LE PRESIDENT: Je voudrais aussi attirer votre attention, comme je le fais depuis le début des travaux de la Commission, sur les projets de décision qui figurent dans ces documents. A cet effet, je vous rappelle qu'aux paragraphes 3 et 4 du document C 95/22 à la page 1, figure le projet de décision relatif aux "Directives pour l'analyse du risque phytosanitaire". De même, dans le document C 95/22-Sup.l se trouve, en première page, au paragraphe 2, le projet de décision qui porte sur la proposition de nouvelles zones indemnes. Enfin, au document C 95/22-Sup.2 paragraphe 7, nous avons un projet de décision qui porte sur le programme de révision de la Convention internationale pour la protection des végétaux.
Je vous propose que nous divisions notre débat en deux parties et que nous examinions d'abord tout ce qui a trait aux normes phytosanitaires, c'est-à-dire les projets de décision contenus dans les documents C 95/22 et C 95/22-Sup.l, puis que nous étudions séparément la proposition concernant la mise à jour de la Convention internationale pour la protection des végétaux.
Je sais que certaines délégations ont prévu de faire une seule déclaration. Ceux qui sont dans ce cas pourront résumer dans une seule déclaration leur point de vue sur les trois projets de décision, mais pour que nous ne confondions pas tous les sujets, nous examinerons d'abord les deux projets de décision relatifs aux normes phytosanitaires, puis le projet de décision sur la révision de la Convention. Si cela vous agrée, nous ouvrons le débat en donnant la parole au Professeur Sawadogo, Sous-directeur général chargé du Département de l'Agriculture, qui présentera ce point de l'ordre du jour.
A. SAWADOGO (Sous-Directeur général, Département de l'agriculture): Comme vous l'avez rappelé, Monsieur le Président, ce point de l'ordre du jour porte sur un certain nombre de documents dont vous avez donné la liste. Je souhaiterais pour ma part vous rappeler que le mécanisme de mise en place des normes a été établi pour faire face aux exigences définies dans l'Accord sur les mesures sanitaires et phytosanitaires des négociations du cycle de l'Uruguay. En 1989, suite aux négociations de l'Uruguay, la vingt-cinquième Conférence a décidé de fonder le Secrétariat de la Convention internationale pour la protection des plantes. Le mécanisme de mise en place des normes a été approuvé en 1993 par la vingt-septième Conférence. Une première norme a été endossée par la Conférence en 1993 et vous avez maintenant trois autres normes à étudier pour adoption.
Les normes "Directives pour l'analyse du risque phytosanitaire" et le "Code de conduite pour l'importation et le lâcher d'agents de lutte biologique" ont dû subir une longue période de préparation et sont passés par plusieurs stades de consultation. Le document C 95/22-Rev.l et son corrigendum 1 incluent les amendements proposés par la treizième séance du COAG et révisés par la deuxième réunion du Comité d'experts sur les mesures phytosanitaires qui a eu lieu en mai 1995. Le COAG et la cent-huitième session du Conseil ont recommandé que ces deux normes révisées soient adoptées par la Conférence. La norme "Directives pour l'analyse des risques phytosanitaires" fournit un support pour une quarantaine végétale rationnelle, alors que le "Code de conduite pour l'importation et le lâcher d'agents de lutte biologique" fournit des réglementations pour une introduction sans risque de ces organismes importants. La troisième norme "Exigences en matière d'établissement de zones exemptes d'organismes nuisibles", concerne également un des principes majeurs de la quarantaine végétale, mais n'a pas pu être soumise au COAG en mars dernier à cause d'un manque de consensus sur le texte. En conséquence, le COAG a recommandé que, exceptionnellement pour ce cas particulier, le Conseil et la Conférence considèrent cette norme sans se référer au COAG, à condition qu'un consensus sur le texte puisse être obtenu par le Comité des experts.
Ce consensus a été dûment obtenu en mai 1995. La cent-neuvième session du Conseil a soumis cette norme à la présente Session de la Conférence pour adoption.
La révision de la Convention internationale pour la protection des plantes a été requise par la treizième Session du COAG. Depuis, l'Organisation a demandé aux autorités concernées par la protection des plantes des pays membres de la FAO de fournir des informations sur les sujets importants devant être considérés dans la révision, et des réponses à cette requête arrivent encore actuellement. Les problèmes principaux sont traités dans le document C 95/22-Sup.3. De plus, un budget pour cette tentative de révision est fourni dans le document C 95/22-Sup.2. Ces fonds ont été inclus dans le Programme de travail et budget, sous le chapitre 2.1.2.4, Protection des plantes. Je voudrais cependant souligner que ces fonds sont limités et que des solutions devront être trouvées pour assurer une pleine et entière participation de tous les membres au processus de négociation. Les fonds limités réduisent également les possibilités de réunions de négociation. En conséquence, il est très important que les membres participent pleinement au processus de préparation en faisant de nombreux commentaires. Ce sera le seul moyen pour soumettre à la Conférence la Convention une fois révisée, et pour obtenir son endossement.
LE PRESIDENT: Je vous remercie, Professeur Sawadogo, de cette introduction sur les deux sujet, à savoir, les normes sur lesquelles la Commission doit se prononcer et la révision de la Convention.
Le document C 95/LIM/14 rappelle la décision du Conseil qui recommandait à la Commission de mettre sur pied un groupe de contact chargé d'examiner les amendements sur les zones indemnes, en liaison avec la mise en oeuvre de l'accord de l'Organisation mondiale du commerce (OMC) sur les mesures sanitaires et phytosanitaires.
Nous avons, au début des travaux de la Commission, mis sur pied ce groupe de contact qui était présidé par M. Sakira de l'Ouganda. Avant d'ouvrir la liste des orateurs, je voudrais, si vous le permettez, lui passer la parole pour qu'il nous rapporte les résultats auxquels est parvenu le groupe de contact.
Wilberforce SAKIRA (Uganda): Although the 109th Session of the FAO Council decided to forward the draft Standard on "Requirements for the Establishment of Pest-Free Areas" to the 28th Session of the Conference for adoption, there were some Member Nations and one Member Organization which had reservations about the Standard. Subsequently, the Council recommended to the Conference that a contact group be established by Commission I to consider the amendments which had been proposed so that a consensus could be reached on the text by the time the item would be formally discussed in the plenary.
The contact group consisted of the following Member Nations and one Member Organization: China, Cuba, Japan, Malaysia, Morocco, New Zealand, Uganda (in the chair), Uruguay, United States of America and the European Community.
The group observed that proposed amendments which had been forwarded to the Secretariat did not address substantive issues but were mainly of a linguistic nature calling for further refinement or brushing up.
Now, owing to the great importance of the proposed Standard, the contact group unanimously decided that it should be left as it was drafted; that is, there should be no changes or amendments whatsoever at the moment. However, it was proposed that:
I would like to report also that some members of the contact group felt that the exact date when the Standard would undergo a periodic review should be indicated in the document so that those responsible for the review may plan for it and do so at an appropriate time. This matter was left to the Secretariat to clarify in Commission I.
We would like to take this opportunity to thank the members of the contact group for the cooperation, team spirit and understanding they exhibited. We all worked in a cordial and friendly manner.
LE PRESEDENT: Je vous remercie beaucoup, Monsieur Sakira, et je voudrais, au nom de la Commission, vous adresser à vous-même et aux membres du Groupe de contact les félicitations pour le travail que vous avez pu accomplir et qui certainement aidera la Commission dans l'examen de cette norme.
Mesdames et Messieurs, vous avez écouté le rapport du Groupe de contact sur la troisième norme qui concerne l'exigence pour l'établissement des zones indemnes. Donc, nous allons ouvrir une première série de débats sur les trois normes qui sont soumises à notre Commission. Et nous ouvrons la liste des orateurs. Donc levez vos pancartes pour ceux qui veulent parler: Nouvelle-Zélande, Malaisie, Venezuela, Cap-Vert, Chine, Chypre, Iran, Mexique, Japon, Communauté européenne.
