Resources for:
  Governments
  Scientists
  Journalists
  Civil Society
  Business Persons
  Children and Youth

Thematic Areas


 
 Printable Version
 

ADOPTION OF DECISIONS

Programme policy and implementation (decision 10/1)

34. At the 10th meeting of the session, on 31 May 1982, the Council considered a draft decision proposed by the bureau (UNEP/GC.10/L.16). Regarding section III of the draft the representative of the Netherlands, speaking on behalf of the group of Western European and other States, reminded the Council that his group had proposed the establishment of a small body to monitor and assess the implementation of necessary if the Council were to decide to meet every two years. The group had a similar view, without prejudice to a future decision on the periodicity of Council sessions.

35. The Council then adopted the draft decision by consensus.

Regional presence of the United Nations Environment Programme (decision 10/2)

36. At the same meeting the Council considered a draft decision submitted by the Bureau (UNEP/GC.10/L.17). The Executive Director recalled that the question of the assignment of responsibilities as between UNEP and the regional commissions was to be considered by the Committee for Programme and Co-ordination (CPC) while the Council was meeting. The Deputy Executive Director had traveled to New York in order to present the Council’s views to that Committee. Unfortunately, no information had been forthcoming from New York regarding the final outcome of the Committee’s discussions. The Committee’s position as reported by the Deputy Executive Director was to recommend that the Governing Council consider keeping the three options open, since it was likely to recommend the option involving the establishment of joint decisions. The views of both the Council and CPC on the matter would be presented to the Economic and Social Council at the beginning of July, following which the Economic and Social Council would forward its recommendations to the General Assembly at its thirty-seventh session. The draft decision contained no specific reference to the Western Asia region, but the Executive Director also assumed that the provisions it contained on the other regions would apply equally to western Asia. He also noted that the actions called for under section II, paragraph 1, and section III, paragraph 4, of the decision were subjected to the availability of resources.

37. The representative of Argentina said that the Latin America and Caribbean group agreed with the supported the concepts set out in paragraph II of the Executive Director’s report on the regional presence of UNEP (UNEP/GC.10/2/Add.2). The coordination referred to in that paragraph should be conducted through the Regional Office for Latin America. The measures required as a minimum to strengthen the Regional Office would be discussed with the Executive Director in the near future, and the group planned to forward to him a series of specific suggestion in that regard.

37. The representative of Argentina said that the Latin American and Caribbean group agreed with and supported the concepts set out in paragraph II of the Executive Director’s report on the regional presence of UNEP (UNEP/GC.10/2/Add.2). The co-ordination for Latin America. The measures required as a minimum to strengthen the Regional presence of UNEP (UNEP/GC.10/Add.2). The co-ordination referred to in that paragraph should be conducted through the Regional Office for Latin America. The measures required as a minimum to strengthen the Regional Office would be discussed with the Executive Director in the near future, and the group planned to forward to him a series of specific suggestions in that regard.

38. The representative of Belgium said that, in a spirit of compromise, he would not oppose the adoption of the draft decision or seek to reopen the discussion. However, he wad concerned and disappointed at the way the subject had been dealt with. The Council had been deprived of the change to conduct a thorough debate on the regional presence and express its views on the alternatives proposed by the Executive Director and on the financial aspects, and had thus not acquitted itself of its responsibilities towards higher bodies. The representative of the Federal Republic of Germany associated himself with those views, adding that the roles of the UNEP regional offices and regional advisers and of the regional commissions and their environmental co-ordination unites needed further consideration.

39. The Council then adopted the draft decision by consensus.

Regional programmes in Latin America and the Caribbean (decision 10/3)

40. At the 8th meeting of the session, on 28 may 1982, the Council considered a draft decision submitted by the Group of 77 (UNEP/GC.10/L.6). The Deputy Executive Director said that the cost of holding the meeting referred to was estimated at

$US 175,000.

41. The Council adopted the draft decision, as revised by the representative of Mexico, by consensus.

Environment and development (decision 10/4)

42. At the 10th meeting of the session, on 31 May 1982, the Council considered a draft decision submitted by the Group of 77 (UNEP/GC.10/L.18/Rev.1). The representative of the Netherlands introduced a series of amendments, which were approved by the Council. The representative of the Federal Republic of Germany said that it was his understanding that the provision of additional resources in accordance with Council decision 10/26 would be accomplished in co-operation with the relevant donors.

