UNEP The 9th Session of the Governing Council

UNITED NATIONS ACTIVITIES

UNEP The 9th Session of the Governing Council Fifty-eight Member States o f the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) met on 13 May in Nairobi for the 9th session o f the Governing Council. The following report on the work o f the session follows on from the introductory report in the last issue, and shouM be read in conjunction with that.

Pre-sessional Consultations

Prior to the official opening of the 9th session, so-called "pre-sessional information consultations" were held among the Heads of Delegations. Discussion took place on who should be proposed for election at the beginning

of the session by each of the regional groups of the UN. Australia had the presidency for the group "Western European and Others". Some difficulty arose because the German Democratic Republic, as a NCC (non-convertible currency) country wanted the chairmanship. A special dis-

Opening of the Session In the absence of the President, H.E. A. N. D. Haksar (India), the session was opened by V. A. Kozlov (Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic),Vice-President of the Governing Council at its 8th session. At the opening meeting, Ambassador Mateo Magarinos de Mello (Uruguay) was elected President by acclamation. John Kofi Offeh of Ghana, Abdullah A1Gain of Saudi Arabia, and Lothar Hertel of the German Democratic Republic were elected Vice-Chairmen. F. L. Schlingemann of the Netherlands was elected Rapporteur for the Plenary meetings.

DDR and the Ukrainian SSR, criticizing the Kampuchea representative who was present in the the conference hall as not representing the system in power but the system which had murdered and destroyed the environment and had received no support from the population. The Kampuchean representative replied that the USSR manoeuvre to help Viet Nam and its expansionist policies could not be approved by the UN.

General

In his speech Tolba criticized the "unabated arms expenditure, already surpassing 500 billion dollars per year". The implication of this situation for the use of resources better devoted to development and its deleterious implications for the environment, are well known, he added. He deplored the failure of governments to fulfill the target of 150 million dollars for the organization's activities from 1978-1981. Unlike most UN bodies, UNEP depends on voluntary contributions from Member States; but 21 governments had not yet paid their proraised contributions for 1979, and 34 had not done so for 1980. This has left

The proposal to elect Magarinos de Mello came from Argentina, supported by several other countries. In his first speech to the conference the new President said that he understood his office as being an honour for his country but although he was happy to have been proposed by the Latin American countries, he would endeavour to run his office in the interest of all the Council. Politics Intrude

Immediately following the election, a statement was made by the USSR, the 102

cussion was then held on this question, as the US delegation, in particular, was unhappy with the possibility that a NCC country should be in the chair, considering that Tolba had so bitterly complained about the NCC States who do not pay freely convertible currency to UNEP. There was also difficulty regarding the question as to how much time should be devoted to the Programme discussion, if it is still unclear as to what the Fund can actually dispose of. With some delay, the official opening of the session took place. [] The Chinese delegate said that he felt a moral obligation to answer these criticisms. Kampuchea is in the UN system and as the representative is the offficial one of his country this must be accepted otherwise it would be a deviation from UN procedure. If something should be done then the intervention in Kampuchea should be condemned. "It is typically the policy of the USSR and this statement wrecks the climate at the Council". Following the election of the Council's officers, Mostafa K. Tolba, the Executive-Director of UNEP, gave the opening address. []

Tolba Outlines the Problems the Environment Fund 25 million dollars short (see also last issue page 59). The Executive-Director continued "I cannot overemphasize the fact that the Council's decision regarding the financial target for 1981-82 will be the most crucial one to be taken at this meeting". He also asked the GC to insist that governments which settle their contributions in non-convertible currency (ncc) must pay "a minimum of 25 per cent in convertible currency (ncc) in 1982 and an increasing proportion every year thereafter". Reminding delegates of UNEP's successful efforts in incorporating environ-

Environmental Policy and Law, 7 (1981)

mental concerns into the International Development Strategy for the Third UN Development Decade, Tolba explained that the Strategy highlighted the environmental problems of deforestation, soil erosion and degradation and desertification as requiring attention in order to ensure an economically viable development process which would be sustainable over a long period and that would help protect the ecological balance. He pointed out that the environment was a significant issue in major international negotiations such as the 3rd UN Conference on the Law of the Sea, the Conference on New and Renewable Sources of Energy (August 1981, Nairobi), and the Conference on Least Developed Countries (September 1981, Paris). Delegates were asked for guidance on UNEP's contribution to these conferences. The Executive-Director explained in detail the implications of the Special Session to mark GC X, the 10th anniversary of the Stockholm Conference. He gave information on documentation to be prepared for GC X and the Special Session. While each element in the process of preparation for 1982 will lead to separate background documents, the principal policy issues raised in them should be moulded into one principal document for consideration at the high level of participation envisaged for the Session of a Special Character. Among the background documents would be a Review of major achievements in implementing the Stockholm plan, the State of the Environment Ten Years after Stockholm and a Review of UNEP's 1982 goals. These documents should in turn lead into those of the perspective document, the trends document and the System-Wide Medium-Term Programme (SWMTEP). However, he felt that a summary document should be prepared for 1982 to review the major achievements of the Stockholm Action Plan and to identify the major environmental trends for UNEP's action in the next decade; this would be contained in a single discussion document of no more than 80 pages. First drafts of the principal documents will be distributed early in July and comments will be invited by 15 September this year. Tolba asked for the Council's guidance on preparations of a short list of the most dangerous substances for GC X's consideration, as requested by the eighth Governing Council. He also informed the delegates that, following consultations, it had been agreed to

Environmental Policy and Law, 7 (1981)

convene a scientific symposium after the special session as a follow-up to recommendations of that session, rather than before the special session as had been proposed at GC VIII. Delegates were informed that the current session was faced with a large number of crucial issues on Programme and Fund matters. Their views were sought on the Programme Performance Report and on the UNEP Secretariat progress in such areas as environmental assess-

proposal for a "special window" (see last issue p. 60 and this issue p. 109). During the course of the meeting, the Executive-Director of the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (HABITAT), Arcot Ramachandran, also delivered a statement on the areas of cooperation between HABITAT and UNEP. He gave a broad outline of the relationship between the development of settlements and the need to maintain a "liveable physical" environment for

Courtesy: Tony Auth

ment, regional seas, environmental law, climate impact studies, tropical forests, and the global soils policy. Delegates views were also asked for on the implementation of the Plan of Action to Combat Desertification, and on UNEP's cooperation with ECA and OAU in implementing the relevant parts of the Lagos Plan of Action. Referring to the medium-term plan for 1982-83 which precedes the launching of the System-Wide Medium-Term Environment Programme (SWMTEP)in January 1984, the Executive-Director said he expected the Council to decide upon the level of funding required in order to implement SWMTEP. Tolba urged the Governing Council to call on governments concerned to back up their funding for regional seas plans and reminded delegates that nearly 80 countries are now served by regional seas plans. He appealed to the Council to consider his proposals for devising ways of financing plans of action and for seeking additional resources to meet serious environmental problems affecting the developing countries, including the Swedish

the world's rapidly growing population. Commenting on UNEP's shortfall in funding, he stressed that while the close cooperation between HABITAT and UNEP continued to grow, both were hampered by the continued scarcity of resources. The world's poor majority lack some of the most basic needs, he said, while the world's rich minority suffer the adverse side-effects resulting from their own affluence and advanced technologies. An increasing number of Governments wishing to improve their settlements had found that available planning techniques did not yet include appropriate accounting systems. New ways were needed of giving proper weight to environmental factors while maximizing net economic and social benefits. The point at which collective costs and collective benefits were in balance might be considered an economic, social and environmental break-even point. National plans could not take into account regional and local environmental issues. Consequently, subnational planning, for which, regrettably, many 103

countries lacked institutions and personnel, was needed to provide a framework for development projects of national and local significance and offer efficient guidance for decisions on industrial location, infrastructure development and settlement growth.

Executive-Director's Report Tolba presented his introductory report on the State of the Environment for general debate at the 2 Plenary meeting on 18 May. The report dealt with key issues such as defining the tasks of the 1982 special session, UNEP's role in the International Development Strategy, the System-wide Medium-Term Environment Programme, Funding of UNEP-supported projects and special funds for developing countries. (For additional information, see last issue pages 56-60). General Debate During the general debate which took place from the 2nd to the 7th Plenary meetings of the session, numerous speakers paid tribute to the achievements of UNEP and commended the ExecutiveDirector and his staff on their work. Many felt that the ninth session of the GC, the last before the tenth anniversary of the Stockholm Conference, was of particular importance in that it should provide guidance for the ExecutiveDirector in the preparations for the Council session of a special character and the tenth regular session, which would chart the future course of the Programme. Several delegations expressed support for UNEP's initiatives in the field of interrelationships between people, resources, environment and development, and endorsed the case-study approach, including the priorities for action by UNEP as suggested by the ExecutiveDirector. Some delegations, inter alia, the USSR and the German Democratic Republic, pointed out that scientists from the socialist countries should be involved in studying the question, in order to ensure that all approaches were taken into account (see also 'Statements', page 119). Delegations emphasized the need for the rapid implementation of the World Conservation Strategy (WCS) (see Environmental Policy and Law, 6 (2) 1980, 77), which, "had introduced the concept of conservation as equal in importance to, essential for and complementary to development". In that connection, the need for continuous cooperation with 104

and support for IUCN was stressed. Reference was made to the special character of IUCN, being an organization composed of governments and NGOs and the hope was expressed that UNEP would not cut down its project oriented support for the organization. (These delegations seem to have been unware that UNEP's financial support for IUCN has continually decreased during the past few years.) Reference was made to regional cooperative activities in the environment field both within and outside the UN

Photo: WEB UNEP, 9th Governing Council in Plenary Session

framework. Some delegates felt that UNEP should seek to promote such activities, and that the Council should discuss at its 10th session the possibility of establishing regional components within the Environment Fund. Some felt that UNEP should go even further and identify subregions which could constitute focuses for programming and financial support. A suggestion was made that the regional commissions should be strengthened to deal with problems which were essentially regional in scope, thus freeing UNEP for activities in research, information and assistance in the implementation of national programmes (see also p. 124). A number of delegations deplored the waste on armaments for resources which would be better used for environmental projects, and the potentially adverse consequences of the arms race for the environment (see also p. 134). Several representatives urged UNEP to promote the implementation of General Assembly resolution 35/8 on the historical responsibility of States for the

preservation of nature for present and future generations (see Environmental Policy andLaw, 7(2) 1981,93), an issue to which the arms race was also relevant. There was general support for the Executive-Director's proposals concerning the arrangements for the session of a special character. A number of delegations urged that the session of a special character should be as short as possible. For the tenth regular session, several delegations suggested that seven days would be sufficient, especially as the Executive-Director had rightly indicated that there would be no need for a general debate. It was generally agreed that the GC should make it clear at the earliest opportunity that countries should be represented at the session of a special character at a high political level, preferably at the ministerial level. Most representatives endorsed the Executive-Director's suggestion that a single principal document should be presented to the session of a special character. Several delegations emphasized that the report on the state of the environment 10 years after Stockholm should be a document of use to policy makers and should be drawn up in close cooperation with all the relevant parts of the UN system. Others stressed that due account should be taken of achievements in the socialist countries, and that a representative of the eastern European countries should participate in the final editing of the report. Suggested topics for in-depth treatment included food, energy, and soils. Canada, supported by Sweden and other delegations, proposed the establishment of an independent commission of eminent persons, similar to the Pearson and Brandt commissions t o start a study of the world environment to the year 2000 and beyond (see p. 144). Some delegations suggested that the perspective document should be drawn up by an intergovernmental preparatory committee established by the General Assembly, with the assistance of the commission of eminent persons and agreed with the proposal that the special session should only be furnished with the first part of the perspective documetn, i.e., the part on shared perceptions. Regret was expressed that the information programme for the 1982 session suggested that the Executive Director's report gave no details on expected inputs from elsewhere in the UN system, or on the crucial role which could be played by non-governmental organizations, and Environmental Policy and Law, 7 (1981)

the Executive-Director was requested to provide further details. Several representatives commended the work being carried out on the International Register of Potentially Toxic Chemicals, and urged UNEP to strength-' en such activities in order to meet the growing risks posed by the widespread use of toxic chemicals, and to ensure that the developing countries did not become a dumping ground for these and other hazardous wastes (see also p. 126). Concern was expressed at the increasingly serious problems ofdesertification. The Mexican representative offered to explore the possibility of his Government hosting a conference on monitoring the process of desertification for countries in the western hemisphere, or possibly with broader participation. A request was made to add Bangladesh to the list of countries eligible to receive assistance under the Plan of Action to Combat Desertification but this request was firmly opposed by the Indian delegation. Support was expressed for UNEP's activities in relation to tropical forests. Regret was expressed that the scheduled second expert meeting had not yet taken place, and the need was stressed for the collection and dissemination of information, the devising of strategies, the development of management techniques and the expansion of training in relation to tropical forests. Support was also expressed for UNEP's efforts with regard to the development of a world soils policy and further work on soil productivity was suggested. The Malaysian delegate felt that the guidelines being prepared by UNEP on soil erosion and siltation would be most useful and the Australian delegate expressed support for the global monitoring of soil degradation. Many delegations drew attention to the critical world energy situation and its effect on many developing countries, particularly in connection with the growing attack on forest resources as a way of meeting national energy needs. Several delegations expressed support for UNEP's planned input to the forthcoming Conference on Least Developed Countries and pointed out that the Conference should bear in mind the importance of energy as a major factor determining the prospects of those countries. Several delegations welcomed the Executive Director's report, on international cooperation in the use of shared natural resources (see also Environmental Policy & Law, 5 (2) (1979) pp. 6 6 -

104). One delegation urged the Council compete for scarce resources while into adopt the principles on shared natural creasing overheads. Concern was expressed at the level of resources and to call upon Governments to respect them. The USSR, however, non-convertible currency balances in the emphasized that UNEP must not go be- Fund. Strong support was expressed for yond what had been decided by the Gen- the Executive Director's efforts to eneral Assembly, and in particular should courage contributors in ncc's to fix a not proceed as if the principles had minimum of 25 per cent for the convertible portion of their contribution in gained broad acceptance. Environmental law was considered to 1982 and an increasing proportion every be a subject of growing importance, and year thereafter. The adoption of Arabic as a working support was expressed for UNEP activities in that field. One delegation par- language of the Governing Council was ticularly welcomed the fact that UNEP welcomed as a step forward. The Director General of the Internaplanned to start work on a global convention on environmental impact assess- tional Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) ment. A number of delegations welcomed expressed appreciation to UNEP for its the work done in preparing for the ad cooperation and to Governments for hoc meeting of senior Government offi- their support, and mentioned the various cials expert in environmental law, to be activities of his organization in the field held in Montevideo in November 1981, of conservation and development and which should establish a framework and highlighted the World Conservation Straset out a programme for the long-term tegy - which had perhaps done more to development of environmental law (see put conservation on the world's agenda also p. 127), with particular regard to than any other single action since the the interests of developing countries. Stockholm Conference - as the best It was suggested that the programme reflection of IUCN's broad conservashould be so formulated as to include tion mandate. IUCN had taken various the components of assessment, manage- steps to further the direct implementament, and supporting measures. The tion of the Strategy, and also welcomed American delegation stressed that the the signing of a new round of projects Council should give clear guidance to in cooperation with UNEP, which he the preparatory committee in develop- hoped would shortly be expanded. At this stage, the representative of ing the agenda for the ad hoc meeting, and expressed the hope that the prepa- the PLO denounced inhuman Israel pracratory process would result in the iden- tices aimed at uprooting the Palestinian tification of issues and discussion topics people from their homeland. Moreover, which would justify its government's he added, the new United States Government had, through its policies, dragged participation (see page 114). Several delegations expressed appre- the world to the brink of war. He apciation of the role of non-governmental pealed to the Governing Council to conorganizations in UNEP's activities, par- demn Israel, the USA and their allies ticularly in enhancing environmental which were bent on destroying not only awareness, and it was pointed out that the environment but the very existence such organizations could make a special of the Palestinian people. The representative of Israel, speaking contribution .to celebrating the tenth anniversary of the Stockholm Confer- in exercise of the fight of reply, deplored ence. One delegation requested that the PLO representative's attempt to misIUCN should be added to the list given use the forum of the Governing Council. in the Executive Director's report on Many improvements had occurred in the relations with non-governmental organi- living conditions of the Palestinian Arabs in the last 13 years, and the area was enzations. Regret was expressed at the shortfall joying unprecedented prosperity and in contributions, and concern was shown absolute religious freedom. Israel was at the tendency to delay payments to cooperating with UNDP in implementing a number of projects to benefit the the Fund. Many delegations expressed support Palestinian people. The delegation of the USA, also for the proposed "special window" (see speaking in exercise of the right to reply, also last issue and this issue p. 132). One group of delegations (see above), deplored the continued practice of the opposed the suggestion, arguing that PLO of using a scientific and technical UNEP was not a development aid agency forum for polemical and propagandistic [] and that the "special window" would attacks.

