-GOVERNMENTAL MARITIME ULTATIVE ORGANIZATION

CONFEnENCE ON THE EOTA'BL !SBMmNT

IMCO

OF All mERNATION'AL COMPENSATION FUN.O FOR OIL POLLl11'ION DAMAGE, 1971

Commi ttee of the lrJhole

SUMMARY RECORD OF THE SJXTEENTH MEIDl'Jm

held at the Palais des Congres, Brussels on Thursday, 9 December 1971, at ~.05 p.m.

" Chaimanr Mr .. W. r1tTLLER (Switzerland)

Executive Seoreta:t'Y'1 Mr. T.A. MENSAH (000)

A list of partioipants is giv'en in :r.m/CONF. 2,/INF .1/Rev .. 1

For rA8sons of ec!>nomy, this document is printed in 8 limited - . ~ number of copies, Delegates snu observers are kindly requestp.d

! not to mislay their copIes and not to request additional copies.

:r..m/CONlI'. 2/0 .1/SR.16

.!l\a!

A~ item 4 - Consideration of draft art101ea and , related proposals on the establ1shment of an interno.t1onal oom,penso.t1on Fund for 011 pollution ~ (ocnt1we4)

-3-

LEG/COO. 2/C .1/SR.16

.l'.GENDl\. ITEl'I 4 - CONSIDERATION OF DR..\]'l' flRrICLES 1.ND R1..!iLATED PROPOS.l\.U3 ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF lJf mEmTATIONllL COlIPlIMSATION FUND FOR OIL POLLUTION DAMt\GE (~/CON.F. 2/3, LEG/CONF. 2/3//),dd.1 ) (oontinued)

t+rtigle ..ll (oontinued)

The CHAIRMtl.N im! ted the Committee to Qonsider the o.mendment 1l'UbJ::l1 tted

by J,he thi.tod Kingdom delegQ.tion (r..EG/CONF.2/C.1;\o1P.46).

l-fr. I{ERRY (UK) snid the min purpose or his QDendment was to spa.re

the Fund. l\.sseobly the invidious to.sk of deciding what l't\te of interest

should be 1mj>osed on arroars, and the even Dore invidious tosk of deo!d.ing

on the different ro.tes toot should be applioo.ble in different oiro'W!lstonoes.

Mr. PERRtllCIS (Greeoe) soid he oould support tha.1i propo£o.l. He QUggosted

tho.t it would be more equitable if the Contml Bank referred to shOl'.ld be

the Central Bank of the Stote in which the Fund wos established, nJt the

Bo:nk of the State of the oontributor; tho.t would prevent possible disoreponoies

in the treatoent of different oontributors.

!.fr. I{ERRY (m~) so.id that the intent of his proposol was to o.void a

situntion in whioh it would be Dore profHo.ble for the oontributor to witholcl

his oontribution than to po.;r i't, beoause of differenoes ir. no.tional bank

rates. The llOendIlent should, therefore, prevent disorepanoies in trea;toent.

Mr. HIRSCH (Fronee) thought the ro.te of interest in suoh 0. oase

could more appropriatoly be fixed by the Internal Regullltions of the ]\Uld

thEll1 by the provisions of the Conventioll.

Mr. f.MOROSO (!tilly) supported that view.

Mr. ECONOMU (RoDlltlio.) pointed out toot in his country there were

several Central Bo.nks; he would prefer 0 slightly different wording, such

as "Central Issuing Bank" in order to Q,void possible QDbigui ty.

M:c. S11CHCIlZlNSIa (Poland) had saoe doubts l.lS to the wisdoll of intro­

ducing such on omendoont. To olter interest ra.tea in suoh 0. Wo.y' would :r:eault

in 0. dispo.ri ty between the finanoial positions of the vn.r1ous oeobers of the

rand. It WQ.8 not juet1f!Q,ble fo:r: the :Fund to interfere in the 1nter.ncU.

o.ffa.1rs of other oountries by fixing QJl interest ra.te higher than tM.t of

the Cen'tml Bonk.

