CYIL vol. 7 (2016)

477

CYIL 7 ȍ2016Ȏ

XXXIX. ANTARCTIC TREATY CONSULTATIVE MEETING IN SANTIAGO

the ATCM and CEP. However, as the CEP is an advisory body of the Meeting, it is

appropriate that it first takes the views and makes recommendations that are later

to be adopted by the Meeting after its own deliberations. Although being a purely

organizational matter, such a decision may have financial implications for the host

country. The ATCM will still remain eight days long, but the Meeting together with

the five days CEP will in total mean nine meeting days. In order to increase the

efficiency of the Meeting it might be a smart move, but let us see if the next year’s

testing bears its fruit.

Be that as it may, the rescheduling of the Meeting is only one of the tools for

the effective work of the Meeting. Hence, this year Norway and Australia presented

a working paper in which they identified some of the key issues that might improve

interaction between these two bodies.

The working group agreed that documents

that were submitted to both the ATCM and CEP should, where possible, specify the

issues and questions that were to be discussed by the ATCM and CEP respectively.

Such an approach will enable the better coordination of the Chairs, so will the

annotated agenda and summary of papers in advance. Further, it would be useful if

the Chairs review papers as they are submitted and, should there be a need, to invite

the authors to redirect their paper to another part of the Meeting.

Another point for discussion at this working group was the timeliness of release

of the ATCM Report. It was again Australia who made some preliminary reflections

and invited others to present their views on the unsubstantiated practice of the release

of the ATCM Report 6 months after the end of the ATCM when the draft report is

adopted by the Meeting on the very last day of the Meeting and is available to the

participants in all official languages. It was rightly point out that as the working,

information and background documents are made public immediately after the

end of the Meeting, the public has to wait for half a year to know how they were

handled and what the outcomes of the Meeting are. After the Executive Secretary

admitted that a preliminary Report publicly available within three month period

after the end of the Meeting would not increase the costs of the Report, the Meeting

agreed on such early release of the preliminary report which is subject to further

editorial changes. Such a decision was accompanied by corresponding Revised Rules

of Procedure for the ATCM.

Having noted that the next year the term of the current Executive Secretary

would expire, a procedure for his selection and appointment needed to be reviewed.

The procedure will be the same as the one used at XXXII. ATCM, which means,

for instance, a decision taken by majority. The Revised Procedure for Selection and

Working paper 50.

Working paper 19.

Decision D (2016).