STATES PARTIES TO LAW OF SEA CONVENTION HEAR ARGUMENTS FOR EXTENDING TIME FRAME FOR SUBMISSION OF INFORMATION ON CONTINENTAL SHELF

Meeting of States Parties                                   SEA/1704/Rev.1*

 To Law of Sea Convention                                   16 May 2001

56^th Meeting (AM) 

STATES PARTIES TO LAW OF SEA CONVENTION HEAR ARGUMENTS FOR EXTENDING

TIME FRAME FOR SUBMISSION OF INFORMATION ON CONTINENTAL SHELF

Arguments in favour of extending the 10-year time frame for submitting information on the limits of the continental shelf were the dominant theme as the Meeting of States parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea began discussing that question this morning.  The ten years begin to run from the entry into force of the Convention for each State.

The representative of the Federated States of Micronesia pointed out that a clear idea of how to prepare a submission of such information had only emerged after the adoption by the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf of its Scientific and Technical Guidelines on 13 May 1999.

Speaking on behalf of the Pacific Island Forum States, he suggested that States parties agree on an extension beyond 10 years, where a State party had been unable, for reasons including lack of technical capacity, to comply in good faith with the time limit.  It was a crucial theme of the Convention that developing States should not be disadvantaged in access to or use of their resources, he emphasized.  The Convention contained important provisions on technology transfer to ensure the ability of developing States to exercise their rights and fulfil their obligations.

Article 4 of Annex II of the Convention on the Law of the Sea places a 10-year deadline, dated from the entry into force of the Convention for that State, for a coastal State to make a submission of the outer limits of its continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles to the Commission.  The submission must contain supporting scientific and technical data, and be received within that period.

The representative of Norway stressed the crucial importance of the development perspective in enabling the least developed countries and small island States to prepare their submissions to the Commission.  Norway had established a voluntary trust fund to provide such assistance to those countries.

He said that the two most urgent issues were the starting date for calculating the 10-year time limit and the possible extension of the time limit itself.  He suggested that a step-by-step approach be taken, starting with a decision by the Meeting of States parties to change the starting date of the 10 year deadline, and eventually considering the possibility of extending the 10 year

_______________

*     Revised for technical reasons.

States Parties - 1a - Press Release

56^th Meeting (AM)

time limit itself.  While Norway was committed to finding solutions that would accommodate the needs of developing countries, more time might be needed to build a broad political consensus on the issue of changing the ten year limit itself, he added.

Chile’s representative said that, under the Convention, a State had rights to the continental shelf which were inherent, and could not be jeopardized if it did not meet the 10-year time limit.  The Secretariat background paper had put forward important alternatives, including that of partial submissions, which were permissible according to both the Convention and the rules of the Commission.  It also pointed out technical, scientific and political factors that made it difficult for States to meet the deadline in good faith.

She said the Meeting of States parties was competent to deal with the time limit issue, and supported changing the date the limit would begin to run to that of the final adoption of the Guidelines by the Commission.  Chile supported the step-by-step approach in dealing with that question and would like to see the Commission continue to cooperate fully with the Meeting of States parties.

Yuri Kazmin, Chairman of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, said the Convention was the instrument which created the Commission, and by which it was guided.  He remarked that while the other two entities created by the Convention had observer status, the Commission did not have such a formal relationship with the Meeting of States Parties, perhaps because it had not yet been established when the Meeting’s rules of procedure were adopted.  On the issue of the 10 year time limit, that was what was stipulated in the Convention.  The establishment of continental shelf limits beyond 200 miles was quite complicated and in many developing countries, there was a need to train the appropriate staff.  The Commission had prepared a wide range of materials for use by States parties and international organizations for that purpose.

He said the Commission had always considered it important to work with the States Parties on matters related to the Convention.  The Commission, for example, had requested the States Parties’ advice on dealing with areas where a dispute was involved.  Other issues for which the Commission was grateful to the States Parties included the establishment of trust funds to cover expenditures arising from the participation of members nominated by developing countries in the work of the Commission, and to assist with the training of technical and administrative staff and to provide technical advice to the least developed countries in preparing their submissions to the Commission.