The Cllll.IRf.mN oolled for 0. vote on the Un! ted K1ngdoo OJlendoent

(LEG/CONF. 2/C .1jwP. 46) •

The ElOendDant was rejeoted bl 11 ~otes to 11 with 14 abstention.!_

The CH.UHMliN invited the CoI:Jl'Ji ttee to oonsider the OT.lendnent aub­

Ditted by the 1..uatm1ion delegntion (IJOO/CONF.2/C.1jwP.47).

Mr. KILLEEll (Auatro.lic.) said thc.t, as at present drafted, pnrngl.'Q.phs

(2), (3) and (4) ioposed an obligation on a Stc.te to take sanotions QgOinst

itself if it undertook to oontribute to the Fund and fc.iled to fulfil that

underloJdng. Tho.t sewed a sooewhat ino.pp:r.opriate prooedure o.nd his proposal

was designed to avoid it.

Mr. KERRY (UK) and Mr. KEl:!~Y (Canc.da) supported the 1.ustrolio.n

proposal.

111'. HERBER (Federo.l Republio of Gemany) sc.id he ooul.d ogree to the

substanoe of the proposal but ql1est10ned whether it wns neoessnr,y. Under

J~iole 14, there woul.d be no lic.b1lity on the part of Q. private oontribtltor

towards the Fund in suoh a Contracting Stc.te.

111'. ML\1lS GEESTERllNU'S (Netherlo.nds) pointed out that the o.oendI:lent

appeared to oontrc.dict 1lrtiole 14.5, whioh 10pUed the possibility thc.t

prooeedings oight be brought ogo.inst n Stnte b01.Uld by Q. deolo.rot1on of

ob.l1gc.tion. He ooul.d o.gree to the Qt1endnent in respect of parc.gro.ph (2)

but not in respeot of pamgmphs (3) and (4).

Mr. BENTEm (Belgiuo) and Mr. ID\RASlMEONOV (Bulga.ria) thought

thD.t the ooendoent Wll.8 unnoessar,y'.

- 5-

The CHaIRMJ'JJ oalled for a vote on the AuetrollQ.t1 onerutlent

(LEG/CONF.2/C.1JWp.47).

;be 9E!Jldast !M re.1ect ti by 26 vs"te@ to 2" with 8 g.bstent:Lop!.

The CBti.:mMAN oalled for Q, vote on Article 13 o.a a whole.

[.riiele 13 wpa groved. b~ 31 votes to none. with :[&0 Jl:b@tmtioPJ!'

1l.rtigle 14

'rbe C'It.URMtIN d:rew o.ttention to the phro.Be nSeoreta.ry General of the

Or~zation It wi thin square bmokets in pa:ragro.ph (2).

Mr. MENS~"JI, lJl1:eoutive Secretary, reminded the CorJOittee thc.t the

phrase to be used would be deoided by the Coom.! ttee on Final Clauaes when

it d&teratned whioh organization would be the deposito.r.r of the Convention.

Tb~ square brockets should theretore be left for the present.

The CBJ..IRMl\.N drew attention to the word "three" wi thin squ.a.re b::ro.okets

in parngraph (4).

!i..li~agreed to reoove those square brackets.

The CHAIRMAN drew nttention to the Co.no.dion proposed 8tleJ:ldo9U.t in

respeot of p~ph (1) (page 81 at LOO/CON.F'. 2/,) .

Mr. KENNEDY (Cnno.do.) said that his aoendr:lent wns intended to tULke

olear that the only oblisation toot would be OSSUtled bY' 0. Contracting State

caking suoh a deolo.ro.tion would be the obligation to oontribute to the FundI

there would be other obligo.tions o.s far ns individual oontributors were

oonoerned.

