SEABED AUTHORITY STUDIES RULES ON POLYMETALLIC SULPHIDES, CRUSTS AT NINTH SESSION IN KINGSTON
| Press Release SEA/1788 |
Round-up of Session
SEABED AUTHORITY STUDIES RULES ON POLYMETALLIC SULPHIDES, CRUSTS AT NINTH SESSION IN KINGSTON(Reissued as received.)
KINGSTON, 7 August (International Seabed Authority) -- Detailed work on key features of a scheme to regulate exploration for hydrothermal polymetallic sulphides and cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts in the deep ocean was carried out in Kingston, Jamaica, at the ninth session of the International Seabed Authority, held from 28 July to 7 August.
Most of this preliminary work was done at the expert level by the Legal and Technical Commission, whose members split into four informal groups during the week before the official session began. They considered such aspects as the kinds of arrangements contractors might enter into with the Authority when exploring for these minerals, the size and configuration of exploration areas, and measures to protect the marine environment in those areas.
After tackling this task for the first time, the Commission agreed that the work had not advanced far enough to present texts to the Council of the Authority, whose task will be to prepare and adopt an eventual set of regulations. Instead, it decided to continue work at the next session of the Authority.
The Assembly of the Authority, composed of all 143 members, took no decision on the dates for its 2004 session at Kingston, leaving it to the Secretary-General to work out the timing in consultation with the United Nations Secretariat, which provides conference services for International Seabed Authority. Next year, besides continuing work on crusts and hydrothermal sulphides, the Seabed Authority is to adopt a budget for 2005-2006 and hold elections for half of the 36-member Council and for the post of Secretary-General.
Highlighting the importance members attached to broad participation in the work of its expert bodies including the Legal and Technical Commission, the Authority acted to help individual members from developing countries to attend meetings by reimbursing them for some travel and related costs. It did so by agreeing to supplement a voluntary fund created for this purpose last year with advances from certain extrabudgetary funds controlled by the Authority. This arrangement, good for one year, is to be replaced next year by a definitive form of financing, both the Council and the Authority decided.
The Legal and Technical Commission decided to look more closely at biodiversity issues affecting its role in overseeing mineral-related deep-sea exploration, by organizing a seminar on the subject and commissioning a study of legal aspects. It also supported, in principle, a proposal to develop a geologic model of the prime zone for polymetallic nodules in the Central Pacific Ocean.
The International Seabed Authority was established under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, as modified by the 1994 Agreement relating to the Implementation of Part XI (seabed provisions) of the Convention. Its task, as set out in the Convention, is to organize and control all resource-related activities in the seabed area beyond the jurisdiction of any State, an area underlying most of the world’s oceans. The Convention defines this deep-seabed area and its resources as “the common heritage of mankind”. In existence since 1994, the Authority is an autonomous international agency having a relationship agreement with the United Nations.
Polymetallic Sulphides, Crusts
In 2000, the Authority adopted regulations governing deep-sea exploration for polymetallic nodules, found on the ocean floor four to six kilometres below the surface. Since then it has turned its attention to polymetallic sulphides and cobalt-rich crusts, which are types of minerals discovered on the ocean floor some 30 years ago. All three of these mineral types are rich in cobalt, copper, iron, lead, manganese, nickel and zinc, while the hydrometallic sulphides and crusts also contain gold and silver, along with rare earth metals. There are enough differences among the deposits of these minerals to require distinct approaches when regulating the enterprises that might be interested in seeking out and mining them.
As provided in the Law of the Sea Convention, all mineral-related activities in the international seabed area are to be conducted under a “parallel system” ensuring benefits to both enterprises concerned with exploiting them and the entire international community, whose interests are represented by the Authority. In practice, this means that any private or public enterprise wishing to explore or mine in this area must contract with the Authority under some kind of arrangement that allows both parties to share in the benefits.
The detailed work of the session on regulations governing prospecting and exploration for hydrothermal sulphides and cobalt-rich crusts was conducted in the Legal and Technical Commission, which began meeting in working groups a week before the formal opening of the session. Four different groups examined selected aspects of the subject. They presented unpublished reports that were discussed at an open meeting of the Commission on 29 July. The reports were briefly summarized in the Commission’s report to the Council (ISBA/9/C/4), which that body discussed and noted on 4 August.
