SECOND SESSION THIRD COMMITTEE PROVISIONAL SUMMARY RECORD OF THE FOURTH MEETING HELD AT THE PARQUE CENTRAL, CARACAS, ON TUESDAY, 16 JULY 1974, AT 3.25 P.M.

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070004-6
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 25
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 4, 2001
• Sequence Number: 4
• Publication Date: July 18, 1974
• Content Type: MIN

Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300070004-6
UNITED NATIONS
THIRD CONFERENCE
ON THE LAW OF THE SEA
Second Session
THIRD COMMITTEE
PROVISIONAL SUMMARY RECORD OF THE FOURTH MEETING
Held at the Parque Central, Caracas,
on Tuesday, 16 July 1974, at 3.25 P.m.
Chairman : Mr. YANKOV
CONTENTS
Bulgaria
Statements.on item 12 (preservation of the marine environment) and review of
the work of Sub..Committee III of the Sea-Bed Committee
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 quadruplicate within five working darrs
to the Chief, Documents Control, Room 9, Nivel Lecuna, Edificio Anauco, and also
incorporated in one copy of the record.
AS THIS RECORD WAS DISTRIBUTED ON 18 JULY 1974, THE TIME-LIMIT FOR CORRECTIONS,WILL
BE 25 JULY 1974.
The co-operation of participants in strictly observing this time-limit would be
greatly appreciated.
C-5177
PROVISIONAL
For participants only
A/CONF.62/C.3/SR.4
18 July 1974
ORIGINAL : ENGLISH
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300070004-6
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300070004-6
A/CONF.62/C.3/SR.1+
English
Page 2
STATEMENTS ON ITEM 12 (PRESERVATION OF THE MARINE EITVIROMIENT) AND REVIEW OF THE WORK OF
SUB-COMMITTEE III OF THE SEA-BED C0194ITTEE
Mr. COLLINS (Liberia) said that as a developing coastal State his country was
fully aware of the problems of marine pollution while appreciating the tremendous
relative cost of anti-pollution measures. As a maritime State Liberia recognized the
special responsibility of flag States to support and enforce the highest attainable
standards for inclusion in multinational agreements to combat marine pollution.
Such pollution was no longer a local problem: it was a global threat, requiring
truly international solutions. In dealing with it, unilateralism would be destructive.
Nevertheless, Liberia did not exclude the concept of specially sensitive ecological areas
of the oceans requiring special anti-pollution measures; such areas and the special
measures to be taken must, however, be determined internationally.
Liberia was not :opposed to the idea of coastal States being empowered to set
standards in excess of the requirements of multinational agreements for all vessels
traversing its internal waters, but thought that all parties to such agreements should
be bound to impose no other or further requirements for vessels of other parties
traversing the coastal State's territorial waters or entering its ports and harbours
open to international maritime commerce.
Finally, Liberia was not opposed to the concept of a coastal or port State
enforcing jurisdiction over marine pollution offences committed outside its territorial
waters; but it did believe that the primary responsibility for enforcement lay with the
flag State, and that coastal or port State jurisdiction should come into play only in
cases when the flag State failed to take action within a reasonable time. If the flag
State had in fact initiated action no other action should be permitted unless and until
it had been determined according to the agreed mechanism for international dispute
settlement that the flag State action was inadequate.
Considerable progress had been made in the last seven years on the problems of
marine pollution, particularly by I}CO, which had produced a series of international
instruments on marine pollution by ships which Liberia had ratified. IMCO's record in
that field clearly established it as the appropriate organization to deal with all
matters relating to ship-generated marine pollution. He believed that it had the
experience and capability to deal with other sources of marine pollution as well.
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300070004-6 / . .
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070004-6
A1C0YF, 43J,SR..4
English
Page 3
Mr. RAMADAN (Egypt), after.outlining the sources of marine pollution and its
effect on the-marine environment, said.thatg: although.the knowledge of the.toxicity
levels of the various chemicals used in i-ndustry;was far from adequate, currently
available parameters should be accepted until-they could be 'refined.
His country took the view that pollution control and preservation of the marine
environment in areas under national jurisdiction were essentially the obligation of
coastal States, which must enforce standards for sewage and industrial waste disposal
by means of an approved system of monitoring. The convention to be drafted should
include,provisions on those issues along the lines of the 1972 London Convention on the
Prevention of Marine Pollution by.Dumping.
On the question of pollution from ships, he stressed the importance of the
1973 London Convention on that subject. Nevertheless, rapid development in ship
design, sea transport techniques and navigation aids called for a review of the basis
of liability for damage. A future convention must.contain clear obligations for flag
States and port States without unduly hampering shipping schedules.
With regard to the exploration and exploitation of sea-bed resources, the coastal
State must be responsible for enforcing anti-pollution measures in. waters within its
national jurisdiction and, with the aid of modern technology, should ensure that any
pollution or disturbances caused by sea-bed mining were kept to a minimum. Such
questions could be studied by a competent scientific ad hoc committee, which could then
make appropriate recommendations to be reflected in the convention.
Within the area of national jurisdiction, extending for a distance of 200 miles
from the territorial sea, the coastal States must observe and enforce international
standards, especially with regard to shipping and sea-bed mining. However, there was
a need for special arrangements between coastal States whose area of national
Jurisdiction could not extend for 200 miles without overlapping, as in the case'of
certain closed and semi-closed seas. In such cases, his delegation advocated a buffer
zone wherein strict anti-pollution measures would be jointly adopted by the States
concerned. Special areas, such as straits, and related zones important from the point
of view of: fish mobility, should be subject to enforcement of the strictest pollution
measures by coastal States.
