CONF.EX5/P/SR.3
5th EXTRAORDINARY INTERNATIONAL HYDROGRAPHIC CONFERENCE
DRAFT SUMMARY RECORD OF THE THIRD PLENARY SESSION
7 October 2014
0905 - 1235
Rapporteur: Cdr. Leonel MANTEIGAS (Portugal)
CONTENTS
REPORTS AND PROPOSALS (WORK PROGRAMME 1) (continued)
(CONF.EX5/REP.02, CONF.EX5/G/03)
- Report on the Technical Capacity of the International Hydrographic Bureau (continued)
- PRO 1 – Revision of the conditions for the award of the Prince Albert 1st medal for Hydrography
- PRO 2 – Seeking a new way forward for the S-23 issue
- PRO 3 - Amend the General Regulations of the IHO (not yet in force),
Article 16 (b), to clarify the Council selection process
WORK PROGRAMME 1: REPORTS AND PROPOSALS (continued)
Report on the Technical Capacity of the International Hydrographic Bureau (Conf.EX5/REP.02) (continued)
The PRESIDENT recalled the decision of the Conference to establish an ad hoc drafting group, under the chairmanship of the United States, to determine which resources were needed and were available, from the perspective of Member States and the IHB, based on the existing IHO Strategic Plan.
Turning to the recommendation to reduce the scope of the translation work required from the IHB, he said that might require a further amendment to Resolution 12/1962, which would have to be agreed by a qualified majority including at least one-third of the Member States.
Captain FERNANDEZ (Spain) was willing to agree to a further amendment to Resolution 12/1962 hoping it did not result in a reduction in the use of Spanish. Spanish-speaking countries accounted for almost 15% of the total membership of the Organization, accounting for 9 million tonnes of gross tonnage.
Captain VETERE (Argentina) agreed with the comment made by Spain. He reaffirmed his willingness to continue to cooperate in translation projects, such as the Hydrographic Dictionary which had been useful for the Spanish speaking countries and not only.
……. (Mexico) also mentioned the combined tonnage of the Spanish-speaking countries, noting the vast marine areas covered by the nautical charts of those countries. Technical personnel needed in-depth knowledge of IHO Resolutions in order to draw up nautical charts. The Organization should encourage a spirit of cooperation among all Member States, so that translations of documents would remain widely available to hydrographers. In Resolution 12/1962, emphasis should be placed on encouraging Member States to participate in the translation of technical documents.
Dr OEI (Singapore) expressed concern that encouraging countries to produce their own translations could undermine consistency in the understanding and interpretation of standards.
Captain KAMPFER (South Africa) endorsed the comments made by previous speakers. It was essential that technical publications continue to be translated. He would be glad to know what portion of the budget would be affected, and whether an amendment of the kind proposed would make a substantive difference.
Mr CARANDANG (Philippines) supported the proposed amendment, suggesting that in order to minimize any possible adverse impact, assistance should be sought from Spanish-speaking Member States, in accordance with Resolution 12/1962.
IGA FRACHON (France) said that the wording of the proposed amendment to Resolution 12/1962, as amended, would pave the way for languages other than the official languages to be used in the publication of reference documents and standards, while failing to ensure their availability in one of the official languages. That might encourage Member States to undertake translations without consultation, and become even more resource intensive than completing them in-house. The proposed amendment needed clarification to ensure that technical documents would always be published in at least one official language. The proposed amendment could adversely affect hydrographic capabilities in certain areas, for example in Africa, where capacity building is badly needed, and where the availability of documents in French had proved to be a valuable tool for developing hydrographic capabilities. Therefore, the measures being considered by the IHB should only be temporary and the situation should be re-assessed at the XIXth International Hydrographic Conference. He recommended including a review of the documents requiring translation in the IHB’s Work Programme, taking into account their usefulness in terms of the Organization’s strategic objectives, in particular, capacity building.
Captain SHALNOV (Russian Federation) emphasized the need to produce technical publications in the official languages and also in Spanish.