Environmental Policy and Law, 7 (1981)

105

Extracts from Delegate Statements Australia

(on Meeting of a Special Character and Funding) J. L. Lavett Regarding the 1982 Session of a Special Character, we would repeat our concern, previously raised at the Informal Consultations, that the duration should be as short as practicable, recognising the serious difficulty, for representatives of an appropriately high political level, to be absent from their normal heavy responsibilities. We note further that travel to and from Nairobi will necessarily take four days for our delegates, and no doubt for others. From this perspective we feel that a maximum of six days should be clearly fixed for the duration of the Special Session. Indeed we would prefer five days. In other respects we generally support the proposed arrangements for the Special Session, including the provisional agenda and the proposed documentation. On funding matters, I would like to express our appreciation that, since the Informal Consultations, more detailed budgetary and expenditure information is now being provided. Australia also welcomes the improved facility for ongoing consultation between the Executive Director and the Permanent Representatives in Nairobi. However, we continue to have concerns about matters we have raised at previous meetings of Governing Council. My delegation will address these matters, in more detail, in Sessional Committee. However, in view of their importance to Australia's attitude on UNEP funding, I would like to draw to attention, in Plenary, the main difficulties, as we see them. The first is largely mechanical. Governing Council meeting papers require careful study by financial advisers and others within our Government. Adequate assessment is very difficult when papers arrive, as still occurs, close to the meeting dates. The second is presentational. We believe that the financial tabulations could be further improved so that revenue expectations, expenditures and commitments over a period of years are more clearly presented and more readily assessed. The third is a basic difficulty with the UNEP practice of developing programmes for a much higher level of fund106

ing than can possibly be anticipated. The size of this difference is generally so great that, in our view, it may tend to undermine confidence in the sound management practices of UNEP. We suggest that, perhaps contrary to intention, such a large difference may support pressures to reduce UNEP funding, rather than encourage increased funding to bridge the funding gap. Our fourth difficulty is the large carry over of forward commitment from year to year. When this is added to the carry over of expenditure shortfall, a very large proportion of the available funds are effectively committed in advance for any particular year. This leaves little scope for Governing Council to advise on new activities. In our view, maximum flexibility should be provided in each year for projects to be terminated or modified, if this is sensible in the light of experience at the time, and thus to free resources for new projects, if these are more important than particular ongoing projects. In this respect we are not persuaded that the financial management of UNEP should be so different to the national financial management practices with which we are familiar, and which seem to work satisfactorily. Canada (on Senior Level Meeting on Environmental Law) L. S. Clark Mr. Chairman, at its 8th session last year, the Governing Council adopted decision 8/15 which requested the Executive Director to convene an ad hoc meeting of senior government officials expert in environmental law, now generally referred to as the Senior Level Meeting. U.N. General Assembly resolution 35/74 of December 5 welcomed this decision and urged governments and the Governing Council to take all the necessary measures for the preparation for the Senior Level Meeting. UNEP has clearly demonstrated that it has an important role to play in the development of environmental law, most notably in promoting and facilitating the development of multilateral, regional and bilateral agreements as well as principles, guidelines and recommendations in this field. I have already commented in this Committee on the satisfaction, and indeed measure of pride,

with which Canada views the continuing success of UNEP's Regional Seas Programme which has most recently produced the Athens Protocol for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea. My delegation has also joined with many others in launching the process towards the elaboration of an ozone convention, to which process the discussions at this Governing Council have made a substantive contribution. UNEP is now embarking on a period of programme planning in the context of its coordinating and catalytic role, which has far-reaching impact, as it moves towards the coordination of all environmental activities within the UN system. In keeping with this overall planning activity through the SWMTEP, and in order to build upon UNEP's successful experience to date, it is clearly desirable to provide a balanced, coherent framework for dealing with specific environmental law issues. This was the principle consideration which led a large group of delegations, including Canada, to co-sponsor the draft decision which became Governing Council decision 8/15. That decision refers to the relationship between the Senior Level Meeting and the preparation of the SWMTEP. Delegates will recall that the first operative paragraph of decision 8/15 makes it clear that there is to be a mutually supportive link between the Senior Level Meeting and the SWMTEP. That is to say: the results of the Senior Level Meeting will be included in SWMTEP and SWMTEP will futher the process initiated by means of the SLM recommendations. The current proposed decision specifically recognizes that the results of the Senior Level Meeting will make a "major contribution to the SWMTEP". Given the number of international bodies involved and interested in the development and promotion of environmental law, we are confident that the results of the Senior Level Meeting will provide a sound basis for future activities and action supplementary and complementary to action by UNEP. Thus, international bodies other than UNEP and perhaps the UN General Assembly itself, will be in a position to benefit from the recommendations of the Senior Level Meeting, to promote and develop particular aspects of environmental law of special interest. As for UNEP, when the tenth Governing Council examines the recommendations of the Senior Level Meeting in conjunction with its review of those elements incorporated into the SWMTEP,

Environmental Policy and Law, 7 (1981)

it will, of course, have the opportunity to pronounce on preferred priorities and programmes in the field of environmental law, as seen by UNEP, in the second decade after the Stockholm Conference. Governing Council decision 8/15 establishes that the Senior Level Meeting will be held and gives some general indication of what it is expected to achieve. However, it leaves for decision by this ninth Governing Council a number of administrative matters such as the dates and venues of both the Senior Level Meeting and the Working Group of Experts on Environment Law, acting as the preparatory committee for the Senior Level Meeting, as well as the participation in each. In addition, it is left to this session of the Governing Council to decide on the actual mandate for the Senior Level Meeting. The draft decision before us addresses these matters. It is not of course intended to, nor does it, replace decision 8/15, but rather complements it. Mr. Chairmen, this proposal is the product of extensive informal consultations among representatives from all the various regional groups. Distinguished delegates are aware that UN General Assembly resolution 35/74 of December 5, 1980 also welcomed the generous offer of the Government of Uruguay at host the Senior Level Meeting. This draft decision confirms Montevideo as the venue of the meeting. After having re-examined the proposed timetable attached to decision 8/15, which indicated the Working Group of Legal Experts could meet as the Preparatory Committee in June and the Senior Level Meeting in September, -we note that to date there has in fact been some delay with regard to the preparatory process. Taking this into account, as well as the views of our prospective host, the Government of Uruguay, the co-sponsors have concluded that suitable dates for the Montevideo meeting would be November 25 to December 3, 1981. This postponement from the September date originally envisaged will allow for better preparation, of the kind suggested in some plenary interventions. It will also fit in with a logical process which envisages the CCOL meeting and the annual UNEP informal consultations - proposed for mid-November 1981 - preceding the Senior Level Meeting. While we understand that the Secretariat would prefer to schedule the Montevideo meeting before the informal consultations, we

Environmental Policy and Law, 7 (1981)

befieve that on the contrary, these consultations can be a very useful prelude to the Senior Level Meeting which will then be able to take those informal discussions into account. As we understand it, the Secretariat's concern relates to the need for the results of the Senior Level Meeting to be incorporated into the SWMTEP, which will be in the final stages of presentation in December. Mr. Chairman, we are convinced that with a little extra effort and acknowledging the realistic likelihood of at least some slight slippage in the SWMTEP timetable - despite the avowed commitment of the Secretariat that the SWMTEP exercise must be on time - there will in the end be no insurmountable difficulty in fitting the Senior Level Meeting into the SWMTEP. Our understanding with regard to the Working Group of Legal Experts acting as the Preparatory Committee is that Geneva could be available in early September and the draft decision therefore indicates the venue and timing for that meeting as well. As to participation in the Working Group, we note that the Executive Director has discretion with regard to membership and we assume that he will take fully into account the desire to participate as expressed by governments, and that the preparatory committee will thus be composed of a suitably expanded Working Group. Turning to the mandate of the Senior Level Meetings, Montevideo will have two principle tasks: firstly to establish a framework (that is to set out the parameters) and to recommend methods for, the future development of environmental law; and secondly to set out a programme (that is to put forward recommendations) as to how global, regional and national efforts should be directed in the field of environmental law. We do not expect the meeting to negotiate or to draft any conventions, guidelines or principles. What we expect is that it will identify a limited number of specific subject areas, including three priority issues on which there is widespread agreement (land-based pollution, the ozone layer and hazardous waste disposal): The report of the informal consultative meeting, of an admittedly small group of representatives, that was held in Ottawa last November, stated that land-based pollution, the ozone layer and hazardous waste disposal were subject areas where increased global and regional coordination and cooperation may encourage and further enhance pro-

gress in the field o f environmental law, in particular with regard to the interests of developing countries. In the In-depth Review of Environmental Law prepared by the Secretariat and just issued as UNEP Report No. 2 of 1981, the three subject areas that I have just mentioned have been recommended as "topics for global action". Delegates will recall that in 1977 the Executive Director recommended to the Working Group of Experts on Environmental Law, as a priority topic, marine pollution from landbased sources, and the Working Group earmarked this topic for possible study in the future. This is an area which is essential as a complementary activity to the implementation of the Regional Seas Programme which has been designated a priority area by the Governing Council of UNEP. As well, this is a topic which cannot be neglected in the light of development at the Law of the Sea Conference. The protection of the ozone layer was specifically identified as goal 20 for 1982. The growing body of scientific data will permit work to proceed on this topic and we are indeed now launching the process towards a convention. The disposal of hazardous wastes is of special concern to developing countries as the methods and location used for their disposal are known to have serious harmful environmental consequences, which may upset harmonious relations among states. The Senior Level Meeting is to indicate how priority subject areas could be dealt with in the future, in terms of eventual guidelines, principles or agreements. It is also requested to identify other possible subject areas which might be examined in due course within the envisaged framework; to point out the direction for further work in the field of preventive measures, such as environmental impact assessment and effective procedures for the improvement of information exchange; and to enhance the promotion of assistance to developing countries in the field of environmental law. Mr. Chairman, for those few delegations which up to now have had some difficulty understanding the proposed content for the Senior Level Meeting and ascertaining its potential utility, a careful reading of the draft decision in light of these explanatory remarks should, we trust, assist in achieving the desired level of enlightenment. The co-sponsors have worked hard to try to fred a balance between the wishes of delegations favouring only an 107

extremely general outline of the mandate so as not to prejudge the outcome of the Senior Level Meeting, and those pressing for a high degree of specificity so that maximum results can be achieved at what will, after all, be a very short meeting. As for the task facing the Working Group in its capacity as the preparatory committee, it will of course have before it decision 8/15 and this decision, as well as the documentation being prepared by the Secretariat, including the In-depth Review. The Secretariat will also be informing us concerning the consultants already engaged and the scope of their intended contribution. We understand that a number, including regional consultants, have been engaged to produce working documents on various global and regional issues and concerns, and that Dr. Alexandre Kiss, whose eminence and reputation are well known, will coordinate the preparation of these contributions and also produce a paper on global concerns. We look forward to the Secretariat providing a report on these preparations. Furthermore, we expect consultations to take place between now and September which will crystallize in specific proposals for consideration by the Working Group. Should any delegation wish to put forward such proposals now, they could be referred to the September session and then taken fully into account at the preparatory committee. The point is that until the relevant documentation envisaged in decision 8/15 is ready and circulated, a degree of flexibility and an atmosphere of accommodation must be maintained. For example, few if any delegations can be prepared to comment extensively on the just-released In-depth Review on Environmental Law and we will all have to reflect on how its contents can be integrated into the Senior Level Meeting preparatory process. Governing Council decision 8/15 also anticipated that the Senior Level Meeting could provide an opportunity for official approval of a role for UNEP in relevant follow-up work to the U.N. Law of the Sea Conference, which is to resume in Geneva in August, have greatly increased the need for careful consideration as to the best means to ensure appropriate action with regard to the contents of Part XII of the present Draft Convention on the Law of the Sea concerning protection and preservation of the marine environment, and in relation to the role to be played by UNEP. I would now draw the attention of delegations to operative paragraph 4 of 108

the draft decision which requests the Executive Director to convene "in conjunction with the Preparatory Committee a meeting to identify the particular interests and concerns of the developing countries...". Last year it had been the hope and expectation of the co-sponsors and supporters of decision 8/15 that the special concerns of the developing countires could be identified, clarified and taken into account through appropriate regional meetings and consultations. This has evidently not proved possible, partly for administrative reasons. Nonetheless, we believe it is extremely important that these concerns be examined prior to, and eventually reflected in the results of, the Senior Level Meeting. The co-sponsors of the draft decision before us are therefore of the view that provision should be made for a meeting to be held in conjunction with the Preparatory Committee Meeting to deal with such concerns. By "in conjunction with" we mean either for a few days immediately preceeding the Preparatory Committee Meeting or an appropriate period in advance of that meeting. We are of the view that the timing can be left to the Executive Director to decide. The important consideration is that the substance of the discussion at this developing countries meeting be made available to the preparatory committee meeting. Thus, the exact dates for the developing country consultations will be established by the Executive Director immediately after this Council Session in consultation with developing countries. I understand that my Swedish colleagues will be making some remarks with regard to the question of financing participation in the preparatory process and in the Senior Level Meeting on the part of developing countries. Delegations will note that the draft decision requests the Executive Director to invite to the Senior Level Meeting all member states "which have expressed an interest in participating" and "interested UN agencies and bodies as well as other inter-governmental and non-governmental organizations". Accordingly, it would now be useful for the Executive Director to provide to the Governing Council a list of those states which have expressed an interest in participating in the Senior Level Meeting in response to his communication of July 29, 1980. It should be noted that the reference in GC 8/15 to Rule 62, in our view, gives the Executive Director discretion with regard to inviting additional

participants, in order to ensure appropriate regional representation. Mr. Chairman, I have referred to the In-depth Review of Environmental Law prepared by the Secretariat. We have now had an opportunity for a very preliminary study of this document. We find that this final text is much improved in comparison with the earlier draft and we wish to commend the Secretariat in general, and its Environmental Law Unit in particular, for the improved quality and content of this important document. Mr. Chairman, before concluding, the Canadian delegation would also like to commend the Secretariat and the Environmental Law Unit for the preparations which are now, finally, underway for the Senior Level Meeting. We are all aware of the original hesitations on the part of the Secretariat regarding this initiative and we are pleased that we now seem to be working together towards a shared objective and common goals.

German Democratic Republic

(on Documentation, SWMTEP} Lothar Hertel As regards the Report "10 Years after Stockholm" my delegation notes with concern that the GDR received the draft neither in time nor complete. On the basis of the material available we have no choice but to state that this is not in line with our expectations. It is hoped that the consultation of experts which took place in Nairobi in March contributed positively to the revision of the report. Keeping in mind the nature of such a documentation my delegation deems it necessary that a representative from the group of eastern European countries should be included in the group responsible for the final editing. I may reiterate that the GDR anticipates the Session of a Special Character to become a milestone in UNEP's further development. I am pleased to state that the suggestions made by the Executive Director with regard to the organizational arrangements have found our principle agreement. As regards the 1984-1989 Systemwide Medium-term Environment Programme, my delegation shares the view of the Administrative Committee of Coordination laid down in document GC. 9/4/Add.I that this programme should not only be regarded as an instrument of UNEP's Governing Council but should be conceived in such a way as to meet, to a maximum extent, the requireEnvironmental Policy and Law, 7 (1981)

ments of all United Nations bodies and specialized agencies. By improving its substantive and conceptional work UNEP should exert stronger influence on the specific environmental activities undertaken by various United Nations bodies and organizations.

Austria (on Environmental Law) Austria is highly interested in the codification and further development of customary environmental law. We therefore do support the idea of convening a Senior Level Meeting on environmental law. Austria is convinced that high priority should be attributed to the prevention and abatement of marine pollution, while paying due respect to other relevant international efforts to achieve this aim. Nevertheless, marine pollution should not be the only preoccupation of UNEP's activities in the field of international environmental law. There are other important global issues of similar priority and urgency, as e.g. specific problems of air pollution and their effects on world climate and natural radiation.

Sweden

(on Perspective Document, Environment Fund & Senior Level Meeting on Environmental Law) Olaf Johansson The insights gained by governments and the improved perceptions of the long-term environmental problems we are facing, have convinced us that time is ripe to define a long term agenda for action to protect and enhance the environment and to set aspirational goals for the world community. The Executive Director of UNEP has already in a commendable way conceptualised and provided us with an instrument for these efforts: the Perspective Document. He has asked for our guid~ ance on how this Document should be developed. My answer is this, let us launch a new "Stockholm" process to focus the attention of the World Community on the Environment. Let us agree on a mechanism for governments to negotiate the Perspective Document. Let us urge all governments to make all efforts to come to the tenth session of the Governing Council next year with their first major substantive inputs to the negotiations on the Perspective Document.

Environmental Policy and Law, 7 (1981)

My delegation is going to introduce a draft resolution on the Preparatory Process. I would highlight the main elements. We suggest that the Governing Council invites the General Assembly to establish a Preparatory Committee with the task of preparing the Perspective Document. We further recommend that independent views at a politically and scientifically high level, to be prepared by an Independent Commission on the Environment, should be introduced into the work of the Preparatory Committee. It is our view that the United Nations Agencies be actively involved in the Preparatory Process as the Perspective Document will be a basic document for the World Community including the United Nations system. It is going to be the natural political foundation for the System-Wide Medium-Term Environment Programme and it was always so conceived. It should also form a major platform for introducing environmental considerations in the midterm review of the New International Development Strategy. We also strongly recommend that the negotiations on the Perspective Document should draw upon the results of the work of the United Nations system on the interrelationships between people, environment, resources and development. The difficult economic situation that many nations experience today and the likelihood that this situation will be with us in the years to come is bound to create difficulties also for international organizations like UNEP, dependent as it is on voluntary contributions to its Fund. The environment problems do not recognize zero-growth, and it would be highly deplorable if at the 10 year anniversary of UN environmental cooperation we will face sharp reductions in resources committed to the global protection and enhancement of the environment. The Environment Programme and the Environment Fund constitute the main instruments for UN action in the field of the environment. It is clear however, that the Environment Fund does not have enough resources that can be utilized for environment activities in the developing countries. And, Mr. Chairman, great resources are urgently needed. This is why Sweden at last years' Governing Council suggested that a "development window" or an additional resource should be created in the Environment Fund to be used for the most acute environmental problems in the de-

veloping countries. Let me reiterate this plea. Additional resources to the Environment Fund for action in developing countries, should contribute, through UNEP's catalytical functions, to even more expanded action by other UN bodies, " resulting in a considerable strengthening of the capacity of the whole UN system in enhancing and protecting the environment. Finland

(on Special Window and Environmental Law) Esko Rajakoski The Swedish delegation suggested last year the establishing of a special "Development Window" to be used for the most acute environmental problems in the developing countries. We welcome this suggestion and are giving right now a serious consideration in order possibly to contribute to it depending on the general reaction this idea will receive from other countries. Yet another field of activity where we have been able to support our Swedish neighbours is the initiative for a draft convention on the protection of ozone layer. In spite of some complications, we see in the practical organization of the sufficient preparatory work needed, we hoped that a sensible conclusion could be found on this meeting of the governing council. This leads us to the important task of developing international law in the field ofenvironmentl This is still another subject which attracts a special interest of my government.

Egypt (on Armament Expenditure) The Executive Director has rightly sounded the alarm about the arms race and its environmental implications. The build-up of arms in large parts of the Developing Countries--encouraged by arms suppliers--has undermined development very much needed for those countries. A new understanding of defence and security policies is more than desirable. The Brandt Commission in its report published last year rightly indicated that there is a moral link between the vast spending on arms and the disgracefully low spending on measures to remove hunger and ill-health in the developing countries. The annual military bill is now more than 500 billion US dollars, while official development aid accounts for less than 5 per cent of this figure. The cost of a ten-year program109

me to provide for essential food and health needs in developing countries is less than half of one year's military spending. The total cost of the yearly programme of UNEP is almost equal to less than 1 hour's expenditure on arlTiS.

