Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online E.E.Z. file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with E.E.Z. book. Happy reading E.E.Z. Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF E.E.Z. at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF E.E.Z. Pocket Guide.
You are here

Copy of application for non-notified activity. Submissions [Repealed]. Copy of application for publicly notified activity. Making of submissions.

Keep Exploring Britannica

Time limit for submissions. Advising applicants of submissions. Hearings in respect of applications for non-notified activities. Hearings in respect of applications for publicly notifiable activities other than section 20 activities. Minister must appoint boards of inquiry for applications for publicly notifiable section 20 activities.

Cost recovery for boards of inquiry. Obligation to deal with application promptly. Request for further information. Response to request. Marine consent authority may obtain advice or information. Meetings and mediation to resolve matters before decision.

Directions before or at hearings [Repealed]. Decisions [Repealed]. Matters to be considered in deciding extent of adverse effects on existing interests. Decisions on applications for marine consents. Conditions of marine consents. Adaptive management approach. Monitoring conditions.

Marine Gazetteer Placedetails

Decision of marine consent authority to be in writing. When marine consent commences. Consents neither real nor personal property. Exercise of marine consent while applying for new consent. Transfer of consents. Residual powers of EPA. Environmental Protection Authority may review duration and conditions.

EEZ marine activities

Contents of notice of review. Public notice of review. Copy of notice of review of non-notified activity.

Further information, advice, submissions, and hearing. Matters to be considered in review. Decisions on review of consent conditions. Decision on review of duration of consent. Process for minor changes to consent conditions. Lapsing of consent if not exercised. Cancellation of consent if not exercised. Change or cancellation of consent conditions on application by consent holder. Application [Repealed]. Application for marine discharge consent or marine dumping consent [Repealed]. Process before Environmental Protection Authority makes decision [Repealed]. Information principles relating to discharges and dumping [Repealed].

Decision on application for marine discharge consent or marine dumping consent [Repealed]. Conditions and decision-making process [Repealed]. Duration of marine discharge consents and marine dumping consents [Repealed]. Exercise of consents, transfer, review, and minor changes [Repealed]. Change or cancellation of marine dumping consent or marine discharge consent on application by consent holder [Repealed].

Application of this subpart. Application for consent for cross-boundary activity. Joint application for consent for cross-boundary activity. Separate applications for consents for cross-boundary activity. Environmental Protection Authority may require joint application. Joint processing must cease when application for resource consent referred to Environment Court. Environmental Protection Authority may decide to separate joint application. Application of sections 96 and Environmental Protection Authority to administer process.

Relevant consent authority and EPA to share information. Separate decisions on marine consent and resource consent applications. Application for consent for nationally significant cross-boundary activity referred to board of inquiry. Joint applications for section 20 activity and for nationally significant activity to be referred to board of inquiry.

EPA must provide board of inquiry with necessary information. Submitting decommissioning plan for acceptance. Assessment and acceptance of decommissioning plan. Amendment of accepted decommissioning plan. Requirement for public consultation. Right of objection to Environmental Protection Authority against certain decisions.

Procedure for making or hearing objection. Decision on objection. Appeals against decisions on objections. Appeals on question of law. Notice of appeal. Right to appear and be heard on appeal. Parties to appeal. Representation at proceedings [Repealed]. Dismissal of appeal.

Date of hearing. Application of High Court Rules Representation at proceedings. Proceedings to be heard by Environment Judge. Application for enforcement order. Notice of application for enforcement order. Right to be heard. Decision on application for enforcement order. Interim enforcement order. Application to change or cancel interim enforcement order. Compliance with enforcement order. Change or cancellation of enforcement order. Restriction on certain applications for enforcement orders.

Compliance with abatement notice. Form and content of abatement notice. Cancellation of abatement notice. Restrictions on certain abatement notices. Proceedings in Environment Court. Offences in relation to activities regulated under section Strict liability and defences. The paper attempted to define the important features of the new concept in terms of the rights and obligations of both the coastal state and the international community. The rationale for the emergence of the exclusive economic zone concept was clearly stated: the "present regime of the high seas benefits only the developed countries At the same time, developing countries were often incapable of exploiting the resources in waters closely adjacent to their own coasts much less in waters great distances away.

Therefore, a tendency had grown among developing countries to extend their territorial seas up to miles in an effort to compensate for their technologically disadvantaged position. This tendency, in turn, created a concern among the major maritime nations that extensions of sovereignty would have a negative effect on traditional freedoms of navigation and overflight. The exclusive economic zone concept was put forward as a compromise solution to these conflicting concerns.

