PROVISIONAL SUMMARY RECORD OF THE SEVENTEENTH MEETING

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070017-2
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 16
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 4, 2001
• Sequence Number: 17
• Publication Date: August 29, 1974
• Content Type: SUMMARY

Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070017-2
UNITED NATIONS
THIRD CONFERENCE.
ON THE LAW OF THE SEA
PROVISIONAL
For artici Bents only
A/CONF.62/C.3/SR.l7
29 August 197+
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
Second Session
THIRD COMMITTEE
PROVISIONAL SUMMARY RECORD OF THE SEVEN EETH MATING
Held at the Pargue Central, Caracas,
on Tuesday, 27 August 1974, at 11 a.m.
Chairman: Mr. YANKOV
Rjteur: Mr. HASSAN
Preservation of the marine environment (continued)
Scientific research (continued)
Statements by the Chairmen of informal meetings
Draft statement of activities
Statement by the Chairman
Bulgaria
Sudan
Corrections to this record should be submitted in one of the four working languages
(English, French, Russian or Spanish), preferably in the same language as the text to
which they refer. Corrections should be sent in aus.dnnlicat_e within fifteen working
days to the Chief of the Official Records Editing Section, Department of Conference
Services, room. LX-2332, United Nationp., New York, N.Y. lO017, USA.,,- and also. into oreted
in one copy of the record.
AS THIS RECORD WAS DISTRIBUTED ON =a :P+'. 1974, THE TIME-LIMIT YOR CORRECTIONS
WILL BE 23 SEPTET mER 1974. 17
The co-operation of participants in strictly observing this time-limit would be
greatly appreciated.
CONTENTS
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070017-2
 A/CONF.62/C.314p1ploved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070017-2
English
Page 2
PRESERVATION OF THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT (A/CONF.62/C.3/L.18) (continued)
Mr. TRESSELT (Norway) said that the purpose of his delegation's working paper
(A/CONF.62/C.3/L.1$) was to draw attention to the problem which arose when human
activities disturbed the ecological balance of marine environments not through pollution,
but by the introduction of living organisms not previously existing in the seas or by
the transfer of a form of marine life to an area where the implications of its existence
were unknown. The discovery in 1973 on the south coast of England of a new type of
seaweed which appeared to have extraordinary properties of growth and unpredictable
effects for existing marine life had lent urgency to the issue. The origins of that
development seemed to have been accidental, but commercial enterprises had planned
similar transfers of marine plant life in order to ensure the availability of raw
material for the kelp-processing industry.
The effects of such interference with the natural balance of the marine environment
were unpredictable and might be awesome. In the working paper, his delegation had
formulated a tentative treaty provision as a means of focusing attention on the legal
aspects of the subject, and thought that the Committee should consider the problem at
the next session. The language used in the paper would of course permit the developmen'
of controlled undertakings in aquaculture and experimental research. On the other hand
if there was any uncertainty about the effects of interference with the natural state o
the marine environment, the State concerned should consult with other interested States
and the appropriate international organizations.
He wished to emphasize that the issue was separate from that of the pollution of
the marine environment and that the introduction of new species through sewage or
run-offs from land should be dealt with by the provisions for the prevention of polluti
His delegation's aim was to stimulate discussion on an important subject which might sc
far have been drowned in the more immediate worries about marine pollution. Its concer
had already been reflected in the preparatory work of the Sea-Bed Committee: the
Maltese proposal (A/AC.138/SC.III/L.33) included a provision for the maintenance of
the natural state of the marine environment.
Pdlss MARIAJI (Fran.:e) suggested that the three references to "species" in
the working paper should be qualified by the adjectives "plant or animal".
