ENB:07:41 [Next] . [Previous] . [Contents]

PART I — GENERAL PROVISIONS

Peru argued for the employment of additional definitions in Article 1, which deals with use and terms of scope of the agreement, with respect to "coastal States" and "fish stocks". He said some resources consist of shellfish, which can also be straddling in nature. The Russian Federation supported the need to include definitions, especially species that constitute a straddling stock, and referred to document A/CONF.164/L.46 which details a composite listing of SFS. The Chair said consideration of a SFS listing might be pertinent and urged delegations with biologists and scientists to convene a small group to identify all such species. Mexico and Canada, supporting the US and New Zealand, said the Conference should not get involved in producing an exhaustive listing.

Reflecting on document A/CONF.164/L.47, the Russian Federation said the definition for an "adjacent region" might include an upper limit of 70 miles distant from the outer edge of the EEZ. Norway said that in the Geneva intersessional it had supported inclusion of few definitions in the draft convention, but an "adjacent zone" definition would impart clarity to the text. Norway questioned the Chair's reference to coastal States as being all those that are "landlocked". The Chair replied that he was being literal. Any definition should be viewed in the context of Articles 63 and 64 of UNCLOS. Canada agreed with Peru and Argentina that molluscs and crustaceans should be included, but sedentary species should be excluded. Considerable discussion on this subject ensued, with Chile finally suggesting that the lists contained in documents L.11, L.32 and L.44 be adapted to create a harmonized species listing. With respect to the definitions of "fish stocks" and "straddling fish stocks", lists always run the risk of being incomplete. Peru proposed that the crustaceans and molluscs migrating between the EEZs and the high seas be covered and that sedentary species otherwise be excluded. Chile said that molluscs of a sedentary nature would automatically be excluded. Argentina said it is appropriate and important to include molluscs and crustaceans in fish stocks.

Japan proposed that conservation and management measures should be authentic and tendered additional text on the definition of "international conservation and management measures", based on text contained in the FAO Compliance Agreement. Two additional definitions modelled on the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, were proposed by Japan in respect of "subregional or regional fisheries management organizations" and "arrangements". The US said it would support a definition of conservation and management measures, but could not support the remainder of the Japanese proposal. The EU argued for minimum definitions but supported the inclusion of a working definition of "arrangement". Argentina, supported by Papua New Guinea, endorsed this point.

Papua New Guinea argued for maintenance of constructive ambiguity within the text. New Zealand said discussions on definitions would erode valuable conference time. Australia preferred to follow UNCLOS with a minimal number of definitions included in the text. Chile, Poland and Papua New Guinea supported the US and Australia on keeping definitions brief and to the minimum. The Chair said many terms are self-explanatory in the context in which they are used.

The Russian Federation, commenting on the Japanese proposal, said that he supported New Zealand's contention that not all FAO wording is appropriate to the draft agreement. He also said failure to agree on a listing of SFS would not undermine the provisions of the Agreement. China said Article 1 should be as general as possible and said the proposal to include molluscs and crustaceans in SFS is inappropriate. He shared Poland's view that more time should be devoted to substantive questions.

Uruguay pointed out that the objective definitions set out in A/CONF.164/L.44 were effective in that they used biological and geographical criteria. Uruguay supported the inclusion of both molluscs and crustaceans in the Agreement. The Japanese delegate expressed concern that Articles 63 and 64 of UNCLOS lack definition for the terms "directly", "organization", and "arrangement". Interpretation of these UNCLOS articles as they relate to SFS and HMFS will be extremely difficult. He proposed that these definitions be included in the text to ensure the viability of the binding nature of the Agreement, particularly in reference to Articles 8 and 20. Japan also stated that it is flexible to the inclusion of molluscs and crustaceans in the Agreement. The delegate from New Zealand supported Canada's proposal that the term "fish" include non-sedentary shellfish such as molluscs and crustaceans. Sri Lanka supported this inclusion as well. India expressed concern over the lack of clarity with reference to inclusions and definitions and said that target fish must be clearly identified and a common understanding reached on inclusions and exclusions. Estonia, while agreeing with the importance of definitions in Article 1, urged that delegates concentrate on substantive issues.

The Chair said that he would leave the initiative of compiling a list to any delegations with scientists. He said there is appreciation of the fact that a problem exists with regard to molluscs and crustaceans. He urged delegates to examine the Canadian proposal more seriously so the definition of "fish stock" can include molluscs and crustaceans but exclude sedentary species.

Poland questioned the use of the word "entities" at the end of paragraph (3) and said that the paragraph should reflect the reality that "entities" must also include those fishing in EEZs. In response, the Chair pointed out that paragraph (3) is a particular reference to the status of China. Article 1 is written in this way to help secure compliance and observation of the standards as set forth by this agreement.

Peru, supported by Poland, Argentina, Morocco, Japan and Uruguay, proposed adding "on the basis of the relevant provisions of the Convention" at the end of Article 2. The Russian Federation said that the use of the word "optimum" is taken from Articles 62 and 64 of UNCLOS. Long-term conservation pursues the goal of long-term utilization of the stocks. Brazil disagreed and said Article 64 refers to HMFS. He said optimum utilization has been superseded by the term "sustainable." India stated that optimum utilization has a fishery-biological aspect included. The Chair supported Brazil's interpretation and said that "sustainable use" is not harmful. The EU endorsed the Chair's comment. The EU, supported by Japan, proposed adding "throughout the entire range of their distribution" at the end of Article 2. Canada said he could not understand the concerns of Brazil, while he reserved judgement on the EU's proposed amendment.

In consideration of Article 3, dealing with application, Peru emphasized "rights and obligations" to conserve and manage fish stocks. Uruguay proposed alternative text "in the implementation of rights and fulfilling obligations" for paragraph (2). The US said that the application of Articles 5, 6 and 7 should clearly apply to the area of the high seas and the areas under national jurisdiction.

The delegate of Peru expressed concern over the text in Article 4, dealing with the relationship between UNCLOS and the draft convention, and said it should include reference to the sovereign rights of both coastal States and high seas fishing States and suggested that Article 7, paragraph (1) should be moved to Article 4 to create a chapeau covering these issues.

The Chair said he had examined the possibility of incorporating Article 7, paragraph (1) into Article 4, and that perhaps a clarification could be made stating that in the event of an inconsistency, UNCLOS shall prevail.

[Return to start of article]