Role of Sea Law Convention ‘Clearer than Ever’, States Parties Hear as Week-Long Session Opens with Briefings by Main Bodies
The twenty-fifth Meeting of States Parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea opened today, with top officials from the instrument’s three main bodies shining the spotlight on ways they had advanced peaceful dispute settlement, regulated mineral activities in the international seabed and facilitated implementation of the “constitution for the ocean”.
The continuing relevance and important role of the Convention in strengthening international peace and security is “clearer than ever”, said Stephen Mathias, Assistant Secretary-General of the Office of Legal Affairs, in opening remarks.
Underlining the Convention’s “pre-eminent” contribution, he said its legal framework also allowed for elaboration in other areas. In that context, consultations were ongoing to reach a binding agreement on marine biological diversity beyond areas of national jurisdiction. Future negotiations would relate to marine genetic resources, measures like Area-based management tools, and environmental impact assessments, capacity-building and technology transfer.
Updating delegates on work over the last year were the heads of the institutions established under the Convention: Vladimir Golitsyn, President of the Tribunal for the Law of the Sea; Nii Allotey Odunton, Secretary-General of the International Seabed Authority; and Lawrence F. Awosika, Chairperson of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf.
Mr. Golitsyn detailed the Tribunal’s judgement rendered in the M/V “Virginia G” case, settling a dispute between Panama and Guinea-Bissau over the arrest of a Panamanian flagged oil tanker. The Tribunal had made an “important pronouncement” on the existence of a genuine link between the flag State and a ship flying its flag, and the applicability of the exhaustion of local remedies rule. It also delivered its first advisory opinion, responding to a request about illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing in exclusive economic zones.
Along similar lines, Mr. Oudunton said the Authority had approved 26 work plans and entered into 15-year contracts for exploration with 22 contractors. Four contracts had yet to be signed. With that workload, the exercise of supervisory functions had occupied a growing part of the Authority’s focus. It also had issued a discussion paper on the development and implementation of a payment mechanism for exploitation activities, conscious of the need to engage with stakeholders on the matter. It would present to the Commission in July a summary of the points raised by stakeholders.
Rounding out the presentations, Mr. Awosika addressed the conditions of service for Commission members, a much debated topic, emphasizing that reimbursement of medical travel insurance for members benefitting from the trust fund established to defray the costs of participation was an “interim measure”. No distinction should be made between members from developing and developed States. On the issue of working space, the Commission concluded that its members needed more adequate facilities. He had written to the Director of the Division for Ocean Affairs and Law of the Sea, outlining specific needs for improvement.
Following his election as President of the twenty-fifth Meeting, Kriangsak Kittichaisaree, said the Convention was one step closer to universal participation, with Palestine joining the instrument, bringing the number of parties to 167, including the European Union.
Also today, the Meeting adopted as amended its provisional agenda (document SPLOS/L.75). Prior to that action, the United Kingdom’s representative requested that her country’s proposal for a mechanism to scrutinize the budget of the International Tribunal be postponed until next year, as bilateral negotiations were ongoing.
The Meeting elected Audrey Abayena (Ghana), Metod Špaček (Slovakia), Alejandro Sousa (Mexico) and Sari Mäkelä (Finland) as Vice-Presidents of the twenty-fifth Meeting. It appointed Albania, Barbados, Cyprus, Iceland, Italy, Kenya, Madagascar, Paraguay and Singapore as members of its Credentials Committee. The time and place of that meeting was tentatively scheduled for 10 June.
The Meeting also heard an update by James Ndiragu Waweru (Kenya) and Alexandra Lennox-Marwick (New Zealand) as co-coordinators of the Open-Ended Working Group to consider the conditions of service of the members of the Commission.
The twenty-fifth Meeting of States Parties will reconvene at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 9 June.
Remarks by Heads of Convention Bodies
VLADIMIR GOLITSYN, President of the Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, said the court’s annual report covered 1 January to 31 December 2014, during which seven members were elected for a nine-year term, and on 1 October 2014, he was elected President.
On 14 April 2014, he said, the Tribunal settled the dispute between Panama and Guinea-Bissau in the M/V “Virginia G” case, stemming from the arrest of the Panamanian flagged oil tanker M/V Virginia G. In its judgement, the Tribunal made an important pronouncement on matters relating to the existence of a “genuine link” between the flag State and a ship flying its flag, and the applicability of the exhaustion of local remedies rule. The genuine link requirement “should not be read as establishing prerequisites or conditions to be satisfied for the exercise of the right of the flag State to grant its nationality to ships”. It found that the “exhaustion of local remedies rule” was not applicable. On the question of bunkering, it awarded compensation to Panama for some of its claims.