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070004-6
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070004-6
A/CONF.62/C.3/SR.4
English
Page 4
(Mr. Ramadan, Egypt)
His delegation advocated the prevention of pollution from all sources by means of
all scientific and legal means within the power of coastal States with regard to areas
under their national jurisdiction. However, internationally agreed standards and
obligations could serve as guidelines. His delegation supported co-operation between
States of common interests in one geographical area for the purposes of pollution
control, application of new technologies and warning of imminent dangers.
As to the exploitation of sea resources in areas within national jurisdiction, it
was necessary to assess the intensity of pollution, and neighbouring States were
entitled to be informed of countermeasures adopted, especially when such States were
located below sea currents. Accidents must be promptly reported to States in imminent
danger from pollution. Countermeasures must be undertaken promptly, with the use of
up-to-date methods and technology. Where a State could not cope with a situation, it
should immediately call for help from both neighbouring countries and recognized
international bodies, without regard to financial considerations.
On the question of a pollution control authority, his country considered that
reliance on the relevant existing specialized agencies was feasible. It should be
possible to achieve agreement with regard to co-ordination of programming and
documentation, and perhaps monitoring.
Pollution control in the international zone should be the responsibility of an
international body established for the purpose.
In conclusion, he emphasized the need to avoid a rigid approach in a matter having
such a far-reaching impact.
Mr. LEGAULT (Canada), after reading out the statement of objectives endorsed
by the 1972 Stockholm Conference, said that unanimous approval of the statement by all
the Governments present at that Conference had been of great significance. It was the
task of the present Conference to follow up that statement of objectives by
establishing binding legal obligations that recognized the limited assimilative and
regenerative capacities of the sea; devising management concepts for the marine
environment to replace the laissez-faire attitude of the past,, maintaining a unified and
comprehensive approach to various kinds of environmental and resource management; and
providing means for coastal States to pursue their particular interests and discharge
their particular responsibilities in management and protection of the marine environment.
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070004-6
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300070Q y6V.`,rec JC /~ ~'
English
Page 5
(Mr. Legault, Canada)
Both before and after the Stockholm Conference, Canada had advocated a
''comprehensive approach" to the protection of the marine environment. That approach,
which Canada had explained fully in the Sea-Bed Committee (documents A/AC.138/SC.III/L.26
and L.23) involved three elements: a broad range of national and international measures,
with national measures relating particularly to land based pollution; harmonization of
such measures and the assignment and co-ordination of functions of national and
international agencies. 'Canada did not consider that a comprehensive approach required
the adoption of a single treaty instrument dealing in detail with all aspects of marine
pollution, but rather hoped that the present Conference would approve an "umbrella"
treaty which would, in general terms, establish the rights and obligations of States
concerning the protection of the marine environment, affirm a commitment to develop and
adhere to particular specialized treaties, give a common direction to the future
development of international instruments and international measures, and fix uniform
rules for such general problems as enforcement, compensation for damage and settlement
of disputes.
A broad consensus around the comprehensive approach had emerged from the general
proposals or draft treaty articles on marine pollution already submitted by the
delegations of Australia, Kenya, Malta, Norway, the United States,' the Soviet Union,
Ecuador, El Salvador, Peru and Uruguay, and from the more specific proposals put forward
by France, Japan, the Netherlands and. Trinidad and Tobago. In particular, all of those
proposals showed wide areas of similarity on important specific issues such as the
obligation of States to protect the marine environment and to ensure that activities
under their jurisdiction did not cause damage to other States; and the need to take
measures to prevent marine pollution from any source, to develop international
standards and conventions covering all forms of marine pollution, to take into account
international standards in adopting national measures, and to avoid transferring
pollution from one area to another. There was also widespread agreement on the need to
establish global and regional co-operation for the prevention of marine poliu.-tion f
international arrangements concerning monitoring, minimization and abatement'-of'-marine
pollution; better enforcement procedures in respect of pollution'from vesels; better
rules on liability an'd' compensation for marine pollution damage; and, finally,
technical assistance for developing States to permit them to meet their' responsibilities
in respect of protection of the marine environment.
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300070004-6
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070004-6
A/CONF.62/c.3/SR.4
English
Page 6
{iir. Legault, Canada)
He was confident that new proposals from other delegations would strengthen the
already solid basis for agreement that had been established. The work of the Working
Group on Marine Pollution of Sub-Committee III of the Sea-Bed Committee showed that
generally acceptable texts could be arrived at on the basis of such broad agreement.
The problems that Working Group had encountered in dealing with the broad area of
"standards" had arisen from the fact too many issues had been subsumed under one
category. That was why his delegation had already suggested that the present Committee
should consider under separate headings the questions of special anti-pollution
measures in particular geographical and ecological situations, and the basic zonal
approach to the prevention of marine pollution.
One major area of difficulty which still remained related to the effect of
differing levels of economic development on the duty to combat marine pollution. The
Canadian view was that Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration on the Human
Environment provided the basic elements for an accommodation on that point, by
recognizing the sovereign right of States to exploit their own resources pursuant to
their own environmental policies, subject to the limitation that activities under their
jurisdiction should not cause damage to the environment of other States or areas `
beyond national jurisdiction. Since lesser developed States were equally susceptible
to the effects of pollution and equally concerned with protecting the health of their
environment and their people, his delegation believed that different levels of economic
development were relevant not so much to the setting of environmental standards as to
the extent to which such standards could be implemented at any given time. It had
therefore advocated a functional, comprehensive approach which would include minimum
international standards for the prevention of marine pollution, supplemented by special
regional standards, and further supplemented by national measures, which were
circumscribed strictly in so far as they related to ship-generated pollution.
