SEABED COUNCIL DISCUSSES UNRESOLVED ISSUES IN RULES OF LEGAL AND TECHNICAL COMMISSION

Press Release
SEA/1638

SEABED COUNCIL DISCUSSES UNRESOLVED ISSUES IN RULES OF LEGAL AND TECHNICAL COMMISSION

(Received from International Seabed Authority)

KINGSTON, 20 August -- The Council of the International Seabed Authority, meeting this morning in Kingston, resumed discussion of two unresolved issues relating to the rules of procedure of its Legal and Technical Commission.

The first issue concerns the circumstances under which the Commission, an expert body that normally meets in private, might decide to open its meetings when discussing matters of general interest to members of the Authority. The second issue relates to ways of avoiding conflicts of interest on the part of Commission members.

After hearing divergent views on the meetings issue, the Council agreed to allow time for further consultations with the participation of its President, Charles Manjang D'Awol (Sudan). Debate on the conflict-of-interest issue was incomplete when the morning meeting adjourned.

The Council will resume this discussion at 3 p.m. today.

Also this morning, the Council completed its slate of officers by electing Australia, nominated by the Western European and Others Group, as one of its four vice-presidents. The others, approved earlier, are Chile, Indonesia and Poland.

Private Versus Open Meetings

Debate on the question of private versus open meetings of the Legal and Technical Commission revolved around a proposed addition to rule 6 in the draft rules of procedure submitted by the Commission for the Council's approval (ISBA/5/C/L.1). As it stands, the rule reads: "The meetings of the Commission shall be held in private unless the Commission decides otherwise". The addition, proposed by New Zealand, won wide support from many delegations. It would add: "The Commission shall take into account the desirability of holding open meetings when issues of general interest to members of the Authority, which do not involve the discussion of confidential information, are being discussed".

Argentina hailed the proposal as an excellent compromise, and Australia and France felt it preserved the principle of private meetings of the Commission. Senegal said it clearly established a balance between the issues of transparency and confidentiality.

Germany gave its support on condition that rule 48 would remain unchanged. (That rule allows attendance at meetings by member States of the Authority when the Commission considers a matter "particularly affecting such member", and permits the Commission to invite States and other entities engaged in seabed activities.) Others, including the Republic of Korea and the United Kingdom, voiced willingness to put aside some of their previously expressed reservations in the interest of reaching an accord.

The Russian Federation and Japan wanted rule 6 to remain in its original form. The United States acknowledged the general support given to the proposal, but suggested that its spirit would be more appropriately included in a statement by the Council President, for the record, that would reflect the views of members. This suggestion was supported by Japan but was not acceptable to some other delegations.

In response to a request from New Zealand, Secretary-General Satya N. Nandan explained how the proposal might be included as a separate decision of the Council, appended to the rules and adopted along with them.

Chile moved that the rule be adopted as amended by New Zealand, on the ground that the majority of delegations supported the change, which meant there was consensus. However, the representative of the Russian Federation observed that rule 59 of the Council's rules of procedure interpreted consensus as "the absence of any formal objection". His delegation could exercise its right to make such an objection. Chile then suggested that a vote be taken since no consensus had been reached, but President D'Awol said he was reluctant to give up hope on consensus. His feelings were echoed by several delegations, including Austria, Ghana, Senegal and the United Republic of Tanzania.

At the President's suggestion, the Council put the topic aside on the understanding that further consultations would be held.

Conflict of Interest

The Council then returned to rule 11, which it had previously examined on 17 and 18 August. As drafted by the Commission, the rule states: "Members of the Commission shall have no financial interest in any activity relating to exploration and exploitation in the [international seabed] Area". This rule carries over wording from Article 163 of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Chile said that implicit in the rule were issues concerning the independence of Commission members, geographical balance and the ethics of the members. He added that the Latin American and Caribbean Group was proposing to increase its representation on the 22-member body by one, to four.

In Mexico's view, the wording of rule 11, while allowing current members of the Commission known to have interests in companies concerned with deep-seabed exploration to continue in office, must ensure that future members retained the confidence of member States. Namibia questioned the utility of placing the provision in the Commission's rules, saying that election of members to the Commission should rather be governed by the Council's rules.

Germany said the Commission's work so far had demonstrated the capacity of its members, including those with special interests, to arrive at objective decisions. It favoured a rule followed by many government bodies that members having a private interest in a topic absented themselves from participating in any meeting at which that topic was examined.

Nigeria, along with by Italy and the Russian Federation, supported the view that the rule should balance members' expertise with integrity. Nigeria noted that their skill and competence had been acquired through years of working experience and association with companies that might well be involved in seabed mining.

Addressing the issue of disclosure of any association with such entities, Jamaica proposed that candidates put forward for the Commission should be required to state their current affiliations. In addition, once they became members, they should disclose any interests that might affect their work on that body. There should also be a provision allowing the Council to act in the event of breaches by Commission members pertaining to conflict of interest, confidentiality and attendance at meetings. Australia, Egypt, Fiji, Gabon and Italy supported the view expressed by Jamaica on behalf of group D members of the Council (developing States representing special economic interests).

New Zealand and several other delegations agreed that the obligation of disclosure should be ongoing, and that broadening the scope of the term "financial interest" to include employment, family and relationships with land-based producers of minerals found on the seabed would be compatible with the spirit of the Convention.

Portugal proposed to amend New Zealand's text, to read: "Furthermore, they shall disclose to the Commission any conflict of interest which might from time to time reflect on their position and shall abstain from taking part in deliberations implying such conflict of interest".

Secretary-General Satya N. Nandan, offering a compromise, suggested that the New Zealand proposal could be regarded as a declaration of intent by elected members of the Commission. This approach was supported by a number of delegations, including the Russian Federation, which offered to withdraw its objection to the New Zealand amendment.

* *** *