CHAIRMAN: The draft resolution proposed last night by the Philippines delegation has been sent for consideration by the Resolutions Committee. The resolutions will be properly discussed tomorrow. The Commission will recall the decision of the last Conference that the principle of Prior Informed Consent should be incorporated in the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides. The paper before us provides a progress report on a number of initiatives taken since then by the Director-General. It will be introduced by Dr Braderf Director of Plant Production and Protection Division.
L. BRADER (Director, Plant Production and Protection Division): It is now two years since the Conference decided to include the principle of Prior Informed Consent (PIC) into the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides. Since then the Director-General has taken a number of initiatives to implement the Conference decision, and paper C 89/20 provides details on the current status of implementation.
Before introducing the subject I wish to acknowledge the financial contribution of the Government of the Netherlands which was instrumental in enabling the Secretariat to undertake a number of activities resulting in the proposal before you. I would like to highlight some of the salient point on document C 89/20.
As a first step, in March 1988 , the Director-General convened a Group of Expert at which observers from UNEP, WHO, NGO's and Industry were also present. The meeting agreed a set of basic principles under Which PIC should operate, and explored various options for operating a scheme. Following this meeting, wide consultations were held with interested parties, including visits to a number of developing countries in Africa, Latin America, Asia and the Pacific for discussions with government officials and pesticide specialists.
This was followed by a Government Consultation on PIC, in January 1989. The deliberations and recommendations of this Consultation were considered by CQAG and subsequently, by the Council. The Council reached agreement on the operation of PIC, as outlined in paper C 89/20 before you.
Throughout all these deliberations the International Register of Potentially Toxic Chemicals of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP/IRPTC) has been fully consulted having attended the various meetings in FAO, while members of the FAO Secretariat have also attended UNEP meetings. The UNEP developed its scheme on Prior Informed Consent parallel with FAO. The result of this is reflected in the amended London Guidelines for the Exchange of Information on Chemicals in International Trade that were accepted by the UNEP Governing Council in May 1989. Ihe UNEP text is fully compatible with the FAO proposal.
In the implementation of the PIC procedure FAO will be largely responsible for pesticides, while UNEP will be responsible for industrial and other chemicals. UNEP will operate the computerized data base which will have an on-line connection to FAO. FAO will maintain contact with countries through designated national authorities on matters relating to pesticides. It should be noted that such contacts not only refer to Prior Informed Consent but to all activities concerning the implementation of the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides.
UNEP and FAO have sent simultaneously letters to Member Nations requesting them to appoint designated national authorities. It is hoped that countries will nominate a single national authority to deal with PIC, both for pesticides and other chemicals, as this will assist in the operation of the scheme. As pesticides are generally reviewed and evaluated in a more thorough and organized way than other chemicals, we are of the view that the most effective contact point would be the Pesticides Registration Board or its equivalent.
The need to have a single contact point to which countries should forward information has been recognized as being important in the operation of the scheme. The intention is that all countries communicating on any aspect of PIC should send, concurrently, identical letters both to FAO and UNEP. This will enable prompt actions to be taken, as required, by both organizations each of which will be fully informed of actions.
It is very important for the successful operation of the programme that countries advise FAO/UNEP as soon as possible after actions have been taken to ban or severely restrict chemicals and that they respond as quickly as possible. Quick transmission of information and decisions to all parties will be of critical importance.
Decision Guidance Documents (DGD's) concerning pesticides in the PIC procedure will be prepared to provide countries with information to assist them in reaching a position on the pesticide. The documents will contain a summary of information including chemical and physical properties, uses, sources of exposure, toxicity profile, countries which have taken control actions and the reasons for these actions.
In order to establish priorities for the vast amount of work which is involved, FAO will, in the first instance, develop DGD's for those pesticides which have been banned or severely restricted in 10 or more countries. Drafts of the first of these are now being reviewed by technical experts, with further Decision Guidance Documents under development. Decision Guidance Documents will then be developed for those pesticides for which control action has been taken by the five to nine countries, then for those pesticides which have been banned or severely restricted in one to four countries. When the back-log is caught up with, any one single action taken by any one country to ban or severely restrict a pesticide for health or environmental reasons will mean that the pesticide in question will be introduced into the PIC procedure.
Finally, I would like to point out that although the proposal may not be perfect, nevertheless, it is based on many months of work and effort by many experienced people and it is compatible with, and therefore acceptable to, UNEP. Therefore, the possibility of any further improvement would have to be counterbalanced by possible delays in the commencement of the scheme. It is hoped that the Conference will bear this important fact in mind in its deliberations.
Experience has shown that when introducing a complex scheme such as PIC, it is necessary to review procedures from time to time. This will be done by the FAO and UNEP Secretariats one year after the start of the scheme and the results will be reported back to you.
Fiori jan KOVAC (Yugoslavia): When speaking of pesticides, we should always bear in mind that, in spite of their evident favourable effects, their inadequate use can have grave consequences, particularly in those countries which do not have pesticide registration and control schemes.
Therefore, the Code of Conduct in the Distribution and Use of Pesticides, along with the introduction of the International Prior Informed Consent Clause is of particularly importance, according to our assessment.
During inter-governmental consultations held in January 1989, a general agreement was reached on the operation of the Prior Informed Consent Clause and supplements required in order to incorporate the Clause into the Code. The proposals to review and amend Articles 2 and 9 of the Code, as well as the guidelines for the operation of the Prior Informed Consent Clause were adopted by consensus in the Committee on Agriculture, while the Council agreed with further supplements to Article 2, 9.81 and 9.84.
On this occasion, I wish to point out that the Yugoslav delegation fully supports the amendments to the Code (Article 2 and 9) as well as the guidelines on the operation of the Prior Consent Clause.
Yugoslavia gives its full support to the close cooperation between FAO and UNEP, and to FAO's initiative in the elaboration of the Proposed Procedure for the implementation of the Clause, and to UNEP's action to incorporate the procedure into the principle of the "London guideline for the exchange of information on chemicals in international trade."
Once again we would like to underline the need for FAO to continue with its activities in regard to the practical application of the Clause, especially in the developing countries which are primarily in need of assistance in personnel, so they can adequately implement the Clause and other provisions of the Code. Therefore, FAO should continue to give this issue high priority through technical assistance to the developing countries.
The implementation of the Code, as well as of the Clause in the pesticide importing countries, in particular the developing ones, is required before all with a view to protecting the health of the population. Until all countries establish pesticide registration and control procedures the Clause should serve to protect human health.
Until that time, the Clause as a provisional solution must exist. In our opinion the amendments to Articles 2 and 9 should be adopted in full, as well as the proposed guidelines on the operation of the Prior Informed Consent Clause.
Horacio CARANDANG (Philippines): The Twenty-fourth Session of the Conference decided in 1987 that the Principle of Prior Informed Consent should be incorporated into the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides within the next biennium. We now have before us the amendments approved by the COAG; by the Council, which would enable the inclusion of the said Principle in the Code. We fully support such amendments and, for this purpose, we have submitted a resolution approving these amendments.
However, as everybody would notice, there is in the Report of the Council which is before us, document C 89/20, on page 4 paragraph 70, a paragraph where the Secretariat was requested to determine the status of compounds which either have not been registered or been withdrawn by countries, which were still being traded. These pesticides which have been withdrawn or unregistered cannot be sold in the countries where they are manufactured, precisely because they have been banned or because they have not been tested.
As recent studies have indicated, a quarter of all pesticides exported in some countries are not registered for use in those countries. These unregistered exports include, one, cancelled or suspended for use because they may cause cancer or otherwise endanger humans or the environment; two, products that have never been registered, including those chemicals Whose contents are unknown, and whose human and environmental aspects have not been conclusively evaluated; or chemicals that have been voluntarily taken off the market by the registrants because of adverse health or environmental effects or because the cost of complying with the testing requirements exceeds the anticipated markets in those countries.
We consider that these pesticides, therefore, are dangerous. If they cannot be sold because they are dangerous in the countries where they are produced, why in the world can they be exported without even giving notice to those countries to which they are going to be exported? I think this is a loophole in the procedures that have been established to comply with the pesticides. Therefore, it has been agreed by the Secretariat that they would look into this natter. However, if I may be permitted, I would propose a very small amendment in the procedures of the Code which would enable us to handle this question with great efficiency. I am referring to document C 89/20 again, page 10, step 4, selecting pesticides to be included in the PIC procedure. I read: "FAO will, in cooperation with UNEP/IRPTC and other relevant organizations, review all notifications to ensure conformity with the definitions. Pesticides will be included in the PIC procedure when FAO is advised by a government that it has taken final control action consistent with the definition of banned or severely restricted pesticides for health or environmental reasons in the Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides."
I would add a small phrase, "or that a manufacturer has voluntarily withdrawn a pesticide'1. After the paragraph, I would put a coma and then "or that a manufacturer has voluntarily withdrawn a pesticide" period.
I would then propose the addition of another sentence: "Member States will notify FAO of any pesticide compounds that are not registered for use in their country but are still being traded." I think that with these two small amendments FAO would be able to look also on those pesticides and if need be they could provide the appropriate information so that the the countries, before importing unregistered or overdrawn pesticides, would be able to make a sound judgement on their safety, or whether they, after making their cost and benefit analysis for their own country's conditions in their own country, can make a decision on whether they should or not import these pesticides. After all, the objective of this Code is to provide for the safe use of pesticides. This amendment will close a loophole that now exists in the present procedures. If not, what would happen would be that pesticides which are going to be banned would simply be withdrawn and they would continue to be merrily exported to other countries to the detriment of those countries which would then suffer the consequences?
I hope this brief amendment will merit the consideration and approval of this Commission.
Parviz VOJDANI (Iran, Islamic Republic of): I would like to express my appreciation to the Secretariat for the very comprehensive and informative review of the state of distribution and use of pesticides. I would also like to congratulate the Conference and Commission for preparing the comprehensive documents for this very important item under discussion today.
On behalf of my delegation, I would express our acceptance and support of the Prior Informed Consent on the issue of the distribution and use of pesticides with regard to the Code of Conduct, and all the relevant amendments. The official organization for these affairs in our country is, of course, the Plant Protection Organization.
This delegation also suggests and proposes the following matters on this very important item. Firstly, since it is seen that sane of the pesticide manufacturing countries or companies discard some pesticides just to introduce new brands and to create new variations in the market, special care should be taken by FAO to avoid such cases. It is also recommended that some specific pesticides which are planned to be discarded due to some reasonable and technical reasons be discarded for all countries through international procedures or regulations.
Secondly, we deeply believe and recommend that there should be large investment and serious attempts by FAO to reduce significantly the consumption of pesticides through more efficient utilization of biological controls of pests.
Thirdly, the prices of similar or generic pesticides differ very much in the market which certainly affects their use. Our delegation suggests that FAO should identify similar or generic pesticides through publishing specific bulletins, and should act as a feedback for this system.
