SEABED COUNCIL ENDS SESSION DEVOTED MAINLY TO POLYMETALLIC SULPHIDES AND CRUSTS

SEABED COUNCIL ENDS SESSION DEVOTED MAINLY TO POLYMETALLIC SULPHIDES AND CRUSTS

(Reissued as received.)

KINGSTON, 15 August (International Seabed Authority) -- The Council of the International Seabed Authority wrapped up its work for the year in Kingston this morning by completing a preliminary exchange of views on possible approaches to the drafting of regulations for polymetallic massive sulphides and cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts.

These two recently discovered deep-ocean mineral deposits are rich sources of economically valuable minerals such as manganese, iron, copper, lead, nickel, zinc, gold, silver and other metals as well as rare-earth elements.

Council members looked forward to next year, when continued work on this topic will be aided by the preparation of a new draft by the secretariat and its detailed discussion in the Legal and Technical Commission.  The two-week session is scheduled for 28 July to 8 August 2003 in Kingston, headquarters of the Authority.

As is customary at the end of each session, Council President Fernando Pardo Huerta (Chile) read a statement on the work of the 36-member body during the past two weeks.  

Summarizing the Council’s discussion on sulphides and crusts, its President noted the need for a flexible approach when formulating regulations for prospecting and exploration for these minerals, particularly in view of the lack of scientific knowledge relating to deep-sea ecosystems.  Moreover, sulphides and crusts were different from one another as well as from the polymetallic nodules whose exploration is already subject to the Authority’s oversight.  Further, particular ecological considerations arose with respect to sulphides located at active hydrothermal vents from which superheated seawater containing minerals in solution wells up from hot magma beneath the sea floor.

Continuing his summary, the President said the debate had brought out the need to make any new regulations consistent with the scheme for deep-sea minerals set out in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the 1994 Agreement relating to the Implementation of Part XI (seabed provisions) of the Convention and the existing regulations for polymetallic nodules.  For potential investors, the most difficult issue would be how to determine the size of the area to be licensed for exploration so as to make exploration commercially viable while avoiding monopolies.  The system also had to be competitive with those established for areas within national jurisdiction.

The Council made use of two documents: one prepared last year by the secretariat containing suggested model clauses (ISBA/7/C/2), and this year’s report of the Legal and Technical Commission, submitted to the Council yesterday, 14 August (ISBA/8/C/6).

Much of today’s debate focused on the suggested model clauses, which highlighted the main areas where there would have to be differences between the nodule regulations and those for sulphides and crusts.  Delegates discussed three of the model clauses, dealing with a scheme for dividing exploration areas into one or more blocks of 150 square kilometres each, joint ventures between the Authority and exploring entities, and how much of the area originally assigned for exploration should later be relinquished to the Authority for use by itself or developing countries.

With regard to the size of areas to be allocated for exploration, the Russian Federation supported the scheme in the model clauses that calls for allocations on the basis of a block system.  Unlike polymetallic nodules, the delegate added, the geographical distribution of sulphide deposits and cobalt crusts made the allocation of broad areas to contractors unworkable. He also questioned whether the relinquishment system would be practical in the case of sulphides and crusts, in view of the small area occupied by the deposits.

Also commenting on the model clauses, Japan said difficulties in determining the size of the exploration area and the methods of relinquishment made it necessary to conduct detailed studies of these issues, as well as the issues of site-banking and overlapping claims. Any solution to overlapping claims must be technologically and commercially viable, effective and impartial.

The Russian Federation called for the Authority to move towards early completion of draft regulations for these resources, which could emerge from the Legal and Technical Commission as early as next year’s session.  It proposed that the Council formally direct the secretariat to comply with the Commission's request for a revised draft but did not press this point.

Chile took issue with the idea of having the secretariat prepare draft regulations, saying this was a task for the experts in the Commission. However, in response to Jamaica, Secretary-General Satya N. Nandan clarified that it had been the secretariat’s practice to prepare documents for various bodies of the Authority whenever requested and that it would try to comply with the Commission's request for a more complete document based on the draft of 2001.

Jamaica, Portugal and the Russian Federation were in favour of formulating one generic set of rules for both resources, with specific provisions for each. Other speakers, including Brazil, while endorsing the need to make progress on the regulations, reiterated their concern about environmental protection.

* *** *