France (sur le Fends et la Documentation pour les Sessions 1982) (1) Si je reprends, pour commencer, l'exemple des mouvements de l'opinion publique dans m e n pays, je dirai qu'elle a d'abord 6t6 alertde massivement par la Conf6rence de Stockholm. Son intdr~t

PRIORITIES

2A,o =|

T h e w o r l d s p e n d s 2 0 t i m e s as m u c h o n t h e m i l i t a r y as it d o e s o n aid t o t h e developing countries

est raviv6 p~riodiquement par l'dcho des d61ib6rations d'organes comme ce Conseri, ou par les initiatives nouvelles qui sent prises, comme dans t o u s l e s pays, par les administrations qui retrempent ici leur d~termination. (2) Deuxi~me exemple: le programme des mers rggionales. I1 dolt beaucoup, c'est vrai, fi Faction "catalytique" du PNUE et ~ la contribution financi-;re non ndgligeable qui lui est venue du Fends. Mais, sous rdserve de certaines difficultds de caract~re administratif et comptable qui doivent absolument 6tre r6gl6es avant la fan de cette session entre l'administration du Programme et les repr6sentants des gouvernements int6ress6s, on peut dire que, pour l'essentiel, le programme relatif ~ la M~diterrande, pour ne citer que lui, vole maintenant de ses propres aries. (3) Quant au probl~me des eaux souterraines, ri n'est pas absent, lui non plus, des pr6occupations qui s'expriment travers le programme et le budget examinds dans nos comitds de session, mais ce

110

qui paraff manquer, en cette occasion, c'est la volontg des gouvernements de donner ~ cette affaire, darts leur propre pofitique, un degrd de priorit6 suffisant. Or notre Conseil n'y changera rien, je l'ai d6ja dit, s'il se contente de prendre note du rapport prdsent~ par M. Tolba et de l'envoyer aux archives. Au contraire, un espoir est permis si les administrations nationales repr6sent6es ici veulent bien se consid~rer comme collectivement responsables de la solution de ce probl~me, inddpendamment de leur participation ~ la gestion du Programme et du Fends des Nations Unies pour l'Environnement.

acte de gestion. Ceci implique que l'on retienne comme objectif ~ inscrire dans les documents relatifs au programme et au budget du prochain exercice biennal, un volume de ressources correspondant aux recettes sur lesquelles il est raisonnable de compter. Cela n'emp~chera pas notre Conseil, et le Dr. Tolba, de poursuivre leurs efforts pour amdliorer ces ressources, soit en demandant aux principaux donateurs actuels d'envisager d'accroitre leurs contributions, soit en obtenant des versements de donateurs nouveaux, soit encore en amenant ceux qui contribuent en monnaies non convertibles ~ renoncer enfm ~ une pratique qui stdrilise en fait une fraction importante des disponibiliARMS SPENDING t6s du Fends. World military expenditure is now J'ajoute qu'ri ne faut pas confondre running at almost $1 million a le f'mancement du Fends du PNUE avec minute... l'aide au ddveloppement. I1 y a certainement beaucoup ~ faire encore pour amener les institutions f'manci~res internationales ~ se pr6occuper davantage des , $1000000 effets de leurs opdrations sur l'environPER M I N U T E nement des pays en d~veloppement. I1 faut aussi encourager les agences d'aide • . . the equivalent o f $100 a year for every person on earth bilatdrales et multilat~rales ~ fmancer des projets consacr6s spdcifiquement l'environnement et veiller fi ce qu'elles aient pour cela des ressources suffisantes. Mais ce n'est pas le r61e du PNUE d'intervenir lui-m6me directement dans ce domaine, ff~t-ce avec des contributions sp6cialement affectdes ~ cela. II n'est Courtesy; UNEP pas, du reste, matdriellement apte ~ le fake. C'est pour cette raison que la proOn vdrifie ainsi que notre Conseil a, position pr~sentde ici-m6me l'an dernier dans tous les cas, un role double: ri dolt par la Su6de n'a pas suscitg de r6action non seulement gdrer une institution positive de la part de mes autorit6s. internationale mais aussi s'appliquer ~t Pour l'organisation des travaux de dlaborer des politiques d l'usage des notre Conseil en 1982, je souhaiterais gouvernements. que nous nous basions dgalement sur la C'est en me fondant sur cette distinc- distinction que je faisais ressortir tout tion, d'ailleurs contenue dans notre l'heure. Je voudrais proposer que la sesmandat, que je vais maintenant apporter sion d'un caract6re particulier soit conla r~ponse de ma d~16gation aux princi- sacr6e essentiellement/t ranimer l'intdr6t pales questions pos~es par le Directeur des gouvernements et des peuples pour ex@utif ~ la f.ln de son excellent rapport la politique de l'environnement. La sesintroductif. sion ordinaire s'occuperait plut6t de la D'abord la question du chiffre fi re- gestion du PNUE, ~ la lumi6re, bien tenir comme objectif financier pour le entendu, des conclusions de la session Fends. sp6ciale. On pourrait imaginer que le ddbat sur La session fi caract6re particulier cette question devienne une sorte de comporterait un d6bat gdn6ral, portant comp6tition symbolique eli le pays prola fois sur le brian des dix ann6es 6couposant le chiffre le plus glevd prgtendrait 16es et sur les t~ches /l accomplir dans prouver par 1~ qu'ri s'intdresse le plus l'avenir, deux th~mes qu'il est imposla cooperation internationale en mati~re sible de s@arer. Un comit~ de session d'environnement. On peut, au contraire, serait charg6 d'61aborer un texte de conet c'est le point de vue de ma ddldgation, clusions, qui ferait ressortir les tendances consid6rer la ddcision ~ prendre pour ce constat6es--bonnes ou mauvaises--et qu'elle est rdellement, c'est-fi-dire, un les orientations souhaitables, texte qui

[

Environmental Policy and Law, 7 (1981)

servirait en particulier de r~f6rence aux has the support of our delegation. It is on the whole an excellent document in travaux ult6rieurs du Conseit. Les d616gations pr6sentes fi Nairobi terms of both content and format. We pour la dixi~me session ordinaire du wish however, that the links and interConseil n'ont pas besoin d'un d61ai de relationships between various compoplusieurs jours pour recevoir communi- nents of this plan were articulated somecation des conclusions de la session where in this document. Because of sp6ciale et pour en prendre connaissance budgetary and organization considerapuisque elles auront 6videmment parti- tions each component has to be dealt cip6 /l la n6gociation du texte. Elles with separately with the consequence pourront, comme le sugg~re M. Tolba, that the conceptual and logistic relase passer d'un d~bat g6n~ral et se con- tionship between them and the rest of tenter de discuter des questions qui the plan is sometimes blurred. The programme for supporting meaviennent habituellement devant nos deux comit6s de session, en tenant compte, sures such as training, information and naturellement, des principes adopt6s par technical assistance should cut across all programmes. la session ~t caract~re particulier. The programme for Environment and La 10bme session ordinaire n'aura pas, ~ mon avis,/t r6diger elle-m6me un Development which includes integrated nouveau texte sur les objectifs g~n6raux approach to environment and developdu PNUE, mais elle devra prendre les ment, and also includes environmentally decisions n6cessaires pour l'~laboration - - s o u n d and appropriate technology du "descfiptif du programme", con- acquires meaning only in terms of its form~ment aux propositions de M. complimentarity with other programTolba, qui tiennent compte elles-m6mes rues. The concepts underlying ecodeveldes d6cisions ant6rieures de notre conseil opment, rational utilization of natural et de l'avis du Comit6 Administratif de resources, and appropriate technology should permeate through all other proCoordination. La documentation ~ pr6parer pour grammes. The necessity to compartmentalize, l'ensemble des deux sessions cons6cutives de 1982 pourrait ainsi ne pas 6tre trop dictated by programmatic purposes, volumineuse. En dehors des documents should not cause any loss of coherence de routine destin6s ~ la session ordinaire and unity between the various compoet de l'~tude sur l'6tat de l'environne- nents of the plan. The target for contribution to the ment dix ans aprbs Stockholm (base infund during 1982-1983 of $120 mildispensable des travaux de la session caract+re particulier), il me semble qu' lion is justifiable taking into consideraun seul document serait n6cessaire pour tion the importance of environmental faire ressortir tout ~ la fois les tendances issues addressed by Mid-Term Plan and observer, les objectifs ~ poursuivre, les the need for tangible results in the face orientations ~ respecter, les buts off of mounting environmental problems. The draft objectives for SWMTEP as trouver une inspiration, etc. Je crois, en effet, qu'en utilisant toutes ces formula- outlined in document UNEP/GC.9/7 tions diff6rentes, notre Conseil, l'As- are comprehensive enough at this stage. sembl~e G6n~rale et les autres organes We hope that in the elaboration of the d~lib~rants int6ress~s n'ont aucunement conceptual basis and implementation of cherch¢ ~ imposer la confection d'autant case studies of interrelationships bede documents distincts, qui auraient tween people, resources, environment tous ~ peu prbs le mOme contenu. En and development sufficient consideraoutre, nous n'avons que trop tendance/~ tion be given to case studies of pastoral multiplier les 6tudes et les rapports au nomadism in arid and semi-arid environd6triment de Faction. I1 ne faudrait pas ments, and to indigenous technologies que la c~le'bration du dixi~me anniver- adapted to other fragile ecosystems such saire soit marquee par une nouvelle ag- as terrace cultivation in mountain environment. gravation de ce d6faut majeur. We agree that pledges for SWMTEP should be for a multilayer period within Saudi Arabia (on the Medium-Term Plan, Environ- the six year umbrella and hope that mental Law Islamic Sharia and Special such pledges be at a level commensurate with its broad scope. Window) We still follow with interest the deAbdulbar A1-Gain velopments in regard to environmental law. As we reported last year, our inThe Medium-term Plan 1982-1983 as presented in document UNEP/GC.9/6 tention is to develop a body of environ' Environmental Policy and Law, 7 (1981)

mental laws in conformity with Islamic Sharia and Islamic tradition. This year we started a study in collaboration with IUCN to identify the basis of environmental law in Islamic Sharia. We hope to be able to present the result of this study to the Senior level expert meeting on Environmental Law to be held in Montevideo. Concerning additional financial resources for environmental problems in developing countries addressed by the Executive Director in Document UNEP/ GC.9/l O/Add 10 and the proposal made by the Swedish Delegation for a special window within the environment fund to be allocated for priority areas in developing countries, our delegation is in favour of any effort to increase the resources available for urgent environmental needs of developing countries. Since we are addressing urgent problems, we have to propose mechanisms that are feasible at the present. Voluntary contributions seem to us the most convenient way of meeting the requirements of the special window. If the proposal for the special window gains approval, Saudi Arabia will be ready to contribute, Sri Lanka

(on SACEP) K. H. J. Wijayadasa Permit me to place before this Assembly very briefly the steps that have been taken by a group of 10 South Asian Countries, including Sri Lanka, in what could be termed a unique cooperative endeavour towards the better management and more efficient utilization of the environment. The South Asia Cooperative Environment Programme, popularly known as SACEP, is an association of 10 South Asian countries--viz. Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burma, India, Iran, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. SACEP is the outcome of the initiative taken by the Regional Office for Asia and Pacific of the United Nations Environment Programme based in Bangkok. The principal objective of the new organisation is to promote and support the protection, management and enhancement of the environment, both natural and human, of the member countries individually, collectively and cooperatively. It is hoped that SACEP will be in a position to make a more meaningful contribution towards the judicious use of the resources of the en111

vironment and thereby help achieve the goals of development of the member countries such as removal of poverty, reduction of socio economic disparity and enhancement of the quality of life of the people. The launching of SACEP is an initiative of indisputable significance for the SACEP countries as well as for the world community. All the countries in the sub-region are confronted with the problems of rapidly growing populations. They also face the irreversible problem of a depletion of natural resources and the rapid degradation of the environment. It is also an indisputable fact that in order to meet the demands of a growing population we should not only sustain economic and social development, but also accelerate the pace of development. It is well known that in the development process, the environm e n t - w h i c h is the life support system of the society--can be impaired as well as enhanced. Therefore, SACEP will attempt to harmonise the relationships between environment and development, both at the national level as well as at the regional level. It is true that the South Asian subregion, stretching from the Himalayan range at one end to the Indian Ocean at the other, displays a diversity of land forms, climates, soils, natural vegetation and human settlements. Amidst such diversity there is a great deal of unity in ecological characteristics, the way of life and the problems of development common to the region which afforded a unique opportunity for a collaborative approach towards the protection and management of the environment. The 10 member countries were also mindful of the fact that there was a wealth of knowledge and expertise which could be shared for mutual benefit. Moreover being developing countries, all of them realised that solutions to the problems of the environment could emerge from the region itself rather than from the application of imported solutions from the industrialised world. The establishment of SACEP had its beginning at the Inter-governmental Expert Group Meeting held in Bangalore, India, from the 10th to the 15th of March, 1980. This meeting unanimously adopted that it would be mutually beneficial to establish a regional organisation of the 10 member countries enjoying equal status with its headquarters in Colombo. As decided at this meeting UNEP Bangkok once again took the initiative to convene a highlevel meeting of 112

officials and Ministers in Colombo from the 18th to the 25th of February, 1981. This meeting was concluded in a cordial atmosphere and in a spirit of mutual self-help culminating in the adoption of the Colombo declaration and the Articles of Association. The decision to establish the SACEP Secretariat in Colombo was reaffirmed and a Protem Director was appointed to get down to the tasks of establishing the Office without delay. Sudan

(on Arabic as an Official Language) M. H. Elijack The adoption of Arabic as an official and working language of the Governing Council of UNEP, though belated, will undoubtedly augment the contribution of the Arab Countries. It is a step forward towards intensifying ongoing efforts to disseminate knowledge and to promote environmental awareness to a broader base of Arab Communities. Moreover, it is certain that the mass media in the Arab World will find it much easier to participate in the WorldWide efforts promoting environmental public education at various levels. The timely coincidence of the adoption of Arabic as an official language with the year marking the 10th anniversary of the Stockholm Conference is a source of added happiness to us. Finally, Mr. President, I share the concern voiced by African delegations on the rather disproportionate share of the fund alloted to projects in Africa. This coupled with the notion carried by some delegations calling in effect for a reduction in the Level of the programme fund is rather disturbing to us. We fully support the total budget proposals submitted by the Executive Director and urge the major contributors to the fund to continue their generous support

USA (on Programme Performance, Funding, Special Window, International Convention on the Ozone Layer, and Senior Level Meeting on Environmental Law) Mary Elizabeth Hoinkes Before addressing the future program, I wish to comment briefly upon certain aspects of UNEP's program performance since the last Governing Council. In the opinion of the United States significant progress has been made in some areas. Foremost among these is the Regional

Seas Program, which stands out as a bright spot in UNEP's record. The United States is particularly gratified by the successful development of an Action Plan for the Wider Caribbean Region, agreed upon by the Intergovernmental meeting April 6 - 8 at Montego Bay, Jamaica. We consider this an important step toward assuring environmentally sustainable development in the Caribbean region, of which we are a part, and look forward to active participation in the implementation of the Plan. Another noteworthy achievement, in our view, is the progress made in developing the System-Wide Medium Term Environment Program (SWMTEP), recorded in Document GC.9/7. This ambitious effort to synthesize environmental activities within the entire UN System is, we believe, entirely consistent with UNEP's mandate. At the same time we appreciate both the difficulties which its final development and implementation will entail, and the burdens which all of us must assume, not only here in UNEP, but with respect to our participation in all kIN agencies, if SWMTEP is to fulfill its objectives. Nevertheless, as we look back over the year since the last Governing Council, the United States is somewhat disappointed in UNEP's overall level of accomplishment. We believe more could have, and should have, been done, and we join with others in asking why that did not happen. It has been intimated that delay in UNEP program implementation was to some degree traceable to the deferred delivery of part of the 1980 United States contribution to the Environment Fund. The documentation prepared by the Secretariat for this Governing Council session even contains references to the fact that the "Fund's largest contributor" did not contribute half of its 1980 pledge until after the conclusion of the 35th UN General Assembly. It has been suggested that this U.S. action - - t h e reasons for which are familiar to the Council and which I shall not recapitulate n o w - - a m o n g other things caused liquidity problems for UNEP in operating its program. The United States cannot accept this as an explanation for the failure of the Program to measure up to expectations during the past year. As a matter of fact, if UNEP truly had liquidity problems, it could have drawn on some of the $11.2 million that the Interim Accounts (Doc. GC.9/L.4, page 20) show was held as an investment at the close of 1980.

Environmental Policy and Law, 7 (1981)

The United States therefore will not accept that UNEP's performance shortcomings may be even theoretically excused by action taken by the "Fund's largest contributor". We believe there were other reasons. For example, a high rate of staffing vacancies and turnovers surely must have negatively affected implementation of at least some program elements. Additionally, we believe that implementation of the program has been adversely affected by the problem of utilization of non-convertible currencies. In this connection, we note with gratification that the Executive Director, responding to a request of the 8th Governing Council, has provided this Session of the Council with a report on the Impact of Non-convertible Currency on Fund Project Selection and Implementation. With regard to the content of the report itself, we believe more information could usefully have been provided. We will address this issue in more detail in the Second Committee. Nevertheless, my delegation commends the Executive Director for providing the report, as well as for the candid and straightforward conclusions it contains. In our view, it furnishes us a basis for a more informed and balanced discussion of the non-convertible currency issue. Let me turn, Mr. President, to some other financial matters. First, a most important one: the Fund Target. The Executive Director, in his opening address, told the Governing Council that: "...the Council's decision regarding the Fund Target for 1982-83 will be the most crucial decision of this Session". And he has asked that Governments give him an indication of what UNEP can expect by way of contributions during the 1982-83 biennium. The Governing Council must now meet Dr. Tolba's request in a prudent and responsible manner. We must therefore differentiate between what might be a desirable program for the biennium and what is a financially realistic one. We all know that contributions to UNEP have been running at the level of $31-32 million a year over the past four years. I regret having to point out that there is little expectation at this time that this total will increase during 1982-83. Furthermore, it must be noted that, without taking into consideration the factor of inflation, a 17% increase in contributions above those of 1981 would be required to match the 1981 level of performance in 1982. Fund Management tells us that after

Environmental Policy and Law, 7 (1981)

1982 UNEP will have no convertible currency accumulation which can be drawn down to cover an excess of expenditure over receipts. The United States, therefore, strongly maintains that the Governing Council must faithfully discharge its obligation to the Executive Director. We must not ask him to carry out a program for which there are no funds. In our view, this means that we must set a 1982-83 level, including support costs, at approximately $65 million. This will, liO doubt, be a smaller than optimum program, but it will be one which Call most

9th Governing Council Plenary Session

reasonably be expected to be conducted without liquidity problems, without cash crises, and without the need to slow it down once it is fully underway. At the same time, the Council may wish to indicate what it considers to be a desirable level of program for the biennium. Given such a "target" as to the desirable program level, it would be our hope that the Executive Director would have an incentive to redouble his efforts to broaden the base of contributions and thus begin to increase the level of the Environment Fund. On another financial issue, it has been proposed that the Governing Council amend the Financial Rules of the Fund to permit UNEP to accept contributions specifically designated for use in developing countries. The United States appreciates the concern which prompts this request. However, we must point out that the Financial Rules were carefully designed to prevent "earmarking"

of contributions, and to help ensure that UNEP has both the resources and the flexibility needed to carry out its global and regional environmental mandate. We are concerned that approval of any "Special Window", such as might be created through the proposed amendment of the Rules, would introduce a national and bilateral focus which would be fundamentally inconsistent with the unique character and effectiveness of the Environment Fund. Therefore, we must oppose a change in the Financial Rules of UNEP for this purpose. Other United Nations develop-

Photo: WEB

ment and bilateral assistance agencies already exist to provide the focus which is intended for the "Special Window". The Executive-Director has also asked governments for guidance as to what he might expect by way of individual contributions during the biennium 1982-83, as well as possible support for UNEP during the period of the SWMTEP form 1984 through 1989. First, I am pleased to inform the Council that the United States has pledged approximately $10 million to the Environment Fund for 1981, and has already deposited the first half of this pledge to UNEP's account. At the same time, I must advise the Council that all indications are that the U.S. contributions for 1982 will be less than it has been for each of the past several years. For the period beyond 1982, we can make no firm predictions. Barring a substantial increase in contributions from other sources, the United States, therefore, would anticipate 113

that the medium-term future will necessarily be a time of consolidation for UNEP. But the demand for consolidation should not lead to discouragement, or to UNEP's backing off from commitment to its global environmental mandate. On the contrary, it will be a challenge to b2qEP to carry on a more efficient operation and to make more effective use of resources. It is our hope that UNEP will accept this challenge in a determined and constructive spirit. This leads me, Mr. President, to a point to which I alluded earlier: UNEP's need in the years ahead to be more selective in choosing program projects and in setting program priorities. From the discussions that have already taken place in the First Committee, I believe that many other delegations share this view, although we of course may not fully agree as to what the priorities should be. Let me, nevertheless, offer some observations on those program elements which the United States considers to be of primary importance for UNEP over the next year. The United States is following with great interest proposals to develop an international convention to protect the atmospheric ozone layer. The potential importance of such an agreement is obvious, in view of the damage to human and other living organisms that could result if the ozone layer were depleted to an extent significantly increasing the levels of ultraviolet radiation reaching the earth's surface. At the same time, the United States is convinced that for a convention to be useful, there must be a sound scientific basis for whatever regulatory approaches are considered. Clearly, the accumulation of adequate scientific information must precede any "drafting of specific provisions. Accordingly, we believe that any technical/legal working groups, to which the responsibility for preparing the substantive elements of a convention would be assigned, should work very closely with the Coordinating Committee on the Ozone Layer. We should also point out that we do consider the preparation of an ozone convention to be an appropriate task for the Senior Level Meeting of Government Experts on Environmental Law, which will be convened later this year pursuant to Governing Council Decision 8/15. I must confess, Mr. President, that the United States still has great difficulty understanding the proposed content of that meeting or ascertaining any potential utility therefrom. We will of 114

course take into consideration any suggestions or enlightenment which other delegations may be able to offer on this question. At the same time we believe that it is essential that this Governing Council provide precise guidance to the Working Group on Environmental Law which will, as the Preparatory Committee for the Senior Level Meeting, develop its agenda. From our own perspective we hope that this may result in the identification of issues and discussion topics which would justify our participation.