43. The Council then adopted the draft decision, as amended, by consensus.

Environmental perspectives to the year 2000 and beyond (decision 10/5)

44. At the same meeting the Council considered a draft decision submitted by the Bureau (UNEP/GC.10/L.12/Rev.1.) . At the request of the representative of the Netherlands, following consultations with the regional groups, the revised draft decisions was withdrawn and the Council took up the original version (UNEP/GC.10/L/\.12). The representative of the Netherlands then proposed some amendments to the draft.

45. The Council adopted the draft decision, as amended, by consensus.

Role of the United Nations Environment Programme in the implementation of the resolutions of the Governing Council at its session of a special character (decision 10/6)

46. At the same meeting the Council considered a draft decision submitted by the Group of 77 (UNEP/GC.10/L.19). The representative of Poland emphasized that the language of the draft was ambiguous, and failed to provide a complete picture of the eventual consequences of the decision; It should not in any way undermine the mandate of UNEP as laid down by the General Assembly. The representative of the United States agreed that the draft decision should not undermine the co-ordinating and catalytic role of UNEP.

47. The Council then adopted the draft decision by consensus.

Impacts of apartheid on the environment (decision 10/7)

48. At the 8th meeting of the session, on 28 May 1982, the Council considered a draft decision submitted by the Group of 77 (UNEP/GC.10/L.10).

49. The representative of the United States of America said that, while his Government abhorred racism, it opposed and would continue to oppose the introduction into a technical forum of what, as the Executive Director’s report itself recognized, was a political issue. His delegation had supported the decision to carry out a study of the impacts of apartheid on the environment, but now it has been completed further efforts in that direction would only constitute an unnecessary drain on UNEP resources.

50. The representative of Belgium, supported by the representatives of France and the Federal republic of Germany, said that he would not oppose the draft decision if the expression “a grave threat to peace” in the third premolar paragraph was deleted.

51. The representative of Algeria, on behalf of the sponsors, agreed to the deletion of that expression if that would enable the Council to adopt the draft decision by consensus. However, if a vote was taken, it should be on the unamended text.

52. The representative of the United States if America insisted that, in the absence of a formal amendment to the text, the Council should proceed immediately to a vote.

53. The Council then voted on the draft decision. At the request of th representative of the United States of America, the vote was taken by roll-call. The draft decision was adopted by 40 votes to II, with 2 abstentions.

The voting was a follows:

In favour: Argentina, Bangladesh, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, China, Colombia, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Japan, Kenya, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sweden, Thailand, Urkainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia and Zaire.

Against: Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Iceland, Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, Switzerland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America.

Abstaining: Chile and Jamaica. 4/

54. The representative of Sweden, speaking in explanation of vote, said that his delegation’s reservations concerning the expression used in the third preambular paragraph and not been such as to prevent it from voting in favour of the draft decision. It also had doubts about the role of UNEP in the struggle against apartheid, but as the Executive Director’s report had shown, there were undeniable links between apartheid and environmental problems.

55. The representative of Japan, speaking in explanation of vote, said that he had voted in favour of the draft decision, but that his Government could not agree to the use of the expression “great threat to peace” in the third preambular paragraph.

56. The representative of the Netherlands, also speaking on behalf of the delegations of Belgium, Canada, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Iceland, New Zealand, Spain, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, expressed regret that it had been impossible to reach agreement on a text which could have been adopted by consensus. Those delegations had repeatedly expressed their rejection of apartheid, but had been unable to support the draft decision because they felt that issues such as apartheid, especially when linked with world peace, should more appropriately be discussed in other forums.

57. The representatives of France and the Federal Republic of Germany expressed regret that they had been unable to vote on the amendment introduced by the representative of Belgium, since it since incorporation in the draft decision would have substantially influenced their vote.

Problems of the remnants of war (decision 10/8)

58. At the same meeting the Council considered a draft decision submitted by the Group of 77 (UNEP/GC.10/L.5). The representative of the Group introduced orally a revision to the draft decision introducing a new operative paragraph 3.

