|
New
Delhi, 19 December 2004
An Indian team led by Ms Meera Shankar was in Islamabad this week to discuss Nuclear CBMs with Pakistan and the Boundary Pillar issue. Last week the India Pakistan Soldier's Initiative (IPSI) team was in Delhi and they met a huge spectrum of serving and retired personnel and also met the Defence Minister and the Home Minister. They interacted with Ram Jethmalani and one can say with confidence the people to people desire to see peaceful solutions is very great. The stumbling blocks are the Army and Mullahs in Pakistan and it will be difficult to get to them in a hurry. However in the context of the Sir Creek, a paper tabled by Rear Admiral H M Ansari who was here with the team is appended below.
Limits In The Seas
–– The Continental Shelf
By Real Admiral (R) Hasan M. Ansari*
The
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) has been imaginatively
called the fifth and largest province of Pakistan –– in a
manner of speaking it is. Adding the continental
shelf would almost double the area available for
economic exploitation; more specifically for oil and
gas exploration. But first, Pakistan has to
determine its geographical boundaries and stake its
claim for acceptance by the U.N. before the cut-off
date of November 2009.
The
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
1982, lists customary International Law for the
Principles that underlie the Proper Establishment of
Baselines (Arts 5-11 and 13-14). Baselines affect the limits of Territorial Waters, Contiguous
Zone, EEZ, and Continental Shelf.
Pakistan promulgated the geographic
coordinates defining the straight baselines vide
Gazette of Pakistan Notification (SRO-714(I).96) in
August 1996. The coordinates have not been accepted
by the U.N. In fact objections were raised by U.S,
Holland and India, among others. The U.S. is not a
signatory to UNCLOS, but has objected on principle
of Freedom of Navigation (Vide, U.S. Dept of State,
Bureau of Oceans, Environmental, Scientific Affairs
Publication No.118).
Article
76 defines the legal continental shelf as, “The
natural prolongation of its land territory to the
outer edge of the continental shelf, or to a
distance of 200 NM from the baselines of the
territorial sea”. The important factors affecting
the limits of a potential claim beyond the 200 Mile
Boundary are:
-
The
2,500 –– Meter
Isobath
-
The
foot of the Continental slope
-
The
sediment thickness beyond the foot of the slope
-
The
relationship of the crust beneath the
continental shelf to that onshore
The
maximum limit of a claim cannot exceed 350 NM from
the baselines or 100 NM from the 2,500-Meter
Isobaths. Within these limits the shelf can be
extended up to 60 NM beyond the foot of the
continental slope or where the sediment thickness is
at least 1% of shortest distance to the foot of the
slope.
The
complexity of this article warranted the
establishment of a new UN Body: “UN Commission on
the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). This
commission has an unusual status, being neither a
court nor a purely advisory Body, it examines
states’ submissions and makes recommendations to
the states on the validity of their claims.
The commission mandate is structured on a
non-adversarial approach; it will assist states in
preparing their submissions and provide scientific
and technical advice. It would also help in-country
information dissemination and development of human
resources by conducting workshops, if requested. The
emphasis is on the use of methodologies, which
minimize costs and optimize existing resources.
Since
the ultimate responsibility for proclaiming
jurisdiction belongs to the State, this process
poses a number of challenges both technical and in
terms of time constraints.
On the technical side, comprehensive, and
potentially very expensive data gathering and
analysis must support the submission, on the time
side there is an absolute deadline of November 2009
and Pakistan must submit its claim before that.
Five
years is not a long time considering the complexity
and volume of work required.
The outer limits of the extended shelf are
defined by four rules; Two of which are formulae and
two of which are constraints:
Formulae:
Foot of slope to 1% sediment thickness.
Foot of continental slope + 60 NM.
Constraints:
350 Miles from baselines
2,500-Meter Isobath + 100 Miles
Determining
the result involves many elaborate, and potentially
expensive, scientific and technical challenges,
including the following examples:
-
Detailed
Bathymetric data gathering to locate the foot of
the slope and 2,500-Meter Isobath
-
Seismic
Survey or physical boring if 1% formula used
-
Resolution
of issues relating to Geodetic definition of
baselines, Bathymetric models, quality of data
sources etc
-
Resolution
of complexities due to Submarine Elevations
& Oceanic Ridges
Because
of these complexities a state risks incurring a
significant increase in costs if it does not have a
well-developed strategy to focus appropriate
resources in appropriate locations. Pakistan if opting to go alone thus runs the risk of
incurring disproportionately high expenditure
without getting less than the size potentially
available.
It
should be noted that this process delineates an
outer limit of jurisdiction and does NOT deal with
boundary issues of land or maritime boundaries
between India and Pakistan. It is unlikely to be
significantly affected by the location of baselines
and base points. Because this claim for a seaward
extension of jurisdiction is independent of the
location of the maritime boundary between India and
Pakistan there is a convergence of interests between
the two countries to save money and effort by
cooperating in data collection, analysis and
preparation of submissions.
Using consistent and compatible data, without
prejudice to boundary claims, can increase their
changes of successfully maximizing their respective
jurisdictions to seaward.
There is no benefit in competing and
everything to be gained by cooperation.
Although
India has a much larger coastline, she has a common
interest with Pakistan in defining the outer limits
of the continental shelf in the Arabian Sea under
the provisions of the Convention on the Law of the
Sea and the CLCS guidelines.
Both would benefit financially from
cooperation in cost-effective gathering of
consistent data, and strengthen the legal and
technical basis for their submissions to the
Commission.
Following
points are germane to the issue:
-
The
CLCS will, if requested, conduct workshops
in-country and assist in preparation of
submissions and provide scientific and technical
advice.
-
The
CLCS would accept Joint Submission by the two
countries with a view to promote regional
cooperation.
-
The
outer limits of the Continental Shelf are
unrelated to the issues of Sir Creek and
maritime boundary.
-
Cooperation
would conserve financial, human and material
resources.
-
Cooperation
between hydrographers of the two countries would
be cost-effective and beneficial.
-
Coordination
would maximize the prospect of both countries
gaining maximum seaward extension of respective
claims.
With
time a constraint, since 2009 is a final deadline
for submission, with the issue being independent of
either the Sir Creek or Maritime Boundary issues,
and with each country having a vested interest in
seeing the other succeed, the two Governments need
to give serious consideration to cooperating to the
extent possible in preparation of their submissions,
especially since both have already agreed to
coordinate responses to issues where there is a
commonality of interest.
(*
Real Admiral (R) Hasan M. Ansari* is a Research
Fellow at the Pakistan Institute of Maritime Affairs
(PIMA), Karachi
. He may be contacted at pima3@attglobal.net
|