-
1
Report of the 6th
MULTILATERAL HIGH-LEVEL CONFERENCE ON THECONSERVATION AND
MANAGEMENT OF HIGHLYMIGRATORY FISH STOCKS IN THE WESTERN AND
CENTRAL PACIFIC
April 2000
CONTENTS
Page
REPORT 2
Annex 1 List of participants 4
Annex 2 Opening remarks by the Chairman 8
Annex 3 Statements by delegations and observers 10
Annex 4 Information note on matters before the sixth session
35
Annex 5 Convention on the Conservation and Management of
HighlyMigratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific
Ocean,Proposal by the Chairman
40
Annex 6 Draft resolution establishing a Preparatory
Conference(MHLC/WP.3/Rev.2)
66
Annex 7 Closing statement by the Chairman 68
-
2
MULTILATERAL HIGH-LEVEL CONFERENCE ON THE CONSERVATION
ANDMANAGEMENT OF HIGHLY MIGRATORY FISH STOCKS IN THE WESTERN
AND
CENTRAL PACIFIC
SIXTH SESSION
Honolulu, Hawai’i11 – 19 April 2000
REPORT
1. The sixth session of the Multilateral High-Level Conference
on the conservation andmanagement of highly migratory fish stocks
in the western and central Pacific was held at Honolulu,Hawai’i
from 11 to 19 April 2000. The Conference was attended by
representatives from Australia,Canada, China, Cook Islands,
Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, France, French
Polynesia,Indonesia, Japan, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, New
Caledonia, New Zealand, Niue, Palau, PapuaNew Guinea, Philippines,
Republic of Korea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Chinese Taipei, Tonga,
Tuvalu,United States of America, Vanuatu and Wallis and Futuna.
Observers from Mexico, the EuropeanCommission (EC), the Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the
ForumSecretariat, the South Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA),
the Inter American Tropical TunaCommission (IATTC), the Pacific
Islands Development Programme, the Pacific Community (PC), theSouth
Pacific Regional Environment Programme, the Global Environment
Facility/United NationsDevelopment Programme and the University of
the South Pacific (USP) attended the Conference. Thelist of
participants is attached as Annex 1.
2. The Conference was opened by prayers and a traditional
Hawai’ian chant. The leader ofthe United States delegation, Mr.
Tucker Scully, welcomed participants to the State of Hawai’i.
3. In his opening remarks, attached as Annex 2, the Chairman of
the Conference,Ambassador Satya N. Nandan (Fiji), reminded
participants that the mandate of the Conference, asreflected in the
Majuro Declaration of 1997, was to negotiate a mechanism for the
conservation andmanagement of highly migratory fish stocks of the
region by June 2000. The Chairman recalled thatthat mandate had
been endorsed by the South Pacific Forum at the level of Heads of
Government in1997 and had been reaffirmed at successive meetings of
the Forum, most recently in 1999. TheChairman further noted that,
since the fifth session, he had circulated, under symbol MHLC/WP.3,
adraft proposal relating to an interim regime covering the period
between adoption of the Conventionand its entry into force and this
would be taken up by the Conference during the present session.
4. Statements were made by the representatives of Canada, China,
Federated States ofMicronesia, Fiji, French Polynesia, Japan,
Kiribati, Korea, Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Caledonia,New
Zealand, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Solomon
Islands, Chinese Taipei, Tuvalu,United States of America and
Vanuatu. Statements were made by the observers from the
EuropeanCommunity, Mexico and IATTC. Statements made by delegations
and observers are attached asAnnex 3.
5. The Conference considered a request for observer status by
Ecuador. Followingconsultations between delegations, the Conference
agreed that requests for observer status by Statesmay be considered
provided it is understood that such observer status shall not be
treated as anentitlement to become a party to the Convention nor
shall it be used as a basis to justify futureparticipation in the
Commission or as a basis to seek a future allocation. Subject to
the approval of theConference, observers may be permitted to make
statements of a general nature on matters of interestto them and to
circulate written submissions.
6. With respect to the request by Ecuador, the Conference agreed
that the request byEcuador for observer status in the Conference
would be allowed on the basis that Ecuador is a Statewith a Pacific
coastline with fishing interests in respect of the same stocks in
an area adjacent to theproposed Convention Area.
7. The Conference considered the draft Convention on the
Conservation and Management ofHighly Migratory Fish Stocks in the
Western and Central Pacific prepared by the Chairman at the end
-
3
of the fifth session (MHLC/WP.1/Rev.4 dated 16 September 1999).
The draft Convention wasdiscussed in the light of the issues
contained in an information note prepared by the Chairman
andcirculated to all participants in February 2000, and in the
light of other issues identified by theparticipants. The
information note is attached as Annex 4. To facilitate its work,
the Conferenceestablished an informal group under the chairmanship
of Mr. Grant Bryden (New Zealand) to considerissues relating to
financial and budgetary matters. The group carried out its work on
the basis of aninformation paper prepared by the representative of
FAO (MHLC/INF.2/Rev.2). In addition, theConference established
another informal group, chaired by Mr. Feleti Teo (Tuvalu) to
consider issuesrelating to the proposed regional observer
programme.
8. Following the discussions, and the outcome of the
deliberations in the informal groups,the Chairman introduced a
draft proposal for consideration of the Conference under the
heading “Draftproposal by the Chairman” dated 17 April 2000. The
Conference considered the Chairman’s draftproposal on 17 and 18
April 2000. Following the discussions, the Chairman further refined
hisproposal and issued a revised document on 19 April 2000 under
the heading “Proposal by theChairman”. The proposal by the Chairman
of 19 April 2000 is attached as Annex 5.
9. The Conference also considered the draft proposal by the
Chairman relating to theestablishment of a Preparatory Commission,
with a mandate to make recommendations on theimplementation of
specific aspects of the Convention and to address the institutional
and administrativeissues necessary to ensure a smooth transition to
the Convention regime upon entry into force of theConvention
(MHLC/WP.3). Following discussion of the interim regime in plenary,
the chairmanissued a revision of document MHLC/WP.3, which was
considered further in informal meetings. As aresult of the
discussions, the Chairman further refined his proposal and, on 19
April 2000, issued arevised document under symbol MHLC/WP.3/Rev.2.
The revised proposal is attached as Annex 6.
10. The Chairman delivered a closing statement outlining the
progress that had been madeduring the session and noting the issues
which remained to be addressed prior to the final session of
theConference. The Chairman’s closing statement is attached as
Annex 7.
11. With respect to the future programme of work, the Chairman
noted that the final sessionof the Conference will take place in
Nadi, Fiji Islands from 30 August to 5 September 2000. It willtake
the form of a three-day meeting of officials to finalize the
Convention text and the resolutionestablishing the Preparatory
Conference, as well as the Final Act of the Conference and
relatedinstitutional and administrative issues for the continuation
of the process. This will be followed by atwo-day ministerial level
meeting during which the Convention will be opened for
signature.
12. The Conference was adjourned on 19 April 2000.
- - -
-
Annex 1
4
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
AustraliaMichael BlissPeter CassellsMark GrayNeil HughesHans
JusseitMary LackGeoff MillerJoe ThwaitesPeter WardAnna Willock
CanadaSandy ArgueNadia BouffardWalter CadwalladerIvan
EllingsenLynne EllingsenJoe GraceffoBud GrahamDebbie KayRon KayDave
KeelingThomas OkumaErling OlsenAllison SaundersBob SmithHoward
StraussLarry TeagueLinda TeagueDiana Trager
ChinaMr. Li JianhuaMr. Zheng KangMr. Chen LigangMr. Zhao
LilingMr. Peng RongtaoMr. Liu XiaobingMs. Wang XiaoduMr. Zhang
Xiaoli
Cook IslandsIan BertramCarl HunterSiai MaiavaJoshua
MitchellRobert Worthington
Federated States of MicronesiaRobert GillettElizabeth
McCormickLorin RobertBernard Thoulag
FijiKen CokanasigaLisa StoneRobert StoneTania TagicakibauSaimone
Tuilaucala
FrancePhilippe CourrouyanXavier DupontDaniel SilvestreSerge
Segura
French PolynesiaAlexandre AtaGuy BesnardCharles DaxboeckAlain
Moyrand
IndonesiaHasjim DjalalBenny MandalikaDr. Purwanto
JapanKikuo ChiyoYoshio IshizukaYoshiaki ItoKenji KagawaKimio
KawasakiShigeru KuramochiKaoru KurosawaShojiro MakiDaishiro
NagahataMasaaki NakamuraShuya NakatsukaTeiji OhnoJunichiro
OkamotoEiko OzakiTatsuo SaitoMichio ShimizuRyuichi Tanabe
KiribatiJohnny KirataKaburoro RuaiaEmile SchutzTetoaiti
TabokaiRimeta Tinga
-
Annex 1
5
Republic of KoreaChang-Myeng ByenHo ChungGab-Yong JeongHyung-Nam
KimChang-Kyun KimJung-Soo KimJong-Koo LeeChang-Wee LeeJi-Doo
LeeChi-Nam OhGabriel OhMoo-Sung ParkSungKwon SohHyun-Soo Yun
Marshall IslandsMaynard AlfredDoreen DeBrum JurelangRhea
MossAtbi RiklonJohn SilkDanny Wase
NauruEllington DowaboboJesaulenko DowiyogoAnton
JimwereiyRusseell Kun
New CaledoniaJean-Pierre DiahaioueRegis Etaix-BonninRichard
FarmanLaurent FerriotMaurice Ponga
New ZealandRodger BallGrant BrydenKirifi KirifiTalbot
MurrayAliki Faipule Kuresa NasauChris O’BrienPenelope
RidingsVaughan Wilkinson
NiueBrendon PasisiPeleni Talagi
PalauCinderalla AdachiSabino AnastacioHerman FranciscoJames
KelleherLucio NgiraiwetSilas OrrukemThomas PatrisRamon
RechebeiRoman Yano
Papua New GuineaLucy B. BogariMaurice BrownjohnLeonard LoumaJoel
OpnaiAquila SampsonMatthew Yuangu
PhilippinesCesar M. Drilon, JnrEduardo G. EstebanMinerva
FalconGina LuJoaquin LuAugusto NatividadRodrigo Rivera, SnrRodrigo
Rivera, JnrMalcom I. Sarmiento, JnrStanley SwerdloffMarfenio Y.
