Meeting of States Parties

to Law of Sea Convention

151^st & 152^nd Meetings (AM & PM)

Confronting Heavy Workload, Commission on Limits of Continental Shelf Draws

Proposals from Law of Sea States Parties on Eve of Elections

 

Submissions Can Cost Coastal States Hundreds of Millions of Dollars;

Delays in Handling Them Create Uncertainty for All States, Says Commission Chair

With the critical importance of submissions by coastal States to the Commission on the Limits of Continental Shelf, and their cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars to hundreds of millions to prepare, it was essential that every one be meticulously reviewed, delegates to the twenty-second meeting of States Parties to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea heard today as they continued their session in New York.

Galo Carrera Hurtado, Chairman of the Commission, who also said that it took years to complete some submissions, pointed out that after a State had devoted so much financial resources and time to preparing a submission, the Commission could not fail to commit the necessary time to fully review it.  Highlighting the challenge posed by the substantial increase in the Commission’s workload, he pointed out that when the Commission had been established 15 years ago, the original number of submissions had been 33.  That number had since grown to 120.  With the current workload, it was “in the hands of the States parties” to provide the Commission with the resources necessary to perform its work, he said,

The role of the Commission is to consider data and other material submitted by coastal States concerning the outer limits of the continental shelf in areas where those limits extend beyond 200 nautical miles and to make recommendations.  It also provides scientific and technical advice, if requested by the coastal State concerned during preparation of such data.

Mr. Carrera said that delays in handling submissions were not in anybody’s best interest, as they created uncertainty, which affected all States.  Because of such delays, coastal areas could not be managed with certainty, and licence allocation for exploitation could not be issued with certainty.

The Commission’s heavy workload spawned much debate today, as delegates took the floor to stress the need for concrete action to address it.  The representative of China encouraged all parties to explore solutions.  The Commission needed to be provided with adequate financial support, and China felt the international community should guarantee the ability of the Commission to fulfil the responsibilities entrusted to it, he said.

The Commission’s workload had increased beyond imaginable and expected levels, noted the representative of Nigeria.  If it was to continue to carry out its work expeditiously, its working methods needed be reconsidered.  As an option, he suggested looking at the possibility of increasing the number of Commission members, or funding the 21 current members to stay permanently in New York.

Several delegations voiced support today for a decision made by the Convention’s States parties at theirtwenty-first meeting to request the Commission to consider meeting in New York for up to 26 weeks a year for a period of five years.  Among them was Australia’s representative, who said that his country placed importance on the issue of the Commission’s workload and expressed the hope that the proposed longer meeting period would clear the backlog. 

The representative of Iceland said the delegation supported the proposal, but cautioned against “radical” measures that required amendments to the structure of the treaty bodies.  A balance, he said, should be struck between expediency and legal certainty of the Commission.

Also attracting the attention of the States parties was the election of Commission members, scheduled for tomorrow.  Many speakers stressed the importance of ensuring that members being elected were of the highest quality and were committed to the work of the Commission.  Several also highlighted the importance of continuity.  The representative of Malaysia urged that new members be qualified and able to deal with the submissions by States parties.

The representative of India said that in order to ensure continuity and to take advantage of the “institutional knowledge” of sitting members, his country would be re-nominating the existing member from India.  So, too, would a number of other delegations, including that of the Republic of Korea, which stressed the need for professionalism and strong commitment among new members.

Also today, the States parties took up the projected budget of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea for 2013-2014, hearing from the Registrar, Philippe Gautier of Belgium that it included no new requests in the area of recurrent expenses, although an inflation rate of 1.81 per cent had been applied to certain categories and there was an increase in the daily subsistence allowance of Tribunal judges and temporary staff, as well as an increase in the remuneration of judges from $166,596 to $169,098, effective 1 January 2012.

The draft budget, he said, also included a request for an increase of about 1.49 million euros for the period 2013-2014 as a result of the system of remuneration of the Tribunal, with the payment of judges based on particular elements, including the pay rate of the judges of the International Court of Justice.  Other proposals had been made, but those contained no budgetary implications, he explained.

Speakers commended the Tribunal for following a zero growth approach, including the representative of Lebanon, who said she was pleased to see the body had once again followed the zero-growth approach.  However, she cautioned that cuts to case-related costs risked undermining the court’s work.  Also, Lebanon did not believe the Tribunal should be criticized for having a surplus of funds, as it could keep those in reserve for urgent needs.

