Meeting of States Parties

to Law of Sea Convention

110^th & 111^th Meetings (AM & PM)

INCREASED MANPOWER, RESOURCES NEEDED TO MEET GROWING WORKLOAD

OF CONTINENTAL SHELF COMMISSION, STATES PARTIES TOLD

 

Speakers Say Developing Country Coastal States Need Financial,

Technical Aid to File Submission on Continental Shelf by May 2009 Deadline

Pointing to the growing number of submissions by coastal States on the outer limits of their continental shelf, States parties to the Convention on the Law of the Sea this morning overwhelmingly called for increased equipment, manpower and work hours to enable the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf to efficiently manage its growing workload, as well as easier access to financial and technical assistance for developing coastal States struggling to meet the May 2009 submission deadline.

Commission Chairman Peter Crocker had warned during the previous day’s meeting that, under the current system, States parties could wait until 2035 to have their anticipated submissions processed, significantly curtailing exploration and exploitation of natural resources beyond the 200 mile EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone) limits.

Adding to that, Vaclav Mikulka, Director of the Division of Ocean Affairs and Law of the Sea, said this afternoon that, while the projected workload would require three of the Commission’s five subcommissions to work simultaneously in order to process and make recommendations on submissions, his Division’s technical and human resources were severely overstretched and could only service two subcommissions at a time.  At least one new Geographic Information System officer, thousands of dollars in digital data management and dissemination equipment and more than $1.7 million in software were needed to keep pace with the influx. 

Malaysia’s representative proposed that the Commission hold its subcommission meetings - apart from the first and the last meeting --in the capital of the submitting State,rather than in New York.  By holding the meeting locally, the Commission could benefit from a larger pool of available experts, data or information, and would not have to pay the travel and hotel costs incurred to send delegations to New York. 

South Africa’s representative said that, while it was important that States submit their claims on time, many developing countries lacked the technical, financial and scientific resources to do so.  Every effort must be made to ensure that no State was left behind.

While conscious of that challenge, Norway’s representative expressed concern that not all States had begun sufficient preparations to meet the 2009 deadline.  The main message must be that it was possible for them to do so, by utilizing internationally available data, available expertise and existing funding mechanisms.  States whose continental shelves extended beyond 200 nautical miles should carry out a “desktop study” --an integrated data map showing the likely delineation of the shelf’s outer limits.  That did not require field work, but could contribute to a clearer picture of whether further data acquisition was necessary.  States facing insurmountable difficulties in obtaining the necessary data should, nonetheless, present their submissions in good faith with all relevant information available, and should seek financial help through the United Nations trust fund set up to help them prepare submissions.

Papua New Guinea’s representative, speaking on behalf of the Pacific Islands Forum Group, agreed but noted that many developing and coastal States had difficulty accessing the trust fund due to stringent financial and auditing rules.  While those rules were necessary, their scope and application should be made easier for countries to access much-needed funds.  Coastal States also needed new specialized software licenses and associated computer hardware to prepare submissions.  Many Pacific Island States had completed their desktop studies either alone or with financial help from the Pacific Islands Applied Geoscience Commission and/or the Commonwealth Secretariat.  But, given the remaining short time frame and limited resources, they would likely base their work on existing data and information

During this afternoon’s meeting, delegates presented diverging views on a joint draft proposal presented by the Asian Group and the African Group to revise the mechanism for allocating seats both in the Commission and in the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in order to ensure equitable geographical representation.  Many developing countries supported the proposal in both bodies, but some developed nations, including Germany and the United States, said the current election process in the Tribunal should remain unchanged. 

The representatives of the Russian Federation, India, Viet Nam, Germany (on behalf of the European Union), China, Indonesia, Ukraine, Brazil, Philippines, New Zealand, Argentina, Nigeria, Jamaica, Uruguay, Iceland, United States, Australia, Mexico, Sri Lanka, Singapore (on behalf of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN)), Tunisia (on behalf of the African Group), United Kingdom (on behalf of the Western European and Other States Group), the Republic of Korea and Namibia also made statements.

The States parties to the Convention will meet again at 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 20 June, to continue its work.

Background

The States parties to the Convention on the Law of the Sea met today to continue consideration of the workload of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (documents SPLOS/157), including the decision on issues related to the proposals by the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (document SPLOS/144).  (For background, see Press Release SEA/1886 of 18 June.)

It also was scheduled to begin its discussion of future arrangements regarding the allocation of seats on the Commission, as well as future arrangements regarding the equitable geographical distribution of members of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.

