By Toby McIntosh
As the International Maritime Organization makes policy decisions, on maritime safety, security or pollution, special interest organizations get access to draft proposals and country statements that are not available the public or the press.
The IMO, like many other international organizations, accredits nongovernment organizations for special privileges. Seventy-seven organizations are “consultative members” – industry groups, seafarer unions and nongovernmental organizations – who apply for the privilege and are vetted by the IMO.
The delegates from these groups can attend and speak at open and closed IMO meetings and they get the same documents as do the 174 government members. This includes access to all pre-meeting documents.
“It’s kind of strange when a whole lot of industry associations and NGOs do have access, but the media does not,” commented journalist Levon Sevunts, who has followed the IMO while reporting for Radio Canada International’s Eye on the Arctic.
The information disparity is explained as part of a decision-making system intended to facilitate frank discussion and better outcomes.
In late 2017, IMO Secretary General Kitack Lim defended the system while replying to a critical report from a British NGO, Influencemap. The group had objected to “the extensive influence the shipping sector has over the IMO operates to oppose meaningful policy progress to address the impact of the shipping sector on global climate change.”
Lim replied, “Participation of organizations representing so many different viewpoints provides a balance that adds considerably to the credibility of the Organization’s overall output. This inclusiveness is one of IMO’s great strengths.” He stressed that they represent “the broad spectrum of shipping, maritime and social interests.”
An IMO spokesperson declined to discuss the rationale for limiting access to information, providing a tiny hint that changes may be afoot.
[This article is one of a series. See main article here.]
Privileged Access to Documents
“Once you get consultative status you get a password and you get access to all IMO documents,” explained a representative from an environmental NGO. “There is nothing that we are not allowed to see.”
Most importantly, this includes documents sent out in advance of committee meetings, such as reports, proposals and position statements by member, a key avenue for communicating prior to committee meetings, which may occur only once a year.
There are many documents created in advance of the sometimes lengthy, well-attended committee meetings. There were 22 topics on the agenda for the eight-day May 2018 meeting of the Maritime Safety Committee, with more than 700 persons listed as prospective participants.
Most of the consultative members represent industry groups. According to an April report by Transparency International, “… at the most recent meetings of the IMO’s five committees, trade associations outnumbered civil society organisations (CSOs) by almost five to one (312 to 64) and labour organisations by more than three to one (312 to 101).”
In many respects, the IMO consultative membership system is more favorable for the special interest groups than similar arrangements at other international organizations, some of which restrict outside parties from submitting documents or speaking at meetings, according to interviews with half a dozen persons who represent consultative members at the IMO and to a 2017 UNESCO report comparing 36 UN agencies.
“Our experience altogether has been quite positive,” said one NGO representative.
Several interviewed by eyeongobaltransparency.net (EYE) evinced slight misgivings that their access to information exceeds that of the public, but said any such remorse is outweighed by the opportunities to influence IMO decisions.
What the Public and the Press Miss
Because dozens of documents get released after the meetings, it’s pretty clear what’s been confidential beforehand and how vital they are to understanding the debate at an open meeting.
The complexity is evident in the minutes of the committee meetings, called reports. For example, from a 2017 committee meeting:
4.21 The Committee agreed that the compromise proposal in document MEPC 71/4/12 would form the basis for the amendments to regulation B-3.
MEPC 71/4/12 was a proposal made by Brazil and others.
Although reporters say they sometimes lay their hands on such documents, they weren’t given MEPC 71/4/12 when it would have been most helpful to see it.
The minutes, usually issued several weeks after the meeting, don’t describe speakers’ affiliations. So a typical entry, from a 2017 meeting, says:
In the ensuing discussion, the following comments were, inter alia, made:
.1 the proposal should not be supported as it was difficult to see how equivalence could be determined in accordance with the current provisions;
.2 consideration should be given to adherence to the formulae and procedures already adopted to provide certainty to shipbuilders;
Other International Organizations Less Restrictive
The transparency of pre-meeting material varies widely among international organizations.
Some international organizations keep a close hold on draft documents and policy proposals, restricting access to government members.
The UNESCO report did not focus explicitly on transparency, but seems to have mentioned preferential access to consultative members when it occurred. Of the 36 agencies examined, just two give priority access to documents – the UN Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).
At UNEP, accredited organizations “receive unedited working documents of the UNEA (the UN Environment Assembly) first-hand and at the same time as the Committee of the Permanent Representatives.” At the FAO, NGOs general consultative status “receive all documents bearing on policy or technical questions in advance.”
On the other end of the spectrum, some international organizations publish documents in advance of meetings.
The World Bank has a “simultaneous disclosure” system in which some major lending documents going to the Executive Board for action are released as they are sent to Board members, although some key policy documents do not.
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) publishes all national submissions and negotiating texts openly.
IMO Norms Constrain Consultative Members
Consultative membership status at the IMO is subtly bounded by a code of conduct and IMO norms. The IMO policy states that consultative members should be “fully in harmony with the spirit, functions and principles of the IMO.”
Several NGO representatives said they had heard that other NGOs “had their knuckles rapped” for disharmony by not being discrete, but weren’t sure of the details or preferred not to elaborate. Some are unaware of any discipline. One NGO lobbyist said, “I don’t know anyone who has been in trouble for sharing information.”
Quipped another NGO representative via email, “btw some IMO member states have acted in an obstructive manner, which may not be in line with the principles.” He added, “I don’t think letting the outside world know about negotiations or positions will jeopardize the consultative status.”
Nevertheless, several NGO representatives indicated that they are cautious.
“We are explicitly told we are not to talk to the media about the specific discussions that take place within a meeting.” recalled one NGO official.
“We can’t talk about specific positions taken by specific countries,” according to one environmental group official who regularly attends IMO meetings. Another NGO representative said he’s “careful” about attributing positions to particular countries.
“We are careful not to name and shame countries,” said a veteran participant, “and not to report what they say in meetings.” Calling that a “code of conduct that we self-impose, she said her group “has never been expressly told by any IMO officials not to name countries.”
Appreciative of the value of being at the table, she said, “We don’t want to compromise that privilege.”
Cautious With Information
Several of those with consultative status find ways to cautiously work around the rules while trying to avoid being quoted.
On one occasion, confidential pre-meeting documents revealed that eight countries had proposed a ban on heavy fuel oil. One NGO observer recalled, “We said, we understand, we believe…, until one of those countries handed their paper to a journalist.”
Another said, “You can make it quite clear where the obstacles of the discussions without getting into the nitty gritty.”
Reporters described a sense of caution among consultative members, one saying, “I found even observers will tell you where countries stand, but only on background, not for attribution, because they’re also worried about losing their credentials.”
It appears that those benefitting from inside access and information are careful, strategic and somewhat constrained.