Nous arrêtons là la première liste des orateurs sur ces trois normes. Et s'il vous plaît, encore une fois, veuillez vous concentrer à donner votre point de vue sur les trois normes qui sont soumises à l'attention de la Commission. Nous passons au premier orateur qui est la Nouvelle-Zélande. Nouvelle-Zélande, vous avez la parole.
Neil FRASER (New Zealand): This area of phytosanitary standards is an important and very functional aspect of the FAO work programme. We would like to thank the Secretariat for their very diligent efforts in this work. New Zealand has participated actively in this work and is very pleased with the results. Briefly, I am pleased to be able to say that New Zealand strongly supports the draft decisions before us. My intervention was, then, to support each of the five, but let me say we support the three standards which are in question at the moment. In relation to the standard on pest-free areas, we are aware that there had been some proposals for the amendments - in fact we were part of the working group - and we appreciate the move by the delegations concerned to withdraw these at this stage for consideration at some other time.
Mohd. Khairuddin MD. TAHIR (Malaysia): At the outset, my delegation would like to commend FAO for its standards development programmes, the results of which we are witnessing today in the three standards that are put before us for Conference decision.
As regards two of the standards, i.e., guidelines for Pest Risk Analysis and Code of Conduct for the Import and Release of Exotic Biological Control Agents, they have been discussed at the Committee on Agriculture, and subsequently at the Hundred and eighth Council, which recommended that they be endorsed by the Conference. Malaysia had given its support at the two Governing Bodies, and today we are reaffirming our standard on the two standards.
Malaysia believes that by having these standards, to be used internationally, greater protection of agricultural production against the importation of exotic pests and diseases could be effected. This should lead to a greater efficiency in the trade of plants and plant products.
With regard to the third standard, i.e., Requirements for the Establishment of a Pest-Free Area, my delegation believes there is merit in its consideration. These standards reached consensus at the Committee of Experts on Phytosanitary Measures at its second sitting in May 1995. My delegation lauds this achievement of the Committee and shares the views of its Asian-Pacific Representative at CEPM. However, there still remains the question of the role of COAG in standard-setting procedures, as mandated by the Conference.
My delegation, in the interests of reaching international consensus and also due to the urgency of the matter, supports the approval of the standard and the requirement for the establishment of a pest-free area for endorsement by the Conference. However in doing so, my delegation requests that by giving that exemption of not going to COAG in the first instance, this will not set a precedent, and my delegation would like this fact to be recorded. This is to reiterate the Report of the Chairman of the Contact Group.
My delegation would like to turn now to the issue of updating the International Plant Protection Convention. We believe that it is timely that the Convention be brought into line with the Agreements of the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. While the Convention sees phytosanitary measures as a strictly technical matter, needing technical competence, the SPS Agreement views it from the point of view of phytosanitary measures as related to trade. There is, therefore, a need for harmonization of these areas, but it should not be done in such a manner as to disrupt the technical thinking process on phytosanitary measures which, in related sanitary fields, such as the control of human and animal pests and diseases, have successfully and consistently relied on technical criteria. My delegation hopes there will be no sacrifice of the technical criteria.
In this regard, my delegation commends the recommendations of the Secretariat for the carefully thought-out stages in the harmonizing and updating of the International Plant Protection Convention with the SPS Agreements. In the Secretariat's proposal there is a meeting of a Working Group of Experts, consultation with the contracting parties, and government consultation before submission of draft to COAG, Council and Conference for their consideration and adoption.
Finally, my delegation supports the proposal as found in C 95/22-Sup.2.
LE PRESIDENT: Je vous remercie, distingué délégué, et je prends note que vous vous êtes exprimé à la fois sur les normes et sur la Convention.
Je voudrais aussi informer la Commission que les délégations de la Hongrie, du Portugal et de El Salvador ont remis le texte de leurs déclarations pour être insérées au procès-verbal.
Sita. Virginia PEREZ PEREZ (Venezuela): Mi delegación, señor Presidente, considera que el examen, ajuste y modificación de las normas para la armonización de la cuarentena de plantas y la aplicación del Código Internacional de Conducta para la distribución y utilización de plaguicidas son aceptadas.
Agradecemos la labor de la FAO en este campo. Estamos convencidos, que la norma ayudará a los países, que como el nuestro, no han desarrollado aún una legislación referente a los agentes de lucha biológica ni una reglamentación en lo concerniente al análisis de riesgo de plagas. Agradecemos la labor del Grupo de Contacto, apoyamos ampliamente sus recomendaciones y esperamos que la Conferencia apruebe estas normas.
Las directrices para el análisis de riesgo de plagas, son una excelente contribución para armonizar los estándar internacionales de cuarentena vegetal, percibiéndose importantes beneficios para los Estados Miembros.
Mme Adelaïde RIBEIRO (Cap-Vert): Monsieur le Président, je voudrais tout d'abord, au nom de la délégation du Cap-Vert, présenter nos remerciements au Secrétariat de la FAO pour les excellents documents. Il s'agit de documents très clairs et bien présentés, avec un soucis de transparence.
Mon intervention va se centrer sur le document C 95/22-Rev.l. Comme l'on a déjà eu l'opportunité de s'exprimer sur ce point de notre ordre du jour pendant la cent huitième session du Conseil, nous serons très brefs.
A notre avis, cette question a déjà été débattue suffisamment. Donc son adoption par la Conférence semble opportune. La délégation du Cap-Vert approuve l'adoption du projet de décision "Directives pour l'analyse du risque phytosanitaire" et "Le code de conduite pour l'intégration et le lâcher des agents exotiques de lutte biologique" tel que présenté au document, et entérine également la suppression de l'étape 9 des "Etapes successives de l'élaboration des normes et directives internationales harmonisées". Merci Monsieur le Président.
ZHANG XIGUI (China) (Original language Chinese): With regard to the establishment of a pest-free area, the Chinese Government, at the Hundred and ninth Council, put forward our comments in relation to this standard. I think the Secretariat has given full consideration to the third area and the Chinese Government's attitude in relation to this area.
The member countries have had useful discussions on this. Therefore, when this document goes forward for the approval of the Secretariat, I ask that the position of the Chinese Government be taken into consideration.
Stelios PAPACHRISTODOULOU (Cyprus): The aim of the proposed phytosanitary standards is to enable countries to take the necessary restrictive measures in order to safeguard their agricultural production against the introduction of new pests and diseases and, at the same time, to ensure that such measures do not constitute unjustifiable barriers to international agricultural trade. In order to achieve these two rather contradictory goals, the proposed standards require national plant quarantine services to adopt and implement a series of rather complicated and costly procedures, aiming to provide scientific evidence that particular pests are indeed "quarantine pests". Although in theory very usefiil, the burden of scientific proof may also have negative effects, as it may not allow small and developing countries to institute the necessary phytosanitary measures against major pests that "are not known to occur" in their territories.
Cyprus, being a small island, is naturally protected against the introduction of exotic pests and diseases by means other than imported plants and plant products. Despite the recent introduction of several major exotic pests and diseases, there are still a number of important pests that are absent from the island, e.g. the Colorado beetle, the grapevine phylloxera, the greenhouse whitefly and others. Naturally, we are strongly interested in maintaining our freedom from these pests. This, however, may prove a difficult task in view of the liberalization of international agricultural trade and the obligation of Cyprus resulting from its association with the European Union, the SPS Agreement of the World Trade Organization and the adoption of the proposed phytosanitary standards.
Recognizing the great importance of promoting the international agricultural trade, Cyprus is willing to adopt the proposed standards. At the same time, however, we urge FAO to find the ways and means to effect national plant quarantine services that would be able to cope with the problems and obligations arising from the adoption and implementation of the proposed standards.