Cristian Maquieira (Chile), President of the Eleventh Meeting of the States parties, had proposed earlier that the Commission on the Limits to the Continental Shelf should become an observer body of the Meeting.

Regarding elections, he said a letter had been received nominating Belarus as a second representative of the Eastern European States on the Credentials Committee.

(page 1b follows)

The representative of Denmark nominated Australia as a Vice-President of the Meeting.

In other business this morning, the representative of Japan introduced a proposal in which a ceiling rate of 22 per cent -- instead of 25 per cent -- will be used in establishing the rate of assessment for the 2002 budget of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.

Also speaking this morning on the issue of the ten year deadline were the representatives of Sierra Leone, Ireland, Papua New Guinea, Ghana, Sudan, Kenya, and Senegal.

Annick de Marffy,Director of the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, made a statement regarding the status of the trust fund to assist developing States in training personnel to prepare submissions to the Commission, and to which Norway had made a contribution of one million USD.

When the States parties to the Convention on the Law of the Sea meet again this afternoon, they will elect a judge to fill a vacancy on the International Tribunal.  They will also elect members of the Bureau.

Background

The States parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, continuing their Eleventh Meeting, this morning discussed the issue of the 10-year time limit under article 4 of Annex II to the Convention, by which coastal States are to submit scientific and technical data covering the delineation of the outer limit of their continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles.  The information is to be submitted to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf.

The article places a 10-year deadline on a coastal State which intends to establish the outer limits of its continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles.  That deadline dates from the entry into force of the Convention for that State.  The article calls for the submission of particulars of such limits to the Commission along with supporting scientific and technical data within that period.

At its tenth session last year, the States parties voiced general support for the concerns expressed by developing countries about the difficulty of complying with the 10-year deadline, especially in view of their limited technical expertise.

A background paper prepared by the Secretariat (SPLOS/64) addresses the issue of the ten year time frame and the question of assistance with respect to the scientific and technical aspects of the preparation of the submission.

It states that at the time of the entry into force of the Convention on

16 November 1994, 67 States became parties to it.  More than thirty coastal States might possibly meet the legal and geographic requirements to take advantage of the provisions of article 76 of the Convention regarding an extended continental shelf.

According to the background paper, two possible paths may be taken.  The first, a postponement of the starting date of the 10 year time limit, might be considered a procedural matter, similar to the postponement of the election of members of the International Tribunal and the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf.  It might then be altered by a decision of the Meeting of States Parties.  The second, any change in the 10-year time limit itself, as a substantive matter, might require an amendment to the Convention

Regarding the first possibility, the background paper provides information on possible starting dates for calculating the 10-year time limit.  It observes that if States would be willing to reconsider the date from which the 10-year time period began to run, there were several dates which appeared to have merit as the starting date of such a period. 

The first two derived from the delay in the establishment of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf.  The background paper recalls that the election of the 21-member Commission took place on 13 March 1997, and that the Commission began its work in June of the same year.  It states that if the delay in the election and the beginning of the functioning of the Commission were to be taken into account, then two dates appeared to be possible starting points.  Those were the date of the election of Commission members -- 13 March 1997; and the date on which the Commission took its oath of office and which marked the first day of the actual functioning of the Commission -- 16 June 1997. 

It says that two other possible dates might be suitable: the provisional adoption of the Scientific and Technical Guidelines of the Commission --

4 September 1998; and the date of the final adoption of the Guidelines on 13 May 1999.

These dates marked the completion of the basic documents of the Commission, developed to guide the procedural and substantive work of the Commission and to assist States in the preparation of their submissions.  The adoption of the Scientific and Technical Guidelines gave clear and detailed indications to States as to the particulars to be expected in their submissions.  The preparation of the Guidelines was an important step to assist coastal States.

The background paper pointed out, however, regarding the second possibility, that any change in the 10-year time limit itself, as a substantive matter, might require an amendment to the Convention, either in accordance with its article 312 entitled “Amendment”, or article 313 entitled “Amendment by simplified procedure” -- both ways being apparently appropriate in the case of a change to the 10-year time limit.

