Meeting of States Parties

to Law of Sea Convention

112^th Meeting (PM)

PIRACY, UNREGULATED FISHING, TRANS-SHIPMENT OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AMONG ISSUES

AS STATES PARTIES DISCUSS SECRETARY-GENERAL’S REPORT

 

The States parties to the Convention on the Law of the Sea, departing from the discussion so far this week on financial and administrative issues, today took up the comprehensive annual report of the Secretary-General on oceans and the law of the sea, delving into such matters as piracy on the high seas, unreported and unregulated fishing, and trans-shipment of hazardous materials.

Sierra Leone’s representative, noting that an estimated 90,000 Sierra Leoneans made their living through fishing, said that illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing not only threatened the livelihood of fishermen and the income derived from marine resources, but also threatened the country’s sustainable fisheries management.  Sierra Leone lost an estimated $29 million annually through pirate fishing.

When it came to catching those pirates, he said the odds were “stacked against us”.  All the efforts to detect and catch pirate fishing vessels were restricted by a fundamental lack of financial and technical resources.  Sierra Leone had passed fisheries laws, which it was finding difficult, if not impossible, to implement, owing to ineffective surveillance and monitoring.  Unless flag States and port States met their responsibilities under the many existing international instruments, its efforts would be in vain.

India’s speaker also expressed serious concern over incidents of piracy and robbery at sea.  Regional efforts to establish cooperative mechanisms on navigation safety and environmental protection were welcome, particularly the coming into force of the Regional Agreement on Combating Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships in Asia on 4 September 2006 and the launch of its information-sharing centre.  At the same time, he emphasized the importance of the principle of freedom of navigation, including the right of innocent passage, as well as transit passage through straits used for international navigation.

For many years, the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) had been concerned at the likely trans-shipment of dangerous materials through the Caribbean Sea, Barbados’ delegate said.  The issue was of the highest concern to his country and those of the region and beyond.  It was not a matter of seeking to curtail the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention, but rather an attempt to ensure a balance between rights and freedoms, and duties and responsibilities.  Given the intimate relationship between the Caribbean Sea and the survival of the region, a disaster would threaten both.

Chile’s representative was similarly concerned, stressing that the question of transport of hazardous substances should be considered seriously and responsibly.  The rules governing secure transport should be strengthened so as to prevent environmental damage; those rules should be very strict, and he encouraged the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to continue its consideration of the subject in the context of its competence.

Throughout the substantive discussion this afternoon, some delegations asserted that the Meeting of States Parties was not the forum in which to discuss the Secretary-General’s report.  Germany’s speaker, on behalf of the European Union, expressed appreciation for the thorough report, but noted that States parties had different views as to whether the Meeting “may or may not” discuss it in substance.

Norway’s representative emphasized that the role of the Meeting of States Parties was limited to financial and administrative issues; the Meeting had not been given any substantial role.  The General Assembly was the global forum with the competence to undertake an annual review and evaluation of the implementation of the Convention and other developments related to oceans and the law of the sea.

On the other hand, Indonesia’s representative said he supported the interpretation that the treaty’s article 319 provided modalities for the Meeting to discuss any issues relating to the treaty’s implementation, and not just budgetary and administrative matters.  He thanked the Secretary-General for the annual report, which was very comprehensive, consisting of major aspects of oceans affairs and the law of the sea.  Once the report was issued, States parties reserved the right of response and to comment on issues of concern to them.

Just before the conclusion of the meeting, Malaysia’s representative circulated a draft decision on issues related to the workload of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, which, he said, flowed from this morning’s informal discussion.  The draft was based on last year’s text, but it had been updated to address the concerns raised this morning, especially with regard to the issue of strengthening the Secretariat, he noted.

Statements were also made by the representatives of the Bahamas, Singapore, Iceland, Brazil, Guatemala, Trinidad and Tobago, Cuba, Canada, Sri Lanka, Russian Federation, Kenya, Argentina, Australia, Nigeria and the United States.

The Meeting of States Parties will convene again at 10 a.m. on Friday, 22 June, to conclude its session.