The CHALRM:AN observed that the English interpretation could not be heard
because of a technical malfunction. He suggested that the Committee should move to
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070017-2
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300070017-2
A/CONF.62
English
page 3
G.3/BR-17
Mr_GAMBOA (Chile) said that it had unfortunately. been inposs .thle to, introduce
the document concerning I the establishment of regional bodies responsible for providing
assistance in case of accidents resulting in pollution of the marine environment, to
which he had referred at a previous meeting, in time for it to be discussed at the
present session. It would however be circulated before the. end of the session*'and
could be discussed at the next session.
SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH (A/CONF.62/C.3/L.19) (continued)
Mr. WALKATE (Netherlands)' noted that the sponsors of the draft 'articles on
marine scientific research (A/CONF.62/C.3/L.19) came from all parts of the world, and
represented both geographically disadvantaged States and geographically advantaged
coastal States and both developing and developed countries. ''That fact showed that it
was possible to find common ground even before embarking on further negotiations.
The definition appearing in article 1 had been taken from paper No. 4 of Working
Group No. 3 of the Sea-,Bed Committee, a text which had been reintroduced with slight
drafting changes as document CRP/SC.Res./2. Exploration and exploitation had been
excluded from the scope of~the draft articles because the sponsors wished to secure an
adequate r6girae for pure scientific research. Marine scientists should not be unduly
restrained in their quest for knowledge; knowledge of the sea was no less vital for the
future of mankind than knowledge of the land. In order to strike a balance between the
interests of pure scientific research and the interests of States, the draft articles
stated as a matter of principle the right of all States and appropriate international
organizations to conduct marine scientific research on an equal basis. However, the
exercise of that right by the State or organization conducting the research was subject
to the conditions set forth in article 5 and in article 6, paragraph 1; the coastal
State's interests justified its right to participate directly or indirectly in research
projects. On the other hand, neighbouring geographically disadvantaged States had an
equal interest in scientific research projects; article 6, paragraph 2, provided for
their right to be offered the opportunity of participating in projects. The essence of
pure science was the availability of the results of scientific research; thus, article 6.
* Subsequently circulated as document A/CONF.62/C.3/L.21.
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300070017-2
 A/CONF.62/C.3/8$pP-oved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070017-2
English
Page 4
(Mr. Walkate, Netherlands)
paragraph 3, imposed an obligation on the State or organization conducting the research
to ensure the publication of the results. His delegation regretted that during the
informal meetings on item s.13 and l1 there had been no time for-a full discussion of
procedures for the settlement'of disputes - amatter referred to in article 6,
paragraph 5.
Article 8 dealt with international co-operation; the sponsors had taken as a basis
the text agreed in the informal meetings on items 13 and 14. The issue of international
co-operation should not be controversial.
Mr. FITZ (Austria) said that as a land-locked country, Austria had
participated in the formulation of the draft articles (A/CONF.62/C.3/L.19) from the very
beginning and believed that they merited close examination by the Committee. They
represented the best attempt so far to reconcile the conflicting interests of the
research States, the coastal States and the geographically disadvantaged States.
The draft articles respected the right to conduct pure scientific research beyond
the territorial sea. The sponsors believed that principle should be included in the
Convention not simply to accommodate the desires of the research States but-to ensure -
the best conditions for scientific research. They were convinced that the right to
conduct scientific research was vital for the economic progress of all mankjnd but that
it ought not to be unlimited and unconditional. The right deserved to be safeguarded
only if the research was of a purely scientific character. The coastal State was
therefore entitled to monitor the conduct research in the area where it had special
rights and the sponsors relied on all the States concerned to ensure that pure scientifi
research was not used as a pretext for other activities. The monitoring function of the
coastal State presupposed its close association with the research project. The researcl
State must therefore notify the coastal State of proposed projects, and the coastal
State had the right to participate in the project and have access, to all data and
samples.
The geographically disadvantaged States not only had the right to conduct scientifi
research but must also be notified of a project planned for the area in which a
neighbouring coastal State had special rights. They were entitled to receive the same
information as the coastal State and to be offered the opportunity to participate in the
project.
The draft articles were not perfect but they did represent a sound basis for
compromise: none of the sponsors, whether research States, coastal States or
geographically disadvantaged States, had insisted on the complete satisfaction of their
individual inter proved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070017-2 /. .
