SEABED COUNCIL REACHES COMPROMISE ON FURTHER STUDY OF POLYMETALLIC SULPHIDES AND COBALT-RICH CRUSTS

SEABED COUNCIL REACHES COMPROMISE ON FURTHER STUDY OF POLYMETALLIC

SULPHIDES AND COBALT-RICH CRUSTS

(Received from the International Seabed Authority.)

KINGSTON, 11 July -- The Council of the International Seabed Authority reached a compromise this afternoon on how it should continue work concerning the exploration of polymetallic sulphides and cobalt-rich crusts in the deep seabed.

After a full day of discussion, the Council adopted by consensus a decision to continue consideration of “conceptual issues” when it meets again next year.  Meanwhile, the secretariat is asked to assemble information, and the Council’s Legal and Technical Commission is instructed to “commence consideration of the issues involved in the elaboration of regulations”.

      How quickly to proceed with future regulations for these two recently identified resources was the focus of discussion that began last Thursday, 5 July.  Delegations voiced differing views on whether drafting of regulations on exploring for these resources should begin as soon as next year.  All speakers, whether favouring an immediate start or believing that such work at this stage would be premature, called on the Authority to gather more information about these little-known mineral sources, through secretariat analyses, technical workshops, and study by the Legal and Technical Commission.

Today’s decision was the result of a compromise, suggested by Secretary-General Satya N. Nandan, based on a proposal made this afternoon by the Russian Federation.

The Council’s decision contained three points:

-- It decided to continue its consideration of issues relating to the elaboration of regulations for prospecting and exploration for hydrothermal polymetallic sulphides and cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts in the [international seabed] area at its next session “in order to give the members of the Council the opportunity to consider further the important conceptual issues involved in order to enable it to take necessary decisions”;

-- It requested the secretariat to collect and assemble information to facilitate further discussion in the Council on important considerations raised in the secretariat paper on this topic (document ISBA/7/C/2) as well as to assist the Legal and Technical Commission in its work.

-- In the meantime, “the Legal and Technical Commission will commence consideration of the issues involved in the elaboration of regulations for prospecting and exploration for hydrothermal polymetallic sulphides and cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts in the Area that may assist the Council in its deliberations”.

The Council was examining a secretariat paper outlining factors to be taken into account whenever the Authority begins drafting regulations.  The paper points out differences between these resources and the polymetallic nodules that were the subject of the Authority’s initial regulations, adopted last July, on exploration for seabed minerals (see press release SB/7/7 of 4 July).  It discusses some basic issues relating to regulations and includes suggested texts.

The original proposal by the Russian Federation would have had the Council defer to next year “decisions on the issues and proposals contained in the secretariat’s paper”. 

Chile, wishing to avoid limiting the mandate of the Legal and Technical Commission, had tabled its own draft decision whereby the Commission would “initiate the process of elaborating regulations for (a) prospecting and exploration of polymetallic sulphides and (b) prospecting and exploration of cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts”.  To ensure the protection of the marine environment, the proposal continued, the Commission would consider existing scientific information and obtain new information through all available means.  Chile’s proposal also called for member States and observers to submit comments on these matters to the Commission through the secretariat.

The Council will hold its final meeting of the session tomorrow morning,

12 July, to hear a concluding report by its President, Tadeusz Bachleda-Curuś (Poland).  The Assembly will meet afterwards to conclude the session.

Views of Delegations

Chile began the discussion this morning by suggesting that the Council send the secretariat paper directly to the Legal and Technical Commission, which should consider it while drafting regulations.  Restating this view later, Chile said the Council had an ethical and moral responsibility to begin a study of the newly discovered minerals.  Recalling that the Commission and Council had spent three years in devising regulations on polymetallic nodules exploration, Chile said the Commission’s experience could be used to guide its work on the new minerals.

The Russian Federation stated that there were no valid juridical or technical arguments for postponing the formulation of regulations.  Limited information on polymetallic nodules and how to extract them, along with uncertainty about the environmental impact of mining, had not prevented work on regulations governing those resources.  Contrary to claims that investors were uninterested in these resources, he elaborated on information cited earlier by Australia, concerning two licenses granted in 1997 by the Government of Papua New Guinea to the Australian company Nautilus Minerals Corporation Limited for exploration of polymetallic sulphide deposits in the Manus Basin of the Bismarck Sea.