A. Alim FAUZI (Indonesia): we would like to inform you that Indonesia has long been concerned with the Code of Conduct of Pesticides. For the purpose of protecting the people and the environment from the toxic adverse effects of pesticides, the Government of Indonesia has instituted pesticide regulation. An inter-Ministerial technical committee called the Pesticides Comiittee has been established to assist the Minister of Agriculture in particular, in formulating policies on all matters pertinent to pesticides. Realizing the position of Indonesia as both a pesticide importing and exporting country, and in view of the need for all countries, and noting the importance of international cooperation to protect human beings and the environment from deleterious effects of hazardous substances, including toxic pesticides, the Government of Indonesia would like to underline the acceptance in principle of the inclusion of Prior Informed Consent (PIC) in the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides as adopted by the Committee on Agriculture (COAG) , and fully supports the implementation of the Code as revised and amended by following the Guidelines on the operation of PIC adopted by COAG.
We would like now to refer to document C 89/20 concerning the revision of Articles 2 and 9 of the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides.
The Indonesian delegation would like to insert a word "social" on the Article 9.2, line 5 from the top sentence so that the Article would read as follows: "The purpose of notification regarding control action is to give component authorities in other countries the opportunity to assess the risk associated with the pesticide and to make timely, informed decisions as to the importation and use of the pesticide concerned after taking into account local, social, public health, economic, environmental and administrative conditions. The minimum information to be provided for this purpose should
Furthermore, on Article 9.10.1, the Indonesian delegation would like to propose to replace the words "on future accessability" with the words "to accept or to ban importation", so that the Article would read as follows: (9.10.1.) "To decide to accept or to ban importation of that pesticide in their country and advise FAO as soon as that decision has been made".
The reason for this change is that in the original statement, this definition is valid for a pesticide which in the beginning is permitted for general usage, but later on it was changed to the limited usage.
Finally, let us refer to page 10 of the document of C 89/20. We here would further like to add after the end of the first paragraph of page 10, so that the sentence would read as follows, "Severely restricted - a limited ban means a pesticide whose previously registered uses have already been prohibited from regulatory action for health and environmental reasons, but specific registered use or uses retain authorized or a pesticide for which government regulatory action in force approved only specific registered use".
Allan Neal SMTTH (Australia) : Australia has supported information exchange between countries on pesticide issues and it supported the need for Prior Informed Consent provisions of the 1987 FAO Conference. The proposed amendments to Articles 2 and' 9 of the Code of Conduct to incorporate the principle of Prior Informed Consent adequately address the complex issues associated with the principle.
Australia notes with pleasure the cooperation between FAO and UNEP leading to the development of a mutually acceptable position on Prior Informed Consent and its inclusion in the UNEP London Guidelines.
Australia strongly supports continued cooperation between FAO and UNEP to ensure effective introduction and operation of Prior Informed Consent in both UNEP and FAO areas.
Australia supports the proposed amendments to Articles 2 and 9 of the Code of Conduct which will give effect to the principle of Prior Informed Consent and adoption of the procedures for, and guidelines on, the operation of Prior Informed Consent.
José TUBINO (Canada): Mr Chairman, having participated in the expert and government consultation on PIC and in the COAG and council deliberations, Canada has contributed, with other nations, in the formulation of the PIC clause. Because of this participation, Canada has also witnessed the elaborated process undertaken to achieve the results that we have before us today.
Canada supports the PIC principle and agrees to the provisions as outlined in the document C 89/20, and is in agreement with the guidelines and procedures for the implementation of this principle. Canada is also pleased with the efforts made by FAO and UNEP to harmonize the prior consent clause with UNEP's London Guidelines for the Exchange of Information on Chemicals in International Trade and to establish a joint FAO/UNEP data base. We now look forward to complementary inter-agency action in the implementation of the Prior Informed Consent procedure.
Finally, we understand the good faith behind the reasons for presenting substantive amendments to the PIC proposal in this Commission. We have no doubt that the PIC proposal could be and should be improved. Nevertheless, at this juncture Canada is not prepared for such substantive changes bearing in mind the elaborate process of the consultation already undertaken to bring us to this agreed clause. In our case, and we are sure it is also the case of other countries as well, we are unable to accept such changes without consulting with our capitals.
We are for the implementation of the agreed PIC procedure without further delay. We are sure that proposals for substantive amendments could be taken into consideration at a later stage.
J. Dawson AHALT (united States of America) : The United States supports the proposal before the Conference to incorporate the Prior Informed Consent into the Code.
We congratulate the FAO Secretariat and staff for the way in which they have developed this provision. The cooperation and inputs from the many sectors set a high standard for handling other issues which may arise here in the FAO.
The need to assure continuing cooperation with UNEP in the implementation of the Prior Informed Consent procedure cannot be overemphasized. We believe it will assure a coherent, non-duplicative and cost-effective approach to help importing countries in making sound decisions about the pesticides which they wish to import and use.
Prior Informed Consent will not be a panacea which will solve all the problems of importing countries with respect to pesticide use. They must develop a capability to decide which pesticides they wish to use and make provision to control entry of pesticides and regulate their use, distribution, transport and disposal.
The United States is prepared to provide assistance and technical expertise to help developing countries made these decisions and to strengthen the ability of importing countries to control pesticides. We are participating with FAO in a number of training sessions designed to strengthen the regulatory capability of countries. In addition, we will provide some experts for specific country training both in-country and on-the-job in the United States. USAID has already sponsored training and technical assistance, particularly in Africa.
We do not want to make any substantive changes in the proposal. We in fact support the distinguished delegate of Canada in his comments regarding the need to maintain the substantive form of this proposal. We do, however, have two very minor editorial suggestions. "The first one is in Step 8 of the guidelines (p. 12, C 89/20). This document does not track exactly with 9.11.2 of the changes to the Code and we believe the last sentence needs to be amended to read Governments would "take appropriate measures within their authority and legislative competence, designed to ensure that exports do not occur contrary to ...".
The other minor editorial change is on the same document, page 12 of C 89/20 - the paragraph entitled "National Control On Imports". We suggest that the last two sentences should be replaced with the following wording, "where such exist, production for domestic use will also be subjected to the control action. Importing countries would take all necessary measures to prohibit importation and production for domestic use."
The explanation for this editorial suggestion is that countries should cease production for domestic use if importation for use in the country is banned or restricted so that domestic production is not simply substituted for imports of the same pesticide.
Finally, I would like to say that the United States will also provide resource support to UNEP and FAO in the implementation of the Prior Informed Consent procedure.
Shamim AHMED (Bangladesh) : My delegation has gone through document C 89/20 with great interest. It is an excellent document, and I commend the Secretariat for producing it.
Bangladesh strongly endorses the proposal for implementing the clause concerning Prior Informed Consent in the Code of Conduct on the distribution and Use of Pesticides which is adopted in 1985. In this connection, my delegation has noted with satisfaction the ongoing collaboration between FAO and UNEP with a view to working out an effective joint programme on the operation of the joint informed consent.
My delegation feels that the Prior Informed Consent clause, as proposed in the document for approval of the Conference, would provide the much needed support for Bangladesh and other developing countries in their efforts to identify the dangerous pesticides in order to protect human health and the environment.
Nikola MICHAYLOV (Bulgarie) : La délégation de Bulgarie présente ses vifs remerciements au Secrétariat de la FAO pour la parfaite présentation des propositions devant la Conférence du Code de conduite (document C 89/20). Nous estimons que c'est un problème qui est très important tant pour l'environnement que pour l'agriculture elle-même. Nous présentons notre plein appui aux principes de "ICP", ainsi qu'aux amendements proposés aux articles 2 et 9.
Néanmoins, nous proposons dans la partie des obligations de la FAO (article 9) parallèlement avec l'infornation, de l'expédition internationale de pesticides et des mesures de sécurité, de préciser la possibilité de présentation par le Secrétariat, de solutions technologiques alternatives visant l'utilisation des biométhodes ou autres méthodes, au lieu des pesticides dangereux.
Notre pays prévoit de participer activement dans l'application de "ICP".
Paulo ESTIVALLET DE MESQÜITA (Brazil): The Brazilian delegation welcomes the progress achieved since the last Conference towards the inclusion of Prior Informed Consent in the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides. We believe this progress to be in line with the growing awareness of environmental issues in FAO and in the international community as a whole. It is also a logical extension of decisions taken in FAO and other fora to increase transparency and harmonization with regard to sanitary and phytosanitary regulations. The principle that a pesticide which is banned or severely restricted should not be exported without the prior informed consent of the importing country is fully in accordance with Brazilian legislation on agro-chemicals. The Brazilian delegation is therefore ready to approve the revisions and amendments to the Code of Conduct and the Guidelines on the operation of Prior Informed Consent as contained in document C 89/20.
Leo GRANBERG (Finland) : The delegation of Finland believes protection against the hazards of pesticides to be extremely important. We therefore gave support to the implementation of the Code of Conduct at the 24th Session of the Conference and in several other meetings thereafter. We appreciate the work and efforts of the Secretariat since the last Conference with regard to the principle of Prior Informed Consent. Our delegation's position was expressed at the last session of the Committee on Agriculture and at the 95th Session of the Council in June this year.
Finland strongly supports the incorporation of the PIC clause in the proposed form in the Code of Conduct on the Distribution and use of Pesticides. My delegation hopes that it will be agreed upon and adopted by this Conference.
One of the main elements necessary in the implementation of PIC is close cooperation between FAO and other relevant organizations. We welcome the news about negotiations taking place between UNEP and FAO in order to reach a memorandum of understanding between the two organizations. We are confident that this course of action will lead to positive results.
Finland is prepared to bring its legislation and administrative actions in conformity with the requirements of the proposed PIC clause when needed. We look forward to being informed about the progress in the incrementation of the PIC procedure in the future.
Mete BASCI (Turkey): Although pesticides constitute risks to human health, they need to be used to increase crop yield in order to provide sufficient food for ran. However, as much as possible should be done to reduce the risks presented by the use of these compounds to as low a level as possible. It is clear, however, that not all countries may reach this optimum level since abilities and conditions vary between countries. Although some countries may be able to determine the correct doses and methods of application of pesticides and their various effects on plants, soil and the environment, it is usually very difficult to take the immediate measures necessary to prevent the side effects on human health and environment as well as the occurrence of resistance in the ecosystem, since all this needs a great amount of information from all over the world.
Turkey has strictly monitored the damage to the environment caused by chemicals and has taken the necessary measures to reduce the effects of this damage. A Commission for Environment Research has been established in the Grand National Assembly of Turkey in order to monitor more sensitively environmental pollution natters at the highest level.
Pesticide exporting countries should also have as much information as possible about the use of their pesticides throughout the world since banning of them is sometimes dependent on rough examinations and investigations, which then spread throughout the world, resulting in upsets in the investment and production policies with regard to the chemical concerned.
