STATES PARTIES TO CONVENTION ON LAW OF SEA BRIEFED BY SECRETARY-GENERAL OF INTERNATIONAL SEABED AUTHORITY

Meeting of States Parties

to Law of Sea Convention

63^rd Meeting (AM)

STATES PARTIES TO CONVENTION ON LAW OF SEA BRIEFED BY SECRETARY-GENERAL

OF INTERNATIONAL SEABED AUTHORITY

The States Parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea this morning heard a briefing on the work of the International Seabed Authority and considered the question of according observer status to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf for the current session.  They also discussed their duties under article 319 of the Convention.

Giving an overview of the work of the International Seabed Authority, Satya N. Nandan, Secretary-General of that body, said the milestone for 2001 had been the Authority's completion of 15-year exploration contracts with six former registered pioneer investors.  Last month, the Authority had also completed an exploration contract with the Government of India -- the remaining registered pioneer investor.

Another significant Authority achievement in 2001 had been to issue recommendations for guiding contractors in assessing possible environmental effects of exploring for polymetallic nodules, he said.  The Authority’s Council had also begun considering regulations for prospecting and exploring hydrothermal polymetallic sulfides (seafloor massive sulphides) and cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts.

In the future, the Authority would focus on three main areas:  carrying out its supervisory functions of exploration contracts; promoting and encouraging the conduct of marine scientific research in the area; and information gathering and developing databases of scientific and technical information to obtain a better understanding of the deep ocean environment.

Yuri Kazmin, Chairman of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, presented the proposal to grant observer status to the Commission.  As he did so, he noted that States Parties were interested in Commission activities and that the Meeting played an important role in implementing the Law of the Sea, particularly sections on the continental shelf.  Also, the Commission consulted with the Meeting on important issues, which included rules of procedure for certain issues, and submitting cases of disputes with States that had opposing borders.

During the ensuing discussion, several representatives supported the proposal that the Commission be given observer status.  Some suggested the

63^rd Meeting (AM)

Commission should supply the Meeting with a report on its activities, while others felt that went beyond the definition of observer status.  Still others pointed to potential confusion about the status of the Commission in relation to the Meeting and its other cooperative bodies if observer status was granted.

When the discussion concluded, Don Mackay (New Zealand), President of the twelfth Meeting of States Parties, pointed out that the Meeting’s rules of procedure would have to be amended to specify the formal observer status of the Commission.  He would turn the matter over to the secretariat so that the proper documentation could be formulated.  When that was complete, he would open the matter for a final decision by the States Parties.

When delegations took up matters related to article 319 of the Convention, the discussion centred on the capacity of the States Parties to consider the full range of substantive issues relating to the implementation of the Convention.

Article 319 spells out responsibilities entrusted to the Secretary-General under the Convention, including an obligation to report to all States parties, the International Seabed Authority and competent international organizations on issues of a general policy nature that have arisen with respect to the Convention. Proposals had been made at past sessions that the Secretary-General draw the attention of the States Parties to an expanded range of issues, including matters related to non-conformity with the provisions of the Convention.

This morning’s debate was characterized by two distinct points of view -- those delegations that felt the Meeting was the only competent body for taking decisions on issues relating to the implementation of the Convention, and those delegations that felt that an expansion of the mandate of the Meeting beyond budgetary and administrative matters would go beyond the scope of the Convention.

When it became clear that perhaps no decision could be reached today, many delegations, fearing that the deletion of the item from the Meeting’s agenda would preclude the States Parties from addressing substantive matters related to the Convention in the future, called for the relevant item to be retained for discussion at a later date.

In other business this morning, Zenon Mukongo Ngay of the Democratic Republic of the Congo announced that his Government was withdrawing the candidacy of Bonyi Mukadi, in favour of Andre Makengo Kisala Mazyambo, for election to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.  Also today, Joaquim Mangueira of Angola announced Ibrahim M'baba Kanu of Sierra Leone as a candidate for the Tribunal.

The States Parties to the Convention on the Law of the Sea will meet again at 10 a.m. tomorrow to consider financial and budgetary matters.

Background

The States Parties to the Convention on the Law of the Sea met this morning to, among other business, hear an oral report of the International Seabed Authority and consider the observer status of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf.

Election for International Tribunal

ZENON MUKONGO NGAY (Democratic Republic of the Congo) announced that his Government was withdrawing the candidacy of Bonyi Mukadi in favour of Andre Makengo Kisala Mazyambo for election to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.

Statement by Secretary-General of International Seabed Authority

SATYA N. NANDAN, Secretary-General of the International Seabed Authority, said perhaps the Authority’s most significant milestone for 2001 had been the conclusion of the 15-year exploration contracts with six former registered pioneer investors.  Those contracts had been concluded in accordance with the Regulations on Prospecting and Exploration for Polymetallic Nodules in the areas approved by the Assembly in 2000.  He was pleased to report that, last month, the Authority had also concluded an exploration contract with the Government of India -- the remaining registered pioneer investor.