Mr. PHILIP (D8llJM:l'k) suggested that the QI!lendment should be referred

to the Drafting Coccittee.

Mr. KENNEDY (C81'l8&:L) supported tha.t suggestion.

I:t WAS 82 MJ.Md.

The CIlAIRMll.N oaJ.led for a vote on Artiole 14 C8 a whole.

ArtiQle 14 &I IP.Proved bl 37 Ioteg in ftl.your. pene t¥m1nBt witA J. Qb§ten;t.on.

- 6 ...

Lm/eamr.2/c.1/SR.16

,1lrtiQl e 12

The ORtlJJOOl.N inn-ted views on the amendl:lent subo! tted jointly by the

delegatione ot Derll:lark, F'l:o.noe, Greece o.nd Ito.ly (LJro/eOlf.F\2/e.l,ATJ?,52).

Mr. PHILIP (Denmark) soid that the joint amendIlent was en attecpt

to find a ooap:rom1se between the various solutions fJ\l88estod thnt tlOrning.

It was felt that provision should be cade for the OOBe of speoifio oontributors

who might appear unlikely to be able to fulfil their obligations, by ano.bling

the Director ot the Fund to require finanoiol se<nrdty troo suoh oontributors.

He realized that ns the text stood it oould be interpreted to OeM that the

Direotor oould deoide in oovo:l'1oe to require f1nonoiol seouri ty frotl o.ny

oontributor even it there were no reo.son to think that he would foll behind

in po.ytleut. Thtl.t detaot oould be reoedied, howeve:r., when the Internol

Regulations were drntted.

Hr. PERIWcrS (Greece) ond Ur. 1J10ROSO (Italy) aupported the OllendDent.

M.r~ HERBER (Federnl Republic ot Ge1't'lallY) weI cooed the proposal tlS fl,

oeons ot overoOtling the prooeduraJ. ditfioul ties that hAd arisen thtl.:Loorning.

The fomulo. it oontained ws a a10ple and pra.otioal one wl.ioh would do woo to allay the feors of those who had opposed the deoision that hod just been

token not to provide for sanotions ogolnst States.

111'. Im.'RRY (UK) 0.180 welootled the oo.endrJent. It was 1.oportont to

Ollke ole:no tlw.t the Director's power to require financial security wor-1d be

l1I:dted bY' the oonditions to be lo.id down :1.n the In~J!l'lLI.l Regulations, he

suggested t.hat the tart mght be e.tl8llded to brilla' out thtlt point.

Mr. DOBLOO (eoeto. Rioa) _ mllid -that he too oould support the proposal,

al though he was not entirely satisf1tll with the wording. He would mve

preferred the Co.ntl.d1on propoenl., 'tlhioh hnd. been rejeoted.

llir. ECONOMU (Romanio.) asked for oln:rif1oat1on o.a to whether the

Internal Regula.tions were those that ware to be laid down by the Fund l.t..Sseobly.

Mr. PHILIP (Dera:.:Ja;rk) replied that the autho:i.'S ot the Q.tlettl(]ment had.

hod in mind tbe Int.e:mtll. Regulationa referred to in .artiole 16.3.

- 7-

LEG/CONF.2/C.1/SR.16

M::. BENTElN (J3elgiuo)" :ro.:I.aed the question of the aitf10ul t1'ElS whioh

would o.riae should Q oontributor tu:m 0. deo.! ear when the Director of the

ll'Imd required h1rl to provide f1ntl.noiol seouri ty.

Mr. Kt\R.I\SIMEONOV (Bulgario.) said his delegation oould o.ooept the

oooproo1ae text. It hQ.d hed SOLle e'J1,lpatll;r with the Ii'".celloh proposed OJilendment,

but oons1.dered thnt the oooproniBe text oonto.ined thfl idea. \U'lderlying the

French text o.nd would, the:rvfore, vote in fo.vour of it.

