COUNCIL BEGINS SECOND READING OF MINING CODE

Press Release
SEA/1640

COUNCIL BEGINS SECOND READING OF MINING CODE

(Received from the International Seabed Authority.)

KINGSTON, 23 August -- The Council of the International Seabed Authority met in Kingston this morning in informal consultations to begin its second reading of revised draft regulations governing exploration for polymetallic nodules in the international seabed area. The Council considered the preamble and parts of the first regulation, dealing with definitions of terms used in the document.

At the outset, the Council held a brief formal meeting to hear general comments on the text by the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States.

The second reading of the draft will continue when the Council resumes at 3 p.m. today.

The second reading of the draft mining code, which the Council began this morning, is based on a text of 40 regulations drawn up on the basis of work done during the first reading, begun in March 1998 and completed on 13 August. The original text, containing 33 articles, was drafted by the Council's Legal and Technical Commission, which worked on it from 1997 through March 1998. There are also four annexes, including standard clauses for inclusion in future exploration contracts between the Authority and entities interested in seabed mining.

The code under discussion spells out the rules under which all exploration for polymetallic nodules is to take place in those parts of the deep seabed beyond the jurisdiction of individual States. It does not deal with exploitation of these nodules, which is not expected to occur for at least a decade.

Like the first reading, the current paragraph-by-paragraph review enables delegations to comment on the text and suggest changes. The examination is taking place in informal consultations rather than formal meetings, to enable speakers to exchange ideas without putting them on record at this stage. No final decisions on any provisions are taken pending a later review of the regulations as a whole. The consultations are open to all

members of the Authority as well as observers of non-member States and from organizations having observer status with the Authority.

In this morning's discussion on the preamble, several delegations favoured deleting it altogether, since the principles it expressed were already contained in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, to which it referred. They said that if the preamble was retained, it should also include a reference to the 1994 Agreement relating to the Implementation of Part XI (seabed provisions) of the Convention. One delegation suggested adding the concept of a market-oriented approach, alluded to in the Convention.

Other members opposed the deletion of the preamble, arguing that it highlighted the important principle of deep-seabed resources as the common heritage of mankind, which they saw as the fundamental principle behind the creation of a mining code. One delegation spoke against including any mention of the market-oriented approach which, it said, had no place in the preamble.

At the beginning of the discussion of the definitions in regulation 1, a number of delegations wondered whether the reduction in the number of definitions from 25 in the previous draft to 7 in the revised draft had been too drastic. At a previous meeting, it had been agreed that those terms already defined in the convention could be omitted, but some speakers made the point that the regulations would be a reference document to be used by seabed contractors, who would benefit from having all the terms defined in a single document.

Regulation 1 (a), defining "exploitation" was the subject of many comments. One delegation said it was technically incorrect to refer to the "collection" of polymetallic nodules and that "extraction" would be a better term. Others, however, noting that nodules are found on, rather than embedded in, the seabed, disagreed with that change. The suggestion to use "recovery" instead of "collection" met with a favourable response. One speaker suggested that the definition should refer to production of metals rather than minerals.

One delegation, commenting on the absence of marketing from the definition, insisted that to exclude marketing of metals would have consequences when the Authority started drafting rules for exploitation in the international area. He pointed out that a contractor would have the right to two contracts and the second contract would depend on the definition of exploitation. Contractors would have certain financial obligations to the Authority, which they could fulfil only by marketing their product to generate income.

Summing up the common grounds of the discussion, Secretary-General Satya N. Nandan suggested the following text (as subsequently circulated in writing): "'exploitation' means the commercial recovery of polymetallic nodules in the Area, including the extraction of minerals therefrom, and the construction and operation of mining, processing and transportation systems, for the production and marketing of metals".

On regulation 1 (b) one delegation suggested that the definition of "exploration" was incomplete because the purpose of exploration was not only to search for deposits but also to delineate them and assess their value. Another delegation took issue with the inclusion of "transportation systems", as they might be employed outside the international area. The same delegation also insisted that the phrase "in the Area" be included in the text to specify the zone of the exploration activities covered by the code. On the other hand, it was pointed out that the definition did not deal with the jurisdiction of the Authority but merely sought to include an activity that facilitated the testing of nodules.

The Council heard initial comments on the definition of "marine environment", with one delegation recommending that "sedimentological" be replaced by the broader term "geological" in the phrase "physical, chemical, sedimentological and biological components, conditions and factors". Two others questioned the need for a definition at all, in view of the difficulty of defining it in a legal instrument; one of these, arguing that the meaning was already widely known, challenged delegates who insisted on a definition to explain their reasons.

In the formal meeting that preceded the start of the second reading, Chile delivered a statement on behalf of the Latin American and Caribbean Group. The Group was concerned that proposals made by some of its members had not been taken into account in the revised draft of the mining code. They sought a better balance between the concepts of confidentiality and transparency, and warned that in exaggerating the need for confidentiality, the Authority might run the risk of delegating to the Legal and Technical Commission, a subsidiary body, matters that should be left to the Council. The group was also concerned about the possible links that Commission members could have with entities active in the deep seabed, and stressed the importance of the independence of the members and of equitable geographical distribution.

Referring to emergencies that might cause environmental damage, the group considered that the Authority had to provide not only for preventive measures but also to ensure that damage was repaired and States were compensated. All contractors should be required to give an environmental guarantee before starting work in the area. Further, all States likely to be affected by environmental damage should have reasonable participation in the implementation of measures adopted by the Authority to preserve and protect the marine environment

* *** *