Background

The seventeenth Meeting of States parties to the Convention on the Law of the Sea met this afternoon to consider agenda item 18, the report of the Secretary-General under 319 for information on issues of a general nature, relevant to States parties, which have arisen with respect to the Convention.

Consideration of Report

When the meeting turned to the Secretary-General’s report (document A/62/66), ALLIEU IBRAHIM KANU ( Sierra Leone) said his country depended for sustenance on marine resources.  In fact, an estimated 90,000 Sierra Leoneans made their living through fishing.  However, a major problem facing the country was the issue of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.  That not only threatened the livelihood of fishermen and the income derived from marine resources, but also threatened the country’s sustainable fisheries management.  Sierra Leone lost an estimated $29 million annually through pirate fishing.

When it came to catching those pirates, he said the odds were “stacked against us”.  All the efforts to detect and catch pirate fishing vessels were restricted by a fundamental lack of financial and technical resources.  Sierra Leone had passed fisheries laws, which it was finding difficult, if not impossible, to implement, owing to ineffective surveillance and monitoring.  Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing was damaging to developing countries, which were often highly dependent on fishing to generate livelihoods, food security and income.  The value of such fishing for the Mano River basin countries –- Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia -– amounted to some $180 million per year.

That rampant illegal fishing was a serious threat to the sustainability of Sierra Leone’s fisheries, he continued.  The country had inadequate and under-resourced fisheries management institutions.  The national efforts were complemented by efforts by the United Kingdom and the World Bank to develop a fisheries sector strategy paper.  However, unless flag States and port States met their responsibilities within the many international instruments in existence, those efforts would be pointless.

Noting that his country had a large number of its nationals working as seafarers, he said that, in recent years, there had been an increasing number of complaints by them about gross violations of their fundamental human rights by ship’ owners and port States.  Some of the nationals were being treated as potential terrorists by some coastal States.  There were also cases where salaries were not paid.  The problem was that authorities did not know whom to take action against for redress; was it the flag State or the ship’s owner?  That perennial problem required urgent attention by all Member States, especially in implementation of the relevant provisions of the Law of the Sea Convention.  He also stressed that any activity relating to the biological diversity of the deep seabed beyond national jurisdiction should be carried out for the benefit of humankind as a whole, on the basis of the relevant principles governing the area.

Commenting on other agenda items, he noted with concern that there were no new cases on the dockets of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, and that the applications for the prompt release of vessels did not necessarily have to be submitted by the flag State, but could be submitted by the ship owner on the flag State’s behalf.  He strongly believed that that procedure was fraught with dangers, especially when it was difficult to tell the link between the flag State and the ship, and the possibility that the ship belonged to more than one owner.  The Tribunal should revisit that procedure. 

On the work of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, he noted with concern the challenges of its workload and welcomed further reflection on proposals to redress it.  The suggestion that meetings of the subcommission be held in the capitals of submitting States warranted further consideration.  As for meeting the May 2009 deadline for submissions, many developing States did not have the capacity to meet that time frame.  It should, therefore, be extended rather than stultify the sovereign rights of those States to extend their jurisdiction beyond 200 nautical miles.  Those rights were enshrined in international law and could not be derogated from because of an inability to make submissions by May 2009.  There was a possibility that his country would make its submissions before the deadline, because of technical assistance provided by the Commonwealth Secretariat with regard to Sierra Leone’s maritime boundaries. 

On the composition of the Commission and Tribunal, he said he fully supported the African-Asian proposal on equitable geographical representation, adding that Africa and Asia had adequately qualified people to represent them in those bodies, and “to think otherwise is offensive and condescending”. 

GODFREY ROLLE ( Bahamas) said Bahamas had acquired the Caris Lots software to facilitate the process of establishing its maritime boundaries and it intended to resume boundary negotiations with its neighbours shortly.  It also intended to soon submit to the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea a list of Bahamas geographical coordinates and requisite charts.  Developing States like Bahamas would prefer to actively participate in -– rather than merely observe -– discussions on marine environment issues.  He was encouraged by workshops, such as the one held in April in Kingston for the Caribbean region.  Such initiatives helped developing States increase their knowledge and capabilities.  He appealed for more seminars to be held in the future.

