definir y cuantificar los procesos erosivos y planificar las acciones para luchar contra ellos. Hay tres áreas establecidas para determinar centros de investigación en Túnez, Turquía y en España, en la cuenca del río Adra. El proyecto de lucha contra la desertificación en el Mediterráneo - LUCDEME - es un proyecto que nació ya hace 11 años en colaboración con universidades y otros centros de investigación, como el Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Agrarias y el Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas.
Asimismo participamos en algunos proyectos europeos, como el Modelo Europeo de Erosión del Suelo en.el que están otros ocho países, o el Proyecto MEDALUS en el cual España participa aportando los estudios que se están realizando en la cuenca del río Segura. Hemos participado, sobre todo porque se hizo bajo la presidencia española, en el informe que se hizo sobre el diseño de políticas de protección del recurso suelo en el Grupo de Gestión de Recursos Naturales de la OCDE, que publicará sus resultados en 1994.
Sobre biodiversidad, hemos aumentado y pretendemos seguir aumentando la red estatal de los parques nacionales de manera que recojan la totalidad de los diversos ecosistemas que pueblan nuestro territorio nacional y al mismo tiempo se están realizando también políticas de protección de flora y fauna, detectando y mejorando sus habitats y tomando medidas legales para la protección. Está estudiando España también su participación en el Fondo Mundial para el Medio Ambiente de manera que además se pueda colaborar en los proyectos que se realicen para este Fondo.
Tenemos, al mismo tiempo, un documento que está en español a disposición de las delegaciones que quieran consultarlo y que pueden solicitarlo a la Delegación española, sobre todo a la Representación Permanente, un documento que se ha realizado sobre el estudio de la desertificación en nuestro país y que creemos que puede aportar información a todos aquellos países que quieran intercambiar con nosotros estos conocimientos.
Arnaldo BADILLO ROJAS (Venezuela): La Delegación de Venezuela desea expresar su agradecimiento a la Secretaría por la extensa y documentada información que nos ha entregado sobre los avances en las actividades que instituciones internacionales y gobiernos han realizado en materia de desarrollo sostenible, con posterioridad a la realización de la Conferencia de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Medio Ambiente y el Desarrollo.
- 294 -
De la lectura del informe se desprende que, a pesar de la trascendencia que la sostenibilidad del desarrollo tiene para el futuro de la humanidad, no parece existir todavía la voluntad suficiente al nivel global o de interorganismos para hacer efectivas las aspiraciones que la comunidad internacional ha expresado a través de las diferentes declaraciones y acuerdos emanados de la CNUMAD.
Los países en desarrollo, vistos individualmente, parecen manifestar mayor disposición a avanzar, pues ven en el desarrollo sostenible una alternativa real para el largo plazo. Especial importancia asignamos a los asuntos relacionados con la cooperación entre organismos, aspectos que se detallan en las páginas 11 y 12 del Informe, ya que, y esto lo hemos planteado en la discusión de otros temas de esta Conferencia, en la compiementariedad y compatibilidad entre acciones institucionales de los organismos internacionales descansa en alto grado la efectividad de la acción de estos organismos para enfrentar la solución de los grandes problemas a cuya atención están abocados: la pobreza y el hambre en el mundo en desarrollo.
Visualizamos en las reuniones y en la cooperación entre organismos internacionales la posibilidad de superar las superposiciones e incompatibilidades en alineamientos y acciones en esferas de gran interés para la agricultura y el desarrollo rural sostenible, como lo señalamos en el párrafo 22 de este documento.
Nos preocupa por ello que, en relación a reuniones entre organismos tan vitales para el avance de las políticas y proyectos de agricultura y desarrollo rural sostenible, como la realizada sobre armonización de los marcos estratégicos en 1992, donde han participado instituciones de gran peso y poder en la determinación y formulación de estrategias nacionales de desarrollo, no llegáramos a tener la continuidad y celeridad necesarias en momentos en que las estrategias de desarrollo inicialmente diseñadas deben ser flexibilizadas para poder atender problemas tan trascendentes como la sostenibilidad del desarrollo.