59. The representative of the Federal Republic of Germany, speaking in explanation of vote before the vote on behalf of the delegations of Belgium, Canada, France the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States of America, as well as his own delegation, said that while they sympathized with the problems caused in certain countries by the remnants of war, they did not feel that the Governing Council of UNEP was the proper forum to deal with such problems, which in their view, should be handled bilaterally, as had already been the case in the past. In addition, the draft decision contained certain assumptions of doubtful past,. In addition, the draft decision contained certain assumptions of doubtful validity in international law. Furthermore, they did not believe that the holding of a conference on the remnants of war would achieve any real progress. He called for a vote on the draft decision. The representative of span endorsed the views expressed by the representative of the Federal Republic of Germany.

60. The President then put the draft decision to the vote. At the request of the representatives of the Group of 77 and the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, the vote was taken by roll-call. The draft decision was adopted by 36 votes to 9, with 6 abstentions. The voting was as follows:

In favour: Argentina, Bangladesh, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Chile, China, Colombia, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guinea, India, Jamaica, Kenya, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia and Zaire.

Against: Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America.

Abstaining: Greece, Iceland, Japan, Sweden, Switzerland and Thailand

61. The representative of Sweden, speaking in explanation of vote, said that while he recognized that the problem of remnants of war was a serious one, it would have been referable not to mention the question of responsibility in the draft decision, and that there was a need to seek practical solutions to the problem. In his view UNEP was not the proper forum to discuss it. Furthermore, all and not only some remnants of war should be considered.

62. The representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, speaking in explanation vote, stressed that his country had no maps indicating where minefields had been laid. Problems posed by remnants of war were of major importance, and UNEP was indeed the proper forum to discuss them, as had been recognized by the General Assembly.

Implementation of General Assembly resolution 36/117 B of 10 December 1981 (decisions 10/9 A and B)

63. At the same meeting the representative of Belgium then introduced a draft decision on production and circulation of UNEP publications, submitted by the delegations of Algeria, Belgium, Benin, Bulgaria, Burundi, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, France, the federal republic of Germany, Guinea, Italy, the Ivory Coast, Morocco, Nicaragua, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland, Spain, Tunisia, the Ukrainian SSR, the United Kingdom, Uruguay and Venezuela (UNEP.GC.10/L.8). The delegation of Gabon, India and Senegal then joined the list of sponsors.

64. The draft decision was adopted by consensus.

65. The Council then turned to a draft decision entitled “Simultaneous distribution of documents in the different languages of the United Nations”, submitted by the delegations of Algeria, Belgium, Benin, Bulgaria, Burundi, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, the Congo, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Guinea, Italy, the Ivory Coast, Morocco, Nicaragua, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Switzerland, Tunisia, the Ukrainian SSR, the United Kingdom, Uruguay and Venezuela(UNEP/GC.10/L.9). The delegations of delegations of Gabon and Senegal then joined the list of sponsors.

66. The Council adopted the draft decision by consensus.

Staff and budgetary resources required to service the joint bureau meetings (decision 10/10)

67. At the 10th meeting of the session, on 31 May 1982, the Council considered a draft decision submitted by the delegations of Belgium, Colombia and France (UNEP/GC.10/L.14). Following certain clarifications provided by the executive Director, the representative of Belgium, on behalf of the sponsors, introduced variouschanges in the draft. The Executive Director pointed out that funds for the joint meetings were drawn from the United Nations regular budget, and not from the Environment Fund. Consequently it would be necessary for the Secretary-general to be informed of the decision and requested to examine whether the documentation and interpretation costs involved in the meetings could be absorbed within existing appropriations. If they could not, it would be necessary to request the General Assembly to allocate additions funds from the regular budget.

68. The representative of the Netherlands proposed a new preambular paragraph. The Council then adopted the draft decision as amended.

Maintaining a permanent exhibition (decision 10/11)

69. At the 8th meeting of the session, on 28 May 1982, the Council considered a draft decision submitted by the delegations of Canada, India, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Senegal and the Latin American group, subsequently joined by the New Zealand (UNEP/GC.10/L.7).