On 5 April 2015, he said, the Tribunal delivered its first advisory opinion, responding to a 2013 request by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission, which had posed four questions on illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing in the exclusive economic zone of its seven members. The Tribunal had clarified matters not directly addressed in the Convention as regards the obligations and liability of flag States, stating that it was the coastal State that had, in that exclusive economic zone, “sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing natural resources”.
In its advisory opinion, the Tribunal, he said, had identified obligations of the flag State in cases where vessels flying its flag engaged in such fishing in those zones of the Commission Member States. The flag State was not liable if it had taken all “necessary and appropriate” measures to meet its due diligence obligations, the Tribunal had stated, and only the international organization — in this case, the European Union — could be held liable for breach of its obligations arising from the fisheries access agreement, and not its member States.
Following December 2014 consultations with Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire, he said, those countries concluded a special agreement to submit their dispute over delimitation of their maritime Atlantic Ocean boundary to a special chamber of the Tribunal. On 27 February 2015, Côte d’Ivoire filed a request for the prescription of provisional measures so that Ghana would suspend oil exploration and exploitation in the disputed area. Ghana asked the chamber to deny that request.
On 25 April 2015, he said, the chamber considered that an order suspending all exploration would cause prejudice to the rights claimed by Ghana and create an undue burden on it. Rather, it considered it appropriate to order Ghana to take “all necessary steps” to ensure that no new drilling took place in the disputed area. It requested each party to submit a report on compliance with the provisional measures.
More broadly, he said, the Tribunal had held two sessions on legal, as well as organizational and administrative matters, during which it dealt with budgetary concerns. As for its participation in the International Civil Service Commission, the Tribunal decided to seek approval to subscribe to that statute as of 1 January 2016. He informed delegates that a payment from the voluntary trust fund for dispute settlement had been made to one State in May 2014. At the end March 2015, the fund showed a balance of $74,317.43, he noted.
Following his presentation, the representative of the European Union noted with concern that 44 States parties had not made any payments regarding their assessed contributions for the 2013-2014 period. As of 31 December 2014, outstanding unpaid contributions totalled €1,479,049, and he urged them to be paid in full. He noted with great concern that some States parties had refused to take part in arbitral proceedings brought against them. He urged them to participate in such proceedings and implement the decisions adopted therein.
Germany’s delegate, supporting the European Union statement, said that as the home country for the Tribunal, his Government had taken note of the judgement in the M/V “Virginia G” case, which had confirmed the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to deliver advisory opinions if a Convention agreement provided for submission of a request. That opinion had the potential to be “followed suit”. All the Tribunal’s decisions had been delivered with “remarkable” care within a reasonable timespan.
Thailand’s delegate, on “case 21”, which had requested an advisory opinion on illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, said his country had participated in written and oral proceedings around that case, one that was crucial to the survival of smaller States that relied on fishing as a main income source. The Tribunal’s “enlightening outcome” would contribute to the progressive development of the law of the sea. As a flag State, Thailand had revised its laws and regulations, and was finalizing a plan to eliminate such fishing.
The representative of the Federated States of Micronesia said States parties must comply with the Tribunal’s judgement and heed its advisory opinions. His country had participated in “case 21”. Calling illegal unreported and unregulated fishing a “scourge of the ocean”, he said his country had submitted a written statement in “case 21”, arguing that flag States and international organizations had obligations to ensure that flag vessels did not engage in such fishing in such economic zones. It also delivered an oral statement, arguing for the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in issuing an advisory opinion. His country had never participated in deliberations in an international tribunal.
Costa Rica’s delegate underlined his country’s contributions to deliberations for a binding agreement on marine biological diversity beyond areas of national jurisdiction.
Chile’s delegate noted the flexibility of the Tribunal’s procedures, especially in the establishment of an ad hoc chamber and issuance of an advisory opinion. The Tribunal would continue to address such matters.
The representative of the Philippines said the Convention was among the most significant achievements of international law, as the only multilateral treaty prescribing mandatory jurisdiction for disputes arising from its interpretation and application. She recalled its “landmark” judgement on delimitation of the maritime boundary between Bangladesh and Myanmar in the Bay of Bengal. She urged dispute parties to consider resorting to the Convention’s dispute settlement mechanisms. The Philippines would contribute to the voluntary trust fund to assist States in that regard.