Statements

DIRE TLADI ( South Africa) said South Africa was in the process of preparing its submission for the extended continental shelf and would do so in the time prescribed.  Other States, however, might not be able to meet the May 2009 deadline.  He expressed concern over the apparent lack of progress, particularly among developing countries, to complete their submissions.  South Africa, in conjunction with the Division of Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, would host a subregional seminar in August 2007 on article 76.  It was important for States to present their submissions on time in order to guarantee legal certainty with regard to the limits of the continental shelf and the deep seabed.

He urged all States to begin their scientific work on the extended continental shelf as soon as possible, in order to be able to present their submissions on time.  He stressed, however, that the failure of some States to complete the submission process was not due to their unwillingness, but due to their lack of the technical, financial and scientific resources necessary to do so.  It was, therefore, crucial that States make good on their promise to transfer resources to countries in need.  He cautioned against using the word “deadline”.  The focus in the next two years should be on ensuring that States entitled to make submissions were able to do in a timely fashion. 

ROBERT AISI (Papua New Guinea), speaking on behalf of the Pacific Islands Forum Group, said many Pacific Island States had made significant progress over the last two years in ensuring that those with potential extended continental shelf were able to make submissions to the Commission by the May 2009 deadline.  Many of those States had completed their desktop studies either alone or with financial help from the Pacific Islands Applied Geoscience Commission and/or the Commonwealth Secretariat.  Their combined potential extended continental shelf area could be more than 1.5 million square kilometres. 

Given the remaining short time frame and limited resources, Pacific Island States would likely base their work on existing data and information, he said.   The Pacific Islands Applied Geoscience Commission would continue to explore ways to find additional data to support States’ submissions and make use of data collected by vessels undertaking marine scientific research in the region.  Credible cases for an extended continental shelf could be prepared and submitted that way.  Greater financial help, as well as new specialized software licenses and associated computer hardware, were needed to help countries prepare submissions.  Many developing and coastal States had difficulty accessing the trust fund due to stringent financial and auditing rules.  While rules were necessary, their scope and application should be reviewed to facilitate early and efficient access for countries.

GANESON SIVAGURUNATHAN ( Malaysia) proposed that the Commission hold its subcommission meetings, apart from the first and the last meeting, at the capital of the submitting State.  During the first meeting, subcommission members would consider the submission for the first time, just after they were appointed to that particular subcommission.  The last meeting would take place when recommendations were finalized and ready to be tabled to the Commission.  Subcommissions had thus far met in New York.  Under rule 4 of the rules of procedure of the Commission (SPLOS/40) on the venue of the meeting, subcommission meetings could be held “at another venue for an entire session, or any part thereof in consultation with any coastal State which made the submission, subject to the requirements established by the United Nations that no additional costs are directly or indirectly incurred by the United Nations”.  

Holding subcommission meetings in New York could be disadvantageous to the submitting State, he said.  Holding them in the capital of the submitting State could be advantageous, since the submitting State would have more readily available a larger pool of experts, data or information, as well as savings from the travel and hotel costs needed to send delegations to New York.  The Secretariat must be adequately equipped with another geographic information system (GIS) laboratory with the latest equipment, software and GIS officers to do the necessary groundwork before the sub-commission meetings.  The GIS officer would be able to go through the data and present discrepancies to the submitting State, instead of waiting for the subcommission to go through and discover it later.

EVGENY ZAGAINOV (Russian Federation), stressing the importance of the Commission’s work, said that efforts were under way in his country to establish the outer limits of the continental shelf, for which it was seeking the assistance of neighbouring States.  The Russian Federation welcomed the Commission’s improved rules and procedures, thereby making it possible for States to submit their position at the stage between the recommendation and Commission’s review.  Unfortunately, that had not existed in 2002 when his country made its submission. 

Since then, he said, the Commission had acquired particular importance, and analysis was not done in greater detail than before.  Hopefully, the experience gained by that body would be seen in the quality of the review of future submissions, including the next Russian submission, and an equal approach to all would be ensured.  At the same time, the Commission was encountering serious challenges.  He had carefully listened to the range of proposals made yesterday, including in the statement made on behalf of the European Union.  He also drew attention today to the concerns expressed by the delegations of Kenya, Benin, Seychelles and others.  He hoped for a fruitful discussion of all those proposals.

