SEABED COUNCIL RESUMES WORK ON MINING CODE FOR NODULES; DISCUSSES EXPLORATION CONTRACTS, ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION

Press Release
SEA/1624

SEABED COUNCIL RESUMES WORK ON MINING CODE FOR NODULES; DISCUSSES EXPLORATION CONTRACTS, ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION

(Received from the International Seabed Authority.)

KINGSTON, 10 August -- The Council of the International Seabed Authority resumed today in Kingston its paragraph-by-paragraph reading of draft regulations on prospecting and exploration for polymetallic nodules in the international seabed area.

The draft on which the Council is working, composed of 33 regulations and four annexes, was proposed in March 1998 by the Legal and Technical Commission (ISBA/4/C/4/Rev.1). Having completed a first reading last August of the first 21 regulations, the Council resumed this morning by discussing regulations 22 through 26. In the afternoon it dealt with regulations 27 through 30.

Regulations 22 through 27 are concerned with contracts to be concluded between the Authority and seabed mining entities, authorizing them to explore for polymetallic nodules in geographical areas specified in the contracts: 22, duration of contracts; 23, training by contractors of personnel from the Authority and developing countries; 24, five-year joint reviews by the Authority and contractors of the work programmes covering the contractors' activities in the seabed areas allotted to them; 25, termination of sponsorship by a State that had sponsored the contract application of a mining entity; 26, sponsorship by provisional members of the Authority; and 27, responsibility and liability borne by contractors and the Authority for damage arising out of unlawful acts.

Regulations 28 through 30 deal with protection and preservation of the marine environment from harm that might result when contractors explore the seabed: 28, general provisions; 29, notification to the Authority by coastal States that believe some activity by a contractor is likely to cause serious environmental harm; and 30, emergency orders by the Council to counter serious environmental harm.

In general, the draft regulations set out the framework for a regime in which private and public entities, under contract with the Authority, may explore for polymetallic nodules on the deep seabed. They spell out financial and technical requirements that contractors must meet, offer guarantees of security of tenure and confidentiality of proprietary information, and give the Authority the right to impose penalties for certain violations.

The Council is conducting this examination in informal meetings open to the participation of all members of the Authority, observers from non-member States and organizations granted observer status by the Authority. At yesterday's opening meeting of the current fifth session, the Assembly of the 131-member Authority approved an indicative work programme enabling the Council to concentrate during the first week on the regulations, also known as the mining code.

The new President of the Council for 1999, Charles Manyang D'Awol (Sudan), expressed hope that the Council could complete its current discussion of the regulations by tomorrow morning, 11 August, and that a revised text could be presented on Thursday, 12 August.

After completing discussion of each regulation and hearing informal proposals today, the Council agreed to a suggestion by its President that delegations consult with the aid of the secretariat in an effort to find common language for a revised text. Informal discussion of the text will continue tomorrow morning, beginning with further consideration of regulation 30 (emergency orders).

At the start of today's proceedings, the Council held a brief formal meeting at which it received nominations for two of its four vice-presidents: Chile from the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States, and Indonesia from the Asian Group. A decision was put off until all regional groups have had time to nominate candidates.

Discussion of Regulations

The examination of regulation 22 focused mainly on the implications of the five-year extensions for a plan of work for which a contractor may apply. Several speakers were concerned that these extensions should not be granted ad infinitum or automatically and one delegation suggested that each contractor should be limited to two extensions. It was argued that the contractor should also be required to justify its request for an extension by supplying information to satisfy the Authority that the contractor had made every effort in good faith to complete the plan of work. Questions were raised as to how much data would be required and who would decide what information would be provided to the Authority so that an appropriate decision could be made.

With regard to regulation 23, relating to training, some delegations felt that emphasis should be given to the full participation of all trainees in all activities and that the transfer of technology was extremely important in any training programme. The point was made, however, that notwithstanding the need to foster the sharing of technological information, certain issues of confidentiality had to be taken into account.

The debate on regulation 24 centred on the purpose of the periodic review of the contractor's programme of work. Delegations asked which organ within the Authority would be empowered to carry out the review, and it was suggested that the Legal and Technical Commission would be best equipped to undertake the task, since that body had direct input in approving the programmes of work. One delegation also wanted clarification on how contracts would be affected in the event a programme of work was adjusted. The point was also made that the review should focus on implementation of the programme of work and not on the programme itself, and that the contractor's obligations in providing data for this review should be very specific. The review should also take into account whether deep-seabed mining was already economically viable at the time.

The discussion of regulation 25, dealing with termination of sponsorship by a State, gave rise to the suggestion that it would be useful if the State explained the reasons for termination. That would assist the Authority to decide whether the circumstances surrounding the termination could raise questions as to the validity of the contractor's operations.

One delegation suggested that regulation 26 could be omitted from the mining code as, since last November, there were no longer any provisional members of the Authority. However, another member pointed out that a number of pioneer investors were consortia sponsored by various States, some of which may fall into the category described in regulation 26. The secretariat offered to ascertain if that was the case.

There was a call for regulation 27 to be restructured to incorporate regulation 12, since both dealt with the responsibility of contractors. On the other hand, several delegations questioned the need to include regulation 27 in any form, stating that it was an unnecessary repetition of the dispute resolution provisions already contained in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

When the Council took up the regulations on protection and preservation of the marine environment, beginning with regulation 28, considerable debate arose over the proposed role of the Legal and Technical Commission in issuing environmental guidelines. Some members felt it would be more appropriate to have the Commission list activities deemed potentially harmful, and to recommend reasonable precautionary measures. Others asked whether there was an implication that activities on the list would be authorized and therefore that unlisted activities were automatically unauthorized. Many were concerned that issuing a list of activities not expected to do harm might seem to exonerate a contractor in the event that some damage did indeed occur. The view was expressed that such guidelines were intended to be non-binding, different in status from the regulations, and might rather be termed recommendations by the Commission for procedures that contractors should follow.

One delegation raised the issue of the Commission's authority: if the guidelines were considered advice which the Council could work with but not disapprove, that would be tantamount to giving "legislative effects" to the Commission, on a matter which fell within the competence of the Council. However, another member considered that the Law of the Sea Convention gave scope for non-mandatory documents to arise out of the Commission's work.

Under regulation 29, a coastal State which believes any contractor's activity stands to cause serious harm to its marine environment may notify the Authority's Secretary-General of such a danger. The Secretary-General would then notify the contractor, the sponsoring State and other States that could be affected. Regulation 30 deals with the Council's power to issue emergency orders after a contractor reported an environmental incident. One delegation felt that the requirement of notification by a contractor after the fact revealed a serious gap in the Authority's armoury of the protection of the marine environment.

Another delegation believed that the procedures outlined in regulation 30 were too bureaucratic, given that they were to address emergency situations. He suggested that, in such cases, the Secretary-General should "sound the alarm" to all members of the Authority, all other States that might be affected and to such bodies as the International Maritime Organization. One observer noted that notification of an incident should not be left solely up to the contractor, and that the Authority should conduct independent monitoring. Another delegation suggested that the Secretary-General should not require notification of a potentially dangerous situation, but should act on knowledge from any reliable source.

* *** *