The meeting was suspended in the latter part of the day to allow time for States parties to consider the draft budget for possible action on it tomorrow.

In other business, the Meeting elected Hungary from the Group of Eastern European States to its Credentials Committee to complete that body’s membership.

Also speaking in today’s discussions were the representatives of Canada, Australia, Senegal, Guyana, Argentina, Indonesia, Mozambique, Russian Federation, Norway, Myanmar, South Africa, France, Philippines, Tuvalu, Brazil, Sri Lanka, Germany, Guatemala, Ukraine, Bangladesh, Japan, Trinidad and Tobago and the United Kingdom.

Also participating was a representative of the European Union delegation.

The Meeting of States Parties will reconvene at 10 a.m. Wednesday, 7 June, to continue its work.

Background

The twenty-second Meeting of States Parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea continued its session, slated to run through 11 June, in New York this morning.  (For background, see Press Release SEA/1967 of 1 June).

Commission on Continental Shelf

The representative of Canada described the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf as one of the pillars of the Convention’s edifice, given its key role in defining the limit between seabed areas under national jurisdiction and the area whose resources were the common heritage of mankind.  As such, the Commission deserved the full support of the States parties.  Its workload remained a matter of high importance and had been under consideration for several years.  In 2011, the States parties had found common ground and identified a realistic way forward to accelerate consideration of submissions.  They requested that the Commission meet in New York for up to 26 weeks per year, distributed in such a way that the Commission determined to be the most effective.  In order to take full advantage of the new measures and resources, it was vitally important that following this week’s election, there be a fully-constituted Commission with 21 members committed to working for the longer periods.  Together with Australia and New Zealand, Canada nominated Richard Haworth for election at this week’s meeting.

The representative of Australia said that the increasing number of submissions was a growing challenge to the Commission, but also a recognition of its growing importance.  Australia had been among the first States to benefit from the Commission’s work, in 2008.  As a result, on 24 May, the country had enacted a domestic law on the basis of the Commission’s recommendation.  Australia wanted to see more States benefit.  It placed importance on the issue of the Commission’s workload and hoped that the longer meeting period would clear the backlog.  Australia had provided legal and technical support to several Pacific island countries in preparing submissions.  The country had an enduring commitment to the Commission and, as such, supported Mr. Haworth’s nomination.  His election would be important in taking forward the Commission’s work.  Australia believed that it would be most unfortunate not to fill all of the slots in that election.

The representative of Senegal said that his was a coastal country that hoped to become a party to the Convention in the near future.  Senegal was favourable to any initiatives that would provide the Commission with additional means for it to fulfil its mandate.  The proposal to extend the length of the meetings for the next five years would have a positive impact on the Commission’s effectiveness and efficiency.  Additionally, he thanked Norway for its support of Senegal and other West African States towards extending the limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles, before the end of 2015.

The representative of Guyana said that his delegation was proud that its ascension to the Convention – as the sixtieth State - had brought the treaty into force.  Guyana believed that the work of the Commission held special importance for coastal States and for humanity as a whole.  The report presented was indicative of the progress made so far; however, challenges remained in meeting the needs and expectations of States parties.  Guyana had taken deliberate steps to fulfil its treaty obligations, and welcomed the decision taken on modalities for the consideration of the report it had submitted.  Regarding the Commission’s workload, every avenue should be explored to ensure that that the Commission delivered on its mandate in the most efficient and effective manner possible.  Guyana, therefore, was very favourably disposed to suggestions in that regard.

The representative of Argentina expressed hope that any doubts that the Commission might have with regard to its mandate would be cleared during the current meeting.  The question of whether an issue was legal or not should also be resolved.  Argentina sincerely appreciated those Commission members whose terms of office would end this year, and hoped that those that would be staying on would orient their new colleagues.  He described the election of new Commission members as extremely important, and stressed the need to ensure that it reflected the Convention’s provisions concerning equitable geographical distribution.