Mr. GOH (Sin8upore) BoJ.d he would like to a.sk. the 4uthor of

r.m/CONF.2/0.·1,NP.52 if by "f1no.:noin1 seourity" they oea,nt 0. guo.:ronteo £1'00

a bonk or frac an insuranoe oaqpony. If so, his dele~t1on oonsidered the

oooproniae proposal to be pmctioolly tl re-wording of the Fnnoh proposal in

LEG/CONF.2/C.1/WP.42 Md .L1.dd.1, the only difference be1.."lg tho.t instead of

each oontributor being oonpelled to provide 0. gl~tee, outhority WDS given

to the i\md to requir.e one. The oonprooiae text 1op11ed that the Direotor

would have the right to require fir4U'loiol seouri ty even if there were no wch

sti,PUlo.tion in the Internal Regulo.tions. His delegntion woe not sntiafied

wi th the text I.l."'ld would vote OBtLinst it.

Mr. ISS1'.. (Egypt) enid that his delegnt10n had been opposed, tit the

prov1ous DEleting, to the io.eo. of 0. pronissory note ond hOod reservations

oonoerning the finanoial security oentioned in LEG/CONF.2/C,1~1P,52. He

suggested that the observer for the Oil Cocpanies Intarno.tionnl Marine

li'01'UD be naked for his views.

Mr. PERRmS (Greece) said he o.gz·&$d with the United Kingdon represent­

o.tive tho.t the dmf'ting oisht perhaps be 1o.Qroved. As rego.rds the other

objections whioh ho.d been rnieed, first, the Aseecbly would detercine the

oondit!6ns in the Interno.l Regulo.t!one, whioh it would itself dro.w up.

Secondly, Q seourity wo,B not olwo.ys equivalent to 0. gua.:ronteel it would

cv for the Assacbly and Direotor ot the Fund to deoide who.t sort of seourity

would be required in e.ny po.rtioular Oo.se. As tor the Belgian ooocent, it

0. Sto.to wished to turn Q. deo.f ear, Q. definite gu.ara.ntee would be needed for

ito next oontribution,

-8-

Ll!&/CQNF. 2/0.1 /SR.16

~tl.8ked tor 0. vote on the p:roposal o.s BOon G8 yossible.""

Mr. xmNNEDY (Oana.da) supported thct request. The propoael WQ8 quite

QOoeptnble to his delegation.

The CHAIRMAN o.ppealed to the Com! ttH to acoept the proposnl in 0.

spirit of o0I:1p1'OOise. lro oocprotUse wos perfeot and oould ue.t all objections,

but the proposol before the Oocci tte8 would help to sold the probleoa in

oonnexion with il.rtiole 12.

Mr. J.t.IN (India) enid he still thoU8ht the tem "tino.noinl seourity"

too vogue.

Mr. MEDORAFr (oem) speaking o.t the invito.tion of the Cho.i:roan, sa.id

he thought 1 t would be c.dviao.ble to ooke oleor tha.t it ws oontributors who

htl.d c'l.efo.ul.ted who would be required to provide finanoial seourity. He

o.ssuoed thc.t wo.s the intention of the sponso:r:s of the oooproIJise proposc.l

but, ns the text stood, the requirenent would appear to o.pply to aLl oon­

tributors.

Mr. OBEVILLARD (Senegc.l) sc.id thnt the prop<.>sc.l go.ve too ouch freedon

of a.otion to the Direotor of the Fund. He would prefer another fomula

such as, for excople, " ••• require tl defa.ul t1n8 oontributor to produoe a

finonoic.l gua.ro.ntee for the DOney he owes tf •

Mr. PHILIP (DGllDArk) soid the Senegalese proposal wo.s tlooeptable

to his delega.tion, but he did not think 1 t WQ.S neoeeanry. It would oleo hnve

to apply to future po.yn\IDt 1f a oontributor hnd defaulted in the previous yeo.r.

l~e regc.rds the tem "f1nD.no1a.1 security", the sponsors of

LEG/CONF.2/C.1,1\1P.52 ho.d token it froo Artiole VII, pa.rc.grc.ph 2, of the 1969 Convention. It should not be neoeeaa.ry to datine it in a. provision ouch ns

was being discussedz the Internal Regula.tions oould do so. It wo.s true that

there was no provision for sanotions, but neither hnd there been MY' in

the or1g1na.J. dmft. The Leea.J. COIlCittee of 000 ha.d oonsidered Q, "p't.'OClissory

note or bon~" suffioient.