The Russian Federation thought it best to defer further discussion on how to proceed with the regulations until next year’s session, by which time members would have had time to determine their positions.  The Council could then make recommendations to the Legal and Technical Commission on matters of principle.

China cited two reasons why the Authority should take up the new resources:  the clause in article 162 of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea requiring action by the Authority within three years after a Member State had raised the matter, and the need to respect the principle that the resources of the international seabed belonged to all humanity, barring any monopoly.  China felt there was no need for hasty measures, however, since knowledge of the minerals was limited and commercial exploitation lay in the distant future.

Also citing article 162, Argentina joined Chile in calling for prompt action on the minerals.  Cameroon, Jamaica and Papua New Guinea also referred to that article in urging that work begin on regulations.  Fiji, supporting Chile on several points, also called on the secretariat to provide a “roadmap” on the issue, with the assistance of the Legal and Technical Commission if necessary.    

Delegations that supported the call for work on regulations to begin immediately -- including Argentina, Chile, Fiji, Jamaica, Nigeria and Papua New Guinea -- noted that some States had begun prospecting for some of these minerals.  They argued that a process must be in effect to guard against possible adverse effects on the marine environment and to consider the needs of the developing States.  Further, those delegations insisted that insufficient knowledge about the new resources should not be a basis for inactivity by the Council.  They felt the secretariat could continue to collect data through workshops and other information-gathering techniques while the Legal and Technical Commission discussed the rules.

Delegations urging the Council to put off drafting regulations for the time being cited the lack of scientific data on the nature and location of the new resources.  Portugal, for one, though ready to discuss matters of principle and the environmental impact of exploring for the new resources, saw no pressing need for the Authority to proceed with regulations, since there had been no assessment of the commercial value of any deposits.  In the same vein, Australia also thought the Authority should concentrate on environmental impacts, adding that the Legal and Technical Commission might compile and disseminate information.  Poland supported the idea of deferring regulations, given the lack of information on ecological effects, and offered to share scientific and technical information with other members.

Belgium, China, Japan, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea and the United Kingdom shared the view that rules, regulations and procedures for these minerals were premature, primarily because commercial viability of the deposits was still far off.  They felt further research was needed before the Authority could begin to devise regulations.  These delegations suggested that the Legal and Technical Commission discuss the secretariat document and make recommendations to the Council. 

The United Kingdom felt that scientific information on the minerals could be gathered through workshops, information from which could then be evaluated before any action was taken on formulating regulations.  The Republic of Korea shared the

view expressed earlier by Japan and Germany that more knowledge was required before the Authority could begin allocating resources to investors.Portugal, supported by Australia, New Zealand and Spain, called for the Legal and Technical Commission to hold open meetings at this stage, since there were no issues of confidentiality and no pioneer investors were involved.  While most speakers concentrated on how the Authority should tackle this topic, Japan and the Russian Federation commented on a few of the substantive issues raised in the secretariat paper.  Japan, while believing it premature to begin work on regulations, cited three major issues that would merit thorough examination when the time came for formulating regulations.  First, the size of the area allocated for exploration would have to differ from that set out in the regulations for polymetallic nodules; any such area should be large enough to sustain mining operations for at least 20 years.  Second, Japan thought it reasonable for a would-be explorer to have a choice between returning part of the allocated area to the Authority, as under the nodule scheme, and offering an equity interest to the Authority.  Third, a procedure for addressing overlapping claims to an area would be useful.

The Russian Federation agreed with Japan that these issues needed special attention.  It argued that the principle of relinquishing part of an area to the Authority could not be automatically applied to polymetallic sulphides and cobalt-rich crusts.

The United States observer agreed that the work of the Authority could not be paralyzed.  Questions that had to be explored included the size of the areas to be allotted for exploration, location of sites, economic issues involving metals markets, and overlapping claims.  She said the Council needed to suggest ways that the Authority could serve as a catalyst to promote and foster research and communication on these minerals.

* *** *