Continental Shelf

The Last Maritime Zone

The Last Maritime Zone 1

Published by UNEP/GRID-Arendal
Copyright © 2009, UNEP/GRID-Arendal
ISBN: 978-82-7701-059-5

Printed by Birkeland Trykkeri AS, Norway

Disclaimer
Any views expressed in this book are those of the authors and do
not necessarily reflect the views or policies of UNEP/GRID-Arendal
or contributory organizations. The designations employed and the
presentation of material in this book do not imply the expression
of any opinion on the part of the organizations concerning the legal
status of any country, territory, city or area of its authority, or deline-
ation of its frontiers and boundaries, nor do they imply the validity
of submissions.

All information in this publication is derived from official material that

is posted on the website of the UN Division of Ocean Affairs and the
Law of the Sea (DOALOS), which acts as the Secretariat to the Com-
mission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS): www.un.org/
Depts/los/clcs_new/clcs_home.htm.

UNEP/GRID-Arendal is an official UNEP centre located in Southern

Norway. GRID-Arendal’s mission is to provide environmental informa-
tion, communications and capacity building services for information
management and assessment. The centre’s core focus is to facili-
tate the free access and exchange of information to support decision
making to secure a sustainable future. www.grida.no.

2 Continental Shelf
Continental Shelf
The Last Maritime Zone

Authors and contributors

Tina Schoolmeester and Elaine Baker (Editors)

Joan Fabres
Øystein Halvorsen
Øivind Lønne
Jean-Nicolas Poussart
Riccardo Pravettoni (Cartography)
Morten Sørensen
Kristina Thygesen

Cover illustration
Alex Mathers

Language editor
Harry Forster (Interrelate Grenoble)

Special thanks to
Yannick Beaudoin
Janet Fernandez Skaalvik
Lars Kullerud

Harald Sund (Geocap AS)

The Last Maritime Zone 3

Foreword

During the past decade, many coastal States have been engaged in peacefully establish-
ing the limits of their maritime jurisdiction. This represents an historical milestone towards
the definition of maritime sovereignty, and presents enormous economic opportunities for
coastal States, but also brings new environmental challenges and responsibilities.
States may secure their legal entitlement to the seabed generations. Importantly, the rules and regulations regard-
by submitting information on the continental shelf beyond ing the continental shelf require the States to safeguard
200 nautical miles as defined in Article 76 of the United the environment and share benefits from resource devel-
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). opment with developing States. Furthermore, the ocean
This is profoundly significant in that it will enable many de- beyond national jurisdiction remains the common heritage
veloping coastal States and small island nations to access of all mankind.
valuable natural resources, such as oil, gas and minerals,
as well as sedentary organisms. Today there are legitimate concerns about the state of
the marine environment, and its unique and largely un-
The high costs and extensive technical capacity required documented ecosystems. While resource development in
to comply with the provisions of Article 76 were recog- these marine areas will likely present additional challeng-
nized by the UN General Assembly. Accordingly, in 2002 es and environmental management issues, the sustain-
they called on the UN Environment Programme’s Global able development of these areas could result in long-term
Resource Information Database (GRID) network to assist economic and environmental benefits. Therefore States
interested states, particularly developing States and small should consider all options, including the establishment of
island developing nations. This gave rise to the UNEP Shelf marine protected areas, which could support eco-tourism
Programme, which along with other international initiatives, and healthy fisheries.
has been providing data and technical assistance to States
preparing proposals to define their national jurisdiction. Continental Shelf: The Last Maritime Zone examines the
status of the submissions made to date and begins to il-
All States have an obligation to ensure that their territorial lustrate a new world map – one which will hopefully help re-
rights – including marine territories – are secured for future duce poverty and lead to the wise use of ocean resources.

Peter Prokosch
Managing Director
UNEP/GRID-Arendal

4 Continental Shelf
Contents

4 Foreword
6 Historic Dates for the UNCLOS

8 Peaceful Regulation of Ocean Space

Where does sovereignty end?

10 All States cross the Finish Line

Status of Submissions

12 Making it Final and Binding

Busy Bees

14 Under Construction
A New World Map

20 Room to Move
Strategies for Securing the Seabed

22 Antarctica
Frozen decision

24 Oceans of Possibilities
… and Responsibilities

26 Abbreviations
26 Glossary
28 Fact Sheet
29 References
30 Summary of Submissions
32 Summary of Preliminary Information

The Last Maritime Zone 5

Historic Dates for the UNCLOS 1200

1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960

1930 1945 1956

The League of Nations Truman Proclamation: US UNCLOS I: First
called a conference in extends jurisdiction over Conference on the
The Hague to extend natural resources on its Law of the Sea.
national claims – no continental shelf – other
agreement reached. nations are quick to follow.

1946–50 1958–60
Argentina (1946), Chile (1947), Four conventions resulting
Peru (1947) and Ecuador (1950) from UNCLOS I are
claim sovereign rights to 200 M to concluded: they are related
cover Humboldt Current fishing to the Territorial Sea and
grounds. Other nations extend Contiguous Zone, the
their territorial seas to 12 M. Continental Shelf, the High
Seas and Fishing and
Conservation of Living
Resources of the High Seas.

1960
UNCLOS II: Second
conference on the Law of the
Sea – no new agreements.
Developing nations partici-
pated but with no significant
voice of their own.

1962
Convention on the High Seas enters into force.

6 Continental Shelf
2001 2009
The ten-year period for lodging On 13 May, the ten-year
these submissions is set to start on period for making
13 May 1999 for States that ratified submissions to CLCS
the Convention before this date. ends for most States.
2008
Decision of States Parties
to the UNCLOS which
allows states to meet the
18th century May 2009 time limit by
Cannon-shot rule: indicating the status and
A coastal State intended submission date,
enjoys sovereignty and by providing prelimi-
17th century as far seawards as nary information.
Freedom-of-the- a cannon can fire a
1494 seas doctrine or cannon ball, which
Pope Alexander VI Mare Liberum: at that time was
divides the Atlantic The seas are free about 3 M – the 2000 2005 2010
Ocean between to all nations but sea beyond 3 M is
Spain and Portugal. belong to none. Mare Liberum.

1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

1967 1982 1994 1999

STATUS: 25 countries use the 3 M The Third United Nations Conference Agreement on Adoption of the
rule, 66 countries use the 12 M rule, on the Law of the Sea is concluded UNCLOS Scientific and
8 countries the 200 M rule for claiming and is open for signature – the implementation Technical Guidelines
sovereignty. Convention sets limits for various reached and law of the Commission on
maritime zones measured from a comes into force the Limits of the
Arvid Pardo – known as the Father of defined baseline – the Convention on 16 November, Continental Shelf –
the Law of the Sea’s Third Conference also makes provisions for the passage a year after these guidelines were
calls for an effective international regime of ships, protection of the marine Guyana became prepared to assist
over the seabed and ocean floor environment, scientific research, the 60th state to States in making a
beyond a clearly defined national conservation and management of ratify the treaty. submission to define
jurisdiction to avoid escalating tensions. resources, and settlement of disputes. the boundary of their
continental shelf
1966 1973–82 1990–94 beyond 200 M.
Convention on Fishing and UNCLOS III: Third Conference on the Law of the Negotiations on the
Conservation of Living Resources Sea starts with more than 160 participating nations implementation of
of the High Seas, enters into force. and lasts until 1982 – in an attempt to reduce the UNCLOS.
possibility of groups of nations dominating the
1964 negotiations, a consensus process rather than a
Conventions on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous majority vote is used.
zone and Continental Shelf enter into force.
The “continental shelf” is defined as “the seabed
and subsoil of the submarine areas adjacent to
the coast but outside the area of the territorial
sea, to a depth of 200 metres (m) or, beyond that
limit, to where the depth of the superjacent
waters admits of the exploitation of the natural
resources of the said areas.

