ENB:07:43 [Next] . [Previous] . [Contents]

PART VI—PORT STATE ENFORCEMENT

Chile began the discussion on Article 21, which deals with boarding and inspection by port States, by distributing a working paper seeking to ensure compliance and enact a broad enforcement regime, taking into account the rights of port and flag States. The US, supported by the Russian Federation, Brazil and others, expressed concern that there be no threat to the sovereignty of port States. Japan said that port States should retain authority as expressed in UNCLOS. Port State authority on the high seas must be based on agreement between the concerned States, and fishing States must be safeguarded against excessive enforcement measures. China, referring to the Chilean proposal, was concerned that port State jurisdiction goes beyond the scope of UNCLOS, and said he could not support the Chair's text in paragraph (2) because it did not recognize the commercial nature and rights of fishing vessels. Access to ports and facilities must be protected, as this is a trade issue. Israel said it is necessary to protect the freedom of navigation and innocent passage through territorial seas in UNCLOS.

Papua New Guinea said the rights of States to carry out action, including general inspection, under paragraph (2) fall under international law. Rights should not inadvertently be circumscribed under international law. The Russian Federation, in response to the suggestion that the port States' measures may run counter to GATT, said GATT would not be an obstacle when it comes to exhaustion of natural resources. ICSF proposed a new paragraph (3) (bis), vesting power in a port State to take action against vessels authorized to fish in the high seas if there are reasonable grounds to suspect they have undertaken unauthorized fishing in areas of national jurisdiction.

PART VII—REQUIREMENTS OF DEVELOPING STATES

On Article 22, dealing with the recognition of the special requirements of developing States, Brazil proposed additional text to subparagraph (2)(b) to "ensure access to fisheries by" subsistence, small-scale, "artisanal and women fish workers, as well as indigenous peoples" in developing countries. In subparagraph (2)(c), he proposed that the measures "do not hinder the development of fisheries for SFS and HMFS", and said the text had been borrowed from an NGO paper.

Uruguay and Indonesia questioned whether the requirements of developing States actually meant "developing coastal States". The US endorsed comments to improve the text to recognize the needs of small island developing States (SIDS). Papua New Guinea said that in his country, fishing development is not just a matter of economic exploitation, but also one of nutritional exploitation.

[Return to start of article]