Abdolrahman CHERAGHALI (Iran, Islamic Republic of): My delegation thanks the Secretariat for the preparation of the excellent document, agenda on Phytosanitary Standards.
I would like to inform this august meeting that the Islamic Republic of Iran in its second five-year development plan, using biological and integrated pest management methods for plant protection, has decided to reduce the use of insecticides and other agricultural chemicals by 40 percent.
As we all know, this would be most effective if all neighbouring countries harmoniously participated in a global programme. Therefore, we urge the need for the cooperation of all the countries of the West Asian and North African regions in participating in this vital programme.
The Islamic Republic of Iran needs FAO's assistance and support for the design and implementation of the biological control methods. This assistance would also be very useful for the WANA region, especially in helping it to increase its technical knowledge on this issue.
Sra. Veronique DELI (México): En opinión de la delegación mexicana, el Documento que presenta la Secretaría de la FAO, C 95/22, así como sus suplementos, normas propuestas para las zonas libres de plagas C 95/22-Sup.l y actualización de la Convención Internacional de Protección Fitosanitaria, C 95/22-Sup.2, son particularmente importantes para el comercio. En este sentido, la delegación mexicana desea expresar su apoyo respecto a los documentos, toda vez que después de una revisión de los mismos, se considera que su contenido está de acuerdo a los términos y principios de la Organización Norteamericana para la Protección de las Plantas, que ha planteado a la FAO para este tipo de estándar.
Yukio YOKOI (Japan): Japan would like to associate itself with other countries in fully supporting the development of a series of standards for phytosanitary measures.
My delegation wishes to endorse what was reported by Mr Sakira and offer congratulations on the emerging consensus so that we are about to adopt the standard regarding the proposed draft standards in pest-free areas.
With regard to the review date, I would like to see some clarification from Legal Counsel on how to deal with the date. Japan is of the opinion that we cannot leave a blank in the standard with regard to that issue. Instead we would like to have a specific date or a sentence inserted, for example, the review process will be commenced at some specific date or as required by certain members.
In addition Japan would like to support the adoption process of the standards on the Pest Risk Analysis and Code of Conduct.
With regard to the IPPC process, Japan fully supports the initiation of the work reviewing the current International Plant Protection Convention. Recently we have seen a lot of development take place changing the environment of the Convention. As the Secretariat describes in the background paper, the WTO/SPS Agreement entered into force at the beginning of this year and subsequently intensive work is going on for the development of International Standards of Phytosanitary Measures within the framework of IPPC.
Japan believes it is our urgent task to update the Convention in accordance with those recent developments because it is the Convention which is supposed to provide the framework for international plant protection.
In addition, Mr Chairman, let me recall that there are further issues to be sorted out in the review exercise. For example, I would like to refer to the gap between the Convention and the reality in terms of the institutional aspects such as the fact that there is no provision in the Convention referring to the IPPC Secretariat. I am sorry for the people who have been making a tremendous contribution to the Secretariat.
Given a list of those issues to be addressed, Mr Chairman, the review process proposed here is satisfactory suggesting a series of steps. It is Japan's view that we should start the exercise as soon as possible and take up the issues as broad as practically possible in the course of examination.
In conclusion, I would like to express Japan's strong wish to make a contribution through this process, including the active participation of the working group as a start.
LE PRESIDENT: Merci. Nous prenons bien note de votre appui pour les normes et pour la décision sur la révision. Je crois que nous n'en sommes pas encore au processus de révision et le moment venu, je vous ferai part de toutes les remaques que l'on a commencé à mentionner ici.
Raffaele DE SANTIS (CE): Monsieur le Président, je fais remarquer que je présente cette déclaration au nom de l'Union européenne.
L'Union européenne a pris note du consensus dégagé par le Comité d'experts sur les mesures phytosanitaires et confirme son approbation quant aux deux normes internationales soumises pour adoption soit: "Les directives pour l'analyse du risque phytosanitaire" et "le Code de conduite pour l'importation et le lâcher des agents exotiques de lutte biologique".
De même, l'Union européenne se félicite qu'en ce qui concerne la norme sur "les exigences en matière de zones exemptes d'organismes nuisibles", le Comité d'experts sur les mesures phytosanitaires ait abouti à un consensus. En effet, l'Union européenne attache une importance particulière quant au développement de cette norme et estime que les exigences qu'elle contient sont un cadre raisonnable pour l'établissement de "zones exemptes d'organismes nuisibles". En outre, l'Union européenne considère que ces exigences sont d'une importance considérable au regard de l'Accord sur l'application des mesures sanitaires et phytosanitaires de l'Acte final des négociations de l'Uruguay Round. Cette dernière version - soumise actuellement à la Conférence - représente une amélioration sensible, surtout étant donné qu'elle accepte le principe selon lequel les exigences sont applicables autant pour les pays exportateurs qu'importateurs, et qu'elle fait une référence appropriée à l'analyse du risque phytosanitaire. De manière générale, l'Union européenne est satisfaite de la révision de cette norme et fait, dans un esprit de compromis, retirer les propositions de modifications que nous avons soumises au Conseil la semaine dernière, comme d'ailleurs cela a déjà été dit par M. Sakira, Président du groupe de contact.
Monsieur le Président, nous partageons le point de vue selon lequel, lors de cette Conférence, soit examinée la question de l'amendement de la Convention internationale sur la protection des végétaux (CIPV).
L'Union européenne reconnaît qu'il est nécessaire de réviser la CIPV, à propos des domaines et des points mentionnés dans la liste soumise à la Conférence sur ce thème. De plus, l'Union européenne est d'avis, en particulier:
- que les règles concernant la délivrance des "certificats phytosanitaires" et "certificats phytosanitaires pour la réexportation" devraient être clarifiées;
- qu'il faudrait considérer jusqu'à quel stade la Convention internationale pour la protection des végétaux devrait être amendée afin de prendre en compte les nouvelles exigences de l'Accord sur les mesures sanitaires et phytosanitaires issues des négociations de l'Uruguay Round, telle la norme sur l'analyse scientifique et le risque phytosanitaire;
- que la Convention internationale pour la protection des végétaux devrait inclure, où il s'avère nécessaire, les éléments d'une norme préalablement approuvée sur les principes de la quarantaine végétale comme relatif au commerce international;
- que la Convention internationale pour la protection des végétaux devrait être révisée pour établir une procédure telle que celle suivie par le Comité d'experts sur les mesures phytosanitaires ou un successeur;
- que la mise à jour et la définition des termes soient réalisées en conformité avec celles du glossaire de la FAO sur les termes phytosanitaires, surtout en ce qui concerne la définition de la "quarantaine végétale";
- et finalement, que la Convention internationale pour la protection des végétaux soit modifiée afin de faire en sorte que l'Union européenne puisse en devenir partie contractante.
Monsieur le Président, je vous remercie de votre bienveillante attention.
LE PRESIDENT: Je vous remercie honorable délégué de la CEE pour votre esprit de consensus qui nous a permis de parvenir à un compromis sur la troisième norme ainsi que des remarques que vous avez faites sur la révision de la Convention internationale qui est également soumise à notre Commission. Je crois que le Secrétariat a pris aussi bonne note de vos remarques.
Sra. Ileana NUÑEZ MORDOCHE (Cuba): La delegación cubana apoya la gestión que ha venido realizando la FAO para el establecimiento de un Código Internacional de Conducta para la producción, comercialización, distribución y manejo de los plaguicidas.
Nuestra delegación quiere felicitar a la Secretaría por el documento que se nos ha presentado, y, creemos que la aplicación de estas normas beneficiarán a los países en desarrollo, protegiéndonos de las políticas de producción y comercialización de plaguicidas que aplican los países desarrollados y las compañías transnacionales.