The working paper contained ideas which would be submitted by Kenya to the Sea-Bed Committee later that year in the form of draft articles. The draft articles were based on an approach which gave the coastal state sovereign rights and the exercise of exclusive jurisdiction over living and non-living resources and over the prevention and control of pollution in an economic zone which would not exceed nautical miles.

The freedoms of navigation, overflight and the laying of submarine cables and pipelines were recognized as well as the possibility of access by other states to the resources of the zone. The "Conclusions" 19 adopted unanimously by the 16 participating states are comparable to the proposals of the Lima Declaration. Recommendation I states that "African States have equally the right to establish beyond the territorial sea, an economic zone over which they will have exclusive jurisdiction and national exploitation of the living resources of the sea and their conservation for the primary benefit of their people and their respective economies, and for the purpose of the prevention and control of pollution".

With regard to biological resources of the sea, it recommends that African states extend "sovereignty over all the resources of the high seas adjacent to their territorial sea within an economic zone to be established, and which will include at least the continental shelf". The recommendation did not define the exact breadth of the zone because of disagreement between coastal and land-locked states.

The Addis Ababa Declaration. The position of the African states was given further authority with the adoption of the Declaration of the Organization of African Unity on the "Issues of the Law of the Sea" of 2 July One modification to the Kenyan proposals was the inclusion of scientific research as being subject to the jurisdiction of the coastal state.

Other principles included: the right of each coastal state to establish an exclusive economic zone beyond its territorial sea, the limits of which would not exceed nautical miles, measured from the baselines establishing the territorial sea; permanent sovereignty over all the living and mineral resources in that zone; the right of the coastal state to manage that zone without undue interference with other legitimate uses of the sea, such as freedom of navigation, overflight and laying of cables and pipelines; the recognition of the right of land-locked and other disadvantaged countries to share in the exploitation of living resources of neighbouring economic zones on the same basis as the nationals of the coastal states.

III, p. The apparent unanimity among the African states, as evidenced by widespread support for the above-mentioned documents, should not obscure the fact that with regard to the exclusive economic zone, just as with the Latin American states, different positions were taken on the nature of the zone. These differences would become more apparent in the debates held in the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea.

The general concept, however, had been firmly established and it was left to the international community as a whole to define the zone precisely and to make it universally acceptable. As we have seen from the brief history of the exclusive economic zone concept outlined above, discussions in regional fora were taking place at the same time as the Sea-Bed Committee was doing its work. Thus, in the Sea-Bed Committee in the years , those same ideas evolving outside the United Nations were evident even though initially no formal proposals were made. The zone was primarily functional rather than territorial.

The draft articles stated that "all States have the right to establish an economic zone beyond the territorial sea for the primary benefit of their peoples and their respective economies in which they shall exercise sovereign rights over natural resources for the purpose of exploration and exploitation". Further, " The coastal state would permit exploitation of living resources within the zone by "neighbouring developing land-locked, near land-locked and countries with a small shelf".

The limits of the zone would be fixed but, in any case, would not exceed nautical miles and the establishment of the zone would be without prejudice to the exercise of the freedoms of navigation, overflight and the laying of submarine cables and pipelines. Up to this point, this article has described events taking place solely in the developing countries. The economic zone concept was clearly of developing country origin, initiated by a few Latin American states, refined by Caribbean states and defined explicitly by the African states. In this evolution, the coastal states began to accommodate the interests of the group of land-locked states.

The third important group of states was the distant-water fishing states. One immediately notices that the preoccupation in the texts of the developed countries was with fishing, since the Convention on the Continental Shelf had already dealt with non-living resources. Underlying the preoccupation with fishing was the matter of ensuring that the strategic use of the zone was in no way curtailed and that the traditional freedoms of the high seas for non-resource related activities were preserved.

The issue in the Sea-Bed Committee quickly became clear: would the rights of the coastal states in the economic zone be exclusive sovereign rights or preferential fishing rights. Preferential rights were favoured by states wanting to avoid establishment of the zone. Those documents supporting preferential rights are marked by the introduction into the debate of detailed provisions which would limit the powers of the coastal states in specific ways through conservation principles and would establish special regimes for certain species of fish.