70. The draft decision was adopted by consensus.

Conservation and management of forests (decision 10/12)

71. At the 10th meeting of the session, on 31 May 1982, the Council considered a draft decision submitted by the delegations of Algeria, France Morocco and Tunisia (UNEP/GC.10/L.15).

72. The representative of Algeria announced that the Group of 77 had agreed to sponsor the draft decision, and also had introduced changes in the preamble. The representative of New Zealand asked that his delegation should be included among the sponsors. The representative of Denmark expressed surprise that the draft had been introduced in plenary without any prior discussion in Session Committee 1. He assumed that there was no intention to modify the system-wide medium-term environment Programme of the UNEP medium-term plan, and that therefore the decision would have no financial implications for the Fund.

73. The Council then adopted the draft decision as amended by consensus.

74. Decisions 10/13 to 10/25 were adopted on the recommendation of Sessional Committee 1, which considered Programme matters. Except as indicated below, the decisions were approved in the Committed and adopted by the Council, at the 9th and 10th plenary meetings of the session on 31 May 1982, by consensus and without comment.

System-wide medium-term environment Programme (decision 10/13)

75. In Committee 1, the draft decision, submitted by Denmark, India, Kenya, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America, was approved by consensus. The secretariat stated that the decision had no financial implications.

Programme matters (decision 10/14)

76. In Committee 1, the draft decision was proposed by the Chairman. Except as noted below, the individual sections of the draft were approved without comment and by consensus:

(a) Section 1. Carbon dioxide

The draft, as amended by the representative of Australia, Canada and Sweden, was approved by consensus. The secretariat states that the financial implications of the decision amounted to some $40,000, which had been already allocated in the medium-term plan for 1982-1983;

(b) Section 11. Tropical forests

Amendments were proposes by the delegations of the United States of America and Venezuela. The representative of Brazil stated that the acceptance of the amendments had enabled his delegation not to oppose the consensus. Nevertheless, he wished to reiterate his Government’s previous views on the subject, and to state that Brazil continues to dissociate itself from the activities of UNEP relating to tropical forests;

(c) Section VI. Environmental law

The draft, as amended by the delegations of Brazil, France, India, the Netherlands and Venezuela, was approved by consensus. The delegation of Venezuela expressed its reservation regarding the preparation of further reports on the implementation of General Assembly resolution 34/186;

(d) Section VII. Implementation of the Plan of Action to Combat Desertification

The draft, as amended by the representative of Chile and incorporating a paragraph proposed by the delegation of Mexico, was approved by consensus.

77. In plenary, the delegation of Canada, India and Sweden, responding to a query by the Executive Director regarding section 1, paragraph II, confirmed the intention of the Council that the Executive Director should not establish the co-ordinating committee on carbon dioxide before section II, paragraph 1, the Executive Director said he took it that he was to consider using regional arrangement in the implementation of the Programme referred to. The delegation of Brazil reiterated its reservation made in sessional Committee 1 regarding section III of the decision. Section VII was adopted as amended by the delegation of Mexico in the light of comments by the Executive Director.

Environmentally dangerous chemical substances and processes with global impact (decision 10/15)

78. In Committee 1, the draft decision submitted by Belgium, Indonesia, the Netherlands and Nigeria, was approved by consensus, as amended by the delegation of Jamaica. The secretariat stated that the financial implications of the decision, $30,000 in 1983 and $30,000 in 1984, would be absorbed within the existing Programme.

79. In plenary, the representative of the Netherlands responding to a query by the Executive Director, confirmed that the reference to the scientific community should be interpreted as meaning international scientific institutions.

International Programme on Chemical Safety (decision 10/16)

80. In Committee I, the draft decision, submitted by Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, the Federal Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay and Yugoslavia, was approved by consensus, as revised by the delegation of Austria.

Protection of the ozone layer (decision 10/17)

81. In Committee 1, the draft decision, submitted by Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, was approved by consensus, as amended by the delegations of Chile and the United States of America. The secretarial said that the financial implications of the decision would be approximately $60,000 to $90,000, for which provision and already been made.

