States Parties to Convention on the Law of the Sea Hear Updates on Activities of Tribunal, Seabed Authority, Commission on Limits of Continental Shelf

Meeting of States Parties

to Law of Sea Convention

127^th & 128^th Meetings (AM & PM)

STATES PARTIES TO CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA HEAR UPDATES ON ACTIVITIES

OF TRIBUNAL, SEABED AUTHORITY, COMMISSION ON LIMITS OF CONTINENTAL SHELF

The States parties to the Convention on the Law of the Sea today heard briefings by the heads of the three bodies established by the treaty -- the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, International Seabed Authority and the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf -- as they continued their annual session.

Taking note of the reports of the Tribunal and the Authority, they also heard general statements on matters related to the Convention.

Secretary-General of the International Seabed Authority, Nii Allotey Odunton, said 2009 had been particularly busy for the Authority’s Legal and Technical Commission, which had concluded its work on draft regulations for cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts and adopted new recommendations to help the Authority’s contractors report on actual and direct exploration expenditures -– a previously contentious topic for the Authority.  The new recommendations, which promoted adoption of standardized and internationally-recognized accounting practices, were intended to simplify the contractors’ tasks and avoid misunderstandings with the Commission.

He noted that since its inception in 2006, the Authority’s Endowment Fund for Marine Scientific Research had attracted a wide range of “very good” proposals aimed at giving qualified scientists and technical personnel from developing countries the chance to participate in international technical and scientific cooperation programmes.  The Commission had also reviewed a proposal to create within the Clarion-Clipperton Zone -- a nodule province of the central Pacific Ocean designate -- nine areas protected from mining activity and used to assess mining’s impact on deep sea environments.  And it neared completion of a long-running project to establish a geological model for the Clarion-Clipperton Zone.

The President of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, Jose Luis Jesus, pointed to efforts to bolster the Tribunal’s dispute-settlement system, including creation by the General Assembly of a trust fund to help developing States settle their disputes through the Tribunal and the establishment of an annual dispute-settlement, capacity-building and training programme.  Last year, the Tribunal organized, in cooperation with the International Foundation for the Law of the Sea, workshops in Bahrain and Buenos Aires on Tribunal dispute-settlement procedures.  Another would be held in South Africa later this year. 

Also last year, the Tribunal amended its rules of procedure and adopted guidelines governing the posting of bonds and financial securities in order to facilitate implementation of the Tribunal’s decisions in cases of prompt release of vessels and crews, he said.  In addition, Bulgaria and Estonia had become parties to the Tribunal’s Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities. 

Chairman of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, Alexandre Tagore Medeiros de Albuquerque, discussed the practical difficulties in managing the Commission’s increasing number of submissions -- 51 at present -- and sets of preliminary information from coastal States on the outer limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles.  The Commission would have to devote most of its twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth sessions to them and postpone consideration of its recommendations.  To keep pace with the workload, the Commission needed more plenary time, more intersessional meetings and at least three Geographic Information System (GIS) officers in the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea. 

The Commission, he continued, also tabled a draft resolution that clarified the nature and extent of Commission members’ expenses to be covered by the nominating State -- including reimbursement for lost income, medical insurance, airline ticket and travel insurance, per diem payments, accommodation, local transport, appropriate computer hardware and software for access to the Commission’s secure Internet sites, and other reimbursable expenses, including telephone calls.  He called on the meeting to duly consider that resolution.

In the afternoon, the meeting was suspended so that States parties could continue informal consultations on the allocation of seats on the Commission and the Tribunal.  Earlier in the day, Vice Chairman Eden Charles ( Trinidad and Tobago) said consultations held on Monday on that matter had helped to reduce tensions among participants. 

Also speaking today were representatives of the following States parties:   Brazil, Sweden (on behalf of the European Union), Republic of Korea, Argentina, South Africa, Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica, China, Nigeria, Australia, Ghana, Japan, Russian Federation, Norway and Canada.

The States parties will meet again at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 24 June, to continue their nineteenth meeting.

Background

The States parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea met today to consider the report of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to the Meeting of States Parties for 2008 (document SPLOS/191), and to hear reports by the Secretary-General of the International Seabed Authority and Chairman of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf.

Also today, States parties were expected to consider the allocation of seats on the Commission and the Tribunal, as well as budgetary matters, having before it the report of the external auditor for the financial period 2007-2008, with financial statements of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea as at 31 December 2008 (document SPLOS/192), the report on budgetary matters for the financial period 2007-2008 (document SPLOS/193), and adjustment of the remuneration of members of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (document SPLOS/194). 