Viet Nam’s representative said that on “case 21”, the Tribunal noted the importance of the “due diligence” principle. Among the key aspects of its ruling, the Tribunal reaffirmed its jurisdiction to issue an advisory opinion. He underlined the importance of the Tribunal’s training and capacity-building programmes, which helped developing countries strengthen their knowledge.
Japan’s delegate said that, as a maritime State, he appreciated the Tribunal’s role in peaceful dispute settlement. Japan had presented written and oral statements in “case 21” and commended the Tribunal for issuing an advisory opinion. Noting that Japan was the lead financial contributor to the Tribunal, he said the Nippon Foundation was in close cooperation on capacity-building and training in the area of dispute settlement. It had contributed €230,000 to the trust fund.
The representative of the Republic of Korea said the Tribunal had been recognized for its peaceful dispute resolution of maritime disputes. He appreciated the M/V “Virginia G” case and delivery of an advisory opinion to the request by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission. His country had provided support for the Tribunal’s internship programmes and regional workshops, he said, noting one held in Nairobi, Kenya. In August, another workshop would be held in Bali, Indonesia. His Government would continue to seek various means by which to cooperate with the Tribunal.
Argentina’s delegate welcomed the State of Palestine to the Meeting, noting that the Tribunal had gradually been fulfilling its institutional role within the Convention. The advisory opinion issued in “case 21” was restricted to Member States who were members of the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission. The Tribunal had worked prudently in that regard.
China’s delegate noted the Tribunal’s increasingly important role in dispute settlement and its expanding influence. At the same time, countries had discretion to choose the ways and means of peacefully settling disputes. He commended the Tribunal’s capacity-building and training programmes, saying China was ready to make contributions in that regard. Concerning “case 21”, countries, in their written statements, had outlined that neither the Convention nor the Tribunal had prescribed any jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The Tribunal had not fully responded to written objections. China hoped it would make its decisions with prudence in the future and consider States’ statements.
The Meeting then took note of the Tribunal’s annual report.
NII ALLOTEY ODUNTON, Secretary-General of the International Seabed Authority, said the twenty-first session would be held in Kingston, Jamaica, from 6 to 24 July. The first week would be devoted to meetings of the Legal and Technical Commission and the Finance Committee. The Assembly would formally convene on 14 July, followed by the Council.
Substantively, the Commission would consider matters referred to it by the Council, including those related to the test of effective control, monopolization, abuse of dominant position, as well as the recommended template for the annual contractors’ reports. It would also consider the issue of data management strategy and be provided with the terms of reference for a workshop on the implementation of the environmental management plan for the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, as well as guidelines for the identification of preservation and impact reference zones.
For its part, the Council would take up matters referred to it by the Commission, including recommendations on a new application for approval of work plans for exploration of polymetallic nodules in the Area, submitted by China Minmetals Corporation. It also would consider the criteria for extension of the approved work plan, procedures for the 2016 election of Commission members and the update on the study of the laws, regulations and administrative measures concerning activities in the Area.
The Assembly, he said, would focus on the election in the Finance Committee and applications for observer status, as well as discuss the annual report. It would also consider the terms of reference for the “article 154” periodic review of the Authority, according to which the Assembly, every five years, would review the international regime’s operation and make recommendations for other Authority organs to ensure its proper functioning. Despite having gone through five yearly intervals, no such review had been carried out.
In light of growing interest in the development of marine minerals in the deep seabed — and given the secretariat’s increased workload and need to acquire more baseline environmental data for lesser known deposits of polymetallic sulphides and cobalt-rich ferromanganese deposits — “the time is ripe to undertake a general and systematic review,” he said.
Turning to contacts for exploration in the Area, he said the Authority had approved 26 work plans and entered into 15-year contracts for exploration with 22 contractors: 14 for polymetallic nodules, 5 for polymetallic sulphides and 3 for cobalt-rich crusts. Four contracts had yet to be signed: one for sulphides, two for nodules and one for crust. With that workload, the exercise of supervisory functions had occupied a growing part of the Authority’s focus.