S.K. DAS ( India) said he was pleased to note the significant progress made by the Commission at its eighteenth and nineteenth sessions.  That body was in a crucial phase of its work, and, accordingly, it must be ensured that the decisions taken did not compromise the task the Commission had been entrusted under the Convention.  The Commission Chairman yesterday had spoken about the projected workload, providing graphic scenarios on the estimated time the Commission would take to process all the anticipated claims, if it continued to work under its current system.  It was obvious that the States parties would not want to wait until 2035 to have their claims processed.  It was rightly pointed out by the Chairman that that would significantly curtail exploration and exploitation of natural resources beyond the 200 mile EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone) limits.  Of the three options presented by the Chairman, the only feasible one was to increase the Commission’s working time.

Noting that yesterday that Commission Chairman had also indicated the difficulties experienced in handling five subcommissions, he rightly pointed out that the subsequent reduction of the number of members in each subcommission might not be in conformity with the Convention’s provisions and would also work against the need to ensure a balanced scientific and geographical composition of those bodies.  In that context, he asked the Chairman about the continued of consideration of submissions, in view of the newly constituted Commission, since a few of the former members who had been involved in the consideration of the submissions would no longer be associated with their consideration.  In anticipation of a significantly increased number of submissions and considerable expansion of demands from the Secretariat, he supported the request for additional staff, hardware, software and other related requirements for the efficient working of the Secretariat. 

JENS EIKAAS, Deputy Director-General, Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway, said that the delineation of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles might have significant development implications.  He was concerned that not all States had initiated sufficient preparations to meet the deadline of 2009.  However, “our main message is that it is possible for all States concerned to meet the deadline”, he said.  He was conscious of the particular challenges for developing countries in that regard, but by utilizing internationally available data, available expertise and existing funding mechanisms, he believed that all States concerned could actually comply with the deadline. 

He said that, if the coastal State determined that it was likely that its shelf extended beyond 200 nautical miles, then it should carry out a “desktop study”.  A desktop study was computer-based research resulting in an integrated data map showing the likely delineation of the outer limits of the continental shelf.  It did not require field work, but it could actually contribute to a clearer picture of whether further data acquisition was necessary.  In cases where the coastal State met insurmountable difficulties in completing the necessary additional data acquisition, it should, nevertheless, make a submission to the Commission within the deadline.  In such a case, it should be made clear that the submission set out, in good faith, all relevant information available to the coastal State.  Financing should be sought through the United Nations trust fund.

In addition, he said, the coastal State alone must consider whether its continental shelf might extend beyond 200 nautical miles.  Sovereign decisions must be made on whether to make a submission to the Commission.  In order to enable least developed States, in particular, to fully utilize their rights in connection with the 2009 deadline, a cross-fertilization of views was needed on the variety of possible practical approaches.  In order to promote information sharing on the subject, Norway had drafted a paper containing some “food for thought”, and presented it during a seminar it hosted at the United Nations last week, with important contributions from Kenya. 

NGUYEN BA SON (Viet Nam), noting his delegation’s election to the Council of the Authority at the twelfth session in 2006 of the International Seabed Authority for the term 2007 to 2011, said his Government would make all efforts to perform the tasks of the Council, especially as concerned the draft regulations for prospecting and exploration of polymetallic sulphides and cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts.  As 2009 approached, he shared the concern of many developing coastal States facing technical and resource constraints in preparing their submissions on the outer limits of their continental shelf.  He encouraged the States parties and United Nations related bodies to work together to find further innovative ways to help ensure the legitimate rights of those developing Member States to their continental shelf and to facilitate the work of the Commission in accordance with the Convention. 

He said that States parties in the South East Asia region last year carried out several cooperative activities at sea, in the context of the implementation of the Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combating Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships in Asia.  On 29 May, Viet Nam and Indonesia exchanged the instruments of ratification on the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf Boundary.  It had been signed in Ha Noi on 26 June 2003. 

VERENA GRAFIN VON ROEDERN ( Germany), on behalf of the European Union, said that since the Commission members were newly elected, the Union was of the view that the Commission itself should first revisit the issue of the workload and possible improvement of its working methods.  The new Commission might come up with new proposals, which might present a way forward on the matter. 

She said that in a first short discussion with Union members, it was felt that there was merit in the options; yet, it would be premature to favour any one of them at the present early stage.  A possible solution to the problem of workload might be found in a combination of all three options.  At present, the Union’s member States wished to make two caveats concerning the options presented yesterday.  First, a scenario described as one possibility in option two, whereby the Commission members would work nearly permanently in New York would not be feasible, as they would, among others, lose their working structure in their home countries.  Regarding the third option, of reinforcing the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea (DOALOS), it had to be made clear that scientific or technical judgement could not be delegated to the Secretariat.