Thailand

(on RegionalActivities)

at supporting ecologically-oriented land use; at designing projects for ecologically sound industrial production; at developing resource-saving technologies, especially solar energy, biomass and recycling of waste; at implementing the expansion of the infrastructure in such a way as to protect the environment as much as possible; at curbing the migration to towns and the consequences of rapid urbanization; at supporting the setting-up of institutions and services for the protection of the environment.

Ukrit Durayaprama

In this connection I would like to refer to the Policy Guidelines of 1980 on The Thai Delegation strongly requests German Co-operation with developing that the Global Actions being taken by countries in which we have expressed UNEP in order to grasp at the Global once more our readiness to contribute Issue be reevaluated in the next year to bilateral major programmes in the and for planning of the next biennium. areas of desertification and erosion conWe strongly feel that the only way to trol, promotion of renewable sources of manage the global problems is to get to energy and establishment of environthe sources of the problems. For exammentally adapted irrigation- and river ple, while the global monitoring program have given us valuable informa- regulation schemes. For the planning of these projects tion on such global issues as atmospheric ecological examination criteria have C02 changes and world-wide assessbeen established in order to take fully ment of tropical forest resources and deinto account the interrelationships beforestation, the only way to curb the tween people, resources, environment rapid rate of deforestation is to undertake management-oriented projects on and development. As an example for the ground. We believe it is time to re- our ecologically oriented planning of development co-operation projects our biorient future UNEP programs towards lateralpilot project for the co-ordination regional and subregional activities. This of measures to combat desertification in requires the establishment of regional the Sahelian Zone is of special imporfunds within the Environmental Fund of tance. We intend to expand this project UNEP and possibly decentralization of called German Sahel Programme subfunds as well as programmes. We request stantially. that during the next year the Executive We are faced with the fact that in Director explore ways in which this can times of economic recession public be accomplished so that the next Govopinion and politicians tend to set their erning Council can determine the desirability of regional programmes and priorities on other than environmental funds. In this light, the Thai delegation issues. My country is not the only counwould like to state its whole-hearted try which has serious problems to mainsupport for the Swedish proposal to set tain the existing share for environmental up a "special window" fund to finance expenses in the overall budget. This environmental activities in developing situation in national funding has of course corresponding implications in the countries. multilateral field. Consequently, my delegation recommends that the target Federal Republic of Germany for 1982-1983 be in line with a more (on Economic Cooperation, Special realistic estimate of resources flow. Window, Cooperation with IUCN) The question of mobilizing additional resources by means of international A. G. Kuehn fees, charges or taxes has been discussed The concept of the Government of in different fora of the UN-family. The the Federal Republic of Germany for discussion has clearly shown that such economic cooperation in the field of en- measures are hardly appropriate or feasible. It would thus seem of little use, vironmental protection is aimed

Environmental Policy and Law, 7 (1981)

and particularly for UNEP, to continue any efforts in that direction. As for the creation of special windows, earmarked contributions or the establishment of additional funds I need not repeat the view of my government. As far as the cooperation of UNEP with Non-Governmental Organizations is concerned, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources is not mentioned in the relevant document GC 9/2 Add.3. We take it, however, that this is not an indication that UNEP is not continuing its successful cooperation with IUCN. The Union, in spite of having the status, of a Non-Governmental Organization, is composed of both governmental members, including numerous States, and of Non-Governmental members from 110 States. The interest of Governments in IUCN work has been expressed many times within the framework of UNEP and at the General Assembly of the United Nations, particularly last year, in connection with the World Conservation Strategy. We therefore expect UNEP to continue its cooperation with IUCN, including project-oriented support on the same level as before. The Netherlands

(on Information Process, Senior Level Meeting, Special Window) Emile Tydeman My second remark concerns the proposed information programme. We fully support the idea of launching an extensive public information programme. Public attention should selectively focus 5n the course of environment, the achievements and shortcomings since Stockholm and, most important in these times of economic constraints, on the concept of and need for environmentally sound sustainable development as embodied in the new international development strategy and the world conservation strategy. The Executive-Director's report fails to give information on cooperation and commitments of major agencies and other parts of the UN system. The Executive Director's report does not specify the crucial role and involvement of NGO's, in particular Earthscan, IUCN and the ELC. We, therefore, request the Executive Director to provide this Council's Session with a more elaborated programme, taking into account the views expressed.

Environmental Policy and Law, 7 (1981)

A word about the documentation for the special session. My delegation agrees with the format and structure of the proposed principal documents to be submitted. In substance it will be based on the State of the Environment 1982 and the review of the major achievements of the implementation of the Stockholm plan of action; at the same time it can draw on the preparatory work for the 'perspective document'. UNEP's role in the preparation of these documents should in our view be primarily a coordinating one. Their actual value as an account of what has happened since Stockholm and as the context for future environmental action, depends to a large extent on the inputs and contributions of other organizations, in particular the UN agencies. So far we have not been convinced that in the preparation of the documentation the coordination and cooperation with other parts of the UN system is as fruitful and effective as it should be. The draft SOE 1982 has principally been written by UNEP itself with the assistance of consultants. In several parts the input of major responsible agencies clearly is marginal or even lacking. My delegation hopes that this situation will be corrected in time. Inter-agency cooperation and coordination is also at the heart of the System Wide Medium Term Environment Programme (SWMTEP). In committee I my delegation has already the opportunity to comment in detail on the present state of affairs. I mereiy wish to stress the need for active cooperation in the preparatory work between UNEP and the agencies as well as the responsibilities of our Governments in the respective Governing bodies of the specialised agencies. We must ensure that SWMTEP, as an innovative exercise, should become a practical tool for inter-agency cooperation. We also and in particular welcome that UNEP is planning to start the preparatory work for a global convention on environmental impact assessment and intend to actively participate in these preparations. Despite some delay in the preparatory process for the Senior Level Meeting, as envisaged in decision 8/15, recent developments with respect to this issue are very encouraging. Thanks to the generous offer of the Government of Canada a number of interested countries from all over the world convened in Ottawa last November to exchange views on the matter and agree on a common

and comprehensive approach to the long term development ofenvironmentallaw. This approach was supported and further refined in an informal meeting of friends of UNEP in Geneva on April 21st and 22nd, as well as in extensive consultations during the present Session of the Governing Council. In this approach the Senior Level Meeting will not be requested to concentrate on one or two specific issues. Neither is it envisaged to adopt a convention or otherwise agree on specific rules or activities in the field of environmental law. Its sole and only task will be to identify and catalogue areas and activities that lend themselves for future action, by UNEP as well as by other organizations within and outside the UN system. The results and recommendations of the Senior Level Meeting can substantially contribute to the preparation and implementation of the SWMTEP. Another important element of the approach is that special attention will be paid to the need for technical cooperation and assistance to developing countries, many of which at present lack the necessary skill and resources, for the development and implementation of national, subregional and regional environmental rules and regulations. To this end the SLM will be preceded by a special meeting focussing on the problems of developing countries. My final subject concerns the relation between environment and development. A milestone was reached with the launching of the World Conservation Strategy. It adds a new dimension to the concept of ecologically sound development by introducing the need for 'conservation' as being of equal importance, essential for and complementary to development. My government strongly supports the rapid implementation of the WCS, both in the Netherlands and within the context of bilateral and multilateral development cooperation activities. We urge UNEP to act alike, in particular through continuing and intensifying cooperation with the assistance to IUCN. Finally, with respect to proposals of the Executive Director concerning the establishment of a development window to the UNEP Fund and the promotion of other measures to raise funds for tackling serious environmental problems in developing countries, I wish to reiterate my government's position. We agree with the Executive Director's seeking of additional contributions for this purpose. The Netherlands continues to be 115

in principle prepared to consider contributing from its development cooperation funds to specific programmes or projects undertaken in this field. New Zealand

(on SWMTEP) R. E. Peren New Zealand does not see the production of the System-Wide Medium Term Environment Programme as an end in itself. We consider that the chief benefits derive from the process of its compilation--from the co-ordination and co-operation which should flow from the rounds of consultation. More importantly, SWMTEP's formulation should provide the stimulus and discipline for more rigorously determining which projects should be undertaken more appropriately by other agencies, by UNEP itself, and co-operatively. We believe, that there is a real need for the development of criteria to assist in the allocation of work to the most appropriate agency. It is our view that environmental considerations should be integral parts of any agency development proposals--not just cosmetic treatments to be applied afterwards. After nearly 10 years of operation, UNEP's influence should now be reflected in the attitudes of other agencies. There is a need, in spite of the current impacts of recession and inflation on the economies of the world, to ensure that environmental aspects are not pushed into the background where development is concerned.

emphasis from publications to projects. I realise, of course, that the proliferation of publications arises because we continue to demand special reports from the Executive Director. My delegation will consult with other delegations to find out how best we can achieve this shift from publications to programmes. Maybe, the role of UNEP as a catalytic organisation should be altered to allow it to formulate and implement its own project directly. The present system of working through agencies within the

" U n w i l l i n g to be p h o t o g r a p h e d "

We agree with the UNEP Secretariat that environmental problems are in the main global. However, some environmental problems such as those arising out of acidity of rain water, and the Ozone Layer or their pollution which I have mentioned earlier are more regional than global. My view is that such regional and sub-regional problems could best be tackled through the Regional Commissions concerned provided that the Regional Offices do not act in parallel with the Directorate of UNEP.

Photo: WEB

United Nations system, in our view, hinders the efficient performance of UNEP. The picture of UNEP standing behind other U.N. organisations trying to persuade them to carry out the proNigeria (on Publications, UNEP'sAims, Special jects of our choice does not seem to me a healthy one. We hope that distinguishWindow) ed delegates would think about our proAlhaji Shehu Shagari posal so that the Governing Council of a UNEP has turned out very erudite Special Character would be able to depublications on different aspects of the liberate arid take a decision on this. We environment namely Oceans, Toxic want the Governing Council to look Chemicals, Ecosystem, Energy etc. upon such matters as drinking water and However, these publications have mini- sanitation not simply as economic promum effect in Africa for the moment. jects. We want them to look at them Few countries in Africa can boast of with new eyes against the environment we also experts who could digest the message background. Furthermore, these publications are out to convey. would like to suggest that Regional ComSome of us are not even aware of the missions should be strengthened to deal benefits which UNEP can confer upon with regional projects while the UNEP us; some are yet to set up the necessary Secretariat should continue to provide organizations to deal with UNEP. There direct cooperation in executing national is, therefore, the need for greater per- programmes. In that way, programmes sonal contact with the remotest parts of like the Ozone Layer and Acid Rain Africa. Again, my delegation would like should receive impetus from the Regionthe Governing Council to change the al Commissions concerned.

The Developed countries will thus have their special environmental problems solved through Regional Commissions or Institutions. UNEP, of course, has to co-ordinate the management of the environmental activities and provide the professional advice and services required. In this way, UNEP will be free to deal with research, information and the implementation of National Environmental Programmes not only in the Developing but also in the Developed countries. My delegation wishes to endorse the initiative of the Swedish delegation at the last Session of the Governing Council on the setting up of "Special Windows" within the Environment Fund to finance projects relating to serious environmental problems in developing countries. Therefore, my delegation supports the recommendation of the Executive Director to amend the Financial Rules accordingly. Of course, the "Special Window" will not take off without the generous support of the developed countries. We

116

Environmental Policy and Law, 7 (1981)

hope that there will be no reduction the special session. My delegation atfrom the general contributions from taches particular importance to the pormember states because we look upon tion of the discussion paper dealing with the "Window" approach as complimen- long-term environmental issues and their tary to the general contribution. We, policy implications. In this regard, my therefore, appeal to industrialised na- .delegation supports the view that work tions to wholeheartedly support the leading to full perspective documents Swedish initiative. "Special Window" be continued through 1984. Funds could be raised for example to In dealing with environmental probdeal with such problems as the indiscrim- lems in long term perspective and in forinate export of Toxic Chemicals to de- mulating feasible policy recommendaveloping countries, sanitation, tropical tions, it is the view of this delegation forests, garbage disposal, environmental that it would be advisable to set up an health, desertification, supply of good independent commission, consisting of quality drinking water etc. men of high calibre, in addition to the The Nigerian delegation agrees with normal inter-governmental processes. the Executive Director that, at least, for Japan is deeply concerned about the the next ten years, we need to increase accumulation of non-convertible currenthe budget of UNEP rather than reduce cies in the Fund of UNEP. My delegait. How else can our hopes and aspira- tion wishes to recall Rule 203.4 of the tions in the developing world be achiev- Financial Rules of the Fund of UNEP, ed in the field of environment? UNEP and regrets that it has not been followis now at the crucial time of formulat- ed. My delegation is in full support of ing important projects. The Secretariat the Executive Director's suggestion that definitely needs funds for this. A re- this Governing Council insist on its apduction of the budget, in our view, will peal to countries concerned to contribmake UNEP lose its momentum. If we ute a minimum of 25 per cent in conapprove the budget as presented by the vertible currency in 1982 and in increasExecutive Director, I have no doubt ing proportion every year thereafter. that he would be able to persuade memMy delegation is concerned over the ber states to increase pledges. The bi- tendency that political matters are disannial estimated expenditure of US$ cussed and related resolutions are voted 120 million may seem too big but we upon in the Governing Council of UNEP. consider it, in the light of the budget for In my delegation's view, UNEP Govern1980 and 1981, quite reasonable. My ing Council is not a proper place to discalculation of the next biannial budget cuss political issues. This tendency, my even if based on zero rate of growth, delegation fears, may lead UNEP to distaking into consideration an inflation ruption and divisiveness, and distraction rate of only 12% brings the amount to from the original UNEP motto, "only US$114 million. When it is considered on earth". that the rate of inflation outside Kenya where some of the projects are to be Ghana executed may well be over 12%~ there is (on Special Window and Cooperation no way we can reject the amount of with Regional Commissions) US$120 million budgeted for by the E. A. Boateng Executive Director. I, therefore, call upon those countries, whose brain child Since its inception, UNEP has emUNEP is, not to starve it out of funds, a phasised its catalytic role. We are con-, process which is certain to inflict mortal vinced that, unless there is a redefinition blows on the hopes and aspirations of of this role to include practical assistance developing countries in environmental and direct involvement in the execution matters. of its projects, UNEP will fail to make the impact it needs and deserves to make within many of the developing Japan (on Commission of Eminent Persons, countries, especially those in Africa. For the above reason, we heartily enDocumentation, NCC's) dorse the idea of the "special window" Teruo Kosugi within the environment fund, proposed I would like to make a few comments last year by the Government of Sweden. on documentation to be submitted to We do not consider that this idea is in the special session. My delegation wel- fundamental conflict with UN current comes the proposal put forward by the thinking, as indicated in General AssemExecutive Director that a single com- bly Resolution 34/188 of 18 December pact discussion paper be produced for 1979, which stresses the need for the

Environmental Policy and Law, 7 (1981)

United Nations Environment Programme to increase the resources available for its projects in the developing countries. But whether or not such a window is created, the special needs of the developing countries will continue to loom large among the tasks, requiring attention from UNI~P. We would, however, urge the developed countries not to regard the "special window" idea as a substitute for the kind of direct bilateral assistance from the "north" to the "south", to which I have already referred. The two ideas are not mutually exclusive. They are complementary. In the light of the foregoing, we feel particularly concerned about the proposal contained in paragraph 7 of document GC.9/4/Add.3 on cooperation with the Regional Commissions, made by the Executive Director, to support Environmental Coordination Units in ESCAP, ECLA, ECA and ECWA only until December 1982, and even that, on the condition of funds being available. Beyond 1982, the proposal is that "continued cooperation would only be provided on the basis of joint activities" as is being done now in the case of ECE. Mr. Chairman, it is true that we are all engaged in the environmental business together, but we must not lose sight of the fact that our financial and technical circumstances and capabilities are very different. The four regional commissions, that are under threat, all belong to the developing world; they cannot now or in 1982 stand on their own. Recognizing that environmental problems know no boundaries, it would be disastrous for the whole world if they were to be placed in a situation where they, are unable to hold their end. But, in reality, the decision whether or not they are weaned prematurely, depends on the preparedness of our friends and well-wishers in the developed countries to provide the necessary financial and other support. It is a historical fact that long before Stockholm, most of the developed countries had instituted far reaching steps for taking care of their environment. For them environmental protection implies the focussing of attention on sophisticated, albeit important, problems. For the developing countries, however, environmental protection involves attention to basic grass-roots problems like hunger, inadequate drinking water supplies, soil erosion, endemic diseases and sanitation. The Regional Commissions, as important delivery points of all-round developments, are thus in a unique posi117

tion to assist these countries in attending to these problems, which touch at the very roots of human health and welfare. If UNEP cuts itself off from them so drastically, it will be difficult for them to understand what environmental protection is all about, and, indeed, what the objectives of UNEP itself are intended to be. Kenya

(on Cooperation with NGO's, Dumping of Hazardous Wastes) Andrew John Omanga Non-Governmental organizations in Kenya have played and continue to play an effective role in dealing with environmental problems; we therefore welcome the efforts of UNEP to strengthen the cooperation between NGO's and UNEP. Kenya would also like to point out the need for international action regarding the use of developing countries as experimental or dumping ground for chemical products that have not been tested adequately in the countries of origin. My delegation therefore fully supports the General Assembly Resolution 35/186 of 15th December, 1980 which calls for international exchange of information on banned hazardous chemicals and unsafe pharmaceutical products. We feel very strongly about this matter. The population in the developing countries must not be made "Guinea Pigs" for testing the effects of various drugs and chemicals on the human body. We know of incidents whereby, such products have been marketed in developing countries before they are fully accepted or verified by the scientists and governments of the countries of origin. Unless a product has been fully tested and certified and widely used in their own countries of origin it should not be used for export. International rules and procedures must be worked out to protect mankind, and particularly people living in the developing nations, from uncertified chemical products, food additives, drugs etc., until they are thoroughly tested and approved as safe for human consumption before they are put on the world market. In this respect we feel that the developing nations themselves must tighten their own scientific testing mechanisms at home and their import regulations for goods from abroad to make the protection free from any loopholes. Human life must not be sacrificed for mere greed in profit making. 118