Nuestra Delegación tiene la esperanza de que la cooperación entre organismos clave para enfrentar las tendencias y efectos negativos de las reformas económicas que se adelantan en los países en desarrollo pueda efectivamente llevarse adelante con celeridad y proveer así orientaciones que conduzcan al objetivo del desarrollo sostenible. El desarrollo sostenible debe ser viable como estrategia de desarrollo, pero esto no será posible si no se compatibilizan sus acciones y objetivos centrales con los objetivos de modelos y estrategias económicas que tienen un peso dominante en la conducción de muchas de las economías en desarrollo en este momento.
David SHERWOOD (Canada): I should like to express thanks and appreciation to Mr Mahler for his introduction to this subject. Canada appreciates the scope of the document and supports its continuation as a future agenda item. As one of the lead international agencies responsible for Agenda 21 follow-up, continued monitoring and information sharing is of great importance.
Annex 1 provides a good ready reference showing the linkages between Agenda 21 and the various FAO programmes, the role of FAO and the divisions responsible. We should have liked, however, a better sense of incremental activities and emphasis than can be deduced from this Annex.
- 295 -
Canada supports the activities being implemented by FAO in the areas of agriculture, animal and plant genetic resources, fisheries and forestry to achieve sustainable agriculture and achieve compliance with the articles of the Biodiversity Convention through sustainable management of our renewable resources.
As requested in the document, we should first of all like to share some of our own experiences with you on the domestic front. Canada is following up on sustainable agriculture in several ways. In 1990, after several years of work, Canada announced our own "Green Plan". The success of this plan was largely dependent on an extensive national consultation process. Canada's Green Plan targets action directed to environmental conservation, protection and remedial measures on specific priority issues. It also encourages measures which focus on making fundamental changes to decisionmaking so that environmental considerations become an integral part of the daily lives of Canadians, as individuals, as businesses and governments. Agriculture Canada has established a Bureau for Environmental Sustainability for implementation of the Green Plan. Last year Agriculture Canada launched a Green Plan initiative to build on measures under way in soil conservation, surface and ground water policy, wildlife habitat, air quality and climate change, energy use, pollution and waste management and genetic resources.
At the political level, a standing committee of the House of Commons of the Canadian Parliament has reviewed the Biodiversity Convention and Agenda 21 and issued a series of recommendations for Canadian agriculture. A Biodiversity office has been established within Environment Canada, which is monitoring the actions taken by federal departments on those recommendations and on response to the articles of the Biodiversity Convention by the federal, provincial and territorial governments.
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada is currently working to identify and develop a set of environmental indicators for agriculture in the following categories: inputs, land, resources, water quality and quantity, wildlife, genetic diversity, and air and climate issues, with linkages to economic aspects where feasible and appropriate. A workshop is being organized for 6 and 7 December 1993 in Ottawa to discuss these issues, and we are pleased to extend an invitation to FAO to send a representative to participate with us.
In the forestry area, Canada has formulated, and is implementing, its new national forests strategy, highly convergent with both the Forest Principles and Agenda 21. The Federal and Provincial Governments, industry and non-governmental organizations have all committed to implement our action plan and modify practices towards sustainable forest management. We are reviewing all relevant forestry policies to align them with our UNCED commitments. In addition, we have established a national model forest network where we will experiment with innovative approaches to practise sustainable forestry.
In the international area, we should like to offer some comments to FAO on its activities, mainly in the forestry sector. In the area of forestry, Canada generally concurs with the priorities which FAO has set for itself. In this regard, priority should be given to (1) policy advice, (2) national capacity building, and (3) technical support to the formulation of criteria and indicators for sustainable development of forests.
- 296 -
To achieve the above objectives, FÀO should concentrate its efforts where it enjoys a comparative advantage in activities related to resource assessment, inventories, policy analysis, information networks and data analysis. In this regard Canada agrees with FAO's position regarding FAO's future role as one of the nodes and a full partner in the development, integration and coordination of broader data-collection networks to be able to assist its member countries in building their national capacity in the FAO sectors.
UNCED recognizes, and FAO concurs, that forests are of prime importance to the planetary ecological balance and the survival of sustainable development of human populations. However, as is so very often repeated, Canada is concerned that FAO has been giving forestry issues low priority. We share the position expressed by the Swedish delegation on the necessity for FAO to strengthen its role in forestry, define its field responsibility in relation to the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development, and better focus its activities.
