Gerald MOORE (Legal Counsel): Mr Chairman, as you have mentioned, the documents before you are C 93/21, which is the basic document which sets out the status as at 30 June 1993 of the Multilateral Treaties Deposited with the Director-General, and C 93/21-Sup.l, which updates that document.
Mr Chairman, in accordance with Rule XXI.5 of the General Rules of the Organization, the Director-General is required to report to the Conference whenever a Conventional Agreement or a Supplementary Conventional Agreement concluded under Article XIV of the FAO Constitution comes into force or ceases to be in force or has been amended and the amendments have come into force.
In addition, under established practice, the Director-General informs the Conference of any development which may occur with respect first of all to Treaties, if any, concluded between FAO and Member Nations under Article XV of the Constitution; secondly, Treaties concluded outside the framework of FAO in respect of which the Director-General acts as depository; thirdly, the status of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies in respect of.FAO.
Mr Chairman, the two documents before you contain the relevant information on the present status of the Treaties to which I have just referred. It should be noted that the Statutory Report which has been submitted to the Conference follows basically the same pattern as earlier reports.
Since the submission of the previous report, and as reflected in paragraphs 133-137, the Conference of Plenipotentiaries which met in Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire, on 12 and 13 December 1991, adopted the Agreement for the Establishment of the Intergovernmental Organization for Marketing Information and Cooperative Services for Fishery Products in Africa (INFOPÊCHE) for which the Director-General has been asked to perform depository functions. The Agreement, which has been ratified by Liberia on 9 November 1993, and to which three other countries have become parties, will enter into force on receipt of the 5th Instrument of Ratification or Accession. We have been informed that Cameroon, Côte d'Ivoire, Mauritania and Sierra Leone are in the process of ratifying the Agreement or acceding to it.
You may wish to note that institutions similar to INFOPÊCHE are being established with the assistance of the Organization for the Arab countries, which is called INFOSAMAK, and the Latin American and Caribbean Region (INFOPESCA)
Also as reflected in paragraphs 80-83 of document C 93/21, a Conference of Plenipotentiaries of States parties to the International Convention on the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICAT) met in Madrid, Spain, on 4 and 5 June 1992 and adopted a protocol to amend the Convention.
In addition, as reflected in paragraphs 138-142 of the document, the Conference of Plenipotentiaries which met in Rabat, Morocco, from 16 to 18 February 1993, adopted the agreement for the Establishment of the Near East Plant Protection Organization (NEPPO), for which the Director-General has also been asked to perform depository functions. The Agreement, signed by 10 countries, will enter into force on receipt of the 10th Instrument of Ratification or Accession. The re-establishment of a Regional Plant Protection Body for the Near East has been fully supported by the Conference at its 25th Session in November 1989.
I would also like to note, Mr Chairman, that since the submission of the last report, the Agreement on the Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia and the Pacific (NACA) and the Agreement for the Establishment of a Regional Centre on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development for the Near East (CARDNA) have also been amended. The amendments to the first one entered into force on 10 January 1993, while the amendments to the second Agreement adopted by CARDNA's Governing Council on 6 October 1993 will enter into force on 5 December 1993.
Finally, I would like to point out that following a request made by the riparian countries of Lake Victoria, the Organization is presently preparing, in consultation with the States concerned, a Convention for the Establishment of the Lake Victoria Fisheries Commission. The Draft Convention will be discussed at a Legal and Technical Consultation at the end of February 1994 and will be adopted, hopefully, by a Conference of Plenipotentiaries in June 1994.
With reference to paragraphs 20-26 of document C 93/21, the number of parties to the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), the revised text of which entered into force on 4 April 1991, is now 100. However, in view of the considerable importance of the Convention in strengthening international action against the spread of important plant pests, especially in the context of international trade, it seems highly desirable that all countries, including non-FAO Member Nations, should be encouraged to adhere to the Convention. The Conference may therefore wish to renew its appeal that it launched at its previous session to the States that have not yet adhered to the IPPC, to deposit an Instrument of Adherence with the Director-General as soon as possible.
Finally I would like to mention that in reply to a request for information made by the Organization, the Permanent Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany to FAO has informed the Organization that Germany has no basic difficulties against deleting all references regarding the former Berlin Declaration in the FAO document regarding multilateral treaties deposited with the Director-General. However, it has been pointed out that agreement to such deletion can only be given if FAO at the same time secures that all counter declarations, objections and other declarations of other nations relating to the Berlin Declaration will also be deleted.
The Organization is presently asking the countries concerned about their intentions on this matter.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Moore. This item was presented for information and there is no need in our forum for any prolonged discussion, but if anybody would like to comment on it, please proceed. No. Thank you.
We move now to Item 17 Amendment to Rule XXXIV of GRO regarding terms of reference of the Committee on Constitutional Legal Matters. The document reference is C 93/LIM/13. The item will again be introduced by Mr Moore.
Gerald MOORE (Legal Counsel): Thank you, Mr Chairman. Again, before you on this subject is document C 93/LIM/13 entitled "Terms of Reference of the Committee on Constitutional and Legal Matters, (CCLM)."
This matter arose out of the discussions in the 100th Session of the Council in November 1991, and the remarks regarding the role and mandate of the CCLM made by the then Chairman of the CCLM, Ambassador Poulides of Cyprus. In accordance with the mandate given to it by the Council, the CCLM reviewed the terms of reference at its 58th Session in April 1992 in the light of the constant evolution of its work since the establishment of the Committee in 1957.
The CCLM made certain proposals for the amendment of its terms of reference as set out in Rule XXXIV of the General Rules of the Organization. These amendments are not designed to change the nature of the Committee, but to enable it to be of greater service to the Organization. The amendments were endorsed by the Council at its 102nd Session in November 1992, and pursuant to Rule XLVIII-3 were proposed to the Conference for adoption. They are designed firstly to define more clearly the competence of the Committee as regards the privileges and immunities of the Organization, and secondly to allow for referral by the Director-General or the Council of other matters not specifically listed in Rule XXXIV to the Committee, and thirdly to authorize the CCLM to make recommendations and to give advice on matters referred to it by the Council or by the Director-General.
The Conference, and this Commission in particular, is being requested to recommend the adoption of the amendments pursuant to Rule XLVIII.2 of the General Rules of the Organization. On this I should point out that when we come to the Plenary Session we will require a roll call vote and a two-thirds majority for the adoption of these amendments since they involve amendments to the General Rules of the Organization, but of course in the Commission no such vote is required and it is merely by simple acclamation that these recommendations and adoptions can be made.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Moore. Are there any comments from the distinguished delegates on this item?
Samuel FERNANDEZ ILLANES (Chile): Sobre este tema quisiera hacer un comentario muy breve. Me ha tocado el privilegio y el honor de ser
presidente del Comité de Asuntos Constitucionales y Jurídicos en los dos últimos años. He podido, por lo tanto, comprobar de manera fehaciente el gran trabajo realizado por este Comité. Asimismo, he podido comprobar también que las materias que han sido objeto de este Comité toman cada vez mayor trascendencia, mayor importancia, y se hace necesaria su adecuación a los nuevos desafíos de esta Organización. Por lo tanto, he pedido la palabra para apoyar firmemente estas enmiendas al artículo XXXIV del Reglamento General, que reflejan de manera exhaustiva aquellas posibilidades, cada vez mayores, de trabajo para el Comité.
Asimismo, una vez más, quisiera destacar el trabajo realizado por el Comité en estos últimos dos años en que he tenido el honor de presidirlo y rendir un homenaje, una vez más, al gran trabajo y eficiente labor realizados por la Consejerra Legal y todo su equipo.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, distinguished delegate of Chile. Is there anybody else please?
Gerald MOORE (Legal Counsel): Thank you. I draw the attention of the Commission once more to the fact that there is the Draft Resolution on the revision of Rule XXXIV of the General Rules of the Organization which is set out in the Appendix to the document, and this is really the one you are now being asked to approve in the Commission and recommend for adoption.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Moore. Are there any other comments from the distinguished delegates?
Well, I think the point is rather clear. We heard that the distinguished delegate of Chile was working on this item. So the consensus, I presume, of this meeting is that we recommend the adoption of this item to the Conference.
We move now to Item 18 Amendment to para.10 of Appendix to Conference Resolution 46/57, document reference C 93/LIM/14. This item again will be introduced by Mr Moore.
Gerald MOORE (Legal Counsel): Just to repeat again, the document before you today on this item is document C 93/LIM/14, which is entitled Amendment to para. 10 of the Appendix to Conference Resolution 46/57, and it contains the Draft Resolution for adoption by the Conference setting out the proposed changes to paragraph 10.
Mr Chairman, this matter arose out of the consideration by a Technical Conference in 1992 of the Draft Agreement for the Establishment of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission, a subject which you will note is also on your agenda today.