United Kingdom

(on UNEP's Aims and Senior Level Meeting on Environmental Law, Environment Fund) John R. Williams The events of 1982 will provide an opportunity for us all to take stock of UNEP's achievements--and of its failures. In our view member countries should, over the next year, be carrying out a critical review of their attitudes towards the different aspects of UNEP's work. I recall the discussions at Stockholm in 1972 about the way in which UNEP should operate. At that time we had to try to produce a blue-print for a new body which would have to make its way within the UN system. 1982 will provide us with an opportunity to review the decisions taken then in the light of experience. The sort of questions we should be asking are: - have we had value for money from the UNEP funds that have gone into the activities of other agences? - how will the pursuit of UNEP's catalytic role be affected by the development of the System Wide Medium Term Environment Plan ? - how far has spending on functional activities yielded results which have proved valuable to member governments ? - are there new areas where UNEP should be developing a functional role, in preference to present activities? - what should be the long-term objective in terms of the balance of spending which is financed from the resources of the Environment Fund? - is there scope for more efficient administration, for example by having the Governing Council meet every two years ? This is not the time to attempt to answer these questions. I mention them now in order to demonstrate our belief that we should be addressing ourselves, in next year's proceedings, to the fundamental principles of UNEP's operations. In our view, a fundamental review, in terms of the value to member governments of UNEP's activities, is essential. No doubt next year there will be particularly strong appeals for an increase in the total of contributions to the Fund. But such an increase will be achieved only if member governments can be convinced that UNEP is indeed providing value for money in terms of increasing the ability of governments,

around the world, to tackle the serious environmental problems which they face. I turn now to another topic, the handling of which is also relevant to the proceedings in 1982--the proposed Senior Level Meeting on international law. At the last Governing Council, the United Kingdom was among those delegations which expressed reservations about the likely value of such a meeting• However, in the light of the decision then taken, we have participated in some of the informal preparatory work that has been taking place. The Executive Director has rightly drawn attention to the difficulties of convening a suitable and effective meeting in the time available. If a meeting is to go ahead, it is essential, especially in view of the other pressures on the Secretariat, that the arrangements should not go beyond those agreed last year. Certainly, we do not think that it would be right for the Meeting to address itself to the preparation of a draft convention on any specific issue. Finally, Mr. President, I turn to the question of the Environment Fund. Underlying all our discussions at this Governing Council must be the very serious financial position revealed to us by the Executive Director. We can only endorse his strong plea to member countries to make the contributions to which they have committed themselves for the period 1978-1981; and his appeal to contributors in non-convertible currencies to pay more of their contributions in convertible currency. Sessional Committee 2 has already begun to consider the budget for 198283 and many delegations have questioned the realism of the ceiling suggested by the Executive Director. We understand the desirability of a programme of the size he is proposing but it implies almost doubling the rate of contributions and we do not believe that will happen in present circumstances. We certainly hope that he will succeed in attracting increased contributions and that he will cast his net as widely as possible in his efforts to do so, but sound management requires that we also consider what to do if he is not successful. It is clearly impossible within the period of this Governing Council for us to restructure the programme. There are widely differing views on priorities and the papers before us do not provide a basis for reconciling them. We have

Environmental Policy and Law, 7 (1981)

no objection to the Executive Director tries haven't yet been enlisted in this setting himself a high target, but the work. programme proposals placed before us: In our opinion the essence of the should also take account of practicali- problem is an appropriate incorporation ties. One possible approach would be to of such factors as population, natural/ present options based on different levels . labour, material/resources and environof contributions, ment in social and economic development planning. It is generally known that in countries with different social USSR (on Historical Responsibility of States and economic systems the approaches for the Preservation of Nature for differ in principle. In view of the fact that the study is Present and Future Generations, Interrelationships, Medium-Term Plan and being implemented under the auspices of the United Nations we urge the ExeEnvironmental Law} cutive Director to take appropriate meaB. P. Miroshnichenko

approved by the Governing Council would make it possible to avoid work duplication and ineffective volitional decisions. In this connection we think it possible to approve in principle the submitted medium-term plan for 1982-1983 which preceeds the system-wide environment plan for 1984-1989. The document gives in a succinct and convenien.t form a rather good idea of the organization's activities and distribution of resources. It is also important to note, that probably for the first time it has become possible to develop all pro-

We would like to stress the particular importance of the Secretariat activities aimed at the implementation of the goals defined in the United Nations General Assembly Thirty Fifth session's resolution "Historical responsibility of States for the preservations of Nature for present and future generations", adopted at the initiative of the Soviet Union. In this connection we ask the UNEP Executive Director M. Tolba to take all necessary measures for the timely preparation of the United Nations Secretary General draft report on the adverse effects of the arms race on the nature of the Earth. In the light of the exceptional importance of the above decision of the United Nations General Assembly for nature preservation and further expansion of international co-operation in the area, the U.S.S.R. Delegation intends to submit a relevant resolution for discussion at the present UNEP Governing Council session. We are convinced that UNEP may not -keep aloof from the activities aimed at disarmament and expansion of international co-operation to ensure peace and security. We consider that the discussion and adoption of the above resolution will give a further stimulus to a more active UNEP participation in the solution of this question of crucial significance for all the mankind. The Soviet Delegation takes note of UNEP activities aimed at a more concrete definition of the Programme role within the United Nations system as regards the interrelationships between people, resources, environment and development. While stressing the considerable importance of the problem we have to state to our regret that Soviet scientists or scientists from other socialist coun-

gram sections according to one model. To put it short, we're very close to the point we discuss since Governing Council's first session: UNEP must develop its terminology and document presentation. However, as any new enterprise, the document raises a number of questions relating to presentation and content, and some of its provisions need adjustment. For example, budget indications need elaboration. The proposals in the plan may give the impression, that UNEP takes virtually full responsibility for the financing of all projects. But that would be contrary to a basic principle of General Assembly resolution 2297 defining UNEP as a coordinating and catalytic organization. But before starting the discussion of specific matters we should reach an agreement on the status of the mediumterm plan. For example in my country a plan is a law and any deviations from it are regarded as emergency situations.

En vironmen tal Policy and La w, 7 (1981 )

9th Governing Council Plenary Session

sures to duly reflect in it the experience of socialist countries. In our opinion before starting specific costly studies proposed by the group of experts in this connection and submitted for Governing Council approval, it's necessary to study and analyse the existing relevant experience of different countries including socialist countries. We would like to note as a positive step the expansion of UNEP activities in development of environmental law. The USSR Delegation approves in general tile work of the organization in this area in the previous period and we support the idea of preparation of the relevant UNEP Environmental Law Action Programme. We note the efforts of the UNEP Secretariat to harmonize and improve UNEP activities on the basis of mediumterm and long-term planning. A welladjusted and closely linked to actual financial possibilities system of mediumand long-term UNEP plans and programs

119

Is the presented plan sufficiently complete and implemented to become a law of UNEP activities for the next two years ? On the other hand, the provisions of the plan must be quite precise and concrete and exclude any possibility of arbitrary interpretation. Does our plan meet this requirement? Finally, there should exist a strict system of introducing additions and adjustments into the plan. Does such a system exist now ?

Yugoslavia (on Quafity of Water, Environmental Law) Redzo Terzic We would like to express our great concern with the present situation of the quality of water. Having in mind the importance Of water for economic and social development of all countries, we consider that UNEP and the international community should make further efforts aiming at creating the climate for more concrete and effective measures by governments in solving this problem. So far the results are of limited character. So many clear and action oriented recommendations and resolutions adopted at the global and regional levels, have neither been taken seriously nor implemented effectively, in many respects. It is well-known to all of us that many river flows and lakes have been exploited extensively, misused and thus the waters have been brought in the state of great pollution and danger. We therefore insist on the respect of the general principle of international law that nobody has the right to exploit the international water resources in a way that would cause damage to the down-stream and riparian countries. Consequently, we do welcome the Report of the Executive Director on Cooperation in the Field of Environment Concerning Natural Resources Shared by Two or More States and his Recommendations. My delegation is convinced that environmental law is an important tool of the environmental management, and could enhance in its application major changes in human behaviour. The results so far achieved in this field are encouraging and cound enhance further development of international and national environmental legislation. We also think that the law enforcement on all levels deserves more attention since it represents one of the main problem areas as is established in the UNEP In-Depth Review on Environmental Law. In this

120

connection, we find as very useful also UNEP Register of International Conventions and Protocols in the field of environment. There is, inter alia, also the problem of technical assistance to developing countries in the field of environmental law, where UNEP could play a more important role in the future, too. Environmental Law items as designed in the Medium-Term Plan and System-Wide Medium-term Environmental Programmes enjoy our unreserved support. My delegation is also interested in the Work of the Ad Hoc Meeting of senior government officials, expert in environmental law, to be held this year in accordance with the Decision of the Governing Council 8/15, and which is expected to make an important contribution in the identification of the fields of action and global as well as regional topics in the field of environmental law --taking into account also the needs of developing countries--to be dealt with UNEP in forthcoming years.

Norway (on Perspective Document, Special Window} Olaf Saetersdal With regard to the preparations for the Special Session in 1982, we have a number of comments. Firstly, the session should be as short as practically possible: Secondly, the documentation should be as concentrated as possible. Thirdly, the session should as far as possible result in a renewed and firm commitment by governments to the solution of long-range environmental and natural resource management problems in the 1980s and 1990s. Thus, we support Dr, Tolba's suggestion to submit a single discussion document, and can agree with the proposed content of that document, as outlined in his introductory statement. As far as the documents are concerned we support the Swedish suggestion to incorporate the Major Trends document into the Perspective Document. We also support the Executive Director's suggestion to postpone--we would hope indefinitely--the establishment of goals for 1992. If the Perspective Document is properly prepared this should give adequate guidance for UNEP's work, without having separate goals. As far as the preparation of the Perspective Document is concerned, we strongly agree that sufficient time should be given to its preparation and that govern-

ments be actively involved through an appropriate preparatory process so that the document when completed will become the expression of the shared environmental perceptions--and of the political w i l l - - o f the global community. Ideally, the intergovernmental preparatory process should be launched this summer, preferably through the establishment of an open-ended UNEP working group. If necessary, this could be formalised by the General Assembly this autumn. This should make it possible to reach agreement on important parts of the Perspective Document by the time of the Special Session. While on the subject of documentation, we do wish to raise one other point. The draft chapters of the comprehensive Report on the State of the Global Environment--A Decade After Stockholm--have been circulated to Governments, in instalments, during this spring with a request for detailed comments by 30 April. My government received the last six or seven chapters on the 23rd April. We still have not received the chapter on conclusions. Mr. President, this is a very important document which must adequately and accurately reflect the state of the global environment. Sufficient time must be given to governments to submit their comments. We understand that a number of other governments have been faced with the same difficulty as we have. We would therefore request that the deadline for governments' comments be postponed to the 15th of June of this year. We would appreciate receiving the Executive Director's response to this request before the end of this session. While on the issue of funding, we would like to comment briefly on the proposal submitted last year to the Governing Council by the Swedish Minister for Agriculture, concerning the establishment of a special window in the Environment Fund, in order to strengthen our capacity to help meet the most serious environmental problems in developing countries. Last year my delegation indicated a positive interest in this proposal, and we have given it a lot of thought since then. In this connection, I would like to inform the Governing Council that a study entitled "Ecological Perspectives and Cooperation with Developing Countries" has recently been completed by a group of experts in Norway. This study is presently being considered by the Norwegian authorities. One aspect of this national discussion is precisely the question of whether, and if

Environmental Policy and Law, 7 (1981)

so how, additional resources may be made available to contribute towards the strengthening of the capacity of developing countries to identify and solve the most urgent problems of environmental protection and natural resource management. One point has already emerged in this discussion. If we are to be able to provide additional contributions, by whatever channel would be most appropriate, then a necessary prerequisite will be a stronger indication from our partners in developing countries, both in bilateral and in multilateral discussions, that they themselves attach sufficiently high priority to these problems and need additional funds to help solve them.

Denmark (on Documentation, Convention on the Ozone Layer} Hans Jesperson UNEP's task of conscience-raiser and disseminator of relevant information will in the coming months be reflected in the documentation being prepared for the session of a special character. It is our hope that all the planned retrospective and prospective documents be as closely linked and integrated as possible. In our opinion, the next step to be taken must be the elaboration of a global convention for the protection of the ozone layer. A global approach seems to us to be indispensable in order to cover both actual and potential production and use of the harmful substances. The Danish Government therefore urges that work be set in motion aiming at the elaboration as soon as possible of such a convention.

Jamaica (on The Caribbean Action Plan} Donald Mills When the ministers and other officials of the countries of the Caribbean area met in Montego Bay, Jamaica, on 6 - 8 April, it was an occasion of considerable significance. For they took a number of decisions which included the approving of the Action Plan for the Caribbean Environment Programme and the arrangements for financing the programme. But, in addition to the substantive decisions taken on a matter which is of very special importance, the meeting and its successful outcome constituted a major achievement in the sphere of cooperation between the coun-

Environmental Policy and Law, 7 (1981)

tries concerned. Of the total of 27 states and territories invited, 23 were represented at the meeting and one other, which was unable to attend, signalled its concurrence with the proposals. Let me outline briefly the nature and scope of the programme which is envisaged, the financing and other arrangements, and the steps which will be necessary in order to bring the scheme into operation. The report is contained in document UNEP/CEPAL/IG 27/3. Specifically the approval of the Governing Council is the essential step now required and it is for this purpose that I make this presentation. A considerable amount of work preceded the final ministerial meeting. This included in the early stages intensive consultations with the Governments of the area and the various agencies, particularly those of the United Nations, which throughout played a very important role in respect of the project. In order to lay the foundations for the programme and to ensure its direct relevance to development concerns, a thorough analysis was undertaken of the environmental situation in the area, the activities in progress in that field, and the resources available for undertaking a programme of the kind envisaged. It was decided that the Ecoiaomic Commission for Latin America would be closely associated with the work. The meeting, aware of the care which had been exercised in examining and proposing a set of priorities in respect of the large number of projects listed, approved the recommendations presented to it. Special emphasis was laid on projects which are of common interest to the countries of the region. Of the 30 projects in this category, 14 were approved for immediate implementation while the remainder were approved for implementation as soon as the necessary funds become available. As in its formulation, so in its implementation, the Action Plan will require the fullest support and involvement of the United Nations Environment Programme. In its decision, the Ministerial Meeting, therefore, invited the Executive Director to take a number of steps, while consulting where appropriate, Governments and other bodies, to ensure the preparation of detailed project descriptions, to elicit the financial and other support from the Governments concerned and from other states and institutions interested, and to coordinate the implementation of projects and of the Action Plan.

The countries of the region will, of course, play a very active part in the overseeing of the implementation of the Plan. The Ministerial Meeting approved the establishment of a Regional Coordinating Unit which will operate under the authority of UNEP. This Unit will be designed to facilitate the technical implementation of the Plan, and it was decided that it would be located in Jamaica. Until it comes into existence, the Executive Director of UNEP has been requested to carry out this aspect of the coordinating function "using the most economic and cost-effective arrangements at his disposal". In addition, a Monitoring Committee is to be established and its task will be to review the project descriptions on the basis of the views received from the countries in the Programme and the funding agencies, and to decide on the steps to be taken by UNEP in their implementation within available resources. The Monitoring Committee will provide UNEP with operational and policy guidelines for the implementation of the Plan. It, therefore, will form a vital link between the Governments of the countries in the wider-Caribbean region, UNEP, and the agencies and other bodies which will be participating in one way or another in the Programme. The cost estimates for implementation of the Action Plan indicated three elements in the financing arrangements. (1) The Trust Fund which would involve an agreed level of contribution by each country--these to amount for the period 1981-83 to a total of $1.5 million. (2) A contribution of $1,380,000 which UNEP has undertaken to make, subject to the availability of resources to the Environment Fund. (3) A sum of over $5 Million which, it is hoped, will be obtained from other sources. The Ministerial Meeting decided that such a Trust Fund should be established and laid down the level of country contributions for the period 1982-83. It requested the Executive Director of UNEP to assume responsibility for administering the Trust Fund and urged the Governments of the region to pay in their contributions by the first of January 1982. The actual amount committed at the meeting totalled $1,257,318. It is hoped that other countries which did not make such commitments at that time will eventually do so. On behalf of all the Governments of the wider-Caribbean region and all who have helped to bring this matter to this 121

positive stage, I commend the Caribbean Environment Programme to the Governing Council and urge your approval of ing Council and urge your approval of it. ICC

(on Environmental Guidelines for World Industry) John F. T. Langley Some of you may remember that in 1974 the International Chamber of Commerce produced the "Environmental Guidelines for World Industry". This was one of the earliest - if not the earliest - attempts to produce a philosophy within which Industry should operate in environmental matters. In the intervening 7 years Industry has not altered its basic philosophy - i n d e e d , the Guidelines have stood the test of time remarkably well. However, in the early 1970's concern for the environment was a relatively new concept. In the meantime Industry has made, and continues to make, a considerable contribution to the solution of the problem. In the light of experience we now feel that the Guidelines should be brought up-to-date and made more specific and positive. Briefly the new Guidelines set out the responsibilities of Industry, Government at both local and national level, and society in general, and stress the interlocking nature of these responsibilities. The new Guidelines have been submitted to all the 58 National Committees of the International Chamber of Commerce for comment and the final text will be placed before the ICC Council next month for approval and subsequent publication. It is our intention to give them the widest possible publicity. Some of those present may recall that shortly before last year's Governing Council there was a successful East] West meeting on environmental matters in Moscow. Among other things, it was deciced to set up a standing Working Party. This Working Party has held two meetings so far and a third meeting has been arranged for September. Last month the Working Party had before it the drafts of three papers: the first, on techniques to prevent and abate the effects of oil spills in water and on land; the second, on the prevention of SO 2 emissions and other impurities in stack gases; and the third, on the practical implementation, from the viewpoint of Industry, of the ECE declaration on low-waste technology and re-utilising and recycling of wastes. Comments l 122

from the Chambers of Commerce of the Socialist countries and from the Western members were considered. Full agreement was reached on the oil spill paper. Revised drafts of the other two papers are being prepared in the light of the comments received. All these papers will be submitted in due course to the East/West Liaison Committee. I am also happy to report that the Socialist countires on the Working Party found themselves in agreement with the new Guidelines. IUCN

(on the Report of the Director-General) Lee Talbot IUCN greatly values its unique relationship with and responsibility to the United Nations system, which is reflected by IUCN inclusion in the SWMTEP and the Medium-Term Plan. While we maintain Non-Governmental Status, representing some 300 NGOs worldwide, our membership - w h i c h is constantly growing - includes nearly 100 governments, 60 per cent of which are represented by State Membership, and the remainder by Governmental Agency membership. In addition to this membership structure, unique character and capability comes from its worldwide network of several thousand experts who volunteer their expertise and time, largely through IUCN's Commissions on Ecology, Education, Environmental Planning, Environmental Policy, Law and Administration, Parks and Protected Areas, and Threatened Species. This network is a resource available to IUCN enabling the Union to provide outstanding expertise at very low cost, and providing it with access to much of the world's expertise in most aspects of environmental concem. I note with pleasure, Mr. President, that a number of the distinguished delegates to this Governing Council are also distinguished members of IUCN's network. We have always enjoyed a special relationship with UNEP, and our collaborative role with the UN System is illustrated by our participation, along with UNEP, FAO and UNESCO, in the Ecosystem Conservation Group. The World Conservation Strategy is a concrete product of our close working relationship with the UN system. Prepared by IUCN, with the close cooperation, advice and financial assistance of UNEP and the World Wildlife Fund, and the collaboration of FAO and UNESCO, the Strategy may have done more to put conservation on the world's agenda than

any other single action since the Stockholm conference. It is important to emphasize, as have many of the previous speakers in this Meeting, that the World Conservation Strategy addresses conservation in terms of the management of all components of the biosphere, as a vital basis for sustainable development and human welfare. It is not in any sense limited to the classical concerns of wildlife and protected areas, and the same is true of IUCN's conservation mandate. IUCN is best known in some circles for its activities in classical conservation. However, since its establishment in 1948, it has maintained as a major focus the application of conservation principles to the development process, with the objective of assuring that the development process really produced human welfare on a sustainable basis. Promotion of implementation of the Strategy is IUCN's major priority in the coming years, and our own Programme is oriented to this objective. We are monitoring implementation of the Strategy, and a status report will be made available to the next UNEP Governing Council. Mr. President, I would like to direct the Governing Council's attention to two of the recent actions we have taken to further the direct implementation of the Strategy: 1) As noted in the documentation for this meeting, we have established computerized conservation monitoring units at Cambridge and Kew in the UK, which will join our long established Environmental Law Center at Bonn as external components of IUCN. 2) We have now launched a formal Conservation for Development Programme, a major effort which is intended to work with developing nations and development aid organizations to assure that there is an adequate conservation component within the development programme, and to provide expert consultants from our worldwide network to help achieve this objective. This programme will build on UNEP's excellent work in promoting environmental awareness in development organizations. As the distinguished delegate of the Netherlands noted in Committee I, his Government has provided $100,000 for initial projects under this programme. The programme is now operational with several projects underway and many more requested, and we are confident that it will contribute significantly to the implementation of the World Conservation