A second major remaining difficulty related to the adoption of rules and standards
for the prevention of ship-generated pollution. Canada agreed with the general view
that international agreements on that subject were necessary in order to achieve the
greatest possible uniformity. However, highly controversial issues arose from the
view of some delegations that such rules and standards should be exclusively
international. Those delegations argued that national measures adopted without prior
international sanction and applied by a coastal State against foreign vessels could
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070004-6
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070004-6
A/CONF.62/C.3/SR.1+
English
Page 7
(Mr. Legault, Canada)
lead to a mosaic,of unco-ordinated and even conflicting legislation which could make
international navigation virtually impossible. Canada and other countries had pointed
out in reply that such an exclusively international approach would limit the existing
sovereign rights of'States to protect themselves against threats to their environmental
integrity, a right which had been established as early as the Trail Smelter Arbitration
between Canada and the United States some 40 years before. The United States, in fact,
was a country which still sought to preserve the right to protect its environment by
unilateral action in respect of foreign vessels, and under the draft articles submitted
by that country, States would continue to enjoy the right to set higher standards than
those fixed by international conventions for vessels entering their ports, including
standards. for the design and construction of such vessels. That approach was
incorporated into existing United States legislation, namely the Ports and Waterways
Safety Act. Thus, if there was indeed a danger of conflicting regulations as to
vessel-source pollution, that danger appeared to arise under the United States approach
as much as it did under the approach allowing coastal States to adopt national measures
in zones adjacent to their coasts. In practice, however, his delegation was convinced
that no such danger need'arise under either approach, any more than it had risen under
the existing situation, in which coastal States exercised sovereign rights in their
ports and territorial waters.
The draft treaty articles submitted by the United Kingdom delegation appeared to
reflect a more extreme version of the exclusively international approach. They appeared
to deprive coastal States not only of their right to protect their environment from
the activities of foreign vessels in their territorial sea, but also of their right to
deny such vessels entry to their ports on environmental or other grounds. That did not
appear consistent with "modernization" of the concept of innocent passage, which
Canada had advocated in the Sea-Bed Commmittee, and he hoped that the present Conference
would agree on a less restrictive approach.
Another drawback to the exclusively international approach was that there existed
no universal law-making body whose decisions would be automatically and necessarily
binding on States. The United States draft treaty articles sought to give the
Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization the status of a universal lawmaker
on ship-generated pollution, but that did not appear consistent with the fundamental
legal principle that States could not be bound by any rule without their consent. IMCO
/...
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070004-6
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070004-6
A/CONW. 62/C. 3,/3R . k
English
Page 8
(Mr. Legault, Canada)
did not have the super-agency status envisaged by the United States. A further
difficulty was that it was impossible to foresee all the problems that rapidly
developing technology might create, and it was extremely difficult for international
standards to be developed quickly enough to respond to new situations.
An accommodation might be possible, however, perhaps along the lines of the
encouraging statement by the Norwegian delegation in the Plenary on 2 July, which had
suggested distinguishing coastal State rights in respect of discharges, dumping and
traffic separation from rights in respect of ship construction, design equipment and
manning. The latter rights had given rise to the greatest concern on the part of some
Staten, and that concern, if valid, related to such rights whether they were exercised
only in ports or in the territorial sea or adjacent areas. The solution to the problem
lay not so much in restricting the exercise of coastal-State rights to particular
areas of jurisdiction as in restricting their exercise to cases where they were
strictly necessary, and ensuring that they were applied under appropriate safeguards
on a non-discrin? tory basis, in response to particular geographic, navigational or
ecological situations not adequately covered by international rules and standards. That
was the functional approach followed in Canada's '-:,aft articles, particularly its
article IV. Ice-covered water. were an obvious example of the need for special
measures, and other possible examples might include enclosed or semi-enclosed seas,
congested traffic situations, and shallow or narrow channels. Thus, the question of
measures for the prevention of marine pollution was intimately linked to the question
of passage through straits. The right of passage must be assured, but must be subject
not only to international regulation but also to the right of the coastal State to
protect itself. Management principles were particularly needed in that area.
A third major area of difficulty related to the enforcement of rules and standards
for the prevention of ship-generated pollution. The 1972 Convention on the Prevention
of Marine pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter and the 1973 IMCO Marine
Pollution Convention pointed the way to an accommodation by requiring the application
of rules and standards not only by flag States but also by coastal States, thus breaking
away from the traditional doctrine of exclusive flag-State jurisdiction. The same
approach had been adopted in a number of proposals at the present Conference, including
those of his own delegation, France and Japan. Those proposals would extend shared
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070004-6
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300070004-6
A/CONF. 62/C . 3/SR .1+
English
Page 9
(Mr. Le cult Canada)
enforcement jurisdiction to areas beyond the territorial sea, although some countries
still took the position that it should be restricted to territorial waters, or even
not permitted at all. Both the Conventions he had referred to called upon the present
Conference to settle the issue of the limits of enforcement jurisdiction. His
delegation believed that if a State had the right to make national rules and standards
it must have the right to enforce them on the same basis as international regulations.
The concept of port enforcement, whereby States would be entitled to enforce the
provisions of international conventions against foreign vessels found in their ports
irrespective of the area where the violation had occurred, had first been broached by
Canada In the Sea-Bed Committee in 1971. Although it was not incorporated in Canada's
draft treaty articles, his delegation hoped that the concept would be dealt with and
accepted at the.present Conference.