ZONGLAI WANG ( China) said he hoped that the Commission’s work not only pertained to the practical interest of coastal States, but also to all society in its totality.  At present, the Commission was facing great difficulty and arduous challenges, and many unforeseen questions had emerged.  The question of the outer limits of the continental shelf had become more complex, and the diversity in the interests of States parties and international society had grown.  The deadline of May 2009 was nearing, and the Commission was under great pressure to deal with the various problems and challenges.  There was also great uncertainty in the amount of time needed by coastal States to delineate the outer limits of their coastal shelf, especially if the Commission advanced a dissenting view and the coastal State wished to put forth new data; the current legal instrument did not provide a clear solution to that question. 

Furthermore, he noted, the Convention had been ratified at a different time, and, thus, different deadlines as far as submissions to the Commission applied.  Those that ratified after May 1999 might only submit cases after 2009, for instance.  So, it was difficult to foresee when all submissions would be in.  Also, coastal States faced different situations, both developed and developing countries.  Those possessing an outer continental shelf had particular concerns, as did developing and least developed countries, such as the Seychelles, Kenya, Benin and South Africa, among others, had expressed yesterday.  None should be subjected to artificial deadlines.  Additionally, the question of the outer limits of the continental shelf pertained to the fundamental interest of international society and the goal, therefore, should be to guarantee the seriousness and scientific accuracy of the Commission and ensure that it strictly and fully fulfilled its mandate. 

It should not be blindly required that the Commission speed up its work or that it sacrifice its seriousness, scientific nature or accuracy for the sake of speed, he warned.  He hoped that, in light of the complexity of the situation, States parties would squarely face the problems and take earnest measures to resolve them.  He wondered if it was possible to extend the submissions deadline a bit for both developed and developing countries, accordingly, allowing States facing complex disputes to put forth their submissions when conditions were right.  He also asked whether it was possible to adopt a method of pre-registration to allow a State to express its policy intention before 2009, and then make a substantive submission afterwards.  He agreed with some delegations that the fact that certain countries could not make timely submissions was not their fault.  There were many different options; they should be studied very carefully and very seriously, in order to cater to the many different needs of international society. 

ADAM TUGIO ( Indonesia) stressed the importance of reviewing the rules and procedures that countries must follow to access the trust fund.  The fact that stringent requirements had made if difficult for many developing countries to access the fund’s resources underscored the need to review those rules.

OKSANA PASHENIUK ( Ukraine) said Ukraine was ready to do its part and participate in the discussion in order to achieve positive results on the various issues before the meeting of States parties.

MARIA TERESA MESQUITA PESSOA ( Brazil) reiterated its statement made during the previous day’s meeting that the Commission should not expeditiously deal with its increasing workload at the expense of States parties.  She was also aware of the plight of developing countries in meeting difficult deadlines and agreed with Germany’s representative on the need for the Commission to consider options for rationalizing its work.  An adequate balance was needed to deliver timely results that reflect due consideration given to States parties.  Article 76 established that the Commission was to issue final recommendations to States.  Issuing inconclusive recommendations was not in the interest of the Commission or States parties.

EMMA ROMANO SARNE ( Philippines) supported the statements of the delegates of Benin, Seychelles, China, South Africa and others to reconsider the decision reached at the meeting of States parties.  The current average of two submissions made annually was very telling.  It did not reflect the lack of States’ political will to submit their presentations on time, but rather a lack of resources to do so.  A new approach was needed for delivering recommendations.  She supported the statement by China’s representative that the Commission’s decisions not only affected coastal states rights, but those of the international community as a whole.  

DIRE TLADI ( South Africa) supported the statements of the delegates of Germany, on behalf of the European Union and Malaysia in particular on the problems caused by the Commission’s increased workload.  He asked the Commission to explain the impact of that on States and its views on the proposal to increase the size of the Commission to handle its increasing workload.

SCOTT SHEELAN ( New Zealand) supported the statement of Papua New Guinea’s representative, on behalf of the Pacific Island Forum Group.  New Zealand contributed to the trust fund and recognized that the rules for accessing the fund should be as user-friendly as possible.  He supported improvements to the Commission’s work in broad terms, including the proposal to increase its work time and modify its approach to delivering recommendations.

HOLGER MARTINSEN ( Argentina) supported the statement by Brazil’s representative of the need to allow countries to properly present submissions.  Developing countries should not be asked to provide simplified submissions or submissions without proper technical backing.  He supported the statement by South Africa’s representative concerning deadlines.  China’s representative had referred to difficulties arising from disputes on maritime sovereignty. 