At the outset of the meeting, Vice Chairman EDEN CHARLES ( Trinidad and Tobago) informed participants that informal consultations held on Monday on the agenda item on the allocation of seats on the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf and the Tribunal had helped to reduce tensions among participants on the matter.  He proposed that consultations continue in the afternoon.  The meeting then decided to reconvene them then.

International Law of Sea Tribunal

Introducing the report of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to the Meeting of States Parties for 2008 (document SPLOS/191), Tribunal President JOSE LUIS JESUS said last year the Tribunal had held two sessions on legal and judicial matters on questions related to the time frame for urgent proceedings in the event of two prompt release applications being submitted simultaneously, the institution of prompt release proceedings in cases of alleged marine environment pollution offences, and matters relevant to the work of its Chambers. 

Also last year, the Tribunal had concluded examination of the possibility of posting a bond or other financial security with the Tribunal Registrar in cases of prompt release of vessels and crews, amending its rules of procedure on 17 March 2009, he said.  Prior to the amendment to articles 113, paragraph 3, and 114, paragraphs 1 and 3, thereof, those bonds or financial securities had to be posted with the detaining State, unless the parties agreed otherwise.  Under the new rules, the Tribunal would have the option to determine whether they would be posted either with the Tribunal Registrar or with the detaining States.  The move was intended to facilitate implementation of the Tribunal’s decisions in the prompt release of vessels and crews.  The Tribunal also had adopted guidelines concerning those postings.

In addition to being able to avail themselves of the services of the standing Chambers regarding disputes, parties to a dispute could request that the Tribunal establish a special ad hoc chamber to deal with a particular dispute, he said.  Chile and the European Union had already exercised that option in 2000, when they submitted to an ad hoc chamber the case concerning the conservation and sustainable exploitation of swordfish stocks in the south-eastern Pacific Ocean.  The proceedings of that case had been postponed on several occasions.  On 10 and 11 December 2008, the Special Chamber had met to consider a further request by the parties to postpone time limits of the proceedings.  On 11 December 2008, the Chamber had adopted an Order to extend the time limit for making preliminary objections until 1 January 2010 and maintained the rights of the parties to revive the proceedings at any time.  The General Assembly had set up a trust fund to help developing States settle their disputes through the Tribunal.  He thanked the Finnish Government for contributing to that fund last year.  He noted that Bulgaria and Estonia had recently become parties to the Tribunal’s Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities. 

The Tribunal had also continued efforts to enhance knowledge of the dispute-settlement system established under the Convention, he said.  In 2008, in cooperation with the International Foundation for the Law of the Sea, it had organized workshops in Bahrain and Buenos Aires on Tribunal procedures for dispute settlements, and it would hold another one in South Africa later this year.  In 2007, with support from the Nippon Foundation, the Tribunal had created an annual capacity-building and training programme on dispute settlement, which had since benefited five Government officials and researchers from China, Gabon, Indonesia, Kenya and Romania.  In 2008, some 16 participants from 15 countries and different regions were admitted to the Tribunal’s internship programme.

Sweden’s representative, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the report demonstrated that the Tribunal was well equipped to fulfil its mandate.  But he continued to note with concern that, as of 30 December 2008, the balance of unpaid contributions was almost 500,000 euros.  He called on States parties to pay their contributions on time. 

The Republic of Korea’s representative addressed the need for more publicity for the Tribunal.  He lamented that there were few cases on maritime dispute.  The Tribunal should play a more important role in developing the law of the sea.  Since 2004, the Korea International Cooperation Agency, or KOICA, had contributed to financing the expenses of participants from developing countries, benefiting 195 interns from 67 States by the end of 2008.

Argentina’s representative asked for further information on aspects of chapter VI on “legal matters” of document SPLOS/191, particularly item B (1) on “Matters relating to the Seabed Disputes Chamber”. 

South Africa’s representative called on States to better avail themselves of the Tribunal, using it to resolve cases, and taking advantage of its infrastructure.  He encouraged the Tribunal to hold more seminars.  South Africa had proposed to host a regional seminar in October for the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region.

The representative of Trinidad and Tobago said a strong and independent tribunal was necessary for the adjudication of cases and asked that Members States give their full backing to the Tribunal’s work by accepting its jurisdiction in all areas of its mandated work.  He further commended and supported the Tribunal’s decision to hold more regional workshops, as those could enhance the performance of participating countries, such as in the Caribbean Community (CARICOM). 

He said the Tribunal also deserved commendation for recognizing the importance of the rule of law in its respective area of work.