A final major area of difficulty related to the basic zonal approach to the
adoption and enforcement of measures for the prevention of marine pollution, an approach
reflected in proposals such as Cana'da',s..draft treaty articles, and working paper
submitted to the Sea-Bed Committee:in?:1973 (document A/AC.138/SC.III/L.56). The zonal
approach appeared to be a cause for concern on the part of some States, but the concepts
of the economic zone, or patrimonial sea, and of the common heritage of mankind, which
had been overwhelmingly endorsed by speakers in:the Plenary Assembly represented the
best opportunity for resolving the problem of-preservation of the marine environment
through the zonal approach. What had to be emphasized:was, that,th.e.economi.c zone was
not simply a contiguous resource zone, as appeared to be the view;9f:.some delegations,
but involved the functional interrelationship between resource jurisdiction and the
prevention of pollution. It applied an integrated management system to resource
exploitat on 'and: environmental preservation in a broad area. Canada attached the
greatest importance to meeting the concerns of some States regarding the zonal approach
to the prevention of ship-generated pollution, and was gratified that a number of other
delegations shared its view. That could be done by limiting jurisdiction to what was
strictly necessary to meet real, concrete needs, and by striking the proper balance
between the rights of flag and coastal States, between-national, regional and
international standards and between States' rights and obligations. Such a balance could
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300070004-6
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300070004-6
A/CONF.62/C.3/SR.4
English
Page 10
(Mr. Legault, Canada)
be struck by building on the functional approach to Jurisdictional questions inherent
in the economic zone/patrimonial sea concept, coupling it with appropriate safeguards
against unreasonable or arbitrary action by either flag or coastal States and
appropriate procedures. for compensation and settlement of disputes.
As the Canadian Prime :Sinister had stated, the principle of clean seas was as vital
a principle for the world of today and tomorrow as the principle of free seas had been
for the world of yesterday. Canada, one of the pioneers in the development of responses
to environmental problems, hoped to be able to continue its contributions at the present
Conference.
Mr. MANNER (Finland) said he wished to describe in detail the 197 Helsinki
Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area as an
example of a regional agreement with a wide scope which to some extent indicated what
kinds of general provisions were needed to protect the world oceans as a whole.
The Baltic Sea was one of the heaviest loaded sea areas of comparable size. Its
ecological balance was extremely sensitive to disturbances, owing to the low salinity
of its water, its shallowness and its slow and irregular exchange of water. The
relatively low nutrient content of its water, its climate and topography, together with
the stressed condition of its organism, made the Baltic responsive even to small changes
in its natural state. The oxygen content of Baltic deep water was decreasing, and its
food chains were being threatened by chemical substances with significant toxic effects.
All the States surrounding the Baltic Sea area were highly urbanized and industrialized,
with intensive agriculture and forestry. The population living within the catchment
area of the Baltic amounted to 150 million. The Baltic was also a sea area of heavy
international navigation. Those characteristics and the inadequacy of existing
regulations aimed at protecting the Baltic Sea, called for special regional provisions
for protection of the marine environment of that sea area as a whole.
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300070004-6
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070004-6
AJCONF.62JC.3/SR. 4
English
Page 11
(Mr. Manner, Finland)
The preparatory work for the Convention, as well as the Diplomatic Conference
which adopted it, had proceeded entirely by consensus, with no votes taken at any
time. Recognition of the fact that the signatory States were confronted with problems
which derived from, the special characteristics of the Baltic Sea and which were too
broad for national authorities to solve, led to that unanimous regional approach.
So far no State had, ratified the Convention, because of the new and extensive national
legislation which was required in all the Baltic Sea States in order to implement its
provisions.
The Convention covered the Baltic Sea proper, including the Gulf of Bothnia, the
Gulf of Finland and the entrance to the Baltic Sea. The border to the North Sea was the
s-,me as the border used in the 1973 IMCO Convention for the Prevention of Pollution
from Ships to define the Baltic Sea as a special area. The Convention did not cover
internal waters of the contracting parties, but those parties had undertaken, without
prejudice to their sovereign rights, to ensure that its purposes would be achieved in
those waters, too. The Convention did not restrict the sovereign rights of the
contracting. parties to their territorial sea, but the parties had undertaken to
implement the provisions of the Convention within their territorial sea through their
national authorities.
The provisions of the Convention were without prejudice to the rights and
obligations of the contracting parties under treaties concluded previously, as well as
under treaties which might be concluded in the future, to further and develop the
general principles of the Law of the Sea that the Convention was based upon. That
was a direct reference to the present, Conference and the conventions it might conclude,
The Convention contained a general obligation for the contracting parties to take
all appropriate legislative administrAtive or-other relevant measures in order to
prevent and abate pollution and to protect and enhance the marine environment of the
Baltic Sea area. That basic rule was enforced by detailed provisions on different
kinds and sources of pollution.
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300070004-6
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300070004-6
A/CONF.62/C.3/SR.IC
English
Page 12
(Mr. Manner. Finland)
The provisions concerning prevention of land-based pollution divided the pollutants
from those sources into hazardous and noxious substances. The parties had particularly
undertaken to counteract the introduction into the Baltic Sea area - whether airborne,
waterborne or otherwise - of such hazardous substances as DDT and its derivatives.
They had also agreed not to introduce other noxious substances and materials, listed
in an annex to the Convention, into the marine environment of the Baltic Sea area in
significant quantities without a prior special permit by the appropriate national
authority. The list enumerated mercury, cadmium and their compounds for urgent
consideration, as well as 15 other groups of noxious substances,
The parties also committed themselves to controlling and minimizing the
detrimental effects of all kinds of harmful substances likely to cause pollution,
sewage treatment, industrial wastes and discharge of cooling water from nuclear power
plants Municipal sewage was to be treated in an appropriate way so that the amount
of organic matter did not cause injurious changes in the oxygen content of the Baltic
Sea area, and the amount of nutrients did not cause harmful eutrophication. The
hygienic quality, and in particular epidemiological and toxicological safety, of the
receiving sea area was to be maintained at a level which did not cause harm to
human health. The polluting load of industrial wastes and harmful effects of cooling
water was to be minimized. Those provisions were of a general recommendatory nature,
and it would be the task of the Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission to
give a more exact content to their application.
Airborne pollution was dealt with in the Convention as a part of land-based
pollution. The contracting parties agreed to endeavour to use the best practicable
means to minimize airborne pollution of the Baltic Sea area caused particularly by
certain enumerated noxious substances.
