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,