At the time of the Technical Conference in 1992, the Member Nations concerned wished to adopt a more flexible wording for the reservations clause in the Draft Agreement, that is the Draft Agreement on the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission, that will be in line with modern international law and in particular with the precepts of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. At that time the Technical Conference itself felt constrained by the wording of paragraph 10 of the Appendix to Conference Resolution 46/57 which sets out the principles and procedures which should govern conventions and agreements concluded under Articles XIV and XV of the Constitution, and Commissions and Committees established under Article VI of the Constitution. This paragraph 10 was adopted at a time when the development of international law with respect to reservations was still unclear. I should point out that the entire principles and procedures are of course set out in Part R of our Basic Texts.
The Member Nations concerned considered that the present wording of paragraph 10, which calls for a standard provision on reservations to be inserted in all Article XIV agreements requiring all reservations to be approved by all the parties to the agreement, was too restrictive and out of line with modern international law. This view was shared by the Committee on Constitutional and Legal Matters (the CCLM) at its 59th Session in September 1992, which recommended the revision of paragraph 10 by the present session of the Conference.
The new wording suggested by the CCLM and endorsed by the Council is set out in the Draft Resolution which is appended to document C 93/LIM/14. I will just read that:
"Reservations10. A clause on the admissibility of reservations may be inserted in conventions and agreements. Any such clause shall be in line with public international law as reflected in particular in the provisions of Part II, Section 2 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969. Failing such a clause, the admissibility of reservations shall be governed by public international law as reflected in the above provisions of the Vienna Convention. The Director-General of the Organization shall notify all signatory, acceding and accepting governments of all reservations".
Mr Chairman, the Conference is now called upon to consider and formally approve the new wording for paragraph 10 of the Appendix to Conference Resolution 46/57, as set out in Part R of the Basic Texts, and has to adopt the new wording as set out in the Conference Resolution which appears at the end of the document which I have referred to.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you Mr Moore. As you have noted, this item has been approved by the Council at its 103rd Session in June 1993 and has been referred to this Commission, so we recommend its adoption to the Conference. Do I hear any comments please?
Francis Montanaro MIFSUD (Malta): I have no comments on the substance which I think is perfectly clear to us all. However, with regard to the title of the Draft Resolution, I would like to bring your attention to a point which was picked up in our Resolutions Committee but which has evidently not been
transmitted to the part of the Secretariat concerned with the processing of these documents, although it is reflected in the report of the Resolutions Committee.
In the title the penultimate line speaks of "Section R of Volume II of the Basic Texts". In the body of the Draft Resolution the reference is to "Part R" which I think is the normal term that is used. So besides that Section R is not necessarily in Volume II of the Basic Texts, it just happens to be in Section or Part R of the Basic Texts irrespective of the number of volumes in which the Basic Texts are reproduced.
So might I relay to you that the proposed amendment from the Resolutions Committee is to the effect that we should have here in the penultimate line "Part R of the Basic Texts", and not "Section R of Volume II of the Basic Texts". I thought it would be useful to pick up this error now before it goes to Plenary.
Gerald MOORE (Legal Counsel): I am in perfect agreement with that. I think that it is a perfectly correct amendment to this title. I would add that the reference in the title should in fact be to para 10 of the Appendix to Conference Resolution 46/57.
CHAIRMAN: Are there any other comments? I think it is the consensus of this meeting that this item be recommended to Conference for adoption.
We move to item 19.1. Abolition of the Panel of Experts on Emergency Action Against the Desert Locust and Other Crop Pests and Abolition of the Advisory Panel on Epizootiology, document reference C 93/LIM/20. Mr Moore will introduce the subject.
Gerald MOORE (Legal Counsel): As we are moving quite fast, I will repeat that the document before you is C 93/LIM/20, entitled "Abolition of the Panel of Experts on Emergency Action Against the Desert Locust and Other Crop Pests and Abolition of the Advisory Panel on Epizootiology." As you will notice, there are two panels of experts that are recommended to be abolished. I will explain.
The Panel of Experts on Epizootiology was established by the Director-General under Article VI.4 of the FAO Constitution under
Resolution 35/65 adopted by the Conference at its 13th Session in 1965. in 1969, the Conference by Resolution 17/69 decided to maintain it. At the same time the Conference requested the Director-General to also establish an advisory panel on desert locust control, later called Panel of Experts on Emergency Action Against the Desert Locust and Other Crop Pests.
In 1975, the Conference by Resolution 33/75 decided to maintain both panels.
At its 12th Session in April/May 1993, the Committee on Agriculture agreed with the Director-General's recommendation that the Council request Conference to abolish the Panel of Experts on Emergency Action against the Desert Locust and Other Crops Pests since this panel, not having fulfilled its mandate,- had been superseded by more effective mechanisms.
At the same time the COAG, noting that the Advisory Panel on Epizootiology also did not appear to be extant, requested the FAO Secretariat to prepare a document proposing its abolition on the basis of which the Council could recommend appropriate action.
The Council at its 103rd Session in June 1993 endorsed the recommendation of the Committee on Agriculture to abolish the Panel of Experts on Emergency Action Against the Desert Locusts and Other Crop Pests. The Council also recommended the abolition of the Advisory Panel on Epizootiology.
At the same time, the Council recommended that the mechanism for access to the Working Capital Fund to finance initial control activities in case of emergencies should be maintained and that the Director-General be required to consult only with the Chairperson of the Finance Committee or another member of that Committee as designated by the Chairperson before accessing the Working Capital Fund for such emergencies.
The Council then recommended that the Conference adopt the Draft Resolution included in document C 93/LIM/20, which is now before you and to which I draw your attention which I commend to you for your approval. I think that is really a matter of legal and constitutional housekeeping of the Organization.
CHAIRMAN: Do I hear any comments?
Dominik LANGKNBACHER (Switzerland): Fully in line with the proposal and in support of the swift mechanism that is proposed, I have a very small technical question.
In paragraph 2 on the one side we authorize US$1 000 000 from the Working Capital Fund. In the latter part of that same paragraph we then do so "provided that no more than US$700 000 be withdrawn". I do not see how these two figures actually match. May I have a small clarification from the Secretariat?
Gerald MOORE (Legal Counsel): I believe that there is a general authorization to the Director-General to withdraw up to US$1 000 000 from the Working Capital Fund to finance these two emergency measures, but it indicates that the limit of US$700 000, which is drawn from the previous
resolutions is a limit in any one biennium, first of all, and under either of the above headings, which I suppose means that you could have US$700 000 withdrawn for the initial emergency measures for the control of outbreaks of livestock diseases and perhaps a further US$300 000 for the initial control activities against locusts.
This is a matter that is a repetition, as I indicate, of a previous resolution, and I presume that this is the reason why these two figures are put here. We will certainly check to ensure that we are reproducing the provisions of the Resolution correctly. This is how I read the way in which the two figures fit together.
CHAIRMAN: I see that the Delegate from Switzerland is satisfied with the explanation. Are there any further comments?
We shall recommend that this item be adopted.
Item 19.2, Draft International Agreement on the Flagging of Vessels Fishing on the High Seas, documents C 93/26, C 93/LIM/23 and C 93/LIM/26. Mr Moore will introduce this item.
Gerald MOORE (Legal Counsel): Mr Chairman, the Conference has before it today for its consideration and formal approval a Draft Agreement to promote compliance with internationally conservation and management measures by fishing vessels on the high seas. First of all, I would like to clarify and explain the documentation before you today.
You will note that you have two versions of the text of the Draft Agreement, one presented in document C 93/26 dated August 1993, entitled "Draft Agreement on the Flagging of Vessels Fishing on the High Seas to Promote Compliance with Internationally Agreed Conservation and Management Measures."
This version of the text contains a number of provisions still in brackets.
The second is document C 93/LIM/26, entitled "Draft Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas." This version of the text contains no brackets and represents the final agreed version of the Draft Agreement as recommended by the last Session of the Council two weeks ago, and is the version that is before you today for your formal approval. I will repeat that the version of the Draft Agreement that you are being asked to consider today is contained in document C 93/LIM/26, and not that contained in the document C 93/26 dated August 1993. I trust that the reasons for the existence of two versions of the text will be clear when I explain the background of the Agreement and the history of its negotiations.
The Draft Agreement now before you for formal approval is a product of a brief but intense series of negotiations that have taken place primarily over the last nine months. The need for the agreement was first pointed out at the Cancun Conference on Responsible Fishing in April 1992 and in this sense the Draft Agreement draws its inspiration from that Conference and from the Declaration of Cancun adopted at that Conference.
The call for an agreement was reiterated by the UNCED Conference in June 1992 and was supported by the FAO Technical Consultation on High Seas Fisheries in September 1992. The FAO Council considered the matter at its 102nd Session in November 1992, one year ago, at which time it was agreed that the Organization should be entrusted with the task for drawing up a formal international agreement and facilitating negotiation of that agreement on the "fast track" with a view to its formal approval at the present session of the Conference.