Responding to participants’ comments and observations, the Tribunal President, Judge JESUS, expressed his gratitude for States parties’ support and assured them that the Tribunal was fully ready to work with members in carrying out its mandated functions.  Noting that all Members States expected Tribunal members to deliver on the mandate, he pointed out that those on the Tribunal believed it was an important function of theirs to ensure that they kept themselves well-informed on all ocean activities.  It was also their responsibility to pay attention to decisions or legislation taken by Member States in relation to the law of the sea, as that was in the best interest of harmonization of jurisprudence.  Tribunal members must be well versed in developments relating to the law of the sea and oceans. 

He said the desire for Tribunal judges to keep themselves informed should not be misunderstood, noting that their desire to keep themselves updated on what was happening in member countries was not an exercise that was aimed at passing judgement on any report, decision or activity of any one member country.  Rather, it was purely intended to keep abreast of what was happening in the field.

Turning to a question raised by the representative of South Africa on whether the Tribunal could convene closer to the concerned parties and the cases it was presiding over, he confirmed that the question had been a subject of great interest and much debate and that the possibility of moving the Tribunal close to the cases it was adjudicating was in fact being considered.

The meeting then took note of the report of the Tribunal.

International Seabed Authority

NII ALLOTEY ODUNTON, Secretary-General of the International Seabed Authority, noting that 2009 had been a particularly busy year for the Authority’s Legal and Technical Commission, said the Commission had concluded its work on draft regulations for cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts and had forwarded those draft regulations to the Council for its consideration in 2010.  The Commission had also adopted new recommendations for the guidance of contractors with the Authority on the reporting of actual and direct exploration expenditures under contracts with the Authority.  That area had caused considerable difficulty for the Authority in the past.

He said it was hoped that the new recommendations, which promoted the adoption of standardized and internationally-recognized accounting practices, would not only simplify the task of the contractors, but would also avoid some of the misunderstandings that had arisen in the past few years between the contractors and the Commission.

Among the most important proposals considered by the Commission had been a proposal to establish a network of areas of particular environmental interest in the nodule province of the central Pacific Ocean, the so-called Clarion-Clipperton Zone, he said.  That proposal, introduced to the Commission in 2008, involved the designation of nine areas, which would be protected from mining activity and used to assess the impact of mining on the deep sea environment in other areas.  The Commission had been able to review the proposal in detail, but had decided that the best way forward was for the Authority to convene, as a priority activity, an international workshop, including with Commission members with relevant expertise, as well as representatives of contractors and experts, to review further the proposal and also to advise on the formulation of an environmental management plan at the regional scale for the whole of the Clarion-Clipperton Fracture Zone.

In terms of the Authority’s other activities, Mr. Odunton reported on three particular success stories.  Firstly, the long-running project to establish a geological model for the Clarion-Clipperton Zone was near completion.  Secondly, the Authority’s Endowment Fund for Marine Scientific Research, since its establishment in 2006, had attracted a wide range of “very good” proposals aimed at providing qualified scientists and technical personnel from developing countries with opportunities to participate in international technical and scientific cooperation programmes; the Government of Norway would be contributing $250,000 to the Endowment Fund.  The third success story concerned the response to the Authority’s regional sensitization seminars, the first of which had taken place in Indonesia in 2007.  That had been followed by seminars in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 2008 and in Abuja, Nigeria, in February 2009.  Each had been organized in collaboration with the host Government and had sought to promote wide participation from the region concerned, he added.

Brazil’s representative said there should not be any mutual interference among the Tribunal, Commission and the Authority; one body should not interfere with the authority or jurisdiction of either of the other two.  The 15 May meeting of the Authority had been unable to reach agreement on anti-monopoly provisions and overlapping claims.  She hoped that the sixteenth meeting would be more positive in that regard.

Sweden’s representative, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said he was encouraged by the increased participation in regional sensitization seminars organized by the Authority.  He lauded the Authority’s deepened cooperation with relevant authorities in seabed matters.  He appealed to members of the Authority to pay their arrears and to pay their contributions in full.

The representative of Jamaica said that, as host country of the Authority, he shared the Secretary-General’s concern over the difficulty of some States to finance members’ travel expenses to the Authority’s meetings.  The lack of adequate participation would negatively impact that body’s work.   He lauded the expansion of the Endowment Fund and thanked Norway’s Government for contributing to it.

China’s representative said he supported the adoption of relevant draft regulations on the exploration and exploitation of seafloor polymetallic sulphides. 

South Africa’s representative urged all delegations to commit to negotiating those regulations in good faith so that they benefited mankind as a whole.

The representative of Argentina underscored the importance of the Authority’s work, especially that relating to improved understanding of the protection of the marine environment, echoing the concern expressed by other members in that context.  She urged strict compliance with the guidelines laid out in the Convention.  She meanwhile commended Jamaica’s tireless efforts in facilitating the work of the authority, and reaffirmed Argentina’s continued support to the Authority’s work, pointing out that ultimately the international community was responsible for its success or failure.

