Republic Act No.

9175

November 7, 2002

AN ACT REGULATING THE OWNERSHIP, POSSESSION, SALE, IMPORTATION AND USE OF CHAIN SAWS, PENALIZING VIOLATIONS
THEREOF AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:
Section 1. Title. - This Act shall be known as the "Chain Saw Act of 2002".
Section 2. Declaration Policy. It is the policy of the State consistent with the Constitution, to conserve, develop and protect the forest
resources under sustainable management. Toward this end, the State shall pursue an aggressive forest protection program geared towards
eliminating illegal logging and other forms of forest destruction which are being facilitated with the use of chain saws. The State shall therefore
regulate the ownership, possession, sale, transfer, importation and/or use of chain saws to prevent them from being used in illegal logging or
unauthorized clearing of forests.
Section 3. Definition of Terms. - As used in this Act, the term:
(a) "Chain saw" shall refer to any portable power saw or similar cutting implement, rendered operative by an electric or internal
combustion engine or similar means, that may be used for, but is not limited to, the felling of trees or the cutting of timber;
(b) "Chain saw dealer" shall refer to a person, natural or juridical, engaged in the manufacture, importation, distribution, purchase
and/or sale of chain saws;
(c) "Department" shall refer to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources; and
(d) "Secretary" shall refer to the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
Section 4. Persons Authorized to Manufacturer, Sell and Import Chain Saws. - Chain saws shall only be sold and/or imported by manufacturers,
dealers and/or private owners who are duly authorized by the Department.
Section 5. Persons Authorized to Possess and Use a Chain Saw. - The Department is hereby authorized to issue permits to possess and/or use
a chain saw for the felling land/or cutting of trees, timber and other forest or agro-forest products to any applicant who:
(a) has a subsisting timber license agreement, production sharing agreement, or similar agreements, or a private land timber permit;
(b) is an orchard and fruit tree farmer;
(c) is an industrial tree farmer;
(d) is a licensed wood processor and the chain saw shall be used for the cutting of timber that has been legally sold to said applicant;
or
(e) shall use the chain saw for a legal purpose.
Agencies of the government that use chain saws in some aspects of their functions must likewise secure the necessary permit from the
Department before operating the same.
Section 6. Registration of Chain Saws. - Within a period of three (3) months from the effectivity hereof, all persons who own or are otherwise in
possession of chain saws must register the same with the Department, through any of its Community Environment and Natural Resources Office,
which shall issue the corresponding registration certificate or permit if it finds such persons to be qualified hereunder.
Every permit to possess and/or use a chain saw for legitimate purpose shall be valid for two (2) years upon issuance: Provided, That permits to
possess and use chainsaw issued to non-commercial orchard and fruit tree farmers shall be valid for a period of five (5) years upon issuance. For
this purpose, the Department shall be allowed to collect reasonable registration fees for the effective implementation of this Act.
Section 7. Penal Provisions. (a) Selling, Purchasing, Re-selling, Transferring, Distributing or Possessing a Chain Saw Without a Proper Permit . - Any person who
sells, purchases, transfer the ownership, distributes or otherwise disposes or possesses a chain saw without first securing the
necessary permit from the Department shall be punished with imprisonment of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day to six
(6) years or a fine of not less than Fifteen thousand pesos (P15,000.00) but not more Thirty thousand pesos (30,000.00) or both at
the discretion of the court, and the chain saw/s confiscated in favor of the government.
(2) Unlawful Importation or Manufacturing of Chain Saw. - Any person who imports or manufactures a chain saw without obtaining
prior authorization from the Department shall be punished by imprisonment of not less than one (1) month nor more than six (6)
months and a fine of not less than One thousand pesos (P1,000.00) for more than Four thousand pesos (P4,000.00).
(3) Tampering of Engine Serial Number. - Any person who is found to have defaced or tampered with the original registered engine
serial number of any chain saw unit shall be punished by imprisonment of not less than one (1) month nor more than six (6) months
and a fine of not less than One thousand pesos (P1,000.00) nor more than Four thousand pesos (P4,000.00).
(4) Actual Unlawful Use of Chain Saw. - Any person who is found to be in possession of a chain saw and uses the same to cut trees and
timber in forest land or elsewhere except as authorized by the Department shall be penalized with imprisonment of six (6) years and
one (1) day to eight (8) years or a fine of not less that Thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00) but not more than Fifty thousand pesos
(P50,000.00) or both at the discretion of the court without prejudice to being prosecuted for a separate offense that may have been
simultaneously committed. The chain saw unlawfully used shall be likewise confiscated in favor of the government.
If the violation under this Section is committed by or through the command or order of another person, partnership or corporation, the penalties
herein provided shall likewise be imposed on such other person, or the responsible officer(s) in such partnership or corporation.
If the offender is a public official or employee, in addition to the above penalties, he shall be removed from office and perpetually disqualified
from holding any public office.

The chain saws confiscated under this Section shall be sold at public auction to qualified buyers and the proceeds thereof shall go to the
Department.
Section 8. Reward. - Any person who voluntarily gives information leading to the recovery or confiscation of an unregistered chain saw and the
conviction of persons charged thereof shall be entitled to a reward equivalent to twenty person (20%) of the value of the chain saw unit(s). The
Department is authorized to include in its budget the amount necessary to carry out the purpose of this Section.
Section 9. Authority of the Secretary. - To effectively implement the provisions of this Act, the Secretary shall issue the implementing rules and
regulations within ninety (90) days upon approval of this Act. He shall likewise organize an office within the Department to ensure that
requirements imposed by this Act may be complied with by qualified persons, within the shortest possible time, at the least possible expense.
In the Province of Palawan, the provisions of this Act shall be implemented by the Palawan Council for Sustainable Development pursuant to
Republic Act No. 7611 or the Strategic Environmental Plan for Palawan.
Section 10. Revocation of Registration and Permit. - The Secretary may revoke any Certificate of Registration or permit previously issued to a
person found violating the provisions of this Act, or the rules and regulations issued pursuant thereto.
Section 11. Joint Congressional Oversight Committee. - To monitor and oversee the implementation of this Act, including the approval of the
rules and regulations issued pursuant hereto, there is hereby created a Joint Congressional Oversight Committee to be composed of the
Chairpersons of the Senate Committee on Environment and Natural Resources and the House Committee on Natural Resources as Chairperson
and Co-Chairperson, five (5) members of each of the Senate and the House of Representatives who shall be designated by the Senate President
and the Speaker of the House of Representatives as members: Provided, That the two (2) of the five (5) senators and two (2) of the five (5)
House members shall be nominated by the respective Minority Leaders of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Section 12. Transitory Provision. - In the interim while the Department is formulating the implementing rules and regulations to effectively
carry out the provisions of this Act, the Bureau of Customs is prohibited from approving any chain saw importation without clearance from said
Department.
Section 13. Separability Clause. - If, for any reason, any part or provision of this act shall be declared as unconstitutional or invalid, such parts
or provisions not affected thereby shall remain in full force and effect.
Section 14. Repealing Clause. - all laws, executive orders, presidential decrees, letters of instruction, rules and regulations, or parts thereof
which are inconsistent with any of the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed and/or amended accordingly.
Section 15. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its complete publication in the Official Gazette or in at least two (2)
national newspapers of general circulation, whichever comes earlier.