Mr HAINS (Canada) shared the concern of previous speakers that fewer documents would be translated into the official languages, thereby undermining consistency. Capacity building should be given priority and should not be hampered by the proposed savings.
Mr Kwok-chu NG (China) said that in China all technical documents issued by the IHO were translated into Chinese, using internal resources that were adequately prepared to deal with the technical language.
Mr HUMPHREY (United Kingdom), referring to the question of charging for technical standards documents, pointed out that some organizations, such as the International Standards Organization, now charged non-members and the industry for access to standards. In the absence of clear information on the amount of the budget involved, might it not be advisable to reconsider such a solution?
The PRESIDENT said he believed that a decision on the matter was still pending.
The PRESIDENT OF THE DIRECTING COMMITTEE said that there was no cost saving to be made from the proposed amendment. Appendix 2 to CONF.EX5/REP.02 showed the status of the translations of the various IHO documents as at 31 January 2014. The table indicated that a significant number of the documents had not been translated into French or Spanish because of insufficient resources. The proposed amendment to the Resolution merely acknowledged a situation which had existed for some time.
The PRESIDENT summed up the discussion. There appeared to be general support for adopting or amending the proposed amendment to Resolution 12/1962, as amended. He would endeavor to reach consensus on a form of words. Noting the comments by the Spanish-speaking delegates, he said that although the proposed amendment represented primarily an acknowledgment of the lack of resources, it offered an opportunity for the countries concerned to help clear the backlog of untranslated official documents. He welcomed the contribution made by Argentina to the Hydrographic Dictionary.
The proposed amendment to IHO Resolution 12/1962, as amended, was deferred.
Dr HOSKEN (United Kingdom), referring to the recommendation to remove the requirement for the IHB to examine all newly printed or adopted international (INT) charts, asked for clarification regarding the fate of IHO Publication S-11, and, in particular, Part B, which was already out of date.
The PRESIDENT said that the withdrawal of Resolution 1/1992 would not affect Publication S-11, which would be maintained under the auspices of the HSSC.
Dr HOSKEN (United Kingdom) asked for further clarification of the precise mechanism to be used. As matters stood, the Resolution requested Member States to submit their INT Charts to the IHB for examination. He did not believe that requirement was being fully met; his own country was a case in point, having failed to present all its new editions and INT Charts for examination. If the charts were not being regularly reviewed, how could the HSSC work efficiently?
IGA FRACHON (France) also requested clarification on the matter. The small number of INT Charts that had been reviewed by the IHO in recent years suggested that the resulting savings would be very small. The relevant IHO Resolutions therefore appeared to warrant adaptation, but any revision of INT Charts should be clearly described. It was essential to maintain a system that guaranteed a level of quality assurance for INT Charts. One suggestion was to have the review function carried out by the regional hydrographic commissions and their subsidiary bodies, with the possibility of referring exceptional cases to the IHO. He further suggested that Resolution 1/1992 should be withdrawn, and a new Resolution introduced along the following lines: that it had been decided that each regional hydrographic commission and the IHO Hydrographic Commission on Antarctica would examine all recently printed INT Charts, or those that had recently been adopted, and would provide comments to the Member States concerned. Any problems of compliance with IHO specifications in the INT Charts would be noted, in order to ensure the highest level of compliance. Such a review would be organized by the regional chart coordinator once that role had been defined. Commissions that did not have such a coordinator would draw up their own review procedures. The IHO might wish to consider such wording in drafting a resolution to replace Resolution 1/1992.
The PRESIDENT said that Publication S-11 was maintained by a dedicated working group under the auspices of the HSSC. The review of charts produced on the basis of that standard represented the mechanism that was intended, at least in theory, to maintain compliance with the applicable standards. However, such a systematic review was no longer being carried out by the IHB, which lacked both the necessary expertise and technical capacity. The suggestion to withdraw Resolution 1/1992 merely reflected reality. He therefore welcomed the suggestion put forward by the delegate of France to re-introduce quality assurance via the incorporation of the RHCs. A system of INT Chart coordination already existed within several RHCs, and could be brought together under the auspices of the Inter Regional Coordination Committee (IRCC). It might be unreasonable to expect a new Resolution to be adopted during the Conference; however, the ideas put forward could be incorporated in a decision for further consideration by the IRCC and then circulated and voted through a Circular Letter. He proposed, as a compromise, that Resolution 1/1992 should be retained pending completion of the negotiations on replacing it.