Since 1957, registration, production, import, export and selling of agricultural compounds has been regulated under registration by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forest and Rural Affairs. The Government of Turkey is very sensitive about the effects of such compounds on human health and the environment, as are other countries, and has banned seventeen active ingredients since 1971.
Turkey imports active ingredients, technical compounds or preparations from other countries. It can produce twelve technical compounds within the country, and exports some of them abroad. Being an exporting and importing country of pesticides, Turkey believes that the PIC principle of FAO which aims to introduce regulations with regard to the banning and restriction of use of some compounds which comprise risks to human health and the environment will reduce these risks and help to ensure a safer environment. In light of the fact that environmental pollution will be the most important subject at the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st century, Turkey has placed great importance on this subject. Biological protection measures are being carried out in Turkey aimed at reducing the use of pesticides for plant protection.
Turkey will be glad to join these activities for the benefit of all mankind.
MA GENG-OU (China) (original language Chinese) : I am very grateful to you for giving me the floor to speak here.
Now I would like to make a few comments an the PIC concepts. First of all I think the PIC is a concept to guarantee human health and food security, and also to protect the environment's security. Of course, in practice, it will not be very easy to exercise because it will affect not only the pesticide-importing countries, but also those of the pesticide-exporting countries, and also it will involve the interests of the producers and users of pesticides.
You know that China imports and at the same time exports pesticides. Therefore, the Chinese delegation is pleased to note that after serious efforts, the 95th Session of the Council has presented to the Conference a revised text. I think this revised version is a very good compromise because not only has it taken into account the interests of the pesticide-importing countries but also those of pesticide-exporting countries. That is why it is feasible and easier to be accepted by all parties concerned.
Now I would like to thank the FAO Secretariat for its efforts exercised for the PIC, but I think in practising the PIC we have to pay attention to two points. The first is aggregate information exchange; that is pesticide-producing countries should inform FAO about the pesticides they produce which have been banned and which are still in use. And then FAO should, in turn, inform the pesticide-importing countries.
Secondly, the pesticide-importing countries should kindly inform FAO about their regulations, what pesticides they have banned, and what pesticides they wish to import. Another point is that in pesticide-importing countries, there should be sane mechanism to deal with such matters, and I think these are the essential factors in practising the PIC concept.
The third point is that PIC is only a temporary measure aimed at helping the developing countries to gradually establish effective management of pesticides, but fundamentally speaking and fromthe long-term point of view, it is essential to help developing countries to set up a proper mechanism for the distribution, use and management of pesticides, and in this respect it is highly necessary to provide technical assistance to developing countries and in particular to train their people. We think that in the light of the short-term PIC requirements and the long-term needs of integrated pesticide management, it is also necessary to do as I have mentioned just now, and the Chinese delegation is happy to note that our view in this respect has been reflected in para. 72 of document C 89/20.
Finally, the Chinese delegation believes that FAO has the full capacity to help with information exchange and assist developing countries to establish a proper management mechanism, and in this FAO is duty-bound, and of course we appreciate the efforts FAO has made and is going to make in this regard. The Chinese delegation pledges our full cooperation with FAO in this field.
Ms SITE BALKISH SHARIFF (Malaysia) : The Malaysian delegation had supported the adoption of the Code of Conduct on the Distribution of Pesticides during the 22nd Session of the FAO Conference by way of Resolution 10/85. The delegation further supported the adoption of Resolution 5/87 calling for the incorporation of the principle of Prior Informed Consent in the Code during the 24th Session of the Conference in 1987. Today will be the third consecutive time that Malaysia gives full support to the adoption of the Code of Conduct on the Distribution of Pesticides and the inclusion of the principle of Prior Informed Consent.
Malaysia has a well-recognized and effective pesticide registration scheme whereby only approved pesticides are permitted to be imported, manufactured, packed or labelled for sale in the country.
Under the present registration scheme Malaysia has not registered several pesticides and therefore they are not allowed for import or manufacture in the country. This is necessary in order to protect the health of those who apply pesticides which are hazardous when handled under the hot and humid conditions of the tropics where the climate is not conducive to the wearing of suitable protective clothing.
The action being taken by the FAO and other agencies such as UNEP on PIC and information exchange is highly commendable. The Pesticides Board of Malaysia will be nationally responsible for the implementation of the PIC scheme. The Board will be supported by the Secretariat to the Board which, among others, will establish internal procedures for the receipt and prudent handling of information received under the PIC procedures.
In considering applicants for approval of pesticides in the country the Board will take into consideration information obtained through the PIC and information exchange procedures being proposed in this Commission.
Malaysia will also establish a mechanism to advise pesticides exporters and the industry on the decisions of participating countries. If necessary, legislative measures will be taken to ensure that export of pesticides is controlled, and that pesticides are not exported, contrary to the decision of participating importing countries.
In recognition of the expertise that FAO already has in the field of pesticide use, management and control, we support the proposal that FAO operates the PIC scheme as far as pesticides are concerned.
On the selection of the pesticides to be included in the PIC procedures the proposed FAO expert panel should not only consider acutely hazardous pesticides formulations which are in Class 1A of the WHO Hazard Classification but should also consider pesticides which are known to have caused significant cases of poisoning and fatalities in developing countries. The performance of pesticide under practical conditions of use is of more significance than toxicity data derived from animal tests.
Malaysia would like to support the proposal that FAO maintain a database on country decisions and make such information available to National Authorities at regular intervals. In addition we would suggest that FAO should also, for the benefit of developing countries which do not have facilities or expertise to evaluate the toxicological data on new pesticides, look into the establishment of expert committees to review such data and make recommendations for consideration by these countries. This would help developing countries in making sound decisions on pesticide registration and necessary restrictions, if any, for the handling and use of pesticides under their respective socio-economic and climatic conditions.
We would also like to propose that the expert committee look into the possibilities of the PIC procedures being evaded by exporting countries such as in the situation where a highly restricted pesticide is exported to a country with no registration scheme, which in turn exports the pesticide to another country. The PIC procedures do not provide for the onward transfer of the information to the next country which imports the pesticide. We hope that the expert group formulating further details on PIC procedures will look into this and other possibilities, and ensure that the objectives of PIC are fulfilled.
Josef FOJTL (Czechoslovakia): Permit me please t a short statement on behalf of the Czechoslovakian delegation. We consider the document C 89/20 as very important and well prepared. We give our full support to the FAO activities in this area.
In Czechoslovakia a unified system of registration, distribution and application of pesticides and other chemicals has already been used for several years. This system secures all the conditions necessary for the safe application of different chemical means against harmful agents.
Czechoslovakia supports and will continue to participate actively in the collaboration of the FAO proposals for registration, distribution and application of pesticides. We agree with the introduction of the clause Prior Informed Consent, and we agree particularly with the revisions and amendments to Articles 2 and 9 of the International Code and the Guidelines for the Distribution and Use of Pesticides.
In view of strengthening the control over the distribution and use of pesticides, we think that it would be useful to establish a central information data base, recording the registration and the range of use of different pesticides, by FAO member countries as was already mentioned by the distinguished representative of Malaysia.
Yong Kyu CHOI (Korea, Republic of): On behalf of the Korean delegation, I welcome the introduction of the PIC clause to the FAO rules which will contribute to the health of farmers and consumers as well as the improvement of the rural environment. In this regard, I express my gratitude to the FAO experts who have endeavoured to implement the PIC clause.
The Korean Government has strictly restricted the use of deadly and highly poisonous agricultural pesticides to protect the health of citizens as well as prevent environmental pollution.
Therefore the efficient operation of PIC will contribute to our Government's management of agricultural pesticides. In this respect, the Republic of Korea agrees to the introduction of PIC and hopes to be a participating country.
Lastly, Mr Chairman, the Korean delegation would like to stress the importance of sincere exchange of infornatici not only from importing countries but also especially exporting or producing countries.
Crispos R.J. NYAGA (Kenya): On behalf of the Kenyan delegation, I wish to thank FAO for the efforts taken, leading at once to an agreement on the Code of Conduct on the Distribution and the Use of Pesticides. This is very important, particularly to many developing countries, as it provides the basis for greater cooperation and the protection of the end-users, who often are unable to read and hence are unaware of the dangers involved in the use of pesticides.
Kenya has been involved in forums where the Code was discussed in detail, and our views have since been incorporated. We commend the steps that have been taken to arrange consultations to develop an acceptable modality for Prior Informed Consent and to draft the revised text for Article 9 of the Code of Conduct.
The Kenyan delegation has studied the revisions and amendments made in the Code to Articles 2 and 9, and the guidelines on the operation of Prior Informed Consent. In this connection, I should like to convey our agreement with the additional definitions and provisions made for information exchange in the PIC. In addition, we are pleased and encouraged by the cooperation between UNEP and FAO on the operation of a joint programme on PIC as we believe that this is very important for the success of the scheme. However, the Kenyan delegation wishes to emphasize the need for the FAO to assist the developing countries in developing their national pesticides registration and the control units to enable them fully to implement the PIC procedures as recommended in paragraph 72 of the Report of the Ninety-fifth Session of the Council. This would involve assistance in the training of staff, and in addition providing equipment and, where necessary, laboratory facilities.
Noboru SATED (Japan): My country supports the amendments to the Code and the introduction of PIC as proposed by the Secretariat. This is the final result of the long discussions following governmental consultations held in January this year, as has already been pointed out by many delegates. In this sense we feel that it is not appropriate to make further substantial modifications at this final stage, as the Canadian and United States delegates stated.
I should like to express our appreciation to the Secretariat that the consultation between FAO and UNEP has already been started, as described in paragraph 5 of document C 80.
Further cooperation with related international organizations such as UNEP and WHO is of vital importance for its success, as was pointed out during the last Council session.
Y.K. ATTA-KONADU (Ghana): I should like to thank the Secretariat for the preparation and eloquent presentation of the document before us.
The Ghana delegation at the Twenty-fourth FAO Conference supported, the resolution to incorporate the principle of Prior Informed Consent in the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides. Recognizing that more data and analysis were needed to arrive at an informed decision, Ghana also supported the establishment of a Working Group to consider the issues involved in the incorporation of the PIC in the Code. My delegation would like to express its gratitude to the FAO for promptly undertaking actions defined for it under Conference Resolution 5/87 which was adopted by consensus.
As is very well known, the reality of the situation is that an increasing proportion of our traditional farmers, the majority of them illiterate, have come to be involved in the use of agrochemicals in food production, but the use of these chemicals involves risks to the user or applicator, to the consumer and the environment. Pesticide residues enter the human body through dermal absorption through the skin and eyes, by entry through the mouth and by inhalation into the respiratory system. These helpless farmers are completely at risk.
My delegation need not overemphasize the importance of the PIC. The year 1972, for instance, saw nearly 500 000 pesticides poisoning cases around the world. In 1981 it was 750 000, and it keeps on growing. It is estimated that every year almost two million people worldwide are poisoned by pesticides, and 40 000 of them die as a result.
