Meeting of States Parties

to Law of Sea Convention

97^th & 98^th Meetings (AM & PM)

states parties to law of sea convention consider how to address

growing workload of commission on limits of continental shelf

Meeting Discusses United Nations Regular Budget Support

For Commissioners, Trust Fund Financing for Developing-Country Members

Continuing their week-long sixteenth Meeting today, the States parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea discussed proposals to address the increasing workload facing the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, including the use of the United Nations regular budget to defray the expenses of that body’s members.

One of three organs established by the landmark 1982 treaty, the Commission makes recommendations on data submitted by coastal States concerning the outer limits of the continental shelf in areas where those limits extend beyond 200 nautical miles.  The Commission also provides scientific and technical advice to the coastal State concerned if it so requests as it prepares that data for submission.

Outlining developments in the Commission’s work yesterday, Peter Croker, its Chairman, explained that the Commissioners had agreed on several proposals for consideration by the States parties, including one involving funding from the United Nations regular budget to ensure the full participation of Commission members when required to carry out up to four months a year of full-time work at United Nations Headquarters.  States parties would also be called upon to propose that funds from the regular budget defray Commissioners’ expenses.

The representative of the Philippines, noting that the Commission’s increased workload was a testament to the confidence that States parties placed in it, lauded the Commission’s initiative to hold workshops and training sessions to help developing countries in preparing their submissions.

Austria’s representative, speaking on behalf of the European Union, addressed the issue of the Trust Fund established to facilitate the preparation of submissions to the Commission by developing States, agreeing with other speakers that better use should be made of the Fund and that awareness of its importance should be clearly spelled out.  Increasing use should be made of modern communication technology, such as videoconferences, and Commissioners should work more from their capitals.  As many of the proposals before the Meeting were general, the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea should provide, as a working document, a compilation of proposals elaborated this week for substantive discussion at next year’s Meeting.

Jamaica’s representative said she was not comfortable with the idea of looking only at new options rather than dealing with the Commission’s original proposal.  Yesterday, Jamaica had asked whether the Meeting could have heard from the budget department on how the proposal would work, and whether other expert bodies had benefited in a similar way.  States parties should not kill the proposal and while not opposing the European Union’s suggestion to draw up a compilation of options, Jamaica felt there should be at least one round of informal consultations on the Commission’s proposal before alternative solutions were proposed.

The United States delegate, responding to the proposal on doubling the number of months spent working at United Nations Headquarters, expressed sympathy for the burden that proposal would place on Commissioners, who had other forms of employment and for whom working for the Commission was a part-time job.  Regarding the proposed additional funding from the United Nations regular budget, the budget was under severe pressure and any increase would have to be offset by a reduction in other areas or programmes.  The United States could not support the proposal for regular-budget support.

Responding to delegates’ concerns, Vladimir Golitsyn, Director of the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea in the Office of Legal Affairs, noted that the Commission had alerted the States parties last year to the difficulties it had experienced in light of the growing number of submissions.  The Commission had decided, therefore, that with the Organization facing a new budget cycle, now was the only time to make such a proposal.  Regarding the Trust Fund, it had not received a generous flow of funds and it was unclear how it could be more effectively used as not much money was left in its coffers.

Also today, the President of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, Rüdiger Wolfrum, introducing that organ’s draft budget proposals for 2007-2008, noted that, as in the past, the Tribunal had been guided by the principle of zero growth.  With respect to the expected volume of judicial and administrative work, the budget proposals for 2007-2008 envisaged the convening of meetings for a total of 10 weeks during each calendar year, in line with the level approved by the Meeting of States parties for the past seven years.

Other speakers today were the representatives of Canada, Argentina, Republic of Korea, Viet Nam, Ireland, Iceland, Ukraine, Bangladesh, Cuba, Uruguay, Egypt, Sierra Leone and Sri Lanka.

The Meeting also heard from Satya N. Nandan, Secretary-General of the International Seabed Authority, and Philippe Gautier, Registrar of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.

In other business this morning, the Meeting elected Mahmoud Samy ( Egypt), Emma Romano Sarne ( Philippines), Maja Markovcic ( Croatia) and Thomas Fitschen ( Germany) as its Vice-Presidents.

The Meeting of States parties will resume at 10 a.m. Wednesday, 21 June, when it is expected to elect members of its Credentials Committee.

