EL PRESIDENTE: Pasemos ahora a los informes sobre los progresos realizados en las negociaciones relativas a un instrumento internacional jurídicamente vinculante para la aplicación del procedimiento de Consentimiento Fundamentado Previo, a ciertos productos químicos y plaguicidas peligrosos, objeto de comercio internacional. Los documentos que tienen ustedes son el CL 111/6 el CL 111/6 Sup. 1. El procedimiento de información y consentimiento previo sobre productos químicos prohibidos y rigurosamente restringido, es un programa conjunto entre en PNUMA y la FAO y actualmente el procedimiento es voluntario. El programa conjunto fue establecido por la Conferencia de la FAO y el Consejo de Administración del PNUMA en 1989. La FAO se ocupa principalmente de los plaguicidas en este programa.
M. S. ZEHNI (Director, Plant Production and Protection Division): As you indicated, Mr Chairman, in considering this Agenda Item, the Council has before it two documents: CL 111/6 which reports on the early stages of the negotiations, and a supplement was added to report in the meeting which took place in Nairobi, from 16–20 September this year. The supplement, obviously, was prepared after 20 September, so it could not have been advanced. I am sure all of you have got copies of this document which was made available to you here, in all languages.
Mr Chairman, you referred briefly to the background on the negotiations and the discussion and relations between UNEP and FAO. In this regard, I need not add to that, except to say that FAO and UNEP operate since 1989, the voluntary Prior Informed Consent Procedure for certain hazardous chemicals, including pesticides, in international trade. In this procedure, FAO chiefly addresses pesticides, while UNEP deals mostly with other chemicals.
In relation to pesticides, the procedure provides information on pesticides that are banned or severely restricted for human health or environmental reasons and on pesticide formulations that cannot be handled safely in developing countries. This procedure allows countries to make their informed decisions whether they wish to receive such compounds in future, while exporting countries should take measures, within their authority, to ensure that pesticides are not exported against the decisions of importing countries. Currently, 145 countries participate in the PIC. Twelve pesticides are included in the procedure, six will enter the procedure soon, and a further five are under consideration.
Turning now to the documents, Mr Chairman, they report on the progress in the negotiation to transform the voluntary procedures into a legally binding one. The first document traces the process in FAO and UNEP leading to the negotiations, including the recommendation by UNCED and the Commission on Sustainable Development and the decision by the 107th FAO Council and the 19th UNEP Governing Council. It also reviews the progress made during the first Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee held in Brussels, in March 1996. The Supplement Document reports on the progress made during the second session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee held in Nairobi, last month, as I referred earlier.
The document also refers to parallel or other ongoing international discussions in the field of pesticides and chemicals' management. Two in particular are worth mentioning:
1. The international banning or severe restriction of Persistent Organic Pollutants, the so-called POPS. Most are chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides that are persistent and accumulate in the environment. The compounds presently considered are of little importance to agriculture any more. Criteria for the inclusin of future compounds will be more important to agriculture.
2. The second area of negotiation is the further measures to reduce the risk from a limited group of hazardous chemicals.
In this regard, it is likely that the UNEP Governing Council will establish an Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for POPS while discussions on further measures will continue. So we have two parallel activities.
Mr Chairman, although progress in the negotiations for the PIC procedure has been substantial, the second meeting has shown that the process cannot be concluded in three sessions of the International Negotiating Committee as was originally foreseen and planned. A number of delegations wished to have additional meetings as quickly as possible, with one additional meeting before the UNEP Governing Council, which will be held at the end of January 1997. Others believed that this was unrealistic. It should also be noted that additional meetings will also require further financing over and above the reimbursement of the UNEP environmental fünd for the costs of the second International Negotiating Committee.
At this point, Mr Chairman, I would like to report that the collaboration between FAO and UNEP Secretariats, at all the various stages of this process, has been exemplary and I would like to take this opportunity to express our sincere appreciation.
As the negotiations proceeded, there emerged a number of views amongst governments relating to the scope and the coverage of the Convention. Some countries wish to modify the mandate for and
scope of the current negotiating, mandating the negotiation of a more comprehensive framework Convention embracing the PIC as well as others suchi as POPS, which I referred to earlier. In considering the merits of such broadening of the scope of the present negotiations, the Council may wish to take into account, on the one hand, the fact that all these matters are closely related, which may argue in favour of a more comprehensive agreement. On the other hand, the Council may wish to note that such a widening of the scope of the negotiations may well lead to considerable delays in concluding the negotiations, as well as the possible irnplications for the present arrangements for a joint FAO/UNEP Secretariat, in the negotiation process and indeed for the PIC procedure itself. In this context, it should be taken into account that the view of Ministries of Agriculture on pesticide availability and use is important, which may call for a continuing major role for FAO in this process.
I should conclude here by saying that we are looking forward to the views and guidance of the Council and remain at your disposal for any clarification or further information.
Nasreddine RIMOUCHE (Algérie): Permettez-moi d'abord de remercier et féliciter le Secrétariat pour la préparation du document, notamment en ce qui concerne l'actualisation du document CL 111/6 à la lumière des résultats de la réunion de Nairobi. Je remercie particuliérement M. Zehni pour son exposé introductif sur le document et les explications fournies au sujet des questions qui y sont traitées. L'examen du rapport sur l'état d'avancement des négociations relatives à l'élaboration d'un instrument juridiquement contraignant, propre à assurer l'application de la procédure de l'information et du consentement préalables, dans le cas de certaines substances chimiques et de certains pesticides dangereux qui font l'objet d'un commerce international, me donne l'occasion de faire quelques commentaires et remarques qui découlent tout naturellement de l'importance particulire qu'attache mon pays á cette question.
Je reléverai de prime abord et avec regrets les difficultés qui persistent pour parvenir á un texte définitif, notamment pour ce qui est des divergences sur les questions de la procédure de notification des exportations de pesticides et d'autres produits chimiques interdits á l'intérieur des frontires et également pour ce qui est de l'assistance technique. Quelques mois seulement nous séparent de la tenue de la Conférence diplomatique en vue de Padoption et de la signature d'une Convention ICP. C'est diré qu'aucun effort ne devrait tre épargné pour activer et accélérer le processus de négociations afín d'en garantir l'indispensable succés. II est non seulement vital de notifier les exportations de pesticides et d'autres produits chimiques interdits á l'intérieur des frontiéres, mais il est également nécessaire d'adopter des lois visant á interdire leur exportation. S'il est vrai que les pays en développement n'ont pas suffísamment de moyens pour évaluer les risques inhérents á l'utilisation de nombreux produits chimiques, il est cependant nécessaire de prévoir une formation et une assistance technique et financiére pour ees pays, notamment en ce qui concerne l'évaluation des risques et la détermination des produits chimiques de remplacement soumis á la procédure ICP et de les aider á développer leur infrastructure qui leur permette d'assurer la gestión de ees produits. A notre avis, la création d'un fonds pour financer l'assistance technique devrait reteñir l'attention particuliére de la FAO et du Programme des Nations Unies pour l'environnement.
