SEABED COUNCIL NOTES LEGAL AND TECHNICAL COMMISSION REPORT ON RULES FOR SULPHIDES AND CRUSTS, BIODIVERSITY ISSUES

SEABED COUNCIL NOTES LEGAL AND TECHNICAL COMMISSION REPORT ON RULES

FOR SULPHIDES AND CRUSTS, BIODIVERSITY ISSUES

(Reissued as received.)

KINGSTON, 4 August -- Commencing this morning the substantive work of its current session in Kingston, the Council of the International Seabed Authority discussed and took note of the report of its Legal and Technical Commission.

For the past two weeks, the Commission has devoted most of its time to drafting regulations on prospecting and exploration for polymetallic sulphides and cobalt-rich crusts.  Reporting today on preliminary results, it decided to continue this work next year.

The Commission also agreed to look more closely at the biodiversity aspects of its work on regulating deep-sea mineral prospecting and exploration, by convening a seminar and requesting a paper on legal aspects.  It also voiced support “in principle” for a project to create a geologic model for the prime polymetallic nodule region of the Central Pacific Ocean.

At the start of the meeting, the Council, by acclamation, elected Domenico Da Empoli (Italy) as its President for the current session.  He was nominated by Australia on behalf of the Group of Western European and Other States.  Also, as vice-presidents, it elected Saudi Arabia, nominated by the Asian Group; Sudan, nominated by the African Group; and Trinidad and Tobago, nominated by the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States.  The Eastern European Group has yet to nominate its candidate for the fourth vice-presidency.

Having completed in one meeting its review of the Commission’s work for this year, the Council will meet again at 3 p.m. today to consider the report of its Finance Committee, the last substantive item on its agenda.

Report of Legal and Technical Commission

The Legal and Technical Commission dealt with five items during its meetings in Kingston from 21 July to 1 August, according to its report (ISBA/9/C/4).  They were:  annual reports of contractors, regulations for prospecting and exploration for polymetallic sulphides and cobalt-rich crusts, the International Seabed Authority central data repository, the role of the Authority regarding the management of biodiversity in the international seabed area, and the outcome of this year’s workshop on a geological model for the Clarion-Clipperton Fracture Zone (CCFZ) in the Central Pacific Ocean.

Annual reports of contractors:  For the second year, the Commission evaluated the reports submitted by the seven entities holding contracts with the Authority for polymetallic nodule exploration.  It noted with appreciation that, in general, the contractors had noted its suggestions made last year on the form of the reports.  It suggested that the secretariat provide next year a preliminary analysis of some of the technical data.  Another suggestion, deemed worthy of further study, was that the secretariat should prepare a summary of the contractors’ environmental monitoring and assessment work.  In addition, the report records a suggestion that “it might be useful, in some cases, to allow the contractors an opportunity to meet with the subcommittee” that examined their reports.

Sulphides and crusts:  The report briefly summarizes the work of four informal subgroups of its members that had examined aspects of the future prospecting and exploration regulations for polymetallic sulphides and cobalt-rich crusts.

-- The group on environmental issues produced a preliminary draft on this topic.  It expressed the view that the Commission had some scope in reviewing contractors’ obligations regarding sulphides and crusts, given the lack of information on these deposits and the fact that it was not dealing with a “post facto” situation (as in the case of polymetallic nodules).

-- The group on the size of exploration areas observed that the two types of resources differed from one another and from polymetallic nodules, and thus deserved separate consideration.  It listed elements to be taken into account, including the size, maximum number and spatial configuration of blocks in which each contractor could operate within the overall exploration area assigned to it, as well as procedures and timescales for contractors to relinquish blocks in which they were no longer interested.  The group expressed the view that these details must be flexible enough to motivate contractors to carry out their work effectively.  Although the group made some preliminary suggestions on exploration areas and the duration of contracts, these matters were deemed to require further consideration.

-- The group on the form of work plans to be submitted by contractors thought the rules for sulphides and crusts should be as close as possible to those for nodules, with adjustments in such matter as prospecting, the size of exploration areas, application of the site-banking system (reserving certain areas for the Authority) and the settlement of overlapping claims.

-- The group on arrangements with contractors suggested that contract applicants could propose one of three options to the Authority:  contribution of a reserved area (as in the case of nodules); a joint venture in which the Authority, through its enterprise, might invest up to half of the equity; and production sharing, where the contractor would recover its costs each year and share any profits 50-50 with the Authority.  The group recognized that its proposals needed further development.