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10631

AN ACT AMENDING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8485, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS "THE ANIMAL WELFARE ACT OF
1998
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:
Section 1. Section 1 of Republic Act No. 8485 is hereby amended to read as follows;
"SECTION 1. It is the purpose of this Act to protect and promote the welfare of all terrestrial, aquatic and marine animals in the
Philippines by supervising and regulating the establishment and operations of all facilities utilized for breeding, maintaining, keeping,
treating or training of all animals either as objects of trade or as household pets. For purposes of this Act, pet animal shall include
birds.
"For purposes of this Act, animal welfare pertains to the physical and psychological well-being of animals. It includes, but not limited
to, the avoidance of abuse, maltreatment, cruelty and exploitation of animals by humans by maintaining appropriate standards of
accommodation, feeding and general care, the prevention and treatment of disease and the assurance of freedom from fear, distress,
harassment, and unnecessary discomfort and pain, and allowing animals to express normal behavior."
Section 2. Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8485 is hereby amended to read as follows:
"SEC. 6. It shall be unlawful for any person to torture any animal, to neglect to provide adequate care, sustenance of shelter, or
maltreat any animal or to subject any dog or horse to dogfights or horsefights, kill or cause or procure to be tortured or deprived of
adequate care, sustenance or shelter, or maltreat or use the same in research or experiments not expressly authorized by the
Committee on Animal Welfare.
"The killing of any animal other than cattle, pigs, goats, sheep, poultry, rabbits, carabaos and horses is likewise hereby declared
unlawful except in the following instances:
"x x x."
Section 3. A new Section 7 is hereby inserted after Section 6 of the same Act to read as follows:
"SEC. 7. It shall be unlawful for any person who has custody of an animal to abandon the animal.
"If any person being the owner or having charge or control of any animal shall without reasonable cause or excuse abandon it, whether
permanently or not, without providing for the care of that animal, such act shall constitute maltreatment under Section 9.
"If the animal is left in circumstances likely to cause the animal any unnecessary suffering, or if this abandonment results in the death
of the animal, the person liable shall suffer the maximum penalty.
"Abandonment means the relinquishment of all right, title, claim, or possession of the animal with the intention of not reclaiming it or
resuming its ownership or possession."
Section 4. Section 8 of Republic Act No. 8485 which shall now become Section 9 is hereby amended to read as follows:
"SEC. 9. Any person who subjects any animal to cruelty, maltreatment or neglect shall, upon conviction by final judgment, be punished
by imprisonment and/ or fine, as indicated in the following graduated scale:
"(1) Imprisonment of one (1) year and six (6) months and one (1) day to two (2) years and/or a fine not exceeding One
hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) if the animal subjected to cruelty, maltreatment or neglect dies;
"(2) Imprisonment of one (1) year and one (1) day to one (1) year and six (6) months and/or a fine not exceeding Fifty
thousand pesos (P50,000.00) if the animal subjected to cruelty, maltreatment or neglect survives but is severely injured with
loss of its natural faculty to survive on its own and needing human intervention to sustain its life; and
"(3) Imprisonment of six (6) months to one (1) year and/or a fine not exceeding Thirty thousand pesos ( P30,000.00) for
subjecting any animal to cruelty, maltreatment or neglect but without causing its death or incapacitating it to survive on its
own.
"If the violation is committed by a juridical person, the officer responsible thereof shall serve the imprisonment. If the violation is
committed by an alien, he or she shall be immediately deported after the service of sentence without any further proceeding.
"The foregoing penalties shall also apply for any other violation of this Act, depending upon the effect or result of the act or omission
as defined in the immediately preceding sections.
"However, regardless of the resulting condition to the animal/s, the penalty of two (2) years and one (1) day to three (3) years and/or
a fine not exceeding Two hundred fifty thousand pesos (P250,000.00) shall be imposed if the offense is committed by any of the
following: (1) a syndicate; (2) an offender who makes business out of cruelty to an animal; (3) a public officer or employee; or (4)
where at least three (3) animals are involved.
"In any of the foregoing situations, the offender shall suffer subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and the inability to pay the
fine."
Section 5. A new Section 10 is hereby inserted after the Section above to read as follows:
"SEC. 10. The Secretary of the Department of Agriculture shall deputize animal welfare enforcement officers from nongovernment
organizations, citizens groups, community organizations and other volunteers who have undergone the necessary training for this
purpose. The Philippine National Police, the National Bureau of Investigation and other law enforcement agencies shall designate
animal welfare enforcement officers. As such, animal welfare enforcement officers shall have the authority to seize and rescue illegally
traded and maltreated animals and to arrest violators of this Act subject to the guidelines of existing laws and rules and regulations on
arrest and detention.
"The Secretary of the Department of Agriculture shall, upon the recommendation of the Committee on Animal Welfare:

"(1) Promulgate the guidelines on the criteria and training requirements for the deputization of animal welfare enforcement
officers; and
"(2) Establish a mechanism for the supervision, monitoring and reporting of these enforcement officers."
Section 6. If, for any reason, any provision of this Act is declared to be unconstitutional or invalid, the other sections or provisions hereof which
are not affected shall continue to be in full force and effect.
Section 7. All laws, decrees, orders, rules and regulations and other issuances or parts thereof which are inconsistent with the provisions of this
Act are hereby deemed repealed, amended or modified accordingly.
Section 8. This Act shall take effect after fifteen (15) days from its publication in the Official Gazette or in at least two (2) newspapers of
general circulation, whichever comes earlier.

THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE: A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

S.N. NANDAN
Under Secretary-General, Special Representative of the Secretary-General for the Law of the Sea. The opinions expressed in this article are
those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the United Nations.
"Since the seventeenth century, when the development of seaborne trade and the emergence of powerful maritime nations led to a shift from
the notion of closed seas claimed by a few countries to the concept of open seas, the two basic principles of the law of the sea have been that a
narrow strip of coastal waters should be under the exclusive sovereignty of the coastal state and that the high seas beyond should be freely
accessible to all. These principles were originally intended to satisfy and reconcile the requirements of national security with freedom of trade
and navigation. But they were applied to all activities in both areas and ipso facto defined the legal framework within which fishing activities
were carried on.
At the Conference on the Law of the Sea, there was only limited support for maintaining the status quo..."
J.E. Carroz, 19821
1
Carroz, J.E. 1982. The living resources of the sea. In The management of humanity's resources: The Law of the Sea. Workshop 1981 organized
by The Hague Academy of International Law and the United Nations University. The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff, pp. 193-207.
The concept of the exclusive economic zone is an essential element of the "package" of compromises and trade-offs that constitutes the 1982
Convention on the Law of the Sea. It is a concept which has received rapid and widespread acceptance in state practice and is thus now
considered by some to be part of customary international law. In this article the author traces the evolution of the concept of the exclusive
economic zone from its origins to its final form in the Convention, to give an insight into the balance of legal, economic and political interest that
was involved in the development of the final text. The article looks first at the historical underpinnings of the concept in the Truman
proclamations on the continental shelf and coastal fisheries of 1945, the unilateral declarations of sovereignty by Chile and Peru in 1947 and the
declarations by a number of Arab states in 1949. He then traces the development of the idea in Latin America, through the Santiago Declaration
of 1952 which first proclaimed 200-miles zones off Chile, Ecuador and Peru, the Montevideo and Lima Declarations of 1970 and the Declaration
of Santo Domingo in 1972, which articulated the notion of the patrimonial sea. The article describes the African and Asian contributions to the
development of the concept of the exclusive economic zone, focusing on the work of the Asian-African Legal Consultative Committee and the
proposals presented by Kenya, the Yaound Conclusions of 1972 and the Addis Ababa Declaration of 1973, before moving on to the Kenyan
draft articles presented to the Sea-bed Committee in 1972. It then reviews the negotiations at the Third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea
on this issue and the various trends apparent in those negotiations.
In the second part of the article, the author concentrates on the aspects of the exclusive economic zone relating to the conservation and
management of living resources and the opposing interests of the coastal states and major fishing nations. He reviews a number of proposals
put before the Sea-bed Committee in 1972 and 1973 reflecting changes in the balancing of these opposing interests as the fishing nations
sought to protect their economic interests and the coastal states to establish their sovereign rights. The article then traces the development and
elaboration of the provisions on conservation and management of living resources at the Law of the Sea Conference, through the "Main Trends"
paper, the work of the Evensen Group and the Group of 77, to the negotiating texts themselves.
In a third part, the article describes the provisions on the conservation and management of living resources in the exclusive economic zone as
they were finally agreed upon in the Convention. The author concludes with some general observations on the nature of the exclusive economic
zone, the sovereign rights of coastal states in that zone and the responsibilities they bear for the management of the living resources of the
zone.
INTRODUCTION
The concept of the exclusive economic zone is one of the most important pillars of the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea. The regime of
the exclusive economic zone is perhaps the most complex and multifaceted in the whole Convention. The accommodation of diverse issues
contributed substantially to the acceptance of the concept and to the Convention as a whole. The 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea is
often referred to as a package. The metaphor is derived from a decision made during the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea
that the Convention would be adopted in toto,as a "package deal". No single issue would be adopted until all issues were settled. This decision
provided an essential mechanism for reconciling the varied interests of the states participating in the Conference. If a state's interests in one
issue were not fully satisfied, it could look at the whole package and find other issues where its interests were more fully represented, thereby
mitigating the effects of the first. Thus, the Convention became an elaborately-constructed document built on trade-offs, large and small.
The larger package consists of: a twelve-nautical-mile territorial sea; an exclusive economic zone of up to 200 nautical miles in which coastal
states have preeminent economic rights and which obviates the need for a territorial sea of 200 nautical miles claimed by some states;
extension of the continental shelf regime to the margin, with revenue-sharing obligations beyond the exclusive economic zone; a regime for
transit passage through straits used for international navigation and for archipelagic sea-lanes passage; guaranteed access to and from the sea
for land-locked states; a regime for the administration and development of the common heritage resources of the international sea-bed area;
protection and preservation of the marine environment; and adequate mechanisms for settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation and
application of the provisions of the Convention.
Within this larger package are many smaller packages of which the exclusive economic zone is one of the most interesting examples. The
provisions contained in articles 55 and 752 reflect an array of interests: the sovereign rights of coastal states to manage the zone in good faith;
the regard for the economic interests of third states; regulation of certain activities in the zone, such as marine scientific research, protection
and preservation of the marine environment, and the establishment and use of artificial islands, installations and structures; freedom of
navigation and overflight; the freedom to lay submarine cables and pipelines; military and strategic uses of the zone; and the issue of residual
rights in the zone.
The Law of the Sea, United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea with Index and Final Act of the Third United Nations Conference on the
Law of the Sea, United Nations Sales No. E.83.V.5 (UN: New York, 1983).
2