M. le Président, s'agissant du lien á établir entre les négociations ICP et d'autres débats et négociations, notamment en ce qui concerne un mécanisme international intégré par importance sur la gestión des substances chimiques dangereuses, nous estimons qu'une réflexion sérieuse et un examen exhaustif de cette question sont nécessaires. Ma délégation tient, á cette occasion, á réaffirmer son attachement á l'intégrité du mandat de la FAO et considere que sa participation á des négociations autres que celles relatives á l'information et au consentement préalables, notamment pour ce qui est des polluants organiques persistants, traduit l'importance du role qu'elle peut jouer pour faciliter les échanges d'informations entre les pays eux-mémes ou entre les pays et les organisations internationales concernés, sachant que les pays importateurs de produits chimiques et de pesticides ont toujours besoin d'informations et d'une assistance supplémentaire. Enñn, pour
nous, pays en développement, la FAO revêt aujourd'hui une importance toute particulière. La portée de son mandat, sa composition universelle font de cette institution un cadre privilégié pour sa participation à d'autres négociations, ainsi que pour jouer un rôle important dans un fütur secrétariat qui s'efforcera dans des occasions idoines de conforter les acquis enregistrés, ce qui nous amène á appuyer les initiatives susceptibles d'accroitre les capacités opérationnelles de la FAO, d'en renforcer l'efficacité et de lui permettre de s'acquitter au mieux de son mandat. Je crois, M. le Président, que j'ai donné mon point de vue sur les quatre points figurant dans la conclusion et en même temps soumis la décision et à l'avis du Conseil.
Henry WOOD (Ghana): My delegation is grateful to Dr Zehni and the FAO Secretariat for the lucid report on the progress of the INC/PIC negotiations.
Ghana participated in the Second Session of the INC/PIC, held in Nairobi from 16 to 20 September 1996. Let me first mention that FAO, UNEP and the Government of Kenya deserve to be commended for convening a very successful conference. The Nairobi Conference had a lot of contentious issues to deal with. Notwithstanding rigid positions taken by the various delegations, due to the sensitive nature of the issues at stake, the negotiation to develop a legally-binding instrument on the operation of the PIC procedure was held in a spirit of give and take, understanding, appreciation and sensitivity to the views and consensus of all countries that participated.
For Ghana and the developing world, we have a vested interest in the outcome of the negotiations because of our desire to ensure the sustainability of our environment for agriculture and socio- economic development. A legally-binding instrument on the PIC procedure will enable the developing countries to determine which chemicals and pesticides they can safely accept in their territories for agriculture and other purposes. What we will require most is technical assistance and cooperation from the developed countries and relevant international organizations to develop national capacities in order to give real meaning to the Convention. From our assessment of the Nairobi meeting, and as Dr Zehni rightly reported, two more sessions would be required to finalize a legally-binding instrument for adoption and signature. We are not unmindfiil of the fmancial difficulties involved in organizing these sessions, but the benefíts to be derived from the conclusion and adoption of such an instrument are enormous. Ghana will therefore urge FAO and UNEP not to lose sight of the momentum gained at Nairobi and to convene, at the earliest opportunity, the third INC to proceed with negotiations which will ultimately lead to the achievement of the mandate issued by the UNEP Governing Council and the FAO Conference.
Ghana wishes to commend FAO and UNEP for the exemplary collaboration and the efforts to bring into fruition a legally-binding instrument for certain hazardous chemicals and pesticides.
Much as we support the view that states should not employ measures that will limit the free flow of international trade, we are of the conviction that trade in chemicals and pesticides should be conducted by all states in the manner that would not endanger health, environment and, above all, food security of nations, particularly the developing countries. It is for this reason that Ghana enjoins members of the international community, particularly Member States of the FAO, to particípate actively in the third INC and to adopt and to sign the instrument for the application of the PIC procedure, when it is finally concluded, hopefully in early 1997.
N. SHIBANI (Syria) (Original language Arabic): I would like to thank the Secretariat for the excellent presentation just made, and also we thank the Secretariat for efforts made in order to achieve an international legally-binding instrument for the utilization of certain hazardous chemicals and pesticides. We would also like to praise FAO and UNEP for their exemplary cooperation.
Very briefly, we shall highlight some issues.
My Delegation calls for continuous efforts in order to adopt an international legally-binding instrument in this field. We would like also to say that extra efforts are required, especially in connection with some problems that are still outstanding, namely, information related to exports of products which are locally banned -- Export Notification Scheme, if you like -- and other matters. Now this is a very sensitive issue; it is multifaceted and multifarious, international in character and therefore solutions are needed. We would like to chose the solution which aims at establishing a general framework for the treaty and the addition of complementary protocols later on, and this within a very clearly set timetable, starting with the most important and most sensitive issues.
Finally, we can only thank organizations and governments which are financially and logistically supporting INC sessions. I mention here FAO, UNEP, the European Union, the Government of Switzerland.
Luis DELGADO SANCHO (EEC): The European Community and its Member States consider that a constructive step has been made at the second session of the Intergovernmental Negotiation Committee for a Legally-binding Instrument for the PIC Procedure.
Now that the text of the future Instrument has been discussed in detail, participating countries now have a clear picture of the reciprocal point of view and concerns, which is the necessary step to achieve further progress. Notwithstanding, much work still remains to be done in order to make the various positions converge.
In this regard, the European Community and its Member States reconfirm its position recently expressed in Nairobi, in particular, with regard to the Export Notification Scheme. Whilst standing firm in the objective of including the Export Notification in the Convention, the European Community and its Member States are willing to consider some flexibility in the content of such a scheme, in order to take into account the concern expressed by some delegations.
Concerning the scope of the Convention, the European Community and its Member States deem appropriate at this stage to draft the relevant provisions of the Instrument in a way that can accommodate possible future developments, should the relevant international organizations decide to extend the scope of the present Convention.
In the meantime, the Intergovernmental Negotiation Committee (INC) should continue focusing its attention on the elaboration of practical and operational procedures to implement the PIC procedure.
With regard to the time of the next session of the INC, if, on the one hand, we share the point of view of finalizing the PIC Instrument as soon as possible, on the other hand, we deem it appropriate to spend the necessary time to elaborate a text which may be acceptable to most delegations. Therefore, we consider it untimely to hold the next session in December, as proposed in Nairobi.
Pereira A. SILIMA (Tanzania): My Delegation wishes to thank the FAO Secretariat for the preparation of this very important document regarding the distribution and use of chemicals and pesticides that are banned and restricted. This proposed agenda, when adopted, will be of crucial importance in the preservation of the environment, humankind and the microfauna.
My Delegation concurs with the views of the various for a which have been held by FAO and UNEP, and even others -- as paragraph 3 of this agenda -- for the initiation of an effective, legally-binding Instrument concerning the PIC Procedure.
The distribution and use of hazardous and persistent organic pollutants pose a more serious threat to developing countries, where they easily find their way, due to the inadequate capacity for their safe use and management. These chemicals are normally dumped without having been effectively used, after expiry, causing increased risks to consumers, as the technology for their destruction is non-
existent. It is for these apparent reasons that my Delegation would like the efforts being exerted by the international community to be accelerated in order to develop the proposed legally-binding Instrument.
The efforts of FAO and UNEP in the execution of the voluntary Prior Informed Consent procedure need no emphasis in the provision and exchange of information on chemicals in international trade. The mandate now vested in UNEP to conduct negotiations in pursuit of the development of a legally-binding instrument is crucial and timely for controlling the trade of products. Sources of funding for these important legal aspects should be provided by all concerned agencies, for their effective implementation. It is the opinion of my Delegation that the UNEP Governing Council will decide on the development of the legally-binding document by January 1997.