The Bahamas was committed to the safety of international shipping, he said.  It was in its best interest to promote and maintain a healthy marine environment.  The Bahamas had volunteered to undergo the voluntary International Maritime Organization (IMO) Member State Audit Scheme that enabled flag States to assess how effectively they implemented and enforced relevant IMO convention standards.

The Bahamas had instituted closed seasons for several marine species in order to conserve and manage fishery resources.  However, it still faced the ongoing problem of poaching by vessels from other countries whose crew used any means necessary to deplete the Bahamas’ marine resources, even to the extent where it destroyed habitats. 

FRANCOIS JACKMAN ( Barbados) said his Government welcomed two recent developments in the work of the Tribunal.  The first was the creation of a chamber for maritime delimitation disputes, which would address some of the reservations that States had had concerning the use of the Tribunal for settling that type of dispute.  States parties would be in a position to select the tool best suited to them.  Second, the Tribunal had undertaken a series of outreach activities to raise awareness about its functions and to build capacity in those countries that required it.  Both of those initiatives were timely, and he thanked the Tribunal for having made it possible for representatives from Barbados and the Caribbean as a whole to have participated in them. 

Turning to the trans-shipment of hazardous materials, he said that when the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) heads of State and Government met last year, they issued a statement expressing their concern at the likely trans-shipment of such materials through the Caribbean Sea, a position that the Community had adopted for many years now.  That matter remained of the highest concern to his country and those of the region and beyond.  It was not a matter of seeking to curtail the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention, but rather an attempt to ensure an appropriate balance between, on the one hand, rights and freedoms, and on the other hand, duties and responsibilities.  Given the intimate relationship between the sea in the Caribbean and the survival of the region, a disaster threatened both.  His Government, through the United Nations system among others, would work to ensure that the Caribbean Sea received the protection it deserved. 

EDNA CHIA (Singapore) said paragraph 282 of the Secretary-General’s report noted that, during the General Assembly’s consideration of the item “Oceans and the Law of the Sea” last year, many delegations underlined that laws and regulations adopted by States bordering straits used for international navigation should be non-discriminatory and in conformity with the Convention.  The report then noted that Australia stated that its measures were in conformity with the Convention and were necessary to facilitate safe passage through what were treacherous and narrow waterways.  That paragraph could give the false impression that there was a general acceptance of Australia’s decision to impose compulsory pilotage in a strait used for international navigation.  That was not the case.  Singapore had spoken about the worrying trend by some coastal States to tilt the balance of the Convention in favour of the environment.  She fully supported efforts to protect the marine and coastal environment, but said such measures must not contravene the carefully negotiated package of rights and responsibility of States as enshrined under the Convention.

She also noted that Australia’s position to impose a system of compulsory pilotage in the Torres Strait was inconsistent with article 42(1) and 42(2) of the Convention.  The record of the IMO resolution (MEPC.133) (53) clearly showed that the IMO did not sanction Australia’s decision to impose compulsory pilotage in the Torres Strait.  In addition, during last year’s plenary debate 14, other delegations highlighted the importance of the principle of freedom of navigation.  The Convention’s provisions were clear.  The right of transit passage was enshrined under the Convention.  Singapore had consistently stressed that Australia’s actions threatened the delicate balance reflected in the Convention between the interest of coastal States and user States in straits used for international navigation.  Singapore was willing to work with Australia to resolve the issue.

ÁLVARO ARÉVALO ( Chile) stressed that the Convention provided a legal framework, which should be maintained.  The three bodies it established –- the International Tribunal, the International Seabed Authority and the Commission –- were working in accordance with their relevant competencies and mandates, and, at the same time, strengthening the treaty.  Special attention should be given to the Secretary-General’s note in his report that not all States were always represented at meetings of the International Seabed Authority.  It played a very important role, not only in respect of seabed mining, and it should enjoy the broadest participation by States.

He said that strengthening the role of the flag State was essential for the full implementation of international rules, especially on the high seas.  The connection between the State and a vessel was an authentic one.  He attached great importance to that fact and was prepared to contribute to its constant strengthening.  He also favoured an increase in the authority of port States, which was another way of monitoring ocean activities effectively.