IGNATIUS A. AYUA ( Nigeria) supported the statements by the representatives of Kenya, Papua New Guinea (on behalf of the Pacific Island Forum States) and South Africa to help developing coastal states complete their submissions.  Complex national procedures could be simplified.  The trust fund should be more easily accessible.  Concerning the May 2009 deadline for submissions, he said some States should be allowed to make preliminary submissions to meet the deadline and then final submission at a later date.  He welcomed the South African representative’s proposal to host a subregional seminar in August 2007 on article 76.  More seminars were needed.  He also supported the proposal by Namibia’s representative for equitable geographical distribution of members of the International Tribunal.

NORMA ELAINE TAYLOR ROBERTS ( Jamaica) said it might not be feasible to reach a precise decision during the current meeting on how to solve the issue of the Commission’s increasing workload.  United Nations bodies had introduced proposals adopted by the General Assembly for alternative or additional means of funding.  During the last meeting of States parties, Jamaica had requested that the Secretariat provide this information, to be considered among other proposals.  It may be necessary to strengthen the Secretariat and provide additional resources, including to the trust fund.

JULIO LAMARTHEE ( Uruguay) supported the statement made by Argentina’s representative.  Uruguay intended to make its submission to the Commission in March 2008.

TOMAS HEIDAR ( Iceland) said the Commission’s work on submissions should be expeditious, but the quality of its work should also be maintained.  He urged delegates to be realistic, saying there were limits to how much the Commission could increase its working time.  He did not support the proposal to reduce the number of subcommission members to five, saying the number should remain at seven.

J. ASHLEY ROACH ( United States) said he sympathized with the suggestion to reduce the number of subcommission members from seven to five.  That could occur if and when the Commission had excellent expertise and geographical distribution.  Also, the subcommissions did not have to have the same number of members.  Further consideration should be given to the suggestion that the Secretariat be able to provide additional technical information on submissions.  He did not support the proposal that the Commission should be paid from the United Nations general budget.  The United States was evaluating its extended continental shelf and looked forward to presenting a submission on it in the future.

VACLAV MIKULKA, Director of the Division of Ocean Affairs and Law of the Sea, said paragraph 63 of “Issues related to the workload of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf” (document SPLOS/157) highlighted the requirements of the Secretariat in terms of staff, hardware, software and office equipment to strengthen its capacity to serve the Commission.  He then went on to summarize those requirements.  He noted that the Division had one Geographic Information System officer working on a two-year, fixed-term contract, and another hired on a short-term contract to address the Commission’s urgent needs.  Currently, the Division could only service up to two subcommissions if they met simultaneously.  The projected workload would require the three subcommissions to work simultaneously, and would necessitate hiring one new GIS officer and the regularization of the officer on a short-term contract during 2008 and 2009.  The added personnel would enable the Division to provide technical assistance to the three subcommissions during and between the Commission’s sessions; receive, register and verify new submissions; and prepare work on new submissions. 

Concerning hardware, he said three Geographic Information System laboratories were available at present.  Not all the laboratories were equipped with adequately powerful computers and were assigned to subcommissions according to their anticipated computing requirements.  The Secretariat was not in a position at present to upgrade hardware of the Geographic Information System laboratories so that all three labs would be equipped with computers the same computing power.  However, such an upgrade was necessary to meet the growing needs of the subcommissions, including providing Commission members with large amounts of digital information and having secure online data storage facilities.  The Division needed $200,000, initially, for two servers with a backup solution and related digital data management and dissemination services, plus $30,000 annually for servicing costs; $6,000 initially for two multimedia projects, plus $2,500 annually for maintenance; $3,000 for two black and white laser jet printers; and $16,000 during 2008 and 2009 to replace and upgrade obsolete equipment in the Geographic Information System laboratories.

In terms of software, he said annex I of the document listed the software packages currently available to the Commission.  Tools available between sessions were limited.  Most software packages had been obtained for free and without funding to maintain their licenses; most were obsolete and only a limited number of users could use them simultaneously.  Most Geographic Information System work could be carried out only during the Commission’s sessions.  In order to handle the growing workload both during and between sessions, the Secretariat should provide the following software packages: ESRI ArcGIS, CARIS LOTS, Geocap, GeoMod, GeoSoft, MarZone, Surfer, ERDAS Imagine and Fledermaus Pro.  The total estimated cost for the 2008-2009 biennium was $1.745 million dollars, including annual recurrent costs of $230,871.