Implementation of the plan of Action to Combat Desertification in the Sudano-Sahelian Region (decision 10/18)

82. The draft decision was submitted in Committee I by the African group. After extensive discussion, the text was approved by consensus. The secretariat stated that some $700,000 had been allocated by UNEP to the United Nations Sudano-Sahelian Office for 1982, and negotiations were currently taking place to secure additional funds from external sources.

83. In plenary, the draft decision was adopted as revised by the sponsors in the light of comments by the Executive Director. Regarding paragraphs 5 and 7 of the decision, the executive Director stated his understanding that he should provide the additional resources and strengthen UNEP support for the Sudano-Sahelian Office by exercinghis authority to adjust apportionment by up to 20 per cent in individual budged lines. UNEP support for UNSO would, as always, be provided after consultation with the administrator of UNDP in the light of the approved programme for action. In those decisions where the words “within available resources” were included, the intention was to allow for the possibility that sufficient resources might not be released by that means in the case in question.

Environmental management for the protection and rehabilitation of freshwater ecosystems (inland waters) (decision 10/19)

84. In Committee I, the draft decision, submitted by the Latin American group and revised by the sponsors, was approved by consensus. The secretariat stated that the financial implications of the decision were approximately $50,000, required in 1984-1985, for which provision would be made in the medium-term plan for that biennium.

85. In plenary, the delegation of Mexico, responding to a quarry by the Executive Director, confirmed that the reference to developing countries “both regionally and globally” meant such countries within the same region and in other regions.

Expansion and implementation of the regional seas Programme (decision 10/20)

86. In Committee I, the draft decision, submitted by the group of 77, was approved by consensus, as amended by the delegation of India. The representative of New Zealand noted that the outcome of the recent South Pacific Conference on the Human Environment, held at Rarotongo in March 1982, was covered by the reference in the decision to all regional action plan.

87. In plenary, the representative of Sri Lanka, recalling that in the Committee two paragraphs had been deleted from the text, said that an agreed text of those two paragraphs had been arrived at, and they would now be reinstated. Accordingly, she proposed the addition of a new last preambular paragraph and operative paragraph 1.

88. The representative of France opposed the inclusion of the new paragraphs on the grounds that there inclusion, by singling out a specific regional seas Programme or mention, would impair the balance of the text. Following in explanation by the representative of Sri Lanka that the paragraphs related to a proposed expansion of the regional seas Programme, and were therefore not adequately covered by the preambular reference to new action to be adopted, she withdraw her proposal, saying that it was not one of substance – quite the contrary, in fact.

Environmental Law (decision 10/21)

89. In Committee 1, the draft decision, submitted by Austria, Belgium, Benin, Botswana, Burundi, Canada, Chile, Colombia, the Congo, Egypt, Finland, Gabon, Gambia, the Federal Republic of Germany, Ghana, Guinea, Iceland, Indonesia, the Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Kenya, Malaysia, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Oman,Pakistan, the Philippines, Poland, the Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, the Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, the United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia and Zaire, was approved by consensus. The secretariat said that the decision had no direct financial implication, and the report called for in paragraph 7 would be incorporated in the Programme performance report.

90. In plenary, the representative of France proposed that “with approval” in the last preambular paragraph be deleted, and “Endorses” in operative paragraph 1 replaced by :Takes note of”, since delegations had not discussed the report of the Ad Hoc meeting of Senior Government Officials Expert in Environmental Law. 5/ The representative of Canada, the Netherlands, Sweden Uruguay and Yugoslavia opposed the proposal on the grounds that delegations had had ample opportunity to study and discuss the report, which had been available for some five and a half months, that the issue that never been raised in the course of the extensive negotiations, inter alia on the use of the word “Endorses”, which had led to 42 sponsors associating themselves with the draft, and that to raise it at the present stage would open up a long and repetitive debate. The representative of France then withdrew her proposal on condition that her delegation’s reservation regarding the text as adopted would appear in the report. The representative of the United States of America associated his delegation with that reservation.

Working Group of Experts on Environmental Law (decision 10/22)

91. In Committee 1, the draft decision, submitted by Austria, Canada, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Netherlands, Saudi Arabia and Uruguay, was approved by consensus, as amended by the delegation of Belgium.

Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (decision 10/23)

92. In Committee 1, the draft decision, submitted by Canada, India, Indonesia, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, and Mexico, was approved by consensus as amended by the delegation of Venezuela.