Of the over 15 000 different pesticides produced in the world, 28 of them have been either severely restricted or banned in many countries. Among these are DDT, aldrin, dieldrin, captafol and paraquat, all of which have been reported to be in use in developing countries. The irony of the situation is that nearly 85 percent of world pesticide production is consumed in industrialized countries; yet the incidence of pesticide poisoning is 13 times higher in the developing world. Commercial fisheries have been destroyed, and bird species have been endangered by pesticides.
The number of pesticide-related deaths is rising as much as are heroin-related deaths. They are both common enemies of the environment and concerted international action is needed to contain them. My delegation therefore sees in the PIC an extension of the new awareness of environmental
degradation - an issue which we all address. Ghana applauds the efforts of certain pesticide-exporting countries to regulate the export of pesticides to developing countries, USAID, for instance, has for a long time put tight restrictions on the supply of pesticides under the commodity import programme. USAID had reportedly supplied officially pesticides only through development projects under tight controls, including environmental assessment. Other industrialized countries have a large number of pesticides on the market.
The many ways in which they are applied, the large number of pesticides on the market and the difficulties in assessing sane of the risks makes pesticide regulation difficult. Having said that, my delegation wishes to note, however, that it is difficult to rely on manufacturers and exporters of pesticides to attend to risks that do not affect their profits directly or the perceived welfare of their workers. Governments should therefore :recognize their responsibilities to regulate the production and export of banned and severely restricted pesticides. In this regard, my delegation appeals to governments of pesticide-exporting countries to subscribe to the implementation of the PIC.
Ghana supports the guidelines of the operation of the PIC executing agency, except that we wish to sound a caveat regarding the reservation in the footnote on page 11 of C 89/20: "An import order by a Government authority will be assumed to have the consent of the Government and, thus, to have precedence over the PIC procedure." This is indeed a tricky balancing act. The truth is that most programmes and aid-in-kind have large components for pesticides and other agrochemicals. Even the USAID - and I stand to be corrected - which previously placed severe restrictions on pesticides supplied to aid recipient countries now seems to have new guidelines that have resulted in more provision of free pesticides under the commodity programme.
My delegation believes that this proviso will defeat the purpose of the PIC and recommends that it be dropped.
My delegation endorses the close cooperation between FAO and UNEP on the implementation of the PIC, in particular the establishment of the joint programme and a common data base. This will enable FAO to corroborate actions to be taken with the programmes of national institutions such as the Environmental Protection Council and the Plant Protection and Regulatory Services Division of the Ministry of Agriculture, both in Ghana. These two institutions have been set up inter alia to regulate pesticide importation and use.
Finally, Ghana supports the revision of Articles 2 and 9 of the International Code of Conduct on Distribution and Use of Pesticides. The revised form is reflected in the guidelines on the operation of the PIC.
Ghana welcomes technical assistance from the FAO to national institutions such as the two in Ghana already mentioned in training local people to be able to assess the risks associated with the use of pesticides and to make timely and informed decisions as to the importation and use of pesticides taking into account local and public health, economics, environmental administrative conditions as detailed in paragraph 9.2 of C 89/20. We also urge that training be given to the farmers whose sophistication and understanding of label instructions are very limited due to widespread illiteracy.
Chrysanthos LOIZIDES (Cyprus): The delegation of Cyprus has strongly supported the idea of adopting the International Code of Conduct for the Distribution and Use of Pesticides. Considering the dangers that these chemicals represent for users, consumers and the environment, we believe that appropriate notification of their possible action should be provided to all parties dealing with them.
When adopting the Code, we believed that the Prior Informed Consent Clause should have been incorporated because it represents the most critical aspect of the Code. We accepted its exclusion then, however, in an effort to reach unanimity in its acceptance.
We have noted and we welcome the measures taken since the last Conference to facilitate the inclusion of the PIC in the Code of Conduct. It is our belief that the inclusion of the PIC will make the Code of Conduct more comprehensive and it will protect human lives and the environment in developing importing countries.
It is widely accepted that we live in a common environment. If, therefore, a pesticide or any other chemical is banned or severely restricted in one exporting country due to its effect on the environment, its use should be banned or severely restricted elsewhere as well.
It is not reasonable to assume that if one product has negative effects on the environment of an exporting country it will not have the same effect in an importing country. Along this line of thought, we believe that importing countries should be informed appropriately on any action that exporters are taking relating to the use of any product that will be sent elsewhere. We would like, therefore, to join others and support the inclusion of the PIC Clause into the Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides and we approve the revisions and amendments of Articles 2 and 9 of the Code and the Guidelines on the Operation of the Prior Informed Consent.
Sra. Grafi la SOTO CARRERO (Cuba): Agradecemos la documentación preparada por la Secretaría así como la presentación del tema que nos ocupa.
La delegación de Cuba considera que el uso de los plaguicidas puede tener efectos nocivos, especialmente para los países que no tienen un control adecuado de su uso. De tal manera que, a nuestro entender, la inclusión del consentimiento Previo al Código de Conducta reviste una importancia fundamental.
Las enmiendas de los Artículos 2 y 9 del Código de Conducta que fueron aprobadas por consenso y aprobadas justamente también por nuestra delegación, juegan un papel también muy importante.
El papel de la FAO y del PNUMA en este sentido son dignos de elogio. La delegación de Cuba reafirma su apoyo a las enmiendas en cuestión.
El trabajo realizado por el Grupo de Expertos, tanto de la FAO y del PNUMA, debe continuar.
Estamos cumplimentando la propuesta hecha en el 24Q Período de Sesiones de la Conferencia, e insistimos en que debe haber un examen periódico por parte de la FAO, el PNUMA y la CMS a fin de dar continuidad a su cumplimiento.
En realidad, el hecho de que se exporten a los países en desarrollo productos tóxicos que no son admitidos en sus países de origen, es un aspecto muy preocupante. En tal sentido y para no ser repetitivos, nos adherimos a la declaración que en ese sentido ha hecho el distinguido delegado de Filipinas. La delegación de Cuba considera que esta Comisión, a través de la Conferencia, debe solicitar al Director General que se continúen las informaciones a los países a través del COAG, el Consejo y la Conferencia misma, si posible, con la realización de un estudio que pueda convertirse en un instrumento jurídico obligatorio, o sea, de aplicación obligatoria para todos los países.
Russell R. MULELE (Zambia): Firstly, I should like to thank the Secretariat for their preparation of the very good document under discussion and the excellent introduction by Dr Brader.
At the outset I should like to commend FAO for the initiatives and speedy actions they have taken to implement the incorporation of the Principle of PIC into the Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides.
we are also pleased to note the cooperation taking place between FAO and UNEP as regards the operation of PIC. We fully endorse this move. My delegation has participated in the debates and the meetings on the inclusion of the PIC in the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides. Therefore, we wish to state that we support and approve the revisions and amendments of the Code and the guidelines on operation of PIC as given in Appendix E.
Finally we should like to underscore the need, as stated in paragraph 72, page 5 of the document under discussion, for FAO to provide technical assistance to developing countries in regard to PIC implementation procedures.
Berrai VON SYDOW (Germany, Federal Republic of) (original language German): We wish to point out that the Federal Government has reiterated a number of times that the Code of Conduct should be further completed by an appropriate Prior Informed Consent clause. We refer to the wording approved at the Ninety-fifth FAO Council meeting and recommend adoption of this text now at this Conference.
Together with the Canadian and other delegations, we are of the opinion that any amendments should not delay the implementation of PIC. We feel that, everything is open to further improvements. Therefore, appropriate amendments - I repeat - should not delay the adoption of the Resolution.
I have some matters of substance at this point. We are convinced that PIC is very useful for those countries which today have neither an adequate infrastructure for monitoring and control, nor a set of regulations covering their approval. The introduction of the PIC procedure, however, should not prevent importing countries from striving towards such rules and control mechanisms. Those mechanisms are necessary in order to have a better opinion on whether certain pesticides may be imported or even have to be imported in certain cases.
Such mechanisms are also necessary in order to ensure appropriate utilization of pesticides. Therefore, in countries where such rules and control mechanisms are insufficient or do not exist at all, the introduction of PIC should not prevent these countries from creating such mechanisms.
In conclusion I should like to refer to Article 9.8.4 of the Code of Conduct concerning advice at regular intervals and review of criteria for inclusion of pesticides in the PIC procedure. we wish to declare our willingness to make our expertise available. We will also gladly come back to the Secretariat's wish to have a single contact point appointed.
Tommie SJOBERG (Sweden): The Swedish delegation notes with satisfaction that FAO, in the preparation of texts now presented, has closely cooperated with UNEP to reach compatibility between the texts of the London Guidelines and the Code of Conduct. Furthermore, the Swedish delegation notes with satisfaction the close cooperation between FAO and UNEP on the implementation of the PIC scheme and welcomes the steps being taken by both Organizations to establish a joint programme and a cannon data base.
Sweden supports the revisions and amendments of the Code and the proposed Guidelines. However, allow me to make a few short remarks. In Article 9.1 it is stated that the Government of any country that takes action should notify FAO as soon as possible of the action. The wording "as soon as possible ", in my opinion, needs a specification. Therefore, I would like to suggest that the wording "but not later than six months" be inserted after "as soon as possible".
In Article 9.5 it is said that it is the intention that the information should be provided prior to export. The last sentence of this sub-Article should be specified too. I should like to suggest that the wording "or at the time of export at the latest" be added to the last sentence.
In the Guidelines it is said that superseded pesticides will not be submitted to the procedure described on page 10 of the document. In my opinion these pesticides should, however, be submitted to the procedure as long as there is no guarantee against, that the production and exportation of such pesticides will be resumed by some other countries.
Kiala Kia MATEVA (Angola): Merci M. le Président. Après avoir entendu 27 délégués, mon intervention sera brève.
Le document C 89/20 a suscité un vif intérêt dans mon pays, puisque l'utilisation des pesticides augmente de plus en plus dans les zones rurales. La délégation angolaise tient à remercier le secrétariat pour le travail combien louable qu'il nous a présenté. Elle appuie les nouvelles versions révisées des articles 2.9 du Code international de conduite, et le principe de l'ICP.
Au nom de la délégation angolaise je félicite et encourage la collaboration entre la FAO et le PNUE pour la mise en oeuvre de la procédure d'information et de consentement préalable.
Mauricio CUADRA (Nicaragua) : Nuestra delegación desea felicitar en primer lugar a la Secretarla por la presentación del documento C 89/20, el cual hemos revisado con detenimiento. Conocemos también el resultado de la Consulta intergubernamental que recomendó la incorporación del Principio de Información y Consentimiento Previos en el Código de Conducta para la Utilización y Distribución de Plaguicidas. Consideramos que es muy valiosa la labor que se ha realizado y estamos de acuerdo con las recomendaciones.