Sobre este tema, nuestro país ha participado en la revisión de las normas y ha contribuido con información muy valiosa para la FAO.
Por tal motivo, apoyamos las normas que en esta ocasión nos ha presentado la Secretaría.
E. Wayne DENNEY (United States of America): It is a pleasure to deal with an item where we appear to be achieving consensus and where I think the conclusion of our discussion here this morning will be substantially different, and we have heard some recent items.
The United States is pleased with the important progress made during the current biennium in developing new phytosanitary standards. We look forward to seeing more standards presented for adoption at the next conference.
The Committee of Experts on Phytosanitary Measures is to be commended for their untiring efforts through our involvement in the North American Plant Protection Organization in collaboration with Canada at various sessions of the CEPM; we are pleased to have played an important part in this process.
Regarding the Standard of Pest-Free Areas, the United States was pleased to participate in the contact group and we believe the outcome of this session was very satisfactory. We are indebted to the guidance given by our Chairman from Uganda and the cooperation exhibited by all members and especially Japan and the European Union. We believe some of the proposals they have to offer merit further consideration and in light of this we would suggest that those be considered by the next meeting of the CEPM and, in general, we believe the CEPM should be reviewing proposed amendments that are forwarded by members.
In terms of a specific timetable, I think just being current and trying to respond to revisions and amendments that are proposed in a timely fashion would seem like the most logical process. What would be helpful to us is that we have some mechanism of determining what these amendments were prior to the meeting of the CEPM so that all members might be able to contribute to that discussion.
If I may now turn to some brief comments on updating the International Plant Convention, the United States concurs with the overall procedure for updating the IPC as outlined in the document. This is a high priority activity and deserves Regular Programme funding. Updating the IPPC is essential for obtaining language comparable to that agreed during the Uruguay Round of negotiations.
The IPPC s phytosanitary standard-setting role will be strengthened after the Convention is modernized. Failure to update it could result in FAO being less responsive to the needs of the World Trade Organization.
Additional information on the cost of updating the IPPC would also be helpful. Our preference is that a group of experts be kept small and include representation from each of the regional plant protection organizations. This permits balanced geographic representation while not being too costly.
LE PRESIDENT: Avec cette intervention nous en avons fini avec les orateurs de la première partie de notre ordre du jour et s'il n'y a plus d'orateurs qui demandent la parole, je passerai la parole au Secrétariat qui va faire quelques commentaires ou répondre à un certain nombre de questions ou d'observations, en particulier sur celui concernant la période de révision de la norme N° 3 sur les zones indemnes.
M.S. ZEHNI (Director, Plant Production and Protection Division): Let me first say that my colleagues and I were very encouraged by the support and the interest of the Members. I would like to assure you that this development of Standards is an area where we attach great importance, echoing your interest and the importance that you attach to it.
We will be pursuing the developing of the Standards and, as just said by the delegate of the United States of America, obviously, the turnover of the Standard will continue at the same rate perhaps or at an accelerated rate and next time we will be seeing some of the new standards introduced for your adoption.
We, too, attach great importance to revision of the IPPC, the Convention. As you have seen from the document, we intend to do that, but I must say that it is at some cost of adjustment in our programme, in our priorities, and that work and approximately US$250 000 we have for this purpose will be at the expense of other activities that we would have undertaken.
This is a reflection of your instruction that we should look into our priorities and make some adjustment of those priorities. Saying this, the fact remains that the money we were able to obtain by redeployment of resources remains insufficient for this process to be a country participation process, particularly the participation of countries in these meetings. While I cannot give you an accurate estimate of the needs for this, obviously, we will look for some extra resources to support the participation of developing countries and others, and for making the consultation as efficient and equitable as possible.
There was a question raised concerning the timing of the revision of the Standard. While Mr Moore will give you some precise language for your consideration, I would like to make three points: one, obviously, we need some time for the Standard to be into practice and, obviously, we cannot just adopt a Standard and then proceed its revision immediately. However, we are aware of the need for continually looking into these Standards for revision and perfecting them.
The second point is that I am sure you have noticed from our report how long it takes to develop a Standard. It is a long period of gestation. The third point I would like to bring to your attention is that we have about eight Standards in the pipeline at various stages of maturation. Therefore, the need for the Standard to be tested and the fact that it takes time to develop Standards, as well as the fact that we have other Standards to develop within the limitation of our resources, both human and financial, I think in our view a cycle of five years for such revision is not unreasonable.
May I turn to the Legal Counsel to respond to the specific question addressed to him by Japan in this regard.
LEGAL COUNSEL: The question has been raised regarding the date for the review. As you will note, in paragraph (iv) of the Standard concerned, there is a paragraph dealing with the date for the review but the date is left blank.
I understand that there is a suggestion that there should be a fixed date but at the same time there should be a certain amount of flexibility allowed for an earlier review if this is considered necessary. Perhaps a formal wording, following the wording set out in paragraph (iv) of the Standard, could be "the next review date for this Standard is December 2001 or such other date as may be agreed upon by the FAO Committee on Agriculture or by the FAO Council."
I suggest the FAO Committee on Agriculture because this is the appropriate inter-governmental body to which the CEPM will report. I think this is a matter that perhaps you would wish to be in the hands of governments. However, since the COAG meets only once every two years and the FAO Council meets more often, should you wish for the Council to take action this would allow for that additional flexibility, as the Council meets at least every year.
LE PRESIDENT: Je vous remercie, Monsieur Moore. J'aimerais avoir vos réactions sur cette dernière proposition concernant la date de révision de la norme sur les zones indemnes.
E. Wayne DENNEY (United States of America): We have two comments, and taking the easier one first, I think because of what Malaysia said earlier and we agreed in our contact group yesterday, the option of going to the Council and skipping COAG is not a method that should be used. Clearly, we should not mention anything in our report that suggests that COAG should be bypassed.
Also, I am concerned about waiting until the year 2001. I think that in the spirit of very difficult compromise that we achieved in the contact group yesterday, Japan had given a lot of thoughtful consideration to many possible amendments and basically agreed they could be satisfied if some of their concerns would be considered. Although the timing was not specifically discussed, I think the assumption was it might be sooner than six years from now. Our own feeling is that we owe it to Japan because of the number of suggestions that they had, and I might add that some of them we are sympathetic with, that that initial review be expedited.
Ms Malgorzata PIOTROWSKA (Poland): Poland strives to maintain and even strengthen its position as an important partner in world trade in high quality agricultural products. There is a direct relation between high yields and quality of farm produce and application of plant protection practices. Poland, therefore, follows thoroughly the work of the FAO Secretariat for the International Plant Protection Convention in the field of developing international phytosanitary standards.
A particular breakthrough in the area of plant protection occurred in Poland in 1995. The International Plant Protection Convention was ratified. Moreover, Parliament passed a new law concerning crop protection. An act will enter into force on 9 February 1996. This act establishes a uniform plant protection organization, the State Plant Protection Service.
This Conference is a forum for approving the Phytosanitary Standards. These Standards are extremely important since they introduce an international orderly market for plant products.
A Code of Conduct for the Import and Release of Exotic Biological Control Agents introduces many legal regulations concerning the use of biological methods which is a basic element of integrated environment-friendly programmes for plant protection.
Guidelines for Pest Risk Analysis ensure uniform principles used to select organisms being subjected to quarantine. This will eliminate practices of the unjustified use of international trade barriers. This is also a fundamental goal of the GATT Agreement and World Trade Organization.
Poland, therefore, will support these documents. However, we realize that their implementation takes and demands preparation of adequate regulations.
LE PRESIDENT: Messieurs les délégués, vous avez écouté les observations faites par la délégation des Etats-Unis concernant la date de la révision. Je crois que nous pouvons retenir que le COAG sera de toute manière impliqué, donc qu'on enlèvera la référence "ou le Conseil", et qu'on écrira: "ou toute autre date convenue par le COAG".