An area of concern to coastal States was the transport of dangerous substances, a subject that should continue to be considered seriously and responsibly, he said.  The rules governing secure transport should be strengthened so as to prevent environmental damage; those rules should be very strict, and he encouraged the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to continue its consideration of the subject in the context of its competence. 

He said that the round of negotiations recently concluded in Chile on the establishment of a regional fisheries organization for the South Pacific among Australia, Chile and New Zealand, together with other countries, had resulted in the adoption of provisional measures to be applied ahead of the creation of the regional organization.  That had been clear progress, as those provisional steps were fully consistent with the rules on fisheries adopted by the General Assembly last year.

TOMAS HEIDAR ( Iceland) said, according to article 319(e) of the Convention, the Secretary-General should convene the necessary meetings of States parties in accordance with the Convention.  According to annexes II and IV, the role of the meeting of States parties was limited to financial and administrative issues.  In that regard, improving the effectiveness of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, in light of its increased workload, which had been the focus of the current meeting, was a good example.  The meeting of States parties had not been given any substantive role.  Proposals on a broader role for the meeting were rejected by the ThirdUnited Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea.  The General Assembly was the global forum for an annual review and evaluation of implementation of the Convention and other developments related to oceans and the law of the sea.

The title of agenda item 18 included important qualifications that must be respected, he said.  The report under article 319 was for States parties’ information purposes.  It was limited to issues of a general nature, relevant to States parties, and that had arisen with respect to the Convention.  The meeting of States parties did not have any substantive role.  The General Assembly had a substantive role, as did the United Nations Informal Consultative Process on Oceans and the Law of the Sea, which was to hold its eighth meeting next week.  For these reasons, Iceland would not take part in any substantive debate in the present forum.

EDDY PRATOMO ( Indonesia) said he supported the interpretation that article 319 provided modalities for the meeting of States parties to discuss any issues relating to the treaty’s implementation, and not just budgetary and administrative matters.  He thanked the Secretary-General and the Secretariat for the annual report, which was very comprehensive, consisting of major aspects of oceans affairs and the law of the sea.  Once the report was issued, States parties reserved the right of response and to comment on issues of concern to them.  That process did not limit or exclude the contribution and participation of non-States parties since they had a role in the process if they were observers.  Additionally, the General Assembly allocated an agenda item to the issue in the plenary. 

Continuing, he said that a legal document reflected a particular situation at the time the agreement was reached.  By nature, law had to compete with new developments.  That also applied to the Convention, because of technological advancements that revealed the hidden potential of marine resources not anticipated when the international community sealed their agreement to the Convention.  In addition, he had heard claims that a new approach for responding to the new threat of maritime security had a legal basis in the Convention, while many others objected to that interpretation. 

Such important issues certainly warranted further consideration by a forum established within the framework of the Convention, he said.  Through such appropriate forums, Member States could ensure the consistent application of the Convention; that was the logical benefit of a forum of States parties to an international regulation of a universal character.  Additionally, it was difficult to understand that the informal consultative process prevailed over the formal mechanism of the Convention.  By its nature, the informal process was an ad hoc mechanism that States should revisit after a certain period of time and decide its future status. 

MARIA TERESA MESQUITA PESSOA ( Brazil) said the Secretary-General’s report (document A/59/62) listed the activities related to marine genetic resources as scientific activities, investigation, research and development or “bio-prospecting” and exploitation.  In proposing those distinctions, the report glossed over the positions already stated on the regime established by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in Part III regarding marine scientific research.  However, in the report on the work of the United Nations Informal Consultative Process on Oceans and the Law of the Sea (document A/59/122), several delegates had stated their reservations to the Secretary-General’s report, and had pointed out that the Convention did not provide a definition of marine scientific research, nor did it mention bio-prospecting.  They also noted that the distinction between pure and applied marine scientific research had never been universally accepted, since there was no perceivable difference in the activity or method. 