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300070004-6
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300070004-6
English
Page 13
(Mr. ~'t nn,,r.;, Fnlana.
The Convention also contained provisions concerning the prevention of pollution
from ships. In order to protect the Baltic Sea area from pollution by deliberate,
negligent or accidental release of oil and other harmful substances or by the discharge
of sewage and garbage from ships, the parties agreed to take measures which were
set out in detail in annex IV. The annex followed almost word for word the
provisions of those parts of the IMCO Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from
Ships dealing with the Baltic Sea as a special area. However, the provisions were
intended to become applicable to the seven signatory States earlier than to the
signatories of the IMCO Convention, and some provisions which in the IMCO Conventions
were optional had been made binding in'the Helsinki Convention.
He wished to draw attention to a resolution approved by the Diplomatic Conference
in Helsinki which requested the seven-participating States to prevail upon other
States and ships flying the flag of other States to act in accordance with the
provisions of the Helsinki-Convention. The Helsinki Conference further had
invited IMCO to adopt'a recommendation on the application by States other than the
contracting parties of the Helsinki Convention of special rules for ships operating
in the Baltic Sea area.
The Helsinki Convention contained a provision which had no counterpart in other
international conventions, requiring the contracting parties to take special
measures, including the development,of.adequate reception facilities for wastes,
to abate harmful effects of pleasure craft activities.
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300070004-6
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300070004-6
A/,,ONF.62/C.3/SR.4
Eng3Ash
Page L4
(Mr. Manner, Finland)
The Convention went further than any existing convention in prohibiting dumping
in the Baltic Sea area. There were, however, two exceptions. Dumping of dredged
spoils was allowed subject to a prior special permit by the appropriate national
authority, and dumping was allowed when human life, or a vessel or aircraft, was in
danger ,ufficient to outweigh the consequent damage.
In the Convention each party agreed to take all appropriate measures to prevent
pollution of the marine environment of the Baltic Sea area resulting from exploration
or exploitation of its part of the sea-bed and its subsoil, and agreed to ensure the
availability of adequate pollution abatement equipment.
The Convention contained special provisions concerning co-operation in
combating marine pollution by oil or other hariful substances. Those provisions dealt
with co-operation between the respective authorities of the signatory States, and
contained obligations for masters of ships and pilots of aircraft.
For the implementation of the new rules and provisions, the creation by the
Convention of the Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission was of fundamental
importance. The office of the Commission, called the Secretariat, would be in
Helsinki. The Commission would promote, in close co-operation with appropriate
governmental bodies, additional measures to protect the marine environment of the
Baltic Sea area, and for that purpose it would receive, summarize and disseminate
from available sources relevant scientific, technological and statistical information,
and promote scientific and technological research. If the Convention was to be viable,
the Commission would have to play an active role in finding ways to further the aims
of the Convention. Thus its duties included keeping implementation of the
Convention under continuous observation, and recommending amendments to the
contracting parties. The Commission was a joint organ for the contracting States,
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300070004-6
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300070004-6
A/CoIF.62/C.3/SR.4.
English
Page 15
(Mr. Manner, Finland)
and not a supra-national body. It could not take decisions which would create
obligations for the contracting parties against their will. Thus, its powers did not
.encroach upon the sovereignty of the signatory States.
In a very significant provision of the Convention, the contracting parties had
undertaken, directly or through competent regional or other international organizations,
to co-operate in the fields of science, technology and other research, and to exchange
scientific information for the purposes of the Convention.
The Diplomatic Conference had not been able to agree on rules of responsibility
for damage caused by pollution. The Convention therefore contained only a general
undertaking by the contracting parties jointly to develop and accept rules concerning
responsibility for damage resulting from acts or omissions in contravention of the.
Convention. Such rules should; in his delegation's view, be. general in nature and
should not be created separately for every region; their proper place:therefore was
in a new Law of the Sea Convention.
The Helsinki Convention further. contained provisions concerning the peaceful
settlement of disputes. They included. the possibility of using ad hoc arbitration
tribunals, permanent arbitration tribunals or the International Court of Justice if
the parties so agreed.
Reservations could not be made to the Convention, in keeping with its binding
nature.. A contracting. party could, however, suspend the application of an annex to
the Convention for a period not exceeding one-year.
.The Convention was open for accession to States other than its original
signatories, on condition that they were interested in fulfilling its aims and
purposes and that each such State was.invited by all the contracting parties.
To cover the period of time between the signing of the Convention and its coming
into force, the Diplomatic Conference had established an Interim Commission, which
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300070004-6
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070004-6
A/CONF.62/C.3/SR.l
English
Page 16
(Mr. Manner, Finland)
would prepare the later activities of the Baltic Marine Environment Protection
Commission. It would hold its first session in Helsinki in the autumn of 1974.
Pollution and other forms of deterioration in the Baltic Sea had been going on
for a long time and could not be stopped overnight, but it was significant that all
the Baltic States had joined together to effect the necessary changes. His
Government was convinced that the Convention would effectively improve the abilities
of all States concerned to combat marine pollution and to create a firm foundation
for the protection of the marine environment of the Baltic Sea. It was obvious that
the solutions agreed upon for the Baltic could not as such be applied on other sea
areas. His delegation hoped, however, that the Convention would encourage efforts
presently being undertaken to protect the environment of other sea areas, and would
help the present Conference conclude a global framework for the protection of the
marine environment as a whole.
Mr. KOVALEV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) said that his country
attached the greatest importance to the elaboration of effective anti-pollution
measures, which should and could be achieved without hampering freedom of navigation.
Drawing attention to the statement by his delegation during the general debate in the
plenary meeting, he considered that it should be possible, provided a mutual
k::lerstanding was reached on the other complex questions on the agenda of the Third
C.ittee, to empower coastal States to protect the resources within a 200-mile wide
F^onomic zone from any damages arising from pollution.