Article 312, paragraph 1, provides that: “After the expiry of 10 years from the date of entry into force of this Convention, a State Party may, by written communication addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, propose specific amendments to this Convention, other than those relating to activities in the Area, and request the convening of a conference to consider such proposed amendments.  The Secretary-General shall circulate such communication to all States Parties.  If, within 12 months from the date of the circulation of the communication, not less than one half of the States Parties reply favourably to the request, the Secretary-General shall convene the conference”. 

Article 313 does not provide for the convening of an amendment conference, but states that if a written communication addressed to the Secretary-General is objected to within a period of 12 months, it would be considered rejected.  On the other hand, if no State objects to it within that same period, the proposed amendment shall be considered adopted.

The date the Convention provides for proposed amendments -- 16 November

2004 -- coincides with the date of expiration of the 10-year time limit for certain states with probable extended continental shelves.  According to the paper, an amendment to extend the time limit by convening an amendment conference might prove to be too late to help those countries.

Also before the Meeting is a 10 May 2001 position paper (SPLOS/67) by Pacific Island Forum States, strongly urging States parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to extend the time frame for submissions to the Commission.  The Pacific Forum States are Australia, Fiji, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga and Vanuatu.

The Forum States say the extension of the deadline should be agreed through a decision of the Meeting of States parties or through an understanding on the interpretation of Annex II.  That understanding, to include an agreement that the 10-year period would not begin to run for any State party, regardless of its date of ratification or accession to the Convention, until the date of adoption of the Commission’s Guidelines on the preparation of submissions.

The Forum States add that the time for making a submission should also be further extended beyond 10 years where a State party had been unable, for technical reasons, including lack of technical capacity, to comply in good faith with the time limitation.

The issue of the 10-year time limit under article 4 of Annex II is on the agenda of the current Meeting of States parties.  At its tenth session, last year, the Meeting voiced general support for the concerns expressed by developing countries about the difficulty of complying with the 10-year time limit, especially in view of their limited technical expertise.

The Pacific Forum States note that the scientific and technical work required to support a submission to the Commission was highly complex and beyond the capacity of most small island States.  The problem was exacerbated by the fact that, in many cases, zones of national jurisdiction, including territorial seas, archipelagic seas and exclusive economic zones, had not been accurately defined.

In addition, they argue that fixing the limits for some continental shelf areas might involve scientific and technical issues of such complexity that they could not be resolved within the 10-year period.

Statements

Opening this morning's session, CRISTIAN MAQUIEIRA, the President, said a letter had been received by the Secretariat indicating that Belarus would join Romania as representatives of Eastern European countries in the Credentials Committee.

He said the Credentials Committee would accordingly meet this afternoon and report to the plenary on its work.  Shortly after, the Meeting of States parties would elect a judge to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, to fill a vacancy created by the death of a member of the 21-member body.

PETER GEBERT, the Observer for Denmark, told the Meeting that the Western European States had nominated Cate Steains of Australia as their candidate to be a Vice-President of the Eleventh Meeting of States parties.  

Introduction of Proposal

HIROSHI SATOH (Japan) introduced a proposal concerning decisions on budgetary matters of the Tribunal.

The proposal states that "contributions to be made by States parties shall be based upon the scale of assessments for the regular budget of the United Nations for the preceding financial year, adjusted to take account of participation in the Convention.  The Meeting of States Parties decided that a floor rate of 0.01 per cent and a ceiling rate of 22.0 per cent will be used in establishing the rate of assessment for States Parties for the budget of the Tribunal for 2002.”

The existing ceiling rate is pegged at 25 per cent.

The representative of Japan said the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) had recently adopted a ceiling rate of 22 per cent in establishing its scale of assessments.  Influenced by that action, the United States Congress had on 10 May moved to have the United States rejoin UNESCO, which it had left in 1984.  He welcomed the United States decision, and observed that a similar action by the country in adhering to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea would further efforts towards the achievement of universality of the instrument.  

He said Japan provided about $15 billion in development assistance to developing countries annually.  It was an important pillar of Japan's foreign policy.  He was sure that savings made from the reduction in the scale of assessments could be applied to other useful purposes.

Issues Arising from Article 4 of Annex II to the Convention

YURI KAZMIN, Chairman of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, said the Commission was an autonomous body created under the Convention on the Law of the Sea.  While there were procedural problems still to be resolved relating to formal aspects of interrelationships, the Commission had always seen the Meeting of States Parties as an important forum for the implementation of the Convention.