The Last Maritime Zone 7

Peaceful Regulation of Ocean Space
Where does sovereignty end?
After many years of negotiation to regulate the use of the oceans in a single conven-
tion acceptable to all nations, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (the
“Convention” or UNCLOS)1 was adopted on 10 December 1982 and entered into force on
16 November 1994. Many developing States were among the first 60 ratifications. As of
December 2009, significant progress towards universal ratification of the Convention has
been made since the treaty has now been signed and ratified by 159 States Parties and an
additional 19 States have signed the Convention but not yet ratified it.

When the Convention was negotiated, particular attention was given to the definition of the
outer continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles (M) in order to establish the precise limits
of national jurisdiction. Article 76 of the Convention2 defines the legal continental shelf and
the process of delineating its outer limits. Setting these limits ensures the right of coastal
States to explore and exploit the resources of the seabed and subsoil. Article 76 does not
affect the legal status of the water column or the airspace above the continental shelf.

Status of the Convention

Signed and ratified before

16 November 1994
Signed and ratified between
16 November 1996 and 13 May 1999
Signed and ratified after 13 May 1999

Signed but not ratified

Not signed or ratified

Sources: DOALOS/CLCS
Note: USA only signed Part XI of UNCLOS

8 Continental Shelf
Maritime zones

Baseline

High seas (water

column)
Continent Scientific
continental
shelf
Slope

Territorial Se Rise
Contiguous zonea Exclusive Econom
ic Zone Abyssal Plane
0 12 24 Outer continent
al shelf
The Area (seabed
200 )
Full sovereignty Legal continental
shelf Nautical miles (M
)
No sovereignty

In order to define its continental shelf, a coastal State needs The legal definition of the continental shelf is dependent for
to submit scientific and technical data on its outer limits3. its implementation on geo-scientific information – or sci-
For those states which became a party to the Convention ence is applied within a legal framework. The underlying
prior to 13 May 1999, the time period for making a submis- concept is that the extended continental shelf must be part
sion expired on 13 May 2009 – this refers to the vast major- of the continental margin. The legal or juridical continen-
ity of States4. States which became a party after 13 May tal shelf then extends to the outer edge of the continental
1999 have 10 years from the date of ratification to file their margin or up to 200 M where this is not reached.
submission. Once Article 76 has been implemented by all
the present Parties to the Convention, most of the outer However, if the continental margin is narrower than 200 M,
limits of the continental shelf in relation to the international the legal continental shelf is 200 M wide, and need not to
seabed area (the “Area”) will be defined in precise terms. be defined by geo-scientific data; if the continental margin
In other words, only when coastal States have established is wider than 200 M, it has the same width as the legal
their “final and binding” limits, will the Area be finally de- continental shelf.
lineated. Therefore this process is not only important for
the coastal States; it is equally important for the authority Article 76 of the Convention defines the continental shelf
responsible for the international seabed and for the stabil- and the criteria by which a coastal State may establish its
ity of the international legal regime of the oceans. so-called outer continental shelf – this is the continental
shelf beyond 200 M. These conditions are based on analy-
Except for the continental shelf, the legal maritime zones sis of the depth and shape of the seafloor, as well as the
have a width defined by specific distances from the base- thickness of the underlying sediment. The extent of the
lines of the State1. For the continental shelf, the extent de- outer continental shelf shall not exceed either 350 M from
pends on the width of a coastal State’s continental margin. the baselines or 100 M from the 2,500 m isobath.
The continental margin is the submerged prolongation of the
land mass of a coastal State. It consists of the seabed and Besides defining the continental shelf and laying out the
subsoil of the shelf, the slope and the rise, but specifically provisions for the establishment of its outer limits, Article
excludes the deep ocean floor with its oceanic ridges. This 76 also requires coastal States to document the process
definition is based on physiographic components: geolo- of delineating their outer continental shelf and to submit
gists generally use the term “continental shelf” to mean the this information, within a prescribed time limit, to the Com-
part of the continental margin that is between the shoreline mission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (the Com-
and the shelf break. This is the top of the continental slope. mission or CLCS).

The Last Maritime Zone 9

All States cross the Finish Line
Status of Submissions
The vast majority of States were subject to the 13 May 2009 time limit for lodging submis-
sions. By failing to do so, States may lose the opportunity to establish the limits of their
continental shelf that would be final and binding under the Convention. Consequently,
there has been a concerted effort by many States to prepare submissions.

Status of submissions for outer continental shelf

8 The Azores 5
(PT)

Canary Is.
Bahamas (ES)
Barbados
French Antilles (FR) Cape Verde
1 Micronesia
Palau
São Tomé and Maldives
Principe Vanuatu
Seychelles
Comoros Tuvalu
Ascension Is.
Kiribati (UK) Solomon Iss.
French Polynesia (FR)
Tonga Mauritius
3 Tokelau (NZ)
Wallis and Futuna (FR) Réunion (FR)
Fiji
Saint Paul and
Amsterdam Iss.
(FR)
7 6
Falkland Iss. (Malvinas) Kerguelen Iss. (FR)
4 Heard and
Bouvet Is. (NO) McDonalds Iss. Macquarie Is.
(AUS) (AUS)
Notes:
1. Trinidad and Tobago
2. Faroe Iss. (DK)
3. Cook Iss.
4. South Georgia and the
South Sandwich Iss. States that lodged a States that lodged both a States for which recommendations
5. Bay of Biscay and area of Celtic submission to the CLCS submission and have been issued and been made public
sea (Submitted by France, UK, preliminary information States for which recommendations have
Ireland and Spain)
States that submitted Coastal States that ratified been issued but not been made public
6. Crozet Archipelago (FR) preliminary information the UNCLOS Limit of the Antarctic Treaty Area
7. Prince Edward Is. (ZA) to the Secretary-General after May 2009
8. St. Pierre and Miquelon (FR) of the United Nations Sources: DOALOS/CLCS

10 Continental Shelf
Some coastal States, and in particular developing States
Submissions and Preliminary Information and Small Island Developing States (SIDS), face particular
Developing States challenges in the preparation of a submission. They might
Developed States for example lack the necessary geological and bathymetric
Both a submission and preliminary information were lodged data and the financial or technical means to acquire these,
Submissions or they might lack relevant capacity and expertise.
Preliminary
50 Submitting information
States
Submitting It would have been inconsistent with the general approach
States of the Convention if, in particular, developing States were
40
unable to meet the time limit due to lack of resources or
capacity. Therefore, special provisions were put in place al-
30
lowing States to submit, using the same time limit, prelimi-
nary information indicative of the potential outer limits of the
continental shelf5. This information will however not be con-
20 sidered by the Commission and is without prejudice to the
final submission in accordance with Article 76, the Rules of
Procedure of the Commission, and the Scientific and Tech-
10 nical Guidelines (STG)6. Despite the challenges, all relevant
States managed to either make a submission or lodge the
accepted alternative.
0
Sources: DOALOS/CLCS

Submission versus Preliminary Information

Submission Preliminary Information

Submitted to Commission on the Limits of the Continental Secretary-General of the UN

Shelf

Contains • the Executive Summary; • preliminary information indicative of the

• the main body of analytical and descriptive outer limits of the continental shelf
nature; and • a description of the status of preparation
• the supporting scientific and technical data. • intended date of making a submission

What is made public? The Executive Summary including all charts Everything
and coordinates

Where is it published? CLCS website CLCS website

Source: DOALOS.7

The Last Maritime Zone 11

Making it Final and Binding
Busy Bees
The Commission is responsible for making recommendations on the outer limits of the
continental shelf to States in accordance with the Convention and based on the informa-
tion contained in the submission. These recommendations may or may not agree with
the limits of the continental shelf submitted by the individual State. In the case of disa-
greement between a State and the recommendations from the Commission, the State
may – within a reasonable time – make a revised or new submission. When a coastal
State accepts the recommendations, it may proceed with establishing the limits of the
continental shelf beyond 200 M based on those recommendations, which can then be
considered as final and binding.