My country is benefitting from the use of the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides, as provided by FAO. Its application, as in many developing countries, has been limited by several factors, which are physical, human and financial resources. New chemicals are tested before registration. With the introduction of a legally-binding Instrument, restricted or banned chemicals and pesticides will not find entry into the country. While this procedure is still in the pipeline, my country has developed comprehensive plant protection legislation which, in alia, will strengthen chemical and pesticide testing, registration and inspection for their safe use. The harmonized system is intended to control the entry of undesirable chemicals which are not approved by the international community.
The international legally-binding Instrument will greatly enhance our national efforts. Apart from the above, activities involved in the diversification and limited use of chemicals and pesticides obviously include the use of Integrated Pest Management and biological control.
My Delegation holds the opinion that the role of FAO should remain limited to the issues related to the management of pesticides. However, FAO should be fully involved in the negotiations for an integrated international legal mechanism. The possible role of FAO in future Secretariats should be co-shared with UNEP while FAO chiefly will deal with pesticides.
Kamaruzzaman ALIAS (Malaysia): Malaysia supports the development of a legally-binding Instrument for the application of the PIC procedure through a Convention which would have control over imports of unwanted chemicals that have been banned or severely restricted in the country of origin in order to protect human health and the environment. Such a convention would promote shared responsibility between exporting and importing countries in applying the procedure.
While we support the objectives of the Convention, however, there are certain areas on which Malaysia wishes to express its reservations to the Council at this meeting for its consideration. We are not without some concern over the proposed inclusion of the concept of prohibitions and phase- outs of PIC-listed chemicals in the Convention. This, in our opinion, is beyond the scope of the legally-binding application of the PIC procedure anticipated by us. Malaysia notes, with concern, that at the expert meeting in Copenhagen in 1996 it was agreed that concerted global action to ban or phase out all uses or production should not be necessary to address the local problems of chemicals which are distributed internationally. In this regard, Malaysia is of the opinion that countries should be given the sovereign right to make decisions regarding a PIC-listed chemical within its own domestic boundaries and legislations. With regard to procedures and criteria for identification of chemicals that should be included in, or taken out, of the PIC procedure, Malaysia is concerned that such procedures may turn out to be so stringent as to make it difficult for a party or country to comply: that is, should they wish to nominate a chemical for inclusion in or withdrawal from the PIC list. This may be more so for developing countries with limited resources and expertise at their disposal which may thus find the procedures and conditions to be burdensome and impracticable.
Malaysia would not like to see the procedures simplified to such an extent that the scientific basis for inclusion or withdrawal of a chemical from the list becomes insignificant or doubtful. Such being the case, we recommend that the procedures should be well balanced, well defined and most importantly, workable.
In conclusion, while this Instrument should be compatible with the 1994 General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade and related World Trade Organization agreements such as the Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement and Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards, Malaysia feels that it should not be a hinderance to trade itself. We note that the PIC procedure is aimed at assisting developing countries to make decisions on acceptable levels of wastes from hazardous substances. It should not become a tool to impose actions which may be deemed unacceptable or unfair to such countries in the long run.
Ralph BRESLER (United States of America): The US supports an early conclusion to the PIC Agreement. However, in our view this should not corne at the expense of a good agreement. In this respect, it is now clear that the original goal of three sessions is unrealistic and, as other speakers have noted, additional sessions will be necessary.
We continue to believe that the only way we can get a quick conclusion to the PIC negotiations is to concentrate on making the voluntary procedure mandatory. That is to say, a clean PIC. Using the negotiations to achieve other objectives is likely to slow down the process considerably. It is also clear that the original objective of funding the PIC, exclusively through donor country contributions, is not an ideal way to manage a negotiation. While several countries have been generous in their support, the negotiations are currently 500, 000 dollars in debt and it will take additional monies to ensure that they are adequately financed. In this regard, we were pleased to note that Switzerland has offered to host another negotiating meeting and to make a generous contribution to the cost of holding that meeting. As some other delegations have already stated, we would agree with them that it would be good to go forward with this meeting sooner rather than later in order not to lose momentum in the negotiations.
As I said, we support an early conclusion to agreements on Prior Informed Consent for Trade and Hazardous Chemicals and on Persistent Organic Pollutants. We believe that the most effective way for these negotiations to reach an early conclusion is to keep them on separate tracks and to keep the discussions focused on the objectives of each agreement. We see the scope and purpose of these instruments as quite different. PIC involves information exchange on a broad range of hazardous chemicals. POPs involve risk-reduction for a sub-set of chemicals which, because of their innate characteristics, present global risks. Because both agreements cover some of the same chemicals, some believe that they should be put under one framework which could then serve as the instrument for future chemicals-related commitments. I believe that the European Union and Syria perhaps alluded to this possibility in their statements.
In our view, negotiating a framework would add a complex and time-consuming aspect to the current negotiations. The negotiations could slow down the entry into force of subsequent agreements on PIC and POPs if we were to try to negotiate a framework convention. PIC and POPs represent negotiations with focused, well-defined objectives. A framework Convention that is open-ended, and to which other commitments could be added at a later stage, or which mixes PIC and POPs together, could make it more difficult for some countries, including the United States, to ratify. The cost of a framework could therefore be lower participation by countries.
We also have concerns about continued participation of technical agencies, such as FAO, under a framework instrument. It has been our experience that the more legalistic a process the less informed it is by appropriate expertise and the more political the discussions tend to be.
We also have questions about whether there are specific POPs are the commitments in the fiiture which would logically fit into such a framework. So far PIC and only agreements for which there has been widespread consensus or any real articulation. This is a very complex and significant issue: it deserves a fiill discussion among all organizations which could be affected by any broadening of the mandate of the PIC negotiations. As you are aware the International Forum on Chemical Safety will be meeting in February and provides an opportunity to engage the right parties in a substantive discussion. This is precisely the sort of issue that the Forum was created to discuss and we hope that it will be discussed at this time.
Meanwhile, the United States is opposed to any change in the PIC negotiations -- negotiating mandate -- which was set out in UNEP Decision GC18/12 paragraph 2.
Ronald ROSE (Canada): canada would like to congratulate both the FAO and UNEP Secretariais for the excellent work and progress that they have made in the development of the PIC Instrument. The recently held meeting in Nairobi, Kenya, was well attended and made significant progress in the development of the technically complex PIC Instrument.
Secondly, we would like to thank the Swiss delegation for its generous offer to hold an INC meeting in Geneva prior to the next UNEP Governing Council meeting in January 1997.
In our view, the additional meetings are key to fulfilling the FAO and UNEP mandate to finalize the PIC instrument in 1997.
Finally, we would also note our appreciation of the offers from the European Commission and the Government of The Netherlands; through their generosity, the current, narrowly-defined PIC mandate can be met. We recognize that these tentative offers depend on additional resources to meet the full cost of these meetings within the current PIC mandate. Cañada continúes to believe that the only way to get an early conclusión of a Prior Informed Consent Instrument is by focusing on turning the current voluntary agreement into a legally-binding Instrument.
The reasons for maintaining the current mandate are:
One, funding. Funding is an unresolved issue affecting the narro wly- defined PIC mandate. We wonder how the negotiating sessions of the more complex instrument, such as an integrated legal framework or legal instrument convention, would be financed.
Two, any change of the PIC mandate would lose progress made and may delay fulfilling the objective of a legally-defined PIC Instrument.