The Commission decided to continue work on the draft regulations next year.  It asked the secretariat to prepare a consolidated and comprehensive text, taking account of the discussions and proposals of the working groups, and also to produce a paper on outstanding issues.  It decided to start work a week in advance of the Authority’s 2004 session.

Central data repository:  Having received a report on the secretariat’s database of deep-seabed resources (accessible via the Authority Web site), the Commission remarked that its members might contribute by making suggestions about its structure and usability.

Biodiversity:  The Commission cited its need to know more about seabed and deep-ocean biodiversity so that, working within its mandate, it could devise regulations on environmental protection during mineral prospecting and exploration.  It recommended that the Authority broaden cooperation with scientific institutions in this area, and mentioned in particular the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program and InterRidge.  It asked one of its members, Helmut Beiersdorf (Germany), to draw up a proposal for a seminar on seabed and deep-ocean biodiversity relevant to mineral-resource prospecting and exploration, with participation by Commission members and experts in the field.  Another member, Frida Mara Armas Pfirter (Argentina), would coordinate the preparation of a paper on legal issues, “to ensure that the Commission remained within its mandate” under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.  Finally, the Commission would review the idea of establishing a working group to study the issue further.

Geological model for the CCFZ:  Examining a proposal for the elaboration of a geological model of this nodule-rich area of the Central Pacific Ocean, presented by an Authority workshop at Nadi, Fiji, in May, the Commission supported the proposal “in principle”, but sought a chance to comment in due course once a detailed proposal was ready.  Citing the importance of cooperation with contractors, it recommended that a day be devoted next year to a meeting with them on the proposal.

The report was read out to the Council this morning by the Commission Chairman, Albert Hoffman (South Africa).

Council Discussion

Commenting today on the Commission report, the Russian Federation felt that little time had been spent in the Commission on the regulations for polymetallic sulphides and cobalt-rich crusts, with the result that people could not see “the light at the end of the tunnel”.  Russia, which had first placed the topic before the Authority in 1998, wanted to see a more definite time frame for completing the draft and presenting it to the Council.

A number of other members, including Chile, China, Fiji and Jamaica, commended the Commission on its work since the last session.  It was evident, they said, that last year’s decision for the Commission to meet in working groups and then in plenary during the past two weeks had proved a practical one.  Chile stressed the need to give the Commission time to prepare properly, as presenting a draft prematurely would lead to problems in the Council.  Secretary-General Satya N. Nandan recalled that the mandate to prepare regulations on sulphides and crusts had been given to the Commission only last year, although the Council had discussed the topic earlier.

Commission Chairman Hoffmann remarked that the working method adopted by the Commission had greatly facilitated its work.  It remained committed to an early elaboration of the rules and intended to submit a draft as soon as possible after further consideration of the issues outlined in its report.  The secretariat had been asked to produce a new revised draft, taking into account the work of the working groups, and to circulate that document to Commission members before the next session of the Authority.

Addressing the suggestion that the size of exploration areas must be flexible if contractors were to work effectively, Trinidad and Tobago asked whether this meant that a universal formula would be elaborated or that different formulas could be applied depending on the site.  Senegal responded that it was essential to maintain a great degree of flexibility because so many factors affected the viability of mining; the report contained only the initial conclusions of the working group on this matter –- a topic on which the Commission would return to the Council with more tangible proposals.

India wondered whether, in dealing with environmental issues, the Commission was trying simultaneously to prepare regulations and guidelines, which had been dealt with separately in the case of polymetallic nodules.   Helmut Beiersdorf (Germany), a member of the Commission group on this topic, responded that regulations on prospecting and exploration had to be drafted before guidelines on environmental preservation could be developed and recommended to contractors.

Commenting on the suggestion that contractors meet with the Commission subcommittee examining their reports, India remarked that the regulations on exploration for polymetallic nodules, adopted in 2000, did not provide for such meetings.  The Commission Chairman reaffirmed the usefulness of contractors’ meeting with the Commission, and said some of them had asked for the chance to meet with its members; moreover, they would provide useful information on the project for a geologic model.

On protection and preservation of the marine environment, the Russian Federation gave notice that it would not comply with guidelines recommended by Commission in 2001 and formally approved last year, which, it said, amounted to a revision of existing rules.  However, it would adhere to the regulations adopted in 2000.

Commenting on the Commission’s actions on biodiversity, the Russian Federation said any proposals on the issue should be placed before the Council, since it was the Council that defined the role of the Commission.

Australia welcomed the Commission’s decision to request a paper on the legal issues of high-seas biodiversity and urged the body to be mindful of the considerable work done by other organizations.

* *** *