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070017-2
A/CONF.62/C, 3/SL.17
English
Page 5
Mr. JAIN (India) said that the sponsors of the draft articles Were not in
fact a representative group;, they were mainly, the delegations of land-locked' and
research States; the delegations: of coastal States were clearly under-represented-
Indeed, the draft articles laid down principles concerning the coastal. states which had
been drafted without their-participation.
He thought that the . distinction made in article l between pure and applied research
was not valid ; , surely the same sets. of data could be used.-.for commercial as' well as for
other purposes. The,.period of advance notification provided for in article 6,
paragraph.1 (a), would ensure nothing more than the absolute freedom of scientific
research.., His delegation. could accept article 6, paragraph's, if the procedures for the
settlement of disputes proved to~be similar to. those provided for in the United. Nations
Charter, but it could not accept that the coastal State should be required to submit to
compulsory third party arbitration where scientific research in its economic.zoe was
He noted that several of the sponsors of the draft articles were members of the
Group of 71, on whose behalf the representative of Colombia had introduced draft
articles (A/CONF.62/C'.3/L.13) setting forth positions opposed to those stated in the
draft articles now under consideration.
He wished it to'be shown In the records that his country had become a sponsor of
the draft articles on the development and transfer of technology'(A/C0NF.62/C.3/L.12).
Mr':' ZULETA (Colombia) - said that the majority of the members of the Group of 77
had asked him to state that the drat articles referred to by the representative of
India (A/C0NF'.62/C.3/L.13) still reflected the consensus of the Group.
His own delegation could not see that the draft articles now under consideration
shed any light on the problems of marine scientific research.
Mr. MBOTE (Kenya) agreed with the representative of India that the draft
articles in documentA/CONF.62/C.3/L.19 were not representative.
He challenged the sponsors to say how they proposed to-give effect to the
distinction which they claimed to be able to make between pure and applied research,
for that was the very basis of their proposals. The sponsors, should also specify what
they meant by "the right to conduct marine scientific research" referred to in
article 2. ,
/.
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070017-2
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070017-2
A/CONF.62/C.3fSR.17
English
Page 6
(Mr. Mbote, Kenya)
The sponsors clearly supported the freedom of scientific research beyond the
territorial sea. He asked them to explain how the land-locked countries, which were
usually among the least developed countries, were to benefit from that freedom.
There was no mention of any arrangements under which coastal States allowing other
States to carry out scientific research could enter into bilateral agreements with them.
The Organization of African Unity had taken up a clear position on that point: the
coastal State should allow the nationals of land-locked countries to share in the
exploitation of resources on an equal basis, in accordance with bilateral agreements.
The sponsors appeared unwilling to admit that possibility even where only scientific
research was concerned. He did not see how research could be undertaken in the various
sea areas without bilateral agreements.
Mr. BOHTE (Yugoslavia) said that he regretted that the draft articles in
document A/C0NF.62/C.3/L.19, the sponsorship of which was very broadly based, had not
been circulated earlier. His delegation had not yet been able to give them detailed
consideration since they had only just been circulated. It would like to comment on
them more fully at a later stage.
The CHAIRMAN explained that document A/COu.62/C.3/L.19 had not been
distributed earlier because of the Secretariat's heavy workload.
Mr. RASOLONDRAIBE (Madagascar) announced that his delegation wished to become
a sponsor of document A/CONF.62/C.3/L.12.
Turning to document A/CONFF.62/C.3/L.19, he said that his delegation opposed the
regime of noti'ication laid down in article 6, paragraph 1 (a). However, the most
important aspect of the draft was the coastal State's right to participate directly or
indirectly in research projects (article 6, paragraph 1 (d)). Under that article, the
developing countries would have the right to take part in the research operations
organized by a limited number of technologically advanced countries. Nevertheless, his
delegation believed that in the 200-mile economic zone the situation should be reversed:
the developing coastal States must promote organized scientific research and it would be
for them to invite others to take part in it.