Since then the sequence of events has been the following: (1) An informal group of experts was convened in February 1993 to draw up the first draft of an agreement; (2) The Draft Agreement was considered by the Committee on Fisheries at its 20th Session, which met in March 1993 through the mechanism of an open-ended Technical Committee established for that purpose; (3) The text of the agreement was then considered by the 103rd Session of the FAO Council in June 1993, again through the mechanism of an open Technical Committee, which met during the course of the Council session. At that session the Council was able to agree on the main lines of the Draft Agreement but did not have the time to reach agreement on all points. Some provisions, therefore, remained in brackets. However, the Council decided to send the draft text, brackets and all, to the Conference. This is the version set out in document C 93/26 dated August 1993. Meanwhile, the Council decided to request the Secretariat to continue informal consultations with FAO members with a view to resolving the outstanding issues. A series of informal consultations was held with interested FAO members on the occasion of the UN Conference on Straddling Fish Stocks and highly Migratory Fish Stocks which met in July 1993 in New York. At these consultations consensus was achieved on the text of the Draft Agreement.
Meanwhile, the text of the Agreement had been circulated to FAO members for comments in accordance with Rule XXI of the General Rules of the Organization. The results of the informal consultations in New York and the comments received on the Draft Agreement from FAO members were then considered by the Committee on Constitutional and Legal Matters at its 61st session in October 1993, and it was given their blessing with a few minor drafting amendments. The Draft Agreement was then further considered by the 104th Session of the FAO Council just two weeks ago in the context of its consideration of the Report of the CCLM and the further open technical committee was set up to finalize the text in light of the further comments received from Member Nations. The text you have before you then is the product of the work of the last technical committee and of the Council, which reached consensus on the Draft Agreement, recommending it for formal approval by the present Conference and acclaiming it as "a momentous achievement and a milestone in the international management of high seas fisheries".
With your kind permission, I would like to clarify three points about the Draft Agreement itself. First of all, the scope of the Draft Agreement as recommended by the Cancun Conference was to provide a framework for states to take effective action to deter reflagging of vessels by their nationals
as a means of avoiding compliance with applicable conservation and management rules for fishing activities on the high seas. During the course of the negotiations, the focus of the Draft Agreement has changed somewhat away from the act of flagging, which is essentially a matter for the transport and merchant shipping authorities in each state, towards the act of authorization to fish, which is a matter wholly within the competence of national fisheries authorities. The main concepts on which the present Agreement relies to achieve its objectives are the clear exposition of the notion of the responsibility of flag states for activities of fishing vessels flying their flags, including the requirement for the authorization by national authorities of all fishing taking place on the high seas and the requirement to prevent fishing vessels flying their flags from undermining international conservation and management measures and the transparency provided through the establishment of an international system of information exchange on the existence, authorization and activities of fishing vessels operating on the high seas.
Secondly, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the Draft Agreement forms an integral part of the International Code of Conduct on Responsible Fishing as recommended in the Declaration of Cancun and, in fact, represents the first accomplishment of that Code. Other parts of the Code are now under active formulation.
Thirdly, I would draw your attention to the report of the Director-General on the technical, administrative and financial implications of the Draft Agreement as set out in Part II of the document C 93/26 dated August 1993.
The Draft Agreement now before you is the product of a fast track series of negotiations that had been carried out in a constructive and consensual atmosphere by FAO members. It represents the first substantive blow in the battle to bring high seas fisheries under management control and to ensure that high seas fishing is carried out responsibly. Once formally approved by the Conference, the Agreement will be circulated to all FAO members and eligible non-member states for their acceptance in accordance with their own internal constitutional procedures and will come into force after the deposit of the 25th instrument of acceptance.
I commend the Agreement to the Commission for its formal approval here, and I believe that on this matter, too, there is a resolution for the Commission to consider.
CHAIRMAN; Again, I feel that this particular document has been really very well prepared, and everybody has the information. I recommend that it be approved for approval by the Conference. However, do I hear any comments, please?
Frank D. BUCHHOLZ (United States of America): The United States fully supports the adoption of the Draft Agreement as part of the larger effort to elaborate a Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing as envisaged in the Declaration of Cancún. We applaud the work of FAO and those states that participated in the negotiations on the Draft Agreement. In particular, we would like to commend the Director-General, the Fisheries Department and the Office of the Legal Counsel for their efforts to conclude this Agreement in time for this Conference. We believe that the Agreement, once enforced, will contribute significantly to the conservation and management of living marine resources on the high seas. To this end, we urge all
states, particularly those with fishing vessels operating on the high seas, to consider acceptance of the Agreement at the earliest possible time
Hubert DE SCHRYVER (Belgium): On Agenda Item 19.2, I would like to read the following declaration by the Presidency on behalf of the European Community and its Member States: The European Community and its member states want to congratulate the Secretariat for its fine and very valuable work which made the Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management for Fishing Vessels Fishing in the High Seas possible. We would have preferred the regime to have been tougher than the one now put forward. However, in keeping with the spirit of constructiveness that has motivated the Community and its Member States in its contributions to the drafting, and in the interests of consensus, we are happy to indicate our approval of the Agreement. The importance of the achievements of this Agreement is substantial and underlines our commitment to conservation and management objectives in conformity with the principles of responsibility and the sustainability of natural resources. We shall recommend its enactment to our authorities, and hope that it will be implemented as soon as possible and by as many as possible.
In connection with the further work on the Code of Conduct, we take the view that we would build on the momentum which has been created during the elaboration of the Agreement. We can do so by accelerating the work on the other elements of the code of conduct and, in particular, the general principles as proposed by the Chairman of COFI during the 104th Council and as outlined in his letter on this issue.
Samuel FERNANDEZ ILLANES (Chile): Gracias Presidente; gracias por darme una vez más el uso de la palabra.
Deseo manifestar la opinión favorable de mi delegación respecto de este proyecto de acuerdo, para promover el cumplimiento de las medidas internacionales de conservación y ordenación por los buques pesqueros que pescan en alta mar. Ha sido particularmente importante para mi delegación el haber participado en esas etapas del proyecto de acuerdo. Asimismo consideramos que es una materia de alta trascendencia para el Derecho Internacional, su desarrollo progresivo, su codificación y,fundamentalmente, para atender las necesidades de tantos países que ven con preocupación ciertas prácticas internacionales que no deben continuar en materia pesquera.
También, Presidente, ha sido motivo de satisfacción personal, para este delegado que les habla, en su doble carácter de presidente del Comité de Asuntos Constitucionales y Jurídicos, que tuvo la oportunidad de analizar este proyecto de acuerdo, y asimismo, en ese mismo carácter, como presidente del Comité del Grupo Abierto que creó el Consejo y que llevó, afortunadamente, a buen término este trabajo. Deseo, en ese sentido, destacar una vez más - como tuve la oportunidad de hacerlo ante el Consejo en las dos oportunidades precedentes - destacar, decía, la labor de acercamiento, de entrega, de apoyo y de consenso y gran epíritu negociador que demostraron todas y cada una de las delegaciones que participaron en esta redacción. Asimismo, el reconocimiento, una vez más, a la labor de la Secretaría, a la labor de la División de Pesca de la FAO.
Creo que estamos en presencia de un paso trascendente, un paso que forma y formará parte, del Código Internacional de Conducta sobre Pesca
Responsable, al cual, naturalmente, mi delegación da todo su apoyo y coincide plenamente con lo propuesto por el distinguido representante de España y presidente del COFI, en el sentido de dar un impulso adicional a dicho Código que tanta falta hace para todos los que están preocupados del sector de la pesca. Pero fundamentalmente destacar la labor que a la FAO y a todos sus miembros le ha correspondido en este proyecto de acuerdo que apoyamos y que, insistimos una vez más, recomendamos firmemente su aprobación por esta Conferencia. Gracias Presidente.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, distinguished delegate of Chile. Next will be the delegate of Korea. However, I would like the future speakers to make it as short as possible unless there is disagreement, because everybody seems to be in agreement with this item, and I do not want to have a repetition of one of the previous meetings this year where a proposal was made by a distinguished delegate, and then there were 32 delegations that spoke about five minutes each in support of it.
Yong-Shik HWANG (Korea, Republic of): On behalf of the Korean delegation, I also would like to express my appreciation to the staff of FAO and the participants from many Member Nations for the outstanding work that they have done in drafting the International Agreement on the Flagging of Vessels Fishing on the High Seas. The Republic of Korea, as one of the biggest distant water fishing nations, believes that rational conservation, management and optimum utilization of marine resources will serve to benefit all of us by ensuring the supply of animal protein for food and fostering the economic activities of the countries concerned. My delegation expects that this new agreement in our fisheries history would enable us to bring about a fulfilment of our common objective of effective conservation and sustainable utilization of the marine living resources on the high seas. There still remains a lot of work to be done in the coming years to realize our common goals. My delegation believes that active participation and close cooperation of many countries concerned will be the cornerstone for the successful implementation of this important Agreement. We remain hopeful that an eventual incorporation of this Agreement into the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing will help the Code to serve as a fair and impartial instrument for the common objective of sustainable development in the use of marine living resources on the high seas.
Galo YEPEZ HOLGUIN (Ecuador): Muy rápidamente, Sr. Presidente, me permito solicitar la palabra para expresar la más sincera felicitación a quienes elaboran este proyecto y, especialmente, a los integrantes del Comité de Asuntos Constitucionales y Jurídicos. Deseo aquí felicitar a su presidente así como, también, al asesor jurídico de la FAO.