Serious harm could be caused to both living and non-living marine resources by
the dumping of wastes and other harmful materials in the sea. Coastal States should
accordingly have the power to regulate dumping of wastes within a zone the width of
which would be stipulated in tha future convention. Dumping could be regarded as a
particular kind of land-based pollution carried out to sea by ships. The issuance of
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070004-6
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070004-6
A/CONF.62/C.3/SR.I
English
Page 17
(Mr. Kovalev, USSR)
licences for 'the. dumping of wastes in coastal areas, or the refusal to grant such
licences, should be the prerogative of coastal States, which should take into account
international rules, particularly those laid down in the 1972 London Convention on
the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter. The coastal
State should also ensure that permissible dumping did not harm shipping or
neighbouring States.
Another source of danger to fisheries and other resources was that arising from
collisions between tankers, or ships carrying other harmful substances, or from
sea-bed mining operations. Coastal States should have the.right within their own
territorial waters to take protective measures against such dangers. The measures
adopted should be commensurate with the actual or potential damage.
The 1969 Convention relating to oil pollution,. and the 1973 London Protocol
relating to substances other than oil represented a balanced and correct approach to
pollution hazards arising from accidents at sea. However, those instruments did not
cover pollution arising from sea-bed mining operations., particularly oil drilling.
A future convention should therefore embrace the fundamental provisions of the
1969 Convention and the 1973 Protocol, but extended to cases of accidents arising from
sea-bed mining operations.
A major problem connected, with anti-pollution measures arose in connexion with
the need to safeguard freedom of navigation. His delegation felt that the problem
could be solved only by the adoption of international anti-pollution measures and to
ensure their observance, particularly by flag States. The introduction of separate
national measures with regard to territorial waters would undoubtedly give rise to
difficulties for navigation.
The problem of controlling pollution from ships could be solved on the basis of
the,provisions of the 1973 IMCO Convention embodying measures to prevent pollution
from oil and other harmful substances transported or discharged by ships. That
Convention in practice applied to all the oceans of the world. Its five technical
annexes contained detailed rules and recommendations concerning the construction and
special requirements of vessels with regard to pollution control.
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070004-6
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070004-6
A/CO1,TP, 62/C. 3/SF. T+
English
Page 18
(Mr. Kovalev, USSR)
. The Convention also laid down that a foreign cargo vessel, while in port of a
foreign State, shall undergo inspection for the purpose of ascertaining whether it had
discharged any substances in contravention of the relevant rules.
His delegation took the view that the 1973 London Convention contained adequate
provisions for the prevention of pollution from ships, If they were strictly observed,
there would be no need for additional measures to be adopted on a national basis;
moreover, they should be incorporated in a future convention in such a way as to form
the basis.for future work by IMCO and by specialist conferences for the formulation of
specific technical rules and recommendations for the prevention of pollution from ships.
In particular, it was essential to stipulate in a future convention that a coastal
State had the right to take, within the limits of its internal and its territorial
caters - of 12 miles in width - the necessary measures to ensure that ships observed
the internationally agreed rules prohibiting or restricting the discharge of harmful
substances, In the case of enfringement of those rules by foreign vessels, the coastal
State should have the right to inform the flag State, or to take appropriate legal or
administrative action in accordance with its own legislation. The captain or other
officers of the ship should be liable to fines on a non-discriminatory basis. Punishment
in the form of deprivation of liberty should be imposed only by the flag State, which
would be responsible for informing the coastal State of the measures taken.
A future convention should, of course, also lay down more general obligations for
all States to ensure the cleanliness of the seas and oceans of the world, In particular,
States should have the obligation to ensure that ships flying their flags refrained
from causing marine pollution, and to co-operate with other States and competent
international organizations in elaborating and applying more progressive standards.
His delegation, together with that of the German Democratic Republic, WAS
currently seeking to formulate some of the provisions to which he had already referred
and which would constitute additional draft articles for combating marine pollution.
Mr, WARIOBA (United Republic of Tanzania) said that every State had the
obligation to take marine pollution control measures and to co-operate to that end both
at the. national and at the international level. Two issues arose in that connection.
The first concerned the adoption of regulations, It was necessary to harmonize both
national and international regulations in order to deal with pollution effectively.
t,..
i
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070004-6
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300070004-6
A/CO7F.G2/C.;/SPA..
lenglish
Page. 19
(Mr. Warioba, Tanzania)
While international regulations were'neo.essary their adoption was a slow. process, and
they represented only a basic minimum. They must therefore be supplemented by national
regulations, especially in areas adjacent to the coast. In the case of the territorial
sea, regulations against vessel-source pollution must be related to land-based sources.
In the economic zone, they must be related to pollution sources arising from resource
exploitation 'h-ile both coastal States and flag States had a responsibility in that
field, their respective jurisdictions must be harmonized. As to freedom of navigation,
he said that it was not the intention of coastal States to impede navigation. Many of
them were dependent upon shipping for their international trade. The elaboration of
international regulations must not.be a monopoly of one forum: special cases, which
might be of a su'b.regional or regional nature, should be dealt with in special
international forums, whether existing or still to be established.
Turning to the second issue, that of enforcement, he said it must be acknowledged
that the current methods of enforcement had serious shortcomings. Despite a
multiplicity of regulations, the oceans continued to be polluted. For the purposes
of enforcement., there must be a division of competence between the flag States and the
coastal States. Coastal States must be empowered to take enforcement measures in areas
within their national jurisdiction, since many flag States lacked sufficient concern to
ensure that anti-pollution measures were implemented. The provision of compensation
in respect of liability for damage was no consolation; in fact, it was detrimental:
in view of the difficulty and frequent delay in attributing liability, action for
compensation was in most cases never comr.enced. Hence preventive measures were better
than compensation...In areas under national jurisdiction, the coastal State should have
enforcement. powers in respect of both international and national regulations. In the
case of the.high seas, enforcement-must also be tightened. The international authority,
if and when established,, should.be.given enforcement powers and, in the absence of
international machinery, the powers must be effectively shared among all States.