Environmental Policy and Law, 7 (1981)

Strategy. We look forward to collaboration with the governments and organizations involved here in this objective. IUCN welcomes the signing of a new round of projects with UNEP, which will result in the production by IUCN of a series of concrete conservation results for UNEP. The present agreements represent a reduction of some 30 per cent from the level of the previous biennium, and we are exploring with the UNEP secretariat other areas of mutual interest for cooperation. However, in this context, I should note that we receive continuous requests from countries worldwide for various types of assistance which are appropriate to our mandate and potential capabilities. For example, we have requests for assistance in the development of national conservation strategies from countries of all continents. However, for reasons of limited finances and consequent staff reductions, all too often we are unable to provide the help that is desired, a fact remarked upon by the Distinguished Delegate of Pakistan during debate in Committee I. IUCN is involved in a very wide variety of operational activities in conservation. A number of specific activities have been mentioned by previous speakers in the Plenary or Committee sessions. Mention of a few additional ones may help to provide a very brief indication of the range of these activities, which include: preparation of a draft convention on conservation of nature and natural resources, and of a Regional Action Plan, for and on the request of the ASEAN nations; " - c o n t r i b u t i o n to the scientific basis for management of riving resources of the Southern Oceans, marine mammals, and marine living resources generally; - c o l l a b o r a t i o n with UNEP's INFOTERRA in the production of a resource book and Directory to support implementation of the World Conservation Strategy; preparation of amendments to the 1968 Algiers Convention on conservation on request of the Organization of African Unity; - collaboration with UNEP on the Carribbean action plan, involving preparation of a study on conservation of living resources in the region, illustrated by an Atlas, and strengthening the NGO capabilities in the region; - collaboration with UNESCO on biosphere reserve legislation in India; -

-

Environmental Policy and Law, 7 (1981)

preparation of an environmental law information system for the European Community which we hope also to provide for the CMEA countries; - d e v e l o p m e n t of a major tropical forest programme, as a basis for anticipated cooperation with UNEP, FAO and UNESCO in following up the recommendations of the UNEP Experts Meeting on Tropical Forests held in Nairobi last year. Of course, Mr. President, the operation of the very effective CITES Secretariat is a matter of high priority and -

continuing importance to IUCN. A particularly welcome recent development was the signing of a trust fund agreement with the government of Saudi Arabia, for conservation projects within that nation. The first activity under that agreement is the development - for the first time - of environmental legislation within the context of Islamic law. In this endeavour we are receiving invaluable assistance from our volunteer experts in other Islamic countries, which emphasizes again the special character of IUCN. []

Tolba Replies Summarizing the views of the Council on coordination topics, Tolba noted that delegations had appreciated the report of the Administrative Committee on Coordination (ACC) and the positive expectations that the further development of the system-wide programme would lead to greater unification of programmes throughout the UN system. The Perspective Document had also been discussed and had received wide support from the Council. Proposals had been made regarding the structure of the document. One of these, he said, is the view proposed by Sweden of an intergovernmental consultative mechanism to ensure that this is an agreed negotiated document as far as the second and third component of the document are concerned: "an intergovernmental process supported by an independent commission, a purely independent process, and no further development of the document". He remarked that he understood that the Council agreed that this document is essentially composed of three elements and that the first "common perceptions and means to meet them" will be presented to governments in 1982 as part of the single document which he was proposing, requesting the views of the whole UN system and that these comments will allow for a revision and a second draft to be made. The Executive Director noted the great interest expressed by several delegations in continued cooperation bettween UNEP and the regional commissions and assured the Council that his decision on continued support to the environmental coordination units within those commissions, where such a r r a n g e -

ments existed, would be based on a thorough evaluation of the available financial resources and of the capacity of the commissions to take over those responsibilities. With regard to the regionalization of the programme, he continued, the fact is that some of the regions feel that they are not getting as much financial appropriations or allocations as they are entitled to. "Let me again put the record straight. There is no financial appropriations or allocations for a region. We have objectives which you yourselves as governments have approved, and these objectives can be implemented at the regional level when there is an activity which is feasible and good. So, whatever is coming from the regions as a reasonable programme we will support and that is what goes into the regions and there is no allocation of percentages earmarked for a region which they could use irrespective of whether the programmes recommended come within the priorities that you want to set or not". Regarding the regional offices, the regional presence of UNEP is one of the subjects which he would request the Governing Council to consider next year. "I want the views of governments clear and loud and am therefore putting three proposals to you: do we go on as we are? Do we form a division with the economic commissions? Or do we withdraw slowly from the economic commissions and support our regional offices? Tolba requested the views of the governments in writing, so that he could present delegates with a brief report on the regional presence of UNEP at the tenth regular session. Before that UNEP 123

could not "move right or left" and will continue as at present until the governments decide on how they want to see UNEP's presence at the regional level in 1982.

At the 9th meeting of the session on 26 May, the Governing Council adopted by consensus a draft decision on coordination questions submitted by the Bureau. []

Coordination Questions (In considering agenda item 5 at the 7th and 8th plenary meetings of the session, delegations had before them documents UNEP/GC.9/4 and Adds. 1-3, Add. 3/Corr. and Supplement, and Adds. 4 - 5 , (see also last issue at p. 55). Several delegations welcomed the efforts made to enlist the cooperation of other UN organizations, as well as the positive response of those organizations to the relevant decisions and resolutions of the Governing Council, the Economic and Social Council and the General Assembly, as testified to by the report of the Administrative Committee on Coordination to the Governing Council. Other delegations, however, were not fully convinced that the coordination and cooperation with other parts of the UN system was as fruitful and effective as Jt should be. Several delegations, stressing that the system-wide programme would lead to a serious examination of how UNEP fulfilled its coordinating and catalytic role within the UN system, requested the Executive Director to analyse the ways in which other UN organizations were planning to implement the provisions of the system-wide programme relevant to their own mandates, as well as the extent to which decisions of the UNEP GC had had a bearing on the programmes of those organizations, and to report on the results of those analyses to the Council at its 10th session. Some delegations felt that in view of the limited financial resources to carry out the proposed system-wide programme a clear assessment was needed of the priorities for action together with a clear distribution of responsibilities between UNEP and the other relevant bodies of the UN system. The perspective document was referred to as a document of principal importance (see last issue at p. 56). Many delegations supported the structure suggested by ACC and the Executive Director and agreed that UNEP should endeavour to identify, for the Cotmcil ses-

124

sion of a special character, only the shared perceptions of the world community regarding environmental issues of the future. Ways were suggested in which the preparatory process for the development of the full perspective document could be carried out in order to ensure full involvement of Governments, regional organizations, the scientific community and the UN system. Summarizing the views of the Council, the Executive Director, noted that delegations had appreciated the report of ACC and most of them entertained very positive expectations that the further development of the system-wide programme would lead to greater unification of programmes throughout the UN system. Addressing the comments made by some delegations that the influence of UNEP on the rest of the UN system was not pervasive enough, he recalled that UNEP enjoyed the support and collaboration of other UN organizations, expressed at the highest level through ACC, and said that the present

level of cooperation would never have been reached without mutual understanding. From 1984, most organizations of the system would embark on common cycles of medium-term planning and programme budgeting, thus greatly facilitating the task of harmonizing programmes; he expected that those agencies which cooperated with UNEP in the implementation of the environment programme would thus be able to announce their commitments for the first biennial budget period of the mediumterm programme period. Tolba added that the perspective document had received wide support from the Council. Delegations had largely agreed to his proposals on the structure of the document, and with his view that only the first part of it, namely the presentation of the shared perceptions of the world community and the possible means of dealing with them, would be presented to the GC in 1982, as a part of the document on the future trends of international environmental efforts. He noted the great interest expressed by several delegations in a continued cooperation between UNEP and the regional commissions, and assured the Council that his decision on continued support to the Environmental Coordinating Units within those commissions where such arrangements existed, would be based on a thorough evaluation of the available financial resources and of the capacity of the commissions to take over these responsibilities. []

SessionalCommittee I-Programme Discussion The meeting was chaired by the Vice-President, Abdulbar AI-Gain (Saudi Arabia) and Jean-Baptiste Mukuri (Burundi) was elected by acclamation as Rapporteur. Representing the Secretariat, the Assistant Executive Director, Sveneld Evteev, welcomed the Chairman and Rapporteur and introduced document UNEP/GC/7 (see last issue) on the draft objectives of the System-Wide MediumTerm Environment Programme (SWMTEP) and asked the delegations to advise the Secretariat on this document.

System-Wide Medium-Term Environment Programme (SWMTEP) A general discussion of the SWMTEP document and related considerations

followed. Several speakers said that the present document was well-prepared and showed good progress. However, delegates made a number of suggestions to improve SWMTEP. The delegation of France pointed out that there was a close link between the establishment of SWMTEP and the question of inter-agency coordination. France further stressed the need for a comprehensive document, including all environmental activities undertaken by other agencies even where UNEP is not involved. They also suggested that it would be useful to consider procedures

Environmental Policy and Law, 7 (198 I)

for the development of SWMTEP before going into details of the programme. The Danish delegate said that more work was needed to ensure the coherence of the programme. The Federal German and other delegations expressed a need for further discussion and clarification of SWMTEP. Several delegations expressed a need to broaden the concept of SWMTEP. The UNESCO representative said that for the document to be effective it must enable each of the concerned institutions in the system to have its own place in the framework. Each agency should be able to include those subjects which it considers relevant to the environment. He also noted that the document appeared to separate the concepts of environment and development, something which should be avoided. The US representative asked for clarification on the question "assuming that in due course the GC approves a SWMTEP as valid and binding for UNEP, how does this translate into a programme binding upon other UN agencies, and binding upon individual governments in setting their policies towards those agencies? Australia's delegate expressed some disappointment with the document, saying that it did not seem to derive from any consistent philosophy or set of criteria. The number of subjects was too large. The representative of the Netherlands said that there was a need to establish priorities and if the agencies agreed to SWMTEP, then the governments should take action on it. The delegate of the German Democratic Republic described the subjects in the SWMTEP as a shopping list. References to the financial resources and the staff needed to implement it should appear in the SWMTEP. Alexander Ryabchikov (USSR) said that the document required more work. It ought to be more systematic and better incorporated in the programme. He pointed out that SWMTEP was put together by developed and developing countries, but without the participation of socialist countries, and this was unfortunate. Paul Beaulieu (Canada) agreed with other delegations on the importance of setting clear priorities and explaining how objectives were to be financed. Colin McMahon (New Zealand) expressed a degree of cynicism about the level of commitment to environmental enhancement. He stated that SWMTEP was a vehicle' of greater coordination in the UN system by which UNEP would be able to identify problems and which could be handled by the UN agencies.

Environmental Policy and Law, 7 (1981)

Drinking water, for example, was not a responsibility of UNEP but of WHO. Nor was food a UNEP responsibility, it was FAO's. However, "the effects on the environment of the impoundment of water, and environmentally-sound agricultural practices were legitimate concerns of UNEP. It was to be hoped that the process of developing SWMTEP would turn up a more precise definition of what UNEP's environmental activities should be. There was a need for criteria and priorities, but also for a more honest and open commitment to implement SWMTEP". Sveneld Esteev remarked that it was difficult at this moment to discuss priorities. Governments could participate in the development of SWMTEP through inter-governmental meetings, experts' meetings, at workshops, by inter-ministerial cooperation on a national level. Tiffs was a continuous process. He added that governments' guidance was needed after the GC to improve SWMTEP. Lee Talbot, the Executive Director of IUCN said that SWMTEP was not UNEP's programme but that of the entire UN system. The World Conservation Strategy is mentioned twice in the document. Although only partial results of the launching of the Strategy are known, IUCN is encouraged by what it hears from countries around the world. A large number of governments have developed national conservation strategies. Nevertheless, some countries continue to believe erroneously that the WCS deals primarily with saving animal species. In point of fact, the Strategy treats the management of the whole life system to make certain that the benefits are sustainable. Sveneld Etveev intervened to remark that some delegations had complained that certain environmental activities were not being implemented. He pointed out that the UN, even UNDP, could not replace national governments in this respect. It was extremely difficult, in fact impossible, to give priorities to all topics. One could hardly say that oceans deserved a higher priority than forests, or vice versa. Several delegations observed that while the proposed structure appeared to cover the major environmental issues, the guidelines or criteria from which the structure was derived were not explicitly stated. In view of the often all-embracing and trans-sectoral character of environmental issues, it was perhaps difficult to fit the programme into neat categories; nevertheless, the proposed struc-

ture could be improved by minimizing overlap between sub-programmes, reordering and re-grouping where necessary, bringing out the substantive hnkages between sub-programmes and making the functional presentation of the objectives under individual sub-programmes more consistent. For example, the element of "research", "training", and "legal instruments and studies" were mentioned under some sub-programmes but not under some others, even where they could be considered pertinent. It was agreed that a short annex to the programme would be prepared enumerating the various trans-sectoral areas, and providing cross references to their inclusion under the respective sub-programme. No agreement was reached on the various "grouping" proposals.

Programme Performance and MediumTerm Plan Sveneld Etveev introduced the two relevant documents for discussion and requested the comments and guidance of the Committee. There was general agreement among delegates that in format and presentation, the programme performance report and the medium term plan were succinct, informative, and a great improvement over previous years' documentation. With respect to the medium-term plan, several delegations felt that it would be helpful to have budgetary breakdowns for each element of the strategies, and to indicate more clearly what should be the operational and financial roles of the various main actors. Environmental Assessment Many delegations expressed the view that Earthwatch was the cornerstone of the environment programme. The US delegation said that this has always been considered the most critical of UNEP's mandates. The Executive-Director was urged to allocate sufficient resources to reach this high priority goal. The Malaysian delegate said that Earthwatch was the centrepfece~ of UNEP and quite in line with the organization's coordinating and catalytic role. I) Global Environment System (GEMS)

Monitoring

Delegations expressed general satisfaction with all of the projects within the main sub-divisions of GEMS - renewable natural resources, pollution (including long-range transport of poilutants) and climate. 125

Some felt that the progress reported within GEMS was mainly in local and regional activities. The forthcoming international symposium on integrated monitoring (Tbilisi, October 1981) should result in proposals to consolidate certain GEMS activities into a truly global effort based on a number of scientific activities. Others were especially concerned with the monitoring of the oceans which

with the evaluation report on Infoterra and mentioned that Infoterra now has 8,500 sources and it would be good if, in its second phase, Infoterra made available substantive information. Decentralized data banks in appropriate places would be welcome. The USSR said that UNEP should expand Infoterra which had received a new impetus from the meeting in Moscow, should continue giving its support to focal points and

°2 INFOTERRA partner countries and national focal points

was not adequately covered by the Regional Seas programme. In this respect, the USSR emphasized the need for worldwide and intensive monitoring of ocean pollution. The representative of UNESCO mentioned the clear collaboration between UNEP and UNESCO on environmental assessment and monitoring. With regard to outer limits and climatic changes, UNESCO considered the World Climatology Programme to be of prime importance and stated that the different aspects of the programme should not be taken in isolation. 2)

Infoterra

Widespread satisfaction was expressed with the progress achieved within INFOTERRA, which some delegations considered to be among the most important of UNEP's activities. Sveneld Evteev drew attention to the independent evaluation carried out by a team of information specialists. These experts considered that the role of the Infoterra System should be expanded beyond simple referral to information supply. The Federal Republic of Germany expressed its appreciation for the improvement of Infoterra. China agreed 126

Courtesy: UNEP

mentioned the use of ncc's in this respect. The delegation of Australia found the Infoterra evaluation helpful and expressed support for its recommendation. The USA supported the recommendation on Infoterra and the need to expand from referral to provision of information, adding that the responsibility for expansion must fall on the national focal points and urged the Secretariat to encourage all interested governments to contribute through their own focal points to strengthening the system. [However, it was reported that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had stated that in future it could only supply information on a cost recovery basisl. The Assistant Executive Director said it was estimated that the transition from referral to provision of information would require an additional $400,000 per annum, and that a strengthening of national focal points would also require more money. 3) International

Register of Potentially Toxic Chemicals (IRPTC) IRPTC is seen as an important component of Earthwatch which should continue to receive sufficient resources

to strengthen its information on collection and dissemination activities. The delegation of the Ukrainian SSR expressed the need for an increase in the number of IRPTC national correspondents and for more exchange of information. The Australian delegation saw IRPTC as a valuable programme nearing the stage of providing practical information and expressed approval for the level of support proposed in the Medium Term Plan. The delegation of the USA suggested that UNEP's full support be given to IRPTC to make it functional by 1982. The Netherlands delegate declared that IRPTC had done a remarkable job, especially in view of its limited staff. The 3.3 million dollars allocated to it for 1982-83 was the lowest possible appropriation. Some delegations observed that IRPTC had a very important role to play in supplying information on hazardous chemicals being exported to developing countries, and one called attention to the need for cooperation with relevant international programmes, particularly the International Programme on Chemical Safety. 4)

Outer Limits

Although several delegations as well as the representative of WMO supported UNEP's supportive involvement in weather modification, they did not assign it high priority. There was general support for the activities concerning assessment and protection of the ozone layer. Delegations welcomed the cooperation between members of the Co-ordinating Committee on the Ozone Layer and the resultant co-ordination of international efforts. 5)

Environmental Data

Several delegations emphasized the essential role of environmental information, including environmental statistics, in the promotion of optimal sustainable development through the inclusion of both environmental assessment and environment management. A number of delegations referred to the importance of UNEP's supportive work towards the development of a framework of environmental statistics and to the desirability of that support being continued.

EnvironmentalManagement 1) Environmental aspects of human settlements planning While stressing the importance of human settlements in the environment

Environmental Policy and Law, 7 (1981)

programme, some delegations suggested that UNEP should reassess its commitment in the area in view of the fact that UNCHS (Habitat) was now fully operational and should take a leading role in that respect. Other delegations stressed that the programme should place equal stress on management as well as planning aspects of human settlements, and that a more cost-effective mechanism should be developed for coordinated activities between UNEP and UNCHS. The representative of the Executive Director suggested that it would be inconsistent to reduce the budgetary allocation to human settlements, while at the same time seeking to strengthen the close working relationships between UNEP and UNCHS. 2)

Human and Environmental Health

Most delegations supported the programme of activities for the biennium 1982-1983, stressing that UNEP should continue to play its coordinating role, and should maintain and strengthen its close working relationship with WHO. Some delegations underlined the fundamental importance of the International Programme on Chemical Safety, which together with IRPTC and GEMS, formed part of the global long-term programme of environmental assessment.