Three, any decision to change the Prior Informed Consent mandate could also place the Persistent Organic Pollutants, or POPs, negotiations at risk. The POP negotiations for Canada are extremely important and we are concerned that they proceed on a separate track as quickly as possible. Therefore, Cañada does not support changing the current PIC mandate and does not support the establishment of a broader framework agreement at this time.
Canada would like to remind Council delegates of FAO's fundamental role in the management of pesticides. The success of the FAO action, developing in consultation with appropriate UN agencies and other organizations, the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides has set the bench-mark for other groups to follow. Through this mechanism FAO established the basis for the sound management of pesticides throughout the international community, inspiring confidence in the availability, regulation, marketing and use of pesticides for the improvement of agriculture and public health. To date no guidance has been given as to what form the integrated legal mechanism may take. Cañada sees the FAO Code of Conduct as a model for such a mechanism for industrial chemicals to be developed under UNEP. In our view, FAO
should increase its profile and provide leadership to UNEP on this matter, taking into account the fact that FAO action and experience, chiefly with pesticides, has demonstrated a practicable basis for developing an integrated sound management mechanism. Also, members should be aware that the Executive Director of UNEP is seeking the views of Governments on the need for a framework Convention and its possible advantages on chemicals. To that end, we would like draw your attention to the Canadian discussion paper, which has been distributed to Members of the Council, which looks at the potential of this mechanisms and possible alternate frameworks.
In our view, recent initiatives, such as the International Forum on Chemical Safety, will help to ensure greater coordination and cooperation among international organizations and countries, respectively, on issues to related to the sound management of chemicals. These initiatives provide opportunities for information exchange on chemicals management activities and for sharing experiences. The experience of implementing the Code of Conduct on Pesticides shows that much can be accomplished on a voluntary basis. Once experiences is gained with such a voluntary Code of Practice, certain aspects may lend themselves to fiirther action, for example, Prior Informed Consent and activities on classification and labelling. On the basis of the London Guidelines for the Exchange of Information on Chemical in International Trade, which apply to all chemicals, including pesticides, UNEP has been involved in discussions on the need for an international instrument for Persistent Organic Pollutants. We see that the FAO has a key role to play in any Persistent Organic Pollutants negotiations as well as any subsequent Secretariat responsibilities, taking into account the fact that 75 per cent of the Persistent Organic Pollutant candidates under consideration currently, and most of those likely to be, whic onsidered in the future, are pesticides are particularly important for agricultural development in developing countries. Currently, the FAO has well-established networks in place that empower developing countries to better manage their use of pesticides for agricultural purposes and for vector disease control in tropical climates.
We believe that FAO should continué to be the leading authority among the intergovernmental organizations for the sound management of pesticides. The results of the recent survey on the implementation of the Code of Conduct on pesticides should form the basis of a programme to update the Code and its supporting technical guidelines to reflect current pest management practices, health and environmental concerns. We see the Code as a dynamic mechanism that evolves with the changing needs of FAO Member Countries and as experience is gained in its implementation.
Andrew Keith PEARSON (Australia): Australia has given consideration to the proposal raised at the Copenhagen meeting of Government Designated Experts for the development of an integrated mechanism, or framework convention, on international management of hazardous chemicals. We also note, that the Executive Director of UNEP and the President of the Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety, are seeking the views of Member Governments on the proposal.
Australia notes that chapter 19, of Agenda 21, has already set out a broad approach to work, to be undertaken internationally, to ensure the sound management of hazardous chemicals and that the advanced work is already under way, on implementation of the prior informed consent procedure and on persistent organic pollutants, POPS.
Two negotiating sessions have already been held on the PIC procedure and while Australia believes that substantial progress has been made, we consider additional sessions will be necessary to conclude the instrument. Unfortunately, the original time-table in which the convention was to have been finalized, at one more session in early 1997, is now unrealistic. Australia, is very appreciative, of the offer by Switzerland to host a further negotiating session in Geneva, in December 1996.
Australia is not convinced that a framework convention or integrated mechanism is needed, in order to carry out the tasks governments set themselves in Agenda 21. Integrated mechanism is likely to delay progress on the treaty on PIC procedure, currently being negotiated and also on a treaty on
POPS, should the negotiation of a such a treaty be endorsed at UNEP Governing Council in January 1997.
So, we would certainly agree, with the wishes of many countries that have been expressed this morning on the need to maintain momentum on two separate negotiating procedures, one for PICS and one for POPS. Australia, is also concerned, that it would not be appropriate to use the draft treaty on PIC procedure, as the basis for a framework convention, especially as PIC procedure and the management of POPS, although related to some degree, deal with different problems of chemical management.
Australia also recognizes that there are limited resources, internationally, to implement the goals of Agenda 21, including those dealing with a sound management of chemicals. We would not wish the development of a framework convention to place an additional demand on these resources, including those that may be used to build the capacity of countries, effectively, to manage chemicals.
Australia has noted the paper circulated by Canada and the range of options it identified for ensuring greater coordination in the area of chemical management. I would also like to draw the attention of Council Members to the paper which has been prepared and distributed by Australia, which outlines our thinking on these issues.
K. SHIMIZU (Japan): I wish to say a few words, mainly on the future framework about the comprehensive safety management of international trade of certain hazardous chemicals and pesticides beyond PIC.
My Delegation, is of the view that it is most appropriate to make full use of the existing mechanisms, those still under consideration at home. Therefore, my Delegation believes that IFCS, as such, is most suitable in this regard.
It is very important to study, carefully, pro and cons of the various proposals as suggested already by Canada. It is still premature to draw any conclusion, at this stage, on the future framework.
My Delegation is also cautious about the extended scope of the Intergovernmental Negotiating forum in terms of its feasibility, including the timeliness, practicability, resources as such.
Srta. María Cristina FERRARI (Argentina): La intervención de Argentina también va a ser muy breve y agradece al señor Zehni la presentación clara que hizo relativa a los informes realizados en las negociaciones para un instrumento internacional, jurídicamente vinculante, para la aplicación del procedimiento fundamentado previo. La presentación del doctor Zehni dejó bien claro que dicho documento CL 111/6 y su suplemento, se refieren a determinar el ámbito y el alcance del Convenio y también sobre la posibilidad de aumentar el alcance del mismo que podría generar una demora en las negociaciones futuras.
Argentina entiende, con relación al párrafo 28 del documento CL 111/6 que no ha habido todavía avances significativos en las negociaciones y que en todos los trabajos futuros se tendrían que tener como base los realizados por el Grupo de Expertos que trabajó especialmente en recomendaciones para ese Comité Intergubernamental, tomando como base las directrices de Londres. En cuanto a la participación de la FAO en las negociaciones entendemos que ello dependerá de los mandatos pertinentes que la FAO haya recibido del Foro de Estocolmo pero, sin embargo, como lo señaló el delegado de Tanzania, creemos que la participación de la FAO en las negociaciones que se desarrollan, se deberían ajustar al tema de los plaguicidas. Ella, por otra parte, como se dijo anteriormente, deberá ajustarse a sus mandatos pertinentes.
Sobre la posible función de la FAO como Secretaría del Convenio sobre la aplicación de ICP, también debería ser resuelta por el Comité Intergubernamental que está negociando el texto del
Convenio. Sin embargo queremos alentar para que continúen las negociaciones que tienen lugar en el seno deal comite intergubernmental que es el Foro con mandato para este tema, que las negociaciones no se dilaten y exhortar a los países en desarrollo a que tengan una activa participación en ese Comité y en la negociación del compromiso.