As a result, he said, the Authority was now in a contractual relationship with all seven pioneer investors registered under resolution II of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.  The signature of those exploration contracts was important, because it gave practical and real effect to the single regime for the international seabed area established by the Convention, the 1994 Agreement on Regulations on Prospecting and Exploration for Polymetallic Nodules in the Area.  As such, it represented a significant step forward for the international community.

He said another significant achievement in 2001 had been the issuance of a set of recommendations for guiding contractors in the assessment of the possible environmental impacts arising from the exploration for polymetallic nodules.  Those recommendations, issued by the Authority’s Legal and Technical Commission, were very technical in nature and had been designed to help contractors fulfil their obligations under the contract as they related to the protection of the marine environment from potential harmful effects of activities in the Area.  They represented an analysis based on the best available scientific knowledge of the deep ocean environment and the technology used in exploration.

Also in 2001, he said, in response to a request by the Russian Federation, the Authority’s Council had commenced work on consideration of the appropriate type of regulations for prospecting and exploration of hydrothermal polymetallic sulfides (seafloor massive sulphides) and cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts. While that work was in the preliminary phase, the Council had decided nevertheless that it should continue consideration of those issues.  To assist in the Authority’s work to that end, the secretariat had organized a seminar in Kingston, Jamaica -- open to all members and observers -- as well as members of the Legal and Technical Commission, on 7 August, during the eighth session. 

That seminar, he said, would feature the participation of scientific and technical experts and would provide background information on the status and characteristics of deep seabed mineral resources, as well as information on the marine environment in which those minerals were located.  As a prelude to the seminar, the Authority would make a presentation on seabed resources and their environment to the meeting on 25 April.  That presentation, to be led by three scientific field experts, would provide the Meeting with background information on the metallogenisis of marine minerals, information on seafloor sulphides and bio-diversity.

He said that over the past five years the Authority had successfully established itself as a functional international organization.  At the same time, however, the Authority’s work had inevitably become more technical.  It might be necessary to take another look at the current pattern of meetings to see if it met the needs of the various organs and bodies that worked in concert with the Authority and to determine whether it represented the most efficient mechanism for carrying out the technical work required.

He said that given the more technical emphasis of the work ahead, the Authority would focus on three main areas:  carrying out its supervisory functions with respect to the contracts for exploration; promoting and encouraging the conduct of marine scientific research in the Area; and information gathering and the establishment and development of databases of scientific and technical information with the purpose of obtaining a better understanding of the deep ocean environment.  He added that the Authority’s eighth session would take place in Kingston from 5 to 16 August, preceded by a workshop from 29 July to 2 August.  During the eighth session, the Authority was set to elect one half its Council membership and consider and adopt its budget for 2003 and 2004.

Observer Status of Commission on Limits of Continental Shelf

Yuri Kazmin, Chairman of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, said the issue of granting observer status to the Commission at the Meeting of States Parties had been addressed by the President of the eleventh Meeting of States Parties in May 2001.  The President had noted that the lack of formal relations between the Meeting of States Parties and two other international organizations  -- the International Tribunal and the Seabed Authority -- was in keeping with the Convention on the Law of the Sea.  However, since States Parties were interested in the activities of the Commission, they might want to give that body observer status.

Commission members considered the Meeting of States Parties a forum that played an important role in implementing the Law of the Sea, particularly sections on the continental shelf, Mr. Kazmin said.  The Commission consulted with the Meeting of States Parties on important matters.  Those included the rules of procedure for considering certain issues, and the submission of cases in dispute with States that had opposing borders, where there were maritime or other unresolved disputes.  In addition, the Commission had asked the Meeting of States Parties for assistance when it had received a voluntary fund by decision of the General Assembly.  The Meeting had played an important role in creating that fund.

The ninth meeting of the Commission had decided that granting the Commission observer status to the Meeting of States Parties would benefit relations between the two bodies, he said.  Therefore, the Commission would welcome observer status if the Meeting of States Parties were to grant it.

The representatives of Bulgaria, New Zealand, Argentina, Indonesia, Brazil, China, Fiji, India, Australia, Poland, France, United Republic of Tanzania, Iceland and Chile supported the proposal that the Commission be given observer status at the Meeting of States Parties.

The representative of Spain was also in agreement, but he suggested that the Commission send a report on its activities to the Meeting, so that it could make recommendations.  The representative of Ireland said a reporting mechanism should not be established between the Commission and the Meeting because that went beyond the definition of observer status, and might interfere with the independence of the Commission.

The representative of the Russian Federation said that the Convention did not state that the Commission should present reports that had to be approved by the Meeting.  The representative of the Democratic Republic of the Congo supported that position and added that the Secretariat should clarify the situation.

The representative of Malaysia supported the proposal that the Commission be given observer status, but felt an explanation was needed about the legal implications of observer status.  That view was shared by the representatives of Madagascar and the Russian Federation, who felt it was logical for the Commission to report to the Meeting on its work.  The representatives of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Chile also supported calls for clarification of the issue by the Secretariat.  The representative of Norway added that all relevant aspects of the matter of reporting to the States Parties were spelled out in the Convention.