Terrestrial Ecosystems 1) Arid and semi-arid ecosystems and desertification General support was expressed for the work of UNSO, and the committee expressed appreciation of the progress made in the follow-up to the recommendations of the UN Conference on Desertification. Several delegations expressed concern with the increasing problems of desertification and soil degradation. Argentina thought that better coordination was needed and that more care was essential in planning activities of this sort. The plans should be made and implemented in consultation with the Governments concerned. The representative of the Federal Republic of Germany said that his country was willing to contribute to major bilateral programmes for control of desertification and soil erosion. The USA and France drew attention to the need for development of regional maps. The Kenyan delegate stated that his country viewed with great concern the whole matter of desertification and had undertaken a number of projects and it

Environmental Policy and Law, 7 (1981)

was hoped that the experience gained would benefit other countries. During consideration of the draft decision on Implementation of the Plan of Action to Combat Desertification, Bangladesh submitted an amendment requesting the Executive Director to extend assistance on request to countries presently affected by desertification in the humid zone. The amendment was supported by China and Australia also supported the amendment but with the added proviso. During discussion on the draft decision in plenary (later adopted by the Council) the Executive-Director stressed that regarding the final paragraph this could only be interpreted as meaning to the extent to which the resources are available. 2) Tropical Ecosystems

Woodlands and Forest

Delegations noted the growing recognition that tropical deforestation was at the centre of a complex of immediate, large-scale human problems of a global nature. The delegation of Canada expressed interest in reversing the degradation of forests. Canada supported the recommendations of the First Experts' Group Meeting on Protection 'of Tropical Forests and endorsed the recommendation for a UN review aimed at avoiding duplication of projects and suggested that the gaps in the expert group recommendations should be filled by emphasis on development of an integrated plan. Some reservations were expressed on the question of an international action plan for tropical forests. Brazil suggested that such matters should be dealt with on a regional basis. The FAO delegate said that his organization had always respected the right of countries to manage their own affairs and would continue to act in accordance with the wishes of the countries concerned, but the problems could not be looked at unless national institutions were strengthened. 3)

Wildlifeand Protected Areas

Several delegations expressed concern that UNEP had made no provision for financial support to the interim secretariat for the Convention on Preservation of Wetlands of International Importance, especially as Waterfowl Habitat (see also Environmental Policy & Law, 7 (1) page 47). They indicated their governments willingness to contribute towards the secretariat, while noting the need

for UNEP support during the interim period. UNEP was requested to continue temporarily providing support for the Special Fund of the Washington Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (see also Environmental Policy & Law, 5 (2), 1979) p. 108). During discussion in plenary the Argentine delegate said that all action proposed in this resolution, could be undertaken immediately, as the ExecutiveDirector has the mandate of the Governing Council to act. Tolba replied that he did have a mandate until GC X, but that he had staff support difficulties, although no difficulties in any other form. The US delegate supported the point made by Argentina and expressed the hope that the difficulties referred to by Tolba were not undermining the effectiveness of the regional offices. The Executive-Director repeated that there were, indeed, only staff difficulties, to which the Argentine delegate replied that solutions were nenessary and that action must be taken in this regard without delay if this situation were not to have adverse effects. The Executive-Directoi replied that he was fully in agreement on this point.

Environment and Development Most delegations endorsed the medium-term plan for the environment and development sector, and welcomed UNEP's efforts to promote the integration of development and environmental management (see also p. 140).

Oceans The representatives of Venezuela, Greece and the European Economic Community commended UNEP on its work on the oceans and Regional Seas. The ECA supported the West African Action Plan and noted with satisfaction UNEP's interest in the Lagos Plan of Action. Some delegations were especially concerned with the monitoring of the oceans which was not adequately covered by the Regional Seas programme. In this respect, the USSR emphasized the need for worldwide and intensive monitoring of ocean pollution (see under GEMS). UNEP's coordination and catalytic role was expected to be a major force in the encouragement of Governments to enter into regional and/or bilateral agreements to protect specific populations of living marine resources, and it 127

was further suggested that the regional seas programme could provide an effective mechanism for achieving the programme's goals. Several delegations expressed concern that the proposed level of funding for the regional seas programme was to be reduced, since to do so would mean that it would be unable to fulfil the expectations placed indt. The Committee recommended for adoption by the GC two draft decisions on regional seas, submitted by the delegations of Belgium, Colombia, Denmark, France, Federal Republic of German3)

France regarded the document on the in-depth review to be very useful. Severn delegations welcomed the conclusions of the Working Group of Experts which it was felt would contribute significantly to preventing pollution resulting from the offshore exploration and exploitation of hydro carbons and other minerals. A few of the delegates - inter alia Venezuela and G.D.R. - stated that they could not support the conclusions of the expert group and proposed that the GC should take note of their conclusiOns while the Executive Director

Committee I under the chairmanship of Abdulbar AI-Gain.

Photo: WEB

Greece, Italy, Ivory Coast, Malaysia, circulate the text for further comments, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, and for discussion at GCX. Nigeria, Switzerland, Tunisia, Turkey, The USSR welcomed UNEP's activUnited Kingdom, USA, Venezuela and ities in the field of environmental law, Yugoslavia, and by the delegation of saying that it was important to provide Kenya (see page 138). guidelines, but did not think it possible to approve them until the opinion of Environmental Law respective governments had been obIn the area of Environmental Law, tained. The delegate said that UNEP the Secretariat has embarked on the pre- should give developing countries techparation of (a) an in-depth review on nical aid in working out legislation for environmental law, background already the protection of the environment. available in UNEP Report No. 2, 1981, During the discussion on the Senior (b) preparation of the Senior Level Level Meeting on Environmental Law, Meeting of Government Experts and some delegations stated their reserva(c) the work of the Working Group on tions as to the usefulness of such a meetenvironmental law - which at its 8th ing (see Statements), while other delegasession prepared guidelines on the legal tions fully supported this proposal. In a aspects concerning the environment statement in Committee, L. S. Clark of related to offshore mining and drilling the Canadian delegation outlined the within the limits of national jurisdiction decision to hold such a meeting, the (see Environmental Policy & Law, 7 timetable proposed and the goals of this meeting (see p. 106). (1), (1981) p. 50). 128

The representative of Thailand supported UNEP's intention to step up its activities in the field of environmental law and agreed with the views expressed at the Ottawa consultative meeting. He felt that the proposed Senior Level Meeting should keep in mind ways of assisting developing countries to achieve sustainable development. Deliberations on this subject should be based on reliable knowledge from scientific studies. Thailand was also interested in the promotion of and training in environmental law. The USSR delegation recalled that at Council's eighth session it had objected to the programme of work proposed by the Executive-Director on the grounds that it went beyond the mandate given by the General Assembly; consequently, it found the Executive Director's report on cooperation in the field of the environment concerning natural resources shared by two or more States, as well as the programme of work now before the Committee, unacceptable. A few delegates expressed concern over the development by UNEP of legal principles for the guidance of States. One stressed that UNEP should confine itself to developing guidelines rather than principles; the responsibility for identifying shared natural resources rested with States, and UNEP should limit its involvement to consultations with Governments and reporting to the General Assembly. Other delegations, however, welcomed the draft principles and urged that they be adopted as soon as possible. When the decision came before plenary the old reservations were voiced as ever, with the addition of a new reservation from Greece. Tolba said that the question had not been considered by the G.A. but that this was one of the subjects whichwould be before the 37th session. In plenary, Greece registered its reservations regarding the part on offshore mining. For the draft decision on Programme Matters, the section concerned with environmental law was discussed at length and amended. The amendments were concerned with the conclusions of the Working Group of Experts (see above). The draft decision requested the Executive Director to circulate to all States for study the conclusions of the Working Group containing the proposed guidelines. The draft decision (see p. 138) was adopted as amended. " i

Environmental Policy and Law, 7 (1981)

The Committee recommended for adoption by the GC a draft decision on the ad hoc meeting of Senior Government Officials Expert in Environmental Law (see p. 138) sponsored by Austria, Bangladesh, Botswana, Canada, Colombia, Indonesia, Kenya, Malaysia, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Sweden, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay and Yugoslavia. Two delegations recorded their reservation on the decision with respect to the three specific subject areas to be dealt with by the meeting. The Secretariat underlined the need to have guidance on the number of participants. The meeting appeared likely to cost about $ 300,000, approximately 200,000 of which would have to be met from the Fund programme reserve.

Committee Decisions Following its debate, the Committee approved for adoption by the GC, draft decisions on the following subjects: i The University and the Environment; Human Settlements (see p. 142); World Soils Policy (see p. 142); Plan of Action to Combat Desertification (see p. 139);

Climate Impact; Environmental Law (see p. 138); Programme Matters (see p. 138); Protection of the Ozone Layer (see p. 138); Oceans (p. 138); Cooperation in the field of the Environment Concerning Natural Resources Shared by Two or more States (p. 141); Energy; Regional Programme and Programme Support (p. 140); Arid and Semi-arid Lands Ecosystems; Environment and Development (p. 140); Coordination and Follow-up of the Implementation of the Plan of Action to Combat Desertification (p. 142); Environmental Education and Training; Infoterra (p. 138). When the draft resolution on the Environmental Law Meeting was adopted, the Executive-Director made some comments. He said that he understood this to mean that the size of this expert meeting could be enlarged by the Governments and that the invitation to the ad hoc meeting be interpreted as an invitation to those who have shown interest and not as a general invitation. Two days prior to the meeting it is planned to hold a special meeting of developing countries. He hoped that some countries would support these meetings, following the example set be Sweden. []

Sessional Committee I I Fund Implementation and Evaluation The meeting was opened by Chairman Lothar Hertel (GDR) after the election of the rapporteur, Gilbert SabatM (France). Yusuf Ahmad, Acting Assistant Executive Director, Fund and Administration, introduced two documents for immediate discussion by the committee (UNEP/GC.9/9 and Add 1). He suggested that debate on sections of these documents related to Trust Funds managed by UNEP, non-convertible currencies (NCCs) and the Revolving Fund (Information) be deferred until the prime concern had been dealt with, which is to forward to Committee I the "bottom line" total for Fund Programme activities for the biennium 1981--82.

Management of the Fund The representative of the Federal Republic of Germany made a statement in which he considered the approach to the compilation .of target figures (for Fund programme activities, 1982-83) was at odds with sound financial management. "First decide how much there

Environmental Policy and Law, 7 (1981)

is to spend, then plan the programme not the other way round", he said. The Medium Term Plan (1982-83), as presented, showed that the Fund would require a total of $120 million to finance the programme for the period. But, he said, the indications are that the available resources from states' contributions will amount to no more than $70 million, i.e. $50 million short of the target proposed. If the Secretariat has had firm indications of considerable increase in contributions, then the committee should know of them before further considering the programme of speeding for the 1982-83 period. The representative of the United States then announced that his country's pledge of $10 million for 1981 would be honoured. Half of this amount had been paid last week, and he expected that the balance would be paid in the second half of the year. In response to the Executive Director's request for guidance on what he might expect as the level of the states' contributions for the 1982-83 period

and the longer term, the delegate said that his own country could not pledge more than a year ahead since the yearly allocation was subject to the approval and authority of the United States Congress. However, all indications at this time are that the US contribution in 1982 will be less than it has been for the past several years - "although we still expect to be the major contributor". With regard to the period immediately after 1982, the delegate said he would provide no more than broad guidelines. Because of budgetary stringency, domestic programmes in the US are entering a period of retrenchment, and it could not be expected that international programmes would be exempt from these structures applied to the domestic programmes. "Therefore", he said, "we believe that UNEP should prepare for a period of consolidation beginning in 1982". The US delegate then turned to the proposed $120 target for the 1982-83 biennium which he said presumed roughly twice the present level of states' annual contributions of $31 million. Unless the Executive Director has strong expectations that other states will make extremely sizeable increases in their contributions, he would not advise UNEP to increase the programme above the level it operated during the 1980-81 period, that is: $65 million. This is the figure he would recommend be forwarded to Committee I for their allocation to the two-digit lines - if indeed this $65 million is the sum of contributions that can be realistically expected during 1982-83. The representative of Sweden reiterated previous comments on the generally difficult economic situation, but said that the $120 million Fund programme target was not only relevant to the needs of the UNEP mandate, but that much more is required for the environment programme. However, given the economic situation in the world, the $120 million is unrealistic. He said that Sweden would maintain the present level of its contribution in real terms, which in effect meant an increase of between 12 and 33%; $2 million for 1982, and between $2.2 million in 1983. He hoped that his country would maintain its percentage of the total states' contribution to the Fund of UNEP of 5.5% assuming corresponding adjustment by other states to their present level of contributions. He suggested that if there had to be cuts in the Medium Term Plan in the 129

1982-83 period, that programme support costs would have to bear the brunt. However, on this issue of possible cutbacks in programme activities, the representative of India said there should first be an evaluation of the effectiveness of all projects and, on this basis, a pruning exercise. The representative of Denmark said that the picture projected was "a sad one", showing an overall decrease of convertible currency (CC) contributions. It illustrated the problem of an organization which decides its programme ahead of sure knowledge of the amount of resources available. He suggested that donors should pledge for a longer period and should, in any event, honour their pledges. The prospect for 1982-82 was "deplorable", he said since the programme needs the $120 million, and more! However, the plan does indicate priority activities and thus where cuts might be made. The representative of the USSR made reference to late payment of states's contributions, and said his delegation shared the Executive Director's concern over this perennial problem for UNEP. He pledged that his country's contribution would be paid in full on the due date. The Australian representative noted that a number of pledges had not been honoured, with some states shown as being several years in arrears. He suggested that unless adequate assurances are received that overdue payment would be made, they should be removed from tables of projected revenue. The delegate also agreed that the 1982-83 target figure was unrealistic. It must be cut, he said, and so must the programme. He could not accept the "philosophy" in the documentation that argued otherwise. He said there should be joint consultation (with Committee I) on where the cuts should be made. The representative of France said that the UNEP Secretariat could not be expected to produce alternative budgeting on this issue "over the lunch hour", but that in any event the figures in the documentation before the committee were eloquent in themselves. From a study of these, in particular of the fact that only about 80% of the approved ($67 million) for the 1980-81 biennium was used, it would be possible and reasonable to lower the $120 million target for 1982-83. With the anticipated inflation raze reduced from 14 to 11 per cent, the delegate said her rough 130

calculation was a figure of around $75 million for the biennium. The representative of the United States then made a second intervention, cautioning against agreeing an optimistic figure which would be misleading to Committee I and to co-operating agencies. He suggested a "scenario" as follows: put forward to Committee I a total dollar figure of $65 million (roughly the present level of contributions); let the committee apportion this total across the budget fines; then perhaps if it so wishes - make a statement, or a resolution, to the effect that this money

lion dollars is to be apportioned by (the Programme) Committee I. Committee II, however, is of the opinion that the funds necessary to implement the programme fully, might well not be available. In its assessment no more than $77 million will be available for the Fund. Committee II, therefore, would recommend that Committee I propose that the Governing Council direct the Executive Director that, when he is implementing the programme he should: (i) ensure the integrity and appropriate liquidity of the fund at all times;

" S t a n l e y , I believe we're in the midst of an energy crisis

is insufficient for an effective programme. Perhaps note that $90 or $120 million is the total figure required, then make supplementary apportionments. The Executive Director could go ahead on this basis and seek increased contributions, reporting back to GC X. At the next meeting of the committee, a draft document was presented on a total target figure for the financing of UNEP Fund programme activities proposed in the Medium Term Plan for 1982-83 (UNEP/GC.9/6; UNEP/GC.9/ 10 and Add.5). The issue had been the subject of extensive debate in the committee and lengthy informal negotiations, first by the Group of 77 and then by an expanded group of all interested states delegations. Lothar Hertel, said the text of the draft on this "complex and controversial" issue represented a consensus of all Committee II delegates, with the exception of Asian group representatives who would propose amendments. The draft document was then circulated. It read as follows: "Subject to Committee I's endorsement of the programme as contained in document UNEP/GC.9/6, Committee II accepts the desirability of a target figure of 120 million dollars of which 93 rail-

L. Ray Rairnonda

(ii) allocate available resources amongst the two-digit budget lines, using as a guide the percentage breakdown established by Committee I; (iii) allocate available resources with each two-digit budget fine in accordance with the priorities established by Committee I. Furthermore, the Executive-Director should be directed to report to the 10th Session of the Governing Council on the progress made in the implementation of the programme on the basis of (i), (ii) and (iii) above and to make appropriate recommendations to the 10th Session concerning the continuation or alteration of this approach in the fight of the progress made in the implementation of the programme and the expected available resources. The report should give information on the programme, projects and activities differentiating by global, regional, inter-regional, sub-regional and countries concerned and should also indicate the commitments and expenditures incurred as well as the decisions of the Governing Council on which projects and activities implemented are based". The representative of Malaysia then introduced the amendment proposed by the Asian group. He prefaced this with an introductory statement in which he said inter alia, that "for more than a

Environmental Policy and Law. 7 (1981)

week, this committee has been discussing the target figure of $120 million as proposed by the Executive Director. The time has come for us to align our deliberations with those in the programme committee. They have examined the Medium Term Plan and also its linkage with SWMTEP. Malaysia, along with other members of the Asian group, is of the opinion that it is not so much a question of asking the Executive-Director to carry out a programme for which he is unlikely to have the required resources in the Fund... but rather a matter of the Governing Council and the individual Governments mustering the will to help the Executive Director in raising sufficient resources in the Fund so that the much-needed projects could be carried out". "In this respect, the Asian group is of the considered view that we adopt the budget figure of $120 million as proposed by the Executive Director". The delegate read out the Asia group's amendment to the draft consensus text which, inter alia, proposed the removal of the expected $77 million level of contributions for the biennium and the addition of an opinion that "Committee II considers (the $120 million) the minimum (amount) essential to carry out the Medium Term Plan for 1982--83". The amendment was supported by the representatives of Indonesia and Pakistan. The representative of Kuwait said that the Asian group objected to the assessment in the document that no more than $77 million would be available to the Fund over the period 1982-83. The group had looked for justification of this figure, but failed to find it. The representative of Argentina said he regretted that Asian states members of the Group of 77 were under-represented in the informal negotiations which the Group of 77 itself had initiated. The issue could not now go back to the working group, he said, so the committee itself should now try to accommodate the views of the Asian delegates who object to the text. The representative of Liberia then called on the Asian group to withdraw its amendment, after which the Australian delegate made an eloquent, persuasive intervention which later drew commendations from several delegations. He said that on behalf of his own country, and of the group of Western European and Other States (WEOG), he endorsed the regret expressed on the "unfortunate" action of the Asian group.

Environmental Policy and Law, 7 (1981)

The text before the committee had been negotiated "with much sweat" by all interested states delegations on a proposal of the "Group of 77". The basis for the assessment of $77 million as a realistic expectation was understood and undisputed in the negotiating group. A rational, albeit conservative, opinion was that contributions to the Fund in 1982-83 would be unlikely to exceed the total for the present 1980-81 biennium - say, between $63 and $65 million. The working group proceeded rationally from this point, but abandoned the conservative or pessimistic position for "cautious optimism". It assumed that some countries might increase their contributions; others would increase in real terms taking account of inflation; new contributions might be found; and some states might be moved in 1982 by the fact of the tenth anniversary". It was in consideration of these possibilities, we thought it possible that the $77 million target might just be achieved". The delegate said he had been concerned at the imputation of some representatives that certain states were out to emasculate the environment programme. That is simply not true, he said. We have a "high regard" for the $120 million figure; we respect the Executive Director's judgment that this is the figure required for the programme. We are in fact proposing to send only one figure to Committee I, and that is the $120 million. We are putting forward precisely the figure the Executive-Director wants for his Medium Term Plan. "You can't ask for much more than that". The Australian delegate continued that the committee has had a week's debate on this issue, and the trend of discussion was clear. "For this reason, we thought it prudent to apply certain conditions in respect of the $120 million t a r g e t - conditions written into the text on how we believe the Executive Director should undertake initial implementation of his plan. We will have the opportunity to review all this at next year's Governing Council, just two months into the plan period. The Executive Director will then tell us how he has been able to implement taking our cautions into account. If he tells us at GC X that he can get the money - the $120 million then we can tell him to go ahead with the full plan." Thus the text is very simple, the delegate said, and it does accommodate everyone's concerns.