Internationally, Canada will continue to assist developing countries to implement Agenda 21 for forests and the Forest Principles through the programmes of the Canadian International Development Agency and through the International Development Research Centre. In addition, following its Rio commitment, Canada has initiated consultations and negotiations with three other countries with the aim of establishing an international model forest network.
Finally, under the auspices of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, Canada has held an international seminar of experts on sustainable development of boreal and temperate forests. Some 40 countries and a good number of international organizations, including FAO, took an active part in this event. Although the discussions in that particular forum were not intended to represent commitments or binding obligations, this initiative represents a significant step in the progress towards international agreement on criteria and indicators.
We are all concerned about the question of funding. The ability of FAO potentially to access funding from the global environmental facility is crucial and requires continuing consideration and effort. Although this might be considered in greater detail under another agenda item, we would hope that the global environmental facility will allow funding of the International Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources. This delegation would like to raise comment on the section entitled "Managing the Interfaces and Trade-offs among Sectors", paragraphs 44 to 54. The overall impression was given that necessary actions are being taken. However, it will require all agencies responsible for follow-up to Agenda 21, including FAO, essentially to have to work constantly to avoid the twin dangers of overlapping responsibilities and duplication or, even worse, having items fall between the cracks and not receive due and adequate attention.
Ms Charlotte E. ROE (United States of America): We wish to express our appreciation for the thoughtful introduction by Dr Mahler and the excellent introduction provided in C 93/10.
The United States has followed closely this topic, through participation at the UN Conference on Environment and Sustainable Development, the follow-up to Agenda 21 now taking place within the UN system, and through the regular
- 297 -
and comprehensive reporting provided by FAO. We commend FAO for its contributions to the UNCED process and its follow-up which integrates and emphasizes sustainability criteria in all FAO programmes and activities and specifically in the food, agriculture, forestry and fisheries sectors in Agenda 21.
I think, we can all agree that the process of developing a course of action has been carefully elaborated over a long period. It is now time to implement. FAO has definitely established its presence in the Agenda 21 process, including its role as task manager for land resources. As requested at the Hundred and Second FAO Council, the Secretariat has now begun to clarify its priorities and means for reinforcing environment and sustainable development considerations within its core mandate. In addition to improved effectiveness of FAO programmes, we hope an added benefit will be to enhance cooperation with UNDP and UNEP.
The United States has consistently encouraged and supported FAO initiatives in the area of environment and sustainable development. We believe that the International Cooperative Programme Framework for Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development (ICPF/SARD), now broadened to include forestry and fisheries, enhances FAO's position in the United Nations. The Special Action Programmes that will contribute to implementation of Agenda 21, the steps to incorporate environment and sustainable development initiatives in the 1994-95 Regular Programme budget, the Medium-Term Plan and a variety of related activities also place FAO in a very favourable and unique position in the United Nations. It is notable that this has been achieved in a situation where financial resources available to the Secretariat have been rather limited.
It is in this spirit that we would wish to see further progress in several areas where FAO has a clear comparative advantage. The United States supports the general recommendations proposed on page 21 of this Report, although they could have been more action-oriented. Let me briefly point out several areas that, in the view of the United States, could yield important dividends for FAO:
Firstly, activities related to environmental assessment, including the impact of chemical-intensive agricultural projects, should be expanded considerably. Particularly important here are impacts on water quality, food safety and the health of farm workers affected by chemical applications. We also encourage FAO to conduct its own environmental impact assessments as an integral part of plague prevention and pest control effort, such as the desert locust operation.
The on-going need is for strengthening the technical capacity for environmental analysis and planning in ministries of agriculture, including forestry and fisheries, sensitizing FAO field and headquarters staff to the environmental and sustainable components of their work, and for producing technical documentation to guide future agricultural and rural development along lines that are environmentally sound and sustainable.
The United States supports fully the work being undertaken to develop methodologies for sustainability analysis. Future reports should discuss FAO's efforts in environmental accounting, recognizing on-going efforts at other international and national organizations and agencies.
Secondly, there is now growing recognition of the importance of linking farmers, frequently women, and policymakers in the decision-making process.