El documento recoge todos los principios fundamentales para la conservación y ordenación de estos recursos en alta mar. El documento formará parte del Código de Conducta, por eso deseo expresar el apoyo, también, a la propuesta del Presidente del Comité de Pesca para que se aprueben rápidamente estos principios.
U TIN MAUNG MYINT (Myanmar) : Mr Chairman, the study of the wealthiest production reveals that the wealthiest catch, after reaching a peak of 100 million tonnes in 1989, fell to 97 million tonnes in 1990 and has stagnated until last year. We have also come to notice that during the past
two decades the catch of a large number of the mussel stocks has declined significantly due largely to overfishing and that the major mussel species throughout the world have been overfished. The severity of overfishing is felt more in developed countries than in developing countries. The situation for pelagic fisheries also is not so encouraging.
There is, therefore, an urgent need not only for the fishing countries but also for the international community to exert every effort to prevent the occurrence of overfishing.
This could be achieved by introducing and imposing measures geared to a rational exploitation of fisheries. Therefore, the Myanmar delegation would like to strongly support the adoption of the Draft International Agreement of the Flagging of Vessels Fishing on the High Seas to promote compliance with internationally agreed conservation and management measures.
Aulânio Eugenio PEREIRA (Cap-Vert): Monsieur le Président, le Cap-Vert se réjouit des trois principes inclus dans le projet d'accord.
En premier lieu nous constatons que le principe de la responsabilité de l'Etat du pavillon est érigé en concept prioritaire; c'est un mécanisme pivot de l'accord. Ce principe revêt pour nous, ainsi que pour les pays de notre sous-région, une grande importance puisqu'il oblige l'Etat du pavillon à prendre toutes les mesures destinées à garantir qu'un contrôle interne est bien exercé à l'égard de ses navires de pêche. Nous nous réjouissons de l'élargissement de ce principe à de nouveaux domaines, celui de l'immatriculation des navires de pêche et celui de la protection des ressources de haute mer.
En deuxième lieu l'accord impose l'obligation, à la charge des Etats, d'établir un mécanisme de dépôt et d'échange d'informations. Or une proposition d'établissement d'un registre sous-régional de navires de pêche est à l'étude et sur le point d'aboutir dans notre sous-région. Il nous semble, de manière générale, que de nouvelles possibilités d'obtention et d'échange d'informations pourraient bénéficier à ce registre sous-régional et réciproquement aux futurs Etats faisant partie de l'accord. Mais cette question appelle un examen plus attentif, et elle n'est pas directement liée au débat qui nous retient ici.
En troisième lieu, nous nous réjouissons de constater que l'accord est conclu dans le cadre de l'Article XIV de l'Acte constitutif de la FAO. De plus, la FAO est appelée à jouer un grand rôle dans la gestion et la mise en oeuvre de l'accord. Nous sommes heureux de constater que la primauté de la compétence de notre Organisation dans le secteur des pêches est, une fois encore, pleinement reconnue. Nous ne doutons pas qu'elle constituera une garantie de succès de l'accord.
Voici les quelques raisons qui amènent le Cap-Vert à soutenir résolument l'accord destiné à promouvoir le respect des mesures internationales de conservation et d'aménagement par les navires de pêches opérant en haute mer.
Che Ani SAAD (Malaysia): Malaysia, being one of the coastal states, is happy to report that the extended jurisdiction arising out of UNCLOS 1982 has managed in great measure to achieve much of its objectives of better
management of fishing stocks in our waters, leading to modest benefits to our country.
We are concerned, however, with the present state of overcapitalization in the world fishing fleets, problems associated with straddling and highly migratory stocks beyond the EEZ and the high seas, control fishing vessels operating in the high seas, and reflagging of fishing vessels to assure compliance with applicable conservation and management rules for fishing activities on the high seas.
Malaysia knows, as a matter of fact, the yellow-finned tuna and bigeye tuna which are found in our waters of East Malaysia are of the same stock that abound in the South Pacific. Thus, we may see the time when we might wish to participate in fishing of those straddling stocks beyond our EEZ and the high seas. We do not wish to see those fish stocks totally depleted before then. Therefore, we wish to emphasize the importance of introduction of an international management regime for the affected fish stocks and to secure greater emphasis on flag state responsibility in these areas.
We laud the efforts of FAO in its endeavour to establish a new Indian Ocean Tuna Commission. We hope that this body will be able to put some measures in the practices of fishing around this region; recognize the needs of developing coastal states in terms of resources, technology transfer, and assistance with training to enable developing coastal states to fulfil their responsibility for conservation and management of straddling and stocks in high seas fishing.
We recognize a need for an agreement on the compliance with international conservation and management measures in the high seas and we are fully aware that a Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing is in progress. It has been said that agreement on the compliance with international conservation and management measures of fishing vessels could be an integral part of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing; but, in view of the urgency of the need for control of fishing vessels on the high seas, we are therefore supporting the introduction of this Draft International Agreement and principles associated with it.
Adrián ISSETTO (Argentina): Gracias, señor Presidente. Simplemente para expresar que la delegación argentina quiere presentar su apoyo al Proyecto de Acuerdo Internacional sobre el abanderamiento de los buques que pescan en alta mar y a la propuesta del Comité Técnico referente al tratamiento acelerado sobre el Código de Conducta.
Julio César LUPINACCI (Uruguay): Gracias señor Presidente. Trataré de ser concreto y conciso también yo, pero debo refrenar mis deseos de hacer un comentario de este trabajo que ha sido muy bien elaborado y no resisto especialmente señalar nuestra satisfacción por la labor de quienes han colaborado en este acuerdo y felicitar al Dr. Moore por la tarea que ha cumplido para lograrlo y por su contribución para lograr este feliz resultado.
Como él muy lo dice hay tres principios fundamentales en este acuerdo, señalar, sobre todo el principio de la responsablilidad del estado del pabellón y, también la instauración de un sistema internacional de intercambio de informaciones que es muy importante para el eficaz
cumplimiento de este acuerdo y, por supuesto, señalar, una vez más, que este acuerdo forma parte del Código Internacional de Conducta.
Solamente quisiera hacer una pequeña observación y es que hubiéramos deseado que en materia de cooperación internacional este acuerdo hubiera sido más firme, más definido en alguno de sus aspectos, pero, desde luego, estamos en la primera etapa de un proceso de instauración de un principio muy importante que se consagró en Cancún - que es el principio de pesca responsable - y en ese Código estableceremos muchas normas o reglas que permitirán una mayor y más eficaz cooperación internacional entre todos los estados.
Para terminar, señor Presidente yo quisiera primero agradecer la atención que se prestó a nuestras observaciones al texto español, que merecía algunas correcciones. Y en cuanto a ello se refiere - no se si es el momento apropiado, pero creo que sí - cabría una pequeña observación más en cuanto al texto español, que se refiere al artículo décimo sobre aceptación, en su segundo párrafo, cuando dice: "La aceptación en el poder del Director General", ese "el poder" no es correcto en signo español, debería decirse: "en poder del Director General".
El mismo error se produce en el párrafo cinco del artículo trece, sobre enmiendas en que habla también de "el poder" cuando debe decir "en poder del Director General". Una pequeña corrección, señor Presidente, en aras de una mejor presentación del texto en lengua española. Muchas gracias señor Presidente.
Francis Montanaro MIFSUD (Malta): There were various stages in the elaboration of the Draft Agreement in the meetings of the Technical Committee, and we fully endorse the end product and support the adoption of the Draft Resolution. As I mentioned in the Commission II and I would like to reiterate here, it is our understanding that this Agreement will be conceived as an integral part of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing, and we therefore support the proposal made by the Chairman of the Committee on Fisheries for the elaboration of this Code to be maintained on a fast track so as not to lose the momentum we have gained in drawing up and concluding this Agreement.
Mr Chairman, I have to be brief and, therefore, I cannot thank sufficiently the Secretariat, the Fisheries Department, the Office of Legal Council, the Chairman of the Finance Committee, and our colleagues on the Technical Committee who contributed so much to arrive at what we hope will be our success. Thank you.
Ebrahim MAYGOLINEJAD (Iran, Islamic Republic of): Mr Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the Islamic Republic of Iran, I also would like to express our full support for the International Agreement on the Flagging of Vessels Fishing on the High Seas and congratulate the Fisheries Department, Legal Office, and all Member Nations involved for their efforts. In order to conserve fisheries' resources and its sustainability, I would like to ask FAO for further steps in this regard, especially the International Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing.
Mrs Inga MAGISTAD (Norway): Thank you, Mr Chairman. Let me also state my country's full support for the adoption of this Draft Agreement and join
others in commending the FAO Secretariat for their very useful work in this respect. Even though we would have preferred a stronger instrument, we are very pleased to join in the consensus on this Draft Agreement and we, like others, would like to underline the importance of an early implementation of the Agreement. I thank you, Mr Chairman.
Robert ANDRIGO (Canada): Thank you, Mr Chairman. As this is an International Agreement, it requires the formal approval of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and of Fisheries and Oceans of Canada. As members of a new Government which took office but one week ago, their commitments have not made it possible for them to address this matter. Mr Chairman, I do not foresee any difficulty but I do need a little more time to receive formal advice from~my capital, and I would underscore that officials are acting on this matter on a priority basis. Nevertheless, I must defer transmittal of my Government's formal decision on this issue until later in the Conference.