She also referred to paragraph 95 to clarify that, to her knowledge, there was no discussion on definitions taking place within the Advisory Body of Experts on the Law of the Sea of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission other than those in the draft guidelines, within the context of the Convention, for the collection of oceanographic data by specific means.  There was no lack of legal clarity on the regime applicable that was established under the Convention for marine scientific research.

VERENA GRAFIN VON ROEDERN ( Germany), on behalf of the European Union, noted with appreciation the Secretary-General’s annual report, which was a thorough overview of the issues.  She recalled that States parties had different views in relation to whether the meeting might or might not discuss in substance the report, which the Secretary-General prepared to meet his obligations under article 319 2(a) of the Convention on matters concerning oceans and the law of the sea.

ANA CRISTINA RODRIGUEZ PINEDA ( Guatemala) said that, in 1994, the international community took a very important step to protect the oceans with the Convention’s entry into force, and she warmly welcomed the new parties to the treaty.  She also congratulated the recently elected members of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, echoing the concerns expressed by Commission members about the 2009 deadline for submissions and their willingness to explore alternatives to facilitate their work, without changing the letter of spirit of the Convention.  She also thanked the Tribunal’s President for the training and capacity-building programme’s aimed at strengthening the court.  She appreciated the Secretary-General’s contribution to the International Seabed Authority, and she would follow with interest the Authority’s upcoming thirteenth session next month in Kingston, Jamaica.

She said that the report under consideration provided a vast amount of updated legal and scientific information, including on the irreversible effects of climate change, which, among other things, affected the ocean food chain and affected sea levels, threatening Small Island States in particular.  Climate change also adversely affected fisheries and marine resources, biodiversity, and led to unhealthy conditions and poverty.  It should be a priority on the United Nations agenda, as the Organization presented a unique opportunity to tackle that critical concern.

Regarding sensitive marine zones, she stressed the need to ensure the safety of navigation, urging all States to comply with their domestic legislation and international obligations under the Convention.  International cooperation was also crucial and could take several forms, among them information exchange and technology sharing to combat threats to marine safety.  Guatemala, with international support, had taken measures in that regard, including training of officials to deal with marine accidents, piracy and other illicit activities.  It would also continue to promote biodiversity, and genetic resources on the seabed as the common heritage of humankind.

EDEN CHARLES ( Trinidad and Tobago) said his country had, in September 2006, acceded to the 1995 Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks.  He supported the International Seabed Authority and said it was the only mechanism with the legitimacy and competence to ensure that all States benefited from economic, scientific and other benefits from the resources in question.  Earlier in the week, Trinidad and Tobago spoke of its commitment to the pacific settlement of disputes provided under Part XI of the Convention and its intention to make in the future a declaration under article 287 accepting the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea as its preferred mechanism to solve disputes concerning the interpretation and application of provisions of the Convention. 

During last week’s election, a national of Trinidad and Tobago was elected as a member of the Commission, he said.  Trinidad and Tobago had held bilateral discussions with a few States to learn from their experiences in making submissions to the Commission.  It had set up a multi-disciplinary team to begin work on its submission.  Noting that paragraphs 48 and 49 of the Secretary-General’s report concerned the sea transport of dangerous goods, he expressed concern over the shipment of high levels of radioactive waste through the Caribbean Sea.  Nevertheless, he was encouraged by the dialogue among all parties involved -- in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and other international fora -- to address that issue.

S.K. DAS ( India) said there was now undeniable evidence that certain scientific research could put the fragile ecosystem and the species of the deep sea at risk.  Marine scientific research that aimed at exploration of biodiversity for commercially valuable genetic and biochemical resources –- so-called bio-prospecting –- could be one such activity.  The general principles of marine scientific research, namely those contained in the relevant articles of the Convention, should also apply to bio-prospecting.  The symbiotic relationship between the biodiversity of the deep seabed and its ecosystem made the entire resources of the seabed, living and non-living, a common heritage of humankind.  The task today was to identify the risks to that common heritage and agree on a substantive legal basis for the conservation and management of biodiversity and the use of biological and biogenetic resources of the deep-seabed and subsoil.