- 9 ..

LEG/CONF.2/0.1/sn.16

The CEU~ oalled for a vote on the ~roposed anBndnent to f~iole 12

suboitted by the delege-tiona of DcmI:la.rk, Franoe, Greeoe ancl ltnljf in

LEG/COm'. 2/C .1A~. 52.

The proposed aoendMent in LEG/coy. 2/0. iM. 52 wae !¥lopted bjY 29 votes

to 2. wJ.th 4 abstentions.

The CHAIRMtJi pointed out that consideration of J..rtiole 12 was now

oompleted. He called for a vote on l~iole 12 as a whole.

~Jli91e 12 ae a whole wqs approved bjY 34 votes to nong. with 4 abstept~QDe.

ORG}~IZkTION OF WORK

Mr. von KELLER (Federal Republio of Geroany) inquired whether delegations

which were not necbers of the working group on the F~ Clauses could send

observero to its ceetings.

IIJr. NAliS GEESTERl.NUS (netherlands) supported thnt request. His

delegation was not a nenber of the working group, but as it had subDitted n

proposal oonoarnine l.l. Final Clause, it would like to be present when it WaS

discussed.

lifr. NOIIDENSON, Rapporteur and ChaimM of the Working Group, sr.dd toot

he saw no objection to that request. The Working Group would consjder all the

Final Clauses exoept the second parag::t'aph of l..rticle 11, dealinc wHh

siBnaturea and ratifioation and involving a politic~l issue which would be

nora appropriately dealt with in the CoDDittee of the Whole and the Plenary

Meeting. The Worldng Group would, however, discuss the suggestion that only

States PartieS to the 1969 Convention should be able to be parties to the

Fund Convention and would also oonsider transitional arrangeoants.

10 -

Lm/COB1. '4/C.ljsa.16

At1~91U

Mr. QU.AR1!EY (Ghana), introducing hie delegation's proposal in

LEG/CONF.2/C.1,fwP.9, sa.td that it had originally been intended to tom part

of ArUole 4, but the Cha.i.rman and Rapporteur had cruggested it be disoussed

in oonnaxion with Artiole 2. His delegation did not mind where it W;:U'.J placed:

it oould be inoluded an,rwhere it was deemed appropriate. The basis 'J£ the proposal wa.s tha.t, where oil pollution dD.mage was oonoerned, prevention was

better than oure. Sooondly, it should be borne in mind that oil pollution

oould produce dam~ge or a kind for which 110 monetar,y p~ent oould oompensate.

Thirdly, not every oountr.y possessed facilities for preventive measures when

faced with the t!~coat of oil pollution damage. Moreover, the problem ot the

laCk of ava11~bility of immediate faoilities for minimi~ing damage might tace

MY country, siuee no oountry oould ever lmow how serious might be the

oonoequano~B of an incident.

~ne Fund, thGrefore, should be given the powers to provide such

facilities. Further, the Fund would thus save expense by reduoing the size of olaims.

As his delegation proposed, the Fund oould enter into standard agreemants

wi th salvage oomponiea to oome to its aid if oalled upon. The Fund would be

entitled to reimbursement from any oompensation paid under the Fund Convention

or from tho oountry ooncerned if it wer.a deoided tl1at no oompensation was due.

