SEABED COUNCIL TAKES UP RULES OF LEGAL AND TECHNICAL COMMISSION, ELECTS MEMBER OF THAT BODY
Press Release
SEA/1633
SEABED COUNCIL TAKES UP RULES OF LEGAL AND TECHNICAL COMMISSION, ELECTS MEMBER OF THAT BODY
19990818(Received from the International Seabed Authority.)
KINGSTON, 17 August -- The Council of the International Seabed Authority, continuing its session in Kingston this afternoon, began consideration of the draft rules of procedure of its Legal and Technical Commission. The Council also elected a new member to replace a retiring one on the Commission.
The draft under review (ISBA/5/C/L.1) had been prepared last year by the Commission itself. Today the Council heard comments on four of the eight chapters in the text, dealing with sessions, agenda, elections and functions, and officers. The Council will resume tomorrow morning, 18 August, following a meeting of the Assembly.
The main functions of the 22-member Commission are to review applications for plans of work for exploration in the international seabed area and to advise the Council on such applications, as well as to make recommendations on protection of the marine environment and monitor compliance with the Authority's seabed regulations. It is among the organs provided for in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the 1994 Agreement relating to the Implementation of Part XI (seabed provisions) of that Convention.
The new member elected today, with immediate effect, is Walter de Sa Leitao (Brazil). He replaces Jose de Jesus Conejo (Costa Rica), who resigned in February from a five-year term ending in 2001. Members are elected in their personal capacity rather than as Government representatives.
Also this afternoon, Poland was nominated by the Eastern European Group to serve as one of the four vice-presidents of the Council. The others nominated so far by regional groups are Chile and Indonesia. A nomination from the Group of Western European and Other States is awaited.
Chile began today's discussion on rule 1 (frequency of sessions) by suggesting that it should mention the possibility of extraordinary meetings in light of the Commission's important role in case of environmental emergencies. It felt that such emergency meetings should be financed by whatever seabed contractor was responsible for an incident that made such a meeting necessary. Several delegations opposed this suggestion. France, supported by Italy and the United Kingdom, thought the matter would be better dealt with in the regulations of the mining code and that the Commission could not itself decide on its means of financing. Fiji noted that the members of the Commission were appointed in their own right, independent of their nationality, and were therefore "servants of the Authority"; for that reason the expenses of all its meetings should be borne by the Authority.
Regarding rule 6 (private and public meetings), Chile wanted the Commission's meetings to be open to all members of Authority unless the discussions involved confidential data. However, the United Kingdom cited rule 3 (a) of the rules of procedure of the Council, which states that the meetings of subsidiary bodies of the Authority should be closed. France and the Russian Federation observed that closed meetings facilitated the members' independence. Several other delegations, including the Republic of Korea, Namibia and the United Republic of Tanzania, favoured retaining rule 6 as it stands: "The meetings of the Commission shall be held in private unless the Commission decides otherwise."
The Council deferred further discussion of rule 6 until it takes up rule 48 (participation by members of the Authority and entities carrying out activities in the international seabed area).
There were differing views on rule 11, stating that no member of the Commission should have any financial interest in any activity relating to exploration and exploitation in the deep seabed area. Chile proposed a change to prevent any member from having any "direct or indirect interest in any of the enterprises carrying out activities in the Area". Argentina, Austria, Mexico and the Netherlands endorsed this suggestion.
Objections were raised by the Russian Federation, which made the point that rule 11 repeated the language of Article 163 of the Convention. France and Germany were concerned that the Council should avoid imposing too many restrictions on the Commission; it was not reasonable, France felt, to expect the scientific expertise of such experts to have no connection with their professional activities.
The issue of confidentiality, the subject of rule 12, prompted an amendment by the United States to add: "The Legal and Technical Commission shall recommend procedures on the handling of confidential data coming to its members' knowledge by reason of their duties, to prevent its disclosure, which shall be based upon the relevant provisions of the Convention, the regulations and procedures established by the Secretary-General for that purpose." Further discussion of this proposal was postponed until the amendment is circulated in writing.
There was general agreement among speakers that rule 13 (exercise of functions) conflicted with the Convention by authorizing the Commission to function according to its rules and "such guidelines as it may adopt". Argentina, Cameroon, Chile, Mexico and the Russian Federation questioned the types of guidelines the Commission could adopt on its own.
Discussion on rule 15 (election and term of chairman) centred on the maximum time a chairman could serve. The draft provides for a one-year term with no limit on re-election. Chile suggested that the chairman and vice-chairman should be eligible for re-election only once. The Russian Federation felt that, because the Commission's work was technical, it was essential in the interest of continuity to have the chairman serve for no less than two-and-a-half years. The Secretary-General observed that the rule should offer Commission members the flexibility to make their own decisions on the matter.
Also this afternoon, Greenpeace International, which has observer status with the Authority, gave its initial response to the new draft for a mining code, presented to the Council yesterday. Greenpeace expressed concern at what it saw as major gaps in the draft, including the absence of provisions regarding the creation of protected areas and the establishment of stable reference zones, the role of the public, the application of precautionary principles, and independent monitoring and verification.
* *** *