Among other activities, the Authority had held two workshops on data standardization and resource clarification, he said. The first — on polymetallic nodules resource classification — was held in Goa, India, from 13 to 17 October 2014. The second — on taxonomic methods and standardization of macro fauna in the Clarion-Clipperton Fracture Zone — was held in Uljin, Republic of Korea, from 23 to 30 November 2014. The first workshop recommended that the Authority support collaboration among the contractors to test collector devices and conduct pilot mining tests. In addition, a “sensitization seminar”, held in South Africa from 17 to 19 March, focused on collaborative research opportunities for African States in the Atlantic and Indian Ocean Ridges.
Finally, he said, the Commission had issued a report in March containing a draft framework for mineral exploitation in the Area and strategic issues that were significant to advancing the development of the Authority’s procedures. On 31 March, the Authority had issued a discussion paper on the development and implementation of a payment mechanism for exploitation activities, conscious of the need to engage with stakeholders on the matter, particularly current and potential investors in the Area. It would present to the Commission in July a summary of the points raised by stakeholders. He added that only 36 Authority members had become parties to the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities. To encourage others, a briefing note had been prepared.
Jamaica’s delegate said there had been global acceptance of the Convention as seminal legislation. The Authority’s work had entered an exciting phase with the approval of 26 work plans. Several decisions and recommendations had been made, which must be considered, including the draft procedures for the extension of draft exploration contracts and periodic review of the Authority. Elections to the Legal and Technical Commission and the Finance Committee were to be held. He encouraged all States to review the draft discussion paper and to submit comments before the next session. He appealed to States that had not yet done so to accede to both the Convention and the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities
China’s delegate said seven work plans had been approved for exploration since the start of the year. Applications for multiple exploration contracts signalled the enthusiasm about the Authority’s seabed system. The formulation of exploitation regulations should comply with Convention regulations. Relevant terms should be consistent to ensure proper exploration and exploitation. Any new mechanism should respect infrastructure, with the Council at the system’s core.
He said that the extension for exploration contracts did not mean contract termination. It was impossible to submit all information required upon contract termination and before request for extension. In line with the 1994 implementation agreement, if contractors had made good-faith efforts, their applications for extension should be granted. Extension procedures should be simple, clear and “easy to operate”. China would act according to relevant international rules and ensure implementation of signed contacts in the Area. Concerning a regular review of the Authority, he said China would make its position known at the next session.
Singapore’s delegate said his country had enacted its deep sea-bed mining act and established a licensing regime. He supported efforts to prepare draft regulations for exploitation and on a payment mechanism, as it was important to have a regulatory framework that ensured that exploitation was conducted in a commercially feasible and environmentally sustainable manner. He hoped the Authority’s marine scientific research would enable progress in the development of environmental management plans for regions in which exploration was taking place. He advocated creative solutions for handling the overwhelming workload of the Legal and Technical Commission.
Japan’s delegate welcomed the increasing number of work plans approved by the Authority. The Japan Oil, Gas Metals Corporation — a contactor — was conducting its first training programme since the signing of its exploration contract with the Authority in January 2014. This year’s stakeholders’ survey conducted by the secretariat was meaningful, he said, as the appropriate sharing of mineral resources presupposed that companies would enter the deep-sea mining area. An exploitation code must be discussed, based on the knowledge of experts and an evaluation of economic efficiency.
Australia’s delegate welcomed the broad stakeholder consultations that had taken place as the Authority moved from exploration to exploitation arrangements. Such opportunities for input were greatly valued. A cooperative approach on the development of exploitation regulations would be beneficial. Those procedures should be developed in line with sound commercial principles and environmental standards. Australia looked forward to working with the Authority in that regard.
Canada’s delegate said Palestine did not meet the criteria of a State and was not recognized by Canada as such. It was not able to accede to the Convention. Canada was committed to the goal of a just and lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians, including a Palestinian State living alongside Israel in peace. The solution should be found through a comprehensive peace agreement, and recognition of a Palestinian State should be the result of negotiations between the parties.
Argentina’s delegate said the Legal and Technical Commission, which proposed rules and regulations and considered new requests in work plans, had been carrying out its tasks efficiently. She welcomed the surveys conducted by the Authority, which included enterprises, contractors, States and civil society, stressing that States parties should not be guided exclusively by corporations. Taxonomic methods and the standardization of macrofauna could be useful in the preservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. The 26 work plans adopted and 22 exploitation contracts signed by the Authority reflected the global interest in the Area’s minerals.
The Meeting then took note of the information in the report of the Secretary-General’s report.