- 298 -
We must now move beyond such nice-sounding phrases to test different ways of promoting linkages between local non-governmental organizations, farmer cooperatives and other rural groups, and the policy analysis and formulation process. We support the principle of participatory collaboration with appropriate NGOs, ranging from community-based rural organizations to professional associations and industry-based NGOs.
Here again FAO has a unique combination of expertise and country experience which should be applied more widely in supporting small-scale farmers to increase resilience of the agro-ecosystem, to promote diversity in production systems and to minimize economic risk. Policy analysis work in FAO should be intensified to develop technical means for ensuring that environmental and natural resources costing information is incorporated into the planning framework.
Thirdly, we consider development of a SARD information system to be essential. It should be initiated as soon as possible to support countries in analysing their policies based on agro-ecological potential, in developing comprehensive sustainable development plans which take into account population-supporting capacity and in using sustainability indicators to analyse and monitor performance and progress. Such systems, guided by the Secretariat's responsibilities under Agenda 21, should integrate FAO's statistical data, geographically-referenced information and sub-national sector studies. Such an information system would be of enormous value to countries now in the process of developing their national Agenda 21s. Although some preliminary work has been started, it must proceed more rapidly if it is to be used by countries in time to make a difference.
Fourthly, the document correctly notes activities in the areas of plant and animal genetic resources which are among FAO's responsibilities as task manager of the land cluster of Agenda 21. If FAO is genuinely concerned to take up these areas vigorously, then we expect more Regular Programme resources urgently to be devoted to them. Without this, the essential elements for the effective management and coordination of a global programme to assist properly Member Governments will not be achieved. We know FAO has competent individuals to manage these programmes.
Fifthly, we note with particular interest paragraphs 44 to 54, which address the linkages and trade-offs among sectors. In this regard, the United States wishes to encourage FAO's efforts to promote the integration of fisheries and aquaculture in devising effective policies to manage the increasingly-vulnerable coastal areas around the world, an important area of FAO/UNEP collaboration to which many delegates in this room have referred.
We also underscore the importance of FAO's global forest assessment and the need to conduct this valuable monitoring effort on a continual basis, in order to give us more reliable information on forest degradation and the interrelation of these phenomena with communities directly dependent on forests.
The United States wishes to mention its support for Jamaica's insightful views on the critical need for identifying income-generating activities to reduce poverty in support of environmental protection and sustainable use of resources.
- 299 -
In addition, the United States strongly supports the recommendation by Jamaica, Cyprus and Korea and other countries of the need for more FAO focus on developing and promoting integrated farming systems, using reduced agro-chemicals and holistic alternatives in the wisest possible manner.
We have heard many innovative ideas earlier today from our Swedish colleague speaking on behalf of the Nordic Group. With regard to forestry, we agree with what was said about FAO's central role in preparing for the 1995 meeting of the CSD. To accomplish this best, perhaps some modification of FAO's Forestry Department with a view towards channelling more resources to key UNCED follow-up activities merits further consideration. We are not sure, however, that a ministerial-level COFO is needed to do this. Our delegation to COFO meetings is normally at the hghest level which can effectively deal both with policy and technical issues. The remarks on plant genetic resources are very much to our liking and we will further of that matter later today.
In conclusion, the United States wishes to express its support for the decentralized approach taken by the Secretariat in promoting programme development in a number of key technical units, whilst at the same time addressing interdisciplinary issues through the Inter-Departmental Working Group on Environment and Sustainable Development and its sub-groups.
This having been said, the United States delegation would be interested to know the intentions of the Secretariat during the next biennium in extending the institutional coordination and providing a strong focal point for environment and sustainable development issues with sufficient financial resources to be effective.
Up to the present, the matter has been taken up ably by the ADG, Special Adviser to the Director-General, supported by the Environment and Sustainable Development Coordinating Centre.
In the post-UNCED context it is essential that the momentum FAO has built up so far be reinforced and intensified with visible and compelling management steps, so that the SARD approach can permeate the Organization's planning, budgeting, and decision-making processes.
The meeting rose at 12.30 hours.
La séance est levée à 12 h 30.
Se levanta la sesión a las 12.30 horas.
