US embassy cable - 05PARIS4799

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 07 PARIS 004799 
 
SIPDIS 
 
FROM USMISSION UNESCO 
 
STATE FOR IO/T JANE COWLEY, EB PAUL ACETO, OES/STAS ANDREW 
W. REYNOLDS, OES/OA Liz Tirpak 
STATE FOR USAID NORMAN RIFKIN 
STATE FOR NSC GENE WHITNEY 
STATE FOR NOAA RICHARD SPINRAD, ARTHUR PATTERSON 
STATE FOR OFFICE OF NAVAL RESEARCH GLOBAL OFFICE, 
OCEANOGRAPHER OF THE NAVY 
STATE FOR EPA 
STATE FOR NSF MARGARET LEINEN 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: AORC, TSPL, EAID, SENV, IZ, UNESCO, KSCI 
SUBJECT:  USUNESCO: INTERNATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC COMMISION 
ASSEMBLY (IOC/UNESCO) ESTABLISHES FRAMEWORK FOR TSUNAMI 
WARNING SYSTEM, ADVANCES U.S. GOALS ON EARTH OBSERVATION 
 
Ref: A) Paris 1496, B) Paris 2415, C) Paris 3024, D) Paris 
 
4310 
 
1.   Summary and Introduction:  At the 23rd Session of the 
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) Assembly -- 
which took place June 20-30 2005 at UNESCO Headquarters in 
Paris -- the U.S. delegation (USDEL) met all of its 
objectives.  These included: encouraging fiscal transparency 
and accountability; further integrating the mission of the 
IOC with that of UNESCO's science and education sectors 
through mutual capacity building initiatives; and enhancing 
development of the Global Oceans Observation System (GOOS) 
and tsunami warning systems within the context of the Global 
Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS).  USDEL 
facilitated the drafting of resolutions that established a 
framework for a global tsunami and other ocean-related 
hazards early warning system, and formally launched regional 
efforts in the Indian Ocean, Caribbean, and the 
Mediterranean and Northern Atlantic.  In addition, the U.S. 
retained its seat on the Executive Council and gained a Vice 
Chair slot on the International GOOS Steering Committee. 
 
2.  Regarding the budget and strategic planning, the 
Assembly established a group (to work on-line in coming 
months) to plot strategy for the 2008-2009 program and 
budget that will take into account opportunities and 
challenges for operational oceanography posed by rapidly 
evolving technology and the development of the GEOSS. 
Regarding the 2006-2007 budget, USDEL led efforts to reject 
a draft budget presented by the secretariat that lacked 
clear rationale.  The Assembly endorsed instead a revised 
budget that applies a uniform cut (of approximately 26 
percent) to all IOC programs as an interim measure.  USDEL 
also secured regular budget funds for the World Climate 
Research Program:  the IOC contribution to this program has 
historically been sustained with U.S. extrabudgetary 
contributions. 
 
3.  USDEL was led by U.S. Representative to the IOC and the 
NOAA/National Ocean Service Administrator, Dr. Richard 
Spinrad, and was comprised of experts from EPA, Navy (ONR 
Global Office, Oceanographer of the Navy), NOAA (National 
Ocean Service, National Weather Service, Oceans and 
Atmospheric Research), National Marine Fisheries Service, 
and State (U.S. Mission to UNESCO, OES/Oceans Affairs).  The 
Assembly of 132 IOC Member States ran in parallel with five 
working groups and three intersessional committees (Finance, 
Elections, Resolutions).  Several sidebar meetings and a 
reception hosted by the US Permanent Delegate to UNESCO, 
Ambassador Louise V. Oliver, were conducted to reinforce the 
goals of the USDEL. 
 
4.  Full text of the report and resolutions can be found at 
www.unesco.ioc.org (or contact Liz Tirpak DOS/OES/OA, 
tirpakej@state.gov, 202-647-0238).  Major decisions and 
resolutions are highlighted in the following paragraphs. 
End Summary and Introduction. 
 
USDEL Promotes Strategic Ocean Research and Observations 
Priorities at IOC Assembly:  Highlights 
 
5.  Key U.S. Achievements at the 23rd IOC Assembly: 
 
The U.S. actively participated in the negotiation of four 
resolutions that separately 1) approved the effort to 
establish a framework for the Global tsunami and other ocean- 
related hazards early warning system, and 2) formally 
established such initiatives in the Indian Ocean, Caribbean, 
and the Mediterranean and Northern Atlantic regions (REFS A, 
B)(see para 6). 
 