In the area of maritime navigation, he expressed serious concern over incidents of piracy and robbery at sea.  Regional efforts to establish cooperative mechanisms on navigation safety and environmental protection were welcome, particularly the coming into force of the Regional Agreement on Combating Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships in Asia on 4 September 2006 and the launch of its information-sharing centre.  At the same time, he emphasized the importance of the principle of freedom of navigation, including the right of innocent passage, as well as transit passage through straits used for international navigation.  The States bordering straits might adopt laws or regulations relating to transit passage through straits, but such laws should be enforced in a manner that was non-discriminatory and fully consistent with article 42 of the Convention.

He reviewed the several research programmes being implemented by his country, including in the field of marine science and technology, protection and preservation of marine environment, marine living resources, ocean observations, polar research and marine bio-prospecting.  India was also pursuing several scientific activities in the Indian Ocean, maintained a network of ocean observation systems and had a dedicated centre for marine data, which could be accessed via the website of the Indian National Centre for Ocean Information Services.  It was also in the advanced stage of setting up a tsunami early warning system for the Indian Ocean, which should be operational by the end of 2007.  India was also committed to conserving and protecting the marine environment, and it was preparing management plans for major coastal cities and sensitive coastal areas, among its many other activities.  While India also imposed a complete ban on fishing during the breeding season to protect juvenile fisheries, bottom-trawling and illegal fishing in the deep sea remained its serious areas of concern.

JUANA ELENA RAMOS RODRIGUEZ ( Cuba) stressed the importance of strengthening international cooperation among all parties that had an impact on the state of the world’s oceans.  That included exchanging and strengthening national capacity, which was very important for developing countries.  Despite economic difficulties, Cuba had undertaken considerable efforts to develop and protect the marine environment in accordance with the Convention.  She pointed to the policies and initiatives of certain States that contravened the Convention and that would violate general maritime standards and the free passage of ships in certain territorial waters.  In areas outside national jurisdiction, the preservation and management of resources was important and must be in accordance with principles enshrined in the Convention.  Marine scientific research should be only for peaceful purposes.

She called attention to the human activities that could negatively impact marine environments, including coral reefs.  Cuba had been very successful in protecting marine areas, national parks and biosphere reserves through various regional cooperation activities.  It had strengthened its national system of protected areas.  She supported creation of a United Nations framework for the periodic submission of reports on the state of the marine environment, including the socio-economic aspects of the marine environment within the framework of the recommendations of the global summit on sustainable development.

WENDELL SANFORD ( Canada) welcomed the 18 May adoption of the Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks.  The Convention established uniform international rules and procedures to ensure prompt and effective removal of hazardous wrecks from the coastal waters of States parties.  Canada was pleased with the “opt in” solution allowing a State party to extend the scope of the Convention to wrecks located within its internal waters and territorial sea, since most wrecks occurred in cold waters within its territorial sea.  He noted that all States parties would benefit from a mandatory international insurance framework, providing them with the right of direct action.  He supported the Advisory Board of Experts on the Law of the Sea and its current initiative in relation to the legal framework for collection of oceanographic data. 

He lauded the fact that issues related to the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity beyond national jurisdiction were being raised and discussed in numerous fora, including the Convention on Biological Diversity and the United Nations General Assembly.  Canada was making an effort to better understand the various aspects of the issue and the challenges and opportunities offered by marine genetic research.  It was important to recognize that there was real demand for marine genetic resources.  But, it was important to first get a better idea of the magnitude of the demand, its users, how resources were used and the degree of impact of their extraction on marine ecosystems.  It was important to be mindful of the coastal rights of States over their continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles, as well as the coastal States’ jurisdiction over marine scientific research within their Exclusive Economic Zone.

JENS EIKAAS, Deputy Director-General, Royal Minister of Foreign Affairs of Norway, said that the role of the meeting of States parties was limited to financial and administrative issues; the meeting had not been given any substantial role.  The General Assembly was the global forum with the competence to undertake an annual review and evaluate the implementation of the Convention and other developments related to oceans and the law of the sea. 

He thanked the Secretary-General for his report, which was comprehensive and would greatly facilitate the discussion of the items in the General Assembly.  In line with Norway’s view, he would not take part in any substantive discussion in this forum that he believed should take place in the General Assembly. 

