EU Presidency Statement - Law of the Sea

Mr. Co-Chairman

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union in relation to the future of the informal consultative process.

The countries associated with the European Union Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia, the associated countries Cyprus and Malta, align themselves with this statement.

As I said during my intervention in the general debate, the EU is of the opinion that the Informal Consultative Process has contributed in a very positive and useful way to the debate of the Secretary-General's Report on the Oceans and the Law of the Sea, and that, in this respect, it has achieved its goal of facilitating the annual review by the General Assembly of developments in ocean affairs in a constructive and effective manner.

Thus, the ICP has fulfilled very satisfactorily its mandate by providing a substantial input for a better understanding of the oceans and highlighting issues for common action. Accordingly, the EU considers that the ICP should continue, subject to the review envisaged by General Assembly's resolution 54/33, to be annually convened for certain periods of time, given that it is the only available forum where the multiple aspects of ocean issues can be examined and discussed in an integrated manner.

The process should not, however, be institutionalised or bureaucratised. It should maintain its informality and flexibility, and continue to search for the best ways and means to address, in an integrated manner, the legal, political, economic, social and environmental aspects of ocean affairs. Bearing in mind the basic arguments for establishing the ICP, which are reflected in its mandate, the Process should focus on identifying areas where coordination and cooperation within the UN system should be enhanced and defining how concrete improvements could be achieved, with a view to proposing particular issues for consideration by the General Assembly.

We believe that the terms of reference given to the ICP by General Assembly's resolution 54/33 continue to be valid. Nevertheless, the implementation of the mandate and the procedural and organization aspects of the process can be improved, after the due review of its performance by the Assembly.

Without aiming to be exhaustive, the EU offers the following preliminary reflections about the possible improvement of the Process for the consideration of the meeting:

a) The ICP should not be of a permanent character. The General Assembly could renew it for a fixed period and, after reviewing its performance at the end of that time, decide then on its continuation, with the same or modified terms of reference.

b) Participation should be open to all States, international organizations -within and outside the UN system (agencies, funds or programs)-, non-governmental organizations and all relevant stakeholders, including the major groups identified in Agenda 21.

c) The ICP should continue to perform its role vis-à-vis sectoral organizations.

d) The ICP should maintain its present structure, combining plenary meetings where views could be exchanged on issues of concern, and on the ways to improve cooperation and coordination, with discussion panels to examine in depth the subjects chosen for every session.

e) In selecting these subjects, a balance should be kept between the topics on the Law of the Sea, in compliance of UNCLOS and its implementing agreements, and the topics on other aspects of ocean affairs -particularly the environmental aspects-, in accordance with Chapter 17 of Agenda 21, as implemented by the Commission on Sustainable Development.

f) The subjects selected should be concrete and practical, rather than too broad or theoretical. Their choice should allow a focused discussion on specific issues, leading to concrete recommendations to the General Assembly.

g) The meetings, specially those of the Panel discussions, should be carefully and intensively prepared. The Co-chairmen may be assisted -apart from the Secretariat- by a small team of "friends" to facilitate, inter alia, coordination among the various panellists.

h) The choice of panellists should be balanced between representative of States and representatives of International Organizations and other Institutions. The Co-chairmen -with the help of their "friends"- should previously study the subjects and entrust the consideration of various issues to the panellists, giving them some guidelines about what is expected from them. The advanced circulation of the panellists' papers would contribute to render the debate more profitable.

i) There should also be a balance between the time devoted to the presentation of papers and to their discussion. Participants should avoid general or reiterative statements, and concentrate on the point under discussion. Dialogue is essential in order to reach agreement on concrete and appropriate recommendations.

j) The drafting of a factual report of the consultations should be left mainly to the Secretariat. The Co-chairmen should centre their endeavour on the elaboration of the conclusions of the meeting and of the recommendations to be made to the General Assembly.

k) The synergy between the Secretary-General's Report, the Process and the debates of the General Assembly should be kept. For this purpose, some kind of feedback is required. The Secretary-General should inform the ICP about the aftermath of the ICP's recommendations, specially those embodied in the General Assembly's resolutions.

l) The Secretariat should collect the "acquis" of all these discussions and monitor the implementation of the relevant recommendations. In addition to debating every year new subjects in the ICP, we should keep under permanent review the recommendations constituting such "acquis".

As we have already acknowledged, it is obvious that, once the mandate of the ICP is ended, its future will have to be decided by the General Assembly. If, as we expect, the Assembly decides to continue with the process, it will then choose the subjects for the next meeting.

Therefore, it is not the right moment for a long discussion about the selection of such subjects. Nevertheless, the EU considers it appropriate to reiterate the proposals that it made last year, which continue to be valid, because they are concrete and practical, and their consideration may favour the adoption of concrete recommendations to the General Assembly. The subjects suggested were the following: food security and sea-farming, marine protected areas and the problem of navigation, and potential and new uses of the oceans.

In that context, we would like to reiterate our feeling that the exchange of experiences and results of discussion between global fora are of great importance. Therefore, we expect the outcome of the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development to be a valuable input to the forthcoming ICP in 2003.

Thank you Mr. Co-Chairman.

| Haut |

• EU Presidency Statement - Oceans and Law of the Sea (10/12/2002)
• EU Presidency Statement - Law of the Sea (12/4/2002)
• EU Presidency Statement - Law of the Sea (11/4/2002)
• EU Presidency Statement - Law of the Sea (9/4/2002)
• EU Presidency Statement - Law of the Sea  (8/4/2002)