Regarding office equipment to service the Commission, he said the Division had set up a conference room equipped with adequate audio-visual equipment, two Geographic Information System laboratories, a printing room equipped with a large-format scanner and plotter, a medium-format plotter and laser monochrome printer, eight offices for Commission members and a highly secured room for storing submissions.  However, that storage space must be expanded, at an estimated cost of $30,000 for the 2008-2009 period.

In terms of the contributions made to the trust fund, he said paragraph 67 of document SPLOS/157 included a complete list of contributions thus far and that no additional contributions had been made since its publication.  As of May 2007, the balance of the Trust Fund was $524,670.

DEAN MARC BIALEK ( Australia) on the issue of the Commission’s workload, said his comments would draw heavily on the experience of Australia’s submission, including its interactions with the relevant subcommissions.  He was well aware of the difficulties the Commission would face in the short-, medium- and long-term.  He agreed with other speakers that what was called for was a multi-pronged approach.  In view of the challenges, and in order to complete its task within a reasonable time frame, the Commission members would need to spend increasing time in New York.  Like other States, Australia believed that a strengthened secretariat would be a good first step.  Everyone should remain cognizant, however, that the resource requirements presented by the Director of the Division had been based largely on technical requirements consistent with the current workload, but progressive adjustments responsive to the Commission’s anticipated workload would be required. 

He said that, along with a strengthened secretariat, he also encouraged a more productive use of the intersessional periods, including, among other things, reducing the potential variability of approaches between the respective subcommissions.  Caution should be exercised in considering a reduction in the number of Commission members sitting on each subcommission.  Geographical representation and appropriate technical expertise were of paramount importance.  He also emphasized the range of assistance available to coastal States beyond the recourse to the relevant trust funds.  For example, when technological needs arose, a country could be directed to the standing committee on scientific and technical advice, yet no country had availed itself of that opportunity.  With less than two years before the May 2009 deadline for submissions, there was very little time to waste. 

ALEJANDRO ALDAY GONZÁLEZ ( Mexico) said that the volume of work of the Commission should be of concern to all States parties.  Mexico was in the final stages of developing its submission and, in the next few weeks, it would convey it to the Commission.  In that connection, he could see that the submission involved considerable resources, both in terms of technical capacity and economic resources.  Thus, he joined those speakers, especially from developing countries, who had mentioned the need for additional resources and a strengthened trust fund, with easier access. 

With respect to the workload and the various options on the table, he said that was quite a complex situation, which needed to be analyzed carefully and comprehensively.  He favoured a combination of options, such as increased meetings in New York for various subcommissions, without necessarily requiring members present in New York full-time.  It was also important for the Secretariat and the Division to increase support to Commission members.  He had some doubts that Commission expenses could be funded by the regular budget of the United Nations, as that would raise questions among other bodies of the Organizations with similar expert and consultant arrangements. 

GRITAKUMAR E. CHITTY ( Sri Lanka) said he found it impossible to accept the 2035 date for completion of the work on submissions.  A solution had to be found to that problem.  He had heard the many proposals and had received valuable information from the Secretariat, especially in document SPLOS/157.  He strongly supported the possibility of extending intersessional meetings and, when desirable, the possibility of holding meetings of the subcommission in countries that had submitted applications.  The Secretariat should be strengthened in support of the Commission’s work, with laboratory and staffing resources, including the necessary hardware and software, and the possibility of accessing the regular United Nations budget for that purpose should be studied.  Also, he agreed that the trust fund should be strengthened and that access to it should be facilitated. 

Next, the President of the meeting, Rosemary Banks of New Zealand, proposed that further consideration of the Commission’s workload move into informal discussions coordinated by Malaysia’s delegation, and that those begin tomorrow at 10 a.m. in room 7, instead of the plenary meeting previously scheduled for tomorrow morning.

Agenda Items 10 and 11

The meeting then turned to agenda item 10 on future arrangements, regarding the allocation of seats on the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf.

On behalf of Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN), VANU GOPALA MENON ( Singapore) introduced the agenda item and related proposal regarding the creation of a permanent mechanism to deal with seating.  The issue was to be discussed fully at the present meeting; the Asian proposal was simply to allocate seats.  The proposed formula, which was now a joint African and Asian draft proposal was straightforward, he said, and it had been circulated during the meeting to States parties.