As of December 1986, out of 142 coastal states at least 70 states have proclaimed exclusive economic zones of 200 miles and about 20 others
have established exclusive fishing zones of 200 miles. The rapid and widespread acceptance of the economic zone concept as reflected in
national legislation indicates that it has become a permanent feature of modern international law of the sea. What was once a revolutionary idea
with few supporters is now considered by some to be a part of customary international law.
Ultimately, one must look at the whole package to understand the mini-packages and why some states would ostensibly "give-up" certain
traditional rights that for decades had worked in their favour. In order to appreciate fully the balance of the legal, political and economic
interests involved in the negotiations, it is useful to look at the historical context of those interests. This article traces the development of the
concept of the exclusive economic zone to its final form in the Convention.
Part V of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea establishes the legal regime of the exclusive economic zone. Article 55 creates
the legal regime and distinguishes it from the territorial sea: "The exclusive economic zone is an area beyond and adjacent to the territorial sea,
subject to the specific legal regime established in this Part, under which the rights and jurisdiction of the coastal State and the rights and
freedoms of other States are governed by the relevant provisions of this Convention." 3

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE CONCEPT

The first important assertion of exclusive jurisdiction over marine resources beyond the territorial sea was made by the United States of America
in the Truman Proclamation of 28 September 1945 on the continental shelf. 4 The Proclamation states that "having concern for the urgency of
conserving and prudently utilizing its natural resources, the Government of the United States regards the natural resources of the subsoil and
sea-bed of the continental shelf beneath the high seas but contiguous to the coasts of the United States as appertaining to the United States,
subject to its jurisdiction and control". Concurrently, a second Proclamation 5 was issued with respect to coastal fisheries. This Proclamation
states:
"In view of the pressing need for conservation and protection of fishery resources, the Government of the United States regards it as proper to
establish conservation zones in those areas of the high seas contiguous to the coasts of the United States wherein fishing activities have been or
in the future may be developed and maintained on a substantial scale. Where such activities have been or shall hereafter be developed and
maintained by its nationals alone, the United States regards it as proper to establish explicitly bounded conservation zones in which fishing
activities shall be subject to the regulation and control of the United States."
An earlier document, "The Submarine Areas of the Gulf of Paria (Annexation) Order" was issued in 1942 by the United Kingdom. It
appropriated the sea-bed area of the Gulf of Paria and maintained freedom of navigation. However, the Truman Proclamation contained a
rationale for the continental shelf and must be considered to be the most important, if not the first, legal instrument dealing with the subject.
4

Proclamation No. 2667, "Policy of the United States with Respect to the Natural Resources of the Subsoil and Sea-Bed of the Continental Shelf",
28 September 1945, 10 Fed. Reg. 12303; XIII Bulletin, Dept. of State, No. 327, 30 September 1945, p. 485.
"Proclamation No. 2668. Policy of the United States with Respect to Coastal Fisheries in Certain Areas of the High Seas". 28 September 1945,
10 Fed. Reg. 12304.
5

In both Truman Proclamations, the freedom of navigation was maintained.

UNILATERAL DECLARATIONS OF SOVEREIGNITY6
For additional examples of unilateral declarations and bilateral agreements asserting rights in submarine areas during the 1940s, see
Lauterpacht, H. 1950. Sovereignty over Submarine Areas. British Yearbook of International Law, London, Oxford Univ. Press. (1951): 379-383.
6

Chile and Peru. While some of the concepts expressed in the Truman Proclamation found their way into the Convention, the true parents of the
exclusive economic zone concept were certain Latin American states. In 1947, the declaration made by the President of Chile on 23 June 7 and
Decree 781 of 1 August8 by the Government of Peru established maritime zones of 200 miles. The Chilean declaration proclaimed national
"sovereignty over submarine areas, regardless of their size or depth, as well as over the adjacent seas extending as far as necessary to reserve,
protect, maintain, and utilize natural resources and wealth". It further established the demarcation of "protection zones for whaling and deep
sea fishery" to extend to 200 nautical miles from the coasts of Chilean territory.
7

Presidential Declaration Concerning Continental Shelf of 23 June 1947, El Mercurio, Santiago de Chile, 29 June 1947.

Presidential Decree No. 781 of 1 August 1947, El Peruano: Diario Oficial. Vol. 107, No. 1983, 11 August 1947.

The source of the "mystical" 200-mile limit has recently been traced by Armanet 9. Although the motivation for the establishment of the zone was
economic, Armanet suggests that the legal precedent was derived from a map in a magazine article discussing the Panama Declaration of 1939
in which the United Kingdom and the United States agreed to establish a zone of security and neutrality around the American continents in order
to prevent the resupplying of Axis ships in South American ports. The map showed the width of the neutrality zone off the Chilean coast to be
about 200 miles. This became the basis for the 200-mile limit. In both the Chilean declaration and the Peruvian decree, freedom of navigation
was maintained.
9

Armanet, United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea: The 1974 Caracas Session. AJIL, Vol. 69.

Arab states. The Truman Proclamations had an effect not only in Latin America, but also among certain Arab states. A succession of unilateral
declarations were adopted by ten Arab States and emirates within a two-month period in 1949 10.
The dates of adoption of the declarations are as follows: Saudi Arabia, 28 May 1949; Bahrain, 5 June 1949; Qatar, 8 June 1949; Abu Dhabi.
10 June 1949: Kuwait, 12 June 1949; Dubai, 14 June 1949: Sharjah, 16 June 1949; Ras al Khaimah, 17 June 1949; Umm al Qaiwain. 20 June
1949; Ajman, 20 June 1949. From: Dahak, D., 1986. Les Etats Arabes et le Droit de la Mer, Tome 1. Casablanca, Les Editions Maghrbines, p.
123 (In French).
10

The declarations proclaimed sovereignty particularly over the petroleum resources on the continental shelf; they had in common the following
aspects:
jurisdiction
over
the
an
affirmation
of
the
regime
of
the
high
the
use
of
the
expression
"submerged
- delimitation effected on the basis of equitable principles.11
11

sea-bed
seas,
the
freedoms
of
lands"
rather
than

and
navigation
"continental

subsoil;
and
overflight;
shelf";
and

Ibid., pp. 123-130

Thus, among the above states, there was consensus as early as 1949 on the principle of sovereignty over the natural resources on the
"continental shelf".
THE LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVE
The Santiago Declaration. The first international instrument to proclaim a 200-mile limit came into being five years later on 18 August
1952.12 The Santiago Declaration was signed by three Latin American countries that border the South Pacific: Chile, Ecuador and Peru. The
Declaration reflects the main driving force behind it which was the desire of those states to develop the resources of their coastal waters. It
asserts that "owing to the geological and biological factors affecting the existence, conservation and development of the marine fauna and flora
of the waters adjacent to the coasts of the declarant countries, the former extent of the territorial sea and contiguous zone is insufficient to
permit of the conservation, development and use of those resources, to which the coastal countries are entitled". Therefore, the three
governments "proclaim as a principle of their international maritime policy that each of them possesses sole sovereignty and jurisdiction over
the area of sea adjacent to the coast of its own country and extending not less than 200 nautical miles from the said coast". The Declaration
also provided for sole sovereignty and jurisdiction over the sea floor and subsoil and maintained the principle of innocent passage through the
zone but not, as in the Chilean and Peruvian legislation, freedom of navigation.