Captain KAMPFER (South Africa) agreed that the matter should be discussed by the IRCC. He confirmed that some RHCs already had INT Chart coordinating working groups, operating under the auspices of the IRCC. If the new Resolution were to be adopted, it would be a matter of adapting the terms of reference of those working groups. He would welcome a discussion on the subject at the IRCC.
Dr OEI (Singapore) questioned whether the issue of technical expertise in the IHB warranted such attention. In future, its role would not be to produce bathymetric soundings, but to manage the products derived from them. That question needed to be addressed, possibly under another agenda item.
The PRESIDENT welcomed those remarks, but said it would still be appropriate to retain the existing Resolution until a replacement had been drafted and voted upon by circular letter.
The PRESIDENT OF THE DIRECTING COMMITTEE spoke on the recommendations for adjusting the skills of IHB staff, the merits of attrition over redundancy, and giving priority to the recruitment of the S-100 Registry Manager. The comments in the Red Book expressed the views of Member States on whether the post of Registry Manager could be accommodated in house or should be filled through other mechanisms. For the Directing Committee, full accountability through the Secretariat was seen as the most appropriate way. However, resources had to be found. If Member States deemed a registry manager to be a priority and considered that the person concerned should be answerable to them through the Secretariat, an anticipated retirement among locally recruited staff within the next two years should make it possible to re-allocate duties among existing staff and free up a post that could become the post of registry manager. It might also be possible for the registry manager, to work remotely. Alternatively, if a Flag State with a large tonnage were to join the Organization, that would provide funding for a new staff member. Both solutions for the question of the registry manager were under consideration, as well as the questions of technical support and a help desk for S-100 and other IHO digital standards.
IGA FRACHON (France) expressed support for the first recommendation. With regard to the second, he recognized the strategic nature of S-100 and the difficulties involved for IHO and the Member States in the transition. The extra workload caused by the maintenance of the registry base, as well as any associated functions, must be recognized before recruitment began.
Dr HOSKEN (United Kingdom) endorsed the proposal to increase the technical capacity of the Organization with regard to Electronic Navigation Charts and the S-100 Geospatial Information Registry. In terms of improving staff skills, natural attrition alone was not sufficient. Reskilling should be an option before redundancy. What would be the role of staff members who did not have sufficient skills to take on additional duties? If they were seen as less productive than others, that might impact on team morale. Where such staff members were due to retire shortly, it might be preferable to make a redundancy payment rather than paying extra years of salary.
Rear Admiral SRINIVASAN (Saudi Arabia), welcoming the comments about skills improvement, said the issue raised by the representative of France was an important strategic point, and should be given increased priority.
The PRESIDENT, summarizing the discussion, suggested that the IHB should be given responsibility for implementing the recommendations contained in document CONF.EX5/REP.02, while taking into account the views and concerns expressed during the present meeting. Performance management and training should be sufficient to enable staff to adapt to changing roles. As for redundancy, many of the staff members in question were on time-limited contracts already.
Mr MONCRIEFF (United Kingdom) acknowledged the difficulty of resolving the problem. He emphasized the need to recruit an S-100 Registry Manager as a matter of priority. Moreover, with regard to technical skills, more information was needed about the long-term perspective of the IHB on the skills set needed. The decision on the recommendation in paragraph 51 (g) should be taken at a subsequent Conference, to enable the Secretariat to develop a target operating model.
The PRESIDENT suggested that the IHB should be tasked with developing an operating model adapted to the requirements of the IHO Five-Year Work Programme 2013-2017.
Mr PRINCE (Australia) expressed concern that such a model would take some time to develop and finalize. Meanwhile, there was a pressing need for an S-100 Registry Manager, and that should take precedence. For the time being it would be preferable and more feasible to redistribute duties among current staff members, to enable such a post to be created and filled.