For his delegation, there was no question of embodying in the future convention the
assumption that the technologically under-developed countries should remain so. His
delegation had very serious reservations on the draft articles in document
A/CONF.62/C.3/L.19 and it urged other delegations to consider their position on them.
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070017-2 /?
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070017-2
A/C0NF.62/0.3/SR.17
English
Page 7
Mr. MOLTENI (Argentina) endorsed the views expressed by the representatives of
India, Kenya and Yugoslavia.
Although document A,/CONF...62/C.3/L.13 had been subinitte.''by the delegation of
Colombia alone, the ideas in it were shared by many developing countries, which considered
that marine scientific research required the prior agreement of the coastal State
concerned.
His delegation did not agree with article 6,.paragraph-2`, of document
A/CONF.62/C.3/L.19, which provided for special rights for.the land-locked and
geographically disadvantaged countries in the economic zone. But the country that
exercised, the rights in that zone was the coastal State; the only way that other States
could take part in marine scientific research there.would be by-participating in such
activities as the coastal State itself promoted.
He reserved his delegation's right to return to the matter at the next session of
the Conference..
Mr. HUSSAZN (Pakistan) supported the views of the representatives of Colombia
and India concerning. document A/CONF.62/C.3/L.19. =
His delegation'was opposed to the views expressed in that document, particularly in
articles 1, 6 and 7, and believed that any marine scientific research activity in the
area beyond the territorial sea should be carried out only with the explicit consent of
the coastal State concerned. Moreover, the question of the jurisdiction and rights of
the coastal and land-locked States it the economic zone had still'to be decided by the
Second Committee.
His delegation would favour a r?gime of consent as proposed in A/CONF.62/C.3/L.13,
and it reserved thex~ight to return to the matter at the next session of the Conference.
Mr. FITZ (Austria), replying to the criticisms of document A/CONF.62/C.3/L.19
voiced by the representative of Kenya and others, explained that the sponsors did not
claim to represent all geographical and special interest groups. Nevertheless, a
sizeable number of States had endorsed the views expressed in that document.
He agreed with. the representative of Kenya that it was indeed very difficult to
define pure scientific research, and the sponsors had not approached the matter
light-heartedly. However, clear-cut concepts were not always possible in international
relations.'- The States concerned must try to reach agreement'on whether a given project
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070017-2
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070017-2
A/CONF.62/C.3/SR.17
English
Page 8
(Mr. Fitz, Austria)
fell under the heading of pure or applied science. If they could not agree, they shoulr
have recourse to the machinery laid down in article 6, paragraph 5, of the document.
Mr. YU (Singapore) welcomed the view of the Netherlands and Austrian
representatives that document A/CONF.62/C.3/L.19, of which his delegation was a sponsor
was a sincere attempt to find a common approach that would take account not only of the
position of coastal and research States but also of the land-locked and geographically
disadvantaged countries, particularly those without facilities for marine scientific
research.
His delegation was increasingly concerned at the trend of the Committee's
discussions, which had been conducted almost exclusively between coastal and research
States; the interests of the land-locked and geographically disadvantaged States in
marine scientific research and its applicability to them seemed to have been ignored.
It also regretted the implicit assumption made by some delegations that the land-locked
and geographically disadvantaged States would be for ever unable to conduct marine
scientific research or utilize its results. Moreover, his delegation was sorry that
specific mention had been made of certain sponsors of document A/CONF.62/C.3/L.19.
In that connexion he recalled that foot-note 1 to document A/CONF.62/C.3/L.13, mad
it clear that the members of the Group of 77 would not be bound by its provisions and t
their final position was not committed by it. Since its country's interests were by no
means sufficiently reflected in that document which in fact took account of only one
viewpoint, his delegation had felt itself duty-bound to co-sponsor document
A/CONF.62/C.3/L.19, which was not a negotiating paper reflecting the bargaining positio
of the sponsors, but a realistic attempt to lay the foundation for a common position
accommodating the rights and interests of all States.
