NODULE REGULATIONS ADOPTED BY SEABED AUTHORITY AT SECOND PART OF SIXTH SESSION, KINGSTON, 3-13 JULY

Press Release
SEA/1694

NODULE REGULATIONS ADOPTED BY SEABED AUTHORITY AT SECOND PART OF SIXTH SESSION, KINGSTON, 3-13 JULY

Authority Finalizes Rules of Legal and Technical Commission And Staff Regulations, Adopts $10.5 Million Budget for 2001-2002

(Received from International Seabed Authority)

KINGSTON, 14 July -- Exploring for minerals on the deep ocean bed is now subject for the first time to a detailed set of international regulations, as a result of work done in Kingston at the second part of the sixth session of the International Seabed Authority, 3-13 July.

The new rules, covering all of the world’s ocean bottoms outside national jurisdiction, are entitled, “Regulations on Prospecting and Exploration for Polymetallic Nodules” in the international seabed area. Formerly called manganese nodules, these are the resources that inspired the innovative decision, in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, to protect and develop deep ocean riches as the “common heritage of mankind”.

The regulations, a product of four years of work, are the first piece of legislation to emerge from the Authority, established by the Convention to control all deep-sea mining outside national waters. They take effect immediately.

Built on the framework of the Convention, the regulations fill in significant new details in two areas: environmental protection, and safeguards for confidential data developed by seabed operators. Adoption of the regulations by the Council of the Authority was made possible by a last-day compromise on environmental issues, specifically the role of seabed contractors and their sponsoring States in guaranteeing that the Authority will be able to cope with any unexpected environmental incident related to exploration.

At its most productive session since its creation in 1994, the 133-member Authority essentially completed its institutional framework by adopting Staff Regulations and the complete rules of procedure of its Legal and Technical Commission. The rules include a compromise formula on when member States may attend meetings of that body of experts, including a new procedure for convening emergency meetings on

environmental disasters related to seabed exploration. In addition, the Assembly elected 20 members to the 36-member Council for a four-year term beginning in 2001 and adopted a $10.5 million budget for 2001-2002.

The Secretary-General of the Authority, Satya N. Nandan, described the Council’s decision on the regulations as “a seminal event in the life of this organization”. He observed that the Authority could now advance to the next step by signing contracts with seven “pioneer investors” already recognized by the Authority, thereby binding both sides with the obligations and rights set out in the regulations.

Council President Sakiusa A. Rabuka (Fiji), who chaired the private negotiations that produced the compromise on the regulations, told delegates as they were about to take their decision that they had reached a critical moment. “We are at a crossroad, in my view, in deciding whether we want to empower or cripple the Authority’, he declared.

The document containing the negotiated compromise on contractors’ guarantees was circulated to delegations only hours before the Council adopted the regulations. The outcome of the talks had been in doubt throughout most of the session, with one representative warning that the Authority would be a “toothless tiger” without the regulations. In the end, the Authority’s main organs, Assembly and Council, met the goal they had set for themselves -– adoption of the text before the end of 2000. Moreover, they were able to end the session one day early.

The regulations are the first segment of a mining code that will eventually govern exploration for and exploitation of all deep seabed minerals. The Authority will begin work next year, in its Legal and Technical Commission, on regulations covering exploration for minerals that were just being discovered as the Law of the Sea Convention was being written. These are seafloor massive sulphides, concentrated around undersea volcanic hot springs, and ferromanganese crusts, lying along ocean ridges at boundaries between tectonic plates.

This year’s session of the Authority was held in two parts, giving extra time for work on the regulations. The first part, also at the Authority’s headquarters in Kingston, took place from 20 to 31 March. The Assembly decided to hold its next session in Kingston from 2 to 13 July.

Nodule Exploration Regulations

The Regulations on Prospecting and Exploration for Polymetallic Nodules in the international seabed area (ISBA/6/C/8 and Corr.1) were adopted by the Council on 13 July and approved by the Assembly the same day.

The first international code to govern deep-sea mineral resources, the text sets out the legal rules that seabed contractors and the Authority must follow in any future work to locate and evaluate deposits of nodules rich in valuable metals such as nickel, manganese, copper and cobalt, lying deep beneath the ocean surface beyond the jurisdiction of any country.

