CONTINENTAL SHELF SUBMISSIONS: THE RECORD TO DATE

Transcription

1 1 OUTLINE OF PRESENTATION Ron Macnab Geological Survey of Canada (Retired) CONTINENTAL SHELF SUBMISSIONS: THE RECORD TO DATE Current continental shelf submissions Russia Brazil Australia Ireland New Zealand France Ireland - Spain UK Norway A commentary on the timing of future submissions SOURCES OF INFORMATION SUBMISSION DATES YEAR FORMAL: the DOALOS website topics in the public record INFORMAL: exchanges with knowledgeable parties topics off the public record RUSSIA BRAZIL AUSTRALIA IRELAND NEW ZEALAND FRANCE IRELAND SPAIN UK NORWAY RUSSIA S SUBMISSION (1) RUSSIA S SUBMISSION (2) 1

2 REACTIONS TO RUSSIAN SUBMISSION RUSSIA S SUBMISSION: COMMENTS CANADA DENMARK JAPAN NORWAY USA INSUFFICIENT DATA TO ASSESS AREA UNDER DISPUTE FAILS TEST OF APPURTENANCE Presented early - eight years prior to deadline. Extended shelf comprises four separate areas two in NW Pacific Ocean, two in Arctic Ocean. Attracted reactions from five States one consisted of a strong scientific rebuttal from the USA. Proposed outer limits in the Sea of Okhotsk and central Arctic Ocean not fully approved by CLCS. RUSSIA S RESPONSE A Flawed Process Some subcommission members lacked the necessary expertise and were overriden by two forceful associates whose views prevailed. Subcommission members noted the paucity of supporting data, but refused an invitation to visit Russia where they could review classified information. Members of the Russian team were admitted to several subcommission meetings, but were not allowed into a critical meeting of the Commission. - Remarks delivered by a senior Russian official during an International Conference in St. Petersburg, July 2003 BRAZIL S SUBMISSION REACTION TO BRAZIL S SUBMISSION BRAZIL S SUBMISSION: COMMENTS USA INSUFFICIENT DATA TO ASSESS FAILS TEST OF APPURTENANCE Extended shelf encompasses two separate areas off north and south Brazil. Characterized by volume and complexity of the data. Attracted one reaction from the USA, which was not [..] taken into consideration by the Commission. 2

3 AUSTRALIA S SUBMISSION AUSTRALIAN SUBMISSION: REACTIONS FRANCE GERMANY INDIA JAPAN NETHERLANDS RUSSIA TIMOR-LESTE USA WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO BILATERAL BOUNDARY NO RIGHT TO ANTARCTIC SHELF AUSTRALIAN SUBMISSION: COMMENTS IRELAND S SUBMISSION (PARTIAL) Extended shelf comprises ten separate areas, including an area off Antarctica. CLCS consideration of Antarctic shelf deferred for the time being. Voluminous and detailed, addressing variety of geological and tectonic frameworks. Very professional, raising the bar for other submitting States. REACTIONS TO IRELAND S SUBMISSION IRELAND S SUBMISSION: COMMENTS DENMARK ICELAND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO BILATERAL BOUNDARIES Partial submission encompasses a zone in the Porcupine Abyssal Plain. Perceived by Ireland to be non-prejudicial to interests of neighbouring States. No indication of when the remainder of the submission will be presented. 3

4 NEW ZEALAND S SUBMISSION REACTIONS TO NZ SUBMISSION FRANCE FIJI JAPAN NETHERLANDS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO BILATERAL BOUNDARY NO RIGHT TO ANTARCTIC SHELF NZ SUBMISSION: COMMENTS JOINT SUBMISSION: FR IR SP UK Targets four regions adjacent to primary landmass. Reserves right to include Antarctic shelf at a later date. Treaty negotiated with Australia for delimitation of overlapping shelf zones. Negotiations underway with Fiji and Tongo regarding delimitation of overlapping shelf zones. FR IR SP UK SUBMISSION: COMMENTS NORWAY S SUBMISSION Joint submission prepared collectively and collaboratively by France, Ireland, Spain, and the United Kingdom. Defines a zone seaward of the Bay of Biscay. Delimitation within the zone will be resolved by the four parties at a later date. Does not appear to infringe upon the interests of other coastal states. No reaction from other states. 4

5 NORWAY S SUBMISSION: REACTIONS NORWAY S SUBMISSION: COMMENTS DENMARK ICELAND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO BILATERAL BOUNDARIES Covers three zones: Loop Hole in the Barents Sea Western Nansen Basin in the Arctic Ocean Banana Hole in the Norwegian Sea Reserves the right to make future submissions on other areas. Refers to current or anticipated bilateral delimitations with neighbouring states: With Russia in Loop Hole With Greenland and Russia in Western Nansen Basin Agreed with Denmark, Faroes and Iceland in Banana Hole Subcommission yet to be appointed. THE PROBLEM OF TIMING STATUS OF CURRENT SUBMISSIONS STATUS OF CLCS SUBCOMMISSIONS CLCS TASK ALLOCATIONS One dormant Russia Five active Brazil Australia Ireland New Zealand France Ireland Spain UK One pending Norway 5

6 PROPOSED RESTRICTIONS For the sake of efficiency, and taking into account limited resources & 2009 deadline: Only three subcommissions will be active at any one time. A new subcommission will be established only when a current one has completed its work. Submissions will be considered strictly in the order in which they are received. Time limits might be set for the consideration of submissions. IN CONCLUSION Only nine States out of an estimated fifty or sixty have presented Article 76 submissions (four of these are partial submissions); none have reached the final stage. The CLCS will likely face a challenge in dealing with all anticipated submissions in a timely fashion prior to the 2009 deadline. Commission elections in March 2007 will impose a need to adjust the composition of Subcommissions whose members are not re-elected. Proposed new restrictions could delay the consideration of submissions, but without releasing coastal states from their obligation to meet submission deadlines. THANK YOU! 6