By Toby McIntosh
A committee at the International Maritime Organization has recommended keeping a requirement that reporters must get permission from speakers at meetings before naming them.
However, the “Reform Working Group,” said “statements may be quoted,” a potentially significant liberalization of a 2004 media policy. The wording leaves somewhat unclear whether statements can be attributed to the member countries making them.
The IMO Council considered the revisions in mid-July and appears ready to accept it, but delayed a decision until a November meeting. Council meetings are closed to the press and documents kept confidential, but EYE has obtained the reform committee’s recommendations and a summary of the Council’s actions.
The outcome appears to run counter to advice from the IMO Secretariat and a number of member countries, who recommended dropping the prior consent for using names provision, according to other IMO documents.
On another transparency topic, the Council decided to allow live-streaming of its meeting, and some other IMO meetings, but not for the press or the public.
Media Restriction on Using Names to Be Kept
The reform working group, a body created in 2018 to consider a wide variety of institutional changes, proposed altering the current media policy “following a thorough review,” according a summary of its work.
The current policy says that “the Organization expects” … “named speakers not to be quoted without their prior consent.”
Violations can, and have on a few occasions, resulted in the IMO withdrawing press credentials. (See EYE article.)
In practice, this means that reporters need to scramble for permissions or avoid direct quotation.
There are some gray areas in the policy, including whether a reporter can summarize a member state’s position as expressed in a meeting, but without quoting the delegate. Some countries publicly disclose their position papers in advance of the meetings, but that’s voluntary. Other delegates, including NGO representatives attending, might be used as the source for things the reporter has heard.
Frederick J. Kenney, director of the IMO’s Legal Affairs and External Relations Division, told EYE in May that descriptions of country positions might not lead to sanctions. It would depend on whether the country involved objected, in which case the IMO would ask for a retraction, he said. (See Eye interview.)
The proposed policy revision says:
“statements may be quoted; however, individual speakers will not be named without their prior consent.”
This leaves vague what attribution can be provided for “statements.” Can a reporter say, “Japan took the position… ?” While this would seem to be the logical meaning, when EYE asked the IMO press office to clarify whether country names could be used, the press office declined to comment.
If country names can be tied to statements made a meetings, it would be a significant improvement. Delegates however, would be shielded from being quoted by name.
The IMO Secretariat submitted a document suggesting dropping the quotation policy entirely (a nonpublic document reviewed by EYE). Curiously, the reform working group said it had not considered the Secretariat document for a procedural reason. An EYE request to the IMO for the document was denied.
Some countries, in pre-meeting submissions, supported dropping the prior consent rule altogether. One such statement was provided jointly by Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Belgium, Finland, France, Georgia, Jamaica, Norway, Republic of Korea, Sweden and Ukraine.
Live-Streaming, but Closed Circuit
“The Council agreed that live streaming for Assembly, Council and Committee meetings should be made available for Member States, IGOs and NGOs in consultative status,” according to an IMO press release about the meeting.
“The Group further agreed to limit such live streaming to the Assembly, Council and Committee meetings only,” the press release says, continuing, “The Council requested that the Secretariat examine the budgetary implications of providing live streaming and report to the 124th session.”
The reform working group “was divided” on whether live streams of its meetings should be available to the public, according to a summary of its discussion.
Only Assembly meetings, meetings of all members held every few years, are now broadcast.
The group reported that the IMO Secretary-General had determined that live-streaming was feasible, although not for remote participation.
“The ensuing discussion focused on two questions: which meetings should be live streamed and whether the streaming should be restricted to the Member States, IGOs and NGOs in consultative status only or whether it should be open to the public,” according to the summary.
The summary continued:
The views were expressed that other United Nations organizations with a similar mandate did live stream their deliberations to the public. Live streaming of IMO meetings would support transparency and would help to better understand the work of the Organization. The Organization had nothing to hide and should be proud to publicize its work.
On the other hand, it was pointed out that IMO was a technical organization where decisions were taken by consensus and voting was avoided. Live streaming to the general public might make it difficult for delegations to make concessions on their positions in light of public and parliamentary scrutiny which would have a negative impact on the work of the Organization. Furthermore, the statements of delegations might change if, instead of addressing the professional maritime community, they would be addressed rather to the general public. Statements could become less technical and more populist.
In conclusion, the Group agreed that live streaming should be made available for Member States, IGOs and NGOs in consultative status. The Group further agreed to limit such live streaming to the Assembly, Council and committee meetings.
However, the Group was divided as to whether it should be extended to the general public. In this context, the Group acknowledged that each committee would have to decide on the public access to their meetings or to amend their rules of procedures.
In taking that decision, the Group noted a request by the Council at C 121 for the Secretariat to provide information on the financial implications of live streaming and that this information had not yet been received.