The 40 regulations and four annexes were hammered out over four years by the Authority, first in its Legal and Technical Commission and, since 1998, in the Council. The basic scheme, under which the Authority will issue contracts to seabed mining entities -– including Governments, corporations and consortia -– closely follows the provisions of the two treaties that established the Authority as the controlling instrument for deep-sea mineral exploration and exploitation. These are the Law of the Sea Convention and the 1994 Agreement relating to the Implementation of Part IX (seabed provisions) of the Convention.

In drafting the regulations, the Council spent most of its time on two areas where members saw a special need to flesh out the treaty clauses: preservation and protection of the marine environment and the handling of confidential data and information to be supplied to the Authority by contractors.

In the end, it was a divergence of views over these issues, and especially the environmental one, that nearly derailed the negotiations. Delegates sought to reconcile the need for safeguarding the marine environment against potential threats of pollution and other damage, with the need to encourage seabed investors by avoiding over-regulation. They also sought to ensure that the Authority obtained enough information from contractors to evaluate and monitor their activities, while ensuring that commercially valuable data do not leak out to potential competitors.

A compromise on the one outstanding environmental issue was reached just the day before the Council adopted the regulations. It concerned the sort of financial and technical guarantee contractors should provide to ensure that the Authority can cope with future environmental harm arising from accidents associated with seabed exploration. The regulations call for such a guarantee, backed by sponsoring States. In a separate decision, the Council decided to consider further “the need for appropriate forms of guarantee”.

The specifics of this compromise were added to a regulation that authorizes Council action “to prevent, contain and minimize any … serious harm to the marine environment” resulting from seabed exploration if the contractor responsible does not promptly comply with an emergency order by the Council to deal with the matter.

The additional paragraph provides that, to enable the Council to deal with serious environmental threats, the collector “will provide the Council with a guarantee of its financial and technical capability to comply promptly with emergency orders or to assure that the Council can take such emergency measures”. If no such guarantee is provided, the contractor’s sponsoring State or States shall ensure either that the guarantee is forthcoming or that assistance is provided to the Authority in the discharge of its responsibilities.

In its related decision, the Council decided to consider the matter of such a guarantee prior to the phase of testing nodule collecting systems and processing operations “with a view to adopting appropriate forms of guarantee to ensure compliance with emergency orders and the effective protection of the marine environment”. It requested the secretariat to study and report to the Council on what instruments or arrangements might be available for this purpose.

The package consensus on guarantees -– a clause in the regulations plus a decision to study the details -– originated in a proposal made by Chile in March (ISBA/6/C/L.3). This would have required all contract applicants to provide an “environmental surety”, in an amount to be assessed by the Legal and Technical Commission. These funds would enable the Council to take emergency measures when a contractor did not act promptly.

The “environmental surety” has now become a “guarantee” backed by sponsoring States, the precise form of which has yet to be studied. Moreover, the guarantee is not required until a contractor is about to begin testing equipment and systems, rather than at the time of application for a contract.

Issues pertaining to confidential information were dealt with at the Council’s meetings in March. Agreement was reached then on a number of clauses to protect proprietary information and limit its use by officials of the Authority only “as necessary for and relevant to the effective exercise of their powers and functions”. Declassification of confidential material, rather than occurring automatically after 10 years, will be subject to review by the Secretary-General and the contractor. Material will remain confidential if the contractor establishes that its release would entail “a substantial risk of serious and unfair economic prejudice”. Nothing would be released until the contractor had a reasonable chance to exhaust judicial remedies.

Procedures to ensure confidentiality within the Authority were strengthened by a clause requiring that persons having access to such material must make a written declaration acknowledging their legal obligation not to disclose it, and agreeing to comply with confidentiality regulations and procedures. The Authority is authorized to take action against anyone who violates these obligations.