Background

The States parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea met to continue their discussion of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf and begin their consideration of budgetary matters of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.  (For background on the sixteenth Meeting of States parties, see Press Release SEA/1859 issued on 16 June.)

Statements on Commission on Limits of Continental Shelf

RICHARD BALLHORN ( Canada) said that the future work of the Commission was of particular interest to his country, which intended to make its submission by 2013.  Better use must be made of the Trust Fund and Canada would like further information on how it was assisting developing countries.  Also, a creative solution should be found to address the increasing workload facing the Commission.  Canada agreed with those who felt that the amendments to the Commission’s rules of procedure were a step towards enhancing the participation of submitting States.

HOLGER MARTINSEN ( Argentina) said he objected to the two legal opinions requested by the Commission on purely internal matters relating to its operations, pertaining to confidentiality and the privileges and immunities of the Commission’s members.  But last May, the Commission had requested a third legal opinion from the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs, which was directly related to the rights and obligations of a State party to the Convention.  That request and the reply provided by the Secretariat could not be considered to constitute a precedent authorizing the Commission to request additional legal opinions on issues either directly or indirectly related to the rights and obligations of a State party.  Doubts that the Commission might encounter as it carried out its work should be raised at the Meeting of States parties.  Also, when the rights and obligations of a State party were directly or indirectly involved, there must be prior consultation with the State involved.  Argentina’s opinion that the Commission’s request for the third legal opinion was in no way a precedent should be placed on the records of the current Meeting.

While supporting the amendments to the Commission’s rules of procedure, he said he shared Brazil’s concern over the compatibility of those amendments with the entire contents of the rules of procedure, particularly annex III.  In addition, the proposal on emoluments for members of the Commission had a direct impact on the interpretation of the rules of procedure and a final decision could not be reached without a wide-ranging discussion of the proposal.  The matter should be the subject of careful discussion, and Argentina wished to hear some alternative proposals from the Commission.

PARK HEE-KWON ( Republic of Korea) said the proposal to have emoluments and expenses defrayed through the United Nations regular budget was one possible option in addressing the financial burden that would arise from an increased workload in the coming years.  However, further consideration and discussion was necessary before the States parties could make a decision.  The proposal was inconsistent with the provisions of annex II of the Convention and information on its actual implications, and on the factors to be taken into account by the States parties, should be provided to the current Meeting.  Practical and feasible solutions should be sought within the Commission.  The proposals put forward by several States parties in that regard were noteworthy.

NGUYEN BA SON ( Viet Nam) said that the proposal for additional funding from the United Nations regular budget to finance the full participation of Commission members at Headquarters should be in compliance with the Convention and required further consideration so that the most appropriate way could be found to handle the Commission’s increased workload.  States parties should continue their contribution to the Trust Fund in order to help developing countries in their efforts to make their submissions to the Commission.

LISA WALSH ( Ireland) said she was responding to Jamaica’s request on the issue of using the Trust Fund to defray costs for members of the Commission.  Earlier this year, Ireland had made an additional contribution to the Fund, having pledged some €150,000 to be paid in three instalments, the first of which had been made earlier this year.

TOMAS HEIDAR ( Iceland) said his country intended to make its submission to the Commission in 2007.  Regarding the Commission’s proposal, it served to stimulate discussion on the issue of funding for Commission members and Iceland looked forward to discussing solutions, which should conform to the Convention.  Iceland intended to contribute further to the Trust Fund in the future, and welcomed Ireland’s payment while urging other States parties to make contributions to the Fund.

OKSANA PASHENIUK ( Ukraine) said she shared the concern expressed by other delegations regarding the Commission’s workload and funding for its members.  State parties might consider all practical proposals made by delegations yesterday and today, including specific proposals presented by the Chair of the Commission with a view to finding an appropriate solution to the difficulties facing it.  Ukraine was ready to participate in discussions in order to achieve a positive result.

EMMA SARNE ( Philippines), noting that the Commission’s increased workload was a testament to the confidence that States parties placed in it, lauded the workshops and training sessions to help developing countries in preparing their submissions.  However, the 2009 deadline would pose a problem to many developing States and time should be devoted to discussing the issue this week.

THOMAS LOIDL (Austria), speaking on behalf of the European Union, agreed that better use should be made of the Trust Fund and that awareness of its importance should be clearly spelled out.  A call should be made to States parties in a position to contribute to do so.  It would also be helpful to reduce the members of the subcommittee and increase the use of modern communication technology, such as video conferences, to bring Commission members together in conducting meaningful work.  The European Union also supported the idea of members working more from their capitals.  In addition, the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea should have a stronger involvement in supporting the Commission’s work.