TanBerlando TempladoDomingo TengAndrea UyRosalinda VeloriaBernabe
Veloria, Jnr
SamoaUeta Fa’asiliBrenda Heather-LatuVitolio F. Lui
Solomon IslandsPrimo AfeauLucian KiiAlbert WataAdrian
Wickham
Chinese TaipeiPaul ChangHomer ChangChu-Lung ChenPhon Yie
ChouPeter Shing-Chor HoNien-Tsu Alfred HuDaniel KuoChung-Hai
KwohCharles C.P. LeeDavid LiangDing-Rong LinWen-Cheng (Kevin)
LinHui-Yin LinKuo-Ching PuJames ShaChi-Lu SunJames T.P. Tsai
TongaAkau’olaMafi Akau’olaManumatavai Tupou
-
Annex 1
6
TuvaluTalafou ManaseElisala PitaFeleti P. Teo
United States of AmericaLouis AgardViolanda BotetDavid
BurneyCarol ChikamiStuart ChikamiRay ClarkeChristopher ConklinJim
CookPenny DaltonPaul DalzellWilliam DevickPeter FlournoyBill
Gibbons-FlyMike GonzalezTom GrassoLouis HaoDorothy HarrisWayne
HeikkilaWilliam HogarthWalter IkeharaChuck JanisseCharles
KarnellaHolly KoehlerPaul M. KrampeJo-anne KushimaMichael
LaursDwight MathersTana McHalePaul OrtizLinda M.B. PaulGary
SakagawaRay SautterTucker ScullyRichard SemanRichard ShiromaJohn
SibertManuel SilvaKitty SimondsGeorge SousaLisa SpeerLeona D.
StevensonEd StockwellDean SwansonJoaquin TenorioMike TestaMike
TosattoJulius Zolezzi
VanuatuMoses AmosPaul SamiBani Timbaci
Wallis & FutunaPatalione KanimoaPelena (Bernadette)
Papilio
Observers
European CommunityErik Jaap MolenaarJulio MoronErnesto Penas
MexicoRicardo Belmontes Acosta
Pacific Community (SPC)Tim AdamsLindsey ChapmanTony Lewis
IATTCBrian Hallman
Pacific Islands Development Programme(PIDP)Kim Small
University of the South PacificSandra Tarte
Forum Fisheries AgencyTransform AqorauIan CartwrightGerry
GeenBarbara HanchardAndrew RichardsLen RodwellVictorio
Uherbelau
Forum SecretariatIosefa Maiava
South Pacific Regional EnvironmentProgrammeAndrew Wright
United Nations Food and AgricultureOrganisationDavid Doulman
Global Environment Facility/UnitedNations Development
ProgrammeTom Twining-ward
-
Annex 1
7
MHLC Chair and AssistantsSatya N. NandanBlaise KuemlanganMichael
W. Lodge
Conference SecretariatAb BrumEarl CacholaVera KealaKevin
KellyCindy KnapmanJarad MakaiauMark MintonMark MitsuysuJeff
NagelDan PangEllen ReforminaSylvia SpaldingAlice Worthy
-
Annex 2
8
OPENING REMARKS BY THE CHAIRMAN, AMBASSADOR SATYA N. NANDAN, TO
THE SIXTHSESSION OF THE MULTILATERAL HIGH-LEVEL CONFERENCE
12 April 2000
Excellencies, distinguished delegates, colleagues and
friends,
I welcome you to the sixth session of the Multilateral
High-level Conference on the Conservation andManagement of Highly
Migratory Fish Stocks in the Central and Western Pacific.
We meet in Honolulu for the third time to continue the work of
the Conference, greeted once again bythe generous and warm
hospitality of our hosts and inspired by the traditional Hawaiian
ceremonies of welcome.I would like, on your behalf, to thank our
hosts, the United States and also the Western Pacific
RegionalFisheries Management Council for providing the conference
facilities. In particular we wish to express ourgratitude to Kitty
Simmonds and her colleagues for their efficiency.
Distinguished delegates,
We have a mandate to fulfil. A mandate to which we committed
ourselves at the second session of theConference and which is
reflected in the Majuro Declaration of 1997. The mandate is to
negotiate a mechanismfor the conservation and management of highly
migratory fish stocks of the region by June 2000. That mandatewas
endorsed by the South Pacific Forum at the level of Heads of
Government in 1997 and has been reaffirmedat successive meetings of
the Forum, most recently only last year.
Given the commitment of our leaders at the highest level, we
have a responsibility to fulfil theirdirective. Indeed, in the six
sessions that we have had so far, we have made considerable
progress. The subject-matter that we are dealing with is not easy,
but it is not impossible. We have come a long way since Majuro
inlaying down the foundations for a Convention. I believe we can
fulfil our obligation if we continue to workpragmatically and in a
spirit of cooperation.
It is not unusual that, as we make progress towards our goal, we
are subjected to doubts, misgivingsand anxieties. These doubts,
however, have to be overcome, relying upon the wisdom of our
leaders and theirown recognition of the legal obligations that our
countries have assumed under the 1982 Convention on the Lawof the
Sea and the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement. As part of the overall
package, the Convention confersboth rights and responsibilities on
coastal States and fishing States. It requires that these States
cooperate toachieve a regional arrangement for conservation and
management of highly migratory fish stocks. We cannot,therefore,
allow ourselves to be distracted from this path.
Distinguished delegates,
You would all have received the information note and other
documents circulated in preparation forthis meeting. That note
recalled the progress we had made in our negotiations so far and
identified a number ofoutstanding issues which we need to address
at this session. Of course, the list of outstanding issues is
notexhaustive and we will, I am sure, revert to some other matters
not on the list as we proceed. We have,however, a limited time
available in which to cover all these matters. I would remind you
all that we have onlyfour days available this week, with a break on
Sunday. Next week, I hope that we can continue our work
untilThursday lunchtime. Needless to say, there might also be
occasions when we need to work in small groupsduring the evenings,
depending on the evolution in our work.
It is my intention to go through the list of outstanding issues
which I had identified sequentially andthen to take up any other
matters which need to be considered. In addition to our work in the
plenary, it is myintention to convene smaller groups on an ad hoc
basis to help narrow the remaining differences and explorepossible
compromises. Please do not be surprised, therefore, if I identify a
number of you to join me from timeto time in a smaller room to work
on some of these issues. Naturally, I count on your cooperation
andunderstanding of this process. The results of the work done by
any smaller group would of course be reported tothe plenary of the
Conference as a whole.
I had already indicated to you that it was my intention to
appoint a small group to look at issuesrelating to the budget and
other matters in the draft Convention which have financial
implications. It is alwaysdifficult to select a small group but I
hope you will give me the liberty to appoint such a group and get
them to
-
Annex 2
9
work on these matters and report back to the plenary later in
the session. I hope the following would agree toparticipate in the
group: Australia, Cook Islands, Fiji, French Polynesia, Indonesia,
Japan, New Zealand, PapuaNew Guinea, Tonga and United States of
America. Of course, if there are any others who wish to join
thegroup, they are welcome to do so. I would be very grateful if Mr
Grant Bryden of New Zealand wouldcoordinate the work of this group
and report to me on the progress of its work.
I have in recent times received an increasing number of requests
for participation in this Conference,especially as observers and I
need some help and guidance from you in order to make
recommendations on suchrequests to the Conference as a whole. For
this purpose I would like to invite a small representative group
ofdelegations to help me review such requests so that we can make a
considered recommendation to theConference as a whole. I would
like, therefore, to invite representatives from the following
delegations to meetwith me for this purpose: Australia, Federated
States of Micronesia, Japan, Papua New Guinea, Samoa,Solomon
Islands and Tuvalu. I would very much appreciate it if this group
could meet me during the lunchbreak today so that we could take a
decision on the pending requests as soon as possible. If that is
agreeable, weshall meet at 1.30 p.m. in the Chairman’s Conference
Room.
