UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY ADOPTS OCEANS AND FISHERIES

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 05 USUN NEW YORK 001224 SIPDIS SIPDIS DEPARTMENT FOR OES CONSTANCE ARVIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: UNGA PHSA PREL PREF PREM SUBJECT: UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY ADOPTS OCEANS AND FISHERIES RESOLUTIONS ¶1. (U) SUMMARY: The General Assembly adopted without a vote the draft resolution on Sustainable Fisheries (A/62/L.24) on December 18 and the draft resolution on Oceans and the Law of the Sea (A/62/L.27) with a vote (146-2-3) on December 22. The majority of delegations emphasized the significance of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea for its role as an almost universally accepted framework for the management of the world's ocean resources. Many delegations praised the atmospherics of this year's negotiations and extended special thanks to Brazil (Oceans resolution) and the United States (Sustainable Fisheries) for their efforts as coordinators. Many delegations stressed the importance of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf and the need for additional budgetary resources to strengthen the Commission's capacity to consider the increasing number of submissions by States before the 2009 deadline. Singapore and Australia continued to debate the legality of Australia's compulsory pilotage requirements in the Torres Strait. END SUMMARY. ¶2. (U) The General Assembly considered agenda items 77 (a) and (b) (Oceans and the Law of the Sea and Sustainable Fisheries) on December 10, 18 and 22 and adopted without a vote the draft resolution on Sustainable Fisheries (A/62/L.24) on December 18 and adopted the draft resolution on Oceans and Law of the Sea (A/62/L.27) with a vote (146-2-3) on December 22. ¶3. (U) Thirty four delegations delivered statements to the General Assembly: Brazil; the United States; Portugal (on behalf of the European Union); Jamaica (on behalf of CARICOM); Tonga (on behalf of the Pacific Island Forum); Vietnam; Egypt; Tunisia; Cuba; Namibia; China; Monaco; India; Norway; Guatemala; Kenya; Australia; the Marshall Islands; Mexico; Iceland; Venezuela; Singapore; Indonesia; Malaysia; Canada; Kuwait; Japan; Palau; New Zealand; Russia; Philippines; the Republic of Korea; Sri Lanka; and Nigeria. Four observer organizations also addressed the General Assembly: the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea; the International Seabed Authority; the Asia-African Legal Consultative Organization; and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. USUN Public Delegate Kelly Knight delivered the U.S. statement on the draft resolutions and introduced the draft resolution on Sustainable Fisheries. ¶4. (U) During the discussion of both resolutions, many delegations emphasized the significance of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea for its role in maintaining peace and security and providing an almost universally accepted framework for the management of the world's oceans over the past 25 years. During the debate, delegations highlighted familiar issues concerning fisheries management and oceans issues. As to this year's negotiations, most delegations USUN NEW Y 00001224 002 OF 005 praised the Brazilian and U.S. coordinators for their efforts to facilitate agreement on a wide range of substantive issues. ¶5. (U) Introducing the resolution on Oceans and the Law of the Sea, Brazil underscored discussions on strengthening the capacity of the Division on Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea (DOALOS) in its role as the secretariat for the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS); concerns about the impact of climate change on the marine environment (a particular concern of Small Island Developing States); capacity building activities to strengthen developing countries' maritime administration and legal framework; and discussions on the legal treatment of marine genetic resources beyond national jurisdictions, which States agreed to continue during the Ad Hoc Informal Working Group next spring. Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) -------------- -------------- ¶6. (U) Several delegations stressed the urgency of strengthening the capacity of DOALOS to consider submissions for review by the CLCS. Malaysia said that DOALOS, in its role as the CLCS secretariat, required more human resources and modern computer software and equipment to improve the efficency of its work and expressed hope that the extra budgetary resources to fill this gap would be approved by the Fifth Committee. Jamaica also emphasized the need to improve CLCS working methods in order to meet the 2009 deadline for submissions by coastal States. Tonga noted improvements in the procedure for accessing the UN Trust Fund to assist States in the preparation of their submissions. China said the process of submissions was complex, especially for developing states and called for a postponement of the "artificially set" 2009 deadline in the Convention. China argued that "speeding up" the submission process to meet the deadline could adversely impact the quality of submissions. ¶7. (U) Japan highlighted its 205,000 dollar contribution to the CLCS voluntary Trust Fund. As to the efficiency of the CLCS, Japan said it believed that improvements should be made within existing budget resources and regretted the program budget implications attached to the resolution. (NOTE: Operative paragraphs 46 and 47 of the Oceans resolution called for strengthening the capacity of the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea. The cost of the capacity building measures totaled 1.96 million dollars. The Fifth Committee approved the PBI, which would represent a charge against the Contingency Fund. END NOTE.) Freedom of Navigation and Maritime Security -------------- USUN NEW Y 00001224 003 OF 005 ¶8. (U) Australia and Singapore continued to spar over the legality of Australia's compulsory pilotage requirements for vessels transiting the Torres Strait. Singapore argued that Australia's pilotage requirements contravene article 42 of the Convention and did not have the approval of the International Maritime Organization (IMO),as Australia has claimed. Singapore