When the discussion concluded, DON MACKAY (New Zealand), President of the twelfth Meeting of States Parties, pointed out that the Meeting’s rules of procedure would have to be amended to specify the formal observer status of the Commission.  Summing up the discussion, he said that a large number of delegations had expressed support for the proposal that the Commission have observer status.

He said that several had expressed reservations, particularly in terms of the potential for some confusion as to the status of the Commission in relation to the Meeting and its other cooperative bodies.  He wondered if there was a way to define the status in relation to those bodies that would be satisfactory to all. He would turn the matter over to the secretariat so that the proper documentation could be formulated.  When that was completed, he would open the matter for a final decision by the States Parties.

Matters Related to Article 319 of Convention

The Meeting then took up matters related to article 319 of the Convention. That article spells out responsibilities entrusted to the Secretary-General under the Convention, including an obligation to report to all States Parties, the International Seabed Authority, and competent international organizations on issues of a general policy nature that have arisen with respect to the Convention.

The perceived lack of a forum for discussion and coordination of such issues, under the framework of the Convention, was identified by the Secretary-General as one factor that has prevented the emergence of more efficient and results-oriented ocean policies.  As a result, the United Nations Consultative Process on Ocean Affairs was established by the General Assembly in 1999.

To incorporate such issues in the Meeting of States Parties, the representative of Chile proposed, at the tenth Meeting, that a new agenda item be included at future Meetings.  It would be entitled either “Implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea” or “Issues of a general nature related to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea”.  Under the proposal, the Secretary-General would submit his annual report on relevant issues of a general policy nature to the Meeting of States Parties itself.

At the eleventh Meeting, the issue was raised again, with some delegations noting that the responsibility of the Secretary-General to report on matters of a general nature was clearly established by article 319.  Some said, however, that it was not the role of the Secretary-General to raise issues of non-conformity with the Convention, particularly with respect to national laws -- only States parties could consider such matters.

Today’s discussion mirrored previous consideration of the proposal.  A number of delegations expressed their support and agreed that the Meeting of States Parties should not be confined to dealing with only budgetary and other administrative matters.  They argued that the Meeting was the only competent body responsible for taking decisions on issues relating to the implementation of the Convention.

Other delegations, however, emphasized the mandate given to the General Assembly in the review of all issues relating to ocean affairs and the law of the sea.  An expansion of the mandate of the Meeting of States Parties beyond budgetary and administrative matters, they argued, would not be in keeping with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

When it became clear that perhaps no decision could be reached today, many delegations said that the issue should be set aside for further discussion during this session or even next year.

The representative of Sierra Leone noted, during the discussion, that since Chile had introduced the issue, the proper way to proceed would be for that delegation to again take the lead.  Since the representative who had introduced the proposal was not present today, he wondered if the States Parties could return to the issue later.

The view of retaining the item was shared by many delegations, including Mexico, Chile, South Africa, Indonesia, Malaysia, Fiji, Angola, India, Mozambique and Portugal.

The representative of Spain said that if no decision could be reached today the issue must remain on the Meetings’ agenda.  He added, however, that while there could be disagreement on the need to include the item, there should be no debate about the competence of the States Parties to discuss issues outside budgetary matters and general election of officers. 

Others speakers stressed that the item should remain on the agenda so that the States Parties did not preclude future discussion of substantive issues relating to the Convention.

That view was echoed by the representative of Sierra Leone, who said the States Parties should indeed examine all substantive matters related to the Convention -- proposing postponement of the item so that delegations could prepare their arguments. 

The representative of Argentina said that to assume that the States Parties did not have the competence to examine all substantive issues related to the Convention was unacceptable.  The representative of Australia added that the issue was not whether there were other forums available for the consideration of relevant matters related to the Convention -- certainly the annual General Assembly review and informal process were very important.  Rather, the issue was whether their competence precluded the Meeting of States Parties taking a decision.  He felt the issue should remain on the agenda.

Norway was the first of several delegations to call for a deletion of the item from the agenda of the Meeting of States Parties.  The United Kingdom, Iceland, Japan and the Netherlands shared that position.

The representative of the United States said there should be uniform implementation of the Convention in all its aspects, but was equally concerned about whether the Meeting of States Parties had the legal capacity to oversee substantive issues related to the Convention’s implementation.  Those subjects could and should be dealt with in other forums, particularly the General Assembly. The item should be removed from the agenda.

Summing up the discussion, Mr. MACKAY (New Zealand) said the interventions had covered a range of views consistent with the discussions that had taken place last year.  Objectives of delegations would be met by ensuring that there was a full reflection of the views expressed today included in the final report of the current session.  He would return to the item later to allow other delegations to address it, but his sense was that there was unlikely to be consensus on the substance of the issue during the current session.  As for the item itself, he felt that many delegations shared the view that it would be unfortunate to delete matters related to article 319 from the Meeting’s future sessions.  Therefore, he proposed that the item in its general terms be retained on the agenda for next year.

* *** *