I wish also to inform you that I have received a number of
written submissions which I have asked tobe circulated for your
information. These are:
• A letter from the European Community.• A communication from
Ecuador seeking observer status in the Conference.• A communication
from IATTC concerning its resolution on fleet capacity.• A letter
from four non-governmental organizations.
In addition, a number of you have drawn my attention to
technical and drafting inconsistencies in thetext. I shall review
these suggestions with a view to improving the text in the next
revision.
Distinguished delegates,
The programme of work for this session has been circulated to
you. I hope it is agreeable to you andwith that understanding we
will proceed on the basis of that programme.
Before we move on to the specific issues, I should like to give
opportunity to those who might wish tomake general statements.
− − −
-
Annex 3
10
STATEMENTS BY DELEGATIONS AND OBSERVERS
Canada
The Canadian delegation looks forward to working under your
chairmanship, Ambassador Nandan, to advanceand, if possible,
conclude negotiation of a Convention to manage highly migratory
fish stocks.
We would also like to take this opportunity to thank the United
Nations authorities for again allowing us to meetin Honolulu. This
city and the Conference facilities provide an ideal setting for
this initiative.
The Canadian delegation will continue to be guided by the
principles set out in the 1995UnitedNationsAgreement on Straddling
and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. Twenty-six States have ratified
that treaty,including many of the States participating in this
Conference. The Agreement will come into force in thecoming months
as only four more States need ratify in order to bring it into
force.
The 1995 Agreement provides the framework for the Convention
that we are negotiating here and we should notreopen issues that
took three years to resolve in New York. The 1995 Agreement was
adopted without objectionand the provisions that it contains should
be acceptable to all. For those States that have signed the
Agreement,including Canada, we are obliged to refrain from acts
that would defeat the object and purpose of theAgreement. Once the
Agreement comes into force, States that are party to it, including
Canada, are bound toperform it in good faith.
I mention the 1995 Agreement in relation to two issues in
particular. We must agree on decision-makingprocedures which
facilitate the adoption of conservation and management measures in
a timely and effectivemanner. For us, that means that State
interests must be protected, but that an opt-out procedure should
beavoided. And, we must not derogate from articles 21 and 22 of the
Agreement in regard to boarding andinspection.
Finally, I would mention one other area that is important to
Canada: the boundaries of the Convention Area. Ascurrently drafted,
there is a donut hole off the Canadian 200 mile zone where stocks
of particular interest toCanada are vulnerable. That problem can be
cured easily and that should be done.
Mr. Chairman, my delegation commends the work done to date and
looks forward to working with you tofinalize the text before
us.
-----
China
On behalf of the Chinese delegation I would like to take this
opportunity to thank the Government of the UnitedStates of America
and the State of Hawaii for hosting this important Conference for
the third time.
Mr. Chairman, we have received your proposal for the programme
of work before this session. According toyour proposal, the next
meeting, as the signing ceremony, will be held in Fiji at the
beginning of September thisyear. The Chinese delegation is in
favour of your suggestion on the future work arrangement. Mr.
Chairman, thecurrent working plan reflects that the negotiation for
establishing the future management mechanism in theWestern and
Central Pacific entered its final stage. The Chinese delegation
will take this opportunity to expressthe position of the Chinese
Government on some significant issues.
The Chinese delegation would like to reiterate that we are now
implementing the provisions of the UnitedNations Convention on the
Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the United Nations Implementing
Agreement (UNIA) in the light of the characteristics of the region.
Therefore, the work and outcome of the Conferencemust be within the
framework of UNCLOS and UNIA. We can not accept any activity which
goes beyond theprovisions of these two treaties.
-
Annex 3
11
Management area of the multilateral mechanism
Mr. Chairman, the Chinese delegation has no different view on
eastern and southern limits of the futuremanagement area. However,
the draft text does not solve our problems. It is difficult for us
to agree with thedescription of the management area in the current
draft. We have noted that it was expressed in the last sessionthat
the future management area would not include the South China Sea,
but the summary is not reflected in thedraft text. Moreover, the
Chinese Government does not accept the current northern limit of
the Convention area.
This delegation would like to insist that the northern limit of
the area shall be at 20°N latitude and the upper partof western
limit shall be 119° or 120 ° east longitude.
Boarding and inspection on high seas
In the previous sessions, the Chinese delegation suggested that
the high seas boarding and inspection in theConvention area shall
be conducted in accordance with the procedure adopted by the
Commission. We believethat the procedure in theUnited Nations
Implementing Agreementis too general to guide in practice the
boardingand inspection on the sea. Detailed boarding procedure in
this area should be formulated so that the Governmentof flag States
is able to request its vessels to provide cooperation for boarding
and inspection. Therefore, we stillbelieve that it is necessary to
amend the boarding and inspection provision in your text.
Decision-making mechanism
The Chinese delegation believes that the consensus is of vital
importance. We support the proposal addingobjection procedure in
the decision-making mechanism.
Entry into force of the Convention
The majority of fishing fleets in this area come from Asia. We
would like to suggest that the Convention shallenter into force
after ratified by at least one Asian country situated north of 20°N
latitude so that balance andinterest of the minority should be
kept.
Interim regime
It has been mentioned in the information note the need to set up
an interim regime during the period between thesignature and entry
into force of the Convention. We, in principle, are not against the
establishment of such aregime. However, it is our view that this
regime can only make some preparatory work for the entry into
forceof the Convention and only signatory States can participate in
its work. It is not in its power to adopt mandatorymanagement
measures and shall not create financial burden to the
participants.
Status of fishing entities in the future management
mechanism
Mr. Chairman, the Conference is conducting its work under the
framework of UNCLOS and UNIA, and all theregional tuna fisheries
organizations at present are intergovernmental organizations
composed of sovereignStates. Fisheries management involves law
enforcement, penalty, issuing of permits, mandatory data
collectionand the providing of ports for fishery products
transshipment and other governmental activities. The
fisheriesmanagement mechanism in the Western and Central Pacific we
are now negotiating might be the lastinternational tuna fisheries
management body in the world. It shall be like other regional
organizations,involving the governmental activities of sovereign
States. Only by doing so can the power and effectiveness ofthe
future regime be guaranteed.
Mr. Chairman, this morning, my colleague from Chinese Taipei
mentioned the election in the island. We holdthat the local
election in Taiwan and the element of democracy and other
irrelevant matters have nothing to dowith fish stock conservation
and management; and can not be served as a reason for Chinese
Taipei toparticipate in the future Commission, the composition of
which should be based on UNCLOS and UNIA. As amatter of fact, our
colleague from Chinese Taipei has politicized the fishing issues in
his opening statement onpurpose. We are surprised and feel
uncomfortable about it. We hold that our colleague from Chinese
Taipeishould honour the rule of the game that has been agreed upon
by all participants, including Chinese Taipei, fromthe first
session of the MHLC. Such attitude is by no means constructive to
us. In order to spare more time todiscuss other significant pending
issues, we hope the Conference shall not allow this phenomenon to
reoccur.
-
Annex 3
12
The Chinese Government is of the opinion that fishing entities
should be made to comply with the conservationregulations in the
Convention area. But this should not impair the sovereignty of the
State concerned, or it maylead to numerous political troubles in
the future implementation of the Convention. We hold that the
status offishing entities has no inevitable and direct link with
the conservation and management measures. We wish theConvention be
worked out in the guidance of the principles of UNCLOS and UNIA,
and the spirit of consensusas well to ensure a smooth adoption.
Mr. Chairman, the Chinese delegation is ready to cooperate with
you and other delegations and to work hard forreaching the
anticipated target of the Conference.
Finally, I wish the Conference a great success.
-----
Federated States of Micronesia
On behalf of the delegation of the Federated States of
Micronesia, may I express our sincere thanks once againto our good
friends and partners for their financial support and to the State
of Hawaii and, in particular, themanagement and staff of the
Western Pacific Fisheries Management Council, for the warm welcome
andexcellent arrangements made for this meeting. As was the case
when we met here in February and Septemberlast year, we are
overwhelmed by the generous hospitality and beautiful facilities,
both of which can only assistus, as we work toward the
establishment of an effective regional conservation and management
arrangement.
I would also like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your
leadership throughout the MHLC process. We especiallyappreciate
your efforts to move the process forward by providing us once
again, with a draft text reflecting thekey outcomes of our
discussions here in September. This draft is an indication of how
much we have achievedin our negotiations and provides us with an
excellent starting point for our discussions beginning today.
Mr. Chairman, the Federated States of Micronesia is encouraged
by the directions taken in our discussionsduring our September
meeting. The language of the current draft reflects a greater
recognition of the rights andinterests of coastal States,
particularly with regard to decision-making and the special
circumstances of smallisland developing States. We are pleased with
the balance that has been achieved, although we recognize thatthere
is some distance to go before the Convention will insure a
conservation and management regime that isboth fair and
effective.
Mr. Chairman, we note with satisfaction the expanded preambular
language regarding small island developingStates. This new
provision recognizes not only the economic dependence of these
States but also theirecological and geographic vulnerability and
their social dependence on highly migratory stocks.
