ADOPTION OF THE REPORT
104. The Governing Council considered the draft report on the work of its session of a special character (UNEP/GC/SSC)/L.2) at the 12th and 13th meetings of the session, on 18 May 1982.
105. 105. The representative of the Soviet Union placed on record his Government’s disagreement with the Executive Director’s assertion in his introductory statement, as reflected in paragraph 334 above, that mankind was threatened with an environmental catastrophe.
106. The representative of the Soviet Union, supported by other representative, also rejected the allegation of the representative of Democratic Kampuchea, recorded in paragraph 72 above, that evidence had been provided of the use of chemical and biological weapons. The allegation was untrue; a United Nations team had investigated the matter, and had found nothing to substantiate if.
107. The Council then adopted the report, subject to the incorporation of amendments proposed during the discussion.
108. At the 13th meeting, the Council considered the report of the Committee of the whole (UNEP/GC(SSC)/L.3 and Corr.1 and Add.1), as orally revised by the Rapporteur of the Committee, containing the text of a draft decision recommended for adoption by the Governing Council.
109. The delegation of Saudi Arabia, referring to section 1, paragraph 3 (b) (iv) of the draft decision, suggested replacing the words “which places … animal species” by “which focuses on and provides guidance for sustainable development through conservation of living resources”, which more accurately reflected what the World Conservation Strategy did.
110. The delegation of Canada proposed the insertion of “reducing” before “and preventing”: in the second line of the part entitled “priority for action” in section III, paragraph 2 (b) and, for the sake of consistency, substituting “seas” for “oceans” at the end of that line. The delegation of Pakistan proposed adding “in urban centres” after “essential services” in the “Trends and problems” in section III, paragraph 2 (f), and the delegation of Saudi Arabia proposed the addition of “social and environmental support for the nomads”; at the end of the “priority for action” in the same paragraph. The delegation of Canada proposed inserting “handling” after “safe trade” in paragraph 2 (g), under “priority for action”, and “transport”, before “handling (including storage)” in the “priority for action” in paragraph 2 (I).
111. The delegations of Bangladesh, Pakistan and Yugoslavia associated themselves with the reservation regarding section III, paragraph 2© expressed in the Committee by the representative of Greece and recorded in paragraph 19 above.
112. The USSR delegation proposed deleting “and implement” in section IV, paragraph 1 (b), so that the beginning of the paragraph would be amended to read “promote and co-ordinate appropriate policies…”.
113. The delegation of India proposed inserting the words “and/or other resources” after “funds” in section VI, paragraph 4 (b).
114. The representative of Belgium, speaking on behalf of the delegations of the States members of the European Economic Community, reiterated the reservation he had expressed in the Committee, as recorded in paragraph 19 above.
115. The Governing Council adopted the draft decision contained in the report of the Committee of the Whole, subject to the incorporation of the foregoing amendments and to the reservations recorded in paragraph III and 114 above. For the text as adopted, see annex 1, resolution 1.
116. The Council then considered the report of the Working Group (UNEP/GC/SSC)/l.10), containing a draft of the Nairobi declaration. In view of the lengthy negotiations which had led to agreement on a consensus text, with the exception of the last sentence of paragraph 4 and the use of “could” or “should” in the first line of paragraph 6, it was agreed that no amendments would be entertained except to those parts on which consensus had not been reached.
117. The representative of France said that in her delegation’s view it would have been more appropriate to call upon, rather than request, Governments to build on the progress so far achieved.
118. The representative of Venezuela, speaking on behalf of the delegations of Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru as well as his own, stated that the wording of paragraph 2 did not accurately reflect the environmental situation in the tropical forests of the Amazon basin and its implications.
119. The representative of the Soviet Union said that, in the same paragraph, it would have been more accurate to refer to “possible” changes in the ozone layer.
120. For the last sentence of paragraph 4, the Council agreed after lengthy discussion on a revised text proposed by the delegation of Yugoslavia. It also agreed on the use of the Words “should, when appropriate” in paragraph 6.
121. The Council then adopted the Nairobi Declaration (see annex II).