According to the proposal, in view of the past substantial growth in the number of, in particular, African and Asian States parties, the present decision was made to satisfy the need for revision of, and some certainty in, the equitable geographical representation in the composition of the Commission. 

Provided that no regional group would have less than three seats, the members of the Commission would be elected as follows:  five plus one commissioners from the African Group; five plus one commissioner from the Asian Group; three commissioners from the Eastern European Group; four commissioners from the Latin American and Caribbean Group; and three commissioners from the Western European and Other States Group.

The additional one seat of the African and Asian Groups in the Commission would rotate, according to the proposal.  Asia would occupy six seats in the next elections to the Commission, and Africa would occupy six seats in the elections thereafter, and so on. 

Speaking on behalf of the African Group on agenda item 11, concerning allocating of seats on the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, ADEL BEN LAGHA (Tunisia) said the Group shared the same concern voiced by the representative of Singapore on the need to agree on a permanent seating mechanism to reflect the number of States parties to the Convention, particularly from Africa and Asia, and to ensure equitable geographical representation. 

He said that the joint African-Asian proposal being presented in plenary today did not seek a static formula, but rather one that would ensure that each regional group was equitably represented at any point in time, according to the proportional growth of the regional groups. 

According to that proposal, also circulated in the room, no regional group would have fewer than three seats, and the members of the Tribunal would be elected as follows:  five plus one judge from the African Group; five plus one judge from the Asian Group; three judges from the Eastern European Group; four judges from the Latin American and Caribbean Group; and three judges from the Western European and Other States Group. 

The additional one seat of the African and Asian Groups in the Tribunal would rotate, the proposal suggests.  Asia would occupy six seats in the next elections to the Tribunal, and Africa would occupy six seats in the elections thereafter, and so on. 

DOUGLAS KERR ( United Kingdom), on behalf of the Western European and Other States Group, said that the Commission and Tribunal were two very different organizations.  The proposals raised several very interesting issues, but he needed some time to reflect.  The Group was very interested in taking the discussion forward, as had been the history of Convention-related discussions for the past 10 years or so. 

He said it was clear that great challenges lay ahead for States parties and for the Commission, itself.  At no time had there been any reported problem from anyone on the Commission or any question about their country of origin, so, in one sense, there was a solution in front of us for which there was no apparent problem.  Of much greater concern was that States parties were currently presiding over a system at risk of disqualifying a number of Member States from having their submissions considered by the Commission.  That was not intended by the drafters of the Convention or wished for by anybody in this room.  That was the highest priority for the meeting this week; there were “greater issues hanging over us than the nationality of the commissioners”, he said.

Also important was that the commissioners, serving in their personal capacities, were experts in their technical and scientific fields, he said, underlining his readiness to discuss the agenda item, but hopefully not to the point where it would take up the time of this meeting.  

Mr. SHIN ( Republic of Korea) said that the proposal for seats on the commission was a fair and reasonable way to ensure equitable geographical representation in accordance with the Convention.  It was the spirit of the treaty to take into account any increase or decrease in the number of States parties within each regional group, he added.

JAMES PROTHMANN ( Namibia) asked the President whether the meeting was taking up agenda item 10 or 11.

The Meeting President clarified that they could start with agenda item 10.

GANESON SIVAGURUNATHAN ( Malaysia) expressed his support for Singapore’s proposal, as did Ms. CHADHA ( India) and EDDY PRATOMO ( Indonesia).

JERZY MAKAROWSKI ( Sweden) said that equitable meant proportional and was a very difficult term; it contained more elements than proportionality.  Annex II of the Convention said that Commission members should be elected with due regard for the need to ensure equitable geographical representation, and section 3 of that article gave the same number of seats to all geographical groups, namely three, leaving six seats to be filled.  The Asian-African proposal was one way of looking at it.  Another way, according to “annex guidance”, was equitable distribution between the different groups, which would leave four seats to each group, and one seat would remain outside that equation.  In that case, a different group would be over-represented or under-represented.  That idea could be kept in mind when talking about equitable distribution. 

Mr. TLADI ( South Africa) said he supported the joint African-Asian proposal.

Mr. MENON ( Singapore), responding to the interventions by his western colleagues, said he was a bit surprised by the kind of arguments used to justify the current situation.  The United Kingdom representative had suggested that there was no problem.  There was a problem -– it was one of under-representation of certain regions and over-representation of certain regions, and that had to be addressed.  He had also been surprised to hear the point by that representative that time should be spent in plenary on other important issues and that this one should be “sent down” to informal consultations --that it was not important enough to warrant time in plenary.  It was important enough, and he expected sufficient time in plenary to be devoted to it. 