We also note the retention of a reference to the interests of
coastal States adjacent to high seas enclaves orpockets. While we
prefer an explicit recognition of the special interest of coastal
States in the productivity ofhighly migratory stocks in these
areas, we also recognize that this amendment represents a
compromise and weappreciate the requirement of special attention to
coastal States’ interest that remains in the draft. As we
havepreviously stated, Mr. Chairman, such a provision is, we
believe, entirely consistent with the rights andobligations defined
in articles 116 and 119 of UNCLOS, relating to the conservation and
management of theliving resources on the high seas.
Mr. Chairman, we note with concern once again that, although
both articles 10(3) and 10(6) presume that theCommission will
indeed have an allocation function, no allocation function is
specifically defined in theConvention. This ambiguity in the
Convention almost certainly guarantees obstacles to the
implementation ofconservation and management measures such as an
overall catch limit or level of fishing effort that are criticalto
the successful management of the resource. Moreover, the absence of
a clearly defined allocation functionlimited to the high seas of
the Convention Area, leaves open the possibility that the function
of the Commissionto set a Convention area TAC, may be interpreted
as implying a function to allocate that TAC for the
entireConvention area, and depriving coastal States of the right to
set national TACs. We therefore would seek tohave the allocation
function of the Commission explicitly defined in the text.
-
Annex 3
13
We are also troubled, Mr. Chairman, by the inclusion of an
allocation criterion based on the extent of catchbeing used for
human food consumption. We believe that this is an invalid
allocation criterion with aquestionable legal basis. While the
importance of food security and the coastal States’ obligation to
allocateresource surplus are undeniable, the dependence of
populations on a resource for a variety of reason should bethe
focus, rather than simply for fancy taste or the level of
utilization for domestic food consumption. A focuson consumption
rather than fishing practices and patterns is simply not a valid
management practice and itignores more legitimate measures of the
dependence of a population on a resource – such as availability
ofalternative food sources and overall standard of living of the
population in question.
Mr. Chairman, we are pleased with the progress made at our last
session regarding decision-making and disputeresolution. We believe
that the latest draft represents a fair balance of the interests
expressed by the parties andmoves us closer to the elusive goal of
agreement on this very important issue. We look forward to
furtherdiscussion and clarification of the decision-making, review,
and dispute resolution mechanisms.
Mr. Chairman, we are committed to insuring that the management
regime established under the Conventionprovides for effective
monitoring and enforcement practices. For this reason, we are
troubled by the recentamendments that weaken provisions relating to
boarding and inspection procedures and the operation of
theConvention Area VMS. The absence of any boarding and inspection
procedures for up to two years after theadoption of the Convention
and the lack of clear, detailed guidelines for implementation and
operation of theConvention Area VMS, create an unjustifiable risk
of non-compliance with management measures establishedunder the
Convention. The Federated States of Micronesia would therefore
support reinstatement of the pre-amendment text in both of these
areas.
Mr. Chairman, as we approach the deadline for our negotiations,
we are cognizant of the fact that the details ofthe financial
arrangements of the Commission are as yet unresolved. While we
appreciate the progress made atour last meeting, especially with
regard to budget adoption procedures, the financial provisions in
the currentdraft are still too uncertain to allow the parties to
anticipate the financial implications of participation in
theCommission. Unless the formula for member contribution is
specifically set forth among the terms of theConvention, it appears
unlikely that the Federated States of Micronesia could move forward
toward ratificationof the Convention.
Mr. Chairman, we appreciate your efforts to develop provisions
for the Convention’s entry into force whichboth recognize the
practical difficulties for many participants with early
ratification and the need to bring theConvention into effect at the
earliest possible date. These provisions, together with the
proposed resolutions foran interim regime, go a long way toward
insuring the prompt implementation of the Convention -- toward
whichwe have all worked so hard -- and the timely entry into
effective operation of the Commission.
Mr. Chairman, we would reiterate a concern we have raised in
previous meetings about the deadline that hasbeen set for
finalization of the Convention. We believe that there remain a
number of outstanding issues onwhich agreement needs to be reached.
While it appears that some issues may not need to be resolved here
butcan be left for action by the Commission, other issues, in
particular the interim regime and financialarrangements, are so
critical that they need to be thoroughly addressed before
ratification consideration of a finalConvention by the Federated
States of Micronesia would be possible.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would assure you of the commitment of
the Federated States of Micronesia to thesuccess of this process
and ultimately to the establishment of an effective conservation
and management regimefor the western and central Pacific. As is the
case with many of our Pacific island neighbors, this
fisheryrepresents our nation’s most important, if not its sole
source for significant economic development. Asguardians of these
valuable resources, we have a real interest in both the economic
exploitation and sustainablemanagement of these stocks throughout
their range. Consequently, we look forward to continued
productivecooperation with our partners around this table in order
first to achieve a final agreement, and then to implementthat
agreement in a timely and effective manner.
-----
-
Annex 3
14
Fiji
Like other distinguished delegates who have spoken before me, I
would like to extend our appreciation to ourhosts, the United
States of America and the Hawaii Authorities, for the warm welcome
and excellent facilitiesmade available to us.
I would like to congratulate you Mr. Chairman, first for your
reappointment as Head of the International SeabedAuthority for
another term and for your MHLC contributions to date. We wish you
continued success in theseimportant tasks.
Mr. Chairman through goodwill and cooperation we are about to
conclude our work. As we look into the future,we seek confidence
for the establishment of the regime. Fiji would like to play a role
in this process.
Mr. Chairman in this regard Fiji would like to reconfirm its
commitment to host the Permanent Commission.This session will
consider the benchmark to employ in the determination of this
important and vital issue. Werequest that whether this will be
political or economic consideration that it will be a balanced
approach and thematter be amicably resolved through the usual
spirit of cooperation and consensus.
Mr. Chairman the position of FFA members on outstanding issues
of discussions for this meeting have beenhighlighted by the
distinguished delegate from Samoa. In view of the consensus raised,
we would like to addthe following issues on the importance of the
conservation and management issues pertaining to highlymigratory
fish stocks.
Mr. Chairman, the tuna industry is a very important component of
our fish exports contributing to localemployment, income and
foreign exchange. For this to be protected and enhanced, we need
enabling nationallegislation and in this regard, Mr. Chairman, we
are currently in the process of examining and reviewing
ourFisheries Legislation, particularly the Fisheries and Marine
Spaces Act. This process would take into accountsome of the
relevant and specific issues of concern, particularly the VMS
(Vessel Monitoring System), fishingin the high seas, transshipment
and other relevant and related issues. The process would also
include the finalphase in the mapping of our EEZ. I am sure, Mr.
Chairman, the outcome of this legislative review and
otherinitiatives would complement, enhance, and strengthen our
positions relating to the Draft Convention andUNCLOS.
Mr. Chairman in terms of the participation of Chinese Taipei our
delegation recognizes the fact that they are avery important
entity. They fish in the region through various bilateral and other
arrangements, and they catchconsiderable portion of our fish stocks
and in this regard, Mr. Chairman, our delegation would like an
amicableand binding solution found regarding this matter.
I will end here, Mr. Chairman, but Fiji would like to reserve
the right to intervene on specific issues during theprogress of
this meeting.
-----
French Polynesia
Ia orana ! And Aloha to most hospitable Hawai'i !
As we enter into the final round of MHLC consultations, my
delegation wishes to outline what at this point oftime seems of
paramount importance, as far as Tahiti Nui is concerned.
Firstly, the usual regional approach, in the sensitive matter of
membership and subsequent decision makingprocess. History of
inception of regional organizations, and perhaps the 1994 agreement
reached prior to theestablishment of SPREP, known as the Tuvalu
formula, might be helpful.
Secondly, the very size of French Polynesia’s EEZ, over which
our country already holds under its governinglaw full competence
for exploring, exploiting and managing its living resources, appear
to require some specialtreatment; especially in the light of the
current devolution process.
-
Annex 3
15
Thirdly, the financial implications, which formula is a
departure from common practices in the region. Mydelegation might
have some proposals to the sub committee we are proud to be part
of.
Fourth, the predicaments derived from the Convention
enforcement.
Fifth and lastly, the view that the Convention should be aimed
at clearly initiate and enhance a mechanism forglobal and fruitful
cooperation to benefit the people of the region.
My delegation is determined to participate in and contribute to,
and in the most open and dynamic manner, thecollective success of
this meeting.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, allow me to confirm that my Government
financial contribution to the meeting is beingprocessed, albeit
belatedly, for which I wish to sincerely apologize.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, to preside over our meeting with
rightly acclaimed experience, wisdom and wit.
-----
Indonesia
I would like to, first of all, thank the United States
Government and the Government of Hawaii for hosting thismeeting
again in Honolulu. I would also like to thank the MHLC Secretariat
as well as you personally, Mr.Chairman, and other organizations
that have made this meeting and our participation possible.
I would like to note that the meeting has made a number
substantial progress within the last few years. It isexpected that
we would and should be able to make further progress within this
session so that we would be ableto adopt the Convention before the
end of this year as envisaged.