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Number of submissions and

Preliminary Information per day
10
6
5
4
3
2
1

Submission
Preliminary Information
Recommendations issued

New

Russian Federation Brazil Australia Ireland

1. Joint submission by France, Ireland Spain and the UK 4. Joint submission by France and South Africa
2. Joint submission by the Federated States of 5. Fiji, Solomon Iss, Vanuatu
Micronesia, Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands 6. Chile, Seychelles, Guinea Bissau, Togo, France
3. Joint submission by Malaysia and Viet Nam

Sources: DOALOS/CLCS

12 Continental Shelf
The first submission was made by Russia in 20018, howev- tions (due to submissions with similar geological or physi-
er most submissions were received shortly before 13 May ographical settings), may speed up the process. In addition
20099. With the large volume of submissions received in a number of submissions will not be dealt with immedi-
a short time the Commission’s workload has substantially ately because the Commission is not allowed to formulate
increased. It is not a permanent body and only meets for a recommendations when a dispute exists11. However, it is
few months each year, so it may take several years for the expected that a large number of submissions are under
Commission to process the current batch of submissions. development and that for at least some years the backlog
might increase as submissions come in faster than recom-
In the coming years the workload of the Commission is mendations are issued.
set to increase further as almost half the States which
submitted preliminary information, have indicated that The ability of the CLCS to cope with the predicted workload
they intend to complete their submissions within the next is a real issue and may be of concern, especially for devel-
five years. One quarter indicated they will make a submis- oping coastal States and SIDS. When States made sub-
sion between five and 10 years, the remaining quarter did missions they did not necessarily anticipate that it would
not specify a submission date10. In addition some States take many years to receive recommendations. These coun-
may decide to resubmit following the release of recom- tries face institutional memory loss if the process does not
mendations. speed up. It may be necessary in the future to change the
workings of the Commission in order to issue recommen-
Growing expertise and experience within the Commission, dations more quickly so as not to disadvantage States. This
combined with increased predictability of recommenda- can only be decided by the State Parties.

2007 2008 2009 13 May 2009 2010

Micronesia, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Iss. Tanzania, Cape Verde

Gambia 6
Equatorial Guinea
Somalia
Comoros
Benin and Togo
Angola, Bahamas, Benin, Brunei,
Fiji, Fiji and Solomon Iss., 5 Congo, Cuba, Gabon, Guyana,
Senegal, Sierra Leone
Oman
Vanuatu
Mauritius, Mexico
Sao Tomè and Principe
Cameroon, China, Costa Rica, DR Congo,
Guinea, Mauritania, Mozambique, New
Zealand, Republic of Korea, Spain
Cook Isl.Argentina
Uruguay
Iceland
UK, Ireland
Pakistan
France Norway
UK Suriname Kenya, Mauritius, 3, 4
Palau; Côte d’Ivoire; Sri Lanka, France
w Zealand 1 Mexico Japan
Cuba

Norway France
Barbados Trinidad and Tobago; Namibia
Portugal; Tonga; Spain; India; UK
Indonesia Viet Nam, Nigeria, Seychelles
South Africa, 2

Denmark
Ghana
Fiji
Joint submission by Mauritius and Seychelles Philippines
Myanmar Yemen

The Last Maritime Zone 13

Globa

Under Construction
A New World Map
The new outer continental shelf lim-
its will radically transform the world
map. The definition of these new
boundaries is directly related to the
geology of the seabed. The geol-
ogy and morphology of emerged
areas has previously played a role
in boundary delimitation (i.e. moun-
tain ranges, rivers, etc.) but only
because of its influence on the
dispersion of culture, economy
or on the sustainable expan-
sion of military power. In this
case geology and boundaries
are directly related.

States that lodged

a submission to the CLCS States that lodged
States that lodged Preliminarya submission to the CLCS
Information but did not disclose thethat lodged Preliminary
States
extent of the area Information but did not disclose the
Exclusive Economic Zone extent of the area
Exclusive Economic Zone
Area of outer continental shelf according to the
Area of outer continental shelf according to the
Executive Summaries of the submissions
Executive Summaries of the submissions
Area of outer continental shelf according to Preliminary Information
Area of outer continental shelf according to Preliminary Information

14 Continental Shelf
al distribution of outer continental shelf

Global distribution of outer continental shelf

Sources: DOALOS/CLCS
Sources: DOALOS/CLCS

The Last Maritime Zone 15

If the area of the seabed under review
was land...

Alaska bay

Alaska Cape
Ridge CANADIAN Hudson
OCEAN

Gread Lakes
EASTASIA archipelago

UNITED STATES
OCEAN

EURASIA
Mexico sea

Yucatan
Pacific gulf
Republic

...It would cover an area almost as large as the North American continent
Note: not including outer continental shelf generated from Antarctic Territory and
overlaps in Submissions.

It is not possible at present to calculate the full extent

of the outer continental shelf. The area will change as
more submissions are received from States with a later
submission date, preliminary information documents are
developed into full submissions, additional States ratify
the Convention, and recommendations are adopted.
Using the information calculated from the submissions
alone, the present area of outer continental shelf is more
than 25 million km2 9 (this includes the area generated
from Antarctic Territory and overlapping areas). If you
include the area estimated from preliminary information,
this adds a further 4 million km2 10. It is most likely that
the area submitted and the area resulting from recom-
mendations will not be exactly the same. However, the
recommendations issued so far agree for 97% of the
area originally submitted (not including the submissions
Seabed Jurisdiction by Russia and Brazil for which recommendations have
Area under national jurisdiction not been made public)12.
(up to 200 M from the baseline)
Seabed area beyond 200 M: The area beyond 200 M is made up of potential outer
The Area (final boundary to be determined following continental shelf and the Area. Current information in-
the delineation of the outer continental shelf) dicates that the potential outer continental shelf repre-
Total area of outer continental shelf included in the submissions sents more than 10% of the total area under national
Area for which recommendations were issued and made public sovereignty for two-thirds of all submitting States. Only
Total area of outer continental shelf included
when the continental shelf area is finalised will the ex-
in the Preliminary Information tent of the Area be defined. A State’s entitlement to the
outer continental shelf is already in place according to
= 1 million Km2 Sources: DOALOS/CLCS
Article 77 of UNCLOS13. States do not lose their rights

16 Continental Shelf




!""!%$#

%)
(!!$"*(*((!((*#!((!%$
*'%&!$"*(%+'(()''!)%'!(
$%)!$"*!$%*)'%$)!$$)"( "$')'%# $)')!''!)%'!( %*'(

Total area of outer continental shelf by State

Million Km2
3.0
Portugal United Kingdom
Australia

2.5
France

Sri Lanka
2.0

Russia
New Zealand
1.5 Japan
Iceland Norway

1.0
Trinidad
and Palau Micronesia
Pakistan
Barbados Tobago Ireland Viet Nam Cook Islands
0.5 Spain Yemen
Mexico Cuba Denmark India
Côte d'Ivoire Myanmar Philippines
Kenya
Suriname Ghana Seychelles Malaysia Indonesia
Brazil Nigeria Fiji
0 Mauritius
Uruguay Namibia South
Argentina Africa Papua New Guinea
Tonga Solomon Islands

Note: not including outer continental shelf generated from Antarctic Territories Source: executive summaries of submissions.