The representative of Nigeria expressed appreciation for the Authority’s support in hosting the regional workshop earlier this year, and praised Norway’s contribution to the Authority’s Endowment Fund for Marine Scientific Research, from which Africa would hopefully benefit.

Trinidad and Tobago ’s speaker lauded the Authority’s work and expressed confidence that it would continue to play the role of guardian of mankind’s legacy for future generations.  However, he shared its Secretary-General’s concern about the poor attendance at the Authority’s meetings and urged all to heed the call to attend future sessions.  He noted that the conduct of marine scientific research in the international seabed area was everyone’s responsibility.  He too applauded Norway and others who had contributed significantly to the Authority’s Endowment Fund, with the aim of sustaining research.

The representative of Australia agreed that significant progress had been made during the last meeting in relation to marine research.  The difficulty and technical nature of the task at hand notwithstanding, she urged all concerned to support the efforts aimed at making progress on the outstanding issues on the draft regulations on prospecting and exploration of polymetallic sulphides, adding that Australia was committed to undertake those commitments in good faith.  Unless those regulations were passed, their benefits would not be passed on to others any time soon.  As only a couple of regulations remained to be resolved, Australia looked forward to their speedy resolution.

Japan’s representative also pointed to the good progress made to date and backed sentiments already expressed by others on the draft regulations on the exploration and exploitation of the seabed and oceans.  The principle of the common heritage of mankind was central in endeavouring to implement a balance.

The representative of Ghana, expressing his country’s deep appreciation of the progress being made in advancing the objectives of the Convention, said his country shared the view that measures were needed to reduce and streamline the Commission’s present workload, including by enabling the subcommissions to examine and clear the present backlog of submissions.  Towards that goal, the possibility of funding the Commission’s meetings merited careful consideration, if only to allow many States, particularly developing countries, to have their submissions examined at an early date.

Also, he said, the problem of illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing (IUU), which was adversely affecting the livelihoods of local fishing communities, undermining the economies of mostly developing countries, and impeding the sustainable management of fish stocks, should remain on top of the international community’s agenda, until acceptable solutions were found to uproot that menace.  In that regard, Ghana would continue to support the Food and Agriculture Organization’s international plan of action on such fishing.

In response, Mr. Odunton took note of the participants’ interventions and appealed to members to pay their arrears.

The meeting then took note of the Authority’s report.

The meeting then took up its agenda item on “information reported by the Chairman of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf” and “workload of the Commission.”

Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf

ALEXANDRE TAGORE MEDEIROS DE ALBUQUERQUE, Commission Chairman, drew the meeting’s attention to his 20 April 2009 report to the President of the nineteenth meeting of States parties about progress in the Commission’s work since the eighteenth meeting of States parties held in June 2008 (document SPLOS/195).  The report included an annex, which contained a draft resolution for the nineteenth meeting of States parties.  The text clarified the nature and extent of expenses to be covered by the nominating State pursuant to article 2, paragraph 5, of annex II of the Convention.

He then highlighted the practical difficulties to managing the Commission’s increased workload, noting that it had received 51 submissions, including joint and partial submissions.  Forty-three sets of preliminary information had been addressed to him.  In view of the large number of submissions in the plenary, much of the Commission’s twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth sessions would be devoted to that, and consequently, consideration of its recommendations would be delayed. 

All Commission members were members of at least four or five subcommissions, and, thus, had heavy workloads.  The Commission had so far adopted eight sets of recommendations and it had four submissions under examination.  It had received 14 presentations at its plenary and it had included 29 presentations during its twenty-fourth session.

Pointing to the constraints facing the Commission, he said, for example, that only three subcommissions were active at any given time.  Once a draft of a subcommission had been tabled, then a new subcommission could be established.  Draft recommendations tabled by the subcommissions could not be adopted by the Commission during the same session.  Members were not always available to spend extended periods of time in New York.  Taking that into account, there was a need for more plenary time, more intersessional meetings and at least three Geographic Information System (GIS) officers in the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea.  He also called for reimbursement of lost income, medical insurance, airline ticket and travel insurance, per diem payments, accommodation, local transport, appropriate computer hardware and software for access to the Commission’s secure Internet sites, and other reimbursable expenses, including telephone calls, for members. 

