On Article 35, which deals with reports on the implementation of the Agreement, Japan referred to paragraph (1), and asked what would happen if the Agreement enters into force later than the stipulation requires. The Chair said a resolution would be submitted to the General Assembly calling for provisional reporting. Peru said that we need a follow-up on issues covered in the text. Uruguay said that constitutional requirements in his country may not permit acceptance of a provisional application. China agreed with the Chair and said that a review should only be effected after the Agreement's entry into force. Israel, supported by Uruguay, asked if it would be possible to make reference to Article 319 (2)(a) of UNCLOS in the text. Chile, supported by Argentina, said that despite the Chair's good efforts, considerable time might pass before a sufficient number of States ratify the Agreement for it to enter into force. There is immediacy in the concern of conservation of the stocks in question. He suggested returning to Article 7, pertaining to compatibility of conservation and management measures, since delegates spoke there about provisional compatibility measures. The Russian Federation, supported by Indonesia, advocated the Agreement's earliest possible entry into force, and suggested reducing the number of instruments of ratification to 20. The Chair reminded delegates that provisional application occurred in the case of Part XI of UNCLOS on deep sea-bed mining. The issue is one of political will. The EU said before contemplating agreement on provisional application, it is necessary to know whether the final agreement will be balanced and the substance reflective of a broad consensus. He added that not all provisions have the same urgency, but said there should be a reasonable number of ratifications.
The Chair that the reference to "implementation" should be changed for the sake of clarity. He pointed out that the same problem arises in dealing with Article 36 with the use of the term "after the adoption", and said that it would be best to wait until the end of the Conference to identify how to ensure provisional application. The delegate of Indonesia stated that he had difficulties with paragraph (1). The Chair responded that its status would depend on the decision on provisional application.
The Chair said that legal advice recommends that Article 36, which deals with review conference, be re-examined in light of the changes to Article 35.