Nuestro país adoptó el Códex de acuerdo a la Resolución 10/85 de la Conferencia de FAO aprobada en 1985. Aún cuando nuestra legislación en la materia es todavía incoampleta, está siendo revisada y las reglamentaciones internas para Registro y Uso de Plaguicidas se adaptan muy satisfactoriamente a las necesidades de este Código y a su aplicación práctica.
En nuestro país, el Registro de Plaguicidas es un instrumento fundamental para controlar que los productos que se comercializan y usan cumplen con los requisitos y normas de eficiencia biológica y seguridad pública y ambiental.
Nuestras reglamentaciones son rígidas en la aplicación de normas para introducción de nuevos productos, y se puede decir que al menos un 90 por ciento de los productos considerados como no deseados no se usan, ni se han importado en los últimos años. El PICP vendrá a ser pues un instrumento nuevo y mejor para el control.
Creemos que es abundante la inf ormación que existe sobre el daño enorme que hacen en los países en que se distribuyen y aplican aquellos plaguicidas que son peligrosos, e incluso prohibidos en los países donde se producen; y estamos de acuerdo con la delegación de Filipinas en que hay que reforzar el mecanismo de control actual, y creemos que sería lo más lógico que si un país productor de un deteiminado plaguicida lo tiene prohibido en su propio país, se le debe prohibir incluso su producción.
No sólo la salud humana es afectada por el uso de los plaguicidas prohibidos; los animales y el medio ambiente son afectados también, y se afecta además la calidad de los productos de exportación de los países en desarrollo, a los que se imponen medidas restrictivas en los mercados de los países desarrollados, por estar contaminados. Y, paradójicamente, muchas veces son estos mismos países los productores y exportadores de los tóxicos. Esto produce un doble daño a nuestros países, afectando la salud y además el comercio. Por eso consideramos que la introducción del PICP será un paso importante en la protección de la salud humana y animal, el medio ambiente y además otros aspectos, como el comercial, que ya hemos señalado. Al apoyar la introducción de PICP, consideramos que la FAO debe jugar un rol principal en la aplicación práctica de este principio, en coordinación con otras organizaciones del sistema de Naciones Unidas y con organizaciones regionales que se ocupan de la materia. Adem, creemos que la FAO debe poner un gran esfuerzo en el apoyo a los países, sobre todo a los países en desarrollo, con programas de capacitación que hagan factible una aplicación adecuada del Codex y, ahora, del Principio de Información y Consentimiento Previos. Existen grandes deficiencias en nuestro país en este campo, y la necesidad de una correcta regulación del uso de los plaguicidas es urgente.
Hemos escuchado también con agrado la disposición de algunos países desarrollados, productores y exportadores de plaguicidas, de brindar asistencia a los países en desarrollo para que perfeccionen sus sistemas de control. Saludamos esta disposición, ya que si estos países controlan a sus productores y además ayudan a los importadores de países en desarrollo a que controlemos mejor nuestras importaciones, el beneficio será mayor.
Nuestro país, finalmente, deja sentado su pleno apoyo a la introducción del PICP en el Código de Conducta para Distribución y Utilización de Plaguicidas.
Magnar SONDFOR (Norway): On the TWenty-fourth Session of the Conference, Norway supported Resolution 5/87, Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides, proposed by Colombia, the Philippines, Venezuela and Zambia.
"The resolution invited the Conference to amend the principle of "Prior Informed Consent" to Article 9 of the Code of Conduct.
From our point of view, protection against the hazards of pesticides for individual users and the environment as a whole, is extremely important. The principle of "Prior Informed Consent" urges exporters of pesticides to make all relevant information on the actual pesticides available for importing countries. So far, experience has shown that particularly the developing countries are facing huge difficulties in establishing effective control measures concerning imported pesticides.
"Prior Informed Consent" may therefore be of substantial help to importing countries - and in particular the developing countries - in dealing with the influx of hazardous pesticides. Thus, the inclusion of the principle of "Prior Informed Consent" into FAO's Code of Conduct can be a relevant measure to protect both the environment and individual users.
On the Agenda Item 6.1 "State of Food and Agriculture", the Nordic countries underlined that FAO must respond to the environmental challenge and strengthen its international cooperation. We believe that international cooperation is :required if we are to solve the environmental problems in the 1990s.
On this matter, FAO and UNEP have cooperated closely, and we are very satisfied with what is proposed in the document C 89/20 to the Conference. We have seen it as important that FAO's guidelines for Prior Informed Consent in the Distribution and Use of Pesticides are in conformity with the guidelines for chemicals agreed in UNEP. We would also underline that we are satisfied with the establishment of a joint FAO/UNEP data base.
Shahid NAJAM (Pakistan) : The document C 89/20 regarding the introduction of the Prior Informed Consent clause in the Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides succinctly describes the process and the technical scrutiny through Which the issues involved in the PIC have passed in pursuance of the decision of the 24th Session of the FAO Conference of 1987.
It is a matter of immense satisfaction that the Expert Consultation of March 1988, consultations with the member countries, government cosultations of January 1989 and COAG approved the incorporation of PIC in the Code of Conduct. In the process, FAO and UNEP closely collaborated, which culminated in the amendment of London Guidelines for the Exchange of Information on Chemicals in International Trade making the guidelines compatible with the provision for Prior Informed Consent. The 95th Session of FAO Council also examined the amendements adopted by COAG to Articles 2 and 9 of the Code and the guidelines on the operation of PIC and recommended approval of the same by the 25th Conference.
The FAO Code of Conduct is designed to encourage the safe and efficient use of pesticides including minimizing the adverse effects on human life and the environment and preventing accidental poisoning f ran improper use of toxic pesticides. The success of the Code of Conduct depends on how far the pesticide importing and distribution companies would observe various practices and recommendations incorporated in the Code and also regulatory instruments and mechanisms evolved by the individual countries.
In Pakistan, the import, iranufacture, formulation, distribution and sale of pesticides are being regulated through an Agricultural Pesticides ordinance of 1971. The Directorate of Plant Protection of the Ministry of Food and
Agriculture is the designated national authority to register and regulate the use of pesticides. Besides governing the pesticide registration procedures in the country, it also provides quality control through government-appointed inspectors, guidelines for manufacturing, formulation, packaging, labelling, storage and safety measures to be adopted in handling and use of pesticides. These procedures and practices conform to the 22nd FAO Government Consultation on International Harmonization of Pesticides Registration Requirements held in Rome in October 1982,
The Government of Pakistan attaches high priority to the task of proper and safe use of pesticides and extends its full support to the inclusion of the PIC clause in the FAO Code of Conduct as placed before this house.
We will also recommend that the lacunae identified by the distinguished delegate of the Philippines in the existing arrangements on the use of pesticides should be given due consideration with a view to eliminating the use of hazardous pesticides in the developing countries.
Issan Eldin MOHAMED EL SAYED (Sudan) (original language Arabic): Allow me, first of all, to convey our approval for all the amendments which have been tendered for the International Code of Conduct. We support the principle of the inclusion of the PIC. We would also support the proposals nade by the Philippines regarding Step 4 of the guidelines related to PIC. We consider that the introduction of these amendments will lead to a reduction of the use of such pesticides. We quite approve the continuing cooperation between FAO and UNEP in this natter. In order to achieve this aim, we would suggest an amendment to Step 4 of the guidelines contained in this document on page 10 in the English version.
We believe that the necessary technical support should be sought and included in Category 1A of WHO. We would also suggest that the rest of this paragraph should read as follows: "in WHO class 1" - we would delete "A" and this in order to be able to apply the London Guidelines.
We have a second amendment to suggest. At the bottom of page 10 there is a footnote that says, "import approved by one government will be considered to extend to other governments and therefore extend over and above PIC. " We think that the approval of one government is a misleading expression and may have sane negative effect for the importing countries. We suggest the following amendment - in other words, we say that it should say: "a designated official or authority."
D.P.D, VAN RAPPARD (Netherlands): Much has been said about PIC and I will be brief. The document gives a good picture of the background of the proposal, the definition of PIC has been improved.
Regarding the procedure of PIC it has been mentioned many times that full clarification is required and therefore we regret that the guidelines for the procedure as developed by FAO and UNEP are not completely in line. My government however is fully confident that in practice it will be possible that FAO and UNEP work out together a satisfactory approach. On a single point, however, we should like to make a comment.
It regards the footnote for step 6 of the Guidelines on the operation of PIC. It says that "an import-order by a Government authority will be assumed to have the consent of the Government and thus have precedence over the
PIC-procedure". The UNEP-guidelines do not know this addition. We can understand that in this situation it is not necessary to follow the PIC-procedure and that the mentioned footnote will enable to avoid delay in the implementation of the order.
On the other side however, we would like to stress that confusion might occur concerning the authority of semi-governmental organizations, etc. Moreover/ it is possible that a decision which has still to be nade on the basis of the PIC procedure, could be negative for the forthccming use of this chemical on basis of the provided information about the pesticide.
We therefore would like from our side to propose to clarify the following: the note will have the meaning that an import order of a Government authority can be implemented as long as no official reaction on the notification has been received, but this does not mean that an official reply of the participating country is not expected any more. A clear government decision in the frame of the PIC procedure and provided by the designated national authority is required in order to be sure about the governement policy of the importing country regarding the involved chemical.
In the case of a reply of the designated national authority of the importing country, this reply should have precedence above the import order.
Mr Chairman, as said, we should like to have clarification on this point.
N.D. ERASER (New Zealand): Mr Chairman, New Zealand is pleased to inform the Conference that we are now in a position to support the introduction of the Prior Informed Consent principle, as tabled in Document C 89/20.
We have not as yet completed consideration of the New Zealand official contact point to be designated for implementing the PIC procedure. The decision, when made, will be quickly conveyed to the Secretariat.
We note that Prior Informed Consent will not provide all the acquirements that importing countries need but recognize that it serves as an effective interim measure while developing countries inprove institutional and regulatory capabilities to ensure that concerns about pesticides are able to be handled.
We are aware, Mr Chairman, of the FAO regional project, based in Bangkok, which is instrumental in advising and assisting countries to develop their regulatory systems.
Further, with regard to establishing or strengthening these regulatory capabilities, the Conference nay be interested to know that New Zealand has been actively providing expertise to South Pacific Island countries with their development of regulatory systems.
B. PALESTINI (Italy): My delegation welcomes the decisions put forward in document C 89/20, which introduces the PIC clause in the Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides.
My country is very much in favour of introducing the PIC procedure in the FAO Code of Conduct and, furthermore, as a member of the EEC, is working on a proposal for introduction also in Community Regulations.
Italy also agrees on the revision of Articles 2 and 9 of the International Code of Conduct and on the Guidelines as they appear on page 6 and following of the document.