LAWRENCE F. AWOSIKA, Chairperson of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, presenting that body’s report, said that, since last June, the Commission had held its thirty-fifth, thirty-sixth and thirty-seventh sessions, from, respectively: 21 July to 5 September 2014; from 20 October to 28 November 2014; and from 2 February to 20 March 2015.
During those sessions, he said, the Commission considered submissions by: Uruguay and Cook Islands, in respect of the Manihiki Plateau; Argentina, Ghana and Iceland, in respect of the Ægir Basin area and the western and southern parts of Reykjanes Ridge; Pakistan and Norway, in respect of Bouvetøya and Dronning Maud Land; South Africa, in respect of the mainland of the territory of the Republic of South Africa; Federated States of Micronesia, Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands, concerning the Ontong Java Plateau; France and South Africa, in the area of the Crozet Archipelago and the Prince Edward Islands; and Mauritius, in the region of Rodrigues Island.
The Commission, he added, approved two recommendations related to submissions made by Ghana and Pakistan and continued its consideration of draft recommendations on partial submissions made by Iceland, which would be further considered at the thirty-eight session in July-August. It heard presentations on the submissions by Tonga in the western part of the Lau-Colville Ridge, and by Kenya. It also took note of new submissions transmitted to the Secretary General, whose presentation would be included in the thirty-eighth session.
Turning to the conditions of service for Commission members, he said that, at the thirty-fifth session, the Commission decided that, in 2015, it would hold three seven-week sessions, on the understanding that the decision could be revisited in the thirty-seventh session. At that session, the Commission emphasized that reimbursement of medical travel insurance for members who benefitted from the trust fund established to defray the costs of participation in Commission meetings of members from developing States was an “interim measure”. No distinction should be made between members from developing and developed States. He also detailed development on the issue of working space, on which the Commission had concluded that its members needed more adequate facilities.
Following those remarks, the representative of the European Union said it was essential that the Commission could rely on participation of all its members in plenary and subcommission meetings. He welcomed the decision to maintain the current pattern of meetings of 21 weeks per year in three seven-week sessions. The decision to form nine sub-commissions decreased waiting time for submissions in the queue. The Commission’s increased activity had increased the participation costs for its members, and on that point, he encouraged States in position to do so to contribute to the fund established to defray costs for developing countries, and the voluntary trust fund for facilitating the preparation of submissions.
Iceland’s delegate welcomed the State of Palestine as the most recent State party. To ensure satisfactory working conditions, he urged improved conditions of service for Commission members, recalling that the Commission’s recommendations establish the outer and final binding limits of the Continental Shelf. Iceland welcomed inputs to ensure sufficient working space for Commission members, of the view that conditions of service and professionalism of its members were vital.
In that connection, he said that conduct such as publically criticizing the Convention’s provisions, referring to so-called “mistakes” made by the Commission, and alleging that some coastal States had violated the Convention’s article 300, risked undermining the Commission’s credibility. He expected the Commission to address such conduct in the appropriate manner.
Japan’s delegate said that, to enhance the rule of law at sea, it was important for submitting States and the Commission to follow procedure regarding the extension of the continental shelf. Japan had provided highly qualified members to the Commission since its establishment. Its contribution to the trust fund comprised 70 per cent of total contributions in the last five years, and it would contribute another $60,000 this year.
He shared concerns about the Commission’s management, noting a net increase of four pending submissions. He was concerned about that pace and hoped it would deal with each submission in speedy and transparent manner. Each Commission member should consider submissions from a technical viewpoint, independent from the States parties. It was important that the Commission properly fulfil its functions.
Costa Rica’s delegate said the Convention’s article 76 was important for peaceful coexistence among States, especially through its definition of the limits of State claims concerning the continental shelf. Before the Convention, rights were based on the criterion of exploitability, which did not specify limits. The Commission must have the resources and conditions required to carry out its tasks. Eight of 10 submissions would be discussed in the July-September session. She welcomed the creation of a working group to draft a standardized framework for sub-commission practices. She regretted that the trust fund for developing countries had shrunk; her country contributed annually and she urged others to do the same.
The representative of the Republic of Korea said the Commission’s workload had dramatically increased and urged strengthening the conditions of service in a sustainable manner, saying it was crucial to take measures to enhance efficiency. They did not need lead to increases in budget contributions. His Government had supported the trust fund to enhance developing countries’ participation and had contributed $20,000 annually from 2010 to 2014 and would do so again this year.
