text: State had agreed that either the activity wa8 not qoinq to cause transboundsry effects or that measures of prevention indicated ;)y the notifying State were sufficient to prevent pcssible transboundaty harm. In case a notified State was a developing country, technical assistance to evaluate the information received from a notifying State might be forthcoming from relevant international organisations. A few members commented on article 19. They expressed reservations about the assumption that non-reply by the potentially affected State should amount to acquiescence. They also suggested that a “six months” period of reply bo replaced by a “reasonable time”, - 268 -506. Regarding article 20, the Special Rappctteur explained that there might be circumstances in whiah a proposed activity would have euch traaeboundary harmful consequences whiah clould not be avoided or even adequately aomprnsated for, such as in cases of irreversible environmental harm. It was only fair and reasonable that those activities should not be pormitted to be ooaducted, Once it could be demonstrated that the activity in question had boon modified and would not cause unreasonable risk of traosboundary harm or such harm could be adequately aompensated for, permission would be granted, This srtialo, the Special Rapporteur said, was intended to set a limit and provide a threshold beyond which an aotivity could not be conducted. 507. Those members who spoke on this article welcomed the general idea which it put forward. Their views, howevor, differed as to how a threshold on such activities could be placed. For a few, the article functioned as an injunction, pending satisfactory preventive measures. For some others, the article should be couched in stronger terms, since a qualified prohibition would merely undermine the efficiency of prevention, According to this view, once it was clear that an activity would cause such serious and irreversible
analysis: The text appears to be discussing international agreements and regulations related to environmental protection and the prevention of transboundary harm. The language used is formal and technical, suggesting that it may be related to international law or policy-making in the environmental sphere.