Nevertheless, we still have a lot of issues and problems before
us. My delegation, although is happy with thegeneral progress, is
still having substantial problems with a number of issues.
We are particularly unhappy that the boundary on the western
side of Convention area is not determined. We areconcerned and
worried with the possible misinterpretation of this loophole. It is
our view that the Convention isdrafted in order to comply with and
implement article 64 of the Law of the Sea Convention 1982, dealing
with“highly migratory species” that stipulates co-operation between
the coastal State and other States whosenationals fish in the
region, either directly or through appropriate international
organizations with a view toensuring conservation and promoting the
objectives of optimum utilization of such species throughout
theregion both within and beyond the exclusive economic zone. It is
therefore our understanding and our view thatthe Convention only
visualizes the need for co-operation in the conservation between
exclusive economic zoneand the high seas beyond. The Convention
does not and can not be implied to require or oblige
co-operationbetween coastal State and other States in the
conservation and management that will include resources
withinarchipelagic waters that fall within the sovereignty of the
archipelagic States in accordance with article 49 of the1982
Convention. It is therefore our view that the most western boundary
of the Convention area does not andcannot include Indonesian
archipelagic waters. We will submit a proposal to this effect
shortly.
We are also concerned with the notion that, as indicated in
article 3 paragraph 3 of the draft Convention, theconservation and
management measures under the Convention shall be applied “
throughout the range of thestock”. article 64 of the 1982
Convention, which is the basis of our effort in drafting this
Convention, does notcontain this notion. We therefore like to
interpret, as far as we are concerned, and in conformity with
article 64that the notion of “throughout the range of the stocks”
cannot be interpreted to include these stocks withinarchipelagic
waters. At most, we could only accept the notion that it would be
applicable for their rangethroughout the economic zone and the high
seas beyond. We would also be submitting a proposal to this
effectshortly.
It is our view that the new Convention that we are now drafting
should not be used to undermine the sovereignright of a coastal
State over its exclusive economic zone in accordance with article
56 of United NationsConvention on the Law of the Sea and the
sovereignty of an archipelagic State over its archipelagic waters
andall the resources contained therein as stipulated in article 49
of the 1982 Convention.
-
Annex 3
16
Other problems that are still before us include the
participation of fishing entity in the Convention. Weunderstand
that this is one of the most difficult issues. We are confident,
however, that under your wiseleadership, we would be able to
overcome this problem in due course to the satisfaction of all.
We also noted that there are still a few formulations that need
to be tightened, and we will indicate them whenwe come to specific
discussion of the Articles. In general, we would like the
Convention to give specialattention and consideration to developing
coastal States, particularly small island developing States, in
order toenable them to implement the Convention satisfactorily in
accordance with their condition and ability. In thisconnection,
special consideration should be given to them with regard to the
budget of the Commission as wellas their ability to attend meetings
of the Commission and its subsidiary bodies.
It is our view that in calculating the budget of the Commission,
national catch by national vessels flying theirflag taken in the
waters under their sovereignty and jurisdiction shall not be
included in calculating the budget ofthe Commission. We therefore
support your suggestion made in article 18 paragraph 2 of the draft
Convention.In addition, differentiation in value and price of the
catch should also be taken into account in view of the factthat
different species have different economic and trade values, for
instance the value of a ton of skipjack isdefinitely not the same
with the value of a ton of bluefin tuna.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, we hope and we are sure that this meeting
will be successful and we pledge our co-operation to you and to the
Conference.
-----
Japan
My delegation has no proper words to express our sincere thanks
to the Government of the United States and itsHawaiian branch,
represented by Ms. Kitty Simons and Captain Cook, for hosting three
times in cue this largemeeting. We are coming close to the
scheduled goal of June 2000 which we agreed on in Majuro in June
1997.Therefore, the tasks before us is enormous in order to achieve
our common goal, in time, of establishing theconservation and
management regime for the highly migratory stocks in the area
called Central and WesternPacific for the present and future
generations of all the countries concerned. We on the part of
Japanesedelegation would like to contribute as far as possible for
the achievement of the goal, although our pastcontribution might be
looked at as marginal in terms of what has been reflected in the
present text.
If I may address myself upon some of the issues classified by
Mr. Chairman as outstanding issues, first comesthe decision-making.
On this matter of crucial importance for the future Commission, the
most important factoris that any decision by the Commission should
be fair and equitable. It should not be the way that all the
timesheer force of majority dominate over the minority which are in
most case the distant water fishing nations,counting only or 5 out
of over 28 participating members. The fishing nations are the ones
who have the real, nottheoretical, experience of fishery and also
the ones who would have the greatest responsibility for
implementingany measures to be adopted by the possible Commission.
Their problems should be heard by all the participantsto the
decisions by the Commission. In this context we are proposing the
draft article 20 for your consideration,the detail of which I would
like to have opportunity to explain when we come to the time to
discuss this matter.
About the conditions of entry into force, we feel that total
number of 7 is too small compared with theimportance of the present
Convention and also we feel that changing the condition in two
years time is ratherabnormal. In order for the Convention to be
really workable and effective, at least 14 to 15 ratifications
wouldbe necessary with the understanding that at least 4 of which
should be by countries situated north of 20 °Nparallels instead of
two as in the present text.
With respect to the interim arrangement as proposed by Chairman
Mr. Nandan, while we appreciate Mr.Nandan’s eagerness to bring the
Convention into operation as early as possible in the face of
imminent concernthat the surplus fishing effort elsewhere would
well be rushing to this particular area of our utmost
importance,the Japanese delegation has its own legal restriction
that to accept the draft resolution must receive, under
ourconstitution, the ratification of the Parliament as is the case
with the main body of the Convention, whichdoesn’t seem possible in
my country.
-
Annex 3
17
Among the issues we have discussed in the past Conferences, and
some degree of achievement was recognizedby the Chairman, there
remains many difficult issues for us. They are, for example, the
precautionary approachin articles 5 and 6, relation between the
Scientific Committee and Scientific Services in article 12 and 13
and aseries of MCS issues including observers in articles 24
through 28. Particularly the last two matters MCS andObservers seem
to us that they represent direct extension of in zone practice of
certain group of countries overhigh seas in spite of clear
difference of legal nature of two categories of the sea areas.
Also, with respect to some direct quotations from the United
Nations Implementing Agreement which dealswith both straddling fish
stocks and highly migratory fish stocks, I must point out the
difference of the speciesand fisheries therefore, that is between
the demersal species and the highly migratory species. There
arecertainly common features between the two, but data requirement
and method to be applied could be far fromidentical. On these
matters, from the viewpoint of really workable arrangement, my
delegation feels that properadjustment on these matters is really
essential.
I am always reflecting that I tend to be too straight forward in
expressing my view, partly or mostly because ofmy poor language
ability. Please understand that I am making any remarks from my
simple and sincere desire toestablish a really workable
conservation and management framework for the benefit of all. In
this connection, Iappreciate that starting the Conference last
September, a certain atmosphere has been created in which
mydelegation from the distant water fishing countries can talk face
to face or kneel to kneel in Japanese way ofexpression with some
representatives from the Forum Fisheries Agency member countries on
some of the issuesof vital concern to each side of us. This is
really a good step forward, to encourage and promote our
furthereffort towards our common goal.
Before concluding, let me express that we still keep our hope
high and would not spare any effort to advancetowards our goal.
-----
Kiribati
Mr. Chairman, may I congratulate you first on your reappointment
to your current position with theInternational Seabed Authority. I
would also like to thank you and your Secretariat for your
valuablecontribution and continued support to this MHLC process, a
process that we consider the most important one inthe sustainable
management of the tuna stocks that occur in our waters.
Let me also thank the United States and the State of Hawaii for
again hosting the 6th Session of the MultilateralHigh Level
Conference. Certainly, this wonderful venue and Convention Center
will, in years to come, bring usgood memories of the many hours of
discussions and debates that were held during the earlier series of
MHLCsessions.
Mr. Chairman, Kiribati appreciates the pace and progress
achieved so far of the MHLC process and we thankeach one for the
invaluable contributions made towards achieving this. However, we
should be mindful of theneed to be cautious in how we treat certain
provisions of the draft Convention so that we do not find
ourselvesstumbling along the way as a result of some important
issues becoming overlooked or not given enough thought.We must try,
as much as possible, to consider the various concerns that have
already been put on the floorduring the last sessions. But we must
also remind ourselves not to lose sight of our common objective
ofensuring the long-term conservation and sustainable use of highly
migratory fish stocks in the Western andCentral Pacificfor present
and future generations. Only then could we be able to move the
process forward.
Amongst the many issues remaining outstanding from the last
session, we believe there is a need to furtherstrengthen and
improve certain provisions of article 10 under the present draft
text relating to the allocation ofTAC and level of fishing
effort.