NOAA Administrator, Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, 
addressed the IOC in his capacity as GEO co-chair, and 
reinforced the IOC resolution that calls on GOOS to serve as 
the ocean component of GEOSS (para 10). 
 
U.S. re-election to the IOC Executive Council, and as a Vice 
Chair of the International GOOS Steering Committee, assures 
continued opportunity for the U.S. to shape IOC and GOOS 
development (paras 11,25). 
 
The Assembly adopted a U.S. proposal for a new strategic 
approach to address the 900K USD cuts in UNESCO funding over 
the new biennium.  The U.S. proposal "saved" the IOC mapping 
program (that had been eliminated in a Secretariat budget 
proposal) and launched a new strategic review of IOC program 
and budget over the next year (paras 23-24). 
 
The U.S., supported by other developed states, succeeded in 
stabilizing IOC funding to the World Climate Research 
Program, a U.S. and IOC priority for over the past decade 
(para 16). 
 
Tsunami Warning System (TWS):  Global and Regional Systems 
 
SIPDIS 
Formally Launched 
 
6.  The Assembly adopted four resolutions that separately 
approved 1) the creation of a framework for the Global 
tsunami and other ocean-related hazards early warning 
 
SIPDIS 
system, and 2) the formal establishment of such initiatives 
in the regions of the Indian Ocean, Caribbean, and the 
Mediterranean and Northern Atlantic.  Australia announced 
its willingness to serve as the Secretariat of the Indian 
Ocean system - which was met with some resistance by India's 
UNESCO Perm Del, insisting that its name be removed from the 
list of co-sponsors of the IOTWS resolution - and announced 
the first meeting of the Intergovernmental Coordination 
Group for the Indian Ocean April 3-5 in Perth.  The intent 
of the Perth meeting will be to work with experienced TWS 
operators to help draft the technical requirements. India 
will host a meeting later in the year to review the results 
of IOC-WMO assessment teams that are currently evaluating 
the infrastructure needs of the Indian Ocean states.  USDEL 
involvement ensured formal Assembly recognition of the 
necessary linkages to the efforts of GEO and WMO. 
 
Capacity Building Strategy and Implementation Plan 
 
7.  Since 2003, the IOC has been developing an integrated 
Capacity Building initiative; this initiative was formally 
launched with the adoption of Resolutions at this Assembly. 
The U.S. has played a key role in this process through 
financial and technical support.  At the Assembly, USDEL, 
collaborating with the U.S. Mission to UNESCO, provided 
strong support to the adoption of the IOC capacity building 
(CB) Strategy and Implementation Plan.  U.S. proposals to 
encourage support of GOOS implementation through the IOC 
capacity building initiative and to encourage IOC 
participation in UNESCO's cross-sector capacity building 
initiative were included in the two adopted resolutions. 
 
8.  The new biennial work plan for the IOC's capacity 
building program will consist of: 
 - regional assessments of existing capacities to undertake 
marine scientific research and operational oceanography; 
 - workshops to draft project proposals addressing high 
priority regional issues with clearly defined deliverables 
and associated performance indicators; 
 - team-building workshops to develop regional networks of 
scientists; and 
 - collaboration with UNESCO's cross-sector capacity- 
building activities. 
 
IOC's Capacity Building Section Head, Dr. Erlich Desa, will 
continue to work with a Consultative Group on Capacity 
Building to advise on criteria for establishment of 
priorities and methodologies for assessment. 
 
9.  Dr. Kristina Katsaros, Chair-person of the Pan-Ocean 
Remote Sensing Conference (PORSEC), also presented a 
progress report on implementing the IOC's Plan for Capacity 
Building in Remote Sensing in Oceanography. The Assembly 
recommended that the IOC use its existing programs, 
including BILKO (a UNESCO, computer-based "hands-on" 
training program in coastal and marine remote sensing), in 
close cooperation with regional bodies, for developing 
training modules based on regional needs.  Benefits from 
these workshops would accrue to fisheries, coastal 
management and oceanographic research. 
 
Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS):  A 
strong Role for the IOC 
 
10.  The IOC has been a Participating Organization of the 
Group on Earth Observations (GEO) since its inception in 
2003.  The Assembly reiterated its support for the goals of 
GEO and called upon member states to participate fully by 
becoming members of GEO and linking their observing programs 
to the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS). 
Specifically, the Assembly called upon the members and 
participating organizations of GEO to recognize the 
observing programs of IOC, in particular the Global Ocean 
Observing System (GOOS), as a crucial component of GEOSS. 
The Assembly also called upon GEO to support the expansion 
of capabilities for multi-hazard warning systems, 
recognizing the IOC as the coordinating body for tsunami 
warning systems (TWS).  This resolution was supported by 
Italy, Canada, Argentina, Germany, France, the United 
Kingdom, Korea, Japan, Benin, Australia, Portugal, and 
Venezuela.  The U.S. also intervened to express strong 
support for GEO and call for the recognition of GOOS as a 
key part of GEOSS and the IOC as coordinator for TWS in a 
multi-hazard context. 
 
Intergovernmental Committee for the Global Ocean Observing 
System (I-GOOS):  New Leadership, Terms of Reference 
 
11. The outgoing Chair of I-GOOS (Dr. Silvana Vallerga, 
Italy) presented the goals and operations of I-GOOS during 
the past four years.  Presently, thirteen GOOS Regional 
Alliances (GRAs) have been formed comprised of one hundred 
and eighty-five institutions from eighty-eight Nations.  A 
new Chairperson has been elected for I-GOOS (France) and two 
new Vice-Chairpersons (United States and China).  Dr. 
Vallerga noted that progress is being made with regard to 
GRAs working together.  Two GOOS Regional Fora have occurred 
(Europe and Pacific Islands) and a third will occur in 
December for Africa.  The coastal module of GOOS has been 
published.  In response to the presentation, several 
interventions were made on the regional implementation of 
GOOS, noting that a strong GOOS Project Office (GPO) at IOC 
is necessary for this to be accomplished; this will require 
a budget commensurate with the expectations of Member 
States.  Several member states indicated that GOOS should be 
a key element in the development of multi-hazard warning 
systems.  The new Chair (Francois Gerard) presented his 
vision of the future of I-GOOS, noting in particular the 
need - evoked by Argentina -- to work closely with the IOC 
Advisory Body of Experts on the Law of the Sea (ABELOS) on 
the effort to clarify the legal framework for the collection 
of oceanographic data. 
 
12.  The Assembly adopted Revised Terms of Reference for I- 
GOOS and the GOOS Scientific Steering Committee (GSSC). 
These terms of reference address fundamental issues and 
should be applicable for a long period of time, regardless 
of changes in oceanographic sciences and the conduct of 
ocean observations.  The drafting process began in March 
2005 when the IOC distributed Circular Letter 2147 
requesting member states comments on draft Terms of 
Reference for I-GOOS, the GSSC, and the GOOS Project Office 
(GPO). The GPO collated the comments received for the 
Assembly.  Interested nations (approximately 35) 
participated in a working group to review the comments, 
preparing the revised set of Terms of Reference that was 
adopted by the Assembly.  This revised version eliminated 
many procedural items that were present in the first draft 
circulated in March.  In addition, the revised Terms of 
Reference only address I-GOOS and the GSSC. The guidance for 
the GPO was eliminated since it was agreed that the IOC 
Executive Secretary should prepare the Terms of Reference 
for the GPO as it is part of the Secretariat.  The Terms of 
Reference also include the appointment of two additional 
vice-chairs for I-GOOS; it was agreed that this be done 
immediately by the Chair of I-GOOS, with close attention to 
balancing geographical representation. 
 
Ocean Component of the Global Climate Observing System 
(GCOS) Implementation Plan and GOOS contribution to COP-10 
 
13.  The retiring Director of GCOS presented the background 
to the recently published Implementation Plan for the Global 
Observing System for Climate in Support of the United 
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) 
noting the identification in the Plan of forty-four 
"essential climate variables" that were developed from an 
initial list of hundreds of variables.  The Plan includes a 
major satellite component along with in situ networks.  The 
Plan identifies 41 specific actions in the ocean chapter, 21 
of which are to be implemented by JCOMM.  The Plan also 
includes the requirement for sustained product generation 
and improved data management and describes the link to the 
Global Earth Observing System of Systems.  Priority areas in 
the Plan, focused on the 5-10 year time-frame, include (1) 
improved key satellite and in situ networks, (2) improved 
global analysis networks, (3) full participation, (4) data 
management including meta data.  Key ocean actions are (1) 
ensuring climate quality and continuity for essential ocean 
satellite observations, (2) global coverage of the surface 
network and (3) global coverage of the subsurface network. 
Satellite agencies within countries were asked to strengthen 
their efforts and coordinate their efforts.  The Assembly 
noted the need for global coordination and participation to 
implement a program that no single or smaller group of 
nations could accomplish otherwise. 
 