12

Declaration on the Maritime Zone. United Nations Legislative Series, ST/LEG/SER.B/6 (United Nations, New York, 1957), pp. 723-724.

At the first and second United Nations Conferences on the Law of the Sea held in Geneva in 1958 and 1960, the principles embodied in the
Santiago Declarations garnered little support and left Chile, Ecuador and Peru in an isolated position. However, if states were unwilling to support
those ideas in an international political forum, they were not as hesitant at home. Over the decade of the 1960s several other Latin American
states established 200-mile maritime zones. By 1970, when the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 2750 (XV) which provided
the mandate for the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of the Sea-Bed and the Ocean Floor beyond the Limits of National Jurisdiction to act as the
preparatory body for the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, nine Latin American states had declared sovereignty and
jurisdiction over all waters within 200 miles of their coasts. These states were: Ecuador, Panama, Brazil, Chile, Peru, El Salvador, Argentina and
Nicaragua. Although the proclamation of these countries differed, the purpose of establishing a legal framework under which the state conserved
and exploited the natural resources within the waters adjacent to its coast was common to all.
The Montevideo and Lima Declarations. The position of the Latin American states was somewhat solidified in two international agreements
signed in 1970: the Montevideo Declaration on the Law of the Sea 13 and the Declaration of Latin American States on the Law of the Sea (the
Lima Declaration)14.
The Montevideo Declaration on the Law of the Sea of 8 May 1970. In Lay, S.H., Churchill, R. Nordquist, M., eds. New directions in the Law of
the Sea, Documents, Vol. I, (Oceana: Dobbs Ferry, New York, 1973), pp. 235-236.
13

14

The Declaration of Latin American States on the Law of the Sea (The Lima Declaration) of 8 August 1970. Ibid., pp. 237-239.

The Montevideo Declaration came about as the result of a request by the Secretary-General of the United Nations to states to present their
views regarding the convening of a new United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. The twenty-fourth Session of the General Assembly,
in Resolution 2574A (15 December 1969), recommended that a broad survey be made concerning revision of the regimes of the high seas, the
continental shelf, the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, conservation of the living resources of the high seas, and particularly, an
internationally-accepted definition of the area beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.
As a result, the Government of Uruguay held, in Montevideo, a meeting with the other Latin American states that had declared sovereignty over
waters within a 200-mile limit, for the purpose of coordinating their position. The nine previously-mentioned Latin American states met and
approved the Montevideo Declaration.
The Montevideo Declaration contains, inter alia, two basic principles:
The right of coastal states to avail themselves of the national resources of the sea adjacent to their coasts and the sea-bed and subsoil thereof
in order to promote the maximum development of their economies and to raise the standard of living of their peoples; and
The right to establish the limits of their maritime sovereignty and jurisdiction in accordance with their geographical characteristics and with the
factors governing the existence of marine resources and the need for their rational utilization.
The Declaration also maintained freedom of navigation and overflight by ships and aircraft of all nations in areas under their maritime
sovereignty and jurisdiction.
During the Montevideo meeting, Peru proposed a second meeting of all Latin American states to be held in Lima in August 1970. Twenty states
attended the Lima meeting and the resulting Declaration was approved by fourteen states (the nine signatories of the Montevideo Declaration
plus Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Honduras and Mexico).
The Lima Declaration reiterates the principles of the Montevideo Declaration with two additional concepts included:
the right of the coastal state to prevent contamination of the waters and other dangerous and harmful effects that may result from the use,
exploration or exploitation of the area adjacent to its coast; and
the right of the coastal state to authorize, supervise and participate in all scientific research activities that may be carried out in the maritime
zone, subject to its sovereignty and jurisdiction, and to be informed of the findings and the results or such research.
Thus, by 1970, a majority of Latin American states had accepted a generally-defined concept of resource jurisdiction over an extended area of
coastal sea. The limits of the zone and the exact nature of the zone were still to be given precision, but the basic elements were clearly
apparent. Rooted in economic interests, the Latin American coastal states had asserted sovereignty over maritime areas vastly greater than any
previously claimed.
There were also indications at the Lima meeting of what would eventually become an important issue during the Third United Nations
Conference on the Law of the Sea - accommodation of the interests of land-locked states. Bolivia and Paraguay cast negative votes in protest at
the failure to provide for geographically disadvantaged states.
The Declaration of Santo Domingo. The Declaration of Santo Domingo of 9 June 1972 15 is one of the immediate precursors of the exclusive
economic zone. A subregional conference, "The Special Conference of the Caribbean Countries on Problems of the Sea", was attended by 15
Caribbean states: Barbados, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama,
Trinidad and Tobago and Venezuela. El Salvador and Guyana attended as observers. It was the Santo Domingo Declaration that brought the
concept of the patrimonial sea into focus. The section entitled "Patrimonial Sea" repeated some elements previously stated in the Montevideo
and Lima Declarations, but was much more precise about making a distinction between the territorial sea and the patrimonial sea. The
patrimonial sea was described as follows:
The coastal state has sovereign rights over the renewable and non-renewable natural resources which are found in the waters, in the sea-bed
and in the subsoil of an area adjacent to the territorial sea called patrimonial sea.
The coastal state has the duty to promote, and the right to regulate, the conduct of scientific research within the patrimonial sea, as well as
the right to adopt the necessary measures to prevent marine pollution and to ensure its sovereignty over the resources of the area.
The breadth of this zone should be the subject of an international agreement, preferably of a world-wide scope. The whole of the area of both
the territorial sea and the patrimonial sea, taking into account geographic circumstances, should not exceed a maximum of 200 nautical miles.
The delimitation of this zone between two or more states should be carried out in accordance with the peaceful procedures stipulated in the
Charter of the United Nations.
In this zone, ships and aircraft of all states, whether coastal state or not, should enjoy the right of freedom of navigation and overflight with no
restrictions, other than those resulting from the exercise by the coastal state of its rights within the area. Subject only to these limitations, there
will also be freedom for laying of submarine cables and pipelines.

15

The Declaration of Santo Domingo of 9 June 1972. Ibid., pp. 247-249.

In the patrimonial sea concept, the main emphasis was placed on economic jurisdiction. The coastal state has "sovereign rights over the
renewable and non-renewable resources", not over the patrimonial sea itself. In making this distinction, however, a rift was created among the
Latin American states dividing them into two groups: the territorialists and the patrimonialists.
One additional legislative contribution to the evolution of the exclusive economic zone concept in the Latin American region was the Resolution of
9 February 1973 adopted by the Inter-American Juridical Committee 16. The document is interesting in several respects, not the least of which is
that it appears to be an effort to close the gap between the territorialists and the patrimonialists. The result, however, is a return to the
imprecise language with regard to sovereignty and jurisdiction similar to that of the Montevideo and Lima Declarations. The Resolution states:
"... sovereignty or jurisdiction of a coastal State extends beyond its territory and its internal waters to an area of sea adjacent to its coasts to a
maximum distance of 200 nautical miles, as well as to the airspace above and the bed and subsoil of that sea". It includes other features that
appeared in the Santo Domingo Declaration such as the right of the coastal state to make regulations governing scientific research activities and
for the purpose of preventing, reducing or eliminating the damage of pollution to the marine environment. A last significant element of the
Resolution was the inclusion of a statement on the position of land-locked states, granting them participation in the exploitation of living
resources within the zone that extends from the twelve-mile limit to the limit of 200 nautical miles. Among other participate in all scientific
research activities ultimately resolved in the United Nations Conference, the question of the rights of land-locked states was one of the most
important. The inclusion in the Resolution of text on this issue further supports the attempt to reconcile the different points of view among the
Latin American states.
THE AFRICAN AND ASIAN PERSPECTIVE
The Asian-African Legal Consultative Committee. The Latin American states were not working in isolation in the early 1970s on the
development of new principles governing the Law of the Sea. At the Montevideo meeting, measures were taken to make contact with countries
in Asia and Africa. Simultaneously, the Asian-African Legal Consultative Committee (AALCC) agreed at its 1970 meeting to include the subject of
the Law of the Sea on the agenda of its 1971 meeting in Colombo. The Colombo meeting was attended by observers from Argentina, Brazil,
Ecuador and Peru. The report of the Subcommittee on the Law of the Sea states that "the Sub-Committee, with the exception of a very few
delegations, considered that at the present time any State would be entitled, under international law, to claim a territorial sea of twelve miles
from the appropriate baseline. The majority of delegations indicated that a State had the right to economic exploitation of the resources in the
waters adjacent to the territorial sea in a zone, the maximum breadth of which should be subject to negotiation. Most delegations felt able to
accept twelve miles as the breadth of the territorial sea, while supporting, in principle, the right of a coastal State to claim exclusive jurisdiction
over an adjacent zone for economic purposes". 17 At the Colombo session, the AALCC set up a Working Group, in addition to the Sub-Committee,
composed of delegates from Ceylon, India, Indonesia, Japan, Kenya and Malaysia. The importance of this group, and particularly the role of
Kenya, became apparent at the thirteenth Session of the AALCC in 1972.
17

Report of the Sub-Committee on the Law of the Sea by the Asian-African Consultative Committee, Colombo, 18-27 January 1971.