Les Etats-Unis souhaitent une date plus rapprochée et le Secrétariat a proposé l'an 2001. J'aimerais avoir le sentiment des autres membres de la Commission et savoir si d'autres délégués ont un avis à partager avec la Commission sur cette question, sinon je vous ferai une proposition. Personne ne demandant la parole, je vous propose que l'on retienne la date de "2001 ou toute autre date convenue par le COAG". Il semble que cela vous agrée, donc nous reformulerons ce paragraphe du document C 95/22-Sup.l de cette façon.
Nous terminons ici l'examen des normes phytosanitaires. En une seule phrase, on peut retenir que la Commission, tout en félicitant la FAO pour les efforts qu'elle a déployés pour l'élaboration de ces normes, et en relevant une nouvelle fois l'importance de ces normes, notamment sur le commerce des produits agricoles, a recommandé à la Conférence l'adoption des trois normes qui lui étaient soumises.
Le Secrétariat a pris bonne note de toutes les observations que vous avez faites dans vos interventions, notamment sur la nécessité, dans la mesure des ressources disponibles, que la FAO apporte une assistance aux pays en développement qui en ont besoin pour la mise en oeuvre et l'application de ces normes et la mise en place de mécanismes pour la révision de ces normes, et de toutes les autres suggestions que vous avez faites. Donc nous arrêtons que la Commission recommande à la Conférence l'adoption de ces trois normes.
J'ouvre le débat sur la révision de la mise à jour de la Convention internationale pour la protection des végétaux. Je retiens que de nombreux délégués ont déjà exprimé leur sentiment sur la décision qui est soumise au paragraphe 7. Si d'autres délégués veulent faire part de leur point de vue, le débat est ouvert et nous enregistrons les orateurs qui voudraient s'inscrire.
Neil FRASER (New Zealand): In my first intervention I followed your instructions and confined myself to the Standards, so for the record I would just like to say we support the updating review as proposed by the Secretariat.
ZHANG XIGUI (China) (Original language Chinese): A short while ago I heard a proposal that the three Standards be submitted to Conference for adoption. Now on behalf of the Chinese Government I should once again like to reassert the need to include in the document before us, and before Conference, the reservation which we marked on the third type of areas which are an uninfested part of a country situated within a generally infested area. We refer to this sentence.
LE PRESIDENT: Nous prenons note de votre réserve qui sera dans le rapport de la Commission.
Ms Maria GALVÖLGYI (Hungary): The version of this International Standard circulated to FAO members in 1995-08, having been examined by the Plant Protection Services of the EPPO Member Governments, was reviewed and discussed by the 45th Session of EPPO Council in 1995-09.
The EPPO Council declared itself satisfied in general with the revision of this standard made by the CEMP in 1995-05. It noted, however, two specific points where it proposes that it is of great importance to make modifications. Hungary as Member State of EPPO therefore endorses these modifications.
1. First proposed modification
In Section 1.3 documentation and Review (last paragraph):
Delete the words "based on a bilateral agreement".
Reason: the service responsible for a PFA should be perfectly competent to develop an operational plan without subjecting it to approval by bilateral agreement. Such approval lies outside the scope of this standard.
2. Second proposed modification
In Section 2.3.4 Documentation and Review (last paragraph):
Delete the sentence "As this type of PFA is likely to involve an agreement between trade partners, its implementation would need to be reviewed and evaluated by the NPPO of the importing country" and replace it with "This evidence should be subject to regular review and evaluation and should, on request, be available to the NPPOs of importing countries."
Reason: as above, the service responsible for a PFA should be perfectly competent to ensure regular review and evaluation without subjecting it to agreement with a trade partner. The evidence should be available, on request, multilaterally and not only bilaterally.
It was resolved that these proposals should be addressed to the IPPC Secretariat of FAO and recommended that the EPPO Member Governments should give them their support in FAO Council and Conference.
The full text, with the modifications, is appended below.
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF PEST-FREE AREAS
In the text below, the two suggested EPPO proposals are indicated in bold.
INTRODUCTION
SCOPE
This standard describes the requirement for the establishment and use of pest-free areas (PFAs) as a risk management option for phytosanitary certification of plants, plant products and other regulated articles exported from the PFA, or to support the scientific justification for phytosanitary measures taken by an importing country for protection of an endangered PFA.
REFERENCES
FAO Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms, FAO Plant Protection Bulletin 38 (1), (1990): 5-23.
International Plant Protection Convention, 1992. FAO, Rome.
Principles of Plant Quarantine as related to International Trade. 1995. FAO, Rome.
Guidelines for Pest Risk Analysis. FAO (in preparation).
Guidelines for Survey and Monitoring systems. FAO (in preparation).
Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, 1994. World Trade Organization,
Geneva.DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS
| Area |
An officially defined country, part of a country, or all or parts of several countries |
| Buffer zone* |
In preparation |
|
Delimiting survey |
A survey conducted to establish the boundaries of an area considered to be infested by or free from a pest |
|
Detection survey |
A survey conducted in an area to determine if pests are present |
| IPPC |
Abbreviation for the International Plant Protection Convention, as deposited with FAO in Rome in 1951 and as subsequently amended |
|
Monitoring survey |
Ongoing survey to verify the characteristics of a pest population |
| National Plant |
Protection Official service established by a Government to discharge the functions |
| Organization |
specified by the IPPC |
| Official |
Established, authorized or performed by a National Plant Protection Organization |
| Pest |
Any species, strain or biotype of plant, animal or pathogenic agent, injurious to plants or plant products |
| Pest-free area |
(PFA) An area in which a specific pest does not occur as demonstrated by scientific evidence and in which, where appropriate, this condition is being officially maintained |
|
Phytosanitary measure |
Any legislation, regulation or official procedure having the purpose to prevent the introduction and/or spread of quarantine pests |
|
Phytosanitary regulation |
Official rule to prevent the introduction and/or spread of quarantine pests, by regulating the production, movement or existence of commodities or other articles, or the normal activity of persons, and by establishing schemes for phytosanitary certification |
| Survey |
Methodical procedure to determine the characteristics of a pest population or to determine which species occur in an area. |
OUTLINE OF REQUIREMENTS
A pest-free (PFA) is an area in which a specific pest does not occur as demonstrated by scientific evidence and in which, where appropriate, this condition is being officially maintained.
The establishment and use of a PFA by an NPPO provides for the export of plants, plant products and/or other regulated articles from one country in which the PFA is situated (the export country) to another country (the importing country) without the need for application of additional phytosanitary measures when certain requirements are met. Thus, the PFA status of an area may be used as a basis for the phytosanitaiy certification of plants, plant products and other regulated articles with respect to the stated pest(s). It also provides, as an element in pest risk assessment, the confirmation on a scientific basis of the absence of a stated pest from an area. The PFA is then an element in the justification of phytosanitary measures taken by an importing country to protect an endangered area.
Although the term pest-free area encompasses the whole range of types of PFA (from an entire country which is pest-free to a small area which is pest-free but situated in a country where the pest is prevalent), it has been found to be convenient to discuss the requirements of PFAs by defining three types:
- an entire country
- an uninfested part of a country in which a limited infested area is present
- an uninfested part of a country situated within a generally infested area.
In each of these cases, the PFA may, as appropriate, concern all or part of several countries.
Three main components or stages are considered in the establishment and subsequent maintenance of a PFA:
The nature of these components will vary according to the biology of the pest, the types and characteristics of the PFA and the level of phytosanitary security required, as based on pest risk analysis.