That was why the proposal reoommended that there should be a. oontract between

the Fund and the State oonoerned. The oontraot might take the form of a

model oontract whioh oould b~ attached as an annex to the Convention or be

inoluded in the Internal Regulations.

It there were prior agreements with oompanies possessing technioal

knowledge, speedy aotion could be taken in the oase ot an inoident.

Aooeptonoe of the Ghanaian proposal would lead to oonsequentiol

amendments, as indioa.ted cn page 2 ot LEG/CONF.2/C.l,/WP.9, and these oould

be left to the Drotting Committee.

-11-

LEG/OONF.2/C.l/sn.16

Mr. J~UN (India) said he wholeheartedly supported the Glw.naian proposal.

It would help ooastal States to avoid pollution daoage and would alao help

the Fund, in that the cost ot aBeis tanoe would pro'bably be leae thlln that at ooopensation. It would be particularly helpful tor developing oountries

whioh did not possess the means and teohnioal knowledge tor taldng swift

action when threaten~d with oil pollution dacage.

Mr. MEDCRI\FT (oelME') , speaking at the inV! tation of the Chaiman, said

that his Organization was very O'J.oh oonoerned with the ques'tion of prevention,

and Di tigotion of the oonsequonoes of oil polluUon. In oons~ dt:iI'ing the

natter, a distinotion should be dra'm between the nomal size of spilJ.

envisaged under the 19~9 Liability Convention and the caesive spill of

disaster proportions. In the first type ot oaee, the oil ooopanies on the

spot were in a position to provide the QSGista~?e and equipnsnt needed tor

olean-up purposes and, ooreover, 'Under the 1969 Con~Tention thore was an

obligation on the shipowner and cha1~erer to take iDoediate action to that

end. In the seoond type, core na.csive equipoont, inoluding tugs,

fire-fighting tenders, pneunatio pumps and so on, was required and suoh !teus

were not movable at short notioe froo one area to another. And to keep suoh

equipment standing by at various stat~,ons throug.~out the world would involve

the Fund in enormous oosts. He would therefore rAopeot~lly suggest that

CUM oould be done by the oil oompanies on the rJpot to deal with the type of

pollution envisaged under the Ghana proposal.

llJr. CHE\TILLlillD (Sone{;-e.l) said he would (3'ive unreserved support to tlle GhllnD.

pro'Dosal as its adoption would serve to remoye a eouroe of' ooncel."Il in oountries

at :dslc. It should be left to the oountry itself to deoide ,."hioh oatec.J'01.7 the

~ill came under.

Mr. de VQGET.AElUll (Belgiun) said toot, althoueh he appreoiated the p\1rP\,ee

underlying the Ghana proposal, it was a ooot point whether the aoendment

oould be inoluded in the draft oonvention as its provisions were oontrary to

Artiole 2. In point of tact, the Conferenoe was oalled upon speoifioally to

establish a oo~ation fund, not an organization for the preve~tion of oil

pollution. Furthe:rmore, it the soope of the Fund was to be extended to cover

suoh a funotion, high add! tiona.J. ooste would be entailed.

.. - 12 ...

L11n/CONF.2/0. l/SR. 16

Mr. HlBSCH (hMOe) endorsed the stand taken by'13elgj,1.lO. The G1uJ.na

proposal :1n hot related to preventi·-n ot pollution rather than teohn1oal

assistance and there were other oonv-mtions in wot,911oe deelirlg with that

subjeot. The resources made available to the Fund should not be used for

~ses other than in~tio&tion and oocpenaation. His dele8~tion

therefore opposed the Ghana proposal.

Mr. JAIN (India.) pointed out that no deoision had u yet been taken on

the cont1mt of Artiole 2. Aooordingly, the WBtV was still open tor broadening

its soope to inolude teohnical assistance ot the kind advooated. P~he~re,

the Ghana proposal aa drafted was not cande.tory in langu.El89; the proposed

procedure lett the deoision to the Fund end pro'lfided for eaoh request being

oonsidered on its oorits. He saw no objeotion to the propoaal since benefit

would ao"rua to the Fund in the lessening of dsr.:laee olains.

