ENB:07:43
[Next] .
[Previous] .
[Contents]
PART I—GENERAL PROVISIONS
Peru argued for the inclusion of additional definitions in Article 1, which deals with use and terms of scope of the Agreement with respect to "coastal States" and "fish stock", because some resources included straddling shellfish. The question of such inclusion invoked considerable debate with both Canada and Argentina supporting the inclusion of shellfish, but that sedentary species be excluded. The Russian Federation supported the need to include definitions, especially for species that constitute a straddling stock, and referred to document A/CONF.164/L.46, which details a composite listing of SFS. Chile proposed that a harmonized listing of SFS could be drawn up from documents L.11, L.32 and L.44. The Chair urged delegations with biologists and scientists to convene a small group to identify all such species, but this suggestion was not taken up.
The Russian Federation said its submission in A/CONF.164/L.47 included a definition of an "adjacent region". Norway supported the incorporation of such a definition to impart clarity in the text.
Japan proposed that conservation and management measures should be authentic, and tendered additional text on the definition of "international conservation and management measures" based on text contained in the FAO Compliance Agreement. Two additional definitions modeled on the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties were proposed by Japan in respect of "subregional or regional fisheries management organizations" and "arrangements". The US said it would support inclusion of a definition on the former, but not the latter. The EU argued for minimum definitions, but supported the inclusion of a working definition of "arrangement". Argentina, supported by Papua New Guinea, endorsed this point.
Papua New Guinea argued for maintenance of constructive ambiguity within the text. New Zealand, Australia, Poland, the US, and Chile preferred to follow UNCLOS with a minimal number of definitions included in the text.
China said Article 1 should be as general as possible. The Japanese delegate expressed concern that Articles 63 and 64 of UNCLOS lack definition for the terms "directly", "organization", and "arrangement". He proposed that such definitions be included in the text to ensure the viability of the binding nature of the Agreement, particularly in reference to Articles 8 and 20. Estonia supported the inclusion of definitions in Article 1.
Poland questioned the use of the word "entities" at the end of paragraph (3) and said that the paragraph should reflect the reality that "entities" must also include those fishing in EEZs. In response, the Chair pointed out that paragraph (3) is a particular reference to the status of China.
The Russian Federation said that the use of the word "optimum" is taken from Articles 62 and 64 of UNCLOS. Long-term conservation pursues the goal of long-term utilization of the stocks. Brazil disagreed, saying Article 64 refers to HMFS and that the term "optimum utilization" has been superseded by the term "sustainable". The Chair supported Brazil's interpretation and said that "sustainable use" is not harmful. The EU, supported by Japan, proposed adding "throughout the entire range of their distribution" at the end of Article 2, which contains the objective.
In consideration of Article 3, dealing with application, Peru emphasized "rights and obligations" to conserve and manage fish stocks. The US said that the application of Articles 5, 6 and 7 should clearly apply to the area of the high seas and the areas under national jurisdiction.
The delegate of Peru expressed concern over the text in Article 4, dealing with the relationship between UNCLOS and the Draft Agreement, and said it should include reference to the sovereign rights of both coastal States and high seas fishing States. He suggested that Article 7, paragraph (1) should be moved to Article 4 to create a chapeau covering these issues.
The Chair said he had examined the possibility of incorporating Article 7, paragraph (1) into Article 4, and that perhaps a clarification could be inserted stating that in the event of an inconsistency, UNCLOS shall prevail.