Although the groups offered detailed observations and proposals, including a draft of environmental provisions and a set of numbers on the size of exploration sites, the Commission regarded these as a work in progress and did not formally pass them on to the Council, pending further study. All the groups faced the task of deciding which of the regulations on polymetallic nodule exploration could be applied to these new types of resources, and how the earlier scheme should be adapted to the special circumstances of crusts and hydrothermal sulphides. The Legal and Technical Commission report included the following information on this work:
Environmental issues: In devising a preliminary set of draft regulations, spelling out obligations to be required of contractors to safeguard the marine environment while they carried out prospecting and exploration, the group saw some scope for the Commission in reviewing such obligations, 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 nodules, where extensive prospecting had already taken place by the time the regulations were drawn up).
Size and configuration of exploration areas: Referring to differences among the various types of resources, the group listed a number of elements to be taken into account in regard to each. Whereas nodules are typically scattered uniformly over large areas of the abyssal plain, crusts and hydrothermal sulphides tend to be concentrated in smaller locales. This led the group to look at a system in which all or parts of the area allocated to a contractor would be divided into blocks. Thus, consideration would have to be given to the size, maximum number and even the shape of such blocks, 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.
Work plans: For polymetallic nodules, details of each contractor’s intentions to explore its assigned area are spelled out in a five-year plan of work, submitted for ISA approval. The group thought that, in regard to work plans, the rules for crusts and hydrothermal sulphides should be as close as possible to those for nodules, with adjustments for such matters as prospecting, size of exploration areas, application of the site-banking system (in which half of the area originally allocated to each contractor is reserved for the Authority) and the settlement of overlapping claims.
Arrangements with contractors: Under the “parallel system” set out in the Law of the Sea Convention, arrangements between the Authority and contractors must ensure a balance between the interests of the two parties, with the Authority acting as custodian of the “common heritage of mankind”. To meet this requirement, contract applicants, the group suggested, could propose one of three options to the Authority. They might apply the system used for nodules, in which contractors contribute a reserved area for the Authority’s use. Alternatively, they might propose other approaches, also contemplated in the Convention but never fleshed out: a joint venture, in which the Authority, through its Enterprise, might invest up to half of the equity, or production sharing, where the contractor would recover its costs each year and share any profits 50-50 with the Authority.
In deciding to continue its work next year, the Commission 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 a week in advance of the Authority’s 2004 session.
Other Scientific Issues
Reporting on its other work this year, the Legal and Technical Commission said it had evaluated the latest reports required each year from the seven entities under contract with the Authority to explore for polymetallic nodules in their assigned areas. Its conclusions on each contractor were reported separately (ISBA/9/LTC/2). In general, it expressed appreciation that the contractors had taken note of the recommendations on format and structure that it had made last year when it looked at the initial set of reports.
Citing its need to know more about seabed and deep-ocean biodiversity so that it could devise environmental regulations, the Commission recommended that the Authority broaden its cooperation with scientific institutions in this area. It asked one of its members to prepare a proposal for a seminar on this topic and requested another to coordinate the preparation of a paper on legal issues, “to ensure that the Commission remained within its mandate” under the Law of the Sea Convention. This was the first time that biodiversity has appeared on the agenda of any Authority body.
The Commission expressed support in principle for a proposal to elaborate a geological model of the Clarion-Clipperton Fracture Zone, the prime nodule-bearing area of the Pacific Ocean, between Hawaii and Mexico. The proposal emerged from this year’s Authority workshop on the topic, held in Nadi, Fiji, in May. Two of the participants informed the Council, at an informal meeting on 30 July, that interested scientists would meet shortly to draw up specific plans, in which the Authority would be invited to participate. The Legal and Technical Commission reserved the right to comment once a detailed proposal was made and recommended that contractors be invited to meet with its members on the proposal one day next year.
The Legal and Technical Commission met from 21 July to 1 August under its newly elected Chairman, Albert Hoffmann (South Africa). Three of its meetings were public –- two on crusts and sulphides, and one on biodiversity.
Financial Matters
The most contentious issue on the agenda of the Finance Committee concerned the question of how the Authority might help members of its two expert bodies from developing countries attend meetings. Nominated by governments but serving in their individual capacity, the 24 members of the Legal and Technical Commission and the 15 members of the Finance Committee have received no reimbursement from the Authority for their attendance at annual sessions of one or two weeks.