CHAIRMAN: I take into consideration the reservations of Canada, which can be expressed during the Conference when this proposal will be made for final adoption. I therefore move that this Commission recommends the adoption of this item for the Conference. Am I correct, Mr Moore?
Gerald MOORE (Legal Counsel): Yes. I would just like to comment on one or two points that have been raised during the discussion and also to thank the delegates for their kind words for the Secretariat.
First of all, several delegates have raised the question that they would have liked a stronger Agreement. I just want to say that this is the first step, as it were, in adopting and getting the Agreement off the ground. There is always the possibility of amending the Agreement at a later time through a Conference session in order to make it stronger, if necessary, in the light of the experience of the implementation of it.
Secondly, to stress that the Agreement is an integral part of the International Code of Conduct on Responsible Fishing. I think it was mentioned at one stage during the discussions that "there was a possibility of waiting for the Code". I want to make it clear that the Draft Agreement here today will be the first part of the Code and that there will be other parts of the Code to follow.
Thirdly, a number of delegates have laid stress upon the need for early implementation. We will do what we can to help countries, through their procedures, to bring it into force and bring it to their attention, as it were, and also to work out guidelines with respect to the implementation of the Agreement national legislation. Indeed, we are thinking of holding some form of consultation which can produce guidelines for countries on implementing the Agreement into their national legislation. I believe, however, that the Assistant Director-General for Fisheries, Dr Krone, has some information with respect to the further aspects of the International Code of Conduct itself and the request from the Chairman of the Committee of Fisheries regarding speeding up the process on that.
W. KRONE (Assistant Director-General, a.i., Fisheries Department): Mr Chairman, since the Agreement which you have just passed is an integral
part of the Code of Conduct on Responsible Fishing, it is perhaps appropriate to give some information to delegates on how we intend to proceed with the preparation of the Code of Conduct, particularly in view of your expressed wish to put the elaboration of the General Principles of the Code on a fast track.
I have already informed the Council two weeks ago that the Secretariat has a preliminary draft of a number of chapters of the Draft Code, including the General Principles, in an advanced state of preparation. I also said that we hoped to be able to start consultations with experts and institutions early next year.
As to the General Principles, we could envisage a meeting of a small informal working group in February next year to review the first draft text prepared by the Secretariat. The group would be composed of 18-20 government-nominated experts selected by members in accordance with traditional practices of balanced regional representation in order to guarantee that all interests are represented. This relatively small working group is a key aspect in accelerating the process of drafting the chapter on General Principles, which will then be submitted to all Member Nations for consideration. If you agree to this proposal, we would kindly ask the Chairman of the Group of 77 and of the OECD Group to provide us with a list of 18-20 members, including representatives from Eastern and Central European countries. We would require this information in the first week of December in order to issue the invitations for the working group meeting. We also propose to invite to the meeting the Chairman of the UN Conference on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks.
I should like to emphasize, Mr Chairman, that the product of the discussion in this working group would continue to be an informal Secretariat document, and there will be ample opportunity for all members and for other organizations to review and comment on this text. The first opportunity could be afforded at the UN Conference on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, which holds its 2nd Substantive Session in New York in March 1994. FAO has been closely collaborating with the UN Secretariat in the preparation of this Conference and this has been highly recognized by the Conference. At present we are preparing, as requested by the July Session of the Conference, two documents to be discussed at the next Session in March. One document deals with reference points for fisheries management, the other with the precautionary approach to fisheries management.
A draft text of the General Principles of the Code of Conduct as prepared by the Secretariat at the working group could be made available informally to delegates at the New York meeting. We believe firmly that this could usefully contribute to the discussions at that Conference. It is certainly our firm intention that our work on the general principles should be complementary with and supportive of the UN Conference debate.
Likewise, the discussions at the New York UN Conference will help us to further refine our draft text on the General Principles and, indeed, other sections of the Code of Conduct such as sections on fishing operations and fisheries management. The UN Conference in New York could also be used for informal consultations with governments in a similar manner as was done for the Draft of the Agreement which you have just passed at the last session of the UN Conference.
In the further process of elaborating the General Principles, we would envisage sending a revised text to COFI members in March/April for review and written comments, and countries would be requested to provide their comments by the end of August. The same draft will also be made available at the First Substantive Session of the UN Conference, which is scheduled to be held in August 1994. Based on FAO and COFI member comments and on any-relevant outcome of the UN Conference, a first draft will be prepared by the Secretariat in September for submission to the FAO Council in November 1994. This final draft will be sent to the Member Nations as much in advance as possible for their early consideration, and the November session of the Council next year may again wish to set up a technical committee in order to consider the draft and the comments received.
Mr Chairman, the Secretariat is aware that some countries would like to see the working group of government-nominated experts to be held rather after the next session of the UN Conference. We feel very strongly that the FAO Secretariat should go ahead, particularly in view of your unanimous recommendation to prepare the General Principles on the fast track. We will intensively participate in the UN Conference in March in New York. We cannot appear to have nothing in our hands, to have done nothing on the General Principles, as you have instructed us to do. On the other hand, we are convinced that, in the manner I have just described how we will proceed on the matter, a full coordination with the UN Conference is guaranteed.
CHAIRMAN: Before concluding this item and recommending it to be submitted for approval of the Conference under Article XIV.1 of the Constitution, I would like to thank the Chairman of the OECD who has presented a written statement for inclusion in the record on this important matter
Gérard VIATTE (Observateur pour OCDE): Monsieur le Président, je vous félicite pour votre élection et pour celle des Vice-Présidents. Nous apprécions beaucoup les travaux conduits par la FAO dans le domaine des pêcheries, et nous la félicitons pour les résultats obtenus, notamment en ce qui concerne la Convention qui est présentée à la Conférence. Vous me permettrez de saisir cette occasion pour évoquer brièvement les travaux du Comité des pêcheries de l'OCDE, et notamment l'activité qui vient d'être engagée sur la gestion des ressources marines vivantes.
De nombreuses nations de pêche sont aujourd'hui confrontées à une faible rentabilité dans leurs industries, la surpêche ou l'appauvrissement des stocks. Ce sont ces problèmes qui ont poussé le Comité des pêcheries de l'OCDE à concentrer, dans les années qui viennent, la majeure partie de ses ressources à l'examen des aspects économiques de la gestion des ressources vivantes.
L'objectif d'ensemble du projet consistera, pour les pays membres, à échanger des informations, à faire part de leurs expériences respectives et des résultats de leurs recherches sur la gestion des ressources biologiques de la mer dans les eaux placées sous la juridiction des Etats côtiers et au-delà. L'étude aura les objectifs spécifiques suivants:
a) Examen des pratiques des pays membres en matière de gestion;
b) Examen des aspects économiques de la gestion des ressources biologiques de la mer dans les eaux placées sous la juridiction des Etats côtiers et au-delà, y compris les aspects de gestion de
l'ajustement structurel, la gestion des pêcheries d'espèces multiples, la gestion des stockschevauchant les limites territoriales et des espèces hautement migratoires. On évaluera dans ce cadrenavires arborant des pavillons de complaisance;
c) Détermination des domaines pour lesquels une coordination et une collaboration internationales pourraient être utiles, en tenant compte des travaux en cours dans d'autres enceintes internationales, notamment la FAO, sur le Code de conduite pour une pêche responsable.
L'OCDE compte que cette étude contribuera utilement aux travaux de la FAO sur un Code-de conduite pour la pêche responsable ainsi qu'à ceux des Nations Unies sur la pêche en haute mer. En tout état de cause, elle représentera une nouvelle occasion de renforcer la coopération très intense qui a toujours existé entre la FAO et l'OCDE en matière de politique des pêches.
Merci Monsieur le Président.’
Robert ANDRIGO (Canada): Thank you, Mr Chairman, and thank you particularly to Dr Krone for the explanation that he has given us of the procedure that he envisages for work on the General Principles of the Code of Conduct. As you know, we have supported work on the Code of Conduct and we have also given our agreement in principle to fast-tracking the work on the General Principles. This is the first time that we have heard something substantive behind how we would schedule that particular work, and I thank him for that.
Just a couple of comments on what was described: first of all, with regard to the meeting of government-nominated experts that is envisaged for early next year, I would expect that that meeting at this particular stage would be on the basis of participants taking part in their capacities as experts rather than as government representatives. This was the procedure followed in respect of the Flagging Agreement, and it is equally appropriate in this instance, given that we as Government do not yet know quite precisely what the contents of these General Principles might be, so I would just underscore that particular point.
I was very pleased to note that Dr Krone has underlined what was the decision of Commission II in respect of the necessity of this work needing to be complementary with, supportive of and coordinated with that of the UN Conference. I can only re-underline that, and emphasize certainly from my delegation's point of view the necessity of ensuring that the Chairman of the UN Conference in fact does participate. I think that this is by far the most effective way of ensuring absence of duplication and of ensuring full coordination and complementarity with that work.