GRITAKUMAR E. CHITTY ( Sri Lanka) said the report was an indispensable tool for the General Assembly and for the meeting of States parties providing stewardship for the world’s oceans and seas.  Laws and regulations adopted by States should be consistent with the Convention, and that applied to passage through straits, as referenced by the delegate from Singapore.  He commended the capacity-building effort of the Division and the generosity, in that regard, of the Nippon Foundation and others.  Also notable in the report had been the reference to the Regional Cooperation Agreement for Combating Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships in Asia, which had entered force, and the launch of the information-sharing centre.

He noted that the report had been fortified with specialized information from a great variety of sources, including in the public domain.  He also looked forward to the valuable supplement to the present report to be submitted to the General Assembly later this year.  It was expected to contain preliminary information on assistance to, and measures that might be taken by, developing States to realize the benefits of sustainable and effective development of marine resources and uses of the oceans within the limits of national jurisdiction.  The main study to be presented by the Secretary-General to the sixty-third Assembly session would be based on information from States and global and regional funding agencies, among other entities.  He urged the Secretary-General, within the limits of time and resources, to utilize information in the public domain. 

EVGENY ZAGAINOV ( Russian Federation) said the mandate of the meeting of States parties was to address administrative and financial issues related to the Convention.  He shared the view of many delegations that substantive issues, specifically the contents of the Secretary-General’s report, should be taken up by the General Assembly and its facilitator, the United Nations Open-ended Informal Consultative Process on Oceans and the Law of the Sea.

JUSTER NKOROI ( Kenya) reiterated Kenya’s view on the expanded role of the meeting of States parties.  The meeting should not be limited to budgetary and administrative issues.  It was useful that the meeting -- the highest organ under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea -- continue to discuss substantive issues concerning implementation of the Convention.  That was how Kenya interpreted article 319(a).  She took note of paragraph 86 of page 29 of the report that indicated that the number of acts of piracy and armed robbery against ships reported to the IMO in 2006 totalled 240, a drop in 24 incidents over the previous year.  The areas affected included the Indian Ocean and East Africa.

In March 2006, Kenya hosted a regional workshop to discuss the issue.  The workshop resulted in a regional strategy in collaboration with IMO.  Kenya had been working with many partners to implement that strategy.  She called for greater support to ensure that the Indian waters were safe for everyone.  Turning to the issue of illegal, unregulated and unreported fisheries, she said such fishing in East African waters had reached alarming heights.  She called for support to tackle that problem.

HOLGER MARTINSEN ( Argentina) said that paragraph 106 of the report referred to a “troubling” situation, namely the non-implementation of the 1995 Agreement on Fish Stocks, and it did so in very general terms.  It placed the agreement on equal footing with the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) code of conduct, implying that the 1995 Agreement was one of general scope, or that it had achieved some kind of effectiveness beyond those States parties to it.  However, that was not how his delegation saw it.  Nor did it think that vision was sustainable.

He said that the Agreement was not of a general nature.  It had about 60 States parties, as compared to the nearly 160 States parties to the Convention.  That degree of acceptability made the two texts quite different, yet the content of the paragraph was confusing, as was paragraph 105 right before it and the next one as well.  The text of the report said, among other things, that the objective was to cover all the world’s oceans with regional fisheries management organizations with competence to manage high seas fisheries organizations.  That was a commendable goal, but it overlooked that the establishment of regional organizations for fisheries management was one more mean of all those that were available to preserve high-seas fisheries resources.  The kind of assertion made in the report put the regional fisheries association in a bad light.  His delegation did not share that view.

Finally, he said he supported the point made by Brazil’s representative in connection to paragraph 95 of the report.  The delegate had said that there was no discussion on definitions taking place within the Advisory Body of Experts on the Law of the Sea of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission other than those contained in the draft guidelines within the context of the Convention, for the collection of oceanographic data by specific means.  Thus, in his view, the reference in paragraph 95 was erroneous and should be corrected.

The Meeting’s President, ROSEMARY BANKS ( New Zealand) said the Secretariat would come back to the delegate from Argentina regarding his comments.