93. The delegations of Turkey and the United States of America reserved their position on the decision on the grounds that the Convention on the Law of the Sea was not definitive, and had not yet been signed. The representative of the United Kingdom reserved her delegation’s position, as it had not yet had tie to study fully the outcome of the law of the Sea Conference.

94. In plenary, the representative of the United States of America said that it would be inappropriate to adopt the draft decision, in view of the fact that the results of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea were not definitive, as no treaty had been signed or ratified, and called for a vote of the draft.

95. The representative of the Soviet Union said since the Conference on the Law of the Sea had not adopted the Convention by consensus, the Council should in his delegation’s view not record its satisfaction on the results of the conference.

96. The representative of Turkey reiterated his delegation’s reservation made in

Committee 1: his Government had not voted for and did not intend to sign the

Convention.

97. The representative of Canada pointed out that the draft decision related specifically to the results of the Conference in respect of protection and preservation of the marine environment, and that the relevant part of the draft convention had remained virtually unchanged and undisputed for some five years before its adoption.

98. The Council then voted on the draft decision. At the request of the representative of Canada, the vote was taken by roll call. The draft decision was adopted by 45 votes to 1, with 5 abstentions. The voting was as follows:

In favour: Argentina, Bangladesh, Belgium, Botswana, Brazil, Burundi, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Egypt, Ethiopia, France, Germany, Federal Republic of Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Oman, Pakistan, Peru, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Yugoslavia.

Against: United States of America

Abstaining: Bulgaria, Poland, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Venezuela.

99. The representative of the United Kingdom, speaking in explanation of vote, said the position his Government and expressed on 30 April 1982, regarding the Convention on the Law of the Sea as a whole remained unchanged, and it had not yet had an opportunity to review the situation in respect of the provisions relating to the marine environment. His delegation had voted in favour of the draft decision in an attempt to preserve the consensus and in concert with the United Kingdom’s partners in the European Communities, but that did not signify acceptance of the Convention as a whole.

100. The representative of Poland, Speaking in explanation of vote, said that his delegation and abstained because it believed that theGoverning Council was not the appropriate place to make the statement contained in the decision, which in fact had no practical value or meaning. His Government’s position regarding the overall outcome of the Conference on the Law of the Sea remained unchanged.

Follow-up to the Ad Hoc Meeting of Senior Government Official Expert in Environmental Law (decisions 10/24)

101. In Committee 1, the draft decision submitted by Canada, Finland, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Netherlands, Saudi Arabia and Uruguay, was approved by consensus, as amended by the Group of 77 and the delegation of Brazil and the United Kingdom. The representative of the Federal Republic of Germany states that his Government offered to host, as part of a seminar on waste and recycling with special emphasis on the needs of developing countries, a meeting in 1983/1984 of special of Government experts for the purpose of developing principles storage – and disposal of environmentally sound transport, handling – including storage – and disposal of toxic and dangerous wastes, and was prepared to provide a basic document analyzing major Programme and existing national and international regulations, which, together with other relevant information, could be the basis of further work.

102. The Secretariat noted that $220,000 to $250,000, spread over the period 1982 to 1984, would be required to meet the costs of the proposed three meetings. In view of the fact that no meetings of the Working Group of Experts on Environmental Law would now take place before the Council’s eleventh session, that amount could be absorbed within the existing budget of the Environmental Law Unit.

103. Following the adoption of the decision in the plenary, the representative of the United States of America said that, while his delegation had not wished to stand in the way of a consensus, his Government considered the action proposed in paragraph 1 of the decision to be premature, and accordingly his delegation wished to state its reservation regarding that paragraph.

104. In plenary, the Executive Director, noting that the decision called for three meeting of Government Experts in 1983-1984, pointed out the secretariat did not contribute to the cost of participation of representatives of developing countries in intergovernmental meetings. He therefore appealed to Governments in a position to do so to provide financial support for that purpose, as the Government of Sweden had in preparations for the Ad Hoc meeting.

Environmental education and training (decisions 10/25 A and B)

 
 

  • Environmental education and training in Africa
  • Environmental training for Latin America and the Caribbean
  •