SEABED COUNCIL DISCUSSES LEGAL AND TECHNICAL COMMISSION REPORT, SULPHIDES AND CRUSTS

SEABED COUNCIL DISCUSSES LEGAL AND TECHNICAL COMMISSION REPORT,

SULPHIDES AND CRUSTS

(Reissued as received.)

KINGSTON, 14 August (International Seabed Authority) -- The Council of the International Seabed Authority, meeting in Kingston this afternoon, received and discussed the report of the Legal and Technical Commission, and continued preliminary discussion on issues relating to polymetallic massive sulphides and cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts, the two newest categories of mineral discoveries in the deep ocean.

The report of the 24-member Commission (ISBA/8/C/6) summarizes that body’s work in reviewing the first annual reports of seabed contractors authorized by the Authority to prospect and explore for polymetallic nodules in specified areas of the deep seabed.  It also covers the Commission’s consideration of issues relating to prospecting and exploration for sulphides and crusts.  The Commission held seven meetings in Kingston, from 5 to 9 August.

Regarding the contractors’ reports, the Commission found that, while all had made efforts to comply with the reporting requirements under their contracts, the reports “needed to be completed to enable the Commission to be properly informed”.  It made specific recommendations in relation to each contractor.  To improve its future consideration of these reports, it appointed a three-member sub-committee to help the secretariat in their evaluation and established a standardized format for them.

Concerning sulphides and crusts, which the Commission took up in accordance with a request by the Council in July 2001, it “emphasized the need to proceed cautiously and in a logical manner towards the development of regulations” to govern prospecting and exploration.  Given the uncertainties, it believed that any scheme should be subject to review after an initial period.  It stressed the need to encourage exploration by providing prospectors with rights over particular areas and priority in applying for contracts, as well as to ensure that the Authority received adequate information, particularly with regard to environmental protection. 

The Commission asked the secretariat for a report next year on the potential environmental consequences of mining these deposits, and also asked it to prepare a revised set of draft regulations.  It identified three issues in particular that it would take up next year:  a progressive fee system in place of the existing system for polymetallic nodules whereby half of the area initially assigned to a contractor would be relinquished to the Authority; the geographical grid system

for licensing, and continued development of the parallel system (which provides for a division of resources between a contractor and the Authority). 

The Commission agreed to meet for two weeks in 2003, with the first week to be devoted to four working groups on the following topics:  environmental impacts of exploration activities; the size of exploration areas and a system for relinquishing parts of them to the Authority; the form of applicants’ work plans, detailing their intentions; and the type of arrangements between contractors and the Authority, whether a parallel system, joint ventures between contractors and the Authority or some other formula.

The Commission also endorsed the Secretary-General’s plan to hold a workshop next year on the development of a geologic model for the nodule-bearing zone in the Central Pacific Ocean.  Stressing the importance of the central data repository on marine resources being developed by the Authority, it requested a report and demonstration on the subject next year.

      The report was presented this afternoon by the Commission’s Vice-Chairman, Frida Maria Armas Pfirter (Argentina).  Adding some comments while reading out the document, she stated that the report submitted by India was not in accordance with contractual requirements, in that it reported on a period before the contract had entered into force. As none of the contractors' reports had been submitted by the deadline of 30 March 2002, she added, the Commission had made a point of reiterating the requirement that future reports should be received not later than 90 days after the end of the calendar year.

Commenting on the report, the Russian Federation expressed surprise that the Commission had devoted only one day to a preliminary consideration of rules and regulations on sulphides and crusts.  Having formally requested in 1998 the elaboration of this set of rules, it had expected the Commission to take a more serious approach to this task, which was one of its fundamental functions. The information which the Commission had requested from the secretariat was of a kind that should be readily accessible to the experts serving on that body.  Disagreeing with the view that little was known about ecological problems related to mining the new resources, the speaker said that hundreds of articles had been written on the subject and a database had emerged, based on the findings of more than 200 cruises undertaken in the past three years to study sulphides and crusts.

The evaluation of annual reports by contractors, which had consumed so much of the Commission's time, was a straightforward matter, the Russian Federation added, and did not require the expertise of that technical body.  The setting up of working groups and sub-committees could result in bureaucratizing the Commission. The Russian delegation had no objection to a two-week session for the Commission next year, as long as this led to a set of draft regulations to be submitted for the Council's consideration.

In Fiji’s view, the Commission was indeed mandated to examine in detail the activities of contractors and report to the Council.  Regarding sulphides and crusts, there was need for a draft based on available knowledge, to be in place by next year’s session. In response, the Secretary General explained that the secretariat would produce a more extensive set of draft regulations as the Commission had requested.

Other delegations, including Chile, New Zealand and Portugal, favoured a more cautious and flexible approach to the formulation of regulations, in light of the paucity of knowledge about deep-seabed ecology.  New Zealand observed that the

informative workshops organized by the secretariat had confirmed that sulphides and crusts were different from polymetallic nodules, as well as distinct from each other, and that particular ecological issues could arise in relation to these resources, especially those located at hydrothermal vents.

China raised a number of points on what it described as policy issues related to the drafting of new mining regulations.  It called for legal consistency between existing rules and procedures for the mining of polymetallic nodules and new rules for sulphides and crusts. One of the most challenging issues would be determining the size of exploration areas.  Two principles to be borne in mind were profitability for investors and the avoidance of monopoly situations.  Research into exploration systems should be conducted to guarantee equity of treatment between resources located in exclusive economic zones and those in the area beyond national jurisdiction. 

The Council will meet at 11 a.m. tomorrow, 15 August, to conclude its preliminary consideration of sulphides and crusts, and thereby wrap up its work for the current session.

* *** *