SEABED COUNCIL HEARS INITIAL VIEWS OF COUNTRIES ON POLYMETALLIC SULPHIDES, COBALT CRUSTS

SEABED COUNCIL HEARS INITIAL VIEWS OF COUNTRIES

ON POLYMETALLIC SULPHIDES, COBALT CRUSTS

(Received from the International Seabed Authority.)

KINGSTON, 5 July -- Participants in the Council of the International Seabed Authority voiced their preliminary comments this afternoon as the Council began discussing the regulation of exploration for polymetallic sulphides and cobalt-rich crusts.

Several speakers commented on a suggestion by the observer from the United States that it was premature for the Authority to consider this topic, given the lack of information on these newly identified resources and the absence of any plans to exploit them.  Germany, Italy, Japan and the United Kingdom also argued that it was not yet time to draft regulations for exploration, while the Russian Federation and a number of developing countries urged the Authority to get on with the task.

Also this afternoon, Council members were shown copies of the contracts signed earlier this year between the Authority and six entities involved in exploring for polymetallic nodules.  Secretary-General Satya N. Nandan cited information in the contractors’ work plans indicating the level of their planned activities over the next five years.

The Council agreed to continue its discussion on the new resources next week.  It will meet at 10 a.m. tomorrow, 6 July, to hear a report from its Legal and Technical Commission on that body’s work during this week.

Polymetallic Sulphides and Cobalt Crusts

The Council is examining a secretariat paper suggesting possible clauses for regulations to govern exploration of polymetallic sulphides and cobalt-rich crusts in the international seabed area.  The paper was introduced to the Council yesterday by Secretary-General Satya N. Nandan.

The observer from the United States, in “very preliminary” comments, said the secretariat paper was premature because it did not refer to the trigger mechanisms that would have to be in place for such regulations to be addressed.  These are set out in the 1994 Agreement relating to the Implementation of Part XI (seabed provisions) of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.  “We continue to question whether it is advisable for the Council to take up the development of regulations for sulphides and cobalt crusts at this time”, she stated.

It was unlikely, she continued, that exploration or mining would take place in the near future due to current economic and technological circumstances.  Moreover, the potential economic, scientific and environmental impact of such activities must be explored first.  Care must also be taken to avoid mining conflicts, since sulphide deposits could be found on both the continental shelf and in the area beyond national jurisdiction.  Another reason why she said there should be no rush to draft regulations was that the outer limits of the continental shelf were not yet defined in some places, and, therefore, the limits of the international area would not be known for several years.

“We are a long way away from international activity on this mineral”, said the United Kingdom representative in supporting the United States position.  The Council could easily defer action and deal with other issues that required priority treatment.

Japan said that while it had conducted much research it still did not have enough knowledge on these resources.  The size of the area to be allocated for exploration and the thickness of the deposits were just a few areas where more knowledge was required before the Authority could begin allocating resources to investors.  For its part, Germany was not convinced that the time was right for drafting regulations and agreed that more information was needed on the environmental impact of mining.

In Italy’s view, the secretariat document pointed to uncertainty about knowledge of essential aspects regarding these new resources.  The Council should avoid defining regulations that very shortly might become inadequate.  Italy agreed with the United Kingdom that the Council needed to give clear guidance to the Legal and Technical Commission, but was not in a position to do so at this time.

Opposing the notion that the Council should not deal with this topic now, several delegations felt the need to start the process of formulating regulations at once.

The Russian Federation responded to some of the points raised by the United States.  First, although it agreed that no exploration or exploitation of these resources was imminent in view of technological and economic obstacles, the same circumstances had not hindered the development of regulations for polymetallic nodules.  Section 1 of the Implementation Agreement called for the Authority to develop regulations for activities in the area “as they progress”.  Activities were indeed progressing, hence, the need for regulation.  Though there were no applications for exploitation, applications for exploration might be made in the not very distant future.

As to the possibility of conflict foreseen by the United States because the outer limits of the continental shelf were still undefined, the Russian Federation observed that that situation had existed when regulations for polymetallic nodule exploration were drafted.  Furthermore, the sites were not located near the shelf.

Papua New Guinea cited a clause in section 1 of the Implementation Agreement reading:  “The Council may undertake such elaboration any time it deems that all or any of such rules, regulations or procedures are required for the conduct of activities in the Area, or when it determines that commercial exploitation is

imminent, or at the request of a State whose national intends to apply for approval of a plan of work for exploitation.”

Other delegations speaking in favour of proceeding with the regulations included Chile, Fiji, Jamaica, Nigeria and Senegal.  Chile regarded the Council discussions as the first step in the process towards facilitating the drafting of regulations for exploration.  Fiji saw the issue of an absence of exploitation plans as a “red herring”; if the authority was to promote environmental protection, it must be proactive, rather than dealing with problems after they occurred.

Nigeria and Senegal stressed the need to look at the new regulations bearing in mind the special characteristics of the mineral deposits that distinguished them from polymetallic nodules.  Emphasis must be placed on monitoring the environmental impact of exploring for these new resources.

One area of agreement concerned research and information.  Many delegations called for studies on the scientific, technological and economic aspects of exploring for polymetallic sulphides and cobalt-rich crusts.  The Russian Federation said the secretariat had a great deal of information which could be made available to members for analysis and discussion with their own industry experts before next year’s session.

Acting President Hasjim Djalal (Indonesia), summarizing the discussion, said the Council should ask the secretariat to put together more scientific information, while encouraging the scientific community to intensify research on the two resources.

Contract Documents

      In response to requests from delegations earlier this week, Council members were shown copies of the contracts signed earlier this year between six pioneer investors and the Authority, governing the investors’ exploration of the deep seabed for polymetallic nodules.

Describing the documents’ contents, Secretary-General Nandan said the contractors’ plans of work for the five-year period 2001-2005 provided the only new information.  Though the contracts themselves were not public documents, he noted, most of their contents were contained in the model contracts approved by the Authority last July when it adopted its Regulations on Prospecting and Exploration for Polymetallic Nodules.

Citing information in the work plans, he quoted the amounts that the contractors intended to spend over the five years:  China Ocean Mineral Resources Research and Development Company (COMRA), $21 million; Yuzhmorgeologiya

(Russian Federation), $3.58 million; Interoceanmetal Joint Organization (IOM), $3.75 million; Deep Ocean Resources Development Company, Ltd. (Japan), 5 million yen; Institut français de recherche pour l'exploitation de la mer/Association française pour l'étude et la recherche des nodules (IFREMER/AFERNOD),

1,258,000 euros; Republic of Korea, $17 million.  COMRA, IOM and Yuzhmorgeologiya planned exploration cruises in their areas, and the French contractor would resume work, while Japan had no plans for sea-based activities.