In conclusion, he emphasized the need to limit freedom of navigation to the
extent required in order to combat pollution.
Miss ACU`l'A (Nigeria) said that her delegation attached great importance to
the need for adequate provisions for pollution control, which must be a joint product
/..
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300070004-6
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070004-6
A/COT!P. E2/C.3/SP. 4
Page 20
(Hiss At uta) Nigeria)
of action by coastal States and by international machinery. Any future convention on
the law of the sea should embody provisions on pollutior_ control and on compensation
for a damage caused by pollution.
Over the past fez: years, considerable strides had been made at the inter-
governmental level, particularly by L4CO, and a number of anti-pollution conventions
had already been concluded. She also wished. to commend to the Committee the outcome
of the United Nations Conference on the Human 1.nvironment held at Stockholm in 1973.
Such developments could furnish guidelines for the elaboration of a future convention.
Concise legal principles on the rights and responsibilities of States, including coastal,
flag and port States, should be evolved in such a way that the autonomy of the LiCO
Conventions was not prejudiced. her delegation pledged its co-operation in the
elaboration of the appropriate legal principles,
-far. APPI Q. (Trinidad and Tobago) said that the comprehensive statement of
the Executive Director of the United Nations -nvironmental Programr:e provided a good
basis for the Committee's discussions.
Trinidad and Tobago was a very siaall oil-producing island State with a tremendous
amount of oil tanker activity in an" around its coastal waters, involving importation
and exportation of crude oil entirely by non-nationals and foreign fla,-, vessels.
Extensive offshore exploration and exploitation activity was taking place on the
continental shelf of Trinidad and Tobago, whose coastal waters were therefore extremely
sensitive to the risk of oil pollution through deliberate duaping by ships, and
possible tanker accidents and offshore oil-well explosions. Its land/marine pollution
ratio was therefore probably just the opposite to that of enemy developed countries,
which had reported at the 1973 Session the incidence of C.) per cent land-based and
20 per cent marine-based pollution in those countries. Moreover, despoilation of
beaches was a constant threat to the tourist industry of Trinidad and Tobago, which
was thus both a potential polluter of the marine environment and a victim of its
consequences.
The Government of Trinidad and Tobago was therefore seriously concerned ,rith the
problems of its narine environment and above all with the question: of liability and
responsibility for pollution daiiage, most of which was caused by non-nationals.
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070004-6
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300070004-6
A/CONF.62/C.3/SR.4
English
Page 21
(Mr.
Appleton, Trinidad and - Tobago)
Motivated by that concern, his delegation had submitted to the 1973 Geneva Session
of the Sea-Bed Committee two draft treaty articles which sought to insure against marine
pollution damage and to place liability for pollution damage on the entity or agent
responsible for such damage,,as opposed to placing it on the coastal State concerned.
Article I read as follows: "Coastal States shall reserve the right to require
mineral levels of insurance against pollution damage for all commercial vessels operating
within their territorial waters and within a broad area adjacent to their coastline."
Article II read: "Liability for any pollution damage within or beyond national
jurisdiction arising from activities within the national jurisdiction of coastal States
shall be borne by the entity responsible for such damage. In the case of vessel source
pollution, liability should rest directly with the polluting agent or entity. With
respect to damage arising from exploration and exploitation activities from the sea-bed,
liability shall rest with the offshore operator concerned."
His delegation's draft article II was in contra-distinction to principle (e) (1)
and (2) of the working paper submitted by Australia (AC.138/SC.III/L.27 of 7 March 1973).
It was also contrary to article VII (i and ii) of the draft articles submitted by Canada
(AFC.138/SC.III/L.28 of 9 March 1973) and to the statement presented by the Executive
Director of UNEP.to the Plenary Session the previous week. All three draft articles
sought to make the coastal State liable for pollution damage caused by parties operating
within the jurisdiction of the coastal State. His delegation felt that the principle of
liability should be objectively stated, with primary responsibility for damage to the
environment resting on the party responsible, whether it was a State, a public or private
entity. The State would in any ny case have a residual responsibility to ensure that
adequate reparation eras made for any damage caused.
With respect to the question of regional vis-a-vis international standards for
pollution prevention and control, his delegation supported the views of many developing
countries that too high regional standards ,would already increase the already high cost
of their industrial development. It wished, however,?to make a clear distinction between
land-based and marine-based sources of pollution in relation to standards.
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300070004-6
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070004-6
A/CONF.62/C.3/SR.1
English-
Page 22
J Mr. Appleton, Trinidad and Tobago)
His delegation agreed that the highest international standards should be
maintained for oil tankers, ships and off-shore oil operators, and major sources of
marine-based pollution, whether they operated in a. developing country or not. Affluent
multinational corporations were mainly involved, and they could well afford the highest
international standards for marine pollution prevention and control. On the other hand,
smaller land-based industries in developing countries were usually less of a threat to
the marine environment and could, moreover, less afford the high cost of too high
international standards of pollution prevention and control. However, even in that
category there was the possibility of highly sophisticated and indeed highly noxious
industries being established. Such industries in developing countries ought to be
subject to the highest international standards for pollution prevention and control.
The peculiarities of the industry concerned must be taken into account as well.
Naturally the oil industry and industries producing noxious chemical substances were
to be subject to the highest international standards for pollution and prevention,
whether they were established in a developing country or not. The fact that such
industries might happen to be in a developing country was irrelevant. His delegation
therefore wished to suggest the following draft articles III and IV:
"Article III
States should establish individually, or through the appropriate regional
and internation$l organizations, minimum international standards for the prevention
and control of marine pollution arising from the exploration and exploitation of
the continental shelf and from vessels operating within national jurisdiction."