At this meeting, a working paper prepared by Kenya, was presented on "The Exclusive Economic Zone Concept". 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...".18 The developed countries, because of their advanced technologies, were able to engage in distant-water fishing
activities wherever and whenever they chose to do so. 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 200 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.
18

Report of The Thirteenth Session of the Asian-African Consultative Committee, Lagos, 18-25 January 1972.

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 200 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 Yaound Conclusions. In June of 1972, almost concurrently with the Santo Domingo meeting of Caribbean states, 16 African states met
at a regional seminar on the Law of the Sea in Yaound, Cameroon. 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 Yaound
Conclusions are significant because they were the first comprehensive effort by the African states to put together a regional position.
Conclusions in the General Report of the African States Regional Seminar on the Law of the Sea, held at Yaound, 20-30 June 1972. United
Nations Legislative Series, ST/LEG/SER.B/16, p. 601.
19

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 1973. 20 Familiar principles were reiterated in the Declaration similar
to the Kenyan proposals in the AALCC. 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 200 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.
20

UNCLOSOR, Vol. III, p. 63-65.

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.

THE SEA-BED COMMITTEE 1971-73

Pursuant to Resolution 2340 (XXII) of 18 December 1967, 21 the United Nations established an "Ad Hoc Committee to Study the Peaceful Uses of
the Sea-Bed and Ocean Floor beyond the Limits of National Jurisdiction" consisting of 35 states. The Committee recommended the establishment
of a Standing Committee, and by Resolution 2467 (XXIII) of 21 December 1968 22, a permanent "Committee on the Peaceful Uses of the Sea-Bed
and the Ocean Floor beyond the Limits of National Jurisdiction", consisting of 42 states was established. The next significant legislative action
took place in 1970 at the Twenty-fifth Session of the General Assembly with the adoption of two resolutions: 23 Resolution 2749 (XXV) containing
the "Declaration of Principles Governing the Sea-Bed and the Ocean Floor, and the Subsoil Thereof, beyond the Limits of National Jurisdiction"
and Resolution 2750C (XXV) which called for the convening of a new Conference on the Law of the Sea in 1973.
21

GAOR/RES, Twenty-Second Session, Supp. No. 16 (A/6716), pp. 14-15.

22

GAOR/RES, Twenty-Third Session, Supp. No 18 (A/7218) p. 15.

23

GAOR/RES, Twenty-Fifth Session, Supp. No. 28 (A/8028) pp. 24, 260

The Sea-Bed Committee held its first session in March 1971 and decided, in preparation for the future Conference, to delegate to its SubCommittee II the task of preparing a comprehensive list of subjects and issues relating to the Law of the Sea, including those concerning the
regimes of the high seas, the continental shelf, the territorial sea (including its breadth and the question of international straits), the contiguous
zone, fishing and conservation of the living resources of the high seas (including the question of preferential rights of coastal states), and to
prepare draft articles on those topics.
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 1971-73, those same ideas evolving outside the United Nations were evident even though initially
no formal proposals were made.
In 1972, the Kenyan delegation submitted "Draft Articles on Exclusive Economic Concept". 24 The Kenyan proposals reflected a concept of the
zone very similar to that of the patrimonial sea. 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 State may
establish special regulations within its economic zone for: (a) Exclusive exploration and exploitation of non-renewable resources; (b) Exclusive or
preferential exploitation of renewable resources; (c) Protection and conservation of the renewable resources; (d) Control, prevention and
elimination of pollution of the marine environment; and (e) Scientific research".
24

GAOR, Sea-Bed Comm., Twenty-Seventh Session, Supp. No. 21 (A/8721), pp. 180-182.

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 200 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. This group began to make itself heard in the Sea-Bed Committee through documentation submitted to
Subcommittee II. One immediately notices that the preoccupation in the texts of the developed countries was with fishing, since the 1958
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 1973 session, setting the stage for the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea in 1974.
THE THIRD UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON THE LAW OF THE SEA
The Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea began its work on 3 December 1973. 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 1974,
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 25.
25

UNCLOSOR, Vol. III, pp. 107-142.

The Uruguayan delegate, Lupinacci, has described the three basic trends that had taken form by the 1974 session of the Conference. He states:
"The territorialist trend, starting from the postulate of the 200-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 188-mile belt, the freedoms of sovereignty for the
sake of international cooperation..."
Another trend was at first called preferentialist, because it recognized only preferential rights of the coastal states beyond the territorial sea in
respect of the exploitation of living resources; its point of departure was, therefore, the recognition of certain special rights or a projection of
specialized powers of the coastal States in areas of the high seas contiguous to the territorial waters... 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. 26
Lupinacci, J.C. 1984, The legal status of the Exclusive Economic Zone in the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea. In Orrego Vicua, F.,
ed. The exclusive economic zone, a Latin American perspective. Boulder, Colorado. Westview Press.
26

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.

THE CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT OF LIVING RESOURCES

It is no accident that seven of the 21 articles of Part V of the Convention deal with living resources. 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 1971 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.28
GAOR, Sea-Bed Comm., Twenty-Sixth Session, Supp. No. 21, (A/8421), pp. 241-245. cf. "Revised Draft Fisheries Article", submitted by the
United States, GAOR, Sea-Bed Comm., Twenty-Seventh Session, Supp. No. 21 (A/8721), pp. 175-179.
27

28

GAOR, Sea-Bed Comm., Twenty-Seventh Session, Supp. No. 21 (A/8721), pp. 158-161.

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.
SEA-BED COMMITTEE
It is useful to look at various documents submitted by the fishing nations to the Sea-Bed Committee in 1972; in these documents can be traced
the sources of the duties and obligations imposed on the coastal states in the 1982 Convention. 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.
1972
(a) Draft articles on fishing by the USSR.29 The Soviet draft articles reflect an approach based on preferential rights granted to the coastal state
with regard to fishing in the areas of the high seas adjacent to the coasts of developing countries. 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. 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."
29

Ibid.

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.
(b) Working paper by Canada.30 Canada outlined a functional approach to fisheries management which viewed such management as forming
part of a broader concept of management of the marine environment as a whole. 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.
30

Ibid., pp. 164-174.

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.
(c) Revised draft fisheries articles by the United States. 31 The US draft fisheries articles have already been briefly mentioned above. In addition
to the proposals already described, Article V on "Utilization and Allocation" specified the basic principles for coastal and anadromous species: the
coastal state may reserve to its flag vessels that portion of the allowable catch they can harvest; the coastal states shall provide access to other
states, under reasonable conditions, to that portion of the resources not fully utilized by its vessels on the basis of the following priorities:
States
that
have
traditionally
Other
states
in
the
All states, without discrimination among them.
31

fished

for
region,

resource
particularly

(subject
to
land-locked

certain
states;

conditions);
and

Ibid., pp. 175-179.

(d) Working paper by Australia and New Zealand. 32 The Australian-New Zealand paper on "Principles for Fisheries Regime" contained many of the
same ideas presented in previous proposals. 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.; to determine the total allowable catch; and to
allow access to foreign fishing up to the level of allowable catch on an equitable basis and without discrimination. The working paper has been
seen as an effort to reconcile the territorialists and the preferentialists.
32

Ibid., pp. 183-187.

(e) Proposals by Japan.33 The "Proposals for a regime of fisheries on the high seas" set forth a list of preferential rights for coastal states,
particularly developing coastal states, in relation to distant-water fishing of other states in areas adjacent to the territorial sea. 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..."
33

Ibid., pp. 188-196.