The representative of China expressed condolences on the death of the former Commission chairman.  The Commission’s work, he said, was important in balancing the interest of coastal States with the overall interest of the international community.  Since the last meeting of States parties, recommendations had been made that were reasonable and consistent with the Convention’s provisions.  The lack of institutional guarantee for the continuation of its work was an important challenge.  The need to address the workload issue required all parties to explore solutions.  The Commission should be provided with adequate financial support, and China supported the idea that for the international community to guarantee the ability of the Commission to fulfil the responsibilities entrusted to it.  China had nominated a member from its country for re-election to the Commission.

The representative of Indonesia said that the Convention was very important, as it fully recognized the concept of the Archipelagic State.  As such a State, Indonesia was taking part in the commemoration of the treaty’s thirtieth anniversary, including by having held an international seminar on “Recent Developments:  the 1982 UNCLOS:  the 30-year Commemoration”, organized jointly with various institutions.  Indonesia also placed great importance on the role of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea as a judicial organ for States parties to solve legal problems arising from the application and/or interpretation of the Convention.  The Tribunal had a unique characteristic as a full court.  Her delegation also supported better remuneration for its judges, which would improve the court’s functioning.  Such improvements should be done through good management of the available resources and not create new budget implications.

With regard to the International Seabed Authority, the delegate commended the body’s recent work in promoting the fulfilment of the Convention’s objectives.  Indonesia further underscored the important role of the International Seabed Authority in ensuring that the marine environment was protected from any harmful effects that might arise during exploration and exploitation activities in the Area (the seabed and ocean floor, and subsoil thereof beyond the limits of national jurisdiction).  Turning to the Commission, the delegate said that the body had made the process of examination of submissions as expeditious and efficient as possible.  Indonesia welcomed the result of discussions held in the informal working group in the twentieth meeting of States parties, which had narrowed the workload gap and provided feasible options for further exploration, for implementation beyond 2012.

The representative of Mozambique said that the current meeting was particularly important as it took place in the context of the Convention’s thirtieth anniversary and in the lead-up to the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development.  Mozambique was one of the least developed States parties to the Law of the Sea Convention, but it had nonetheless continuously participated in its activities.  It had also completed its submission on the extension of the limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles, and had completed agreements with neighbouring countries on the delimitation of maritime boundaries.  With regard to the Commission, his delegation shared concerns about the body’s workload, in particular about the time set out for plenary presentations and for the tabling of submissions.  As a means of solution, Mozambique had decided to present a candidate to that body, he said.

The representative of Malaysia said that it was important that the Commission be able to continue to carry out its responsibilities.  It, therefore, needed to be provided with adequate resources and to have the full complement of 21 members.  The new members to be elected tomorrow should be qualified and able to deal with the submissions by States parties.  Malaysia had nominated a candidate for that election and would bear all the costs of his participation in the Commission, in the event of his election.  He thanked all Commission members for their invaluable contributions over the years.

The representative of India said that the Commission’s workload, which had continued to increase, was a source of concern.  India was hopeful about the elections tomorrow.  In order to ensure continuity and to take advantage of the institutional knowledge of sitting members of the Commission, India had decided to re-nominate the existing member from India.

The representative of Nigeria thanked the Commission for the “amazing amount of work” it had accomplished in recent years.  The timelines of that body, however, were of serious concern, especially for developing countries that had had to overcome great financial and resource challenges in preparing their submissions.  The Commission’s workload had increased beyond imaginable and expected levels, and if it were to continue to carry out its work expeditiously, the way in which it worked should be reconsidered.  “Many speeches have passed under the bridge since the monster started staring at us,” he said, with regard to the long periods of time that many had spent preparing their country’s submissions.  There was a need to address the possibility of increasing the number of Commission members, or to fund the 21 current members to stay permanently in New York.

The representative of the Russian Federation said that many important issues would need to be tackled during the current meeting of States parties, including the budget of the Tribunal for 2013-2014 and the election of Commission members.  His delegation was satisfied with the work of all three Convention bodies, and hoped that they would continue in that vein.  The proposed increase in the budget of the Tribunal seemed completely justified given its workload, he said.

The representative of Norway said that the experience since the entry into force of the Convention more than 15 years ago showed that, in order to achieve its goals, developing States needed assistance with resources, capacity and experience.  Without such help, many States parties would not be able to exercise the rights conferred by the Convention and the treaty itself could be undermined.  Assistance, therefore, was a matter of self-interest for the States with the resources and expertise.