All those items had been included in the draft resolution in SPLOS/195, he noted.  The Commission had reintroduced, at the nineteenth meeting, its proposal that members receive emoluments and expenses while performing Commission duties concerning the consideration of submissions made by coastal States on the outer limits of the continental shelf under article 76, and that such emoluments and expenses be defrayed to the regular United Nations budget.  It also requested, as an option, that the nineteenth meeting consider the proposal made in the draft resolution contained in SPLOS/195.

The representative of Argentina said his delegation had reservations about the contents of paragraph 4, and he requested the meeting to leave the item on the agenda until his delegation received instructions from his capital.  In the meantime, he reserved the right to take the floor at a later point. 

Brazil’s representative observed that the Commission’s workload had increased exponentially.  Thus, while reiterating her confidence in and full support for the Commission’s work, she underscored that the Commission’s independence was paramount in fulfilling its mandate.  Members of the Commission needed to be given adequate means in carrying out their work, and that work should not be encroached upon.  It was up to States to convince the Commission through scientific evidence of the force of their claims.

Ghana’s representative observed that Ghana had made its submissions since April 2009 and was grateful for the Commission secretariat’s support in enabling Ghana to get its submissions ready.  Ghana also welcomed the admission of the Commonwealth as observer and similarly thanked Germany for its support of the Commission, particularly that relating to the delineation of the continental shelf.

Further, he said Ghana shared the view that measures should be found to reduce the Commission’s workload, by reducing its backlog.  One such measure would be to increase the frequency and number of meetings, which in his view merited consideration and support.  The time had come for members to move positively -- instead of being trapped in a perpetual political debate -- and find ways tobenefit from the Tribunal’s opinions.

The Russian Federation’s representative said his country had made its submissions on establishing the continental shelf beyond the 200 mile limit in 2001, and in 2002 had received feedback on its recommendations.  Russia was currently collecting updated data, which would then be reviewed and given due attention.  Decisions to set deadlines did not apply to States that had already sent their preliminary submissions.  The Commission had a heavy workload due to the large number of submissions made recently.  Clearly, in order for the Commission to work effectively, members needed to address all those concerns. 

He asked whether the Commission, as a technical body, was encountering problems of a legal nature, and, if that was the case, how it sought to resolve those problems.  He called on the Commission to consider giving to the States parties a list of the legal problems it had encountered.

The representative of South Africa said the issue of the Commission’s workload had been around since 2006, and his country had reiterated several options to help address the matter.

Since the last meeting, 38 submissions had been made, and it was well known that the Commission would not be able to handle all the submissions already made.  Was it then wise to burden the Commission with more submissions that would not be considered any time soon, he wondered.  It seemed that a more fruitful use of the Commission’s time could be to focus on those submissions it would be able to consider at the next session.  He also urged the members to consider having longer and more frequent meetings to consider all the submissions.  That option clearly had cost implications, which should be taken into account.

Norway’s representative drew attention to the voluntary fund, saying it opened possibilities for covering expenses for members from developing States.  Norway would allocate another $150,000 to the fund and he appealed to other countries in a position to do so to follow suit.  The Commission’s proposal that expenses should be defrayed in the future to the United Nations regular budget should be further considered.  That move would require an amendment to the Convention.  Regardless, budgetary issues belonged in the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary). 

Nigeria’s representative said due consideration should be accorded to the Commission’s draft resolution.  More funding was needed for the Commission’s work.  Arrangements should be made so that Commission members suffered no losses in terms of their emoluments and benefits.  Some submissions already made to the Commission would not be considered until 2024.  That was too late.  It was necessary to look for ways to facilitate and expedite the Commission’s work with the requisite manpower and infrastructure.

China’s representative supported the proposal to take necessary measures to address the Commission’s challenges.  The length of the meetings should be extended appropriately and financial arrangements should be made for missions and its members to attend them.  He hoped that there could be discussions on such questions.  Turning to the proposal he submitted on Monday, he said the legislative spirit of article 121 of the Convention was very clear and it had a very close relationship with the delineation of the outer limits of the continental shelf.  The third paragraph of that article had clearly stipulated that isolated rocks should not have an exclusive zone or continental shelf.  There could not be the possibility of an extended continental shelf.

Canada’s representative said the clarification set forth in the Commission’s draft resolution was very helpful, but it was not clear that such information should be incorporated into a decision adopted by the meeting.  Perhaps that guidance would be better placed in a report of the meeting.

Trinidad and Tobago’s representative called for the adoption of urgent measures to increase the number of Geographic Information System officers.  The Commission should not be without adequate technology and infrastructure.  He stressed that a State which submitted a nomination for a Commission member should defray the cost of that member in the Commission’s meeting.  He would welcome any proposal to help States encountering financial difficulties to meet their Commission obligations, and in that regard, he appreciated the Endowment Fund.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record