The Last Maritime Zone 17

Relative contribution of outer continental shelf to total area under national jurisdiction
Percentage

80% Sri Lanka France

Trinidad and Tobago Australia
Portugal Seychelles
70% United Kingdom Kenya
Namibia Viet Nam
South Africa Myanmar
60% Iceland Solomon Islands
Palau Ireland
Suriname India
50% Barbados Brazil
Uruguay Papua New Guinea
Argentina Micronesia
Philippines
40% New Zealand Yemen
Mauritius Spain
Cook Islands Côte d'Ivoire
30% Japan Pakistan
Fiji Russia
Norway Malaysia
20% Ghana
Tonga
Denmark
10% Nigeria
Cuba
Mexico
0 Indonesia

Note: not including outer continental shelf generated from Antarctic Territories
Source: executive summaries of submissions.

Ratio of outer continental shelf over emerged land area

Logaritmic scale

104
Cook Islands Denmark
Palau Trinidad and Tobago Small Island Developing States
Seychelles Sri Lanka
103 Micronesia Portugal
Mauritius France
Barbados Fiji
Tonga United Kingdom
102 Solomon Islands
New Zealand
Ireland
Iceland
101 Japan
South Africa
Namibia
Norway
1
Suriname
Uruguay
Philippines
10-1 Papua New Guinea
Spain
Brazil
Argentina Yemen
Australia
Viet Nam Malaysia
10-2 Myanmar Pakistan
India Côte d'Ivoire
Kenya Ghana
Russia
10-3 Cuba
Nigeria
Note: not including outer continental shelf generated from Antarctic Territories Mexico
Source: executie summaries of submissions. Indonesia

18 Continental Shelf
Role of Geology in Article 76

Area of outer continental shelf according to the Active convergent plate boundaries
executive summaries of submissions that form the Ring of Fire
Area of outer continental shelf according Main Hot Spots
to the preliminary information Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) Sources: DOALOS/CLCS
Documents

by not making a submission, but the area over which they tered in the Atlantic Ocean can also generate substantial
have entitlement will continue to be undefined and by areas of outer continental shelf due to factors such as iso-
definition so will the boundaries of the Area. lation and the lateral continuity of underwater features re-
lated to micro-continents, oceanic plateaus, hot spot ridg-
Areas of outer continental shelf are predominantly asso- es and island arc ridges. Another contributing factor in the
ciated with broad passive continental margins which by distribution of areas of outer continental shelf is the pres-
their nature are often wider than 200 M. There are far fewer ence of large rivers and their deltas as they control in large
extensive areas of outer continental shelf associated with part the distribution of the thickest sediment sequences
the generally narrow active continental margins, such as covering the continental margins. In the polar regions, thick
the Ring of Fire bordering the Pacific Ocean. Islands in the packages of glacial sediment contribute to the formation of
South West Pacific, the southern Indian Ocean and scat- extended continental shelf.

The Last Maritime Zone 19

Room to Move
Strategies for Securing the Seabed
Few of the coastal States making a submission do so without inviting close examination
from a neighbouring State. In many cases, two or more States might have access to over-
lapping areas beyond 200 M, have unresolved boundaries or disputes regarding land or
maritime borders. The Commission is not allowed to consider submissions regarding dis-
puted areas unless the Parties involved give their consent11. The time limit of 13 May 2009
provided the impetus for many States to examine ways of dealing with their neighbours in
order to allow the Commission to consider their submission14. A coastal State must ex-
amine its own circumstances and national interest to determine to what extent it wants or
needs to engage with its neighbours.

Different approaches for dealing with sensitive boundary tise, shared workload), a joint submission can overcome
issues include the preparation of partial submissions or problems associated with unresolved boundaries, as these
joint submissions and any possible intermediate variant of can be negotiated between States independently of the
these two, reflecting different degrees of cooperation with submission. At present 13 States have chosen to make
respect to bi- or multi-lateral agreements, data sharing a joint submission. Their efforts are contained in five joint
and transparency of the process. The degree of coopera- submissions of which some are partial submissions.
tion does not need to be disclosed in the submission. Two
or more coastal States may coordinate their submissions More than 2 million km2 of all submissions to date are in-
without any reference to having done so either to the CLCS cluded in two or more overlapping submissions. In cases of
or other coastal States. overlapping areas, coordination between States may take
the form of agreeing on a possible border in advance of a
A partial submission is typically made to exclude overlapping submission, or agreeing to make “no objection” to each
or disputed areas, or when a State has very dispersed terri- other’s submissions, in which case the Commission can
tory. Other reasons might be to group areas with the same consider the submissions. This level of diplomatic coordi-
geological characteristics or to spread the workload involved nation does need to be communicated to the Commission.
in lodging a submission. States can reserve the right to make In some cases a coastal State may object to the examina-
additional partial submissions at a future time. Twenty-seven tion of another State’s submission until delimitation issues
of the 51 submissions to date are partial submissions. This are resolved. States are requested to inform the Commis-
has to follow the State’s time limit for submissions, unless sion of any dispute.
it concerns a disputed area12. Iceland, Indonesia, and the
Philippines, are examples of States which have made partial States may also work together to maximise their skills and
submissions to avoid possible disputes and reserve the right resources. In the South West Pacific for example, SIDS
to submit additional submissions in the future10. joined forces in a unique example of cooperation. Over
four years, the technical teams from nine Pacific Island
A joint submission is a single submission made by two or states shared data and information, and supported each
more States working collaboratively. There would normally other through a series of capacity building workshops. This
be full disclosure of submission data and information be- resulted in the preparation and lodgement of five full sub-
tween the coastal States and the technical team preparing missions and five preliminary information documents. Five
the submission would operate as a single technical team of the states identified areas of overlapping outer conti-
cooperating on all facets of the submission. Besides tech- nental shelf and resolved to compile joint submissions and
nical advantages (e.g. combined datasets, pooled exper- preliminary information documents10,11.

20 Continental Shelf
The Last Maritime Zone 21
Antarctica ATLANTIC
OCEAN

Frozen decision South Georgia and South

Sandwich Iss.

For the purposes of the Antarctic

Treaty, Antarctica is defined as the Falkland Iss.
(Malvinas)
area south of 60˚ 15. The treaty was
established primarily to govern the Queen M

Antarctic continent, but it also dealt Weddel

with the status of the surrounding Sea
sea in the interest of all mankind.
Seven of the signatory States make Ronne
Ice Shelf
claims to Antarctic territory and the Bellingshausen
adjacent maritime zones. Although Sea

these claims are disputed, the Ant- Ellsworth Land

arctic Treaty contains certain pro-
Peter I Is. (NO)
visions that have satisfied claimant Marie Byrd Land
Amundsen
and non-claimant states regarding sea
the legitimacy of the claims. Basi- Ro
Ice S
cally, under the Treaty, States have
“agreed to disagree” about the legal Ross
status of Antarctica. Sea
it
lim

In order not to disturb the agreements of the

ty

Antarctic Treaty, but to safeguard the outer limit

a
tre
ic

of the continental shelf under UNCLOS, two ap- ta

rct
proaches have been applied to deal with the situ-
n
°A
60
ation: a submission is filed but instructed not to
be examined by the CLCS or a State can reserve
the right to make a submission at a later date.
PACIFIC

Some islands north of 60˚S, which are not part

of the Antarctic Treaty, may generate maritime
zones that extend south of 60˚S. This is for ex-
ample the case for the outer continental shelf
surrounding the Australian Heard and McDonald
Islands, for which the CLCS made its recommen-
dations in 200816.