The overall structure of relations between the Authority and contractors follows the “parallel system” specified in the Convention as modified by the 1994 Agreement. Aimed in part at ensuring that nobody will monopolize the seabed through economic might, this scheme requires that, for every seabed area approved for exclusive exploration or mining, an area of equal size and commercial value will be set aside for potential use by the Authority or developing States.

Different rules are provided for prospecting and for exploration. Prospecting, defined as the search for deposits including estimation of their composition and value, confers no exclusive rights, and requires little more than notification to the Authority of where the activity will take place. Exploration -- defined to cover searching, analysis, tests of collecting and processing equipment and systems and commercial and other studies -– does involve exclusive rights in a geographical area no other operator can touch. Exploration cannot occur until the Council has approved a plan of work submitted by an operator and specified in a contract with the Authority.

To ensure that potential operators understand their obligations and rights under this system, the regulations spell out in detail the kinds of information required of them, both before a contract is approved and after operations are under way. Monitoring by the Authority will take the form of perusal of annual reports, periodic reviews and on-site inspections.

Footnotes to the regulations spell out somewhat easier terms for pioneer investors, a number of States -– developed and developing -– identified in 1982 by the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea when it adopted the Convention. These terms will be applied initially to seven investors whose work plans were submitted to the Council, and received its endorsement, in 1997. These enterprises, some private and others government entities, are sponsored by China, France, Japan, India, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation and an international body organized by five Eastern European States and Cuba. Their assigned sites are mostly in the Clarion-Clipperton fracture zone of the northeast Pacific, southeast of Hawaii and the central Indian Ocean.

Secretary-General Nandan informed the Council that he planned to sign contracts with these investors before its next session in July 2001.

(More details on the regulations are given in Press Release SEA/1692 of 13 July.)

With regulations on polymetallic nodules behind it, the Authority will next turn its attention to other types of minerals that appear to have at least as great an economic potential. These are seafloor massive sulphides, concentrated around volcanic hot springs deep below the surface, and cobalt-bearing ferromanganese crusts, precipitated from seawater and lying on undersea ridges in many ocean areas.

Since the Russian Federation formally requested the Authority in 1998 to develop regulations for exploring these resources, a workshop held in Kingston last month was told that cobalt crusts might be the first mineral type to be mined from the deep seabed. Next July, the Legal and Technical Commission, meeting during the 2001 session of the Authority, plans to begin studying the topic.

Legal and Technical Commission

The Council, on 13 July, approved a complete set of rules for the Legal and Technical Commission (ISBA/6/C/L.4), including two new ones that had been a subject of contention since last August, when the rest of the rules were adopted and applied provisionally. The new rules envisage holding open meetings of the Commission (which normally meets in closed session) when it discusses issues of general interest, and entitling member States to attend its meetings on matters particularly affecting them. There is also a new procedure for convening the Commission to deal with environmental emergencies. The new rules were the product of private negotiations held in tandem with consultations on the exploration regulations. The initiative for the rule on environmental emergencies came last August from Chile, with subsequent additions by the Russian Federation and the Secretary-General. As originally drafted, a decision by the Council would have been needed to convene the Commission under such circumstances. As adopted, the procedure requires the Secretary-General to convene the Commission at the request of a member State of the Authority. The relevant paragraph reads:

“Any member of the Authority may make a request to the Secretary-General to convene a meeting of the Commission in order to consider a matter of particular concern to that member involving an environmental emergency. The Secretary-General shall convene the Commission which shall give urgent consideration to such matter and report to the Council as soon as possible with its findings and recommendations. Any member concerned with such matter has the right to send a representative to the meeting of the Commission to express its views on the matter without participation in decision-making, although the Commission may determine that such presence be limited at certain stages when confidential information is being discussed.”

Aside from emergencies, another reworded clause states:

“Any member of the Authority may, with the permission of the Commission, send a representative to attend a meeting of the Commission when a matter particularly affecting such member is under consideration. For the purpose of facilitating the work of the Commission, such representative shall be allowed to express his or her views on any such matter being considered by the Commission.”

Another rule, stating that Commission meetings shall be held in private unless it decided otherwise, was supplemented by the following sentence: “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.”