M. S. ZEHNI (Director, Plant Production and Protection Division): There were no specific questions for us to address so I will be very brief.
Let me first thank you for your supportive statements as for the preparations of the documents.
There were two matters which I would like to refer to here, that several Delegates--Algeria, Ghana, Syria, Tanzania, Malaysia, Argentina and others--referred to the importance of the technical assistance and the provision of assistance to countries to cope with related matters. This is a very important thing. We took a very good note of this.
This is in relation to another point, which was raised by several, as of the role of FAO in this negotiation. We note that there is full support for continuing and strengthening the role for FAO in this negotiation. Some refer to it as strengthening capacities, some refer to it as FAO playing a leadership role. We can assure you that the Secretariat is fully aware of the need for us to play the role, particularly as related to pesticides and to keep a watching brief on the other negotiations, although they do not relate directly to our mandate.
Mr Chairman, there was some discussion on the timing of the next negotiation. As the distinguished Delegates from Argentina noted that progress was not substantial and others, noted that there are more grounds to be covered. Of course, we share the appreciation of the Swiss Government and others who volunteered assistance in this regard. I guess, the message I get from the Council, that there should be a trade-off between early conclusion of the negotiation and having a good outcome. I guess that will cali for a careful consideration of the timing, particularly related to, of course, the funding, which everybody referred to, and the place of the next meeting.
The Secretariat, with other partners, will be looking into this. I can assure you that we would like to keep the momentum of the negotiation and we will do our best from our side, with our partners, to find ways and means to proceed with the negotiation as expeditiously and as effectively as possible. Of course, the Members expressed views on the scope and that is, I think, for the Council to pronounce.
EL PRESIDENTE: Podemos resumir brevemente nuestros trabajos de la siguiente manera. En primer lugar, el Consejo expresó plena satisfaccion por los progreos realizados en las negociaciones sobre el procedimientode Informacion y Consentimiento Previos; reconocio la necesidad de celebrar en varias reuniones de negociacion adicionales que lleven a buen termino las negociaciones; se tomo nota de los ofrecimientos que se habian hecho para financiar el proceso de negociacion; en particular, se agradecio al Gobierno de Suiza su disposicion para financiar una proxima reunion previa a la del Consejo de Administración del PNUMA.
Se pidio tambien a los paises que proporcionen fondos adicionales para facilitar las negociaciones, en particular a la luz del hecho de que el fondo para el medio ambiente del PNUMA había ya adelantado pagos y que existia una deuda considerable.
Se recomend óque la Secretaría del PNUMA/FAO celebrara debates con los países, con el fin de legar a un consenso sobre el calendario de negociaciones, teniendo en cuenta los problemas tanto de este calendario como del lugar.
Varias delegaciones apoyaron el establecimiento de un convenio en un marco más amplio mientras otras expresaron su deseo de limitar el ámbito de las negociaciones solamente al procedimiento de
información y consentimientos previos y yo considero, por tanto, que como no hubo consenso al respecto, continuaría el presente mandato. Evidentemente el Consejo tomó nota de que esto es también objeto de debate en el Consejo de Administración del PNUMA.
Al indicar la importancia de avanzar lo más rápido posible y de la manera más conveniente, varios delegados recomendaron realizar dos procesos por separado, uno para el ICP y otro para COPS. Se recomendó que la FAO participara en las negociaciones y debates sobre los contaminantes orgánicos persistentes y adoptar otras medidas para reducir los riesgos de algunos productos químicos, en particular en lo referente a los plaguicidas, pero cualquier otra participación de la FAO en este proceso obviamente deberá ser aprobada por el Consejo o la Conferencia.
Se pidió el reforzamiento de la FAO en estas materias, ofreciendo mayor asesoramiento técnico a los países, sobre todo, en sustancias no relacionadas con plaguicidas.
EL PRESIDENTE: Pasamos entonces al tema 10, que está dividido en dos. Primero el 10.1 que es el Programa Mundial de Alimentos, referente al informe de la Junta Ejecutiva al Consejo, al ECOSOC y al Consejo de la FAO sobre las actividades del CPA en 1995.
A. Namanga NGONGI (PMA): Aprovecho esta ocasión para felicitarlo señor Presidente por la labor que viene realizando en el contexto del Consejo. Le agradezco la oportunidad que me brinda de presentar el informe que la Junta Ejecutiva del PMA remite al ECOSOC y al Consejo de la FAO sobre las actividades del CPA en 1995.
A raíz de mi reciente visita a la región de América Latina que ha comprendido los países de Costa Rica, Honduras y una estancia de un mes en El Salvador, donde he desempeñado las funciones de Director Interino de la Oficina del PMA, he tenido ocasión de comprobar en primera persona, los beneficios y resultados de la aplicación de las políticas y estrategias a las que se hace referencia en el presente informe.
Lamentablemente en esa ocasión no pude visitar México, pero confío en poder hacerlo en el futuro.
Con su permiso, señor Presidente, ahora presentaré el informe en inglés.
Mr Chairman, the Executive Board of the World Food Programme requested the Secretariat, at its annual session in May 1996, to transmit this report on the Board's behalf to ECOSOC and the FAO Council for discussion and approval in accordance with its general regulations.
As you are aware, effective 1 January 1996, following the decisions of the UN General Assembly and the FAO Conference, the Committee on Food and Policies and Programmes, CFA, was transformed into the WFP Executive Board. Henee, this year, and only this year, the Executive Board finds itself in the unique position where it is required to submit to ECOSOC and to the FAO Council an annual report on the activities of its Executive body, the CFA.
This report, on the CFS activities in 1995, has been prepared with a view to providing a concise decision orientated document, with exception of the recommendations of the formal Working Group on the options for WFP resource policies and long-term financing which were endorsed by the CFA and have been reproduced in full, giving their particular importance to the programmes of financial management in the future. All other decisions and recommendations of the CFA, during the last year of its existence, are being provided in this document in summarized form.
To facilítate it, a review of the decisions taken by the CFA during the past year, these were grouped under fíve main headings; Policy, Governance, Operations, Finance and Resources. Some of the important decisions taken by the CFA in 1996 could be pointed out; this concerns the governance, as I have already said, transforming the CFA into Executive Board; the long-term resourcing and financing decisions which have become operational from 1 January 1996, which were based on the principie of full cost recovery; the strategic and financial plan which was the new format of the medium-term planning of four years, renewed every biennium under conciliated budget of 228 million US dollars, which was approved on the basis of expected level of operations with a flexibility built into the budget, which was also a new format; and the question of WFP representatives in recipient countries which was proposed to be changed from the automatic representation by the UNDP representative, to the senior WFP functionary, in the country.
ECOSOC has already taken note of this report at its session held on 10 July 1996.
I am sure that the Executive Board would want me to express appreciation to the donors for their strong support that enabled WFP to carry out operations that brought sustenance to some 50 million people, mostly women and children, in 95 countries, at a cost of some 1. 5 billion US dollars. The underlined conditions that determined the level of need throughout the world in 1995 have not changed dramatically. It is therefore hoped, that a strong donor support for WFP activities will continué through 1996 and 1997.
EL PRESIDENTE: Han ustedes escuchado, distinguidos delegados, las notas introductorias de parte del PMA sobre este informe. El Consejo está invitado a pronunciarse al respecto y a endosar el informe contenido en el documento CL 111/9.
Thomas Austin FORBORD (United States of America): The report of the World Food Programme is both concise and comprehensive. It deserves our appreciation. We also applaud the achievements noted in the report and strongly urge the World Food Programme to keep working towards greater efficiency and effectiveness.
