SEABED COUNCIL ENDORSES HEADQUARTERS PACT WITH JAMAICA, TAKES UP BUDGET AND MEETINGS SCHEDULE FOR 2000
Press Release
SEA/1642
SEABED COUNCIL ENDORSES HEADQUARTERS PACT WITH JAMAICA, TAKES UP BUDGET AND MEETINGS SCHEDULE FOR 2000
19990825(Received from the International Seabed Authority.)
KINGSTON, 24 August -- The Council of the International Seabed Authority, meeting this morning in Kingston, recommended approval of an agreement between the Authority and the Jamaican Government regulating the headquarters of the Authority. It also recommended acceptance of a Jamaican offer of a long-term lease for the space now housing the Authority's offices in downtown Kingston.
These actions, taken without a vote, will now go to the Assembly of the Authority for approval later this week. The Agreement would then enter into force once the Government of Jamaica formally approves it.
Also this morning, the Council began discussing the Authority's budget for 2000 and the related issue of whether it should hold one or two sessions next year. After hearing divergent views, the Council agreed that these matters should be discussed informally this afternoon by a group consisting of its four vice-presidents, the chairmen of the five regional groups, the Chairman of the Finance Committee and the Secretary-General, presided over by Council President Charles Manjang D'Awol (Sudan).
The Council will continue discussing this matter at 3:30 p.m. today.
Headquarters Agreement
The Agreement between the International Seabed Authority and the Government of Jamaica regarding the Authority's headquarters (ISBA/3/A/L.3 - ISBA/3/C/L.3 and Corr.1) sets out, in 54 articles, rules and procedures affecting the Authority's facilities and functioning on the territory of the host country. Originally negotiated between the Authority and the Government in 1997, its approval by the Council and Assembly has been held up pending the successful outcome of negotiations on the terms under which the Authority will occupy its permanent headquarters building in Kingston.
The agreement recognizes the legal personality and capacity of the Authority, with its seat in Jamaica, and places the headquarters under the control of the Authority while recognizing Jamaican law as applicable where it is not inconsistent with that control. The headquarters area is to be inviolable, while the Government is to provide protection. Public services are to be provided on fair terms. The communications facilities and archives of the Authority are to be inviolable, and it will have the right to publish and broadcast within Jamaica. The Authority, its property and assets are to be immune from legal process, it is to be exempt from taxes and customs duties, and it will enjoy unhindered financial facilities.
The agreement makes similar provisions for the Enterprise, the Authority's seabed mining arm, which has yet to be established.
Freedom of access and residence is provided for the Authority's officials and others having official business with it, including representatives of member States. Members are authorized to establish diplomatic missions to this end, and these are to enjoy specified privileges and immunities. Thirteen provisions specify the privileges and immunities to be enjoyed by all officials of the Authority, with the Secretary-General and other senior officials to have additional ones. A more limited number would be accorded to experts in its employ. The Secretary-General can waive these privileges and immunities when warranted, and undertakes to ensure that they would not be abused. Persons enjoying them must nevertheless respect the laws of Jamaica.
After defining dispute-settlement procedures, the agreement concludes with a provision stating that it will enter into force on its approval by the Assembly of the Authority and the Government of Jamaica. In the meantime, it is to be applied provisionally.
Also concerning the Kingston headquarters of the Authority, the Secretary-General circulated a recent exchange of letters confirming an agreement with the Jamaican Government on arrangements for the space in the building that now houses the Authority's offices and that is to become its permanent headquarters (ISBA/5/A/4/Add.1). In a letter of 12 August, Jamaica's Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade, Seymour Mullings, agreed to make the space indefinitely available on lease and to upgrade its electric power supply.
Accepting this lease offer today, the Council recommended that the Assembly request the Secretary-General to negotiate with Jamaica a supplementary agreement concerning the terms and conditions for the use and occupation of the permanent headquarters by the Authority.
The Authority occupies one floor of a four-storey building at 14-16 Port Royal Street, one block from the Kingston Harbour, and uses part of another floor during sessions of its Assembly and Council. Those bodies meet in the adjoining Jamaica Conference Centre.
Secretary-General Satya N. Nandan explained a few small revisions that had been made to the headquarters agreement since it was negotiated in 1997. All references to provisional members of the Authority had been deleted, as provisional membership had expired in November last year. Also, in light of the agreement to make the presently occupied offices the permanent headquarters of the Authority, a paragraph relating to the establishment of temporary headquarters had been deleted. Another paragraph, requiring Government concurrence if the Authority decides to hold meetings in Jamaican buildings outside the headquarters, now specifies that requests by the Authority requiring such concurrence "shall not be unreasonably withheld".
In the brief discussion today on the headquarters agreement, Mexico expressed concern about the absence of a provision for a host country relations committee similar to those in other international organizations. If an official accredited to such an organization abused the privileges of residence or immunity, the matter would be taken up by that committee rather than by the judiciary of the host country. In response to Mexico's concern, the Jamaican delegate suggested that administrative mechanisms such as a host country relations committee could be developed in the future within the framework of the agreement. He added that the document was well drafted and had already been used as a model by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.