WMO-IOC Joint Commission for Oceanography and Marine 
Meteorology (JCOMM) 
 
14.  A brief report on JCOMM activities was made including 
the status of the observing system.  The observing system is 
more than 50 percent complete with the global drifter 
program anticipating full implementation in September of 
this year.  The Argo profiling float pilot project is not a 
JCOMM program but is linked to JCOMM and its initial 
implementation is expected to be completed by the end of 
2006.  The second JCOMM Assembly will take place in Halifax 
in September of this year.  Challenges confronting JCOMM 
include (1) the sustainability of the observing system, (2) 
real-time dissemination of the observations, and (3) the 
synergy between JCOMM and IODE (International Oceanographic 
Data and Information Exchange).  Several interventions 
addressed the sustainability issue, noting that many of the 
systems within JCOMM remain funded through research budgets. 
 
International Oceanographic Data and Information Exchange 
(IODE), A Strategic Plan 
 
15.  The IODE program recently held its 17th meeting in 
Ostende, Belgium in conjunction with the opening of the new 
IODE Project Office at the Flanders Marine Science 
Institute.  As a result of that meeting, IODE approved two 
resolutions and four recommendations for action that would 
improve its ability to facilitate effective data management 
for all IOC programs.  As part of this, IODE has proposed 
the development of a Strategic Plan for Ocean Data and 
Information Management.  A consultant will be hired to work 
with the IODE members to craft the Strategic Plan, provide a 
progress report to the IOC Executive Council in 2006, and 
provide a final report to the IOC Assembly in 2007.   The 
IOC endorsed the meeting report and the timeline for the 
OD&IM plan, and will advance the program as possible within 
the currant budget situation.  The IODE resolution was 
strongly supported by Iran, France, Kenya, Australia, 
Argentina, China, Venezuela, Belgium, Chile, Brazil, Greece, 
Japan, United Kingdom, Ecuador, Korea, and Canada.  The US 
also strongly supported the IODE program and indicated 
concerns about the very tight budget being provided to this 
program by the IOC and the need for other countries to 
consider contributing extrabudgetary funds to enhance it. 
 
World Climate Research Program (WCRP):  U.S. Leadership 
Stabilizes Budget Prospects 
 
16.  The U.S. early intervention in support of stabilizing 
the IOC's continued support of the World Climate Research 
Program played a key role in the Assembly's decision to 
support the WCRP at a proposed level of at least  125,000 
USD per year from the Regular Budget.  Originally, the IOC 
had proposed to support the WCRP at a 125K USD level from 
both regular budget and extrabudgetary sources.  Australia, 
the U.K, and Canada joined the U.S. in emphasizing that a 
stable commitment cannot be achieved through the proposed 
budget that originally required over half of the IOC 
commitment to be contingent upon unreliable extra-budgetary 
funds.  U.S. leadership succeeded in maintaining a 
meaningful IOC, ICSU, and WMO agreement to support WCRP and 
in sustaining IOC continued support even while major 
portions of the IOC budget are being cut to accommodate 
UNESCO's cutbacks in regular funding. 
 
Intergovernmental Panel on Harmful Algal Blooms (IPHAB): 
Broad Support in Face of Cuts 
 
17.  At the conclusion of the report presented by IPHAB 
Chair Beatriz Reguera, the Assembly was asked to endorse the 
report of 7th Session of IPHAB, including a work plan for 
the new biennium, resolutions and recommendations and a 
proposed budget. As usual, member states' interventions, 
particularly those of developing states, indicated strong 
support of ongoing HAB activities. Many interventions, 
including that of the U.S., voiced strong concern over the 
proposed 40 percent cut to the IOC HAB Regular Program 
budget. The Executive Secretary indicated that the Regular 
Program budget is a small fraction of the total IOC HAB 
budget (the majority coming from Spain and Denmark's direct 
contributions) and the proposed cuts amount to only 28,000 
USD for the biennium or 14,000 USD per year and will have 
only a small impact on the HAB work plan. In sidebar 
discussions, the IOC HAB Program Coordinator reiterated that 
these funds represent some of the only uncommitted funds 
available to the Secretariat to support HAB capacity 
building activities and are therefore critically important 
to the program. 
 