Mr Chairman, the World Food Programme is a prime instrument through which the United States provides multi-lateral food aid to hungry populations around the world. The reform and revitalization of WFP are important to US interests. We welcome the progress which has been made and noted in this report, and the progress which continues to be made by the World Food Programme.
Juan NUIRY SANCHEZ (Cuba): En primer lugar quisiera expresar nuestra satisfacción respecto a la primera parte de la intervención del señor. Hemos visto que en su estadía en El Salvador ha perfeccionado su idioma español. Lo único que lamentamos es que no haya podido realizar una visita a Cuba. En definitiva, los países hermanos que nos han visitado nos hacen sentir igualmente
muy complacidos y, sinceramente, queremos destacar el gesto que, personalidades como el señor Ngongi, de un alto nivel en el PMA visiten nuestras regiones.
El informe del señor Ngongi es breve pero muy bueno. Ha expresado que el CPA se convirtió en Junta Ejecutiva. Nosotros podemos manifestar, por estar involucrados muy directamente, que el PMA es un organismo que se renueva, sin perder y sin olvidar el camino, tanto en la ayuda a la emergencia como al desarrollo. Eso mismo, el señor Ngongi, lo pudo comprobar en su estadía de más de treinta días en El Salvador, donde ha podido ver los problemas de cerca.
Sinceramente, estamos totalmente de acuerdo en el informe del señor Ngongi, lo felicitamos y, demás está decirle, que queremos que el PMA siga en este camino que se ha abierto de renovación, la cual estará más acorde con los tiempos en que vivimos.
John J. GAULE (Ireland): Chairman, I would very briefly like to welcome the report of the Executive Board of WFP.
In discussing the adjustment to the Programme of Work and Budget of FAO, last week, we stressed with other Delegations, the importance of FAO concentrating on areas where it has a comparative advantage. The same, of course, must apply to WFP.
In this regard we believe that WFP can play a uniquely significant role in linking disaster relief and development. We therefore, wish to particularly welcome, the continuous emphasis on this link which is evident in this document. I would highlight, in particular, the Committee's decision that development activities should be increasingly tailored to promote disaster prevention, preparedness, mitigation and reconstruction.
I would also like to take this opportunity to welcome the institutional of changes in WFP with establishment of the Executive Board. Changes which improved the efficiency of decision-making are to be welcomed and may also act as an example for other organizations.
Finally, I would like to say that Ireland has, in recent years, substantially increased its support for WFP. We hope to continue this partnership in the future.
Soetatwo HADIWIGENO (Indonesia): On behalf of the Indonesian Delegation, first of all, I would like to appreciate and welcome the introduction made by the Deputy Executive Director of the WFP on the document before us. I observe that the report of the Executive Board to ECOSOC and the FAO concern on the activities of the CFA in 1995, was A very comprehensive one. My Delegation is in agreement with the report. Mr Chairman, my Delegation would like to see things continue in the same way in the future.
Finally Mr Chairman, my delegation would like to approve the report.
Víctor A. ZUEZDIN (Observer for the Russian Federation): I think that the presentation by Mr Ngongi and the report itself deserve high marks, really their concerns are very good.
Our delegation thinks that the World Food Programme is one of the most efficient organizations in the United Nations family and its work in the field of development and food assistant, especially humanitarian assistance, deserves high appreciation. I also share the view that Council could approve, the submitted report of the Organization,
Mame BALLA SY (Observateur du Sénégal): Je vous remercie de m'offrir l'opportunite de me réjouir d'abord de la présence de M. Ngongi, un ancien ami de la FAO que j'ai bien du plaisir à retrouver et dont j'ai pu apprécier la contribution si efficace au niveau du PAM. Ceci est également de l'avis de ma délégation, cette institution de la famille des Nations Unies a fait ses preuves,
continue de se perfectionner et rend un grand service à l'humanité notamment aux pays en développement, dont le mien. Nous avons également beaucoup apprécié la qualité de ce rapport par sa clarté, sa pertinence et sa concision. Nous appréciions la volonté constante du PAM, ce qui fait le secret de sa réussite, d'essayer toujours de mettre en oeuvre les observations et les directives qui émanent d'organes participant à l'amélioration de son fonctionnement. Cela dit, à l'instar des Membres du Conseil et des Observateurs qui m'ont précédé, ma délégation souhaite que le Conseil, non seulement prenne acte et approuve le rapport, mais continue de féliciter et d'encourager le PAM à persévérer et aller de l'avant, et surtout à maintenir une bonne collaboration avec des institutions comme la FAO, le FIDA qui participent toujours au développement et à l'épanouissement de l'étre humain.
EL PRESIDENTE: Le doy la palabra al señor Ngongi expresándole, nuevamente, los elogios ya escuchados, que este Consejo ha hecho por su labor y la labor del Programa Mundial de Alimentación, deseo felicitarle por ello.
A. Namanga NGONGI (WFP): First of all permit me to thank the Members who have spoken, for the kind words they have expressed on behalf of the World Food Programme and on my own behalf. Of course, I will transmit these words to the Executive Director who will convey this to the Executive Committee of the Executive Board. I can only say that the World Food Programme always tries to use the resources which are made available to it, in the best way possible, to reach the common interest of reducing hunger and poverty around the world.
EL PRESIDENTE: Hemos sido compañeros por más de trece años, así que nuestra amistad ya es vieja y, desde luego, sus progresos en español son encomiables, como han destacado varios delegados. Le auguramos un futuro todavía mayor en este campo. Con ello deseo simplemente concluir, diciendo que el Consejo endosó con gran aprecio el informe de la Junta Ejecutiva que calificó como "claro, breve y útil". El Consejo, también, subrayó el continuado esfuerzo del PMA por alcanzar mayores grados de eficiencia y eficacia en la entrega de la ayuda alimentaria, tanto en lo que se refiere a la prevención de catástrofes, como en el apoyo al desarrollo; y se encomió, también, la creciente colaboración y coordinación de actividades con las otras agencias de las Naciones Unidas, en particular, la FAO expresó su agradecimiento al señor Namanga Ngongi, Subdirector Ejecutivo del PMA, por su presencia y presentación del informe.
EL PRESIDENTE: Permítanme pasar ahora al subtema 10. 2 Elección de seis miembros de la Junta Ejecutiva del PMA, documento CL 111/7 y CL lll/OD/5. Como indicado en el párrafo 6 del documento CL 111/7, los puestos vacantes son los siguientes: en la lista A, un puesto; en la lista B, un puesto; en la lista C, un puesto; en la lista D, dos puestos; y en la lista E, un puesto.
Como pueden ustedes observar en el documento CL 11l/OD/5, para las listas A, B, C y D el número de candidatos es igual al número de puestos vacantes; por consiguiente, quisiera llamar la atención del Consejo que, conforme al párrafo 9a del Artículo XII del Reglamento General, el cual dice que: "cuando no haya más candidatos que vacantes, el Presidente podrá proponer al Consejo que el nombramiento se lleve a cabo por consenso general evidente". Entonces, como éste es el caso para las listas A, B, C y D, y conforme a lo que permite el Reglamento General para confirmar la elección, les propongo que el Consejo elija en la lista A a Senegal, en la B a Jordania, en la C a Brasil y en la D a Francia y Suiza. Esto, por evidente consenso general. Si están ustedes de acuerdo, por aclamación podremos indicar el acuerdo del Consejo.