DEAN MARC BIALEK (Australia), referring to the statement by Singapore’s representative, said that Australia’s measures to impose compulsory pilotage in a strait used for international navigation were, in fact, necessary to facilitate safe passage through narrow and treacherous waters.  Australia had been consulting bilaterally with Singapore on that issue and would continue to do so.

I.A. AYUA ( Nigeria) said the Secretary-General’s report had dynamics that should not be ignored simply because, under article 319, the report was supposed to be only for informational purposes for the meeting of States parties.  It was a comprehensive and progressive report that affected States parties.  Nigeria had made strenuous efforts to address the problem of smuggling of migrants from sub-Saharan Africa clandestinely into Europe.  The problem of smuggling of migrants by land, sea and air had been proactively addressed by Nigeria’s National Agency for Prohibition of Trafficking in Persons.  Nigeria was doing its part to end smuggling by implementing the protocol against smuggling of migrants by land, sea and air. 

The Secretary-General’s report called on receiver countries to uphold the human rights of migrants by treating them in a humane manner.  Just looking at the Secretary-General’s report as a document for informational purposes only was a negative approach

Ms. MESQUITA PESSOA ( Brazil) concurred with the statement by Argentina’s representative, in which she regretted that the President of the meeting of States parties was not in the room to follow the debate. 

J. ASHLEY ROACH ( United States) said that, as he and others had stated in previous meetings, the role of the Meeting of States Parties was not a conference of parties; that idea had not garnered sufficient support in the third conference.  Rather, the role of the Meeting was prescribed in the Convention to conduct elections for the Tribunal and Commission, and to determine the Tribunal’s budget.  However, in addition, the Meeting received the report of the Secretary-General on oceans and the law of the sea.  As with reports on the Commission and the Tribunal, and information on the Seabed Authority, members could comment on the reports, which were simply noted.  In that context, he would do so, as well.

He said he shared the concerns about paragraph 282 of the report.  An international maritime organization had no authority to enforce measures for failure to take a pilot through any strait used for international navigation.  Voluntary acceptance of a pilot in circumstances that did not impair the right of transit passage would assist in protecting sensitive ecosystems, and he strongly encouraged all ships to take a pilot in such circumstances.

Just last week, on 14 June, the United States President had issued a comprehensive policy for the repression of piracy, he said.  The policy had been issued in major part to promote international solutions and to coordinate the United States Government’s response to such threats.  In particular, it advanced his Government’s commitment to cooperate with other States, regional and international organizations, and with the maritime industry, to counter threats posed by piracy and other related criminal acts.  President George Bush had emphasized that the policy objectives were to promote and facilitate peaceful and international use of oceans.  All nations had an interest and responsibility in protecting those rights and freedoms.  He looked forward to working together to repress piracy and other such criminal acts and threats.

With regard to the request by the delegation of the Bahamas for assistance in dealing with illegal migration by sea, he noted that the United States and the Bahamas had entered into an agreement to meet such challenges and had it been effective.  He supported today’s request for additional assistance to deal with that serious problem.  Paragraph 95 of the Secretary-General’s report on operational oceanography was correct and well balanced, and he would not wish to see it amended, he said.

Ms. CHIA ( Singapore) said the introduction of compulsory pilotage was necessary.   Singapore fully recognized Australia’s concern for environmental and navigational safety, but that must be done in way that was consistent with the Convention.  Singapore had consistently maintained the position that pilotage was in contravention with safe passage rights as enshrined in the Convention.  Article 42 stated that the laws and regulations of the sea should not have a practical effect on denying, hampering and impairing the right of passage.  By imposing such a system, Australia was, in fact, denying and hampering the right of passage.  Singapore and Australia had met on the issue.  Singapore wanted to work with Australia on finding ways to respect both the environment and the issue of navigational safety.

Introduction of Text

GANESON SIVAGURUNATHAN ( Malaysia) said that, based on the discussion this morning, he had circulated a draft decision on issues related to the workload of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf.  It was based on last year’s text, but had been updated to address the concerns raised this morning, especially with regard to the issue of strengthening the Secretariat.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record