The delegate said that the rules relating to the outer limits of continental shelf required in-depth knowledge and interdisciplinary cooperation for submissions to the Commission.  Many developing countries faced challenges in that respect, and thus, all States should assist them.  Norway was among the many countries that had benefitted from the Convention, and it provided support to the African continent to enable the countries to exercise the right to the resources of the continental shelf.  It had assisted 10 African coastal States in submitting the required preliminary information to the Commission’s Secretary-General, and had provided limited support in other areas.

The representative of Myanmar said that the issue of the Commission’s workload should be maintained on the agenda as it was crucial that efforts be made to speed up its work. Myanmar had made its submission on 16 December 2008, but, taking into account factors like the dispute between the country and Bangladesh, the Commission had decided to defer action on the submission.  Since the Tribunal had delivered a decision on that dispute, Myanmar was now requesting the Commission to revisit and reconsider its submission on a priority basis.  Myanmar would be making an official request for its submission to be reviewed now on an expedited basis.

The representative of South Africa noted with concern the financial difficulties facing the Convention’s three institutions, and asked countries not only to fulfil their obligations, but also to contribute to the voluntary funds established to support them.  Those institutions could only fulfil their increasingly challenging tasks with the appropriate support, and if those challenges were not addressed, their ability to carry out their work expeditiously would be hampered.

The representative of France said that the Commission’s report was a source of satisfaction, due to its high quality and to the fact that it did not “hide the difficulties before us”.  In that regard, he said, Commission Chairman Galo Carrera Hurtado’s intention was more pedagogy than provocation.  Even if there had been disagreements on some issues, the spirit of cooperation had prevailed and led to fair recommendations by the Commission.  Tomorrow, a new Commission would be elected with quality candidates to carry out the demanding work.  An efficient Commission was needed, which presupposed that it start working fully as soon as members were elected.  He further recalled the position of the European Union and its member States that the upcoming election should provide members for the 21 seats, as set forth in the Convention and in line with the principle of equitable geographic representation.  He also highlighted the “indivisibility” of the upcoming election — namely, that it was not possible to have an “à la carte” election; all should be elected at one time.

The representative of Republic of Korea expressed support for the work of the Commission which, he said, involved a balancing act between the interests of coastal States and those of mankind as a whole.  His country understood that the workload of the Commission had increased.  That was why consistency was needed with regard to the membership, in order to ensure continuity.  In that regard, the Republic of Korea was re-nominating the Commission member from that country for the elections to be held tomorrow.  The Commission needed new members with high professionalism and high commitment in order to carry out its work.

The representative of the Philippines said that his country had benefitted from the work of the Commission, particularly with regard to setting the limits of its continental shelf.  The expertise of the Commissioners was vital, and future members needed to possess the qualifications and proper work ethic to carry out their functions.  Throughout the Commission’s consideration of the Philippines’ submission, his country had observed that body’s proper and professional functioning.  Sound management of the workload was also extremely important.

The representative of Tuvalu appreciated the speedy delivery of the Tribunal’s verdict in the case of the Bay of Bengal, as well as the advisory decision of the Seabed Chamber, which had provided guidance for small developing countries like Tuvalu to implement the Convention.  Tuvalu noted the increasing and complex workload of the institutions set up under the Convention, and said that they must be equipped with the necessary experts and resources to carry out their work.  Additionally, she said that the participation of small island States at the highest levels in all matters relevant to the Convention was crucial.

The representative of Iceland said that his delegation supported the proposal to extend the period of meetings in New York and to expand supportive services to the Commission.  However, he cautioned against “radical measures”, some of which would require amendments to the structure of those bodies.  There was a need to strike a balance between the expediency and legal certainty of the Commission.  Further, Iceland supported the comments made by the representative of Argentina yesterday criticizing the use of the term “extension of the continental shelf”.  That shelf was, by nature, one inseparable unit.  Moreover, according to article 77 of the Convention, the rights of coastal States to their continental shelves did not depend on occupation nor on any express declaration; States had inherent rights in that respect, he said.