In summary, then, by the end of 1972 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.
1973
During the 1973 sessions of the Sea-Bed Committee, most of the proposals made were on the legal status of the economic zone. 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.
(a) Working paper by the United States. 34 The United States pursued its species approach to fisheries management through a paper entitled
"Special considerations regarding the management of anadromous fishes and highly migratory oceanic fishes", which presented a rather detailed
discussion of fishery management and exploitation based on the biological nature of anadromous and highly migratory species. 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.
34

GAOR, Sea-Bed Comm., Vol. III, Twenty-Eighth Session, Supp. No. 21, (A 9021), pp. 11-19.

(b) Draft articles on fishing by Zaire. 35 The draft articles submitted by Zaire dealt primarily with preferential treatment among neighbouring
developing states in economic zones for the exploitation of living resources and the rights of geographically disadvantaged states.
35

Ibid., pp. 114-115.

(c) Draft articles on fisheries in national and international zones in ocean space by Ecuador, Panama and Peru. 36 The proposals contained in the
paper submitted by Ecuador, Panama and Peru were based on the idea that the sovereignty, and therefore jurisdiction, of the coastal state
extended to the area adjacent to its coasts and to the resources of the sea, the sea-bed and the subsoil up to a distance of 200 nautical miles
measured from the appropriate baselines. 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.
36

Ibid., pp. 107-109.

(d) Draft articles on fisheries by Canada, India, Kenya and Sri Lanka. 37 The aforementioned proposal by Kenya on the exclusive economic zone
made no specific mention of coastal state obligations with regard to fishing. In the draft articles on fishing, of which Kenya was one of the cosponsors, 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.
37

Ibid., pp. 82-84.

THE THIRD UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON THE LAW OF THE SEA

1974
The first substantive session of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea was held in Caracas from 20 June to 29 August 1974.
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.
38

UNCLOSOR, Vol. III, pp. 107-142.

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 100 countries. With respect to fisheries, Stevenson and Oxman 39 have noted three
main approaches. "One is complete exclusivity with no coastal state duties. Another is the US approach, which couples exclusive coastal state
regulation with conservation and full utilization duties, and special treatment for anadromous species and highly migratory species. A third
emphasizes the role of regional organizations."
39

Stevenson, J.R. and Oxman, B.H. 1975. The Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea: The 1974 Caracas Session. AJIL, Vol. 69

1975
(a) Group of Juridical Experts. Whereas the "Main Trends" paper laid out alternatives in an organized fashion, the 1975 session of the
Conference saw the emergence of the informal Single Negotiating Text (SNT) which formed the basis for negotiations at the fourth session in
1976.

The spring of 1975 also saw an informal text prepared by Jens Evensen of Norway as Chairman of a Group of Juridical Experts, 40 the so-called
"Evensen Group" on the economic zone. The group was composed of about 40 participants from all regions and interest groups, acting in their
personal capacities.
The Economic Zone, 24 April 1975. In Platzoder, R. ed. The Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea: Documents, Vol. IV,
(Oceana: Dobbs Ferry, New York, 1983) pp. 209-217.
40

The text prepared by Evensen on his personal responsibility was not a negotiated text, and several participants expressed reservations to
formulations contained therein. It comprised 15 articles divided into two categories: general provisions (articles 1-4) and living resources
(articles 5-15). Articles 1-4 included coastal states' sovereign rights and jurisdiction over economic activities, extension of the zone to 200 miles,
the rights of third states to enjoy the freedoms of navigation and overflight, the laying of submarine cables and pipelines and other
internationally lawful uses of the sea related to navigation and communication, and the exclusive rights of coastal states regarding construction,
operation and use of artificial islands, installations and structures, including the right to establish safety zones around them.
Articles 5 and 6 elaborated the obligations of coastal states, in exercising their sovereign rights, to ensure through proper management and
conservation measures that the living resources are not endangered by over-exploitation. With regard to allowable catch, the coastal state is
required to maintain populations at levels which can produce the maximum sustainable yield. The coastal state shall also promote the objective
of optimum utilization and give other states access to that part of the allowable catch which it does not have the capacity to harvest. Fishing by
third states shall comply with regulations established by the coastal state relating to licensing, quotas of catch, times and areas of fishing, etc.
Article 7 enjoined states to cooperate in seeking to elaborate standards and guidelines for conservation and rational utilization of living resources
directly or within the framework of appropriate international fisheries organizations. It also addressed the issue of cooperation with regard to the
conservation of straddling stocks where they occur within the economic zones of two or more coastal states, and where they occur both within
the economic zone and in an area beyond and adjacent to the zone.
Article 8 covered non-prejudicial treatment of neighbouring states. Article 9 called for negotiations on access to the living resources on an
equitable basis with adjoining geographically disadvantaged states and, in some cases, the granting of preferential rights, and article 10 gave to
land-locked states access to participate in the exploitation of living resources on an equitable basis. Article 11 prohibited transfer of rights
without coastal state consent. Articles 12-14 dealt with highly migratory species and anadromous and catadromous species, although the highly
migratory species article was left blank as the regime was still under discussion. Article 15 dealt with enforcement.
(b) Working paper on the exclusive economic zone by the Group of 77. The work of the Evensen group brought a reaction from the Group of 77,
particularly among the extreme territorialists, to give the economic zone a stronger coastal state orientation, and a reaction from the landlocked and geographically disadvantaged states to increase their efforts toward gaining access to neighbouring coastal state fishing grounds.
"The Working Paper on the Exclusive Economic Zone" transmitted to the Chairman of the Second Committee by the Chairman of the Group of
7741 strongly reiterated the position of the land-locked and geographically disadvantaged states. In its eight articles, there is not a single article
dealing with a fisheries regime. The absence of articles on fisheries reflects the territorialist nature of the zone as described through the declared
rights of coastal states. Article 2 proposes "sovereign rights" for the purpose of exploring, exploiting, conserving and managing the natural
resources, whether renewable or non-renewable, of the water column, the sea-bed and subsoil, as well as with regard to other economic
activities, such as the production of energy from the water, currents and winds. The article goes on to claim that the coastal state has
"jurisdiction" with respect to regulation, control and preservation of the marine environment including pollution control and abatement and,
finally, the coastal state has "exclusive jurisdiction" over scientific research and the establishment and use of artificial islands, installations,
structures and other devices, customs, fiscal, health, public order and immigration.
41

Working Paper on the Exclusive Economic Zone. 1 May 1975. Ibid., pp. 227-230.

(c) The Single Negotiating Text. In April 1975, the Informal Consultative Group of the Whole on the Economic Zone was established by the
Second Committee.42 At its first meeting, the Chairman stated that "the coastal State's sovereign rights with respect to renewable and nonrenewable resources in the economic zone is no longer a matter of controversy". 43 The Group then proceeded to consider how other interests
might be accommodated in the zone and what was the extent of those interests. The issues mentioned and discussed were: other economic
activities in the zone, coastal state's rights or jurisdiction over scientific research, artificial islands and installations, the freedoms of navigation
and overflight and the laying of submarine cables and pipelines. The working paper used in the discussions was the "Main Trends" paper and the
Group continually referred to what delegations thought should be included in the single text which at this point was seen to be emerging.
Delegations spoke in their representative capacities as well as on behalf of the major interest groups whose views had to be accommodated in
any viable and broadly acceptable text. It was as a result of the discussions in this broad-based forum that the political balance that was
eventually reflected in the Single Negotiating Text was synthesized. The Single Negotiating Text had to be based on two important premises: the
first was a balance among the competing interests within the exclusive economic zone, and the second was the extent and nature of the zone in
the overall context of the wider package of the Convention as a whole.
42

UNCLOSOR, Vol. IV, p. 196.