Mr. J.DED~ (Observer for Kenya), speaking at the inVitation of the

Chai.:roant said he would point out that the Ghana propos£ll was not atteopting

·~o oake the d:ra.tt oonvention into a comprehensive instruoent covering all

aspeots ot oil pollution. Rather, it was designed to deal with oil pollution

at the preventive level in a oanner that should be acoeptable to the

conte~ce. The probleo was a serious one tor D8QY oountries and, sinoe

provision was oade for the reoover.r of Fund expenditure, he would ~M.ly

support the proposal.

Mr. BlUGS'l'OCKE (UK) said that he kind ot Fund Emvisaeed under the dra.tt

oonvention would not have at ite dispo~al the expertise or equtpoont

required to oarry out an operational role, as contemplated by the Ghana

proposal. It ~,t was to neet such requ1reoenta, there would be need for an

organization going tu beyond the kind required for fulfilling the oompensation

function. The proposal was theretore a radioal. one that would require

further study', inolud1ng oonsideration ot whether the oee.sures adV'ooated

","OUl.~ be the best wq ot dealing with the problem involved. In the

oiroumat8l'lot9s, he ta.:f.led to seG hov the Conferenoe oould work out all the

icplioationa in the tiDe still available to it and. inoorporAte the systeo

wder the dratt oonvention.

LEG/CONF .. 2/C.l/SR.16

On the other hand, the problao was a reol one for a. nllnber of Sta.tes

whioh le.oked technioal advioe, know-how and oeMS tor deal1ng with any sudden

si tuation of disnster proportions. His delegation would therefore be inolined

to favour further study of the questioL within !MCO, with a view to devising

measures for providing t.he neoess~ assistanoe. And although the oatter l~

sooewhat outside its soope, the Conferenoe eight adopt a resolution to that

effeot.

Mr. QUMTEY (Ghana) oa.1ntained that the Fund would serve no useful

purpose if its role was restrioted to intervention only after the dI ... ..rJeee was

done. for very otten dllD&ge was irreparable in nature and in suoh oases

ooopensat:f.on in teros of ooney WtlS entirely insdequate. There was already

nention in Artiola 3 ot the need to prevent or DiniObe daoage end the idea.

was that the Fund should be nade oore effeotive in that regard. The

proposition that the ~d should enter into oontracts with salvage tires in

advanoe night prove ot the greatest use to the very oountries now objeoting

to the proposal, for D£l.Ssive pollution inoidents were woh nore liltely to

oocur in sea areas of heavy naritiDe traffio around their shores. He would

therefore urge that ver,y serious oonsideration be given to the proposal.

Provision should be oade for the oeasurea advocated, it not in the draft

oonvention, at least under arrangements for tho operation of the Fund.

Mr. KENNEDY (Canada) found it regrettable that aone delegations had

adopted such a oautious attitude to the Ghana proposal. The iopression had

often been given during discussions that the Conferenoe was oonpletely

shackled by the terns of the 1969 Liability Convention, the sane iopression

now emerged in relation to ~'\rtiole 3 of the draft oonvention, even though

tlul.t artiole had. not as yet been approved. In his delet!ation t s view, the

oontinued existenoe of IMCO wos likely to be seriously threatened unless it

took greate~ notioe of probleco of oonoern to thb caritiua ooncunitias. 1~

to the Conferenoe, it should be benclin8 its energies to nohievUlg a

oonvention that would be ot benefit to all and not just the taw. particularly

when the few in question were DOre adequately equipped, financially and

technically, to look afts:/:' their awn interests.

LEG/CONF.2/0.l/SR.l6

The mea.aures advooated in the Ghana proposal were reaUstio .in nature.

