SEABED AUTHORITY BEGINS SECOND PART OF SIXTH SESSION AT KINGSTON; COUNCIL RESUMES WORK ON MINING CODE

Press Release
SEA/1685

SEABED AUTHORITY BEGINS SECOND PART OF SIXTH SESSION AT KINGSTON; COUNCIL RESUMES WORK ON MINING CODE

(Received from a UN Information Officer.)

KINGSTON, 3 July -- The International Seabed Authority opened the second part of its sixth session this morning at the Jamaica Conference Centre in Kingston. After a brief meeting at which the Assembly approved an indicative work programme for the two weeks of its meetings, continuing through 14 July, the Council resumed work on the priority topic for this session, draft regulations for prospecting and exploration for polymetallic nodules in the international seabed area.

According to the work programme approved by the Council today, that 36- member body is to devote most of this week, through Thursday, 6 July, to the draft regulations, also known as the mining code. On the following Thursday, 13 July, if all goes as scheduled, it is to approve the text of the draft, which will become the first piece of seabed legislation adopted by the Authority.

Also during this week and next, the Council is to take up outstanding issues regarding the rules of procedure of the Legal and Technical Commission, the election of a member to the Commission, Staff Regulations, the Authority's budget for 2001-2002, the scale of assessment for member's contributions and the date of the next session. The Council is proceeding on an agenda that it adopted for the year in March.

The Assembly, meanwhile, will meet next on Wednesday morning, 5 July, to hear Secretary-General Satya N. Nandan present his annual report on the work of the Authority and to begin discussing that document. On the following Wednesday, it is to hold an election to fill half the membership of the Council, and then adopt the Authority's budget for 2001-2002 and the scale of assessment, following consideration of those items by the Council. The Assembly agenda for the sixth session was also adopted in March.

This morning, Assembly President Liesbeth Lijnzaad (Netherlands), who was elected in March, asked delegations to consult one another regarding candidates for election to the Council.

Council Meeting

At the formal meeting the Council held this morning, before going into informal consultations, Council President Sakiusa A. Rabuka (Fiji) appealed to members to concentrate on issues still unresolved, and to avoid reopening matters dealt with since 1998. He noted that the results of discussions through last

- 2 - Press Release SEA/1685 5 July 2000

March were reflected in a revision of the entire text dated 5 May, prepared by the secretariat in consultation with the President (ISBA/6/C/2).

He identified only one such unsettled issue regarding the draft regulations, a proposal by Chile, made in March (ISBA/6/C/L.3), to require all applicants for seabed contracts to provide funds in the form of an "environmental surety". The stated aim was to enable the Authority to take emergency measures when a contractor did not act promptly to deal with an environmental threat caused by seabed exploration activities.

The President added: "I appeal to delegations ... to show the willingness to give and take, to compromise, as I believe that consensus is the only way in which we will ensure that the draft mining code should be adopted. I believe that the text that we have before you outlines the framework within which an agreement can be reached".

Endorsing the President's appeal, Secretary-General Nandan observed that the Council had several other items to consider, so that it did not have a full 10 days of meetings to reach consensus on the draft regulations. He believed the draft before the Council "reflects a fair compromise on all of the items included in the text".

The Council will continue work on the mining code in closed session this afternoon and will meet formally tomorrow, 4 July, to fill one vacancy in the Legal and Technical Commission.

Much of the discussion in this morning's informal consultations centred on the proposal by Chile. In the only formal amendment circulated during the March part of this session, Chile proposed a new regulation requiring all contract applicants to provide an "environmental surety" in an amount to be assessed by the Legal and Technical Commission. The assessment would take into account "the preliminary assessment of the potential environmental impact of the proposed exploration activities". The funds would enable the Authority to take emergency measures when a contractor did not act promptly in the case of an environmental incident.

Today's arguments for and against the Chilean proposal revolved around the advisability and competence of the Authority to impose additional financial requirements on contractors during exploratory work in the seabed area.

Supporters of the amendment argued that it was within the Authority's competence to adopt rules that sought compensation from contractors for damage to the marine environment. One delegation said the proposal was grounded in article 235, paragraph 3, of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, dealing with responsibility and liability in regard to the marine environment in general. That paragraph reads:

"With the objective of assuring prompt and adequate compensation in respect of all damage caused by pollution of the marine environment, States shall cooperate in the implementation of existing international law and the further development of international law relating to responsibility and liability for the assessment of and compensation for damage and the settlement of related disputes, as well as, where appropriate, development of criteria and procedures for payment of adequate compensation, such as compulsory insurance or compensation funds."

Another delegation cited article 145 of the Convention, outlining the competence of the Authority to adopt rules to protect the marine environment of the international seabed area. The article states, in part: "Necessary measures shall be taken in accordance with this Convention with respect to activities in the Area to ensure effective protection for the marine environment from harmful effects which may arise from such activities. To this end the Authority shall adopt appropriate rules, regulations and procedures."

One delegation, pointing to action by the International Maritime Organization establishing the International Oil Pollution Compensation Funds, suggested the creation of a similar international fund for the Authority. Another speaker suggested, as a possible alternative, a revolving fund similar to one that had been operating for many years in relation to the Straits of Malacca and Singapore.

Objections to the Chilean proposal were raised on the grounds that such a provision went beyond the powers accorded to the Authority by the Law of the Sea Convention. Some members also felt that the Authority did not have the competence to formulate regulations that would impose additional financial burdens on contractors -- burdens which, they argued, were likely to discourage investors from undertaking commercial activities in the future. They argued that, in the unlikely event that any environmental damage should arise from a contractor's activities during the exploration phase, the present text contained adequate provisions for environmental protection.

One speaker remarked that the Finance Committee must first examine any proposal with financial implications.

On the other hand, some speakers questioned why those who believed there was no threat of environmental damage during the exploration phase would be reluctant to establish a fund.

The Group of Latin American and Caribbean States agreed to meet to re- examine the Chilean proposal and present it again, with a view to reaching a consensus.

Several speakers who objected to the Chilean proposal remarked that the draft regulations in general, as they had emerged from the discussions of last March, were an adequate basis for consensus even though they did not cover all points. One speaker said time was needed to consult other delegations on a number of points before the text could be accepted.

Some delegations did not agree that the Chilean proposal was the only outstanding issue in the draft regulations. One felt that the provisions in the new version on information that contractors must submit to the Authority, and on the handling of confidential information, presented serious difficulties. Much of the information at the disposal of the contractors, the speaker said, was of great value to them and of no use to the Authority in fulfilling its mandate. However, another member, advocating the need for adequate information from contractors so that the Authority could meet its obligations to protect the marine environment, called for procedures to determine which information would be considered confidential.

Delegations also mentioned a need for further discussion on other provisions dealing with environmental protection. With reference to regulation 32, on emergency measures in the event of an incident likely to cause serious harm to the marine environment, one delegation remarked that the new text was a step backwards from what had been previously agreed.

* *** *