Italy is very much concerned about the environmental changes which are taking place on our planet due to pollution by chemicals and dangerous vastes. This does not mean excluding all chemicals frcm agriculture, as some would want us to do, but giving better tools and information for the correct use of pesticides and fertilizers, without which we could never have attained today's standards of production. On the other hand, we consider very important the research that is going on in this field in order to obtain less toxic substances and the introduction of genetic resistance in cultivated plants.
Italy has also approved and implamented a national plan for integrated pest control which should bring about a reduction in the use of pesticides of the order of 30 percent to 50 percent and promote a more rational use of these substances. We consider this only a small step towards a wiser use of our natural resources, which must be preserved and defended for the benefit of all mankind and for the very survival of future generations.
KIM YONG CHANG (Democratic People's Republic of Korea): On behalf of my delegation, I should like to express my thanks to the Director-General and the Secretariat of FAO for the presentation of the excellent document before us, C 89/20. Environmental protection is a very important question for human health and, particularly, the agro-ecological environment and food production. At the last Conference, it was decided that the principle of Prior Informed Consent should be incorporated in the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides in the present biennium, and the Director-General was asked to arrange for the establishment of a working group to consider issues involved in the operation of the Prior Informed Consent clause in the Code, including those of implementation. The Director-General has taken a number of initiatives and actions to implement the decision of the 24th Session of the Conference, including the convening of expert and government consultation and the operation of a joint FAO and UNEP programme.
Hie delegation of the DPR of Korea highly appreciates the progress and success achieved in the activities on PIC during the last two years. We fully support the revised text of Articles 2 and 9 of the Code and the Guidelines on the operation of PIC. Our government gives great attention to environmental protection and conservation for human health and agro-ecology in all activities of the national economy, including the production and use of, and trade in, pesticides.
We believe that FAO should continue to attach priority to its activities in helping the establishment of a registration and control system in developing countries and the successful implementation of the revised text of Articles 2 and 9 of the Code and Guidelines on the operation of PIC. I should like to invite this Conference to adopt unanimously document C 89/20 on the Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides and the introduction of the Prior Informed Consent clause.
Theodor GLASER (Suisse) : Le Code de conduite pour la distribution et l'utilisation des pesticides a certainement une grande importance pour la Suisse et c'est pourquoi nous sonnies très heureux qu'une bonne formule ait été votée pour l'introduction de la clause de l'information et du consentement préalable (ICP). Je suis particulièrement satisfait que l'on ait trouvé les moyens d'oeuvrer pour une bonne et étroite coopération avec le PNUE.
J'ai un petit problème pratique car nous sommes tellement en avance sur l'horaire que les experts de ma délégation, qui devaient traiter de ce point de l'Ordre du jour, ne sont pas encore arrivés à Rome. C'est pourquoi j'aimerais vous demander la permission, le cas échéant, de vous fournir plus tard, par écrit, des notes et observations additionnelles dans le procès-verbal.
CHAIRMAN: We should be very pleased to include in our verbatim records any technical and specific points that the delegation of Switzerland would like to make to us, I would just like to point out that we are not exactly ahead of time. We are half a day ahead. This is because we need the extra time for discussion of our resolutions. we are not forcing the Commission to go at a faster pace than necessary because we understand that there are a lot of other matters which will discussed by our Commission.
Carlos GARCIA DE ALEA (México): Señor Presidente, nuestra participación, por el contrario, no tiene un contenido fundamentalmente técnico, sino de carácter social. Por ello queremos expresar nuestro beneplácito por el hecho de que varias delegaciones hayan hecho explícito lo que en muchas ocasiones es simplemente obvio; es decir, que consideraciones de tipo técnico en muchas ocasiones adquieren relevancia porque tienen una proyección claramente social y humanitaria, ya que cuando estamos hablando del uso de las restricciones a plaguicidas, estamos hablando de la protección a la salud y al bienestar humano. Por tanto, estamos hablando del desarrollo social, elemento fundamental para hablar también de agricultura sostenible que es finalmente el objetivo de todo proyecto de agricultura sostenible: el desarrollo social, el bienestar, la preservación de la salud.
Hechos estos comentarios, señor Presidente, de carácter general, nuestra delegación quiere apoyar las dos propuestas de enmienda del Artículo 2 y el Artículo 9 del Código y, al mismo tiempo, queremos expresar nuestro apoyo al contenido general de las Directrices para la aplicación del PICP.
Uniéndonos también a las inquietudes y a las sugerencias expresadas por varias delegaciones que nos han precedido en el uso de la palabra, consideramos oportuno que la FAO incremente sus esfuerzos en el proceso de elaboración y de actualización de un banco de datos sobre plaguicidas prohibidos o severamente limitados.
También, y en consonancia con lo que expresó el distinguido Delegado de Bulgaria, que la FAO, en la medida en que fuese posible, sugiriese a los gobiernos de los países en desarrollo la gama de fitofármacos alternativos a aquellos que han sido incluidos en esta lista de plaguicidas prohibidos o de uso limitado.
Steen SONDERGARRD (Denmark): I will try to be brief, but a lot has been said. Denmark welcomes the introduction of Prior Informed Consent in the Code of Conduct on the distribution and Use of Pesticides in order to ensure that the most dangerous pesticides are not exported to countries which do not want this import. Furthermore, we welcome the practical guidelines for the implementation of the PIC principle. We think that the work done in the expert group, COAC and the Council, has resulted in a proposal with logical and practical guidelines for the future use of f and work with, the PIC principle.
The registration of information about banned and severely restricted pesticides will take place, as we note with great satisfaction, in close cooperation with UNEP. UNEP already operates a data base with information about dangerous chemicals. It is therefore natural that the two UN organizations should have close cooperation on this natter.
However, although much work has been done, there are still details to be clarified. The effect of the PIC principle will depend on the notification of dangerous pesticides, but a few pesticides which are not registered in any country but are nevertheless produced, exported and used seem to fall outside the PIC system. Furthermore, there seems to be a possibility that dangerous pesticides which are only registered in one country, or which have been withdrawn, fall outside the PIC system. The Philippine delegate has already spoken about this problem, and I should like to urge the Secretariat to look into his suggestions for amendment.
Furthermore, we support the proposal made by the US Delegation that, if a country bans the import of a certain pesticide, this should influence the eventual domestic production of the pesticide concerned.
Vite do not expect a new system to be perfect from the very start, but we would expect that the system would be refined over the next couple of years to ensure that all dangerous pesticides are included in the PIC system.
The governments recognizing the PIC system are obliged, within their authorities, to ensure that exports of these pesticides do not occur contrary to the decisions of participating importing countries. In this connection, it must be stressed that the effect of the PIC principle also depends on the ability of the importing countries and their institutions to handle the provided information. It is therefore important to develop and strengthen the relevant institutions in the developing countries to ensure that they are able to handle and act on this information and either avoid import of dangerous pesticides or handle them properly.
Denmark is most satisfied with the incorporation of the PIC principle in the Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides. This is a very important step on the long road to a more secure trade in, and use of, pesticides.
Sra. Olga Clemencia FERNANDEZ (Colombia): Señor Presidente, los representantes de Colombia pensamos que la Secretarla de la FAO ha seguido, en forma adecuada y positiva, todas las recomendaciones de los gobiernos para que la tan controvertida decisión de la pasada Conferencia, sobre inclusión del Principio de Infomación y Consentimiento Previos en el Código, se pueda ahora adoptar de manera definitiva y, ojalá, por consenso.
En efecto, la FAO convocó el Grupo de Expertos y celebró amplias consultas con todas las partes interesadas, así como una Consulta Intergubernamental en enero de 1989. Fue así como los representantes de gobiernos y de todos los sectores interesados tuvieron ocasión de discutir ampliamente ese largo proceso que ahora se ha decantado de manera muy clara y equilibrada.
Hay otro aspecto importante que deseamos destacar y es el de la estrecha cooperación entre la FAO y el PNUMA, principio que concuerda con el proposito esencial de evitar duplicación de actividades y complementar las acciones comunes de las organizaciones en favor de un mismo objetivo.
Encontramos muy acertada la participación de la FAO en las reuniones organizadas por el PNUMA para la introducción del principio de información y consentimiento previos en sus Direcciones de Londres para el intercambio de infatuación acerca de productos químicos, objeto de comercio internacional, como dice el párrafo 3 de este documento.
En el extracto del informe del 95Q período de sesiones del Consejo, que aparece cato apéndice a este documento, ya el Consejo expresó su aprecio positivo por la cooperación FAO/PNUMA y acogió con satisfacción las medidas que estaban adoptando ambas organizaciones para establecer un program conjunto.
Opinamos que la Conferencia debe apoyar esos puntos de vista del Consejo, sobre la indispensable cooperación FAO/PNUMA, pidiendo que se mantengan informados los órganos rectores sobre el memorando de acuerdo y, en general, acerca del desarrollo futuro de todas estas actividades.
Apoyamos plenamente el párrafo 72, en el sentido de que será necesario que se ofrezca asistencia a los países en desarrollo, particularmente para la capacitación del personal nacional.
Los procedimientos del PICP, y muchas otras disposiciones del Código de Conducta, son complejos y difíciles de aplicar si se carece de los medios y de los conocimientos indispensables. Por ello el resultado de este largo ejercicio debe tener uso eficaz, y esto hace necesario la preparación pertinente de los funcionarios de los países en desarrollo.
El COAG primero, y luego el Consejo, tras largos y profundos debates, lograron ponerse de acuerdo sobre las revisiones y enmiendas del Código, Artículos 2 y 9.
Consecuentes con nuestras actuaciones en todas las reuniones anteriores, los representantes de Colombia reiteramos nuestro apoyo a esas revisiones y enmiendas y a las Directrices para la Aplicación del Principio de Información y Consentimiento Previos, tal como aparecen en el Apéndice de este Documento.
Señor Presidente, teniendo en cuenta que existe consenso sobre el Código de Conducta sobre la distribución y uso de plaguicidas, la delegación de Colombia considera pertinente solicitar al Director General la realización de un estudio sobre la posible conversión del Código de Conducta en un instrumento jurídico de aplicaciones obligatorias para los países y que sea presentado a la próxima Conferencia a través del COAG y del Consejo, tal como lo expresara la delegación de Cuba y otras.
Mme Maria de Lourdes DUARTE (Cap-Vert) : La délégation cap-verdienne se joint aux orateurs qui l'ont précédée pour appuyer les amendements des articles 2 et 9 du Code de même que les directives pour le fonctionnement du système d'information et de consentement préalables.
Ma délégation fait sien le contenu du paragraphe 72 du document examiné. Notamment pour l'application pratique de la clause ICP, il est prioritaire d'accorder une assistance technique aux pays en développement qui n'ont pas de système d'homologation et de contrôle des pesticides.
Nous soulignons aussi l'importance du paragraphe 70 à propos des produits chimiques qui n'ont pas été homologués ou qui ont été retirés dans des pays et qui font l'objet de l'exportation. À cet égard, nous soutenons les amendements concernant le point 4 des directives sur le choix des pesticides incluant les systèmes d'ICP, proposés par les Philippines et le Soudan.