The objeotion that the Fund. would not be in a position to pl~ the kind of

operational role envisaged was not a valid one, for it oould have reoourse to

oontracted servioes as was done by man,y Gove::mments, inoluding his own, in

oases where they found themselves l:lIimi:\,arly ill-equipped. It behoved them all

to give Derious thought and eympathetio oonsideration to the problems of the

lese fortunate. And it was to be hoped that the final outoome would be

~oorporation of the proposal in the aratt oonvention, aooompanied, if deemed

neoessar,y, by defenoes against abuse.

Mr. ISSA (ES7Pt) said that his delegation also gave unreserved support to

the Ghana. proposal and, indeed, would be ready to go evan further by providing

for the Direotor to be empowered to furnish immediate assistanoe in a oaSe of

emergenoy without prior oonsulto.tion With the Exeoutive Committee, whioh would

later be info:tlJled of the action tllken. Seoondly, there was no oontradiotion

in attributing suoh an additional funotion to the Fund; indeed, the end result

would be to lessen the oalla upon it.

Miae RUIZ CERUTTI (Argentina) said that her delegation also was fully in

favour or the Ghana. proposal •. The explanations given by Ghana entirely

rebutted the objeotions raised that the Fund would not be in a position to

give teohnioal help and that the additional funotion would add enormously to

oosts. She also supported the suggestion made by Egypt to extend the powers of

the Direotor.

Mr. l?HILIP (Denmark) said his delegat.ion had. every' sympathy with the

oonoern underlying the Ghana. proposal. Teohnioal assistanoe as envisaged

might be nEleded in marlY oases. In view of the w83' the Fund was oonoeived,

however, ttwro might be diffi~llty in fitting in the preventive funotion

oontemplatt:ld. The best w~ of dealing with the matter might therefore be for

the Conferenoe to adopt a :>reso:Lution, reoommending that the quest;ion be referred

to the 1'~r'tihooming IMCO Conferenoe on Marine Pollution or request;1.:ng that it

be tak~A up eeperately by IMOO end other United Nations bodies deeuing with

the question of pollution. If that idea. met with approval, his delegation in

oollabora.tj.on with others woull1 be prepared to su.b.mi t n ~a.ft text on those

lines for the Conferenoe's oonl!lidera.tion.

- 15 -

LEG/OONF.2/0.1/sa.16

Mr. MAAS ~ros (Netherlands) pointed out that, jf the Ghana

propooal was adopted, the Fund would require to have at its permanent disposal

teohnioal stat! and materials and equipment tor oombating oil pollution. The

oil oompanies already had the teohnioal knowledge and means for undertaking

that task and their servioes were made available when required, irrespeotive

of where a pollution risk arose and 01' the type of oil involved. His

delegation therefore felt that there might be better, and in the long run

oheaper, w~s of aohieving the desired objeotive than the one advooated under

the Ghana proposal.

Seoondly, it was a moot point whether, under the terms of the 1969 Brussels Resolution, the Conferenoe was oompetent to inolude provision for

technioal assistanoe 01' the kind. Nevertheless, the problem was a very real

one and for that reason his delegation would support. the suggestion to have

the matter referred to IMCO for further oonsideration.

Mr. MAKOVSKY (USSR) said that his delegation also had great sympathy for

the Ghana proposal which, if adopted, would oarry the advantage of reduoing

the finmloial olaims on the Fund in the event of a major disaster leading to

massive pollution damage. It reoognized that many oountries had neither the

teohnical knowledge nor the means to deal quiokly and effect! vely with such ll.

situation. There was no suggestion that the Fund itself should acquire the

massive equipment required. The assistanoe to be provided would be given

indireotly. Moreover, exercise of the additi<:mal funotion would be purely

optional; the deoision in eaoh case would lie with the Fund itself and not

with the requesting State. In view of its obvious merits, the proposal

deserved very careful oonsideration by the Oonferenoe.

the caeting rose at 6,00 p.~.