Meanwhile the Commission held three closed meetings during the Kingston session (report in ISBA/6/C/11) under its new Chairman, Inge Zaamwani (Namibia). It continued work on draft guidelines or recommendations intended to help seabed contractors assess the possible environmental impacts of polymetallic nodule exploration in the deep ocean. It will continue with this topic next year.

The Commission also endorsed a proposal by the Secretary-General to establish an international framework for cooperation on environmental protection of the international seabed and waters in connection with deep seabed exploration and mining. It recommended that he negotiate with the Global Environmental Facility, the World Bank, and potential investors to seek their participation.

Secretary-General Nandan outlined this proposal when he presented his annual report on the work of the Authority (ISBA/6/A/9). Pointing to the drop in government and private funding of deep-sea environmental research due to the deferral of commercial seabed mining, he said the Authority hoped to interest pioneer investors and others in agreeing to finance such a programme. The idea, he added, was for the Authority to act as a catalyst while others contributed researchers and ships.

The main functions of the Legal and Technical 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. The Council elects members of the Commission for a five- year term; they serve as experts in their personal capacity rather than as representatives of States.

Staff Regulations

The Council, on 13 July, adopted the Staff Regulations of the Authority, governing the rights, duties and obligations of persons in its employ and the principles of its personnel policy.

The regulations (ISBA/6/C/L.6) define the status of staff members as international civil servants, and outline their basic rights and obligations. They are prohibited from accepting honours, gifts or remuneration from any government, or from associating with or having a financial interest in any concern where a conflict of interest might arise, including seabed exploration or exploitation. The Secretary- General’s approval is required for any outside employment and activities. Staff members must use the property and assets of the Authority for official purposes only, and stand accountable for their performance.

Other provisions cover the classification of posts and staff, salaries and related allowances (including annexes detailing a termination indemnity and repatriation grant), appointment, leave, social security, travel and removal expenses, staff relations, separation from service and disciplinary matters and appeals.

The Council decided to apply the regulations provisionally pending approval by the Assembly.

The Council made three changes to the draft regulations approved last August by the Finance Committee (ISBA/6/C/L.2). They relate to two issues on which the Council focused its consideration: the acceptance of gifts or remuneration and the avoidance of conflicts of interest.

The original text, retained in the final version, requires the Secretary-General’s approval before a staff member can accept “any honour, decoration, favour, gift or remuneration from any non- governmental source”. Responding to a concern raised by Mexico that staff members must be shielded from any undue outside influence, the Council added, at the Secretary-General’s suggestion, a sentence stating that approval cannot be granted if there is any reflection on “the integrity of the staff member as an international civil servant responsible to the Authority”.

Again on a proposal by Mexico, the Council deleted “actively” from a phrase stating that staff members must “not be actively associated with the management of, or hold a financial interest in, any profit- making business or other concern” if either side might benefit by reason of the staff member’s position with the Authority. Mexico had wanted to define “financial interest” and extend the prohibition to past association with an outside concern.

Finally, on a proposal by Jamaica, the Council decided to apply to Authority staff a United Nations regulation requiring officials at the assistant secretary-general level and above to file financial disclosure statements relating to their assets. The Authority does not currently have staff members at such levels.

The Staff Regulations are largely based on those of the United Nations, with differences to take account of the Authority’s special nature and to incorporate provisions of the Law of the Sea Convention.

Among these differences is the requirement that persons joining the secretariat must promise in writing to have no financial interest in seabed activities. They must also pledge not to disclose, even after leaving the Authority, “any industrial secret, proprietary data which are transferred to the Authority [by seabed applicants or contractors] … or any other confidential information” coming to their knowledge by reason of their service.

In cases where a staff member is charged with violating the confidentiality rule, a three-person ad hoc tribunal would be established to adjudicate, its members to be appointed by the United Nations Secretary-General. This falls outside the procedure for dealing with appeals against administrative decisions affecting a staff member, where the United Nations Administrative Tribunal would act as an appeals body.

Budget for 2001-2002

On the Council’s recommendation, the Assembly, on 13 July, adopted a budget for the Authority totaling $10,506,400 for 2001-2002. The sum, in the amount proposed by the Secretary-General (ISBA/6/A/7-ISBA/6/C/4), represents the first biennial budget of the Authority, which previously set its budget annually.