Mr. RUFAIM (Libyan Arab Republic) supported the views expressed by the
representatives of India, Kenya and others regariing 4ncument A/CONF.62/C.3/L.19.
His delegation could not accept the notification system, but it insisted on prior
consent by the coastal State concerned, without which no marine scientific research
could be carried out in the area under national jurisdiction.
With respect to article 6 of the document, his country could not agree for securit
reasons to the publication of marine scientific research without the explicit consent c
the Co`1Sttri n+ _l- - erned. As far ec -ors ? I : - was c^T?Cr_,_F' . ; a ?-~-ber of t."-
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070017-2
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300070017-2
A/CONF.62/C.3/ Sf.17
English
Page 9
(Mr. Ruhain, Libyan Arab Republic)
Group of 77, his country felt that marine scientific research in the'international area
should be conducted by the international authority.
..In annex 1 to document- A/CONE.62/C '3/L.20,,. the name of his country, which was giVer,
as a sponsor of-document A/CONF.62/C.3/L.,12, should be the "Libyan Arab Republic" and
not "Libya"
Mr .LEROTHOLI (Lesotho) pointed out that foot--note 1 to document
A/CONF.62/C..3/L.13 read: "The delegate of:,Colombia,, as the Chairman:of the Group of 77:
while presenting..thist document, would like to point ;out that it represents the consensus
of the Group of 77 of the Third Committee, without connitting the final position of
members of the Group". Moreover, the explanatory note to document A/CONF.62/C.3/L.19
read as follows: "These,dr.aft articles do not necessarily represent the final position
of the sponsors on individual articles or on the draft as.a whole. Sponsorship does not
prejudice their position on previous or future draft proposals."
His delegation was absolutely loyal to'tne Group of 77 and would not seek to subjec
document A/CGNF.62/C,3/L.13 to ridicule. However, that document paid very little
attention to the interests of the land-locked and geographically disadvantaged States,
which had been included only as:an afterthought in paragraph.4. It was therefore
surprising that.some delegations considered it improper for those States to embody their
ideas in another document.
Some delegations had argued that since the Second Committee had not yet come to any
decision regarding the rights of the land-locked and geographically disadvantaged States
the matter should not be considered by the Third Committee. There was a serious
misunderstanding there:, no economic zone had yet been created for any country, and the
members of the'Third Committee could still express their views on how matters should be 1.1 arranged in that zone. He reserved his delegation's right to speak again on the matter
if necessary.
LI,EY-MORGAN (Sierra .Leone) announced. that his delegation had joined the
sponsors of document A/CONF.62/C.3/L.12.
He reserved his delegations right to comment on document A/CONF.62/C.3/L.19 at
a later date.
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300070017-2
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070017-2
A/CONF. 62/C. 3/SR.17
Eglish
Page 10
Mr. COLLINS (Liberia) thanked the Sing&pore representative for having given
the reasons for his delegation's sponsorship of document A/CONF.62/C.3/L.19. That
paper had met with a great deal of resistance from members of the Croup of 77. His
delegation had noted, however, that the draft articles did not necessarily represent
the final position of the sponsors. He agreed with the remarks made by the
representatives of the Netherlands and Austria and supported the position of the
representative of Lesotho.
Mr. FITZ (Austria) apologized to the Yugoslavian representative for
having misunderstood his remark. He had merely wished to indicate that the document
had received wide support from States in all continents.
Mr. ZULETA TORRES (Colombia) drew the Committee's attention to paragraph 4
of document A/CONF.62/C.3/L.13 and informed it that the proposals referred to would
be circulated for the Committee's information if it so desired.
Mr. VALLARTA (Mexico), Chairman of the informal meetings on item 12, said
that documents A/COiNF.62/C.3/L.14 and A/CONF.62/C.3/L.15 were self-explanatory.