Norway’s delegate welcomed the increase in length and number of the Commission’s sessions, which was needed to reduce backlog. Unfortunately, the increased meeting time had not led to an increased number of recommendations, and he noted with concern that only two had been made in the last year. The body must use potential for progress by drawing on precedents set in the first decade and a half of its work.
India’s representative said the Commission was working 21 weeks a year and it, thus, must be provided adequate working space. He urged the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea to favourably respond to that written request. There had been significant increase — from 18 to 22 — in the number of contractors. The Authority’s development of an exploration code for deep-sea minerals was important. India was committed to developing a regime for harnessing deep-sea minerals in an environmentally sustainable manner. It had held a workshop on polymetallic nodules resource classification, during which developments in the legal and technical framework for those nodules were discussed. Deliberations were of enormous significance for India for exploiting non-living resources of the deep ocean floor. India was committed to sign a related contract and would provide training for 10 personnel from developing countries in the next five years.
Australia’s delegate said the trust fund to facilitate submissions had assisted a number of developing States, especially small island developing States in the Pacific. The presentation and defence of claims required technical and legal experts to travel to New York. Under the current rules, developing States were unable to defray those costs, despite the more than $1 million in the fund. She suggested broadening the terms for applying for assistance, voicing concern about the pace of the Commission’s work and urging that issue to be addressed.
Viet Nam’s delegate said several State submissions had not been considered. In 2014, the Commission had made recommendations on only two. He urged improved working conditions to enable the body to function more effectively. The rules of procedure for submissions should be reconsidered.
China’s delegate, noting that 11 submissions had been reviewed in the last year, said the Commission faced an increasingly heavy workload, which challenged its working conditions. He supported the interim measure to address medical travel insurance, as well as the provision on improving working conditions. China had contributed to the voluntary trust fund and this year would contribute $20,000.
Algeria’s delegate supported the improvement of working conditions for the Commission, especially for developing or least developed countries. He welcomed the accession of Palestine to the Convention.
Cuba’s delegate recognized the Commission’s heavy workload and urged that the necessary resources be provided so it could effectively perform its work.
Argentina’s delegate said the Commission did not have the facilities it needed to further improve its work. Decision 276, along with resolution 69/245, had urgent aspects: medical coverage and the Commission’s physical workspace. The provisional measure with regard to insurance had been approved on the understanding that the Meeting would adopt guidelines to permanently resolve that problem. Commissioners and subcommissioners also required physical space. Argentina was committed to finding effective solutions to those questions. The Commission had a huge responsibility stemming from the technical mandate given to it by the Convention, especially concerning the cooperation of coastal States. In that context, it was essential to support the regime created in 1982.
Ecuador’s delegate, welcoming Palestine as a State party, said his Government was exploring the possibility of supporting the Commission’s work, especially the trust fund. He urged countries to make additional efforts in that regard.
Mexico’s delegate reiterated the importance of the Commission, urging that sufficient resources be provided so it could fulfil its technical and scientific responsibilities. Mexico supported the Commission and hoped others would do likewise. He underlined the importance of maintaining the three-session work pattern, expressing hope it would alleviate the backlog.
Brazil’s delegate said his Government was aware of the difficulties around the Commission’s workload and work conditions and supported resolution 69/245 in that regard. He looked forward to discussing a balanced solution. Those difficulties reflected the Commission’s work and he recalled that, on 10 April, Brazil conveyed a revised submission on the Continental Shelf.
Myanmar’s delegate said the timely consideration of submissions was of great interest, as any delay resulted in huge human and material costs, impacting countries’ ability to defend their submissions. He expressed concern at the Commission’s practice of deferring submissions indefinitely. Myanmar was among those countries whose decision had been deferred to a subcommission. None of the seven deferred had overcome the challenges that had led to their deferral.
The Meeting then took note of information presented by the Commission Chairperson.
Following those remarks, the Director of the Division for Ocean Affairs and Law of the Sea said contributions had been received Costa Rica, China, Iceland, Ireland, Japan, Mexico, Portugal and the Republic of Korea. Assistance from the trust fund was provided to the seven Commission members from developing countries. She provided details on the disbursements, including administrative costs for past sessions. She enumerated projections and shortfalls, of the view that the Division would not be able to support Commission members from developing States in the final meeting of the biennium or beyond, nor to absorb the costs associated with an eventual mechanism to provide medical insurance coverage. She reiterated an appeal for contributions to the trust fund. Costa Rica, she noted, had contributed to the fund to facilitate submissions. The balance was $1.3 million.