BlogsEventsFeaturesImage galleriesMediaMFAT speeches2006200720082009201020112012Media contact informationMedia updateMinisters releasesPublications
I would like to offer you the congratulations of the New Zealand delegation on your role as President of this important meeting. You have the assurance that the New Zealand delegation is ready to cooperate with you throughout the course of this week.
I would like to thank the Chairman of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) for his statement this afternoon.
As the Chair of the CLCS said in his statement, New Zealand presented its continental shelf submission to the Commission on 19 April this year. Our delegation of experts will attend the 18th session of the Commission in August and September to present our submission in person and to participate in its consideration by the Commission.
In this context, as a new submitting State, New Zealand would like to offer comment on the questions of the Commission’s rules of procedure, on the burgeoning workload of the Commission, and on how States Parties might respond to projections made by the Commission about the length of time members may need to spend at Commission and subcommission meetings in New York.
Bearing in mind the Commission’s role, we would expect the occasions of significant differences of opinion between the subcommission and the submitting State to be rare.
Nevertheless, the subcommission’s recommendations do have significant implications for submitting States and it is therefore appropriate that the process of the subcommission’s deliberations is as interactive and open and transparent as possible.
We are happy that the Commission has taken account of the views expressed by States at the 15th session of the Conference on States Parties last year on the question of interaction between the Commission and the submitting State and on the rules of procedure of the Commission. New Zealand welcomes the statements on these points in the Chairman’s statements on the work of the 16th and 17th sessions of the Commission.
We believe that the agreement reached on a consistent practice of interaction between the subcommission and the submitting State, as reflected in the amendments to the rules of procedure contained in CLCS/50, will benefit both parties. In our view, the most important elements of that practice are
Firstly, recognition that the submitting State may also take the initiative to call for meetings with the subcommission;
Secondly, confirmation that at an advanced stage of its examination of the submission the subcommission will provide the submitting State with a comprehensive presentation of its view and general conclusions, and that the submitting State will have an opportunity and reasonable time to respond to those views; and
Thirdly, the expectation that the subcommission will have due regard to the submitting State’s response when finalizing its recommendations to the Commission.
We look forward to assisting the Commission as it considers the New Zealand submission on that basis.
At the same time as placing high priority on the need for a transparent and interactive process by the Commission, New Zealand is concerned at the projections regarding the Commission’s burgeoning workload and the implications of those projections.
In particular, New Zealand shares the view that the CLCS must continue to be able to attract the highest quality experts. My country considers that the increasing workload o future submissions will require the CLCS to look at more efficient ways of working.
New Zealand considers that several suggestions already made are worthy of further consideration. For example, further consideration should be given to the pros and cons of allowing more work to be done by subcommission members intersessionally. Also, New Zealand considers that consideration might be given to the sustainable level of scrutiny the Commission can continue to give to each submission.
On the question of expenses of Commission members, New Zealand encourages increased use of the existing trust fund, both by contributing and benefiting States.
Finally, I refer to the statement made by the distinguished representative of Papua New Guinea and reiterate his comment that each of the members of the PIF are doing their utmost to progress their projects in relation to the Commission’s work. I take this opportunity to advise that, thanks to support received from international and regional partners, all members of the Pacific Islands Forum are expected to have completed at least the first phase of their projects by the end of this year.
Members of our regional group are at varying stages in their work. Concerns do indeed exist, as mentioned by our colleague from Papua New Guinea, that the extended deadline of 2009 is approaching quickly for some States. Nonetheless, Pacific Islands Forum members are continuing to do their utmost to progress their work as expeditiously as possible.