I would have a question in respect of the process as currently outlined. We are proceeding to what was described, I believe, as a final draft for presentation to Council in 1994.
__________1 Texte reçu avec demande d'insertion au procès verbal
In 1994, as I understood the original timetables, there should have been, or there is, a role for COFI to play in considering this particular Code of Conduct, and am I to understand that the final draft that is to be considered by Council in 1994 is the final draft to be subsequently submitted for the consideration of COFI, and then subsequent re-entry to the Council in 1995 as it wends its way to the Conference, which is the only body that has final approval over something of this sort? I would appreciate if Dr Krone could perhaps elucidate on that point.
CHAIRMAN: The next speaker and I hope the last speaker will be the Islamic Republic of Iran. We have spent already a considerable amount of time. We have two more items on the agenda and if I could not start the meeting on time, at least I would like to conclude it on time.
Ebrahim MAYGOLINEJAD (Iran, Islamic Republic of): We would like to express our support for Mr Krone's proposal, and we believe the member countries' domination through regional bases will be more effective.
Paul Neville ROSS (Australia): I will be very brief. I have listened with interest to the statement by Mr Krone. We note particularly his comment that it is the firm intention that FAO work on the General Principles should be complementary with and supportive of the UN Conference debate. We also welcome the intention to invite the Chairman of the UN Conference to participate in the proposed technical meeting next year.
Nevertheless, Mr Chairman, as Mr Krone indicated, Australia has concern about the timing of the proposed technical meeting. It is Australia's view that FAO should wait until after the March session of the UN Conference before convening an expert group to develop the General Principles section of the code. Please understand that it is the timing of the expert group meeting which is the issue, not FAO's role in coordinating the Code of Conduct, which we support. Australia has a strong interest in participating in the expert consultation. We consider the countries which have been active and constructive in the UN process need to participate. It is our preference that the basic principles be elaborated through the UN Conference first, and then brought into a more detailed practical context through the Code.
That said, Mr Chairman, it is not our intention to oppose this proposal from Mr Krone if it is acceptable to the majority of members. This is on the understanding, as mentioned by Canada, that the participants in the expert group be in their personal capacity, and that the Chair of the UN Conference be invited to the meeting.
Ms C. BOGLE (New Zealand): I also wanted to make just a few comments on the timetable that has been suggested to us by Dr Krone for the work on the General Principles of the Code of Conduct. Like other delegations, we supported the concept of accelerating this work on the basis that it in no way preempts important policy decisions which, as we know, are expected from the UN Conference on Highly Migratory Species and Straddling Stocks.
Now as we have seen, Conference will hold its next session in March and is expected to conclude its work in August, and this provides a good opportunity for a complementary tracking along of the two processes in
these two forums, but like Australia we believe it would be better if the experts' working group, which we are talking about here, could have the benefit of the outcome of the next session of the Conference, and the reason for this is that the Conference's work on principles relating to high seas management of these species would then be able to provide some high level guidance to the drafters of the Code of Conduct, and it seems to us this would be a more productive and cost-effective way to use a group of experts working on this issue. However, we would not insist upon this if other delegations believe that the February timetable is the more appropriate one.
In terms of finalizing the General Principles, I think it may be impossible to set a definite timetable, although consideration by the Council in November should be feasible, depending again on the outcome of the August session of the UN Conference, which is probably the concluding session of that Conference.
We very much support the idea of involving the Chair of the UN Conference in the expert group so as to ensure complementarity between the two discussions.
CHAIRMAN: In the future I would like to draw the attention of the delegates that we are discussing not timetables, not compositions, but whether this Commission recommends for the adoption by the Conference of an agreement. The points of various things can be worked out later on, but this Commission is not responsible for it.
O. TOUGAARD- (EEC): On behalf of the European Community I would also like to join the previous speakers in expressing my gratefulness to Dr Krone for the outline of the procedures for the further work on the Code of Conduct. We can in general give our support to his proposals.
As to the first meeting in early February next year, we find that this is convenient, it is logical, and we feel that the results of such an expert meeting may be usefully utilized as an input for the UN Conference during the second part of the month of March.
Likewise, we would also like to support the involvement of the Chairman of the United Nations Conference in this work.
CHAIRMAN. I would like again to point out that we are considering, and we have already agreed, that this draft will be submitted to the Conference for approval, and I have two more speakers and they definitely will be the last ones. They are Mexico and Norway.
José ELIAS LEAL (Mexico): Seré muy breve. Unica y exclusivamente, a nombre de nuestra delegación, agradecer los comentarios del Dr Krone y, desde este momento, apoyarlos en lo general. Me parece que son amplios, consideramos que es muy importante la elaboración del Códico de Conducta y nuestra delegación se enccuentra en la mejor disposición para estar presente y apoyar los comentarios que aquí se han hecho esta mañana.
Mrs Inga MAGISTAD (Norway): I will be brief. Just let me say that my delegation also is somewhat concerned about the timetable, and we support the comments just made and the questions raised by other delegations, in particular by Canada, and we would actually like to have a bit of clarification on how the Secretariat sees the time schedule and also the role of COFI, because, as was pointed out by Canada, this does not really seem clear to us.
Let me just put the record straight and say we support very much the idea of involving the Chairman of the UN Conference in this respect, and also as was stated by the others of course, we think there is a good case for awaiting the March meeting in the UN before we have the expert meeting.
W. KRONE (Assistant Director-General, a.i. (Fisheries Department): I did not mean to set up your agenda, but we have received some very useful comments in the Secretariat to allow this article to proceed further.
Just to reply to two points. Yes, this meeting - the experts coming there would be acting as experts and not commit the government in any way whatsoever. Regarding the finalization of the Code, it will be a matter for COFI to approve the final text, which will then go to Council and Conference in 1995. However, the General Principles which we have been asked to put on a fast track, we might - and I say we might - it might not be possible - have the Council in November decide on some final wording of it. If not, they will also go to COFI and follow the other parts of the Code in the same manner.
CHAIRMAN: We now move to item 19.3 Cooperation Agreement between the Organization for the Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia and the Pacific and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, document C 93/LIM/21.
Gerald MOORE (Legal Counsel): The document before you on this item is C 93/LIM/21 entitled "Draft Cooperation Agreement between the Organization for the Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia and the Pacific (NACA) and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations."
Mr Chairman, NACA was established originally as a project funded by UNDP and executed by FAO. The project was very successful and the participating governments decided to convert it into a self-sustaining international organization. This was accomplished through the adoption of the Agreement on the Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia and the Pacific in 1988, an
Agreement which entered into force in 1990, and now boasts some 12 governments as members.
The Agreement itself foresaw the adoption of a cooperation agreement with FAO, and the present Draft Agreement was proposed by the governing council of NACA and presented to the CCLM at its 60th Session in April 1993. The Cooperation Agreement, you will note, Mr Chairman, is itself very concise and has as its objective to establish and maintain a close working relationship between NACA and FAO mainly through the participation of FAO in the NACA Governing Council with observer status, and FAO participation in the NACA Technical Advisory committee as a full member.
The text of the cooperation agreement is set out in the Appendix to the document before you today, and is commended to the Conference for its formal confirmation under Article XIII.1 of the Constitution.
Che Ani SAAD (Malaysia): Malaysia has benefited greatly since the establishment of NACA in 1980 under FAO/UNDP funding. In 1990 NACA became an intergovernmental body with each member contributing to a common pool totalling about 250 000 Malaysian Ringgit per year. The main benefit is the ability of aquaculture training in freshwater and brackish water. Many of the staff and officers of the Department of Fisheries in Malaysia have been trained under the NACA programme as senior aquaculturists, and also in very technical areas of breeding and culture in freshwater and marine organisms.
NACA has already established four regional league centres in Wu-hsi, China, Bhubaneswar, India, Bangkok, Thailand and Iloilo, Philippines to carry out research to upgrade and develop new technologies for aquaculture. In addition, NACA conducts other programmes on aquaculture.
Malaysia is very supportive of NACA activities and its proposed agreement with FAO. This can only bring more benefit to member countries and help the development of aquaculture in my country and countries in the region.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very Malaysia. Anybody else please? This item seems to be also very well prepared and straightforward and I move that the Commission recommends its adoption to the Conference. We move to the next item.
The next item is 19.4, Agreement for the Establishment of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission, document C 93/LIM/27.
Gerald MOORE (Legal Counsel): The document before you on this item is C 93/LIM/27, which contains the text of the Draft Agreement for the Establishment of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission that has been submitted to you by the 104th Session of the Council, which met earlier this month and asked for this matter to be included on the agenda of the Conference today.
As you may know, the negotiation of this important international Agreement has quite a long history, dating back to an International Technical Conference held in Rome in 1989.
The need for the establishment of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission has been recognized since that time and has never been questioned. It was reiterated at the Technical Conference held in June 1992, which reached broad agreement on the text of the Draft Agreement before you today. Recently the need has also been highlighted by the UN Conference on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, which seems poised to accord a major role to regional fishery bodies in the management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks.
