|Asunto:||[LEA-Venezuela] (En Ingles) Ley Conservacionista del Mar en Naciones Unidas|
|Fecha:||Jueves, 29 de Noviembre, 2001 17:11:03 (-0400)|
|Autor:||Interfaz Amazonica <interfaz @.....net>
La Asamblea de Naciones Unidas busca mas apoyo para la Convencion de La Ley
del Mar, conservacion efectiva de la reserva mundial de peces. - Los
delegados expresan su preocupacion, se necesita accion efectiva si los
oceanos deben continuar como fuente de alimentos para la humanidad. Parte 2
Christine Hanson (Canada) dijo que muchas de las reservas mundiales de peces
estan sobre-explotadas y en declinacion. Si la pesca sostenible fuese a ser
mantenida para las generaciones futuras, la cooperacion internacional es
suprema, globalmente y a traves de las organizaciones pesqueras regionales,
para implementar y hacer valer las medidas de administracion y
Sin accion conservacionista efectiva, los oceanos podrian pronto no ser mas
capaces de alimentar la humanidad.
ANGELA CAVALIERE DE NAVA de Venezuela abstuvo su voto, por no formar parte
de la convencion, pero declaro que nuestro pais apoya los esfuerzos para una
coordinacion internacional en el area de La Ley del Mar.
Title: UN: Assembly seeks further support for Sea Law Convention,
effective conservation of global fish stocks -- Delegates express concern;
Effective action needed if oceans are to continue as source of food for
humankind -- Part 2 of 2
Summary: Nov 29, 2001 (M2 PRESSWIRE via COMTEX) -- CHRISTINE HANSON
(Canada) said that many of the world's fish stocks were over-fished and in
decline. If sustainable fisheries were to be maintained for future
generations, international cooperation was paramount, globally and through
regional fisheries organizations, to implement and enforce conservation and
management measures. Without effective conservation action, the oceans would
soon no longer be capable of feeding humankind.
Source: M2 Communications Ltd.
Date: 11/29/2001 08:40
Document Size: Medium (3 to 7 pages)
Document ID: FB20011129500000252
Subject(s): Mto; Adoption; Afghanistan; Albania; Algeria; Andorra; Angola;
Antigua; Argentina; Armenia; Australia; Austria; Azerbaijan; Bahamas;
Bahrain; Bangladesh; Barbados; Barbuda; Belarus; Belgium; Belize; Benin;
Bhutan; Bolivia; Bosnia; Botswana; Brazil; Brunei; Budget; Bulgaria; Burkina
Faso; Burundi; Cambodia; Cameroon; Canada; Cape Verde; Chad; Chile; China;
Colombia; Colorado; Community; Comoros; Conference; Congo; Conservation;
Contractors; Contributions; Costa Rica; Croatia; Cuba; Cyprus; Czech
Republic; Delaware; Denmark; Djibouti; Dominica; Dominican Republic;
Ecuador; Egypt; El Salvador; Environment; Equatorial Guinea; Equity;
Eritrea; Estonia; Ethiopia; Exercise; Exploration; Fiji; Finland; Fisheries;
Food; France; Gabon; Gambia; Georgia; Germany; Ghana; Greece; Grenada;
Guatemala; Guinea; Guyana; Haiti; Herzegovina; Honduras; Hungary; Iceland;
India; Indonesia; Iran; Ire
UN: Assembly seeks further support for Sea Law Convention, effective
conservation of global fish stocks -- Delegates express concern; Effective
action needed if oceans are to continue as source of food for humankind --
Part 2 of 2
Story Filed: Thursday, November 29, 2001 8:40 AM EST
Nov 29, 2001 (M2 PRESSWIRE via COMTEX) -- CHRISTINE HANSON (Canada) said
that many of the world's fish stocks were over-fished and in decline. If
sustainable fisheries were to be maintained for future generations,
international cooperation was paramount, globally and through regional
fisheries organizations, to implement and enforce conservation and
management measures. Without effective conservation action, the oceans would
soon no longer be capable of feeding humankind.
Fortunately, the means to take action were at hand. The United Nations Fish
Stocks Agreement established principles and practices designed to ensure the
long-term conservation and sustainable use of highly migratory and
sustainable fish stocks. The Agreement grew from the 1992 United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro.
As the international community headed towards Rio + 10, the World Summit on
Sustainable Development, in 2002, the entry into force of the Agreement
could be heralded as a concrete achievement.
However, entry into force of the Agreement was not the end of the story. She
said that one must continue to encourage States to become party to the
Agreement and to implement it fully and effectively. Canada urged the
international community to renew its efforts in that regard.