First, we still believe that the provisions in article 10 of the
draft Convention should also take into account ourpeculiar
geographic circumstance whereby our islands are physically located
into three groups of islands that arefrequently separated by the
high seas. From the point of view of managing effectively the
resources in question,the physical disbursement and dislocation of
our three groups of islands unfortunately provide us with a
very
-
Annex 3
18
difficult situation to deal with. For us, this is a fundamental
issue that will have great impact on our ability tosubscribe to the
draft Convention when it is ready for adoption.
Second, the special interests of those coastal States whose EEZs
are adjacent to a considerable area of high seas,including the
pockets of high seas, should be considered, at least for allocation
purposes. We still believe thatthis must be reflected in article 10
of the draft Convention to reflect the physical reality of our
location.
And third, but not least, the draft Convention should at least
give recognition of the productivity of the waters,noting that the
historical information on fishing activity and catches in our area
have been developed over thepast years and are readily
available.
I am sure we will have the opportunity to discuss these issues,
among others, in greater detail during thissession.
Mr. Chairman, we very much hope that the outcome of MHLC6 will
bring us, not only closer to achievingconsensus on the many
outstanding issues, but also clear some confusions and
misunderstandings that haveprolonged the MHLC process, and open up
room for further consultations on matters of common interest
orthose issues that we have not covered to date.
-----
Republic of Korea
Special thanks go to the United States and the State of Hawaii
for the continuous hosting of this Conference. Onbehalf of our
delegation, I would like to extend our sincere appreciation for the
excellent arrangements andwarm hospitality shown to all of us, as
well as their financial supports to this meeting.Special thanks
also go to Ambassador Nandan and his staff members for the
considerable work done to date.Stepwise improvement has been
occurred so far in adopting individual State’s proposal into the
draftConvention. Such understanding of the specific situations of
individual members in this Conference can lead usto expect the
essence of fairness among stakeholders in an international
negotiation. We expect this extendednegotiation through arguments
finally turn out to be cooperation through communications.
Mr. Chairman, as many other distinguished delegates already have
mentioned, we still have piles of outstandingissues to be fully
discussed in order that each delegation of this Conference may
submit with confidence thefinal results to its Congress or Assembly
for ratification. No delegate in this room would accept any
singleprovision that his or her people could not understand. The
delegations here represent their whole people as wellas their holy
sovereignty. Mr. Chairman, this is why you deserve respect since
what you are doing in theposition is taking the balanced principles
out from the varied requirements of the heavy-burdened
delegations.
Among many matters that will be discussed in this session, I
would like to highlight two fundamental issues inthis paper. First,
and foremost, about decision-making. Why do we need a
decision-making process and that asa hot and foremost issue in this
Convention for the conservation and management of migratory fish
stocks. Ithink three cases are involved in fisheries
decision-making: how to manage such stocks, how to cooperate
witheach other, and how to share the yields, and these will be the
total package that this Convention aims at.
First, how to manage such fish stocks. The fate of life, once
gone, never returns, is part of the reality of fisheriesresources.
No management failure is allowed in dealing with marine living
resources as we have experiencedcollapses of many fisheries during
the last several decades. The levels of fisheries science and ways
ofapproach, which may be the foundation of fisheries management,
are different among members. Lack ofunderstanding might happen by
some members among in the different ways of taking care of the fish
stocks. Inthis case, objection to the decision taken by a majority
is the only way that one or more delegations can take fortheir
peoples to have further recognition and full understanding, and who
knows the process of which mightresult in a better decision than
the previous one.
Second, how to cooperate each other. Implementation of
conservation and management measures, financialsupports, and
scientific contributions are typical factors that all members of
the organization should share forcooperation. The entity of the
cooperation, however, is a spectrum of composite colours. Some
members mayhave industry-based fishery structures, whereas others
may have subsistence fisheries. Colourful cooperation,
-
Annex 3
19
therefore, might be inevitable along with the specific
situations of the individual members. Either bottom-line-based
uniform application of those factors to all members or taking the
right of opting-out seems the bestapproach toward synthetic
cooperation. Equity seems more than just equality.
Third, how to share the yields. One thing to keep in mind by all
members regarding the allocation of surplusyields produced by our
sweat is that we are neighbors. What if you were born in another
country. We need toconsider the specific situation of our neighbors
first and then see what happens. This attitude would produce
apromising outcome of MHLC at the end of this session. Delegations
with a certain decision here are expected tounderstand the
objections of some members whose circumstances are not well
recognized by the affirmativemajority.
As a result, an objection in a decision-making is the minimum
requirement that a member concerned can holdagainst decisions taken
by majority voting. Today, no responsible State can exploit the
right of objection.There are various ways, as you are well aware
of, to put pressure upon unduly behaved one, the case of which, Iam
sure, cannot be applicable to any member here.
Mr. Chairman, next thing on which I should put great emphasis is
about compatibility. From the fourth to fifthdraft of this
Convention, the only thing I had been confused throughout the whole
draft was “compatibility” inthe application of this Convention and
conservation and management measures on the high seas and in
areasunder national jurisdiction. The prime purpose of developing
this Convention throughout the last six yearsefforts is to seek a
better way to conserve and manage fishery resources that we all
have been exploiting.
The first thing to which we all need to pay our special
attention during this meeting is to recognize anddistinguish two
separate domains, entity of fishing powers versus fisheries
resources. The framework that thisMHLC is dealing with has only two
boxes: the first box that includes all colors of the stakeholders’
political,social, and economic interests and the second box that
includes all the dynamics of fisheries resources withintheir
environments. Provisions of this Convention draft seem to lose this
fundamental distinction of the twodomains. No political, economic,
and social interests of individual members can embed the
relationshipbetween the two domains, which is the preamble-level of
this Convention. Only fishing intensity of humanbeings as a whole
can control the domain of fisheries resources. Any hesitation in
applying conservation andmanagement measures to all fish species
concerned and to the whole migratory range shall mitigate the
supremegoal of this Convention and make us remain meaningless to be
here.
The fishing powers defined above then introduce the way and
rationale of how to set the Convention Area, whyvarious measures,
including boarding and inspection, vessel monitoring system,
observer programme, etc.,should be applied to the whole Convention
Area. This is not just an idea in the textbook, but a reality that
wehave experienced so far and that’s why we came here.
Regarding the interim regime, it seems premature to discuss the
matter in detail prior to the satisfied resolutionof the crucial
pending issues. Establishing concrete plans for the better
commencement of the Commissionthrough working group meeting during
the interim period seems better to my delegation.Mr. Chairman and
distinguished delegations, I wish this meeting to be fruitful and
remain as a model in thehistory of fisheries organization.
-----
Marshall Islands
I would like to join others in thanking the Government of the
United States, the State of Hawaii and the WesternPacific Regional
Fisheries Management Council for hosting us once again here in
Honolulu. Your continuedgenerosity has helped to ensure the
progression of these important negotiations, and for that we are
grateful. Mydelegation would also like to express its appreciation
to the Forum Fisheries Agency and the MHLC Secretariatfor their
efforts in preparing delegations and for the excellent logistical
arrangements of this Conference.Furthermore, I would also like to
register my delegation’s special appreciation to the Government of
Japan andthe Overseas Fishery Cooperation Foundation for their
generous contribution.
While we are confident that this meeting will provide greater
understanding on various sensitive issues, we alsorecognize the
difficulty in achieving mutually acceptable agreements on these
issues at this stage. We want to
-
Annex 3
20
avoid a situation whereby we are being rushed into completing an
arrangement that will only present difficultieslater in its
implementation. My delegation feels that issues of substance should
be resolved in this negotiatingprocess to the extent practicable.
It is our hope that we can have full discussions on the various
sensitive mattersat hand, without allowing ourselves to be
pressured by time constraints.
That said, the Marshall Islands does not wish to delay or
prolong this process unnecessarily. Rather, we want toensure our
ability to give full effect to the Convention’s provisions upon
adoption. In connection with this, theMarshall Islands is pleased
to see the draft resolutions on a Preparatory Commission. We view
this as animportant link between adoption of the Convention and its
entry into force and we will reserve our comments onthese
resolutions until the appropriate time in our discussions
throughout the next several days.
The Northern boundary line continues to present some
difficulties to my delegation. Our preference for this lineis
between 30°N and 35°N, as we wish to concentrate the principles of
this Convention on the primary stocks ofconcern. However, in the
interests of progress on this matter, my delegation is willing to
consider an alternativeNorthern boundary line, so long as it covers
the range of the stocks. The big eye stocks are of great
economicimportance to the Marshall Islands and the basis of our
consideration rests on the assurance of a propermechanism being put
in place to avoid a vacuum of proper conservation and management of
these stocks in theNorthern Convention area.
We would hope that the flexibility on our part does not lead to
a situation whereby the political complications ofthis Northern
area are allowed to dilute the primary importance of conservation
and sustainable management ofthese stocks. Mr. Chairman, my
delegation sincerely hopes that the countries concerned will not
depart from themain objectives of the Convention in this
regard.
My delegation believes that in order to allow the Commission to
undertake its function for the effective andproper management of
the highly migratory fish stocks in the Western and Central Pacific
Ocean, all majorstakeholders must have full participation in the
Commission.