The methods used to achieve these components may include:
- data assembly
- surveys (delimiting, detection, monitoring)
- regulatory controls
- audit (review and evaluation)
- documentation (reports, work plans)
1. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PEST-FREE AREAS
1.1 Determination of a PFA
The delimitation of a PFA should be relevant to the biology of the pest concerned. This will affect the scale at which it is possible to define a PFA and the types of boundaries by which it can be delimited. In principle, PFAs should be delimited in close relation with the occurrence of the pest. In practice, however, PFAs are generally delimited by readily recognizable boundaries, considered to coincide acceptably with a pest's biological limits. These may be administrative (e.g., country, province or commune borders), physical features (e.g., country, seas, mountain ranges, roads) or property boundaries which are clear to all parties. For various practical reasons, it may also be decided to establish a PFA inside an area considered to be pest-free, and thus avoid the necessity for exact delimitation of the true limits of the PFA.
1.2 Establishment and maintenance of a PFA
There are three main components in establishing and maintaining a PFA. These are:
- systems to establish freedom
- phytosanitary measures to maintain freedom
- checks to verify that freedom has been maintained.
The nature of these components will vary according to: the biology of the pest including
- its survival potential
- its means of dispersal
- its rate of reproduction
- the availability of host plants, etc.
relevant PFA characteristics including its
- size
- ecological conditions
- degree of isolation
- homogeneity, etc.
level of phytosanitary security required as related to the assessed level of risk, according to the pest risk analysis conducted.
The International Standards for phytosanitary measures: Guidelines for Surveying and Monitoring (in preparation) and Guidelines for Pest Risk Analysis provide further details on general surveillance and specific survey requirements.
1.2.1 Systems to establish freedom
Two general types of systems to provide data are recognized, though variations on or combinations of the two can be used. These are:
- General Surveillance
- Specific Surveys.
General surveillance
This involves utilizing all sources of data such as NPPOs, other national and local government agencies, research institutions, universities, scientific societies (including amateur specialists), producers, consultants, museums and the general public. Information may be obtained from:
scientific and trade journals, unpublished historical data, contemporary observations.
Specific surveys
These may be detection or delimiting surveys. They are official surveys and should follow a plan which is approved by the NPPO concerned.
1.2.2 Phytosanitary measures to maintain freedom
Specific measures can be used to prevent entry, establishment or spread of the pest, including:
- regulatory action such as
listing of a pest on a quarantine pest list specification of import requirements into a country or area; restriction of the movement of certain products within areas of a country or countries (including buffer zones)
- routine monitoring
- extension advice to producers.
The application of phytosanitary measures to maintain pest-freedom status is only justified in a PFA, or any portion of a PFA, in which ecological conditions are suitable for the pest to establish.
1.2.3 Checks to guarantee freedom has been maintained
In order to be able to verify the pest-free status of a PFA and for purposes of internal management, continuing pest-free status should be checked after the PFA has been established and phytosanitary measures for maintenance have been put into place. The strength of the checking systems used should be related to the phytosanitary security required. These checks may include:
- ad hoc inspection of exported consignments
- requirement that researchers, advisers or inspectors notify the NPPO of any occurrences of the pest
- monitoring surveys.
1.3 Documentation and review
The establishment and maintenance of a PFA should be adequately documented and periodically reviewed.
Whatever the type of PFA, documentation should be available, as appropriate, on the:
data assembled to establish the PFA;
various administrative measures taken in support of the PFA;
delimitation of the PFA;
phytosanitary regulations applied; and
technical details of surveillance or survey and monitoring systems used.
It may be useful for an NPPO to send documentation about a PFA to a central information service (FAO or an RPPO), with all relevant details, so that the information can be communicated to all interested NPPOs at their request.
When the PFA requires complex measures for its establishment and maintenance to provide a high degree of phytosanitary security an operational plan based on a bilateral agreement may be needed [EPPO proposal: delete "based on a bilateral agreement". Reason: the service responsible for a PFA should be perfectly competent to develop an operational plan without subjecting it to approval by bilateral agreement, such approval lies outside the scope of this guideline]. Such a plan would list the specific details of activities required in the operation of the PFA, including the role and responsibilities of the producers and traders of the country where the PFA is situated. The activities would be reviewed and evaluated regularly, and the results could form part of the plan.
2. SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF PFA
The term pest-free areas encompasses the spectrum of all types of PFA. For convenience, the requirements of PFAs are discussed by dividing them into three arbitrary types of pest-free areas:
an entire country
an uninfested part of a country in which a limited infested area is present
an uninfested part of a country situated within a generally infested area.
In each of these cases, the PFA may, as appropriate, concern all or part of several countries. The specific requirements for the three types of pest-free areas are discussed below.
2.1 Entire country
In this instance, entire country freedom for a specific pest applies to a political entity for which an NPPO has responsibility.
Requirements may include:
2.1.1 systems to establish freedom
Both data from general surveillance and from specific surveys are acceptable. They are different in that they may provide for different kinds or degrees of phytosanitary security.
2.1.2 Phytosanitary measures to maintain freedom
These may include those listed in section 1.2.2
2.1.3 Checks to verify freedom has been maintained These may include those listed in section 1.2.3
2.1.4 Documentation and review
These may include those items listed in section 1.3
2.2 Uninfested part of a country in which a limited infestation is present
In this instance, the distribution of the pest is limited to part of a country as determined by the NPPO. Official measures are applied to contain the pest population. The PFA may be all or part of the uninfested area.
Requirements include:
2.2.1 Systems to establish freedom
Normally PFA status is based on verification from specific surveys. An official delimiting survey may be used to determine the extent of the infestation and, in addition, an official detection survey may be required in the uninfested area to verify absence of the pest.
General surveillance may also, if appropriate, be applied to the uninfested part of a country in which a limited infested area is present.
2.2.2 Phytosanitary measures to maintain freedom
These may include those listed in section 1.2.2. With this type of PFA, phytosanitary regulations may also be required on the movement of commodities out of the infested area to the uninfested area to prevent spread of the pest as noted in 1.2.2.
2.2.3 Checks to verify freedom has been maintained
These may include those listed in section 1.2.3. Monitoring surveys are of more significance in this type of PFA than for that involving an entire country.
2.2.4 Documentation and review
Documentation may include supporting evidence describing official controls such as survey results, phytosanitary regulations and information on the NPPO as noted in section 1.3.
2.3 Uninfested part of a country situated within a generally infested area
This type of PFA is an area, within a generally infested area, which has been made (or shown to be) free from the specific pest. It is maintained pest-free so that an exporting country can use this status as a basis for phytosanitary certification of plants and/or plant products.
In certain cases, a PFA may be established within an area whose infestation status has not been based on specific surveys.
The PFA should be adequately isolated in relation to the biology of the pest.
Requirements should include:
2.3.1 Systems to establish freedom
Delimiting and detection surveys would be required for this type of PFA.
2.3.2 Phytosanitary measures to maintain freedom
These may include those listed in section 1.2.2. With this type of PFA, phytosanitary regulations may also be required on the movement of host material out of the infested area to the uninfested area to prevent spread of the pest as noted in 1.2.2.
2.3.3 Checks to verify freedom has been maintained
These may include those listed in section 1.2.3. Ongoing monitoring surveys are a likely requirement with this type of PFA.
2.3.4 Documentation and review
Documentation may include supporting evidence describing official controls such as survey results, phytosanitary regulations and information on the NPPO as noted in section 1.3. As this type of PFA is likely to involve an agreement between trade partners, its implementation would need to be reviewed and evaluated by the NPPO of the importing country.
[EPPO proposal: replace the last sentence with "This evidence should be subject to regular review and evaluation and should, on request, be available to the NPPOs of importing countries."]1
Manuel José DIAS SOARES DA COSTA (Portugal): Monsieur le Président, Honorables Délégués, Mesdames et Messieurs. La délégation portugaise ajoute sa voix sur ce qui vient d'être dit pour la Commission de l'Union européenne.