Ocean Carbon:  Assuming a New, Broader Mandate 
 
18.  Member states were asked to adopt the new terms of 
reference (TOR) and a new title -- "International Ocean 
Carbon Coordination Project, IOCCP" -- for the former IOC- 
SCOR Advisory Panel on Ocean Carbon Dioxide. The changes 
reflect a broadening of the panel's remit to include carbon 
compounds other than carbon dioxide and the panel's decision 
to provide international coordination of scientific 
activities, rather than just provide advice to the 
scientific community. The Assembly expressed broad support 
for changing the Terms of Reference and title. There was 
also strong support and appreciation expressed for the 
leadership of the IOC Ocean Carbon Program manager, Dr. 
Maria Hood, whose position is supported by the U.S. 
(National Science Foundation). 
 
Census of Marine Life (CoML):  In Search of Synergies 
 
19.  The Census of Marine Life is an international research 
program that is being supported by the Alfred P. Sloan 
Foundation in the U.S. as well as by funding agencies from 
around the world for its first phase in 2000-2010.  The IOC 
Executive Council expressed support for the program at its 
meeting in 2000.  During the Assembly, Australia submitted a 
resolution that instructed the Executive Secretary to 
examine the potential for links between the primary elements 
of CoML and the IOC Main Lines of Action and to ensure 
coordination between the IOC International Oceanographic 
Data and Information Exchange (IODE) program and the CoML 
Ocean Biogeographic Information System (OBIS).  The 
resolution also requested IOC member states to encourage 
participation by their scientists in the program.  This 
resolution was strongly supported by Canada, Chile, Belgium, 
Japan, Portugal, Venezuela, Cuba, Kuwait, Nigeria, Sri 
Lanka, and Brazil.  USDEL also expressed strong support for 
this initiative:  the U.S. funds aspects of various CoML 
projects; hosts several of the program's coordinating 
offices, including the International Secretariat; and has a 
number of scientific institutions involved in the program. 
 
Ocean Science Section Overview 
 
20.  The Head of the Ocean Science Section, Dr. Umit 
Unluata, briefly introduced this item,  without offering the 
anticipated report on accomplishments for the biennium. IOC 
Chairman Pugh indicated that the activities and results of 
the Ocean Science Section are well known and documented in 
the Action Paper and as such introduction and debate were 
unnecessary. This elicited response from Portugal and 
Australia, who expressed some concern with the direction of 
the Section's activities and, in particular, a lack of 
progress on convening the Scientific Advisory Group for the 
Section as called for in the report of the 22nd Assembly in 
2003. The Executive Secretary indicated that the group has 
been contacted and agreed to serve, and that a meeting will 
be held in October 2005. The U.S. welcomes the participation 
of the Group; it has three U.S. members:  Dr. Andy Rosenberg 
(U. of New Hampshire), Dr. Biliana Cicin-Sain (University 
of Delaware), and Dr. Michael Reeve (NSF). 
 
Concept Paper on Modalities of Implementation of IOC 
Programs in Regions:  Improved Coordination Required 
 
21.  Dr. Mario Ruivo (Portugal), IOC Vice-Chairman for 
Regional Affairs, organized an intersessional effort to 
develop a concept paper on IOC programs in regions that the 
Assembly was asked to endorse. The paper is relatively short 
on detailed recommendations and inadequate to serve as the 
basis for the reform and revitalization of the IOC Regional 
bodies. One of its major recommendations was to create an 
open-ended intersessional working group to develop detailed 
recommendations. During a meeting of a working group on this 
topic that took place during the Assembly, U.S. delegates 
endorsed this recommendation, but also suggested that 
certain steps with no budgetary implications could be taken 
immediately to improve the effectiveness of the regional 
bodies. These include improved communications between member 
states within regions and with the Secretariat, increased 
coordination with other regional and sub-regional 
organizations (e.g., ASEAN, CARICOM, SOPAC), and resource 
sharing between oceanographic institutions. This 
recommendation was accepted and included in a resolution. 
 