I would also like to take this opportunity to express my
Government’s wish to host the Secretariat of the MHLCConvention in
the Marshall Islands. We believe it is important that the
Secretariat be located in the region andwe are confident in our
capability to host such an organization. My delegation would be
happy to providefurther information on our offer for delegations to
consider, when the appropriate time arises. I realize that thereare
far more important issues that need to be discussed here, hence I
will not dwell on this issue. I would,however, ask delegations to
keep in mind the Marshall Islands’ offer in this regard.
We will address other issues as they arise throughout the next
few days. For now I would like to assure you ofmy delegation’s full
support and cooperation with you and other delegations in our
deliberations over thecomplex and often times sensitive issues
before us.
-----
Nauru
On behalf of the Nauru delegation, may I extend our appreciation
to the Government of the State of Hawaii andthe Government of the
United States of America for all the arrangements put in place for
this the 6th session ofthe MHLC process.
May I also congratulate you, Mr. Chairman, for your able
chairmanship of the MHLC process and to say that wehope to make
useful contributions to the discussions on the various issues to be
considered in this Conference.
There are several outstanding issues which this Conference will
need to come to agreement on, and some ofthese issues I would wish
to summarize Nauru’s position on :-
Vessel Monitoring System
Nauru will support any proposal to amend article 24, paragraph
8, of the draft Convention such that the articlewill make provision
for information to be transmitted from a flag State vessel through
a VMS, to be transmittedsimultaneously to the Commission and the
flag State concerned.
-
Annex 3
21
Boarding and inspection
Nauru will support any proposal for articles 21 and 22 of
theUnited Nations Implementing Agreement to beapplied during the
two year period that the Commission is tasked to develop its own
boarding and inspectionprocedures, to ensure that there is no
vacuum or inaction during this period.
High seas pockets
Nauru’s EEZ is bounded by an adjacent high sea and there is a
need for effective monitoring and surveillance ofthe activities of
the flag State vessels in these waters to ensure the reporting of
positions and catches on boardare accurate and correctly
differentiated for the high sea and Nauru’s EEZ.
Membership contribution
The level of membership contribution for each category of
membership should be determined as early aspossible so that there
is some indication as to what level of financial obligation would
need to be met annually,before Nauru would be able to decide to
ratify the Convention.
Membership
Nauru recognizes Chinese Taipei as a major fishing entity in the
region and will support any proposal forChinese Taipei to be
included as a Contracting Party under the Convention with full
rights and obligations. Theeffective implementation of the
conservation and management measures would only be enhanced with
the fullparticipation of Chinese Taipei.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, may I express the view and belief that
the MHLC process has enhanced the level ofunderstanding and
cooperation between ourselves and that we all should make that
extra effort as partners in thisMHLC process to successfully
establish an effective conservation and management arrangement for
the tunaresources in the Western and Central Pacific region, for
the sake of the future generations of our people.
-----
New Caledonia
On behalf of the New Caledonia’s delegation, let me first say
that it is a great pleasure for me to be here for thefirst time and
participate to this important Conference.
I would like, once again, to extend my thanks to our hosts, the
United States Government and the Hawaiiauthorities for their warm
welcome.
Mr. Chairman, please let me restate that New Caledonia has been
involved in the MHLC process since early on,with a first delegation
attending the Majuro Conference in 1997.
Our participation to this process is first justified by the
geographical situation of New Caledonia which is withinthe
distribution of the highly migratory fish stocks in the Western and
Central Pacific, and therefore shares thisimportant resource with
its neighbors.
These resources also represent a major asset for the continuing
economic development of New Caledonia whichfurther warrants our
involvement in their management.
Aware of the issues at stake, New Caledonia already participates
in the work programmeme of the Secretariat ofthe Pacific Community
aiming to lay the sound scientific basis for sustainable
development.
Our approach is thus already fully consistent with this MHLC
process aiming to create a new commission.
-
Annex 3
22
The dynamic constitutional situation of New Caledonia laid out
in the so-called “Accords de Noumea”,confirms this approach since
as of now, the management of marine resources, including those of
the ExclusiveEconomic Zone are fully within the jurisdiction of New
Caledonia.
Fisheries are now part of the priority objectives for
development. New Caledonia is therefore paying closeattention to
the outcome of this Conference and to the structure of the
important tool it aims to create.
This is why, Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank you for your fine and
able leadership throughout this process and Ihave no doubt that you
will know how to bring our canoe safely to shore for the benefit of
us all.
-----
New Zealand
New Zealand takes this opportunity once again to thank the
Government of the United States and the State ofHawaii for their
hospitality, for their warm welcome, and for making this splendid
Conference facility availableto the Conference.
We are, Mr. Chairman, coming close to the conclusion of the
Convention. We appreciate the comprehensivenature of the current
draft text, the progress that has been made in addressing key
issues, and the balance the textseeks to achieve between the
various interests of the participants represented here. It is an
appropriate time toreflect on the text and to see whether it
achieves the objective of giving practical effect to the United
NationsFish Stocks Agreement in the Pacific region and for the tuna
stocks founds in the Central and Western Pacific.New Zealand wishes
to ensure that our benchmark – the 1995 Agreement – is not
compromised by the outcomeof the MHLC process. In this regard New
Zealand considers there are some areas, such as boarding
andinspection, in which the draft Convention could be strengthened
to bring it more into line with our benchmark.
In reflecting on the text we find ourselves returning again to
our fundamental objective – the establishment of aneffective,
workable Commission with efficient and cost-effective
administrative systems, which draw on theexpertise and experience
in the region. It is essential for New Zealand to have an effective
decision-makingprocedure, which enables measures required for
conservation purposes to be taken, even in the absence ofunanimity.
This is essential to protect the tuna stocks in the region. We can
appreciate the need for amechanism, which would enable Parties to
review the Commission’s decision on limited grounds, but are firmin
our opposition to any opt-out proviso. We – like other participants
- also wish to be clear on the nature of thefuture financial
burden, which we would incur as a member of the Commission. We hope
that substantialprogress can be made on this issue this
session.
Mr. Chairman, at the last session in Honolulu, New Zealand spoke
in support of the participation by Tokelau inthe work of the
Commission. My delegation has the honour this session to have
representatives of Tokelau herewith us. I would like to seek your
indulgence, Mr. Chairman, and ask the Tokelau Director of Fisheries
to speakon behalf of Tokelau.
It is a great pleasure for Tokelau to have this opportunity to
participate, for the first time, in this MHLC process.I wish
therefore to take this opportunity to extend our appreciation to
both the New Zealand Government andthe Forum Fisheries Agency for
making it possible for Tokelau to attend this meeting.
Mr. Chairman, I believe the progress achieved so far has been
tremendous. I, on behalf of Tokelau, would liketo congratulate and
acknowledge the Meeting and especially yourself for the efforts and
commitment that havemade these achievement possible to this stage.
I trust that we all come here for the good of us all.
I understand that the participation by Territories in the
Convention is an outstanding issue and will be underdiscussion
during this session. May I at this stage point out Tokelau’s wish
to fully participate in the operationof this Convention. Perhaps we
could discuss further these issues as we proceed with the
meeting
Having said that Mr. Chairman, may I wish the meeting success in
its deliberations.
-----
-
Annex 3
23
Niue
Mr. Chairman, I would like to join other delegations in
expressing our sincere appreciation to the Governmentof the United
States, the State of Hawaii and the Western Pacific Regional
Fisheries Management Council forhosting another session of the
MHLC.
Mr. Chairman, Niue continues to attend the MHLC process in the
spirit of goodwill and cooperation in order todevelop a
conservation and management regime that will ensure the long-term
sustainability of the fish stocksthat occur in our waters.
As has been expressed many times, for many of us these stocks
offer the only major avenue for greatereconomic benefit,
development and livelihood.
Mr. Chairman we participate here as a small island developing
State already heavily committed financiallythrough membership of an
ever increasing number of regional and international organizations
and agreementsand are therefore limited in our capacity to finance
large membership costs and other financial realitiesassociated in
fulfilling the obligations of Conventions such as this one.
We note the revised funding paper that explores the possible
costs of the Commission and budget formula butnote that this does
not include all potential cost factors.
It is very important to my delegation that we have a clear and
more definitive indication of the full costs ofbecoming a member of
the Commission before we can consider ratifying this Convention. We
note that youintend to establish an informal working group to look
at this in more detail and we look forward to consideringthe
findings of this working group in due course.
We note with satisfaction that the current text includes
provisions that recognize the needs of small islanddeveloping
States for assistance in many areas and hope these provisions
become effective and do not becomemere gestures of goodwill.
Mr. Chairman, similarly we hope that the provisions for the
development of criteria for allocation of totalallowable catch or
level of fishing effort in the Convention area are recognized as
extremely importantprovisions that must be given full consideration
and effect to ensure that all small island developing
States,irrespective of their past history and current stages of
development in the relevant fisheries are notdisadvantaged through
an unfair allocation process in the future.
On this issue we also wish to affirm our right as a coastal
State to determine the allowable catch of the livingresources in
our exclusive economic zone, as provided for under article 61 of
the United Nations Convention onthe Law of the Sea but note that
the Commission may need to play a coordinating role in respect of
allocation ofa Convention-wide total allowable catch or level of
fishing effort.