Statement of S. Nandan (Fiji), Chairman, from "Informal Notes of the Secretariat of the Second Committee", First Meeting of Informal
Consultative Group on Economic Zone, 24 April 1975.
43

The wording of the SNT on the exclusive economic zone is almost identical to that contained in the 1982 Convention signifying in retrospect that
the battle over the coastal states' rights in respect of the natural resources of the oceans adjacent to their territorial seas was over. There were
still, however, certain matters which needed to be clarified. These related to: the issue of residual rights in the exclusive economic zone; the
rights of land-locked and geographically disadvantaged states to the resources of the zones of their neighbouring states; and the question of
peaceful settlement of disputes arising out of the exercise of sovereign rights by the coastal states in the zone. Thus, although the Conference
would continue for six more years, the debate on the control of fisheries and the mineral resources of the exclusive economic zone was
essentially over.
The issue of "residual rights" not attributed specifically to the coastal state or to a third state needed to be certified in order to take into account
future activities, such as uses of the sea not yet discovered, or certain strategic uses not yet contemplated in the Convention but traditionally
practised as part of high seas freedoms. The issue was resolved on the basis of a proposal by Mexico in a small informal group known as the
"Castaeda-Vindenes Group".44 A new provision was added establishing that the exclusive economic zone had a sui generis legal status, and
therefore did not form part of the territorial sea nor of the high seas, and could not be assimilated in either. In addition, the definition of the high
seas in the SNT was also clarified to provide the reassurance that the freedoms enjoyed by third states in respect of non-resource-related
activities in the exclusive economic zone were not abridged. In case of any conflicts in respect of rights not specifically attributed to coastal
states or to other states, the issue should be resolved on the basis of equity, taking into account the respective importance of the interests
involved to the parties themselves, as well as to the international community as a whole. Given the functional nature of the exclusive economic
zone, the general assumption would be that where economic interests were concerned, equity would favour the coastal states. On issues
involving non-resource uses, the interests of third states or the international community would presumably be predominant.
This private group was composed of Australia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Egypt, India, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria, Norway, Peru, United Kingdom,
United States, Singapore, USSR, Tanzania and Venezuela. It was chaired jointly by Ambassadors Castaneda (Mexico) and Vindenes (Norway).
44

The issue of the rights of neighbouring land-locked and geographically disadvantaged states in the exclusive economic zone was the subject of
protracted negotiations in Negotiating Group 4 of the Conference. 45 The agreement reached in that Group formed the basis for Articles 69, 70,
71 and 72 of the Convention.
Negotiating Group 4, chaired by S.N. Nandan (Fiji), was one of the seven negotiating groups established by the Conference to resolve the
outstanding hard-core issues at that time.
45

The question of peaceful settlement of disputes arising from the exercise of sovereign rights by the coastal state in the exclusive economic zone
was the subject of discussions in Negotiating Group 5 of the Conference. 46 The rules that emerged from the agreement reached in that Group
were incorporated in Article 297(3) of the Convention.
46

Chaired by C. Stavropoulos (Greece).

In any analysis of the development of the concept of the exclusive economic zone, it would be apparent that much of its content is based on
preexisting ideas. The notion of "sovereign rights" over natural resources was already contained in the 1958 Convention on the Continental
Shelf. It was expanded to cover living and non-living resources of the exclusive economic zone. The inspiration for the regime for installations
and artificial islands and the establishment of safety zones around them is to be found in that same Convention. The "consent regime" for
marine scientific research in the exclusive economic zone is also based on the Continental Shelf Convention. As regards fisheries provisions, in
particular those relating to their conservation and management, many useful proposals were listed in the "Main Trends" paper. Proposals from
the United States, Japan, the USSR and Canada, among others, contributed substantially to provisions in the Convention on this aspect, even
though they were made in the context of preferential fishing rights of coastal states. Those proposals became the starting point for filling out the
concept of the exclusive economic zone, with obvious adjustments to take into account the emerging political and juridical nature of rights and
interests in the zone, as reflected eventually in the SNT. The specific regimes for anadromous and catadromous species were based on Canadian
and New Zealand proposals, respectively. The article on highly migratory species was originally proposed in the Group of 77 by Papua New
Guinea on behalf of the small "Oceania Group" consisting of southwestern Pacific states.
THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE REGIME, 1982 CONVENTION
The regime gives to coastal states sovereign rights over the natural resources and control of resources-related activities in the zone, while
preserving for the international community the freedoms of navigation, overflight and the laying of submarine cables and pipelines.
Coastal states have sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the living resources of the exclusive
economic zone (Article 56). The provisions relating to non-living resources are subsumed in the continental shelf provisions, although jurisdiction
over the part of the continental shelf which lies within the exclusive economic zone is not dependent on geophysical considerations. With respect
to living resources, the coastal state has broad regulatory and management powers. The coastal state, however, must ensure that the resource
is not endangered by over-exploitation and it must do this through proper conservation and management (Article 61). Such measures must be
designed to ensure that the populations of harvested species are maintained or restored at levels which can produce the maximum sustainable
yield as qualified by relevant environmental and economic factors (Article 61).
Coastal states also have the obligation to promote the objective of optimum utilization of the living resources. The coastal state is obliged to
assess the allowable catch and to determine its own capacity to harvest the resources. If it does not have the capacity to harvest the entire
allowable catch, it must give other states access to the surplus (Article 62).
Land-locked and geographically disadvantaged states have the right to participate, on an equitable basis, in the exploitation of an appropriate
part of the surplus of the living resources subject to arrangements with the coastal state involved (Articles 69 and 70).
There are special provisions for straddling stocks (Article 63), anadromous species (Article 66), catadromous species (Article 67), sedentary
species (Article 68) and marine mammals (Article 65). With respect to highly migratory species, the coastal state and other states whose
nationals fish in the region shall cooperate directly or through appropriate international organizations with a view to ensuring conservation and
promoting the objective of optimum utilization of such species, both within and beyond the exclusive economic zone (Article 64).
In exercising its sovereign rights, the coastal state is empowered to take a wide range of enforcement measures such as boarding, inspection,
arrest and judicial proceedings (Article 73).
Finally, a description of the regime would not be complete without mentioning the subject of dispute settlement as it is detailed in Article 297(3).
With regard to fisheries disputes concerning the interpretation or application of Convention provisions, they are to be settled by a binding form
of dispute settlement. However, coastal states are not obliged to submit disputes relating to the exercise of sovereign rights with respect to
living resources in the exclusive economic zone to any form of compulsory dispute settlement procedures. The issues under this exception
include the coastal state's discretionary powers for determining allowable catch, its harvesting capacity, the allocation of surpluses to other
states and the terms and conditions established in its conservation and management laws and regulations.
However, a coastal state would be obliged to submit to conciliation certain specific disputes - those arising from an allegation that:
(i) a coastal state has manifestly failed to comply with its obligations to ensure through proper conservation and management measures that the
maintenance of the living resources in the exclusive economic zone is not seriously endangered;
(ii) a coastal state has arbitrarily refused to determine, at the request of another state, the allowable catch and its capacity to harvest living
resources with respect to stocks which that other state is interested in fishing; or
(iii) a coastal state has arbitrarily refused to allocate to any state, under Articles 62, 69 and 70 and under the terms and conditions established
by the coastal state consistent with the Convention, the whole or part of the surplus it has declared to exist.
The exercise of the coastal state's discretionary power is protected by the fact that the conciliation commission shall not substitute its discretion
for that of the coastal state.
The merging of ideas from diverse origins is readily apparent in the Convention. The basic premise upon which the Convention rests is that there
is a balance of rights and obligations. The history of the economic zone concept and the fisheries regime illustrate in particular this basic
premise.
SOME GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ON THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE
It is not possible in this article to provide a full commentary on the texts of the provisions on the exclusive economic zone in the Convention.
However, the following general observations on the regime might be made:
1. The regime for the exclusive economic zone is sui generis. Under it the coastal states and other states have specific competences. The legal
regime of the exclusive economic zone is thus different from those of the territorial sea and the high seas. It is a zone which incorporates certain

characteristics of both regimes but belongs to neither. The zone represents a politico-legal compromise and its various elements constitute a
complete unit whose structural harmony and functional balance will be destroyed if it were to be assimilated into any pre-existing concept.
2. In the exclusive economic zone a coastal state has been given sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and
managing the natural resources. In exercising its rights and performing its duties under the Convention, the coastal state is obliged to have due
regard to the rights and duties of other states and to act in a manner compatible with the Convention (Article 56). The coastal state has been
given considerable discretion in the management of the zone; however, the Convention also imposes specific management responsibilities on the
coastal state, especially as concerns the living resources of the zone. In the light of these management responsibilities, a coastal state which has
claimed an exclusive economic zone cannot pursue a policy of inaction with respect to its living resources.
3. The Convention refers to specific matters which a coastal state should take into account in the management of the zone. It contains
provisions requiring a state to enter into agreements with other states, either bilaterally, subregionally or regionally. These references in some
cases serve to highlight the interests of other states in the zone or to create preferences in their favour and they were essential elements in the
compromises which made the concept of the exclusive economic zone generally acceptable. They now require to be implemented in good faith
by all concerned.
The regime of the exclusive economic zone is clearly a revolutionary legal concept which evolved very quickly. In about a 30-year time span, an
ocean regime has emerged from many diverse ideas and interests and has found universal acceptance establishing the unlikely proposition that
the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Aerial application, or what was formerly referred to as crop dusting, involves spraying crops with crop protection products from
an agricultural aircraft. Planting certain types of seed are also included in aerial application. The specific spreading of fertilizer is also known
as aerial topdressing in some countries.
Agricultural aircraft are highly specialized, purpose-built aircraft. Today's agricultural aircraft are often powered by turbine engines of up to
1500 hp and can carry as much as 800 gallons of crop protection product. Helicopters are sometimes used, and some aircraft serve double duty
as water bombers in areas prone to wildfires.(These aircraft are referred to as S.E.A.T. "single engine air tankers").
Contents
[hide]