On the extension of the 2009 deadline, he said the Meeting should not question the principle of it.  States parties could come to a satisfactory solution on the question.  As for the procedure this week and how to take the issue forward, the meeting should be guided by careful discussion, as mentioned by several States parties.  The Division should provide a working document -- a compilation of proposals elaborated this week -- to be discussed in substance at next year’s Meeting as many of the proposals were still quite general.  The Meeting could conduct further consultations in helping to draw up the compilation in a smaller setting.

REAZ RAHMAN ( Bangladesh) welcomed the legal opinion regarding the submission of new material by States and the Commission’s decision on interacting with submitting States, while noting the changes made to the rules of procedure.  Knowledge and training were of particular importance for countries like Bangladesh and the efforts carried out by the Division for Ocean Affairs and Law of the Sea, such as workshops on delimitation and the preparation of submissions, were particularly welcome.  Bangladesh was grateful to those who had contributed to the Trust Fund in order to assist developing countries in preparing their submissions.

Aware of the difficult workload facing the Commission, he said that 10 submissions were already in the pipeline and that, while he sympathized with the Commission’s proposal, he agreed with other delegations on the need for further consideration in the hope that pragmatic solutions could be reached.

JUANA ELENA RAMOS RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) expressed appreciation for the initiative taken to hold training courses, which were highly useful for developing countries, but said the Commission’s proposal that members receive funds from the United Nations regular budget was incompatible with annex II of the Convention and, therefore, not acceptable.  Other options could be considered, including better use of the Trust Fund.  States parties should continue their consultations on that subject this week.

JULIO LAMARTHEE ( Uruguay), sharing other delegations’ concerns about the lack of time and resources in the Commission, acknowledged that the problems required special consideration of all available options.  There was already a shortfall in United Nations budget and as such, Uruguay supported the Norwegian proposal that payments be made by the State nominating a member to the Commission.

MAHMOUD SAMY ( Egypt) emphasized the need to respect the Convention and to avoid doing anything that was incompatible with its provisions.  Further consideration of all options was required in order to establish the circumstances that would enable the Commission to carry out its work.

ALLIEU IBRAHIM KANU (Sierra Leone), having received instructions from his capital, welcomed the spirit and intent of the Commission’s proposal, saying that annex II to the Convention might impede developing countries desiring to nominate members to the Commission.  The spirit and intention of the Commission’s proposal was in line with facilitating the active participation of developing countries.  Sierra Leone welcomed the European Union proposal for a compilation of all options before the States parties.

GRITAKUMAR CHITTY ( Sri Lanka) said the Commission had a complex and time-consuming task before it and expressed the hope that a suitable solution could be found.  While it looked forward to receiving more details on the options before the States parties, Sri Lanka had completed the first stage in preparing its submission and intended to present it on time.

CONSTANCE ARVIS ( United States) said her delegation had noted the growing number of submissions, the forecast additional number of submissions and the challenge that would pose.  Article 4 of annex 2 to the Convention established the 10-year rule for submissions, but imposed no deadline for the Commission to complete its work and make recommendations on each or all submissions.  Having listened with great interest to Brazil’s proposal to allow States to queue in line, the United States delegation wondered whether concerns about the 2009 deadline might be met by States submitting partial submissions and queuing, during which time they could enhance their contributions.

On the proposal to double the number of months spent working at United Nations Headquarters, she expressed great sympathy for the burden that proposal would place on Commissioners, who had other forms of employment and for whom working for the Commission was a part-time job.  Increasing the amount of time they spent in New York would not be helpful to them.  In order to guarantee the participation of the best experts, the United States delegation would not favour increasing the time that Commissioners had to stay in New York.  The delegation realized that some coastal States might not be in a position to defray the Commissioners’ costs and, therefore, lauded the establishment of the Trust Fund.

Turing to the proposal for additional funding from the United Nations regular budget, she noted that it was under severe pressure and that any increase would have to be offset by a reduction in other areas or programmes.  The Meeting should not engage in such a calculus and the United States could not support the proposal for additional support from the United Nations regular budget.  The most appropriate way to proceed was to consider each submission in the order in which it was received.

