UNESCO. General Conference; 30th; Records ... - unesdoc - Unesco

technical expertise and who are very democratic and open to suggestions. This is the framework in which this
item was debated. We were advised that the term “marine processes” was rather restrictive, because there are also
other processes such as the ecological process and the chemical processes, so we agreed that the term “marine
processes” should be deleted, so as to preserve the integrity of IOC and not restrict the research and development
that goes on there and that is envisaged within their plans. These are the few words I wanted to put to the floor so
that when you start discussing this you fully understand the situation. Thank you for your attention.
50. The PRESIDENT:
I thank the Chairperson of the Commission. This is evidently a difficult question to resolve. We shall
hear the other speakers and if we cannot reach a consensus, I will have to put the matter to the vote. I give the
floor to the representative of Belize.
51.1 Mr TOURÉ (Belize):
Thank you Madam President. The first thing I would like to do is to applaud the work of Commission III
for I participated in most though not all its deliberations. And I would like to applaud the Chairperson from
Uganda, who ably handled a number of very difficult matters. That is the good news. Let me now get to the bad
news. The bad news, Madam President, is that there seems to be an issue underlying this whole debate that
unfortunately I am going to reveal as I see it. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, if I am
correct, has not been signed by several major countries that are members of IOC. Professor Su Jilan of IOC, in
his presentation to Commission III, explained very well that IOC is taking on more and more responsibility. In
fact, in paragraph 9 of his presentation, he mentioned that IOC co-sponsors major international programmes with
other organizations such as WMO, UNEP, ICSU, the World Climate Research Programme, the Global Ocean
Ecosystem Analysis Programme. Within the United Nations system, IOC chairs and provides a secretariat for a
subcommittee on the United Nations Administrative Coordination Committee for ocean and coastal zones and
coordinates nine United Nations agencies, the World Bank and the two Secretariats of the Conventions on
climate change and biodiversity. The Chairperson also mentioned in paragraph 14 that, in IOC, coastal States are
much more a priority for developing Member States than for developed Member States, and he mentioned that,
from the legal point of view, several countries had reservations about including the term “coastal areas” since it is
a moot term in the United Nations law of the sea.
51.2 This is the background to my remarks. It seems to me that the issue is whether or not a Member State or
Member States of IOC, who in the opinion of some hold undue power over that organization may not necessarily
subscribe to the high and lofty principles of this Organization, which is in effect the mother or father of IOC. If
such an organization can expand its remit, expand its control, expand its power over areas that are very important
to all of us - and when I say all of us I mean States from Bangladesh to Belize, island States as well as coastal
States, that are very much affected by the consequences of climate change and a number of other effects of
industrialization, globalization, which not only did we not participate in but, as an earlier debate mentioned, we
have been affected by some of the consequences of this untimely type of development. Madam President, what I
am trying to say is that the real issue here is whether or not we will allow an area of control which is very
important to our survival to be now put in the hands of an organization which, as has already been pointed out,
may not necessarily be representative of many of our regions and countries, particularly at the higher levels of
decision-making. Now this not to impugn any of the high scientific goals of IOC. We all want to see more
research. We all want to see more understanding. A lot of us would also like to begin to deal with comprehensive
disaster management and with what the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change says, the harsh decisions
that we need to make. Do we need to retreat, do we need to accommodate, or do we need to protect?
51.3 As a marine scientist myself I can say that marine scientists do not know it all. We are afraid that IOC,
whose main remit is the marine sciences, is, as I pointed out earlier, not because they are bad people or anything,
simply protecting its interests. Larger countries are on that Commission and they are, in the opinion of some of
us, having undue influence over areas that are crucial to our sustainable development and, I might say, to our
survival.
51.4 Now I go to specifically support the intentions of my colleague from Tonga. His words may not
necessarily be totally approved by the lawyers and the marine scientists and the technology people, but I support
what he is trying to say. He is trying to say that the marine area is our lifeline. If we need to look at the coastal
areas and if we need to turn this work over to an organization whose remit is the oceanographic area but which
includes at least some countries that have not even subscribed to some of the United Nations mandates that have
been put forward in terms of the law of the sea, how can we trust them to look after our interests? We are small
island States, small coastal developing States. We are trying to say that we do not impugn any of the scientific
objectives which are high and lofty - but our survival is at stake here. At a minimum, we should go along with the
proposal of Tonga. If we find that proposal so obnoxious, if we find that proposal so debilitating to the high
science of the developed countries, then at least consider the last part of paragraph 14 of the intervention by the
Chairperson of IOC, when he himself said “however, if that would be considered inappropriate”, meaning the
721
25