A cette heure tardive de nos débats, permettez-nous toutefois de nous réjouir de l'étroite coopération qui prévaut entre la FAO et le PNUD dans la mise en oeuvre de la procédure de l'ICP.
Mohammed Badr El Din EL MASOUDI (Libya) (original language Arabic): I would like to congratulate the Secretariat for this excellent document C 89/20 on pesticides. We would like to deal with the PIC which is pertinent to the banning of exporting any dangerous pesticides to any country which does not wish to receive such pesticides, i.e. such a country is fully competent to accept or to refuse the receipt of such pesticides according to the guidelines of the Organizations. We agree with other delegations that this Organization should have a close cooperation with UNEP in order to have the necessary coordination, such coordination which will be beneficial to the health of man, to aninals, and will be safe for the environment. We want to limit the negative effects of such pesticides as much as possible.
We would like to reiterate that success in implementing and accepting the PIC as far as pesticides is concerned, is conditioned by the freedom to exchange information which is provided by different countries, as well as the speed with which such information is provided.
Finally, this excellent document C 89/20 which has been submitted by the Secretariat, is indeed the basis to deal with all the problems pertinent to pesticides and the measures we have to take in this regard.
Zeid ABDEL RAHMAN (Yemen, Arab Republic of) (original language Arabic): The
topic of pesticides is indeed a very sensitive and important topic. It is especially pertinent to all developing countries. In spite of the very worthy results which are gained by the use of pesticides on crops, the negative effects of the pesticides on these very societies and on these very developing countries are enormous indeed. If we should take a look at the position prevailing in developing countries, we would find that there are some problems which determine the use of pesticides. Those are ignorance and illiteracy amongst the rural section of the population. This in turn is represented in the type of use of these pesticides, but we find that seme producer companies, seme trading cranpanies, are not interested in anything but profit, and very quick profit at that, so that these very companies can take advantage of those countries and take advantage of the poor state of scientific knowledge in those importing countries such as laboratories to test the pesticides, and the general formulae of different types of pesticides. So we, the importing countries, we who have absolutely no such laboratories, we have no knowledge vdiether these pesticides are of the right formula - are they all right to use, are they safe to use?
There is a further problem indeed, which is to encourage some of the agents or some of the companies to use a concentrate and to smuggle those pesticides which have been banned. So there again, we do not knew whether the pesticides we are receiving have been smuggled, whether they are old, whether they are dangerous. This leads to numerous problems and especially in the background of ignorance as a whole. We are not very aware of the importance of preserving our water and our environment, the effects that may harm those, so there is a great necessity today to coordinate closely between the PIC and the International Code of Conduct, and we wDuld like to ask the Organization to give us the means and the modalities to get rid of all dangers and of pesticides, whether that be by bilateral cooperation or multilateral cooperation.
F. BATURE (Nigeria): Thank you Mr Chai men for giving my delegation the opportunity to make an intervention on this important subject. I wish to congratulate the Secretariat for producing this excellent document C 89/20.
My delegation wishes to express its appreciation to FAO for taking the initiative on this subject, and also to express our satisfaction with the action taken by the FAO Director-General on the issue of Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides, with particular reference to Prior Informed Consent. We wish also to acknowledge the contribution of the delegation of the Republic of the Philippines for introducing the resolution which has made it possible for our discussion this morning.
The issue of Prior Informed Consent in the international trade in pesticides is ciuciai, and my delegation would urge all delegations to treat it dispassionately to enable us to arrive at successful conclusions for the benefit of humanity.
In our opinion the issue is not contentious, and we should not allow the huge profits accruing from the pesticide trade to cloud objective decisions. The Report of research carried out on this subject in several developing countries by NGOs is instinctive. FAO and UNEP should also take the necessary steps to foster proper pest management by farmers in developing countries with a view to eliminating easy and cheap recourse to pesticide use which does incalculable harm to human health and the ecosystem.
Before I conclude, I should like to suggest an amendment be made to Step 4 on page 10 of document C 89/20, that in the second paragraph after the words "WHO Class 1A" in the seventh line the following words be added "and in addition they will keep the issue of acutely hazardous pesticide formulations under continuous review after completion of the initial task".
Roberto PONCE (Ecuador): La delegación ecuatoriana desea apoyar las modificaciones de los Artículos 2 y 9 que permitirían la incorporación del PICP en el Código. Somos conscientes de que esto no soluciona totalmente el problema del uso indiscriminado de plaguicidas pero será de grande ayuda para llegar a un uso más racional de los mismos.
Sin embargo, sobre este tópico mi delegación desea volver a llamar la atención a las dificultades que enfrentan los países en desarrollo para lograr una efectiva aplicación del Principio cuando éste entre en vigor, y a la necesidad que estos países tienen de recibir la asistencia de organismos internacionales como FAO y el PNUMA y de países industrializados píxxluctores y exportadores de plaguicidas, para conseguir este objetivo especialmente a través de la capacitación del personal que pueda evaluar las consecuencias del uso de estos plaguicidas en la salud humana y en el medio ambiente; y también pueda, en su memento, capacitar al agricultor y al campesino en el adecuado uso de estos productos.
Es por ello que nuestra delegación considera que la concreción de un Programa Conjunto FAO/PNUMA para la aplicación práctica del PICP es urgente y prioritaria.
Igualmente, la delegación ecuatoriana piensa que la aplicación del PICP no podrá ser eficaz si es que no se tiende a convertir el Código en un instrumento de carácter obligatorio, y si no se involucran en el Principio todos los productos nocivos, y no solamente aquéllos que constan en la lista elaborada por la Organización Mundial de la Salud.
En este mismo orden de ideas, la delegación ecuatoriana desea apoyar la propuesta de la delegación de Filipinas en lo relacionado con el cambio de las directrices, a fin de evitar que eventualmente ciertos productos prohibidos puedan escapar al ámbito de aplicación del PICP.
Finalmente, la delegación ecuatoriana espera que esta Conferencia pueda alcanzar el acuerdo necesario para aprobar la incorporación de la Cláusula de Información y Consentimiento Previos en el Código de Conducta, que muchas delegaciones ya han señalado es producto de un largo y paciente proceso de negociación que puede llegar a su culminación en este momento.
S. Gblorzuo TOWEH (Liberia): My Government supports the Prior Informed Consent clause to be incorporated into the Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides. We should like to thank the FAO and UNEP for this very significant contribution to the safety of our environment. As was observed, the merging of food production and the environment cannot be over-emphasized.
As was mentioned in my country's statement, it would seem that developing countries, particularly in Africa, have been targeted as dunping sites for dangerous chemicals. This move by FAO and UNEP is therefore timely, because this action will guide countries, especially importing countries which until now have not had pesticide registration and control institutions and which have to rely on the sincerity of exporting countries.
We are grateful to the United States Department of Agriculture which periodically provides us with such vital information. Like the delegation from the Democratic Republic of China and that from the Republic of Ghana, we should like to join those requesting that you go a small step further by assisting developing countries through technical assistance to set up their own institutions for the control and use of pesticides.
Abdullah M.K. BQOANG (Gambia) : We should like to thank the Secretariat for the excellent document and their introductory statement. We welcome the close cooperation between FAO and UNEP on the introduction of PIC, and we would support the adoption of the Code.
My delegation supports all the amendments proposed by the delegate of the Philippines which are designed to address a serious loophole in the system. Like Sudan and Nigeria, we do not believe that the work of the expert panel should be resticted to reviewing Class 1A products only. We therefore propose, on page 10 of C 89/20, Step 4, paragraph 2, line 7, the deletion of the letter "B". Such a minor amendment would merely remove an obstacle for the expert group and would bring its mandate closer to that of UNEP, which will review all acutely hazardous pesticides, not only those in WHO Class 1A.
Sra. Delia CHEVALIER VILLAMONTE (Panamá): Hemos pedido la palabra para unir nuestra voz a lo ya ampliamente expresado por los delegados que me han precedido en el uso de la misma, aprovechando la ocasión para reafirmar el apoyo y aceptación que concedemos al Principio de Información y Consentimiento previos, así como de su inclusión en el Código.
Con relación al documento en estudio, consideramos un deber hacer mención al rol fundamental que está llamada a desempeñar la FAO en la implantación de este Principio como norma reguladora en la distribución y utilización de los plaguicidas, y en la atención de la salvaguardia de la población y del medio ambiente.
Dentro de este marco de ideas, reafirmamos nuestro apoyo a lo señalado en el párrafo 67 relativo al asesoramiento a países miembros sobre la mejor forma de aplicar el Principio, así como el contenido del párrafo 72 sobre la capacitación de personal nacional; aspectos ambos que consideramos indispensables para que los países en desarrollo logremos alcanzar los niveles de conocimiento adecuados para establecer los procedimientos eficaces de registro y control de plaguicidas.
De igual manera, nos hacemos copartícipes en el agradecimiento a los donantes a que se hace mención en el párrafo 72, invitándoles a la vez a que continúen brindando su apoyo y asistencia en la programación de planes comunes para su aplicación.
Celebramos igualmente la colaboración existente entre la FAO y el PNUMA en la medida que los conocimientos técnicos de este último redundan en beneficio de un mejor y eficaz asesoramiento en la aplicación del Principio en cuestión; cooperación que debería igualmente involucrar los esfuerzos regionales que necesitan de la guía y apoyo internacionales.
Por último, y dada la importancia que reviste la aplicación de este instrumento en la salud, bienestar y desarrollo social de la humanidad, nos unimos a las sugerencias de varias delegaciones que nos han precedido en el uso de la palabra, en el sentido de que la Secretaría de la FAO realice un estudio sobre la posible conversión del Código cano un instrumento de cumplimiento obligatorio. Dicho estudio podría ser presentado a la consideración de la próxima Conferencia por intermedio del Comité de Agricultura y del Consejo.
Para terminar, apoyamos la propuesta del delegado de Filipinas que tiende a garantizar las escapatorias en este sentido.
José Ramón RAPADO BRRAZTI (España) : Nuestra delegación observa con agrado el contenido del documento C 89/20 que contempla el Código de Conducta para la Distribución y Utilización de Plaguicidas mediante la introducción del Principio de Información y Consentimiento Previos, el cual podríamos definir como la recta final para la aplicación del procedimiento del ICP después de las enmiendas del 95Q período de sesiones del Consejo de FAO y el Comité de Agricultura, 0083.
En ambas oportunidades, nuestra delegación defendió la conveniencia de modificar el artículo 981, reafirmándonos en las medidas de control para asegurar que se ajuste a definiciones formuladas de el artículo 2 del Código y preparar el documento de orientación pertinente.