"Article IV
States shall individually establish national standards for the prevention and
control of land-based sources of pollution, but they shall take all necessary
action to ensure that those industries which by reason of their very nature pose
potential threats to the environment shall always conform to the highest
international standards."
His delegation hoped to submit formal proposals along the lines suggested for the
Committee's consideration, and reserved the right to intervene again on that issue.
Mr. SIMMS (United Kingdom) thanked the Finnish rcpresentative for his clear
and comprehensive explanation of the Helsinki Convention, the signatories to which had
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070004-6
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300070004-6
A/ CCU F . 62/C . 3/SR . 4
English
Page 23
r. Sims, United Kingdom)
demonstrated that a comprehensive approach to marine pollution could be based on
existing international law.
He had been slightly puzzled by the Canadian representative's reference to the
draft articles on the territorial sea and straits tabled by the United Kingdom
delegation in the Second Committee,,'-since those draft articles had no bearing on the
question whether a State might impose, as a condition of entry to its internal waters,
requirements going beyond those internationally agreed. His delegation proposed to deal
with'that'matter in the Second Committee.
The consensus of both the New York and Geneva sessions of the Preparatory
Committee 'had favoured the idea of an "umbrella" approach to marine pollution, and his
delegation-'hopedthat that consensus would be maintained. His delegation anticipated
that the articles on marine pollution laying down general principles for its prevention
and control would eventually form one chapter of the comprehensive convention on the
law of the sea The Committee must therefore resolve the rights, obligations and
competences of flag and coastal States to make regulations, the areas in which they
might exercise their jurisdiction, and what powers of enforcement they might use in those
areas. Detailed technical regulations would not, however, come within the "umbrella"
convention, but would be left to conventions on special subjects, examples of which were
the Convention on the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, the Convention on Dumping,
the Paris Convention on Marine Pollution from Land-based Sources, the Oslo Convention.
on Dumping and the comprehensive Baltic Convention.
The United Kingdom had a very extensive coastline and was much exposed to pollution
from what was probably th'e'world's busiest shipping lane, the English Channel and the
Dover Straits. It therefore needed to be able to protect its shores and waters against
marine pollution,'like any other coastal State. Indeed, it had been oneof the victims
of the largest ship-pollution incident ever known. However, preservation-of.the right.of
innocent passage was vital to the United Kingdom, with its dependence on long-.distance
trade. It was essential and quite possible for the new convention to balance the need
to prevent.and'control pollution with the need to preserve freedom of..navigation. The
Committeemust 'ensure that the steps it took or the measures it invited States to take
should be clearly aesigned to that-effect.
As'`'far as'the convention and the draft articles were concerned, the United Kingdom
welcomed the general and particular obligations in existing drafts to preserve the
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300070004-6
 A/C0NF.62/C.3/I roved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070004-6
English
;'ale =
(Mr. Simms, United Kingdom)
marine environment from the principle sources of pollution (land-based, dumping,
vessel-source pollution and exploitation of the sea-bed), to avoid damage to the
interests of other States and interference with the legitimate uses of the marine
environment. Other articles contained important commitments on abatement and elimination
of pollution, the promotion and dissemination of scientific research in marine pollution,
and monitoring of the marine environment. The United Kingdom also supported the
comprehensive article on the provision of technical assistance with its valuable section
on contingency planning for major incidents, and welcomed the proposals for establishment
of regional conventions.
His delegation would like to have a very firm compulsory dispute settlement
procedure, for new laws would require careful interpretation. It thought that the
discussion on the article on competences to make regulations should deal separately with
the four principal sources of pollution of the marine environment, and that each should
be considered in terms of international and national competence. The same was true of
the discussion on areas, since different areas might be defined by the convention where
States' powers differed, the obvious ones being the territorial sea and the sea-bed
beyond national Jurisdiction.
Moreover, his delegation would like the Committee to examine the enforcement
question for each source of pollution separately, since the enforcement powers of the
flag State over vessel-source pollution and the desirable balance between the flag,
coastal and port States was clearly different from the normally absolute enforcement
powers of a coastal State over its own land-based sources of pollution. Three of those
sources (sea-bed exploration and exploitation, land-based sources and dumping) should
present no difficulties for the Committee. Moreover, if coastal States exercised their
duties and obligations over those three sources regional or international regulations
or conventions would affect few interests other than their own. That would be the most
effective method of preserving the marine environment.
The reverse, however, was true of vessel pollution, where the interests of all
nations were involved and an international approach was best because consistency was
needed. As the potential danger of vessel-source pollution had been recognized, the
willingness of the flag States to make stricter regulations to control such pollution
had increased, culminating in the 1973 Convention, which went a long way towards
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070004-6
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070004-6
A/CONF.62/C.3/SR.1+
English
Page 25
(Mr. Simms, United Kingdom}
... eliminating deliberate vessel-source pollution. The combination of firm flag State
obligation allied with the arrangements in the 1973 Convention for inspection in port
should enable violations to be discovered and punished without creating additional
hazards by interventions outside the territorial sea.
The United Kingdom was pleased that the 1973 Convention embodied the idea of
especially vulnerable areas and measures, to be decided internationally. Any further
special areas and measures should also be decided internationally. National discharge
regulations more stringent than those currently required under the 1973 Convention
would in practice have much the same effect as special construction requirements, since
a ship had to be equipped to meet such requirements.
He hoped that the Committee would deal with the less controversial items on its
age s upon which he believed-good progress could be made, and thus have time to deal
with those matters now before the First and Second Committees which related to its own
work.
The meeting rose at 6 p.m.
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070004-6