SATYA N. NANDAN, Secretary-General of the International Seabed Authority,
said the signature in 2001 of 15-year contracts with six out of the seven
registered pioneer investors marked a milestone for the authority. The
signature also gave practical effect to the single regime of the Area
established by the Convention, the Agreement and the Regulations for
Prospecting and Exploration for Polymetallic Nodules in the Area. The
objective of the reporting requirements under the contracts was to establish
a mechanism whereby the Authority could be provided with the information
necessary to carry out its responsibilities under the Convention and the
Agreement to ensure the protection of the marine environment from harmful
effects arising from activities in the Area.
He said the Authority had an important technical role to play as a global
repository of data and information and as a catalyst for collaborative
research at the international level. It would have to work closely with
contractors in the implementation of exploration contracts and the practical
application of the recommendations. At the same time, there was a need for
ongoing involvement of a political nature in the work of the Authority. The
Council of the Authority had commenced work on regulation for prospecting
and exploration for hydrothermal polymetallic sulphides and cobalt-rich
crusts. He therefore called on all Member States to seriously consider
participation in the meetings of the Authority. He also urged those Member
States that had not done so to pay their contributions to the administrative
budget of the Authority in full and on time.
The subject of marine scientific research was a matter of great concern to
the Authority, he said. Two issues needed to be addressed through better
coordination: clarification of the regime for marine scientific research,
and the question of how to deal with newly-discovered genetic resources.
While there was a freedom to engage in marine scientific research on the
high seas and in the seabed, mineral resource prospecting and exploration in
the Area were regulated through the Authority.
The Convention had failed to adequately distinguish between the terms
"marine scientific research", "prospecting" and "exploration", he said. Nor
did it make a distinction between "pure" and "applied" scientific research.
That problem became more acute with new scientific discoveries such as the
deep sea vents, which comprised both mineral and genetic resources. In that
regard, there was not only a conflict between true marine scientific
research and mineral prospecting, but also the potential for multiple use
conflicts between, for example, deep-seabed miners, so-called
bioprospectors, and the proper conservation and management of the deep ocean
A major problem in fisheries was the illegal, unregulated and unreported
fishing (IUU fishing). Draft resolution L.18, relating to the Fishstocks
Agreement, requested flag States to exercise effective control over fishing
vessels flying their flags. The fact was that in many cases, flag States
were not in a position to control and prevent IUU fishing, particularly if
they were flags of convenience. It was well known that flags of convenience
were invariably used as a device by the owners of fishing vessels to avoid
compliance with conservation and management measures. That festering problem
should be tackled head-on by making owners and masters equally responsible
for the activities of the fishing vessels under their ownership, direction
and control, he said.
Action on Drafts
The Assembly then turned its attention to the draft resolutions before it --
on Oceans and the law of the sea (document A/56/L.17) and on Agreement for
the Implementation of the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and
Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks
ALTAY CENZIGER (Turkey), in explanation of vote, said his delegation would
vote against resolution A/56/L.17 because some of the elements in the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which had prevented Turkey from
approving the Convention, were once more retained in this year's draft.
Turkey supported international efforts to establish a regime of the sea
which was based on the principle of equity and which could be acceptable to
all States. However, the Convention did not make adequate provisions for
special geographical situations, and as a consequence, was not able to
establish an acceptable balance between conflicting interests. Furthermore,
the Convention made no provision for registering reservations on specific
clauses. Although Turkey agreed with the Convention in its general intent
and most of its provisions, Turkey was unable to become party to it, owing
to these serious shortcomings.
As to draft resolution A/56/L.18, his delegation reaffirmed its position
just elaborated vis-a-vis the Convention on the Law of the Sea. Turkey was
unable to give its consent to certain references to the Convention made in
the draft, in particular to its second operative paragraph by which States
were called upon to become parties to it, and so dissociated itself from the
consensus on that paragraph.
ALEJANDRA QUEZADA (Chile) said she would join consensus by voting in favor
of the draft on the Agreement for fish stocks (resolution L.18). However,
her country considered other relevant instruments, such as the FAO
convention on the code of conduct or other regional agreements, equally
The Agreement would not enter into force for six years. Chile would not sign
it because it would leave coastal states unprotected, while giving other
States undue rights. Chile would sign the convention for protecting the
living resources of the Pacific. The framework convention on the law of the
sea was open for signature. It was the definitive framework convention for
protecting the sea. Because concerns to make sure third parties that were
not part of a treaty could not impose conditions, Chile had interjected its
views into some paragraphs during drafting of the present resolution.