However, she said she did support exploring suggestions regarding the use of electronic means of communication and the preparation of a compilation document.  The United States appreciated the Commission’s efforts to correlate its rules of procedure with the Convention in considering amendments to the rules of procedure and adopting a revised rule 52.  Such changes would go a long way.

VLADIMIR GOLITSYN, Director, Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, Office of Legal Affairs, said he would have to speak in defence of the Commission as none of its members were present except the Chairman.  There were two reasons why the Commission had submitted its proposals.  Last year it had alerted States parties to the difficulties it had experienced in light of the growing number of submissions.  There was nothing new about that and the Commission had decided, therefore, that, with the Organization before a new budget cycle, the present was the only time to make such a proposal.  That was the rationale behind the Commission’s proposal.

Next year, the Commission would hold elections for its members, he continued, noting that members had felt it was their duty to bring the attention of the States parties to difficulties that they experienced.  The issue had been raised due to the need to make better use of the Trust Fund.  The problems facing Commission members related not only to those from developing States, however, but also to some from developed countries who had difficulties in obtaining funding.  Once elected, some countries forgot their commitment to support members and allocate additional funding.  Countries with economies in transition also faced difficulties and were funded from the Trust Fund.

Regarding the Trust Fund, he noted that, while States parties appealed for its strengthening, the reality was that only three countries had contributed to the Fund.  Before the Commission’s last session, it had contained some $48,000.  It cost about $44,000 to support the participation of developing countries in the Commission’s work and by the end of the session, some $5,000 was left.  So far, there had not been a generous flow of funds into the Trust Fund and it was not clear how it could be more effectively used as not much money was left in it.  Unless additional contributions were received it would be difficult to work.

Turning to the use of modern communications technology, he said the Division had developed a secure line of communication over a year ago, which Commission members could use to interact with each other.  In practical terms, that line had not proved sufficient, however, and Commissioners had concluded that it could not substitute for interaction in New York as they required access to data that was sometimes confidential.  The option of videoconferencing could be looked into, but it was a very expensive option requiring the installation of equipment on the receiving end.  In practical terms, such technology was difficult to use.  Moreover, some submissions were made with software that was not available to individual Commission members.  The use of software by individual members had been restricted by limitations imposed by the manufacturers.

On limiting the number of subcommission members, he explained that even in the current situation, with seven members, subcommissions often had to invite other Commission members with particular expertise to serve as ad hoc members of the subcommissions.  Commissioners had also discovered that only when they sat together could they produce quick and effective results.  Interacting through electronic means did not speed up the process.  Commission members needed to exchange views.

NORMA ELAINE TAYLOR ROBERTS ( Jamaica) said that, while today’s proposals were positive, she was not comfortable with the idea of looking only at new options rather than dealing with the Commission’s original proposal.  Yesterday, the Jamaican delegation had wondered whether the Meeting could have heard from the budget department on how the proposal could work, and whether other expert bodies had benefited in a similar way.  States parties should not kill the proposal and, while not opposing the European Union’s suggestion to draw up a compilation of options, Jamaica felt there should be at least one round of informal consultations on the Commission’s proposal before proceeding to propose alternative solutions.

Mr. LOIDL ( Austria) said he had not intended to dismiss any proposals on the table, but felt the Commission’s original proposal and those put forward by States parties were general and required further discussion.  The European Union asked the Secretariat to draw up all the proposals, including the original one, to allow for a substantial discussion at next year’s Meeting.  It did not oppose informal consultations on the issue.

Mr. MARTINSEN ( Argentina), stressing that the Meeting should respond to the Commission’s proposal, said consultations were needed in order to draft a response.  On the way forward, the European Union’s proposal for a list of options was one possibility, and another was for the Meeting to outline the proposals made in its report.

SATYA N. NANDAN, Secretary-General of the International Seabed Authority, reminded delegations that members of the Authority would hold consultations at 2 p.m. to deal with the election of members of the Legal and Technical Commission and the Finance Committee.

Budgetary Matters of Law of Sea Tribunal

RÜDIGER WOLFRUM, President of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, introduced that organ’s draft budget proposals for 2007-2008, drawn up on the basis of an evolutionary approach intended to optimize efficiency.  As in the past, the Tribunal had been guided by the principle of zero growth, taking into account the local rate of inflation, as determined by the host country authorities.  With respect to the expected volume of judicial and administrative work, the budget proposals for 2007-2008 envisaged the convening of meetings for a total of 10 weeks during each calendar year, in line with the level approved by the Meeting of States parties for the past seven years.