He said that despite the lack of a formal relationship such as observer status, the Commission considered it important to work with the States parties on issues such as areas where disputed areas existed in submissions on the limits of the continental shelf.  Other issues of interest to the Commission regarding which the Meeting had played a vital role included the establishment of a trust fund to cover expenditures arising from the participation in the activities of the Commission of members nominated by developing countries, as well as a fund to train technical and administrative staff and to help the least developed countries in preparing their submissions to the Commission.

He reminded States parties of the 10-year deadline from the entry into force of the Convention for each State for making their submission on the outer limits of the extended continental shelf, and that until it was legally changed, it was the Commission’s basic guiding principle.  The establishment of continental shelf limits beyond 200 miles was quite complicated, and in many developing countries there was a need to train the appropriate staff.  The Commission had prepared a wide range of materials for use by States parties and international organizations in training staff who would assist developing States in the preparation of the submission .  It had also prepared a training syllabus for a five-day training course.

He pointed out, however, that training was not part of the Commission’s mandate.  The Commission had done everything it could, including ensuring that funds would be provided.  It was up to States parties, international and scientific organizations as well as other agencies to provide training for their staff.  All that was required was that they have the desire to do so.

JEEM LIPPWE (Federated States of Micronesia), speaking on behalf of the Pacific Island Forum States, noted the Convention’s fundamental importance to those countries (Australia, Fiji, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga and Vanuatu).

He said the Convention provided the framework for the conservation and use of the resources in the oceans surrounding them, and permitted both developed and developing countries to benefit from the use of those resources.  That principle held true in the specific case of the resources of the continental shelf.

It was a crucial theme of the Convention that developing States should not, through lack of resources or capacity, be disadvantaged in access to or use of their resources, he emphasized.  The Convention contained important provisions on technology transfer to ensure the ability of developing States to exercise their rights and fulfil their obligations.  It would be inconsistent with the Convention’s general approach if they were unable to define the limits of their areas of extended continental shelf due to lack of resources or capacity.

He said that the position paper introduced by the Pacific Island Forum States noted that States had not had a clear idea of how to prepare a submission until after the Commission’s adoption of its Scientific and Technical Guidelines on 13 May 1999.  It urged States parties to agree that the 10-year deadline would not begin to run for any State party until that date.  The paper also suggested that States parties agree that the time for making a submission be further extended beyond 10 years where a State party had been unable, for reasons including lack of technical capacity, to comply in good faith with the time limit.

HANS WILHELM LONGVA (Norway), stressing the crucial importance of enabling the least developed countries and small island States to benefit fully from the provisions of the Convention, said that preparations related to the submission of information to the Commission should be considered in a development perspective.  Against that background, Norway had initiated, at the fifty-fifth session of the General Assembly, the establishment of a voluntary trust fund to provide assistance to the least developed countries and small island States to meet their obligations under article 76, as well as to train personnel to prepare submissions to the Commission – it had contributed one million USD to that fund.

He urged that the Meeting take a step-by-step approach to the issue of the ten year time limit for submissions.  The most urgent issue was the starting date for calculating the 10-year time limit, he said.  Another issue was the possible extension of the time limit itself.  While Norway was committed to finding solutions that would accommodate the needs of developing countries, more time might be needed to build a broad political consensus, both on sound legal solutions to the substantive issues involved and on the procedures to be followed.

The starting date for calculating the 10-year time limit should be 13 May 1999, the date of the Commission’s final adoption of its Scientific and Technical Guidelines, he said.  If that date was established, hopefully at this meeting of State’s parties, it would mean that the time limit would not expire for any State party before 2009.  In that way, valuable time would be gained with a view to the possible extension of the time limit itself.

Regarding that issue, he said that the task was to clarify the implications of cases where a State party, for reasons such as lack of the necessary economic, financial or technical resources, was unable to make a full submission to the Commission within the 10-year time limit.  A State party in such a position may submit the best information available, with the caveat that it would be submitting further information, and be deemed to have made a submission within the required 10 years, without prejudice to its rights to the outer limit of its continental shelf.