ANGELA CAVALIERE DE NAVA (Venezuela) said she had joined the statement of
the Rio Group motivated by the spirit of cooperation. That same spirit made
her country endorse efforts to promote international coordination in the
area of the law of the sea. As Venezuela was not party to the Convention,
she would abstain from voting.
The Assembly was informed that Belize, Madagascar and Mongolia had joined as
co-sponsors of draft resolution A/56/L.17.
The draft was then adopted in a recorded vote of 121 in favor to one against
(Turkey) with four abstentions (Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela). (For
details of voting see Annex.)
The Assembly further informed that Barbados, Malta and Monaco had joined as
co-sponsors of A/56/L.18, which was then adopted, without a vote.
AUGUSTO CABRERA (Peru) said his abstention on the drafts on Oceans and law
of the sea should not be seen as a reflection on his country's commitment to
protecting the oceans. Peru had not yet acceded to the Convention on the law
of the sea; it hoped to do so after the appropriate political debate.
RICARDO BOCALANDRO (Argentina) said his country voted in favour of
resolution L.18, but wished to reiterate that the reference to `entities' in
the resolution should be understood as a reference to entities listed in
article 305 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
HANS BRATTSKAR (Norway) said his country had traditionally co-sponsored the
Assembly resolutions on Oceans and the law of the sea and regretted not
being in a position to do so this year, due to the language of the operative
paragraph dealing with the informal consultative process.
That process was meant to facilitate the annual review by the Assembly of
the Secretary-General's report. That process, which was to be reviewed at
the next session, was to be regarded as a non-institutional mechanism and it
was not certain how the Assembly would proceed after the evaluation of the
mechanism before that session. The language of the operative paragraph was
not helpful to the organization of the process to be held next year. It made
reference to the World Summit on Sustainable Development, which was awkward
and inappropriate since it indicated a linkage between the informal
consultative process and that Summit. The identification of areas for
deliberation lacked focus and suffered from the omission of wording offering
guidance to the effect that the process was first and foremost concerned
with the implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the
HIROYUKI YAMAMOTO (Japan) said his country was in favour of draft resolution
L.17 because it supported the overall content, and because of the importance
of the draft to the framework of United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Customarily, Japan would have co-sponsored the resolution, but a preambular
paragraph failed to reflect its views.
As for draft resolution L.18, he said Japan was committed to making serious
efforts to ensure the long-term conservation and sustainable use of
straddling and highly migratory fish stocks, as well as other living marine
resources. It had tried to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported
and unregulated fishing, and also to apply management measures that
considered the ecosystem.
However, in light of a recent development about the conservation and
sustainable use of straddling and highly migratory fish stocks, Japan could
not help but feel uncertainties about the possible implications of new
regional organizations. The drafting of resolution L.18 had frequently
failed to reflect Japan's concerns, and it was difficult to accept as it
was. Japan had opted to dissociate itself from the consensus on the
resolution, but had not opposed its adoption by the consensus of other
Vote on Oceans and the Law of the Sea
The General Assembly adopted the draft resolution on Oceans and the Law of
the Sea (document A/56/L.17) by a recorded vote of 121 in favour to one
against, with four abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia,
Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize,
Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada,
Chile, China, Comoros, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark,
Dominican Republic, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Federated
States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana,
Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, India, Iran, Ireland, Israel,
Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic
Republic, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar,
Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia,
Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand,
Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea,
Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of
Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia,
Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia,
Slovenia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Sweden, Thailand, the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Ukraine,
United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Viet
Nam, Yugoslavia, Zambia.
Abstaining: Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela.
Absent: Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Benin, Bhutan,
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Chad,
Congo, Costa Rica, C'te d'Ivoire, Democratic People's Republic of Korea,
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, El Salvador, Ethiopia,
Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea, Haiti, Honduras, Indonesia, Jordan,
Kiribati, Latvia, Lesotho, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Namibia,
Palau, Paraguay, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Seychelles,
Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Tunisia,
Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Vanuatu, Yemen, Zimbabwe.
M2 Communications Ltd disclaims all liability for information provided
within M2 PressWIRE. Data supplied by named party/parties. Further
information on M2 PressWIRE can be obtained at http://www.presswire.net on
the world wide web. Inquiries to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Copyright 1994-2001 M2 COMMUNICATIONS LTD
Copyright © 2001, M2 Communications Ltd., all rights reserved.
You may now print or save this document.
Crea y administra tus propias listas de correo gratuitas, en español.