1History
o

1.1Aerial Seed Sowing 1906

1.2Crop Dusting 1921

1.3Top dressing 19391946

1.4Purpose-built aircraft

1.5Water bombing 1952

1.6Night aerial application 1973present

1.7Unmanned aerial application

2See also

3References
History[edit]
Aerial Seed Sowing 1906[edit]
The first known aerial application of agricultural materials was by John Chaytor, who in 1906 spread seed over a swamped valley floor
in Wairoa, New Zealand, using a hot air balloon with mobile tethers. Aerial sowing of seed still continues to this day with cover crop applications
and rice planting.
Crop Dusting 1921[edit]

Lt. Macready (right) and McCook Field engineer E. Dormoy (left) in front of the 1st crop duster airplane (August 3, 1921)
The first known use of a heavier-than-air machine to disperse products occurred on 3 August 1921. [1] Crop dusting was developed under the
joint efforts of the U.S. Agriculture Department, and the U.S. Army Signal Corps's research station atMcCook Field in Dayton, Ohio.[1] Under the
direction of McCook engineer Etienne Dormoy, a United States Army Air ServiceCurtiss JN4 Jenny piloted by John A. Macready was modified at
McCook Field to spread lead arsenate to kill catalpa sphinxcaterpillars at a Catalapa farm near Troy, Ohio in the United States.[1][2] The first test
was considered highly successful. [1] The first commercial operations were begun in 1924, by Huff-Daland Crop Dusting, which was co-founded by
McCook Field test pilot Lt. Harold R. Harris. [1] Use of insecticide and fungicide for crop dusting slowly spread in the Americas and to a lesser
extent other nations in the 1930s. The name 'crop dusting' originated here, as actual dust was spread across the crops. Today, aerial applicators
use liquid crop protection products in very small doses.
Top dressing 19391946[edit]
Aerial topdressing, the spread of fertilizers such as superphosphate, was developed in New Zealand in the 1940s by members of the Ministry of
Public Works and RNZAF, led by Alan Pritchard and Doug Campbell - unofficial experiments by individuals within the government led to funded
research. Initially fertilizer and seed were dropped together (1939), using a window mounted chute on a Miles Whitney Straight, but by the end
of the 1940s different mixtures of fertilizer were being distributed from hoppers installed in war surplus Grumman Avengers and C-47 Skytrains,
as well as some privately operated de Havilland Tiger Moths in New Zealand, and the practise was being adopted experimentally in Australia and
the United Kingdom.
Purpose-built aircraft[edit]
In 1951, Leland Snow begins designing the first aircraft specifically built for aerial application, the S-1.
In 1957, The Grumman G-164 Ag-Cat is the first aircraft designed by a major company for ag aviation.
Water bombing 1952[edit]
Aerial firefighting, or water bombing, was tested experimentally by Art Seller's Skyways air services in Canada in 1952 (dropping a mix of water,
fertilizer and seed), and established in California in the mid-1950s.
Night aerial application 1973present[edit]
Aerial application at night is mostly liquid spray and is conducted in the Southwest U.S. deserts. The increased heat, scheduling conflicts with
farm workers in the fields and honeybee activity reduced the effectiveness of spraying in daytime. In high temperature areas, the insects would

travel down in plants in daytime and return to the top at night. The aircraft both fixed wing, autogyros and helicopters were equipped with
lights, usually three sets: Work lights were high power and aimed or adjustable from the cockpit; wire lights were angled down for taxiing and
wire or obstruction illumination; and turn lights were only turned on in the direction of the turn to allow safe operation on moonless nights
where angle of entry or exit needed to be illuminated. Some aircraft were equipped with an elongated metal wing called a spreader, with inbuilt
channels to direct the flow of dust such as sulfur, used on melons as a pesticide and soil amendment. Very little pesticide dust was used day or
night in comparison to spray, because of the difficulty in drift control. Workers on the ground, called "flaggers", would use flashlights aimed at
the aircraft to mark the swaths on the ground; later, GPS units replaced the flaggers due to new laws restricting use of human flaggers with
some pesticides. GPS systems also provide precise guidance for the applicator.
Agricultural chemicals have also kept pace with advancements in technology, and have been influential in the growth of the agricultural aviation
industry. In the 1930s Aerial Applicators arrived in the northern states to war against insect and disease pests which threatened fruit and
vegetable crops. After World War II, the industry expanded into the western states where the development of new chemicals made possible the
control of weeds and insects in cereal grain crops. Some of these new chemicals proved very useful in controlling various insects that carried
diseases dangerous to humans. Countries that previously had no control over malaria and river blindness were provided with chemicals which
helped save hundreds of thousands of lives and reduced the suffering of millions. All during the 1950s, crop production continued to rise and
disease declined as a result of chemical controls.
Aerial application accounts for just under 20% of all applied crop protection products on commercial farms. The industry also provides
firefighting and public health application services According to a 2012 NAAA survey, the five most common aerially treated crops are: corn,
wheat/barley, soybeans, pastures/rangelands and alfalfa, but aerial application is used on many more crops grown in the U.S. [3]
Approximately 1,350 aerial application businesses are in the U.S. and 1,430 non-operator pilots. 94% of aerial application business owners
(operators) are also pilots. Aerial application businesses are located in 44 states all but Connecticut, Hawaii, Nevada, Rhode Island, Vermont
and West Virginia.
Todays ag aircraft use sophisticated precision application equipment such as: GPS (global positioning systems), GIS (geographical information
systems), Aircraft Integrated Meteorological Measurement System (AIMMS), real time meteorological systems, flow control valves for variablerate applications, single-boom shutoff valves and smokers to identify wind speed and direction.
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2005 U.S. cropduster pilots earned an average annual wage of $63,210.
Unmanned aerial application[edit]

A Yamaha R-MAX, a UAVcommonly used for aerial application in Japan.

Beginning in the late 1990s, unmanned aerial vehicles are also being used for agricultural spraying. This phenomenon started in Japan and
South Korea, where mountainous terrain and relatively small family-owned farms required lower-cost and higher precision spraying. As of 2014,
the use of UAV crop dusters, such as the Yamaha R-MAX, is being expanded to the United States for use in spraying of vineyards.[4]

Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act

16 U.S.C. 1361 - 1370 Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act -- Public Law 101-627, November 28, 1990 (104 Stat. 4465) establishes
conditions for protection of dolphins by ocean vessels when harvesting tuna with purse seine nets. It provides labeling standards for tuna
products that are exported from or offered for sale in the United States, and it sets the penalty for noncompliance at not to exceed $100,000 for
any, single action.
Public Law 102-523, October 26, 1992, 106 Stat. 3425, the International Dolphin Conservation Act, directed the Secretary of Commerce to
conduct a study in the eastern Gulf of Mexico on the effects of feeding noncaptive dolphins by humans.
Public Law 103-238, April 30, 1994, 108 Stat. 557, 559, 565 allows the Secretary to issue permits to take a marine mammal for scientific
research, public display or to enhance the survival and recovery of the species in the wild if the permit is reviewed by the Marine Mammal
Commission. Also allows the incidental take of marine mammals during commercial fishing operations.
International Dolphin Conservation Program Act -- Public Law 105-42, August 15, 1997 (111 Stat. 1122) amends the 1990 law by changing the
labeling standards and definition of "dolphin safe." The law codifies the Declaration of Panama, an international agreement between twelve
countries that use purse seine nets to fish for yellow-fin tuna in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean. The agreement establishes the International
Dolphin Conservation Program to limit dolphin mortality while establishing a viable fishing program for catching yellow-fin tuna. The agreement
allows the importation into the U.S. of tuna caught using purse seine nets if no observed mortality occurred. This changes the definition of
"dolphin safe" to mean no dolphins were killed, instead of continuing to ban tuna caught using purse seine nets. The law requires a study to
determine the impacts of purse seine fishing on dolphin health and safety.