However, the words "your excell?ncy" which had appeared in the first paragraph of the
Spanish original had been omitted in the English and French translations and he
hoped that the Rapporteur would correct that error in his report.
14r. METTERNICH (Federal Republic of Germany), Chairman of the informal
meetings on items 13 and 14, introducing the note on the activities of those informal
meetings (A/CONF.62/C.3/L.l6) and the annex containing relevant texts (A/CONF.62/C.3/L.
said that those documents, as Conference Boom Papers Nos. 41 and 42, had been discusses'
at the informal meeting on 22 August 1971+ and had subsequently been modified in the
light of the suggestions made at that meeting. They endeavoured to convey a concise,
factual, and non-controversial picture of the work done at those meetings. There
had been lively discussions both at the informal meetings and in the open-ended
drafting and consultation group. The interest shown in the items was keen, as could
be seen from the number of proposals submitted. It had been clear from the outset
that the work should be directed towards agreeing on common text or, if that was
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070017-2
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070017-2
A/CONF.62/C.3/SR.17
English
Page 11
(Mr. Metternich, Federal Republic of German-r
impossible, to consolidating texts into clear-cut alternatives. One problem was that
many of the points under consideration had not been discussed in the Sea-Bed Committee.
The meetings had,'however, succeeded in drafting common texts o n general principles
and on international co-operation,-including publication of scientific data. On the
crucial points "right to conduct marine scientific research" and "consent, participatioi
and obligations of coastal States", various alternative approaches had been consolidates`
On other points, the proposals introduced had been recorded and would be discussed in
greater depth at the later stage. The informal meetings had therefore created a basis
of work on marine scientific research which would certainly prove very useful
at the next session of the Conference.
Owing to,lack of time, the informal meetings had not been able to consider the
development and transfer of technology and no proposals had been introduced. Since
texts had been submitted to the Committee in the meantime, the matter would have to be
taken up at the next session, but without losing sight of the momentum-gained in the
work on scientific research.
Mr. SE iV'ING (Sweden) supported the suggestion made by the representative'
of Italy at a previous meeting that the Conference Room Papers on'item 12, which had
been introduced but not, considered at the informal meetings,, should be circulated as
an addendum to document A/CONF.62/C.3/L.14. It would be very helpful to.,delegations
when seeking the advice of experts before the next session,to,have all the pending
texts collected together in one document. The appendix might be entitled "Conference
Room Papers containing proposals or. amendments informally introduced but not yet
considered by the drafting and negotiating group of the informal meetings on item 12".
The_CHAIRil said that in the absence of any objection he would.take.it that
the Committee wished such an appendix to be circulated.
It was so decided.
Mr._JAIN (India) suggested that it would be helpful if studies could be made
by competent international organizations on two matters of crucial importance which
the Committee had not.had time to discuss. fully. at the current session. Firstly, if
the Committee agreed,: the Chairman might request the representative-of IMCO to prepare
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070017-2
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300070017-2
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.17
English
Page 12
Jain, India)
a study defining the precise areas under the jurisdiction of coastal States where those
States had fishery or other economic interests, so that that protection could be
focused on them and navigation in other areas remain unhampered. Secondly, many
developing countries had expressed misgivings during the informal discussions as to
their ability to comply with an absolute obligation to monitor pollution control and
many delegations had suggested that a proportion of the sums spent by a country
on pollution-producing activities should be devoted to pollution control. He
wondered if the representative of UNEP could prepare a study on that matter for
submission at the next session.
car. tikNVSA:I (Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization) said that
IMCO would be able to collect the required information and make it available to
the next session of the Conference.
Mr. KOVALE''V (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) said that his delegation
was unable to support the request for the study by IMCO because the Committee was
asking that organization to study the possible implications of measures upon which
full agreement had not been reached.
