 |
 |
Rome, Italy 8-12 October 2001
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
PLENARY:  Patrick
Szell (UK) (left), Legal Drafting Group Chair, presented the results of the
group’s discussion on rules of procedure. He said the group suggested the
following: on frequency of meetings, that the 2nd and 3rd COPs be held
annually and every two years thereafter; regarding observers, to accept the
original rule with the note on the importance of documentation for the COP
being circulated well in advance; on the term of office, that the President
and the Bureau be elected at the closure of the COP and serve until the
closure of the following COP; on determining a quorum for a decision on a
matter within the competence of a regional economic integration organization
(REIO), that the REIO is entitled to cast its votes in accordance with
Article 23; and that the rule on secret ballot remain unchanged.
|
|
|
|
|
|
WORKING
GROUP ON DISCONTINUATION OF THE INTERIM PIC PROCEDURE: |
|
|
The
Working Group on Discontinuation reconvened following morning Plenary to
discuss its draft report, specifically with respect to recommendations
offered during Wednesday's session. Discussion focused on minor alterations
to the report's wording. |
|
 Delegates
did not reach consensus regarding the composition of the PIC regions,
leaving two options: one stating that the new PIC regions adopted at COP-1
should be based on the geographical distribution of the Parties at that
time; and the second, suggested by AUSTRALIA, stating that the PIC regions
adopted at COP-1 should be based on the regions used during the interim
PIC procedure, pending consideration of the geographical distribution of
Parties at that time. |
|
 On
inclusion of chemicals in Annex III that were included in the interim PIC
procedure before COP-1, but are not yet listed in Annex III, the US
suggested, and delegates accepted, text specifying that chemicals added to
the interim PIC procedure “prior to the entry into force of the
Convention” will have met the requirements of the Convention. Left photo
L-R: Bernard Madé (Canada) in discussion with Marie Ricciardonel (US). |
|
|
WORKING
GROUP ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN THE ICRC: |
|
| Delegates discussed a revised decision based on the previous day’s discussions regarding a procedure to avoid conflicts of interest. The Chair noted that the issues of confidentiality and restrictions to the release of information contained in the declarations of interest remained unresolved. Delegates discussed cases where further clarification might be requested from an expert and debated the manner in which the expert and the designating country would be notified. | |
 EGYPT
(right) distinguished between requesting further clarification as to the
suitability of an expert and requesting a government not to designate the
expert. The EC said the Bureau cannot request anything from the government,
but that it can examine the information and make a recommendation to the
INC.
|
|
 CANADA
suggested language stating that depending on the circumstances, the
Secretariat could refer the matter to the INC Bureau for resolution with the
nominating government. The Chair stressed that the Secretariat would play an
administrative role rather than a decision-making role, noting that the
Bureau could take a decision and that notifications could be given by the
Secretariat. The Secretariat suggested not referring to itself at this
point, reiterating that the Bureau would make a recommendation for settling
the matter with the government. |
|
|
|
|
 The US (right) and AUSTRIA said that information on interests relating to those industries could be useful. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| � 2001, IISD. All rights reserved. |
| Linkages home | E-Mail | |