He then drew the attention of delegations to details relating to the major increases proposed in the draft budget for 2007-2008.  The draft budget totalled €17,214,700, which represented an increase of €827,801 compared with the budget approved and revised for 2005-2006.  That increase was due largely to circumstances beyond the Tribunal’s control, such as the adjustment of the level of remuneration for judges and the application of the floor-ceiling mechanism, as decided by the fifteenth Meeting of States parties; the pension scheme adopted by the Meeting of States parties; inflation; and a change in staff costs, as determined by the United Nations.  Therefore, the budget proposals should not be considered a fundamental departure from the zero-growth principle.

Having explained the reasons for the proposed increase for the 2007-2008 biennium, he also mentioned the budget items where the amounts requested were lower than the 2005-2006 level, explaining that they related to judges’ common costs; general temporary assistance; temporary assistance for meetings; and special services.  Those decreases amounted to €57,400.

He then drew the attention of States parties to the report on budgetary matters for the financial period 2005-2006, which consisted of three parts:  provisional performance report for 2005; report on action taken pursuant to the decisions on budgetary matters for 2005-2006 taken by the fifteenth Meeting of States parties; and the report on action taken pursuant to the Financial Regulations of the Tribunal.  Also, in the report on the external audit for the financial year 2004, the auditor expressed the opinion that the financial statements presented a true and fair view of the Tribunal’s net assets, financial position and operational results, in conformity with proper accounting principles and United Nations financial regulations.

Mr. LOIDL ( Austria) said on behalf of the European Union that the discussion should be based on the principle of zero growth, the existing arrangements within the United Nations framework and the Tribunal’s ability effectively to handle cases.  Hopefully, an open-ended working group could be constituted at the earliest time to discuss budget matters among financial experts.

The issue of arrears in the payment of assessed contributions remained a source of concern to the European Union, he said, calling on States parties to honour their commitments and pay their outstanding contributions in full and on time.

On the report of the external auditors for 2004, he said the European Union attached great importance to the Tribunal’s sound financial management.  Proper accounting was essential for its effective functioning as an independent judicial organ.  The 2005 report of the external auditors had not yet been received and it would be appreciated if working methods could be adjusted to allow States parties to consider their most recent report.  In general, the European Union welcomed the report, which concluded that the Tribunal’s financial statements provided a true view of its financial position and was in accordance with the principle of proper accounting.

Ms. TAYLOR ROBERTS ( Jamaica) noted that, according to the external auditors’ report, the financial statements represented a true and fair view of the Tribunal.  The Jamaican delegation had raised the question of zero growth last year and, while it was pleased to see the frugal way in which the Tribunal had conducted its business, it was not aware of a decision that the budget must be based on the principle of zero growth.  The Tribunal should not be put into that straitjacket.

On the external auditors’ report, she said the amounts from staff assessment, as well as excess from savings, should be applied to Member States’ contributions and to reimbursement of taxes.  Were such amounts credited firstly to arrears?  The report stated that such excess -- both from staff assessment and from savings -- had been credited to Member States’ contributions for 2005-2006 and in respect of savings for 2004.  Rather than crediting Member States for current contributions, arrears should be cleared off first.  Jamaica awaited clarification in that regard.

Concerning the establishment of the Pension Committee, she said that was an obligation of the Tribunal and she would have no difficulty with the establishment of such a committee as no financial obligation would result from that decision.  Would there, however, be additional funding required for members to attend meetings?

With respect to the provisional performance report, she said it was unfortunate that the word “underperformance” had been used.  If a particular budget line had not used an appropriation, it should not be described as underperformance.  Regarding savings with respect to staff costs due to vacant positions in the Registry, Jamaica wished to know what those positions were and what implications had arisen from the vacancies.

PHILIPPE GAUTIER, the Tribunal’s Registrar, responded to some of the questions raised, noting with regard to the savings from 2003 that, at that time, the financial regulations of the United Nations had been applied.  Those savings had been used first to pay off the arrears of States parties.  Now the Tribunal had its own financial rules and when funds were surrendered, they were used first to liquidate any advances with regard to the working capital fund.

Regarding the constitution of the Staff Pension Committee and the possible expenses related thereto, he noted that, if a representative of that body needed to attend the board meeting of the Joint Staff Pension Fund, any related expenses would be financed through the budget line for official travel.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record