Concernant les deux normes: "Directives pour l'analyse du risque phytosanitaire, et le "Code de conduite pour l'importation et le lâcher des agents exotiques de lutte biologique, soumises pour adoption, nous sommes prêts à les approuver.
Concernant la norme sur les exigences en matière de zones exemptes d'organismes nuisibles, nous félicitons le contact groupe et nous apprécions l'effort qui a été fait pour arriver à un consensus pour que la norme puisse être approuvée par la Conférence, même s'il y avait un certain nombre d'amendements qui avaient été proposés par certaines délégations.
De notre côté, nous estimerions voir introduits, les deux petits amendements qui avaient été proposés par l'Union européenne, mais nous sommes prêts à donner notre accord pour que la norme soit approuvée et que ces petits amendements soient considérés à une phase ultérieure.
De notre point de vue, ce qui est important c'est d'approuver la norme au regard de l'Accord SPS de l'Uruguay Round.
De notre côté, nous considérons cette norme très importante surtout parce qu'elle fait référence appropriée à l'analyse du risque phytosanitaire et qu'elle accepte le principe selon lequel les exigences sont applicables autant pour les pays exportateurs qu'importateurs.
En ce qui concerne l'amendement de la Convention Internationale pour la protection des végétaux nous approuvons le programme de travail contenu dans les documents CG 5/22-Sup.2 et 3. Merci Monsieur le Président.2
Eduardo VIDES (El Salvador): Señor Presidente, la delegación de El Salvador en nombre de los países de Centroamérica, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Honduras, Nicaragua y Panamá, en general apoyan el texto del documento que estamos examinando, en este contexto manifestamos que por tratarse de una directriz eminentemente técnica, hemos considerado oportuno conocerlo en la reunión extraordinaria del Organismo Internacional Regional de Sanidad Agropecuaria, que se celebrará en la segunda semana de noviembre de este año en Managua, Nicaragua. Muchas gracias.3
LE PRESIDENT: S'il n'y a plus de remarques, je conclus le débat sur cette question en réaffirmant que notre Commission recommande que la Conférence approuve le Programme de révision de la Convention internationale pour la protection des végétaux, et nous concluons le point 10 de notre ordre du jour.
It was so decided
Il en est ainsi décidé
Así se acuerda
Jaime GARCIA Y BADIAS (España): Señor Presidente, sabemos que una de nuestras misiones en esta Conferencia es la de agilizar y finalizar nuestros trabajos en horario, a fin de que podamos cumplir con todos los compromisos que se tienen por parte de la Organización y de los Países Miembros, pero en este caso de aprobación del Código de Conducta para una Pesca Responsable, como usted sabe, ha sido un tema debatido durante años, que inició su proceso durante un Comité de Pesca de hace tres años, presidiendo el mismo un representante español, y fue durante su mandato cuando se dio el espaldarazo final para la aprobación de este Código de Conducta, o mejor dicho, para su discusión con la finalidad de llegar a un final feliz como ante el que parece ser que ahora nos encontramos. Por esta razón, y dado que en el programa previsto del día de hoy el tema del Código de Conducta se debía tratar en esta Comisión a partir de las 14.30 como indica el Orden del Día, esta delegación y dada la trascendencia del tema, lo que ha significado, lo que significa y lo que significará en el futuro el Código de Conducta para una pesca responsable para todos aquellos que estamos interesados en que esto se convierta en un hecho cada día más respetado, no sólo sus capturas en alta mar sino por las normas que deben regir y establecerse de común acuerdo entre todos los países, solicitamos que en este caso, y como excepción a aquella demanda que hemos hecho al Director General, este tema sea tratado de acuerdo con lo previsto en el Orden del Día, a primera hora de esta tarde, a partir de las 14.30, no sólo por su trascendencia sino porque ya, si me apura, señor Presidente, nuestra delegación, al igual que otras, está esperando a nuestras autoridades porque hay sumo interés en hacer declaraciones políticas en la línea de apoyo y puesta en práctica del Código de Conducta, por las razones que le he indicado. Por ello le ruego tenga a bien trasladar el inicio de este tema a la hora prevista en el Orden del Día de hoy.
Sra. Graziella DUBRA (Uruguay): Es bien conocida la posición de Uruguay en esta materia y lo que hemos intervenido permanentemente y durante muchos años para lograr la elaboración de este Código de Conducta. Mi delegación estaba preparada para hablar hoy a la tarde y además me sumo, a las razones expresadas por el delegado de España por lo cual rogaría a la Presidencia, tuviera a bien, trasladar este tema para primeras horas de la tarde.
LE PRESIDENT: Je vous remercie. Nous écoutons El Salvador. Et puis nous essaierons de prendre une décision sur ce sujet.
Sra. Maria E. JIMENEZ DE MOCHI ONORI (El Salvador): Muy brevemente para apoyar lo planteado por el delegado de España y por la delegada de Uruguay, solicitándole también nosotros trasladar este tema para las primeras horas de la tarde.
Manuel José DIAS SOARES DA COSTA (Portugal): Señor Presidente, en razón de la trascendencia del tema de respaldar el pedido del punto de orden de la delegación de España para trasladar el inicio de esta sesión a primeras horas de la tarde.
LE PRESIDENT: Mesdames et Messieurs, j'ai pris note de la requête de l'Espagne pour que nous renvoyions à cet après-midi l'examen de ce point de notre ordre du jour. Et je pense que si nous avons pu l'aborder ce matin, c'est parce que nous avons pu bien travailler sur les autres points et gagner du temps. Et compte tenu de la nécessité pour nous d'achever rapidement nos travaux pour laisser suffisamment de temps au Comité de rédaction et avoir des échanges sur les différentes décisions qui sont soumises à notre Commission sur un certain nombre de sujets, j'avais pensé que nous pouvions, tout en tenant compte du désir de certaines délégations de renvoyer l'examen du point à cet après-midi, commencer avec les délégations qui sont prêtes, et continuer cet après-midi avec celles qui ont peut-être pris des dispositions pour intervenir cet après-midi, pour gagner également un peu de temps, parce que nous avons encore à peu près 1 h 15 d'interprétation.
Je voulais donc vous soumettre une proposition, à savoir de commencer avec les délégations qui sont prêtes. Et nous reprendrons en début d'après-midi avec celles qui voudraient continuer l'après-midi.
Je vois que l'Espagne voudrait réagir à ma proposition. Je passe la parole au délégué de l'Espagne.
Jaime GARCIA Y BADIAS (España): Señor Presidente, como usted comprenderá, cuando nuestra delegación le solicita un aplazamiento de este tema, no es por el simple hecho de que nos garantice intervenir, creemos que el intervenir es un derecho que tenemos todas las delegaciones y como tal estamos convencidos de que usted nos lo respeta. En eso no tenemos ninguna duda, pero la razón básica de nuestra solicitud es que el Código de Conducta ha sido un elemento de discusión en este Foro que ha comportado consensos a todos los niveles en anteposiciones muy dispares a lo largo de tres años, con las consiguientes cesiones por todas las partes a fin de alcanzar un acuerdo que permitiera a todas las delegaciones dar su conformidad. Este hecho que es de una trascendencia futura importante y política, sin ningún género de duda, para todos los países, permite a nuestra delegación, no sólo el estar convencida de que vamos a poder hacer nuestra declaración si no que nuestra solicitud está en la línea de que creemos que dada la trascendencia del Código de Conducta deben desde su inicio estar presentes en esta sala todas aquellas delegaciones que en este momento tienen prevista su llegada a la FAO y a Roma en particular, y no dar la palabra a las delegaciones que lleguen con posterioridad con el debate iniciado y en una fase que podríamos definir de desinformación para aquellas delegaciones que llegan tarde.