Igualmente, creemos que la FAO deberá prestar asesoramiento a intervalos periódicos y los criterios para la inclusión de los plaguicidas en el procedimiento de información y consentimiento previo, informando a los Estados Miembros acerca de sus conclusiones. En esta línea de actuación, nuestro país ofrece su colaboración y asistencia técnica a nivel de expertos que presten este asesoramiento in situ a aquellos países que lo soliciten a la FAO.
Por todo ello, nuestra delegación apoya el principio de aplicación del Código de Conducta y el PICP.
Ernesto Pablo DE LA GUARDIA (Argentina): Mi Gobierno apoya las enmiendas propuestas a los artículos 2 y 9 del Código Internacional de Conducta para la Distribución y Utilización de Plaguicidas, así como las directrices para la aplicación del principio de Información y Consentimiento Previos. Aunque sabemos que el PICP puede llegar a significar la pérdida de la posibilidad de exportación de varios productos que se encuentran en el mercado, para nuestro país es más importante la protección de la salud y el medio ambiente, por lo que la Argentina continuará adherida al Código de Conducta y trabajará activamente en el Principio de Información y Consentimiento Previos.
Con respecto a la planilla de plaguicidas prohibidos o severamente limitados, que figura como Anexo de las Directrices, se considera oportuna la inclusión de dos nuevos datos, con información sobre la importación, por un lado, y sobre la posible fabricación y su exportación en el país que los prohibe, por el otro. Por separado, se hará llegar a esa Secretaría la planilla corregida que se propone. Parar terminar, queremos reafirmar nuestro apoyo a la acción conjunta de la FAO y del PNUMA en la formulación de las normas sobre la información y el consentimiento previos en la utilización de plaguicidas.
Nos reservamos el derecho a intervenir muevamente, cuando se conozca el texto del proyecto de resolución que se proponga sobre este tema.
D.A. BUCKLE (United Kingdom): The United Kingdom supports the proposals in C 89/20. We strongly endorse cooperation between FAO and UNEP to achieve compatible procedures.
Some delegations have suggested that if a country bans the use of a pesticide within its boundaries it should also ban the manufacture and/or export of that pesticide. I understand why this has been said, but I do not believe it is necessarily an appropriate attitude to adopt, for several possible reasons.
First, a country may han use because it has virtually no problems with the target pests and any minor health or envirommental hazards outweigh the benefits. In another country where the pest is serious the balance ray be grossly in favour of benefits against minor hazards. Secondly, it is quite possible that some chemicals will be of much less serious a hazard in one climate, say hot and dry, as against another, say cold and wet, and different degradability and polluting factors may influence decisions to ban or to use. Thirdly, there nay also be economic considerations which tilt the balance of judgement towards a ban in one coutry but not another.
We share the views expressed by some delegations that we should not pursue amendments today that might delay interpretation of the PIC procedure agreed at COAG and the Council. Of course, we realize that this would not prevent subsequent further consideration, and we urge all delegations to bear this in mind.
Alberto MURILLO (Venezuela) : Nuestra Delegación apoya lo reseñado en el extracto del informe del 95o período de sesiones del Consejo. De igual manera, las enmiendas a los artículos 2 y 9 del Código de Conducta sobre la Distribución y utilización de Plaguicidas y las directrices para la aplicación del Principio de Información y Consentimiento Previos.
Apoyamos lo dicho por el delegado de Filipinas en relación con la enmienda al trámite 4, página 10 del documento C 89/20.
Asimismo, apoyamos lo dicho por las distinguidas delegaciones de Colombia y Cuba, entre otras, acerca del estudio de la posibilidad de conversión del Código de Conducta en un instrumento jurídico de aplicación obligatoria.
Ms E. D. OLET (Uganda): The Ugandan delegation would like to congratulate the FAO Secretariat on the preparation of this document C 89/20, which is presented to this Commission. This was a result of a decision made at the last Conference in 1987, which proposed that the Code should be amended. The Prior Informed Consent Porcedures and the Guidelines presented in the document are clear and precise. Therefore, my delegation approves the amendment of Articles 2 and 9 of the Extract Report. Furthermore, in the Extract emphasis has been placed on the close cooperation of FAO and UNEP in pesticide integration and management. We are pleased to note that FAO in its Regular Programme of 1988/89 has concentrated on the situation where there was a clear mis- or over-use of pesticides. The major activity has been on the South East Asian programme. The result of this is that there has been a changing attitude in the use of pesticides since over 200 000 farmers were trained. In Uganda the use of pesticides remains a worrying factor. Recently FAO and UNDP have discontinued the use of dieldrin to cambat tsetse flies when it was discovered that the chemical would eventually seep into the rivers and, theefore, make the water toxic to animal life. We fully appreciate this action by FAO and UNDP, and hope that other organizations and countries will follow the example, by discouraging the use of dangerous chemicals, especially in developing countries.
R.C.A. JAIN (India): India is a party to the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides adopted by the Twenty-third Session of the FAO Conference in 1985. We feel that the inclusion of the Prior Informed Consent clause in the Code will greatly increase its effectiveness. The provision of expressed consent of the importing countries after being informed of the existence of the ban or severe restrictions applying to the pesticide in question, together with information on the hazards, will substantially increase the safe use of pesticides in the world.
We were initially of the view that no pesticide banned or severely restricted in its country of origin might be exported, except under the PIC procedure.
We were also of the view that all extremely hazardous and highly hazardous pesticides should be included in classifications 1 (a) and 1 (b) of WHO and must fall within the ambit of PIC. However, we want along with the consensus on these two issues concerning the threshhold for triggering the PIC clause and the alert list. We hope that the FAO Expert Panel mentioned in the Guidelines will consider the problem of these acutely hazardous pesticide formulations, and include them in the trigger list for application of PIC procedures in the future.
The current definition of "severly restricted pesticides" applies only to use restrictions and not to restriced uses. We would have liked to see both the criteria included in the definition. This is necessary, as in the developing countries the hazards due to toxicity are significant due to lack of training, protective equipment and the lower awareness to the hazards of pesticide use. However, for the present we would leave these issues to be addressed by the FAO Secretariat and to put up proposals in this regard, whilst reporting progress on the implementation of PIC and the Code.
India has agreed to the operation of the PIC clause under the auspices of FAO. We have agreed that FAO shall be the clearing house for the information relating to pesticides banned or severely restricted for use, and getting the consent of the intending importing countries for the import.
We commend and encourage cooperation between FAO and the UNEP in the field of the principle of PIC and its inclusion in their London Guidelines for Exchange of Information on Chemicals in International Trade. We are of the view that such cooperation in the implementation of the PIC procedure would lead to a better and safer environment. For the sake of a better environment and human safety, it is incumbent on the developed countries as exporting countries to ensure that exports do not occur contrary to the decision of the importing country. As developed industrialized countries are better equipped to take the relevant export control actions, they should ensure compliance to the PIC procedure. Developing countries should also endeavour in due course to ensure that exports do not occur contrary to the decision of the participating importing countries.
In conclusion, I should like to say that India supports the inclusion of the PIC procedure in the Code. The consequential proposed amendments to Articles 2 and 9 of the Code, as recommended by the Ninety-fifth Session of the Council, may be approved by the Conference to give effect to its earlier decision taken at the Iwenty-fourth Session.
Mahaman Sanousi TIDJANI ALOU (Niger) : Beaucoup de choses ont déjà été dites sur le CIP. La délégation du Niger tient aussi à faire savoir qu'elle tient à faire quelques commentaires: compte tenu des ennemis des cultures de tout genre qui assaillent notre agriculture, le Nir ne peut qu'apporter beaucoup d'intérêt à cet important point de notre ordre du jour. L'introduction du CIP est donc un bon pas vers la prise en comapte des risques réels que nous avons toujours déplorés et que constitue l'utilisation de certains pesticides. Mais une chose est de reconnaître le bien-fondé d'une innovation et une autre est de pouvoir bien garantir son efficacité. Force nous est de reconnaître que nous n'avons pas toujours les moyens d'assurer un bon contrôle des produits que nous utilisons. Aussi voudrions-nous attirer l'attention de la Commission sur la nécessité qu'il y a à rendre effectif le CIP en dotant les pays démunis d'infrastructures et de moyens humains conséquents. Dans ce sens nous voulons appuyer toutes les propositions faites par la délégation guinéenne.
CHAIRMAN: We conclude the debate. We have a request frati the delegation of Belgium that we include in our verbatim record some remarks that have been prepared.
E. DETRAUX (Belgique): Nous pouvons marquer notre accord sur les lignes de force de la proposition de révision des articles 2 et 9 du Code international de conduite pour la distribution et l'utilisation des pesticides. Nous formulons une réserve, toutefois, sur ce qui est de l'obligation des restrictions en matière de manipulation des pesticides, paragraphe 9.1.
En effet, les réglementations nationales en ce domaine nous paraissent divergentes et peu susceptibles d'être appliquées telles quelles dans certains pays tiers dans lesquels les conditions de stockage ou la formation de la main-d'oeuvre ne sont pas comparables.
Il ne paraît guère possible de notifier systématiquement toutes ces restrictions qui, par exemple, touchent actuellement un tiers des produits phytopharmaceutiques agréés dans mon pays.
Il serait, par contre, peut-être utile que la FAO, sur la base de l'avis d'experts (cf. étape 4 dans les directives) publie une liste des pesticides qui, tout en restant acceptables, présentent un danger important lors de manipulations. L'étiquetage devrait être suffisamment complet pour pouvoir fournir cette information aux distributeurs et aux utilisateurs.
La formulation du texte à propos de l'intitulé "Signification du défaut de réponse", page 11 du document C 89/20, n'est pas acceptable. Nous proposons a contrario que l'absence de réponse du pays importateur soit considérée comme un consentement tacite à l'importation. 1 /
Gérard KIELY (EEC) : In the European Community the export of dangerous substances is governed by regulation which came into force in June 1989. Under this regulation a notification procedure was introduced for the export of dangerous substances whereby the importing country was informed of the regulatory restrictions in the Community and the reasons for them. The dangerous substances covered are listed in the regulation and are those which are banned or severely restricted in the Community. More than half of the substances are pesticides, the others are industrial chemicals such as polychlorinated biphenyls and asbestos.
The Community also decided to examine the question of Prior Informed Consent in greater detail, and, in the light of developments in the relevant international bodies, to amend the Community regulation if necessary.
In the meantime, considerable progress has been made on this subject at international level. At its meeting in May 1989 the Governing Council of UNEP amended the London Guidelines for the Exchange of Information on Chemicals in International Trade by introducing the principle of Prior Informed Consent into these Guidelines.
The Community is at present studying the possibility of introducing Prior Informed Consent into the Community regulation, and we appeal to this meeting that the Prior Informed Consent procedure also be introduced into the FAO Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides. In our view, this would be a major step towards the better protection of the population and the environment in developing countries.
The meeting rose at 12.45 hours
La séance est levée à 12 h 45
Se levanta la sesión a las 12.45 horas
______________________
1 Texte reçu avec demande d'insertion au procès-verbal.