22 Continental Shelf
Outer continental shelf in
Bouvet Is.
(NO)
the Antarctic Treaty Area

INDIAN
OCEAN

Heard Is.
(AUS)
Antarctic ice shelves
200 miles zone (for reference only)

Outer continental shelf

Maud Land Argentina
Heard and
McDonald Iss. United Kingdom
(AUS)
Amery Ice Shelf Australia
Norway
Area for which a submission was made
by both Argentina and UK
Limit of the Application Area of the
Antarctic Treaty
South Pole Outer continental shelf generated from
Shackleton the Antarctic landmass and south of 60ºS
Ice Shelf
Outer continental shelf generated
from landmass that lies north of 60ºS
Wilkes Land
Antarctic land claims
oss Argentina United Kingdom Norway
Shelf
Australia France Chile New Zealand

Main research station from 12 original signatories

to the Antarctic Treaty

Victoria Land Argentina

Australia
Belgium
Balleny Is. Chile
France
Japan
New Zealand
C OCEAN
Norway
Russia
South Africa

Macquarie Is. United Kingdom

(AUS) United States
Sources: executive summaries of submissions;
British Antarctic Survey; Antarctic Treaty.

The Last Maritime Zone 23

Oceans of Possibilities
… and Responsibilities

When the new boundaries are in place, States will probably proceed to explore and ex-
ploit their outer continental shelves. There is still limited knowledge about the variety and
distribution of resources in the deep ocean, but research and investigation is accelerat-
ing. Dwindling land-based reserves of hydrocarbons and minerals and the rising com-
modities market, together with the development of deep-sea technology has made this
new frontier possible.

On its outer continental shelf, a coastal State has the The oil and gas industry is very effective at overcoming en-
right to explore and exploit the natural resources of the gineering challenges: in 2009, a new generation of offshore
seabed and subsoil. These are defined as mineral and drilling units is ready to explore the oceans to a depth of
other non-living resources, and living sedentary spe- 4 km19. Similarly the search for methane hydrates is ventur-
cies13. One of the major differences between the conti- ing onto continental slopes and beyond the EEZs. Interest
nental shelf regime within the 200 M zone and the outer in marine mining has recently surged too and commercial
continental shelf area is the requirement to share part extraction of massive sulphides is set to start in the near
of the revenue from non-living resources with the inter- future. Besides mineral resources, the deep ocean is seen
national community18. States have to make payments as the medicine chest of the future. The pharmaceutical in-
or contributions in kind when non-living resources are dustry, driven by rising profits, is exploring the marine en-
extracted. These are to be distributed by the Inter- vironment, harvesting biological material, and patenting its
national Seabed Authority (ISA) to developing states, inventions including the living creatures it uses.
“particularly the least developed and the land-locked
amongst them”. Such benefit sharing does not apply to Technological progress not only allows us to extract re-
living resources. sources, but also to put back waste products. The interest
in carbon capture and storage has rocketed, starting out
Beyond areas of national jurisdiction, the seabed and in the late 1990s with CO2 injection into oil and gas fields
subsoil with its non-living resources belong to the Area, to enhance recovery. It has since developed into a whole
which is designated as the common heritage of man- new industry, with the latest research looking at the stor-
kind19. Within the Area, the ISA licence and control the age of frozen CO2 directly on the seabed. There is also an
exploitation of resources. The ISA has to find an equita- ever increasing use of the oceans for renewable energy and
ble way of sharing the benefits from mining the Area. recreation purposes.

24 Continental Shelf
0%

5%

10%
Deeper underwater, deeper underground
History of sea exploration (metres)
Depth distribution of outer continental shelf
1950-59 1960-69 1970-79 1980-89 1990-99 2000-09
0 Metres 1 000 2 000 3 000 4 000 5 000 6 000 7 000 8 000 9 000
0%
500
15%
1 000 5%

1 500
10%
2 000
20%
2 500 15%

3 000
Exploration
technically possible 20%
3 500

4 000 25%
25%
Sources: Chevron, 2009.

There are legitimate concerns regarding the current state of knowledge of the marine en-
vironment, including the unique and largely undocumented ecosystems that inhabit the
seabed. There are potential environmental effects associated with resource development,
from exploration through extraction, processing and transport, resulting in challenging and
complex environmental management issues. The resource industry is often steps ahead of
planning guidelines or legislation in their bid to create revenue for the future.

According to UNCLOS, States have the sovereign right The need to delineate the outer boundary of the continental
to exploit their natural resources20, and also have a gen- shelf has been a major driver for research on the continental
eral obligation to protect and preserve the marine environ- margin. For many States this has resulted in the first compi-
ment21. The UNCLOS rules oblige the States to prevent, lation of marine scientific data, a valuable resource that can
reduce and control pollution and develop ways to manage, be used in the development of ocean management strate-
protect and preserve the marine environment22. Impor- gies and plans. Many States, including small island devel-
tantly UNCLOS also requires that developing States are oping States have jurisdiction over enormous areas which
offered wide-ranging assistance in order to manage their include unique and vulnerable marine ecosystems. There
marine environment and participate in the global debate on is a need to safeguard biodiversity in these areas, while
the use of the oceans. managing the issues related to resource development. The
Convention does not necessarily provide solutions to all
management challenges that might arise in the future, but it
does offer a sound framework for addressing them.

The Last Maritime Zone 25

Abbreviations
ATS Antarctic Treaty System M Nautical mile - 1 M equals 1,852 metres (m)
CLCS Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf SIDS Small Island Developing States
DOALOS Division of Ocean Affairs and the Law Of the Sea STG Scientific and Technical Guidelines
EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone UNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law Of the Sea
ISA International Seabed Authority

Glossary
Active continental margins Contiguous zone
Margins at the edges of converging plates are called active margins, The coastal state has authority in the contiguous zone in regards to
because they experience frequent volcanic or earthquake activ- customs, fiscal, immigration, and sanitary laws and regulations. The
ity. These are caused by the subduction of the oceanic plate under contiguous zone extends up to 24 M from the baseline.
the continental plate. A trench is formed at the subduction site and
sediments eroding from the continent accumulate on the shelf or are Continental margin
transported into the trench (continental rises are generally absent on Under the terms of the Convention: The continental margin compris-
active margins because the presence of the trench doesn’t allow for es the submerged prolongation of the land mass of the coastal State,
sediment to accumulate). Active margins occur around much of the and consists of the seabed and subsoil of the shelf, the slope and the
Pacific Rim, in North and South America, the Alaska and Kamchatka rise. It does not include the deep ocean floor with its oceanic ridges
Peninsulas, the Aleutian Islands, and Japan. or the subsoil thereof. (Article 76, paragraph 3).