However, a number of difficulties have risen, firstly, over the need to allow for full participation in the proposed Commission of the European Economic Community, and more lately over the wording of Article IV of the Draft Agreement that establishes the eligibility criteria for membership in the new Commission.
A series of intense negotiations has been held over the last 18 months in order to reach agreement on the wording, negotiations which seem now to have come to fruition.
The Draft Agreement was submitted to the 104th Session of the Council earlier this month for its formal approval. However, at the last moment the Council was informed that bilateral discussions between two potential parties to the agreement, the United Kingdom and Mauritius, which had formed part of the original compromise formula on Article IV, had not yet reached fruition and Mauritius was not in a position to formally approve the Draft Agreement.
I have now been informed by Mauritius that the bilateral discussions have reached fruition that it is now in a position to formally approve the Draft Agreement. That removes one of the barriers to the formal adoption of the Agreement, and I think the most important barrier.
The second difficulty has been occasioned by the perception of some potential parties to the Agreement - a perception I should add that is not shared by other potential parties - that the participation of both the EEC and two of its member states, the United Kingdom and France, would entail a "double voice" for the EEC and its member states in the new Commission. I should point out in this context that, this being a matter within the exclusive competence of the EEC, the EEC itself will join the Commission with a single vote and that other member states having fishing vessels operating in the region, such as Spain, would no be eligible to join the Commission.
In view of this expressed concern on the part of some FAO Member States, the Council at its 104th Session two weeks ago noted that this was an issue that should be explored in its wider perspective in similar situations in the Organization as a whole and, therefore, decided to refer this matter to the CCLM for its consideration with a view to carrying out a legal analysis of the issues involved and reporting to the Council at its 106th Session in November 1994.
In the meantime the approach adopted in the present agreement should not be viewed as pre-empting the outcome of that analysis and that report. On this basis and understanding, the Council, noting the urgent need for the
establishment of appropriate machinery for the management of tuna and tuna-like species in the Indian Ocean, recommended that the Agreement for the Establishment of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission be submitted to the 27th Session of the Conference for its formal approval in the form presented to it in the report of the CCLM as amended by the Council.
The third obstacle to the formal approval of the Draft Agreement has also been removed with the formal agreement this morning of the amendment to paragraph 10 of Part R of the Basic Texts allowing for more flexibility in the wording of reservation clauses and agreements drawn up under Article XIV of the FAO Constitution.
One provision of the Draft Agreement remains to be agreed upon and that is the precise-wording of Article XVI entitled Coastal States' Rights. Following further discussions over the week-end with the countries most directly concerned, I am now in a position to recommend the following new wording as a compromise formula for this particular provision. I will read out the wording: "This Agreement shall not prejudice the exercise of sovereign rights of a coastal state in accordance with the international law of the sea for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the living resources, including the highly migratory species, within a zone of up to 200 nautical miles under its jurisdiction.
I would refer you to your original document in which you will note that the words "relevant rules of" have been deleted, and the words which were included in brackets in the text before you, the words "of the sea", are no longer in brackets so that the change to the Article is merely that the second line would read "in accordance with the international law of the sea for the purposes of exploring and exploiting", etc.
In view of the above, Mr Chairman, I believe that the Conference is now in a position to formally approve the Draft Agreement under Article XIV of the FAO Constitution and to allow for the long-awaited establishment of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission. Once formally approved by the Conference, the Agreement will be circulated to all potential Members for their acceptance and will come into force on deposit of the tenth Instrument of Acceptance.
Mr Chairman, I commend the Agreement to the Conference for its formal approval and I would draw your attention to the Conference Draft Resolution submitted to you, which would then encapsulate the approval of the Conference.
CHAIRMAN: Are there any comments?
Lam Cheng LAM THUON MINE (Mauritius): The Mauritius delegation wishes to confirm Mr Moore's statement regarding the discussions between Mauritius and the United Kingdom on the cooperation of fisheries to conserve resources in the waters around the Chagos archipelago. Having made sufficient progress in our discussions we are now pleased to welcome the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission Agreement and take this opportunity to thank the Secretariat for their efforts to obtain as convergent views as possible from Member States.
We also extend our thanks to the delegations of many thanks to the delegations of many countries for their support in setting up the IOTC.
Mrs Promilla ISSAR (India): It is with extreme gratification that India views the Draft Agreement on the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission that has been presented to this Conference. This is the result of a continuous exchange of views, discussions and deliberations on various aspects of the Agreement.
There have been certain modifications of the original draft on the basis of suggestions made by certain members. Some doubts and reservations have been expressed, and these have been discussed in detail in the document C 93/LIM/27, which is an extract from the Report of the 104th Session of the Council. India supports the views expressed therein.
Specifically, India agrees that the present formulation of Article 15 sufficiently addresses the problem of the possible duplication of the mandates of IOTC and other regional organizations. This is a facet relating to implementation, and the IOTC would be capable of handling it at that stage by ensuring continuous interaction with other regional organizations. India also agrees that the present formulation as suggested by Mr Moore of Article XVI may be accepted.
As indicated in paragraph 84 of the document, India strongly supports and recommends that the matter of the "double voice" of the EEC may be referred to the CCLM in order to carry out a legal analysis and report the outcome to the 106th Session of the Council, and that the present Draft Agreement should not be viewed in any sense as pre-empting the outcome of that analysis.
We would also like to reiterate that India is strongly committed to the formation of the IOTC. Such regional cooperation is important to the development'of the deep sea fishery sector, application of technology and human resource development and sustainable exploitation of fishery resources of the region compatible to ecological concerns.
It has also been found that increasing the fishing efforts in the southern oceanic regions results in reduction of the migrating segment of the fish population by the time it reaches the Indian waters. Cooperation among countries fishing in the region would be extremely helpful and indeed necessary in directing fishing efforts strictly in accordance with environmental imperatives.
In the background of these interests and concerns, India would also like to offer to host the organization and to have the headquarters of IOTC located in India.
In conclusion, it may be stated that India agrees with and supports the approach outlined in the said document and the Draft Agreement for the formation of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission appended thereto.
I would like to express special thanks to the Legal Counsel of the FAO for his efforts to establish the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission at this stage.
Raphaël RABE (Madagascar): La délégation malgache voudrait, elle aussi, manifester sa profonde gratitude à M. Moore, Conseiller juridique de la FAO, pour les efforts importants qu'il a déployés pour parvenir au résultat que nous constatons actuellement.
Malgré le fait que certains problèmes soulevés par les autorités malgaches compétentes à l'endroit de quelques dispositions du projet d'accord n'aient pas pu trouver de solution définitive, nous voudrions, nous aussi, nous joindre au consensus que se dégage pour l'approbation de l'accord par la Conférence; nous sommes convaincus de la nécessité d'aller de l'avant dans ce sens.
Nous voudrions cependant insister sur la nécessité de trouver des solutions urgentes à ces problèmes car leur persistance pourrait nuire en quelque sorte à l'efficacité qu'on attend de la Commission, et porter atteinte à la bonne entente entre les Membres qui devront étroitement coopérer, et sans réserve.
Ma délégation renouvelle donc son appui à l'approbation de cet accord.
Ray ALLEN (United Kingdom): I can be extremely brief. I would just like to confirm what has been said by the delegate of Mauritius regarding the bilateral discussions. We, too, welcome the establishment of this Commission, and I would like to express my appreciation to the Legal Counsel for all the hard work he has put into the establishment of this Commission.
O. TOUGAARD (EEC): On behalf of the European Community, which has been negotiating this Agreement on behalf of its Member States, I would like to express my deep appreciation of the excellent work done by the Secretariat on the establishment of this Commission. I wanted particularly to thank the Legal Counsel, Mr Moore, who we all know has played a leading role in seeing this Agreement through. With regard to the draft as it now stands, the European Community can accept the text as presented in the Conference paper C 93/LIM/27, Appendix F, and as it is proposed to be amended, in regard to Article 16. The European Community is looking forward to the implementation of this Agreement which will contribute to the improved management of fishery resources in its area of coverage. We have taken note of the previous interventions by some delegations over what they perceive to be a double voice for the EEC and its Member States. We want to emphasize that there exists no such double voice. We take the position that this question was settled by the general declaration of competence which the European Community submitted to FAO at the time of its accession. We can, however, agree that this matter be considered by the CCLM as proposed by the 104th Council.
Jacques LAUREAU (France): Je tenais également à féliciter, au nom de la France, notre ami Gerald Moore pour l'excellent travail qu'il a accompli, nous permettant de parvenir enfin à un accord sur la création de la CTOI.
Mon pays a déjà manifesté son intérêt, depuis plus de 10 ans, pour la coopération entre les pays et les territoires de cette zone en soutenant, dès le début, un projet du PNUD que tout le monde connaît bien, auquel nous avons contribué il y a 10 ans et qui se poursuit aujourd'hui dans sa cinquième phase.
La France se réjouit donc que la CTOI puisse reprendre cet héritage et puisse par ailleurs amplifier ses opérations de coopération auxquelles elle ne manquera pas également d'apporter des contributions.
