Efficiency and effectiveness in the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings: good practices and operational guidelines
The Representatives,
Recalling the usual practice of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings (“ATCM”) and the Committee for Environmental Protection (“CEP”);
Recognising the importance of optimising the use of session time, improving the predictability of the work and strengthening the work of the ATCM, without detracting from substantive debate;
Recalling Recommendation XIII-15 (1985) and Rules 2, 39, 40 and 42 of the Rules of Procedure for the ATCM (“the Rules of Procedure”), and recognising the valuable contributions made to the deliberations of the ATCM by the representatives of non-Consultative Parties, Observers and invited Experts;
Noting the outcomes of the Intersessional Contact Group (“ICG”) on efficiency and effectiveness established at ATCM 47 (2025);
Concerned about the duplication of debates between fora, while acknowledging the need for consideration of cross-cutting issues in relevant fora;
Concerned also about the growing use of session time for the reading of Information Papers (“IP”) not translated into the four official languages, the increasing length of the Final Report, and the associated burden on translation and interpretation services;
Reaffirming the role of the Chairs, the Bureau and the Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty (“the Secretariat”) in forward planning, facilitation and procedural coordination;
Decide:
Efficiency and effectiveness in Working Groups and the Final Report
1. to request the Chairs of the Working Groups to give priority to substantive discussion of Working Papers (“WP”) specifically aimed at decisions, recommendations or strategic guidance, and to adopt, as a general practice, the “taken as read” approach for IPs without prejudice to Rule 50 of the Rules of Procedure and paragraphs 5 and 11 of the Annex to the Rules of Procedure Procedures for the Submission, Translation and Distribution of Documents for the ATCM and the CEP (“the Annex to the Rules of Procedure”), unless a Contracting Party, Observer or Expert expressly requests that discussion be opened on a particular paper, or the Chair otherwise considers this necessary or helpful for Meeting discussions;
ATCM–CEP coordination and cross-cutting documents
2. to recall that paragraph 2 of the Annex to the Rules of Procedure provides that documents submitted to both the ATCM and the CEP should indicate, where feasible, what portions or elements of the paper should, in the opinion of the submitter, be discussed in each forum;
3. to recommend that to more effectively implement paragraph 2 of the Annex to the Rules of Procedure such documents could reflect the structure proposed in the Annex to this Decision;
4. to maintain, as an operational practice, the holding of a brief prior coordination meeting between the relevant Chairs and the Secretariat in order to identify cross-cutting documents, decide on the sequence for their consideration, and anticipate potential duplication; and
Inclusion of links and use of Artificial Intelligence to support the drafting of the Final Report
5. to request the Secretariat to explore options for support tools, including the use of references and links to documents available online, such as WPs and IPs, as well as the use of Artificial Intelligence, in order to prepare summaries and a more concise Final Report, with clear safeguards regarding human review, confidentiality and the responsibility of the Chairs, and to conduct a limited pilot test restricted exclusively to the non-decision-making sections.
The Representatives,
Recalling the usual practice of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings (“ATCM”) and the Committee for Environmental Protection (“CEP”);
Recognising the importance of optimising the use of session time, improving the predictability of the work and strengthening the work of the ATCM, without detracting from substantive debate;
Recalling Recommendation XIII-15 (1985) and Rules 2, 39, 40 and 42 of the Rules of Procedure for the ATCM (“the Rules of Procedure”), and recognising the valuable contributions made to the deliberations of the ATCM by the representatives of non-Consultative Parties, Observers and invited Experts;
Noting the outcomes of the Intersessional Contact Group (“ICG”) on efficiency and effectiveness established at ATCM 47 (2025);
Concerned about the duplication of debates between fora, while acknowledging the need for consideration of cross-cutting issues in relevant fora;
Concerned also about the growing use of session time for the reading of Information Papers (“IP”) not translated into the four official languages, the increasing length of the Final Report, and the associated burden on translation and interpretation services;
Reaffirming the role of the Chairs, the Bureau and the Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty (“the Secretariat”) in forward planning, facilitation and procedural coordination;
Decide:
Efficiency and effectiveness in Working Groups and the Final Report
1. to request the Chairs of the Working Groups to give priority to substantive discussion of Working Papers (“WP”) specifically aimed at decisions, recommendations or strategic guidance, and to adopt, as a general practice, the “taken as read” approach for IPs without prejudice to Rule 50 of the Rules of Procedure and paragraphs 5 and 11 of the Annex to the Rules of Procedure Procedures for the Submission, Translation and Distribution of Documents for the ATCM and the CEP (“the Annex to the Rules of Procedure”), unless a Contracting Party, Observer or Expert expressly requests that discussion be opened on a particular paper, or the Chair otherwise considers this necessary or helpful for Meeting discussions;
ATCM–CEP coordination and cross-cutting documents
2. to recall that paragraph 2 of the Annex to the Rules of Procedure provides that documents submitted to both the ATCM and the CEP should indicate, where feasible, what portions or elements of the paper should, in the opinion of the submitter, be discussed in each forum;
3. to recommend that to more effectively implement paragraph 2 of the Annex to the Rules of Procedure such documents could reflect the structure proposed in the Annex to this Decision;
4. to maintain, as an operational practice, the holding of a brief prior coordination meeting between the relevant Chairs and the Secretariat in order to identify cross-cutting documents, decide on the sequence for their consideration, and anticipate potential duplication; and
Inclusion of links and use of Artificial Intelligence to support the drafting of the Final Report
5. to request the Secretariat to explore options for support tools, including the use of references and links to documents available online, such as WPs and IPs, as well as the use of Artificial Intelligence, in order to prepare summaries and a more concise Final Report, with clear safeguards regarding human review, confidentiality and the responsibility of the Chairs, and to conduct a limited pilot test restricted exclusively to the non-decision-making sections.