With these general opening remarks Mr. Chairman, my delegation
looks forward to continuing the discussionsof the important issues
you have identified as needing further consideration and we reserve
our right to speak onthese and other issues throughout the course
of this meeting.
-----
Palau
I bring you warm greetings from the People and President of the
Republic of Palau. On behalf of mydelegation, I would like to thank
the United States, the Hawaiian authorities and the Western Pacific
RegionalFishery Management Council for hosting this Conference and
for the beautiful facilities provided to us. I wouldalso like to
express my appreciation to the Japanese Overseas Fisheries
Cooperative Foundation for itsassistance without which the
attendance of some of our delegation would not have been
possible.
-
Annex 3
24
In preparation for this Conference, the Chairman has identified
some of the key outstanding issues which wewill need to resolve in
order to successfully conclude this Conference. Our delegation
hopes that the discussionof each of these issues will be guided by
a practical focus and by a search for the resolution of each issue
thatwill lead to the most effective Convention. Although the
Republic of Palau will be addressing several of theseissues over
the course of this Conference, in the interest of brevity I will
address only two issues at this time.
The first issue I would like to address is the participation of
Chinese Taipei. In addressing this topic, we mustbear in mind that
we are not developing a predominantely political or diplomatic
agreement, but rather we aredrafting a technical conservation and
management Convention. In our attempt to forge a practical and
effectiveConvention we must recognize the importance of Taiwanese
fishing operations. Taiwan’s tuna fisheriesoperations in the
Western and Central Pacific Ocean are one of the very largest in
the region. The importance ofTaiwanese fishing operations is also
true in the EEZ of the Republic of Palau where a large percentage
of thefishing vessels originate from Taiwan. Palau is confident
that the operation of the Commission would be greatlybenefited by
Taiwan’s participation and expertise. Indeed, the participation of
Chinese Taipei is essential to aneffective Convention. For all
these reasons, the Republic of Palau strongly supports the full and
equalparticipation of Chinese Taipei as a Contracting Party to the
Convention.
Mr. Chairman, the issue of the financial arrangements of the
Commission is directly related to the ability ofsmall island
developing States to participate fully and equally in the
activities of the Commission. While we areconfident that the
formula for the assessment of contributions to the budget by
members of the Commission willtake the needs of small island
developing States into account, the Republic of Palau remains
anxious to ensurethat the activities of the Commission are
performed in a cost-effective manner. Accordingly, the
Conventionshould seek to take advantage of existing resources and
expertise to the extent that it is already available and toavoid
the duplication of systems where such avoidance is possible.
Similarly, the choice of location of theCommission and the Interim
Regime should take into consideration the cost of operation and the
resulting travelcosts to Members of the Commission.
Mr. Chairman, let me close by saying that my delegation is
prepared to work with all other delegations to ensurethat we reach
an outcome which will ensure the long term future of the fishery
resources we have all come hereto protect and preserve. We look
forward to a successful and fruitful meeting.
-----
Papua New Guinea
Mahalo ! Mr. Chairman, like previous speakers, the Papua New
Guinea delegation wishes to thank the State ofHawaii, the
Government of the United States of America and the Western Pacific
Fisheries Council for thehospitality and courtesies extended to it
since arriving in beautiful Hawaii. My delegation also wishes to
thankthose partners who have made valuable financial contribution
towards the convening of this Conference.
Mr. Chairman, much progress has been achieved in the development
of a management and conservation regimefor the tuna resources of
the Central and Western Pacific. Much of this is owed to your own
leadership andguidance over the series of important negotiations
within the MHLC process. Progress also reflects the genuinedesire
and indeed commitment of everyone around this table to ensure a
resource so critical to the livelihood ofmany of the Pacific Island
Countries is sustainably managed.Papua New Guinea acknowledges that
the current text of the Convention is the product of difficult
concessionsmade by participants. As such, many of the formulations
contained in the text would be found by some to bewanting.
Mr Chairman, Papua New Guinea is committed to the MHLC process.
Our commitment to see an early andsatisfactory conclusion of
negotiations towards the original management and conservation
objectives espousedby the Forum Leaders remains unwaivered.
However, it is our strong belief that as we approach the final
phaseswe would be well advised to pause and take stock of where we
are and reconcile if the outcomes achieved todate are consistent
with our interests.
For Papua New Guinea, a number of issues of particular interest
to us still remain unresolved or unsatisfactorilyaddressed. For
instance, the issues of high seas pockets and archipelagic waters
which have been consistently
-
Annex 3
25
raised by my delegation in previous MHLC meetings have not been
given due treatment in any of thedocuments issued to date,
including your current draft text.
Other issues of interest to Papua New Guinea have been raised by
the Chairman of Forum Fisheries Committeein his statement earlier
this morning and indeed by other Pacific Island delegations that
have spoken before me.But let me highlight briefly our positions on
some of these issues which include: Moratorium on newparticipants,
decision-making, financial obligations, Convention area, total
allowable catch, boarding andinspection, participation of “Fishing
Entities”, and entry into force provisions.
In terms of a Moratorium on new participants, Papua New Guinea
strongly feels that at this late stage we do notbelieve it is
helpful to admit new participants in the MHLC process. Cognizant of
this and in our efforts to stemthe erosion of FFC countries
interests, we sought and obtained a decision to impose a moratorium
to newparticipants in September last year.
With respect to decision-making, we recognize the innovative
formulations contained in the text, but feel thatother possible
options used in other International Organizations, though seemingly
complicated, should beseriously considered to protect Pacific
Island countries’ interests.
On the issue of financial obligations, Papua New Guinea would
wish to see these further elaborated and agreedto now so that
countries have an idea of what their obligations might be before
associating themselves with theConvention. We look forward to
contributing towards finding a fair balance in the formulas for
assessingcontributions by parties. We would find it difficult to
sign onto this Convention if this matter is not resolvedbefore a
final text is concluded.
In relation to the Convention area, we would want to see a
clearly defined Northern Boundary that would coverthe major fishery
stocks of concern to the Convention. An undefined or loosely
defined northern boundary risksinviting new players to the table
with no real interests in the resource.
Mr Chairman, as a country in whose waters and adjacent waters
the four major stocks in question are veryproductive, we would hope
that others would understand our wish to carefully develop a
criteria that recognizesthis fact. Again we look forward to
contributing towards this objective.
The Boarding and Inspection provisions contained in the current
text whilst acceptable needs to be furtherdeveloped. Papua New
Guinea wishes to see these provisions strengthened in ways that is
consistent withobligations contained in theUnited Nations
Implementing Agreement1995.
The issue of Participation by “fishing entities” portends to
derail the early conclusion of the Convention. PapuaNew Guinea can
only urge that the two principals involved show flexibility and
resolve this matter a way thatwould not compel Pacific Island
countries to choose between the two. We recognize the importance of
havingboth China and Taiwan bound by the provisions of the
Convention.
On the issue of Entry into force, the current provision in the
text makes it difficult for Papua New Guinea to signonto the
Convention. Papua New Guinea cannot be bound by any Treaty and
therefore assumes no obligationsand responsibilities arising from
that Treaty unless it ratifies the Treaty.
It is Papua New Guinea’s view that too many substantive issues
with fundamental implications on oursovereignty and sovereign
rights have been deferred for deliberation by the Commission.
Issues related to our future development ambitions, our existing
national resource management measures,existing regional and
sub-regional management regimes such as PNA, Regional Register,
MTCs under the PalauArrangement and the overall relationship
between the Commission and role of regional bodies such as FFA
andthe Pacific Community need to be addressed now and some
understandings reached on them.Mr Chairman, Papua New Guinea is of
the view that whilst we continue to work on the draft text of
theConvention, this process should not unduly work towards a rigid
time frame merely for the sake of meeting adeadline. Any conclusion
of this negotiation must be achieved after reaching an outcome,
which is satisfactoryto all stakeholders particularly those with
significant special interest to the resources in question.
-----
-
Annex 3
26
Philippines
On behalf of the members of the Philippine Delegation and on my
own behalf, I would like to thank theGovernment of the State of
Hawaii and the Western Pacific Regional Fisheries Management
Council for hostingonce again this very important Conference on the
Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory FishStocks in the
Western and Central Pacific.
We have come a long way since the 1st Multilateral High Level
Conference held in Honiara in 1994, and whenwe unanimously approved
the “Majuro Declaration” in June 1997 where it was decided that a
regionalmechanism or arrangement would be negotiated within three
years from that date.
This will be the sixth meeting of the MHLC process in order to
come up with a Convention for the managementand conservation of
highly migratory fish stocks in the Western and Central Pacific
Ocean. Hopefully all theoutstanding issues that still have to be
discussed will be resolved to enable us to meet the commitment
tocomplete the negotiations within three years from the adoption of
the “Majuro Declaration.”
In the last Conference, we certainly have made considerable and
significant progress in the discussion of theissues, particularly
in the area of application, Northern subcommittee, precautionary
approach, scientific advice,transparency,