Applause
Applaudissements
Aplausos
EL PRESIDENTE: Me permito, en nombre de ustedes, felicitar de consecuencia a Senegal, Jordania, Brasil, Francia y Suiza por su elección en la Junta Ejecutiva.
En cuanto a la lista E, ustedes pueden notar que hay dos candidatos para un puesto. En consultas previas, he intentado apelar a ambos candidatos para resolver esta diferencia y lograr tener un solo candidato para este único puesto de la lista E. Me permito apelar de nuevo a ambos candidatos para que uno de ellos se retire y permita, igualmente, elegir al otro por evidente consenso general. Pregunto, por tanto, a los distinguidos delegados de Lituania y Eslovaquia, si desean hacer, a estas alturas, algún comentario.
Me parece, distinguidos delegados, que los candidatos de Lituania y Eslovaquia mantienen sus candidaturas y, en consecuencia, tendremos que recurrir a la elección por voto para elegir a un país para este puesto de la lista E.
SECRETARY-GENERAL: This election will be decided by secret ballot as required by paragraph 8 and paragraph 9, of Rule XII, of the General Rules of the Organization. Each elector will receive one ballot paper on which are written the names of the candidates. Each elector, unless he wholly abstains, shall cast one vote for the preferred candidate since there is one seat to be filled. This means, that any ballot paper carrying more than one vote will be considered defective.
Paragraph 9a, of Rule XII, also states that votes cast shall not include abstentions or defective ballots. Any ballot paper, left blank or marked abstention, will be recorded as an abstention.
EL PRESIDENTE: Han escuchado ustedes cuáles son las reglas para esta elección, estas reglas también requieren de un quorum de la más de la mitad, que vemos que sí existe en esta sala y por tanto podemos proceder de inmediato, pero antes de comenzar con la votación, quisiera solicitar muy amablemente a dos delegados de Canadá y Mauricio a que pasen como escrutinadores de esta elección.
Quisiera también recordar al Consejo que el párrafo 14 del Artículo II dice que una vez comenzada la votación, ningún delegado podrá interrumpirla salvo para plantear un punto de orden relacionado con la misma, si no hay por ello ninguna observación que deseen hacer, comenzamos, entonces, con la votación.
VOTE
VOTE
VOTACION
EL PRESIDENTE: Distinguidos delegados, como ustedes saben, el proceso de cuenta de los votos emitidos toma aproximadamente veinte minutos. Yo creo que podemos utilizar ese tiempo para avanzar en nuestra Agenda y, si me lo permiten, dejamos todavía abierto el tema 10. 2 en lo que se refiere a esta elección para la lista E y tomamos de inmediato el tema de Otros Asuntos, tema 20. 1 que se refiere al nombramiento de representantes de la Conferencia de la FAO en el Comité de Pensiones del Personal. Es un tema para decisión y el documento relevante es el CL 111/3.
A. T. SLATER (Director, Personnel Division): You have before you document CL 111/3, Appointment of Representatives of the FAO Conference to the Staff Pension Committee.
The functions of the FAO Staff Pension Committee are set out in the document. As is stated also in the document in paragraph 8, the matter is being placed before you now as we need to appoint one Member and two Alternate Members of the Staff Pension Committee who have been reassigned to other duty stations.
The Secretariat has been informed that the following candidates had been proposed to serve as Member and Alternate Members representing the FAO Conference on the FAO Staff Pension Committee as follows: for the period 1 January 1997 through 31 December 1998 as Member, Mr Ewald Brouwers, Alternate Permanent Representative of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to FAO. For the same period as Alternate Member, Mr Salali Soukkar, Alternate Permanent Representative of Syria to FAO. For the period 1 January 1997 through 31 December 1999, as Alternate Member, Mr Jean-Louis Rysto, Alternate Permanent Representative of France to FAO.
Mr Chairman, you may wish to ask the Council to consider these candidatures and, if it finds them acceptable, to proceed with the appointment of the persons just named to become Member and Alternate Members of the FAO Staff Pension Committee.
EL PRESIDENTE: Distinguidos delegados, han ustedes escuchado las propuestas para ocupar estas posiciones de un miembro y dos miembros suplentes para los períodos 1° de enero 1997 al 31 de diciembre 1998, y el otro miembro suplente para el 1° de enero de 1997 al 31 de diciembre de 1999. Pregunto al Consejo, después de este tema que es para decisión, podemos elegirles por evidente consenso general. Entonces por aclamación les elegimos.
Applause
Applaudissements
Aplausos
EL PRESIDENTE: El Consejo con esto elige para el período 1° de enero de 1997 al 1998 como miembro al señor Ewald Brouwers, Representante Permanente Alterno del Reino de Países Bajos
ante la FAO, como miembro suplente al señor Salah Soukkar, Representante Permanente Alterno de Siria ante la FAO y para el período Io de enero de 1997 al 31 de diciembre de 1999 como miembro suplente al señor Jean-Louis Rysto, Representante Permanente Alterno de Francia ante la FAO. Con esto el Consejo les felicita por su nombramiento. Con esto terminamos el subtema 20. 1.
EL PRESIDENTE: Pasamos ahora al subtema 20. 2, Nombramiento del Segundo Presidente Suplente del Comité de Apelaciones. Reconozco que el documento correspondiente no ha sido distribuido y por tanto le voy a pedir al señor Moore que nos presente este tema ampliamente para que el Consejo esté en posesión de tomar una decisión.
LEGAL COUNSEL: Staff Regulation 301. 111 - and I should point out that the Staff Regulations are approved by the Council -- deals with the question of the Appeals Committee and provides that an Independent Chairman should be appointed by the Council. It also provides that the Council shall appoint two Alternate Chairmen to serve when the Chairman is unavailable.
In 1983 the Council appointed, as Chairman of the Appeals Committee, Ambassador J. K. Atal, former Ambassador of India to Italy, and His Excellency Carlos di Mottola Balestra, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Costa Rica to FAO, as first Alternate Chairman.
As you note we have two Alternate Chairmen and in 1995 the Council appointed His Excellency Joseph Amichia Ambassador of Cote d'Ivoire to the Holy See as second Alternate Chairman. Ambassador Amichia has now completed his assignment in Italy and has gone back home. The Council is therefore requested to consider the appointment of a new second Alternate Chairman of the FAO Appeals Committee to replace Ambassador Joseph Amichia to take effect immediately.
EL PRESIDENTE: Han escuchado ustedes cuál es la situación, el Consejo tiene que nombrar un Presidente Suplente y para ello ofrezco la palabra para proponer candidatos.
Salah HAMDI (Observateur de la Tunisie): Monsieur le Président, après la breve déclaration de M. Moore sur cette question, j'aimerais avoir le plaisir et le privilège de proposer, en ma qualité de Président du CQCJ, la candidature de son Excellence Juan Cassiers, Ambassadeur de Belgique auprès du Saint Siège pour ce poste de deuxième suppléant du Président du Comité de recours de la FAO. M. Cassiers qui est done de nationalité belge, dispose d'un Curriculum Vitae riche en expérience et il a par conséquent une brillante carrière diplomatique et présente, à mon avis, un profil excellent pour ce poste. M. Cassiers est un Docteur en droit. II a travaillé pendant de longues années au Ministère des affaires étrangères belges et a été affecté à l'étranger dans des ambassades de plusieurs pays, à Washington, à Pékin, à Bonn et bien sûr Représentant permanent auprès de l'OTAN, Représentant auprès de l'OCDE à Paris et Ambassadeur à Washington en 1991. Le poste actuel de M. Cassiers est donc le poste d'Ambassadeur de Belgique auprès du Saint Siège depuis septembre 1994. Je propose donc au Conseil de nommer son Excellence, M. l'Ambassadeur Juan Cassiers au poste de deuxième suppléant au Comité de recours.