Advisory Body of Experts on Law of the Sea (ABELOS) 
 
22.  ABELOS, created as a working group to explore the 
convergences of the Law of the Sea with the scientific 
initiatives of the IOC, presented the results of five years 
of consultations.  These included:  the publication of 
Guidelines for the Transfer of Marine Technology (which was 
referenced both in resolutions and the final text of the 
report to ensure its use by Member States); the Protocol for 
IOC Implementation of LOS Article 247; and the Analysis of 
the Practices of Member States with Respect to LOS Parts 
XIII (Marine Scientific Research) and XIV (Transfer of 
Marine Technology); and the state of deliberations regarding 
the legal framework for the collection of oceanographic 
data.  The last of these is unfinished and quite 
controversial, thus considered by the majority of IOC Member 
States the most crucial discussion yet considered by the 
working group.  ABELOS will meet in the spring of 2006 in 
Malaga, Spain; the U.S. will need to generate a collation of 
like-minded partners prior to this event. 
 
2006-2007 Biennium Budget:  Secretariat's Draft Rejected in 
Favor of Interim Placeholder 
 
23.  The UNESCO Director-General's budget proposal -- likely 
be accepted by the UNESCO General Conference in October 2005 
-- calls for decreasing the regular budget allocation to the 
IOC by approximately 900K USD for 2006-2007. In response to 
this decrease, the IOC Secretariat presented a draft budget 
that, lacking clear rationale, was not accepted by the 
Assembly.  The Assembly did endorse a revised budget created 
after careful consideration by the Financial Committee 
(guided strongly by the U.S.) that applied a uniform cut 
(approximately 26 percent) to all IOC programs as an interim 
measure.  Chair of the Financial Committee Capt. Javier 
Valladares (Argentina) will host a virtual intersessional 
committee to explore future scenarios for the organization 
that could be used to establish priorities for medium and 
long-term plans, predicated - as suggested by the USDEL - on 
IOC mission priorities and a consistent set of program 
performance metrics. 
 
24.  (Note:  The IOC budget cuts were precipitated by the 
adoption by the UNESCO Executive Board of a resolution 
recommending that the overall UNESCO budget remain level at 
$610 million for the 2006-2007 biennium.  End Note) 
 
Elections:  U.S. Re-elected to IOC Executive Board 
 
25.  The Assembly elected a chair, five vice-chairs (one per 
electoral group) and members of the Executive Council for 
the 24th session of the Assembly.  All nominees were elected 
by acclamation, except for Group IV Council nominees; 9 
countries presented candidacies for 8 positions, thus 
necessitating a vote by secret ballot in plenary. 
 
Chair - David Pugh (UK) 
Vice-Chairs: Mario Ruivo (Portugal), Alexander Frolov 
(Russia), C. de N. Javier A. Valladares (Argentina), Neville 
Smith (Australia), and Alfonse Dubi (Tanzania). 
Group I (Western Europe & North America) - The U.S. was 
elected by acclamation, along with Belgium, Germany, Norway, 
Canada, Greece, Turkey, France, and Italy. 
Group II (Eastern Europe & Russia) - The Ukraine was newly 
elected by acclamation, joining the Russian Federation. 
 
Group III (Latin America & South America) - Brazil, Cuba, 
Peru, Chile, Ecuador, Venezuela, Colombia, and Mexico. 
Uruguay originally submitted a request for a seat on G-III 
but withdrew its nomination thus avoiding a vote in plenary 
and clearing the way for election by acclamation of the 
other Group III nominees. 
 
Group IV - China, Japan, Sri Lanka, India, Malaysia, 
Thailand, Indonesia, and the Republic of Korea were elected 
while Iran, which had submitted its nomination at the last 
minute, was the odd man out. A total of 90 countries voted 
on the Group IV seats. 
 
Group V - Congo, Kuwait, South Africa, Egypt, Mauritius, 
Tunisia, Kenya, and Nigeria. In a bit of confusion, Tunisia, 
which had withdrawn it nomination for vice-chair, also noted 
that it had not received its government's endorsement for a 
seat on the Executive Council. Tunisia later reported that 
the matter had been reconsidered and that it would accept a 
seat on the Executive Council. 
 
Oliver