In its decision (ISBA/6/A/15), the Assembly noted that members of the Authority would be assessed half of the total, or $5,253,200, each year. This compares to the 2000 budget of $5,175,200 approved by the Assembly last August. The Secretary-General and the Finance Committee indicated that assessments might be lower due to anticipated savings in 2000 expenditures.

In his budget proposal, the Secretary-General estimated the administrative and operational share at $8.9 million, with the remaining $1.6 million for servicing the annual meetings of the Authority. Personnel costs of $7.1 million will make up the bulk of the budget, paying for the current level of 37 posts.

The Assembly decided that assessments would continue to be based on the scale used by the United Nations, with adjustments for differences in membership.

It raised the level of the Working Capital Fund from $392,000 to $438,000, maintaining its level at one-twelfth of annual estimated expenditures. Member States will be asked to pay the $46,000 increase and also to make up a shortfall of $58,635 due to the inadvertent failure to bill the seven States that left the Authority in 1998 when the status of provisional membership expired for countries that had not ratified the Law of the Sea Convention. The Fund is used to make cash advances for expenditures until member States pay their dues.

The Assembly appealed to the former provisional members as well as current ones to pay any budgetary arrears as soon as possible. The Finance Committee reported that arrears amounted to $1.5 million, mostly from 1998 (when the provisional members left).

Finally, the Assembly appointed the firm KPMG Peat Marwick, which had audited last year’s accounts, to perform the audit again in 2000. Reporting on the results of the 1999 audit, the Finance Committee said the auditor had found the Authority’s financial statements to be in order. It noted improvements in the administration of the Authority since the last audit.

The 15-member Finance Committee, which recommended approval of the budget, met in closed session on 6 and 7 July under the chairmanship of Domenico da Empoli (Italy).

Elections

On 13 July, the Assembly elected 20 members to serve on the Authority’s 36-member Council for a four-year term from 2001 through 2004 (ISBA/6/A/14).

The newly elected members are Algeria, Czech Republic, Guyana, India, Papua New Guinea, Portugal, South Africa and Spain. Guyana, however, will relinquish its seat during 2001 to satisfy rotating geographical requirements. Twelve states -– Argentina, Brazil, China, Gabon, Japan, Malta, Namibia, Poland, Senegal, Sudan, Trinidad and Tobago and the United Kingdom -– were re-elected.

Seventeen current members remain on the Council until the end of 2002. They are Australia, Cameroon, Chile, Egypt, Fiji, Germany, Indonesia, Italy, Jamaica, Netherlands, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia and Tunisia.

Seven members will leave the Council at the end of 2000: Belgium, Costa Rica, France, Oman, Kenya, Philippines and Ukraine.

The Council consists of 36 Authority members from five groups of States. Four of these have special interests in aspects of seabed mining and the fifth is a group chosen to ensure equitable geographical balance in the Council as a whole. Members were elected to a four-year term (2001-2004), but the Assembly recorded understandings reached in interest and regional groups that, in some cases, States will relinquish their seats to others before their four years are up.

The composition of the Council is as follows:

Group A (Four States from among the largest consumers or net importers of minerals to be derived from seabed mining): Japan and the United Kingdom were re-elected, the latter on the understanding that it may relinquish its seat after two years to France if requested. (Italy and the Russian Federation will remain through 2002, except that Italy was elected last August on the understanding that it will relinquish its seat if the United States joins the Authority by acceding to the Law of the Sea Convention.)

Group B (Four States from those with the largest investment in seabed mining): India was elected, as agreed in 1996, and China was re- elected. (Germany and the Netherlands will remain through 2002. France will leave the Council.)

Group C (Four States that are major land-based net exporters of minerals found on the deep seabed): Portugal and South Africa were elected, with the latter to relinquish its seat to Zambia in 2003 and Gabon in 2004, after which the seat would be open to any Group C State. (Australia is to remain through 2002, with the proviso that Group C members will consult further if Canada joins the Authority. Chile, Gabon and Poland will switch to Group E, with Indonesia replacing Chile in Group C through 2002.)