EL PRESIDENTE: El Consejo ha escuchado con atención la propuesta para ocupar el puesto de Segundo Presidente Suplente del Comité de Apelaciones al señor Juan Cassiers y, desde luego, el impresionante curriculum que usted ha tenido a bien informarnos.
Thomas Austin FORBORD (United States of America). In its capacity as a member of the CCLM, the United States has both the honour and the pleasure of seconding the nomination of His Excellency Ambassador Juan Cassiers to the position of Second Alternate Chairman of the Appeals Committee.
Ambassador Cassiers is one of Belgium's most distinguished Ambassadors: he is known very well to my government, having served most of this decade as Belgium's Ambassador to Washington. He is an outstanding choice for this position and we second the nomination.
Patrick PRUVOT (France): Monsieur le Président, la France, en sa qualité de membre du CQCJ, souhaiterait aussi appuyer chaleureusement la proposiition faite de la nomination de M. Juan Cassiers à la fonction de deuxième Président du Comité de recours. Merci Monsieur le Président.
EL PRESIDENTE: Bien, señores Miembros del Consejo, han escuchado ustedes la propuesta de respaldo a esta candidatura que nos distingue. Les pido por aclamación nombremos al señor Juan Cassiers, Segundo Presidente Suplente del Comité de Apelaciones.
Applause
Applaudissements
Aplausos
EL PRESIDENTE: El Consejo se congratula de esta elección que tanto nos distingue y felicita a su Excelencia, el señor Juan Cassiers por esta nominación. Con esto concluye el subtema 20. 2 de nuestra Agenda.
EL PRESIDENTE: Les pido entonces que me permitan pasar a otro punto. El distinguido Representante de Turquía, nos ofrecerá informaciones sobre los preparativos del Congreso Forestal Mundial, que se celebrará el próximo año en Antalia, Turquía.
Yavuz YUKSEL (Turkey): As distinguished delegates would remember, the FAO Council accepted in June 1995 the offer of Turkey to organize the llth World Forestry Congress. The Congress meets every six years. The first one was organized in Rome in 1926 and the last one was held in Paris in 1991.
The llth World Forestry Congress will be held from 13 to 22 October 1997 in Antalya, a beautiful coastal town with its bright sun, white sandy beaches, palm trees and pine forests. It is also an ideal starting point for visiting the ancient cities and ruins. Furthermore, as a venue for the Congress, Turkey constitutes a bridge between not only two continents but also between North and South.
Since Rio, the World Committee has increasingly been focusing on global, environmental and sustainability issues, and many initiatives have been taken. Indeed, forestry lies at the very heart of UNCED follow-up processes. The llth World Forestry Congress, therefore, will be an important milestone in making progress in clarification of issues and in providing technical response. When forests are properly managed in a sustainable way, they provide many benefits to the people, to national economies and to the environment, such as timber, fuelwood, oxygen, protection of soil and water resources, and habitat conservation. Failure to implement sustainable forest management programmes and practices will result in major negative consequences, such as floods, climate changes, pollution and acid rain, as well as loss of biological diversity and destruction of the soil and the landscape.
For these reasons, the general theme chosen for the Congress is Forestry for Sustainable Development Towards the 21st Century. After consultation with forestry administrations in all countries, as well as with international, governmental and non-governmental organizations interested
in forestry and related matters, the technical programme for the Congress has been structured in eight main areas and 38 topics, which all follow the basic criteria of sustainable forest management. An adequate number of sessions will be devoted to sustainable forest management in all six different major types of forests. Various special events will be organized, within the activities of the Congress, as follows:
- satellite meetings related to many important forestry meetings and events;
- study tours to interesting places and regions of the country;
- field visits to national parks, historical and eco-touristic sites;
- cultural programmes like opera, folk dancing and ballet in ancient theatres;
- a number of awards will be presented to students who submit essays;
- some special programmes to promote the involvement of youth and women.
Although the deadline for submission of voluntary papers is the end of October, we have already had approximately 850 proposed papers, which is an excellent indication of interest in the Congress. However, we are of the opinion that more technical contributions from Africa and the Near East should be encouraged in order to have a good balance between regions. Some 12 keynote speakers, eight others of position papers and around 50 others of special papers, have been identified and approached. Every possible effort has been made to have a well-diversified composition of orders and speakers, with an appropriate balance between regions and institutions.
During the Congress, simultaneous interpretation in English, French, Spanish, Turkish and Arabic will be provided.
Mr Chairman, Distinguished Delegates, the second announcement and first information bulletin of the Congress have already been distributed to all Member Countries and you will find detailed information therein.
EL PRESIDENTE: Muchas gracias, distinguido Representante de Turquía por esta información tan rica sobre los preparativos para la Celebración del 11° Congreso Forestal Mundial, en Antalia, Turquía. Esta reunión tendrá lugar del 13 al 22 de octubre de 1997. El Consejo ha tomado nota de estos preparativos, el grado de avance y la forma en que su Gobierno está organizándolo. Si no hay ninguna otra observación, con esta presentación concluirían los puntos que tenía anotados bajo "Otros Asuntos". Le pregunto, antes de cerrar el tema a los distinguidos miembros del Consejo, si bajo "Otros Asuntos" hay alguna otra declaración que deseen ustedes hacer. No habiéndola, se concluye con este tema 20.
EL PRESIDENTE: Pasamos de inmediato a reportarles cual es el resultado sobre la votación que acabamos de tener, para elegir un miembro para la lista E de los miembros de la Junta Ejecutiva
EL PRESIDENTE: Ustedes tienen el resultado de la elección. Queda por tanto electa la República Eslovaca. Le felicitamos a dicha Representación. Bien, con esto concluye el subtema 10. 2 y por tanto, los temas de este Consejo, salvo el tema 6 que se encuentra todavía abierto, en consideración a los problemas que nos indicaba el distinguido Representante de Australia y otras delegaciones, para que en paralelo, se sostenga una Reunión del Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria y de un grupo de trabajo que estudiará el proyecto de resolución para los recursos fitogenéticos. El día de mañana, a las 12:30 horas, una vez concluida la primera parte de los trabajos del Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria, nos reuniremos en la Sala Líbano. El grupo de trabajo que estará integrado a partir de los nombres que las distintas regiones me proporcionen respecto de aquellos Miembros del Consejo, y lo subrayo, que deseen participar en dichos procedimientos.
Yo se que hay observadores que estarían interesados, pero esta es una resolución que eventualmente decidiría el Consejo y por tanto están invitados a participar sólo los Miembros del Consejo.
Les pido que, durante la tarde, informen sobre sus intereses en participar en dicha reunión al señor Pérez de Vega, en la oficina A-139 o bien al teléfono 52026. Yo trataré de ponerme en contacto con ustedes, para identificar la lista y en todo caso, ésta queda abierta hasta mañana a las 12:30 horas, después que terminen los trabajos del Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria.
The meeting rose at 12. 30 hours
La séance est levée à 12 h 30
Se levanta la sesión a las 12. 30 horas