Creemos que el Código debe empezarse y finalizarse con todas las delegaciones presentes, que su debate y su trascendencia debe ser un inicio y un fin, sin interrupciones intermedias con llegadas de delegaciones a mitad del debate, sin conocer las posiciones de otras delegaciones que pueden ser contradictorias. No lo esperamos, pero sí deseamos que aquellas delegaciones que lleguen esta tarde, asistan al inicio del debate por la trascendencia del mismo, no es un capricho que planteamos por el solo hecho de poder hacer una declaración. Creemos que el inicio y el fin debe ser una sola cosa y todos deben asistir al inicio del mismo y al final del mismo. Por esta razón, señor Presidente, volvemos a rogarle que traslade, y comprendemos sus problemas, pero que traslade el inicio al horario previsto para esta tarde, que permita a todos asistir desde un comienzo al debate y a su finalización y, esperamos y hacemos votos, a su aprobación.
LE PRESIDENT: Je vous remercie, honorable délégué, et je partage entièrement tout ce que vous avez dit.
Jerónimo Ramos SAENZ PARDO (México): Mi delegación quisiera expresar el interés en apoyar a las delegaciones que me han precedido en función de que el debate efectivamente, sobre el texto de este documento, fue muy arduo, fue algunas veces complicado y en el cual la participación de todos los países requirió un gran esfuerzo para llegar a esta conclusión de texto. Viendo un poco la agenda que usted ha preparado para esta Conferencia, creo que efectivamente el tema estaba programado para hoy en la tarde y como lo han expresado y pensado varios países y mi delegación, es un tema muy importante por el cual creemos que la presencia de los demás expertos o de otros distinguidos delegados que pudieran enriquecer el debate pudiera ser muy importante para tratar de ver este documento. Creo que en general, señor Presidente, el ritmo de trabajo no se ha afectado, creo que ha sido un buen ritmo para esta Comisión y, bueno, dado que ha sido un debate de un tema que se ha tratado durante más de dos años, valdría la pena considerar la posibilidad de que este tema se pudiera posponer para hoy en la tarde.
LE PRESIDENT: Je vous remercie. Nous écoutons la Nouvelle-Zélande. Et je vous soumettrai encore une nouvelle proposition.
Neil FRASER (New Zealand): I think you made the correct decision in your first judgement on this. The agenda is an indicative agenda: it is not set in stone. We saw that there was flexibility there when the World Food Summit discussion ran over into the second day, and it was not scheduled to. So we have already departed from the agenda as laid out in the arrangements for the Conference. We have a lot of business at the Conference. We must get on with it. If we defer this item, what do we do now? Nothing for the rest of the morning? Or do we move on? And I note the Secretariat are here to do this. We cannot disrupt them. We either do nothing or we move onto Women and Development, in which case we will hear exactly the same argument that they are not ready for it. It seems to me that people should be ready to take items in sequence and not take the indicative agenda as set in stone.
David Edwards BORBON (Costa Rica): Mi país ha seguido con mucha atención y tiene un gran interés en el Código de Conducta Responsable, por lo cual, queremos apoyar la iniciativa presentada por el distinguido delegado de España de postergar esta reunión a la tarde.
Andrew Keith PEARSON (Australia): I am just trying to appreciate what is being suggested in the light of the discussion and unanimous endorsement that came from the Council meeting last week. I remember very well that a number of countries represented today, including EU, got up and were very pleased that we had got to the point of agreement on the Code of Conduct on Fisheries and saw it as a major step forward. I cannot see that there is a need to postpone the discussion on the basis that, in fact, there was a unanimous agreement coming out of the Council, that we had managed to strike a balance which involved so many countries' involvement over the last few years on this exercise.
C.B. HOUTMAN (Netherlands): When we were meeting here last night, at the end of the meeting you announced that we would take up this agenda item this morning, and nobody was opposing that. I am a bit surprised that now that we are in the room this morning, so many countries are supporting what you ruled out yesterday. Also, for the sake of cost efficiency - and everybody is taking about reducing costs here -I would suggest that we just start with this item on the Code of Conduct. I do not think it is a real argument that we would say we should not interrupt the discussion on that because there are many, many items on the agenda that are being interrupted by lunch breaks. So that is not the real reason, I think. I have no idea what the real reason is, but when there were problems today with not starting this morning they should have voiced that yesterday and not this morning when we are about to start.
LE PRESIDENT: Je vous remercie. J'espère que ce débat n'est pas le prélude au débat que nous aurons sur cette question. Et, à la lumière de tout ce qui a été dit, je voudrais vous proposer que nous suspendions la séance de ce matin maintenant et que nous reprenions à 14 h 30 précises avec l'engagement que nous achèverons ce soir les deux points inscrits à l'ordre du jour, à savoir le point sur le Code de conduite et l'examen du Plan d'action pour l'intégration des femmes dans le développement. Mais je voudrais souligner que c'est, comme on l'a dit, à titre exceptionnel et que l'ordre du jour, comme l'ont souligné beaucoup d'autres délégués, est là à titre indicatif et qu'à tout moment, on peut aborder un sujet afin de pouvoir économiser du temps.
Donc je propose que l'on suspende cette séance et que nous reprenions à 14 h 30 très précises. Et nous terminerons ce soir les deux points inscrits à l'ordre du jour, à savoir le point sur le Code de conduite et le point sur l'intégration des femmes.
Si personne n'a d'objection à cette décision....... Le Panama demande la parole. Panama, vous avez la parole.
Horacio MALTEZ (Panamá): Inconvenientes obvios no tengo, señor Presidente, tengo solamente una duda.
Hoy debe comenzar sus trabajos el Comité de Redacción. Muchos de los miembros del Comité de Redacción tienen interés en participar en temas que usted está anunciando, yo creo que si prolongamos demasiado esto, para terminarlo hoy, verdaderamente sería difícil porque sobre todo las delegaciones pequeñas que tenemos un solo miembro o tenemos pocos miembros, no tenemos el don de la ubicuidad, y nos crearía realmente problemas. Yo eso lo presento a su consideración, naturalmente, y me someto a su decisión, pero quería plantearlo, señor Presidente.
Neil FRASER (New Zealand): You said that you proposed to complete the Women and Development Programme item today. Does that mean that there is no meeting tomorrow morning, because I see from this indicative agenda that the seventh meeting tomorrow morning will be covering Women and Development?
My second point is that if the discussion on the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries goes on all afternoon, does that mean that you will then continue into the night with the Women and Development item, at a time when the Drafting Committee should be meeting? The Drafting Committee should, of course, be present at the session to hear what is said so that they can draft accordingly. Therefore I would like some clarification, please.
LE PRESIDENT: Je reprends la proposition que j'ai faite, c'est que nous puissions entamer cet après-midi la discussion sur le Code conduite et le point sur l'intégration des femmes. J'espère que nous pourrons examiner ces points et permettre au Comité de rédaction d'entamer ses travaux cet après-midi.
A la lumière des observations faites par le Panama, l'idée me vient à l'esprit de vous proposer de commencer un peu plus tôt en début d'après-midi pour essayer de gagner quelques minutes et de finir aussi tôt que possible afin que notre Comité de rédaction puisse commencer à travailler. Que diriez-vous de commencer les travaux à 14 heures? Donc je reformule ma proposition: nous suspendons maintenant cette séance et nous reprenons à 14 heures. Essayez d'être là à temps. Nous essaierons de terminer l'examen des points sur le Code de conduite et l'intégration des femmes. Nous essaierons donc d'en finir avec ces deux points pour permettre au Comité de rédaction de commencer ses travaux.
It was so decided
Il en est ainsi décidé
Así se acuerda
The meeting rose at 11.30 hours.
La séance est levée à 11 h 30.
Se levanta la sesión a las 11.30 horas.
__________
1 Statement inserted in the verbatim records on request.
2 Texte reçu avec demande d'insertion au procès-verbal
3 Texto incluido en las actas a petición expresa.