The debate continued through the session, setting the stage for the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea in Three main committees were established. Maritime areas subject to national jurisdiction and the high seas, including the territorial sea, continental shelf, the exclusive economic zone and the regime of straits used for international navigation were assigned to the Second Committee.

At the second session in the summer of , the Second Committee produced the "Main Trends" paper, the purpose of which was to reflect the main trends which had emerged from the proposals submitted either to the Sea-Bed Committee or to the Conference III, pp. The Uruguayan delegate, Lupinacci, has described the three basic trends that had taken form by the session of the Conference. He states: "The territorialist trend, starting from the postulate of the mile territorial seas, gradually accepted restrictions to the jurisdiction of coastal states, beyond the first 12 miles, until it reached the point of recognizing, in the remaining mile belt, the freedoms of sovereignty for the sake of international cooperation The final trend was zonist within which the patrimonialist attitude was subsumed and which presupposed the creation of a new juridical institution to regulate a maritime space possessing characteristics of its own and therefore not forming part either of the territorial waters or of the high seas.

The exclusive economic zone, a Latin American perspective. Boulder, Colorado. Westview Press. As we have seen, the evolution of the exclusive economic zone concept took place in the developing world. The effort to protect the living resources of nearby coastal waters resulted in a concept which defined the rights of the coastal state. The reaction of the major fishing nations was to impose obligations through resource management schemes, rather than to challenge the concept itself.

In the following section, we shall examine how those compromise solutions were reached by examining the evolution of the fisheries regime. Faced with the prospect of coastal states cutting off or severely limiting access to fish, the major fishing nations began to make proposals that would limit the powers of the coastal state. These proposals were introduced as early as in the Sea-Bed Committee. The United States of America in a set of draft fisheries articles, 27 favoured a "species" approach to coastal state jurisdiction over fisheries. Also proposed was a kind of "trusteeship zone" which would be under coastal state supervision.

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, however, favoured "preferential rights" over fisheries for the coastal state. The United States, in its draft fisheries articles, suggested several principles which eventually found a home in the final Convention provisions. Among the conservation principles put forth was that "allowable catch and other conservation measures shall be established which are designed, on the basis of the best evidence available, to maintain or restore the maximum sustainable yield, taking into account relevant environmental and economic factors".

Under this scheme, the coastal state could allocate to itself whatever percentage it was capable of harvesting of the allowable catch of a given fish stock in the waters adjacent to its territorial sea. The articles also distinguished between coastal and anadromous species and highly migratory species. The above scheme for management of fisheries resources is an important component of the compromise solutions eventually reached between the territorialists and the major fishing nations.

Several documents are of particular interest because they contain suggestions that reflect variations in the positions taken by the fishing nations in an effort to protect their economic interests. Brief summaries of these documents follow. In the "Explanatory Note" accompanying the USSR document, a rationale for the proposed allocation of stocks is given as follows: "Of course, in solving the problem of fishing the legitimate interests of the peoples of other States to use the fishery resources of the world oceans should not be overlooked.

It is our view that, should the stocks of fish not taken by a coastal State perish without being used by other States, it would be an unjustifiable waste of valuable food resources so necessary to mankind.

EEZ Analyses - Fish Landings from the UK Exclusive Economic Zone and UK Landings from the EU EEZ

The Soviet draft basic provisions for the article on fishing provide that the part of the stocks of fish which is not reserved by a developing coastal State can be taken by other States without detriment to the reproduction of the stocks of fish. Thus, the argument that many developing coastal states would not be able to utilize the stocks fully and, consequently, would not be able to benefit fully from the establishment of the economic zone, was made early on in the Sea-Bed Committee deliberations. This principle of optimum utilization, along with maximum sustainable yield and allowable catch, would become the subject of negotiation as the work progressed in the Conference.

The paper states that it is necessary to differentiate between various groups of species with a view to identifying the types of regime that would be most appropriate in each case. Four categories were identified: sedentary species, coastal species, anadromous species and wide-ranging species. The paper also stressed the special interest in and responsibility for the conservation of the living resources of the sea adjacent to the coastal state's shore and that it should have the authority required to manage those resources in a manner consistent with its special interest and responsibility, as well as preferential rights in the harvest of such resources.

On the subject of allocation, it was pointed out that if an appropriate formula were not worked out, some states would be able to compete more effectively than others and, in extreme cases, one or two participants would be able to appropriate most of the catch to themselves. Another important subject was that of access.