Mr. SII14S (United Kingdom) said that his delegation also had reservations
about that proposal, which he was not sure fell within the competence of INCO. It
could be included in the agenda of the forthcoming meeting of the Marine Environment
Protection Committee but he felt that at least one other specialized agency - the
Food and Agricultural Organization - was also concerned.
I-tr. LEROTHOLI (Lesotho) reminded the Committee that even the question of
the territorial sea had not yet been defined by the Conference and the request to
RICO seemed also to include the new concept of an area beyond that zone over which
the coastal State might have some jurisdiction. While the proposal might be a useful
one at the appropriate moment, he considered it premature pending some decision on
those issues.
Mr. JAIN (India) said that the proposal had been intended not only to
protect the interests of the coastal State but also to help international navigation.
However, since it had met with opposition, he would withdraw it.
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300070017-2
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070017-2
A/CONF.62/C.3/SR.17
English
Page 13
The CHAIRMAN invited the Committee to comment on the second study proposed by
the Indian representative.
Mr. ARMED (United Nations Environment Programme -'UNEP) speaking at the
invitation of the Chairman, said he understood that the Indian representative would
like UNEP to make a study on the comparative costs of the environment component of
projects 'which might.cause.marine pollution. Speaking as a legal, not a technical,
expert, he said that it.would be difficult for UNEP to prepare specific propceals or
figures, since costs differed from area.to'area and from country'to country and it
would be necessary to have information on the present and future economic development
plans of the different countries. He assumed that the Indian representative was
concerned about the capacity of developing. countries to assume obligations to monitor
pollution and wished to gain some idea of the cost .. to. individual developing countries.
He suggested that the best solution would be for UNEP to be asked to submit to
the next session of the Conference a detailed explanation of its G obal r 1
Monitoring System. Delegations would then be able to ascertain what was expected of
their Governments under the'system and to discuss whether joint or individual
obligations could be accepted or whether their countries would co-operate with
international organizations.
Mr. JAIN (India) said that the type of study suggested by the UNEP
representative would be extremely useful and he would be prepared to modify his
suggestion accordingly. He would welcome the views of other representatives.
The CHAIRMAN suggested that the Committee should request UNEP to submit
for consideration'by the Committee at the next session of the Conference a detailed
study on the Global Environmental Monitoring System, containing an account of how
the system worked and all the relevant implications.
It was so a reed.
DRAFT STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES (A/CONF.62/C.3/L.20)
Mr. ItASSAN (Sudan), Rapporteur, introduced the draft statement of activities
of the Committee (document A/CONF.62/C.3/L.20) and drew attention to the following
correction: in section V, paragraph 10, the first word of line 9 should read
"alternatives". He had noted the Libyan Arab Republic's correction to
document A/CONT. 62/C. 3/L.12.
/...
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070017-2
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300070017-2
A/CORF.62/C.3/0.17
English
Page 14
(Mr. Hassan, Sudan)
As agreed by the Committee, in accordance with the General Committee's
recommendation, the document was a brief and concise account of the Committee's
activities. In that connexion he drew attention to the explanatory note in paragraph 1
and to paragraph 4.
In accordance with the General Committee's recommendations on brevity of reports,
the notes on the informal meetings - referred to in paragraph 10 - had been issued in
the series under the symbol A/CONF'.62/C.3/L.... The only annex to the report would
therefore be a list of the formal proposals presented to the Committee at the present
session.
The CHAIRMAN said that, in accordance with the procedure agreed on by the
General Committee, no formal approval of the draft statement was needed, but comments
by members of the Committee could be recorded.
Mr. DAHNOUCHE (Algeria) said that the wording of the second sentence of
paragraph 11, in particular the word "recommends", seemed to imply a doubt whether the
Committee would in fact hold another session.
Mrs OLE (Lesotho) suggested that all that was needed was an expression
of the Committee's intention to continue its work and to complete the task assigned to
it under its terms of reference.
He also asked for an explanation of the reason for including the quotation in
paragraph 5.
Mr. PASS-AN (Sudan), Rapporteur, referring to the comment of the Algerian
representative, said that he. would modify the wording of paragraph 11 to make the
position clear.