GALO CARRERA HURTADO, Chairman of the Commission, in concluding remarks, said that the cost of making a submission to the Commission ranged from hundreds of thousands of dollars to hundreds of millions.  It also took years to complete some submissions.  After a State had devoted that amount of money and time in preparing a submission, the Commission could not fail to devote the necessary time to fully review it.  Delay in the handling of submissions was not in anyone’s best interest, as it created uncertainty, which affected all States.  Areas could not then be managed with clarity and licence allocation for exploitation could not be issued with certainty.

He said that the trust funds were important because not all States had the same capacity to implement the law, but the Commission did not differentiate among States in carrying out its responsibilities; it applied the same rules and criteria to all.  The Commission was grateful to the States that had contributed to the trust fund.  Since the Commission was an independent body, he understood the proposal for it to work in New York for up to 26 weeks as a suggestion, but added that it was up to the States parties to elect members that would make the commitment to stay for that period.  Moreover, he said, the members of the Commission needed to be competent and committed, in order to be able to stay for that period.  The nature and amount of work done by the Commissioners was almost full-time.

The Commission had the legal competence to interpret the provisions of the Convention relevant to its mandate, and it turned to the States parties when certain types of issues arose for which it needed their input.

The representative of Brazil said the candidates presented to the Commission tomorrow would have to be aware that they would need to contemplate sitting for extended periods in New York.  It would be disappointing if that recommendation was not taken to heart by the Commissioners.  She wished to underscore that there would be no consensus as to the Commission having the mandate to interpret the Convention’s article 76, concerning the continental shelf.  While there would be agreement that the Commission was able to apply the article, its ability to interpret was another debate altogether.

The representative of Sri Lanka agreed that interpretation of article 76 did not fall within the Commission’s mandate.  That matter had not been authoritatively resolved, he said, adding that he wished to have his position officially recorded.

The Meeting then decided to adopt the report of the Commission.

International Law of Sea Tribunal

PHILIPPE GAUTIER ( Belgium), Registrar, International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, then introduced several budgetary documents.  The first, the projected budget of the Tribunal for 2013-2014 (document SPLOS/2012/WP.1), included such matters as recurrent expenditures and case-related costs.  There had been no new requests in the area of recurrent expenses; however, an inflation rate of 1.81 per cent had been applied to certain categories of the budget.  There had been an increase in the daily subsistence allowance of Tribunal judges and temporary staff, such as interpreters, as well as an increase in the remuneration of judges from $166,596 to $169,098, effective 1 January 2012, in line with the decision of States parties.

With regard to case-related expenses, the budget took into account the increase in the Tribunal’s workload, he said, and factored in both urgent proceedings and cases on merits.  The system of remuneration of the Tribunal was very specific, with the payment of judges based on particular elements, including the pay rate of the judges of the International Court of Justice.  It was for those reasons that there had been a request for an increase of about €1.49 million for the period 2013-2014.  Other proposals had also been made, including the filling of a vacant P-5 administrative post and its transfer to the area of judicial services, among other minor staffing changes made in response to the increased workload.  All additional expenses were compensated for and contained no budgetary implications, he said.

Turning to the “report on budgetary matters for the financial periods 2009-2010 and 2011-2012” (document SPLOS/242), he addressed the surrender of cash surplus for 2009-2010, which amounted to about €1.87 million.  That surplus would be surrendered and deducted from the contributions of States parties for 2013.  Concerning the provisional performance report for 2011, he said that the total expenditure for that year had stood provisionally at about €8.7 million, which represented 78 per cent of the appropriations approved for the year.

In June 2011, the twenty-first meeting of States parties had decided that some €38,600, which had been set aside in a special account, would be used to reimburse officials of the Tribunal obliged to pay national taxes.  Additionally, there had been an adjustment of the special allowance of the President and that of the Vice-President when acting as President, in line with those amounts paid to the President of the International Court of Justice.  It had also been proposed that the special allowances be revised to $25,000 per annum and $156 per day, respectively, as of 1 July 2012.

Finally, he drew the attention of the Meeting to document SPLOS/243 concerning the appointment of an auditor for 2013-2016, and the report on action taken pursuant to Financial Regulations of the Tribunal, document SPLOS/242

The representative of Germany said that his country had extended support to the Tribunal, based on its headquarters agreement with it, amounting to €1.6 million in 2011 alone.  That was in excess of its regular contributions.  Germany was fully ready to comply with its obligations as host State of the Tribunal.