To the argument that scientific expertise should be the main criteria for allocation of seats on the Commission, he said he hoped that delegations making that case were not suggesting that Africa was in short supply of such expertise, because that would be downright insulting.  In terms of how to define equitable distribution, perhaps population should be used as the way forward. 

RAYMOND WOLFE ( Jamaica) said he thought the representative of Singapore had a point.  As President of the sixteenth meeting of States parties, he felt the item under discussion was of such importance that it warranted careful consideration in plenary.  Maybe there could be informal discussions as well.

WANG ZONGLAI, Deputy Director-General, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China , asserted that equitable geographical representation was not equal geographical representation or average representation.  He supported the statement made by the delegate from Singapore.  He had fewer grounds to oppose the use of population as criteria for determining the allocation of seats.

JUSTER NKOROI ( Kenya) also expressed support for the remarks made by the delegation of Singapore, as did I.A. AYUA ( Nigeria), who reassured the representative of the United Kingdom and others that merit would not be jeopardized by the adoption of that proposal.  NAMIRA NABIL NEGM ( Egypt) also endorsed the proposal. 

J. ASHLEY ROACH ( United States) said the work of meetings of States parties had been on the basis of consensus, and the same procedure should be followed when discussing this agenda item.  He had serious doubts about the use of a strict numerical calculation for the allocation of seats for the Commission.  That was neither required by the Convention, nor its negotiating history.  Further, it was not the practice used for geographical posts.

As for the reference made to article 2, annex 2 of the Convention, he said that that only required that due regard be paid to the need to ensure equitable geographical representation.  The principle and overriding legally binding criteria was that the commissioners be experts in the specified scientific fields.  Perhaps, more importantly, it was only less than one week after elections, and the next election was now five years away, so he wondered whether a decision had to be taken at this point in time.  To the extent that it was relevant, today’s numerical calculations might not be the same.  The allocation of seats to the Commission had previously been reached on the basis of consensus; that process should continue.  The present allocation should not be changed.

Mr. CHITTY ( Sri Lanka) said that at the time of the elections just concluded, there had been a provisional understanding that the present agenda item would be taken up afterwards.  Like other speakers, he had no difficulty seeing that the proposal on the table would accommodate competencies as necessary.

Mr. PROTHMANN ( Namibia) said he associated himself fully with the African-Asian proposals.  Regarding the practice for geographical posts, those desirable ranges were only applicable to the professional staff of the United Nations and not to elected bodies.  To elected bodies, the principle of proportionality was applicable. 

DOUGLAS KERR ( United Kingdom) noted the concern for scientific balance and that it should not be sacrificed for the sake of numbers.  He thanked the African-Asian groups for their proposal.  The distribution of seats for the Tribunal was last agreed to by consensus and that was the basis of the 2005 election.  He pointed to the complex issue of the way elections took place in the Tribunal and warned against making the wrong decision by rushing to a decision.  It was imperative to follow the Convention to the absolute letter.

THOMAS FITSCHEN ( Germany) said the Tribunal used different criteria than the Commission for selecting judges and that the two processes should not be viewed as identical.  The basis for distributing seats was agreed to by consensus and served as the basis for the 2005 election.  Why was that procedure no longer valid?  It had not been challenged in 2005.  He agreed with the concern of others over using a purely mathematical approach to fill seats.  The membership of all groups had increased since the first elections were held in 1996.  The only regional groups whose shares had not changed were the Asian Group and the Eastern European Group. Germany’s first and foremost concern was that the Tribunal be capable of fulfilling its important functions.

JENS PROTHMANN ( Namibia) strongly supported the joint African-Asian proposal.  While the Commission and the Tribunal were different bodies, they were both bodies of the same regime, that is, the Convention.  Articles 2 and 3 of the Commission and of the Law of the Sea statute had identical provisions and, therefore, identical applicable laws.  The issue was not a matter of math, but a matter of representative democracy. 

NEERU CHADHA ( India) expressed her support for the African-Asian Group proposal.

DIRE TLADI ( South Africa) also supported the statements by the representatives of India and Namibia.  

J. ASHLEY ROACH ( United States) supported the German representative’s statement that the current election procedure should not be changed.  Equitable geographical distribution was only one of the requirements.  The first was that each judge must enjoy the highest reputation.  The third was that the Tribunal, as a whole, must represent the principle legal systems of the world.  The fifth was that each geographical group get at least three seats. 

* *** *

For information media • not an official record