Antarctic Treaty Continental shelf (geological)

Was signed in Washington on 1 December 1959 and entered into force The concept of the continental shelf contained in the Convention
on 23 June 1961. The purpose of the Treaty is to ensure “in the inter- differs from the corresponding scientific concept. The scientific
ests of all mankind that Antarctica shall continue forever to be used continental shelf forms part of the continental margin, which is
exclusively for peaceful purposes and shall not become the scene or made up of the shallow, relatively flat continental shelf, bordered
object of international discord.” A total of 47 countries have become by an inclined continental slope, at the base of which is often
Parties to the Antarctic Treaty. Of these, seven claim territory in Antarc- found a wedge shaped layer of sediments, the continental rise.
tica (Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, New Zealand, Norway, United Depending on the geological setting continental shelves can be
Kingdom), 12 are Original Signatories, and 28 are Consultative Parties. narrow or broad.
The Antarctic Treaty area is the area south of 60˚S
Continental shelf (legal)
Baseline The concept of the legal continental shelf is generally traced back
All maritime zones – apart from the continental shelf – are defined by a to the 1945 Truman Proclamation. The current legal definition con-
distance criterion measured from a baseline. Depending on the nature tained in the Convention states: 1. The continental shelf of a coast-
of the coastline, different types of baselines can be employed: normal al State comprises the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas
– low water line along the coast; straight – points connected along the that extend beyond its territorial sea (i) throughout the natural pro-
coast; archipelagic – straight baselines joining the outermost points of longation of its land territory to the outer edge of the continental
the outermost islands and drying reefs of an archipelago. States lodge margin, or (ii) to a distance of 200 nautical miles from the baselines
baseline data with DOALOS. The CLCS does not make judgements from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured where
about the validity of the baselines submitted as part of the supporting the outer edge of the continental margin does not extend up to
data for the delineation of the continental shelf. that distance. 2. The continental shelf of a coastal State shall not
extend beyond the limits provided for in paragraphs 4 to 6 (article
Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf 76, paragraphs 1 and 2).
Is elected by the States Parties and consists of 21 members who are
experts in the field of geology, geophysics or hydrography. The main Continental slope
purpose of the Commission is to examine data submitted by coastal The edge of the continental shelf, called the shelf break, is marked
States and make recommendations related to the establishment of by an abrupt increase in slope occurring at an average depth of
the outer limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 M. The Commis- 135 m. The continental slope is the sloping edge of the continent
sion ordinarily meets twice a year, in the spring and autumn, at United that merges into the deep ocean, or the continental rise where
Nations Headquarters in New York. this exists.

26 Continental Shelf
Continental rise to the seabed and subsoil in the Area, particularly the resources
The wedge of sediment that may form at the base of the continental of the Area.
slope due to the change in gradient from the steeper slope to the flat
abyssal plain. Isobath
A line connecting points of equal water depth.
Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea
DOALOS is the division of the United Nations that provides advice Passive continental margin
and assistance on the implementation of the United Nations Conven- The edges of the continents – the continental margins can be classi-
tion on the Law of the Sea and on issues and developments relating fied according to their tectonic setting. Those located at the edges of
to research and the legal regime for the oceans. diverging plates are called passive margins, because they do not gen-
erally experience earthquakes or volcanic eruptions. They are sink-
Exclusive Economic Zone ing areas where thick sequences of sediments accumulate. Passive
The coastal state has sovereign rights over the natural resources, margins occur around Australia, on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean,
whether living or non-living, of the water, the seabed and its subsoil, in Europe, Africa, and North and South America.
and over other activities for the economic exploitation and exploration
of the zone. Jurisdiction is also provided over establishment and use Ring of Fire
of artificial islands, installations, and structures and over the protection The volcanic arcs and oceanic trenches that partly encircle the Pacific
and preservation of the marine environment. The exclusive economic Ocean form the so-called “Ring of Fire.” This zone, which is notorious
zone extends to a maximum breadth of 200 M from the baseline. for frequent earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, is a direct result of
plate tectonics and the movement and collisions of tectonic plates.
High Seas
The area of seas beyond the exclusive economic zone, the high seas, is not Scientific and Technical Guidelines
subject to the jurisdiction of any State. In this area, all States can undertake The STG of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf
activities such as navigation, overflight, fishing, marine scientific research, were issued on 13 May 1999. The guidelines were produced to assist
construction of artificial islands and laying of cables and pipelines. How- coastal states planning to submit data and other material on the outer
ever, the Convention stipulates that States shall exercise their freedoms limits of the continental shelf. They describe the geodetic, geological,
on the high seas with due regard for the interests of other States. bathymetric, geophysical and other methodologies stipulated in Arti-
cle 76 for the establishment of the outer limits of the continental shelf.
Hot spot
In geology, a hot spot is a location on the Earth’s surface that has ex- Territorial Sea
perienced active volcanism for a long period of time. A chain of extinct The territorial sea is measured from the baseline. The maximum
volcanoes or volcanic islands (and seamounts) can form over millions breadth of the territorial sea allowed under international law is 12 M.
of years when a tectonic plate moves slowly over a hot spot. The coastal state enjoys sovereignty and jurisdiction over the territorial
sea but must allow the right of innocent passage for foreign vessels.
Internal waters However research activities require the consent of the coastal state.
Internal waters are those on the landward side of the baseline of the
territorial sea. The coastal State has full sovereignty over its internal The Area
waters, much as it does over its land territory. Consists of the seabed and ocean floor, and the subsoil thereof, be-
yond the limits of any nation’s jurisdiction. The resources of the inter-
International Seabed Authority national seabed area (defined as “all solid, liquid or gaseous mineral
International organization established under UNCLOS, through resources in situ in the Area at or beneath the seabed, including poly-
which the States Parties can organize and control activities related metallic nodules”) are considered the common heritage of mankind.

The Last Maritime Zone 27

Fact Sheet: Outer Continental Shelf
Status of submissions (as of 1 December, 2009)
Total number of Submissions 51
Submitted by 44 States (of which 32 are developing States)
27 of the 51 Submissions are Partial Submissions
5 of the 51 Submissions are Joint Submissions
3 out of 51 Submissions include outer continental shelf off Antarctica
Total number of Preliminary Information Documents 44
Submitted by 40 States (of which 37 are developing States)
3 of the 44 were submitted jointly between 2 or 3 States
10 States submitted both a Submission and Preliminary Information Document
(of which 7 are developing States)

… information from Submissions

Total accumulated area in submissions 25.4 million km2
Area included in 2 or more submissions (overlap) 2.3 million km2
Actual area contained in submissions 23.1 million km2
Area generated from Antarctic Territory (South of 60°S) 1.8 million km2
Depth statistics of outer continental shelf areas in submissions23
Minimum depth a few metres
Maximum depth 8200 m
Average depth 3600 m
Median 3900 m
Majority (value that appears most often) 4100 m
Standard deviation 1200 m

… information from Recommendations

Total area for which CLCS has issued recommendations 6.8 million km2
Area for which recommendations were issued but not made public by the State* 1.8 million km2
Area for which recommendations were issued and made public by the State** 5.1 million km2 * Brazil and Russia.
Area adopted after recommendations** 4.9 million km2
** Australia, Ireland (Por-
Return rate of recommendations 97%
cupine Abyssal Plain),
Area still to be considered by the CLCS 16.3 million km2 New Zealand, Joint
submission by France,
… information from Preliminary Information UK, Ireland and Spain,
Norway (North East
Total accumulated area derived from Preliminary Information Documents*** > 4.0 million km2
Atlantic and the Arc-
tic), Mexico (western
Other maritime zones (for comparison purposes) polygon in the Gulf
Territorial Sea 22.4 million km2 of Mexico), France
(French Guiana and
Contiguous Zone 6.6 million km2 New Caledonia).
Exclusive Economic Zone 101.9 million km2
Total area under national jurisdiction excluding the outer continental shelf 131.0 million km2 *** Because of the
preliminary nature of
High Seas 200.4 million km2
these documents, this
Area of the Earth covered by Oceans ca. 335 million km2 number has a high
uncertainty level.