ALLIEU IBRAHIM KANU (Sierra Leone) expressed support for many of the points raised by the representative of Norway, which were important to his country, he said.  His delegation also supported the position paper of the Pacific Forum States, which reflected his country's views.  Noting the particular problems facing his country, he said the Meeting of States parties should consider extending the time limit for submissions to be made by coastal States to the Commission.  His Government was still grappling with those problems and was therefore not in a position to prepare its submission.  Sierra Leone supported the call for extension of the 10-year time limit to be agreed through a decision of the Meeting of States Parties, as indicated in the Pacific Forum States paper.

The Chairman observed that it would be up to the Meeting to determine the appropriate date from which the 10-year time frame should begin.

JAMES KINGSTON (Ireland) said his delegation was sympathetic to the problems faced by many countries, particularly the developing States, in preparing submissions.  It would look favourably upon any decision to move forward the time frame.  It hoped the issue could be resolved amicably, adding that it required further study.

MARIA-TERESA INFANTE (Chile) said a State's rights could not be jeopardized if it did not meet the 10-year time limit for submission of data on the extension of its continental shelf.  She underlined some ideas put forward in the Secretariat background paper which, she said, were of paramount importance.  Those ideas were the admissibility of partial submissions, according to the Convention and the rules of the Commission; technical, scientific and political factors that caused difficulties for States to meet the time limit in good faith; and the fact that the adoption of the Commission's Guidelines only took place in May 1999.

She noted that since then, the Commission had been ready to accept submissions.  Her delegation supported the position paper of the South Pacific Forum States.  She said the Meeting of States parties had the competence to deal with the issues involved in the time limit and to find solutions to the problems involved.  Chile supported the step-by-step approach in dealing with the problem.  It would like to see the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf working in agreement with the Meeting of States parties.

PETER DONIGI (Papua New Guinea) said the Meeting of States parties could consider a decision similar to one it took regarding the postponement of the election of the members of the Tribunal in 1994, and of members of the Commission in 1995, as an option for the postponement of the date from which the 10-year time period for submissions to the Commission began to run out.

He observed that there was a limitation on the technology for exploring the seabed at the time the Convention was adopted.  It should be possible to examine the feasibility of coastal States entering into agreement with the International Seabed Authority on the implementation of article 4 of Annex II.  He thanked the Government of Norway for its contribution to the voluntary trust fund for

training, and asked the Secretariat to provide information on the status of the relevant voluntary trust funds established by the General Assembly

ANNICK DE MARFFY, Director, Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, said the first voluntary trust fund designed to assist members nominated by developing countries to participate in the work of the Commission was operational.  Norway had contributed $1 million to a second voluntary trust fund for the training of experts to assist in preparing submissions for developing countries.  That voluntary trust fund was not fully operational.

HAROLD AGYEMAN (Ghana) said that for most developing coastal States, the 10-year deadline would be falling due in 2004, and that there was a legitimate need for an extension of the time limit.  Among the reasons to justify an extension was the postponement of the election of the Commission members and the consequent delay in the date on which they had effectively taken office.  In addition, there had been a significant intervening period of three years between that date and the Commission’s final adoption of its Scientific and Technical Guidelines.  To ensure parity among coastal States, it was important that the extension should be across the board for all States,not just for those that requested it.

ANAS ELTAYEB ELGAILANI MUSTAFA (Sudan), referring to the decision to establish the trust fund to cover the expenditure of members nominated by developing countries, said it would enable representatives to appreciate the work of the Meeting of States parties.  Regarding the 10-year deadline, there were no clear-cut and specific proposals on submissions, given the complicated technological procedures required that were inaccessible to most of the least developed countries.

DANIEL KOTUT (Kenya) called on the developed countries, and others in a position to do so, to contribute to the trust funds in order to enable developing countries to achieve the necessary technological advancement to make submissions.  They also required training and technology transfer.  Kenya supported an extension of the 10-year deadline, which should be considered as starting from 1999.

BAIDY DIENE (Senegal) said there was an umbilical cord linking structures like the Commission with the Meeting of States Parties.  Although the Commission was not officially an observer at the Meeting, it had been effectively heard, and since all the necessary ingredients were in place, it should be possible to resolve problems relating to delineating the outer limits of the continental shelf.

A decision on the extension of the 10-year deadline should be reached by consensus if possible, he said.

* *** *