Group D (Six developing States representing special interests, including those with large populations, the land-locked or geographically-disadvantaged, islands, major mineral importers or potential producers, and the least developed): Papua New Guinea was elected, and Brazil and Sudan were re-elected. It was agreed today that Egypt, elected in 1998 on the understanding that it would relinquish its seat at the end of 2000, would keep its seat through 2002. (Fiji and Jamaica will also remain through 2002. Oman will leave the Council.)

Group E (18 States reflecting the principle of geographical distribution, as well as a balance between developed and developing States): Algeria, Czech Republic, Guyana and Spain were elected, and Argentina, Gabon (switched from Group C), Malta, Namibia, Poland (switched from Group C), Senegal, and Trinidad and Tobago were re- elected. It was decided today that Gabon would serve in Group E through 2003, after which it will switch to Group C. (Cameroon, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia and Tunisia will remain through 2002. Chile will switch from Group E, replacing Costa Rica, in accordance with a 1998 agreement, while Indonesia will switch to Group C. In addition to Costa Rica, Belgium, Kenya, Philippines and Ukraine will leave the Council.)

The Assembly also renewed the geographical allocation of Council seats that it had agreed to at the first election in 1996: 10 to the African Group, nine to the Asian Group, eight to the Western European and Others Group, seven to the Latin American and Caribbean Group, and three to the Eastern European Group. As this comes to 37 seats, or one more than the total membership, it was agreed that all but the Eastern European Group would relinquish one seat in successive years: Guyana (Latin American and Caribbean) in 2001, Malta (Western European and Others) in 2002, Algeria (African) in 2003 and an Asian Group member in 2004. The Authority also held uncontested elections to fill four vacancies resulting from resignations from its two subsidiary bodies, each composed of experts chosen in their personal capacity. The terms of members run through 2001.

To the Legal and Technical Commission, the Council, on 4 July, elected Mohammed M. Gomaa (Egypt) to replace his compatriot Wagui Hanafi. The Commission currently has 23 members.

To the 15-member Finance Committee, the Assembly, on 5 July, elected Peter Doellekes to replace Jobst Holborn (Germany), Albert Hoffmann to replace Craig Daniell (South Africa) and Juliet Semambo Kalema to replace David Etuket (Uganda).

This year’s Council President was Sakiusa S. Rabuka (Fiji), while Liesbeth Lijnzaad (Netherlands) presided over the work of the Assembly. They were elected in March.

Membership and Attendance

Of the Authority’s 133 members, 66 were recorded as attending the July session. The membership of the Authority consists of all parties to the Law of the Sea Convention. The members are listed below, with an asterisk (*) marking those participating in the session.

Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, *Argentina, *Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Barbados, *Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, *Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, *Cameroon, Cape Verde, *Chile, *China, Comoros, Cook Islands, *Costa Rica, *Cote d’Ivoire, Croatia, *Cuba, Cyprus, *Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, *Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, *European Community, *Fiji, *Finland, *France, *Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, *Germany, *Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, *Guyana, *Haiti, *Honduras, Iceland, *India, *Indonesia, Iraq, *Ireland, *Italy, *Jamaica, *Japan, Jordan, Kenya, *Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, *Malaysia, Mali, *Malta, *Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, *Mexico, *Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mongolia, *Mozambique, *Myanmar.

Also *Namibia, *Nauru, Nepal, *Netherlands, *New Zealand, Nicaragua, *Nigeria, *Norway, *Oman, *Pakistan, Palau, *Panama, *Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, *Philippines, *Poland, *Portugal, *Republic of Korea, Romania, *Russian Federation, *Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, *Saudi Arabia, *Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, *Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, *South Africa, *Spain, Sri Lanka, *Sudan, Suriname, *Sweden, *The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, *Tonga, *Trinidad and Tobago, *Tunisia, *Uganda, *Ukraine, *United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

Seven non-member States recorded their presence as observers: Canada, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Holy See, Peru, United States and Venezuela. Observers may take part in all deliberations at formal and informal meetings, without the right to vote.

* *** *