28 Continental Shelf
References
1 UNCLOS – United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 13 Article 77 of UNCLOS: Rights of the coastal State over the continental
(LOSC), United Nations Publication No.E.97.V. 10. Full text of shelf.
the Convention: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agree-
ments/texts/unclos/closindx.htm 14 Murphy, 2008. Coordinated, harmonized or joint submissions to the
commission on the limits of the continental shelf. 5th ABLOS Confer-
2 Article 76 of UNCLOS: Definition of the continental shelf. ence “Difficulties in Implementing the Provisions of UNCLOS” 15-17
October 2008, Monaco.
3 UNCLOS, Annex II, Article 4.
15 Antarctic Treaty, 1959. http://www.ats.aq/index_e.htm
4 UN Doc. SPLOS/72 (29 May 2001).
16 Summary of the Recommendations to Australia, 2008. http://www.
5 UN Doc. SPLOS/183 (20 June 2008). un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/submission_aus.htm

6 Scientific and Technical Guidelines of the Commission on the 17 Article 82 of UNCLOS: Payments Payments and contributions with respect
Limits of the Continental Shelf, CLCS/11, 13 May 1999; (United to the exploitation of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles.
Nations, New York).
18 Article 136 of UNCLOS: Common heritage of mankind.
7 Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea – http://www.
un.org/Depts/los/index.htm 19 Siegele, 2007. Chevron. Deep Water Gulf of Mexico.

8 Executive Summary of Russian submission: http://www.un.org/ 20 Article 193 of UNCLOS: Sovereign right of States to exploit their natu-
Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/submission_rus.htm ral resources.

9 http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/commission_submis- 21 Article 192 of UNCLOS: General Obligation.

sions.htm
22 Article 194 of UNCLOS: Measures to prevent, reduce and control pol-
10 http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/commission_prelimi- lution of the marine environment.
nary.htm
23 ETOPO2v2, Global Gridded 2-minute Database, National Geophysical
11 Annex I to the Rules of Procedure of the CLCS Data Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
Dept. of Commerce, http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/global/etopo2.html
12 http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/commission_recommen-
dations.htm

The Last Maritime Zone 29

Summary of Submissions
Order of Approximate area
sub- in km2 calculated
mission Submission by [State] Date of submission Comment by GRID-Arendal

1 Russian Federation 20 December 2001 836 000

2 Brazil 17 May 2004 953 000

3 Australia 15 November 2004 3 302 000

4 Ireland – Porcupine Abyssal Plain 25 May 2005 Partial submission 38 000

5 New Zealand 19 April 2006 1 757 000

6 Joint submission by France, Ireland, Spain and the United King- 19 May 2006 Joint submission/ 82 000
dom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland – in the area of the Partial Submission
Celtic Sea and the Bay of Biscay

7 Norway – in the North East Atlantic and the Arctic 27 November 2006 Partial submission 323 000

8 France – in respect of the areas of French Guiana and New Caledonia 22 May 2007 Partial submission 194 000

9 Mexico – in respect of the western polygon in the Gulf of Mexico 13 December 2007 Partial submission 9 000

10 Barbados 8 May 2008 53 000

11 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland – Ascension 9 May 2008 Partial submission 645 000
Island

12 Indonesia – North West of Sumatra Island 16 June 2008 Partial submission 5 000

13 Japan 12 November 2008 809 000

14 Joint submission by the Republic of Mauritius and the Republic 1 December 2008 Joint submission/ 374 000
of Seychelles – in the region of the Mascarene Plateau Partial Submission

15 Suriname 5 December 2008 81 000

16 Myanmar 16 December 2008 148 000

17 France – areas of the French Antilles and the Kerguelen Islands 5 February 2009 Partial submission 468 000

18 Yemen – in respect of south east of Socotra Island 20 March 2009 Partial submission 46 000

19 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland – in 31 March 2009 Partial submission 166 000
respect of Hatton-Rockall Area

20 Ireland – in respect of Hatton-Rockall Area 31 March 2009 Partial submission 382 000

21 Uruguay 7 April 2009 90 000

22 Philippines – in the Benham Rise region 8 April 2009 Partial submission 135 000

23 The Cook Islands – concerning the Manihiki Plateau 16 April 2009 Partial submission 406 000

24 Fiji 20 April 2009 Partial submission 230 000

25 Argentina 21 April 2009 1 779 000

26 Ghana 28 April 2009 15 000

30 Continental Shelf
Africa Asia Europe North America South America Oceania

Provisions of Article 76 Max. water depth (m) Average water depth

Communications received with regard to the invoked (as indicated in in submission area (m) in submission area
submission (as of 1 December 2009) submissions) (based on ETOPO2) (based on ETOPO2)

Denmark, Norway, Canada, USA, Japan 4(a)(i) and (ii), 5 4500 3200

USA (2) 4(a)(i) and (ii), 5, 7 5100 3900

USA, Russian Fed., Japan, Timor-Leste, France, The 4(a)(i) and (ii), 4(b), 5, 7 6450 3750
Netherlands, Germany, India

Denmark, Iceland 4(a)(i) and (ii), 7 4900 4600

Fiji, Japan, France, Tonga, The Netherlands 3, 4(a)(i) and (ii), 4(b), 5, 6, 7 8200 3600

– 4(a)(i) and (ii), 4(b) 5000 4450

Denmark, Iceland, Russian Federation, Spain 1, 3, 4(a)(i) and (ii), 5, 7 4050 3100

Vanuatu, New Zealand, Suriname 1, 4 (a)(i) and (ii), 4(b) 5050 4200

– 3, 4(a)(i) and (ii), 5, 6 3700 3350

Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Venezuela 4(a)(i), 4 (b) 5900 5300

The Netherlands 4(a)(ii), 4(b), 6, 7 5350 3850

India 1, 4(a)(i) 4350 4150

USA, China, Republic of Korea, Palau 4(a)(ii), 4 (b), 5, 7 6500 5100

– 4(a)(ii), 4(b), 5, 7 4500 2650

France, Trinidad and Tobago, Barbados 3, 4(a)(i), 4(b), 5, 7 5050 4850

Sri Lanka, India, Kenya, Bangladesh 1 to 10 3100 2700

The Netherlands 4(a)(i) and (ii), 4(b), 5 5950 4000

Somalia 4(a)(ii), 4 (b), 7 5000 4000

Iceland, Denmark 4(a)(i) and (ii), 5 3150 1850

Iceland, Denmark 4(a)(i) and (ii) 4900 2550

– 4(a)(ii), 4(b), 5 5450 4850

– 1 to 5 6300 5200

New Zealand 4(a)(ii), 4(b), 5, 7 6450 4550

New Zealand, Vanuatu 4(a)(ii), 4(b), 5, 7 4500 4300

UK, USA, Russian Federation, India, The Netherlands 4(a)(i) and (ii), 4(b), 5 6350 3600

Nigeria 4(a)(i) , 4(b) , 7 5150 4850

The Last Maritime Zone 31

Summary of Submissions (continued)
Order of Approximate area
sub- in km2 calculated
mission Submission by [State] Date of submission Comment by GRID-Arendal

27 Iceland – in the Ægir Basin area and in the western and southern 29 April 2009 Partial submission 485 000
parts of Reykjanes Ridge

28 Denmark – in the area north of the Faroe Islands 29 April 2009 Partial submission 58 000

29 Pakistan 30 April 2009 57 000

30 Norway – in respect of Bouvetøya and Dronning Maud Land 4 May 2009 Partial submission 621 000

31 South Africa – in respect of the mainland of the territory of the 5 May 2009 Partial submission 1 137 000
Republic of South Africa

32 Joint submission by the Federated States of Micronesia, Papua New 5 May 2009 Joint submission/ 604 000
Guinea and Solomon Islands – concerning the Ontong Java Plateau Partial Submission

33 Joint submission by Malaysia and Viet Nam – in the southern 6 May 2009 Joint submission/ 43 000
part of the South China Sea Partial Submission

