Key statements from States – 3/8/22
3 August 2022
Trinidad and Tobago
- The delegation stated that “Speed should not take precedence over quality. Regulations should not be adopted in an attempt to meet a deadline.”
- The Holy See stated that “The words of Pope Francis are pertinent here as well. And I quote, since everything is closely interrelated and today’s problems call for a vision capable of taking into account every aspect of the global crisis, I suggest that we consider some elements of an integral ecology, one which clearly respects its human and social dimensions.”
- Chile stated that “for reasons of transparency that auditing should not be monopolised by one firm. Chile requests that the Assembly should make a decision, as recommended by Finance Committee, a UN board of auditors be used. More will have to be paid to do so. Chile would like to see reduction in expenses to allow more funding to hire UN board of auditors and respond to transparency requirements called for by taxpayers.”
- The Secretary General stated that “the audit for this year 2022 will be carried out by Ernst & Young, who have already been appointed as the auditor and the contract in place.”
- Chile stated on their proposal for a discussion on the two year rule that their proposal “is subject to discussion and some countries have objected, such as Tonga and Nauru. Under the rules of procedure we believe a secret vote would go against what we aspire to. Chile would like to evoke article 12 as established practice for issues which are urgent and important. This is an important and urgent item.”
- On Belgium’s proposal (detailed below), Chile stated that contractor “motives are very different to most of the other observers whose primary objective is to think about common heritage.”
- Stated that capacity development is an obligation, not a choice. “Capacity building and training are extremely important because they are currently insufficiently implemented.
The realization of the objective of sustainable exploitation of the area will depend on our level of scientific knowledge. Without solid scientific basis, no action is possible in that realm.”
- They added that “The Principality of Monaco will play its role to the full because capacity development requires adequate implementation of indeed the legal order we’re defining in order to facilitate exploitation that is safe in the area with regard to resources on the ecosystems.”
- Stated “The richness of the area involves an obligation to preserve and protect this common heritage of mankind. Activities undertaken in the area of scientific research in the area, as well as exploration exploitation call for thorough knowledge, with a view to having sustainable development of the deep sea.”
- They added that “Today in the fisheries sector it’s worth recognizing the existence of fishing techniques that have negative consequences on the deep seabed. On this point we support the implementation of REMPS.”
- Belgium Introduced “proposed amendments to the Rules of Procedure – this rule stipulates who can participate as an observer in the Assembly and the Council of the Assembly”
- The delegation proposed that “contractors be given the same rights as observers as NGOs and civil society.”
- Belgium also stated “We encourage the NGOs also to associate themselves to increase the efficiency of the meetings.”
- Stated that “this may risk a conflict of interest in ISA processes.”
- “We recognise that there is currently no industry group representing DSM, but there is no obstacle to one being formed.”
- The Russian federation supported Belgium’s proposal on contractors.
- Stated that they had doubts on the Belgian proposal and that in the Authority there is special representation of the States that have carried out the greatest efforts for development of activities in area and therefore their interests are already represented. They also raised questions on the potential conflicts of interest and stated “We are not in favour of including contractors as observers in the interests of the Authority.”
- Stated that they are not supporting Belgium’s proposal but do do see merit in the proposals and would be interested in the proposals from Australia and the Netherlands.
- Stated that “maybe we should consider the possibility that the contractor intervenes individually, therefore with an amendment to the rules of procedure.”
- Stated that “contractors must not be given the right to speak as individuals, given the stakes they hold in the discussion.
- Noted the above proposal and supported it.
- Shared concerns about possible conflicts of interest regarding Belgium’s proposal.
- Stated with regard to the Belgium proposal – “We acknowledge the point made by observers and note that they all have their own policy positions as well in relation to the interventions which they make as well.”