With regard to the point raised by the representative of Lesotho, he said that
the quotation in paragraph 5 of the understanding reached in the Sea-Bed Committee was
taken from the note to the Conference's decision on the allocation of items
(A/CONF.62/29,p. 8). That decision was referred to in paragraph 4 of the draft
statement of the Committee's activities. That understanding had been reached as the
result of arduous and painstaking negotiations and had been accepted in its entirety
by all the Committees.
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300070017-2
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070017-2
A/CONF.62/C.3/'SRa7
English
Page 15
The CHAIEI!AN drew attention to the last paragraph of the note on page 8 of
document A/COiF.62/29: "It is therefore recommended that the same understanding
should be carried forward in respect of the Main Committees of the Conference,
preliminary to the adoption of the pertinent final provisions of the Conference." If
there were no further comments, he would assume that all members of the Committee were
satisfied with the explanation.
STATI WT BY THE CHAII MM
The gHA_MMN said that, with the end of the session approaching, he would not
make any attempt to appraise the substance of the Committee's work; nor would he
attempt to commit members of the Committee to any conclusions. He wished to make a
kind of persona], summing up and to express his views mainly on the Committee's future
work.
In the first place, he felt that the procedural arrangements adopted had proved
correct and efficient and should be followed at the next session. That would mean
holding informal and formal meetings on item 12 and on items 13 and 14+ - though
procedures could be improved at the next session in the light of progress.
In the limited time available - 11 and 10 informal meetings respectively on
item 12 and items 13 and ].l, and only 17 formal meetings - good progress had been made.
At the next session the Committee should'start work immediately on items 12 and 13 and
lk where it had left off, without any general debate.
He had been gratified at the businesslike approach and the co-operation and mutual
understanding, all of which had been important in the negotiation process. There had
been a growing desire and readiness for mutual accommodation which he was confident
would continue at the next session. The Committee had advanced in its endeavour to
prepare the main elements of an umbrella treaty, but serious work would now be needed
to prepare the draft articles which would form the body of the draft convention.
However, there were several important problems still outstanding. In his own
opinion, the main problem on which the Committee had to concentrate was the scope and
extent of coastal State jurisdiction and the rights and duties of other States, in
respect of both marine pollution control and scientific research.
There seemed to be general agreement on the method of work for consideration of
questions relating to standards, jurisdiction and enforcement (A/C0NF.62/C.3/L.ll, p. 2)
That augured well for future discussions.
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070017-2 /.
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070017-2
A/CONF.62/C_3/SR.17
English
Page 16
(The Chairman)
On the preservation of the marine environment, some progress had been made in
formulating States' obligations and iigh'tsto exploit their own resources, but there
were still alternatives on some of those issues. There were also many other important
issues. At its next session the Committee would have to consider very carefully the
distinction between staadard-setting and enforcement measures
Regarding scientific research, some texts had been agreed upon at informal
meetings on general principles and on global co-operation, as set forth in
document A/CONF.62/C.3/L.17. There were mare problems outstanding for the next session
and a number of alternative texts indicating possible areas of agreement and also some
informal texts which had not yet been fully studied.
With regard to the development, acquisition and transfer of technology, only tyro
working papers had been submitted so far, namely documents A/CONF.62/C.3/L.8 and L.12,
the latter containing most of the elements of the former. In that subject, which was
less controversial, the Committee should concentrate on preparing draft articles.
There was much work to be done before the next session. The papers produced at
the present session and all the relevant papers submitted to the Sea-Bed Committee
must be studied, so that members would be prepared for a new stage of negotiations,
before and during the next session.
Mr. SANDERS (Guyana) asked that the Chairman's statement should be reported
in detail in the summary record.
It was so decided
After an exchange of courtesies the Chairman dared that the Third Committee
had completed its work for the_,seaelcn.
The meeting rose at 2.05 2,i.
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070017-2