Arrow Solomon OBURO (Kenya) : I wish to take this opportunity to express our appreciation to the Secretariat for document C 93/LIM/27. The Kenya delegation compliments Mr Moore for his clarity and excellent reduction of the subject. We commend FAO for the untiring efforts and determination with which its officials promoted consultations that facilitated compromises and agreement on the draft document for the establishment of IOTC as presented to us in document C 93/LIM/27, Appendix F. The justification for the creation of IOTC and activities in support of the same and the antecedent to the discussions today are comprehensively summarized in the extract from the report of the 104th Session of the Council, as reproduced on pages 1, 2 and 3 of the document under discussion. The same are echoed in the proposed Resolution, the draft of which is appended on page 4 of the document. The preamble to the Draft Agreement at page Fl of the document further amplifies the need for IOTC. For this reason, I shall therefore not elaborate further on the reasons why the birth of IOTC must be allowed to happen. However, without any prejudice to our acceptance and support for the creation of IOTC, my delegation wishes to note with appreciation the Council decision and recommendation that concerns expressed over the double voice issue shall be referred to the Committee on Constitutional and Legal Matters, CCLM, and that the Conference decision taken in the meantime to adopt the Draft Agreement as it now stands shall neither prejudice nor preempt the analysis of CCLM on this matter. We therefore urge an expeditious conclusion of this matter. Concerning duplicity and complementarity between IOTC and other intergovernmental agencies whose mandates and functions may interface with those of IOTC, we believe the activities are and shall remain complementary and supplementary to each other. On one specific issue, however, that is the interrelationship between the Indo-Pacific Fisheries Commission and IOTC, taking note that the highly migratory fish stock come under the mandate of both institutions, now it is delegated to IOTC. We recommend that FAO undertake a comparative analysis of the mandate of both organizations, and where it is considered necessary, that the competence and work of IOTC will be enhanced by causing some adjustment of the functions of IPC. Let FAO formulate, after consultations with members of both organizations, changes it considers appropriate to be effected on IPC's mandate to improve performance of IOTC. With these observations, Kenya supports the creation of IOTC and recommends that the 27th Session of FAO approve and adopt the Draft Agreement for the establishment of IOTC, the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission, as presented in the document under discussion.
CHAIRMAN: Before giving the floor to Mr Moore and closing this item, I would like to give the floor to Mr Krone. After all, this is his baby, or his fish, and he might want to make some additional comment.
W. KRONE (Assistant Director-General, a.i., Fisheries Department): I want just briefly to respond to the concerns expressed by Kenya, and to some extent I think it was also indicated by the Indian delegation. The Indo-Pacific Fisheries Council has never been dealing with tuna in the Indian Ocean. The Indo-Pacific Fisheries Council has been dealing with tuna in the South China Sea area, while other parts of the Pacific Ocean have been covered by specially set up regional organizations outside the FAO framework. The organization which has dealt with tuna in the Indian Ocean has been the Indian Ocean Fisheries Commission, which had and still has a committee on tuna. That committee will continue until this organization, the IOTC, is established, but then it will not. It will not have any more need to meet because it function will have been taken over by the new
organization. So I do not think there is any particular danger. I can just say that the IPC will be meeting in two weeks' time in Bangkok and some issues of its restructured mandate will be covered, but it will not affect greatly the tuna fisheries in the Indian Ocean. I hope that has clarified the question of overlap between different institutions.
Gerald MOORE (Legal Counsel): Thank you Mr Chairman. I would like to thank delegates for their kind words and to indicate that the CCLM, of course, will be taking up the matter that had been referred to it already by the Council, and it will be taking up and reporting to the Session of the Council in November 1994.
CHAIRMAN: So the Commission decides that this item will be presented to the Conference for approval. Now I would like to give the floor to Mr Stein, the Secretary, because he has an announcement to make or a proposal.
Richard STEIN (Secretary Commission III): I am very content to see that we have been able to handle all of these matters this morning, and very important ones at that. I would propose, if the Commission is in agreement, that we might, since we lost a little bit of time at the beginning of the morning - it is twenty-five past twelve - if the Commission would be willing to try to take two more items for which we had asked some people to be here, including the representative of the Staff Association, that in principle should not require a long discussion. If you would be willing, we might be able to take those two items now. We are jumping over. We have chosen two that might be handled rather quickly. One would be Item 24.2, Personnel Matters, and the next one would be 24.3 on Commissary accounts. If you would be willing to do that, we might try it in the next 30 minutes.
CHAIRMAN: Does anybody disagree?
Frank D. BUCHHOLZ (United States of America): I have no disagreement with what Mr Stein has just proposed, but while we are discussing the scheduling of agenda items, I thought I would raise a concern of mine. That has to do with Item 22, the Financial Position of the Organization. It is my understanding that this will be raised this afternoon and that that was based on, I believe, what Mr Stein referred to as uncontroversial and items which can be supported by consensus. It has become apparent to me that there is no consensus behind the document which has been circulated, which I believe is C 93 LIM/18, and the Resolution thereby. While many delegations are sympathetic to the general thrust of that document, I believe there will be continuing discussions of some of the details that are contained in that document, and I would strongly suggest that to avoid delay in our afternoon proceedings that we move Item 22 back to where it was originally scheduled, which is tomorrow morning.
Richard STEIN (Secretary Commission III): Certainly, I think that we must take account of what has been said by the United States. Could I propose a possible compromise? But if you think it should only begin tomorrow morning, perhaps we could put it as the last item today because Item 23, in any case, will be handled tomorrow morning because that is one which will probably give rise to discussion. If in the course of the afternoon we were able to do the other items by putting 22 at the end of the afternoon if we had time to start it, or naturally, if you prefer to, we will do it
tomorrow. But it is just a suggestion. Naturally, it is up to the Commission.
Ray ALLEN (United Kingdom): I think the suggestion made by my colleague from the United States is a wise one. I think, by putting this item at the close of play this afternoon, we could well be here until nine o'clock tonight. This item will give rise to quite considerable discussion, I think, and I think it would be wise to leave it until tomorrow, where it was originally placed.
Nedilson RICARDO JORGE (Brazil): Just as a clarification of the schedule for tomorrow morning, is first discussed Item 22 and next Item 23? Is that the understanding?
Jacques LAUREAU (France): Monsieur le Président, je voudrais savoir ce que l'on va faire cet après-midi. Rien? Il y a les points 20 et 21, mais ces points durent cinq minutes.
Richard STEIN (Secrétaire Commission III): En réponse à la question qui vient d'être posée par l'Ambassadeur de France, il est vrai qu'il ne restera pas beaucoup à faire. Mais, si je n'ai pas perdu le compte, il y a tout de même les points 20, 21, 22.1, 24.1 et 24.4 au cas où. C'est pourquoi j'avais proposé, sans pour autant dire que les débats continueraient jusqu'à 21 heures, que l'on commence la discussion du point 22, si on avait le temps, tout en terminant à l'heure normale. Si toutefois on terminait, on pouvait discuter des autres points et les résoudre, ce qui est tout à fait possible, dans l'après-midi. Il me semblait qu'il resterait alors peut-être une heure ou une heure et demie avant 17h.30 pour commencer les discussions sur le point 22.
Sans réouvrir le débat (mais en même temps je le fais un petit peu) ce n'était pas pour achever le premier sujet mais pour commencer aujourd'hui. Mais, encore une fois, on peut voir quand on en sera là. Il reste tout de même quelques points à traiter cet après-midi.
Jacques LAUREAU (France) : Le point 22 forme un tout, on ne peut pas le saucissonner. On va regarder des statistiques, on va constater qu'il y a beaucoup d'arriérés de paiements, etc. Tout cela fait un tout et il ne faut pas le découper. A mon avis, si on décide de traiter ce point demain matin, il faudrait que dans les quelques minutes qui nous restent nous terminions une série de points, ce qui nous permettrait éventuellement cet après-midi de préparer nos interventions sur le point 22. Et nous pourrions traiter maintenant les points 24.1 et 24.3.
CHAIRMAN: I suggest that we adjourn the meeting of the Commission until 14:30 this afternoon, and a detailed programme will be prepared.
Abdul Rahman AL-MAHMOUD (Qatar) (Original language Arabic): I am looking at the programme for this afternoon, and we have 20 and 20.1, 22¿ 22.1; so what are we going to discuss? Are we amending the Conference Journal's programme? I think perhaps the Arabic version is different from the others; I do not know. Could I perhaps have some explanation?
Francis Montanaro MIFSUD (Malta): Might I suggest that we proceed with the agenda in the order it is set in the Journal for the Conference for today. I am afraid if we postpone 20-21 to this afternoon and add some other items, we will find it very difficult to get a quorum.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Well, according to the Journal of the Conference Order of the Day for this afternoon, at 14:30 hours we have Item 20, Item 21, Item 22, and applicable sub-items. Any comments on that, please?
Ashraf Mohsen Mohammed MOHSEN (original language Arabic) (Egypt): I would like to second the proposition by the delegate of Malta on the condition that the Chair would assure that we will finish by six o'clock.
The meeting rose at 12.45 hours.
La séance est levée à 12 h 45.
Se levanta la sesión a las 12.45 horas.