Last August, the Council authorized establishment of a fund for voluntary contributions that could be used to reimburse travel and other costs of such members from developing countries. However, the Committee was informed this year that only $10,500 had been donated for this purpose thus far.
In an effort this year to improve this situation, the Committee proposed, and the Council and Assembly agreed, that up to $75,000 could be advanced to the voluntary fund from other accounts held by the Authority outside its regular budget. Those proposing this action cited in particular an interest-bearing account based on fees paid by countries that had registered in the 1980s as pioneer seabed investors. The Committee decided to define next year the “purpose and limit” of this account.
To meet the concerns of countries that did not believe such Authority money should be used for this purpose, the Committee devised a compromise formula according to which the authorization for an advance is limited to one year and “made on an exceptional, one-time basis”, without prejudice to any future recourse to the general budget. The Assembly agreed to decide next year on a “definitive source” of financing.
The Committee also set out “provisional terms and conditions” for use of the voluntary fund. According to these, the Government that had nominated a member must explain, at least three months before a session of the expert body, why it could not cover the costs of participation. In decisions on payments, consideration should be given to “the expertise of the member”, taking account of “qualifications, continuity and attendance”. Where possible, members from least developed countries should receive priority. As a general rule, economy airfare would be covered, while lodging and other living expenses would be provided only exceptionally.
On other matters dealt with in the report of the Finance Committee (ISBA/9/A/5-ISBA/9/C/5), the Assembly set budget assessment rates for five States that joined the Authority this year: Albania, Kiribati, Tuvalu and Armenia, at the Seabed Authority minimum rate of 0.01 per cent, and Qatar, at 0.05 per cent. It also appointed the firm of Deloitte and Touche as the new auditor of Authority accounts for 2003-2004.
The Finance Committee held five closed meetings, between 31 July and 2 August, presided over by its newly elected Chairman, Hasjim Djalal (Indonesia). Its report was noted and its recommendations approved by both Council and Assembly on 5 August.
Elections
The President of the Assembly for the session, elected on 30 July, was Josef Franzen of Slovakia. The Council President, elected on 4 August, was Domenico da Empoli of Italy.
Uncontested elections were held on 30 July to fill vacancies on two bodies arising from the death or resignation of members. In each case, the new members, who began serving immediately, are to complete five-year terms, through the end of 2006, to which their compatriots were originally elected. The new members, nominated by their respective governments to serve in their personal capacity, are:
-- On the Finance Committee, elected by the Assembly, Manimuthu Gandhi (India) and Bernd Kreimer (Germany) replace (respectively) Narinder Singh and Peter Döllekes, who had resigned.
-- On the Legal and Technical Commission, elected by the Council, Yoshiaki Igarashi (Japan) replaces the late Yuji Kajitani.
Membership and Attendance
Of the Authority’s 143 members, 58 were recorded as attending the session. The Authority membership consists of all parties to the Law of the Sea Convention. The members are listed below, with an asterisk (*) marking those participating in the session.
Albania, *Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, *Argentina, Armenia, *Australia, *Austria, *Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, *Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, *Bulgaria, *Cameroon, Cape Verde, *Chile, *China, Comoros, Cook Islands, *Costa Rica, *Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, *Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, *Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, European Community, Federated States of Micronesia, *Fiji, *Finland, *France, *Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, *Germany, *Ghana, *Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, *Guyana, *Haiti, *Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, *India, *Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, *Italy, *Jamaica, *Japan, Jordan, *Kenya, Kiribati, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Luxembourg, Madagascar, *Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, *Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, *Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, *Mozambique, Myanmar.
Also, *Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, *Netherlands, *New Zealand, Nicaragua, *Nigeria, *Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Palau, *Panama, *Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Philippines, *Poland, *Portugal, *Qatar, *Republic of Korea, Romania, *Russian Federation, *Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, *Saudi Arabia, *Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, *Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, *South Africa, *Spain, Sri Lanka, *Sudan, Suriname, *Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, *Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Tuvalu, *Uganda, Ukraine, *United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, *Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
Seven non-member States recorded their presence as observers: Burkina Faso, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Holy See, Peru, United States and Venezuela. Observers may take part in all deliberations, without the right to vote.
* *** *