Statement by Katy Lin, Third Secretary, Permanent Mission of Australia, to the tenth meeting of the United Nations Open-ended Informal Consultative Process on Oceans and the Law of the Sea
Thursday 18 June 2009
(As delivered)
The task of this meeting is to analyse the achievements and shortcomings of UNICPOLOS over the past 9 years. We need to assess constructively what has worked and what can be improved and thus facilitate deliberations I the context of the mandate that UNICPOLOS has, and the wider mandate of the General Assembly.
In Australia’s view, the Consultative Process has a number of valuable functions which are not fulfilled by other processes in the UN system. When UNICPOLOS has functioned well, it has proven its value. The consultative Process will need to consider how this value can be consistently achieved, and how shortcomings can be addressed.
Australia considers UNICPOLOS to be the only forum within the UN system capable of addressing the multiplicity of oceans issues, from an oceans conservation, management, and sustainable use perspective, as well as from a law of the sea perspective. This is clear in UNGA Resolution 54/33 which establishes the mandate for the Consultative Process.
This mandate is to provide recommendations that promote coordination and cooperation on oceans and law of the sea issues to the General Assembly. Australia supports this mandate which is sufficiently broad to allow discussion of oceans issues in a manner that is compatible with sustainable development. The current mandate allows cross-sectoral issues to be discussed and moved forward.
The strengths of the Consultative Process are that it:
1. has the capacity to consider new and emerging issues
2. can operate across sectors and accommodate a wide range of interests
3. is capable of engaging government and non-government actors
4. has a particular emphasis on improving coordination and cooperation at the intergovernmental and UN inter-agency levels with the potential for very practical outcomes.
These matters are particularly important given that integrated and ecosystem based management continues to be developed as modern approaches in global and domestic oceans management.
UNICPOLOS’s informal nature provides for engagement not only with governments but with a range of non-government experts such as industry, academics, scientists, intergovernmental and non-governmental organisations. Involvement of these other stakeholders has informed and enriched the ICP, and is a tangible example of engagement with civil society, and being informal, this also remains an area where improvements can continue to be made.
UNICPOLOS can benefit from more considered discussion about relevant future topics – and perhaps the Consultative Process can, as a standing item, consider future topics and make a recommendation on an annual basis about its possible future topics to the General Assembly.
The annual resolutions on oceans and law of the sea have been better informed by ICP debates and outputs. The Consultative Process is the only forum for facilitating cross-sectoral discussions on key ocean management issues arising from implementation of UNCLOS and informs deliberations and decisions of UNGA.
Early in its development, the Consultative Process was part of a growing global awareness of the need to considering oceans and fisheries in an integrated way. For example, in 2000 the need for responsible fisheries and the issue of IUU (Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated) Fishing was discussed. The Consultative Process helped provide momentum for the development of the FAO’s International Plan of Action for IUU Fishing which was adopted in 2001.
In 2005 the topic of fisheries and their contribution to sustainable development was discussed. This added impetus to an ongoing effort to close gaps in international legal arrangements aiming to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing and negotiations are on foot on an Agreement on Port State Measures to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU Fishing.
Another key topic in which Australia considers that UNIPOLOS has furthered global debate and policy making is in the area of marine biological diversity beyond areas of national jurisdiction and the establishment of the UN Ad-hoc Working Group on Biological Diversity Beyond National Jurisdiction. This lead to the General Assembly resolution setting up the Ad Hoc Open-ended Informal Working Group on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity beyond areas of national jurisdiction and to Resolution 61/105 on Sustainable Fisheries.
To move debate forward, Australia would like to encourage discussion of how the potential benefits of UNICPOLOS could be more consistently achieved. Our assessment is that the ICP could benefit from a greater proportion of capital-based oceans experts from a broad range of countries. The method for determining topics can also be improved, and we have outlined our suggestion in this regard and would welcome others.
The outputs of the UNICPOLOS process can be better focussed by asking how can we ensure recommendations can contribute to targeted UNGA resolutions. Perhaps the negotiation of general outputs or a move towards a co-chair’s report for use in the informal consultations on the oceans and the law of the sea and fisheries resolutions could be considered. UNICPOOS may also have a useful role to play in reviewing responses throughout the UN system and among States to UNGA resolutions and such reviews could inform the content of future topics.