The Canadian paper proposed controlled access to a fishery to ensure that no more than the maximum biological yield would be taken. The basic objective was that fisheries would be exploited so that the difference between value of the yield and cost of obtaining the yield is at a minimum. This is achieved by fishing at or slightly below the maximum sustainable yield. The paper proposed the establishment of a coastal fishery resources zone where the coastal state would have exclusive jurisdiction over the living resources of the sea in an adequately wide zone of the high seas adjacent to its territorial sea.

It was noted that the fishery zone proposed could be incorporated into an economic zone concept covering all resources, living and nonliving. The proposal further included, inter alia, coastal state responsibility: to provide proper management and utilization of the living resources within its zone, using specific methods for regulation such as licensing, limitation on gear, size of fish, etc.

The working paper has been seen as an effort to reconcile the territorialists and the preferentialists. With regard to allocation of resources, the document reads: "Preferential rights shall entitle a developing coastal State annually to an allocation of resources that corresponds to its harvesting capacity; the rate of growth of the fishing capacity of that developing coastal State shall be duly taken into account to the extent that it is able to catch a major portion of the allowable catch. They shall entitle a developed coastal State to an allocation of resources necessary for the maintenance of its locally conducted small-scale coastal fishery; the interests of traditionally established fisheries of other States shall be duly taken into account in determining the part of the allowable catch thus reserved In summary, then, by the end of the major issues had been voiced in one way or another through the submission of various proposals.

Subsumed under the larger battle of exclusive sovereign rights versus preferential fishing rights the basic rules of the fisheries regime were still to be debated. It was clear, and would become clearer in the following year, that those rules would deal with the following issues: i allowable catch; ii determination of harvesting capacity; iii utilization of living resources; and iv access to surplus.

With regard to fisheries, only four proposals were submitted. They dealt with sovereign rights of coastal states for the exploration, exploitation, conservation and management of living resources, international responsibilities of coastal states, cooperation between coastal states and appropriate regional and global organizations, and the rights of coastal states to establish regulations regarding fishing activities and conservation programmes.

Some of the main points of the proposals made are summarized in the following section. With regard to tuna, the United States argued that international management of the fishery for conservation purposes was required because of their occurrence in and beyond multiple national jurisdictions and because they are fished by nationals of several countries. The right of the coastal state to regulate and exploit the living resources within that area was thus a consequence of the exercise of its sovereignty, from which it could not be disassociated.

In the draft articles on fishing, of which Kenya was one of the co-sponsors, it is noted that "the substance of this proposal is complementary to the concept of the exclusive economic zone and should be considered a part thereof". The articles are an elaboration of the Kenyan exclusive economic zone proposal and contain very similar language in some provisions. The substance of the proposal is that the coastal state has a right to establish an exclusive fishery zone in which a coastal state shall enjoy preferential rights to the resources and may reserve for its nationals a portion of the allowable catch corresponding to its harvesting capacity.

With regard to highly migratory species that range outside the zone, regulations would be made by an authority designated by the Conference on the Law of the Sea. However, it is also stated that regulations may be made on a regional basis for the exploration, exploitation, conservation and development of living resources outside the limits of the zone where those resources are of limited migratory habits and thus breed, feed and survive on other resources of the region.

An article on anadromous species was left blank. As previously mentioned, the Chairman of Committee II produced a summary of the proposals before the Committee entitled "Main Trends", 38 which reflected the main proposals presented in the form of draft articles on substantive issues. Variants on substantive issues were presented in an organized fashion.


  • Effects of US Bank Mergers on Bank Risk and Value.
  • OECD Glossary of Statistical Terms - Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) Definition?
  • The Enigma of Creation and Destruction?

The central issue remained the nature and content of the exclusive economic zone since, by this time, the exclusive economic zone concept itself, in one form or another, had been proposed by over countries. With respect to fisheries, Stevenson and Oxman 39 have noted three main approaches. The EEZs have also got economic importance as they do not only set the boundaries, but are also the source of livelihood for many countries because of their fisheries, natural gas reserves, and tourism.

Even the shipping of goods also takes place through these zones from many other countries. The scientific importance of EEZs includes the carrying out of scientific research on varied marine creatures, and the sampling of the seabeds for oil and natural gas purposes which can also be carried out therein. Every country has been given the right to safeguard their territorial waters, but if some countries wish to explore the resources, then they have to enter into a bilateral agreement with the respective neighboring country.