The representative of Nigeria and the German Democratic Republic, on behalf of the Africa and Eastern European groups, then endorsed the Australian statement. The representative of Kuwait said he was not convinced. The fact is that the Asian group had not been fully represented in the negotiations, he said. We're coming in late, and we do not see the justification for the $77 million. This is our main objection; this figure should be deleted from the text. At this, the Malaysian delegate said a compromise might be achieved; delete the $77 million and perhaps the Asian group could accept the rest of the paper. A consensus agreement was finally reached and the committee decided to accept a target of $120 million with reservations, including an opinion that no more than $77 million could be realistically expected as the total of voluntary states contributions to the Fund in the 1982-83 Medium Term Plan period. It was then agreed to include the decision of the committee in a letter to the President of the Governing Council. The substance - for transmission to the Chairman of the (Programme) Committee I read as follows: "Subject to Committee I's endorsement of the programme as contained in document UNEP/GC.9/6, Committee II accepts the desirability of a target figure of 120 million dollars of which 93 million dollars is to be apportioned by Committee I. Committee II, however, is of the opinion that the funds necessary to implement the programme fully, might well not be available. In its assessment no more than 77 million dollars will be available for the Fund. Committee II, therefore, would recommend that Committee I propose that the Governing Council direct the Executive Director that, when he is implementing the programme he should: (i) ensure the integrity and appropriate liquidity of the Fund at all times; (ii) allocate available resources amongst the two-digit budget lines, using as a guide the percentage breakdown estabfished by Committee I; (iii) allocate available resources within each two-digit budget line in accordance with the priorities established by Committee I. Furthermore, the Executive-Director should be directed to report to the 10th session of the Governing Council on the progress made in the implementation of the programme on the basis of (i), (ii) and (iii) above and to make appropriate 131

recommendations to the 10th session concerning the continuation or alteration of this approach in the light of the progress made in the implementation of the programme and the expected available resources. The report should give information on the programme, projects and activities differentiating by global, regional, inter-regional, sub-regional and countries concerned and should also indicate the commitments and expenditures incurred as well as the decisions of the Governing Council on which projects and activities implemented are based'.~ The committee then concluded another protracted debate in the session

group) appeared not to be in favour of the proposal. Nor was Argentina, whose representative said the implications of the %vindow" were complex requiring, amongst everything else, revision of the financial rules of the Fund which should be studied carefully by the Governing Council. The representative of Sweden explained that the means to be used in the "Window" - for priority environmental concerns in developing countries should be additional in the Fund, over and above the regular resources provided. The target for the window account would be set at $15 million and

to build in an approach to assistance (to developing countries) which might better fall under the auspices of UNDP or the World Bank. Yusaf Ahmad stressed that the proposal was for additional resources which would in no way jeopardize the flexibility of the programme. The purpose of the "window" funding would be "to help clear up the debris of environmental problems which follows in the wake of development", he said. The representative of the United States said that he fully supported Canada's reservations on the proposal. Concern was expressed by some delegations that a national emphasis might be introduced into the Programme at the expense of the global or regional emphasis set forth in UNEP's mandate. Others considered that the development of the "window" approach would increase the regional benefits accruing to the less developed countries from multilateral donors. The Committee subsequently decided to recommend to the Governing Council the adoption of a decision on this subject.

Non-convertible Currencies.

"Hippos, hiding from

Delegates"!

on administrative and budgetary questions related to the "Performance Report on Programme and Programme Support Costs (PPSC) for the Biennium, 1980-81 ". (UNEP/GC.9/12)

Additional Resources for Environmental Problems in Developing Countries Discussion centred on a "Special Window" in the Environment Fund through which funds would be made available to help developing countries with their environment problems (see also p. 103). The representative of India referred to a note in the document under review that the Executive Director had approached ten major donors for a response to this proposal and this was outlined, at the delegates' request, by Yusuf Ahmad. The majority of the Western European and other States (the WEOG 132

Photo:WEB

form part of the overall target funding for the Medium Term Plan ( t 9 8 2 - 8 3 ) . "I am not going to go into the considerations that lie behind the proposal since this is being done in the programme committee", the delegate said. "In this committee I only wish to stress that increased efforts from UNEP to deal with environmental problems in developing countries should not be understood as a separate programme for UNEP. It is a matter of increased financial strength to be used for regular UNEP activites, within SWMTEP, which concentrate on areas such as land degeneration, deforestation and marine pollution in developing countries". The representative of Canada said that her country had several difficulties with the proposal. The earmarking of Fund contributions for a specific purpose could jeopardize the flexibility of the UNEP programme and would tend

Yusaf Ahmad, introducing the report of the Executive Director (UNEP/GC.9/ 10/Add.I), Which had been prepared in response to Governing Council decision 8/18, par. 8, reminded the Committee of how the problem of ncc had become acute in 1979 when they had comprised 62 Rer cent of the Fund resources. Nonconvertible currency projects were now part of the over-all programme, although primarily in the training field. The Executive-Director's report was generally welcomed, although attention was drawn to some disturbing conclusions: the higher cost of implementing non-convertible currency projects, the additional time and administrative support required the distortion of the programme, even if only in terms of geographical location of implementation. The US delegate observed that project selection standards appeared to be less rigorous for non-convertible currency projects and said that the same standards should apply to all projects. Several delegations supported in principle the action suggested by the Executive-Director in his report and a number considered that rule 203.4 of the Financial Rules of the Fund should be amended to avoid having to restrict programme implementation. Others, however, were

Environmental Policy and Law, 7 (1981)

opposed to the action suggested, as they saw no problem in the contribution or the use of Non-convertible currency. Following further discussion, it was agreed to recommend to the Governing Council a text to replace paragraphs 4 and 5 in the suggested draft decision in document UNEP/GC.9/10. During the 9th meeting in Plenary the representative of the USSR, speaking also on behalf of several east European states, said that the size of their governments contributions as well as the currencies in which they were made, were a matter falling within the sovereign jurisdiction of each state in accordance with the spirit and letter of General Assembly resolution 2997 (XXVII) and rule 203.4 of the Financial Rules of the Fund and that any other action would infringe established procedure. In addition, he was aware of several requests for ncc's. []

CITES Standing Committee Meeting The 5th meeting of the Standing Committee of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species was held at IUCN headquarters on Thursday 16 July 1981 with the following topics discussed: - financial matters under the convention, including the headquarters status in Switzerland and the status of the Trust Fund under UNEP auspices, preparations for the next Meeting of the Conference of the parties in Botswana in April/May 1983,

- the position of Secretary-General for the Convention. []

Administrative and Budgetary Questions (Performance report on the programme and programme support costs for the biennium 1980-1981 and proposed budget for the biennium 1982-1983.) The Acting Assistant Executive-Director, Office of the Environment Fund and Administration, introducing the performance report on the programme and programme support costs for the biennium 1982-1983 (UNEP/GC.9/13 and Corr. 1--3 and Add.1 and Add.l/Corr. 1 and 2) with the related reports of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) (UNEP/GC9/L.2 and L.3), said that the additional resources requested in the performance report were estimated at -1,215,100 representing a net amount after adjustments for inflation and fluctuations in rates of exchange. Many delegations considered that the estimate in the 1980-81 performance report and the proposed programme support costs budget for 1982-1983 were too high. They drew attention in that connexion to the ACABQ report on the 1980-- 1981 performance report in which the Governing Council was recommendded to request the Executive Director to endeavour to reduce expenditure under the programme and programme support costs budget for 1980-1981. With regard to the proposed costs budget for 1982-1983, the UK delegate supported by several others, slid that none of the Executive-Director's proposals were acceptable.

Environmental Policy and Law, 7 (1981)

The Acting Assistant Executive Director, observed that ACABQ had raised the problem of the relationship between programme and programme support costs and Fund programme activities. The Executive Director was aware of the problem and agreed that the actual requirements for 1982-1983 must be fixed in terms of contributions and not of the target figure. ACABQ had therefore agreed that the questions should be reviewed by the Governing Council at its 1982 session in the light of more up-to-date information on contributions and firm pledges. Several delegations considered that the procedure followed for dealing with the various documents on budgetary matters before the Committee was not conducive to the proper conduct of business. In particular, the absence of

time to discuss the reports of ACABQ was deplored and it was suggested that in future the reports of ACABQ should be discussed first and a decision on the Executive Director's reports taken in the light of the Advisory Committee's recommendations. During discussions on the draft decisions on programme and programme support cost budget 1980-1981 and 1982-1983, the Executive Director reminded delegates that the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions is only as its name states advisory and that this point must either be accepted by delegates or be included in those points for the performance report 1980. The UK delegate said that he was not satisfied with this explanation. He felt that a special review was necessary and he would like to have this included in the report to the tenth Governing Council. The Executive-Director reminded delegates that ACABQ can only be instructed by the General Assembly. The Netherlands representative said that there should be less project covering costs, to which Tolba replied that this was a continuing request. The Governing Council then came to the conclusion, that if only the General Assembly can instruct ACABQ, then this request should be the subject of a Council decision. Accordingly the decision was adopted as follows: The Governing Council Requests the General Assembly to instruct the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions to review in depth the programme and programme support costs of the Environment Fund, taking into account the discussions of the Governing Council on this matter at its 9th session, and to report thereon to the Council at its 10th session. []

The Final Sessions: Action by the Governing Council At the 8th meeting of the session, on 25 May, the Governing Council considered a draft decision submitted by the delegations of Bulgaria, Byelorussian SSR, Czechoslovakia, German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Poland, Ukrainian SSR, and USSR on Environment and the Arms Race. The Chinese delegate reminded the Council that this subject had been dis-

cussed during the 35th General Assembly and in addition, he could not understand how the USSR could propose such a resolution, when one considers the situation in Kampuchea and elsewhere. The representative of the Netherlands, speaking on behalf of the member States of the European Community which were members of the Governing Council, said that those countries 133

had outlined their attitude to General Assembly resolution 35/8 when they had abstained in the vote in the Assembly. Appropriate forums for the discussion of disarmament issues existed elsewhere in the UN system, and duplication should be avoided. The President then put the draft decision to the vote. At the request of the delegation of the USA, the vote was taken by roll-call. The draft decision was adopted by 11 votes to none, with 33 abstentions. At the same meeting, the Council considered a draft decision on material remnants of war, submitted by the African group. The representative of the Federal Republic of Germany, speaking also on behalf of the delegations of Australia, Belgium, France, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand, UK and the USA, requested a vote on the draft decision. The nine delegations did not regard the Council as an appropriate forum for discussion of the question of material remnants of war, and did not believe that UNEP's workload should be needlessly increased by imposing the question on it. Such issues were most usefully pursued through bilateral discussions. Furthermore, the draft decision made fundamental assumptions about certain matters of general international law which were of doubtful validity. The USSR was in favour of the resotion as it stood, but the Swiss delegate and several others were of the opinion that it was a bilateral question. In the final vote, 16 were in favour, 8 against, with 6 abstentions. At the 9th meeting of the session, on 26 May, the Council considered a draft decision submitted by the African group on global armaments spending, as well as a set of proposed amendments to it submitted by the East European group. The representatives of Egypt and Liberia deplored the fact that no consultations had taken place with the sponsors of the draft decision regarding the proposed amendments, which the sponsors had firmly rejected. They said that the proposals completely changed the sense of the original decision. China said that she could support the African proposal but was against the proposed amendments. The President said that the Council must vote point by point on this draft as it differed greatly from the original version. The proposed amendments were rejected by 5 votes to 11, with 25 abstentions. 134

The Council then turned to the draft decision itself. The representative of the Netherlands, speaking also on behalf of the European Community, pointed out that appropriate forums for the discussion of disarmament issues existed elsewhere in the UN system, and that any duplication of work should be avoided. Moreoever, an essential precondition for the allocation of a proportion of military expenditure to environmental protection or development would be the establishment of effective and reliable instruments for the measurement and comparison of such expenditure in free-market and centrally planned economies. The Swedish delegate said that her government was very active in promoting disarmament initiatives in appropriate UN forums, but that if the Council should adopt the proposals made, it would, in effect have to ask for more armaments in order to obtain a bigger percentage for environmental purposes ! The representative of Saudi Arabia was also of the opinion that UNEP was not the appropriate forum for such questions, and that any funding for UNEP must come from voluntary contributions. Finally, the draft decision as it stood infringed upon the sovereignty of States. The Swiss delegate said that although his country had consistently opposed the arms race, UNEP was not the place to discuss such questions. The decision was adopted by 17 in favour, 2 against, with 23 abstentions. Interesting was the fact that Turkey, as the only NATO country, voted in favour. The two 'noes' came from the USA and Saudi Arabia. The USSR was one of the countries which abstained, and its representative said that this was in accordance with his country's view that additional resources for development and environmental protection should be obtained from part of the resources freed as a result of cuts in military spending, as provided for in GA resolution 3093 (XVIII). The representative of the USA said that her country already gives more than it would be obliged to under the proposed new percentage system, and this would therefore result in a vast decrease in the funds allocated ! The Council then turned to consideration of a draft decision on solidarity

with the victims of apartheid in southern Africa, submitted by the African group. The US delegate interrupted on a point of order and stated that the resolution had come too late to be in accor-

dance with rule 43 of the rules of procedure, and could not be accepted on the agenda. The Council then voted on the proposal made by the US representative. The proposal was rejected. The Argentine representative said that he had abstained because, while he regretted that he had been given no opportunity to discuss the draft decision, he did not wish to endorse a departure from the rules of procedures. After the Council resumed its considerations of the draft decision, a number of representatives expressed reservations concerning certain of its provisions, which they felt went beyond the competence of the Council. The draft was withdrawn to permit consultations and subsequently the representative of Ethiopia introduced a revised version, which he said, took account of the criticisms that had been made. The representative of the Netherlands, speaking also on behalf of the other members of the European Community, said that the Governing Council was not the right forum for such a decision and that the Executive Director should not be asked to become directly involved in such matters. The Swedish delegate said that the proposal to invite the Executive Director to seek ways and-means to promote public awareness of the environmental impacts of apartheid was highly questionable. The representative of Switzerland said that his government had always stressed the importance of not politicizing the debates of specialized UN agencies. The representative of Argentina expressed appreciation for the consultations which had been held, which had made it possible to arrive at an acceptable text. The draft decision was now founded on principles which had already been universally recognized. The final vote was 37 in favour, 12 against, with 3 abstentions. On the 25th May, the Council, on the recommendation of the Bureau, decided on the provisional agenda, date and place of the 10th session and approved the provisional agenda for the session. The Executive-Director pointed out that the report he was to submit under item 4 would cover, among other subjects, the periodicity and duration of Council sessions, proposed topics for Environmental Policy and Law, 7 (1981)

the report on the state of the environment, 1983, and the regional presence of UNEP. In addition, item 6 would include an evaluation of progress made towards the achievement of the 1982 goals. At the same meeting, also on the recommendation of the Bureau, the Council decided on the date and place of the intersessional informal consultations with Governments to be held between the ninth and lOth sessions. []

Adoption of the Report The Governing Council considered the draft reports at the 8th and 9th plenary meetings on the 25th and 26th May 1981. The representative of Japan claimed that too many political decisions had been adopted and that his country would prefer that UNEP stay out of these controversies as that was only disturbing the work which had to be done for the environment. The UK delegate agreed with this statement and in addition, remarked that he felt that UNEP could not continue in this way that there was much too much paper work, and that the agenda must be changed to avoid so many statements being made which divert from the subject on the agenda. He would like to see resolutions and papers earlier "instead of at the last minute to be followed by rushed decisions". "I can say for my country, that there will be more resources available for UNEP only when it has proved to be more efficient". The representative of Ghana, supported by many others, expressed mis"givings about the statement by the UK delegate, and remarked that it amounted to interference in the decisions of the

other delegates and countries. This was greeted by applause, especially by the African states. Following the break, since the climate was tense and before the final round of speeches began the represen,tative of Saudi Arabia made a statement to the effect that all had been very busy and although all now were prone to nervousness, all had one thing in common: the well-being of UNEP. The divergences of opinion which had emerged during the session were a reflection of the complex nature of environmental concerns and he hoped that they would not be allowed to disrupt the cooperation which had been built up so far. Also at the 9th meeting, the Council took note of the reports of Sessional Committees I and II (see above) as orally revised by the rapporteur and adopted the draft decisions recommended by the committees. (To avoid confusion and unnecessary cross references details of these deliberations in Plenary are included in parenthesis in the committee reports following the relevant draft decision.) The Governing Council adopted the present report at the 9th meeting on 26 May subject to the incorporation of the amendments approved at the 8th and 9th meetings. []

greater effort by all concerned, UNEP cannot succeed in its goals. He stressed the interest, quality and importance of the general debate and added that "never before have we heard so many brilliant statements, which constitute an important contribution in the way of guidelines and government opinions which will help the Executive Director in his ardous task". He voiced his "profound satisfaction" that the Council had taken a definite decision to convene a Senior Level Meeting on Environmental Law and had accepted the invitation of Uruguay to hold the meeting there. He was convinced that this would prove to be one of the most important meetings of the decade. Although delegates could not be unaware of the difficulties inherent in the Montevideo meeting, it was hoped that it "will help us to find ways and means conducive to the establishment of legal machinery which we have to create in order to achieve our own vital objectives. "Because if there is no law, there is no implementation thereof". The President then declared the 9th session of the Governing Council closed. [] MJ

Closure of the Session In an eloquent statement at the end of the conference, the President called for more solidarity between nations as the only means of solving the problems facing the world and reminded delegates that "whether we like it or not, or accept it or not there are no boundaries in the field of the environment". He spoke of the financial difficulties facing UNEP and stressed that without a

LOS For testimony of James L. Malone before the US House of Representatives Merchant Marine & Fisheries Committee, see page 146.

ECA Resolutions on (i) the strengthening of national capabilities for environmental legislation, assessment and management as a development strategy, (ii) human settlements are printed on page 145.

OTHER INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS

Elizabeth Haub Prize The Elizabeth Haub prize in Environmental Law was awarded by the Free University o f Brussels and the ICEL to Russell E. Train, on June 11, 1981. Following are extracts from the Laudatio and other speeches given on this occasion. Allocution prononc6e par le Recteur r6at que nous honorons est le quinzibme • d'une liste de personnalit6s de renom Jean Michot C'est la sixi~me fois depuis sa cr6a- international, ~ qui le Prix fut attribu6 tion en 1974 qu'a lieu aujourd'hui la re- pour la contribution qu'ils ont apport6e mise du Prix Elizabeth Haub, et le lau- dans les domaines de la conservation de

Environmental Policy and Law, 7 (1981)

la nature et de ses ressources, du droit, de la politique, de l'6conomie de l'environnement dans divers pays, darts le domaine du d6veloppement de la 16gislation relative g la protection de l'environnement, de l'urbanisme et de l'am6nagement du territoire, ainsi que de l'~tude des diverses 16gislations en la mati~re. Relisant r6cemment le palmar~s du Prix Elizabeth Haub, j'ai 6t6, une fois de plus frapp~ tout g la fois par la qualit~ des laur6ats et par l'6tonnante diver135