34 Joint submission by France and South Africa – in the area of the 6 May 2009 Joint submission/ 1 108 000
Crozet Archipelago and the Prince Edward Islands Partial Submission

35 Kenya 6 May 2009 101 000

36 Mauritius – in the region of Rodrigues Island 6 May 2009 Partial submission 110 000

37 Viet Nam – in North Area (VNM-N) 7 May 2009 Partial submission 78 000

38 Nigeria 7 May 2009 8 000

39 Seychelles – concerning the Northern Plateau Region 7 May 2009 Partial submission 22 000

40 France – in respect of La Réunion Island and Saint-Paul and 8 May 2009 Partial submission 411 000
Amsterdam Islands

41 Palau 8 May 2009 Partial submission 264 000

42 Côte d’Ivoire 8 May 2009 20 000

43 Sri Lanka 8 May 2009 1 710 000

44 Portugal 11 May 2009 2 115 000

45 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland – in 11 May 2009 Partial submission 1 228 000
respect of the Falkland Islands, and of South Georgia and the
South Sandwich Islands

46 Tonga 11 May 2009 30 000

47 Spain – in respect of the area of Galicia 11 May 2009 Partial submission 47 000

48 India 11 May 2009 605 000

49 Trinidad and Tobago 12 May 2009 134 000

50 Namibia 12 May 2009 1 062 000

51 Cuba 1 June 2009 1 000

32 Continental Shelf
Africa Asia Europe North America South America Oceania

Provisions of Article 76 Max. water depth (m) Average water depth

Communications received with regard to the invoked (as indicated in in submission area (m) in submission area
submission (as of 1 December 2009) submissions) (based on ETOPO2) (based on ETOPO2)

Denmark, Norway, 1, 3, 4(a)(ii), 4(b), 5 ,7 4600 2600

Iceland , Norway 1, 3, 4(a)(i), 6, 7 3750 3250

Oman 4(a)(i), 4(b), 5, 7 3600 3300

USA, Russian Federation, India, The Netherlands 1, 3, 4(a)(i) and (ii), 5 , 6 5800 4400

– 4(a)(i) and (ii), 4(b), 5 5950 3950

– 4(a)(ii), 4(b), 5, 7 5650 3400

China, Philipines 4(a)(ii), 5 2750 1450

– 4(a)(ii), 4(b), 5, 6, 7 6200 3750

Sri Lanka, Somalia 5, 6, 7 and Annex 2 4900 4550

– 4(a)(ii), 4(b) 5, 6, 7 5150 3050

China, Philippines 1, 4(a)(i) and (ii), 5, 7 4600 3600

Ghana 1, 4(a)(i) and (ii), 5, 7 4600 4350

– 4(a)(ii), 4(b), 5, 7 5250 5050

– 1, 4(a)(ii), 4(b), 5, 6, 7 5550 3400

Philippines 4(a)(ii), 4(b), 5, 7 6350 5000

Ghana 4(a)(i), 4(b), 7 5250 5100

Maldives 4(a)(i) and (ii), 7 and Annex 2 5600 4100

Morocco, Spain (2) 1, 2, 3, 4(a)(i) and (ii), 5, 7 6350 3700

Argentina 4(a)(ii), 4(b), 5, 7 6550 3700

New Zealand 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 8200 4950

Portugal, Morocco 4(a)(i) and (ii), 5, 7 5600 5000

Myanmar, Bangladesh 4(a )(i), 4(b), 5, 7 4200 3550

Suriname 4(a)(i), 5, 6, 7 5000 4450

– 3, 4(a)(ii), 4(b), 5, 6, 7 5600 4050

USA, Mexico 4(a)(i) and (ii), 5, 7 3350 3300

The Last Maritime Zone 33

Summary of Preliminary Information
Status of preparation Intended date of Communication
(i.e. completed, as making a submission from other States
Date of indicated in the PI (as indicated in the (as of 1 December
Number State submission document) PI document) 2009)

1 Angola 12 May 2009 desktop study end 2013

2 Bahamas 12 May 2009 desktop study 13 May 2019

3 Benin 12 May 2009 appurtenance study 13 May 2012

4 Benin and Togo 2 April 2009 appurtenance study 14 May 2019

5 Brunei Darussalam 12 May 2009 significant progress towards 13 May 2010

full submission

6 Cameroon 11 May 2009 appurtenance study not specified

7 Cape Verde 7 May 2009 appurtenance study end 2014

8 Chile 8 May 2009 acquisition & further planning 13 May 2019

9 China 11 May 2009 preparation final submission not specified Japan 23 july 2009

10 Comoros 2 June 2009 work in progress not specified

11 Congo 12 May 2009 work in progress not specified

12 Costa Rica 11 May 2009 appurtenance study 13 May 2012

13 Cuba 12 May 2009 FINAL SUBMISSION DONE end May 2009

14 Democratic Republic of the Congo 11 May 2009 appurtenance study end July 2014 Angola 31 july 2009

15 Equatorial Guinea 14 May 2009 work in progress not specified

16 Fiji 21 April 2009 desktop study not specified

17 Fiji and Solomon Islands 21 April 2009 work in progress end 2012

18 Fiji, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu 21 April 2009 work in progress end 2012

19 France - Polynésie française et 8 May 2009 desktop study 13 May 2013

Wallis et Futuna

20 France - Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon 8 May 2009 desktop study/planning 13 May 2013 Canada 9 November
acquisition 2009

21 Gabon 12 May 2009 work in progress end 2011

22 Gambia 4 May 2009 appurtenance study 13 May 2019

23 Guinea 11 May 2009 appurtenance study 13 May 2019

24 Guinea-Bissau 8 May 2009 appurtenance study 13 May 2019

25 Guyana 12 May 2009 appurtenance study not specified

26 Mauritania 11 May 2009 appurtenance study 13 May 2017 Morocco 26 May 2009

27 Mauritius 6 May 2009 Advanced stage end 2012

34 Continental Shelf
(continued) Africa Asia Europe North America South America Oceania

Status of preparation Intended date of Communication

(i.e. completed, as making a submission from other States
Date of indicated in the PI (as indicated in the (as of 1 December
Number State submission document) PI document) 2009)

28 Mexico 6 May 2009 work in progress end 2009

29 Micronesia (Federated States of) 5 May 2009 work in progress end 2017

30 Mozambique 11 May 2009 acquisition and all data 13 May 2010

analysed

31 New Zealand - Tokelau 11 May 2009 desktop study (no additional 13 May 2014
acquisition) planned)

32 Oman 15 April 2009 desktop study 13 May 2019

33 Papua New Guinea 5 May 2009 desktop study/planning end 2012

acquisition

34 Republic of Korea 11 May 2009 work in progress not specified Japan 23 July 2009

35 Sao Tome and Principe 13 May 2009 appurtenance study not specified

36 Senegal 12 May 2009 appurtenance study 13 May 2015

37 Seychelles 8 May 2009 desktop study (ongoing) end 2011

38 Sierra Leone 12 May 2009 work in progress end 2010

39 Solomon Islands 5 May 2009 work in progress end 2012

40 Somalia 14 April 2009 appurtenance study 13 May 2019

41 Spain 11 May 2009 appurtenance study 13 May 2014 Morocco 16 May 2009

42 Togo 8 May 2009 appurtenance study 13 May 2019

43 United Republic of Tanzania 7 May 2009 acquisition 13 May 2011

44 Vanuatu 10 Aug 2009 work in progress end 2014

The Last Maritime Zone 35

UNEP/GRID-Arendal Phone: +47 4764 4555
PO Box 183 Fax: +47 3703 5050
N-4802 Arendal [email protected]
Norway www.grida.no

36 Continental Shelf