said the IMO resolution, often cited by Australia, was a recommendation, not a binding declaration or interpretation of the Law of the Sea Convention. Singapore added that 31 countries reaffirmed the recommendatory nature of the IMO resolution at the recent IMO Assembly meeting in London; only three countries spoke in opposition of this interpretation. Despite differences, Singapore remained open to negotiations with Australia and regretted that Australia had not taken steps to resolve the debate amicably. ¶9. (U) Exercising the right of reply, Australia said its compulsory pilotage requirements were necessary to ensure safety of navigation and transit passage in accordance with paragraph 72 of the Convention. The pilotage program, Australia stressed, protected the sensitive waters of the strait and minimized the risk of vessels running aground; making passage safer for vessels and the environment. Australia expressed regret that the issue continues to be raised and remained convinced of the program's necessity. In its right of reply, Singapore again rejected Australia's interpretation and said it remained committed to negotiating a solution that would not undermine the Convention. ¶10. (U) Several delegations, including Sri Lanka and Nigeria, underscored the importance of the right of transit passage enshrined in the convention, without directly referring to the Torres Strait. Japan mentioned compulsory pilotage as practice that should be avoided. ¶11. (U) As to maritime security, many delegations highlighted their concern about the rising frequency of piracy and armed robbery. Delegations welcomed the decision to discuss maritime security during the 2008 Informal Consultative Process. Fisheries -------------- ¶12. (U) Many delegations expressed concern about the sustainability of world fish stocks and commended the progress made on Regional Fisheries Management Organizations and efforts to combat Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing. Although many new commitments had been agreed to, Canada stressed that success would depend on the degree to which States take concrete action to implement measures to improve fisheries management. Many delegations noted the USUN NEW Y 00001224 004 OF 005 damage IUU fishing was doing to fish stocks and the marine environment and called on flag States to improve monitoring of vessels engaged in IUU fishing and port States to do more to prevent IUU fishing products from entering the market. ¶13. (U) Palau encouraged RFMOs and flag States to ban bottom trawling fishing, which damaged fish stocks and the marine environment. Palau noted that the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organization had already banned the practice. The strength of the UN Fish Stocks Agreement was also gaining more momentum from increased membership, according to Iceland and other delegations that noted the recent ratifications of Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, the Czech Republic and Romania. International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) -------------- -------------- ¶14. (U) ITLOS received praise from many delegations for the efficiency of its dispute resolution proceedings. Japan commended ITLOS's intervention in two cases concerning the release of vessels and crews and pledged future support to ITLOS. India underscored its hope that during the next States Parties meeting agreement could be reached on a joint proposal by the Asian and Africa groups concerning the allocation of seats in ITLOS and CLCS in accordance with the principle of equitable geographic representation. Explanations of Vote -------------- ¶15. (U) Venezuela explained its vote before the adoption of the Fisheries resolution by noting that Venezuela's national fisheries legislation was modeled after the sustainable fisheries agreement, and although Venezuela was not a party to the agreement, it would not interfere with consensus. After the adoption of the resolution Argentina registered its view that the recommendations contained in the fisheries resolution could not be interpreted as binding provisions on States which have not expressly consented to being bound by the recommendations. Turkey said it disassociated itself with the international instruments referred to in the resolution to which Turkey was not a party. ¶16. (U) The General Assembly adopted the Oceans resolution by a recorded vote of 146 in favor, 2 against (Benin, Turkey),and 3 abstentions (Colombia, Libya, Venezuela). Venezuela, making an explanation of vote before the vote, said that the text before the assembly did not reflect consensus. Benin, Japan, Pakistan and Turkey made explanations of vote after the vote. Pakistan, speaking on behalf of the "Group of 77" developing countries and China, said the Group had made a concrete proposal on the USUN NEW Y 00001224 005 OF 005 resolution's sections X and XIV, which related to the issue of marine biodiversity and the Informal Consultative Process. The Group's position had been carefully reflected in the proposal, although an agreement had not been reached on it. For the sake of compromise, Pakistan said the Group had accepted the joint proposal made by Pakistan and the United States, which for the first time, acknowledged problems related to the legal regime beyond the exclusive economic zone and addressed issues related to capacity-building and goods and services derived from marine genetic resources. Pakistan also left the door open for future consultations on those issues. Because of the need to ensure better reflection on those issues and others related to intellectual property rights, the Group of 77 remained committed to efforts to elaborate its position in the future. ¶17. (U) Turkey said it voted against the text since the reason that had kept Turkey from joining the Convention remained valid. Japan said that it supported the text. However, while Japan agreed with other States parties on the need to strengthen the function of the Secretariat of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, it believed that such efforts should be made within existing budget levels, as well as within the limit approved in accordance with the established request process. Benin added that it was in favor of the resolution. Khalilzad