The representative of Guatemala said that she was in favour of any initiative to strengthen accountability and transparency.  Guatemala noted that there was no substantive increase in the budget presented, as was the case last time, and congratulated the adjusted and cautious budget.  Her country had no major problem with the budgeted amounts, but would have some questions in discussions in the working group, including on the under-utilization of the budget to date, as only 78 per cent of it had been used.  Guatemala insisted on better and more efficient use of resources and believed that the trend of surpluses should be overturned.  That trend indicated that the amounts approved were too high.

The delegate from the European Union expressed support for the principle of zero nominal growth but, at the same time, said that account should be taken of the evolutionary approach and the Tribunal’s increased workload.  Against that background, the proposed increase in the budget for the next biennium should be limited to €500,000 instead of the proposed 1.5 million.  That required the Tribunal to make substantial efforts at savings.  There was a significant gap between the proposed budget and past performance.  For the future, the European Union expected the Tribunal to give a more comprehensive explanation concerning that gap.

The representative of the Republic of Korea praised the recent work of the Tribunal, which was making great strides in developing the international law of the sea.  In 2013 and 2014, the work of the Tribunal would include two cases on merit.  The court would have to remain prepared to deal with those cases, as well as with urgent ones referred to it.  With the exception of case-related expenditures, it was encouraging that the draft budget followed an overall zero-growth approach.  The Korean delegation believed that States parties should take into account the Tribunal’s increased workload when considering the draft budget.

The representative of Argentina, expressing appreciation to the Registrar of the Tribunal for his precise report, affirmed his delegation’s support for the proposed budget and especially for the possibility of future modifications of the Tribunal’s practices.  However, he was happy with the way the work had unfolded to date.

The representative of the Ukraine, speaking in his national capacity, said that he was ready to discuss the budget proposal in the Working Group.

The representative of China said that his delegation had carefully studied the budgetary documents, and felt that they fairly and truly reflected the Tribunal’s financial situation.  The few new items in the 2013-2014 budget were justified, as they were based on the body’s increased workload.  Moreover, the Tribunal had abided by the principle of “zero-increase”.  The Chinese delegation supported strengthening the Registry, and appreciated that the Tribunal had not requested an increase in the number of staff members, but had instead decided to tackle the matter internally.  China, in principle, supported the approval of the draft budget.

The representative of Lebanon recalled that, during yesterday’s meeting, her delegation had expressed its eagerness to see the role of the Tribunal further expanded.  She was pleased to see the body once again follow the zero-growth approach.  However, it was important to note that cuts to case-related costs risked undermining the court’s work.  Lebanon was not in favour of any such proposals. Additionally, it felt that the Tribunal should not be criticized for having a surplus of funds, and it could keep those in reserve for urgent needs.

The representative of Bangladesh felt that the report of the Tribunal had been submitted satisfactorily, and requested the meeting to approve the proposed budget.

The representative of the Russian Federation said the increase in the Tribunal’s budget was justified, and his country hoped that there would be consensus on its approval.

The representative of Japan expressed appreciation that the budget had been drafted with the principle of zero nominal growth.  Japan’s belief in zero nominal growth remained unchanged, and the country attached great importance to the Tribunal’s work.  A consensual proposal should be found for meeting both the needs of the Tribunal and the needs resulting from the budgetary constraints of States parties.  The European Union had made some reduction proposals, and Japan would like to make constructive contributions by adding some clarifications to those recommendations during the consultations.

The representative of Trinidad and Tobago said that his country had previously indicated support for the budget proposals, and it wished to reiterate that sentiment.

The representative of Brazil expressed the hope that the budget would be approved by consensus.

The representative of the United Kingdom supported the points made earlier by the delegate for the European Union.  His country had mentioned last year that it wanted to see improved utilization of the budget, and it had drafted a non-paper to be introduced in the working group as a contribution to the discussions.

Responding to those remarks, Mr. GAUTIER said that past underperformance had mainly been related to case-related costs.  The court estimated its expenses in that area for urgent proceedings; if no such cases were submitted, the amount allocated would not be spent.  As a result, savings would be surrendered to States parties. When urgent proceedings were instituted, there was no time to convene a meeting on possible expenditures, he said, noting that all allocations needed to be made in advance.  Moreover, it was difficult to estimate that, because an expense one year did not necessarily mean the same expense the next year.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record