Budget for 2000
The budget of the Authority for the year 2000, which the Council began discussing this morning, calls for expenditures totalling $5,439,200 if the Authority holds two two-week sessions next year or $5,175,200 if one three-week session is held instead. The conference-servicing component in these totals is $1,374,000 for two sessions or $1,110,000 for one session.
These figures were revised downward by the Secretary-General from the budget he originally proposed in June (ISBA/5/A/2 - ISBA/5/C/2), which amounted to $5,679,400. The reductions were made in the light of discussions in the Finance Committee, which examined the budget and other matters at nine meetings from 16 to 20 August. The Committee, in a report (ISBA/5/A/8 - ISBA/5/C/7) presented today by its newly elected Chairman, Domenico da Empoli (Italy), forwarded the two alternative figures, stating that the duration and number of meetings should be decided by the Assembly. The Committee thought it feasible to cut the conference-servicing cost to $1,120,000.
The main component of the budget is $2,064,300 for the salaries of 37 staff members, one more than had been authorized for 1999. The additional post is for a computer software specialist.
The approved budget for 1999, approved last August, totals $5,011,700.
On the status of assessed contributions, the Finance Committee reported that, as at 17 August 1999, payments by member States for this year totalled $4,407,417, or 87.9 per cent of the budget, with $604,283 remaining unpaid. Four 1998, the arrears of members, including four that were provisional members until November, amounted to $1,396,663. The Committee recommended that the Assembly appeal to those States that had not yet paid.
The Committee recommended that the accounting firm of KPMG Peat Marwick be appointed as the Authority's external auditor for 1999. A United Nations auditor has audited the accounts up to now.
This morning's discussion on the 2000 budget focused on the increase over last year, the costs associated with holding two session of two-weeks' duration instead of one lasting three weeks, and the need to reassess the budget proposals to identify further savings.
While most delegations agreed on the need for efficiency in the Authority's expenditure, there was sharp disagreement among the regional groups on the duration and number of sessions to be held next year. The African and the Latin American and Caribbean Groups favoured two sessions, the Eastern European Group supported one, while the Asian Group said it was neutral and the Arab Group that it was flexible. The Western European and Others did not announce any decision as a group, though most of its members who spoke today argued for a single three-week session.
The groups favouring two sessions argued that the time was needed to complete work on the mining code for exploring for polymetallic nodules in the international seabed area. The opposing view held that, with better agenda management and meeting planning, much work could be done on the mining code at a lower cost to the Authority and delegations.
Chile, speaking for the Latin American and Caribbean Group and pointing to the early departure of some delegations at the current session, said it was difficult to keep delegates here for three weeks. Their absence from deliberations on the mining code could result in delays, as they might want to revisit issues discussed in their absence. Other delegations, including Cameroon, Fiji, Ghana and Namibia, also supported the view that the importance of the mining code warranted the additional expenditure, which amounted to only $264,000. Nigeria said it would be appropriate to consider fewer than two sessions only after work on the mining code had been completed. The United Kingdom supported the lower budget alternative based on one three-week session as a means of cutting costs. "The $5.4 million figure in the budget is simply unacceptable", the representative said. Australia urged that costs be kept as close as possible to the current year's budget of $5.1 million; moreover, countries found it difficult financially to send delegates to two sessions. Finland, Germany, Japan, Poland, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation and Sweden supported those views.
For the Asian Group, Yemen said it would not block any decision on the number of sessions for next year. India said Governments found it difficult to release their experts for a long three-week session; while India remained flexible, it felt delegates would have time between two sessions to consult with experts with a view to speeding up progress on the mining code.
Japan and the United States argued that the budget expenditure should be cost effective and should conform to the evolutionary approach to the Authority's activities envisioned in the 1994 Agreement on the Implementation of Part XI (seabed provisions) of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. "We really should have a budget that is essentially flat", the United States remarked. Along with Austria, it felt that one session tightly fitted into two weeks would be appropriate. France, which also favoured a lower budget for 2000, called for careful re-examination of the two meeting options; it would be unfortunate if the Council were to hold a single session only to realize that another was needed to complete the work.
The Netherlands, supporting a single three-week session, suggested that work on the mining code could benefit from better agenda management and by making documents available well in advance of meetings, possibly through the Internet. This call for better management was supported by Argentina, Jamaica, Portugal and the Russian Federation.
In response to calls for a fixed programme of work to be circulated before the meetings, Secretary-General Nandan explained that changes in the programme were often needed to accommodate the fact that approvals were required from several bodies acting in sequence. Another delaying factor was the need to wait for documents to be translated.
A number of delegations felt that the budget should be re-examined to see whether reductions could be made on budget items other than conference servicing. Mexico commented that the Authority was going through a period of austerity and that this was not the year to organize seminars or acquire office furniture. He requested the secretariat to meet again with members of the Finance Committee to see where costs could be cut. This idea was supported by several other members.
The Secretary-General pointed out that he had already made cuts in his original budget proposal at the Finance Committee's request. For example, only one workshop would be held next year instead of two, despite the utility of such meetings for the Authority's work. However, he thought it might be possible to achieve a further reduction in conference servicing costs.
* *** *